Tim Gratz and the Plot to Kill Wallace

[Tim Gratz]

John, have I not repeatedly told you, both privately and on this forum, how much I respect your web-site even though I disagree (strongly) with most of your politics? Do you know how often I have commended it to people? Just the other day I was showing your section on religious leaders to my church secretary. I don't want your forum shut down even despite our political differences. As you know, I had even called "USA Today" to see if it would do a story on Spartacus.

But Shanet clearly DID libel me. Accusing someone of a serious crime is clearly libelous. And I do believe you have an obligation to prevent the use of your Forum to propogate libel. As you are aware, I privately cautioned you about this months ago in the context of statements made against someone who means nothing to me (witness I can't even remember who the subject was now).

And John I do remain concerned that your publication of the Sprague book and starting a thread calling his comments on Bremer to everyone's attention HAS damaged me. It is easy to assume that Sprague would not simply invent something like that. Which is why I hope someone can locate Turner so we can determine how the mistake arose, or if it was intentional. I know there are forum members who know there is no evidence to support Sprague's statement, but it still makes them wonder about whether there is anything to it.

[Dixie Dea]

John

Oh dear!!!

I didn't intend for you to take personal offense to what I said. Actually It didn't even come to my mind, when I was making the above post, that you had also been threatened, by Tim. I do know I would be real upset about it too.

I sure wouldn't want to see you shut down the forum and sure didn't mean to indicate that I did.

However, as far as being lible...I have no idea about that. I have never been sued, nor have I ever contemplated suing anyone. So, I have no knowledge of such things. I would most likely try to do everything possible to try and rectify a situation rather then consider a court action..... that is just the way I am! So, I can understand what you are saying!

____________

Dixie

______________________________________

"Let your mind start a journey through a strange new world! Leave all thoughts of the world you knew before!"

______________________________________

[Greg Wagner]

But Shanet clearly DID libel me.  Accusing someone of a serious crime is clearly libelous. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tim-

Wouldn't the burden of proof in such a lawsuit be on you, Tim? Please correct me if I'm wrong here (and I could be- I'm no attorney), but you (the prosecution) would have to prove in a court of law that the charges against you were false, would you not?

If that is the case, and you are running around threatening people with legal action (which presumably, you believe you would win), it follows that you have said proof of your innocence ready to be presented. Perhaps you could just present it here. That would serve your desired end just as well. Certainly with hard evidence proving your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, such as you would use to win your case, this matter would be closed and you would be vindicated. End of story, and we move on to the business of who murdered John Kennedy and why.

But you are the attorney, so I yield to your experience and knowledge here. If you have exculpatory evidence, why not share it and end this? If not, given that you are an integral part of our work here, then this issue should certainly be fair game for discussion, as it relates to your credibility. No?

I'm afraid my knowledge of the issues at hand is limited, so I have yet to draw any firm conclusions. I am currently trying to learn what I can about these events/accusations. I do however think that this whole sordid mess is very, very unfortunate.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Tim Gratz,Jul 18 2005, 02:18 PM Quote

I do intend to sue Shanet......

Puts in mind of the Jewish-Japanese restaurant called 'Susumi'

LOL

EBC

[Tim Gratz]

To Greg:

Sufficient proof in a court of law to demonstrate actionable libel would be my sworn testimony that I had nothing to do with Bremer.

It would then be the responsibility of the person making the charge to offer evidence of any connection. Shanet, wisely, admitted that he had none.

All I can do is deny the spurious allegations. How else could I disprove it? I don't have a diary of how I spent every moment in 1972.

No one can prove any connection between me and Bremer, or between me and the attempt to kill Wallace, because there was none.

Enough said.

The lesson here should be: don't believe everything you read in an aassassination book.

[Pat Speer]

To Greg:

Sufficient proof in a court of law to demonstrate actionable libel would be my sworn testimony that I had nothing to do with Bremer.

It would then be the responsibility of the person making the charge to offer evidence of any connection.  Shanet, wisely, admitted that he had none.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are QUITE wrong about this. In our discussions of the Secret Agenda lawsuit between Ida Wells and Gordon Liddy, Ron Ecker pointed out that she lost not because what he said was true, but because she failed to prove he had NO REASON to believe what he said was true. The burden of proof would be on you, buddy, to prove that Shanet had reason to believe Sprague's book was not credible. As a result, I don't think your case would even get off the ground.

Our country wisely protects Shanet's right to be wrong, at the expense of your right not to have anyone say any mean things about you or impugn your spotless reputation. Sorry. As a conservative you should be happy that the constitution is designed to keep Uncle Sam off your back, even when you're wrong.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, remember that Shanet clearly implied he had friends or acquaintances in Wisconsin who linked me to the assassination. He knew when he made that statement it was a lie. Thus, it would have been a slam-dunk.

Someone (you?) had suggested I could still sue Turner. Well, I cannot sue Turner for what Sprague says Turner said. As I have repeatedly said, based on my readings of Turner, I think he usually gets things right. Sprague's "book" however is full of malarkey. So my conclusion is Sprague misinterpreted Turner (perhaps intentionally) to support his theory of a "grand assassination".

Again, I hope Turner can be tracked down, I am confident that if he is, he will deny making the statement Sprague attributes to him,

[Harry J.Dean]

Pat, remember that Shanet clearly implied he had friends or acquaintances in Wisconsin who linked me to the assassination.  He knew when he made that statement it was a lie.  Thus, it would have been a slam-dunk.

Someone (you?) had suggested I could still sue Turner.  Well, I cannot sue Turner for what Sprague says Turner said.  As I have repeatedly said, based on my readings of Turner, I think he usually gets things right.  Sprague's "book" however is full of malarkey.  So my conclusion is Sprague misinterpreted Turner (perhaps intentionally) to support his theory of a "grand assassination".

Again, I hope Turner can be tracked down,  I am confident that if he is, he will deny making the statement Sprague attributes to him,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

William 'Bill' Turner lives in Mill Valley, California

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm not out to "lynch" Tim.

I'm out to show that his own words belie his statement that he shows respect for the intelligence of folks with whom he disagrees.

Tim has, on NUMEROUS occasions, questioned the intelligence of others on the forum.  I have cited only FOUR examples so far; many more exist that I am aware of, in just the relatively short time I've been on the forum.  And Tim has, to this point, only tried to rationalize his behavior, rather than to admit that his statement about showing respect for the intelligence of others is incorrect.

Tim, I ask you:  Did you, or did you NOT, post the statements I have cited?

Do these statements, or do they NOT, question the intelligence of the person to whom they are directed?

If the answer to these two questions is "YES," then does that not prove your statement about respecting the intelligence of others is factually incorrect?

No further questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark,

Judging by Tim's silence, I believe it's game, set and match.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Dixie, you do not know how much I appreciate that!  I suspect there may be others who share your sentiments.

You are correct as well that I believe the debates between Robert Charles Dunne and I have been polite, and I do respect his intelligence and his often eloquent articulation of his arguments.

And, while I dispute Tim's contentions here almost daily, and have come to question the sincerity of his belief in what he posts, I have always admired his stamina, his willingness to endure taunts [including my own], and his passionate articulation of his point of view.  I wish only that his talents were in the service of a hypothesis that might actually advance our knowledge and understanding of the case.  To the extent that Tim refuses to post any actual evidence, I will continue to hold his feet to the fire, but bear him no personal grudge for holding an opposing view.

The problem is that terrible (and as you rightly characterized it) vague statement in Sprague's book.  It says a "group" with which I associated funded Bremer but it does not identify the group.  It implies I participated in the funding, but does not say so.  Nor does it neccessarily state that the funding was related to the Bremer attempt on Wallace's life.

There is much yet to learn about the contention contained in Sprague's book, and I'd like to help plumb the matter to whatever extent it is still possible to do so.  I did not read it to mean that you had a personal hand in either the funding, or in providing funds to Bremer, only that you were allegedly affiliated with the unnamed group that gave cash to Bremer.  As you rightly note, it may not have even been disbursed to him related to the Wallace assassination attempt. 

Now, clearly, Bremer's travel expenses alone were certainly beyond his means, given his limited income.  And because it was a limited income, he presumably would have selected a "Motel 6" rather than a Waldorf-Astoria, yet he did not.  He not only had the money to stay in posh places, but presumably expected to be able to obtain more, or he would have been more frugal.  [Also, the article I posted a link to mentions that Bremer was apparently quite upset at his depiction as a rootless bum, and cited his residency in fancy hotels as proof that he wasn't just a minimum wage dishwasher.] 

One notes that Bremer  was allegedly present at a number of SDS meetings, which raises the spectre of Tim Heinan and Ken Reitz, both of whom were recruiting students to infiltrate radical campus groups, much as Segretti was attempting to recruit law students and lawyers to infiltrate the Democratic candidates' campaigns.  This is one conceivable reason for, and method by, which Bremer could have been paid, although it doesn't seem to involve you, Tim G.  

One indication that the Sprague statement is false is that he lumps me with Segretti when it is clear from the record that I objected to Segretti and did not even "take the hint" when CREEP first told me it had no objection if I wanted to work with him.

Tim, you mustn't take it as a given that simply because you ratted out Segretti to Karl Rove [and bully for you for doing so], that you had no relationship with the undetermined "group" in which Segretti may have also been a member.  That would be beyond your ken, unless you knew far more about Segretti and his multiple connections.  Obviously, if we could determine which group Sprague alluded to, we'd all be further ahead in trying to confirm this as true or dismiss this as conjecture, or worse. 

If, purely as a hypothetical example, it transpired that like you, Segretti and Cassini were both associated in some fashion with Young Americans for Freedom [or the Republican party] and provided cash to Bremer, such fact could explain Sprague's statement, despite the fact that you nothing to do with either man, beyond what you've already admitted, or with Bremer himself.

Also, of course, it makes no sense that I would get involved in a MURDER of all things when only a few months earlier I had objected to some of Segretti's proposals which were FAR MORE innocuous.

But now that this has been debated on the Forum, Sprague's statement may hang around my neck like an albatross until it can be determined why Sprague wrote it.  Presumably that would involve locating and interviewing Turner, who Sprague cited as his source.  Hopefully this can be accomplished.  It could be that Sprague simply misinterpreted something Turner said.  Such things happen.  I remember when John started a thread on Felix Rodriguez and wrote that at the conference in England Larry Hancock had suggested that Rodriguez might be a suspect in the assassination.  And Larry posted that that was not what he meant at all.

I am intrigued by the suggestion that someone from the Nixon campaign was trying to frame me in case I got too far off the reservation on the Segretti matter.  It is certainly an interesting theory but I really doubt it was anything that Machievellian.

Because I'm prepared to take you at your word, Tim, I cast about for alternate explanations for somebody having floated so baseless an allegation about you.  If you really did have nothing to do with Segretti, beyond your one meeting and a few phone calls, and had never met Cassini [in his own name or any of his many aliases], then with the exception of a possible mistake in identity, it seems that somebody sought to implicate you in chicanery. 

Who would have a motive for doing so, if not the Karl Rove contingent whose political excesses they may have feared you would expose to the police or the press, or the Democrats?  And if you dismiss my suggestion as too Machievellian, then you must have missed the telephone conversation I posted in which Nixon whispered to Colson to tell the FBI's Mark Felt, immediately after the attempt on Wallace, that Bremer was somehow tied to the Kennedys.  Your were campaigning on behalf of amoral, sociopathic thugs and scumbags, Tim.  Surely you don't think they'd hestitate to take such pre-emptive action against you as tying you to Bremer if they feared the repercussions of you going public with what [little] you knew?

Thanks again for your comments, Dixie.  I do feel I have suffered some abuse on the Forum merely because people disagree with my scenario.

Actually, Tim, the reason people have come to despise your behaviour is due strictly to your willingness to spew the most outrageously groundless accusations while simultaneously displaying an equally strong unwillingness to cite any evidence to bolster your assertions.  Any witless fool can make false accusations; a man of integrity offers his audience reasons to believe what he says is true.  Since you have claimed that you're the victim of such groundless accusations, one would think that you, of all people, would think twice before committing the same sin you so revile when it's directed at you. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

And, while I dispute Tim's contentions here almost daily, and have come to question the sincerity of his belief in what he posts, I have always admired his stamina, his willingness to endure taunts [including my own], and his passionate articulation of his point of view.

Robert, you have probably picked up that despite your occasional taunts, as you put it, I have high respect for your intelligence and the eloquence of your articulation. And for your integrity. (In fact, I happened to see on the internet a letter you once wrote to someone (on an unrelated matter) protesting about a gratuitous callous comment made about someone and I was impressed with your empathy of that person (who you did not know personally). (Do you remember the letter to which I am refering?)

I also think it says something about your judgment that you are "prepared to take me at my word" that I had nothing to do with Bremer or Cassini. From your post and your trying to reason out what was going on here, I suspect it is more than just taking me at my word. I suspect your instinct or judgment tells you that is true. As well, of course, as the vagueness of Sprague's statement.

Rather than responding to the rest of your post now, I am going to try to contact Mr. Turner to see if he can clear this up. If I get ahold of him I will ask him to join the Forum.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

I just got off the telephone with Mr. Turner. Very nice man. Said he knew Dick Sprague personally. Said he had never heard of my name before. Said he wrote about the relationship of Bremer and Cassini in his book "Government by Gunplay." States he is unaware of any relationship between Segretti and Bremer or Cassini. States he never wrote anything connecting either me or Segretti with either Bremer or Cassini. States he never discussed any such thing with Sprague. He was nonplussed that Sprague attributed such a statement to him. (He showed obvious respect for Sprague.)

So there we have it. Not only is Sprague's reference to me wrong, so is Sprague's reference to his source.

I don't like to say "I told you so" but have I not posted repeatedly that I have great respect for Mr. Turner and his writings and that I was confident he would be more careful about making any such allegation (since I of course knew it was false). The error, I said, had to originate with Sprague, not with Mr. Turner. And so it seems.

I am sure Mr. Turner does not want to be deluged with phone calls. I gave him the reference to the Forum. I would like to suggest that perhaps Larry could call him to verify that everything I said about my conversation with Turner is accurate, and that I omitted nothing from my report.

Thanks to Mr. Dean for referencing Mr. Turner's residence.

Now maybe everyone can understand why I was so upset. And to Pat, I understand you were once falsely accused of being a homosexual. Well, I am not in any way sympathetic to that lifestyle, but I suggest there is a WORLD of difference between being "accused" of being a homosexual and being accused of being a party to a conspiracy to commit murder.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

You've said that you didn't go after Sprague for this because by the time you encountered the allegation, he was dead. Turner is still alive, last I heard, so you may wish to contact him to determine the genesis for this allegation. Once you know how it came to be, perhaps you'll have a better idea of how to seek a remedy.

So, Robert, now that we all (as I had always known) that Turner was innocent, have you any suggestions?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Knight wrote:

Turner, via Sprague, implicated you...justly or unjustly. You claim you're innocent. I'm in no position to say you're innocent simply because you SAY you're innocent

Eat your words, Mark. Turner did no such thing.

I've always asserted Turner would have never said such a thing. Since I have great respect Turner and his writings.

So far everything that has required my "judgment" and or "instinct" (e.g. that Segretti was "trouble" and "up to no good"; that Ken Rietz ought not be trusted; and that Turner had never implicated me in any plot) my judgment has turned out to be correct. Perhaps you should factor that in when you consider my other opinions.

And I note that Dixie and George were the ONLY Forum members to come to my defense. I think their concern for "fair play" for me was commendable and upholds traditional liberal values. (Although I think I should also include Robert Charles-Dunne since it seemed clear from his posts that he was also quite confident there was nothing to Sprague's statement.)

I can only hope that the rest of you will learn a valuable lesson: use discernment; don't believe everything you read in a conspiracy book. And hope that if you are ever falsely accused of something, there will be people around who not only TALK liberal values of fair play and justice, but who also practice them.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

[.

I can only hope that the rest of you will learn a valuable lesson: use discernment; don't believe everything you read in a conspiracy book. And hope that if you are ever falsely accused of something, there will be people around who not only TALK liberal values of fair play and justice, but who also practice them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, this posturing is getting tiresome, most of the good people here have not accused you of anything, and that includes me. So I take exception at being told off by yourself. Get a grip man..