Dawn Meredith

[quote name='Rex Bradford' date='Jul 7 2006, 10:57 PM' post='67563'] I would love to put the Third/Fourth Decade issues all online. I have copies of most of them - the issue here is that I try to be fairly careful about copyright infringement. Thus I secured permissions for both the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles and Dealey Plaza Echo journals. Many welcomes Rex!! Been a big fan of your site a long time. Also used to subscribe. I did not know that Jerry Rose had died. God, if true, how tragic, another one of the true heros. Dawn

============BEGIN DOCUMENT=============== CHARLES COLSON MEMORANDUM JUNE 20 1972 Indistinct document retyped by House Judiciary Committee staff MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE SUBJECT: Howard Hunt June 20, 1972 The last time that I recall meeting with Howard Hunt was mid-March. According to my office records, the date was March 15. At that time I was under the impression that Hunt had left the White House and was working at the Committee for the Re-election of the President. I may have seen Hunt once or even possibly twice subsequent to that time. These were (or this was), however, a chance encounter. I do recall seeing him outside of my office during a day this Spring; I recall inquiring about his health since he had told me in March he had bleeding ulcers. During the brief conversation in the corridor, nothing was discussed of any of Hunt's work or his areas of responsibility. As I recall, he merely told me that he had been very busy and that after getting some rest, his health had been restored. I also talked to him on the telephone the night Governor Wallace was shot simply to ask him for his reactions on what he thought might have been the cause of the attempted assassination. (Hunt was known of something of an expert of psychological warfare and motivations when in the CIA.) The only other communication I can recall subsequent to March 15 was a memo I sent to Howard in connection with what I thought his duties were at 1701, i.e. security at the Republican Convention. Steve Bull told me he had a friend in Miami who had been stationed in the White House but was now in the Miami office of the Secret Service who wanted to be of help to whoever was handling security for the convention. I merely sent Hunt a note suggesting that he get in touch with Bull's friend. To the best of my recollection, Hunt came to me during the month of January and said he had no work to do here and no one was giving him any assignments and that this was the only campaign year he would ever probably have a chance to participate in, that he cared only about one thing, the re-election of the President, and that he wanted to be of help in any way he could, for pay or not for pay. I told him I had nothing in my office, but that I thought once the Committee was organized and Mitchell was in charge, there would be work for him to do at the Committee. I told him that I would be sure the Committee was aware of his desire to help. I did nothing further. A few weeks later Hunt dropped by my office with Gordon Liddy, from the Committee. I believe this was in February, possibly early in the month, although my office records do not show the visit. Hunt said he was in the building and just wanted to talk briefly. Both he and Liddy said that they had some elaborate proposals prepared for security activities for the Committee, but they had been unable to get approval from the Attorney General. I explained that Mitchell would soon be at the Committee and that they should be persistent and see him because he was the only one who could authorize work they would be doing. I have a vague recollection that Liddy said, "We [referring to Hunt and himself] are now over at the Committee working and we are anxious to get started but can't find anyone who can make a decision or give us the green light" or words to that effect. While Liddy and Hunt were in my office, I called Jeb Magruder and urged them to resolve whatever it was that Hunt and Liddy wanted to do and to be sure he had an opportunity to listen to their plans. At one point, Hunt said he wanted to fill me in and I said it wasn't necessary because it was of no concern to me, but that I would be glad to urge that their proposals, whatever they were, be considered. There was no discussion that I can recall of what it was that they were planning to do other than the fact that I have the distinct impression that it involved security at the convention and/or gathering intelligence during the Democratic National Convention. In March, Hunt sent me a memo explaining that when he retired from the CIA he had failed to designate survivor benefits for his wife and in view of the fact that he had had severe ulcer attacks, he wondered if this could be changed in view of his present government service. I told him to take the matter up with Dick Howard, which he did. Dick's memo to Kehrli, copy attached, was the result. I assume Dick Howard discovered at this time that Hunt was still on the rolls even though not working for us. I had assumed throughout Hunt's tenure in the White House that he was charged to someone else's budget. I signed the original request for him to be a consultant because everyone else was in California at the time it was decided to bring him in. Shortly after he came on board, however, he was assigned to David Young and Bud Krogh and I didn't consider at any time after that that Hunt was under my supervision or responsibility. From time to time after Hunt had come on board, he did talk to me, normally to express his frustrations in being unable to get things through the David Young operation. Of course, on occasion also we talked socially and about politics, something Howard and I had done from time to time over the years.

[J. Raymond Carroll' date=Jul 7 2006, 01:47 PM' post='67508] 'Ashton Gray' post='67474' date='Jul 7 2006, 03:11 AM'] What did Chuck Colson have to say on this subject? Only Ashton Gray knows that, and he's not telling. END of EDIT] [/color [/color] [/color] Mr Carroll: Up to now, no one has questioned the existence of two forged cables, and I would be interested to know on what basis Mr. Gray is questioning that now. [/color] Are you suggesting that Ashton Gray is having some telepathic communication with Chasles Colson? May I suggest you re-read the entire section, re forged (non) cable(s) . I am not trying to be funny or argumentative; I appreciate RCD's request for civility and will honor same. Re Colson: See Memo for file, subject Howard Hunt, 6/20/72. Submitted to House Jud. Comm. (will post later, am working) I am not aware of any " Colson testimony", are you? Dawn

[quote name='Peter Lemkin' date='Jul 7 2006, 01:16 PM' post='67506'] Peter: He is beyond despicable. Total CIA whore. I too was onto him from the first second. Now he's all over the map on all the cases. On tv all the time. I had a wonderful letter to ed. published in the local rag (Austin American Statesman) back in 93 where I took on on both Posner and Rather. Got a lot of response, mostly positive, but my favorite "negative" response was by Former AG Waggonner Carr!!! It's a true classic. Fortunately for me I signed only my name, omitting that I am an attorney. It took all my energy to suppress the urge to call him and have a little chat. . Somethings are better left unsaid, that is if one wishes to remain a member in good standing of the Tx. Bar. Dawn ps Steve:Great to see ya back.

[quote name='Mark Valenti' date='Jul 7 2006, 12:36 AM' post='67436'] [ I'm sure LHO had his soft, sweet side. But he also was a wife beater, a xxxx, a restless crybaby who wanted more than anything to "be" somebody. That doesn't mean he shot JFK but it sure sounds like he had his issues. The only evidence for this opinion of LHO is what I believe his wife was forced to say, under great durress and threats of deportation if she did not go along with the party line. LHO was involved in a lot of extremely interesting matters, of the intelligence brand, and delving into those waters requires one to go very deep. As to TMWKK, it was a fabulous series. I own all of it including the 3 censored hours and have had copies made for others. I was very much involved with the people featured in "The Guilty Men" . And my dear pal J Harrison had a good hand in the 2nd hour. (Forget the title, the one about JOhn Ligget) Barr McClellan is in the process of going after the history channel for both the censorship as well as the libelous follow-up by the "3 historains," who, curiously enough said ZERO about the allegations contained in these three hours of work, just ranted about how terrible Barr is and how LBJ was a great president. OF course Robert Dallek- who did an LBJ bio -was one of the three. It was garbage, but sadly this is what the history channel is currently pellding. (I call it the "Hitler channel") Dawn

John: Astounding, but predictable. It's not in the news here. I will look online after court. And you KNOW why it's not "headline" news inthe US. Dawn

I have never seen Pat so silent. I can only assume he's preparing his rebuttal. He posted earlier on the JFK assassination debate. Unless- gasp- you've convinced him, Ashton. Lightbulb moment here ??? Just wondering. Dawn

Jack The post I just made on the Carl Oglesby debate thread was for you (and others) who were confused by yesterday. (Tried to PM you but in box is full) Dawn

Sorry for the confusion everyone. Carl is not online, but I have called him and read all these great posts. I am also printing off same to send by snail mail. Should anyone have a question for Carl I will print off same and do both call and mail to him. Harvey (Yazijian) and I are trying to get him online but he's afraid he'd never get any work done. (I can hardly argue with that objection!!) Should anyone have a question they would like to ask privately of Carl please feel free to Pm me and I will call Carl with it and respond as quickly as I am able. Carl has been working on an SDS book for the past several years and is in the process of finishing same for Cornell, who is going to publish it. Hopefully then Harv and I will be successful in our efforts to get him on the net and he can participate here w/o an intermediary. I am just so happy to see his book being scanned here. For all to read. (Jack White, I tried to PM you, re this, but your box is full) . Thus this post. Dawn

Dawn - So very sorry to hear about Nathan. He and I had such a wonderful time together that day at your home. I wonder that his family kept him isolated from us? He remains a major figure. And thank you so much for keeping me in touch. My contacts into the old J community in Austin are primarily with you. Have a wonderful fourth and only the best for you and for Erick. Barr

I am sure something will occur to me, after Pat Speer has had his opportunity for rebuttal. Since Mr. Gray's style is somewhat, how shall I say, circumlocutous, and since you can understand it, perhaps you Dawn, would be kind enough to summarize his arguments in a nice legal manner so that they are a little less opaque. I am sure Terry Mauro is not the only one who has difficulty deciphering what Ashton really means. If there are any relevant legal issues, perhaps you would point them out to us also. As I see it up to now, Pat Speer alleges that E. Howard Hunt is guilty of forgery, while Ashton Gray says that Hunt is innocent. Thank you in anticipation. YOu're a lawyer. You figure it out. If you'd bother to read the other Carl Oglesby thread you'd see that I have my hands full here trying to down load and snail mail all this stuff TO Carl as he is not online. (BUT IS PARTICIPATING HERE WITH HIS EXPLICIT PERMISSION, VIA HIS OLD FRIEND OF NOW 33 years, ME.) So please do not interrupt the post where his book is being scanned. It's a holiday here and I have been at this all day. I do have a life and an actual legal career. I am not here to make arguments for Ashton, legal or otherwise. He does quite well on his own. And I spoke with Terry today, so you are wrong, she is having some time crunch problems and has not devoted her every waking second to this forum. She "gets" Ashton. And I am certain you and Pat do as well.. So ball's in Pat' s court here. Have a good one. (I defer to what Mike HOgan posted re your thoughts ) Dawn

The sound of silence is deafening. But Pat is likely off enjoying his 4th of July. No doubt Mr. Carrol may have some pearls of wisdom, for which I will wait, on pins and needles. Well done Ashton, you have made your case. I await the rebuttal. If people STILL don't get it I will have to begin to question I. Q. level here. I certainly would not ever conceive of dreaming there are disinformationists in our midst Dawn (What a ride.....it's like being sent back to 73 and re-living the Watergate hearings, only this time with relevent and logical commentary. ) ('Bout damn time)

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Jul 4 2006, 03:34 PM' post='67115'] Two photographs of John Paisley. One alive, one dead. Is it the same man? Does not appear to be, but I shall defer to the many photo experts on this forum. Dawn

I am posting on this thread as I do not wish to reply on the thread "Carl Oglesby: The Yankee and Cowboy War". But I just read that first installment. First time I have read those words in about 15 years and I am as spellbound as I was when I first read them. As an aside here, I feel that I need to make an additional point- a person al one. There has been a lot of speculation here about Ashton Gray somehow "turning (my) head around" (paraphrase sorry). I held the views I hold re Watergate since its inception. One night in early 1973, a neighbor of mine and I were engaged in conversation. Talk turned to Watergate, of course. Upon hearing my views my neighbor/friend ( David)- said that I must be "reading Carl Oglesby". To which I replied "who is Carl Oblesby?" (I would meet Carl a few weeks later when David took me to a lecture Carl was giving at Boston University) and we have been very close friends ever since. Family!! ) But, Carl did not "form (my) views" on these matters, any more than has Ahston. I have learned some very interesting things about Watergate by reading Ashton's work, just as I- long ago- had my thinking more clarified by reading Carl's masterful work. So, to have this wonderful opportunity to re-read it here on the forum, knowing that other forum members will also now appreciate this beautifully scripted prose and most cogent analysis of "Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate" brings me such joy on this lovely 4th of July. Thanks to Tim Carroll, for putting these words on his blog, and to Ter for posting them here. But especially to John for the big task of making the book available here on the forum. Of course the most praise and thanks goes to my dear, dear friend Carl O. for all the work that went into writing this book. Dawn

The whole world can't hardly wait to hear the rest of this pretentious gibberish. I know we are in two seperate countries, but now I see we are also in two seperate and distinct REALITIES. Scary Ray! Brilliant Ashton! I look forward to part two. Dawn

"Please come to (Austin) in the springtime" In the springtime? I'm still trying to get there by the fall, fer cryin' out loud! Hopefully, this new job will afford me the luxury of actually having enough left over from my paycheck to save for the planefare and some 'mad' money to run all over town with. Keep your fingers crossed. Update: I meant to type that Carl has given his permission- (to Terry and I, via 3-way conversation yesterday)- that he'd be "honored" to have his brilliant "Yankee Cowboy War-Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate" scanned onto the net. I am in the process of trying to get somone who will do this. My copy is held together by a lot of tape, so I would not even consider trying to photocopy it, let alone scan. ) Nor do I have the time). Ter: Look in your "in" email box. "Re Austin". A very happy Dawn HAPPY 4TH OF JULY EVERYONE!!!!

Pat: Forgive me for butting in here but it was you, was it not, who said you could "prove" your case for the the cables having been created. Like with your past "proof", you give us statements of men many of us here believe to be less than candid. That is not "proof". Sorry to hold you to some sort of legal standard, but it was you who said you had the goods. And that you'd prove it. So seems to me you have created a catch -22 for Ashton. (When he is merely asking you to do that which you said you were going to do.) Sorry to have to resort to logic here, but B does follow A, does it not? Ashton did answer many of your questions and respond to your points until you twisted his words until they were no longer recognizable. So, again where's the proof? Kinda hard for someone to rebut something when the instant case has yet to be made. The floor's all yours. Dawn

*********************************************************** "I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam." Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence? In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as "circumstantial evidence." "Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables? EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy." Aka, "circumstantial evidence." "Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem? EHH: I did. Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson? EHH: I did. Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables? EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables." A pre-meditated, egregious, and deceitful obstruction of justice, employing malice aforethought. This all leads back to a murder case, mind you. Actually, to two subsequent "bloody" coup d'etats, as opposed to those of the "bloodless" kind, if you will. But, alas that's just my humble opinion and take on this whole sordid mess. Good response Ter. Dawn

Hi Bill etc I just now realized there are two threads on the call for a Grand Jury. Just making this one "current". Bill, I have some questions/thoughts, will email you) Dawn

JOHN, THE ANSWER IS, ALL THREE. NEW, YOUNG UP AND COMING LAWYERS, FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THE CASE WILL HAVE TO DO THE MOST WORK, WELL ESTABLISHED LAWYERS WILL HAVE TO BE CONSULTED, AND A SEASONED VETERAN WITH NOTHING TO LOSE WILL HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE JURY. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF GOOD NYUC LAYWERS WHO HAVE ALREADY DONE A LOT OF WORK, AND AMONG THE WELL ESTABLISHED LAWYERS WE HAVE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL DEANS AND WORKING FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO HELP MAKE THE CASE. AS FOR THE SEASONED VETERAN, MY FIRST CHOICE IS PHILADELPHIA LAWYER AND FORMER PROSECUTOR RICHARD SPRAGUE, THE FIRST CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE HSCA, WHO SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED TONY BOYLE IN THE POLITICAL ASSASSINATION OF UNITED MINE WORKERS PRESIDENT JOCK LABLONSKI. HIS FORMER HSCA ASSISTANT ROBERT TANNENBAUM IS A FORMER NEW YORK PROSECUTOR WHO COULD ALSO DO IT RIGHT. WE WILL HAVE TO GO WITH WHATEVER PROSECUTOR OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY DECIDES WE HAVE ENOUGH NEW EVIDENCE TO TAKE THE CASE TO A GRAND JURY, AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE WHOEVER WE GET - AND PROBABLY YOUNGER, LESS TIED TO OLD SCHOOL WILL BE BETTER. BUT I DON'T WANT TO PLAY ALL OUR CARDS AND SHOW ARE HAND BEFORE WE GET A GAME GOING. AND JOHN, HOW YOU MAKING OUT IN DC KID? BK Bill: This is a very important thread. Just reminding, everyone concerned with justice shoud read this entire thread. And then do something. Just one step. Remain focussed. There are two investigations being called for on this forum. I am equally committed to them both. (Bill: The second one is a demand to re-open Watergate. Have you followed any of that?) Dawn Dawn .

[quote name='Terry Mauro' date='Jul 1 2006, 08:02 PM' post='66854'] [/color]I'm in. I think we have taken the first step. Now it's time to FOCUS. Dawn Ashton: Bill Kelly is the poster (on JFK assassination debate) calling for a Grand Jury on assassination. Take a look at his thread.

John (Simkin) I just received a hateful PM from this Daniel Dunne character. I have fwd it to you. (As well as to the people it concerned besides me). Ashton and Terry. There is a concerted effort on this forum to cause serious dissent and it is NOT coming from the person about whom all this concerns as he is merely the messenger here. If people don't like his message, DON"T READ IT. He (Ashton) has said, repeatedly now, that he will no longer respond to Pat Speer, Raymond Carroll and now Daniel Dunne who has posted some lunatic fringe thing on the Politiacal conspiracies part of the forum , reference to- who else- Ashton- on some aburdly named thread "Response to the New Messiah" I am actually quite tempted to post what he sent to me. He is CRAZY and extremely hostile. POSTERS ON THIS FORUM BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT HATE PM'S TO ME WILL PROMTLY BE SENT TO THE FORUM ADMINISTRATOR. THEN THEY WILL BE DELETED FROM CLUTTERING UP MY IN BOX. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF LETTING THIS CRAP SLIDE. THIS DOG AND PONY SHOW HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH AND I AM NOT ABOUT TO BACK DOWN OR BE INTIMIDATED BY SOME WET-BEHIND -HE EARS-FORUM xxxxx. The PM function is for communicating with someone with whom you may have something to ask/answer etc, and do not wish to do it publicly. It should not have to be said that to harrass someone is a misuse of this function key, and that such misuse will be immediately reported. For the record-for those who still do not GET it: Ashton is no longer responding to these people. He has better things to do with his time. As do I and as does Terry. But we all have your f****** number pals. As for me I now intend to utilize the "ignore" function key on this forum for the above three names. (Pat, Ray and Dan) like I did when little Ms. Lynne Foster was doing this internet xxxxx stuff. It sure made life and the forum easier. I apologise for the length of this post. I only wish I did not have to make one but it's reached the point where reasonable minds are not permitted to simply differ. It's become terribly ugly. I can "do ugly" but why bother? This is exactly what these people want. It's just another MO. Same story different day. Dawn

[/color]No RC, their MO is always the same, that's why it's always been so damn obvious, to me ast least. Dawn ps Happy Canada day (yesterday )