Michael Schweitzer

I do not believe the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, because no change was necessary. The Secret Service designed the route. They selected the Stemmons Freeway. An SS advance team always inspects an entire route weeks before a motorcade. It surpasses the bounds of credibility to think the SS missed the fact the freeway entrance was on Elm. The previous presidential motorcade in Dallas (FDR's) took Main Street all the way downtown. The only reason to use the newly built Stemmons Freeway was to force JFK's motorcade off Main and onto Elm, via a path that turned right onto Houston for one block, then left onto Elm – which was conveniently a 120-degree turn (almost a U-turn) at 11 mph – to plant the president like a sitting duck in the killing zone. Biography: http://educationforu...st&p=235641 I have no logical debate nor can I refute your theory, hence the president was killed there which is fact, the ongoing argument that the route has been changed within the eleventh hour of the "original path" would only raise the question as to (IF) there was indeed a chance (1) who suggested the change, (2) who approved the change, (3) how many knew of the change? Could the shooter(s) behind the "Grassy Knoll" have the same advantages had the motorcade continued down the route FRD took? Although, it would have seemed be be a much longer route to take to enter Stemmons Freeway the shooter(s) would have been at a disadvantage and clear head-shot would have been near impossible with as many spectators around. Has every name been accounted for on who had personal knowledge the apparent motorcade route? <Just saying>. Wondering too. This is my understanding: Kennedy advisor Kenneth O'Donnell made the decision to hold the 1963-11-22 Dallas luncheon at the Trade Mart. Eight days before the luncheon, on 1963-11-14, Gerald Behn, Secret Service Agent in Charge of the White House Detail, tasked Special Agents William G. Lawson of the Detail and Forrest V. Sorrels in charge of the Dallas office to design a motorcade route from Love Field to the Trade Mart. (They had first been advised of the Texas trip on 1963-11-4.) They planned a route that included the Stemmons Freeway, which necessitated the hairpin turn onto Elm to access the onramp. So no change in route was needed to make it pass the TSDB. And if Lawson and Sorrels had not chosen to use the freeway but kept the motorcade on Main Street, I do not find credible Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell or anyone else having authority to overrule a locked-in Secret Service decision. The Secret Service pointed the finger at Kenneth O'Donnell. Forrest Sorrels chose the Trade Mart, and O'Donnell did not live long enough to exonerate himself.

The Dictabelt would not record the first round of shots fired, from rifles with silencers in the Dal-Tex Building. Those shots all apparently missed beause Greer overshot the 120-degree turn onto Elm so badly he nearly hit the curb in front of the TSDB, exiting the "Plan A" killing zone, and the silencers were a further hindrance because of their inaccuracy. I think it is no accident JFK's limo suddenly appears in the middle of the street in the Z film, given Zapruder swore he never stopped filming. Simple frame omission without a splice, easily done with an optical printer, which I studied and used as an undergrad at UCLA in the film school. The Dictabelt's value is to prove a fourth shot and establish a conspiracy. Harrison Livingstone counts a total of 13 shots. So do I.

The JFK sex-smear campaign has been carefully orchestrated. The Mary Meyer story, like the Judith Exner story (which continually changes), is a fabrication. I highly recommend a 1997 article by James DiEugenio, a top-tier expert with unquestionable ethics, “The Posthumous Assassination of JFK: 
Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers.” The link: http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr997_jfk.html.

Congrats, John! The best-informed articles would have been those written closest in time to the assassination. Before memories faded and disinfo concealed more truth. Every good wish in your endeavor!

I am qualified to evaluate the admissibility of evidence, professor, and some objections here may be sustainable.

I agree with Jim it's unfair to misspell his name. My praise was directed at picking apart a book. Insults only do harm, both to the person insulted and to the point being made because they display bias.

Good post, Tom. We've had our differences, but you deserve praise for this. Well done.

Thank you, Barry. If you look behind the facade, I consider it not inappropriate to characterize the 2nd half of the 20th century as "Operation Kissinger." You won't see it in his words, but you can perceive it if you correlate events with his peaks in governmental power.

Excellent analysis, Don. And thank you for the post.

Don't worry, Steven. I've got the goods on Colby. He'll be resigning soon, or I'll go public. He doesn't know who he messed with when he took me on. And he wouldn't want to know.

Steven, I don't know what Romney might have done, or even what Obama might do. I can only describe the text of the two executive orders he issued this year. E.O. 13603 (peacetime martial law) is very a lengthy document and sets forth in detail an elaborate system of infrastructure control.

An exceptional profile, Steven, and a truly admirable commitment to community mental health services for children. Welcome to the Forum, and best wishes for success in your fly-fishing and other endeavors!

Obama has joined the force, Steven. He is defending the constitutionality of the NDAA (prison without trial). He has done an about-face on his 2009-12-29 Executive Order 13526 that expedited the JFK Records Act release deadline to December 31, 2013, and now supports the CIA's refusal to release thousands of 49-year-old documents irrelevant to national security. And he quietly issued two Executive Orders this year that grant the president greater totalitarian power than Stalin had: E.O. 13603 issued 2012-3-16 (peacetime martial law) and E.O. 13618 issued 2012-7-6 (Internet seizure and cell-phone shut down). The peacetime-martial-law order empowers the president to set up a series of committes within the Executive Branch - a regime within an Administration - to seize and control all natural resources, raw materials for industrial production, transportation systems, indeed the nation's entire infrastructure. All he need do to activate the machine is declare a national emergency, real or fictionalized. I consider Obama a peril and the CIA's withholding of evidence both an admission of guilt in the assassination of President Kennedy and an impediment to the research community and purpose of this Forum.

Tom, you still have not responded. You posted the words "not eligible to practice," which applied for only five months in 1996, a fact you omitted. What government agency do you work for?

Len Colby is continuing to harass me. Here's his current attack-of-the-day: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18521&st=165

Thanks, Dawn. I was briefly suspended in 1996 because the California Bar received my annual fee one day late and imposed a sanction they didn't notify me about for a couple months. By the time I paid the sanction, I had been suspended. They lifted the suspension when they received my payment. End of story. Except for a lone-nut character assassin who keeps assaulting me on this forum. BTW, I had a unique reason for switching to inactive status. I stopped representing clients and worked exclusively as a briefing specialist for other attorneys. Inactive status was all I needed then, and it meant not only lower dues, but escape from California's ludicrously burdensome continuing legal education requirements.

It's really becoming a nuisance to keep monitoring this forum for defamatory posts by Len Colby that attack my integrity as an attorney. A moderator can't control someone so insane he never stops. Either scour the world for the zoo he escaped from and ship him there, or invoke Rule iv and delete his membership.

I have zero tolerance for attacks on my integrity. You do not know how to interpret shorthand State Bar notations and blame me for your ignorance. And my attempt to retire is interrupted by so many "distress calls," I may start my day retired and end it with my hands full. Every day my status is determined by whether the phone rings. P.S. to John and Ian: Thank you for your graciousness.

Jumping to conclusions again, Colby. To this day I take emergency calls. I have had a busy retirement. And you are intruding into someone else's conversation. Unless spoken to, keep your mouth shut.

Publicly available information regarding your California Bar Assoc. status was first posted in an effort to discourage Len from baiting you. You are the only one who has posted non-publicly available information related to your status. Your chances of persuading us to comply with demands to delete publicly available information initially posted with intent favorable to you are slim. How many posts and threads will you devote to this? Do not post threats or demands. Drop this. You are responsible for the details in your own posts. You have no reasonable grievance to justify imploring moderators of this forum to meet you demands or your deadline. Len Colby will continue to bait you as long as you continue to take the bait. Please stop posting about these issues. Report posts you believe violate forum rules using the report button below the post. Stop disrupting the forum. Use the ignore option instead of reading posts you know will bait you. You put it up. Take it down. It is deceitfully out of context and misleading. And if you posted it to try to stop Colby, that's like saying you tried to put out a brush fire with gasoline. You don't dissemble well, so don't try.

TOM AND KATHY: DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO MY STATE BAR MEMBERSHIP FROM THE COMMENTS TO MY ESSAY. They do not belong there and are highly misleading. I had a practical reason for switching my status from "active" to "inactive." Active status is only required when an attorney represents clients, and it carries the baggage of complying with California's burdensome "MCLE" (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) requirements. I represented clients from 1982 to 1996. After that, I only worked for other attorneys as a research and briefing specialist, so I changed my status to inactive to escape the MCLE burden. I retired in 2006 and, to preserve my license, remain an inactive-status member of the State Bar. No one seeing a posted excerpt from my record would know those facts and may attribute a negative significance to the status change. I need only point to the ceaseless attacks by Len Colby as an example of malicious use of the excerpt. I expect these deletions will occur without delay.

The link to the Profile Page was provided by a moderator who asked me use it as the way to comply with the rule that I include my bio with my posts. I immediately added the link to my signature. And I have looked again at Colby's posts. I still see no link, and I'm wearing my reading glasses.

Get your facts straight, Tom. I was once suspended briefly because my annual dues payment was received late. I was promptly restored to active status and remained so until I retired and switched to inactive status. I can resume my practice at any time by simply contacting the State Bar and paying the difference between my inactive dues and active dues. I can understand a civilian's difficulty is interpreting State Bar records. But when you post two out-of-content excerpts as an implication of wrongdoing, you exceed misunderstanding and deliberately both personally insult me and attack my integrity. You should either delete your misleading post, or add key portions of my record you omitted: "Suspension lifted," which followed "not eligible" by a month, and "Disciplinary history: None." My ethical record with the State Bar is flawless, which is more than I can say about your post. I have no idea if your suspension was lifted or not, it does NOT say that in the online record, in fact it indicates the opposite Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Inactive 1/1/1996 Inactive 12/29/1995 Active 7/31/1995 Not Eligible To Practice Law 12/3/1982 Admitted to The State Bar of California Explanation of member status Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status Disciplinary and Related Actions Overview of the attorney discipline system. This member has no public record of discipline. Administrative Actions 7/31/1995 Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees Not Eligible To Practice Law Here’s the link : http://members.calba...r/Detail/107208 So if the record is correct you were “suspended” and declared “Not Eligible To Practice Law” on 7/31/1995 but were still considered “active” and were declared “inactive” and still “Not Eligible To Practice Law” six months later on 1/1/1996 (or perhaps 12/30 -31/1995) and have never been reinstated. As I stated on the deleted thread “IF you are telling us the truth and your license only became inactive recently when you retired then your beef is with the state bar which indicates on its website that your license became inactive due to nonpayment of fees during the Clinton administration.” Both Tom and I fairly represented the record as it appears online. To be quite frank I doubt the webpage is inaccurate but you can easily settle this. I am sure that if, as you claim, you were reinstated in 1995 or ’96 the State Bar will be more than glad to correct the record. So all you have to is contact them. I think 30 days starting from next Monday is more than enough time for such a correction to be made so let’s see what the page says on Dec. 5. If it indicates you were reinstated as you claim I will apologize. The web page is accurate but limited to notations. The story is in a correspondence file at the State Bar you have never seen. Still, the notations contain a timeline. I was suspended for nonpayment of a fee, then restored to active status a few months later. I can't possibly be on active status and ineligible to practice at the same time. End of issue. Except for you. You overlook the timeline, jump on the fact I was not eligible to practice law during the suspension, then hold me out as never becoming eligible to practice law again. The problem isn't mine or the State Bar's. It's a Colby problem. Inability to assimilate facts, jumping to conclusions, basing charges on misconceptions, and acting out of vindictiveness. You have problems. Which is fine with me, except when you attack my ethics, which are impeccable. Then I have a problem with you. You threaten my untarnished reputation. Knock it off. Cease fire and forget I exist.