Robert Howard

This is a very nice gesture. Thanks for going to the trouble to do that!

I wanted to respond to Tim's post which brings up some valid concerns about George Bush and the NSA Wiretaps issue. First, if this administration had a perfect track record and obviously it doesent, I would still 'be very afraid' over the profound situation that exists in regard to the legality of his actions, it is my understanding that in 1978 Congress acted to prevent the Executive Branch of the government from abusing intelligence agencies i.e 'spying arbitrarily' on US Citizens. As far as I know, nothing has fundamentally changed since then regarding the legal process, correct me if I am wrong. Second, the allegation is that the administration is basically circumventing the process, by 'in some cases' not obtaining authorization before performing some of the wiretaps, that this is so appears to be reflected by the fact that some NSA Staffers actually refused to comply with what was being asked of them. It would be fair to say that the NSA is not a 'far left' organization but a part of the intelligence sector of the US Government in which everyone is concerned with protecting our country from terrorism and other threats to our country and it's citizens. No-one including myself, has a problem with using the existing system in place to monitor 'threats to America's National Security.' The Rosetta Stone of this issue hinges on the Bush Administrations assertions that the 'easing of restrictions' is necessary even though 'the difference' is simply continuing to obtain oversight approval from an independent oversight authority. So we are essentially being asked to implement a system where there are no 'checks and balances' because the administration 'say's its necessary.' It is even asserted that the administration sought Ashcroft's 'de facto' legal authorization to do this, and even he refused to do so. Attorney General Gonzalez appears to have no such reservations. And if the allegation is true, then it appears to be to incorporate elements of deception as a tactic, which is not a pleasant thought. Third, there are members of the Senate, (please do not ask me to report who they are, the information is readily accessible doing a search on the Internet using sources such as the NY Times and other major media outlet's) who have responded to the Presidents statements 'that he has been keeping members of Congress informed on the more pertinent aspects of the NSA wiretaps' is simply not so. These facts themselves require intense scrutiny in and of themselves. Fourth, I'm assuming some Forum members have studiously read V. Bugliosi's 'The Betrayal of America; which is the real story of that dark blot on American history which I stipulate look's more like something from 1901 than 2001 (add in the fact that most American's didn't even know about the very ugly Inauguration Day scene, because the media decided we didn't need to know about that and a lot of us didn't know until Michael Moore's Farenheit 9-11,) The fact that there are very bizarre events connected to 9-11 that we are still 'left in the lurch about,' even though I concede that there is a reason why covert actions are not public knowledge. (But the previous post Ron made about the Mossad/Bombing/Mexico) is not the first instance of Israel's covert activity that has surfaced unintentionally) And lastly the fact that GHWB's records of his administration are 'sealed' and not even available under FOIA, and the same classified status is slated for our current administration, when it leaves office, leaves me at a loss for words as to how anybody can sleep comfortably at night, with this type of status quo, as the ostensible 'life in these United States.'

Capehart was photograph down in Mexico as well as in the plaza. He may have taken part in the demostration up in Canada, but I will have to recheck as my memory is somwhat fuzzy. Can someone fill me in on the 'demonstration up in Canada?' I try to stay attuned to anything in this area and it is news to me. Please specify time frame, I know that there was some Omega-7 activities regarding Canada, but that is decades after 11/22/63. Also back to the thread isn't it true that besides being mentioned as a possible candidate for the 'Cuban' next to UM' Ferenc Nagy lived just a couple of miles from Dealey Plaza? I have always thought that he was sort of a forgotten figure, or maybe it was the misfortune of being mentioned in Torbitt's manuscript, NOAAC.

I sent a link to the Rense article to Andersen Cooper of CNN and mentioned that the story never seemed to get any attention in the USA, I also referenced the pathetic situation regarding the US Media coverage of 'unpopular stories, (as in unpopular to the current administration) and added that I hoped he wouldnt be part of the crowd. I don't expect anything to come of it, but I gave it a shot. My reasoning was that he certainly appeared to be the only major media person adequately covering the Katrina debacle. In the spirit of the Holiday Season, "It's starting to look a lot like Christmas, er I mean "NSA-Gate" See Story. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ter_911_report/ Also, the Bush Administration has instructed the Dept. of Justice to investigate how the New York Times 'obtained classified information concerning the NSA Wiretaps', a day or so ago, does this mean that the Bush Administration, besides declaring a 'War on Terrorism' has subsequently declared a 'War on Investigative Journalism?' It sure seems so, and they said that Nixon had chutzpah, geez.

Here he is on namebase.org http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=Helliwell%2C+Paul And maryferrell.org http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ancedResults.do With regards to Helliwell, has anybody read Pete Brewton - The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, or The Octopus: Secret Government/Death of Danny Casolaro. With regards to the latter the dynamic of a book that references everything from JFK Assassination to Promis Software, Inslaw and Michael Riconosciuto seems to be a must read especially in light of Casolaro's mysterious death. The Fish is Red page reference on maryferrell.org is not correct the actual pages are 46, 386-87. I bet William Turner could provide some illuminating thoughts on Helliwell, he was certainly an 'important person.' Reference on p. 46 states "during the campaign against Cuba Helliwell's office was linked with the allegorically named Red Sunset Enterprises, which reportedly was an employment agency for espionage and sabotage specialists. Like Zenith Technical Enterprises, Red Sunset was listed in the white pages but without an address."

Hargraves gets my vote as TUM. Who do you think it was Win? john I think that chances are it is Witt, partially because Penn Jones appears to have been tipped off that it was Witt and that is how his name became part of the record in the first place, after that all bets are off. First the manner that the two (UM & DCM) sit down together is inordinately suspicious to say the least, and also because of the photographic sequence which certainly appears to be a walkie talkie in the (Cuban's?) DCM back pocket, which by the way goes back to Jim Hicks who certainly appears to also have one in his back pocket, c'mon guys. Walkie Talkies at the crime scene? Also "One of the (HSCA) Commissions attorneys asked Witt specifically if he remember(ed) seeing the man with a walkie talkie, this is interesting because no one has ever admitted the possibility of radios in use in Dealey Plaza." From http://www.jfk-assassination.com/articles/umbrella.php After going back and reading some of Penn Jones work, I have come to the conclusion that 'someone may have been feeding him false information on certain aspects of the assassination,' but that is just my opinion. But for the sake of historical accuracy I would take the linkage between Jones 'discovering' Witt was the Umbrella Man with a grain of salt. The matter has not been helped much by the seemingly cavalier manner that Witt's HSCA testimony was taken down...Joking about the Umbrella when it didn't open properly etc...

The Ferrell site is now working for me, but check out what's going on at Wim Dankbaar's site: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB2/index.php I have never seen anything like that before: big bold-faced type taking credit for the hacking. T.C. That is a new one for me as well, has anybody talked to the maryferrel.org people to get the scoop on how it went down, or jfkmurdersolved.com?

I sent a link to the Rense article to Andersen Cooper of CNN and mentioned that the story never seemed to get any attention in the USA, I also referenced the pathetic situation regarding the US Media coverage of 'unpopular stories, (as in unpopular to the current administration) and added that I hoped he wouldnt be part of the crowd. I don't expect anything to come of it, but I gave it a shot. My reasoning was that he certainly appeared to be the only major media person adequately covering the Katrina debacle.

It was down for me last night and is down today (Friday). As of 4:00 PM CST maryferrell.org appears to be up and working fine, at the moment. I had the same problem for the past day or so.

His cited source (http://www.kosmos.uni.cc/), which is now a dead link, is dated November 26, 2001, so I assume that Rense reported it soon after that. As reported by ABC News and other sources, they were 5 young Israeli army veterans, working for an Israeli-owned moving company in New Jersey with little discernible assets. They were arrested for their puzzling behavior (happily videotaping themselves with the burning WTC in the background). One had $4,000 in cash in his sock, another had two passports. They were held for two months on charges of visa violations and working illegally in the U.S., and finally deported. They were believed by many in the U.S. intelligence community to be Israeli intelligence operatives. The owner of the company was questioned after their arrest, but fled to Israel before he could be questioned again. To Len Colby, here is the story about the list of accomplishments for the Bush Administration 2005 courtesy of Reuters, the Washington Post also carried the story. http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty...toryID=10675007 Sorry for the delay, I have not read this thread for several day's. What was it Abraham Lincoln said about 'fooling the people'? Was he wrong?

When did Rense actually report the story, I looked at the article but could not determine that? At any rate, this is something that needs to hit the American media. I do not believe that given the current stance that the N.Y. Times is taking towards Bush they would not run the story, but I have been wrong before. At any rate the implications are staggering. At the risk of being ridiculed, although the author's premise about 'why this was done' is completely logical, it also makes me wonder if there is more to the 9-11 conspiracy theories than the 'short shrift' that has been made of them for the most part. I mean, the Mossad agents watching the explosions across the Harbor on 9/11/01 really happened didn't it?

Thanks for the input, I'm sure that was an interesting trip, as to the White Russian/Solidarists angle there are some other interesting facts; Jean DeMenil was an intruiging individual, in addition to other companies he was head of Schlumberger Corporation, Houma Raid, Gordon Novel etc. It is alleged by Judge that Zapruder was a White Russian, it is dissapointing that Adamson had nothing to contribute during his visit to the Forum, as far as contributing to the knowledge base of the Forum. I am sure he could offer more info than some; Also as to DeMohrenschildt the Haiti visit where he met with Clemard Charles, ties in to the fact that Charles later was involved in an arms deal with Edward Browder, who goes full circle when you factor in that Browder and Jack Ruby had some dealings with arms as well during the 50's with regards to Castro (According to David Scheim - Contract on America.) I also feel that there is a subplot to the assassination with regards to the White Russian's on one hand and the Paine's and the Catherwood Foundation on the other, I don't think it is a coincidence that some of Oswald's letters refer to heading to Baltimore a major city with regards to the Quaker hierarchy, and the individual that ostensibly was with Oswald in Mexico City who was a Quaker. I am beginning to have the perception that Oswald's comment regarding Ruth Paine and the station wagon "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Ruth Paine. Don't try to tie her into this" is a reflection of an underlying (intel?) relationship that he was trying to conceal until the 'proper time' and/or his not realizing how cooperative she was going to be with the Warren Commission, after his untimely demise. By the way, did you know that Ruth Paine stated in regards to Oswald "I'm glad he's dead?" She said that in the very forgotten Redbook interview from July 1964. It seems to me to be a pretty incredible statement (if you share my opinion that she knew that Oswald didn't do it.) I used to be exasperated at how the Paines seem so insulated from scrutiny until I read their genealogy.

Thanks for the input, I'm sure that was an interesting trip, as to the White Russian/Solidarists angle there are some other interesting facts; Jean DeMenil was an intruiging individual, in addition to other companies he was head of Schlumberger Corporation, Houma Raid, Gordon Novel etc. It is alleged by Judge that Zapruder was a White Russian, it is dissapointing that Adamson had nothing to contribute during his visit to the Forum, as far as contributing to the knowledge base of the Forum. I am sure he could offer more info than some; Also as to DeMohrenschildt the Haiti visit where he met with Clemard Charles, ties in to the fact that Charles later was involved in an arms deal with Edward Browder, who goes full circle when you factor in that Browder and Jack Ruby had some dealings with arms as well during the 50's with regards to Castro (According to David Scheim - Contract on America.) I also feel that there is a subplot to the assassination with regards to the White Russian's on one hand and the Paine's and the Catherwood Foundation on the other, I don't think it is a coincidence that some of Oswald's letters refer to heading to Baltimore a major city with regards to the Quaker hierarchy, and the individual that ostensibly was with Oswald in Mexico City who was a Quaker. I am beginning to have the perception that Oswald's comment regarding Ruth Paine and the station wagon "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Ruth Paine. Don't try to tie her into this" is a reflection of an underlying (intel?) relationship that he was trying to conceal until the 'proper time' and/or his not realizing how cooperative she was going to be with the Warren Commission, after his untimely demise. By the way, did you know that Ruth Paine stated in regards to Oswald "I'm glad he's dead?" She said that in the very forgotten Redbook interview from July 1964. I used to be exasperated at how the Paines seem so insulated from scrutiny until I read their genealogy.

Lee Harvey Oswald's sojourn to Russia, while conveniently giving credentials to the 'lone-nut Marxist' label as JFK's assassin has, for the most part been viewed as being peripheral to the assassination. I have noticed that the Forum index does not have a topic for the 'White Russian Solidarists.' While I believe it would be stretching the bounds of credibility to start this topic to add another candidate to the already lengthy list of 'groups' Mafia, CIA, Anti-Castro Cuban's etc who 'killed Kennedy,' I do not think the assassination can be resolved without some clarification of what exactly was transpiring in 'pre-assassination Dallas' within this group. For the time being I am including this passage from John Judge to get the ball rolling. "Another person.....George DeMohrenschildt. He came from a reactionary family in Russia. His father was a top level employee of the Nobel oil family, which was like the Rockefellers here, prior to the [bolshevik] revolution. They lost their fortune there. His brother, Von DeMohrenschildt, was jailed by the revolution for a period. When they got loose, they went to Germany. They helped the Fascists set up. Von went into the CIA-funded Tolstoy Foundation, which was a center for the White Russians during the whole period....We found out when Abraham Zapruder died that he's a White Russian. That he was from that same section there in Minsk, where George DeMohrenschildt and Marina's family came from. Marina's uncle was a high-ranking military officer in the NKVD, but her family was White Russian and anti-communist. And Gehlen infiltrated a lot of the KGB and Soviet military and intelligence structures during the war, and left agents in place. There's reason to believe that a number of people that were involved with Oswald, even in the Soviet Union, also tie to this International Fascism". For the record, one member of this group was 'brought in to assist' in the post-assassination questioning of Marina Oswald; it has been alleged that the quality of the translating could have been better A List of ostensible White Russians Paul Raigorodsky George Bouhe Peter Paul Gregory Jean DeMenil William Dalzell George DeMohrenschildt Note: Jack Ruby was a 2nd generation immigrant from Russia and It should be pointed out here that John Connally, Paul Raigorodsky and Jean DeMenil were close friends and business associates. The were members of an exclusive club in Northern Jamaica. The name of the club was Tryall located on Montego Bay.

Another example of why the McAdamses and Posners of the world have a following. Allegation? FBI? Can Gerry 'confirm or deny?" Whew! Open the windows. Oswald supposedly was on the brink of being hired at a different warehouse/depository, also in Dallas, as arranged by the Paines/De Mohrenschildt, but the situation quickly was rectified. I have no proof but do have a VERY good source who says so...and I believe that source as always. They almost botched the handling of the Patsy and ruined the day for Harry ("The Contingency") Power. John, FYI I do not make inquiries based on the opinions of critics, but on what I percieve to be a valid attempt to ascertain information, next time keep your friggin opine to yourself.

____________________________________________ John, I like your scenario. FWIW, Thomas ____________________________________________ With regards to the potential 'JFK Grand Jury' are there any plans to submit the photos of the 'Rip Robertson & John Adrian O'Hare individuals?' Obviously the fact that they are both deceased might make it appear to be a moot point, but at the same time, 'proving' that there were CIA officers in Dealey that were more than 'low level agents' appears to me to be one of the most significant discoveries made in the last few months, all due to the efforts of James Richards. Also the image of the 'Hunt figure' in the Cancellare photo would add even more of an impact if the image could be 'photographically enhanced' to the point where the incontrovertibility (IMO) of the 'Hunt figure' was just as obvious as the RipRobertson/John A. O'Hare images. To be more specific, can you imagine the furor in the United States if this facet of the new 'information' was rejected. It might not be 'picked up by the media' in the United States, but it certainly would elsewhere. That my friends is called leverage, something that appears to be in short supply.

Thank you. Steve I agree with Raymond, so I'll tack on the response I made in the other thread. It raises some questions for me. "QUOTE(Steve Thomas @ Dec 26 2005, 04:20 PM) ......If Oswald had attempted to shoot Officer McDonald, why were no charges of attempted murder filed as they were in the case of Governor Connally? I believe that the account of Oswald trying to shoot McDonald was invented after the fact. Steve Thomas I reckon you may have the 'nub' of it there Steve. why invent it?? (when was it invented?) The evidence for Lee as assassin was supposed to be good? Why feel there is a need to elaborate with something so convincingly disassembled? Perhaps because the rest of the evidence, if put under rigorous scrutiny, would be shown to be shaky as well? (The directive after all was to convince the public that Lee is guilty and acted alone.) (Another reason that comes to mind is to justify the obvious beating Lee had suffered. It seems that this is a reason often used by the police around the world to justify brutality. As pointed out previously, here was a suspect in a cop killing. Possibly the only thing regarded by the average Patroleman as more pressing on the day than the assassination of Kennedy.) (Also to consider may be that even with 'known' serial killers, they are on occasion only charged with one murder at a time, keeping less 'important' things in reserve. After all the idea (as far as I know) is if someone is found not guilty for whatever reason on one charge then they can't be charged with it again?) On the whole it seems that perhaps the DPD had real doubt that Lee 'did it'." ______________________ Steve, I wonder if you (or anyone can rattle off an account re the time line of Police arrivals and surrounding waiting entering etc with a view to among other things answer the question of 'when did the lights come on'?. Before or after police entering the theatre. I find the loss by McDonald of his flashlight interesting. It may mean he had it out because it was dark at first. For me it's an issue in considering Lee's choice of the theatre and staying to get arrested. If he was going to fight why not try running? If not running why fight? -------------------------------- John: After many days of scouting and walking the entire Oak Cliff area during the 1991 filming, Oliver Stone inquired as to "my take" on the whole matter. I made it quite plain, simple, and to the point. [1] LHO had arrived at his Neely Street "Safe House" by means other than a taxi cab, and in accordance with proper tradecraft, had insured that he hadn't dismounted from the vehicle anywhere near that locale. [proper tradecraft involves NEVER permitting a transporter, courier, "dead-drop" vector, or support entity to discover the location of your safe house.]; [2] LHO had been instructed that: Should anything untoward occur that day, he was to proceed directly to said safe house, dispose of any "one-time" code pads, "sterilize" the area (bedroom, bathroom, etc.), don the "sterile" clothes required for travel. His orders were to then proceed to the "Treff" signal point -- which was the shoe store, and upon arrival, give the correct hand signal to a previously identified (covertly) employee inside; [3] LHO then proceeded to walk directly south on Zangs Blvd., and upon arrival at Jefferson, turned and walked to the shoe store, where he gave the correct "high sign" to whomever was inside [it is quite possible that Brewer was not that contact person, and there was NEVER a necessity for travel to the 10th & Patton area]; [4] LHO then calmly walked to the pre-arranged "Treff" site (the Texas Theater), and not wanting to draw attention to himself, walked inside. He may well have awaited the "wickett" lady (or the manager) so that he might pay admission, but grew impatient, and went immediately to the agreed upon seat location; [5] LHO understood that tradecraft required his "Treff" contact to approach him from the rear, and would take a seat behind him (so that neither of the two would ever recognize the other)!! LHO expected that he would be handed "The Package". Said Package would contain further instructions as to: His required tasks necessary to the execution of his pre-planned "Immediate-Action-Drill", or an "E & E" plan; ["The Package" would be a coded (or a note in secret writing), a set of travel documents, funds, amd the necessary alias identification]; [6] LHO may have thought that the person walking around with the flashlight was an usher, and probably gave him no further attention. (the flashlight user, possibly a "Stalker" or a "Closer", and armed with a variety of lethal devices, including, but not limited to: "Prussic Acid" dispenser, silenced pistol, large insulin syrette, etc.) [7] LHO was approached by what appeared to be numerous police officers. One (under orders) may have attempted to murder him with a cheap "throw-down" revolver (of the untraceable type)!! LHO did thereupon grab the weapon, disarmed the cop, further resisted, and thereby saved his life temporarily. (LHO no doubt, also saved the real/phony cop's life, as he would have been shortly "neutered"); and, [8] LHO, as per tradecraft, carried no identification whatsoever, and this aroused the arresting/escorting officers' suspicions that much more, unless previously ordered to remain mute with regard to LHO !! One bit of testimony (deposition/affidavit??) had described McDonald's actions, or those of some other cop? It stated in relevant part that: What prevented LHO's revolver from firing was -- the cop having inserted the web (between thumb & index finger) of his "right hand" twixt the hammer and frame of the revolver !! However, upon examination, there was NO firing pin marking on any cop's hand, so the story was conveniently "forgotten". I doubt that LHO ever met with Jack Ruby, much less even knew of his existence. The continual insertion of dubious "cover story" increments from the Warren Commission, HSCA, etc. only tends to nullify attempts at developing an accurate disposition of these events. This is exactly the case where, step-by-step anaysis in a rational chronological order, is of the utmost necessity. Chairs, GPH ___________________________________ Gerry, There is an allegation, and I will leave it at that that 'a couple of months before the assassination the FBI (don't have a name) went to the TSBD and asked them to hire Lee Harvey Oswald for 'national security purposes.' Can you confirm or deny the accuracy of this allegation?

I am definitely in the midst of a subject I have somewhat intentionally stayed away from (Zapruder Film controversy) but didn't the History Channel show a 'unedited' version of the Zapruder film a couple of years ago? Was it the MPI Video 'Image of an Assassination?' FWIW - I think there is an incredible lack of awareness regarding CIA technology circa 1963. And it is ironic how the 'temperature goes up', when 'certain aspects of the assassination' get brought up. I still havent quite figured that out, except it appears to be related to 'rejection of very cherished perceptions.'

At the risk of incurring considerable wrath, I will stipulate that the posts you have made here collectively add up to the 'party line' about said ostensible chain of events. (Not meant as any type of criticism as whaat youve done on this post because it is very Good). While accurate in a sense, there is, in my mind obvious 'events' that have been conveniently redacted from the historical record, For one the 'other individual' seen leaving by Bernard Haire via back door w/ police escort was, I stipulate 'in the balcony' while the pattern of events you describe was taking place. An allegation somewhat given additional credence by virtue of the fact, that 1. The 'time frame' for Oswald's arrival at said Theater has never jibed with the Warrenized version. (Hint he arrived much later than the official version recounts it, while the other individual arrived in more than enough time. 2. Allegations of T.F. White (see page 277 High Treason) 'Around 2:00 PM White observed a Red 1957 Plymouth 4-door at the parking lot of an El Chico only several blocks from the Texas Theater with a man in it whom he said "looked like Lee Harvey Oswald" who then drove off at a high rate of speed." White was certainly no 'kook' the license plate number he gave to the FBI revealed the owner as a Carl Mather. 3. In one of the more high profile books on the assassination, (the name escapes me) there is even an allegation that Jack Ruby was inside the Texas Theatre at the time Oswald was arrested. Thats all for now.

Great Post Jim. As far as your last comment, I personally believe that 'it is possible' that the cover-up of JFK's assassination (i.e. incompetence of non-investigated leads, destroyed documents obvious shennanigans with coached, steered WC Testimony etc) may be just as much related to protecting a singular or plural 'government operation(s) that was/were intertwined with the event of JFK's death, as much as covering up the conspiracy. But to sum it up, if there was a cover up that was orchestrated solely to 'protect the conspirators, and those who had foreknowledge were 'in the government' as I personally do. If the information you posted was directly associated with 'why' Kennedy was killed, then the individuals whose names are listed in your post would certainly fit in with a cover-up of that magnitude. I think your post reveals another issue that placed Kennedy in opposition to the 'power structure' in Washington circa 1963.

Continuing in the same vein as esteemed colleague Stephen Turner, as I am not very proficient at posting real good Christmas Greetings, which I do indeed sincerely extend to all members of the Forum (here, here); I thought I would post these plagiarized imaginary 'News Headlines' (courtesy of theonion.com) "CIA Chief admits to Torture after 6 hour beating, electrocution" "Swiss Threaten Ricola Embargo" "Amazing New 'Hyperbolic Chamber' Greatest Invention in History of Mankind, Ever." "Chevy Chase Show enters 6th 'Blockbuster Season' in Parallel Universe." "Elf Finger Found in Box of Keebler Cookies" "CIA Realizes It's Been Using Black Highlighters, All These Years." Happy Holiday's "There's nothing that isn't known that can't be known, nothing you can't see that isn't shown." John Lennon 1967

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response.' I meant no offense. I didn't refer to anything someone had written as irrelevant; I merely pointed out that the "quoted material" is often more voluminous than the segment to which a response is directed. T.C. I misunderstood, and over-reacted. Sorry!

In 1980, with Blakey's Mafia-did-it The Plot To Kill The President coming fresh on the heels of the failed HSCA proceedings, Tony Summers' Conspiracy was a groundbreaking revelation for me. Summers' work has indeed withstood the test of time. It never ceases to amaze me how casually people, including a prominent member of this forum, resort to accusing researchers like Tony Summers and Mary Ferrell as being CIA. T.C. I am throwing my hat in the ring with Bill and Tim, Anthony Summers shouldn't have to defend his work, and especially on this Forum. I think the practice of 'critiquing JFK researchers' is not only a tiresome distraction but basically stupid. If anyone is offended, think about how the person your trashing would feel, especially if they are doing the best they can.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever. T.C. Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response.' It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever. T.C. Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response', and I don't believe the question was directed towards Tim Carroll.

I have Gerald Patrick Hemming on tape to the tune of boxes and boxes of tapes from our conversations. Yes, he cited Helms as behind the assassination - on tape with me in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He also cited Lawrence Howard as being in Dealey Plaza, and as a crackerjack shooter and sniper, although more recently he has denied that. This is a individual who has contradicted himself, as many authors and historians have noted. Note that I do not call him a witness. Ms Mellen, It's an honor to have you here. I asked Gerry about this also and he became quite rattled and even talked of lawsuits. I suspected -(and hoped)- that anything he told you would be on tape. Some of us wonder why you included anything Hemming told you in AF2J? Dawn -------------------------------------- Let me see now. I became "rattled" and even talked of "lawsuits" ?! How does one discern one's being "rattled" over the Internet ??!! Apparently, you, like Mellen, have profound difficulties in the interpretation of even short, and to the point, written statements ??!! Gerry, your written statements are rarely short, let alone to the point. If you were to edit out all the invective and unbecoming barracks-boy potty mouth, they might be short and to the point. I don't have to repeat what I wrote in that post, as some very simple movements of one finger on your "mouse" -- will return you to said posting. Even in paraphrasing, it comes out with the same intent. ["...It will be up to the law firm's decision as to whether anything "untoward" has been written in Mellen's book..."] As it was explained to me -- by those more practised in the field of lawthan I am: "Malice" is oft construed as "what a reasonable person" might discern as the "real purpose" behind the writing of any single [or composite] quotes being ascribed ?! More importantly; are these quotes purporting to be "direct", or from some other entity's and/or scrivener's material -- whether it had been published or not ??!! The case in point seems to revolve around what was said by you into a microphone, which is about as direct as you can get. If those recorded statements contradict what you've told others, it is fair game of Ms. Mellen to point it out to her readers, just to let them know that your record for consistency and veracity may be open to reasonable question. In the event that Ms. Mellen has quoted your words from other sources, and those sources quoted you incorrectly, then your beef is with those sources, not Ms. Mellen. And, from a strictly legal point of view, if you didn't sue those who misquoted you, then you have no recourse against Ms. Mellen if those alleged "misquotes" appear in her work. It may well come down to the what indeed these "boxes and boxes" of purported "tapes" actually reveal. Which is what seems to have you "rattled" to the point of threatening legal action, albeit not on the basis of being misquoted, just allegedly being taped without your knowledge, as per your comments below. I expect, as usual, and down the road -- it will be a case of ascribing ALL blame to either the editor, and/or publisher of said tome. This presumes, of course, that there is any "blame" to ascribe, a point that is pure smoke and mirrors until demonstrated. If you have said on tape what Ms. Mellen quotes you as having said, there is no "blame" to ascribe, save perhaps your inability to zip your lips when you ought to have done. I still have great difficulty in grasping the "WHY" of any mention as to ex-DCI Helms; or is he "One-of-the-Usual-Suspects" NOW ??!! If Ms. Mellen has you on tape making that allegation, then even asking the above question is disingenuous on your part. Moreover, what would be ANYBODY'S purpose in making ANY reference to Helms, vis-a-vis "The JFK Murder", even if done in a joking manner. During 1963, Helm's was a 4th floor "flunky" -- with a pretentious title !! Not only did he lack any authority over specific clandestine service operations. He wasn't even in the loop !! [just like the Clinton/Reno "WACO" whackers; getting their "promotions?", which is not an undesirable method for quickly removing a "stooge" from the mainstream !!] Moreover, when it came time to "revise or reveal", with reference to even the inconsequential episodes/events, Helms blundered quite grotesquely. Why? Because he didn't have the slightest "clue" as to what he was supposed to "conceal" !! The "BIG" question remains -- how the hell would I know anything at all about Helm's activities during the 1960s, and why would I even care ?? Mellen has an "obsession" -- and it is obviously one that grew out of her "gullible-girly-groupie" experience with "Big Jimbo/Gumbo". NOT that I haven't seen that weird behavior repeated time-and-again, over the last 40+ years. Actually, Gerry, knowing nothing about a topic has never seemed to stop you from spouting off in the past, so why would your self-aggrandizing behaviour stop with Ms. Mellen? You have in this very thread made statements, as though factual, about a person or persons having developed 90% of the data needed to solve this crime, and when challenged, cited what you'd been told by others. In essence, you backed away from claiming sufficient personal knowledge to render such a judgement, and deferred to those who informed you of this. This is not fact; it is gossip, unless and until demonstrated. You make similar assertions all the time, likely on similarly questionable bases, and when called on them, resort to virtriol and poor manners... this forum is chock full of examples. Perhaps what has you irritated with Ms. Mellen is that her "gullible-girly-groupie obsession" is with Jim Garrison, rather than with you, since you keep insisting that all forum members, irrespective of gender, are simply angling to get a "date" with you. Lawrence J. Howard is still around and breathing. During Larry's years of work as an undercover agent for the A.T.T.U. [i.R.S.], and later for that outfit, when it was reorganized as B.A.T.F. [directly under Treasury] -- he diligently practiced the most important of job skills: Keep an accurate record of all activities and locales associated within every report. [see: Title 18, section 1001, et seq. -- "The Martha Stewart Charges"] Whether Mellen ascribes her "scribbling" errors to Weberman, Posner, Russo, Larry Hancock, or even Weisberg -- I know exactly where Larry Howard was on 11/22/1963; and so do the agents who closely monitored [and protected] him during those specific periods in question. First, there are no "errors" to misattribute until they are demonstrated to be errors, which is where certain tapes will no doubt come in very handy for Ms. Mellen. Second, irrespective of what you know about Larry Howard's whereabouts on that date, what matters is what you told Ms. Mellen; what you claimed to be true, not what you now say you know to be true. I hired Larry Howard during 1977, to act as a co-investigator [and bodyguard] -- and this was while resolving issues as to "Death Squad/Kidnap" activities in Central America. My brother and Larry returned to Central America for that task, and successfully completed said investigation. During early 1980, when I was again called upon to conduct similar work in Puerto Rico, I hired Larry as a bodyguard to my wife and family. Never once, during all of those years, did we ever have a serious discussion about the JFK matter. [The one instance was: When, during 1981, while enroute to the Los Angeles BATF field office -- he turned to me and asked who it was, that I had instructed him to "get rid of" -- while our No Name Key crew was being TV interviewed [December 1962] at the Congress Airport Inn motel ?? I had hesitated, and he quickly stated: "...That guy was Oswald..wasn't it..??"!!] The Los Angeles BATF field office supervisors advised Larry [during 1967] to voluntarily travel to New Orleans -- and thereafter present himself to Garrison for further inquiries. The only matters that disturbed him were: Government files, which clearly showed that Garrison was a child molester, and that he had serious mental problems. Moreover, those files showed that Garrison was operating under severe strains, most of which were the result of his unfulfilled obligations to Carlos marcello. However, the government agents didn't think that Garrison would act in a retaliatory manner against Howard, and this was due to the fact that they had informed the NODA that Howard remained an active SSCI (UC) operative for BATF. And you have those files? Or have seen those files? Or have taken the word of others - whether Howard or anyone else - that these are legitimate files? Mellen DOES NOT want to hear any of this, as it doesn't comport with her "fantasy-land" agenda; which centers on idolizing her big "Hero". My former spouse is sitting on the couch, right next to my computer desk at this moment, and she has great difficulty grasping the "WHY" of Mellen's claims ?? Especially those where she suddenly purports having tapings of any interviews here in Fayetteville. Presumably, Ms. Mellen would have asked to see those files, if you possessed them. If you don't, then you're just peddling more gossip, second or third hand, which is not exactly convincing to anyone, whether or not they suffer from "gullible-girly-groupie" syndrome. Moreover, it is no secret that Garrison has been the subject of a decades-long campaign of slander and character assassination. You're simply one of the several lads who was sent to trip Garrison up, and having screwed the pooch on that score, will not rest until his legacy is dirt. How does it feel, Gerry, knowing that this alleged half-wit child-molesting Mafia-fronting scumbag commands a level of respect today that you never will? Is that what put the burr under your saddle? This is somewhat upsetting to her, because a family member has recently disposed of a nasty lawsuit, and has now reluctantly agreed to testify against said adversary. That party had made illegal tape recordings during the course of several encounters. Which will, without a doubt result in prison time !! Here in North Carolina, as is the case in Florida, and most other states -- ALL tapings must begin with the voice of the machine operator stating that: "..This is (name & title)..and I am here in the presence of (name of subject)..for the following purposes.."!! The place, date and time must be included with the foregoing and preserved on all voice recording "events/episodes"; and including any changes to a fresh tape spool. [see: State vs. Lynda Tripp, MD -- RE: The Monica Lewinsky tapings.] [The only exemptions apply to the recordations & transcriptions of matters connected to law enforcement activities. Even then, the law requires that each spool be prefaced with the above mentioned inclusions, but a "case number" must be recorded in all "prefaces" !! Recording by concealed devices is a 5 year felony for each event/incident, which translates to each spool, or where considerable time had intervened; that multiple counts might be filed per each spool !!] All matters admitted & adjudged in even a civil matter in Federal District Court [including transcripts & exhibits] are later admissable in any criminal proceedings held in a state trial court. So, rather than repudiate your allegedly misquoted comments to Ms. Mellen, which is how you began, you now wish to sue her for having taped your conversations without your permission, presuming that is what happened [and not simply more of your endless bafflegab.] Interesting. You see, this is not simply a case of a person being caught on tape during an involuntary exchange, or being blind-sided. You have admitted here that such conversations took place of your own volition, even in your own abode, and the statements you made were uttered freely and of your own will. If they are captured on tape, it is a testament to Ms. Mellen's professionalism and her desire to ensure that nobody would be misquoted on so important a topic. Whereas your present, baseless fall-back position seems to be akin to the man who voluntarily appears on camera for an interview, but then squawks because he didn't sign a "release" for its use. You granted Ms. Mellen interviews. You said things you now regret having uttered, as they don't portray you in a light sufficiently flattering to comport with your self-image. So you've taken a page from Tim Gratz's disused legal playbook and begun barking about legal action against the author you willingly confided to. You know, Gerry, for a putative man's man, you're behaving like a petulant teenaged girl. Do get a grip, dear boy. Your current behaviour is unbecoming any man, let alone a self-proclaimed man's man. Weberman's strategy was to "force" a libel suit, in order that he might arm himself with a stack of subpoenas from the clerk of the court !! He schemed to thereafter serve, "in persona" and "duces tecum" subpoenas, directed against a vast number of irrelevant VIPs !! Unfortunately for a defendant in an A.D. 2005 libel lawsuit, those very same "Nodules" will now serve to operate "against interest"; and especially in the case where Weberman is joined as a 2nd or 3rd "Party". The proper venue is here in Cumberland County, NC. [see: Digests, "Venue in Internet Cases"] I am now prepared to serve a "Notice of Intent", coupled with several sworn statements [Notarized Affidavits] -- and specifically with reference to ALL matters concerning mine , and others', interactions with Ms. Mellen. I am prepared to "FAX" said documents to any parties of interest, but only if Mellen's counsel advises (in writing, and on law firm stationary) that she will submit similar sworn statements as a matter of course !! I do believe that the time has arrived, in that several scriveners will be called to account for their reckless allegations against a multitude of personages. More important, is that they will finally be called to task for bald allegations -- against specific governmental entities and/or employees !! I would remind all parties: It is of great interest to all -- that a close scrutiny of Forum member Mike Kelly's reference to the "Sheehan-Tactic" is in order. That is: Using the Civil R.I.C.O. Statutes as the correct/proper device, especially where the forum (Tribunal) and venue are quite advantageous. [see: Title 18, US Code, section 1961 et seq.] I await Ms. Mellen's production of any "consensual" recordations, especially those reduced to a transcribed format. Oh, for God's sake, Gerry.... you granted the woman interviews, and said things you now regret. You cannot get far claiming that your comments weren't made "consensually," unless someone has been granted power of attorney over you because you're claiming diminished mental capacity or summut similar. Is that your next grand legal strategy? Most interesting is the allegation that: I described Lawrence Howard as a "Crackerjack" -- said term I have NEVER used in entire my life. Over the last 60+ years, I have deliberately eschewed the use of hundreds of "current & cool" metaphors. I have always been satisfied by focusing my verbal/oral expressions identical to that of the military. and especially those select "Nautical" terms, which are oft used by Marines and Sailors -- and frequently profane !! No xxxx. Lawrence J. Howard never received, training, nor ever qualified as a "Sniper". That may be a fact, but it is immaterial. What is material is what you told Ms. Mellen, and if it was a lie, then it is you who must account, not she. As for "...Many authors and Historians" stating that I have "..contradicted myself". Please, Ms. Mellen, don't hesitate to cite just ONE "author/historian" who, after "personally" interviewing me; has made such allegations. Why did you drop in the qualifier "after personally interviewing me?" That is not included in her statement, nor need it be. Your record for consistency is not good, Gerry, as anyone who's read the Weberman site already knows. Whether you just can't keep your story straight, or you play different roles for different audiences is really secondary to the fact that your story wobbles from point to point without payoff. You claim that this is the direct result of endless clueless brainless scribblers misquoting you. Makes one wonder why you're always so anxious to make yourself available to them, the very same question you claim your family keeps asking you. Why do you do it, Gerry, in light of your consistent disappointment with the results? On the one hand, you offer little of substance and mutter your chagrin about being misquoted or misinterpreted, but on the other hand, you refuse to just shut your mouth and fade into obscurity. Do you suffer from some kind of compulsion, Gerry, or are you just still "on the job?" [Assuming that you ever were, that is.] That some "scribbler' plagiarizes some other "scribbler', who cited to some tabloid trash article, is all too commonplace. But where Mellen, like all of the other reckless "scribblers" fail -- NO "authoritive cites" to the original document or article. Ms. Mellen has opted to NOT explain any reasons why: That she NEVER attempted to personally clarify any sticky issues, much less make mention of same, at an opportune time, prior to publication ??!! And where bigmouths fail is to spout off to all and sundry and then feel bitter disappointment with the result. Just sue her, Gerry, and we'll soon see who is credible and who is the buffoon. I confronted Garrison with his scheming on more than just one occasion. He admitted to same, but claimed that he was forced into doing this because of "pressing matters at hand" !! Even an amatuer viewer of the Perry Mason TV series, would gag when reviewing his modus operandi during the Orleans Parish Grand Jury sessions. [Harry Connick, Sr. privately stated that he wanted to dispose of "all that trash" because it was a severe embarassment to the N.O. District Attorney's office, and the legacy thereof.] The worst news is yet to come. The very few "knowledgeable folks", who are currently involved in the JFK matter -- are agreement in the singular point. That is: To date, EVERY name foisted upon the public as either a "suspect" [or even a "subject of interest"] is absolutely, and totally WRONG. NOT EVEN CLOSE !! Then, presumably, all of your previous preamble for the past nigh-on 40 years hasn't been of much use to us, has it, Gerry? Could you get any closer to admitting that you've got nothing substantive to offer, without actually coming out and saying it? The one person who had 90% of the real facts assembled in a rational form, died during 1974. His death seemingly opened the door, for the then DCI Bill Colby, to terminate Angleton. However, Colby had made a gross mistake, in thinking that this "Possessor-of-Family-Jewels" was JJA's ONLY "Ace-in-the-Hole" !! Which was the genuine reason that Angleton remained active at his office for the next several months. This "Person", has only been mentioned by name once, during the last 40+ years !! However, and due to the "infamous character" of the writer, said reference was totally ignored. TOO BAD FOLKS, you've NOT been played ["Like-a-Violin"] by professionals -- you played yourselves, ab initio, into a ridiculous and seemingly endless, quandry. Not without some help from the professionally slippery, and the mentally questionable. The best displays may well come, if Mike Kelly, et al. initiate a "forum" under some, as yet unknown, legal theory [or priniciple] !! At that time, his "qualified" legal associates might be encouraged to seek out some sworn statements. Especially those "volunteered" by any member who might be selected as a prospective "witnesse". Which is exactly what the A.R.R.B. failed to do !! This is the reason why, when reading their "wit" transcripts, the educated amongst us are dismayed by the tendency towards comic relief I am prepared right now, to enlarge upon what was quickly redacted from my H.S.C.A. testimony. An ordeal I submitted to -- despite knowing full well that, those proceedings would result in yet another "cover-up". I really don't expect that the "Qualified Wits" list will be very long. This is because that: When it comes time to swear under oath, as to "personal knowledge" -- the majority of "Village Idiot" type bookreaders will be summarily excluded. "Book Reading" doesn't count in ANY legal forum. However, depositions under oath [such as from Ms. Mellen, and subsequent to subpoena service] would routinely be admitted by most forums and/or tribunals. I would expect that those attorneys, who have been retained by authors/historian/scriveners, would caution their clients to make DAMN SURE that they will verify all allegations, and/or supportive commentaries. The only thing akin to "taking the 5th amendment" when called upon to speak the truth, is the lame excuse that: "..My attorney advises me that I shouldn't speak upon these matters..!!" ONE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT EVEN BEFORE THE SCRIBBLING BEGAN !! AND PERHAPS ONE SHOULD ASK THE SCRIBBLERS IF THEY'RE TAPE RECORDING A CONVERSATION BEFORE THEY OPEN THEIR BIG MOUTH !! Chairs, GPH _____________________________ -------------------------------------- Once again the "Music Biz - Village Idiot" desireth that I cease and desist from commenting upon matters which are apparently disturbing to her, and to whomever she is snitching for ?! Is CSIS' Judd putting pressure on your little pink behind? As for my having trusted a few authors and investigative reporters ? In the majority of cases, I insisted that they credit the original sources, rather than naming me. It is quite obvious that in your "Weberman agenda" , that you persist in NOT contributing anything of consequence. Nor do you contribute any credible reponses which might assist some of the experts, authors and investigators on this forum. I get a considerable amount of private e-mails every day. Those correspndents routinely make direct, and to the point inquiries. If I can answer to their interests, I do so. Moreover, most concur with my reasoning which seems to explain your activities: That you, like the others of the "Weberman ilk" have one goal in mind -- to nag and criticize ALL "direct sources". I was invited to this forum, and I joined with great reluctance. Having "lurked" on dozens of "blogs" and "forums", I found most to be a mockery of true jounalism, investigative reporting, etc. !! It is NOT my fault that you appear absolutely nowhere in anybody's tomes, or even an index, nor with Danny Brandt's "Namebase.org". Your are a "bookreader", and your erroneous opinions are the result of your soaking up "loads" of bullxxxx, which you frequently attempt to purvey onto this forum !! As for my language, I have found it a total waste of time to treat "mouthy wannabes" with any respect whatsoever. And this is especially so when their first actions are blatantly antagonistic. Moreover, they always insist upon arguing with people, especially those (now few) -- who were amongst the "actors" and "subjects-of-interest". If this gives you more "hardcopy" with which to exhibit to your boyfriends & "The 3 Stooges", so be it. Just try not to get the pages stuck together. As for trusting Ms. Mellen, that was a tremendous "Weberman-style" mistake. I had insisted of her, at the outset, that I didn't want to be a "character" in her writings. She agreed to that, and this got the family off of my back during 2001. It did take some time, before I suspected that: She was obsessed with an idolatry of "pervert" Garrison. Yet, I believeed that once she had examined the facts of the matter, then she would write "the real truth" !! The "WHY" of Garrison's moves, especially against some of the most useless "non-entities" I have ever encountered. That Mellen will be exposed as a charlatan matters not to me, but it will come. Unfortunately, it might cost her more than can be imagined. I have been cursed with total recall since childhood, and that is why I have opted to eschew diaries and/or journals. Any reports which I have been required to make over the years, I did correctly, and always without even rare references to notes !! During 1966, Garrison was involved in a scheme to protect Carlos Marcello, et al.!! This involved primarily the blackmailers who had set him up as yet another "patsy"!! However, there arose more serious threats, and this resulted in efforts at thwarting Walter Sheridan's in his investigations. Marcello indeed believed, that he was "owed" -- by the Kennedys, and that for having orchestrated the assassination of Trujillo. But, the realization that Ramfis Trujillo was after his ass, caused panic. Norman LeBlanc, and Arturo Espaillat were the first to warn him [during 1966] that: Trujillo's son (a multi-millionaire) was out for revenge. I don't have to cite to any authorities, as most are available to anyone not too ignorant, lazy, or stupid !! I am not going to do some strange fool's research for them. If responsible folks have a legitimate inquiry, I will attempt to respond. But, I am not going to write anybody's book or pamphlet for them. You, like Weberman, have long ago been categorized as prevaricators. Neither one of you have ever done anything of consequence during the whole of your miserable lives. Weberman's goal was to sucker buck$ out of gullible folks, especially those ignorant of the fact that he was just another Bob Dylan stalker. For years he has been doing somebody's disinformation job , and that it duplicates "Dame" Hoover's cronies' efforts, engenders no surprise. That I ramble ? Nobody has invited you to read any of my postings, and I am sure as hell not going to give-up 'insider" information to any weirdo wannabes, nor disinformation agents. You lucked out in your sparring with Gratz, and that, because he spent more time on the keyboard, instead of in a local library. I had advised long ago: Take counsel, even from an antagonist, and check out his dictates before hitting the keyboard. His "Christian bible-thumping" and focus upon abortion matters, was probably more irritating to me, than it was to our left-wing ("progressive") clique !! Especially with those who use this forum as a juvenile chat room !! That you have consistently opted NOT to ask any serious questions -- long ago confirmed that: You are here to xxxxx !! That you might cite Weberman, Mellen, or other propagandists -- reveals your limited abilities at rebuttal. The majority of qualified authors & writers, having perused thousands of NARA files, some of which refer to me, have little difficulty in forming queries. Frequently, they want to qualify or expand upon specific items of interest. Many are NOT surprised at governmental scribblers' efforts at evasion in all serious inquiry into even that which is a matter of history. But, that is what their political bosses continue to mandate. What are the parameters mandated by your bosses, and pray tell, who is calling your shots ?? Chairs, GPH _______________ --------------------------------- Oliver Stone had paid Bud Fensterwald's corporate entity [not sure whether it was then a 501(3)©] about $87,000, and part of the package included loads of declassified files. After the big group dinner at the Italian restaurant [December 1990] , which was located just down from "The West End Market Place", Stone asked that I bring a few boxes of my personal FOIA/PA files, so that Rusconi, et al. might sort out that which Bud didn't have in his collection. Ronald Von Klaussen, who still lives one floor below the Condo where Stone's mother lived [NYC], saw the boxes of documents, and expressed surprise. He had never heard of Title 5 US Code, sections 552, et seq. [FOIA/PA] and loudly warned us about "possession of classified material"!! However, he quickly grasped the realities of the matter, and thereafter spent hours studying loads of files, especially the CIA stuff. Ron had been a "CIA Assassin" for years, and in Guatemala was known as "El Tigre". He already had appeared in some of Stone's work, such as playing the mechanic {"Wall Street"] who tips Charlie Sheen as to the destination of the aircraft carrying Mike Douglas' character. At that time he had held an "S.A.G. Card" for over 25 years, and had worked on TV series such as "Flipper", "Everglades", etc. !! During February 1991, Von Klaussen approached me, and asked about the correct procedures for getting his own CIA, FBI, etc. files released. I gave him my latest copy of the approved "FOIA/PA Manual" and invited his questions as to exactly how I had gone about said activities, and moreover, recommended that he consult both Bud and Jim Lesar for any future "advice". [exercising a bit of caution, as I was on parole at that time]. Once again: while were in the process [in Miami] of signing the contracts with "Camelot Productions", Von Klaussen had called Davy "out-of-the-blue" [the two hadn't spoken in over 30+ years], and wherein Ron stated that he had it on good information that we were being hired by Stone to do a "JFK Assassination Movie". In an ominous voice, he advised Davis that a whole lot of "Company Folks" were still outraged at the "Platoon" flick, the "Born on the 4th" business, etc., and etc.!! -- and that our participation in "anything" with Stone might cause severe repercussions in the future. Davy, Hargraves, and I then spent about 12 seconds "worrying about it", and agreed upon a future response to Ron, should he call back: "... SO, what else is new ??!!" After Bob Groden's "Heroic Briefing" at Stone's Stoneleigh Hotel headquarters [production crew], we retired to the small auditorium at Larry Howard's "JFK Museum". Stone wanted US to give a "Real Briefing" on ALL aspects of the Cuban business. Towards the end, and after a long recitation/questioning as to names of specific CIA, FBI, Customs, BA2506, JM/WAVE, et al. personalities, he asked: "... What was the true name of the CIA assassin who was known as "El Tigre" in Guatemala, Miami, and elsewhere..."?! We hesitated for a moment, and then explained to him that: Tthere might be some problems with the "1982 Intelligence identities Act", specifically should this person remain categorized as a "covert operative" within the Agency. Stone then said: "... Well then...just give us his initials...if you can do that...!" I responded: "..R.V.K...". A few hours later Stone, Von Klaussen, Rick, Kitman Ho, et al. had a big laugh at our expense as Oliver introduced "his CIA assassin" -- as the guy who had practically raised him from childhood !! Yuck, Yuck, and we slithered away in total disgrace. As for "lawyering" and "J.D.s", even under current Florida statutes [and Bar Canons] a person is permitted to "Intern" with a law firm for three years, and upon that law firm's certification, take the "State Bar Exam". Moreover, said "intern" is given the same privileges [after the 2nd year] as a law student, in that he may represent clients in a courtroom, give legal advice, etc., but under the "ongoing supervision" of one of that law firm's lawyers. The courts have held that this DOES NOT required that said lawyer be present at all times during said intern's practise, but be informed regularly as to same. --------------------------------------- http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/22/Worldand...yers_need.shtml Who Says Lawyers Need to go to Law School ? In Some States, Apprentice "Law Readers" can become Lawyers if they pass Bar Exams. By Associated Press Published September 22, 2005 WASHINGTON - Rebecca Valois is working to become a lawyer - without setting foot in a law school. She's studied for three years at the private Virginia practice of her mother-in-law, Judith Valois, who was admitted to the state bar in 1986 after getting her legal education from her husband. They are "law readers" - people who study law in offices or judges' chambers rather than classrooms. California, Vermont, Virginia and Washington allow law readers to take bar exams after three or four years in apprenticeships registered with the state. Three other states - New York, Maine and Wyoming - let people who didn't graduate from law school take bar exams if they have a combination of office study and law school exper-ience. Fewer than 150 aspiring lawyers are getting their legal educations in programs that require no law school what-soever, according to the bars of the states that allow the practice. By comparison, more than 140,000 students attend law schools approved by the American Bar Association, and thousands more attend schools not approved by the ABA. Despite some challenges, law readers can achieve big things. Marilyn Skoglund, for instance, sits on the Verm-ont Supreme Court, and Gary Blasi is a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. "I'm really sort of a bizarre case," Blasi said. "The first time I was ever in a law classroom I was teaching law." As the only law reader he knows who ended up a professor, Blasi doesn't recommend his route for others inter-ested in teaching law in a university. However, he said there are benefits. "If I were redesigning the entire legal education system, it would definitely provide more of a real-world, mentored experience," Blasi said. The next hurdle for Rebecca Valois (pronounced val-WAH), a 30-year-old mother of two in Centreville, Va., will come in February, when she gives the bar a try. It won't be easy. Only one law reader passed the Virginia bar last year out of nine attempts. In July 2003, seven law readers took the bar, but the only one to pass was Margaret Valois - Rebecca's sister-in-law. Judith Valois, who supervised the studies of both her daughters-in-law, said friends tease her about being the "Valois School of Law." She said a big benefit to law reading is that students get one-on-one instruction from someone who cares about them. Indeed, the supervising lawyers cannot take money for the significant time they put into training their app-rentices. Barbara Macri-Ortiz in Oxnard, Calif., supervises the education of apprentice Jessica Arciniega because she wants to give something back. "I didn't have to pay for law school - I should be able to help somebody else do the same thing," she said. Macri-Ortiz - who has some college but no bachelor's degree, which isn't a requirement for California's bar - got her legal education through an apprenticeship at the United Farm Workers of America, where she worked for the union's founder, Cesar Chavez. Now she mostly represents the poor, and about a third of her work is pro bono. A downside to skipping law school is that a degree can be a job requirement. The elder Valois began working for the Veterans Affairs Department as a staff attorney in 1991. She worked her way through the ranks and in 1998 was set to become a senior Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attorney when she learned that the job required a law degree. The VA ended up giving her a waiver and she got the job - two years later. Although the ABA maintains rigorous standards for approved law schools, it doesn't advise against law reading. Related groups see it as a state's right to allow an alternative to law school. "The highest court of each state owns the decision about how to meet the need for consumer protection," said Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners in Madison, Wis. "For some people, it's probably the only way that they can combine working and studying." Even law-reading advocates caution that there is more to learn these days and it can be tough for a supervising lawyer to provide guidance in legal areas outside his or her specialty. "For most people - the great majority of people - it's not the best way to try to get a legal education," said Scott Street, secretary treasurer of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners. "Just putting in the time doesn't come anywhere close to assuring that you've got an education." Washington is the only state where law readers pass the bar at a higher rate than traditional students. Sheryl Phillabaum, chair of Washington's Law Clerk Committee, can't explain the success. "But anyone who has devoted so much time to getting through the program is mightily motivated," she said in e-mail. Law readers don't qualify for federal student loans, and in Virginia - unlike other states - they can't get paid by the law firm training them. "When you don't have loans, and you can't get paid for what you're doing, you are sacrificing a lot," Rebecca Valois said. "But you're getting a lot in return." [Last modified September 22, 2005, 01:04:14] ________________________________________ Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.