Douglas Caddy

In 1971 Frank Sturgis gave a 22-page confession to Cardinal Cooke in New York of his involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Among his disclosures was that he was one of the shooters from the grassy knoll. Another disclosure was that Howard Hunt was present on Dealey Plaza at the time. In the year after giving the Cardinal his confession Sturgis was arrested as one of the burglars in Watergate. The Sturgis story is included in the link below that covers a number of subjects, among these being that former New York Police detective Jim Rothstein had the full confession read to him by someone who had it in his possession. If President Nixon knew of Sturgis’ involvement in the JFK assassination and/or of his 22-page confession given to Cardinal Cooke, then this knowledge must have influenced his thinking immensely as he struggled with the Watergate scandal. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19973

I spoke by telephone for almost two hours today with former NYPD detective Jim Rothstein. I can now state with full certainty that his credibility is fully established in my opinion. He possesses a wealth of information that would be of interest to the forum. We spoke about Frank Nelson showing up to represent Frank Sturgis at the police station after detective Rothstein had arrested him in 1977. He said that it could be that a tail had been assigned to follow Sturgis upon his arrival in New York City and that the tail had seen that he had been taken to the police station. Thus the call to Nelson. This may be the more likely scenario than my guess that Fonzi’s phone was being wire-tapped when Sturgis telephoned him from the police station. Some forum members have questioned whether detective Rothstein was aboard the ship Essex in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Below is his own report of what happened and of his role in that event. It was detective Rothstein’s recitation of this personal testimony that convinced Frank Sturgis to talk candidly to him for two hours in Marita Lorenz's residence after his arrest and before he was taken to the police station. --------------------------------------------------- In early March of 1961, the Essex was at its homeport in Quonset, Rhode Island, when strange things started happening. Sailors were dispatched for rifle squad practice with a Marine leading the team. Old timers (salts) stated that this had not happened since WWII; something was up. The Essex sailed to the Norfolk Virginia Navy Shipyards. On Sunday morning, all liberty and leaves were cancelled. Train cars loaded with supplies pulled up next to the ship and the supplies were loaded onto the Essex. The word was, we were sailing to Nova Scotia for special operations. On Monday morning, as the Essex sets sail, Rothstein is ordered to Winch #2 to prepare to take on cargo. Rothstein was the winch operator with his assistant, J.C. Adams. Armed marines and sailors were posted everywhere; only authorized personnel were allowed on deck. The Essex pulls alongside a heavily guarded barge with two long cylinders on the deck. Rothstein loaded both cylinders on board and watched as they are sent below deck in the bomb elevator. The Essex then headed for the open sea in due haste. When the Essex reached the Atlantic Ocean, it made a sharp turn to starboard (right). We were going south. If the Essex was going to Nova Scotia, it would have made a turn to port (left). Something big was up. As the Essex began to near the coast of Florida, a squadron of US Navy jets was seen approaching the Essex; they did a fly-by and prepared to land. The Essex was not designed for jets; now it had been modified to have jets land and take-off. Now we knew for sure something was going on. When it got dark, the Captain of the Essex, Captain Searcy, advised the crew that they were on a special mission. The Capt. ordered “Darken Ship and No Communication” was in effect until further notice. We were advised we were going to Cuba. General Quarters was sounded. We were going to war. Every day after that, till three days before the Bay of Pigs invasion, we practiced for the invasion. The jets were painted white; the only markings were numbers on the planes. The numbers on the ships were painted over. The flags were taken down. When refueling and replenishing occurred, the flags would be raised as the ships started their approach and lowered again immediately. Three days before the invasion of the Bay of Pigs, the bombing, to soften up the beach at the Bay of Pigs, started. At night we headed to the beach. The Destroyers would go closer and bombard the beach. During the day, we would be out to sea and re-supply. On the day of the invasion, at approximately 0315 hours, Rothstein was manning the helm of the Essex when Capt. Searcy came out of his quarters. Capt. Searcy informed the crew on the Quarter Deck that the President of the United States, John Kennedy, had just ordered him to stop the bombing. Capt. Searcy knew that the revolutionaries would be killed. Orders were Orders. The next three days were spent bringing survivors and bodies on board. Rothstein again manned Winch #2 and the bodies were brought aboard in cargo nets and put in boxes and then taken to reefers. There were many cargo nets of bodies. The Bay of Pigs was lost and it would seal the fate of John Kennedy.

I am going to attempt to get the email address/phone number of Jim Rothstein. I was interviewed several times in the past on The Power Hour, so I think its moderator will give it to me since Rothstein was interviewed on that show recently. Once I have these, I shall ask him all the questions and issues that you and other forum members have raised in this topic to get his responses. This probably is the best way to clear up the matter.

Rothstein in his interview says that he was on the Essex and “we had bombed the Bay of Pigs for three days and three nights.” I had interpreted his statement to mean that the Essex had engaged in the bombing when it may be that Rothstein was talking about the initial bombing of the Bay of Pigs operation that began on April 15, 1961, which was before the landing of the armed men. Wikipedia reports that “On April 15, eight CIA-supplied B-26 bombers attacked Cuban air fields before returning to the U.S….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion --------------------------------------------------------------- 17 April 1961 Brigadistas (Cuban exiles) of Brigade 2506 opposed to the regime of Fidel R. Castro sailed from British Honduras (Belize) for Bahía de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs), Cuba, during Operation Zapata—an attempt to overthrow Castro. The U.S. concentrated naval support for the émigrés initially within Task Group Alpha (81.8), including Essex (CVS 9), with CVSG-60 embarked. Aircraft from Essex were to fly CAP over the invader’s landing craft and reconnaissance flights over Castro’s forces and comprised—12 McDonnell Douglas A4D-2 Skyhawks of VA-34, two Grumman S2F-1 Trackers and eight S2F-1Ss of VS-34, four Douglas AD5-W Skyraiders of VAW-12 Detachment 45, 15 Sikorsky HSS-1 Seabats of HS-9, one Piasecki (Vertol) HUP-3 Retriever of HU-2 Detachment 45, and one Grumman TF-1 Trader. To accommodate the Skyhawks on board Essex the S2F-1s of VS-39 temporarily operated from NAS Quonset Point, R.I. http://www.history.navy.mil/Special%20Highlights/Cuban%20Missile/Chronology_USNAviation_CMC.pdf -------------------------------------------------------- “On our way back to Norfolk the crew was told to keep quiet about where we were and what we did.” http://www.ussessexcv9.org/Bay_Of_Pigs.htm

No, Jim, I have not read Gaeton Fonzi’s book in which he talks apparently about the arrest of Sturgis in New York City. Have you listened to the interview of former NYPD detective Jim Rothstein that I posted a link earlier in this topic? If you have not, then you apparently don’t have a total grasp of what went down with the Sturgis arrest and its relationship to the JFK assassination. Rothstein, who had been appointed by the governor to the New York State Select Commission on Crime while continuing to serve on the NYPD vice squad, was alerted by an Intelligence Agent of Sturgis’ planned trip to New York to intimidate/murder Marita Lorenz to keep her from testifying to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Four persons were involved in arresting Sturgis. Two were Rothstein and his NYPD cop partner. It was agreed beforehand that after the arrest of Sturgis and before he was formally booked at the station that Rothstein was to talk to him because Rothstein has been involved in the Bay of Pigs operation. So after the arrest Rothstein did talk to Sturgis and told him that he was on the ship Essex, which bombed the Bay of Pigs for three days just prior to the landing of the recruited armed men. Rothstein said that he was on the bridge when the ship received the order from JFK to cease the bombing just prior to the landing. Rothstein said that when Sturgis heard this he knew Rothstein was on the up-and-up and had served on the Essex and started talking to him. They talked for two hours. He told Rothstein about being involved in the JFK assassination and being a shooter on the grassy knoll. He further told Rothstein that he had given a 22-page full confession of how the assassination was carried out and his role in it to the Cardinal of New York in 1971. (Rothstein is not sure whether it was Cardinal O’Connor.) Rothstein said that later he had the opportunity to have the confession read to him. Rothstein says he was present at the police station when Sturgis after being booked was allowed to make a phone call and that Sturgis called Gaeton Fonzi. Rothstein says not long thereafter Frank Nelson arrived at the station and inquired about obtaining the release of Sturgis. Rothstein says that Nelson was a mysterious person involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy and was part of what he called the intelligence mob. Rothstein says that he was shocked that someone involved in the assassination such as Sturgis would call someone like Fonzi. Rothstein says that sometime after Fonzi’s book was published, which he had read, he talked with Fonzi. He asked Fonzi, “Why did you call Frank Nelson?” Fonzi replied that he did not call Nelson but the Marita Lorenz had. Rothstein said that Marita did not call Nelson to go to the station because she was in the presence all the time of those associated with him in arresting Sturgis. Rothstein said at that point, Fonzi said, “Holy cow. This thing was all monitored.” Rothstein replied, “No kidding.” So apparently someone was wire-tapping Fonzi’s phone and heard the call from Sturgis and immediately alerted Nelson to go to the police station. One guess would be that Sturgis knew that Fonzi’s phone was being wire-tapped by assassination forces allied with him and that he used the call as a clandestine means to get his release from jail. Once again I suggest that it would be worthwhile to listen to the December 21, 2006 interview of Rothstein, especially to the second hour of that interview although the full interview is fascinating. http://arcticbeacon....CN/12-2006-GCN/

How JFK’s mistake led to the sequester mess By Robert Samuelson, Published: March 3, 2013 Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-how-jfks-mistake-led-to-the-sequester-mess/2013/03/03/ca4ba654-82bf-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?hpid=z2 Blame it on JFK. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy made a decision that, with hindsight, ranks as the biggest mistake of domestic policy since World War II. In many ways, it led directly to today’s “sequester” debacle. What Kennedy did was this: In early 1963, he proposed a $13.6 billion tax cut (today: about $320 billion) even though the economy was not in recession and the tax cut would enlarge the budget deficit. Kennedy adopted the theory that government could, by manipulating its budgets, increase economic growth, reach “full employment” (then a 4 percent unemployment rate) and reduce — or eliminate — recessions. It was a disaster. High inflation was the first shock. An initial boom (by 1969, unemployment was 3.5 percent) spawned a wage-price spiral. With government seeming to guarantee 4 percent unemployment, workers and businesses had little reason to restrain wages and prices. In 1960, inflation was 1 percent; by 1980, it was 13 percent. The economy became less stable. From 1969 to 1982, there were four recessions, as the Federal Reserve alternated between trying to push unemployment down and prevent inflation from going up. Only in the early 1980s did the Fed, under Paul Volcker and with Ronald Reagan’s support, crush inflationary psychology. We are now suffering from — and have for decades — the second defect of JFK’s decision: the loss of budgetary discipline. Since Kennedy’s tax cut passed in 1964 — after his assassination — there have been 43 budget deficits and only five surpluses (1969, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001). Even the surpluses reflected luck more than policy. The last four resulted mostly from the 1990s economic boom, boosting tax revenue, and the end of the Cold War, lowering military spending. Balancing a budget compels choice. Pleasurable spending must be weighed against painful taxes. Before Kennedy’s tax cut, it was assumed that, in ordinary times, Americans would strive to balance the federal budget. They might not have always succeeded, but they often came close. Wars and economic slumps were exceptions when borrowing became a practical necessity. The government consistently ran deficits in the Great Depression of the 1930s. But debt was generally bad. In the Civil War, the federal debt rose 42 times to a then-astounding $2.8 billion. Repaying it became a “national obsession,” writes political scientist James Savage in his “Balanced Budgets & American Politics.” One English diplomat observed that most Americans “appear disposed to endure any amount of sacrifice rather than bequeath a portion of their debt to future generations.” Kennedy himself initially accepted the virtue of balanced budgets and had to be converted to Keynesian economic doctrines (after John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946). In 1962, his advisers urged a big tax cut; Kennedy rejected it. Led by Walter Heller, the economists peppered Kennedy with more than 300 memos in his thousand-day presidency. By 1963, he’d come around. Debt became benign. The promise of Kennedy’s tax cuts was that, by promoting faster and more stable economic growth, government could afford more because the economy would perform better. When Republicans proposed “supply side” tax cuts in the 1980s, they made similar arguments and referred admiringly to Kennedy. Over time, what was politically convenient — higher spending, lower taxes — became habit-forming. It pleased the public, which deplored deficits in the abstract but rejected specific (unpopular) measures to control them. Without pressure to balance the budget, choices were delayed or denied. Discipline diminished. When politicians needed to “do something” about deficits, they resorted to obtuse, often ineffective formulas that fudged choices by making across-the-board changes to both good and bad programs. Think: “budget caps,” “spending recessions” and “continuing resolutions.” The sequester is the latest and most grotesque example of this approach. To be sure, deficits are sometimes desirable. In a recession, the “automatic stabilizers” (the tendency of taxes to fall and spending to rise) help revive the economy. A deep downturn, such as the Great Recession, may justify extra borrowing, spending or tax cuts. The irony is that the careless use of deficits, by piling up unnecessary debt, has compromised this legitimate role. It’s one unnoticed consequence of downgrading the budget as an instrument to force decisions about government’s size and role. (A constitutional balanced-budget amendment is not a solution. Even if ratified — doubtful — it could ruinously turn every budget dispute into a legal crisis.) Kennedy and his advisers, overconfident of their ability to control the economy, damaged long-standing national norms and customs. They didn’t know what they were doing. It is hard to think of another policy decision in recent decades that has caused so much havoc for so long. Deficits became routine events rather than emergency reactions. Keynes said “in the long run we are all dead”; but others are alive and suffer from distant blunders.

Jim, you pulled the fiftieth recently on another member's posting. Apparently you are under the self-illusion that the only items that should be posted on this forum are ones that meet your approval. The forum does not work that way. Nor does the world. So get used to it. Especially during the fiftieth and thereafter.

Former NYPD detective Jim Rothstein is interviewed on Dec. 21, 2006, by Greg Szymanski on the GNC network. A link to the GNC shows for the December 2006 is below. Scroll down to December 21, 2006. In the second hour of the interview Rothstein explains in detail how he came to arrest Frank Sturgis in 1977. At the time of the arrest he had been appointed by the New York governor to the New York State Select Committee on Crime while still remaining a NYPD detective assigned to the NYPD vice squad. Sturgis after his arrest talked freely with Rothstein once the latter had indicated his role in the Bay of Pigs aboard the ship Essex. Sturgis after his arrest was taken to the police station where he was allowed to make one telephone call. Rothstein was present when he called that person – who was a well known staff member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Soon thereafter a lawyer arrived at the station to represent Sturgis. The story does not end there. Rothstein makes many other revelations about Sturgis and about Marita Lorenz, whose story about traveling with Sturgis and others to Dallas in November 1963 was checked out and verified into details such as one of the two cars breaking down in east Texas and the repair shop later being identified that made the repairs. I think listening to the interview of Rothstein is time well spent. http://arcticbeacon.com/audio/2006/2006-GCN/12-2006-GCN/

Long-ago wiretap inspires a battle with the CIA for more information By Ian Shapira, Published: March 2, 2013 Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/long-ago-wiretap-inspires-a-battle-with-the-cia-for-more-information/2013/03/02/8ebaa924-77b0-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html Paul Scott, the late syndicated columnist, was so paranoid about the CIA wiretapping his Prince George’s County home in the 1960s that he’d make important calls from his neighbor’s house. His teenage son Jim Scott figured his dad was either a shrewd reporter or totally nuts. Not until nearly 45 years later did the son learn that his father’s worries were justified. The insight came in 2007 when the CIA declassified a trove of documents popularly called “the family jewels.” The papers detailed the agency’s unlawful activities from long ago, including wiretapping the Scott home in District Heights. The operation even had a code name: “Project Mockingbird.” Jim was floored: The CIA really did eavesdrop on Dad. Now Jim, 64, a retired Navy public relations officer who lives in Anne Arundel County, is waging an operation of his own against the agency. For the past five years, he has sought to declassifyand make public any documents Langley might still have on his father and why he was wiretapped. So far, the CIA has released to Jim a handful of intriguing documents. But Jim has been trying to compel the agency to cough up more. A federal declassification review panel is reviewing Jim’s case and could decide as soon as this month whether to direct the CIA to release more Mockingbird documents. “I don’t have any animosity for the CIA,” said Jim, whose father died at the age of 80 in 2001. “I respect what they do. But they make it extremely difficult for the average citizen to interact with them. It makes me wonder what they are still trying to hide about my father.” Not eager to share It’s not easy penetrating one of the world’s most secretive organizations. Tourists can’t just show up at its famous headquarters, let alone wander into its museum or browse the gift shop that sells CIA T-shirts and tchotchkes. Even former spies-turned-memoirists need agency approval for their manuscripts before publication and often can’t reveal seemingly harmless or boring details about their careers. For ordinary people — academics, journalists, relatives of former employees — extracting agency information can be tough. They can file Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests or mandatory declassification review requests. But the CIA usually isn’t eager to part with much, said Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “I have a number of requests with the CIA that are more than five years old,” said Aftergood, who has sued the agency a handful of times for documents. “The message they’re sending is, ‘If you want our attention, sue us,’ ” he said, calling it “a time-consuming and resource-demanding effort.” He usually loses. Todd Ebitz, an agency spokesman, said the agency received more than 5,400 Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests, along with mandatory declassification review requests, in fiscal 2012 . The agency doesn’t keep track of how many of those requests come from ordinary citizens, rather than journalists, academics or nonprofit groups. Since 1995, he said, the CIA has released more than 10 million pages of declassified material. The agency also has used its discretion to release more than 100,000 pages of CIA material, including documents from the family jewels. But just because documents are old doesn’t mean they can be made public. “CIA information that is decades old may still be sensitive when it mentions methods, techniques or sources which, if they were revealed, could harm our nation’s security or place someone’s personal security at risk,” Ebitz said. “The agency works diligently to make public information no longer requiring protection, releasing what we can and withholding what we must in the interest of national security.” The CIA declined to comment on the specifics of Jim Scott’s case. But Tom Blanton, director of the George Washington University-based National Security Archive, questioned the agency’s refusal to release the documents about Jim Scott’s father: “There’s nothing truly secret about the wiretapping of Paul Scott now.” “What this is really about,” Blanton said, “is bureaucracy and power.” High-level wiretaps In June 2007, Jim read about the CIA’s decision to release the family jewels. The collection of long-secret documentsrevealed details about the agency’s activities from the 1960s and 1970s, including a failed assassination plan against Cuba’s Fidel Castro, a Watergate burglar’s search for an expert lock picker, and illegal wiretaps of reporters. To Jim’s shock, two of the wiretapped journalists were his father, Paul, and his writing partner, Robert S. Allen, who died in 1981. The men once wrote a syndicated column, the “Allen-Scott Report,” that appeared in 300 newspapers. Their column often contained national security scoops, including exclusives about Soviet aid to Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis. Jim called his mother about the wiretap revelations. She reminded him about the time he complained about hearing strangers’ voices on a phone call with a high school classmate. “I had heard some clicking in the background,” Jim said, laughing. “I heard someone say, ‘Don’t worry, it’s just two kids talking about homework assignments.’ As a teenager, you kinda just blow that stuff off.” Once the family jewels were posted online, “I couldn’t go to sleep that night, reading the documents,” Jim recalled. “What startled me was the level of seniority that approved this operation.” The wiretap on his father was described in only three released pages, each stamped with the words “SECRET” and “EYES ONLY.” Every sentence seemed more tantalizing than the next. Between March 12, 1963, and June 15, 1963, phone bugs were installed at the Allen and Scott homes and their Capitol Hill office. But this was no rogue operation: CIA Director John McCone approved the operation “under pressure,” the documents said, from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. And Kennedy planned it with Robert McNamara, the defense secretary and Vietnam War architect. The wiretap identified many of the reporting team’s sources: a dozen senators; six congressmen; 11 congressional staffers; 16 “government employees,” including a staff member at the White House and some at the vice president’s office; and “other well-placed individuals,” the documents said. The journalists actually got more classified information than they could use, the documents noted, and passed the leftovers along to rival reporters. But several pages were fully or partly redacted. Jim felt teased. Why, he wondered, did the CIA keep those pages secret after so many years? Are the names of all their sources hidden behind the redactions? “It felt like a half-written Vince Flynn or Michael Connelly novel,” Jim said. “I wondered how much my dad knew about being surveilled. What was going through his mind? He had to be fearful. It felt like this was a chapter in his life we knew little about, and the release of [more] documents could shed some light.” So, in 2008, the son filed his first Freedom of Information Act request with the CIA. Clues from the FBI Twelve months later, the agency mailed Jim a packet of partially redacted memos about Paul. None touched on the 1963 Mockingbird wiretap, though there was an intriguing account of a visit his father made to South Africa in 1968 to interview a captured Russian spy. “The CIA gave me stuff that I didn’t know even existed,” Jim said, “but I just wanted to know what articles triggered the wiretap.” In early 2009, Jim requested the wiretap documents for a second time. “Isn’t it safe to assume that most, if not all, of the key players complicit in this operation are deceased?” he asked in a letter to the CIA. That summer, the CIA rejected his appeal, ruling that the information still required secrecy. Meanwhile, Jim had pursued a second route: the FBI. To his surprise, the bureau was more than happy to play along. Throughout 2011, FBI documents arrived at Jim’s home in waves, packed with new revelations. Jim learned, according to one FBI memo, that his dad truly alarmed the government at a Feb. 6, 1963, news conference in which he asked Defense Secretary McNamara several questions about Cuban weapons. Paul used precisely the same information in his questions that was contained in secret Navy documents. And the Navy, according to the bureau memos, wanted the FBI to find out who his source was. But someone very senior at the bureau expressed reservations in a letter to Robert Kennedy that referred to his brother, President John F. Kennedy. Although the FBI official seemed alarmed by “Allen-Scott Report” pieces — published from December 1962 to February 1963 in, of all places, the now-defunct Northern Virginia Sun — he didn’t want the bureau involved. [A] covert investigation will become known and I understood the President does not want it to become known. t would be far more effective to have the Defense agencies interview people in their own agencies rather than an outside civilian agency do it because there is always a certain amount of resentment . . . Very truly yours, JEH, John Edgar Hoover, Director “I was elated when I read all this. These are some heavyweight people,” Jim said. “I figured that I am getting this from the FBI, and it’ll just be a matter of time before the CIA sheds some light as well. Waiting for word on appeal But Jim never gained any traction with the CIA. He has taken his fight to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, a Supreme Court-like body made up of officials from agencies such as the CIA, State, Defense and Justice departments. The group, which decides declassification requests, has already discussed Jim’s appeal. The soonest the panel could make its decision would be mid-March. If it rules in Jim’s favor, the CIA could appeal the decision to President Obama or release the documents. Even he wins, Jim won’t be satisfied. He plans to file a new request for the transcripts of the bugged conversations between his father and his sources. It’s unclear how the appeals panel will rule on the Scott case. Ebitz, the CIA spokesman, said the CIA hasn’t unveiled anything new from the family jewels collection since 2007 “because we released everything we could. The information we withheld is properly classified.” Jim, his four sisters, and their 88-year-old mother wish Paul were still alive so he could fill in the holes. Jane Cobis, who was married to Paul for 55 years, said she remembers sources dropping by their home. One was from the CIA. “He was a good friend of Paul’s,” said Cobis, who has since remarried and lives in Anne Arundel. “He would talk to him frequently and give him a lot of information. He was probably the reason we were wiretapped. He and his wife came out to the house a lot. He felt there were certain things the press should know.” Although the source and his wife are deceased, Cobis would rather keep their identities secret. The Scotts have their own family jewels to protect. http://apps.washingt...ockingbird/295/ http://apps.washingt...nuary-2011/293/ http://apps.washingt...ember-2011/292/ http://apps.washingt...ed-in-1974/294/

Len, I always read your posts because you consistently search for the truth. In doing this, you perform a valuable service for the forum. This requires much effort on your part and I, for one, am most appreciative. As I have said previously, many times I post items on the forum not because I necessarily believe them but because they are relevant and something in the item may trigger a response from a forum member who has more information about the subject. It is how the pieces of the puzzle of the JFK assassination are assembled over time in an effort to get the whole picture of what really happened. As to the ship Essex and the Bay of Pigs, Ray Mitcham's reply above clarifies this issue and shows that former NYPD detective Rothstein was truthful when he stated that he served on that ship, which seems officially not to have been there. As to Frank Sturgis being arrested in New York City is an alleged attempt to murder Marita Lorenz, the following excerpts from Vanity Fair magazine support Rothstein's claim: Excerpts from Vanity Fair: The Spy who Loved Castro November 1993 http://bardachreport...v_19931100.html “From the heated exchanges between Sturgis and her mother, Monica learned that Sturgis was planning to come by and "straighten things out" on the afternoon of October 31, 1977. With a pistol borrowed from a friend's brother, Monica waited for him outside her apartment building. Someone phoned the police, who talked Monica into giving up the gun. Hours later when Sturgis did appear at the apartment, he was arrested and charged with aggravated harassment and coercion. Sturgis says his arrest was "a set up," that he had flown to New York at Marita's request and that she had even paid for his plane ticket. He sued the city for false arrest, and actually won a $2,500 settlement. He says further that he never told Lorenz to avoid the hearings, that he never believed that Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered, and that he had nothing to do with the disappearance of his friend Alexander Rorke.

Retired New York Police detective Jim Rothstein was interviewed yesterday, Feb. 28, 2013, for two hours on The Power Hour. The interview can be listened to by clicking on the link below. This way Forum members can judge his credibility for themselves. http://www.thepowerhour.com/schedule.htm

From the article: ““I was on the aircraft carrier Essex during the Bay of Pigs invasion,” said Rothstein. “The Essex was a ship that was not supposed to exist. When I told Sturgis I was on the Essex during the invasion, he told me, ‘The only way you could know that is if you were there.’ So I gained his trust and he talked to me for two hours” (Rothstein). During their discussion, Frank Sturgis claimed to James Rothstein that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination (Rothstein). “Sturgis said he was one of two shooters on the grassy knoll,” said Rothstein. “Was Marita Lorenz going to tell the House Select Committee about Frank Sturgis’ role in the JFK assassination? While Sturgis may have been following orders when he went to kill Lorenz, it is also possible that Sturgis did not want her to say anything that could land him behind bars … or executed. Sturgis did not want James Rothstein talking either, so he sued Rothstein. Apparently, there were powerful people who did not want Rothstein to testify about what Sturgis had told him about the JFK assassination.” ……. “According to James Rothstein, Judge Sand could not allow Frank Sturgis’ lawsuit against Rothstein to become a slippery slope that would open up the issue of the JFK assassination.” Human Compromise and the Protection Racket by admin on November 6, 2012 in ARTICLES by Paul D. Collins paranoiamagazine.com http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/2012/11/human-compromise-and-the-protection-racket/ The following seamless story of human compromise, and the protection racket surrounding it, spans decades and continents. This is how it works. Listen up. When the Eliot Spitzer Emperors Club prostitution scandal broke out on March 10, 2008, the first person this author thought to call was retired legend, New York Police Detective James “Jim” Rothstein. As a cop, Jim took on organized pedophile rings, arrested Watergate burglar and CIA operative Frank Sturgis, and testified before the New York State Select Committee on Crime. Jim knows all about sexual blackmail operations, which he refers to as “human compromise.” To Jim, the Spitzer scandal was a perfect example. “It’s like déjà vu,” said Rothstein. And to Rothstein, GOP operative Roger Stone was the key to the compromising of Governor Spitzer (Rothstein). “Watch for this guy, Stone,” Jim said in a telephone interview on March 10, 2008. “I saw him in an interview about Spitzer a few days ago and thought I recognized him. I looked back at my old investigations and remembered that he was part of Roy Cohn’s whole thing.” Jim was referring to Roy Cohn’s sexual blackmail operation. According to Jim, this operation was conducted “under the guise of fighting communism.” During his time as a police detective, Rothstein had an opportunity to sit down with infamous McCarthy committee counsel Roy Cohn. Cohn admitted to Rothstein that he was part of a rather elaborate sexual blackmail operation that compromised politicians with child prostitutes (Rothstein). Roger Stone began working with Cohn when he was the northeast chairman of Reagan’s 1980 campaign. Cohn and Stone had begun building an alliance a year earlier when Cohn introduced Stone to mobster Fat Tony Salerno at Cohn’s Manhattan townhouse (Labash). According to the Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash, “Stone loved Cohn.” Stone said of Cohn: “He didn’t give a [expletive] what people thought, as long as he was able to wield power. He worked the gossip columnists in [New York] like an organ” (Labash). By his own admission, Roger Stone is the informant that told the FBI about Governor Spitzer’s use of prostitutes from the Emperors Club VIP four months before the New York Governor’s resignation (Bone). Stone’s operations against Gov. Spitzer began in June of 2007, when the Republican operative was hired for $20,000 a month, by Republican State Senate leader Joseph Bruno, to rid New York State Republicans of the pesky New York Governor (Labash). According to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, top officials of the Spitzer administration had the state police create documents that would make it appear as if Senator Bruno had misused the New York state air fleet (Matthews). Gov. Spitzer was waging political war on Bruno. Bruno did not like that one bit and was looking for payback. But Senator Bruno was not the only one out to get Spitzer. According to Matt Labash, Roger Stone was working with “a loose collection of co-conspirators” to bring down the New York Governor. In Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, Inspector Hercule Poirot remarked: “There are too many clues in this room.” The same principle applies in the Spitzer case. The Wall Street Mafia Students of Criminology are well aware that there are different varieties of organized crime. There’s the Italian mob. There’s the Japanese mob. There’s the Chinese mob. There’s even a Jewish mob. But what many people do not realize is that there is also a Wall Street mob. When Gov. Spitzer resigned, the Wall Street mob stood up and cheered … literally. According to Bloomberg reporter Chris Dolmetsch, a group of traders on the New York Stock Exchange floor began to applaud as they watched Spitzer resign on television. When Eliot Spitzer was New York’s attorney general, he had sued New York Stock Exchange Chief Richard Grasso for failing to tell the board about Grasso’s compensation. One of the cheering traders, Timothy O’Connell of DRU Stock Inc., said the traders were angry with Spitzer because “Grasso was a voice for this community” (Dolmetsch). It is interesting that O’Connell referred to Grasso as Wall Street’s “voice.” Perhaps Richard Grasso had been speaking for Wall Street in 1999 when, as Chief of the New York Stock Exchange, he flew into a demilitarized region of Colombia’s southern jungle and savanna to talk face-to-face with members of the general secretariat of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (a.k.a. FARC) (see, “NYSE Chief Meets Top Colombia Rebel Leader”). As NYSE Chief, Grasso discussed “foreign investment and the role of U.S. businesses in Colombia” with the representatives of FARC’s high command. Grasso wanted FARC to invest its money on Wall Street. Where exactly did FARC’s money come from? During his May 20, 2003 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Assistant Director Steven C. McCraw stated that FARC was “strongly tied to drug trafficking in Colombia” (“Testimony of Steven McCraw, Assistant Director, Office of Intelligence, FBI before the Senate Judiciary Committee”). On March 2, 2004, a federal grand jury charged two high-level FARC members, Simon Trinidad and Mono Jojoy, with “issuing orders regarding the acquisition, transportation and sale of cocaine by various fronts of FARC and the movement of drug money” (“High-Ranking Member of Colombian FARC Narco-Terrorist Organization Extradited to U.S. on Terrorism, Drug Charges”). A Department of Justice press release elaborated on the grand jury’s indictment of the FARC members: The indictment alleges that Trinidad managed and controlled money for the FARC that was used by the organization to conduct cocaine trafficking activities. The indictment alleges that Trinidad announced to local coca growers the price the FARC would pay them for each kilogram of cocaine base, and advised them that the quality of their cocaine base was “inferior” and “needed to be improved.” The indictment further alleges that Trinidad met with and received money from or supplied money to other FARC drug traffickers, that he attended drug-trafficking meetings, and that he spoke of sending cocaine to the United States. The FARC’s adventures into narcotics trafficking began in the 1980s (“Colombia’s most powerful rebels”). Since then, the FARC has taxed “every stage of the drug business, from the chemicals needed to process the hardy coca bush into cocaine and the opium poppy into heroin, right up to charging for the processed drugs to be flown from illegal airstrips they control.” The FARC brings in $300 million in drug money each year. According to the BBC, the FARC’s involvement in the drug trade has helped to make the group “the richest insurgent group in the world.” If the Wall Street mob is not above doing business with drug traffickers, they would certainly have no qualms with politically destroying the New York Governor. Attorney General v. Predatory Lenders Did Gov. Spitzer also incur the wrath of the Bush administration and its predatory mortgage lender cronies? In a February 14, 2008 article for the Washington Post, Spitzer claimed that, when he was New York’s attorney general, Spitzer joined with the other 49 state attorneys general in fighting lenders who “were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers’ ability to repay, making loans with deceptive ‘teaser’ rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks” (Spitzer). According to Spitzer, the state attorneys general “brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices” (Spitzer). Then Spitzer’s Washington Post article dropped a bombshell concerning the Bush Administration’s response to the state attorneys general actions against predatory lenders. Spitzer accused the Administration of using the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to obstruct the states’ efforts. According to Spitzer, the OCC’s invocation of an 1863 National Bank Act clause allowed the federal agency to usurp state laws concerning predatory lending. The OCC had also established new rules that rendered impotent the state consumer protection laws against national banks. Spitzer was essentially blaming the Bush Administration for the current crisis in the financial markets. The Power Elite does not want every Establishment name on the Emperors Club VIP’s client list to get out. Only the disloyal are to have their skeletons pulled out of the closet. This means operatives may be in place to prevent collateral damage. One of those people may be Judge Leonard Sand. Sand is the federal judge that signed the warrant against Gov. Spitzer. According to James Rothstein, Judge Sand is a “good and honorable man.” But Sand is also someone who may stop a case when he feels the pressure coming down from the Establishment (Rothstein). Bay of Pigs – JFK Connection Rothstein’s own experience with Sand bears out this contention. When Watergate burglar and CIA operative Frank Sturgis sued James Rothstein in 1976 for false arrest and other charges, it was Judge Leonard Sand who had presided over the case. Rothstein had arrested Sturgis when Sturgis was on his way to the home of Marita Lorenz to kill her. According to Rothstein, Frank Sturgis claimed that the murder was sanctioned by powerful people. Powerful people had reasons to be angry with Lorenz. “Marita was sent by the CIA to Cuba to kill Castro,” said Rothstein. “But instead of killing him, she ended up shacking up with him.” According to Rothstein, Marita Lorenz was planning to go before the House Select Committee and tell all she knew about the Kennedy assassination. Was Sturgis afraid Lorenz was going to incriminate him? Both Rothstein and Sturgis had been involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion (Rothstein). Rothstein decided to use this fact to find out a few things from Sturgis. “I was on the aircraft carrier Essex during the Bay of Pigs invasion,” said Rothstein. “The Essex was a ship that was not supposed to exist. When I told Sturgis I was on the Essex during the invasion, he told me, ‘The only way you could know that is if you were there.’ So I gained his trust and he talked to me for two hours” (Rothstein). During their discussion, Frank Sturgis claimed to James Rothstein that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination (Rothstein). “Sturgis said he was one of two shooters on the grassy knoll,” said Rothstein. Was Marita Lorenz going to tell the House Select Committee about Frank Sturgis’ role in the JFK assassination? While Sturgis may have been following orders when he went to kill Lorenz, it is also possible that Sturgis did not want her to say anything that could land him behind bars … or executed. Sturgis did not want James Rothstein talking either, so he sued Rothstein. Apparently, there were powerful people who did not want Rothstein to testify about what Sturgis had told him about the JFK assassination. “Sturgis had the same lawyer that represented William Calley of the My Lai Massacre,” said Rothstein. “There is no way Sturgis could have paid for that representation.” According to Rothstein, Judge Sand pulled him into his chambers and negotiated with Rothstein to not testify. “The city paid a fine and my partner and I received an accommodation,” said Rothstein. “And I didn’t talk. And that’s where I got out. Because I knew when to get out.” According to James Rothstein, Judge Sand could not allow Frank Sturgis’ lawsuit against Rothstein to become a slippery slope that would open up the issue of the JFK assassination. Collateral Damage So Judge Sand signed the warrant against Eliot Spitzer. But the Emperors Club VIP had almost certainly serviced other Establishment figures. Rothstein hypothesizes that the Governor’s enemies were being serviced by the same prostitutes, and found out through those prostitutes that Spitzer was a client. Judge Sand may have limited his actions to Spitzer alone because he did not want to incur the wrath of the Establishment (Rothstein). The federal investigation against the ex-governor is headed by Michael J. Garcia, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Garcia is a Bush appointee (“Michael J. Garcia, Former Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), 2003-2005″). Is it Garcia’s job to prevent that military doublespeak known as “collateral damage”? Michael Garcia is also involved in the case of Russian former GRU major and arms dealer Viktor Bout, nicknamed the “Merchant of Death.” Garcia indicted Bout for arms deals with the FARC (Casey), but Bout did not just do business with Colombian rebels. The Russian “Merchant of Death” has also done business with people close to U.S. Attorney Garcia’s boss, George W. Bush. In 2004, it was discovered that the Pentagon, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, the Air Force, and the Army Corps of Engineers were permitting U.S. contractors in Iraq to do business with Bout’s air cargo companies, in spite of the fact that the Treasury Department had labeled Viktor Bout an arms dealer and had frozen his assets (Braun). One of the firms doing business with Bout’s network was none other than Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), which was, at the time, a subsidiary of the multinational corporation formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney known as Halliburton (Braun). Air Bas, a company tied to Viktor Bout’s aviation empire, flew supplies into Iraq for KBR at least four times in October of 2004 (Braun). In fact, Halliburton moved its corporate headquarters to Dubai at a time when Dubai was Bout’s base of operations (Grigg). It is possible that U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia became involved in the arms dealing case to prevent Viktor Bout from rolling over on clients that were close to George W. Bush. Will Garcia also make sure that the investigation into Spitzer does not touch other Establishment figures? ©2008 Paul D. Collins. Paul is the co-author with Phillip Collins of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship (ISBN 1-4196-3932-3), available at Amazon.com. He has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. He has a B.A. in liberal studies and political science. His research has been published by raidersnewsnetwork.com, conspiracyarchive.com, Nexus, and Paranoia. References Bone, James. “Roger Stone: I tipped off FBI about Eliot Spitzer sex scandal.” Times Online 24 March 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3607708.ece Braun, Stephen, et al. “Blacklisted Russian Tied to Iraq Deals.” Los Angeles Times 14 December 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1214-04.htm Casey, Michael. “US Seeks Weapons Suspect’s Extradition.” Associated Press 7 March 2008 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNURV-EuOx57Uj9dL7RCzePHs33gD8V8J3J00 “Colombia’s most powerful rebels.” BBC 19 September 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1746777.stm Dolmetsch, Chris. “Cheers on NYSE Floor, Shock in Albany: Spitzer’s Fall.” Bloomberg 13 March 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ad0ZcUfS5juk&refer=us “Eliot Spitzer Prostitution Scandal” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal “High-Ranking Member of Colombian FARC Narco-Terrorist Organization Extradited To U.S. On Terrorism, Drug Charges.” Department of Justice 31 December 2004 http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/December/04_crm_808.htm Labash, Matt. “Roger Stone, Political Animal.” Weekly Standard 5 November 2007 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14278 Matthews, Cara. “Cuomo: Spitzer aides used State Police to try to damage Bruno.” Lower Hudson Online 24 July 2007 http://m.lohud.com/detail.jsp?key=62289&full=1 “Michael J. Garcia.” Wikipedia 13 March 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Garcia “Michael J. Garcia, Former Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 2003-2005.” White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/garciam-bio.html “NYSE Chief Meets Top Colombia Rebel Leader.” Reuters 26 June 1999 http://www.colombiasupport.net/199906/nysefarc.html Rothstein, James. Telephone Interview. 10 March 2008 Spitzer, Eliot. “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” Washington Post 14 February 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783_pf.html “Testimony of Steven C. McCraw, Assistant Director, Office of Intelligence, FBI Before the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Federal Bureau of Investigation 20 May 2003 http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mccraw052003.htm

Can a President Use Drones Against Journalists? by Amy Davidson Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/02/can-a-president-use-drones-against-journalists.html#ixzz2M3bslGoE

Bork: Nixon Offered Me SCOTUS Seat for Firing Archibald Cox By Mark Sherman February 25, 2013, 6:01 PM WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Bork says President Richard Nixon promised him the next Supreme Court vacancy after Bork complied with Nixon’s order to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973. Bork’s recollection of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre that culminated in Cox’s firing is at the center of his slim memoir, “Saving Justice,” that is being published posthumously by Encounter Books. Bork died in December at age 85. Bork writes that he didn’t know if Nixon actually, though mistakenly, believed he still had the political clout to get someone confirmed to the Supreme Court or was just trying to secure Bork’s continued loyalty as his administration crumbled in the Watergate scandal. President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the high court in 1987. The nomination failed in the Senate. Bork describes a surreal time in Washington as the Watergate scandal began to consume the government and the country, and a sense of paranoia prevailed. Bork says that soon after his arrival in Washington in 1973, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig tried to persuade him to resign as Solicitor General to become Nixon’s chief defense lawyer. Bork sought out his good friend Alexander Bickel to discuss the offer. Rather than talk inside Bork’s home in McLean, Virginia, they walked along a dark, semi-rural road so that no one would overhear them. Bork turned down the offer. When Bork and Attorney General Eliot Richardson were called to the Oval Office to discuss plans to indict Vice President Spiro Agnew, the two men ducked into a restroom where Richardson turned on all the faucets so their conversation would not be picked up by electronic eavesdropping. Most details about Bork’s role on the tumultuous evening of October 20, 1973, immortalized as the Saturday Night Massacre, are well known. Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox over the prosecutor’s subpoena of White House tapes. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. The next in line, William Ruckelshaus, refused to fire Cox and was himself fired. That left Bork, whose main job was arguing in front of the Supreme Court and who also was the third-ranking Justice Department official. Bork says his initial inclination was to fire Cox and then resign so as not to be seen as a White House toady. He says Richardson and Ruckelshaus encouraged him to stay on for the good of the Justice Department. In the end, Bork served as acting Attorney General until January 1974, and stayed on as Solicitor General until January 1977. Nixon resigned in August 1974. After Richardson and Ruckelshaus refused to carry out Nixon’s order, the White House sent a car to the Justice Department to fetch Bork. He met the car outside the department and found Nixon lawyers Leonard Garment and Fred Buzhardt in the passenger seats. Bork says he joked that he felt like he was being taken for a ride, as in a scene from a gangster movie, but that no one else laughed. Shortly after he sent Cox a two-paragraph letter, he was taken in to see Nixon. Bork says the resignation and firings should have been called “The Saturday Night Involuntary Manslaughter” because Nixon didn’t plan the episode, but blundered into it. It was in that conversation that Bork says Nixon for the first and only time offered up the next Supreme Court seat.

February 25, 2013 13:51 ET http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/judicial-watch-files-foia-lawsuit-against-national-archives-challenging-withholding-1761009.htm Judicial Watch Files FOIA Lawsuit Against National Archives Challenging the Withholding of RFK Department of Justice Records Kennedy Family Continues to Keep Secret Government Records in Violation of the Freedom of Information Act WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - Feb 25, 2013) - On February 12, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of author/historian Max Holland against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The suit challenges the withholding of Robert F. Kennedy's records while he served as Attorney General, including "assassination records" relevant to the November 22, 1963 murder of his brother, former President John F. Kennedy (Holland v. National Archives and Records Administration (No. 13-00185)). These records are currently under control of the Kennedy family under the auspices of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Dorchester, Massachusetts. Judicial Watch filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests in fall 2012 with NARA after press outlets reported that the JFK Library was in possession of more than 60 boxes of records from Robert F. Kennedy's tenure as the U.S. Attorney General. Contained in these boxes are diaries, notes, phone logs, messages, trip files, memoranda, reports, and other records concerning the Cuban missile crisis, the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and law enforcement activities of both the FBI and Justice Department. Although it has been reported that numerous government archivists and historians believe these records -- an undetermined number of which are government records -- should be made publicly available, none of the records are available for review and they remain under control of the Kennedy family. In response to Judicial Watch's September 26, 2012, FOIA request, NARA produced a list describing a group of records that were referenced by the press reports, including records involving the JFK assassination. Judicial Watch subsequently filed a FOIA request with NARA on December 5, 2012, on behalf of author/historian Max Holland seeking access to the following records: Copies of the seven records identified in the enclosed "Documents from the Robert F. Kennedy Papers: Attorney General's Confidential File which have been identified by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board as 'assassination records.'" NARA was required by law to respond to Judicial Watch's FOIA request by January 9, 2013. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch's complaint, NARA has failed to provide any records responsive to the request or indicate when any responsive records will be produced. NARA has also failed to demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit. November 22, 2013, will mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. The circumstances surrounding his assassination have been a source of controversy and public fascination for decades. To complete the public record on the Kennedy assassination, Congress established the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), an independent agency, to "gather and open" all "assassination records" concerned with Kennedy's death, as mandated under the President John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act of 1992, 44 U.S.C.§ 2107 (Supp. V 1994). According to Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit, seven records deemed to be "assassination records" by the ARRB, which issued its final report in 1998, remain secret to this day. They include some of the president's personal records; documents describing Central Intelligence Activities in Cuba; a Cuban Information Service message dated 1/26/63 entitled, "THE PLANES THAT WERE NOT THERE;" a State Department incoming cable from Mexico; and a document entitled, "Information on Lincoln Bubble Top Automobile sinse [sic] returning from Dallas." (A Lincoln Continental with a removable bubble top was the presidential limousine used by President Kennedy). Judicial Watch and its client, author/historian Max Holland, have requested all of these records be disclosed pursuant to FOIA law. "Over a six-year period in the 1990s, the U.S. government spent millions of tax dollars and untold man-hours in an effort to gather in one place all assassination-related documents," Holland said. "It was and remains outrageous that relevant government documents in the papers of the attorney general at the time are somehow out of reach." "The JFK records are clearly government records and they should be disclosed in accordance with FOIA law," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This lawsuit is about much more than the Kennedy assassination. It goes to the heart of how much control a presidential family may assert over public records. These records do not belong to the Kennedy family -- the records belong to the American people." Holland, a 1972 graduate of Antioch College, is author and editor of Washington Decoded, an online publication. He is writing a history of the Warren Commission for Alfred A. Knopf publishers, a manuscript which received the J. Anthony Lukas Work in Progress award in 2001. He is a contributing editor to The Nation and the Wilson Quarterly, and sits on the editorial advisory board of the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. Holland is also the author, editor, or co-author of six books, most recently Leak: Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat (University Press of Kansas, March 2012) and Blind over Cuba: The Photo Gap and the Missile Crisis (Texas A&M University Press, September 2012). Visit www.judicialwatch.org

I do not know where John McCormack was in 1963. However, when I was administering grants from the Moody Foundation of Galveston, Texas in the mid-1980's, I always stayed at the Hotel Washington when I visited the capital. This was because the Moodys owned the hotel situated a block from the White House. Shearn Moody, who sponsored the grants that I administered, always stayed at the Hotel Washington. On one occasion when we were in Washington on business he told me that McCormack and his wife had lived for years in a small room in the rear portion of the hotel. He also told me that Lyndon Johnson refused to ever step inside the Hotel Washington, which was famous for its cafe on its roof from which one could see most of Washington. Shearn never told me why Johnson refused to visit the hotel but my guess is that he and the Moodys did not have a close relationship or else LBJ was afraid eavesdropping devices might pick up his conversation when he was inside. The rooms near the top of the hotel looked out over the roof of the Treasury Department next door and when I stayed in one of those rooms I could see armed sharpshooters stationed on the roof of the White House, which was located just the other side of the Treasury Department. I assumed the armed sharpshoots were Secret Service agents or military personnel situated on the White House roof for security of the premises.

Researcher and investigator John E. L. Tenney was interviewed tonight (Feb. 23) on the Richard Dolan Show and he highly recommended this book, which he says plots the locations of hundreds of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza when the assassination took place and has interviews with many of them. http://books.google.com/books/about/Master_List_of_Witnesses_in_Dealey_Plaza.html?id=8pFxYgEACAAJ By C. Ciccone 1992 Has anyone in the forum read the book and formed an opinion about it?

Phone hacking: News of the World journalist says police must speed up decision on charges A former senior journalist at the News of the World who was arrested as part of the phone hacking investigation has criticised the length of time it took police to decide whether or not to charge him. By Ben Leach 10:18AM GMT 23 Feb 2013 The Telegraph Neil Wallis, a former deputy editor at the newspaper, was told on Friday he will face no action over the allegations – almost two years after he was arrested. The Crown Prosecution Service said there was “insufficient evidence” to bring charges against him. Speaking on the Radio 4 Today programme he said: “The next two years [after my arrest] were a terrible ordeal for my family. “I think that they [the police] were under tremendous political pressure to make an arrest. I think something has to be questioned. We’re not bank robbers, we’re not rapists, we’re not murderers." Mr Wallis, nicknamed criticised the length of time he was kept on bail and said the police should have made a decision whether or not to charge him earlier. “21 months is an awful long time. There should be a cut off point. There are 60 journalists under arrest at the moment – more journalists than are under arrest in Iran.” After learning he will face no charges he said on Twitter: "After 21 months of hell for my family, CPS have just told my solicitors that there will be no prosecution of me re my phone-hacking arrest." Mr Wallis, 62, worked at the News International title for six years between 2003 and 2009. He was arrested in July 2011 in a raid on his home in West London. He was arrested at the height of the phone scandal after it emerged Sir Paul Stephenson, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, had hired him as a PR consultant. A spokeswoman for the CPS said: “Having carefully considered the matter, the Crown Prosecution Service has concluded that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to [Mr Wallis].” So far, 26 people have been arrested as part of Operation Weeting, Scotland Yard's investigation into illegal access to voicemails, and another six as part of a separate line of inquiry that came out of the probe. Of those, eight are facing charges over an alleged phone hacking conspiracy – ex-News International chief executive. They are ex-managing editor Stuart Kuttner, former news editor Greg Miskiw, former head of news Ian Edmondson, ex-chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck and former reporter James Weatherup. Brooks is also accused along with six other people of perverting the course of justice in relation to Operation Weeting. This is over an alleged conspiracy to withhold material from police. Brooks, 44, her husband Charlie, 49, her former personal assistant Cheryl Carter, head of security at News International Mark Hanna, Brooks's chauffeur Paul Edwards and security staff Daryl Jorsling and Lee Sandell are all accused of perverting the course of justice. They are all due to face trial later in the year.

From the article: “But as the case ground through federal court, defense lawyers argued that the defendants had secretly been acquiring the weapons on behalf of the C.I.A., and so should not be prosecuted for following directions from the government. The defense introduced statements from former C.I.A. officials who said that they knew that Blackwater had been acting at the agency’s direction, and filed motions seeking documents and evidence of the C.I.A.’s role in the weapons deals. The Justice Department denied that the C.I.A. had played any role in directing Blackwater’s weapons purchases, and sought to block the defense from gaining access to C.I.A. files.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/case-ends-against-five-ex-blackwater-officials.html?ref=us&_r=0

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/21/whistleblower-fired-for-revealing-cops-threatened-obama-while-protecting-him/ When and where has America seen this scenario before?

Ex-News of the World executive Neil Wallis By Alice Philipson The Telegraph 1:15PM GMT 22 Feb 2013 Neil Wallis will not face prosecution because there is insufficient evidence, prosecutors said. On Friday morning he said on Twitter: "After 21 months of hell for my family, CPS have just told my solicitors that there will be no prosecution of me re my phone-hacking arrest." Mr Wallis, 60, worked at the News International title for six years between 2003 and 2009. He was arrested in July 2011 in a raid on his home in West London. He was questioned at Hammersmith police station and has been bailed and then rebailed several times since. Prosecutors said today that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against a journalist arrested under Operation Weeting. A statement said: "Having carefully considered the matter, the CPS has concluded that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to that journalist." Mr Wallis became the paper's executive editor in 2007 under editor Colin Myler. Before that he worked as editor of the People for five years from 1998 and held a number of senior positions at News International including deputy editor of the Sun. After leaving the newspaper industry he went on to work for the entertainment PR firm the Outside Organisation in 2009.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/morley-v-cia-jfk-at-issue-in-federal-court-next-week/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280247/Stalins-son-war-deserter-German-magazine-claims-dictators-child-surrendered-Nazi-forces.html

When I post an item in the forum it does not mean that I necessarily agree with what it espouses. That was the case here as it was obvious, at least from the news story, that the author's tale is pretty thin. Basically I believe in the free market place of ideas. It is up to each individual to make a judgment. Because the author has credentials it is worth noting that his book is in print. Here are some reviews from Amazon on the book. Writing reviews of a book has become an industry for which people are paid to do. This makes it more difficult to discern whether a particular book actually has any value. The reviews of the book here appear to be about as thin in content as the book itself, at least as portrayed in the Daily Mail. http://www.amazon.co...nDateDescending

Merv Adelson, the once powerful producer, finally talks about the greatest mystery of his career—his Mafia ties. http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/03/tv-producer-merv-adelson-las-vegas-mob Two excerpts from the article: In [Moe] Dalitz’s long life he was never convicted of a single crime. But his biographers, not to mention the F.B.I., consider him one of the most successful American mafiosi of the 20th century. Not long before his death, in 1989, Lansky himself told an interviewer that he envied Dalitz as much as any of his criminal peers, for the simple reason, he said, that “Moe got to go legit. Of all his friends, though, the one constant was Dalitz. “I had read the same things everyone else had read about Moe,” Adelson goes on. “I knew people would say things about me being his partner. I just didn’t care. My conclusion was that Moe was a rumrunner during Prohibition, which he was. That’s all I thought he was. He appeared before Senate committees and the like, sure. But he had never been arrested, much less convicted. He was a rumrunner. So was Jack Kennedy’s father. In fact, Moe told me they were good friends.”