Paul Trejo Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) Paul --- THERE YOU GO AGAIN! (1) ...So why do you deliberately LIE about what I have written OVER AND OVER AND OVER again? (2) ...Hoover and the FBI rejected the claims made by racists and by low-information (but gullible) people that our civil rights movement was "Communist-inspired" or "Communist-controlled" or "Communist-dominated". (3) I told you explicitly that the FBI had mechanisms in place to file certain things OUTSIDE its normal filing procedures. OBVIOUSLY, there are FBI files which contain "secrets". That is why you see documents and files clearly marked "Top Secret" or "Secret" or "Confidential". But, once again, Paul you are totally mis-representing what my position is. It is now obvious to me that you have no interest in a PRINCIPLED discussion with anybody who disputes ANYTHING you believe. (4) I simply asked you how it could be possible for somebody such as yourself who has spent (how long?) years? decades? specializing in research on Harry Dean's assertions to not be aware of documentary evidence that has been available since at least 1985? ...The documents we are discussing were released as a result of an FOIA request made in 1985. ONLY your pig-headed BIAS prevented you from finding and obtaining them! THAT is my point Paul.[/b] (5) thru (7) Well, then at least have the courtesy to stop attacking me for having the curiosity and the persistence to do the kinds of things which you now admit you never have had the common sense to do. (8) Good luck with your requests. MAYBE someday you will finally understand (and stop misrepresenting) my position about FBI documents and FOIA requests to obtain those documents. Ernie, (1) You shouldn't call someone a xxxx on the EF, according to John Simkin’s latest directive on that. I actually believe you're a likeable guy, but that you simply don't recognize just how emotional you appear. (2) Insofar as Hoover and the FBI officially rejected claims made by partisans that the Civil Rights movement was “Communist-inspired, -controlled or -dominated", we strive in vain to understand why J. Edgar Hoover spent years persecuting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for his leading role in that same Civil Rights movement! Hoover's persecution of MLK is well-documented, so there is no use in denying it. (3) Insofar as you admit that the FBI has “mechanisms” to keep files separate from the NORMAL system, I don’t see why you don’t take the next step and honestly admit that you have no clue in the world what those “mechanisms” might be. Or do you suppose they are as simple as marking a folder, ‘Top Secret?’ In fact, I’m the guy who’s interested in a principled and frank discussion with those who dispute my theory, while you seem to be the guy who emotionally explodes whenever somebody disagrees with you. Yes, you know more about the FBI than anybody I ever met – but I don't know that many people. Yet lacking the full body of FBI information, you still behave as though you can draw sharp conclusions. You don't mind putting other people down, clearly, but if somebody puts you down you explode. You can’t have it both ways. (4) As for my work with Harry Dean, we started back in April of this year, attempting to publish in October, in time for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination party in Dallas. In those few months I had only enough time to interview Harry. That's why I didn’t present Harry’s memoirs as a historical document, but as the more popular style of a ‘Confessions’ document. Clearly, lots more work should be done for Harry Dean, but I'm only one guy. As I’ve often said here, I appreciate your posting these FBI documents, because I hadn’t seen most of them, and they tend to corroborate Harry Dean’s story in unexpected ways. Although you keep attacking Harry’s account based on some of these documents, your reading is biased and one-sided; you’re not being objective. So it will take more time to obtain an objective reading for the public. (5) thru (7) You call me pig-headed, and claim that I ‘never had the common sense’ to do this or that, and you apparently don’t see that you’re insulting somebody in public. Well, if that’s the way you want to play the game, Ernie, that’s your choice. Yet if you’d calm down, and edit your work before you post it to the EF, your posts would most likely be shorter and more polite – and therefore more useful to everybody. (8) Ernie, you’ve done a lot of good work by obtaining FBI documents using FOIA requests, and you deserve credit for that. Yet my position in defense of Harry Dean is reasonable – I only demand to see hard (non-contradictory) proof of any claims made against his integrity or his eye-witness. You cast aspersions on Harry’s story, but your evidence is self-contradictory. These FBI documents so far support my case better than they support your case. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 14, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) Paul --- THERE YOU GO AGAIN! (1) ...So why do you deliberately LIE about what I have written OVER AND OVER AND OVER again? (2) ...Hoover and the FBI rejected the claims made by racists and by low-information (but gullible) people that our civil rights movement was "Communist-inspired" or "Communist-controlled" or "Communist-dominated". (3) I told you explicitly that the FBI had mechanisms in place to file certain things OUTSIDE its normal filing procedures. OBVIOUSLY, there are FBI files which contain "secrets". That is why you see documents and files clearly marked "Top Secret" or "Secret" or "Confidential". But, once again, Paul you are totally mis-representing what my position is. It is now obvious to me that you have no interest in a PRINCIPLED discussion with anybody who disputes ANYTHING you believe. (4) I simply asked you how it could be possible for somebody such as yourself who has spent (how long?) years? decades? specializing in research on Harry Dean's assertions to not be aware of documentary evidence that has been available since at least 1985? ...The documents we are discussing were released as a result of an FOIA request made in 1985. ONLY your pig-headed BIAS prevented you from finding and obtaining them! THAT is my point Paul.[/b] (5) thru (7) Well, then at least have the courtesy to stop attacking me for having the curiosity and the persistence to do the kinds of things which you now admit you never have had the common sense to do. (8) Good luck with your requests. MAYBE someday you will finally understand (and stop misrepresenting) my position about FBI documents and FOIA requests to obtain those documents. Ernie,(1) You shouldn't call someone a xxxx on the EF, according to John Simkin’s latest directive on that. I actually believe you're a likeable guy, but that you simply don't recognize just how emotional you appear. (2) Insofar as Hoover and the FBI officially rejected claims made by partisans that the Civil Rights movement was “Communist-inspired, -controlled or -dominated", we strive in vain to understand why J. Edgar Hoover spent years persecuting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for his leading role in that same Civil Rights movement! Hoover's persecution of MLK is well-documented, so there is no use in denying it. (3) Insofar as you admit that the FBI has “mechanisms” to keep files separate from the NORMAL system, I don’t see why you don’t take the next step and honestly admit that you have no clue in the world what those “mechanisms” might be. Or do you suppose they are as simple as marking a folder, ‘Top Secret?’ In fact, I’m the guy who’s interested in a principled and frank discussion with those who dispute my theory, while you seem to be the guy who emotionally explodes whenever somebody disagrees with you. Yes, you know more about the FBI than anybody I ever met – but I don't know that many people. Yet lacking the full body of FBI information, you still behave as though you can draw sharp conclusions. You don't mind putting other people down, clearly, but if somebody puts you down you explode. You can’t have it both ways. (4) As for my work with Harry Dean, we started back in April of this year, attempting to publish in October, in time for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination party in Dallas. In those few months I had only enough time to interview Harry. That's why I didn’t present Harry’s memoirs as a historical document, but as the more popular style of a ‘Confessions’ document. Clearly, lots more work should be done for Harry Dean, but I'm only one guy. As I’ve often said here, I appreciate your posting these FBI documents, because I hadn’t seen most of them, and they tend to corroborate Harry Dean’s story in unexpected ways. Although you keep attacking Harry’s account based on some of these documents, your reading is biased and one-sided; you’re not being objective. So it will take more time to obtain an objective reading for the public. (5) thru (7) You call me pig-headed, and claim that I ‘never had the common sense’ to do this or that, and you apparently don’t see that you’re insulting somebody in public. Well, if that’s the way you want to play the game, Ernie, that’s your choice. Yet if you’d calm down, and edit your work before you post it to the EF, your posts would most likely be shorter and more polite – and therefore more useful to everybody. (8) Ernie, you’ve done a lot of good work by obtaining FBI documents using FOIA requests, and you deserve credit for that. Yet my position in defense of Harry Dean is reasonable – I only demand to see hard (non-contradictory) proof of any claims made against his integrity or his eye-witness. You cast aspersions on Harry’s story, but your evidence is self-contradictory. These FBI documents so far support my case better than they support your case. Regards, --Paul Trejo In order of your comments> (1) OK -- what should I call somebody who deliberately misrepresents what I have repeatedly written OVER AND OVER again? [incidentally, I note for the record that you have concluded that the FBI "lied" about Harry Dean -- so what is the substantive difference between that conclusion and my conclusion about your comment? (2) Apparently you cannot distinguish between security concerns over one particular individual (who was pre-eminent within ourcivil rights movement) and that individual had connections to Communist Party members versus making a generalized conclusion about "persecution". I guess what you are saying is if Paul Trejo was FBI Director during the 1960's, you would have instructed all your subordinates to totally ignore ALL available derogatory evidence about MLK Jr -- simply because you were sympathetic with King. (3) Here again Paul you reveal your PROFOUND personal ignorance and then you PROJECT your own ignorance onto me and you then make your own false conclusions about me (or about anyone else who has written what I have written). Why do you think we know about "JUNE mail"? Why do you think we know about "ELSUR"? Why do you think we know about the FBI DETCOM program? OR the FBI Security Index program? Why do you think we know about the FBI "black bag" jobs and wiretaps which were hidden from public knowledge for decades? Why do you think we know about FBI COINTELPRO operations? It is because persistent scholars and researchers have done the tedious job of going through thousands of FBI files along with documents filed in Presidential libraries and other locations along with personal papers of key figures and oral interviews with scores of FBI employees (including many former Assistant Directors who worked under Hoover) and, in addition, researchers have poured over thousands upon thousands of pages of hearings by Congressional oversight committees who spent a huge chunk of time taking sworn testimony from senior FBI officials who worked during the Hoover era. It is easy and risk-free for somebody like you to carp from the sidelines. What I object to most, however, in your #3 comment is this portion: while you seem to be the guy who emotionally explodes whenever somebody disagrees with you. Paul -- do you HONESTLY and SINCERELY not understand the difference between principled "disagreement" versus totally mis-representing or mis-quoting what somebody writes OVER AND OVER again? Your debate tactic is now fairly obvious: You are free to make the most outrageous comments which are TOTALLY FALSE about what I believe and what I have written repeatedly in this forum -- but ANYTIME somebody brings attention to your misrepresentations, then you will trot out your phony argument that your victim is responsible because they cannot handle "disagreement". I note for the record that when you make unkind and untrue statements and conclusions about me, you NEVER QUOTE what I have written. You merely ATTRIBUTE something to me. That is typical of the way intellectually dishonest people proceed in a debate. Do you really want me to go back and copy/paste my explanations from previous messages re: FBI filing practices and then point out for the 100th time why your argument is FALSE? I note for the record (again) that by your own admission you HAVE NOT contacted ANYBODY who has spent their career investigating the FBI (such as Dr. Athan Theoharis) to ask them IF your contentions are supported by available factual evidence. The reason for this refusal to contact well-known prominent experts is obvious. You know they will NOT support your contentions --- at least not in the form which you have presented them in this forum. For the 100th (and last time), my position about FBI records is this (so---DO NOT misrepresent it again and expect me to quietly sit back and endure your deliberate misrepresentations). 1. Most FBI files over 25 years old are now subject to MANDATORY de-classification. 2. That means that any records originally marked "top secret", "secret" or "confidential" -- OFTEN will now be released -- particularly if an FOIA requester submits proof of death on any individuals who might be mentioned in responsive documents OR if the individual's birthdate is over 95 years ago. 3. When the FBI refuses to release certain files and documents -- it always tells the requester the reason, i.e. which specific FOIA exemption is applicable. 4. At that point, a requester can administratively appeal to the Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice. 5. Once all appeals have been exhausted, a requester may pursue litigation to compel the FBI to release specific details about what they are refusing to release. This normally is in the form of a "Vaughn Index" 6. NOW -- READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY PAUL 7. Many files which pertain to individuals whom you think were somehow involved in a murder plot against JFK have already been released. Many of those files contain documents which refer to JFK "murder plots" --- i.e. the same type of information which Harry Dean allegedly shared with Special Agent Wesley Grapp. [Example: Willie Somersett and Joseph Milteer files. There are also files on Edwin Walker and on KKK and on Minutemen and on other subjects.] 8. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the FBI to purge EVERY document from EVERY file that might contain ultra-sensitive JFK-related information because (as I previously explained), MANY documents are never even given a serial number. Consequently, they are "unrecorded" and the FBI Central Records System does not even list them by subject matters. Consequently, a clerical employee at FBI would have to GUESS what sorts of files might contain cross-referenced copies of documents which discuss (for example) Harry Dean. [i previously pointed out, for example, that the Milteer/Somersett "murder plot" info was also filed into various Constitution Party files (HQ, Atlanta, Miami, and probably others). IN ADDITION, the FBI could never purge references to Harry Dean that were sent OUTSIDE the Bureau via memos or reports to other agencies, or US Attorney offices, or the White House, or to military intelligence (G-2, ONI, OSI), or replies to Congressional inquiries---such as that letter to Sen. George Murphy of California. So, obviously, there would ALWAYS be ways to discover information about Harry EVEN IF the FBI did not want to release something in their possession. I note for the record: we are currently debating the authenticity of the 11/63 letter to Hoover from Harry. And the reason we are debating it is because of a document which existed in an FBI file!!! So stop pretending there is no way to find Dean-related information or that all such info will be purged and put into "secret" files. 9. Therefore, a persistent and flexible FOIA researcher can ALWAYS find documents to support or to falsify the kind of theories which YOU are presenting. 9. LASTLY - your constant references to "secret" or "top secret" JFK files are mostly unadulterated BUNK. As I have already demonstrated here in this forum, many of Dean's FBI files (HQ, Chicago, and Los Angeles - which contained "classified" documents) were released as long ago as 1985! There may even be earlier releases---and, perhaps, in future, I may be able to answer that question for you. 10. BUT EVEN IF, the FBI has Dean-related material which they refuse to release, they will STILL send you a letter explaining the reason(s), and often they will identify the file number(s) which are being withheld. With respect to your last comment (#8): I predict that you will NEVER EVER acknowledge that ANYBODY has EVER presented what you call "hard (non-contradictory) proof" if it in ANY WAY diminishes Harry's story. You make the right reasonable clucking sounds but your arguments are ALL self-sealing and often employ circular reasoning. AGAIN, to be clear: A circular argument STARTS with an unproven predicate (and often it is a false predicate), but then ALL subsequent analysis and discussion is based upon the original UNPROVEN predicate -- so, consequently, all subsequent discussion is tainted. In your case, the UNPROVEN predicate is that there are "secret" FBI files on Harry Dean -- and there are NO references anywhere to such documents or file numbers...which means NOBODY can EVER discover them. Which means (in your scheme of things), the FBI is "covering up" the truth through an elaborate and well-designed and impenetrable wall of secrecy about all things-Harry Dean. [Oh, as one corollary to your main unproven predicate, you also claim that whatever information is (or might be) released by the FBI is, by definition, part of a "smear job" because ANY unflattering or inconvenient data about Harry's personal biography is, obviously, UNACCEPTABLE and VERBOTEN. Lastly, I have NO CLUE what you mean by your comment that my evidence is "self-contradictory". I do not have any "evidence" other than what appears in FBI files. You make the astounding claim that FBI documents support YOUR case better than my case....but, again, I have NO CLUE what that means...The clear evidence in FBI files (over a period of many years) is that every one of your contentions is FALSE -- with ONE exception. And that exception is that, yes, Harry provided unsolicited information to the FBI . MANY thousands of Americans contacted their local FBI office every year to report information. But virtually none of those folks claimed to be an FBI undercover operative, or agent, or informant, or confidential source or whatever other term you want to use. Edited November 15, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) <snip> (3) Here again Paul you reveal your PROFOUND personal ignorance and then you PROJECT your own ignorance onto me and you then make your own false conclusions about me (or about anyone else who has written what I have written). Why do you think we know about "JUNE mail"? Why do you think we know about "ELSUR"? Why do you think we know about the FBI DETCOM program? OR the FBI Security Index program? Why do you think we know about the FBI "black bag" jobs and wiretaps which were hidden from public knowledge for decades? Why do you think we know about FBI COINTELPRO operations? <snip> With respect to your last comment (#8): I predict that you will NEVER EVER acknowledge that ANYBODY has EVER presented what you call "hard (non-contradictory) proof" if it in ANY WAY diminishes Harry's story. You make the right reasonable clucking sounds but your arguments are ALL self-sealing and often employ circular reasoning. AGAIN, to be clear: A circular argument STARTS with an unproven predicate (and often it is a false predicate), but then ALL subsequent analysis and discussion is based upon the original UNPROVEN predicate -- so, consequently, all subsequent discussion is tainted. In your case, the UNPROVEN predicate is that there are "secret" FBI files on Harry Dean -- and there are NO references anywhere to such documents or file numbers...which means NOBODY can EVER discover them. Which means (in your scheme of things), the FBI is "covering up" the truth through an elaborate and well-designed and impenetrable wall of secrecy about all things-Harry Dean. [Oh, as one corollary to your main unproven predicate, you also claim that whatever information is (or might be) released by the FBI is, by definition, part of a "smear job" because ANY unflattering or inconvenient data about Harry's personal biography is, obviously, UNACCEPTABLE and VERBOTEN. Lastly, I have NO CLUE what you mean by your comment that my evidence is "self-contradictory". I do not have any "evidence" other than what appears in FBI files. You make the astounding claim that FBI documents support YOUR case better than my case....but, again, I have NO CLUE what that means...The clear evidence in FBI files (over a period of many years) is that every one of your contentions is FALSE -- with ONE exception. And that exception is that, yes, Harry provided unsolicited information to the FBI . MANY thousands of Americans contacted their local FBI office every year to report information. But virtually none of those folks claimed to be an FBI undercover operative, or agent, or informant, or confidential source or whatever other term you want to use. Ernie, Once again, by the numbers: (3) You rely too much on DECLASSIFIED FBI files to make your point. You don't give enough weight to the fact that there remain CLASSIFIED FBI files that are now fifty years old. Let's get down to brass tacks here -- what about the FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald? You can pile up thousands of DECLASSIFIED FBI folders before me, and I won't be impressed at all -- the only thing that will impress me is showing me FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald that remain CLASSIFIED after half a century. If you can do that, I'm prepared to admit that I was wrong and you were right. But you can't. The actual relevance of the many FBI documents about Harry Dean is that some of them will certainly involve Lee Harvey Oswald. You don't know what the FBI has about Lee Harvey Oswald, Ernie, so why do you casuallly imply that all your FOIA requests have given you enough information to draw a conclusion here? Nobody can see all those files, so nobody can see all the empirical evidence, and so nobody can draw a conclusion. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, many FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald were obtained before the JFK assassination. Those are also CLASSIFIED by the FBI. So the time frame is less relevant -- the topic is most relevant. (8) So, yes, Ernie, I will acknowledge hard, non-contradictory proof when I see it. It's simply that you can't deliver it -- and you won't admit it. Lastly -- here's what I mean when I say that the FBI evidence about Harry Dean is contradictory; actually, Bill Kelly first suggested this: it's contradictory for the FBI to claim on the one hand that Harry Dean was told that he was not wanted as an informant (because of his past record), and yet on the other hand we have lots of FBI files showing that Harry Dean's information was accepted and recorded. That should make alarms go off for every reader. You may be the only one who fails to see the profound significance of that. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 15, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) <snip> (3) Here again Paul you reveal your PROFOUND personal ignorance and then you PROJECT your own ignorance onto me and you then make your own false conclusions about me (or about anyone else who has written what I have written). Why do you think we know about "JUNE mail"? Why do you think we know about "ELSUR"? Why do you think we know about the FBI DETCOM program? OR the FBI Security Index program? Why do you think we know about the FBI "black bag" jobs and wiretaps which were hidden from public knowledge for decades? Why do you think we know about FBI COINTELPRO operations? <snip> With respect to your last comment (#8): I predict that you will NEVER EVER acknowledge that ANYBODY has EVER presented what you call "hard (non-contradictory) proof" if it in ANY WAY diminishes Harry's story. You make the right reasonable clucking sounds but your arguments are ALL self-sealing and often employ circular reasoning. AGAIN, to be clear: A circular argument STARTS with an unproven predicate (and often it is a false predicate), but then ALL subsequent analysis and discussion is based upon the original UNPROVEN predicate -- so, consequently, all subsequent discussion is tainted. In your case, the UNPROVEN predicate is that there are "secret" FBI files on Harry Dean -- and there are NO references anywhere to such documents or file numbers...which means NOBODY can EVER discover them. Which means (in your scheme of things), the FBI is "covering up" the truth through an elaborate and well-designed and impenetrable wall of secrecy about all things-Harry Dean. [Oh, as one corollary to your main unproven predicate, you also claim that whatever information is (or might be) released by the FBI is, by definition, part of a "smear job" because ANY unflattering or inconvenient data about Harry's personal biography is, obviously, UNACCEPTABLE and VERBOTEN. Lastly, I have NO CLUE what you mean by your comment that my evidence is "self-contradictory". I do not have any "evidence" other than what appears in FBI files. You make the astounding claim that FBI documents support YOUR case better than my case....but, again, I have NO CLUE what that means...The clear evidence in FBI files (over a period of many years) is that every one of your contentions is FALSE -- with ONE exception. And that exception is that, yes, Harry provided unsolicited information to the FBI . MANY thousands of Americans contacted their local FBI office every year to report information. But virtually none of those folks claimed to be an FBI undercover operative, or agent, or informant, or confidential source or whatever other term you want to use. Ernie, Once again, by the numbers: (3) You rely too much on DECLASSIFIED FBI files to make your point. You don't give enough weight to the fact that there remain CLASSIFIED FBI files that are now fifty years old. Let's get down to brass tacks here -- what about the FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald? You can pile up thousands of DECLASSIFIED FBI folders before me, and I won't be impressed at all -- the only thing that will impress me is showing me FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald that remain CLASSIFIED after half a century. If you can do that, I'm prepared to admit that I was wrong and you were right. But you can't. The actual relevance of the many FBI documents about Harry Dean is that some of them will certainly involve Lee Harvey Oswald. You don't know what the FBI has about Lee Harvey Oswald, Ernie, so why do you casuallly imply that all your FOIA requests have given you enough information to draw a conclusion here? Nobody can see all those files, so nobody can see all the empirical evidence, and so nobody can draw a conclusion. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, many FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald were obtained before the JFK assassination. Those are also CLASSIFIED by the FBI. So the time frame is less relevant -- the topic is most relevant. (8) So, yes, Ernie, I will acknowledge hard, non-contradictory proof when I see it. It's simply that you can't deliver it -- and you won't admit it. Lastly -- here's what I mean when I say that the FBI evidence about Harry Dean is contradictory; actually, Bill Kelly first suggested this: it's contradictory for the FBI to claim on the one hand that Harry Dean was told that he was not wanted as an informant (because of his past record), and yet on the other hand we have lots of FBI files showing that Harry Dean's information was accepted and recorded. That should make alarms go off for every reader. You may be the only one who fails to see the profound significance of that. Regards, --Paul Trejo Well, Paul, that is the intrinsic beauty of a self-sealing conspiracy argument...i.e. there is always something secret or hidden which cannot be found. There is no way to prove a negative. All one can do in life is search for empirical evidence. The absence of that evidence ( your mythical omnipresent "classified files" which there are no traces of anywhere ) can be trotted out anytime you reach a brick wall. In 2017 when all remaining JFK material is released (or whatever other date exists in your head) and you cannot find the "classified files" then, obviously, you will create another conspiracy theory. At that time, you will contend that the FBI destroyed the files OR they have refused to release the last remaining documents but are telling nobody about that. And if no FBI employees (records clerks, or Section Chiefs, or Special Agents or Supervisors) come forward as whistleblowers to support your contention -- then the "coverup" will become even more prominent in your explanation for why there is nothing to support your current beliefs. The ultimate problem as I have said from the beginning Paul is epistemological, i.e. how human beings go about finding and verifying "proof" or "facts". In your mind, there is an alternate universe where, in a free society, there are 50-year-old "secret files" which nobody knows about and no diligent researcher can ever find any trace of in ANY record system (FBI, Secret Service, military intelligence, Presidential Library, personal papers, etc.). Furthermore, all of the contemporaneous documents which were created which would prove your points have now disappeared. So, for example, if the FBI sent a memo or a report to the White House which would confirm Harry's story -- then that document no longer exists in the JFK or LBJ Presidential libraries AND none of the numerous human beings who saw such FBI memos or reports will reveal what they saw 50 years ago. Similarly, if the FBI sent a memo or report to the U.S. Secret Service or to military intelligence that said something like "our informant Harry Dean has reported the following information to Special Agent Wesley Grapp of our Los Angeles office" .... ALL traces of that summary memo can totally vanish and nobody who received a copy of it or shared it with another person and nobody working in a clerical capacity who recorded it into a records system will come forward to confirm your story because.....(enter reason here).... We cannot compare Harry's claims about himself to LHO. To "compare" 2 or more things, they must be similar in all major respects. But documents pertaining to a person accused of committing an historic major crime are handled much differently than documents reporting occasional "information" received from a person who is described in FBI documents (over a period of many years) in highly unflattering terms. Long before the events of November 1963, the FBI declared that Harry Dean was not somebody whom the FBI wanted to associate with as even Harry admits in his letters to JFK and Hoover. But like all other Americans Harry was free to make a phone call, or to send a letter, or appear in person at his local FBI field office to report anything he wanted to report -- and the FBI listened and memorialized what Harry reported -- some of which was probably quite useful information for FBI purposes. But keep in mind that the FBI always had MULTIPLE sources -- not just ONE source. Why will you be "impressed" when LHO files are released? What do you expect to find in them? Why do you think (given your general conspiracy theory) that documents will not be destroyed or to use your previous all-purpose escape hatch, "modified"? It is YOUR argument that we have NO IDEA what "secret files" have been created to archive JFK-related documents which are ultra-sensitive so isn't the ultimate logic of your argument that whatever you do NOT find in subsequent years will be "proof" that the files were tampered with? Incidentally, don't you think it is also very strange that there are no OTHER informants (whether FBI or ATF or police department, or military intelligence etc.) that ever reported something about Harry? You realize, I hope, that FBI informants (and other agency informants) did not know about each other? Consequently, informant #1 would often make reports about the activities or about statements made by informant #2 without even knowing that informant #2 was also reporting to the FBI or another agency. MANY FBI investigative files have reports of meetings by a group which the FBI was monitoring (such as KKK) and there are reports by multiple persons who attended, i,e. more than one FBI informant was at the meeting. Sometimes, those informants did not know the name(s) of other person(s) attending a meeting so they just described the person physically or provided some other kind of identifying information -- such as "he spoke with a southern accent". Why is it that we cannot find any reports by OTHER informants which mention Harry at JBS meetings or at Minutemen meetings or whatever? Did Harry ever SPEAK at any of the meetings he attended? MY FOIA REQUESTS vs ENOUGH INFO TO "DRAW A CONCLUSION": Paul, I can only report upon evidence which currently exists. I cannot report upon evidence which does not currently exist. In your alternate universe, all of the multiple forms of currently existing empirical evidence are profoundly inadequate. All I am trying to get you to understand is that there are many different ways to discover relevant documents and files. By process of elimination, one can responsibly form initial conclusions. As I have also told you, if NEW evidence becomes available, I will be the first person to acknowledge it because I have nothing invested in the FBI or in Harry. This is why I take extreme personal offense at your snide comments about my supposed "blind faith" in the FBI or my "hero worship". There are very few people alive on this planet who have spent more time and money than I have dealing with arcane FBI policies and procedures and, particularly, dealing with the reluctance of the FBI to fully honor both the spirit and the legislative intent of FOIA laws. I previously told you about my friend (formerly a SF Chronicle investigative reporter) who successfully sued the FBI. He did that FIVE TIMES and I think one lawsuit is still pending. He cites me in his new book (which is hostile toward Hoover's FBI) several times for information I gave to him. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I somehow some sort of FBI toady or that I am blind to (or forgiving of) FBI abuses or deception. With respect to your item #8 -- I still do not know what you consider "hard, non-contradictory proof" -- but I do know this......Your criteria will be constructed in such a manner that NOBODY can ever satisfy you. Because that is the very nature of conspiracy theories. The absence of "proof" becomes "proof". And here again you resort to personal insults about my integrity and character, i.e. "I won't admit it" if something supports your statements or if I cannot provide sufficient evidence to support my statements. I still have NO CLUE what, exactly, you want to be "delivered" -- except your general all-purpose intellectual escape hatch regarding "secret files" which NOBODY has ever found a trace of. THE FBI "CONTRADICTION" ABOUT HARRY: Paul I cannot believe that you (with a Master's degree) have fallen into the logical fallacy which your comment reveals. Now, for perhaps the very first time, after all these 25 pages of messages in this thread, we FINALLY get a glimpse into the REAL problem and, again, it is what I have always maintained -- you and I operate from entirely different understandings about epistemological matters. As you should know by now, I have posted HUNDREDS of FBI files online -- many of which pertain to the subjects which we have discussed. In those files, you will see many THOUSANDS of documents which record contacts made with local FBI field offices (usually recorded by FBI Special Agents on FBI standard form FD-71). In some cases, a subsequent field office or HQ summary memo/report would refer to information which a contact supplied. Often you will see a comment such as: "According to a source whose reliability is unknown...." -- and then the FBI would summarize the information provided. Let's use one simple example: i.e. someone who reported to their local FBI office that they were invited by a friend or neighbor to attend a recruitment meeting being held by the John Birch Society (which was by invitation only). This was standard practice during the formative years of the JBS. So this person attends that JBS meeting and then he reports to the FBI about what happened and he asks the FBI whether or not the JBS was a legitimate and trustworthy anti-communist organization. The FBI Agent who is hearing this information over the phone (or in person, or by letter) records and summarizes this "contact" -- along with many similar "contacts" -- BUT NONE OF THESE PEOPLE were "informants" just because they provided unsolicited information to the FBI. Your "accepted and recorded" comment reveals that you have utterly no understanding of FBI protocols -- which is why I keep suggesting that you review FBI files because you will see THOUSANDS of these types of "contacts". FBI Agents accepted ANY information from ANYBODY and they recorded ALL of it. Why is it that you do not understand that rudimentary idea and, instead, want to inflate routine "contacts" into something much more significant than it really was? There are no "alarms" which should go off nor am I the "only one who fails to see the profound significance" of what you are referring to because there IS NO SIGNIFICANCE to what you are referring. The KEY element which you are totally ignoring (for obvious reasons), is that when somebody contacted the FBI and was reporting information that could actually be useful (often because the FBI was conducting an investigation on the person or organization being reported upon), THEN the FBI would take the next logical step, i.e. they wanted to know if the person making the report was in a position to provide continuing information? If the answer was "yes" -- THEN the next obvious questions were: (1) "WHO IS THIS PERSON? (2) IS HE/SHE LIKELY TO BE A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION? (3) DO WE WANT TO ASK THIS PERSON TO CONTINUE PROVIDING US WITH INFORMATION? (4) IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THIS PERSON COULD EMBARRASS THE BUREAU BY VIRTUE OF HIS/HER BACKGROUND? So, THEN, the FBI commenced a background investigation. IF the background investigation established that their information source seemed to be a reliable source whom the FBI could use (and the source would maintain confidentiality and not reveal his/her connection to the FBI), THEN a field office would ask HQ for permission to use that person as an informant. HOWEVER, we know from many different FBI reports over a period of years -- in several cities, that: 1. When the FBI followed normal Bureau procedure and conducted a background investigation into Harry, they discovered information which caused them to REJECT Harry. 2. EVEN HARRY acknowledged this explicitly in his 1961 letter to JFK and, yet again, in his 11/63 letter to Hoover. 3. We also know that Harry sought a "pardon" or "clearance" because he knew he could not be used by the FBI unless they could expunge his previous criminal record and somehow overlook his financial problems 4, Lastly, we know from numerous FBI reports from both Chicago and Los Angeles that Harry was NOT regarded as somebody they wanted to have as an informant BUT just like ANY OTHER AMERICAN, Harry was free to give his local FBI office whatever information he wanted. That's the reality Paul. The problem is YOUR unwillingness to face that reality. Edited November 15, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 In one of his previous messages Paul referred to a listing on Harry's FBI "rap sheet" which Paul said he did not understand. It was a Detroit Police Department reference in 1955 which had the code "Inv RA" in the column captioned "charge". Paul wondered what "INV RA" meant. I can now answer that question. It refers to an arrest of Harry by RCMP and by Detroit PD with respect to violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. It would be interesting to learn more about that! See attached document for more information about Harry which, apparently, originated with Air Force Intelligence (OSI). Even more tantalizing is the part of the attached report which refers to Harry using the alias George Robert Baker. Perhaps Paul could ask Harry about that? Also significant is that there are ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence aka Naval Investigative Service) files on Harry. The successor to NIS is today known as NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service---just like the TV program of the same name). NCIS is the primary law enforcement agency of the Navy. Now, I assume that Paul will tell us that... (1) Air Force Intelligence and Naval Intelligence ALSO conspired to "smear" Harry starting in the 1950's or 1960's AND (2) Both of them have "secret files" which cannot currently be accessed by anybody and/or their filing systems will have purged everything that might support Harry's story OSI report on Dean.PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) In one of his previous messages Paul referred to a listing on Harry's FBI "rap sheet" which Paul said he did not understand. It was a Detroit Police Department reference in 1955 which had the code "Inv RA" in the column captioned "charge". Paul wondered what "INV RA" meant. I can now answer that question. It refers to an arrest of Harry by RCMP and by Detroit PD with respect to violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. It would be interesting to learn more about that! See attached document for more information about Harry which, apparently, originated with Air Force Intelligence (OSI). Even more tantalizing is the part of the attached report which refers to Harry using the alias George Robert Baker. Perhaps Paul could ask Harry about that? Also significant is that there are ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence aka Naval Investigative Service) files on Harry. The successor to NIS is today known as NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service---just like the TV program of the same name). NCIS is the primary law enforcement agency of the Navy. Now, I assume that Paul will tell us that... (1) Air Force Intelligence and Naval Intelligence ALSO conspired to "smear" Harry starting in the 1950's or 1960's AND (2) Both of them have "secret files" which cannot currently be accessed by anybody and/or their filing systems will have purged everything that might support Harry's story Actually, Ernie, this document is alluded to in the eBook that Harry and I published four weeks ago at Smashwords.com (namely, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK). I do appreciate that you confirmed for everybody that Harry Dean's story is accurate and can be documented quite well. Also, I appreciate that you explained to us what "Inv RA" means. Yet you're quite mistaken in your hopes that this is part of a "smear" campaign against Harry Dean. On the contrary. This is a legitimate OSI report showing that Air Force Intelligence was interested in Harry Dean. (So, Harry is far from the certified criminal merely annoying the FBI as you've implied.) Harry explains this OSI interest in the context of his Cuba/FPCC/Castro days. Harry, like many Americans, including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, even Jack Ruby, David Ferrie and E. Howard Hunt, were involved in supporting Castro in 1959. All of these people eventually came to realize that they had been fooled by Castro's movement, and that they were suddenly surrounded by Communists. Harry, who chose to remain in the FPCC and funnel information to the FBI, was investigated for that very fact -- in other words -- why was he stil a Secretary of the FPCC in 1961? It was a matter of National Security, of course, and yet we have ample evidence that Harry was reporting his activities to the FBI, and not serving the Communist cause -- as one might immediately expect. Contrast this with Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a fake officer in a fake FPCC organization in New Orleans. It was documented - even by a Senate Subcommittee - that Harry Dean was a Secretary of the FPCC, and actually, Harry wanted very much to testify before that Committee to help them bring down the FPCC. Events failed to work out that way because US Agencies share information poorly, so there was a lot of confusion about Harry's role. This confusion persists today, Ernie, and you're part of it. As for Harry's alleged alias as Robert Baker, I do recall in my notes that Harry told me he'd used various aliases for various tasks because he was operating underground with armed militants, and he sometimes needed to remain undercover. (Loran Hall and Larry Howard, for example, used aliases in their work against Fidel Castro as well). So, calm down, Ernie. Once again the FBI data you provided makes a stronger case for Harry Dean and a weaker case for the critics. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 15, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) In one of his previous messages Paul referred to a listing on Harry's FBI "rap sheet" which Paul said he did not understand. It was a Detroit Police Department reference in 1955 which had the code "Inv RA" in the column captioned "charge". Paul wondered what "INV RA" meant. I can now answer that question. It refers to an arrest of Harry by RCMP and by Detroit PD with respect to violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. It would be interesting to learn more about that! See attached document for more information about Harry which, apparently, originated with Air Force Intelligence (OSI). Even more tantalizing is the part of the attached report which refers to Harry using the alias George Robert Baker. Perhaps Paul could ask Harry about that? Also significant is that there are ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence aka Naval Investigative Service) files on Harry. The successor to NIS is today known as NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service---just like the TV program of the same name). NCIS is the primary law enforcement agency of the Navy. Now, I assume that Paul will tell us that... (1) Air Force Intelligence and Naval Intelligence ALSO conspired to "smear" Harry starting in the 1950's or 1960's AND (2) Both of them have "secret files" which cannot currently be accessed by anybody and/or their filing systems will have purged everything that might support Harry's story Actually, Ernie, this document is alluded to in the eBook that Harry and I published four weeks ago at Smashwords.com (namely, "Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK"). I do appreciate that you confirmed for everybody that Harry Dean's story is accurate and can be documented quite well. Also, I appreciate that you explained to us what "Inv RA" means. You are quite mistaken however, in your hopes that this is a "smear" campaign against Harry Dean. On the contrary. This is a legitimate report showing that Air Force Intelligence was interested in Harry Dean. (So, Harry is far from the insane criminal annoying the FBI that you've implied.) Harry explains this OSI interest in the context of his Cuba/FPCC/Castro days. Harry, like many Americans, including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, even Jack Ruby, David Ferrie and E. Howard Hunt, were involved in supporting Castro in 1959. All of these people eventually came to realize that they had been fooled by Castro's movement, and that they were suddenly surrounded by Communists. Harry, who chose to remain in the FPCC and funnel information to the FBI, was investigated for that very fact -- in other words -- why was he stil a Secretary of the FPCC in 1961? It was a matter of National Security, of course, and yet we have ample evidence that Harry was reporting his activities to the FBI, and not serving the Communist cause -- as one might immediately expect. It was documented - even by a Senate Subcommittee - that Harry Dean was a Secretary of the FPCC, and actually, Harry wanted very much to testify before that Committee to help them bring down the FPCC. Events did not out that way. Because not all US Agencies share information well, there was a lot of confusion about Harry's role. This confusion persists today, Ernie, and you're part of it. As for Harry's alleged alias as Robert Baker, I do recall in my notes that Harry told me he'd used various aliases for various tasks because he was operating underground with armed militants, and he sometimes needed to remain undercover. (Loran Hall and Larry Howard, for example, used aliases in their work against Fidel Castro as well). So, calm down, Ernie. Once again the FBI data you provided makes a stronger case for Harry Dean and a weaker case for yourself. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul -- Once again you have chosen to attribute to me something which is 100% false. I have never suggested, hinted, implied, or stated that Harry Dean is an "insane criminal annoying the FBI". That is entirely 100% your FABRICATION. In fact, on several occasions I have stated that I do not even care about the references in FBI documents re: Harry's 1948 problems. I merely objected to you characterizing factual references to the 1948 information as "a smear job". Also, in one message I went to great lengths to point out that MANY people have emotional or psychological problems when they are young (due to stressful family or employment situations, financial problems, etc.) In other words, I explicitly attempted to HUMANIZE Harry -- by making it clear that something which happened when he was 21 years old is not unusual or deserving of special attention or weight. As I recently pointed out, you have a ROUTINE habit of ATTRIBUTING things to me but you NEVER QUOTE anything which I have written to illustrate or substantiate your accusation or insinuation. The reason for this is now obvious. It is because you deliberately CHOOSE to misrepresent not just what I believe (which is bad enough) or what I have written (which is also bad enough) but you go another step and use every possible opportunity to defame me by both insinuation and explicit statement. You continually assert that I am morally defective and somebody who possesses no decent or honorable instincts. SHAME ON YOU PAUL TREJO! OSI: You seem to forget that the OSI report was not referring to Harry's pro-Castro activities. OSI was referring to Harry Dean enlistment in March 1948 at Dearborn MI undeer the name George Robert Baker. Also, the reference to Harry's arrest by the RCMP and Detroit PD was not in the 1960's when Harry was involved with FPCC. The arrest record was dated January 30, 1955. So once again this reveals your inability to accurately summarize important data or to realize its potential significance. There is also the larger point -- which is that MANY different agencies were communicating about Harry Dean so unless your position is that they ALL are part of a massive "smear campaign" it is time to drop that intellectual escape hatch and deal with FACTS. Finally, for those who are following this discussion and want to pursue more documents pertaining to Harry, I attach the Index to one of Harry's main FBI files, i.e. HQ 62-109068. Index to FBI HQ 62-109068, 5pp.pdf Edited November 15, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 I would also like to ask Harry once again if he would confirm or deny that he sent a letter dated 12/10/64 to the Director of the Joe Pyne TV program in Hollywood CA? Paul typed the text of that letter into this thread on November 13th, as message #355 (page 24 of this thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI. During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News. The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965). The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBIs Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Deans assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258. Here is the pertinent excerpt: In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column. Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI. More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants: 1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant. 2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided. 3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection). 4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ. 5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files). 6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau: "Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way." [HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65]. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE BUREAU STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN! Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts: 1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one. 2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it. 3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind. 4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials. Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ernie1241@aol.com FBI FILES ON JBS: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 Ernie, way back in June, 2010, you came onto this thread and this was your conclusion: "It is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his FBI association in order to inflate his credentials." Do you still stand by that flimsy claim today, or are you willing to admit you were wrong? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI. During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News. The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965). The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBIs Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Deans assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258. Here is the pertinent excerpt: In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column. Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI. More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants: 1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant. 2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided. 3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection). 4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ. 5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files). 6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau: "Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way." [HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65]. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE BUREAU STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN! Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts: 1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one. 2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it. 3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind. 4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials. Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ernie1241@aol.com FBI FILES ON JBS: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 Ernie, way back in June, 2010, you came onto this thread and this was your conclusion: "It is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his FBI association in order to inflate his credentials." Do you still stand by that flimsy claim today, or are you willing to admit you were wrong? Regards, --Paul Trejo I note for the record that you pose your question in a form comparable to "have you stopped beating your wife?" There is nothing "flimsy" about my claim. In June 2010 and today it is based upon the exact same evidence -- EXCEPT that today I have even more compelling documentation (courtesy of the Mary Ferrell website). Now, I have a LONG specific documentary history from FBI records that Harry was NEVER an FBI informant and, in fact, he was explicitly rejected -- as even Harry himself acknowledged. In June 2010, I had no clue that Harry had written two letters (one to JFK and one to Hoover) wherein he acknowledged in writing that he was told by FBI Agents in Chicago in June 1961 that they did not need his further assistance in the form of providing unsolicited information In June 2010, I had no clue that actual documents from Harry's FBI files (HQ, Los Angeles, and Chicago) had been released and were available online. In June 2010, I had no clue that back in 1985, somebody made an FOIA request which resulted in release of many documents from Harry's various files -- and, perhaps even the entire files. So, yes, today, my conclusion is even more substantiated by available empirical evidence. BY CONTRAST, you have not presented ANY verifiable factual evidence which supports your assertions and, even more importantly, you insist that no such evidence exists because it is hidden in "secret" or "classified" files! And when you decided to issue your eBook without even bothering to either obtain Harry's FBI and CIA files (via FOIA requests) and without even bothering to research available PRIMARY SOURCE material on Mary Ferrell's website -- you confirmed, beyond dispute, that you are not particularly interested in facts IF they are inconvenient to your narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to inform everyone that yesterday, I submitted a new FOIA request to the FBI in reply to their correspondence which instructed me to provide what is known as a "Public Interest Disclosure" [PID] justification which applies to situations when somebody who is living will not provide a notarized affidavit to permit release of their FBI records. The PID rule requires a requester to explain how the public interest should compel disclosure because it outweighs personal privacy which normally is invoked for records on a living person. In my request, I asked the FBI to search for and process all of the specific HQ and field office files which I already know about. IN ADDITION, I asked for a search of all the following FBI office locations: Dallas, Detroit, Indianapolis, Miami, Oklahoma City, Washington DC field, and the Legat of Ottawa Canada. In addition, I asked for all public source material in FBI files pertaining to Harry AND I asked for copies of all search slips used by the FBI. In addition, I asked for the name(s) of previous requesters on Harry, the date(s) when documents were released (if any), and the number of pages released. I'll let you all know what develops. Typically, the Bureau is willing to perform two hours of searching at no cost. Then it charges a fee. Then, if a search produces more than 500 pages of responsive documents, the Bureau sends the requester a letter asking if they would like to expedite processing by reducing the scope of their request. I also will be asked if I agree to pay costs involved for more than 500 responsive pages. IF the FBI has not already transferred all Dean-related files to NARA (which may have happened) -- then with a little luck, I might receive the first interim release in 6-8 months time. I will receive everything on CDROM so that I can share whatever I am sent, and, in addition, I will probably create a specific webpage to summarize the contents of whatever is released and also I will scan and post important documents on the webpage. I may not receive much that is not already known (from the Ferrell website) BUT it is possible that I will receive new documents from FBI office locations where Harry once lived. Many times field office files contain material which was NOT sent to FBI HQ -- so there can always be surprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 (edited) In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to inform everyone that yesterday, I submitted a new FOIA request to the FBI in reply to their correspondence which instructed me to provide what is known as a "Public Interest Disclosure" [PID] justification which applies to situations when somebody who is living will not provide a notarized affidavit to permit release of their FBI records. <snip> IF the FBI has not already transferred all Dean-related files to NARA (which may have happened) -- then with a little luck, I might receive the first interim release in 6-8 months time.... Well, Ernie, you actually had an opportunity here to be gentle and polite to Harry Dean and ask him politely for an affidavit, instead of coming out like a Stormtrooper in 1939. I predict that the FBI will reject your FOIA request because your justification is weak. (It truly is). As for your notion that the FBI may have transferred "all Dean-related files to NARA," that is wishful thinking on your part. You want to block out of your mind the very real possibility that some of Harry Dean's files have become combined with Lee Harvey Oswald's files, and therefore are classified as Top Secret. Go ahead and dream on. The whole world will know in 2017. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 16, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 (edited) In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to inform everyone that yesterday, I submitted a new FOIA request to the FBI in reply to their correspondence which instructed me to provide what is known as a "Public Interest Disclosure" [PID] justification which applies to situations when somebody who is living will not provide a notarized affidavit to permit release of their FBI records. <snip> IF the FBI has not already transferred all Dean-related files to NARA (which may have happened) -- then with a little luck, I might receive the first interim release in 6-8 months time.... Well, Ernie, you actually had an opportunity here to be gentle and polite to Harry Dean and ask him politely for an affidavit, instead of coming out like a Stormtrooper in 1939. I predict that the FBI will reject your FOIA request because your justification is weak. (It truly is). As for your notion that the FBI may have transferred "all Dean-related files to NARA," that is wishful thinking on your part. You want to block out of your mind the very real possibility that some of Harry Dean's files have become combined with Lee Harvey Oswald's files, and therefore are classified as Top Secret. Go ahead and dream on. The whole world will know in 2017. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul -- would you be kind enough to tell everyone on this site how you determined that my FOIA "justification is weak" ? My letter to the FBI is 3 entire pages in length and then there are 20 pages of exhibits attached. So please be VERY specific and let everyone know what, exactly, in those 3-pages of justification text is "weak". Also, many if not most JFK-related FBI HQ files were transferred to NARA, but often field office files are NOT. Here again you reveal your ignorance. And once again you have mis-represented my position. The FBI does not "combine files". Every file exists independently and decisions regarding whether or not to transfer anything to NARA depend upon criteria established many years ago . What you probably meant to say (if you are a serious person) is that perhaps there are copies of some specific serials which originated in Dean-related files that discuss JFK-related matters. In that case, copies of those serials may also have been placed into JFK-assassination files (as a result of standard cross-referencing practices). And, again, just because something was originally "classified top secret" 50 years ago does NOT mean it cannot be released today. If you doubt me, then just go to the National Security Archive website or the Government Attic website to see all the files originally classified "top secret" which, nevertheless have been released. In addition, there are documents on Mary Ferrell's website that were originally classified "top secret" but were released in 1998 or thereafter. I am glad that you now accept the 2017 date -- but, as previously mentioned, you will still not be satisfied even when those files are released. You will almost certainly claim that files released were "modified" or "purged" of anything that supports Dean's stories. Oh--and one more point. It is entirely possible that FBI field offices opened main files which discuss Dean but which have nothing to do with JFK-related matters. For example, that reference to his arrest in 1955 for some sort of matter pertaining to the federal Registration Act. That type of file would not be "combined" with LHO or any other JFK-related file. It potentially might still exist and be released. In fact, I noticed two more file numbers that have references to Dean which could well be released and I added them to my FOIA request. Also, please remember that at least one person obtained Harry Dean FBI and CIA file documents back in 1985. I do not know at this time if they obtained entire files or just specific documents. Obviously, they did not have an affidavit from Harry -- right? And THAT release produced a copy of Harry's rap sheet and other documents containing extremely confidential information and some serials marked "secret". So peddle your nonsense to whomever you think believes you....but existing empirical evidence has already falsified your premise. Edited November 16, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 (edited) Paul -- would you be kind enough to tell everyone on this site how you determined that my FOIA "justification is weak" ? My letter to the FBI is 3 entire pages in length and then there are 20 pages of exhibits attached. So please be VERY specific and let everyone know what, exactly, in those 3-pages of justification text is "weak". Ernie, here is the main weakness in your FOIA request as you have described it to the Forum: This particular FOIA request is a "Public Interest Disclosure" [PID] which applies to files of a person who is living who refuses to submit an affidavit granting permission for the public to see their FBI records. Now, by definition, you must somehow explain to the FBI how the "public interest" should compel the FBI to grant you access to files that are currently closed to you -- because the alleged 'public interest' outweighs the personal privacy of Harry Dean. Do you really suppose you can make that case, Ernie? Do you really think that the FBI would give you access to files by overriding the privacy rights of an American citizen, just because you want to see them? What possible justification can somebody present in the "public interest" to see the FBI files on Harry Dean? I realize that other people have been able to make that case -- Jim Garrison for example, or a Senate Subcommittee -- somebody who claims to speak for the public interest. But how do you, Ernie Lazar, speak for the public interest? It seems obvious that you don't speak for the public interest at all -- you speak only for your own private interest. So, how can your private interest override the private interest of Harry Dean? On what grounds? You have produced no grounds in your "full disclosure" memo to the Forum, and therefore your case is WEAK and stumbling. I hereby predict that the FBI will soundly deny your request, being generally reasonable (with rare exceptions, as in the case of JFK assassination). Please let us know the moment that the FBI responds to your FOIA request, Ernie. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 16, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 (edited) Paul -- would you be kind enough to tell everyone on this site how you determined that my FOIA "justification is weak" ? My letter to the FBI is 3 entire pages in length and then there are 20 pages of exhibits attached. So please be VERY specific and let everyone know what, exactly, in those 3-pages of justification text is "weak". Ernie, here is the main weakness in your FOIA request as you have described it to the Forum: This particular FOIA request is a "Public Interest Disclosure" [PID] which applies to files of a person who is living who refuses to submit an affidavit granting permission for the public to see their FBI records. Now, by definition, you must somehow explain to the FBI how the "public interest" should compel the FBI to grant you access to files that are currently closed to you -- because the alleged 'public interest' outweighs the personal privacy of Harry Dean. Do you really suppose you can make that case, Ernie? Do you really think that the FBI would give you access to files by overriding the privacy rights of an American citizen, just because you want to see them? What possible justification can somebody present in the "public interest" to see the FBI files on Harry Dean? I realize that other people have been able to make that case -- Jim Garrison for example, or a Senate Subcommittee -- somebody who claims to speak for the public interest. But how do you, Ernie Lazar, speak for the public interest? It seems obvious that you don't speak for the public interest at all -- you speak only for your own private interest. So, how can your private interest override the private interest of Harry Dean? On what grounds? You have produced no grounds in your "full disclosure" memo to the Forum, and therefore your case is WEAK and stumbling. I hereby predict that the FBI will soundly deny your request, being generally reasonable (with rare exceptions, as in the case of JFK assassination). Please let us know the moment that the FBI responds to your FOIA request, Ernie. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul -- nice try, but no cigar! You have stated that my justification letter to the FBI is "very weak". The only way you can possibly make that determination is if you have read it so please answer for everyone on this site, one VERY simple question, ok? HAVE YOU READ MY 3-PAGE JUSTIFICATION LETTER (which is typed in 10-point type and fills three entire pages). YES OR NO? Incidentally, just FYI, in the year 2005 I submitted a similar PID justification letter to the FBI for files on another LIVING person. I did not have a notarized affidavit from that person. Nevertheless, the FBI accepted my explanation and I received the HQ and field office files I requested. So, again, please tell everyone reading our discussion: HAVE YOU READ MY PID JUSTIFICATION LETTER WHICH I EMAILED YESTERDAY TO THE FBI? 11/16/13 CORRECTION: In the interest of total accuracy, I specified the wrong date for my successful former PID letter in my original message above. My request was made on Albert F. Canwell in the early 1980's when Canwell was still alive. Canwell died in 2002, about 17 years after my successful FOIA request. Canwell was the first Chairman of the Washington State Un-American Activities Committee. I became interested in him because, during the early 1960's, he was a defendant in a famous libel lawsuit in Washington state. Among his co-defendants were several JBS members. Anyway, my PID letter presented my reasons for why his files (HQ and Seattle) should be released without applying the normal privacy exemption even though Canwell was still living and even though I had no affidavit from him authorizing release of his FBI documents. The FBI accepted my PID arguments and I received his files. My reference (above) to year 2005 was for a different Canwell-related request (i.e. for the file on Canwell's Un-American Activities Committee) which was processed for me at that time. Edited November 16, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts