Pat Jaress

Charles Matthews and the other four panel members representing Wikipedia voted for to ban editor RPJ from the publication because: [Editor] RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, . . . .” Matthews and the other four panel members of Wikipedia need to retract that finding of fact because it is not true. The members support their contention that Spartacus is unreliable and propagandistic offering the following citations to Spartacus that they contend support their allegation. These citations clearly do not support the contention of the five panel members asserting the charges. 1- First, is a citation to Spartacus relating to a telephone conversation between FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover and President Lyndon Johnson . The conversation took place a week after President Kennedy was murdered. Hoover told Johnson that a bullet that matches the alleged murder weapon came from Kennedy’s body and not Governor Connally’s body. This evidence contradicts the famous magic bullet theory that the Warren Commission used to explain how one bullet could have caused so much damage to the two victims and ended up inside of Connally. Hoover said it came from Kennedy not Connally. This was the same information Hoover gave Johnson the day after the murder. Again, the conversation was preserved on tape and anyone can go and listen to it, just as anyone can listen to this information being repeated a week later and preserved on tape. Some editors at Wikipedia were devastated by this information since it refutes the Warren Commission’s theory which a small group editors at Wikipedia tightly embrace. These other editors wouldn’t allow the information be placed in the article even though it is the basic policy of Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be included in an article and let the reader choose which viewpoint is more persuasive. Despite this policy of including conflicting evidence and viewpoints on issues, the editors who insisted on deleting the information agued the following points on what the editors personally believed happened, which is impermissible under Wikipedia policy: • One editor speculates that Hoover was “blowing smoke.” • Another said that the material from Spartacus concerning Hoover’s information was “factual, but irrelevant’ because the editor came to the belief that “there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion.” No supporting evidence was offered for this belief, and if there was such evidence it should have also been placed in the article. • Another comment was “Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth.” No proof was offered to support this claim on the alleged popularity of the viewpoint. • Then an editor speculated that Hoover’s statement that the bullet came from Kennedy’s body “was probably a mistaken assumption made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding.” Not only is this editor speculating on the matter but even assumes the role as an expert authority on what “frequently” happens in murder investigations. • Since none of the above reasons form any basis for censoring the information from the article, the five member panel from Wikipedia, which includes Mr. Matthews, decided the information should be censored and the editor who added the information should be banned because the information came from Spartacus which is allegedly “unreliable,” and that the editor was “aggressive” by including it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_F._...J._Edgar_Hoover The five member panel, including Mr. Matthews, must retract the finding of fact made against Spartacus.

A publication competing with the UK’s Spartacus has called Spartacus “propagandistic” and “unreliable.” This statement was published as a finding of fact in connection with the competing publication punishing one of its editors for citing to Spartacus. In his post above, Mr. Matthews, who voted for the factual finding against Spartacus, provides a link to additional comments by him and others from the competing publication think about Spartacus being “propagandistic” and “unreliable.” One now claims that “most of the problem” with using Spartacus were caused by one of its editors, who was then banned, for using “selected pages” from Spartacus to “advance contentious points.” See comment by Panel Member Fred Bauder 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR#RPJ_c..._Spartacus_site Mr. Matthews also now states that the this was “a ruling on how a source [spartacus] was used in a particular article” that made it propagandistic and unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil...an.27t_be_cited These new statements by Mr. Bauder and Mr. Matthews are not well taken. The reliability of a publication does not vary depending upon who cites the publication as a source of information nor does a publication’s reliability vary depending upon for what point it is cited. A publication such as Spartacus has little or no control over who will use the publication and for what points it s is cited. A publication is either reliable or unreliable. on its own merits, not how some third party uses it. The competing publication simply needs to retract its wrongful finding of fact accusing Spartacus of being unreliable and propagandistic since neither claim is true.

Matthews only believes in a partial "condemnation" of Spartacus, and Fred Bauder says "the problem was the use of selected pages" from Spartacus "to advance contentious points." Mr. Bauder is now simply flailing around for a qualification. His explanation lacks any support in his decision. He states that the pages I selected was the "problem." He suggests I selected pages from the "condemned" part of your encyclopedia that is allegedly "unreliable" and misused these "selected" pages" to "advance contentious points." Here are the three points made with Spartacus citations. The three cites given are: 1-Transcripts of tapes of J. Edgar Hoover telling LBJ two times that the “magic” bullet came from Kennedy. 2- Dallas Police Chief Curry giving statement "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." 3-The concealment of the Hosty information in the Oswald address book, and destruction of Oswald letter to Hosty. There is nothing unreliable about about this information. The tapes exist, Curry gave the statement, and the Hosty matters were explored in detail by the HSCA and Hosty's own book. The Hosty material is still in the article, since it is hard to remove. The other two are still kept out with arguments such as, "one man's opinion" ie Curry." Hoover was old and out of the loop and similar such arguments claiming it is not important what he said because it wasn't true. However, the arbitrators will simply churn out a number of confusing and ever changing statements until people get bored. If it was a close-ended debate the arbitrators are digging a deeper and deeper hole to trap themselves. However, in an open ended debate, the confusing set of statements simply leave a memory of confusion in the casual readers' minds.

I am a trial attorney in Honolulu and for the last 35 years have engaged in trial work in commercial fraud, racketeering, and civil conspiracy both here and in California where I am also licensed so I know the area of law and usual fact patterns. Last year I saw the articles in Wikipedia on the Kennedy assassination and was surprised at how outdated they were. I don't know that much about the subject but the articles were embarrassingly outdated. I've tried to update them with new information and its been like poking a hornet's nest. A group of editors seem to feel the only proper source of information is the Warren Report as interpreted by a Professor MacAdams that has a website devoted to the Kennedy assassination. I then got interested in how the group of editors operated to drive away other ideas. Here is basically what has caused the controversy where they want me banned for life. Presenting evidence of four significant viewpoints relating to the Kennedy murder: • There was a criminal conspiracy to murder the President. This viewpoint is reflected in the final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 after a three year investigation. This viewpoint has majority support among 70% of the American public in 2003. • There is “an official cover-up” involving the murder of the president. This viewpoint is reflected by G. Robert Blakey the former counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. "Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency [CIA] set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency." "Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp." and a growing amount of evidentiary material being released by the HSCA [45]and Assassination Records Review Board. This viewpoint of "an official cover-up" has majority support among 68% of the American public in 2003. • The conclusion of the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin. This viewpoint has minority support among 22% of the American public in 2003. • Lee Harvey Oswald did not participate in the plot to murder the President. This viewpoint was consistently voiced by Lee Oswald prior to his murder. This viewpoint has minority support among 7% of the American public in 2003. These specific examples of contributions to Wikipedia have also not been well received: * Finding and disclosing that a false history of research had been placed in the biography of the famous NASA scientist Dr. Eugene Shoemaker. (That human skulls recoil towards the shooter) This was used in the assassination article. * A year later,again found a false history of research on human skulls had been placed again back in the biography of the late Dr. Shoemaker. This re-insertion of the information was done exactly one year after it was deleted by an editor of his biography when I had noted on the talk page of the Shoemaker biography that the information was unsourced and appeared suspect. * Added information that was discovered by Congress years after the Warren Report was issued that the accused assassin, Lee Oswald, had the name and telephone number of an FBI agent in his address book, and had left a letter for the agent two days before the President was murdered. The FBI destroyed the letter and withheld the address book information. * In the Warren Report article included a well known article from the New York Times about the CIA conducting a covert propaganda campaign to squelch criticism of the Warren Report (which clears the CIA of involvement in the Kennedy assassination). The CIA urges its agents to use their "propaganda assets" to attack those who didn't agree with the Warren Report. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report" New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A3 * Included excerpts from the now famous Katzenbach Memorandum. Written, three days after the Kennedy murder by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, which said the purpose of the federal investigation was to satisfy the public “that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large." * Included the excerpt from the Central Intelligence Agency's mission statement regarding a controversial activity of the CIA acting as a "secret hand" to perform "covert actions" assigned by the Director of the CIA or the President. * Included excerpts from the 1998 Assassination Records Review Board Report criticizing the Kennedy autopsy on a number of grounds including the destruction original documents, the imprecise and inexplicably absent measurement of wounds, the failure to show original autopsy photographs by the Warren Commission, the failure to create an accounting of the photographs and a chain of custody for the autopsy materials, medical testimony in 1979 suggesting a change in the location of where the the fatal shot hit the head. * Extracted actual testimony from the transcripts of witnesses from previously secret Warren Commission hearings. This is sworn testimony of witnesses to the actual assassination itself. These will be reconstructed, as as whole, in the workshop. Since most of it was put in and then deleted at several different times for different reasons by the complaining editors. Defending editor RPJ deems much of information to be the subject of a content dispute since the complaining editors insist the fatal head shot came from the rear of the head, and not the front right temple which blew out the back of his head. In summary, this whole episode has proven very interesting and have come to a conclusion that it is an organized effort that is being consistently applied to Wikipedia and perhaps to other internet sites to limit information.

I am a trial attorney in Honolulu and for the last 35 years have engaged in trial work in commercial fraud, racketeering, and civil conspiracy both here and in California where I am also licensed so I know the area of law and usual fact patterns. Last year I saw the articles in Wikipedia on the Kennedy assassination and was surprised at how outdated they were. I don't know that much about the subject but the articles were embarrassingly outdated. I've tried to update them with new information and its been like poking a hornet's nest. A group of editors seem to feel the only proper source of information is the Warren Report as interpreted by a Professor MacAdams that has a website devoted to the Kennedy assassination. I then got interested in how the group of editors operated to drive away other ideas. Here is basically what has caused the controversy where they want me banned for life. Presenting evidence of four significant viewpoints relating to the Kennedy murder: • There was a criminal conspiracy to murder the President. This viewpoint is reflected in the final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 after a three year investigation. This viewpoint has majority support among 70% of the American public in 2003. • There is “an official cover-up” involving the murder of the president. This viewpoint is reflected by G. Robert Blakey the former counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. "Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency [CIA] set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency." "Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp." and a growing amount of evidentiary material being released by the HSCA [45]and Assassination Records Review Board. This viewpoint of "an official cover-up" has majority support among 68% of the American public in 2003. • The conclusion of the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin. This viewpoint has minority support among 22% of the American public in 2003. • Lee Harvey Oswald did not participate in the plot to murder the President. This viewpoint was consistently voiced by Lee Oswald prior to his murder. This viewpoint has minority support among 7% of the American public in 2003. These specific examples of contributions to Wikipedia have also not been well received: * Finding and disclosing that a false history of research had been placed in the biography of the famous NASA scientist Dr. Eugene Shoemaker. (That human skulls recoil towards the shooter) This was used in the assassination article. * A year later,again found a false history of research on human skulls had been placed again back in the biography of the late Dr. Shoemaker. This re-insertion of the information was done exactly one year after it was deleted by an editor of his biography when I had noted on the talk page of the Shoemaker biography that the information was unsourced and appeared suspect. * Added information that was discovered by Congress years after the Warren Report was issued that the accused assassin, Lee Oswald, had the name and telephone number of an FBI agent in his address book, and had left a letter for the agent two days before the President was murdered. The FBI destroyed the letter and withheld the address book information. * In the Warren Report article included a well known article from the New York Times about the CIA conducting a covert propaganda campaign to squelch criticism of the Warren Report (which clears the CIA of involvement in the Kennedy assassination). The CIA urges its agents to use their "propaganda assets" to attack those who didn't agree with the Warren Report. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report" New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A3 * Included excerpts from the now famous Katzenbach Memorandum. Written, three days after the Kennedy murder by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, which said the purpose of the federal investigation was to satisfy the public “that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large." * Included the excerpt from the Central Intelligence Agency's mission statement regarding a controversial activity of the CIA acting as a "secret hand" to perform "covert actions" assigned by the Director of the CIA or the President. * Included excerpts from the 1998 Assassination Records Review Board Report criticizing the Kennedy autopsy on a number of grounds including the destruction original documents, the imprecise and inexplicably absent measurement of wounds, the failure to show original autopsy photographs by the Warren Commission, the failure to create an accounting of the photographs and a chain of custody for the autopsy materials, medical testimony in 1979 suggesting a change in the location of where the the fatal shot hit the head. * Extracted actual testimony from the transcripts of witnesses from previously secret Warren Commission hearings. This is sworn testimony of witnesses to the actual assassination itself. These will be reconstructed, as as whole, in the workshop. Since most of it was put in and then deleted at several different times for different reasons by the complaining editors. Defending editor RPJ deems much of information to be the subject of a content dispute since the complaining editors insist the fatal head shot came from the rear of the head, and not the front right temple which blew out the back of his head. In summary, this whole episode has proven very interesting and have come to a conclusion that it is an organized effort that is being consistently applied to Wikipedia and perhaps to other internet sites to limit information.

I am a trial attorney in Honolulu and for the last 35 years have engaged in trial work in commercial fraud, racketeering, and civil conspiracy both here and in California where I am also licensed so I know the area of law and usual fact patterns.