Library Archives Canada Lawsuit

[John Kowalski]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Not directly. But I know you at least posted your desire to see it, and I’d like to also. There seems to be disagreement on Bloomfield ‘s exact position in the company - attorney or founder if I recall. 

I can assure you that he was not a founder. I checked the documents that Paz said were CMC's board of directors, Bloomfield's name is not on it. If he founded the company, he would be on its board of directors. I also have a copy of the Financial Post's "Directory of Directors" for the years 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963. This directory is list of business men and the companies they are directors of. There is no reference to either Permindex or CMC for Bloomfield in this directory. This belief that Bloomfield founded this company has never been supported by actual evidence.

[Paz Marverde]

Kowalski, nor Metta nor me are interested in collaborating with you. Good bye

[Paul Brancato]

Paz - lighten up. Metta uncovered many important connections. But facts are facts. Metta says Bloomfield was a founder of CMC. Kowalski has been in court trying to get the Canadians to release Bloomfield’s private letters, and has succeeded on much, but not all, especially from the early 1960’s. (That’s curious and disturbing). He says differently. From an outside point of view like mine, not a researcher or expert, all I’m interested in is what is true, and I’m not st all interested in arguments between experts. Just lay things out so everyone can see them. 

Kowalski is not saying that Bloomfield wasn’t an important figure. You must understand that the biographical info on Bloomfield is confusing. I would ask Mr. Kowalski what he makes of Bloomfield, what he can glean from the letters or elsewhere. Did he work for British Intelligence? For the FBI Division 5? If he wasn’t the really bad guy some writers would have us believe, then who was he? Nothing about Mr. Kowalski’s questions should alarm you or Mr. Metta. 

Is all of this some language problem? Two years ago you knew almost no English. Few of us know Italian. I think you may have seen bad intentions because your English, though amazingly better now, may not be good enough to interpret intention or tone. 

[Paz Marverde]

I am literally fed up with this situation.

Here are 2 CMC papers showing Bloomfield. They show how Bloomfield was shareholder, for an astonishing amount of money, of CMC shares. So, I do really recommend Kowalski to STOP his childish tentative to smear Metta's work, or I will publish here the very interesting content of some emails where he recognizes he treated Metta in a disrespectful way, and apologizes for this. How did you say, Paul Brancato?? Facts are facts? Here are some facts. Enough is enough. By the way: thanks God, there is no "Directory of Directors" content saying the Earth is flat, or we would have Kowalski crying here that Earth is not a globe ...

[John Kowalski]

Paz:

Metta says he was the founder of Permindex. He states this a number of times in his book. Being an investor is not the same as founding the company. There are also other investors in the company, does that mean that they are founders as well? If he was an investor in the company Metta should have stated that instead of saying he was the founder. A founder of a company is someone who created the company, it was the founder's idea that the company should have been created. This is not the case. Metta offers no proof in his book that Permindex was Bloomfield's idea. And again, if he founded the company, why is he not on CMC's board of director?

I am also getting tired of your rants. Your responses are defensive and angry. You need to calm down.

 

 

 

 

[Paz Marverde]

You need to show respect toward a man – Metta – that has dedicated his whole life studying the assassination, that was able to find what no other in the world found - the CMC papers. You have ZERO respect toward him. You have just, only an incredible childish EGO.

[Paz Marverde]

07/18/18

Email from me to Kowalski:

Quote

Let’s see if even with my very bad English I am able to get you understand: Michele wrote an article on you, he called you a really brave and skilled researcher. It was at your full disposal to write more articles on you. You avoided him, and you gave an interview to another newspaper – very happy there are other newspapers talking about you, by the way, and I do mean it – and NO mention at all of Michele. Now, once again, this article you announced on the education forum. We do not ask you to tell Michele is a brave and skilled researcher too, even if, well, let me say it, he really is, but you could had mentioned him, at least since he concretely helped you. That’s it 

Answer from Kowalski:

Quote

I hear what you are saying. He will eventually write another story about my case and I will include Michele in the story.

 

[John Kowalski]

Paz:

What do you mean by respect? Do you believe that I am not being respectful to Michele after all of the work he has done?

[John Kowalski]

Yesterday I went to the archive's lawyers office to get copies of Bloomfield's documents. Received 2 CDs containing more than 2,000 documents that the archives previously refused to release to me. They only held back 92 documents because they are deemed to be protected by solicitor client privilege.

The archives provided me with a document called a "privilege log", which is a list of names of people to whom letters are addressed to, none of the names on this list are important.

Have also asked the archives to update their restrictions on access to the Bloomfield collection so other researchers will be able to access them. After this issue is settled, I will probably settle the case.

 

[Robert Harper]

Thank you for your work and updates.

[John Kowalski]

18 minutes ago, Robert Harper said:

Thank you for your work and updates. 

Your welcome.

[John Kowalski]

On 12/19/2018 at 10:40 AM, John Kowalski said:

Yesterday I went to the archive's lawyers office to get copies of Bloomfield's documents. Received 2 CDs containing more than 2,000 documents that the archives previously refused to release to me. They only held back 92 documents because they are deemed to be protected by solicitor client privilege.

The archives provided me with a document called a "privilege log", which is a list of names of people to whom letters are addressed to, none of the names on this list are important.

Have also asked the archives to update their restrictions on access to the Bloomfield collection so other researchers will be able to access them. After this issue is settled, I will probably settle the case. 

 

The archives have confirmed that they are going to update their access restrictions for the Bloomfield collection by January 11. At that time all researchers will be able to access all of the documents, except for the 92 that they are subject to privilege. Will visit the archives in January 2019 to review the Bloomfield collection to ensure they gave me all of the files. After that I will have one last teleconference where I will close the case.

[Steve Thomas]

On 12/1/2018 at 8:04 AM, Paz Marverde said:

I am literally fed up with this situation.

 

Here are 2 CMC papers showing Bloomfield. They show how Bloomfield was shareholder, for an astonishing amount of money, of CMC shares.

For what it's worth, (or for those who can read Italian), here's a site that has all 12 pages of this filing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mettacmc/with/45405501734/

I tried to get Google to translate these pages into English, but it responded that they have already been translated!

I don't know how to get around that.

 

Steve Thomas

[Paul Brancato]

10 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

The archives have confirmed that they are going to update their access restrictions for the Bloomfield collection by January 11. At that time all researchers will be able to access all of the documents, except for the 92 that they are subject to privilege. Will visit the archives in January 2019 to review the Bloomfield collection to ensure they gave me all of the files. After that I will have one last teleconference where I will close the case.

Great news.

[John Kowalski]

On 12/1/2018 at 9:04 AM, Paz Marverde said:

I am literally fed up with this situation.

Here are 2 CMC papers showing Bloomfield. They show how Bloomfield was shareholder, for an astonishing amount of money, of CMC shares. So, I do really recommend Kowalski to STOP his childish tentative to smear Metta's work, or I will publish here the very interesting content of some emails where he recognizes he treated Metta in a disrespectful way, and apologizes for this. How did you say, Paul Brancato?? Facts are facts? Here are some facts. Enough is enough. By the way: thanks God, there is no "Directory of Directors" content saying the Earth is flat, or we would have Kowalski crying here that Earth is not a globe ...

Translated both documents and both use the word "proxy" in reference to Bloomfield. Proxy means acting for someone else. Bloomfield did not own any shares in either Permindex or CMC, he was acting on behalf of certain shareholders, whose names are unknown.