Myra Bronstein

Thank you Evan. Now that I have Google cache to reference I can see an even more granular timeline of events, and of course more detail. Before I just had email to work with, and memory--which can be faulty. This latest mysterious disappearance of the DPF forum only benefits those whose accounts vary from the facts. So, in other words, it does not benefit me. I'll have to poke around in the cache and see what else I can find.

Oh. That's too bad that it was scrubbed. They made strong and serious allegations against me and then removed the post without allowing me to respond. I guess they're just The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Regardless, I will state the facts. There was a coup at DPF. The original/Drago Coup was perpetrated by Jan Klimkowski, Magda Hassan, Charles Drago, David Guyatt, and Dawn Meredith. It was initiated by the sudden (understatement) promotion of Drago to Moderator over my objections and veto, and in spite of his history of abusing DPF staff and members. From February to the present I maintained discretion about the Drago incident to avoid embarrassing Drago. I no longer care about embarrassing Drago because the principles involved are more important. I tried to post this explanation after I restored the forum last Sunday but someone(s) altered then removed it, before the forum again (not my doing) was disappeared. I know this is long but it is background that is that is essential to understanding the Drago Coup. Back when the DPF had integrity our number one rule was: “1. You will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, hateful, harassing, threatening,...” However, last February 4 Drago, at the time a moderator, wrote a post that referred to a member as, among other things, a “xxxx” and a “poor, deranged cretin.” (There is no point provided a link since someone put the forum in purgatory, but the exchange is still on the forum in a locked thread.) [On edit: A helpful EF member sent me the link to Drago's "cretin" post and subsequent attack on me in Google cache. It can be seen at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:033kSswzMroJ:www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3057.html+%22poor,+deranged+cretin%22+site:www.deeppoliticsforum.com&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk. Thank you helpful EF member. It simple hadn't occurred to me to seek a cached version.] Drago's attack on a member was/is unacceptable whether it comes from a regular member or a staff member. Though the fact that it was a staff member certainly made it worse. And to make it EVEN worse Drago was abusing his position as a moderator to intentionally bait the member (John Bevilaqua) on the forum in an attempt to get him to explode so that he could ban him. After Drago attacked Bevilaqua on the forum as a “xxxx” and a “poor, deranged cretin” Bevilaqua of course responded in an angry fashion. On edit 1/02/11, Myra: Email quotes are being removed so that EF will not be targeted by current DPF staff members. The full body of evidence is being assembled at http://deeppoliticsforum.info.

Not to mention their misleading comments as a group and Dawn’s as an individual. The DPF is beginning to resemble an Ionesco play. Some one parading as me is posting there, is that you Maggie/Magda etc as are people parading as Evan, the Bug and Joan Mellen (or more likely they are the same person) there is a thread about the size of Garrison’s penis, but most of the posts are ‘Evan’ and ‘Len’ giving the finger. Maggieda Hanssan or who whoever that is, grow up. So now the DPF has been hacked but it wasn’t by Myra rather it was one of the ‘Gang of 5’ or one of their sympathizers. So much for their lawsuit against her. http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5664 http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=187928 http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=187929 I wrote how much I enjoyed Charles Drago's humor. I received "the finger" from Evan. I contacted Evan with somewhat hurt feelings and he told me it wasn't him. The people who are behind stuff like that should not be allowed on anyone's forum. As for Charles, he was acting out of anger. I know how that feels. That's why he should be allowed to continue on that website. I know I'd be happy if he came back here. Kathy C Charles' "nasty temper is legendary."

I see Winona Ryder as Myra but with a Brooklyn accent. As far as Charles Drago, too bad Peter Sellers wasn't alive. Kathy C Janeane Garofalo!!! Janeane Garofalo must play me! Drago as Clouseau? Mmm, yeah I can see that: "My face! You've stolen my face! Give me back my face, you fiend!" "You'll soon be laughing at the other side of my face, my friend!" "He who don't know nothing, must know something, eh?" I can definitely see that.

What characterization are you disputing Jack? I ask because I have a large amount of evidence that pertains to Drago's character.

Myra's point is surely correct. You cannot have moderators posting abusive comments about other members on the forum. I can understand her frustration when she was outvoted, but that is the way democracy works. That's not how the DPF democracy was supposed to work. When deciding something as substantial as a staff change (e.g., firing Drago from the moderation team or inviting David Guyatt back into the team) a unanimous vote was always required. For 2.5 years. No exception. Until Jan posed the vote to bring Drago back from purgatory. Even though I voted "no way no how" it was clear that he'd be coming back anyway. It was the pre-coup. They ignore rules when the rules hinder them from doing what they want: dusting off the abusive Drago, using pseudonyms, whatever. If that was the case, you were clearly in the right. This is <wrong> and Myra knows it It was ALWAYS a majority vote from day one. MB tried to unilaterally change the rule on 12/16. Just before she pulled the plug-her words- on DPF. She's in good company now. I'm sure she will begin picking fights with you all over here very soon. Her nasty temper is legendary. Dawn, why don't you offer evidence when you make such claims? You are an attorney Dawn. Are you truly unaware of the value of evidence? Or do you lack evidence? I am in the process of responding to the post by DPF's remaining members, and I am providing evidence as part of my response. When people see evidence they can make an informed decision about the events being discussed. It's kind of like a courtroom Dawn, with a jury. If you have evidence that supports your allegations, by all means post it. Also, from a logical standpoint why do you say "She's in good company now." Presumably you are referring to the EF, and you are in the very same company since you opt to post here at the EF. Dawn.

Dean, to clarify, all DPF staff posted under, what they said were, their real names. I certainly posted 100% under my real name and have never used an alias at EF or at DPF. In addition to posting under their real names at least one staff member--Magda Hassan--posted under pseudonyms according to Jan Klimkowski. I learned this fact on December 4 when I noticed a post on DPF listing supposedly REAL NAMES and ADDRESSES of neo-nazis. It was posted by a "Peter Tosh." I was concerned about the potential libel issues of listing supposed neo-nazis on DPF, so I locked the post and added a note that I wanted to discuss it with the other mods. I emailed Jan, Magda, Dawn (the only other mods at the time) with the following: "WTF is this? "Know your fascists" posted by Peter Tosh--URGENT Myra Bronstein to Magda, Jan, Dawn Dec 4 http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5168 Is this "fascist list" acceptable on DPF? It has names and addresses of (presumably) real people. And the author--"Peter Tosh"--has long been suspect 'cause of his "name." Then I sent a second email to Magda, Jan, Dawn under the same "WTF..." subject line: "I locked the thread until we have a chance to discuss it, and posted a short vague message, both under "The Moderators" login. Hope that's ok. Nothing will actually be done/irreversible until we discuss and vote. I think the thread should remain, the posts should be edited to remove the names, and Peter Tosh should be warned and maybe banned." After a few minutes Jan sent the following email: On edit 1/02/11, Myra: Email quotes are being removed so that EF will not be targeted by current DPF staff members. The full body of evidence is being assembled at http://deeppoliticsforum.info.

Myra's point is surely correct. You cannot have moderators posting abusive comments about other members on the forum. I can understand her frustration when she was outvoted, but that is the way democracy works. That's not how the DPF democracy was supposed to work. When deciding something as substantial as a staff change (e.g., firing Drago from the moderation team or inviting David Guyatt back into the team) a unanimous vote was always required. For 2.5 years. No exception. Until Jan posed the vote to bring Drago back from purgatory. Even though I voted "no way no how" it was clear that he'd be coming back anyway. It was the pre-coup. They ignore rules when the rules hinder them from doing what they want: dusting off the abusive Drago, using pseudonyms, whatever.

But my lips move when I read which makes it sort of a quasi-slander. Do you know if that's her real name?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Legal constraints prevent me from detailing exactly what occurred but there are NO "splinter groups". One person attempted a coup. Period. It is that simple. When our lawyers tell us it is ok we will make a joint statement. The rest of us are co-operating just fine, which I am sure you are delighted to hear. Happy Holidays, Dawn No splinter groups? Terry Mauro was booted early on. Charles Drago was booted February of this year and just managed to connive his way back in thanks to a lack of quality control. There was and is massive dissension. Your huffing and puffing and bluffing are comical.

The Deep Politics Forum is wholly dedicated to free speech. Contrary to recent vitriolic speculation, it hosts a full Wikileaks mirror and is proud to do so. The costs involved in running the DPF and its Wikileaks mirror, are entirely borne by the forum's founders - although donations are always welcome - but membership is and will always remain free. As a point of principal we are an advertising-free forum and will always remain so. We will not be making any further statements on the EF about the hacking we have suffered. Dawn Thanks to those interested in truth. DPF never solicited, welcomed, or accepted donations Dawn. Didn't you get the memo?

I accept Dawn's most recent explanation that it was a one person coup and a hijacking of the forum. If that's the bottom line then the other speculations are out the window, including the allegation of a Wikileaks hackjob. And I never said there was a giant ruse put out by anybody, I just questioned the allegation of a Wikileaks hackjob, which turned out not to be true. I just don't like the idea of anyone pretending something is one way when knowing in fact it is quite another. BK I will post this one last time: No one pretended anything. For legal reasons we could not get into the details. This is still the case. Why are you all having such a hard time understanding this? Myra attempted a hostile coup and we are in legal consults now. What she did was both illegal criminally and in violation of copyright law. When we are free to speak -legally free and in other ways- a joint statement from DPF will be posted. Until then this is my final word on the matter. Dawn You're an attorney, right Dawn? So you should know not to slander me. Especially given that you are wrong. I pulled the plug on the forum exactly as I told you I did, for the reasons I explained in email to you. I then had the forum restored, immediately sent email to Magda explaining it was back up, and invited the five of you--since you five were still members--to come back and/or start another forum. Next I posted an explanation of the episode on DPF in the interests of full disclosure. Today I noticed that explanation had been removed and my account had been partially disabled. In other words the forum had been hacked. And since I didn't do it I can only speculate at who did. Don't want to slander anybody... I managed to restore part of the explanation, which has been reproduced here. I have no idea who I have been working with at DPF. The person who goes by the name of Jan recently said in email, after I asked who DPF member Peter Tosh was: “I think Peter Tosh is one of Magda's pseudonyms.” "One of..." I still don't know what other pseudonyms she uses on a forum forbidding use of pseudonyms. That made me remember that a few months ago she hinted that Magda Hassan wasn't her real name. I asked her if she was joking but she never responded. Again, I have no idea who I have been working with. Whoever they are they refuse to follow the same rules they expect members to follow. I find that intolerably hypocritical. I want DPF members to know about this hypocrisy. I think they deserve better.

Peter, There is the school of that that you are being set up and goaded so that there is justification for kicking you off this forum. In any event, I can't understand why you are intent on winning a card game with a deck that is stacked against you by the dealer. It doesn't matter that you're a great card player; they're dealing from the bottom of the deck. So why stress? Anyone who can't see the dirty dealing isn't paying attention.

Hey, I live to serve.

Hi EvanS, nice of y'all to visit us so regularly at DPF. Just thought I would bring it to your attention that some fellow by the name of Evan Marshall over here does not have the required photo. Naturally I am shocked (SHOCKED) at this since most are not allowed to post here without one. Yet this version of Evan (Evan 2.0) is allowed to post without a photo. If you need help photoshopping pictures so that "Evan Marshall" can have something to upload, please don't hesitate to ask. Y'all know where to find us.

The fact that Drago can logon on normally from another computer pretty much confirms Andy's explanation that his problems are due to his computer rather than his account. Odd that he seems to think otherwise. Hey there Len! Did you see this fascinating thread? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14076 "Conspiracy of Big Tobacco Companies - 100 Years of Deceit, They KNEW Smoking Was Addictive & Caused Cancer!" Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

By those who feel a kinship or have a literal kinship. Agreed Len? You son of a (smoking) gun. Myra

AFAIK none of the founders of the DPF were banned, but left of their own volition. Like the rest of them you have difficulty getting your facts straight my-o-my, ol' Len knows a lot concerning the inner workings of this here Ed forum doesn't he... Getting facts straight, hmmm? Doesn't that rely on some sort of interpretation of said facts? And doesn't that lead the one doing the interrupting of said facts to conclude: here we are again, personal *opinion* concerning said facts? and fwiw keeping to the thread topic -- there are but few JFK assassination researchers (narrowly defined subject specialists) left on this forum. (I understand, initially, we were invited here to get the numbers (aka *hits*) up. Which is fine. But lets be realistic, what's left here, after 5 years, are data gatherers and disinfo specialists. Best internet based "political" (local/regional/world) researchers by far, are located at the Deep Politics Forum. (unlike me, all can pen quite a few back-to-back paragraphs) I'm still trying to figure out who, and what function the dude with the bow-tie provides (if anything) around here? He the money guy? Or is that Bill Miller? omg, this is the best post i have read here in so long. lmao. (ok andy, i'll leave now) dawn It's a boffo post. It's so funny it brought me back from the dust bin of history just to say: LOL!!! "Puff puff puff and if you smoke yourself to death..."

Been researching the regime since the 2000 coup. While looking into that I realized that the klan that seized power by killing President Kennedy on November 22, 1963 is the same klan that siezed power in 2000--BFEE. But of course they didn't do it alone. Thus the research.

This is not just any representative. This is the ONE house member who opposed certifying President Bush's re-election because of blatant voting fraud in her home state in 2004. Seemingly an arch rival of the BFEE. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congresswoman_d...s3osneZ25is0NUE "EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio - Democratic U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the first black woman to represent Ohio in Congress and a strong critic of the Iraq war, died Wednesday after a brain hemorrhage, a hospital spokeswoman said. Tubbs Jones, 58, died Wednesday evening of a brain hemorrhage caused by an aneurysm that burst and left her with limited brain function, said Eileen Sheil, a spokeswoman for the Cleveland Clinic, which owns the Huron Hospital in East Cleveland where Tubbs Jones died. "Throughout the course of the day and into this evening, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones' medical condition declined," Sheil said in a statement from the clinic and Tubbs Jones' family. The liberal Democrat, first elected in 1998, suffered the hemorrhage while driving her car in Cleveland Heights Tuesday night, said Dr. Gus Kious, president of Huron Hospital. The car went out of control and crossed lanes of traffic before coming to a stop, police said. An officer found the ailing lawmaker. A brain aneurysm is a bulge in an artery in the brain. It can leak or rupture, causing bleeding in the brain. Several news organizations, including The Associated Press, had reported earlier in the day that Tubbs Jones had died. That report, citing a Democratic official, was corrected a few minutes later when a hospital official held a news conference to say she was in critical condition. Tubbs Jones represented the heavily Democratic 11th District and chaired the ethics committee in the House. She was the first black woman to serve on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, where she opposed President Bush's tax cuts and his efforts to create personal accounts within Social Security. Tubbs Jones was a firm supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during the primaries until throwing her support behind Sen. Barack Obama in June. She was to have been a superdelegate at next week's Democratic National Convention in Denver. The Clinton family released a statement saying they shared a friendship with Tubbs Jones that "deepened through every trial and challenge." "Over the course of many years, with many ups and many downs, Stephanie was right by our side — unwavering, indefatigable," the statement said. "It was that fighting spirit ... that allowed Stephanie to rise from modest beginnings, to succeed in public service, to become a one-woman force for progress in our country." Obama called Tubbs Jones "an extraordinary American and an outstanding public servant." "It wasn't enough for her just to break barriers in her own life. She was also determined to bring opportunity to all those who had been overlooked and left behind — and in Stephanie, they had a fearless friend and unyielding advocate," Obama said in a statement. Democratic U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who also represents Cleveland, was visibly upset Wednesday night when he left Huron Hospital. He held the hand of his wife, Elizabeth, as he recalled Tubbs Jones' energy and spirit. "She poured her heart and soul into her job," Kucinich said. "She worked so hard and gave everything she could. I'm devastated. Wherever we'd go, we'd speak of each other as brother and sister. It's an incalculable loss." Tubbs Jones was a passionate opponent of the Iraq war, voting in 2002 against authorizing the use of military force. Just as the war was starting in March 2003, she was one of only 11 House members to oppose a resolution supporting U.S. troops in Iraq. She said she did so because the resolution connected Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and said Iraq poses a continued threat to the United States. Neither of those claims had been proved, she said, adding that was why the United States couldn't persuade the United Nations to support an attack. In 2005, Tubbs Jones opposed certifying President Bush's re-election because of questionable electoral results in her home state. ..."

From Thy Will Be Done: Although Gerald Ford had testified during his own confirmation hearings for the vice presidency in late 1973 that he would not run for reelection if he succeeded Nixon, by 1975, Ford's desire for election in his own right had grown. Nelson watched this development with concern. He had expected to succeed Ford; now he was not sure Ford would not bend to pressure from the right wing of the Republican party and seek a running mate more to their liking. Nelson knew that California's Ronald Reagan was busy building a challenge in the Bible Belt. However, he underestimated Reagan, considering him a "lightweight." Ford's political advisors took Reagan more seriously. The authors go on to describe how Ford, with the help of Rumsfeld and Cheney, got Rockefeller to withdraw his name from the ticket in 1976. Shortly after, Ford purged Rockefeller power from the cabinet, firing Kissinger, Schlesinger, "and weakened another Rockefeller like-thinker, George Bush, by appointing him head of the scandal-ridden spy agency." According to the authors: Nelson would always claim that his removal from the 1976 Republican ticket was a deliberate effort to sabotage Gerald Ford's presidency. He saw Rumsfeld leading the Nixon wing and allying it with the Far Right, backing Reagan to stop the Rockefeller wing of the party and bring down Ford in the process. Rumsfeld's move in the Pentagon to take Schlesinger's place as defense secretary would not remove his influence on the White House. Rumsfeld kept in daily touch with his his successor as White House chief of staff, Dick Cheney. Rockefeller had met with Ford and offered to become Ford's chief of staff and run the cabinet while Ford campaigned. Ford declined the offer. Rockefeller became exiled from politics and turned to setting his financial empire in order. A few short years later, he was dead. (To BK: Magnolia Oil was not mentioned in the index) Thanks for posting this excerpt Mike. Clearly this book will help us see the bones under the skin. Nathaniel should get a finder's fee, or be voted employee of the month--or the forum equivalent, or something. It's a FIND.

Great post BK. You're connecting a lot of dots. The more I learn about the Paines the more I want to learn.

Should take you about a day and a half to read it with comprehension, Myra. Glad to see you posting occasionally. Hope you consider doing so a little more frequently. My copy was ex-libris. Sad that so many important works are disappearing from library shelves. Yeah I finished the book today. ... Ok, not really. But I appreciate the vote of confidence Mike. Maybe your ex library book was available because they got a new copy.

Good lord, it's a thousand pages!

Long (long) article From Harpers on the science of contagious and transmissible cancer. The main animals studied are Tasmanian devils, where tumor cells can be spread by bites. And the population is thought to be so inbred that the animals' immune systems don't kick in because they don't recognize cancer cells from another devil as a foreign invader. No telling whether Ruby died from a toxin or an injection of cancer, but it's becoming clear that prospect of a deadly cancer injection is not far fetched. http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/0081988 "The case of the Syrian hamster is more complicated. This tumor arose around 1960, when researchers at the National Cancer Institute, in Bethesda, Maryland, performed an experiment in which they harvested a naturally occurring sarcoma from one hamster and injected those cells (as cancer scientists often do) into healthy animals. When the injected hamsters developed malignancies, more cells were harvested. Each such inoculation-and-harvest cycle is called a passage. The experiment involved a dozen such passages, and over time the tumor began to change. It had evolved. The later generations, unlike the first, represented a sort of super tumor, capable of getting from hamster to hamster without benefit of a needle. ... The phenomenon of transmissible tumors isn’t confined to canines, Tasmanian devils, and Syrian hamsters. There have been human cases, too. Forty years ago a team of physicians led by Edward F. Scanlon reported, in the journal Cancer, that they had “decided to transplant small pieces of tumor from a cancer patient into a healthy donor, on a well informed volunteer basis, in the hope of gaining a little better understanding of cancer immunity,” which they thought might help in treating the patient. The patient was a fifty-year-old woman with advanced melanoma; the “donor” was her healthy eighty-year-old mother, who had agreed to receive a bit of the tumor by surgical transplant. One day after the transplant procedure, the daughter died suddenly from a perforated bowel. Scanlon’s report neglects to explain why the experiment wasn’t promptly terminated—why they didn’t dive back in surgically to undo what had been done to the mother. Instead, three weeks were allowed to pass, at which point the mother had developed a tumor indistinguishable from her daughter’s. Now it was too late for surgery. This cancer moved fast. It metastasized, and the mother died about fifteen months later, with tumors in her lungs, ribs, lymph nodes, and diaphragm. The case of the daughter–mother transplant and the case of the Syrian hamsters have one common element: the original sources of the tumor and the recipients were genetically very similar. If the genome of one individual closely resembles the genome of another (as children resemble their parents, and as inbred animals resemble one another), the immune system of a recipient may not detect the foreignness of transplanted cells. The hamsters were highly inbred (intentionally, for experimental control) and therefore not very individuated from one another as far as their immune systems could discern. The mother and daughter were also genetically similar—as similar as two people can be without being identical twins. Lack of normal immune response, because of such closeness, goes some way toward explaining why those tumors survived transference between individuals. Low immune response also figures in two other situations in which tumor transmission is known to occur: pregnancy and organ transplant. A mother sometimes passes cancer cells to her fetus in the womb. And a transplanted organ sometimes carries tiny tumors into the recipient, vitiating the benefits of receiving a life-saving liver or kidney from someone else. Cases of both kinds are very rare, and they involve some inherent or arranged compatibility between the original victim of the tumor and the secondary victim, plus an immune system that is either compromised (by immuno-suppressive drugs, in the organ recipient) or immature (in the fetus). Other cases are less easily explained. In 1986, two researchers from the National Institutes of Health reported that a laboratory worker, a healthy nineteen-year-old woman, had accidentally jabbed herself with a syringe carrying colon-cancer cells; a colonic tumor grew in her hand, but she was rescued by surgery. More recently, a fifty-three-year-old surgeon cut his left palm while removing a malignancy from a patient’s abdomen, and five months later he found himself with a palm tumor, one that genetically matched the patient’s tumor. His immune system responded, creating an inflammation around the tumor, but the response was insufficient and the tumor kept growing. Why? How? It wasn’t supposed to be able to do that. Again, though, surgery delivered a full cure. And then there’s Henri Vadon. He was a medical student in the 1920s who poked his left hand with a syringe after drawing liquid from the mastectomy wound of a woman being treated for breast cancer. Vadon, too, developed a hand tumor. Three years later, he died of metastasized cancer because neither the surgical techniques of his era nor his own immune system could save him."