Ashton Gray

This is the fifth in a series of nine press releases by The Public Research Foundation: N A T I O N A L (ALSO LOCAL FOR: D.C., LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE) ATTN: ASSIGNMENT DESK FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MORE IRS/SCIENTOLOGY SECRETS REVEALED: TAX COMPLIANCE SECTIONS FROM: THE "TAX COMPLIANCE MANUAL" (SECOND IN A SERIES) Public Research Foundation (PRF) has recently disclosed that Scientology organizations are being governed in accordance with a closely-guarded "Tax Compliance Manual" (PRF PRESS RELEASE, "THE 'TAX COMPLIANCE MANUAL'--FIRST IN A SERIES"). The manual was created in 1993, the same year that the Closing Agreement was secretly signed by IRS and church officials. The Tax Compliance Manual is published by sanction of the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST)--the senior corporation which owns all the copyrights. The manual reveals that IRS has been a knowing party to the establishment of "Tax Compliance Sections" to govern every Scientology church and mission, bringing about an unprecedented closure between church and state. The Tax Compliance Manual says: "FORMATION OF THE TAX COMPLIANCE SECTION "The Tax Compliance Section has been formed in the Corporate and Legal Rudiments Branch of Office of Special Affairs International. It is staffed with veteran OSA INT crew who are extremely knowledgeable and experienced in tax and finance matters. There will also be a Tax Compliance Officer in each Continental OSA Office. A primary function of the Tax Compliance Section is to ensure that all churches and missions comply with all requirements of tax exemption." Office of Special Affairs International (OSA Int) is merely a part of Church of Scientology International (CSI). And CSI (as represented by its President, Heber Jentzsch) is a signatory to the Closing Agreement, subject to the mandates of that agreement. The Closing Agreement verifies that IRS is a party in informed consent to the creation and operation of these "Tax Compliance Sections" inside the church. The Closing Agreement requires annual reports be submitted to IRS, and part of the requirements include: "6. Reporting of any ecclesiastical modification or the restructuring of any entity. The Annual Report shall include any changes...to the ecclesiastical management structure of the Church..." and "9. Reporting of any amendment of any directive concerning the treatment of funds. The Annual Report shall disclose the issuance, modification, amendment, or rescission of any written material relating to or involving the handling of funds by Church personnel." The "Tax Compliance Manual" treats extensively of the handling of funds by Church personnel, and constitutes a definitive modification and restructuring of CSI to include the organizational "Tax Compliance Sections" within OSA International. If IRS had not been informed of the Tax Compliance Manual and of the addition of the Tax Compliance Sections inside churches of Scientology, then the Church Tax Compliance Committee signatories would have been in violation of terms of the Closing Agreement, and therefore liable to extreme penalties outlined in the agreement. But the Tax Compliance Manual also says: "The Tax Compliance Section is concerned with the activities of church organizations throughout the world-- not just those located in the United States. Recognition of tax exemption by the IRS opens the door for similar recognition of local orgs and missions by tax authorities in many other countries." Having already established that "There will also be a Tax Compliance Officer in each Continental OSA Office," this means that these extensions of IRS, there specifically and only to enforce compliance to IRS codes, are now situated on foreign soil, but camouflaged by their existence inside the churches. The IRS's new power over the church's activities is perhaps best summed up in one chilling sentence from the Tax Compliance Manual: "Any question as to whether a post qualifies as a ministerial capacity should be referred to the Tax Compliance Officer, Office of Special Affairs International." In the next part of our series, PRF will explore the relationships and power of the church's corporate officials. [*See my note below—A.G.] -30- Apparently the discovery of the Scientology connection to CIA's Remote Viewing program preempted any exploration of "the relationships and power of the church's corporate officials," since the next PRF press release explosively exposes evidence of a cover-up at the highest levels of government. Ashton Gray

This is the fourth in a series of nine press releases by The Public Research Foundation: N A T I O N A L (ALSO LOCAL FOR: D.C., LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE) ATTN: ASSIGNMENT DESK FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MORE IRS/SCIENTOLOGY SECRETS REVEALED: THE "TAX COMPLIANCE MANUAL" (FIRST IN A SERIES) More revelations are coming to light surrounding the formerly secret [*See my notes at the end—A.G.] Closing Agreement between IRS and the current leaders of Scientology. Public Research Foundation (PRF) has recently discovered that Scientology organizations are being governed in accordance with a closely-guarded "Tax Compliance Manual." That manual reveals previously unknown information about the new power structure of the organizations. The manual was created in 1993, the same year that the Closing Agreement was secretly signed by IRS and church officials. The Tax Compliance Manual is published by sanction of the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST)--the senior corporation which owns all the copyrights. The manual is significant in many respects, not the least of which is a sweeping relocation of power that was once vested in Scientology's "Sea Organization" (Sea Org). The Sea Org was originally set up by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard to exercise supreme and absolute authority over all of Scientology. But buried in the language of the Tax Compliance Manual is clear evidence that the new corporations are in control now, that Sea Org members are merely employees of the corporations, and that Sea Org members can be summarily dismissed at the sole discretion of the Directors of the corporations. Although this massive shift of power has been in effect since at least 1993, it apparently has been fully known only by the architects of the corporations, and by the principals in the once-secret IRS/Scientology closing agreement. So suppressed was the information that Los Angeles Superior Court judge John P. Shook, as recently as October 29, 1997, in "Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California," was led to rule: "'Sea Org' is the unincorporated association which is the power center--(David) Miscavige is its highest ranking member." It is likely that if church officials had disclosed the content of their Tax Compliance Manual, such a ruling would have been all but impossible: although Miscavige, Chairman of the IRS-spawned "Church Tax Compliance Committee," may arguably be the highest ranking member of the Sea Org, a careful reading of the Tax Compliance Manual strongly suggests that the position, legally, is meaningless, and that the Sea Org has been effectively negated as any kind of "power center." The manual first establishes that: "All individuals in the Sea Organization are employees of the local organization (corporation) in which they work. The Sea Org is a religious order within the ecclesiastical structure of Scientology but is not an incorporated organization itself and has no staff or employees. The Sea Org contract is binding ecclesiastically but is not an employment contract. All Sea Org members sign standard employment contracts with the corporation at which they are currently working. If they are transferred to another organization, they will sign a new employment contract with that corporation for their period of employment." Having established that the Sea Org is a religious order only, and that the "Sea Org Contract" is not binding legally (only 'ecclesiastically'), the manual then provides corporate Bylaws, part of which state: "Section 3. Religious Orders. The Church may establish and maintain religious orders, the purposes of which shall be the carrying out of the religious and administrative activities of this Church AND CORPORATION." (Emphasis added.) Then the Tax Compliance Manual spells out where the final power and authority over the Sea Org lies: "Section 6. Discretion of Directors.... (M)embership in a Religious Order, ordination, or affiliation may be denied or revoked for cause deemed to be sufficient by the Directors in their sole discretion." Given that corporate Directors (which would include "special dirctors," as they are not excluded in the wording) can terminate Sea Org membership at any time "in their sole discretion," and given that the only legally binding contract Sea Org members have is the employment contract with the corporation where they work, then the Sea Org--apart from its function as a religious fellowship--could be considered as little more than costumery for corporate employees. According to the Tax Compliance Manual, the power lies with corporate Directors. A recent PRF investigation disclosed that there are special Directors in the powerful ruling corporation--Church of Spiritual Technology--who are not even adherents of Scientology, much less members of the Sea Org. The Tax Compliance Manual will be explored more fully in this series. One issue is the apparent subjugation of church doctrine and scripture to conformity with IRS regulations, particularly those found at 501©(3). The manual bears evidence that at least some of Hubbard's writings--identified as scripture--have been altered to ensure that the religion is in compliance with IRS codes. PRF's series will also address the creation and establishment of "Tax Compliance Sections" in Scientology organizations. Another revelation from the Tax Compliance Manual that will be covered in this series is the critical role of the corporate Trustees, who hold power over the election of the Board of Directors in each corporation. -30- *The use of "formerly secret" in relation to the IRS Closing Agreement with Scientology organizations has its own interesting story very much related to the first two Public Research Foundation's press releases. As is told in the sixth press release of the series, a presentation of those first two press releases and supporting documents had been submitted to Senator William V. Roth, Jr.—Finance Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation—and to the Wall Street Journal when the Closing Agreement was still secret. Within 15 days of that presentation, someone "leaked" the Closing Agreement to the WSJ, who published it in full. Ashton Gray

This is the third of nine press releases by the Public Research Foundation: N A T I O N A L (ALSO LOCAL FOR: D.C., LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE, TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG) ATTN: ASSIGNMENT DESK FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CHURCH STAFF AND MINISTERS BEING USED TO ENFORCE TAX COLLECTION An official document recently discovered by the Public Research Foundation (PRF) requires all executives, ministers, and staff of every Scientology organization, including churches and missions, to enforce the paying of taxes on parishoners. The document, a "Scientology Policy Directive" entitled "PERSONAL INCOME TAXES," is written by an unnamed "Tax Compliance Officer" for the Church of Scientology. In part, it says: "(A) Scientologist who refuses to file a tax return, pay required income taxes, or to comply with other tax laws... will be ineligible for Church services until the matter is rectified." But the document goes further, and seems to allow the long arm of Scientology tax-enforcement to extend to people other than its followers, when it says: "ANYONE (emphasis added) promoting to other Scientologists not to pay taxes or file returns or promoting any of the various tax protestor schemes, will be subject to discipline under the Scientology justice codes." To put teeth into the tax enforcement, the unnamed "Tax Compliance Officer" who wrote the document went so far as to threaten non-compliers with the loss of eternal salvation for not paying taxes. Ordering parishoners to "file your tax returns and to pay your taxes," the document concludes: "Who would want to risk his eternity for any amount of money?" A highly-placed church official named Lyman Spurlock confirmed that threat when he wrote to one parishoner who had challenged the church/state marriage: "Were I you I would weigh the price of...the IRS versus your future for eternity. If you insist on your current course you will not ever be eligible for training and processing (Scientology church services) and that is very unfortunate for you." And unfortunate it was: the parishoner that letter was addressed to was later declared a "suppressive person" and was expelled from the church--Scientology's equivalent to excommunication. Lyman Spurlock, the author of the letter, is a co-founder of Scientology's most powerful organization, a little-known entity called the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST). But it was recently revealed by PRF (Press Release: "HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED") that another co-founder of CST is former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, Meade Emory. Serious questions are being raised by many into what influence Emory might have had in the super-secret 1993 IRS tax exemption for CST and lesser Scientology entities. Emory is not, himself, a Scientologist. Meade Emory was Assistant to IRS Commissioner Donald C. Alexander, whose reign began during Nixon's catastrophic last term. Before that, Emory was Legislation Counsel of the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress. CST, the all-powerful Scientology corporation that Emory helped to set up, operates almost invisibly behind the panoply of church corporations, but exercises absolute final authority and control over every copyright and trademark that has any connection with Scientology. Without CST's blessing, none of the junior corporations could operate at all. Their entire existence derives from the copyrights and trademarks, which can be taken away from any of them at the sole discretion of CST. That means that CST is a principal party to the Scientology Policy Directive "PERSONAL INCOME TAXES," and that the full force and weight of CST's power over Scientology is also behind the tax enforcement on parishoners. Said one tax-watcher, "This makes all Scientology organizations 'branch offices' of IRS, and every church leader and staff member an agent of IRS--there to enforce the collection of taxes under the threat of eternal damnation. Why else would a church have a Tax Compliance Enforcement Officer?" One Scientologist who was expelled on the strength of the church's Tax Directives said, "This is an outrage against our constitutional rights and freedoms like no other since the American Revolution. Now we know that Scientology has been under the control of a vicious government agency. If the IRS can use a Scientologist's hope of salvation to extort taxes, then they can use ANY church to hound and threaten. Who's next? The Baptists? The Catholics? Church and state are one now. My church IS the IRS." Others are asking why no one in any branch of government has done anything to force open the sealed, secret tax-exemption agreement with Scientology. On March 15, 1996, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, in the case of TAX ANALYSTS v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No.94-CV-00220 (TFH), did order the IRS to release certain documents regarding the Scientology "closing agreement," but so far IRS has not even complied with the court order. In that case, Tax Analysts exposed several disturbing facts about the IRS/Scientology arrangement. Submissions to the court revealed, among other things, that the IRS's Exempt Organizations Technical Division had been "instructed not to review the exemption applications filed by the Church of Scientology and its affiliates for compliance with IRC 501( c )(3)." Who ordered that, and whether Meade Emory had any influence on that decision, is unknown. Will this new revelation of church Tax Directives bring enough public pressure to bear on the case that someone acts? That remains to be seen. But it is clear that a rising tide of public outrage is swelling over human rights abuses by both the IRS and Scientology. One internet newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology, has been running as many as 500 messages a day, and some of the recent discussion has been fueled by the revelations of Meade Emory's connection to the church--particularly since Emory and most of the co-founders and directors of CST are not, themselves, Scientologists, but are tax and probate attorneys. -30- Ashton Gray

This is the second of nine press releases issued by the Public Research Foundation: N A T I O N A L (ALSO LOCAL FOR: D.C., LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE) ATTN: ASSIGNMENT DESK FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CO-FOUNDERS TELL CONFLICTING STORIES: FORMER HIGHLY-PLACED IRS OFFICIAL HEDGES ON INVOLVEMENT IN SCIENTOLOGY'S TOP CORPORATION SUB-HEAD: Meade Emory, former Assistant to IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander, attempts to distant himself from having co-founded Scientology's richest and most powerful corporation, but Emory's former partner and fellow co-founder, Leon Misterek, tells a different story. BODY: On the 29th of November 1993--just weeks after being granted tax exemption by IRS--The Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library," inherited intellectual property from the estate of L. Ron Hubbard that was valued at $25 million. In an exclusive investigative report ("HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED"), PRF uncovered a little-known 1992 ruling by federal Judge Bruggink in the United States Claims Court naming Meade Emory as one of four co-founders of CST: "CST was founded in 1982 by Lyman Spurlock, Meade Emory, Esq., Leon Misterek, Esq., and Sherman Lenske, Esq. CST...subsequently sought tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code." Further investigation by PRF revealed that Meade Emory had been Assistant Commissioner of IRS from 1975 through 1978, and, prior to that, Legislation Attorney for the Joint Committee on Taxation, United States Congress, 1970-1972. That raised serious ethical questions surrounding the sudden IRS turnaround that resulted in CST's $25 million windfall, especially in view of Judge Bruggink's finding that neither Meade Emory, Leon Misterek, nor Sherman Lenske were Scientologists. PRF contacted Emory at his office at the University of Washington in Seattle, where he is Director of the Law School's Graduate Program in Taxation, and asked how he came to be a co-founder of Scientology's top corporation. In the phone interview Emory first said, "I don't know that I am; I'm not a co-founder." But when confronted with the language of the US Claims Court ruling, Emory hedged, saying he "didn't remember" that he "was a co-founder." When pressed as to the accuracy of the Claims Court ruling, Emory admitted, "Actually, I did some legal work for the Church of Scientology and represented them when I was in practice." But Emory refused to answer further questions and abruptly ended the phone call. PRF tried to contact all the co-founders listed in the Claims Court ruling regarding their involvement in the founding of CST, and it was Leon Misterek who seemed to confirm the Claims Court and contradict Meade Emory in the process. Misterek, also in Seattle, reluctantly admitted in a phone conversation that he, too, had done "some legal work" on CST, but went further, saying that he "may have subscribed [sic]" some legal documents "of incorporation" that created CST. The contradiction came when Misterek was asked how he got involved: Misterek said he had been a "partner at that time with someone recently out of Revenue Service." When asked, "Meade Emory?" Misterek was silent, then said, "Yes." PRF has since learned that at the time of CST's incorporation, when Misterek and Emory were partners, Meade Emory was a partner at the Seattle, Washington firm of Lesourd & Patten--then called Lesourd, Patten, Flemming, Hartung, & Emory--at 2400 Columbia Center. Misterek had an active corporation at the time, Real Rapid Reproductions, Inc., that was registered at the same address. When Misterek was asked if they had done the legal work on CST in Washington, Misterek said, "No, I believe that was a California corporation." But when asked if he had been practicing in California, he hesitated before only saying, "No." Misterek was asked if he felt that Bruggink's Claims Court ruling in any way misrepresented his and Emory's involvement as co-founders. He said he would have to see the document, and agreed to have a copy FAXed to him, which was done. But then Misterek sent back a terse reply, saying, "I can be of no assistance to you and do not desire to receive further communication from you." Misterek said, "I...am unwilling to invest time in having my memory refreshed." PRF attempted to contact the other two co-founders of CST--Lyman D. Spurlock, Jr. and Sherman Lenske. But when calls were made to Sherman Lenske at his California law offices, Lenske did not take PRF's phone calls, and returned none of the messages left for him. Lyman Spurlock also could not be reached and returned none of PRF's phone calls. All four co-founders were FAXed copies of PRF's press release, "HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED," and given the opportunity to correct any of the facts as stated. None of the four responded. Since the Wall Street Journal's publication of the IRS's formerly-secret Closing Agreement, new information has surfaced that indicates that Emory and Misterek also might have been instrumental in setting up the "Church of Scientology Religious Trust" (CSRT) when Emory was with LeSourd & Patten. CSRT is yet another Scientology-related entity granted exemption by IRS in the 1 October 1993 agreement. Evidence so far uncovered indicates that Sherman Lenske, brother Stephen Lenske, and a partner named Lawrence E. Heller have been prominently involved in creating not only CST, but nearly every major Scientology-related entity that was granted IRS exemption. It is uncertain whether Emory's and Misterek's involvement extends as far, and both refused to answer further questions. -30- Ashton Gray

This is the first of nine press releases issued by The Public Research Foundation: N A T I O N A L (ALSO LOCAL FOR: D.C., LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE, TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG) ATTN: ASSIGNMENT DESK FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED Meade Emory, former Assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, co-founded Scientology's most senior organization--Church of Spiritual Technology--according to recently uncovered records of the United States Claims Court. Emory is currently Director of the Washington State University [sic--University of Washington] Law School's Graduate Program in Taxation in Seattle. The Emory-co-founded Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library," now controls the copyrights for all of L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual properties--once valued at close to $100 million. CST also enjoys ultimate authority over all Scientology-related trademarks, including the name "L. Ron Hubbard." Emory was Assistant to the Commissioner of the IRS from 1975 through 1977. Strangely, those were the same years in which an IRS employee, Gerald Wolfe, was covertly passing IRS documents to Scientology's Guardian's Office. In 1976, Wolfe even provided forged federal I.D. to a Scientology staff member, Michael Meisner, and together they used the forged credentials to pilfer copies of documents from the IRS and other federal agencies. Wolfe and Meisner's activities ultimately resulted in federal criminal convictions against high-level Scientology executives. Most notable among those was L. Ron Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue Hubbard. The fact that she was Hubbard's wife tended to overshadow more important facts: Hubbard himself had disappeared in February of 1980 [*See my note below the press release—A.G.] under mysterious circumstances still not satisfactorily explained, and Mary Sue Hubbard--with the aid of the Guardian's Office--had been left with the duty and the power to safeguard his copyrights and trademarks. But in July of 1981, Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown, losing her long-held control over Scientology's copyrights and trademarks. Soon after, the Guardian's Office was disbanded. Then by May of 1982-- less than a year later--Emory had helped to set up CST, the corporation that eventually assumed control of all rights to L. Ron Hubbard's works. According to the June 29, 1992 ruling in U.S. Claims Court case No. 581-88T, CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY v. THE UNITED STATES, "CST was founded in 1982 by Lyman Spurlock, Meade Emory, Esq., Leon Misterek, Esq., and Sherman Lenske, Esq. CST..subsequently sought tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code." That tax-exempt status was granted on October 1, 1993, in a sealed, secret, 4"-thick agreement with IRS. None of the terms of the agreement have ever been made known, either by CST or IRS. The only clue to any of the terms came at the event celebrating the exemptions, when David Miscavige, head of Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Scientology's highest-ranking spokesperson, said, "There will be no billion-dollar tax bill that we cannot pay!" Oddly, while proclaiming the long list of Scientology entities that had received exempt status, Miscavige made no mention of CST's inclusion--even though that is the senior-most corporation of all, and the one that benefitted most from the sudden IRS change of heart. Other oddities have also surfaced: 1. According to the U.S. Claims Court ruling, "None of the founders of CST, with the exception of Mr. Spurlock, has any stated religious connection with Scientology." 2. The October 1993 IRS tax-exempt blessing on CST was granted just months after Norman F. Starkey, executor of the estate of L. Ron Hubbard, had finally secured control of every intellectual property ever produced by L. Ron Hubbard. 3. On November 29, 1993, scarcely two months after CST had been granted tax exemption, Starkey transferred the rights for all 7,730 of L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual properties to CST. Many questions remain regarding Meade Emory's possible role in bringing about the tax exemption for CST, but questions also surround Emory's fellow CST co-founder, attorney Sherman Lenske. According to court records, "Lenske and two other non-Scientologists have the status of Special Directors of CST." The two others are Lenske's brother, attorney Stephen Lenske, and another attorney, Lawrence Heller. But Sherman Lenske's involvement goes all the way back to 1981. In a sworn declaration, Lenske says he was hired in April 1981 to be attorney "in all aspects of estate planning" for L. Ron Hubbard. Therein lies another strange coincidence: Lenske appeared on the scene only after Hubbard had disappeared, and only three months before Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown, then became a key figure in every step that led to CST's take-over of the multi-million-dollar intellectual properties she had previously controlled, and to which she was rightful heir: 1. Lenske drafted all wills and trusts having anything to do with final distribution of Hubbard's assets and intellectual properties. 2. Lenske was a consultant in the corporate restructuring that created CST. 3. Lenske represented Norman F. Starkey, the executor of Hubbard's estate, right up through the point when Starkey transferred the intellectual property rights to CST. 4. In addition to his role as a Special Director of CST, Lenske is its Registered Agent, is Registered Agent for Religious Technology Center (which currently licenses the trademarks under CST's aegis), and is Registered Agent for Author Services, Inc., which represents Hubbard's fiction works. 5. Lenske created the fictitious business name, "L. Ron Hubbard Library," filing it first for Norman F. Starkey's use as executor, then filing it again in 1993 for CST, right after CST received all the intellectual property rights from Starkey. How did an attorney who does not even subscribe to the religious philosophy of Scientology become its most influential figure, with ultimate authority over the entire body of work? What role did Meade Emory's inside-the-Beltway connections have on the sudden, secret turn-around by IRS? Is it possible, as one observer has speculated, that all of Scientology went into receivership to IRS, and is now being run--as a corporation--by the federal government? Is that why the agreement is such a closely-held secret? All these questions still wait for answers. But the previously-suppressed connection to IRS may provide a new place to look for them. - 30 - * There is now considerable evidence that L. Ron Hubbard did not disappear in 1980, as once was widely believed, but much earlier—over Memorial Day weekend 1972—and that elaborate measures were taken thereafter by a small handful of insiders of certain Scientology organizations to create the illusion that Hubbard was alive and well and in control of Scientology when he was not. Ashton Gray

This thread is a companion piece to several other threads in the Watergate forum, most particularly Usenet Posts of "The Real Deep Throat" and There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. This thread consists of the text of a series of press releases that appeared in 1997, issued by an outfit called The Public Research Foundation. For an understanding of how these press releases relate to Watergate, one first should read Usenet Posts of "The Real Deep Throat". The actual press releases and a brief history of them can be found at The Newsroom page of the site that also hosts the Remote Viewing Timeline, which is also recommended reading for a full understanding of the issues discussed in these press releases and their relationship to Watergate and the CIA's top secret Remote Viewing program. I have to say that only the sixth of the full series of nine press releases goes directly to the issue of the Remote Viewing (RV) program, and so is the one most germane to the related threads I've provided links to above. But the five press releases leading up to that sixth release provide what I personally find to be a fascinating history of how The Public Research Foundation developed the extremely bizarre links between the government and Scientology, leading to the revelations, in the sixth press release, of CIA theft of Scientology intellectual property for the development of its top-secret RV program that ran for 25 years—starting on 1 October 1972, during the height of the Watergate scandal. Therefore I'm only posting the first six press releases of the nine that are on the site linked to above. Those who have interest in the remaining three can read them on the site. The impatient can jump directly to the sixth press release in the series, but I recommend a thorough study of the extraordinary investigative reporting that led up to it. I post the text of the press releases below with only minor commentary by me, indicated in each press release that I comment on by asterisks, with my comments at the end of the press release. I will answer any questions I can about them from my own further research into the issues addressed in them. Ashton Gray

With all due respect to Peter Dale Scott, an infinitely simpler interpretation of events is that the handful of incidents related, and purportedly related, to Oswald that were orchestrated with a Cuban rhythm never were anything at all but a further development by CIA of the lone nut scenario, which included, of course, such 100% conga-free numbers as backyard snapshots, a romantic vacation back in the US... back in the US... back in the USSR, and a purported pot-shot at General Edwin Walker. The central theme of all of the above Oswald "lone nuttiness," though, that seems to be rather consistently overlooked in a classic case of "can't see the forest for the trees" is the theme of Communism. Even the text of the DRE's celebrated propaganda rag with the photos of Oswald and Castro primarily pounds the Communist drum, with Oswald quoted as claiming he was a Marxist. While some have made much of the apparent dichotomy of Oswald being depicted holding both The Worker and The Militant in the infamous backyard photos, it is entirely consistent with the overlay of claims of Oswald being a Communist and Marxist in the DRE rag, and this same confusion by overlay is seeded elsewhere in the lore. The sliced-and-diced distinctions were not the province of the work-a-day and bide-a-wee man or woman in the street or at the lunch counter or hanging out the laundry. Not three in a hundred could have distinguished between a Communist and a Marxist if they'd had sandwich board signs identifying them. These distinctions certainly were, however, the province of the Ivy League boys that we've all come to know and love. The Cuban missile crisis had welded Castro and Cuba to the Soviet Union and the Cold War threat of Communism in the public mind. Castro and Cuba were the terrifying toehold of Communism in the Western Hemisphere. Of course the CIA staged the events necessary to link their patsy to Cuba. The CIA wasn't looking to pin the assassination on Castro and Cuba; it set up a patsy who was the living embodiment of what CIA styled itself as being in eternal valiant and heroic struggle against in justification of its obscene budgets: the omnipresent creeping threat of Communism, no matter what shade, degree, or flavor. And that is the propaganda message of the rag published by the CIA stooges in the DRE. Put it to a conga beat with claves and maracas. Ashton

To your April timeline, you could also add this: William Harvey was in Miami and Plantation Key, Florida chartering a boat "for ops purposes", buying dinner for 2 on the 17th, (himself and someone he called an "unofficial advisor"), buying dinner for himself and 2 "unofficial advisors" on the 20th, and staying for 3 days at the Eden Roc hotel in Miami. The whole time he was charging expenses to the ZRRIFLE program. on the 20th, a ZRRIFLE termination payment of $1,000 was made. This comes from The CIA microfilm collection, reel 14, Folder L from pages 38 on. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=558750 Some say that Harvey was meeting with Johnny Roselli and either QJWIN or Jean Rene Souetre. Steve Thomas Excellent, Steve. Thanks very much. It's going right into the database. Ashton

I invite you to search the length, width, and breadth of the oh-so-celebrated mid-1970s Congressionally-staged "exposés" of and "confessions" about the dirty deeds of CIA, including the Rockefeller dog-and-pony show and the vaunted Church Committee—held when the RV program was already three years into operation—and tell me how much you find about the black RV program that during those hearings was being run from the very shadow of the United States Capitol building where the dourly disapproving congressmen sat stinking up tax-bought chairs and decrying CIA hanky-panky. Let me save you a whole lot of time: you won't find a syllable about it. Does that answer your question? Ashton

Ashton: Does the poster believe -(if you know) -and do you believe that the Watergate gang corroborated each other, lied for each other etc. because of what some believe occurred Memerial Day weekend? That being the kidnap (murder?) of Ron Hubbard and the theft of his intellectual property by Ingo Swann, and others? Is it the belief that all of Watergate is truly about this event? (Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question). Hi Dawn. As Gary Loughran has already opined, that is not a stupid question at all. Of course I can't speak for "The Real Deep Throat" (TRDT) or what he/she/it believed or didn't believe, and even to address your question I have to uncharacteristically untether myself from my usual berth in the safe harbor of documented fact and sail out onto the stormy waters of all-engines-full speculation, straight into gale-force headwinds. It is adventurous indeed. But I do want to try to give you the best answer I can muster up. In doing so, I hope to at least begin to barely touch upon Gary's earlier Zen-like question: Before I leave port on this cruise into pea-soup fog and heavy seas, though, I first want to point out the solid fact that none of the posts of TRDT mention L. Ron Hubbard or his intellectual property anywhere at all. We're now out into open choppy dark waters, visibility near zero, and most of the things I'm about to say are pure speculation and are subject to change at any instant by virtue of new data or new analysis of existing data. If we happen to run into an actual fact bobbing like flotsam in the high seas, I'll be sure and point it out. Let me restate your question as relevant only to me and what I think: My short answer is "no". The long answer is long indeed, and all of it will not be in this post. But I will say that the evidence I have seen in the Remote Viewing Timeline and other places, when compared to the 2004 messages of "The Real Deep Throat" (who doesn't mention Hubbard at all), tend to build, in my mind, a very compelling circumstantial case that the permanent neutralization of Hubbard was an essential prerequisite to CIA's Technical Services Division contract #8473 on 1 October 1972 using three highly trained Scientologists to create their top-secret Remote Viewing program. That doesn't mean by any stretch that my position is, or ever has been, that "all of Watergate is truly about this event." Now hold on to the railing—the perfect storm of speculation is dead ahead. Because I further believe: 1. That some combination of the CIA's most infamous Watergate "assets"—including but not necessarily limited to E. Howard and Dorothy Hunt and James McCord—had guilty knowledge in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and, furthermore, 2. That their guilty knowledge was used as the stick to ensure their cooperation in everything that Watergate was used to accomplish for CIA, and, furthermore, 3. That while they, themselves, were under a form of blackmail, they were made to appear to be blackmailers of Nixon, and, furthermore, 4. That Richard Nixon knew the actual reason for the Bay of Pigs operation and why E. Howard Hunt and his CIA co-conspirators insured that it was the resounding flop that it was, and, furthermore, 5. That Richard Nixon had uncertain partial knowledge that he could not prove of CIA complicity in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and, furthermore, 6. That Nixon despised L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology and never would have permitted the establishment of the Remote Viewing program the way it was set up by CIA two weeks after the Watergate indictments came down and all klieg lights were pointed straight at the White House. In support of just #6 above, allow me to invite your attention to the following issuance of L. Ron Hubbard in a Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin dated 24 April 1960: HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1960 CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENCY A person named Richard M. Nixon will enter his name this Fall at a convention as a citizen aspiring to the Presidency of the United States. Many Scientologists think he is all right because I once quoted him. This is very far from the facts and I hasten to give you the real story why Richard M. Nixon must be prevented at all costs from becoming president. Two years ago in Washington this man's name appeared in a newspaper article as uttering an opinion about psychology. I called attention to this opinion as a matter of banal interest in an article. Shortly two members of the United States Secret Service, stating they had been sent directly by Nixon, entered the establishment of the Founding Church of Washington, D.C., armed with pistols, but without warrant or formal complaint, and with foul and abusive language threatened the girls on duty there. Hulking over desks, shouting violently they stated that they daily had to make such calls on "lots of people" to prevent Nixon's name from being used in ways Nixon disliked. These two men stated they were part of Nixon's office and were acting on his express orders. They said that Nixon believed in nothing the Founding Church or Scientology stood for. Their conduct before the ladies present was so intolerable that Mary Sue, having heard the shouting and curses from her office, had to come and force these men to leave, which they finally did, but only after she threatened to call the police. As Scientologists were present, much information was obtained, of course, from these agents as to their routine activities. These were not creditable. Nixon constantly used the service against the voteless and helpless people of Washington to suppress the use of his name. I am informing you of an exact event. It convinced me that in my opinion Nixon is not fitted to be a president. I do not believe any public figure has a right to suppress the use of his name in articles. I do not believe a public figure should enforce his will on writers or organizations by use of the Secret Service. I believe a democracy ceases to exist when deprived of freedom of speech. I do not believe any man closely connected with psychiatry should hold a high public office since psychiatry has lent its violence to political purposes. Would you please write your papers and tell your friends that Nixon did this and that his actions against private people in Washington cause us to defy his cravings to be president. It's my hope you'll vote and make your friends vote. But please don't vote for Nixon. Even his own Secret Service agents assure us he stands for nothing we do. I do not tell you this because Mary Sue came close to serious injury at Nixon's hands. I tell you this because I think psychiatry and all Fascist-Commie forces have had their day. We want clean hands in public office in the United States. Let's begin by doggedly denying Nixon the presidency no matter what his Secret Service tries to do to us now in Washington. It is better, far better, for us to run the risk of saying this now, while there's still a chance, than to fail to tell you of it for fear of reprisals and then be wiped out without defence by the Secret Service or other agency if Nixon became president. He hates us and has used what police force was available to him to say so. So please get busy on it. I am only telling a few friends. L. RON HUBBARD In regard to point #6 above, I rest my case. With the rest of my speculation standing as such, I also would like to direct your attention to something that SunTzu wrote in "The Art of War": All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. I know of no better description of what I believe Richard Helms and the CIA in conjunction with its counterpart organizations both in the United States and in the Commonwealth did in 1972 on several fronts at once. Without great specificity in this rather broad-stroked post, I hope I have begun, at least, to give some inkling of a few of the fronts and strategic purposes—from the viewpoint of CIA, assuming your stomach will stand taking the viewpoint of such criminal cruds—that I believe were involved with and served by the fraud known as Watergate. But this still leaves unanswered the seminal question of whether some part of the CIA-connected Watergate criminals actually were somewhere else in the world over Memorial Day weekend 1972 permanently neutralizing L. Ron Hubbard. Of course I don't have the answer. I do remain on record and in lock-step accord with "The Real Deep Throat" and others that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate over Memorial Day weekend 1972. And it does seem that L. Ron Hubbard did disappear that same weekend—even though a considerable effort was made by a small and odd group of people, every one of them from Commonwealth countries, by the way, to keep up appearances that Hubbard was still alive but "in hiding." As for where Hunt, Liddy, McCord, and Baldwin actually were and what they actually were doing that weekend, as Gary already so sagely has pointed out, "I don't think there'll be a CIA memo appearing anytime soon." In lieu of that, I'll bring this short but white-knuckled cruise into a hurricane of speculation to a close with reference to a meeting that took place on or about 24 February 1972, just three months before Memorial Day weekend 1972. It was a meeting between G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, and a "retired" CIA doctor who Liddy says was introduced to him by Hunt as "Dr. Edward Gunn." Their discussion was about various methods for surreptitiously drugging a person, but developed into a conversation about the real purpose of the meeting: ways of murdering someone undetectably. To read Liddy's long drawn-out account of this meeting in his miserably autobiographical book "Will" is to realize one is reading the tortured screed of a homicidal maniac attempting to justify his thirst for an excuse to murder. And who does Liddy claim they were contemplating murdering? Liddy closes his feverish six pages of homicidal musings this way: "...Were I...given the instruction from an appropriate officer of the government, I would kill Phillip Agee if it were demonstrated (as it has often been argued) that his revelations have led directly to the death of at least one of his fellow CIA officers, that he intended to continue the revelations, and that they would lead to more deaths. Notice that this killing would not be retributive but preventive. It is the same rationale by which I was willing to obey an order to kill Jack Anderson. But I would do so only after satisfying myself that it was: a ) an order from legitimate authority; b ) a question of malum prohibitum; and c ) a rational response to the problem. ...If Hunt's principal was worried, I had the answer. "Tell him," I said, "if necessary, I'll do it." —G. Gordon Liddy Will Now, it's fine with me if anyone wants to believe the utterly psychotic notion that the person Liddy and Hunt were plotting the murder of that day was a nationally famous columnist. I don't. And while I almost surely have not answered your question satisfactorily, I at least have brought you safely back to the dock. Watch your step. Ashton

Sigh.... Had you read all 26 of the Commission's volumes at any time after they were published, you would have discovered the name Jose Lanusa [also Llanusa and Lanuza], a name that has sporadically recurred in JFK assassination literature since. Had you paid attention, you would already know the answer to the question you now shout at Ashton Gray. The following is from a Jefferson Morley article, published more than six years ago, retrievable at: http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/REVELATION1963.html To wit: What exactly did George Joannides do on November 22, 1963, when news of Oswald's arrest spread? Few records exist to provide an answer. In 1978 José Antonio Lanuza told Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, how the DRE reacted to Kennedy's murder. On November 22, 1963, Lanuza was coordinator of the DRE's North American chapters. When he heard the news stories linking Oswald to the shooting, he remembered delegate Carlos Bringuier's reports from New Orleans and went to DRE headquarters to check his files. There he found Bringuier's letters about the confrontations with Oswald, along with tapes of the WDSU radio debate. The group's leaders gathered, he said, and one of them -- Salvat, Fernandez-Rocha, or Borja -- "made the first outside call about the discovered material." That call, he said, went to the DRE's case officer at the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami. It's even worse than that, Robert: the article that I've already cited several times in this thread, What Jane Roman Said, Part 6, says unequivocally: "One of the Directorate's former leaders, Tony Lanusa, a Miami businessman, says he called 'Howard' [cover name for CIA's Joannides] within minutes of the news of Oswald's arrest on November 22, 1963." Ashton

What a ridiculous assertion, Mr. Gray. As knowledgeable as you clearly are, are you not aware that Bringuier stated he wrote the ad without CIA approval? Why, no, Mr. Gratz. I am aware of no such thing. In fact, since you've asserted it, I demand that you either: A. Post the actual quote by Bringuier stating "he wrote the ad" [meaning the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro that I posted earlier in this thread] "without CIA approval," or, B. Retract your claim and admit publically that your claim was false and misleading. I don't assert, Mr. Gratz; I observe. And what I observed is that you have no case at all. And what I still observe is that you have no case at all. See A. and B. immediately above. It is the apotheosis of illogic, since Oswald had no "ties" whatsoever to either Cuba or Castro, apparent or otherwise. Huh? No apparent ties? FLUNK! You evaded A. and B. above. That evasion now stands as public record of your stipulation to B. above: that your claim was false and misleading, and that you retract it. So now you're on record as having claimed a statement by Bringuier that does not exist. SORRY. IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. I CANNOT FIND A CITATION TO THAT IN A MATTER OF TWO HOURS WHEN I AM AWAY FROM MY REFERENCES AND I AM ALSO WORKING ON SOMETHING QUITE IMPORTANT FOR FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE CASE. Oh, yes, it does work exactly that way. You posted false and misleading information, I called you on it, and you can't back it up. Carlos Bringuier never made any such statement. It is a whole-cloth fiction and nothing but. This is two times you've followed that exact same pattern just in this one thread, and it's entirely consistent with the kind of murderous informational land mines you've planted all over this forum to create as much mayhem as possible for the thousands of unwary who come here trying to find the truth. It's exactly what you did on page one of this same thread when you claimed falsely that Hunt had been in Cuba in July of 1960. When I called you on it you weasled the same way, claiming you'd have to find a cite. Of course you never did, because fiction doesn't leave a paper trail, and you are willfully posting fiction after fiction after fiction into an educational forum and misrepresenting it as fact—perfect sabotage of an informational forum. It is an utterly debased and perverse and extremely destructive activity. And now you've gone all hysterical and started shouting in bold all-caps because twice in one thread I've called you out on your malicious fictions. Listen up and listen up good, hysteria boy, because I'm only going to say this once: I ain't your handmaiden to do your fact fetching for you. I have already posted a link to the cited source at least twice in this very thread, and if you're too ignorant or lazy to check facts before you make a grand fool of yourself, that's your problem, not mine. Here's a clue for the clueless: the Cuban Student Directorate leader who by his own admission made the call to Joannides on 22 November 1963 is Tony Lanusa. And now, for your repeated knowing and willful sabotage of this forum with whole-cloth fictions, as inarguably proven in this thread, you get a free, all-expenses-paid one-way trip to the Twit File: <PLONK!> Ashton Gray

What a ridiculous assertion, Mr. Gray. As knowledgeable as you clearly are, are you not aware that Bringuier stated he wrote the ad without CIA approval? Why, no, Mr. Gratz. I am aware of no such thing. In fact, since you've asserted it, I demand that you either: A. Post the actual quote by Bringuier stating "he wrote the ad" [meaning the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro that I posted earlier in this thread] "without CIA approval," or, B. Retract your claim and admit publically that your claim was false and misleading. I don't assert, Mr. Gratz; I observe. And what I observed is that you have no case at all. And what I still observe is that you have no case at all. See A. and B. immediately above. It is the apotheosis of illogic, since Oswald had no "ties" whatsoever to either Cuba or Castro, apparent or otherwise. Huh? No apparent ties? FLUNK! You evaded A. and B. above. That evasion now stands as public record of your stipulation to B. above: that your claim was false and misleading, and that you retract it. So now you're on record as having claimed a statement by Bringuier that does not exist. And as I said above, you claim for Oswald "apparent ties to Cuba" that do not and did not ever exist. FLUNK! The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was based in New York City, not in Cuba. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was run by Americans, not Cubans. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee had as some of its founding members people such as Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, and Jean Paul Sartre, and according to the New York Times of 20 November 1960 had "5,000 paid-up members in the United States" as of that date—not one of whom has ever been accused of having had "ties to Cuba." Neither did Oswald. As I observed earlier: You have no case at all. FLUNK! Undocumented anecdotal hearsay crap in the first place (Hemming saying what he'd heard from "the coordinator of the 26th of July Movement") that could not have been known to Bringuier or the Cuban Student Directorate at any relevant time even if it had any hint of truth to it. It's utterly irrelevant to the publication put out by the Cuban Student Directorate immediately after the assassination—funded by the CIA—as BLACK PROPAGANDA to create a completely phony link between Oswald and Castro that never existed. As I observed earlier: You have no case at all. FLUNK! Never proven, hotly contested, with contradicted FBI evidence of record that the person at issue was not Oswald—all of which is rendered entirely null and void in your excuse for a "case" by the fact that it could not have been known to Bringuier or the Cuban Student Directorate at any relevant time. It could not possibly have had anything at all to do with their BLACK PROPAGANDA smear rag on Oswald—funded by the CIA—immediately after the assassination. As I observed earlier: You have no case at all. FLUNK! Hearsay crap, and even that rendered entirely null and void to your so-called "case" by the fact that it could not have been known to Bringuier or the Cuban Student Directorate at any relevant time. It could not possibly have had anything at all to do with their BLACK PROPAGANDA smear rag on Oswald—funded by the CIA—immediately after the assassination. You got nothing. Ashton Gray

The relevant facts in evidence are as follows [my emphasis added]: By the admission of its own former leaders, the Cuban Student Directorate was totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963. Without the money provided by Joannides there would have been no delegation of Cuban students in New Orleans with the time to confront Oswald. There would have been no money for their press release to the local papers calling for an investigation of his pro-Castro ways. There would have been no tape recording of his remarks on a local radio station. There would have been no money for the Directorate's phone calls to Clare Booth Luce and the New York Times on the night of November 22, 1963. There would have been no money for the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro, and perhaps no post-assassination war scare. The fact that the Directorate's leaders felt obliged to call Joannides on November 22, 1963 is mostly evidence of how seriously they took his guidance. CIA held the purse strings. CIA provided all the funding. CIA ran the Cuban Student Directorate, period. And your case to the contrary consists of...? Well, you don't have any case at all, do you? Ashton Gray What a ridiculous assertion, Mr. Gray. As knowledgeable as you clearly are, are you not aware that Bringuier stated he wrote the ad without CIA approval? Why, no, Mr. Gratz. I am aware of no such thing. In fact, since you've asserted it, I demand that you either: A. Post the actual quote by Bringuier stating "he wrote the ad" [meaning the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro that I posted earlier in this thread] "without CIA approval," or, B. Retract your claim and admit publically that your claim was false and misleading. I don't assert, Mr. Gratz; I observe. And what I observed is that you have no case at all. And what I still observe is that you have no case at all. See A. and B. immediately above. It is the apotheosis of illogic, since Oswald had no "ties" whatsoever to either Cuba or Castro, apparent or otherwise. First you claim a statement by Bringuier that does not exist. Now you claim for Oswald "apparent ties to Cuba" that do not and did not ever exist. As I observed earlier: You have no case at all. You're making it up as you go. It's an inelegant thing to have to watch. Nor is it any evidence whatsoever that CIA wasn't complicit in the assassination itself. You have discovered a vacuous null. Congratulations. With every statement you make you amplify my observation of the obvious: you have no case at all. Ashton Gray

This thread just couldn't be complete without a pointer to the mysterious messages of "The Real Deep Throat". Ashton

The relevant facts in evidence are as follows [my emphasis added]: By the admission of its own former leaders, the Cuban Student Directorate was totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963. Without the money provided by Joannides there would have been no delegation of Cuban students in New Orleans with the time to confront Oswald. There would have been no money for their press release to the local papers calling for an investigation of his pro-Castro ways. There would have been no tape recording of his remarks on a local radio station. There would have been no money for the Directorate's phone calls to Clare Booth Luce and the New York Times on the night of November 22, 1963. There would have been no money for the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro, and perhaps no post-assassination war scare. The fact that the Directorate's leaders felt obliged to call Joannides on November 22, 1963 is mostly evidence of how seriously they took his guidance. CIA held the purse strings. CIA provided all the funding. CIA ran the Cuban Student Directorate, period. And your case to the contrary consists of...? Well, you don't have any case at all, do you? Ashton Gray

When a friend of mine who frequents some usenet groups started sending me the posts of TRDT I admit that I was was struck and very favorably impressed by "Fictions don't have 'correct answers'" and "Fiction does not produce evidence." My own "Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail," though, is far more pithy and trenchant. Ashton

My source has never claimed he was the original Deep Throat. I never said, and certainly never meant to imply, that your anonymous source had said he/she/it was the "original" Deep Throat. It would be impossible for me to imply any such thing, since I've made it clear that my view is that there never was an "original" Deep Throat at all, any more than there ever was a "first break-in." I was using the generic "Deep Throat." You know, the way Southerners use "Coke" for soda pop of every description. An excellent thread pregnant with insightful analysis. Ashton

If you want to speculate about my being every pseudonymous character up to and possibly including the Lone Ranger and Spiderman, you'll have to get in line. Maybe you came in too late for the local Kangaroo Court to try me and convict me of being the author of the original Wikipedia article on the alleged "First Break-In" that was systematically sabotaged until it was back to "The Official Story." Meanwhile, "The Real Deep Throat" (hereinafter TRDT) and I have considerably divergent opinions about who the Chief Black Hat and Bottle-Whizzer in this drama is. TRDT seems to have it bad for Liddy, and it seems to be personal. E. Howard Hunt is given a bit part in the TRDT posts, whereas there is no question in my mind that Hunt was the primary agent in the field in charge of all things Watergate. Personally, I believe Liddy had been saddled and braced by CIA and put under the charge of Hunt primarily because of Liddy's self-admitted willingness—even eagerness—to do murder. TRDT also goes on in several places about Liddy being a hack fiction writer, when clearly Hunt is the credentialed hack fiction writer (adjectives chosen with malice aforethought). Whereas Liddy is the one who dictated the so-called logs/summaries/verbatim transcripts (like, what-ever) that Sally Harmony typed up, I personally have no doubt whatsoever that the script for what Liddy dictated did not originate with Liddy, and almost certainly was written by Hunt in conjunction with CIA and their think-tank fantasy weavers. Well, I certainly don't have all the answers and don't pretend to. That said, there also is no question in my mind about the extreme scope of intelligence agency pursuit of mind control of every possible description during that period in history, and to minimize its importance—whether one agrees that it should have been that important or not—is something I consider a grand mistake. I also believe that what took place during Watergate is convolutedly connected to the JFK assassination in terms of personnel—including Nixon. I believe that there were many forces and undercurrents at play, including "who had what dirt on whom" in that regard. I also believe that Nixon was far too materialistic ever to get behind any "paranormal hocus pocus" [not a Nixon quote; just my attempt at a "Nixonization"] as any serious military intelligence pursuit, and that he represented a major impediment to CIA plans. This letter to Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger on Friday, 19 May 1972, the day before Nixon left for his trip to the USSR, is revealing: "The performance in the psychological warfare field is nothing short of disgraceful. The mountain has labored for seven weeks and when it finally produced, it produced not much more than a mouse. Or to put it more honestly, it produced a rat. "We finally have a program now under way but it totally lacks imagination and I have no confidence whatever that the bureaucracy will carry it out. I do not simply blame (Richard) Helms and the CIA. After all, they do not support my policies because they basically are for the most part Ivy League and Georgetown society oriented." —Richard Nixon excerpted from a 19 May 1972 letter to Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig. Perhaps I should mention that exactly one week later, while Nixon was abroad, the infamous Ameritas dinner was held at the Watergate, launching the party-hearty weekend of the purported "first break-in." Well, the alternative is this: take it as a matter of faith that the cataclysmic events of Watergate and the pervasive involvement of CIA-connected personnel in those events constituted merely an unfortunate coincidence to the CIA's simultaneous tooling up of their blackest and most secret covert program, whose pro forma beginning with contract 8473 was just two weeks after indictments had been handed down on the Watergate burglars on Friday, 15 September 1972. And there are card-carrying members of the Church of Coincidenceology right here in this forum who will pound the pulpit and preach that very sermon. Ashton

I'm very grateful for your offers but access to the Hancock and Armstrong books is not an issue; man-hours is the issue. This is compounded by Watergate information also being timelined. As for the Adamson timeline, I'm not sure about it given that it is a copyrighted timeline and the one I'm using and contributing to as I can is strictly public domain, but this is also wandering far afield from the topic of this thread. There are several threads in the forum on the subject of timelines, so I'd be happy to discuss this further there, or feel free to PM me. Ashton

You stand confirmed. Ashton

This is the sixth and last message of "The Real Deep Throat" in usenet, What Sally Harmony Saw, posted on 23 January 2004. Why did such a short series of anonymous messages scare the principals of the "Watergate" hoax so bad that in less than a year and a half they would try such a desperate measure as trotting out the mute fossil Mark Felt as a completely implausible "Deep Throat"? Here is the last in the series: Date: 23 Jan 2004 12:46:30 -0000 Message-ID: <4RUUQEI038009.3239583333@anonymous> From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT) Subject: What Sally Harmony Saw Newsgroups: misc.legal Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sally Harmony was G. Gordon Liddy's secretary when on 5 June 1972 Liddy had her type "logs" of telephone conversations that Liddy provided to her. The crisp and efficient typing of Sally Harmony not only resulted in the resignation of a President of the United States, it also paved the way for the creation of the CIA's top-secret Remote Viewing program at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) less than four months after her lithe and nimble fingers typed the last period on Liddy's logs. Why? Because as it turned out, these were no ordinary phone logs that the accommodating Sally Harmony typed up for George Gordon Battle Liddy. To hear Liddy tell it, he had been the mastermind of a hyper-clandestine "first break-in" at the Watergate on 28 May 1972, with the purpose of having CIA's James McCord plant an illegal electronic "bug" on the phone of Lawrence O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). So, naturally, Liddy had his own secretary type up the phone logs from this super-secret, illegal operation of his. Wouldn't you? But Liddy went one better: he not only had Sally Harmony type these allegedly illicit logs, he instructed her to type them on special stationery Liddy also provided for the purpose, stationery that had emblazoned across the top, in color, a mysterious name he had dreamed up: GEMSTONE. Of course the rational mind balks right there. Of course any self-respecting editor of even the cheapest, cheesiest, trashiest cloak-and-dagger fiction would laugh out loud at such a ludicrous premise before wadding it up and throwing it at somebody. But in 1973 whole committees of United States Senators sat with furrowed brow for the cameras, listening to just such trumpery. So-called journalists took to wearing tennis shoes because they couldn't get to phones fast enough to suit their editors in order to hold the presses for this lunacy. Special counsels for Congressional Committees frowned and pursed their lips and steepled their hands and asked deadly serious questions about this hogwash. Here the guileless Sally Harmony answers questions put to her by Special Counsels to the Watergate Committee, Sam Dash and Fred Thompson - at enormous taxpayer expense: MR. DASH: Did you type these telephone logs on any particular stationery? SALLY HARMONY: Yes; Mr. Liddy had printed a stationery with the name "Gemstone" across the top of it... . MR. DASH: Did you have any directions as to how you were to use this stationery? When were you to use the so-called "Gemstone" stationery? SALLY HARMONY: I used it for the telephone conversations that I typed. MR. DASH: For the telephone conversations? SALLY HARMONY: Yes. ... MR. THOMPSON: ...[T]he printed Gemstone stationery, how many times did you use that? SALLY HARMONY: Perhaps two or three, Mr. Thompson; I cannot be definite on that. MR. THOMPSON: The printed Gemstone stationery was used only on the illegal - on the telephone bug results? SALLY HARMONY: Yes, as I recall. But from WHAT did Sally type these logs of alleged phone taps? WHAT had Liddy provided her to type from? WHAT did Sally Harmony see? It's not an idle question, because ONLY Sally Harmony's typed version of the logs, with GEMSTONE emblazoned across them, reportedly got distributed to and seen by others besides Liddy, and thereby ultimately brought down a President of the United States. ONLY Sally Harmony's version of the logs made it possible for the CIA to enter into a top-secret contract with Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann on 1 October 1972 to develop "remote viewing" for military intelligence purposes. So WHAT did Sally see? To answer that question, it's necessary to pause in this story of skullduggery long enough to trace the provenance of these purported "logs." After all, they did topple a President of the United States from office and sent many people to jail, so surely it would be worth allocating at least a few miserly paragraphs to a review of the claims for their very existence. How did these history-making, history-changing, infamous records of allegedly bugged phone calls make their way from an illegal wiretap in DNC headquarters, through G. Gordon Liddy, to the neat and tidy desk of his prosaically obliging secretary at the Republican national campaign headquarters? What did Sally Harmony see, and how did it come to her? Immediately a confusion arises for anyone attempting to trace that crucial path because Liddy and two of his co-conspirators have alleged that there were TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the phone logs, BOTH versions described as being TYPED: 1. Allegedly, there was an ORIGINAL version typed directly by Liddy's co-conspirator, Alfred Baldwin, while listening to the output of the phone bug that supposedly had been planted by their fellow co-conspirator, the CIA's own James McCord. These purportedly went from Baldwin via McCord to Liddy. This alleged version of the logs will be referred to as the BALDWIN VERSION of the logs. 2. There is the SECOND version, typed by Sally Harmony on GEMSTONE stationery on orders from G. Gordon Liddy. This is the ONLY version purportedly seen by people associated in various ways with President Nixon. (There are too many conflicting stories about who did or did not see them, but that is neither here nor there for these purposes: whoever saw logs or did not see logs, ONLY this SECOND version was distributed.) This distributed version will be referred to as the DISTRIBUTED HARMONY VERSION. Consider #1 above: the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION of typed logs. Did Sally Harmony see THAT version of the logs? Is that what Liddy gave her? Is THAT what Sally Harmony saw? No, it is not. Sally Harmony never saw them. The D.C. police investigating Watergate never saw them. The FBI investigating Watergate never saw them. The Congressional Watergate committees never saw them. The press never saw them. In fact, only three people in the world - all of them admitted co-conspirators - have ever claimed to have seen the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION logs. Not surprisingly, they are G. Gordon Liddy, the CIA's James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin. Here is what Liddy has claimed in sworn videotaped testimony that he was getting from McCord and Baldwin: LIDDY: I wasn't getting any tapes, nor was I getting transcriptions of anything. I was getting logs. ...And the stuff was just of no use at all. It was stuff like hairdressing appointments and somebody going to take a trip somewhere, and personal stuff like that. ...These logs were so badly done, misspellings and all the rest of it, that I felt compelled to edit them. And I did that through my secretary, Ms. Harmony, and I tried to clean them up a little bit and leave out the worst of it, try to include the best of it, which wasn't very much. G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony 6 December 1996 Well, Liddy should know - he's the one who claims to have been receiving the original BALDWIN VERSION logs from Alfred Baldwin, via James McCord. And Liddy, with his background in law enforcement, certainly understands the difference between a "log" of calls and a verbatim "transcription" of actual conversations. Now here's what James McCord said in sworn testimony about these alleged original BALDWIN VERSION logs. McCord is being questioned under oath by Sam Dash, Chief Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee (emphasis in ALL CAPS): MR. DASH: Could you briefly describe...what actually would be entered on the log which Mr. Baldwin would first type? MCCORD: It would be similar to any other telephone conversation that one person might make to another, beginning with a statement on his log of the time of the call, who was calling who, A SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS SAID during the conversation itself, including names of persons who were mentioned... . Testimony of James McCord Well, that seems more or less consistent with what Liddy claims to have been receiving, except McCord adds that there was a "summary" of each phone call as well. Unfortunately, what Liddy and McCord claim Alfred Baldwin was producing isn't what Alfred Baldwin himself said in his own sworn testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee: SENATOR ERVIN. The information you got while you were at the Howard Johnson [across] from the Democratic headquarters, what form was it in when you gave it to Mr. McCord? BALDWIN. The initial day, the first day that I recorded the conversations was on a yellow sheet. On Memorial Day [Monday, 29 May 1972]...when he [McCord] returned to the room he brought an electric typewriter. He instructed me in the upper left-hand corner to print - or by typewriter...the date, the page, and then proceed down into the body and in chronological order put the time and then the contents of the conversation... . SENATOR ERVIN: And you typed a summary of the conversations you overheard? BALDWIN. Well, they weren't exactly a summary. I would say almost verbatim, Senator. SENATOR ERVIN: Almost verbatim. Testimony of Alfred Baldwin Yes, that's what Baldwin said: "almost verbatim." And he should know. After all, he's the one - and the only one, according to their stories - who purportedly sat 'round the clock for two weeks in early June with headphones on, listening to the output of a bug that McCord allegedly had planted in the DNC, and typing his fingers to the bone. He's the one who had to do all the typing of the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION of phone logs. Alfred Baldwin must have been some special kind of typist. Even court reporters would be in awe. Certainly Sally Harmony would have been impressed. So would anyone who has ever tried to type an "almost verbatim" record of a conversation in progress. And to think: he spent all that time typing "almost verbatim" transcripts of conversations about hair appointments, trips somebody was taking, "and personal stuff like that." So who's lying about the logs? Liddy? McCord? Baldwin? Of course they all are lying. Of course the reason that neither Sally Harmony nor anyone else in the world ever saw any such "logs" or "summaries" or "almost verbatim" transcriptions is because they never existed at all. There were no BALDWIN VERSION logs, ever. It is a lie, start to finish. There were no such logs because there were no bugs planted in the Watergate during any "first break-in" on 28 May 1972. That's because there was no "first break-in" at all. It is a lie told by the same liars lying about the logs. THEN WHAT DID SALLY HARMONY SEE? To finally learn the truth about what Sally Harmony saw, we must venture once more into the labyrinthine mind of G. Gordon Liddy himself. Only Liddy can tell it; it is, after all, his tale. Liddy claims that it happened this way, beginning on Wednesday, 31 May 1972, when he says he met with the CIA's James McCord and Alfred Baldwin in the dark and secret "observation post" - Room 723 of the Howard Johnson's across from the Watergate - where, according to Liddy's fabulous fiction, Alfred Baldwin was busy making the original logs (emphasis in ALL CAPS): "McCord gave me some typed logs of the interceptions to date. ...When I got home I looked over the logs. [Alfred Baldwin] was no typist. The logs revealed that the interception was from a telephone...and that the telephone tapped was being used by a number of different people, none of who appeared to be Larry O'Brien. I decided I...had to wait until I had more product of better quality from McCord. ...I expected the product to improve. No such luck. The next day's take was the same. ...On Monday, 5 June, I DICTATED from the typed logs TO SALLY HARMONY...EDITING AS I WENT ALONG." G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography," "WILL" And now we finally know the answer: Sally Harmony never saw anything at all. She listened. Sally Harmony rolled a page of GEMSTONE stationery that G. Gordon Liddy had provided into her electric typewriter, she slipped on the earpieces of her dictation machine at her neat little desk, she pressed the pedal, and she listened to the voice of G. Gordon Liddy DICTATING the "logs" she was to type that gave Liddy, McCord, Hunt, and Baldwin the alibi they needed to cover up where they had REALLY been on 26, 27, and 28 May 1972. The "logs" came from Liddy's lying lips. There were no actual "logs" from the Watergate. There were no "bugs" planted in the Watergate. There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It all is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up. There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior "failed attempts." Even the HARMONY DISTRIBUTED VERSION of these alleged "logs" didn't survive to be seen by a single investigator of Watergate. All copies were destroyed first. The co-conspirators only "corroborated" each other. The reason they corroborated each other, lied for each other, went to jail for penney-ante crimes, and defrauded the entire world is because they were providing themselves with alibis for those fateful last days of May 1972 in order to cover up their REAL crimes committed then - crimes far more vicious, far more heinous, far more odious, shocking, and abhorrent than anything ever uncovered in all the endless annals of Watergate. They were working directly for DCI Richard Helms. The mission that they really carried out between 25 May 1972 and 29 May 1972 had been being planned for years and had been set in motion a year earlier by Daniel Ellsberg, who had been guaranteed that he would never be convicted on the "Pentagon Papers" before those strategically worthless "secret" papers ever saw ink. That's what opened the door for Hunt and Liddy to be slid over into the White House in July 1971. They had to be well established as being connected to the White House to carry out their ACTUAL assignments during the last week of May 1972. There was an important reason for them to have White House credentials. Part of that reason lies at the 89th Airlift Wing. Hunt and Liddy also used the exact same team of CIA-trained Cuban liars on the phony "break-in" of the office Ellsberg psychiatrist Lewis Fielding in September 1971 as they used for the phony Watergate "first break-in." The Fielding op also was an alibi for Liddy and Hunt while they were doing other dirty work for Helms and the CIA in preparation for what was to come in 1972. It also gave them an "excuse" for traveling to New York City on 4 September 1971, where they registered at the Pierre Hotel - just a brisk walk from the Times Square lab of CIA's Cleve Backster. Hunt was "the principal" for all of it - the principal hand-puppet of DCI Richard Helms. Every DCI since Richard Helms has known exactly what was ACTUALLY done during the last days of May 1972 by Liddy, Hunt, McCord and others, and so has been an accessory after the fact. They all have shared and kept the guilty secret because for over thirty years it has been the Number One filthy "national security" secret that has had to be protected at ALL cost. Here is that roll of eternal shame and their tenures as DCI: Richard M. Helms: 30 June 1966 - 2 February 1973 James R. Schlesinger: 2 February 1973 - 2 July 1973 William E. Colby: 4 September 1973 - 30 January 1976 George H. W. Bush: 30 January 1976 - 20 January 1977 Stansfield Turner: 9 March 1977 - 20 January 1981 William J. Casey: 28 January 1981 - 29 January 1987 William H. Webster: 26 May 1987 - 31 August 1991 Robert M. Gates: 6 November 1991 - 20 January 1993 R. James Woolsey: 5 February 1993 - 10 January 1995 John M. Deutch: 10 May 1995 - 15 December 1996 George J. Tenet: 11 July 1997 - present The "Watergate" scandal is still a festering, gangrenous national and international wound that will not heal. It cannot heal, ever, until that wound is reopened and every last septic secret that lies buried in it is dug out and exposed to the disinfectant light of public scrutiny. Then you will know why on Sunday, 1 October 1972 - exactly two weeks and one day after a federal grand jury indicted Liddy, Hunt, McCord and their pack of CIA-trained Cuban liars - CIA Office of Technical Service entered into the classified Contract 8473 with Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann, and Russell Targ. And it was all because of what Sally Harmony saw. THE REAL DEEP THROAT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQEVAwUBQBC1SrTZk3yf4K11AQGbCAf/XBDtQCoN8IW/oXcYfQ6CC8KkvSTtuyCY O4Afckgntz3yfV1uzt31tVU9BSviied08va3RmsjnUh6HvyccPjNKd/q2tm1k3mu 22Hzz6yxNs7vRGmHt2JYSjnM+hJ6b2PIt+jsiXgGCGHMgIO1AAO1NqGygRxLNSXT Vj6jKBF/hPJPnizkgwNecz2/+IuM/o7EoaADGwOAKj5dAXcOOAYNQ1LLAbjyDHco g72spybJJ90VjA4NcDTZfmoNLJXsorJ7edzIfN1DyZ1b99uDnO2olU3ma7x37gNY hVUU8PA2sMOnONUPu1q77KpZhwHdobb3MNCJm0Ac7VkQu1RmDJ/dpQ== =IgvA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -=- This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services. Ashton Gray

This is the fifth message in usenet by "The Real Deep Throat": Liddy and Baldwin lied for each other. It was posted 19 January 2004: Date: 19 Jan 2004 04:30:31 -0000 Message-ID: <4YOK3JTW38004.979525463@anonymous> From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT) Subject: Liddy and Baldwin lied for each other Newsgroups: misc.legal Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- G. Gordon Liddy claims that he was first introduced to Alfred Baldwin on Wednesday, 31 May 1972 - AFTER the alleged "first break-in" of Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate - and that their "introduction" was made in the dark "observation post" room in the Howard Johnson's motel across from the Watergate, using only aliases: "On Monday morning, 29 May, I reported to Magruder the successful entry into Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters in the Watergate ...When I had nothing from McCord by Wednesday [31 May 1972], I asked him why. He...offered to take me up to the observation post to explain the difficulty... . The observation post was dark. Inside was a man I could hardly see, and McCord introduced us monosyllabically, using aliases." G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography," "WILL" Liddy has sworn under oath that the man he claims he was introduced to for the first time "monosyllabically, using aliases" inside the "observation post" that night of Wednesday, 31 May 1972, was Alfred Baldwin: LIDDY: The listening post was across Virginia Avenue Southwest, in a room in the Howard Johnson's motel. QUESTION: And did you have occasion to visit that room? LIDDY: Yes. Mr. McCord brought me there to see the setup, so to speak. It was after dark. ...And I was sort of monosyllabically introduced to a man who turned out to be Mr. Baldwin, who was seated there and was observing. G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony 6 December 1996 But that's not what Alfred Baldwin says. Alfred Baldwin swore under oath before the Senate Watergate Committee that he and Liddy were first introduced NOT "after dark" on the night of Wednesday, 31 May 1972, but FIVE DAYS EARLIER, during the afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972: SENATOR WEICKER: Mr. Baldwin...you returned to Connecticut on May the 23rd and came back to Washington on May the 26th; is that correct? ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct - Friday. SENATOR WEICKER: And you returned to Room 419 at the Howard Johnson's on May 26th. Now, when you entered Room 419 on May the 26th, what did you see? ALFRED BALDWIN: ...When I entered the room it was approximately 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon... . Mr. McCord was in the room. ...I was told that some other individuals would be coming to the room that were part of the security force and that in view of their position they would be introduced under aliases... . Two individuals came to the room... . SENATOR WEICKER: Now, subsequently, have you identified who those two men were that came into the room? ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct. In the FBI photographic display they were identified as Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt. Testimony of Alfred Baldwin before the Senate Watergate hearings The meeting Baldwin describes above was not "after dark," as Liddy claims: it was in the afternoon. Baldwin clearly identifies both Liddy and Hunt - together - as having been in room 419 of the Howard Johnson's with him and McCord that afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972. Room 419 of the Howard Johnson's also was not the "observation post" that Liddy describes in his account of their alleged "first meeting" - there was no way to see into DNC headquarters from room 419 at all. The so-called "observation post" was room 723 of the Howard Johnson's, and records show that room 723 was not registered in the name of McCord Associates until Monday, 29 May 1972. That's three days AFTER the meeting Alfred Baldwin describes above as having taken place in room 419 of the Howard Johnson's on the afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972. But it's even worse: in order to embellish the alibi he was providing for himself, Liddy, Hunt, and McCord, Alfred Baldwin went on under oath to describe more events that he claimed happened later that same night: 26-27 May 1972. Not only does he claim he was with Liddy and McCord later that night, he claims that Liddy and McCord freely discussed their purported covert activities while riding around in McCord's car with Baldwin sitting between them in the front seat: SENATOR WEICKER: Now, that same evening, the same evening of May the 26th, was there a trip to McGovern headquarters? ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct, there was. ...We [baldwin and McCord] proceeded to McGovern headquarters. ...This was late in the evening, approximately 1:00 or 2:00 in the early morning hours... . Mr. McCord had been in communication over a walkie-talkie unit with some other individuals, and...we stopped adjacent to a light-colored car. An individual alighted from the car and came into the front seat of Mr. McCord's car. I slid over so I was between Mr. McCord and this individual. SENATOR WEICKER: Can you tell who that individual was? ALFRED BALDWIN: It was Mr. Liddy. SENATOR WEICKER: And did you succeed in getting into McGovern headquarters on that evening? ALFRED BALDWIN: No. They drove around - Mr. McCord and Mr. Liddy did all the talking - and they drove around...over a half hour. As a matter of fact we drove up the alleyway next to the building. They discussed the problem of lights; there was a discussion of whether or not their man was still inside; there were several discussions and finally Mr. Liddy said that - "We'll abort the mission." That was his terms. Testimony of Alfred Baldwin before the Senate Watergate hearings Yet Liddy swore under oath that the first time he met Alfred Baldwin was not until FIVE DAYS LATER, on Wednesday, 31 May 1972, "after dark," in the so-called "observation post" at the Howard Johnson's, when they purportedly were "monosyllabically introduced" to each other by McCord. So who's lying? Is it career xxxx G. Gordon Liddy? Or is career xxxx Alfred Baldwin? Of course there's only one answer: they BOTH are lying. Where is a scrap of evidence for any of it? There isn't any. Fiction does not produce evidence. The only "evidence" there ever has been for the alleged events of the end of May 1972 concerning Watergate is the juvenile pulp fiction you've been reading in "testimony" above: a two-bit spy story by a two-bit megalomaniac; a pretentious, self-aggrandizing fable written by a hack fiction writer named G. Gordon Liddy and his CIA co-conspirators, a story that MAD magazine wouldn't have published in "Spy vs. Spy." It wouldn't have passed the cut for a Three Stooges episode. And the actors in the drama can't even keep their idiotic "story" straight when trying to tell the lies to cover for each other. What were they covering up? What is Liddy STILL covering up? Why all the elaborate, embellished lies - under oath - to account for each other's whereabouts those fateful last days of May, 1972? Why are they giving each other alibis, and "confessing" to penny-ante crimes in order to do it? What were the REAL crimes they told this spy story to cover up? HINT: They are INTERNATIONAL crimes. Where were they REALLY between 25 and 29 May 1972? HINT: They weren't in D.C. What were they REALLY doing? Who were they REALLY working for? HINT: Liddy knows. Hunt knows. The DCI knows. So does EVERY DCI THAT HAS EVER HELD THE OFFICE SINCE MAY 1972. Read 'em and weep. There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed, nor were Liddy, Hunt, McCord, or Baldwin anywhere near McGovern headquarters on the dates they claim. It all is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up. There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior "failed attempts." They only "corroborated" each other. Every DCI since knows the truth. The head always knows what both the right hand and the left hand are doing. THE REAL DEEP THROAT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQEVAwUBQArqqLTZk3yf4K11AQFcYwf/f8laZMNSfCfQxZE6qThBJe9BdQcuPpVQ rwY/4iPpTz6J0Rf3VPi7P9nuBYcKOcu3/jmOVs9O4+6cWoGkC/iYvFmr+2t7LkoK C9h7RXIzTWCslaQ2COCTO4qB7iE1ozLrXALh6RFnPzoYdLnkJ28jc/PltB9yjN72 9PlXcVSR+5JM9dtMAheRZzWofV6Z/CVvNCESlvkVDf0JslxH1z+Xyo6umxiqBZq3 HiLPD6T5UUKEQHru/798pSd+bOJsrgBXfQTTyVQUhmSWwgqJ+bQ6YOnXQw8IMTDO 6idzV0Umk15TLAXyoBsypXwBia9Qn1PhuuhCiEmlx9/qxZ8qNum5cg== =4jNE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -=- This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services. Ashton Gray

This is the fourth of the posts of "The Real Deep Throat" in usenet, posted on 17 January 2004: No "bugs" were planted in the Watergate. At this message, "The Real Deep Throat" started adding an encrypted PGP signature to the posts, possibly because someone had started forging messages and signing them "The Real Deep Throat" (although I don't have those, if that was the case). Date: 17 Jan 2004 05:00:24 -0000 Message-ID: <P88QRCDU38003.0002777778@anonymous> From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT) Subject: No "bugs" were planted in the Watergate Newsgroups: misc.legal Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The electronic "bugs" purportedly planted in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate during the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972 have always been described as being the work product of one man and one man only: James McCord. No one has ever claimed any other participation in the alleged planting of the electronic "bugs." McCord was Liddy's expert, his "wire man" for the black-bag job. In sworn testimony of 6 December 1996, G. Gordon Liddy described McCord as having had "a background as a tech in the Central Intelligence Agency" and also having had a background "in the FBI." That's why Liddy says he hired McCord for the job. In that same sworn testimony, Liddy says: "I recruited Mr. McCord." McCord himself always agreed that all of his instructions for the planting of the purported electronic bugs, as well as all of the financing for them, came to him directly from G. Gordon Liddy - no matter who allegedly was ordering Liddy around. Here is McCord himself on that subject in his own sworn testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee: SENATOR BAKER: Were you specifically instructed by someone to plant those two bugs? MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions... . He set the priorities. ...[P]riorities of the installation were first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices... ." Now here's your first quiz question: Where, exactly, were these purported "bugs" planted by McCord in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate during the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972? Can you answer? Do you know? Or are you confused about it? You should be. The two, and only two, people who claim to have masterminded and carried out the "wire" part of the operation certainly are. Let's see just how confused they are. First, let's hear from career xxxx G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony regarding what had been planted by McCord, and where, during the alleged "first break-in" of 28 May 1972 - all on orders directly from Liddy to McCord (emphasis in ALL CAPS): LIDDY: "[T]hey did what they were supposed to do, which was to place a tap on THE TELEPHONE IN THE OFFICE OF LAWRENCE O'BRIEN and to place A ROOM MONITORING DEVICE IN THE OFFICE OF LAWRENCE O'BRIEN. ...There were two things they were to do. One was the telephone of Larry O'Brien, wiretap, and the other was a ROOM MONITORING DEVICE OF LARRY O'BRIEN'S OFFICE." - G. Gordon Liddy, sworn testimony 6 December 1996 Well, Liddy should know. Liddy was the one who issued the orders to McCord about where to plant the devices. Liddy was the commander of the operation. Liddy was the one who had provided McCord with the funds for the devices. Liddy was the one who claims that he stayed in the "command post" - as he calls it - throughout the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972. So Liddy assures us that on this alleged "first break-in" of Watergate, there were TWO bugs to be installed on his orders: one a phone tap of Lawrence O'Brien's phone, the other a room monitoring device in O'Brien's office. And Liddy assures us that he, as the "command post" boy, was convinced that McCord had done what he was "supposed to do" during the alleged "first break-in." Now here's the view from the other career xxxx involved, the CIA's own electronics whiz-kid James McCord, the very man who claims he installed the bugs Liddy had ordered planted, testifying under oath before the Senate about the instructions he says he had been given by G. Gordon Liddy for the alleged "first break-in" at the Watergate: SENATOR BAKER: What was the electronic assignment that you had? MCCORD: Installation of the technical bugging devices in the Democratic National Committee... . SENATOR BAKER: Did you have instructions as to where they should be placed? MCCORD: Yes. SENATOR BAKER: Where? MCCORD: In the offices themselves in connection with senior personnel officers of the Democratic National Committee, and specifically, Mr. O'Brien's telephone extension. SENATOR BAKER: How many bugs did you plant? MCCORD: Two. SENATOR BAKER: And where were they? ...One of them was on Mr.O'Brien's telephone? MCCORD: That was an extension...that was identified as Mr. O'Brien's. The second was Mr. Oliver's. SENATOR BAKER: The second one was where? MCCORD: In a telephone that belonged to Mr. Spencer Oliver... SENATOR BAKER: Were you specifically instructed by someone to plant those two bugs? MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions... . He set the priorities. ...[P]riorities of the installation were first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices... ." McCord himself - who should know - says that it was G. Gordon Liddy who gave him, McCord, the instructions and who set the priorities for the planting of electronic devices in the alleged "first break-in." Yet McCord himself - who should know - says that he planted two and only two bugs on the alleged "first break-in" - and says they were both phone bugs, not one phone bug and one room bug, as Liddy claims. But if that is true, then why would career-xxxx McCord and career-xxxx Liddy have had the following discussion that career-xxxx Liddy claims took place between them on 5 June 1972, one week after the alleged "first break-in": Monday, 5 June 1972 "I spoke to Mr. McCord...and I said, 'Where is the product of THE ROOM MONITORING DEVICE?' And he said that THE ROOM MONITORING DEVICE either was defective, or had inadvertently been placed on a wall behind which was concealed a massive steel support beam, which would absorb all of the small amount of RF energy that the FM transmitter was putting out. And so I said, 'Well, we are just going to have to make it right... .'" - G. Gordon Liddy, sworn testimony 6 December 1996 Are you confused? You should be. That's all they have ever been trying to do: confuse you. But it isn't over yet. Career-xxxx McCord went on in sworn Senate testimony to further embellish his and Liddy's lies when asked why they went "back in" to the DNC headquarters at the Watergate. Here's what he said while making a running fool of Senator Howard Baker: SENATOR BAKER: Now, you weren't apprehended on this first occasion, Memorial weekend. What was the purpose of the second entry into the Democratic national headquarters? MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had told me...to check to see what the malfunctioning of the second device that was put in...and see what the problem was, because it was one of the two things: either a malfunction of the equipment or the fact that the installation of the device was in a room which was surrounded by four walls. In other words, it was shielded, and he wanted this corrected and ANOTHER DEVICE INSTALLED...A ROOM BUG AS OPPOSED TO A DEVICE ON A TELEPHONE INSTATED IN MR.O'BRIEN'S OFFICE... . Why do these career-liars constantly contradict each other about the "bugs" McCord purportedly planted in the Watergate on 28 May 1972 on orders of G. Gordon Liddy? BECAUSE THERE WERE NO BUGS AT ALL INSIDE DNC HEADQUARTERS. The entire story, start to finish, is a LIE. That's why you can't correctly answer your first quiz question: there is no correct answer possible. Fictions don't have "correct answers." That's why the phone company sweep of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate just days before the actual break-in - on 16-17 June 1972 - found no trace of any bugging device on any phone. THERE WERE NO BUGS AT ALL INSIDE DNC HEADQUARTERS at any relevant time alleged by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and their other CIA co-conspirators concerning the phantom "first break-in." There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate any of their stories about the alleged "first break-in." Why? Because there never can be any "evidence" of something that never occurred. The entire story of the alleged "first break-in" of DNC headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972, and of two previous "failed attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, is nothing but a cheap, shoddy spy story written by a megalomaniacal hack fiction writer, G. Gordon Liddy, and his CIA co-conspirators. And none of them can even keep the story straight. It's the same reason why thirty years later no one can answer the other burning question you all still want the final answer to: WHO ordered the 28 May 1972 "first break-in" of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate? Haven't ten million gallons of ink been spilled and a million hours of air time and uncountable hours of court and Congressional time been squandered in writhing over that one maddening, mercurial, torturous, agonized, harrowing, excruciating question? Haven't countless lives been ruined, paved, in the 30-year path of the stampede to find the answer? Do you still ache to know, to find out, to have the mystery finally solved, even after the evidence that's now been being laid out before you? No, you're smarter than that. You're not actually the fools that Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA co-conspirators have always believed you to be. You are beginning to get the facts now - - not just their self-supporting, highly-financed fictions. So here's your next quiz question. Let's see how you do now: WHO was it? WHO ordered the 28 May 1972 "first break-in" of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate? Of course there is only one possible answer: No one. No one ordered it, because it never happened. It is a lie. It is a fiction. It is a fairy tale. That's why no one in thirty years has ever been able to solve WHO ordered it. And that is the only reason. There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie. There is no evidence that it ever occurred, because it didn't. There is only self-corroboration by the co-conspirators. That is all there has ever been as "evidence" - that and some "evidence" that they carefully planted in their own hotel and motel rooms, and in McCord's home, and in Hunt's White House safe for the express purpose of being found after they were "caught" on 17 June 1972 in the purported "second" break-in. In "corroborating" each other about the phony "first break-in" - even as poorly, as pathetically, as sophomorically as they did that job - they made complete running fools of a President, his staff, Senators, the FBI, the public, and a panting, foaming press who gobbled up and spread their self-supporting lies. Until the Senators, the FBI, the public, and the press find out what Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and Alfred Baldwin were REALLY doing those fateful last days of May 1972 - while the CIA-trained "Cuban cohort" was busy providing alibis for them - the Senators, the FBI, the public, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the press will continue to be the running fools that these coordinated liars have made them out to be for thirty long years. How did they bring down a President? How did they make fools of the Senate, the public, and the press? What did they do it with? Here's what they did it with: hack science-fiction that no pulp rag would ever publish about electronic "bugs" that never were planted at all. The question is not "who ordered the first break-in." The key is not "follow the money." Those are the red-herring questions and tips that were planted as traps for the running fools. The questions that actually must be answered are: WHO ordered the FICTION of a "first break-in" to be created? WHO created it? WHY was it created? WHAT were Hunt, Liddy, McCord, and Alfred Baldwin REALLY doing while the "Cuban cohort" was providing them with an alibi for 26, 27, and 28 May 1972? WHO were they really working for? WHAT were the real "national security" issues that made it worth going to jail, destroying a President, and making fools of the entire world? WHAT was it REALLY covering up? Liddy knows. Hunt knows. And above all remember this: the head always knows what both the right hand and the left hand are doing. THE REAL DEEP THROAT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQEVAwUBQAidZrTZk3yf4K11AQFdQgf8CrrHR8jCTg4PnXoqk1VK8mPCLTieq0Me Wss1hoRVaCvUwxAZI4nfYiGQvmgvEwbzJTihVINIpg8dWP00k6vAtgvfrrT/K9s3 vWlPOR1phSS7pKSNGwKZCT+okB22VxXUk8jXKVa0JSiBd/efVkvYPNYe2n96/01C LgUy7B3nImweuJc3U1W2NjxjkoMCiUEAWf3abBfRf42Miq5d+gaop6VT64QyuhjU doXs6qWehAgEWMr9/JuxVQl+jLEIbbCPCS6CktmMj4zekXjFBF0DvlcjSLJk3JB8 3YVtV3QpvF8QBGB11WNPY3nihCn00yx3xtIwyMVrGyoVoWjFf6Z/Tg== =P/6W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -=- This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services. Ashton Gray

This is the third of the usenet messages from "The Real Deep Throat": Liddy lied about photos of O'Brien's office. It was posted 15 January 2004, two days after the second message: Date: 15 Jan 2004 03:36:27 -0000 Message-ID: <M17TZYNV38000.9419791667@anonymous> From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT) Subject: Liddy lied about photos of O'Brien's office Newsgroups: misc.legal Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services. G. Gordon Liddy claims that on Monday, 29 May (Memorial Day) 1972, he delivered to Jeb Magruder Polaroid photographs of the interior of the Watergate office of Democratic National Committee Chairman Lawrence O'Brien. Liddy claims that the purported Polaroids had been taken by Bernard Barker on the night before, 28 May 1972, during an alleged "successful entry" into the DNC offices at the Watergate. Liddy is a xxxx. There were no such Polaroid photographs. There was no such "entry" on 28 May 1972. First, here is career-xxxx Liddy in his book, "WILL," lying about the Polaroid photos of Lawrence O'Brien's office, which he claims was "proof" of a "successful entry" the night before: "On Monday morning, 29 May, I reported to Magruder the successful entry into Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate. For proof, I showed him Polaroid photographs of the interior of Larry O'Brien's office, taken by Bernard Barker. Magruder was pleased." G. Gordon Liddy Book, "WILL" Liddy is a xxxx. There were no Polaroid photographs of the interior of Lawrence O'Brien's office taken by Bernard Barker on 28 May 1972 - not according to Bernard Barker himself in testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee. Of course the main reason is that there never was any "first entry" into DNC headquarters on 28 May 1972 at all. But the Senate Watergate Committee believed there had been, and Barker had testified that during the alleged "first entry" they had found no useful documents. Therefore Senator Daniel Inouye asked the reasonable question of why the burglars had broken into the Watergate "again" on the night of 16-17 June 1972, the night that they were arrested: SENATOR INOUYE: "...[W]hy did you go there again if you realized that the documents you were looking for were not there?" BERNARD BARKER: "Uh, it was then evident that we were not in the office of the Chairman. In our second entry we finally came to the office of the Chairman." Testimony of Bernard Barker Senate Watergate Hearings 1973 Bernard Barker admits they were "NOT IN THE OFFICE" of DNC Chairman Lawrence O'Brien on 28 May 1972, the date of the alleged "first entry." Bernard Barker says it was not until the night of 16-17 June 1972, during the purported "second entry" (really the one and only entry) that they "FINALLY CAME TO THE OFFICE" of Lawrence O'Brien. Then how could G. Gordon Liddy, on 29 May 1972, have delivered to Magruder Polaroid photos of the interior of O'Brien's office, supposedly taken by Bernard Barker on the night of 28 May 1972? Easy: Liddy is a xxxx. The "Polaroid" story is just one more of Liddy's lies to help embellish the CIA-created cover story they all told, the alibi for where Liddy really was - along with others - and what he really had been doing on those few fateful days at the end of May 1972. Liddy is a career xxxx. He is much, much more than a mere xxxx, though, or even a third-rate burglar. "Third-rate?" No, at least give the Devil his due: how about "First Degree" instead? There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up. There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other. Not until you know why these people went to such incomprehensible lengths to give themselves alibis for those dates in late May will you ever unlock the truth about Watergate. PERSONAL MESSAGE TO GEORGEY-PORGEY LIDDY: It's _all_ going to come oozing out. Slowly. Every bit of it. Are you going to just sit and watch it like a slow bleed? Or are you going to be a man for once in your life and tell what you _really_ did and the reasons why you did it? Why do you still hide it behind the lies, hypocrite, if you were being such a good "soldier"? Well, don't worry: your "soldierly" act will be burned into the permanent record for you - with or without your own rationale for what you did. Was it only _malum prohibitum_ Gordy? Or wasn't it in fact _malum in se_? Isn't that why you've agreed to keep it hidden in your black heart all these years? Or will you say you were "only following orders" like a "good soldier" for the good of "national security"? Are you going to just sit and watch it all ooze out like a slow bleed while still attempting to protect your "principles" and your "principals"? Both have been compromised. Don't worry, though: no matter what you do now, the entire sordid story _will_ be told for posterity - with or without you. Those soldier-boys of yours are going to have your TRUE legacy to live with their entire long lives - however it gets told - and will be able to look back at their photos taken with you in their soldier-boy costumes (real photos, not the phony Polaroids you lied about), being the apple of their daddy's eye. And won't what you did bring honor to those costumes and those boys! Will it, Gordy? Polish that brass. THE REAL DEEP THROAT -=- This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services. Ashton Gray