John Bevilaqua

__________________________ Dawn, You are correct. Here's the Spartacus bio of Ms Pease: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpease.htm --Thomas P.S. Maybe Spartacus is a Far Right website! LOL _________________________ Here are some of Lisa Pease's positions usually associated with far rightists... She has made many postings about: "Not a McCarthyite. Otepka has often been unfairly portrayed as a right-wing clone of Senator Joe McCarthy." In fact he was a right-wing clone of Joe McCarthy. See my postings about Otepka and what he said to defend perhaps the number one right winger in the history of the 20th Century. She was a close friend of and a strong supporter of the thesis proposed by Professor Donald Gibson when he he pointed the finger at the "Bolshevik Hadassic money lenders so prevalent on Wall Street..." i.e. The Jews did it! COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was very close with L. Fletcher Prouty who once said something to the effect of: 'I don't know when the Kennedys came over on the boat from Ireland, my family has been here for at least 6 generations... but they sure thought they could just come in here and take over the country and tell us how to run things. Guess we showed them a thing or two.' COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was also seen conferring with the Barry Goldwater's son lookalike at the same conference who confided to me... "Colonel Prouty is just like us on the "N**ger issues" She doesn't bother to mention that Otepka was fired for leaking classified documents regarding the background of Walt Rostow in an attempt to make the Kennedys, Rostow, Rusk and Acheson look bad. What he was charged with was... unlawfully leaking classified documents to SISS.... She has NEVER bothered to repudiate Gibson, Prouty or Otepka, or McCarthy. Anyone who falls in that category has to be classified as right wing.... Sorry... And where in her profile does it refer to anything from the right or the left? You have to go to these conferences and talk to people in back hallways and let them reveal themselves to you. For a while she even supported parts of the Michael Collins Piper thesis that the Jews were behind the JFK hit. Come on does that sound left wing to you or centrist? I know you never heard about Prouty's comments or Gibsons comments but certainly you must be able to look into my Otepka posts and the story of Otepka and realize that he could have been jailed for his transgressions. IF only someone had mentioned the leaking of classified documents to you. Only here to straighten out the record. Otherwise Otepka and McCarthy would get off scot free from the historical record to perpetuity. Lisa Pease happens to be a friend of mine and what you have written here are complete lies, and in fact libelous. Since she is not even here to defend herself I am asking that you apologize on this forum. LIsa has NEVER defended Piper, in fact she has fought him both privately and publicly. Never repudiated McCarthy? You've got to be kidding. "Seen conferring with the Barry Goldwater son lookalike" ? Now that's evidence. Who "confided in you", that someone used the N world? Not Lisa. Never. Prouty? I doubt that. Dawn Don't get all hysterical and huffy. I stand by my statements. You know nothing about lies or libel in fact... The Barry Goldwater look a like used the "N" word to me! Colonel Prouty is just like us on all the N**ger issues. No I am not. Show me where she ever did this. She defends Otepka, a blatant McCarthyite and she writes in the right wing style, even praising Otepka someone who had nothing but plaudits for the head of The Liberty Lobby. See: Bill Turner in Power on the Right. Now maybe she is naive enough or uninformed enough not to know that Otepka was a McCarthyite and that would be quite sad. But I find that hard to believe after reading her article on Otepka. She just seems to overlook all the facts about Otepka and never once mentions that he leaked classified documents which was the gist of the case. And it appears that Joan Mellon and maybe even you do not know that Otepka was a McCarthyite. And that is incomprehensible to me. Totally, completely and entirely incomprehensible to me. How can she look at this case and parrot a right wing view of The Ordeal of Otto Otepka and without being strongly influenced by the Far Right? What do you attribute this to? Naivete? Blind ambition? Susceptibility to persuasion? Give her an out she needs one. Stop with the all huffy act... I said "supported parts of the Michael Collins Piper thesis" and it should have ended with "...that the CIA and the Jews killed JFK..." Send me the quotes from any forum or posting board. I have neither seen nor heard any of these alleged fights. Is there any historical record? And do you deny that she engaged in an extended and amicable conversation with Prof. Donald Gibson right after he made that comment about... "... the "Bolshevik Hadassic money lenders so prevalent on Wall Street..." i.e. The Jews did it! I was waiting in line patiently to talk to Gibson and his usage of these common right wing euphemisms... but they never finished their conversation in time... for me to interject. Now maybe she is somehow a celebrity worshipper and does not know about the euphemisms used by rightists to make anti-Semitic references, but I really doubt it. Just seems to me that if Joan Mellon can be naive enough to screw up the historical record on Otepka then maybe Lisa can too. I have yet to see a balanced account of the Otepka story or the Hiss story. Why is that do you think? It blows my mind to see newcomers jump into something as charged as the Ordeal of Otto Otepka and come out of it with a puff piece exonerating this S.O.B. Nice old guy whose job it was to create lists for Joe McCarthy. Well I see right through him. Why can't they? Bill Turner saw right through him. Read Power on the Right for Chrisake.... This is such a waste of time... once a friend takes an incredibly biased position on one of the most controversial characters of the 1960's there is no turning back... Do you think Lisa was right on him? Or Joan Mellon? Do YOU defend Otto Otepka for leaking classified documents to a Legislative Committee? Where are the words... "leaked classified documents". Maybe they are both just pawns who can not place Otepka into the right historical perspective. What do you think is their issue? Again, I stand on my statements and have nothing to apologize for... so stop being all huffy and self-righteous. Truth is a defense. And get your facts right at least.

The Ruling Class-Sponsored Race War and the Balkanization of America (Part Two) Added: Jul 21st, 2007 6:59 AM by Paul and Phillip Collins RaidersNewsNetwork.com Connections to the Power Elite and the Intelligence Community However, it would be wrong to consider Tanton the center of the onion. Behind him lurk the controlling hands of the Power Elite. While this fact can be seen through Tanton's connection to the Club of Rome by way of Ehrlich's ZPG, it can also be seen through the different tax-exempt foundations that supply a steady flow of capital to Tanton's network. Tax-exempt foundations allow the elite to shield their money from the income tax and conduct social engineering projects. Two foundations funding the Tanton network are significant because of their connections to the U.S. intelligence community. The first is the Smith Richardson Foundation ("The Puppeteer"). The financing for Smith Richardson comes from the Vicks Vaporub fortune ("Smith Richardson Foundation"). In 1973, the Smith Richardson Foundation came under the presidency of R. Richardson Randolph. With a mind-boggling net worth of 870 million dollars, the Richardsons are one of America's richest families. We are far off the trajectory of back hill bubbas and rednecks and have entered the realm of the Power Elite. The origin of the Smith Richardson Foundation's involves a rogue gallery that includes the Bush family dynasty, the Yale secret society of Skull and Bones, and Nazi sympathizers. Tarpley and Chaitkin explain: The Bush family knew Richardson and his wife through their mutual friendship with Sears Roebuck's chairman, Gen. Robert E. Wood. General Wood had been president of the America First organization, which had lobbied against war with Hitler Germany. H. Smith Richardson had contributed the start-up money for America First and had spoken out against the U.S. "joining the Communists" by fighting Hitler. Richardson's wife was a proud relative of Nancy Langehorne from Virginia, who married Lord Astor and backed the Nazis from their Cliveden Estate. General Wood's daughter Mary had married the son of Standard Oil president William Stamps Farish. The Bushes had stuck with the Farishes through their disastrous exposure during World War II... Young George Bush and his bride Barbara were especially close to Mary Farish, and to her son W.S. Farish III, who would be the great confidante of George's presidency. The H. Smith Richardson Foundation was organized by Eugene Stetson, Jr., Richardson's son-in-law. Stetson (Skull and Bones, 1934) had worked for Prescott Bush as assistant manager of the New York branch of Brown Brothers Harriman. (77) Tarpley and Chaitkin also point out the Smith Richardson Foundation's connections to the U.S. intelligence community: In the late 1950s, the H. Smith Richardson Foundation took part in the "psychological warfare" of the CIA. This was not a foreign, but a domestic, covert operation, carried out mainly against unwitting U.S. citizens. CIA Director Allen Dulles and his British allies organized "MK-Ultra," the testing of psychotropic drugs including LSD on a very large scale, allegedly to evaluate "chemical warfare" possibilities. In this period, the Richardson Foundation helped finance experiments at Bridgewater Hospital in Massachusetts, the center of some of the most brutal MK-Ultra tortures. These outrages have been graphically portrayed in the movies Titticut Follies. During 1990, an investigator for this book toured H. Smith Richardson's Center for Creative Leadership just north of Greensboro, North Carolina. The tour guide said that in these rooms, agents of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Secret Service are trained. He demonstrated the two-way mirrors through which the government employees are watched, while they are put through mind-bending psychodramas. The guide explained that "virtually everyone who becomes a general" in the U.S. armed forces also goes through this "training" at the Richardson Center. Another office of the Center for Creative Leadership is in Langley, Virginia, at the Headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. Here also, Richardson's Center trains leaders of the CIA. (77-78; emphasis in original) The second contributor to the Tanton network is Richard Mellon Scaife. The SPLC Intelligence Report documents this relationship: Tanton's most important funding source for the last two decades may well have been the Scaife family, heirs to the Mellon Bank fortune. Richard Mellon Scaife, a reclusive figure, has been instrumental in establishing right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation and supporting causes like the "Arkansas Project," an effort to dig up dirt on President Clinton. Scaife family foundations, including those controlled by Scaife's sister, Cordelia May Scaife, provided some $1.4 million to FAIR from 1986-2000. (No pagination) Scaife's attacks on Clinton might lead many to believe he is a genuine crusader against elite criminality. However, Scaife's skirmishes with the Clintons amounted to little more than factionalism in the ranks of the oligarchs. Richard Mellon Scaife's elite pedigree is impeccable. Like most bluebloods, Scaife has a fixation with eugenics. Robert G. Kaiser and Ira Chinoy report: Scaife has long favored abortion rights, to the chagrin of many of those he has supported. In the first years of his philanthropy he stuck to a pattern set by his mother and sister and gave millions to Planned Parenthood and other population control groups, though most such giving stopped in the 1970s. (No pagination) In addition to supporting eugenics, Scaife also attended the 1964 Bohemian Grove retreat, a major blueblood gathering (Kaiser and Chinoy, no pagination). Scaife is also connected to the U.S. intelligence community. Richard was, at one time, the head of the publishing organ Forum World Feature, which was publicly named as a CIA front organization ("Richard Mellon Scaife," no pagination). However, Scaife's intelligence connection is even deeper. Edward Spannaus goes into this connection: Dickie Scaife is what one might call a second-generation ``OSS brat.'' During World War II, Dickie's father, as well as a number of his father's close business and familial associates, occupied high positions in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)--America's wartime intelligence service. Alan Scaife, his father, was a lieutenant colonel in the OSS. A number of cousins of Dickie's mother, Sarah Mellon Scaife, also had very high positions in the OSS. For example: Paul Mellon (a cousin of Dickie's mother and a rabid Anglophile) was recruited in London to the OSS by his brother-in-law, David Bruce. Paul trained with British troops, became a major in the OSS, worked under Allen Dulles in Berne, Switzerland, and commanded a unit responsible for conducting propaganda operations behind disintegrating German lines. David Bruce, husband of Paul Mellon's sister Ailsa Mellon Bruce, was designated by OSS head William Donovan to oversee all OSS operations in Europe from his base in London. (Although some say, with justification, that it was Bruce who was designated by the U.S. banking-establishment families to oversee Donovan.) Another OSS cousin was Larimer Mellon, who likewise worked on Allen Dulles's staff in Berne. David Bruce (a direct descendant of the Scottish Bruce dynasty) later divorced Ailsa and married his second wife, Evangeline, an OSS secretary whose father had been a special liaison to British intelligence from the U.S. State Department. It is reliably reported that these Anglophilic OSS circles around Scaife's father were the crucial influence on steering Dickie into intelligence-related ``philanthropy''--i.e., the private funding of joint British-U.S. intelligence projects which were commonly mis-identified as ``CIA'' projects or fronts. (No pagination) Funding on the part of the Smith Richardson Foundation and Scaife makes it quite possible that the Tanton network is an intelligence project meant to foment race war. Would intelligence groups such as the CIA be interested in manufacturing such chaos? During an interview with William Norman Grigg, former DEA agent Michael Levine recounted a discussion he had with a CIA spook. The discussion, which occurred in Argentina in 1979, suggested that this is the case: "There was a small group of us gathered for a drinking party at the CIA guy's apartment. There were several Argentine police officers there as well; at the time, Argentina was a police state in which people could be taken into custody without warning, tortured, and then 'disappeared.'" "At one point my associate in the CIA said that he preferred Argentina's approach to social order, and that America should be more like that country," Levine continues. "Somebody asked, 'Well, how does a change of that sort happen?' The spook replied that it was necessary to create a situation of public fear -- a sense of impending anarchy and social upheaval..." (No pagination) Such a "situation of public fear" could be incited by agent provocateurs within the ranks of white supremacists. If the idea of intelligence agents working within white supremacist groups seems foreign, consider the following report by John Hooper: Germany's most notorious postwar neo-Nazi party was led by an intelligence agent working for the British, according to both published and unpublished German sources.

When I just recently noticed that Bill Buckley, Jr. was the brother in law of George O'Reilly the CEO of the H. Smith Richardson Foundation well known funder of the MK/ULTRA operations, it caused me to revisit this lovely little operation. After all Buckley deserved a mention in Condon's Manchurian Candidate which described possible MK/ULTRA type projects for Mind Control and Thought Control run by Hans J. Eysenck of The Pioneer Fund and Wickliffe Draper, Buckley's nearby neighbor in Massachusetts. Buckley and his American Mercury deserved a mention by Richard Giesbrecht, where one of the actual attendees was THE Manchurian Candidate himself, Anastase Vonsiatsky, whose headquarters were in Harbin, Manchuria for decades. And his home was in Thompson/Putnam, CT so it seemed probable that these guys knew each other. Just try your own searches for H. SMITH RICHARDSON alone or with MKULTRA and see what you can find. And even Russell Maguire from Connecticut eventually took over the American Mercury and hired George Lincoln Rockwell as an editor at one time where Buckley was the Editor in Chief. Then I recalled that 3 classmates at nearby Brown University in the 1940's were Rockwell, Vonsiatsky and... and... E. Howard Hunt Buckley's first mentor at the CIA. So these bastidges all first met at Brown University when Vonsiatsky used to ride to football games in a Pierce Arrow convertible dressed to the hilt as a Nazi according to Martha Mitchell the Brown archivist? Daz right. The story continues... So I says to myself... you are on to somesing here brozzer (in the heavily accented Ukrainian described in The Manchurian Candidate) and the quest continued... E. Howard Hunt ended up in Miami often visiting the anti Castro Cuban exiles at a CIA safehouse in Grapeland Heights near my house so I knew a little bit about him in advance. Recently just before he died, Hunt confessed a backup role in the JFK hit confirming what Marita Lorenz and others have been saying for decades. From World History: Plan or Accident? "The Order of Skull and Bones" Everything You Ever Wanted to Know, But Were Afraid to Ask. By Kris Millegan ... snipped Another Harriman/Bush friend, Eugene Stetson ('34), was an assistant manager for Prescott Bush at Brown Brothers, Harriman's New York office. He organized the H. Smith Richardson Foundation. The foundation, in the late 1950s, participated in the MKULTRA, the CIA's domestic covert psychological warfare operation. The Richardson Foundation helped to finance the testing of psychotropic drugs, including LSD, at Bridgewater Hospital in Massachusetts, the center of some of the most brutal MK-ULTRA experiments. During the Iran-Contra operations, the H. Smith Richardson Foundation was a "private donors steering committee," working with the National Security Council to co-ordinate the Office of Public Diplomacy. This was an effort to propagandize in favor of and run cover for the Iran-Contra operations, and to coordinate published attacks on opponents of the program. The H. Smith Richardson Foundation also runs the Center for Creative Leadership at Langley to "train leaders of the CIA," as well as another center near Greensboro, North Carolina, that trains CIA and Secret Service Agents. Almost everyone who achieves the military rank of general also gets this training. This is just the tip of an iceberg. You also have eugenics and population control, suppressed history and technology, yearly retreats, profitable partnerships with brutal dictators, deals with "terrorists", the involvement of the Knights of Malta, war-mongering and profiteering, mind-control, secret societies for teens, ritual magic and more -- all spinning the dark threads in the web of conspiracy that our spinning blue ball has gotten caught in. ... snipped © Copyright Little Red Hen, 1996

One small footnote on the Buckley bio site is the following... Sister: Maureen Buckley O'Reilly (b. 1933, d. 1964, married Gerald A. O'Reilly, CEO of Richardson Vicks) So his brother in law was CEO of the company founded by H. Smith Richardson... makers of Vapo Rub and funders of MK/ULTRA and other nefarious covert operations via the H. Smith Richardson Foundation. Dirty bastidges all.

There is another Gratz entry found here... just enter Gratz as the last name. http://compendium.olr.wicourts.gov/app/search That would not be our Tim Gratz would it?

My distinct impression is that if Richard Condon in The Manchurian Candidate saw fit to include Bill Buckley, Jr. in that novel as "...that fascinating young man who wrote about man and God at Yale." there was a reason for it. And if Richard Giesbrecht saw fit to disclose discussions about "...closing down (The American) Mercury" just before or after a meeting scheduled in Wichita, KS where The American Mercury was once owned and published by "The Jayhawk Nazi" the Reverend Gerald B. Winrod there is something there to be investigated. The Mercury was in fact closed down in 1964 temporarily while it changed hands and it did not publish for several issues after the JFK Assassination for obvious reasons. It was one of the most virulently anti JFK rags in existence then. The Giesbrecht Incident occurred on or about Feb 13, 1964 and involved discussions overheard about the pending payoffs for the JFK Assassination. What did Condon know about the other YAFers mentioned in the Manchurian Candidate? Senator Strom Thurmond, Charles Willoughby via Douglas MacArthur references, etc. Apparently quite a bit. My feeling is that Thurmond was one of the major JFK detractors who cleared the way in the Senate using McCarthy style tactics for his swift removal and to block any opposition or protests to the contrary either before or after the fact. Willoughby's activities surrounding the JFK hit have only recently come to light in a 1983 article by Bill Turner and Mae Brussell and in a 1992 book by Dick Russell TMWKTM. What did Buckley know about his neighbor in Connecticut, Anastase Vonsiatsky and Wickliffe Draper who lived just across the Massachusetts border? We may never know.

Actually, at the time, I did not think it was a real kidnap, but something to get the assassination off the front pages. (At 14 I was already very critical when it came to this case). Dawn I met Frank Sinatra Jr in 1971. He was appearing on the Steel Pier in Atlantic City. We bought "Reserved Seats": $0.25. But he was great and not a nervous bone in his body. Later, when we were getting his autograph, a woman went up to him and mentioned his father. Jr was surprised about this and pulled away as fast as he could from the crowd. He was with a plain blonde woman. Anyway, I got his line: "You're very pretty, aren't you?" His autograph read "Mr. Sinatra." The kidnapping was for real. I think 2 men did jail time. But your mention of it diverting interest from the Assassination makes me wonder. It's possible Karyn Kupcinet was murdered to shock Chicago -- where everyone knew her and her family -- and get people to talk about that rather than the Mobsters in Chicago. If so, I bet it was on the order of Paul "Red" Dorfman. Irv Kupcinet was looking for the Chicago angle of the Assassination because of Ruby. Ruby shooting Oswald was shedding light on the Mafia in Chicago. Because of Ruby's actions, people began to believe the mob were responsible for Kennedy's death. This was unwanted evidently. They wanted a diversion. Thanks for your insight, Dawn. Kathy Sounds like it was a ransom demand... and the perps were tried and convicted thereof. Frankly, the thesis that Ruby's background as a known mobster somehow allegedly played into the mix does not hold water unless anyone can show that this was a generally open theory on Dec 8 1963 (I do not recall seeing anything on this issue in the historical printed record until maybe the Spring of 1964 and American Opinion Mag) and of course, it sort of begs the question regarding Mob involvement. "Well SINCE mobsters were involved and SINCE Ruby was a well known mobster as of Dec 8, 1963 THEREFORE it WAS or COULD have been a deliberate plan to divert the attention from the heat being put on the Mob." They were NOT heavily involved IMHO and they had not yet been "implicated" by anyone. Ruby was NOT even a well known mobster on that date. He was a small time hood. There was NO HEAT on the Mob that I can discover on that date until the Far Right first attacked his Jewish heritage then only later his Mob affiliations, which were pretty weak. It WAS a kidnap for financial benefit. It was not a warning shot fired over the bow to his Father. Therefore your hypothesis seems to self destruct IMHO. In a bizarre incident, Sinatra was kidnapped in December 8, 1963 at Harrah's Lake Tahoe and released two days later after his father paid out the US$240,000 ransom demanded by the kidnappers, who were later captured, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to long prison terms. Gladys Root represented one of the kidnappers. In order to communicate with the kidnappers via pay telephone, as per their demands, his father carried a roll of dimes with him throughout this ordeal, which became a life-long habit. Frank Sinatra, Jr. did not seem to be overly scarred by this event. The kidnapping has been later explained in Act Three of the "Plan B" episode from the radio narrative show, This American Life by Barry Keenan, one of the kidnappers. The kidnapping is portrayed in the 2003 made-for-TV movie Stealing Sinatra, which is based on Barry Keenan's story. At the time of trial, Keenan attempted to make it appear that Sinatra, Jr. himself was a willing conspirator in his own kidnapping. This allegation didn't stand up in court, but still proved to be fodder for late-night TV jokes and negative publicity for Frank, Jr.'s career.

Hey, I used to be pretty close to Bill Turner, should I give him a call on this issue? Bill also read with great interest my thesis about Robert Morris, Charles Willoughby and Anastase Vonsiatsky and concluded that he would like it to be known that both he and Mae Brussell developed the theory about Morris and Willoughby jointly but he pulled him name from the Ramparts magazine story over some issues over the "thoroughness of some citations". He said he regrets that now because of the recent new evidence implicating both Morris and Willoughby and others of their ilk. He is the one who reviewed the Vonsiatsky physical description and that of Lou Amjac in the Manchurian Candidate with the person seen by Richard Giesbrecht in Winnipeg and stated that only 5-7 major physical match points constitute a better than 98-99% correlation based on his training with the FBI. So even Bill was onto the dirty tricks campaigners then and the Watergate types, too? Did not even know that. I had published a paper on William Rip Robertson way back in 1992 but was dissuaded from pursuing it further by none other than Gordon Whineslow and his cohorts of deflectors from South Florida. Didn't even know how close I got then. But the louder they squeal, the closer you are getting to the truth apparently. And if only Mary Ferrell had not picked Medric Johnson as the most likely sounding name from the list of 2 I had provided her we would be there already. Oh well, better late than never.

Ron, Sinatra and JFK did indeed have a falling out by 1962, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Sinatra and Rat Pack and Skinny D'Amato and Sam Giancana helped get JFK elected via West Virginia primary and Illinois during the election, and that the 1964 Democratic Convention, where JFK would have been renominated if he hadn't been killed, as given to Atlantic City, a place that proved totally inadequate and an embarrasement to LBJ, the party and city. If JFK and the Rat Pack had stayed pals, and JFK was renominated in Atlantic City, you can be ashored that there would have been a great party, hosted by Skinny and Frank, in their town. BK I trust your interpretaion on this Bill, much more than I would some other's. Personal insights, and observations and 'clean hands' open minded approaches are much better precursors of accuracy than an injection of some form of predetermined personal biases and predilections. Not that this issue is of major proportions. More like Matthau's interpretation of "Peppah". Who was he Senator Long or Russell or someone else?

Oh please, he is protecting the wood from his heel marks. And anyone would do that on purpose. And how could anyone even discern the face on that magazine? Methinks you doth protest too much and read between the lines too much here. This is supposed to be an intentional anti-JFK slur which Sinatra KNEW was going to be seen as such by everyone who saw the photo? What a stretch. Have you ever seen the Frankheimer and Sinatra interview about Manchurian Candidate and JFK? Both Frankheimer and Sinatra expressed what I felt were sincere regret regarding the death of JFK. Did you ever see Sinatra's son divulge his father's opinions on JFK? Both of these live interviews were compelling and convincing to me at least regarding their true attitudes towards JFK. Both Joey Bishop and Dean Martin were part of the Sinatra Rat Pack with Peter Lawford who married into the Kennedy clan right? And that is evidence that Sinatra, Bishop and Martin had negative attitudes about JFK. Really? How can anyone conclude from all these pieces that Sinatra put his heel on JFK's face on purpose to make a point about his dislike for JFK? Is that in fact what you are implying? Weak. Very weak. Again this is just my humble opinion for what it's worth.

Gratz sounds like a troublemaker in this posting too. John, you would be fully justified to react strongly and swiftly to eliminate this thorn from your side. Allowing someone like him into your backyard is just asking for trouble. No one would blame you in the least. Spray painting your postings and bringing disrepute to your Forum is the very least that he would try to do. He has already threatened you with legal action if you step foot in the USA. In some states that in itself is actionable. Reminds me of "froggy gremlin" on the Buster Brown TV show from the 1950's. Does anyone remember Buster Brown... and his nemesis the little froggy gremlin...? Jumps out of the coo-coo clock spits on you then jumps back in for the next time the hour chimes.

__________________________ Dawn, You are correct. Here's the Spartacus bio of Ms Pease: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpease.htm --Thomas P.S. Maybe Spartacus is a Far Right website! LOL _________________________ Here are some of Lisa Pease's positions usually associated with far rightists... She has made many postings about: "Not a McCarthyite. Otepka has often been unfairly portrayed as a right-wing clone of Senator Joe McCarthy." In fact he was a right-wing clone of Joe McCarthy. See my postings about Otepka and what he said to defend perhaps the number one right winger in the history of the 20th Century. She was a close friend of and a strong supporter of the thesis proposed by Professor Donald Gibson when he he pointed the finger at the "Bolshevik Hadassic money lenders so prevalent on Wall Street..." i.e. The Jews did it! COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was very close with L. Fletcher Prouty who once said something to the effect of: 'I don't know when the Kennedys came over on the boat from Ireland, my family has been here for at least 6 generations... but they sure thought they could just come in here and take over the country and tell us how to run things. Guess we showed them a thing or two.' COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was also seen conferring with the Barry Goldwater's son lookalike at the same conference who confided to me... "Colonel Prouty is just like us on the "N**ger issues" She doesn't bother to mention that Otepka was fired for leaking classified documents regarding the background of Walt Rostow in an attempt to make the Kennedys, Rostow, Rusk and Acheson look bad. What he was charged with was... unlawfully leaking classified documents to SISS.... She has NEVER bothered to repudiate Gibson, Prouty or Otepka, or McCarthy. Anyone who falls in that category has to be classified as right wing.... Sorry... And where in her profile does it refer to anything from the right or the left? You have to go to these conferences and talk to people in back hallways and let them reveal themselves to you. For a while she even supported parts of the Michael Collins Piper thesis that the Jews were behind the JFK hit. Come on does that sound left wing to you or centrist? I know you never heard about Prouty's comments or Gibsons comments but certainly you must be able to look into my Otepka posts and the story of Otepka and realize that he could have been jailed for his transgressions. IF only someone had mentioned the leaking of classified documents to you. Only here to straighten out the record. Otherwise Otepka and McCarthy would get off scot free from the historical record to perpetuity. ************************************************************* "Here are some of Lisa Pease's positions usually associated with far rightists... She has made many postings about: "Not a McCarthyite. Otepka has often been unfairly portrayed as a right-wing clone of Senator Joe McCarthy." In fact he was a right-wing clone of Joe McCarthy. See my postings about Otepka and what he said to defend perhaps the number one right winger in the history of the 20th Century. She was a close friend of and a strong supporter of the thesis proposed by Professor Donald Gibson when he he pointed the finger at the "Bolshevik Hadassic money lenders so prevalent on Wall Street..." i.e. The Jews did it! COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was very close with L. Fletcher Prouty who once said something to the effect of: 'I don't know when the Kennedys came over on the boat from Ireland, my family has been here for at least 6 generations... but they sure thought they could just come in here and take over the country and tell us how to run things. Guess we showed them a thing or two.' COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was also seen conferring with the Barry Goldwater's son lookalike at the same conference who confided to me... "Colonel Prouty is just like us on the "N**ger issues" She doesn't bother to mention that Otepka was fired for leaking classified documents regarding the background of Walt Rostow in an attempt to make the Kennedys, Rostow, Rusk and Acheson look bad. What he was charged with was... unlawfully leaking classified documents to SISS.... "She has NEVER bothered to repudiate Gibson, Prouty or Otepka, or McCarthy. Anyone who falls in that category has to be classified as right wing...." Excuse me here, Mr. Bevilacqua. But, could you kindly post some documentation on all this obvious hearsay you seem to be so intent upon slinging around. You've got to show me the transcripts, otherwise your accusations fall flat on the side of provocation, IMHO. Buy them yourself. There are transcripts or even vidoes of the conference that used to be available on their website. Or contact Bill Kelly who might have been at that conference. John Judge was certainly there and he probably recalls the two podium incidents from Don Gibson and from Fletcher Prouty. Look on alt.conspiracy.jfk NO ONE and I mean NO ONE questioned the quote, the citation or my veracity in reporting the quotes when they were first made in the 1990s. And the owner of Covert Action Information Bulletin, name to be provided, which you can obtain from their website will recall, the Prouty statement and my question to him from the podium as well as the one given to Mark Lane which has been published many times on alt.conspiracy.jfk. And no one has denied that this exchange occurred. He even personally walked over to me and thanked me for challenging them, for standing up to them and for exposing them to look like the bigots and hypocrites they really are. Went something like this: Me: Mark, why don't you release the files of The Liberty Lobby relating to the Congress of Freedom and the meeting where assassinations of 200 American politicians, writers and public figures were discussed? (with Joseph Milteer present) Mark: "Files, what files? There are NO files!" Me: "THERE ARE NO FILES?" in a loud and sonorous tone. (nervous laughter and audience tittering) "Where have we heard that before? THERE ARE NO FILES! That is ridiculous." Now if this statement was in fact not reported as stated and TRUE, don't you think he would have sued me by now? Or the Fletcher Prouty statement. He had years and years to contradict or counter my statements and he did nothing. Now he is dead. I am not a coward and I can back up every statement of personal observation or personal recollection that I have ever made. Can you? And why did you come out of the woodwork now? So now unless you can prove otherwise it looks like it is your statements which are officially in the category of: "...accusations fall flat on the side of provocation, IMHO." Send an eMail to the guy at Covert Action Information Bulletin...buy the tapes. I stand by my statements. Truth is a Defense. I called your accusatory bluff... now call mine.

I fail to see how this is on the topic of the JFK Assassination. Tickets, tickets.

And Peter Whitmey believes that Oswald really tried to kill Connally but just missed a little bit and got JFK in the head by mistake. Oooooops. Darn. The reason? Connally had gotten wind of the gun running plot of Ruby and Ferrie and wanted to off him to teach him a lesson. We should get these guys together on this thread. They would have a field day. Bang. Ooooops. Yeah and my great uncle just wanted to kill some lowly Colonel in the Gestapo but the table leg got in the way and the bomb got Hitler instead. Boom. Bang. Ooooops. And Whitmey is the guy who thinks he has solved The Winnipeg Airport Incident. wow. Tickets. Tickets. Get your tickets here. No waiting. A conspiracy for everyone. Pick your poison. You too can be famous. Solve the mystery of the century and get a prize. Bang. Oooops. Next. Tickets, tickets.

Tim, With all these postings you should start charging admission and taking tickets at the door. You could make a mint. They are such a font of infinite knowledge. I am truly impressed. No really. I take it all back. Truly amazing stuff. Keep up the good work. Do you have any experience as a ticket taker? Are you taking tickets now? No waiting. Next. Just wondering. John

Otpeka: McCarthyite, Bircher, Liberty Lobbyist, Rightist The evidence is all very plain to see in the postings just above and throughout the world wide web or hard copy evidence. And anyone who supported or defended Otepka absolutely and positively did it from a right wing extremist perspective. Using an excuse of being brainwashed or cajoled won't cut it. The only one who vindicated Otepka was Richard M. Nixon who hired him back with open arms for the work he did with Joe McCarthy, Robert J. Morris, Frances Knight, etc. against the Alger Hiss, Owen Lattimore and Walt Rostow supporters and long after John F. Kennedy was dead and gone. Anyone who can not read the record and read between the lines of his essentially right wing extremists supporter's misstatements has got to be wearing rose colored glasses or taking the Pollyanna side of the road. Sad but true. Bill Turner agreed with the assessment that if you know anything about Otepka's job at SY he would have had to approve each and every passport application for a Soviet defector like Oswald. In other words, to keep it simplistic, Otepka rubber stamped each and every move of Oswald from 1959 forward. He even let him back into the country and into the waiting arms of Spas T. Raikin and George de Mohrenschildt himself. End of argument. He let him go to Albert Schweitzer College and he let Oswald back into the country after defecting to the Soviet Union. Did this not ever ring a bell with anyone who claims to know Otepka and to know Oswald? Sometimes I just can not believe what is written or read and swallowed whole by naive and unsuspecting researchers. You have to learn how to be a critical reader, a knowledgeable observer and an intelligence analyst yourself. Read between the lines. Take Otepka's statements and dissect them and interpret them and ask the questions you should have asked before? But, Otto, why did you even let Oswald back into the country? Why? If you had his defector file sitting right on your desk? Why? But, Otto, why did you let Oswald go to the Schweitzer College a known CIA front at that time? Why? But Otto, didn't anyone ask you not to let Oswald go to Finland when you knew how close it was to the Russian border? Otto, this will not look very good when the full historical record is made available. It looks like you were in gahoots with Oswalds handlers. And why to people like Joan and Lisa swallow his garbage, adulterate it and then pass it on to us as Gospel from Mt. Sinai and Moses? Why? I think I know the answers to all these questions.

__________________________ Dawn, You are correct. Here's the Spartacus bio of Ms Pease: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpease.htm --Thomas P.S. Maybe Spartacus is a Far Right website! LOL _________________________ Here are some of Lisa Pease's positions usually associated with far rightists... She has made many postings about: "Not a McCarthyite. Otepka has often been unfairly portrayed as a right-wing clone of Senator Joe McCarthy." In fact he was a right-wing clone of Joe McCarthy. See my postings about Otepka and what he said to defend perhaps the number one right winger in the history of the 20th Century. She was a close friend of and a strong supporter of the thesis proposed by Professor Donald Gibson when he he pointed the finger at the "Bolshevik Hadassic money lenders so prevalent on Wall Street..." i.e. The Jews did it! COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was very close with L. Fletcher Prouty who once said something to the effect of: 'I don't know when the Kennedys came over on the boat from Ireland, my family has been here for at least 6 generations... but they sure thought they could just come in here and take over the country and tell us how to run things. Guess we showed them a thing or two.' COPA Conference Washington, DC 1992 or 1993 timeframe... She was also seen conferring with the Barry Goldwater's son lookalike at the same conference who confided to me... "Colonel Prouty is just like us on the "N**ger issues" She doesn't bother to mention that Otepka was fired for leaking classified documents regarding the background of Walt Rostow in an attempt to make the Kennedys, Rostow, Rusk and Acheson look bad. What he was charged with was... unlawfully leaking classified documents to SISS.... She has NEVER bothered to repudiate Gibson, Prouty or Otepka, or McCarthy. Anyone who falls in that category has to be classified as right wing.... Sorry... And where in her profile does it refer to anything from the right or the left? You have to go to these conferences and talk to people in back hallways and let them reveal themselves to you. For a while she even supported parts of the Michael Collins Piper thesis that the Jews were behind the JFK hit. Come on does that sound left wing to you or centrist? I know you never heard about Prouty's comments or Gibsons comments but certainly you must be able to look into my Otepka posts and the story of Otepka and realize that he could have been jailed for his transgressions. IF only someone had mentioned the leaking of classified documents to you. Only here to straighten out the record. Otherwise Otepka and McCarthy would get off scot free from the historical record to perpetuity.

Dawn, not that this would change anyone's mind after all these years, but I am working on putting together a conclusive statement about the participation of Wickliffe Draper via Nathaniel Weyl related to the framing of Alger Hiss. Weyl in fact has not only admitted to the commisson of at least 2 felonies subsequent to the 1950's but he basically denied 3 times even knowing either Draper or Vonsiatsky until I told him the evidence to the contrary. He wrote a book with an Osborne who was part of the Pioneer Fund and he included Vonsiatsky in a chapter in a book called The Battle Against Disloyalty I believe it was called. Bald face distortions like those perpetrated by Weyl are essentially evidence of a continuing trend. At least going forward, the record might someday be set straight for future generations to study. Nathaniel Weyl was no more or no less than a potential felon who got away with being an accessory after the fact to murder, and a violator of The Neutrality Act while being part of the Bayo Pawley affair. Plus he used this event in an attempt to force the resignation of the POTUS JFK, or to enhance the chances of Barry Goldwater. The latter is of questionable morality and the former is of questionable legality. Either way Weyl will go down in history as a professional Character Assassin and this will help exonerate Hiss. If you can find either of these 2 citations or others like them let me know.

John, Would it be possible to ban the common practice I have observed here that I refer to as "Grafitti Tagging"? That is the practice of constantly adding the last quoted posting to a larger thread which only consists of a few critical lines or negative comments. For instance, asking for a source when that source obviously is the poster or a personal opinion or observations of a poster, correcting a spelling, quibbling with the actual date or time an event happened, when it is clearly indicated in the posting when it occurred, twisting words or changing meanings or inserting inflammatory statements, designed to derail a thread, etc. Like "criminal knowledge", etc. We both know who the frequent offenders are and we can only speculate about their intentions, but their goal is quite clear. To deflect, defray, or derail a posting from a path they disagree with entirely. Thank you, John Bevilaqua

Yet another Otto Otepka defender from the Right... Lisa Pease. Otepka should have known who killed JFK...as he told Sarah McClendon who was also part of Willoughby's Anti-Communist Liaison Committee of Correspondence... (see below) along with Alex Rorke and Rev. Billy James Hargis...and Edward Hunter. Otepka was also close with Senator James O. Eastland, Julien Sourwine, and his lawyer was Robert J. Morris from The Manchurian Candidate during The Ordeal of Otto Otepka (sniff, sniff). That means most of Otepka's friends appeared in The Manchurian Candidate. Eastland, Morris, Willoughby, and Edward Hunter the author of Brainwashing. I guess that means Otepka knows a thing or two about brainwashing as well. Both Joan Mellen and Lisa Pease seem to have fallen for his hypnotic spells at a bare minimum. What Did Otto Otepka Know About Oswald and the CIA? By Lisa Pease Otto Otepka once told journalist Sarah McClendon that he knew who had killed JFK, but would say no more on the subject.1 What might he have been in a position to know? As head of the State Department’s Office of Security (SY), Otto Otepka was responsible for issuing or denying security clearances for State Department personnel. He took his job very seriously. In 1958, Otepka was awarded for Meritorious Service by no less than John Foster Dulles. The award lauded Otepka’s “loyalty and devotion to duty” as well as his “sound judgment, creative work and unusual responsibilities”, adding that Otepka “reflected great credit upon himself and the Department and has served as an incentive to his colleagues.”2 Not a McCarthyite Otepka has often been unfairly portrayed as a right-wing clone of Senator Joe McCarthy. But the record does not support this caricature. In fact, Otepka crossed swords with Joe McCarthy in 1953 over Wolf Ladejinksy, a State Department agricultural expert who had once been employed by a Soviet trade agency. Despite such an obvious affiliation, Otepka’s evaluation cleared Ladejinsky of McCarthy’s unfair charges. Otepka himself has stated, I thought my whole record would prove I was not a McCarthyite. I had never approved of Senator McCarthy’s tactics. Everyone in the security field knew that.3 November 5, 1963, Otto Otepka was unceremoniously fired from State based on charges that were unfounded. How did Otepka fall so far from grace? And could it have had anything to do with his investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald? Otto Otepka’s troubles started in December of 1960. Otepka’s biographer William Gill clearly believes that Otepka’s problems stemmed originally from Otepka’s continued denial of a security clearance for the former OSS veteran Walt Rostow. Otepka had denied him clearance twice before, and in December of 1960, Dean Rusk, newly appointed Secretary of State, visited Otepka in person to ask what Rostow’s chances would be of getting cleared at that time. Otepka was unable to give Rusk any reason to believe Rostow would ever receive clearance, and Rusk subsequently placed Rostow in the White House as a member of Kennedy’s personal staff, specifically as McGeorge Bundy’s second in command on national security matters. Walt Whitman Rostow was the brother of Eugene Rostow. In Professor Don Gibson’s article about the creation of the Warren Commission, (Probe, May-June 1996) Gibson revealed Eugene Rostow’s primary role in the formation of that body. Eugene’s call was made less than two and a half hours after Oswald was killed. Walt Rostow also shared something in common with the CIA’s legendary Counterintelligence Chief, James Angleton. He did not believe in the Sino-Soviet split.4 Rostow was no communist, but in fact a hawkish Cold Warrior. Walt Rostow was one of Kennedy’s “counterinsurgency” experts. “He made counterinsurgency seem profound, reasonable, and eminently just,” said author Gerald Colby in his book Thy Will Be Done. Walt Rostow—like Dean Rusk, Roswell Gilpatrick, Edward Lansdale, Paul Nitze, Harland Cleveland, Roger Hilsman, Lincoln Gordon, Adolf Berle, McGeorge Bundy and Henry Kissinger—came to work in the Kennedy administration directly from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Special Studies Project. This group had been hand-chosen by Nelson Rockefeller to assist him when he himself was seeking the Presidency. Author Colby called this “Nelson’s Secret Victory”, pointing out that while Kennedy knew many powerful people, they were mostly politicians, not men with experience in foreign affairs. The Rockefeller family network, and Nelson’s group in particular, provided a large assortment of bright, qualified men. However, with such a homogenous group surrounding him, Colby noted, “there was no one to advise the young president on the wisdom and efficacy of such covert operations as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the CIA’s secret war in Indochina, Project Eagle, or Lumumba’s murder.”5 Otepka’s biographer doesn’t seem to understand the distinction between Kennedy and this group. He insinuates that Bobby was behind Walt Rostow’s rise and Otepka’s fall. Bobby was originally the true believer in counterinsurgency as a means for conducting limited warfare and thus saving a greater number of lives than in outright war, which at that point in time seemed to mean nuclear war. But Bobby became disenchanted himself with both Rusk and Rostow and their type of counterinsurgency. Colby includes the text of one of Bobby’s speeches as released to the press, in which was written, “Victory in a revolutionary war is not won by escalation, but by de-escalation.” Kennedy did not actually speak these words when the speech was delivered, but the words were widely quoted by the press.6 Investigating Oswald Was the denial of clearance for Rostow the trigger for Otepka’s eventual downfall? Or could it have been a letter that went out a few weeks earlier? In a letter dated October 25, 1960, Hugh Cummings of State’s Intelligence and Research Bureau wrote a letter to Richard Bissell at CIA, requesting information on defectors to the Soviet Union. Number eight on the list of eighteen names was Lee Harvey Oswald. In the book Spooks, Jim Hougan writes that, According to Otepka, the study on defectors was initiated by him because neither the CIA nor military intelligence agencies would inform the State Department which defectors to the Soviet Union were double agents working for the United States.7 Although Otepka remained in the dark, within the CIA there seemed to be fewer questions as to for whom Oswald worked. When State’s request came to CIA, Bissell turned the request over to two places: James Angleton’s Counterintelligence (CI) staff, and Sheffield Edwards’ Office of Security (OS) staff. In OS, Robert Bannerman, himself a former SY official and a colleague of Otepka’s, told his people to coordinate their response with CI. Evidently, Bannerman knew that Angleton’s CI staff, as opposed to the Soviet Russia Division (SR), would have the answers State needed. Paul Gaynor, of OS’s Security Research Staff (SRS), also seemed to have special knowledge that Angleton would be the appropriate person to handle this request. He passed Bannerman’s request for a coordinated response for State to Marguerite Stevens of SRS. John Newman, in Oswald and the CIA, describes the unusual nature of Gaynor’s framing of this request: This request, as Gaynor relayed it to Stevens, however, was worded in a peculiar way, as if to dissuade her from doing research on seven people. Bannerman specified that he wanted information on American defectors other than Bernon F. Mitchell and William H. Martin, and five other defectors regarding whom Mr. Otepka of the State Department Security Office already has information. One of the “five other defectors” that Stevens was not supposed to look into was Lee Harvey Oswald.8 [Newman’s emphasis] Readers of Probe will remember from the last issue how CIA told the Headquarters offices of the FBI, State and INS that the CIA had already given information (re Oswald’s Mexico City trip) to the field offices of the same entities, which proved to be a lie. Is this a similar lie? Did Otepka have the information already? No, according to Otepka. In addition, we know now that Angleton’s CI/SIG chief, Birch D. O’Neal, prepared his own response regarding these “defectors”. And 10th on the list was Oswald. And more importantly, Oswald’s particular entry was marked SECRET.9 And again, as described in the last Probe, SIG—the Special Investigations Group—contained Angleton’s private handful of his most closed-mouth associates. It’s significant that both Bannerman and Gaynor knew that the appropriate area for responding to inquiries about Oswald was Angleton’s CI staff. It’s interesting too how Gaynor relayed a response to a subordinate, Marguerite Stevens, in a manner that did not indicate to her that someone else in CIA had information on Oswald. Another significant element in CI/SIG’s response was that it included a known lie. Oswald was listed as having “renounced” his citizenship.10 Although Oswald had attempted renunciation, he had not followed through and was still considered by both governments a citizen of the United States. Newman muses of this assertion, “Was CI/SIG truly incompetent or spinning some counterintelligence yarn?”11 The latter seems more likely, in light of other events. The Opening of Oswald’s 201 File Late November, 1960, Angleton’s staff sent Bissell their proposed response to State, which Bissell signed and forwarded. Yet we are to believe that, despite this obvious flurry of attention, just a few days later, on December 9, 1960, CI/SIG’s Ann Egerter opened a 201 file in the name of Lee Henry Oswald. Newman has stated that he thinks this name might have been the result of a simple mistake. While this response seems strained for a file that was restricted, as this one was, this explanation is even more weak in light of the recent attention focused on one Lee Harvey Oswald preceding the opening of this file. In fact, Egerter herself directly related the opening of the file to State’s request for information when deposed by the HSCA. Does this make any sense? It seems more like Egerter was trying to hide the CIA’s knowledge of Oswald, than preparing to divulge more of it. Newman raises an interesting issue by quoting a memo from the man who later took Angleton’s position, George T. Kalaris. Kalaris gave a different version of why the 201 file was opened at that time, which states flatly: Lee Harvey Oswald’s 201 file was first opened as a result of his “defection” to the USSR on 31 Oct 1959 and renewed interest in Oswald brought about by his queries concerning possible reentry into the United States.12 One of Oswald’s own letters supports Kalaris’ assertion. Oswald wrote to the American Embassy in Moscow in early 1961: Since I have not received a reply to my letter of December, 1960, I am writing again asking that you consider my request for the return of my American passport.13 Newman quotes from an ABC Nightline broadcast from 1991, in which ABC claims that the KGB had intercepted this letter and that the original still exists in Soviet files. Newman further points out that only some extraordinary source or method could have relayed this information to the CIA so quickly for them to open the 201 file by December 9th. Even if Oswald wrote on December 1st, how did the CIA, continents away, learn the contents of a letter in the cold war Soviet Union within eight days? And more importantly, what would that indicate about the level of interest the CIA really had in Oswald, to be monitoring him so closely? In addition, Newman points out that, Throughout Oswald’s stay in the Soviet Union, an Agency element which appears regularly on cover sheets for Oswald documents is CI/OPS, which means “Counterintelligence Operations.” If Oswald was a dangle, this might suggest that it was a counterintelligence operation run by Angleton. Whatever the truth of the opening of the 201 file and the true purpose of Oswald’s trip to the Soviet Union, Otepka’s request for information sparked a chain of communications to Angleton’s unit, which then lied about Oswald in response. And Otepka’s life irrevocably changed. From December 1960, whether due to his refusal to clear Rostow, his poking into Oswald, or some other reason, Otepka started being taken off any “sensitive” security cases. It seemed Otepka’s reputation for meticulous attention to detail and thoroughness was making him a problem in SY. Why? Who was threatened by a man doing a good job? Downward Spiral An incredible, three year campaign unfolded against Otepka. Because of his stellar record, no one dared fire him. But all kinds of efforts were spent trying to make him want to quit, starting with his removal from the most sensitive cases in December, 1960. The first public attack began when stories appeared in the press that State—and specifically Otepka’s security area—would be undergoing a “reduction in force.”14 Shortly thereafter, Otepka was called before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS), of which Senator James Eastland was Chair and Senator Thomas Dodd a vocal member. Otepka had gotten to know Jay Sourwine, the subcommittee’s Chief Counsel. Informally, Otepka had shared some of his concerns for what he saw as a loosening of the clearance procedures with Sourwine. Sourwine and the subcommittee quickly began, with Dodd presiding, to hold what came to be known as the Otepka hearings. In the subcommittee’s subsequent report, the members concluded that the release of the news stories was meant to cause Otepka’s voluntary resignation. Since this effort failed, other steps had to be taken. Otepka’s superior in SY tried to entice Otepka into taking a position in a different division. But Otepka refused, and none too soon, since that division was dissolved a mere two months later.15 Next, Otepka was shifted into a position that was essentially a demotion. Still, Otepka hung on, trying to do the job he felt needed to be done. Otepka had found that Rusk had appointed a number of officials to State under a blanket waiver that effectively backdated security clearances for the new officials. Otepka tried to raise his concern with his superiors, and urged them to go to SISS. But SY just wanted Otepka to look the other way. In 1962, John Francis Reilly took control of SY. From the very beginning, he too seemed to be on a mission to get rid of Otepka. Otepka’s biographer relates this encounter, just weeks into Reilly’s term: Smiling broadly, [Reilly] asked, “Where’s your rabbit’s foot?” Mystified, Otepka raised his eyebrows in question. Reilly laughed and, maintaining his air of benevolent affability, he explained that Otepka had just been selected to attend the National War College. This was an honor usually reserved for Foreign Service officers marked for higher things. Being human, Otepka was naturally pleased. Reilly seemed genuinely delighted that such good fortune had befallen a member of his staff and just for a moment, Otepka was taken in. He accepted the appointment with thanks, and perhaps with a sense of relief that he could escape, at least temporarily, from the strained atmosphere that prevailed in SY. Reilly shrewdly asked him to put his acceptance in writing. That same day, May 7, Otepka wrote Reilly a memorandum formally expressing his willingness to attend the War College for ten months beginning in August. However, he could not resist adding, tongue in cheek, that the appointment had come as something of a surprise to him because the State Department had repeatedly assured him, the Congress, and the public that he would be kept in a responsible position in the Office of Security. Reilly returned this memo with the request that Otepka delete his comments on the Department’s premises. Otepka complied.16 Reilly, however, overplayed his hand. His overdone praise made Otepka a bit uneasy, and he decided to do a little checking on his own. What he found was that his appointment had not been entered with the regular nominations, but was entered as a last minute emergency-type nomination. Otepka then asked Reilly if by accepting, he would still be able to return to his post at State. Reilly admitted he would have to fill Otepka’s spot, and there would be no place to which Otepka could return. With that, Otepka rejected this “honor” and chose to remain in place. Less than a week after Otepka’s refusal, Reilly placed his first spy, Fred Traband, in Otepka’s office. More would follow. Reilly also brought in a National Security Agency (NSA) alumnus, David Belisle, to work with Otepka. Belisle brought with him a new “short form” procedure to rush through people’s security clearances. Otepka was appalled, but powerless. Belisle took away Otepka’s card-file index, the product of years of work. Otepka was removed from the FBI’s after-hours call list, which was another demotion. For a short time, Otepka was seriously thinking of quitting. Ironically, it was his buddy, Jay Sourwine, who talked him out of it. Ironically because it was this very relationship that most contributed to Otepka’s eventual downfall. Sourwine started working on Otepka to get him to divulge what was really going on behind the scenes at State. But as usual, being a by-the-book person, Otepka insisted on following protocol. If Sourwine wanted him to testify before SISS, the subcommittee would have to formally request his testimony. And then, Otepka insisted on getting clearance from his superiors before testifying. Was Sourwine truly interested in helping Otepka, or was he part of a plot to entrap Otepka into saying something that would finally provide the justification for Otepka’s ouster? In mid-February, 1963, Otepka was formally notified that his appearance was requested before SISS. Otepka testified to the subcommittee on four different occasions. At the very first hearing, Sourwine asked the question relating to the cause of Otepka’s appearance before the committee in the first place. He asked if Otepka had been subjected to any “reprisals” from State because of his previous testimony. But Otepka was wary of saying anything that could make his already uncomfortable situation at SY worse, and defended both State and their treatment of him. Otepka defended his own actions, but would not point an accusatory finger at anyone else. Sourwine continued to press the matter with more subtle questions, until he got Otepka to talk about a case where Otepka conceded to being pressured to put through two security clearances where he didn’t feel one was justified. Otepka’s refusal to clear the persons delayed the formation of the committee to which these people had been appointed for over a year. And in the end, through Otepka’s persistence, they were both dropped from the committee.17 One of Otepka’s biggest heresies, however, was disclosing to the Senate subcommittee that, despite the subcommittee’s earlier report and recommendations from the earlier Otepka hearings, State had continued to process under blanket waivers nearly 400 people in the roles of file clerks and secretaries. As author Gill put it, “it is often easier for an obscure clerk or a trusted secretary to waltz off the premises with a top-secret document than it would be for an official at the policy-making level who is afraid he is being watched.”18 This greatly alarmed the senators, but Otepka added one more piece of information. There was an effort underway to reinstate Alger Hiss to the State Department. Knowing what we know today, one might wish that effort had been successful. But at the time, all that was known was that Hiss had been convicted of perjury and had been accused of espionage. High-Tech Harassment Shortly after the third or fourth appearance, Otepka began noticing trouble on his phone line. Chatter could be heard sometimes, other times calls wouldn’t go through, and sometimes there would be an amplification effect. Otepka was being bugged. And not just though the phone. Listening devices were installed in his office. What could someone possibly fear that Otepka might be discussing to warrant such intense surveillance? And then there was the night Otepka had been working late, stepped out for dinner, and then returned to work some more. Imagine his surprise when, around 10pm, David Belisle and another NSA spook entered his office, thinking he was gone for the night. Belisle made the flimsy excuse that he had been concerned by a cleaning woman he claimed to have seen entering Otepka’s office. But Otepka had been sitting there for some time, and called Belisle on this lie.19 When Otepka’s regular secretary fell sick, one Joyce Schmelzer was placed in his office with orders to spy on Otepka. One of her tasks was to gather the burn bag each night, mark it with a big red “X”, then call to alert another SY member that Otepka’s burn bag was on the way down. The trash was searched regularly for any incriminating information that could be used against Otepka. For weeks, his house was under surveillance. His wife, tired of seeing the man in the car parked across the street every night, called the local police. After the police forced the man to identify himself (he worked for a private security firm), the man never reappeared. Was Otepka keeping people with carefully constructed communist-like backgrounds from being placed, on behalf of intelligence agencies, in State for official cover? It would seem his offenses must have been extraordinary to warrant such high-level harassment. Was someone out to discredit Otepka in case he later spilled the beans on one particularly sensitive case? Someone had even drilled a hole into his safe, and with a mirror determined the correct combination, and then plugged the hole again. What could someone possibly fear that Otepka might be discussing to warrant such intense surveillance? According to Otepka, the only sensitive material in the safe was his half-finished study of American defectors in the Soviet Union, with a yet to be completed determination on one Lee Harvey Oswald. When Hougan asked Otepka specifically if Otepka had been able to figure out if Oswald was an agent of the US or not, Otepka answered, “We had not made up our minds when my safe was drilled and we were thrown out of the office.”20 Amazingly, the people involved in harassing Otepka did little to cover their tracks. It was an open secret that Otepka was being tapped. And Otepka still had many friends in State, who told him who was responsible for many of these activities. Meanwhile, Reilly was trying to undermine Otepka’s support on SISS. He told all kinds of lies about what Otepka had done on various security cases and directly contradicted Otepka’s testimony before the subcommittee. Otepka was appalled. The Senate subcommittee was in quandry about who to believe—Otepka, or his SY superior. Sourwine told Otepka he would need something other than his word. He would need documents. Again, one should consider what followed in regards to the question of whether Sourwine was engaging in some form of entrapment. Preparing the Defense For ten days, Otepka gathered his evidence. He prepared a 39 page brief with 36 attachments to support his own testimony and directly refute that of Reilly’s. Of the attachemtns, 25 were unclassified; six were marked “Official Use Only”, three were marked “Limited Official Use”; and two were marked “Confidential.”21 Otepka was careful that none of what he divulged to the Senate subcommittee was information that in any way could compromise the national security of the United States. And even the two marked “Confidential” were mere transmittal memorandums for more sensitive attachments, and Otepka did not turn over the attachments. The piece d’resistance in this affair was the manipulation of evidence taken from Otepka’s own safe. Sensitive documents were “found” in his burn bag one night, with the classification tags illegally clipped off. Otepka claimed, and the State Department never denied, that the evidence seems to support the contention that the documents were planted in his bags for the sole purpose of discrediting him. The day after these documents turned up, SISS called several SY members to the Hill to discuss the bugging of Otepka. The first man called was the spy Reilly had planted in Otepka’s office from the beginning, Fred Traband. Traband was so unnerved at being called, however, that, while denying knowledge of the tapping, he told the story behind the burn bag operation. The next man, Terry Shea, not only acknowledged the burn bag story, but added that Reilly had personally searched Otepka’s files and safe. The rest continued to deny any participation in or knowledge of the tapping of Otepka. House of Cards On June 27, 1963, Reilly unceremoniously shunted Otepka out of his office into a new, make-work position reviewing and updating policy manuals. Otepka was ordered to turn over the combination to his safe (which still held the unfinished Oswald study) and was sent to another office on another floor. He was denied access to his former records. Many of Otepka’s staff were purged from their positions at this time as well. On his new office wall, Otepka hung these words from Prime Minister Churchill: Never give in. Never, never, never, never! Never yield in any way, great or small, large or petty, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force and the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.22 Adrift without direction, Otepka took some time off, and then made the mistake of stopping by his old office for a look. Belisle heard about this and admonished Otepka to stay away. Otepka’s wife was surprised, when calling her husband at his office, to hear “Mr. Otepka is no longer here.” And Otepka’s phone was rigged so that he could receive no incoming calls himself. His buzzer was disabled. When a call for Otepka came in, a phone would ring in another location, where a secretary would have to answer the call, and then walk to his door, knock, and tell him to pick up the line, before he could receive the call. This also ensured no privacy, since anyone could be listening on the other end of his calls. One of the men involved in tapping Otepka, Elmer Hill, had his wiretap lab across from Otepka’s office.23 Domestic Espionage? At the end of July, the other shoe dropped. Otepka was informed by the FBI that he was being formally charged with espionage. Years later, it was discovered this move was ordered by Rusk himself, and the order hand-delivered by Reilly to the Department of Justice. This, for turning documents over to a Senate subcommittee. He was also charged with having clipped security classifications from documents, something Otepka did not do. In our last issue of Probe, we told of another whistleblower, Richard Nuccio, and how he was punished for giving information to the congressional body legitimately designated to receive such. Peter Kornbluh, writing for the Washington Post, quoted a 1912 law which stated that “the right of employees…to furnish information to either House or Congress, or to a committee or member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.” Otepka himself cited this same law to the FBI in defense of his own actions. Meanwhile, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee was going to bat for Otepka. They hauled before them what the committee later called the “lying trio” of Reilly, Belisle and Hill.24 All three were found to have committed perjury when they denied knowledge of the tap on Otepka. The Long Shadow of Walter Sheridan In an interesting and relevant side story, the tapes made from the bugging of Otepka’s office were passed to a man that was unidentified in the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee’s hearings. Jim Hougan, while researching a strange case of bugging on Capitol Hill, found a man, Sidney Goldberg, who claims that the man in the corridor was none other than Walter Sheridan.25 Walter Sheridan was the former NSA and FBI man who did so much to sabotage Jim Garrison during his investigation into Kennedy’s assassination. According to a source of Goldberg’s, Hougan wrote that Sheridan “disposed over the personnel and currency of whole units of the Central Intelligence Agency.”26 In addition, the same source claimed that Sheridan was behind the preservation of Belisle’s job with State when Belisle’s role in the bugging of Otepka was revealed. Belisle was not fired, but was transferred to Bonn, Germany. Sheridan denied having any role in these events. But is Sheridan to be believed, in light of the lies he put forth during the Garrison investigation? Despite the support of the committee, Otepka was on the way out. He was met at work on September 22, 1963, with a note saying “You are hereby notified that it is proposed to remove you from your appointment with the Department of State….”27 Otepka was outraged at the charges: “I was not particularly disturbed by the charges regarding my association with Jay Sourwine or the data I’d furnished him for the subcommittee,” Otepka later recalled. “But I was shocked and angered to find that the State Department had resorted to a cheap, gangland frame-up to place me under charges for crimes it knew I had never committed.”28 One would think that finally, Otepka’s ordeal would be over. One would be wrong. He had been fired from his career position at State. Yet even after this, Otepka was warned that his home phone was probably tapped! And just a few days later, the man who had originally divulged who was behind the tapping of Otepka, Stanley Holden, suffered a mysterious “accident.” Holden was a good friend of Otepka’s, and had himself been under surveillance. His face and tongue had been so badly cut that stitches were required. His own explanation of being hit in the face by a heavy spring did not seem to explain his wounds, and the rumor went around that he had been beaten up by those who didn’t like him talking. In a last ditch effort to preserve Otepka at State, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee wrote a brief letter, signed by every subcommittee member, which strongly urged Rusk to reconsider the decision to force Otepka out of State. But Otepka’s fate had already been sealed. On November 5, 1963, Otepka was finally formally ousted from the State Department. Just seventeen days later, Kennedy would be assassinated. And the killing would be pinned on the man Otepka was trying to investigate when he was removed from his office. Notes 1. Sarah McClendon, Mr. President, Mr. President! (Santa Monica: General Publishing Group, 1996) p. 82 2. William J. Gill, The Ordeal of Otto Otepka (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1969), p. 56 3. Gill, p. 232 4. Gerald Colby and Charlotte Dennett, Thy Will Be Done (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995), p. 553 5. Colby and Dennett, p. 343 6. Colby and Dennett, pp. 542-543. 7. Jim Hougan, Spooks (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1978) p. 371 8. John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), p. 172 9. Newman, p. 172 10. Newman, p. 172 11. Newman, p. 173 12. Newman, p. 176 13. Newman, p. 177 14. Gill, p. 117 15. Gill, p. 123 16. Gill, pp. 161-162 17. Gill, p. 235 18. Gill, p. 238 19. Gill, p. 243 20. Hougan, p. 371 21. Gill, p. 254 22. Gill, p. 280 23. Gill, p. 285 24. Gill, p. 289 25. Hougan, p. 128. Hougan wrote of a wiretap that was discovered that ran from Capitol Hill to the Esso building, terminating not in the basement, where most lines terminate, but on the top floor behind a locked door to which the phone company didn’t even have access. The floor was leased to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons, and the room was marked as a “restricted area”. Goldberg had a source that claimed Walter Sheridan was the ultimate recipient of this tap. In addition, Bernard Fensterwald appears in this story. When he heard that Goldberg was on the trail of the tap, he walked into Goldberg’s office and offered to help. Fensterwald convinced Goldberg to sign a statement that wasn’t true under the guise that this would help him. The situation became a nightmare for Goldberg. Fensterwald also played a role in protecting the tap. The tap was brought to the attention of Senator Long’s Ad-Prac committee by Bernie Spindel, a famed wiretapper himself. Spindel claimed government agents were constantly working on the tap. Fensterwald then committed a “blunder”: he requested information on the cable from the telephone company. This had the effect of sending a warning to whoever was bugging the hill. Because such requests took several days to process, the buggers had plenty of time to remove the tap that was under investigation. Why would Fensterwald, a sophisticated lawyer who sat on a committee specifically involved with wiretapping issues, make such an obvious mistake? 26. Hougan, p. 128 27. Gill, p. 291 28. Gill, p. 293

Any further info. or sources on these two items? Gordon Hall told me that the press called him right after the assassination for information on Oswald. He said he told them: "Oswald was no Communist. That was just a cover story." When I asked Gordon why the press called HIM allegedly just a reporter, he said it was because he was recognized as an authority on Right and Left wing groups even then. I was so shocked to find out that Hall was asked about Oswald I did not think to ask him HOW he knew about Oswald and did not press him for info as to WHY they knew he would have some answers. It was only months later that I found the Frank Donner Age of Surveillance reference on Hall and the Billy James Hargis reference to Hall. Hall did say he thought that Oswald was the lone gunman. Duhhhhh! And I chose not to pursue the matter. I kind of dropped the ball on this one.

Re: OTTO OTEPKA INTERVIEW This was found at: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:AdIZ8...cd=15&gl=us Another setback to our internal security program was the selection process by which the government employees who administered that program were assured of being of a liberal or pro-Soviet point of view. Those who adhered to a hard line on security were eliminated, such as Otto Otepka, Chief Security Evaluator for the State Department. OTTO OTEPKA INTERVIEW Shortly after the election of President Kennedy, Otepka was called to meet with Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Otepka: They asked me about my attitudes and policies and procedures with respect to the administration of personnel in the State Department Security Administration under the new Kennedy Administration. And I was given a specific case and that was on Walt Whitman Rostow. I was asked whether or not it would be possible for Rostow to come into the State Department without the benefit of a background investigation. Griffin: (Voice over) Otepka replied that he could not issue a clearance for Walt Rostow because he already had been investigated by the CIA and the Air Force, and, on both occasions, was found not to be suitable for employment because of security questions. Otepka: This made the Secretary, particularly Bobby Kennedy, very unhappy. And Kennedy said, in referring to the decision of the Air Force to turn Rostow down on the prior occasion, he said, those Air Force generals who did this are a bunch of jerks. Griffin: (Voice over) Shortly after this meeting took place, Walt Rostow, the man who was denied a security clearance by the CIA, the Air Force, and the State Department, was appointed by President Kennedy to be his special assistant in none other than National Security Affairs.19 The Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs under the Kennedy Administration was Harlan Cleveland. Cleveland had approached Otepka to see if there was some way to get Alger Hiss back into the State Department after his release from prison.20 Cleveland, himself, had been hired only after the Security Evaluations Division had been ordered from above to waive the usual pre-employment security check of his background.21 Cleveland was responsible for selecting a special committee of 10 experts to rewrite the internal security procedures for Americans employed at the UN. Otepka: They were all allies and associates of Alger Hiss, the 10 people that I mentioned earlier who Cleveland wanted on his committee to reform the security procedures. They reformed them all right. They abolished them! Griffin: (Voice over) In 1963 Otto Otepka was called to testify before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. One of the disclosures made in that testimony was the case of William Wieland. Wieland had been a State Department officer in charge of Cuban affairs. He played a key role in shaping the U.S. pro-Castro policy during the critical days of Castro's takeover in Cuba. Otepka had discovered that Wieland, at the time of obtaining employment in the State Department, had concealed information about his past, including an unresolved allegation that he had been connected with the Cuban Communist party. Otepka also discovered that Wieland had concealed evidence that Castro was a Communist. Otepka: There was just a preponderance of evidence showing that Fidel Castro was a Communist. Yet, William Wieland was advising his superiors, John Foster Dulles and, then when he died, Christian Herter, that there was no evidence that Castro was a Communist, and that we should seek an accommodation with Castro, and get rid of that right-wing dictator, Batista... When all of this was brought out in my evaluation report, I found out that Wieland had his supporters upstairs who immediately came to his rescue, who didn't want these facts to come out, who didn't .... Griffin: (Voice over) The strategy of the State Department was to force Otepka's resignation. His files were removed. He was denied access to department records. His phone was tapped and then disconnected. He was moved to a small office where his only assignment was to index the Congressional Record! But Otto Otepka did not yield to these pressures, and his superior, who had ordered the tapping of his telephone, was the one who was forced to resign. In the end, Otepka was vindicated, but conditions in the State Department did not change. William Wieland was promoted and Otepka never served again as Security Evaluator, nor, in fact, did anyone else. The job itself was abolished.22

Otepka was also a McCarthyite... and very close to Robert J. Morris even in those days. During the mid-1950s, a State Department security specialist named Otto Otepka reviewed the files of all department personnel and found some kind of derogatory information on 1,943 persons, almost 20 percent of the total payroll. He told the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee years later that of the 1,943 employees, 722 "left the department for various reasons, but mostly by transfer to other agencies, before a final security determination was made." Otepka trimmed the remaining number on the list to 858 and in December 1955 sent their names to his boss, Scott McLeod, as persons to be watched because of Communist associations, homosexuality, habitual drunkenness, or mental illness. McLeod's staff reviewed the Otepka list and narrowed it down to 258 persons who were judged to be "serious" security risks. "Approximately 150 were in high-level posts where they could in one way or another influence the formulation of United States foreign policy," said William J. Gill, author of The Ordeal of Otto Otepka. "And fully half of these 258 serious cases were officials in either crucial Intelligence assignments or serving on top-secret committees reaching all the way up and into the National Security Council." As many as 175 of the 258 were still in important policy posts as of the mid-1960s, but Otto Otepka had been ousted from the State Department by that time and we are not aware of anyone like Otepka keeping track of security risks since then -- and that was more than 20 years ago. Considering the State Department's virtually unbroken record over the past 30 years of undermining anti-Communist governments and backing Communist regimes, of putting Soviet desires ahead of American interests, of allowing 200 Soviet nationals to work and spy for years in our embassy in Moscow, and of bitterly opposing Reagan Administration efforts in 1986 to reduce the massive Soviet espionage presence at the United Nations by one-third, it is not unreasonable to wonder how many heirs of Alger Hiss are still making policy there.

Ms. Mellen with all due respect either Otto Otepka pulled the wool over your eyes, or you were already aware of his background and proclivities as a McCarthyite, a John Bircher and a Liberty Lobby advocate and are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Which one is it now? You can't fool all the people all the time.

Gordon Hall, along with his friend, Grace Hoag, were long time..er...monitors of the right and left wing extremists. Gordon was very close to some of them. Hell, when George Lincoln Rockwell was arrested, who was the first person he called? Gordon Hall. Gordon was also very much aware of Oswald, most likely through Banister. Otepka was close to Julien Sourwine, Robert Morris, and Ray Rocca. Actually I interviewed Gordon Hall before he passed away. He worked for the FBI and had a cover as a journalist. The Hall-Hoag collection at Brown was the way I discovered him at first. Frank Donner identified him in The Age of Surveillance as a long time FBI spy. Gordon penetrated groups from the right and from the left and at one time had been even elected President of a neo-Nazi group probably associated with Rockwell. John Judge told me that he signed up for the COPA newsletter at one time to gather info. His subscriptions were paid for by our tax dollars. I also found a guy still at MIT who was once visited by Hall who offered to "organize his files" and help around the office. This guy agreed and of course, Hall had to "read everything" to decide where to file it, right? Even Billy James Hargis was investigated by Hall and company on some similar ruse until he was found out and kicked out. The MIT guy was Rich Cohen as I recall. Boy did he feel stupid. Hall was FBI. He was a penetration expert because he looked like your friendly grandfather. His job was to ferret out subversive activity from the Right or the Left but he definitely leaned to the Right. Once when he called me on a phone with that new fangled Caller ID installed I answered the phone: "Why hello, Gordon!" And he just flipped out! He said he was going to report me to the authorities for putting a tap or a monitor on his phone. I just said: "Well go ahead, Gordon, I don't care what you do in fact, you little Nazi!" and hung up on him. Imagine him going to his bosses and complaining that I had Caller ID? They must have just chuckled. I enjoy this kind of stuff. He died a few years later probably still pissed off at me.