I originally posted some of the questions in this message to Douglas Caddy in a different thread that had to do with Mark Felt. I realized that the questions weren't directly on-topic to that thread, and I think that the issues are deserving of their own thread, so I've amended my original message and am posting it here.

I've PMed Mr. Caddy and asked him if he would be kind enough to respond here instead of to the original message in the other thread.



Hi, Mr. Caddy. I read your article with a great deal of interest, and while it and your posts that I've read in this forum seem to focus mainly on those dramatic events following the fateful night of 16-17 June 1972, I wonder if you would be able to shed some light on parts of the backstory that are intriguing, but--well, "sketchy."

I'll try to be as specific as possible on some of the things I'm curious about, which the available literature doesn't seem to address in any measurable depth.

When CIA veteran E. Howard Hunt was hired at the Mullen Company on 1 May 1970, pursuant to a recommendation from DCI Richard Helms, the Mullen company had been cooperating with CIA, including providing overseas cover for CIA agents, for at least seven years. The Stockholm, Sweden office of Mullen was "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA." According to the available record, at least eight people in the D.C. Mullen office, where you worked, had been "cleared and made witting of Agency ties."
1. Were you cleared and witting of the Mullen company's involvement with CIA?
2. If so, what was the nature and scope of your clearances?
3. Who else at Mullen was "witting and cleared"?
4. If you know, did Hunt, or you, or anyone at the Mullen company have any contact, directly or through an intermediary, with Daniel Ellsberg?

From my understanding of the record, not many months after Hunt arrived at Mullen--in or around November 1970--you moved from Mullen to Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen (hereinafter "Gall Lane"), and at about the same time, Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters."
1. What were the "other matters"?
2. Did you have CIA clearances or other clearances from any intelligence branch or agency at any relevant time? If so, why?
3. Did the probate matters include Dorothy Hunt's probate?
4. What was Meade Emory's role?
5. Were persons employed at or by Gall Lane "cleared and witting" of Mullen ties to CIA? If so, who?
6. If you know, was Gall Lane in any sort of relationship with CIA that was similar to the relationship that the Mullen company enjoyed?

Please bear with me in establishing a brief history for these next questions, but still focusing on November 1970 and your move to Gall Lane:
• Around the same time as your move to Gall Lane, Robert Mardian approached G. Gordon Liddy and asked Liddy to take an undescribed position that Liddy says was "super-confidential." Liddy had already been granted "special clearances" by CIA a year earlier, in December 1969.
• Carrying forward to 1971: Hunt (your client) and Liddy had secure lines in Room 16 for communicating directly to Langley.
• In July 1971, E. Howard Hunt (your client) met privately with CIA's Lucien Conein, CIA's Edward Landsdale, and Deputy Director of CIA Robert Cushman, and was supplied by CIA with phony ID and other items.
• In August 1971, Hunt (your client) and G. Gordon Liddy met at least twice with CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy.
• In August 1971 G. Gordon Liddy--working closely with your client, Hunt--was in regular communication "with State and the CIA," including direct conversations with DCI Richard Helms, and was briefed by CIA on "several additional sensitive programs in connection with his assignment to the White House staff." Liddy received similar phony ID from CIA as had been provided by CIA to your client, Hunt.
• In October 1971, your client, Hunt, was in telephone contact with CIA Chief European Division John Hart, had several telephone conversations with CIA Executive Officer European Division John Caswell, and met with CIA Director Richard Helms.
• Continuing into February 1972, Liddy and Hunt (your client) met with a "retired" CIA doctor to discuss indetectable means of assassination.
• Liddy met on 22 February 1972 with undisclosed CIA officials in relation to the "special clearances" he was carrying.
• Within only about a week of that meeting--on or around 1 March 1972--you started doing unspecified "legal tasks" for G. Gordon Liddy leading up to the Watergate activities, so were involved in a legal relationship with both "commanders" of everything Watergate: Liddy and Hunt. Therefore, in regard to the foregoing:
  1. What was the nature of the "legal tasks" you were doing for Liddy?
  2. Were you doing similar legal tasks for your client, Hunt?
  3. Did any of the "legal tasks" you performed for either party require any kind of clearances from CIA and/or any other intelligence branch, organization, or agency?
  4. Did any of your legal tasks for either Liddy or Hunt include arranging for possible overseas travel?
  5. Did you have any clearances, special or otherwise, from CIA or any other intelligence branch, organization, or agency at relevant times? If so, what was the nature and scope, and why?

Taking you back now in time, if I may, to E. Howard Hunt's move, in May 1970, from CIA Central to the Mullen company, he hadn't been "retired" from CIA for more than a month before a special Covert Security Approval was requested through CIA for him under "Project QK/ENCHANT." You were still at the Mullen branch with him.
1. Did you have a clearance for QK/ENCHANT at any relevant time?
2. Do you know anything about why the "retired" Howard Hunt almost immediately needed this special clearance?

I'm sorry for having had to include as much establishing information as I did, but it's scattered throughout so many different sources that I thought others here may not be entirely familiar with the context given above, and I didn't want you to have to spend the time explaining it. I'd rather you just be able to focus on the questions themselves, and any light you can shed would be of inexpressible value.

Thanks so much for your time.

Ashton Gray

"I'm sorry for having had to include as much establishing information as I did, but it's scattered throughout so many different sources that I thought others here may not be entirely familiar with the context given above, and I didn't want you to have to spend the time explaining it. I'd rather you just be able to focus on the questions themselves, and any light you can shed would be of inexpressible value.

Thanks so much for your time.

Ashton Gray"

________________________________________________
Ashton,

It's easy for me to sit here at this end and dispense platitudes; however, this most recent posting of yours is superb. It could only have been done after the most meticulous probing. Is that a rumpled, Columbo-styled raincoat you're wearing ("I just need to ask ya a couple of more questions...")? I'll jump out now and leave the vacuum waiting to be filled.

Yours Truly, John Gillespie

I wish my conscience would allow me to just sit here and soak up all this approbation, John, but I'm going to have to admit that most of the work was done by the people who put together this timeline that I've mentioned several times. It is a sleek and efficient data machine, and hats off to everyone who contributed.



You're a funny guy, John. I'm afraid it's a pedestrian, threadbare favorite old tweed jacket.



Did you happen to bring a snack? I have a funny feeling we may be here a while...

Ashton Gray

______________________________________
Ashton,

In the words of the great Adlai Stevenson, "I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over"; or at least 'til Monday.

For me, the question that nearly jumped off the screen was the one concerening "probate matters." What's the over/under on Dorothy having been included in that discussion?

Regards,
JG

I'm going to just answer frankly—and considerably more broadly than the Dorothy Hunt question—and hope that Douglas Caddy will come back and lay some of these concerns and appearances to rest.

It appears to me that Hunt was insinuated into Mullen generally because of its overseas, European cover operations for CIA (an important factor for later on), and more specifically to hook him up with Caddy, who was already set up at Mullen with CIA clearances. Caddy's planned and briefed destiny was to become the almost completely camouflaged conduit between CIA and both Hunt and Liddy by moving over to Gall Lane, and having, there, the protection not only of CIA clearances, but of the privilege arising out of the attorney/client relationship as well. (Of course there are some things that can pierce that veil, as I believe Mr. Caddy well knows.)

I think that the coy Mr. Caddy has been far, far too modest about his role in what we think of as "Watergate." Of course the role he's played, as the sort of slightly dizzy innocent caught up in a swirling torrent of events that were a mystery to him and over which he had no control, was tailor made for him by CIA as "plausible deniability," and I think he reasonably could be nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in a Supporting Role. He's sold his cover very well. He practically has made himself a martyr, given his harsh, awful, unfair treatment at the hands of that mean old bullying court.

And all that would evoke a sympathetic tear even from somebody as hard-hearted as me--except for this unresolved little CIA thing, and the curiously precision timing of Caddy suddenly being the only attorney in D.C. who could possibly have been picked to do some "legal tasks" for G. Gordon Liddy, who was still warm from his most recent meeting with CIA officials regarding his CIA "special clearances." All this while Caddy was already in an attorney-client relationship with CIA's golden boy, Hunt, and right at the beginning of the 90-day runway to the purported "first break-in" (which never happened) on Memorial Day weekend.

It's a cozy little threesome, isn't it? Hunt, Liddy, and the almost invisible Caddy.

Then Caddy just happened to be the same Blessed Soul the gods picked to be there and ride herd on the CIA's "Cuban Contingent" in the crucial first hours after the "arrest," and make sure that it all went just the way the CIA had planned--even though Caddy himself says that he was completely unqualified to be there.

As for the Dorothy Hunt probate question, I don't think there's a chance in hell that I'll get an answer. I think there's a decent chance that somebody else might soon be asking the same question, though, who might have all the tools required to get an answer. Meanwhile, it's on the table.

And on the subject of Dorothy Hunt, E. Howard Hunt, and Douglas Caddy, I'll just point out the following:

Right at the end of February 1972, at almost the exact same time that Caddy started doing "legal tasks" for Liddy, who had just come from a CIA briefing, E. Howard Hunt left D.C. on a trip to Nicaragua for absolutely no known reason and for an undisclosed period of time. (Where?) Nicaragua. (Huh?) Right.

Just days later, on 3 March 1972--eight months before Dorothy Hunt died in a plane crash--the psychiatrist of Dorothy Hunt disappeared forever while on a pleasure boat trip from the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. No trace of the psychiatrist, his wife, or the captain of the pleasure boat, or of the boat they were on, was ever found. You can use internet maps to see the relationship of Nicaragua to St. Lucia if you think it might be of any interest or relevance. I wouldn't know.

What I know is that eight months later Dorothy Hunt also was dead. What I know is that Douglas Caddy was handling probate matters for E. Howard Hunt. Caddy said so himself. It's not at all unusual for an attorney handling "probate matters" for one spouse to do the same for the other.

Want more details? Ask Caddy. If you can locate him.

Ashton Gray

Thank you for your inquiries into Watergate that are concerned with the back history before the arrests of the five burglars on June 17, 1972. Here are my responses to the questions posed by you in four sections:

First section: (1) No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA. I only learned for certain of such involvement when I read Senator Howard Baker’s supplemental lengthy statement that was released about the same time that the final Senate Watergate Committee report was promulgated. Senator Baker, as you know, was a member of that Committee.

(2) Thus, at no time did I possess any clearance of any type as part of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA.

Second section: (1) As part of the grand jury investigation into Watergate and in my capacity as a subpoenaed witness before that jury, I was forced to disclose the legal work that I performed for Howard Hunt when I was employed as an associate with the Washington, D.C. law firm of Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen. This work was performed in conjunction with a partner of that law firm, Robert Scott, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, who later became a judge. At Hunt’s request, we prepared a will for him, analyzed his proposed business relationship with the Mullen Company after Robert Bennett assumed its ownership (no mention was made then by Hunt of the CIA’s involvement with the Company), and contacted various book publishers to ascertain whether they would be interested in publishing a novel that Hunt, a prolific writer, had completed. None of this legal work involved probate matters.

(2) I have at no time received a clearance from any branch of the U.S. government.

(3) At no time was I involved in any probate matters dealing with Dorothy Hunt. After I was subpoenaed in late June 1972 to appear before the Watergate grand jury, under the law I could no longer legally represent Hunt or his wife. My role was transformed from being Hunt’s attorney to being an involuntary witness in the criminal case against him. Thus, in the Watergate case I was both an attorney for the defense and a witness for the prosecution. Dorothy Hunt died in late 1972, subsequently to the date that I was forced to withdraw from legal representation of the Hunts due to my grand jury subpoena. I do not know who handled the probate of Dorothy Hunt’s estate.

(4) I do not recognize the name of Meade Emory, and for that reason am unaware of any role that he played in whatever matter you apparently have in mind.

Third section: Your preface to the inquiries posed in this section contains information about which, on the whole, I was unaware. For example, I never heard of Room 16. Also, I had no knowledge that Liddy possessed a relationship with the CIA or that Hunt apparently had a continuing working relationship with the CIA after his retirement from that organization in 1970.

(1) In March, 1972, George Webster, chairman of Lawyers for the Re-Election of Nixon-Agnew,
contacted John Kilcullen, a partner of the law firm that employed me, and asked for a lawyer to do voluntary campaign work in John Dean’s office. I was “volunteered” by John Kilcullen. I did several legal research assignments given to me by Dean and one of his associates. Some weeks later Webster asked that I contact Gordon Liddy at the Finance Committee of the Nixon-Agnew campaign to do a legal research on campaign finance laws then in effect. At Liddy’s request, I undertook such research and subsequently presented Liddy with a written legal memorandum on the subject. This was the sole work that I performed for Liddy.

(2) As stated above, I have at no time received a clearance from any branch of the U.S. government, which includes the CIA.

Fourth section: (1) This is the first time that I have heard of Project QK/ENCHANT. As such, I obviously never received a clearance to work on this project.

(2) I have no knowledge of Howard Hunt’s work on this project or why he needed a special clearance from the CIA to do so.

I believe that above responses cover the inquiries posed by you.

I wish to add the following observations. Had I ever applied for a clearance with the CIA or any branch of government in 1972 or in the years preceding, I most likely would have been denied such clearance. This is because of my sexual orientation, being a gay male. As Robert “Butch” Merritt disclosed publicly in 1977, within one day after the arrests of the burglars at Watergate on June 17, 1972 the FBI and the Washington, D.C. Police Department recruited him in his on-going undercover capacity to strike up a relationship with me because we both were gay males. The FBI and Police Department wanted to gather as much personal information about me that they could, even what food I ate. Merritt failed in this assignment.

In 1972 and the years preceding, gay males were deemed potential security risks. The privilege/dishonor of betraying the United States was reserved exclusively for certified heterosexuals, some of whom managed to do great harm to the country in their treasonous endeavors in the cases that were publicly disclosed. Undoubtedly some treasonous heterosexuals were never discovered and probably have lived quite comfortably in their retirement on government pensions, courtesy of the unwitting American taxpayers, which include gays and lesbians.

Even today, discrimination against gays and lesbians persists. For some unknown reason many gays and lesbians excel in linguistics and quickly master foreign languages, both oral and written.
(Unfortunately, I am not among them.) Although there is a dearth of persons who can read and speak arabic languages, gays and lesbians who possess this rare ability continue to be drummed out of the U.S. military language school at Monterey, California.

Some progress has been made since the days of Alan Turing, but much still remains to be done.

It's I who must thank you, now, for your extraordinarily gracious and comprehensive reply, and also must beg your indulgence, in turn, while I give it all due and thorough consideration.

Pending a more responsive response to your response, I'll say that on its face it clears up quite a lot in broad strokes.

One thing it specifically did pique my curiosity about, though, is the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him. Was that through association with Mr. Hunt, or just one of those "happy accidents" that make life endlessly entertaining? I know you're busy with your book, but if you get a chance.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll also find an opportunity to visit an article I just posted here, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, which you may find of some interest in relation to your representation of the co-conspirators in the early going.

Ashton Gray

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jun 15 2006, 11:09 AM' post='65481']
[quote name='Douglas Caddy' post='65454' date='Jun 15 2006, 01:45 AM']Thank you for your inquiries into Watergate that are concerned with the back history before the arrests of the five burglars on June 17, 1972. Here are my responses... [/quote]

It's I who must thank you, now, for your extraordinarily gracious and comprehensive reply, and also must beg your indulgence, in turn, while I give it all due and thorough consideration.

Pending a more responsive response to your response, I'll say that on its face it clears up quite a lot in broad strokes.

One thing it specifically did pique my curiosity about, though, is the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him. Was that through association with Mr. Hunt, or just one of those "happy accidents" that make life endlessly entertaining? I know you're busy with your book, but if you get a chance.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll also find an opportunity to visit an article I just posted here, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, which you may find of some interest in relation to your representation of the co-conspirators in the early going.

Ashton Gray
[/quote]

I too thank you Doug for your response here, as well as to the other questions I had (privately). I will get my answer to those question thru other means and it may be quite soon...(I will PM you: new source last nite!!).

I hope to read all the new Watergate stuff this Sat and Sunday...have read in bits and pieces and it is FASCINATING.

Great that someone is adding so much to this oh SO interesting case.

Dawn

As to my meeting Bernard Barker on one occasion some months prior to June 17, 1972, this was the subject of a question posed to me when I testified before the Watergate grand jury. As I related at that time, Howard Hunt asked me to join him and an undisclosed guest at the Army-Navy Club in downtown Washington, D.C. for lunch.

When I arrived Hunt was already there with his guest, Bernard Barker. Hunt made the introductions. The luncheon conversation was almost entirely consumed with Hunt and Barker recounting their involvement in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

Of the five arrested individuals at Watergate on June 17, the only one that I knew was Bernard Barker, based on the above described meeting.

I look forward to reading the article that you have just posted.

Hi Doug. You wrote:



Ouch. I hate to interrupt you, but can we stop right there for just a moment? I had asked you about "the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him." You've responded about an incident you characterize as being "some months prior to June 17, 1972."

Sung: "You say 'to-may-to' and I say 'to-mah-to'..."

(Wait; that's the wrong song. Gimme a sec. I'm getting it... I know!)

Sung: "What a difference a day makes... ."

Dinah Washington just tore that up, didn't she? And what a fitting name. And if a day can make such a big difference, just imagine what "some months" can mean. I realize that a year is made up of "some months," but I'm trying to verify what I understand to be your own testimony. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cite I'm using for the "year" time period, in this exchange, is your own article: "Gay Bashing and Watergate."

In it, you quote U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert in his closing argument, to wit:

"Mr. Caddy told you, oh yes, he was going to be in the case. He was going to be in the case of those five. He never met them before except for Barker a year before. He was going to represent those five."

I realize that lawyers feel and exercise a certain sense of latitude in their practice, but closing arguments, after all, are crafted with considerable care—I'm sure you'll agree—and are not a very strategic place to be attempting to make material alterations to the trial evidence.

Mr. Silbert, in authoring his closing arguments in this world-watched case, represented that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" you announced that you were going to represent him (Barker) and the others—which, as you point out, was on June 17, 1972.

That would put the date of your Army-Navy Club lunchtime rendezvous with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Barker sometime in June 1971.

Did Mr. Silbert misrepresent the facts in evidence during his closing argument? I ask that with the full understanding that you, at the time—as you characterized in your article—felt that your hands were "tied" by your attorney-client relationships. But surely no significant distortion of material fact regarding your attorney-client relationship with Mr. Barker, or the time and conditions of your first having met him in the company of Mr. Hunt, would have been allowed into the record without objection—especially with Hunt's own attorney, William O. Bittman, there during your role as a witness for the prosecution.

And your hands certainly were not "tied" at the time you authored your article—electing, in doing so, to quote Mr. Silbert's representation that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" your taking Barker on as a client.

Therefore, I'm relying entirely on your own record to conclude and state that you in fact met Bernard Barker, in the company of E. Howard Hunt, at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. in or about the month of June, 1971.

If that's not the case, if your own record is wrong, if Mr. Silbert misrepresented an important material fact without objection during his closing argument—which you repeated in your own article without objection or correction—right now would be a very timely time to emphatically and specifically correct the record as to date. And I don't mean with a vague, airy "some months before." Trust me on this one.

Now I'm going to go find my Dinah Washington collection; my singing is scaring the cat.

Ashton Gray

When I testified before the Watergate grand jury and was asked if I had ever met Bernard Barker, I answered that I had and described the circumstances as outlined in my immediate prior reply. I previously answered this question Feb. 6, 2006 when it was posed to me by Chris Newton. His question and my answer can be found in the Forum section “Douglas Caddy: Questions and Answers.” My prior reply of June 15, 2006 and that of Feb. 6, 2006 are consistent.

It is my recollection that the Washington Post, as part of its contemporary stories about my grand jury appearance, quoted me about this meeting with Barker.

I was not asked by Prosecutor Silbert to provide the exact date of the meeting. I am not certain that even my personal and professional records, now in the Library Archives of the University of Oregon, provide the exact date.

Prosecutor Silbert himself used the general phrase, “...a year before” and did not denote a specific date. I certainly shall not vouch for the veracity of all the statements Silbert made in closing argument. I attended his closing argument in court and found myself is sharp disagreement with some of his remarks. Closing argument in court is generally reserved for sweeping statements, designed to sway the jury with emotion. Clearly this was the purpose of Silbert’s closing argument, which highlighted my role and carefully and purposely omitted any mention that there was a larger conspiracy involving higher-ups.

I stand by my prior reply as to the circumstances under which I met Barnard Barker. This was the only occasion prior to June 17, 1972 that I met him.

I testified before the Watergate grand jury under oath, with the penalty of perjury. My bank records were subpoenaed and thoroughly examined. The FBI conducted an investigation of me. I testified under oath at the first Watergate trial. I was interviewed by the Office of the Watergate Special Prosecutor on a number of occasions.

The law enforcement authorities who investigated Watergate never disputed or contradicted the veracity of any statement that I made to them under oath or made to them otherwise in their official capacity.

It is extremely likely that Barker was also questioned by the law enforcement authorities about the circumstances of our one and only meeting before June 17, 1972. Since the issue has never been raised as being significantly relevant, one can safely assume that what he told the law enforcement authorities did not conflict with my sworn testimony.

Hi Doug. Regarding my question about when you first met Barker, you wrote:



Yes. Yes, Doug, they are consistent. I'll warrant that. I had seen that exchange, thank you. But seeing you not answer the question in that discussion was no more rewarding than seeing you not answer the question in this one.



Yes. Yes, Doug, on that point your recollection is like a steel trap. In fact, I'll quote the relevant passage for you. Here 'tis:

"Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five, said he met Barker a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington. 'We had a sympathetic conversation -- that's all I'll say,' Caddy told a reporter."

—The Washington Post, Sunday, June 18, 1972, "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here," by Alfred E. Lewis

Awwwww. That's sentimental.

So in addition to the record made at trial that I've already documented saying you had met Barker "a year before" you started representing him, here we have you—personally, directly, from your own lips—telling a Post reporter on June 17, 1972 (which was published the next day, June 18, 1972) that you had met Barker a year ago. That would put your "sympathetic conversation" with Barker at the Army-Navy Club (along with E. Howard Hunt, who had been at your apartment only hours before you spoke to the Post reporter, which you cannily omitted) in June 1971.

Would you like to stipulate to that fact now, Doug? 'Cause I'm all waltzed out. And whether you stipulate to it now or not, you made the record yourself contemporaneously with the events at issue, when your meeting with Barker was certainly fresh in your memory. You are the one who said it was "a year" before June 17, 1972. So your meeting with Hunt and Barker was right around June 1971 by your own statement. If you still want to argue the point, you'd do well to find a mirror, since you're only arguing with yourself.

(If you'll take a moment to recall carefully, I specifically said in my earlier reply to you that I was using the Silbert cite "in this exchange." It's just above in this thread if you'd like to scroll back and check. I'll wait for you.)



Yeah, but I'm not Silbert.



Excellent! Since you established in your statement to the press that the meeting was in June 1971 sometime, let me now turn back to those circumstances you outlined in your first response on this. You said:



I'll be damned. I'll just be damned. That's fascinating. I can't tell you how absorbing that detail is. In fact, that pretty much nails your little luncheon/cocktails get-together with Barker and Hunt right down to the first two weeks in June. I'm sure you know why. Right?

Surely you'll recall that you couldn't hold a conversation after June 13, 1971 in Washington, D.C. that wasn't "almost entirely consumed with" talk about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg. Right?

And surely, surely you'd recall if you, Barker, and Hunt discussed the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg just a couple of months before Hunt and Barker were involved in the Fielding op that gave Ellsberg his "get out of jail free" card. Right? I mean, Hunt was your client at the time.

Right, Doug?

Ashton Gray

P.S. From the Watergate Trivia Files: You have earned the considerable distinction of being the only person ever associated in any slightest way with Watergate to put Barker in D.C. with Hunt during this crucial time frame. I think you have done the world a great service, and that you deserve a gold star. While I say it's from the trivia files, I assure you it is not trivial, and that it will be remembered for a very long time to come.

Until a few years ago, I was far more intrigued by Watergate than the Kennedy assassination. I barely remembered the Kennedy assassination, but I'd watched every bit of Watergate testimony I could as a precocious pre-teen. The CIA-did-it theory, in relation to Watergate, was an obvious smokescreen put up by Nixon's defenders at the time. The original CIA did it theories were propounded by Colson and spread throughtout certain circles by Colson's contacts. This was to hide his own involvement, IMO. Ultimately, of course, only the LORD JESUS CHRIST could save Chuck from his own guilty conscience. Fred Thompson, another key proponent of the CIA-did-it theory, was, not surprisingly, minority counsel, trying to save the elephants some embarrassment by blaming it on the spooks. Howard Baker, who worked closely with Thompson in spreading this theory, was another loyal Party Man. Years later, he would be brought in at the last minute to save Reagan's sinking ship. His putting the CIA-did-it theory on the record, IMO, was an attempt to muddy the waters and help his party retain power.

The big fish got caught. While some want to believe there was a bigger fish behind the big fish, I'm at a loss understanding just who this fish was. Outside of Mao and maybe Stalin, Nixon was the dominant political figure from 1945-1980. He was exposed as dishonest and corrupt and manipulative. The man was justifiably disgraced. If, by some miracle, George Bush and Dick Cheney get exposed as the lying crooks most of us believe them to be, will we become consumed by suspicions that Joe Wilson and George Tenet were behind their downfall, or accept that sometimes truth does out?

Well, no, it wasn't.

Asserting generally that it was, however, is.

Start here: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate.

If you'll actually study the referenced foundational articles, and the timeline that's referenced within those articles, then would like to discuss specific related facts in each of those threads, I'll head over and meet you there, and then this thread can be salvaged from going wildly off the rails into...

Well, a smokescreen.

Ashton Gray

I reiterate my previous statement about this matter, which indeed is trivial as to a specific date over 30 years ago about a meeting that was thoroughly examined at the time by the appropriate Watergate law enforcement authorities:


I stand by my prior reply as to the circumstances under which I met Barnard Barker. This was the only occasion prior to June 17, 1972 that I met him.

I testified before the Watergate grand jury under oath, with the penalty of perjury. My bank records were subpoenaed and thoroughly examined. The FBI conducted an investigation of me.
I testified under oath at the first Watergate trial. I was interviewed by the Office of the Watergate Special Prosecutor on a number of occasions.

The law enforcement authorities who investigated Watergate never disputed or contradicted the veracity of any statement that I made to them under oath or made to them otherwise in their official capacity.

It is extremely likely that Barker was also questioned by the law enforcement authorities about the circumstances of our one and only meeting before June 17, 1972. Since the issue has never been raised as being significantly relevant, one can safely assume that what he told the law enforcement authorities did not conflict with my sworn testimony.

Hi, Doug. I'm very heartened to see that you don't gainsay or deny that your meeting with Barker and Hunt was before the release of the Pentagon Papers, and that you only attempt to downplay the incident.



Don't be so modest, Mr. Caddy. No, it is not trivial. It's not even a little bit trivial. In fact, truth be told, there is not any date in 1971 where you can put Barker's shiny butt in a chair with you and Hunt that would be "trivial" in the least.

And thanks for the talking-points recitation, but I already know how expert you are at "reiterating" your scripted talking points ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I know how adept you are at sending people off around the mulberry bush looking for one of your other non-responsive talking-points issuances that you cite circularly, hoping they'll just go away and stay away and shut up. I already know your whole aria by heart about how the FBI and the "appropriate Watergate law enforcement authorities" dubbed you squeaky clean and lily white and smelling like Elizabeth Taylor after a tour of her perfume factory.

But frankly, Mr. Caddy, I wouldn't care if the Archangel Michael himself had personally crossed your forehead with olive oil on the Rotunda steps and a color photo of it made the cover of TIME naming you man of the year. Too many things directly involving your participation don't add up, and I'm about to stroll down memory lane and explore a few of them. You're welcome to come along and address some of the sights along the path, or you can just stand right here under the tree droning your monotonous talking points over and over and over and over, asserting and reasserting your innocent and uninformed "wrong place at the wrong time" victimization, never wavering from the script's key points, and see if you can draw a crowd and distract them from the sightseeing tour—which is pulling away right now.

First stop is that same Washington Post article you mentioned and that I quoted from above. In it you not only spill the beans about having been in a private meeting with Hunt and Barker a year earlier, you also tell the world how you got tapped to represent Mr. Barker. Remember this?

"Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday, he received a call from Barker's wife. 'She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble.'"

—The Washington Post, Sunday, June 18, 1972, "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here," by Alfred E. Lewis

So here we have you on contemporaneous record, Mr. Caddy, avowing that Bernard Barker had told his wife in Miami, at some undetermined point in time but certainly prior to the "break-in," to call you in Washington, D.C. if Barker "hadn't called her by 3 a.m." So Barker himself had given his wife your name and phone number prior to the 16-17 June 1972 break-in, after purportedly having met and spoken to you only once in his life, that one brief meeting having been a year earlier.

Bear with me a moment, Mr. Caddy (if you're still with me on the Memory Lane tour), while I attempt to cipher this mystery.

Let me first assume, to your credit, that Bernard Barker had been so beguiled and impressed by you at the Army-Navy Club back in June 1971 that he had asked for your business card, and had kept it until it was creased and dirty and dog-earred just in case he ever got into criminal trouble in Washington, D.C., and therefore gave it to his wife before kissing her on the cheek and flying off to D.C. to commit criminal acts—even though he had to know that you were not a criminal lawyer.

Pardon me. I'm just going to lean against something and catch my breath. My credulity is already being stretched like pregnancy pants, and this is starting to sound more like a Teletubbies episode than a documentary tour. For surcease from this spinning sensation, I'm going to flip in my Tour Guide Book to the one other "authoritative source" on this call from Bernard Baker's wife, your good friend and long-time client, E. Howard Hunt. Below is what he tells us, in excruciating, exacting detail about Mr. and Mrs. Barker and you on that fateful night. I am aware that you lionize Mr. Hunt's writing skills, but with apologies to you and his editors at Berkley/Putnam, I'm going to prune his prose with hedge clippers to get at what's relevant. Here's Hunt on his germane activities right after the arrest. He's just gone to his White House office with some disputed number of "attaché cases" brim full with evidence that will incriminate the White House and deposited it there—naturally. Having planted the evidence, he does the following, according to his account in his autobiographical book, "Undercover":

"I opened my two-drawer safe, took out my operational notebook, found a telephone number and dialed it. After several rings the call was answered and I heard the sleepy voice of Douglas Caddy. 'Yes?'

"'Doug? This is Howard. I hate to wake you up, but I've got a tough situation and I need to talk to you. Can I come over?'

"'Sure. I'll tell the desk clerk you're expected.'"

So while you're heating up water for instant coffee, and with the evidence conveniently planted in his White House safe, Hunt makes sure his "operational notebook" that he'd gotten your number from gets put back into the White House safe (naturally), then trots across the street to his convenient Mullen office—for no other apparent reason than to call Barker's wife:

"From my [Mullen] office I dialed Barker's home in Miami and spoke with his wife, Clara.

"'Clarita,' I said, 'things have gone wrong and Macho's [Bernard Barker] been arrested.'

"I heard a muffled shriek. Then, 'Oh, my God!'

"'He's got bail money with him,' I told her, 'so maybe he'll be able to get out before dawn. I don't know how these things work, but I think you ought to have an attorney. I've already called one and I want you to call him too.'

"I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband."

Now, just for the tour participants, Doug, so they don't get too disoriented in this maze, I think I should mention that the "burglars" had been arrested at 2:30 a.m. Hunt and Liddy purportedly already had watched part of the arrest, then collected up a lot of incriminating evidence to plant in the White House, then Hunt had driven Liddy to Liddy's jeep, then Hunt had driven to the Howard Johnson's and gone up to the seventh floor and told Baldwin—who he claims never to have met before, although Baldwin claims otherwise—to "get rid of" all the electronic equipment—which Baldwin drives straight over to McCord's house, naturally—then Hunt had driven to the White House and called you while planting the evidence there, then had gone over to his Mullen office across the street (are you worn out yet?) and called Mrs. Barker and only then made it over to your apartment. (Whew!) And let's remind people that you told the Post Barker's wife had called you "shortly after 3 a.m."

But we're not done: Hunt finally gets to your apartment, and it could not possibly have been before 3:30 a.m., and you welcome him, having boiled some water for instant coffee—but no milk for his ulcer. And he briefs you on what's happened. And having briefed you—to your dismay of course—he hands you $8,500 and asks you if you "can bail them out."

And only after all that, with it now having to be pushing at least 4:00 a.m., Hunt claims that he said the following to you, and describes your response:

"'Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men.'

"Caddy looked at his wristwatch, then went to another room to phone [Caddy's law firm's partners]."

I'll tell you, Mr. Caddy, for the sake of my sanity and that of the tour attendees, for now I'm going to have to just gloss right over the fact that Hunt's first mention to you of a man you purportedly had only met and spoken to once a whole year earlier was using the chummy "Bernie Barker," and get directly to what you had to have seen when you looked at your wristwatch.

It sure as hell wasn't "shortly after 3 a.m." It had to be considerably later. And there still is no call from Bernard Barker's wife to you. And E. Howard Hunt stays at your apartment all the way through the phone calls from two of your law firm's partners, and all the way through them scaring up Rafferty (an actual criminal lawyer), and all the way through two phone calls from Rafferty, and all the way through you telling Hunt that Rafferty is coming to your apartment so you can tag along like a fifth wheel for reasons nobody in the world knows to this very day—since by your own endless protestations, you were not a criminal lawyer—and when Hunt finally leaves to go home, it's already nearly dawn.

And still there is not one single word about a call having come to you from Bernard Barker's wife while he was there.

Yet just hours later, you told a Washington Post reporter that Clara Barker had called you from Miami "shortly after 3 a.m.," not at the behest of E. Howard Hunt, but because Barker himself had told his wife to call you if Barker hadn't called her by 3:00 a.m.

Well, if what you told the Washington Post that same day is true, Mr. Caddy, Mrs. Barker's call to you had to have come before Hunt ever even got to your apartment. And if that's the case, then Hunt's whole little anecdote about leaving one phone at his White House office to go to another phone at his Mullen office just to call to Mrs. Barker, and her dramatic little shriek, is just complete fiction. Just really, really bad, hack-writer spy fiction. It's just embarrassing! It's one of his trashy little spy novels passed off as "fact."

So since we're just chatting candidly and casually here, tete-a-tete, Mr. Caddy, I have to tell you that I can see only three possibilities:

1) Hunt lied.

2) You lied.

3) You both lied.

Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path. I'll be perfectly happy to find out that your client, Hunt, lied like a dog, and that you, in accordance with your Chatty-Cathy talking-points, are the One True Boy Scout who merely wandered like Pollyanna into a den of lying thieves, and simply, kindly prepared a cup of instant coffee for the Chief Lying Thief—your client—on that momentous morning.

So is it 1), 2), or 3) above?

Ashton Gray

Ashton, might I request you tone down your questions? While you have done a good job of demonstrating that Mr. Caddy, in order to keep Hunt's involvement secret, probably lied to a newspaper about a phone call from Barker's wife--(geez, isn't that what lawyers do, protect their clients?)--the relevance is not immediately apparent to some of us on the outside, who value Mr. Caddy's contributions to this forum. Your desire to play "gotcha" with Caddy is understandable, but not altogether appropriate, as he has repeatedly tried to answer any and all questions on his role in history. Ask the questions in a nice manner and I suspect he'll provide you with a response. Point out an inconsistency and he'll offer an explanantion if he has one. Ditto with Mr. Baldwin, who has been nothing but a gentleman. I do sympathize with your desire to play "gotcha" however...However long the list you have for Caddy about what appears to be inconsistencies in his statements, I guarantee you it positively PALES in comparison to the mental list of questions I have for Robert Maheu, should I ever be able to ask him a question.

Please play nice.

Okay, I'm gonna' take my stubby little pencil here and put that down as a vote for #2) above.



Well, geez, Pat: I sang to him, didn't I?

Okay, okay, I repent. I take back the Archangel Michael thing (I probably would be pretty impressed), and I won't say anything else about the talking-points. Does that cover my sins? Do I need to wear a hair shirt or anything?



Well, not being sure of the "us" you're being spokesperson for, unless there's a mouse in your pocket, I still am always responsive to questions about relevance. So have you read the article, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, and it's foundational articles yet? I gave you the link a few messages back. If you haven't, that might be why the relevance is not immediately apparent. If you have, stay tuned: the Relevance Express is headed down the track, this-a-way.

Ashton Gray

Another apologetic request to have a message deleted (this one). When attempting to post, if it times out with an error message and I hit my browser back button and try again, I wind up with two copies. I won't do that any more. Sorry. Meanwhile, the actual message I was trying to post is below.

Mr. Caddy,

I didn't mean to slight you by being this long in getting back to you on these questions, but I wanted to give your answers due and proper consideration, and I'm very glad to see that you're posting here in the forum.

Thank you again for your more than thoroughgoing address to most of the questions I'd asked. At a point that would have been a very good ending of your message, you wrote:



They certainly covered most of them, but there are a few that were left unanswered, two that I'm afraid I have to apologize to you for not having asked very clearly (which I'll clear up below), and then—if you could see your way clear to extend your largesse—there are a few that arose from a couple of your answers. I'll set off sections for each category

First, here are the questions that weren't answered. I've edited or amended one or two very slightly—just to reflect answers that you did provide where applicable, or because they've been taken out of their original context—and have renumbered them for simplicity:

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

1. Who besides Hunt at Mullen was "witting and cleared" of the CIA relationship? (If you don't have that specific information, who else can you name who worked at Mullen while you were there?)
   
2. If you know, did Hunt, or you, or anyone at the Mullen company have any contact, directly or through an intermediary, with Daniel Ellsberg?
   
3. If you know, were persons employed at or by Gall Lane "cleared and witting" of Mullen ties to CIA at any relevant time? If so, who?
   
4. If you know, was Gall Lane in any sort of relationship with CIA that was similar to the relationship that the Mullen company enjoyed? (At any relevant time.)
   
5. Did any of your legal tasks for either Liddy or Hunt include arranging for possible overseas travel? (You may have answered this by indirect exclusion, but I wasn't certain, and would like to have it cleared up.)

This next section is where I think I inadvertently created some confusion by my cavalier tossing around of the word "probate" in its more general sense, from Black's: "...in current usage this term has been expanded to generally include all matters and proceedings pertaining to administration of estates, guardianships, etc." I get the idea that you were interpreting and using the word "probate" in its more narrow sense of court procedure determining validity of a will of a dearly departed—after the fact, so to speak.

To correct my legalese faux pas, with your continued graciousness, I'll set forth my original questions and the relevant parts of your answers to those, then I'll ask more specifically what I was trying to ask in the first place.

QUESTIONS I ASKED USING THE WORD "PROBATE" TOO BROADLY:

QUESTION: Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters." What were the "other matters"?
DOUGLAS CADDY: At Hunt’s request, we prepared a will for him... . None of this legal work involved probate matters.
QUESTION: Did the probate matters include Dorothy Hunt's probate?
DOUGLAS CADDY: At no time was I involved in any probate matters dealing with Dorothy Hunt. ...I do not know who handled the probate of Dorothy Hunt’s estate.

Thank you. Now here is more narrowly what I had hoped to learn:

1. At any time, did you prepare a will for Dorothy Hunt? If not, do you know of anyone who did, and if so, who?
   
2. Do you know if Dorothy Hunt had a will at the time you were preparing one for her husband, E. Howard Hunt?
   
3. If you know, was E. Howard Hunt named as the primary beneficiary and/or executor of any will of Dorothy Hunt at any relevant time.

I hope that narrows this considerably, and thanks for your patience.

Finally, there are several questions that came up in my review of the answers you provided, if you would be so kind.

QUESTIONS ARISING FROM YOUR ANSWERS:

First in this section of new questions is something that arose out of the following exchange:

QUESTION: What was the nature of the "legal tasks" you were doing for Liddy?
DOUGLAS CADDY: In March, 1972, George Webster...asked for a lawyer to do voluntary campaign work in John Dean’s office. I was "volunteered" by John Kilcullen. I did several legal research assignments given to me by Dean and one of his associates.

That's very interesting in light of something I'm about to take up with Pat Speer if he posts the new topic I asked him to post. (By the way: I think it was very thoughtful of you to post something about the kind of unwarranted and irrelevant ad hominem attacks he has launched on me repeatedly, but really, it's nothing. It's just sort of like having a gnat buzzing around.)

But this thing you said about working for Dean: John Dean, of course, is the one who took possession of the contents of Hunt's White House safe and divided it into two neat piles: one pile he turned over to the rank-and-file FBI agents on Tuesday, June 27, 1972 (two days after Baldwin started cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys); the other pile Dean placed into a big envelope (or "two folders," depending on which section of L. Patrick Gray's congressional testimony you happen to be listening to), and, in the presence of Ehrlichman, handed directly to L. Patrick Gray on Wednesday, June 28, 1972—right around the very time you went before the grand jury as the very first witness called.

So the questions that your answer above caused to spring immediately to mind are:

A. Who was the "associate" of John Dean that you also were doing research work for?

B. What was the work you were doing for Dean and that associate?

C. Did you know that Dean could open Hunt's safe?

And the last few questions I have that arose out of your answers is a real head scratcher for me. I'm in a real pickle here, and I hope you can help me out. Here are the relevant questions and sections of your answers:

QUESTION: Were you cleared and witting of the Mullen company's involvement with CIA?
DOUGLAS CADDY: No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA.
QUESTION: Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters." What were the "other matters"?
DOUGLAS CADDY: This work was performed in conjunction with a partner of that law firm, Robert Scott, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, who later became a judge. At Hunt’s request, we...analyzed his proposed business relationship with the Mullen Company after Robert Bennett assumed its ownership (no mention was made then by Hunt of the CIA’s involvement with the Company)... .

Okay. I've got all of that, and that's very clear. But here's why I'm in a pickle.

First, the Mullen company, as a matter of CIA record, had been cooperating with CIA for at least seven years (since 1963) when Hunt went to work there, and you were already working out of the Mullen D.C. office at that time.

Second, the Mullen company, as a matter of CIA record, had overseas offices, at least one of which in Europe was "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA."

And given all of that information, I've got this passage from Hunt's own autobiography that I'm trying to reconcile with your answers. Read along with me, if you would, as Hunt recounts his early days at Mullen (my bold emphasis added):

"The CIA placement officer had told me that the Mullen firm had "cooperated" with CIA... . So I inferred that my CIA background would not prove a handicap to employment with Mullen as it had with several multinational firms.

"During a second meeting Mullen told me that he was getting on in years, the company was comfortably established and he was casting about for younger successors to take over the managment and direction of the firm. One of Mullen's accounts was the General Foods Corporation, whose Washington representative, Douglas Caddy, worked out of the Mullen offices. According to Mullen, with Caddy, myself and an as-yet-unselected individual, Mullen would be able to retire, leaving the business in the hands of this successor triumverate."

—E. Howard Hunt, Undercover

Can you kind of see why this is a head-scratcher for me? The owner of the Mullen company was going to retire soon, and in his mind you and Hunt had been dubbed as two of his successors. But he was in an on-going long-term secret relationship with CIA, including overseas installations completely manned, funded, and run by CIA, and so with the answers you gave above, I gotta' tell you, Mr. Caddy, I can't figure out for the life of me how the hell he expected you to be one the of three co-managers of the entire international CIA-front company if you were totally ignorant of CIA's involvement.

Can you clear that up?

Thanks again so much.

Ashton Gray

Mr. Ashton Gray is accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy, directly or by implication, of being a liar. This is a clear violation of forum rules. Mr. Gray is clearly a truth-seeker, but throughout this thread he shows every evidence of falling into the fallacy of guilt by association. I do not have the slightest doubt that Mr. Caddy is an honest man. If he was not, then he would avoid this forum like the plague.

I gather it is true that Mr. Caddy had the misfortune to be retained to represent some unsavoury characters connected to the Watergate break-in. I would guess that he now regrets that experience, and wishes he had confined himself to representing widows and orphans. It is no wonder that not everyone wants to be a lawyer, despite what they see on TV.

But it is a logical fallacy to assume, as Mr. Gray seems to do, that you can attribute the client's knowledge to his lawyer.

Au contraire, Mr. Carroll! I merely asked politely if Mr. Caddy could help reconcile this seeming discrepancy. You seem to have eliminated the very real possibility that E. Howard Hunt, a hack spy fiction writer, could merely have gotten a little overzealous in claiming that Mr. Caddy had been selected to run a major international CIA front company. I'm perfectly prepared for Mr. Caddy to say that Hunt must have been smoking something a little too strong when he wrote that passage, or that Hunt just made it up out of whole cloth.

Exactly as in my perfectly reasonable questions about the mutually exclusive stories told by Mr. Caddy and Mr. Hunt in "The Curious Case of Mrs. Barker's Phantom Phone Call," I'd be completely satisfied to learn that it was Mr. Hunt, not Mr. Caddy, who misrepresented the facts at issue, as long as these so-far unresolvable contradictions get resolved.

Don't you agree that they should be able to be resolved, and that they therefore should be resolved?

After all, I didn't create either of the situations at issue, I merely pointed them out and asked perfectly prudent and reasonable questions. It does, though, remind a little of a situation that arises in the game of chess referred to, so appropriately, as being "forked."

Now, I will admit that when we come to certain important questions about who actually was legally representing the Watergate burglars when, Mr. Hunt isn't in the picture at all. But I haven't gotten there yet. I'm hoping Mr. Caddy will clear up these other contradictions between his accounts and Mr. Hunt's accounts of rather materially crucial issues first.

Wouldn't you honestly like to see these mutually exclusive "facts" resolved one way or another, too, Mr. Carroll? It seems to me that it if Mr. Caddy could just simply say that Hunt got it wrong, then the record will be clear, and it only can derive to Mr. Caddy's benefit. Then we can move on. Don't you agree?

Ashton Gray

I agree, Mr. Gray, but I really do not see the need to needle Mr. Caddy in the manner you are doing here. Everyone knows that E. Howard Hunt is a liar and a writer of fiction, so it seems to me that it is a safe assumtion that if Mr. Hunt and Mr. Caddy are in conflict, you can take it to the bank that Mr. Hunt is lying (or was in possession of information unavailable to Mr. Caddy) and that Mr. Caddy is telling the truth.

In this case, I see no reason to suggest that a valued fellow forum member is lying. I suggest you take off that cowboy hat and replace it with your thinking cap.

<TWEEET!> "OFFICIAL TIME OUT CALLED, GRAY TEAM"

Pst! Hey Doug! Douglas Caddy: Hi. Over here. I just had to call a time out for a minute. Why don't we each come out under a white flag here, and meet out here in the middle of the field where nobody can hear us, and let's you and me have a quiet respectful talk, soto voce.

Listen, Doug, I really, really don't want to have to do what I'm simply gonna' have to do when the whistle blows again, so I just called you out here to try to give you some help in this thing: do yourself a favor, man—get somebody else besides this Carroll guy to run in here and talk for you and do your public relations work. I've done public relations, and this is— This is just— <Groan> Aw, man, even though you and I have our differences, I really hate to see anybody get done to them what he's just done to you. Even I'm over here cringing.

Somebody really ought to tell him the first law of PR: don't discredit your client. Ohhhh, man! I'm afraid the PR egg he just laid might even make the PR textbooks in infamy!

I think the time-out's nearly over, and you do what you want to do, but I've got to tell you that if I were you, I'd get out the hook, and not bother puttin' him on the bench, or even sending him to the showers, or even stopping to collect a severance check.

Up to you.

Uh-oh: the whistle just came out. I enjoyed this little chat, but I gotta' get back. Good luck!

<TWEEET!> "OFFICIAL TIME OUT IS OVER"

I'm sorry, Mr. Carroll, for that little interlude. You were commenting on questions I had asked Mr. Caddy concerning conflicts between his statements, and those of E. Howard Hunt in Hunt's purportedly non-fiction autobiography. So what was it you were saying to me again?



Oh, dear. That's right. That is what you said, isn't it. Well, Mr. Carroll, I'm speechless. And since Mr. Caddy isn't talking about any of this himself, the only decent thing I can do on his behalf is quote him on the subject of Mr. Hunt's veracity in Mr. Hunt's non-fiction works. I briefly turn the podium over to Mr. Caddy for his own endorsement of Mr. Hunt's works, and let's all give Mr. Caddy a warm welcome for coming out and speaking:

"Even Hunt's most vociferous critics concede that he is an extremely gifted writer and this is reflected in all of his books." —Douglas Caddy February 6, 2006, 07:20 AM

<APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!>

Wow! Now there's an endorsement. Did you see that, Mr. Carroll? I wish I could get some kudos like that written for my work. I'd make damn sure the publishers put that right at the tippy-top on the back cover of any non-fiction book that my name was going on, because of course "extremely gifted" writers simply don't spew a bunch of lies in their non-fiction works. Right, Mr. Carroll?

And did you know, Mr. Carroll, that in Mr. Caddy's article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate," he opens it with a long passage from E. Howard Hunt's Undercover—the exact same book that I've been quoting from, asking Mr. Caddy to reconcile the mutually exclusive accounts given by him and Mr. Hunt for the same events?

Mr. Caddy seems to have a very high opinion of Mr. Hunt as a writer generally, and for that autobiography in particular.

But, Mr. Carroll: you seem to have a <COUGH!>, um, somewhat, shall we say, "lower opinion" of Mr. Hunt's non-fiction forays than does Mr. Caddy. What was your proposed kudo for Mr. Hunt again?



Mmmm. Oh. Oh, yeah. That's right.

Tell you what, I'm going to have to just step aside in this one and let you and Mr. Caddy fight it out over whether Hunt is telling the truth, or is telling lies that conflict just disastrously with Mr. Caddy's statements. I hate getting involved in dosmetic disputes. Ya'll talk among yourselves.

Meanwhile, I really, really hope Mr. Caddy will come in here and clean up this mess now! I mean, now, it's just all over the floor.

Hey, Doug: podium's all yours.

Ashton Gray

I am charging Mr. Caddy $425 per hour for my PR work on his behalf, and I believe I am worth every penny. Actually, I now feel morally compelled to reduce my rate, because defending him against Mr. Gray is such a cakewalk.

"Even Hunt's most vociferous critics concede that he is an extremely gifted writer and this is reflected in all of his books." —Douglas Caddy February 6, 2006, 07:20 AM
[/list]<APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!>

I did not see anywhere where Mr. Caddy says or even suggests that Hunt's writings contained even a grain of truth. He would probably praise Charles Dickens, too. I do think, however, that Mr. Caddy was overly generous in his praise of Mr. Hunt, but I suspect that's just his character. As my dear mother would say, "he likes to have the good word."

There is a principle of logic known as the "principle of charity." According to Wikkipedia, " It was named in 1958-59 by Neil L. Wilson, and Willard Van Orman Quine and Donald Davidson are associated with different formulations of the principle of charity. Davidson also sometimes referred to it as the principle of rational accommodation. He summed it up as: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement. The principle may be invoked in the case of a particular logical argument or indeed to make sense of a speaker's utterances when one is unsure of their meaning; Quine's use of the principle, in particular, gives it this latter, wide domain."

Although it is not mentioned in Wikkipaedia, the principle of charity was formulated some two thousand years ago, by a carpenter from Bethlehem named Jesus H. Christ. I recommend this principle for Mr. Gray's consideration.

Ohhhhhh. Well... Gosh, thanks! I think I'm getting this now. So, I see what you're saying: To interpret Mr. Caddy's endorsement of Hunt properly, so you and I can "optimise agreement," Douglas Caddy's statement about Hunt more accurately would be: "Even Hunt's most vociferous critics concede that he is an extremely gifted liar and this is reflected in all of his books."

Tell me if I'm getting this right. That does seem to put you and me in agreement on that one point. Hmmmm. Do you think that will "optimise agreement" with Doug, too, Raymond?

(By the way, lowering that rate you're charging might be a very good idea indeed. I think we've "optimised agreement" on that, too.)

Ashton Gray

You're not quite there yet, Mr. Gray, but you are getting warm. I think the principle of charity would decree that Mr. Caddy meant that Hunt is an extremely gifted novelist. I have read many of Hunt's books, and I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Caddy on this issue.



So far Mr. Caddy has had no complaints about the rate I am charging him, or the services I provide. My bills are always paid upon presentation, and the checks always clear, (Eat your heart out). Surely Mr. Caddy is the only person with standing to complain, if complaints were due.

By the way, I have a copy of a sign that JFK had on his desk, according to Salinger. It says "COMPLAINTS IGNORED"

You know: that's precisely what I thought you might say. But I'm afraid that such a charitable interpretation probably would have to be attributed more to "the principle of ignorance" than to "the principle of charity." Let me 'splain to you why. I'll do it slowly.

You see, Mr. Caddy was referring specifically to E. Howard Hunt's non-fiction when he made his now chewed-to-death quote. Did I fail to mention that before? <Tcht!> I am so sorry. I don't know how I overlooked mentioning that!

Here's some more context of Mr. Caddy's quote for you, Mr. Carroll, regarding Hunt being "an extremely gifted writer," so you can have a prayer of finding out what's going on:

"My meeting came about by Howard Hunt inviting me to join him for lunch at the Navy Club in Washington, D.C. When I arrived there, Hunt and Barker were already seated and Hunt made the introductions. I do not recall exactly what we discussed but it most likely was Barker's role under Hunt in the ill-fated invasion of Cuba that took place under President Kennedy, who later came to believe that he had been misled and misadvised by the CIA on the matter. Hunt's recounting of the invasion is told in his book, 'Give Us This Day.' Even Hunt's most vociferous critics concede that he is an extremely gifted writer and this is reflected in all of his books, including the above-mentioned one." —Douglas Caddy

(Aside to Caddy: Doug, now you can't say I didn't try to warn you. I spent one of my own time-outs and everything! I told you that you ought to get the hook! But no! You wouldn't listen. I tried, man.)

And I'm so glad you asked for it, Mr. Carroll! (The contextual reference, I mean.) Not just because it gives you your third "Caddy PR machine" meltdown in a row, either.

Notice there where Doug said, concerning this private meeting with Hunt and Barker in June of 1971—before the "Pentagon Papers," mind you—the following:

"I do not recall exactly what we discussed but it most likely was Barker's role under Hunt in the ill-fated invasion of Cuba that took place under President Kennedy."

Now compare what Mr. Caddy said to me on the first page of this very thread:

"When I arrived Hunt was already there with his guest, Bernard Barker. Hunt made the introductions. The luncheon conversation was almost entirely consumed with Hunt and Barker recounting their involvement in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba."

I think that's part of the "principle of vacillating memory by convenience," isn't it? Or maybe his story about what he recalled or didn't recall changed only because Hunt had been sitting too close to him at the table way back then. You think? Maybe it's sort of a "principle of Hunt-osis by lunch table osmosis" syndrome that science and Wikipedia haven't caught up with yet.

In any case, next installment here is going to be: "Just Who the Heck was Caddy Representing When?" Better dig deep in that "Platitudinous Principles for Every Occasion" bag you're carrying. You're going to need 'em all.

Ashton Gray

Mr Gray,

Of course you know what you're doing, but I hate to see a good thread denigrated and words wasted on someone who wouldn't know a cowboy hat if it bit him in the ass.

Respectfully, why bother responding to someone that can't even spell the name of his own source (It's Wikipedia) and then proceeds to quote the origin of "principle of charity"

"It was named in 1958-59 by Neil L. Wilson, and Willard Van Orman Quine and Donald Davidson are associated with different formulations of the principle of charity......"

Then in the very next paragraph offers the totally contradictory statement that:

"The principle of charity was formulated some two thousand years ago, by a carpenter from Bethlehem named Jesus H. Christ."

So who formulated the principle of charity? Was it Wilson? Or Christ? Forgetting that Confucius spoke of charity 500 years before the birth of Christ.

And this same person solemnly refers to Jesus as Jesus H. Christ. His source Wikipedia says this:

Jesus H. Christ is an example of slang serving as a mild, joking curse. The expression is most commonly used in a wry, sarcastic, cynical, or joking tone, although it may nonetheless be perceived as blasphemy.

To tell you the truth, I don't believe he even understands the distinction.

Again respectfully Mr. Gray, don't you have better things to do with your time?

Mike Hogan

Hi Michael.



Yep. Most of the things I should have been doing aren't quite as much fun, though.

Okay, I'll buckle down and get serious here. Stay tuned...

Ashton Gray

Let the record show that Mr. Gray has started the name-calling. For the record, I am not quite as ignorant as I pretend to be.



This comment is as silly as the comment from Michael hogan that I mispelled Wikkipedia, or however it is spelled.



I don't know if I'm alone in this, and I hope other forum members will comment, but I don't see any meaningful difference in Mr. Caddy's recollections. His best recollection was that the Bay of Pigs was discussed at the meeting, and he has said the same thing ever since, has he not?

Oh, for the love of Aunt Marcie. "Ignorance" is a state of being uninformed on any particular datum. I am far more ignorant than I am not ignorant, because there are far more things I don't know than there are things that I know. That's why I am on a long quest for knowledge, one I don't yet foresee an end to. You obviously were uninformed of the context of Caddy's quote. And of course the only thing that was "called a name" was a principle. Diagram the sentence, unless you're just here trying to incite and mount another "let's get Ashton banned" movement on any pretext.

Of course that would seem pretty consistent with everything else you've done in this thread so far.



<Raising hand> Me? Me? Can I answer? I know the answer: no, you're not alone. Some people can discern a very clear difference, others can't, still others will latch onto it and cry "trivial, trivial, trivial."

A brick is pretty trivial, too. One brick doesn't make a wall; that just makes a brick. People who have met face-to-face with a brick wall, though, will tell you it ain't trivial at all.

Count it as just another brick in the wall.

Ashton Gray

This is an edited re-post of questions for Mr. Caddy posted earlier in this thread that haven't been answered. I've edited only to get the post down to its essentials, and am re-posting this to get the thread back on track from irrelevant distractions that have been injected into this thread.

First stop is that same Washington Post article you mentioned and that I quoted from above. In it you not only spill the beans about having been in a private meeting with Hunt and Barker a year earlier, you also tell the world how you got tapped to represent Mr. Barker. Remember this?

"Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday, he received a call from Barker's wife. 'She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble.'"

—The Washington Post, Sunday, June 18, 1972, "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here," by Alfred E. Lewis

So here we have you on contemporaneous record, Mr. Caddy, avowing that Bernard Barker had told his wife in Miami, at some undetermined point in time but certainly prior to the "break-in," to call you in Washington, D.C. if Barker "hadn't called her by 3 a.m." So Barker himself had given his wife your name and phone number prior to the 16-17 June 1972 break-in, after purportedly having met and spoken to you only once in his life, that one brief meeting having been a year earlier.

Let me first assume, to your credit, that Bernard Barker had been so beguiled and impressed by you at the Army-Navy Club back in June 1971 that he had asked for your business card, and had kept it until it was creased and dirty and dog-earred just in case he ever got into criminal trouble in Washington, D.C., and therefore gave it to his wife before kissing her on the cheek and flying off to D.C. to commit criminal acts—even though he had to know that you were not a criminal lawyer.

...For surcease from this spinning sensation, I'm going to flip in my Tour Guide Book to the one other "authoritative source" on this call from Bernard Baker's wife, your good friend and long-time client, E. Howard Hunt. Below is what he tells us, in excruciating, exacting detail about Mr. and Mrs. Barker and you on that fateful night. I am aware that you lionize Mr. Hunt's writing skills, but with apologies to you and his editors at Berkley/Putnam, I'm going to prune his prose with hedge clippers to get at what's relevant. Here's Hunt on his germane activities right after the arrest. He's just gone to his White House office with some disputed number of "attaché cases" brim full with evidence that will incriminate the White House and deposited it there—naturally. Having planted the evidence, he does the following, according to his account in his autobiographical book, "Undercover":

"I opened my two-drawer safe, took out my operational notebook, found a telephone number and dialed it. After several rings the call was answered and I heard the sleepy voice of Douglas Caddy. 'Yes?'

"'Doug? This is Howard. I hate to wake you up, but I've got a tough situation and I need to talk to you. Can I come over?'

"'Sure. I'll tell the desk clerk you're expected.'"

So while you're heating up water for instant coffee, and with the evidence conveniently planted in his White House safe, Hunt makes sure his "operational notebook" that he'd gotten your number from gets put back into the White House safe (naturally), then trots across the street to his convenient Mullen office—for no other apparent reason than to call Barker's wife:

"From my [Mullen] office I dialed Barker's home in Miami and spoke with his wife, Clara.

"'Clarita,' I said, 'things have gone wrong and Macho's [Bernard Barker] been arrested.'

"I heard a muffled shriek. Then, 'Oh, my God!'

"'He's got bail money with him,' I told her, 'so maybe he'll be able to get out before dawn. I don't know how these things work, but I think you ought to have an attorney. I've already called one and I want you to call him too.'

"I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband."

Now, just for the tour participants, Doug, so they don't get too disoriented in this maze, I think I should mention that the "burglars" had been arrested at 2:30 a.m. Hunt and Liddy purportedly already had watched part of the arrest, then collected up a lot of incriminating evidence to plant in the White House, then Hunt had driven Liddy to Liddy's jeep, then Hunt had driven to the Howard Johnson's and gone up to the seventh floor and told Baldwin—who he claims never to have met before, although Baldwin claims otherwise—to "get rid of" all the electronic equipment—which Baldwin drives straight over to McCord's house, naturally—then Hunt had driven to the White House and called you while planting the evidence there, then had gone over to his Mullen office across the street (are you worn out yet?) and called Mrs. Barker and only then made it over to your apartment. (Whew!) And let's remind people that you told the Post Barker's wife had called you "shortly after 3 a.m."

But we're not done: Hunt finally gets to your apartment, and it could not possibly have been before 3:30 a.m., and you welcome him, having boiled some water for instant coffee—but no milk for his ulcer. And he briefs you on what's happened. And having briefed you—to your dismay of course—he hands you $8,500 and asks you if you "can bail them out."

And only after all that, with it now having to be pushing at least 4:00 a.m., Hunt claims that he said the following to you, and describes your response:

"'Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men.'

"Caddy looked at his wristwatch, then went to another room to phone [Caddy's law firm's partners]."

I'll tell you, Mr. Caddy, for the sake of my sanity and that of the tour attendees, for now I'm going to have to just gloss right over the fact that Hunt's first mention to you of a man you purportedly had only met and spoken to once a whole year earlier was using the chummy "Bernie Barker," and get directly to what you had to have seen when you looked at your wristwatch.

It sure as hell wasn't "shortly after 3 a.m." It had to be considerably later. And there still is no call from Bernard Barker's wife to you. And E. Howard Hunt stays at your apartment all the way through the phone calls from two of your law firm's partners, and all the way through them scaring up Rafferty (an actual criminal lawyer), and all the way through two phone calls from Rafferty, and all the way through you telling Hunt that Rafferty is coming to your apartment so you can tag along like a fifth wheel for reasons nobody in the world knows to this very day—since by your own endless protestations, you were not a criminal lawyer—and when Hunt finally leaves to go home, it's already nearly dawn.

And still there is not one single word about a call having come to you from Bernard Barker's wife while he was there.

Yet just hours later, you told a Washington Post reporter that Clara Barker had called you from Miami "shortly after 3 a.m.," not at the behest of E. Howard Hunt, but because Barker himself had told his wife to call you if Barker hadn't called her by 3:00 a.m.

Well, if what you told the Washington Post that same day is true, Mr. Caddy, Mrs. Barker's call to you had to have come before Hunt ever even got to your apartment. And if that's the case, then Hunt's whole little anecdote about leaving one phone at his White House office to go to another phone at his Mullen office just to call to Mrs. Barker, and her dramatic little shriek, is just complete fiction. Just really, really bad, hack-writer spy fiction. It's just embarrassing! It's one of his trashy little spy novels passed off as "fact."

So since we're just chatting candidly and casually here, tete-a-tete, Mr. Caddy, I have to tell you that I can see only three possibilities:

1) Hunt lied.

2) You lied.

3) You both lied.

Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path. I'll be perfectly happy to find out that your client, Hunt, lied like a dog.

So is it 1), 2), or 3) above?

Ashton Gray

This is an un-edited re-post of unanswered relevant questions asked of Mr. Caddy earlier in this thread. I'm reposting it after the edited repost, directly above, of other unanswered questions so both sets can easily be located together, and to get the thread back on-topic after "answers" by others (that weren't answers at all) to questions that can't possibly be answered in any meaningful way by anyone other than Mr. Caddy. I hope he will respond.

Mr. Caddy,

I didn't mean to slight you by being this long in getting back to you on these questions, but I wanted to give your answers due and proper consideration, and I'm very glad to see that you're posting here in the forum.

Thank you again for your more than thoroughgoing address to most of the questions I'd asked. At a point that would have been a very good ending of your message, you wrote:



They certainly covered most of them, but there are a few that were left unanswered, two that I'm afraid I have to apologize to you for not having asked very clearly (which I'll clear up below), and then—if you could see your way clear to extend your largesse—there are a few that arose from a couple of your answers. I'll set off sections for each category

First, here are the questions that weren't answered. I've edited or amended one or two very slightly—just to reflect answers that you did provide where applicable, or because they've been taken out of their original context—and have renumbered them for simplicity:

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

1. Who besides Hunt at Mullen was "witting and cleared" of the CIA relationship? (If you don't have that specific information, who else can you name who worked at Mullen while you were there?)
   
2. If you know, did Hunt, or you, or anyone at the Mullen company have any contact, directly or through an intermediary, with Daniel Ellsberg?
   
3. If you know, were persons employed at or by Gall Lane "cleared and witting" of Mullen ties to CIA at any relevant time? If so, who?
   
4. If you know, was Gall Lane in any sort of relationship with CIA that was similar to the relationship that the Mullen company enjoyed? (At any relevant time.)
   
5. Did any of your legal tasks for either Liddy or Hunt include arranging for possible overseas travel? (You may have answered this by indirect exclusion, but I wasn't certain, and would like to have it cleared up.)

This next section is where I think I inadvertently created some confusion by my cavalier tossing around of the word "probate" in its more general sense, from Black's: "...in current usage this term has been expanded to generally include all matters and proceedings pertaining to administration of estates, guardianships, etc." I get the idea that you were interpreting and using the word "probate" in its more narrow sense of court procedure determining validity of a will of a dearly departed—after the fact, so to speak.

To correct my legalese faux pas, with your continued graciousness, I'll set forth my original questions and the relevant parts of your answers to those, then I'll ask more specifically what I was trying to ask in the first place.

QUESTIONS I ASKED USING THE WORD "PROBATE" TOO BROADLY:

QUESTION: Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters." What were the "other matters"?
DOUGLAS CADDY: At Hunt’s request, we prepared a will for him... . None of this legal work involved probate matters.
QUESTION: Did the probate matters include Dorothy Hunt's probate?
DOUGLAS CADDY: At no time was I involved in any probate matters dealing with Dorothy Hunt. ...I do not know who handled the probate of Dorothy Hunt’s estate.

Thank you. Now here is more narrowly what I had hoped to learn:

1. At any time, did you prepare a will for Dorothy Hunt? If not, do you know of anyone who did, and if so, who?
   
2. Do you know if Dorothy Hunt had a will at the time you were preparing one for her husband, E. Howard Hunt?
   
3. If you know, was E. Howard Hunt named as the primary beneficiary and/or executor of any will of Dorothy Hunt at any relevant time.

I hope that narrows this considerably, and thanks for your patience.

Finally, there are several questions that came up in my review of the answers you provided, if you would be so kind.

QUESTIONS ARISING FROM YOUR ANSWERS:

First in this section of new questions is something that arose out of the following exchange:

QUESTION: What was the nature of the "legal tasks" you were doing for Liddy?
DOUGLAS CADDY: In March, 1972, George Webster...asked for a lawyer to do voluntary campaign work in John Dean’s office. I was "volunteered" by John Kilcullen. I did several legal research assignments given to me by Dean and one of his associates.

That's very interesting in light of something I'm about to take up with Pat Speer if he posts the new topic I asked him to post. (By the way: I think it was very thoughtful of you to post something about the kind of unwarranted and irrelevant ad hominem attacks he has launched on me repeatedly, but really, it's nothing. It's just sort of like having a gnat buzzing around.)

But this thing you said about working for Dean: John Dean, of course, is the one who took possession of the contents of Hunt's White House safe and divided it into two neat piles: one pile he turned over to the rank-and-file FBI agents on Tuesday, June 27, 1972 (two days after Baldwin started cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys); the other pile Dean placed into a big envelope (or "two folders," depending on which section of L. Patrick Gray's congressional testimony you happen to be listening to), and, in the presence of Ehrlichman, handed directly to L. Patrick Gray on Wednesday, June 28, 1972—right around the very time you went before the grand jury as the very first witness called.

So the questions that your answer above caused to spring immediately to mind are:

A. Who was the "associate" of John Dean that you also were doing research work for?

B. What was the work you were doing for Dean and that associate?

C. Did you know that Dean could open Hunt's safe?

And the last few questions I have that arose out of your answers is a real head scratcher for me. I'm in a real pickle here, and I hope you can help me out. Here are the relevant questions and sections of your answers:

QUESTION: Were you cleared and witting of the Mullen company's involvement with CIA?
DOUGLAS CADDY: No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA.
QUESTION: Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters." What were the "other matters"?
DOUGLAS CADDY: This work was performed in conjunction with a partner of that law firm, Robert Scott, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, who later became a judge. At Hunt’s request, we...analyzed his proposed business relationship with the Mullen Company after Robert Bennett assumed its ownership (no mention was made then by Hunt of the CIA’s involvement with the Company)... .

Okay. I've got all of that, and that's very clear. But here's why I'm in a pickle.

First, the Mullen company, as a matter of CIA record, had been cooperating with CIA for at least seven years (since 1963) when Hunt went to work there, and you were already working out of the Mullen D.C. office at that time.

Second, the Mullen company, as a matter of CIA record, had overseas offices, at least one of which in Europe was "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA."

And given all of that information, I've got this passage from Hunt's own autobiography that I'm trying to reconcile with your answers. Read along with me, if you would, as Hunt recounts his early days at Mullen (my bold emphasis added):

"The CIA placement officer had told me that the Mullen firm had "cooperated" with CIA... . So I inferred that my CIA background would not prove a handicap to employment with Mullen as it had with several multinational firms.

"During a second meeting Mullen told me that he was getting on in years, the company was comfortably established and he was casting about for younger successors to take over the managment and direction of the firm. One of Mullen's accounts was the General Foods Corporation, whose Washington representative, Douglas Caddy, worked out of the Mullen offices. According to Mullen, with Caddy, myself and an as-yet-unselected individual, Mullen would be able to retire, leaving the business in the hands of this successor triumverate."

—E. Howard Hunt, Undercover

Can you kind of see why this is a head-scratcher for me? The owner of the Mullen company was going to retire soon, and in his mind you and Hunt had been dubbed as two of his successors. But he was in an on-going long-term secret relationship with CIA, including overseas installations completely manned, funded, and run by CIA, and so with the answers you gave above, I gotta' tell you, Mr. Caddy, I can't figure out for the life of me how the hell he expected you to be one the of three co-managers of the entire international CIA-front company if you were totally ignorant of CIA's involvement.

Can you clear that up?

Thanks again so much.

Ashton Gray

You have completely missed my purpose, Mr. Gray. I actually find you very entertaining.

But I will let Mr. Caddy himself respond to your questions, if he thinks they are worth answering. My accountant has just advised me that Mr. Caddy has not paid my last bill.