HARRY J. DEAN

[Ernie Lazar]

So according to you, "a political hack" can and did write an article which accurately summarized what Harry said during his interview.

With respect to your question: "what previous unkind and false allegations about you have I made that you want me to retract?" --- the fact that you do not already know reveals the problem.

Bill -- I don't understand your point. If you review the comments which Harry has posted in Education Forum they are almost identical to what is contained in the California newspaper article by Horwitz which I scanned.

More importantly, the details concerning himself are identical. Dean claimed (here in EF) that he provided information to the FBI about the JBS at the request of the FBI starting in September 1963. So nothing substantive about our dispute has changed.

Ernie,

I checked with Harry and he said that the author of the column was not a journalist but a political hack who wrote what he wanted for his own agenda, and even though Harry is not quoted directly but only paraphrased, the jist of what is said is correct.

As for the following, what previous unkind and false allegations about you have I made that you want me to retract?

BK

I note for the record that you have not retracted your previous unkind and false allegations about me.

When John Simkin asked Harry the following questions:

"How did the FBI react when you told them about the John Birch Society plots to kill JFK? Do you know if they checked it out?"

Harry replied as shown below (I underline one portion for emphasis). Since I have numerous boxes filled with FBI Minutemen files, I will have to check them at some point to see what informant reports they received that might correspond to what Harry claimed.

I note for the record that Harry declares emphatically (contrary to claims made by Greg Parker in other contexts in this thread) that the FBI: "Certainly the Bureau checked any and all such details, as remote, or impossible as some reports might seem..... Bureau agents reactions were always no-nonsence, matter-of-fact, in personal meetings, or by phone."

John, It should be remembered, that before and after, reporting to the Bureau re: conversations about Kennedy by those JBS persons involved, I was at the same time advising the Bureau, as requested, re; certain other individuals and groups,{eg} of my section {as a member} Southern California, Minuteman activities, Fair Play For Cuba Committee person{s}, Alpha 66 Los Angeles leader{s} etc;. Certainly the Bureau checked any and all such details, as remote, or impossible as some reports might seem..... Bureau agents reactions were always no-nonsence, matter-of-fact, in personal meetings, or by phone.

It is important that further questions on these subjects be refered to the CD

as the agency {FBI} no doubt continues "upset" as shown by it's past denials

of my association with them. Which is nearly always the case, especially where we who expose this association are concerned. Harry

This post has been edited by Harry J.Dean: 18 July 2005 - 12:19 AM"

(1) First Harry confirms the Bureau's "past denials" of his association.

(2) I don't understand what Harry means by his reference to "which is nearly always the case". Let's assume that Harry means that the Bureau would publicly deny associations with any persons who were used as informants if those people might embarrass the Bureau by revealing their connection to the Bureau.

There are two problems with that (if, indeed, that is what Harry meant by his cryptic comment).

(-a-) Leaving aside public denials -- why would there be no records in FBI-JBS files confirming Harry's "informant" status nor any documents summarizing the information he supposedly provided to the Bureau re: the JBS nor any documents concerning expenses paid to Harry during his alleged 2-3 years acting as an informant within the JBS?

(-b-) The Bureau routinely confirmed informant status of persons who made statements which embarrassed the Bureau.

I have copies of many informant files where the Bureau released factual summaries regarding the period during which an informant provided information to the FBI -- even when the informant's post-FBI statements contradicted Bureau conclusions about important matters or even when the person made what the Bureau considered false allegations about Bureau practices or behavior or even when their prior informant later became associated with persons/organizations which the Bureau characterized as "extremist". Examples include: Lola Belle Holmes, Julia Brown, Karl Prussion, Matt Cvetic.

With respect to Lola Belle Holmes, for example, in 1963 after she surfaced and testified and then associated herself with right-wing extremist groups, Bureau documents reveal that she was considered to have become "emotionally unstable" plus documents specifically state that she had to be "admonished to cease making false statements which were embarrassing to the Bureau". Nevertheless, when public inquiries were received, the Bureau factually acknowledged her informant status and the years she provided information.

With respect to Karl Prussion: Bureau documents reveal that after he was dropped by the Bureau as an informant, he attempted suicide and doctors diagnosed him as suffering from acute paranoia. Meanwhile, he made utterly false statements regarding the number of communists and communist sympathizers in California (the number he claimed for California alone was equivalent to the number the Bureau estimated for our entire country!) and he also claimed, falsely, that the then-Governor of California was a communist. Nevertheless, the Bureau routinely responded to public inquiries by giving a factual summary of his informant status.

With respect to Matt Cvetic: He was a chronic alcoholic who demanded more and more money from the FBI; he was regarded as emotionally unstable and unreliable and he was dropped as an informant. Afterward, he associated himself with the JBS and he made what the Bureau considered false statements -- but they always factually responded to inquiries about his informant status.

So what was allegedly so unique about Harry Dean?

BILL: I scanned the column which you asked to see and posted it here:

http://sites.google....rnie124102/dean

When Oswald was asked (I think by Michael Paine) about reading the Militant and other radical publications he saidm, "You have to read between the lines." Indeed.

Here we have a lengthly "Between the Lines" column by James Horitz that quotes Harry Dean extensively without once actually quoting him with quotations enclosing his own words. Instead, we have James Horitz column on Harry Dean and the odd assortment of characters that populate this particular plot.

Did you really say all that Harry?

Between The Lines

James Horitz

Wednesday, March 16, 1977

Las Virgenes Independent Valley (California)

In an exclusive interview granted to Valley Publications, former undercover operative for the FBI, Harry Dean, has stated that the John Birch Society had a heavily armed network of citizen soldiers ready to take to the streets in late 1963 and early 1964, if President Johnson and Chief Justice Warren did not quickly find Lee Harvey Oswald (a supposed communist sympathizer) guilty of the murder of President Kennedy. The threat was delivered to Johnson and Warren, within a few days after the assassination, by intelligence sources and by agents of the power structure that eliminated the President. LBJ had the choice of nation-wide internal strife or knuckling under the threat and thereby giving this minority force a position of recognition. Johnson opted for the second choice.

Dean, an undercover operative for the FBI from 1960 to 1965, had been assigned by the FBI to infiltrate the Birch Society. In that role, he was active in the Covina, (Calif.) chapter of the JBS from 1962 through 1964. During Dean's tour with the Society he stats they planned three major activities against John Kennedy: a planned assassination in Mexico City in 1962 that was called off; the assassination in Dallas; and the threat against a thorough investigation. In each case, according to Harry Dean, Congresssman John Rousselot (R. San Marino) was involved in the planning. Rousselot was Western Director of the John Birch Society during the first half of the '60's.

During the years when Harry Dean had been acting as an active member of the Covbina Birch Society, the main meeting place for all the anti-Kennedy activities was at a residence on San Pierre Street in El Monte. The Birchers were connected with anti-Castro Cubans, often mentioned as assassination suspects, through the Drive Against Communist Aggression (DACA). The DACA was an anti-Communist organization directed by members of the JBS, which had attracted certain Cubans who were in the Los Angeles area during 1962-63, trying to enlist support in another invasion of Castro controlled Cuba. The DACA operated in Mexico as well as the U.S. According to Dean, World War II hero Guy (Gabby) Gabaldon was the Mexican Director, while Ray Flieshman of Whittier was the U.S. Director. Another active member of DACA and the Covina JBS, who had a close relationship with Gabaldon, was Dave Robbins, who at the time ('62-'63) was a high ranking employee of the Fluor Corportation. (J. Roberrt Fluor and John Rousselot had been known to be close political allies).

In a number of different circumstances Dean was able to determine that Gabaldob, Robbins, Flieshman, and Rousselot had been involved in planning the aborted assassination attempt of JFK in Mexico City, June 1962.

Harry Dean had many occasions to observe and relate with much publicized Cuba-American Loran Eugene Hall–aka Lorenzo Pacillo–aka Skip Hall and Laurence Howard-aka Alonzo Escuirdo. Hall and Howard had a close association with former General Edwin Walker, of Texas, whenever Walker visited the Covina JBS.

Dean recalls specific meetings where Walker, Rousselot, Hall, Howard, Gabaldon and himself (Dean) laid the plans to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, who they thought was a communist, as the assassin. Per Dean, Hall and Howard left the San Pierre Street house in October 1963, with arms and medicines, and the plans to implicate Oswald.

The subject of eliminating President Kennedy was never discussed as a subject of the Society's meetings, but Harry Dean claims the plans for the assassination were conceived in small group meetings. At one time or another Harry Dean was witness to the plans of the assassination of JFK by different combinations of John Roussselot, Loren Hall, Laurence Howard, Guy Gabaldon, Edwin Walker, Dave Robbins, Ray Flieshman, and not previously mentioned Covina JBS member Ed Peters.

According to Dean, the directions taken by John Kennedy were directly in opposition to the John Birch Society's ultimate goals and they, in conjunctions wit the DACA, took matters into their own hands. To protect exposure through an investigation, the Society sent threats of nation-wide street warfare, to the administration via secret agents, who they were sure had infiltrated the various radical and reactionary organizations throughout the U.S., if a speedy and simple verdict was not the action.

[Greg Parker]

Greg -- the problem is not that I haven't provided you with adequate information. The problem is your malicious pre-disposition to trashing anyone who challenges you.

No Ernie, the problem is that whenever I directly address what you say, you just change the story - which is what you have done here.

Just for the record, I challenged the FBI fee not just because it would have ended my (or just about anyone's) research -- but because the fee WAS inappropriate.

That is not what you said previously. The only reason you gave was - and I quote "I naturally appealed their fee request because, if it was allowed to stand, it would have ended my FOIA research."

I suggest you research FOIA statutes with respect to when agencies may legitimately charge search fees. Again this illustrates how you approach debate -- you ALWAYS search for (or invent) the most malicious interpretation possible.

That is not what I have done. I have responded directly to what you say. Nothing more, nothing less. That you don't like the response is immaterial. That you then try and add further information, or change the entire story, to negate what I've said is always amusing.

Search fees are permissible for very complex requests particularly (for example) if unusual time is required to determine responsive documents because the requester has not provided adequate identifying information (such as asking for documents about someone with a very common name so numerous files have to be reviewed) OR if the specific information desired has to be culled from numerous large files.

My requests frequently identified the specific FBI file number I wanted -- and in many cases I identified specific serial numbers as well -- so there was no research required--other than to verify the existence of the file and its location (probably 30 seconds or less). And since I requested entire files (or specific years of entire files) -- there was no need for the Bureau to perform long labor-intensive research to find only specific documents.

When I requested material about deceased persons, I almost always provided their social security number and birth and death dates (and short summaries of their affiliations with organizations) which made it easy for the Bureau to quickly ascertain they had the right files or documents. In fact, one FBI Supervisor that I spoke to frequently about my requests stated that mine were easy to process because I provided everything they needed to quickly identify responsive material.

Also, I challenged the Bureau's search fee formula because there was a math error in how they computed the total fee. They made a distinction between what they called "clerical" search time and other search time and I pointed out that even by their own formula, the fee could not possibly be anything remotely near $4800.

Furthermore, your attempt to re-define "freelance journalist" is also an example of how you maliciously approach debate. Instead of inventing your own false idiosyncratic and self-serving definition, why don't you research the actual definition in the applicable statute? I might add, FYI, that I prepared my appeal with the assistance of an award-winning investigative reporter employed by the San Francisco Chronicle who had successfully sued the FBI over both the adequacy of the Bureau's search for documents and what they ultimately released. In fact, he proofread my appeal twice and offered his assistance because he believed that I qualified as a freelance journalist under the provisions of the FOIA statute.

What a friend believes is immaterial.

Much more relevant would be how you are treated by the IRS.

The Bureau is notoriously reluctant to grant fee exemptions (both search fees and fees for reproduction costs) -- and it rarely does so. I only wish a "pass" was as easy and commonplace as you make it appear.

Try reading what I said again. I said you would probably get a pass on the first part of the statute as you described it.

Lastly, the "educate the public" component of the statute refers to demonstrating an ability to distribute whatever is written to a wide audience -- not your malicious attempt (yet again) to create a new definition to serve your debate tactics here.

Yes. A key component of propaganda is distribution of it. Useless otherwise.

Aside from my on-line reports (not just what you falsely refer to as an "occasional article")

Blogs, Ernie, Blogs.

which were getting thousands of hits,

Yes, Some bloggers get even more.

I also pointed out that my research was being shared with numerous scholars and authors and newspaper reporters who used material they got from me; and it was being made available to organizations (such as Group Research Inc.) that specialized in monitoring and collecting data about political extremist groups--so my material would be permanently available to other researchers; I also mentioned that I had created a Yahoo group devoted to discussing the material I acquired. I also provided the Bureau with statistics regarding on-line debates I was having in AOL, Yahoo, Google forums, and especially on various websites which captured data regarding the number of "views" that each topic received.

Ah, yes. Your conspiracy forum "debates". They really defines your journalistic output!

And you supplied the FBI with all sorts of juicy stats regarding those forums? Priceless!

I could go on to discuss your stupid remarks -- but to what purpose?

I don't know. You seem to have spent decades of your life to a purpose that defies all reason - debunking JBS conspiracy fantasies. One may as well spend 30 years debunking the existence of Leprachauns.

Tell me -- because I am really realy curious. How does a blog titled ANTI-CFR ANTI-ILLUMINATI ANTI-ROCKEFELLER LITERATURE qualify as a subject of "national importance and significance" for the purpose of deciding your fee waiver? The JBS conspiracy theories are so ludicrous, one wonders how anyone could take them seriously, let alone elevate them to being of "national importance and significance".

You arrive at conclusions in the complete absence of fact. Instead, you fabricate your own malicious definitions and then expect people to argue incessantly against your straw men.

I do have one question however: can you point me to ANYTHING which YOU have written that has been published anywhere?

Tut tut. I'm not the one making pumped up claims about myself being a journalist.

[Ernie Lazar]

Greg -- the problem is not that I haven't provided you with adequate information. The problem is your malicious pre-disposition to trashing anyone who challenges you.

No Ernie, the problem is that whenever I directly address what you say, you just change the story - which is what you have done here.

No, Greg, I provide additional details to explain why your interpretations are erroneous. I am not writing an autobiography here Greg. I don't provide every single detail of my encounters with the FBI (or other agencies).

But now we all see another aspect of your debating style. I respond to your falsehood about me being only an archivist by bringing your attention to the fact that I successfully challenged an FBI fee request (which an archivist cannot do) but since I was addressing only one limited aspect of your fiction about me, you then can claim later that since I did not provide every last minute detail -- I am "changing my story".

This again reveals your actual malicious intent. Normally, people ASK QUESTIONS when they want to know something. However, you seize upon any omission to libel an opponent because you know there is a bottomless pit of details that any normal person omits from ordinary conversations. So unless I write 200 or 300 pages to cover every conceivable aspect of a subject we are discussing, you will ALWAYS have something to complain about.

Just for the record, I challenged the FBI fee not just because it would have ended my (or just about anyone's) research -- but because the fee WAS inappropriate.

That is not what you said previously. The only reason you gave was - and I quote "I naturally appealed their fee request because, if it was allowed to stand, it would have ended my FOIA research."

Of course -- but why do you ignore or de-value the most obvious and most salient aspect? ANYBODY may desire to prevent the FBI or any other agency from imposing fees but ONLY persons who have a legitimate argument can prevail.

The last time I saw an FBI report about how they process FOIA requests, only 4% of appeals regarding fees were accepted.

I suggest you research FOIA statutes with respect to when agencies may legitimately charge search fees. Again this illustrates how you approach debate -- you ALWAYS search for (or invent) the most malicious interpretation possible.

That is not what I have done. I have responded directly to what you say. Nothing more, nothing less. That you don't like the response is immaterial. That you then try and add further information, or change the entire story, to negate what I've said is always amusing.

I understand Greg. You are a literalist and you seize upon any missing minute detail to question the integrity of your opponent. You don't believe in asking pertinent questions because, like all fiction writers, you have a story-line in mind which you want to advance so your only interest is finding something to club your opponent with. Actual truth is totally irrelevant to you.

Notice, for example, in the paragraphs underneath this one I began a discussion about when agencies can legitimately impose search fees. Was my intent to exhaust every possible variable or detail concerning that subject? Of course not. My purpose was to introduce you to relevant information.

But since, obviously, I have omitted many variables or details which may subsequently come up in our discussion, you may now seize upon that as yet another "example" of my "changing the story".

So, what I should do (according to you) is copy and paste every section of the FOIA statute pertaining to fees, and then I should copy and paste the text of every court case about this matter so that no detail is left undiscussed.

Search fees are permissible for very complex requests particularly (for example) if unusual time is required to determine responsive documents because the requester has not provided adequate identifying information (such as asking for documents about someone with a very common name so numerous files have to be reviewed) OR if the specific information desired has to be culled from numerous large files.

My requests frequently identified the specific FBI file number I wanted -- and in many cases I identified specific serial numbers as well -- so there was no research required--other than to verify the existence of the file and its location (probably 30 seconds or less). And since I requested entire files (or specific years of entire files) -- there was no need for the Bureau to perform long labor-intensive research to find only specific documents.

When I requested material about deceased persons, I almost always provided their social security number and birth and death dates (and short summaries of their affiliations with organizations) which made it easy for the Bureau to quickly ascertain they had the right files or documents. In fact, one FBI Supervisor that I spoke to frequently about my requests stated that mine were easy to process because I provided everything they needed to quickly identify responsive material.

Also, I challenged the Bureau's search fee formula because there was a math error in how they computed the total fee. They made a distinction between what they called "clerical" search time and other search time and I pointed out that even by their own formula, the fee could not possibly be anything remotely near $4800.

Furthermore, your attempt to re-define "freelance journalist" is also an example of how you maliciously approach debate. Instead of inventing your own false idiosyncratic and self-serving definition, why don't you research the actual definition in the applicable statute? I might add, FYI, that I prepared my appeal with the assistance of an award-winning investigative reporter employed by the San Francisco Chronicle who had successfully sued the FBI over both the adequacy of the Bureau's search for documents and what they ultimately released. In fact, he proofread my appeal twice and offered his assistance because he believed that I qualified as a freelance journalist under the provisions of the FOIA statute.

What a friend believes is immaterial.

There you go again -- ignore the most important aspect, i.e. a professional investigative journalist who successfully sued the FBI and who, therefore, had experience dealing with all of the applicable arcane FOIA rules. Instead, pretend that he is nothing more than "a friend". Furthermore, you ignore the obvious point that I prevailed in my appeal and that happened, in no small measure, because I was able to draw upon his expertise in this matter.

Much more relevant would be how you are treated by the IRS.

What is the significance of that statement? The IRS does not grant fee exemptions nor do they have any role in FOIA matters.

The Bureau is notoriously reluctant to grant fee exemptions (both search fees and fees for reproduction costs) -- and it rarely does so. I only wish a "pass" was as easy and commonplace as you make it appear.

Try reading what I said again. I said you would probably get a pass on the first part of the statute as you described it.

Lastly, the "educate the public" component of the statute refers to demonstrating an ability to distribute whatever is written to a wide audience -- not your malicious attempt (yet again) to create a new definition to serve your debate tactics here.

Yes. A key component of propaganda is distribution of it. Useless otherwise.

Again---your personal libels against me are not the relevant point. The point is that numerous organizations, scholars, authors, newspapers, and others affirmed the value of my research and used it in their own writings.

Aside from my on-line reports (not just what you falsely refer to as an "occasional article")

Blogs, Ernie, Blogs.

I understand why you are attempting to de-value what I have written as being nothing more than a "blog". But, again, your comment only reveals your maliciousness. A "blog" is defined as follows:

"a biographical web log: a type of diary (record of what someone does each day) on a website that is changed regularly, to give the latest news. The page usually contains someone’s personal opinions, comments, and experiences."

My reports are not my "personal experiences" nor do they contain my "personal opinions". Instead, they are carefully documented reports pertaining to numerous subjects discussed by right-wing conspiracy theorists in their writings and I also document, in exhaustive detail, what our nation's primary internal security agency thought about the individuals, organizations, and publications making those arguments.

Why would I need to acquire 500,000 pages of FBI (and other agency) documents over a period of 30 years in order to write about my "personal opinions" or "experiences"?? Why would I need to spend tens of thousands of dollars?

Why would newspaper reporters and scholars be interested in my "personal opinions and experiences"? Why would people writing their doctoral dissertations and books incorporate my "personal opinions and experiences" into their own writings?

which were getting thousands of hits,

Yes, Some bloggers get even more.

I also pointed out that my research was being shared with numerous scholars and authors and newspaper reporters who used material they got from me; and it was being made available to organizations (such as Group Research Inc.) that specialized in monitoring and collecting data about political extremist groups--so my material would be permanently available to other researchers; I also mentioned that I had created a Yahoo group devoted to discussing the material I acquired. I also provided the Bureau with statistics regarding on-line debates I was having in AOL, Yahoo, Google forums, and especially on various websites which captured data regarding the number of "views" that each topic received.

Ah, yes. Your conspiracy forum "debates". They really defines your journalistic output!

In other words, if something does not conform to your personal opinion of what constitutes journalism, then it is worthless.

The FOIA statute was intended to make it possible for ordinary non-professionals to qualify for freelance journalist status in order to maximize government accountability and transparency. Nevertheless, the standards required by the statute are quite rigorous. For example: you could not meet them because chronic, habitual, pathological liars are not accepted.

And you supplied the FBI with all sorts of juicy stats regarding those forums? Priceless!

I copied the stats from the websites that captured data to show the extent of public interest in the topics being debated -- particularly since the material I had acquired had never previously been released and available to inform public understanding.

I could go on to discuss your stupid remarks -- but to what purpose?

I don't know. You seem to have spent decades of your life to a purpose that defies all reason - debunking JBS conspiracy fantasies. One may as well spend 30 years debunking the existence of Leprachauns.

Tell me -- because I am really realy curious. How does a blog titled ANTI-CFR ANTI-ILLUMINATI ANTI-ROCKEFELLER LITERATURE qualify as a subject of "national importance and significance" for the purpose of deciding your fee waiver?

That is not a blog. It is an annotated bibliography and it is NOT even based upon FBI documents. Incidentally (and again this reveals your maliciousness), that bibliography was compiled 10 years AFTER my fee appeal. My fee appeal was based upon the reports/articles I had written circa 1997-1998 which were being used to inform public understanding of matters pertaining to U.S. history. My reports discussed such matters as (for example): purported communist infiltration of our civil rights movement, of our clergy and religious institutions, and of our government agencies. They also addressed accusations made about specific prominent individuals and groups by former FBI employees and FBI informants. No fee exemption could be based upon a bibliography, you cretin.

Again you reveal your maliciousness. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to notice that most of what I have posted on-line consists of carefully documented reports about subject matters of historical interest.

What I have written may not be anything that interests you but nevertheless many of my reports have informed national public debate. For example, when Alex Zaitchik had his articles about Glenn Beck published on salon.com he devoted a major section to discussing the influence of former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen upon Beck. At that time, I was the only person in our country to have acquired Skousen's FBI files. Alex not only quoted or paraphrased extensively from my report about Skousen, he included a link to it in his article. That produced an extraordinary public response. More than 2500 hits within one week.

The JBS conspiracy theories are so ludicrous, one wonders how anyone could take them seriously, let alone elevate them to being of "national importance and significance".

Because they are a significant part of our history -- particularly during the 1960's.

Greg, if you are genuinely this ignorant about the impact of the extreme right upon modern American history and in particular conservative movement history, then I suggest you read Dr. Samuel Brenner's recent doctoral dissertation about the "Americanist movement" which I have previously referenced. The link is below.

http://www.samuelbrenner.com/Resume%20and%20Professional/Dissertation.htm

You arrive at conclusions in the complete absence of fact. Instead, you fabricate your own malicious definitions and then expect people to argue incessantly against your straw men.

I do have one question however: can you point me to ANYTHING which YOU have written that has been published anywhere?

Tut tut. I'm not the one making pumped up claims about myself being a journalist.

I have no interest in whether or not you think of yourself or of me as a journalist. I asked you if you have any record whatsoever of having written something which has been published? It is easy and risk-free to carp from the sidelines. But what have YOU ever done to inform public debate or bring attention to factual data never previously known?

Edited July 10, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Since Greg brought up the subject of one of the bibliographies I have compiled and posted on-line, I would like to share some information regarding why I decided to compile that bibliography. Perhaps EF readers might appreciate the humor in the following details.

During my numerous on-line debates, particularly in Yahoo conspiracy groups, I confronted two particularly venomous critics. The first (John Perna) is a long-time JBS chapter leader from South Carolina. The second is a former JBS member who posts messages on many different websites in which he recommends that readers consult various neo-nazi and racist websites to learn about the "Trotskyite Jewish" conspiracy which controls our country.

In many respects, John Perna is the ideological twin of Greg Parker. Like Greg, John had a gift for ignoring salient points raised and, instead, using every occasion to fabricate lies about me and my research. In our exchanges, John routinely referred to me as "Comrade" (always insinuating or declaring that I was a Communist sympathizer) and among the milder descriptive terms Perna used to describe me were:

* New World Order stooge

* disinformation agent

* neutralizer

* false patriot

* government shill

Like Greg, John was totally oblivious to factual evidence if it did not conform to his pre-determined conclusions.

Like Greg, John fabricated his own idiosyncratic word definitions which he boldly declared should be applied to me or must be uncritically and unconditionally accepted for any conversation to commence between us.

One of my earliest exchanges with Perna came about as a result of the following message he posted:

"The patriotic anti-communist FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover was a great friend of the John Birch Society, and many agents were members. Examples are Dan Smoot, Julia Brown, David Gumaer, Gerald W. Kirk, and Delmar Dennis. Dan Smoot who worked at the FBI headquarters, served on the National Council the John Birch Society for decades. W. Cleon Skousen made a filmstrip defending the John Birch Society. Birch Society member, John Rees, whose Information Digest, supplied information to the FBI."

There are no less than 7 categorical LIES in that one paragraph, to wit:

1. Hoover considered the JBS to be "extremist" and "irrational"; he was not "a great friend"

2. Julia Brown was not an FBI "agent"

3. David Gumaer was not an FBI "agent"

4. Gerald Kirk was not an FBI "agent"

5. Delmar Dennis was not an FBI "agent"

6. Dan Smoot never served on the JBS National Council -- much less "for decades"

7. John Rees never "supplied information to the FBI".

As has occurred in my debate with Greg concerning FBI "investigation", John decided to fabricate his own unique definition of the word "agent" so that it would apply to ANYBODY he wanted it to. Furthermore, he thought there was no material difference between an actual trained employee of the FBI versus somebody who merely provided raw information to the Bureau.

When I asked John to define his terms I got the IDENTICAL response from him that Greg gave me when I asked Greg to define "investigation". They both refused and then sought to divert attention from their refusal by heaping more and more invective, ridicule, and sarcasm upon me while simultaneously lying about what I believe.

With respect to item #6 above -- an interesting thing happened.

Another person who was following the debate between John and myself contacted a senior JBS official to ask if Dan Smoot was ever on the JBS National Council. The senior JBS official flatly said "NO". In fact, Smoot had never even joined the JBS! So, when that third party posted the reply of the JBS official which proved that Perna was lying, do you think John retracted his statement and graciously corrected his error? Of course not. He CONTINUED to post the same message over and over again in our future debates!

Then, in 2005, Perna made what I thought was the most incredibly stupid and ignorant comment he ever made. He wrote the following:

"For the first TWENTY YEARS of my membership in The John Birch Society, I never heard anyone ELSE EXCEPT The John Birch Society produce any expose on the CFR or The Illuminati (New World Order). The information that The John Birch Society had so painstakingly made known gradually worked its way into other groups. We were always delighted to find that there was someone else doing something about the CFR, and The Illuminati (New World Order). There is no other organization which can show you literature, exposing CFR, and The Illuminati (New World Order) WHICH WAS PRODUCED FORTY YEARS AGO. Now the CFR, and The Illuminati (New World Order), has their disinformers busy, trying to portray the John Birch Society as some kind of friend of CFR, and The Illuminati (New World Order)."

Perna joined the JBS in 1970. Notice that there are two different time-lines in Perna's message.

(1) "The first 20 years" would translate into 1970-1990; but (2) a few sentences later he changed it to "forty years ago" which he put in CAPS for emphasis -- which translates to a starting point of year 1965.

At that point, I decided to start compiling a bibliography in order to demonstrate how incredibly ignorant Perna was--even though (like Greg Parker) he always made definitive bold declarations portraying himself as an infallible being. I particularly focused upon and emphasized writings that were published prior to 1965 in order to illustrate the depth and scope of Perna's ignorance.

As a result of posting several editions of my biblio on-line, I received inquiries from people who asked me all sorts of questions concerning the intellectual history of right-wing conspiratorial ideas so I decided it would be useful to expand my original brief bibliography to create something more substantial for anybody interested in this subject matter.

Needless to say, Perna never corrected himself nor did he ever acknowledge that I had proven him wrong about anything of significance -- because, like Greg Parker, Perna was not interested in discovering fact or resolving matters in dispute. Instead, he had an entirely separate agenda -- i.e. maliciously attacking anybody who challenged something he believed.

Like Greg, Perna would seize upon any small inconsequential point or something not fully addressed in one message and then inflate the importance of that matter beyond what was rational -- because (like Greg) Perna was incapable of acknowledging error or, at a minimum, reviewing pertinent new data and then saying "let me check into that further".

In the HUNDREDS of messages which Perna and I exchanged on-line in various groups, I cannot recall him EVER asking me a relevant question. Instead, his entire approach to "debate" (like Greg Parker) was to maliciously defame me and then deny the integrity/intellectual honesty of any perceived critic or opponent.

[Another incident with Perna concerned FBI informant Rev. Delmar Dennis. A JBS member authored a book about Rev. Dennis. Unknown to Perna, I had contacted that author to ask questions about his research. When Perna made false statements about Rev. Dennis which he attributed to the Bircher who authored the book on Dennis, I then posted the text of emails between me and that author which totally falsified Perna's assertions. Do you think Perna apologized or corrected himself? Of course not!]

Readers may recall an earlier message of mine where I offered to summarize the content of the first 60-page investigative report about WCC produced by the Memphis FBI field office. Even Greg has acknowledged that WCC was actually "investigated" during some period in the 1950's. Greg totally ignored my offer about that 60-page investigative report for the same reason that Perna often would ignore my offers to provide him with substantiation for matters he claimed superior knowledge about. Incidentally, I even offered Perna $1000 to any charity of his choice if he would just provide verifiable proof for some of his statements. He refused. Instead, he chose to fabricate lies about me to divert attention from his own unwillingness to address my request for substantiation of his claims.

I think Greg and I have exhausted all the topics discussed in this thread. You can believe his fictions, or you can review ACTUAL FBI FILES pertaining to whatever matters interest you.

Furthermore, you can (if you like) believe that I am nothing more than an "archivist". That's fine with me.

I will continue to produce reports which refute extreme right conspiratorial claims about U.S. history, and my reports will continue to be quoted or cited by prominent researchers/scholars/authors and my research will continue to be incorporated into articles/books/doctoral dissertations -- and Greg will, I suppose, continue to utilize his primary outlet, (i.e. Education Forum) to disseminate his speculations.

In closing, as Greg was typing his last message to me, I received the following email from someone who has contacted me numerous times about his own research interest which pertains to a prominent Texan who was involved with several major extreme right individuals/organizations. I copy this message merely to indicate the type of comments or inquiries I receive almost every day from researchers concerning my on-line reports:

"Ernie, Today I purchased a couple of New York Times articles from March 21, 1960 in which Edgar C. Bundy spoke (March 20) at a large rally at Thieme's newly constructed Berachah Church in Houston. After reading the articles I came across your webpage on Bundy which was very informative and interesting.

I -along with help from another person in the U.S.- am still performing my own research on Thieme and lately have been concentrating on this period from the late 1950's (and including the end of the Korean War) until the early 1960's. A month ago I tracked down a private reel-to-reel tape of Thieme speaking on

"communist brainwashing" from Nov. 1960 at an Austin Anti-Communist League meeting. I had been searching for an audio copy of this speech (repeated at three city public meetings in TX, late 1960) for a couple of years.

There are quite a few figures like Bundy whom Thieme had close associations with during these years.

I am hoping that your FBI request on Thieme turns up something." regards, Graeme Coate

[Greg Parker]

Greg -- the problem is not that I haven't provided you with adequate information. The problem is your malicious pre-disposition to trashing anyone who challenges you.

No Ernie, the problem is that whenever I directly address what you say, you just change the story - which is what you have done here.

No, Greg, I provide additional details to explain why your interpretations are erroneous. I am not writing an autobiography here Greg. I don't provide every single detail of my encounters with the FBI (or other agencies).

It is not up to ME to prove your claims – it is up to you. That does not require an autobiography. But it DOES require as a minimum that, for instance, your response or claim includes the most salient point supporting that response or claim.

The ONLY point you initially made as to why you appealed was that the cost would put an end to your research. If this was not the major reason, why did you initially only state that one point?

Furthermore, you are being dishonest in claiming that was only my interpretation. I QUOTED what you said. It needed no interpretation. Therefore the additional information was not to explain why I was in error (I was not), but to give what you now claim was the main reason for the appeal. Giving that new reason was hardly akin to writing an autobiography. It took up little more cyber space than your original, but now relegated to minor reason.

But now we all see another aspect of your debating style. I respond to your falsehood about me being only an archivist by bringing your attention to the fact that I successfully challenged an FBI fee request (which an archivist cannot do) but since I was addressing only one limited aspect of your fiction about me, you then can claim later that since I did not provide every last minute detail -- I am "changing my story".

That is just garbled nonsense. Take a deep breath and try again.

This again reveals your actual malicious intent. Normally, people ASK QUESTIONS when they want to know something. However, you seize upon any omission to libel an opponent because you know there is a bottomless pit of details that any normal person omits from ordinary conversations.

So this, to you, is an "ordinary conversation"? If it were, you might have a point.

So unless I write 200 or 300 pages to cover every conceivable aspect of a subject we are discussing, you will ALWAYS have something to complain about

Um. No, Ern. Like I said, it did not take a War & Peace sized cyberbyte to tell me what you claim was the really real reason you appealed. If only you had given that reason in the first instance, all of your "angst" could have been spared!

Just for the record, I challenged the FBI fee not just because it would have ended my (or just about anyone's) research -- but because the fee WAS inappropriate.

That is not what you said previously. The only reason you gave was - and I quote "I naturally appealed their fee request because, if it was allowed to stand, it would have ended my FOIA research."

Of course -- but why do you ignore or de-value the most obvious and most salient aspect?

How was it obvious? How can something unstated be a "salient aspect"?

I'm not Madam McGurkenfarkle. Should I have her on speed dial just so I can get her to check with the divining giblets what you really meant to say?

ANYBODY may desire to prevent the FBI or any other agency from imposing fees but ONLY persons who have a legitimate argument can prevail.

Oh god yes… here we go. No FBI agents ever lie about informants. No one ever cheats to pass a test. The infallibility of FOIA law means no one can an exemption through making inflated claims or in any other fraudulent manner.

And we can have confidence Hoover loathed the JBS because he said he did.

Do you channel Robert Mardian by any chance?

Here is what Mardian said about the stolen Media files:

"You can't judge the FBI or its function on one statement or phrase taken out of one page of one document which is part of a much larger investigative file. I think something like 25 pages of its 80 have been disclosed, would indicate that the person responsible for the disclosure did it on a very very selective basis."

When pressed further, he added, "I don't want to comment on specifics, but I would urge you to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. The Bureau has been in existence, under Mr Hoover at least, for 48 years. He's served eight presidents. I don't know of a single instance of political chicanery, of corruption, of any taint at all of the FBI."

Mardian was a Hoover clone who went after the Left without any scruples. I can't help but see a similarity between his verbiage and yours.

The last time I saw an FBI report about how they process FOIA requests, only 4% of appeals regarding fees were accepted.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

That's what happens when you get to be your own judge. Got any figures on how many of those lucky 4% went on to write damaging articles or books about the FBI? I'm guessing zero.

I suggest you research FOIA statutes with respect to when agencies may legitimately charge search fees. Again this illustrates how you approach debate -- you ALWAYS search for (or invent) the most malicious interpretation possible.

That is not what I have done. I have responded directly to what you say. Nothing more, nothing less. That you don't like the response is immaterial. That you then try and add further information, or change the entire story, to negate what I've said is always amusing.

I understand Greg. You are a literalist and you seize upon any missing minute detail to question the integrity of your opponent. You don't believe in asking pertinent questions because, like all fiction writers, you have a story-line in mind which you want to advance so your only interest is finding something to club your opponent with. Actual truth is totally irrelevant to you.

Ha! You just described how you started this whole thing.

I've seen your little list, Ernie and I know you just love finding new people to apply it to. But you picked the wrong mark this time.

Notice, for example, in the paragraphs underneath this one I began a discussion about when agencies can legitimately impose search fees. Was my intent to exhaust every possible variable or detail concerning that subject? Of course not. My purpose was to introduce you to relevant information.

Thank you. You could have done that in the first instance instead of giving me only what you now claim was not the major reason for your appeal.

But since, obviously, I have omitted many variables or details which may subsequently come up in our discussion, you may now seize upon that as yet another "example" of my "changing the story".

No, Ernie. I'll keep you up to speed on when you change your story.

So, what I should do (according to you) is copy and paste every section of the FOIA statute pertaining to fees, and then I should copy and paste the text of every court case about this matter so that no detail is left undiscussed

You're being silly, if not dishonest.

Furthermore, your attempt to re-define "freelance journalist" is also an example of how you maliciously approach debate. Instead of inventing your own false idiosyncratic and self-serving definition, why don't you research the actual definition in the applicable statute?

I took you at your word that the definition you gave was adequate to support your argument. Was that a mistake?

Here is Oscar Wilde's definition: By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.

I might add, FYI, that I prepared my appeal with the assistance of an award-winning investigative reporter employed by the San Francisco Chronicle who had successfully sued the FBI over both the adequacy of the Bureau's search for documents and what they ultimately released. In fact, he proofread my appeal twice and offered his assistance because he believed that I qualified as a freelance journalist under the provisions of the FOIA statute.

What a friend believes is immaterial.

There you go again -- ignore the most important aspect, i.e. a professional investigative journalist who successfully sued the FBI and who, therefore, had experience dealing with all of the applicable arcane FOIA rules. Instead, pretend that he is nothing more than "a friend". Furthermore, you ignore the obvious point that I prevailed in my appeal and that happened, in no small measure, because I was able to draw upon his expertise in this matter.

I agree. Knowing the right things to say is always a big help.

Much more relevant would be how you are treated by the IRS.

What is the significance of that statement? The IRS does not grant fee exemptions nor do they have any role in FOIA matters.

Simple. Does the IRS treat your income from journalism as it would a wage earner, or as it would an independent contractor?

Or are you saying you don't derive any income from your "journalistic" efforts?

The Bureau is notoriously reluctant to grant fee exemptions (both search fees and fees for reproduction costs) -- and it rarely does so. I only wish a "pass" was as easy and commonplace as you make it appear.

Try reading what I said again. I said you would probably get a pass on the first part of the statute as you described it.

Lastly, the "educate the public" component of the statute refers to demonstrating an ability to distribute whatever is written to a wide audience -- not your malicious attempt (yet again) to create a new definition to serve your debate tactics here.

Yes. A key component of propaganda is distribution of it. Useless otherwise.

Again---your personal libels against me are not the relevant point. The point is that numerous organizations, scholars, authors, newspapers, and others affirmed the value of my research and used it in their own writings

No doubt. But again you are not talking about your own articles, but rather, your "research" (which seems to consist of parroting what ever you find in your vast archival collection of FBI files and accepting any lie Hoover told if he told it often enough)

Aside from my on-line reports (not just what you falsely refer to as an "occasional article")

Blogs, Ernie, Blogs.

I understand why you are attempting to de-value what I have written as being nothing more than a "blog". But, again, your comment only reveals your maliciousness. A "blog" is defined as follows:

"a biographical web log: a type of diary (record of what someone does each day) on a website that is changed regularly, to give the latest news. The page usually contains someone's personal opinions, comments, and experiences."

You have the original definition. Usage changes meanings. Here is a more up-to-date definition:

Blog: a regularly updated website wherein texts or articles of one or more authors are shown in a reverse-chronological order, meaning the first one is the latest one. Authors conserve the right to post works they consider pertinent.

My reports are not my "personal experiences" nor do they contain my "personal opinions". Instead, they are carefully documented reports pertaining to numerous subjects discussed by right-wing conspiracy theorists in their writings and I also document, in exhaustive detail, what our nation's primary internal security agency thought about the individuals, organizations, and publications making those arguments.

Yep. Refer to the definition supplied above. Note it talks about "articles" not diary entries or personal opinions – though of course, many blogs are exactly those things, they are not CONFINED to only those things. I know you don't like being lumped in with bloggers, but that's reality. I don't like being lumped in with those who believe George Bush is a lizard either, but alas, it's all part of the Great Conspiracy Galaxy.

Just like you're part of the World Wide Blogasphere.

By the way, some of the color schemes you use on the web are positively schizophrenic. Up to you, but I'd strongly recommend you change them.

Why would I need to acquire 500,000 pages of FBI (and other agency) documents over a period of 30 years in order to write about my "personal opinions" or "experiences"?? Why would I need to spend tens of thousands of dollars?

Why indeed would you even think about embarking on this quest just because a letter to an editor conflicted with the words of his Holiness, J Edgar Hoover, and in saying so, you drew a little flak from the whack jobs?

Actually, it seems pretty straight forward why. Your relative was an authority figure who encouraged your reading of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. You particularly liked reading Hoover's introductory message… his messages were inspirational to you. Hoover was your hero, and, you've spent 30 odd years trying to prove he was no friend of the Birchers despite what they claim – because Hoover denied it!

You have become so immersed in this quest, you model your own methodology on his. It's homage to the way Hoover PRESENTED to the world, as opposed to the probable reality. You and Mardian - Mini Me Hoovers.

Why would newspaper reporters and scholars be interested in my "personal opinions and experiences"? Why would people writing their doctoral dissertations and books incorporate my "personal opinions and experiences" into their own writings?

I also pointed out that my research was being shared with numerous scholars and authors and newspaper reporters who used material they got from me; and it was being made available to organizations (such as Group Research Inc.) that specialized in monitoring and collecting data about political extremist groups--so my material would be permanently available to other researchers; I also mentioned that I had created a Yahoo group devoted to discussing the material I acquired. I also provided the Bureau with statistics regarding on-line debates I was having in AOL, Yahoo, Google forums, and especially on various websites which captured data regarding the number of "views" that each topic received.

Ah, yes. Your conspiracy forum "debates". They really defines your journalistic output!

In other words, if something does not conform to your personal opinion of what constitutes journalism, then it is worthless.

I have no problem if others believe a conspiracy forum debate constitutes journalism. But you are correct in saying it does not fit within my definition.

The FOIA statute was intended to make it possible for ordinary non-professionals to qualify for freelance journalist status in order to maximize government accountability and transparency. Nevertheless, the standards required by the statute are quite rigorous. For example: you could not meet them because chronic, habitual, pathological liars are not accepted.

Nah, Ernie. I wouldn't qualify because I don't claim to be a freelance journalist – not even an "ordinary non-professional" one. Nor would I enlist the help of others in order to put the right case to be accepted as one. If I couldn't argue the case myself and win simple merit, I wouldn't be much of a journalist anyway.

And you supplied the FBI with all sorts of juicy stats regarding those forums? Priceless!

I copied the stats from the websites that captured data to show the extent of public interest in the topics being debated -- particularly since the material I had acquired had never previously been released and available to inform public understanding.

Did those stats including identifying data oh like I don't know… let's say IP addresses, or any other actual or potential identifying data?

I could go on to discuss your stupid remarks -- but to what purpose?

I don't know. You seem to have spent decades of your life to a purpose that defies all reason - debunking JBS conspiracy fantasies. One may as well spend 30 years debunking the existence of Leprachauns.

Tell me -- because I am really realy curious. How does a blog titled ANTI-CFR ANTI-ILLUMINATI ANTI-ROCKEFELLER LITERATURE qualify as a subject of "national importance and significance" for the purpose of deciding your fee waiver?

That is not a blog. It is an annotated bibliography and it is NOT even based upon FBI documents. Incidentally (and again this reveals your maliciousness), that bibliography was compiled 10 years AFTER my fee appeal. My fee appeal was based upon the reports/articles I had written circa 1997-1998 which were being used to inform public understanding of matters pertaining to U.S. history. My reports discussed such matters as (for example): purported communist infiltration of our civil rights movement, of our clergy and religious institutions, and of our government agencies. They also addressed accusations made about specific prominent individuals and groups by former FBI employees and FBI informants. No fee exemption could be based upon a bibliography, you cretin.

Cretin? Charming.

Who would know what the hell it is. The site I was looking at is schizophrenic with color. For those who dare to look… here it is…

My point is how you can claim debunking the CFR crap is of any great importance. No one in their right mind takes it seriously, yet you've spent decades beating up on this dead horse.

Again you reveal your maliciousness. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to notice that most of what I have posted on-line consists of carefully documented reports about subject matters of historical interest.

Personally, I just can't get past those color schemes…

What I have written may not be anything that interests you but nevertheless many of my reports have informed national public debate. For example, when Alex Zaitchik had his articles about Glenn Beck published on salon.com he devoted a major section to discussing the influence of former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen upon Beck. At that time, I was the only person in our country to have acquired Skousen's FBI files.

You keep harping that I am being malicious, yet I have repeatedly commended you for your sharing of your archival material. You even believe being called an archivist is malicious. Yet as I pointed out, Archivists keep records that have enduring value, help people find and understand the information they need and assesses, collects, organizes, preserves such records. That seems to be not only a fair description of what you do, it is far from an insulting one. So What is your purpose in trying to act like the victim of a vicious verbal assault, if not to deflect from the accuracy of the description?

Alex not only quoted or paraphrased extensively from my report about Skousen, he included a link to it in his article. That produced an extraordinary public response. More than 2500 hits within one week.

The JBS conspiracy theories are so ludicrous, one wonders how anyone could take them seriously, let alone elevate them to being of "national importance and significance".

Because they are a significant part of our history -- particularly during the 1960's.

Greg, if you are genuinely this ignorant about the impact of the extreme right upon modern American history and in particular conservative movement history, then I suggest you read Dr. Samuel Brenner's recent doctoral dissertation about the "Americanist movement" which I have previously referenced. The link is below.

We were not discussing the entire Extreme Right and its myriad organizations. In toto, yes, it has had a major impact. If you read a bit more carefully though, you'll note I was referencing only the conspiracy theories of the JBS (as opposed to the JBS itself). The JBS, and even its theories, could be argued to have had a lasting impact. Maybe it's just me, but I draw the line at suggesting they have any "national importance". To me, that's not necessarily the same as having an impact.

You arrive at conclusions in the complete absence of fact. Instead, you fabricate your own malicious definitions and then expect people to argue incessantly against your straw men.

I do have one question however: can you point me to ANYTHING which YOU have written that has been published anywhere?

Tut tut. I'm not the one making pumped up claims about myself being a journalist.

I have no interest in whether or not you think of yourself or of me as a journalist. I asked you if you have any record whatsoever of having written something which has been published? It is easy and risk-free to carp from the sidelines. But what have YOU ever done to inform public debate or bring attention to factual data never previously known?

It has no relevance to YOUR claims. I have made none, other than that I have been cited more often than you in response to your silly "look at all the citations I have so f__k you" post. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to go into that. It's no big deal. You are bloated with self-importance. Is that another trait you've modelled from Hoover?

[Ernie Lazar]

Greg -- the problem is not that I haven't provided you with adequate information. The problem is your malicious pre-disposition to trashing anyone who challenges you.

No Ernie, the problem is that whenever I directly address what you say, you just change the story - which is what you have done here.

No, Greg, I provide additional details to explain why your interpretations are erroneous. I am not writing an autobiography here Greg. I don't provide every single detail of my encounters with the FBI (or other agencies).

It is not up to ME to prove your claims – it is up to you. That does not require an autobiography. But it DOES require as a minimum that, for instance, your response or claim includes the most salient point supporting that response or claim.

The ONLY point you initially made as to why you appealed was that the cost would put an end to your research. If this was not the major reason, why did you initially only state that one point?

I truly do not understand your question Greg. Obviously, ANY serious researcher must understand what costs may be involved in pursuing their research.

For example: I previously mentioned that NARA charges 75 cents PER PAGE for document reproduction costs -- whereas the FBI (and other agencies) currently charge 10 cents per page for paper documents.

The "most salient point" IS cost involved -- unless of course the researcher is independently wealthy or can find someone who will subsidize decades of research.

Ideally, I would love to travel to the Special Collections which are archived in about 20 different colleges and universities which have the type of documents that most interest me. However, I could never afford the costs involved.

With respect to FBI (or other agencies), however, there are specific rules that apply to when they may charge "search fees". I had a plausible argument for why they should not charge any search fees. In addition, I used their own mathematical calculations to demonstrate the defects and inconsistencies in the formula they were using.

Greg -- notice that I have not discussed the specific details with respect to the math defects or the formula used by the FBI to calculate estimated costs. So, now, you can claim that I have "changed my story" or you can whine about something else.

If you were GENUINELY interested in anything, you would ASK QUESTIONS. But your consistent pattern is EXCLUSIVELY to ATTACK and SLIME me because you are not GENUINELY interested in anything I have to say. You are only interested in finding some picayune detail which you can use to attack me.

Here is the bottom-line (again): Regardless of your warped personal opinion, the fact remains that scores of authors, researchers, and scholars have contacted me about documents and files I have acquired over the past 30 years. In many cases, those persons (and organizations) have used material I supplied to them and/or they incorporated data which they found in my reports into their own writings. Over and over and over again -- I have letters thanking me for my assistance or for material I have sent to those persons and organizations.

That is also why, for example, a major university has contacted me to inquire if I might consider donating my collection to them. It is also why, for example, the editor of the academic journal, American Communist History (ACH), asked me to write an article about my research for ACH.

I ask you again: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING COMPARABLE TO REPORT?

Furthermore, you are being dishonest in claiming that was only my interpretation. I QUOTED what you said. It needed no interpretation. Therefore the additional information was not to explain why I was in error (I was not), but to give what you now claim was the main reason for the appeal. Giving that new reason was hardly akin to writing an autobiography. It took up little more cyber space than your original, but now relegated to minor reason.

But now we all see another aspect of your debating style. I respond to your falsehood about me being only an archivist by bringing your attention to the fact that I successfully challenged an FBI fee request (which an archivist cannot do) but since I was addressing only one limited aspect of your fiction about me, you then can claim later that since I did not provide every last minute detail -- I am "changing my story".

That is just garbled nonsense. Take a deep breath and try again.

This again reveals your actual malicious intent. Normally, people ASK QUESTIONS when they want to know something. However, you seize upon any omission to libel an opponent because you know there is a bottomless pit of details that any normal person omits from ordinary conversations.

So this, to you, is an "ordinary conversation"? If it were, you might have a point.

So unless I write 200 or 300 pages to cover every conceivable aspect of a subject we are discussing, you will ALWAYS have something to complain about

Um. No, Ern. Like I said, it did not take a War & Peace sized cyberbyte to tell me what you claim was the really real reason you appealed. If only you had given that reason in the first instance, all of your "angst" could have been spared!

No it wouldn't Greg. Your pattern is always the same. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK

Just for the record, I challenged the FBI fee not just because it would have ended my (or just about anyone's) research -- but because the fee WAS inappropriate.

That is not what you said previously. The only reason you gave was - and I quote "I naturally appealed their fee request because, if it was allowed to stand, it would have ended my FOIA research."

Of course -- but why do you ignore or de-value the most obvious and most salient aspect?

How was it obvious? How can something unstated be a "salient aspect"?

I'm not Madam McGurkenfarkle. Should I have her on speed dial just so I can get her to check with the divining giblets what you really meant to say?

Because, Greg, no matter how onerous a fee request may be, it CANNOT BE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED if there is not some plausible basis for challenging it. Why should I have to tell you what is self-evident? Instead of immediately attacking me, you could have simply asked a follow-up question -- but that is not your style because you merely want to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK.

ANYBODY may desire to prevent the FBI or any other agency from imposing fees but ONLY persons who have a legitimate argument can prevail.

Oh god yes… here we go. No FBI agents ever lie about informants. No one ever cheats to pass a test. The infallibility of FOIA law means no one can an exemption through making inflated claims or in any other fraudulent manner.

And we can have confidence Hoover loathed the JBS because he said he did.

Do you channel Robert Mardian by any chance?

Instead of merely asserting it is possible to receive an exemption through "making inflated claims", why don't you write an article, with appropriate documentation, to DEMONSTRATE how it could be possible to do so -- keeping in mind that you first would have to read the FOIA statute so that you know the criteria which apply to fee exemptions.

Of course it is much easier (and risk-free) to plant the suspicion about a corrupt process because you know (like any good propagandist) that suspicion, once planted, can be trusted to grow.

Here is what Mardian said about the stolen Media files:

"You can't judge the FBI or its function on one statement or phrase taken out of one page of one document which is part of a much larger investigative file. I think something like 25 pages of its 80 have been disclosed, would indicate that the person responsible for the disclosure did it on a very very selective basis."

When pressed further, he added, "I don't want to comment on specifics, but I would urge you to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. The Bureau has been in existence, under Mr Hoover at least, for 48 years. He's served eight presidents. I don't know of a single instance of political chicanery, of corruption, of any taint at all of the FBI."

Mardian was a Hoover clone who went after the Left without any scruples. I can't help but see a similarity between his verbiage and yours.

The last time I saw an FBI report about how they process FOIA requests, only 4% of appeals regarding fees were accepted.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

That's what happens when you get to be your own judge. Got any figures on how many of those lucky 4% went on to write damaging articles or books about the FBI? I'm guessing zero.

No I don't. But I guess what you are insinuating is that if someone is successful it must be ONLY because they planned to write something which would NOT "damage" the FBI.

Perhaps you would care to answer this question? (Notice I ask you, I don't just attack you).

How would the FBI know what somebody intended to write about the Bureau or its history or anything pertaining to the FBI? How would they know if the end-result would ultimately be adverse to the Bureau?

If we accept your premise, then how do you explain the fact that the MOST "damaging" books and articles written about the FBI during the past 30 or so years have been written by scholars such as Kenneth O'Reilly and Athan Theoharis and Richard Gid Powers and others -- who obtained specific FBI files and documents which provided the documentary evidence to support their narrative? Why didn't the Bureau refuse to release such documents or why didn't they heavily redact released material so that those authors could not successfully "damage" the FBI? Ditto for the material I gave to my late friend, Dr. John Drabble which he also obtained from other sources who had made FOIA requests which produced very "damaging" documentation concerning Bureau practices and history?

I suggest you research FOIA statutes with respect to when agencies may legitimately charge search fees. Again this illustrates how you approach debate -- you ALWAYS search for (or invent) the most malicious interpretation possible.

That is not what I have done. I have responded directly to what you say. Nothing more, nothing less. That you don't like the response is immaterial. That you then try and add further information, or change the entire story, to negate what I've said is always amusing.

I understand Greg. You are a literalist and you seize upon any missing minute detail to question the integrity of your opponent. You don't believe in asking pertinent questions because, like all fiction writers, you have a story-line in mind which you want to advance so your only interest is finding something to club your opponent with. Actual truth is totally irrelevant to you.

Ha! You just described how you started this whole thing.

I've seen your little list, Ernie and I know you just love finding new people to apply it to. But you picked the wrong mark this time.

Huh? What "little list" are you referring to?

Notice, for example, in the paragraphs underneath this one I began a discussion about when agencies can legitimately impose search fees. Was my intent to exhaust every possible variable or detail concerning that subject? Of course not. My purpose was to introduce you to relevant information.

Thank you. You could have done that in the first instance instead of giving me only what you now claim was not the major reason for your appeal.

But since, obviously, I have omitted many variables or details which may subsequently come up in our discussion, you may now seize upon that as yet another "example" of my "changing the story".

No, Ernie. I'll keep you up to speed on when you change your story.

So, what I should do (according to you) is copy and paste every section of the FOIA statute pertaining to fees, and then I should copy and paste the text of every court case about this matter so that no detail is left undiscussed

You're being silly, if not dishonest.

Furthermore, your attempt to re-define "freelance journalist" is also an example of how you maliciously approach debate. Instead of inventing your own false idiosyncratic and self-serving definition, why don't you research the actual definition in the applicable statute?

I took you at your word that the definition you gave was adequate to support your argument. Was that a mistake?

Yes it was a mistake to think that you are an honorable person who would ask a follow-up question instead of thinking that every conceivable detail that might interest you would be immediately discussed.

Here is Oscar Wilde's definition: By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.

I might add, FYI, that I prepared my appeal with the assistance of an award-winning investigative reporter employed by the San Francisco Chronicle who had successfully sued the FBI over both the adequacy of the Bureau's search for documents and what they ultimately released. In fact, he proofread my appeal twice and offered his assistance because he believed that I qualified as a freelance journalist under the provisions of the FOIA statute.

What a friend believes is immaterial.

There you go again -- ignore the most important aspect, i.e. a professional investigative journalist who successfully sued the FBI and who, therefore, had experience dealing with all of the applicable arcane FOIA rules. Instead, pretend that he is nothing more than "a friend". Furthermore, you ignore the obvious point that I prevailed in my appeal and that happened, in no small measure, because I was able to draw upon his expertise in this matter.

I agree. Knowing the right things to say is always a big help.

Much more relevant would be how you are treated by the IRS.

What is the significance of that statement? The IRS does not grant fee exemptions nor do they have any role in FOIA matters.

Simple. Does the IRS treat your income from journalism as it would a wage earner, or as it would an independent contractor?

Greg--have you lost your mind? I have no "income from journalism". This has been a life-long interest, not a vocation. I have never charged anybody anything for whatever I sent to them. Once again, if you actually took the time to research the FOIA statute you would notice that requesters with a "commercial" interest are treated considerably differently than other requesters. I specifically turned down an offer from Dr. John George for him to put me in contact with his publisher because I did not want to be perceived as having any sort of future "commercial" interest while I obtained documents/files.

Or are you saying you don't derive any income from your "journalistic" efforts?

No income whatsoever.

The Bureau is notoriously reluctant to grant fee exemptions (both search fees and fees for reproduction costs) -- and it rarely does so. I only wish a "pass" was as easy and commonplace as you make it appear.

Try reading what I said again. I said you would probably get a pass on the first part of the statute as you described it.

Lastly, the "educate the public" component of the statute refers to demonstrating an ability to distribute whatever is written to a wide audience -- not your malicious attempt (yet again) to create a new definition to serve your debate tactics here.

Yes. A key component of propaganda is distribution of it. Useless otherwise.

Again---your personal libels against me are not the relevant point. The point is that numerous organizations, scholars, authors, newspapers, and others affirmed the value of my research and used it in their own writings

No doubt. But again you are not talking about your own articles, but rather, your "research" (which seems to consist of parroting what ever you find in your vast archival collection of FBI files and accepting any lie Hoover told if he told it often enough)

Could you please be specific?

QUOTE SOMETHING from one of my on-line reports where you think I am "parroting" or "accepting any lie Hoover told".

Again, this demonstrates your extreme maliciousness. My reports are intended to summarize what is in FBI files about all of the numerous subject matters in my narratives. There is no "parroting".

As I told you before, all GENUINE research starts with a neutral question. My purpose was to write something that accurately and truthfully summarized the Bureau's position on persons, organizations, and arguments linked to the extreme right.

If you think I have made errors in those summaries, then please bring them to my attention so that I may correct them. I am not, however, interested in your personal opinions (or mine for that matter).

Aside from my on-line reports (not just what you falsely refer to as an "occasional article")

Blogs, Ernie, Blogs.

I understand why you are attempting to de-value what I have written as being nothing more than a "blog". But, again, your comment only reveals your maliciousness. A "blog" is defined as follows:

"a biographical web log: a type of diary (record of what someone does each day) on a website that is changed regularly, to give the latest news. The page usually contains someone's personal opinions, comments, and experiences."

You have the original definition. Usage changes meanings. Here is a more up-to-date definition:

Blog: a regularly updated website wherein texts or articles of one or more authors are shown in a reverse-chronological order, meaning the first one is the latest one. Authors conserve the right to post works they consider pertinent.

My reports are not my "personal experiences" nor do they contain my "personal opinions". Instead, they are carefully documented reports pertaining to numerous subjects discussed by right-wing conspiracy theorists in their writings and I also document, in exhaustive detail, what our nation's primary internal security agency thought about the individuals, organizations, and publications making those arguments.

Yep. Refer to the definition supplied above. Note it talks about "articles" not diary entries or personal opinions – though of course, many blogs are exactly those things, they are not CONFINED to only those things. I know you don't like being lumped in with bloggers, but that's reality. I don't like being lumped in with those who believe George Bush is a lizard either, but alas, it's all part of the Great Conspiracy Galaxy.

I don't care if you want to describe me as a blogger. The point is that my reports are not my personal opinions or experiences.

Just like you're part of the World Wide Blogasphere.

By the way, some of the color schemes you use on the web are positively schizophrenic. Up to you, but I'd strongly recommend you change them.

Greg: Are you mentally retarded? That is NOT my website. The person who posted a list of my reports is Lloyd Miller. He created and operates that website and HE chose its format, its color scheme, etc. So your comment about "color schemes you use on the web" -- should be directed to the owner of that webpage--Lloyd Miller.

All of my reports used the exact same template on Googlepages.

Why would I need to acquire 500,000 pages of FBI (and other agency) documents over a period of 30 years in order to write about my "personal opinions" or "experiences"?? Why would I need to spend tens of thousands of dollars?

Why indeed would you even think about embarking on this quest just because a letter to an editor conflicted with the words of his Holiness, J Edgar Hoover, and in saying so, you drew a little flak from the whack jobs?

I have no clue what you are talking about but, apparently, you think intellectual curiosity must conform to YOUR brain patterns or lack thereof

Actually, it seems pretty straight forward why. Your relative was an authority figure who encouraged your reading of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

Here again you demonstrate your abilities as a fiction-writer. You have a story-line in mind and you just fabricate whatever moves your story-line and actors along the path you have pre-determined in your mind.

My relative was not "an authority figure who encouraged reading of the FBI LEB". In fact, I don't even think he knew I read the LEB--because we never discussed it. He was, however, someone I constantly argued with about police behavior with respect to anti-war demonstrations, victimless crimes including marijuana use, and corruption within major city police departments.

You particularly liked reading Hoover's introductory message… his messages were inspirational to you. Hoover was your hero, and, you've spent 30 odd years trying to prove he was no friend of the Birchers despite what they claim – because Hoover denied it!

Greg -- you need psychiatric help if you think Hoover's messages were "inspirational" to me or that he was my "hero".

As I have told other people, when I first began my research, I anticipated that I would discover that Hoover AGREED (more often than not) with the JBS and other extreme right groups and I planned to write a report revealing that agreement. So imagine my utter shock to discover the precise opposite in FBI files.

I think what you are ACTUALLY describing is YOU as a mirror image of what you attribute to me. You despise Hoover and you despise anyone who uses any data in FBI files which reveals a more nuanced interpretation of either Hoover the man, or the FBI as an institution. You want unrelenting hostility and denunciations, venom, and bile directed toward Hoover and the institution he headed as they exist in your mind.

You have become so immersed in this quest, you model your own methodology on his. It's homage to the way Hoover PRESENTED to the world, as opposed to the probable reality. You and Mardian - Mini Me Hoovers.

What "methodology" is that? How does my "methodology" differ from that taught to any historian?

I use primary source documents whenever possible. I quote from them accurately. I do not quote out of context to serve my own personal political agenda. I don't artfully select only one document because it conforms to my personal opinions; instead I review and accurately report content of entire files.

I am more than willing to correct errors---and I have done so repeatedly. So maybe you could explain YOUR methodology--which apparently is different from mine?

Why would newspaper reporters and scholars be interested in my "personal opinions and experiences"? Why would people writing their doctoral dissertations and books incorporate my "personal opinions and experiences" into their own writings?

I also pointed out that my research was being shared with numerous scholars and authors and newspaper reporters who used material they got from me; and it was being made available to organizations (such as Group Research Inc.) that specialized in monitoring and collecting data about political extremist groups--so my material would be permanently available to other researchers; I also mentioned that I had created a Yahoo group devoted to discussing the material I acquired. I also provided the Bureau with statistics regarding on-line debates I was having in AOL, Yahoo, Google forums, and especially on various websites which captured data regarding the number of "views" that each topic received.

Ah, yes. Your conspiracy forum "debates". They really defines your journalistic output!

In other words, if something does not conform to your personal opinion of what constitutes journalism, then it is worthless.

I have no problem if others believe a conspiracy forum debate constitutes journalism. But you are correct in saying it does not fit within my definition.

I did not say it constitutes "journalism". I said that I used statistics from those debates to demonstrate the public interest in the topics I was debating and one of the methods I used to circulate the information I had obtained from my FOIA requests. I was trying to demonstrate that I was meeting one of the criteria for fee exemption (see bottom of this message for details re applicable criteria).

For example: when I wrote an article regarding JBS myths about our civil rights movement -- the number of "views" within the first month was 2427. Similarly, when I wrote another article to summarize defective JBS arguments about other matters, the views within the first month were 2514. And my article about the extreme right's use of Nesta Webster as a reliable "historian" produced 1934 views within the first month. And my article concerning Sen. Joseph McCarthy, produced 1262 views within the first month. Perhaps the most intense reaction to anything I have ever written has been with respect to my report on former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen. I regularly receive hate emails from people who despise me for making this information available---which you think is worthless. One person wrote to me that I was "worse than Al Qaeda"!!

The FOIA statute was intended to make it possible for ordinary non-professionals to qualify for freelance journalist status in order to maximize government accountability and transparency. Nevertheless, the standards required by the statute are quite rigorous. For example: you could not meet them because chronic, habitual, pathological liars are not accepted.

Nah, Ernie. I wouldn't qualify because I don't claim to be a freelance journalist – not even an "ordinary non-professional" one. Nor would I enlist the help of others in order to put the right case to be accepted as one. If I couldn't argue the case myself and win simple merit, I wouldn't be much of a journalist anyway.

And you supplied the FBI with all sorts of juicy stats regarding those forums? Priceless!

I copied the stats from the websites that captured data to show the extent of public interest in the topics being debated -- particularly since the material I had acquired had never previously been released and available to inform public understanding.

Did those stats including identifying data oh like I don't know… let's say IP addresses, or any other actual or potential identifying data?

I could go on to discuss your stupid remarks -- but to what purpose?

I don't know. You seem to have spent decades of your life to a purpose that defies all reason - debunking JBS conspiracy fantasies. One may as well spend 30 years debunking the existence of Leprachauns.

Tell me -- because I am really realy curious. How does a blog titled ANTI-CFR ANTI-ILLUMINATI ANTI-ROCKEFELLER LITERATURE qualify as a subject of "national importance and significance" for the purpose of deciding your fee waiver?

That is not a blog. It is an annotated bibliography and it is NOT even based upon FBI documents. Incidentally (and again this reveals your maliciousness), that bibliography was compiled 10 years AFTER my fee appeal. My fee appeal was based upon the reports/articles I had written circa 1997-1998 which were being used to inform public understanding of matters pertaining to U.S. history. My reports discussed such matters as (for example): purported communist infiltration of our civil rights movement, of our clergy and religious institutions, and of our government agencies. They also addressed accusations made about specific prominent individuals and groups by former FBI employees and FBI informants. No fee exemption could be based upon a bibliography, you cretin.

Cretin? Charming.

Who would know what the hell it is. The site I was looking at is schizophrenic with color. For those who dare to look… here it is…

My point is how you can claim debunking the CFR crap is of any great importance. No one in their right mind takes it seriously, yet you've spent decades beating up on this dead horse.

That is your uninformed personal opinion. What you call "CFR crap" informs the thinking of millions of Americans. And, in fact, anti-CFR arguments are made by both the extreme right and extreme left. However, I was not attempting to "debunk" CFR crap. I created a bibliography to show the intellectual history of that particular narrative. I realize that you are hostile toward history if it doesn't conform to your personal interpretations and preferences, but must everyone occupy your intellectual straightjacket?

Again you reveal your maliciousness. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to notice that most of what I have posted on-line consists of carefully documented reports about subject matters of historical interest.

Personally, I just can't get past those color schemes…

What I have written may not be anything that interests you but nevertheless many of my reports have informed national public debate. For example, when Alex Zaitchik had his articles about Glenn Beck published on salon.com he devoted a major section to discussing the influence of former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen upon Beck. At that time, I was the only person in our country to have acquired Skousen's FBI files.

You keep harping that I am being malicious, yet I have repeatedly commended you for your sharing of your archival material.

I don't believe a word you write. Everything you write has an ulterior purpose. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK.

You use language not to welcome debate or discussion or alternative points of view, or to resolve differences, but to attack, defame, and demolish anyone whom you perceive as having views different from your own---just like Birchers use language!

Almost every debate I have had in my lifetime with a Bircher has ultimately devolved into someone calling me a Communist or Communist sympathizer and/or a xxxx--no matter how much documentation I present (from sources they recommend and admire) to prove them mistaken. I previously told you about John Perna -- my most prolific and venomous adversary. He would be incredulous if you told him that I am a Hoover admirer or that Hoover was my "hero".

It is very significant, however, that both political extremes attack me in the exact same manner -- because you both have identical thought patterns. Neither of you is interested in truth or fairness or accuracy. You merely want to ATTACK and DEFAME. That is your one and only purpose -- no matter how much you protest otherwise.

You even believe being called an archivist is malicious.

No--the way you use the term is malicious, not the term itself.

Yet as I pointed out, Archivists keep records that have enduring value, help people find and understand the information they need and assesses, collects, organizes, preserves such records. That seems to be not only a fair description of what you do, it is far from an insulting one. So What is your purpose in trying to act like the victim of a vicious verbal assault, if not to deflect from the accuracy of the description?

Because you use it to disparage, to de-value, to dismiss and to elevate yourself to intellectual superiority over anyone you disagree with.

Alex not only quoted or paraphrased extensively from my report about Skousen, he included a link to it in his article. That produced an extraordinary public response. More than 2500 hits within one week.

The JBS conspiracy theories are so ludicrous, one wonders how anyone could take them seriously, let alone elevate them to being of "national importance and significance".

Because they are a significant part of our history -- particularly during the 1960's.

Greg, if you are genuinely this ignorant about the impact of the extreme right upon modern American history and in particular conservative movement history, then I suggest you read Dr. Samuel Brenner's recent doctoral dissertation about the "Americanist movement" which I have previously referenced. The link is below.

We were not discussing the entire Extreme Right and its myriad organizations. In toto, yes, it has had a major impact. If you read a bit more carefully though, you'll note I was referencing only the conspiracy theories of the JBS (as opposed to the JBS itself). The JBS, and even its theories, could be argued to have had a lasting impact. Maybe it's just me, but I draw the line at suggesting they have any "national importance". To me, that's not necessarily the same as having an impact.

Again, this reveals your extreme ignorance of this subject matter.

Many people "graduated" from the "JBS Conspiracy School" and then formed their own organizations or began their own newsletters, radio/TV programs, etc.

Many others (not actual JBS members but fellow-travellers such as Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen) used JBS material to inform their audiences.

The Birch Society was responsible for distributing millions of copies of John Stormer's 1964 classic conspiracy book, None Dare Call it Treason. They were responsible, in large measure, for showing a filmstrip entitled "Communism on the Map" which was seen by millions of Americans. JBS front-groups (often not identified as being created by the JBS) sponsored dozens of speakers who criss-crossed our country and gave thousands of speeches. At one time, the JBS had the largest Speakers Bureau and the largest book store chain in our nation.

The larger point is that all the people referenced above acquired their understanding of the world (and in particular, modern U.S. history) from reading and believing what the JBS produced, recommended, or reprinted. Furthermore, the JBS narrative during the 1960's and afterward has a long intellectual history that started in the 1920's.

For example: in order to understand the animus of the extreme right toward our Federal Reserve System, you can read the books/articles which the JBS published in the 1960's but it helps to understand that they are re-gurgitating material that was originally published decades earlier by other extreme right-wing partisans.

Similarly, the claims made by the JBS regarding "communist infiltration of and influence in" our clergy and religious institutions was based upon writings of persons like J.B. Matthews in 1952-1954 and upon anti-social-gospel narratives which existed even before that. Ditto for JBS arguments concerning Highlander Folk School being a "communist training school" -- a charge which was repeated by scores of right-wing groups including, of course, numerous white hate groups who happily reprinted JBS literature which included a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. "attending a Communist training school."

You arrive at conclusions in the complete absence of fact. Instead, you fabricate your own malicious definitions and then expect people to argue incessantly against your straw men.

I do have one question however: can you point me to ANYTHING which YOU have written that has been published anywhere?

Tut tut. I'm not the one making pumped up claims about myself being a journalist.

I have no interest in whether or not you think of yourself or of me as a journalist. I asked you if you have any record whatsoever of having written something which has been published? It is easy and risk-free to carp from the sidelines. But what have YOU ever done to inform public debate or bring attention to factual data never previously known?

It has no relevance to YOUR claims. I have made none, other than that I have been cited more often than you in response to your silly "look at all the citations I have so f__k you" post. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to go into that. It's no big deal. You are bloated with self-importance. Is that another trait you've modelled from Hoover? /size]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "self-importance" Greg but I understand why (once again) you maliciously interpreted my question that way. My question was intended to discover if you have any record whatsoever of writing anything that reveals your methodology and your ability to marshal evidence to inform a narrative OR if your methodology is simply and only to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK other people. Obviously, it is the latter.

FEE EXEMPTIONS - FYI.

You will notice that many of your malicious fabrications about my successful appeal are addressed below by what criteria must be met.

In particular, I bring your attention to the points concerning how "public interest" and distribution of whatever is written must be met.

"The current fee waiver standard, which was established by the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986, more specifically defines the term 'public interest' by providing that fees should be waived or reduced if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest to the requester. In accordance with this provision, the DOJ issued revised fee waiver policy guidance on April 1, 1987, which superseded its l983 substantive fee waiver guidance, as well as that issued in 1986.

The DOJ advised agencies of six analytical factors to be considered in applying this statutory fee waiver standard:

(1) The subject matter of the requested records, in the context of the request, must specifically concern identifiable operations or activities of the government. In most cases, records possessed by a federal agency will meet this threshold. The records must be sought for their informative value with respect to specifically identified government operations or activities.

(2) In order for the disclosure to be likely to contribute to an understanding of specific government operations or activities, the disclosable portions of the requested information must be meaningfully informative in relation to the subject matter of the request. Requests for information that is already in the public domain, either in a duplicative or a substantially identical form, may not warrant a fee waiver because the disclosure would not be likely to contribute to an understanding of government operations or activities when nothing new would be added to the public’s understanding.

(3) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of the public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester or a narrow segment of interested persons. As the proper focus must be on the benefit derived by the public, any personal benefit to be derived by the requester or the requester’s particular financial situation are not factors entitling the requester to a fee waiver. It is well settled that indigence alone, without a showing of a public benefit, is insufficient to warrant a fee waiver. The requirement that a requester demonstrate a contribution to the understanding of the public at large is not satisfied simply because a fee waiver request is made by a library or other record repository, or by a requester who intends merely to disseminate the information to such an institution. Requests that make no showing of how the information would be disseminated, rather than through passively making it available to anyone who might seek access to it, do not meet the burden of demonstrating with particularity that the information will be communicated to the public.

(4) The disclosure must contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations or activities. To warrant a waiver of reduction of fees, the public’s understanding of the subject matter in question, as compared to the requester’s commercial interests, must be likely to be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.

(5) The FOIA Public Liaison must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the request involves any commercial interests of the requester that would be furthered by the disclosure. A commercial interest is one that furthers a commercial, trade, or profit interest, as those terms are commonly understood. However, not only profit-making corporations, but also individuals or other organizations, may have a commercial interest to be furthered by the disclosure, depending upon the circumstances involved. The FOIA Public Liaison may properly consider the requester’s identity and the circumstances surrounding the request and draw reasonable inferences regarding the existence of a commercial interest.

(6) The FOIA Public Liaison must balance the requester’s commercial interest against the identified public interest in disclosure and determine which interest is primary. A fee waiver or reduction must be granted when the public interest in disclosure is greater."

Edited July 11, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Greg Parker]

Ernie,

You have called into question my honesty and integrity. That was a mistake.

But first some other matters.

Your claim: I will never admit I'm wrong.

The reality: I invited you to search here and you would find examples where I have aknowledged mistakes, apologized and made the necessary corrections.

Since you haven't made the effort to verify your claim, here is but one example that puts it to rest:

Posted June 27, 2006:

I do have a correction and an apology to make.

My identification of "Marie L Hyde" as Marie de la Grange Hyde was wrong. My research on it had, I thought, been exhaustive - but as it turns out, in my search of the NARA JFK holdings, I missed a document that gives background details on MLH. It lists her middle name as Loretta, maiden name as "Black" and her husband as "Loring Hyde". There are also some documents just listing "Loretta Hyde", including the following:

ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : MILLER, LYLE L.

TO : BLAKEY, G. ROBERT.

TITLE : [No Title]

DATE : 02/16/1978

PAGES : 1

DOCUMENT TYPE : LETTER.

SUBJECTS : HYDE, LORETTA.; CIA.

CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED

CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/08/1993

COMMENTS : Box 118.

This does seem suggestive of a relationship between "Loretta Hyde" and the CIA. And "Loretta" does appear to be one and the same as "Marie L Hyde", as other documents concerning her Minsk travel companions also refer to "Loretta Hyde".

There is insufficient information available to say whether or not Loring was related to William A Hyde.

However, I have also just found in google groups where Peter Fokes located a grand-daughter of Marie Hyde. She apparently states her grandmother's maiden name was "Gray" (as opposed to the "Black" in CIA report), that she also sometimes was referred to as "Mary" and that she had found letters belonging to her grandmother addressed to "Marie Cox".

Again, I do apologise for my error re "de la Grange". I do stand by the rest of my original post, though will continue to acknowledge any further errors found by myself or anyone else

greg parker

Your MO is to visit conspiracy forums and begin "debunking" in the most demeaning and condescending manner. Any attempt to call you on that is then labelled "vicious" or "malicious" "personal attacks". I have found no evidence you have ever admitted being wrong, but what I have found is the same MO you've used here: When something you say is successfully refuted, you simply pretend you have actually said something else. For anyone interest, check out Ernie's exchanges here in the comments section with "Emil Pulsifier":

To some specifics in your last post.

You said:

Here is the bottom-line (again): Regardless of your warped personal opinion, the fact remains that scores of authors, researchers, and scholars have contacted me about documents and files I have acquired over the past 30 years. In many cases, those persons (and organizations) have used material I supplied to them and/or they incorporated data which they found in my reports into their own writings. Over and over and over again -- I have letters thanking me for my assistance or for material I have sent to those persons and organizations.

Which is great! But that is what an ARCHIVIST does - NOT what a "freelance journalist" does. How is pointing out the bleeding obvious being malicious? It isn't, but it suits you to portray it that way.

You said:

That is also why, for example, a major university has contacted me to inquire if I might consider donating my collection to them. It is also why, for example, the editor of the academic journal, American Communist History (ACH), asked me

to write an article about my research for ACH.I ask you again: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING COMPARABLE TO REPORT?

That's great, Ernie. And if you took up the offer, it may be a bona fide example of freelance journalism.

Do I have anything comparable to report? Why do you have such a deep-seated need to turn this into a pissing contest? Not my cup of tea. Free free to take that as you will. Some will know how lightly I'm letting you off.

You said:

Instead of merely asserting it is possible to receive an exemption through "making inflated claims", why don't you write an article, with appropriate documentation, to DEMONSTRATE how it could be possible to do so -- keeping in mind that you first would have to read the FOIA statute so that you know the criteria which apply to fee exemptions. Of course it is much easier (and risk-free) to plant the suspicion about a corrupt process because you know (like any good propagandist) that suspicion, once planted, can be trusted to grow.

Ernie, I worked in a government department for 11 years - 2 of those years in policy and appeals. Some people have making inflated claims down to an art form. I was merely making a point - to counter your insinuation that it is NOT possible to get an exemption unless you actually deserve it under the statute -- that it IS possible to fool anyone or any agency - if you know the law inside out, can spot loopholes and KNOW the right things to say.

You said:

Perhaps you would care to answer this question? (Notice I ask you, I don't just attack you). How would the FBI know what somebody intended to write about the Bureau or its history or anything pertaining to the FBI? How would

they know if the end-result would ultimately be adverse to the Bureau?

I guess the Bureau has never heard of background checks.

One of my initial claims that got you all hot and bothered was that the FBI targeted the Left far more than the Right. To put that another way, the FBI played partisan politics.

Here is what Theoharis wrote in the 1970s:

Although the Media documents confirmed the political biases of FBI investigations and hinted at COINTELPRO's existence (the captioned September 16, 1970, document), neither the Nixon White House nor Attorney General John Mitchell advocated an investigation of bureau practices and their legality.

Is Theoharis a cretin, too?

I said at the top that you made a mistake questioning my honesty and integrity. It was a mistake because it opens you up to scrutiny regarding those same traits.

Although the Arbitrator determined that the Agency's failure to

select the grievant was not based on racial discrimination, he concluded

that the Agency refused to promote the grievant in retaliation for his

participation in the lawsuit contesting the PE exam. He found that

numerous circumstances supported this conclusion:

<p>

the Agency's failure to follow the procedural requirements spelled

out in Article 14 (of the collective bargaining agreement); the

placing of too much emphasis on (the selected employee's)

intra-Agency computer expertise even though that is not part of

the listed job requirements; the inordinate and improper weighing

given to the length of (the selected employee's) evaluation; the

failure of key management personnel to remember who said what to

whom as to whether (the grievant) should be promoted; the failure

to take into account (the grievant's) greater willingness to

travel and his greater experience in being an Examiner-in-Charge;

the unfairness of Lazar's (the former supervisor of the grievant

and the selected employee) supervisory evaluation; the failure to

ask Lazar for his recommendation when customary office practice

called for same; and the failure to properly take into account

(the grievant's) varied work experience, including his review

details.

http://ftp.resource....s/j1200_06.sgml

So, Ernie, are you the Ernie Lazar who was found by the Arbitrator to have written an unfair supervisory evaluation as an act of reprisal for "Equal Opportunity Activity" previously engaged in by the grievant?

[Ernie Lazar]

Greg -- my only reply to all of your comments below is that your capacity for self-delusion is apparently limitless.

And, lastly, NO I am not the Ernie Lazar mentioned in the excerpt you quoted. I have never been involved in a lawsuit of the type your excerpt mentions nor have I ever been a Supervisor who wrote any sort of employee evaluations and I have no clue what "PE exam" refers to. Nice try Greg---but no cigar! Yet another example of how important it is to you to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK.

Ernie,

You have called into question my honesty and integrity. That was a mistake.

But first some other matters.

Your claim: I will never admit I'm wrong.

The reality: I invited you to search here and you would find examples where I have aknowledged mistakes, apologized and made the necessary corrections.

Since you haven't made the effort to verify your claim, here is but one example that puts it to rest:

Posted June 27, 2006:

I do have a correction and an apology to make.

My identification of "Marie L Hyde" as Marie de la Grange Hyde was wrong. My research on it had, I thought, been exhaustive - but as it turns out, in my search of the NARA JFK holdings, I missed a document that gives background details on MLH. It lists her middle name as Loretta, maiden name as "Black" and her husband as "Loring Hyde". There are also some documents just listing "Loretta Hyde", including the following:

ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : MILLER, LYLE L.

TO : BLAKEY, G. ROBERT.

TITLE : [No Title]

DATE : 02/16/1978

PAGES : 1

DOCUMENT TYPE : LETTER.

SUBJECTS : HYDE, LORETTA.; CIA.

CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED

CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/08/1993

COMMENTS : Box 118.

This does seem suggestive of a relationship between "Loretta Hyde" and the CIA. And "Loretta" does appear to be one and the same as "Marie L Hyde", as other documents concerning her Minsk travel companions also refer to "Loretta Hyde".

There is insufficient information available to say whether or not Loring was related to William A Hyde.

However, I have also just found in google groups where Peter Fokes located a grand-daughter of Marie Hyde. She apparently states her grandmother's maiden name was "Gray" (as opposed to the "Black" in CIA report), that she also sometimes was referred to as "Mary" and that she had found letters belonging to her grandmother addressed to "Marie Cox".

Again, I do apologise for my error re "de la Grange". I do stand by the rest of my original post, though will continue to acknowledge any further errors found by myself or anyone else

greg parker

Your MO is to visit conspiracy forums and begin "debunking" in the most demeaning and condescending manner. Any attempt to call you on that is then labelled "vicious" or "malicious" "personal attacks". I have found no evidence you have ever admitted being wrong, but what I have found is the same MO you've used here: When something you say is successfully refuted, you simply pretend you have actually said something else. For anyone interest, check out Ernie's exchanges here in the comments section with "Emil Pulsifier":

To some specifics in your last post.

You said:

Here is the bottom-line (again): Regardless of your warped personal opinion, the fact remains that scores of authors, researchers, and scholars have contacted me about documents and files I have acquired over the past 30 years. In many cases, those persons (and organizations) have used material I supplied to them and/or they incorporated data which they found in my reports into their own writings. Over and over and over again -- I have letters thanking me for my assistance or for material I have sent to those persons and organizations.

Which is great! But that is what an ARCHIVIST does - NOT what a "freelance journalist" does. How is pointing out the bleeding obvious being malicious? It isn't, but it suits you to portray it that way.

You said:

That is also why, for example, a major university has contacted me to inquire if I might consider donating my collection to them. It is also why, for example, the editor of the academic journal, American Communist History (ACH), asked me

to write an article about my research for ACH.I ask you again: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING COMPARABLE TO REPORT?

That's great, Ernie. And if you took up the offer, it may be a bona fide example of freelance journalism.

Do I have anything comparable to report? Why do you have such a deep-seated need to turn this into a pissing contest? Not my cup of tea. Free free to take that as you will. Some will know how lightly I'm letting you off.

You said:

Instead of merely asserting it is possible to receive an exemption through "making inflated claims", why don't you write an article, with appropriate documentation, to DEMONSTRATE how it could be possible to do so -- keeping in mind that you first would have to read the FOIA statute so that you know the criteria which apply to fee exemptions. Of course it is much easier (and risk-free) to plant the suspicion about a corrupt process because you know (like any good propagandist) that suspicion, once planted, can be trusted to grow.

Ernie, I worked in a government department for 11 years - 2 of those years in policy and appeals. Some people have making inflated claims down to an art form. I was merely making a point - to counter your insinuation that it is NOT possible to get an exemption unless you actually deserve it under the statute -- that it IS possible to fool anyone or any agency - if you know the law inside out, can spot loopholes and KNOW the right things to say.

You said:

Perhaps you would care to answer this question? (Notice I ask you, I don't just attack you). How would the FBI know what somebody intended to write about the Bureau or its history or anything pertaining to the FBI? How would

they know if the end-result would ultimately be adverse to the Bureau?

I guess the Bureau has never heard of background checks.

One of my initial claims that got you all hot and bothered was that the FBI targeted the Left far more than the Right. To put that another way, the FBI played partisan politics.

Here is what Theoharis wrote in the 1970s:

Although the Media documents confirmed the political biases of FBI investigations and hinted at COINTELPRO's existence (the captioned September 16, 1970, document), neither the Nixon White House nor Attorney General John Mitchell advocated an investigation of bureau practices and their legality.

Is Theoharis a cretin, too?

I said at the top that you made a mistake questioning my honesty and integrity. It was a mistake because it opens you up to scrutiny regarding those same traits.

Although the Arbitrator determined that the Agency's failure to

select the grievant was not based on racial discrimination, he concluded

that the Agency refused to promote the grievant in retaliation for his

participation in the lawsuit contesting the PE exam. He found that

numerous circumstances supported this conclusion:

<p>

the Agency's failure to follow the procedural requirements spelled

out in Article 14 (of the collective bargaining agreement); the

placing of too much emphasis on (the selected employee's)

intra-Agency computer expertise even though that is not part of

the listed job requirements; the inordinate and improper weighing

given to the length of (the selected employee's) evaluation; the

failure of key management personnel to remember who said what to

whom as to whether (the grievant) should be promoted; the failure

to take into account (the grievant's) greater willingness to

travel and his greater experience in being an Examiner-in-Charge;

the unfairness of Lazar's (the former supervisor of the grievant

and the selected employee) supervisory evaluation; the failure to

ask Lazar for his recommendation when customary office practice

called for same; and the failure to properly take into account

(the grievant's) varied work experience, including his review

details.

http://ftp.resource....s/j1200_06.sgml

So, Ernie, are you the Ernie Lazar who was found by the Arbitrator to have written an unfair supervisory evaluation as an act of reprisal for "Equal Opportunity Activity" previously engaged in by the grievant?

Edited July 12, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

A RECAP

How might this have been a more productive and amicable debate? If I was Greg Parker – and I was genuinely interested in having a civil debate about any issues we have discussed thus far, what questions would I have presented?

(1) WCC and JBS and FBI INVESTIGATION

First, if I was Greg, I would have focused my attention on what initially produced our dispute – i.e. the notion that the FBI never “investigated” the WCC or the JBS.

I would have written something like this:

Ernie, with respect to WCC, I believe you are mistaken about this matter because the memo I found in the Goldwater file appears to falsify your contention. You have stated that the FBI conducted investigations of the WCC after that initial period in the mid-1950’s. In order for me to agree with you, you would need to provide me with the following information.

My understanding about what constitutes an FBI investigation is as follows [Greg then would enter his data here]. So, have you seen anything in the WCC files you have obtained that meets those criteria?

Ernie – you also dispute my contention that you stated that the JBS was never investigated – even though you acknowledge that Bureau memos frequently include a comment to the effect that the Bureau “has not investigated the JBS”.

If plain English declarations are not adequate for making a correct determination, then what criteria are you proposing that we substitute?

(2) FREELANCE JOURNALIST

Ernie, from what you have written so far in this forum, I do not think you qualify as a freelance journalist – even if the FBI did accept your appeal based upon that contention. On the other hand, perhaps there is something in the FOIA statute that I am not familiar with which describes how it is possible for non-professionals to qualify for that status. Could you tell me more about the documentation or reasoning you used in your search fee appeal that explains how you qualified as a freelance journalist?

(3) HOOVER

Ernie, from what you have written thus far in this forum, it appears to me that you have a very high regard for J. Edgar Hoover’s knowledge, character, and integrity and pronouncements. Am I mistaken in that judgment? What, exactly, is your evaluation of Hoover and the institution which he headed?

(4) FBI PRACTICES and JUDGMENTS

Ernie, do you think the Bureau was even-handed in its approach to right-wing and left-wing organizations and individuals? Or did it have any sort of bias which may have colored/skewed its evaluations --- depending upon the political orientation of the subject they confronted? Overall, what is your evaluation of the FBI during Hoover’s tenure as Director?

Although this does not exhaust all the topics Greg and I have discussed, it gives readers an idea about how I would have approached our disagreements. In the process, I would have totally excluded ridicule, sarcasm, personal attacks, slurs and insinuations, and comments predicated upon the idea that Greg was intellectually superior to all other beings.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Ernie,.

I'd like answers to the questions as you have posed them, of course with possible follow ups. no doubt you are aware of the underground press thread at the moment. I think there may be questions arising from that over time as well.

[Greg Parker]

Ernie,

Since you're currently recapping and reviewing (without bothering yourself with little things like direct quotes which may go toward proving whatever point you're attempting to make), I thought it at least should be done properly.

You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill)

As you correctly point out, they were obviously interested in the KKK (although you are mistaken about "half of the active members" being FBI informants). But the reason that the KKK came within the guidelines for active recruitment of informants was related to known or suspected violations of federal law.

This is a prime example of how you take everything literally, when it would have been obvious to most that Bill was exaggerating the number of KKK informants to underline a point. Your seeming complete inability to grasp such nuance, along with your quirky fixation on John Birch conspiracy theories which has gone on for decades, your fastidiousness and obsession with protocols and inability to read, when necessary, between the lines of documents or other written materials, your compulsion to reply multiple times to one post despite previous claims any reply at all would be a waste, taken together may be the indicia for underlying problems of a medical nature.

You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill):

Without exception, every person who actually became an FBI informant (and I am referring to those people whom the FBI recruited -- not individuals who just provided unsolicited information) had a very substantial paper trail which was archived in various FBI files. For example, I previously mentioned Julia Brown. The FBI file pertaining to her is more than 3000 pages and it includes copies of all her reports. Similarly, I could give you comparable data about DOZENS of other FBI informants whose files I have acquired.

Bill, in reply to the above. See Post #6:

Take Bob Hardy, the ex-USMC, not recruited, but a walk in, a volunteer FBI informant and agent provocateur who inspired the Camden 28 to raid the selective service office and try to steal their records, a good example of how the informant role often gets out of hand.

You failed to address the issues surrounding Hardy as they may apply to Dean.

The Bureau denied as early as 1974 (and probably also earlier) that HD was an "undercover operative"

However, it did admit he had volunteered information about the FPCC and that his FBI number was 4657880.

I think if Harry gave the FBI information which it accepted; he is entitled to call himself an informant, as what he did would meet the ordinary meaning of the term. He may not have even been aware that the Bureau had a more stringent definition. And, if, as Bill states, Hardy was a "volunteer" informant AND agent provocateur operating (apparently) in that capacity at arms length from the Bureau, who is to say Dean was not a similar case?

You, post # 15

Second, every field office was required to adhere to specific protocols regarding use of informants. Those protocols were spelled out in mind-numbing detail in the FBI's Manual of Instructions. All of the files I have obtained of FBI informants make it very clear that field office SAC's (Special Agents in Charge) were aware of those protocols and followed them -- OR -- they received blistering letters from HQ Supervisors which addressed their shortcomings.

I have given you 3 sources already relating to the Hoover era which showed that those protocols were not always adhered to.

Here is a Washington Post dated Sept 13, 2005 which indicates the problem was never really fixed and had indeed, become endemic.

You, from Post # 189

(1) WCC and JBS and FBI INVESTIGATION

First, if I was Greg, I would have focused my attention on what initially produced our dispute i.e. the notion that the FBI never "investigated" the WCC or the JBS.

I would have written something like this:

Ernie, with respect to WCC, I believe you are mistaken about this matter because the memo I found in the Goldwater file appears to falsify your contention. You have stated that the FBI conducted investigations of the WCC after that initial period in the mid-1950's. In order for me to agree with you, you would need to provide me with the following information.

My understanding about what constitutes an FBI investigation is as follows [Greg then would enter his data here]. So, have you seen anything in the WCC files you have obtained that meets those criteria?

Ernie you also dispute my contention that you stated that the JBS was never investigated even though you acknowledge that Bureau memos frequently include a comment to the effect that the Bureau "has not investigated the JBS".

If plain English declarations are not adequate for making a correct determination, then what criteria are you proposing that we substitute?

The problem is, Ernie, the first person who had the opportunity to ask questions along those lines, was YOU. But you put yourself above that. It is all the contemptuous creatures who unfortunately for them are not Ernie Lazar that must ask the questions. So… instead of asking what I was basing my comment on, as you would have others do, you simply ended your lecture with "obviously, your knowledge about this matter is not credible." (Post # 15)

Edited July 13, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie,

Since you're currently recapping and reviewing (without bothering yourself with little things like direct quotes which may go toward proving whatever point you're attempting to make), I thought it at least should be done properly.

Quote

You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill)

As you correctly point out, they were obviously interested in the KKK (although you are mistaken about "half of the active members" being FBI informants). But the reason that the KKK came within the guidelines for active recruitment of informants was related to known or suspected violations of federal law.

This is a prime example of how you take everything literally, when it would have been obvious to most that Bill was exaggerating the number of KKK informants to underline a point.

Greg, how could I know if Bill was exaggerating or to what degree? Many people I have debated have made a comparable statement because they actually believed that half of the active members of the KKK were FBI informants. Other people have made similar claims about CPUSA members..

Your seeming complete inability to grasp such nuance, along with your quirky fixation on John Birch conspiracy theories which has gone on for decades, your fastidiousness and obsession with protocols and inability to read, when necessary, between the lines of documents or other written materials, your compulsion to reply multiple times to one post despite previous claims any reply at all would be a waste, taken together may be the indicia for underlying problems of a medical nature.

But isn’t it odd Greg that I am the one (not you) who early-on in this debate told you that you could not rely upon the literal wording of the Mobile memo because one had to understand what the FBI meant by “investigation” as opposed to other methods by which it acquired information?

In other words, one must “read between the lines” to properly understand the “nuance” of what "investigation" meant in BureauSpeak? Am I not also the person who previously told you that Hoover violated instructions he received from his superiors simply by re-creating a forbidden policy or program under a different name?

With respect to your comment about my "fixation" with JBS conspiracy theories: I am not sure I understand what you mean. The reason the JBS is so fascinating to me is because their publications discuss so many different subjects and they were able to do what no other right-wing organization (up to that time) was successful at doing i.e. building a large, well-financed grass roots network across the country while securing the support/endorsement from numerous prominent persons from all walks of life. Incidentally, it is not only my "fixation". Every scholar who has written a book during the past 20 years about postwar conservative movement history has devoted considerable attention to the impact of the JBS. One of the problems scholars have, however, is that so much JBS activity was not officially acknowledged. For example: individual Birchers often were the primary actors in major controversies all over our country, but they did not identify themselves as being JBS members.

And, yet again, instead of just presenting your best case, you feel the need to engage in ad hominem attack attack attack, i.e. “underlying problems of a medical nature” --- but you consider that sort of comment to be helpful because you are so superior to everyone else, right?

Quote

You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill):

Without exception, every person who actually became an FBI informant (and I am referring to those people whom the FBI recruited -- not individuals who just provided unsolicited information) had a very substantial paper trail which was archived in various FBI files. For example, I previously mentioned Julia Brown. The FBI file pertaining to her is more than 3000 pages and it includes copies of all her reports. Similarly, I could give you comparable data about DOZENS of other FBI informants whose files I have acquired.

Quote

Bill, in reply to the above. See Post #6:

Take Bob Hardy, the ex-USMC, not recruited, but a walk in, a volunteer FBI informant and agent provocateur who inspired the Camden 28 to raid the selective service office and try to steal their records, a good example of how the informant role often gets out of hand.

You failed to address the issues surrounding Hardy as they may apply to Dean.

Correct. I know nothing about Hardy.

The Bureau denied as early as 1974 (and probably also earlier) that HD was an "undercover operative" http://www.maryferre...80&relPageId=27

However, it did admit he had volunteered information about the FPCC and that his FBI number was 4657880. http://www.maryferre...80&relPageId=28

I think if Harry gave the FBI information which it accepted; he is entitled to call himself an informant, as what he did would meet the ordinary meaning of the term.

Greg, the FBI “accepted” ANY information it received from ANYBODY. This is another example of how you want to dumb-down our debate by using a definition which becomes so all-encompassing that it becomes meaningless.

Genuine FBI informants were subjected to rigorous background investigations. I previously posted a link to two FBI memos regarding Rev. Delmar Dennis to illustrate the typical format which a field office used to document its desire to use someone as an informant. And Delmar was an FBI informant around the time HD claimed he also was an informant.

Here is the link again in case you missed it: http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis

Notice that the caption on the Jackson field office memo is “Delmar Dennis, RI – Prob” which refers to “racial informant—probationary”. In other words, the field office proposed acceptance by HQ of their use of an informant and then the informant was on probationary status to determine if he/she provided reliable and credible information. If not, they were dropped. But you want to use lowest-common-denominator reasoning to discuss this matter.

You want EVERYONE who sent a letter to the FBI, or called a field office, or appeared in person at an office to be legitimately entitled to be considered an “informant” regardless of what "information" they provided. I have seen hundreds of letters in FBI files where the Bureau summarizes unsolicited "information" that they received from somebody and a Bureau file copy notation (or separate memo discussing the matter) states that the person who provided the information was mentally unbalanced...but, nevertheless, in your scheme of things, that person should be considered "an informant".

He may not have even been aware that the Bureau had a more stringent definition.

It makes no difference if Harry knew the FBI definition. The question remains: why does HD claim that he was "requested" by the FBI to infiltrate and inform on the JBS? And is there any factual evidence to support HD's contentions about the type of information he supposedly provided and to whom? You seem to be so emotionally invested in HD that you do not want to consider the possibility that he is misrepresenting his status.

And, if, as Bill states, Hardy was a "volunteer" informant AND agent provocateur operating (apparently) in that capacity at arms length from the Bureau, who is to say Dean was not a similar case?

As I have previously stated, fiction writers can fabricate any scenario they want. I cannot prove a negative proposition.

Quote

You, post # 15

Second, every field office was required to adhere to specific protocols regarding use of informants. Those protocols were spelled out in mind-numbing detail in the FBI's Manual of Instructions. All of the files I have obtained of FBI informants make it very clear that field office SAC's (Special Agents in Charge) were aware of those protocols and followed them -- OR -- they received blistering letters from HQ Supervisors which addressed their shortcomings.

I have given you 3 sources already relating to the Hoover era which showed that those protocols were not always adhered to.

Here is a Washington Post dated Sept 13, 2005 which indicates the problem was never really fixed and had indeed, become endemic.

http://www.washingto...5091201825.html

Greg—believe whatever you want. You prefer a Washington Post article. I prefer reviewing actual FBI informant files.

Quote

You, from Post # 189

(1) WCC and JBS and FBI INVESTIGATION

First, if I was Greg, I would have focused my attention on what initially produced our dispute – i.e. the notion that the FBI never "investigated" the WCC or the JBS.

I would have written something like this:

Ernie, with respect to WCC, I believe you are mistaken about this matter because the memo I found in the Goldwater file appears to falsify your contention. You have stated that the FBI conducted investigations of the WCC after that initial period in the mid-1950's. In order for me to agree with you, you would need to provide me with the following information.

My understanding about what constitutes an FBI investigation is as follows [Greg then would enter his data here]. So, have you seen anything in the WCC files you have obtained that meets those criteria?

Ernie – you also dispute my contention that you stated that the JBS was never investigated – even though you acknowledge that Bureau memos frequently include a comment to the effect that the Bureau "has not investigated the JBS".

If plain English declarations are not adequate for making a correct determination, then what criteria are you proposing that we substitute?

The problem is, Ernie, the first person who had the opportunity to ask questions along those lines, was YOU. But you put yourself above that. It is all the contemptuous creatures who – unfortunately for them – are not Ernie Lazar – that must ask the questions. So… instead of asking what I was basing my comment on, as you would have others do, you simply ended your lecture with "obviously, your knowledge about this matter is not credible." (Post # 15)

Greg—I offered numerous times to bring our discussion into the realm of facts. I asked you to define investigation because I believed that if you did so, we would have a common understanding from which to proceed. You refused. If you had agreed, then our discussion probably would have been much more productive.

[Ernie Lazar]

Postscript:

Greg -- you've given me an idea for a future report which I will post on-line.

I am going to write something which gives examples of

(1) persons who claimed to have some sort of "association" with the FBI ("informant", "undercover agent" etc.) or with military intelligence OR

(2) persons who claimed that they received some sort of special assistance from the FBI OR

(3) persons who claimed that they had unique access to "confidential" "secret" information that existed in FBI files OR

(4) persons who claimed that they "provided information" to the FBI

Then, I will scan and post copies of the FBI memos which discuss these people -- so interested parties can see how often these types of claims were totally bogus. For example: I previously mentioned David Gumaer. He claimed he was an FBI informant and his services "were called upon by the FBI and the House Committee on Un-American Activities."

In reality, however, a Bureau summary report about Gumaer pointed out that:

"A review of Bureau indices determined numerous references for Dave Emerson Gumaer. A review of Bureau file 62-113743 determined that Gumaer, who was never an FBI employee or an FBI informant, is allegedly a right-wing, anti-Semitic extremist. Gumaer was an undercover operative of the Chicago Police Department in the 1960’s being directed against ‘new left’ organizations. He came to the attention of the Bureau in 1970-1971, when he undertook a multi-state speaking engagement on behalf of the John Birch Society, of which he was a member. During these speeches, wherein Gumaer would indicate his prior undercover activities and relationship with the Chicago PD, Gumaer also identified himself as an FBI informant working matters of a similar nature for the Bureau. These speeches were generally of an alarmist nature, intended to arouse the wrath of conservative America to the ever growing threat from ‘new left’ and ‘Communist backed’ movements in the U.S. Considerable correspondence was received at FBIHQ, due to Gumaer’s purporting to be an FBI informant, in addition to his inflammatory rhetoric during these speeches.”

However, there is one valid "connection" between Gumaer and the FBI.

At one point 9 different FBI field offices were attempting to locate Gumaer because:

“For information of the Bureau, SA (name deleted) BATF, Phoenix, advised that on February 12, 1987, David Emerson Gumaer failed to appear for court in Denver, CO and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. As the Bureau is aware, Gumaer was arrested by BATF and FBI at Phoenix, AZ on December 15, 1986 for his part in selling eight fully automatic Uzi submachine guns to undercover BATF agents…Based on his flight, Gumaer is now being sough by BATF and U.S. Marshal’s Service. Armed and dangerous.”

[Bernice Moore]

ERNIE IN M.WESLEY SWEARINGEN'S LATEST BOOK, PAGE 160, HE STATES; QUOTE "does the fbi always lie about Informants?? I EXPLAINED, YES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN COURT. OTHERWISE THE FBI WILL DENY THAT ANYONE IS AN INFORMANT FOR FEAR THAT OTHER INFORMANTS WILL BECOME SCARED THAT THEIR IDENTITY WILL BE REVEALED AND STOP GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, THE FBI WILL LIE TO PROTECT AN INFORMANT EVEN IF IT MEANS INNOCENT MEN GO TO JAIL." B

[Ernie Lazar]

Bernice: what "lies" do you think the FBI told about their informants? How do you explain that informants who never testified in court were, nevertheless, acknowledged to be informants when the Bureau received inquiries about them? [i am of course referring to the period after they were discontinued as informants].

Again, I feel like Alice In Wonderland. Do you want me to believe what I can see in dozens of actual FBI informant files (including many persons who never testified in court proceedings) or should I believe what you claim Swearingen wrote?

Incidentally, in your judgment, was Swearingen in a position to know about Bureau-wide practices concerning informants? Or, do you think his knowledge was primarily limited to the Chicago field office?

However, let's assume for sake of discussion that we take what Swearingen wrote as complete literal truth. Was he not referring to PUBLIC acknowledgements -- which might "scare" other informants?

Obviously, that would not pertain to what I have been discussing here because I am referring to documentation in FBI files which was intended for internal use only -- not public disclosure.

For example: many of my reports discuss information about FBI informants. The data I reveal has NEVER been previously known because it only existed in confidential memos that exist in FBI informant files and, often, I have been the first (and only) person to acquire those files. I have brought the attention of Birch Society officials to data which even they did not know about former FBI informants who later associated themselves with the JBS as speakers and writers!

Perhaps your argument is that NOTHING in FBI files can be believed. If so, then what basis do we have for proving or disproving ANYTHING which somebody wants to claim? What methodology exists to separate fact from fiction if EVERYTHING is suspect?

ERNIE IN M.WESLEY SWEARINGEN'S LATEST BOOK, PAGE 160, HE STATES; QUOTE "does the fbi always lie about Informants?? I EXPLAINED, YES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN COURT. OTHERWISE THE FBI WILL DENY THAT ANYONE IS AN INFORMANT FOR FEAR THAT OTHER INFORMANTS WILL BECOME SCARED THAT THEIR IDENTITY WILL BE REVEALED AND STOP GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, THE FBI WILL LIE TO PROTECT AN INFORMANT EVEN IF IT MEANS INNOCENT MEN GO TO JAIL." B

Edited July 13, 2010 by Ernie Lazar