Ernie Lazar

Michael, in answer to your questions: 1. It is still an ongoing process in the sense that I still acquire FBI files which reveal FBI judgments about specific assertions made by the JBS (and the extreme right in general). There are still subjects I am researching but I have pretty much exhausted the overall Bureau judgment concerning the Birch Society itself. Since discussing the JBS necessarily involves discussing scores of subjects which they have published material about -- I could easily spend the rest of my lifetime researching FBI files for relevant material. For example: I am awaiting processing of a large FBI file concerning tax-exempt foundations and there are many individuals who were, at one time, JBS members that I have not yet pursued either because they are still living or because I cannot find proof of death in order to request their file. 2. LIMITATIONS/FRUSTRATIONS: -- Oh yes! (a) In some cases, interesting files have been destroyed or they have been transferred to NARA. I cannot afford to pursue files which are now at NARA because of their outrageous duplication costs (75 cents per page) so those files will forever be off-limits to me. ( Also the FBI has recently instituted a new policy which will make it much more difficult for serious researchers to pursue their research. In the past, the Bureau would release as much as 5500 pages on ONE CD which cost a requester $15. However, now, they intend to process requests in 500-page increments which means that what they call medium or large track requests could easily cost several hundred or several thousand dollars. © Another limitation is not always being able to find death records for persons connected to the subject matters being requested -- which means files can sometimes be heavily redacted. (d) Even with death records, the Bureau has no consistent policy regarding redactions of public records and public source documents. For example, they sometimes will type a memo which refers to officers of a corporation which they quote verbatim from the incorporation documents (which are public records) but they redact the names. Even more frustrating, they often will type the entire text of a newspaper article into a FBI memo (and they identify the paper, the date, the page, the author, and the title of the article) but then they redact the names of persons mentioned in the article even though they already are in the public domain and can be discovered just by requesting the microfilm of that issue of the paper. (e) The only "denied" file I can think of (off hand) was my request for the National Lawyers Guild because of successful litigation by the NLG which prevents release of their file. (f) Not sure if this falls into your category but one limitation/frustration is simply trying to discover all of the various files created by the Bureau which address the subject matters that interest me. For example: By accident, I stumbled across a file which consists of Bureau Supervisor reviews of books/publications which they thought had relevance to their responsibilities. Those reviews provide fascinating insights into all sorts of subjects and they often reveal investigative file numbers (HQ and field) which I otherwise would never have known about. 3. JAMES LESAR: I know about him but have never spoken to or met him. However, I frequently exchange emails with many other individuals who are major FOIA researchers -- including several attorneys who specialize in FOIA lawsuits. 4. WHY MY QUESTION WAS SO IMPORTANT? (a) Because I discovered very early that scholars and researchers had almost totally ignored FBI files pertaining to the right-wing in our country so it was a researcher's wet dream -- almost totally virgin territory. In fact, when I first started, the Bureau told me that I was the only person to request the subjects I was pursuing -- about 70-80% of the time. And the remaining 20-30% did not result in anybody writing anything about what they had discovered. ( Because for 40+ years, Birchers and their soulmates have effusively praised the FBI and especially J. Edgar Hoover as our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of indisputable factual data pertaining to internal security matters as well as about what constituted legitimate and effective anti-communist activities. © I originally anticipated that I would discover that the Bureau AGREED WITH Robert Welch and the JBS more often than not -- and I thought I would write a report summarizing the extent of that agreement. So imagine my utter shock when I discovered the precise opposite! 5. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Yes-- there are many. For example, even though I have the entire Security Index/Detention of Communists file, which includes all of the instructions sent to field offices concerning criteria for listings -- I still don't fully comprehend their policies and, in particular, how it morphed into the Reserve Index and ADEX Index and other indexes. But that has always been sort of a secondary interest for me so I probably won't ever answer all my questions. Hope that answers your questions. -------------------------------------- Ernie, obviously you have spent a lot of time, effort and thought in your attempts to answer that question. When did you answer that question to your own satisfaction? Or is it an ongoing process still? Are there any limitations, inherent or otherwise, in those released documents that keep you from finding out everything you want to know? Have you been frustrated by redactions, unreleased files, or denied requests? Have you met or spoken to James Lesar? Do you have any thoughts on the Morley vs CIA ruling? Has your research raised any important questions that you have yet to have answered? Why was that one particular question so important to you, to the exclusion of others? Thanks.

Greg: I wanted to address this one portion of your message separately from all other topics because I think it is quite revealing regarding your attitude and misunderstanding. Let’s just get something straight here. You are not the Master; I am not the Pupil. Obtaining 500,000 – or even 5,000,000 FBI files does not automatically endow you with expertize in reviewing them. Though you may possess some expertiize, I have seen little sign of it here. You are too busy lecturing others about what you percieve their shortcomings to be. Bad form, old boy. Bad form. (1) First, this website is called "Education Forum". By definition, "education" refers to a gradual process of acquiring knowledge. (2) Facts and truth normally can come from any source -- even from arrogant persons like yourself who are hyper-sensitive to any perceived slight or "correction". (3) Typically, "acquiring knowledge" is based upon careful examination of factual evidence as well as becoming familiar with the research done by persons who have specialized in a particular field of knowledge or in specific subject matters. (4) People who attempt to de-value or dismiss accumulated knowledge usually want to dumb-down the discussion to their level of understanding -- or make it conform to their personal viewpoints rather than engage in a genuine search for facts and truth. (5) Obviously, someone who is more knowledgeable about a particular subject is going to "correct" errors of fact or judgment made by less knowledgeable individuals. That is simply a fact of life. Example: I have no knowledge concerning sports. Consequently, if someone in this forum specialized in the history of some baseball or football team -- I would EXPECT them to correct any mistaken comment I made and I certainly would not resent their superior understanding of that subject matter. (6) However, unlike sports history -- the history of the FBI, its practices, procedures, and the substantive content of its investigations is not common knowledge nor is such material readily available. For example: most libraries do not have microfilm copies of FBI files so that interested parties can research them. And if someone wants to pursue an FOIA request to obtain specific FBI files, it can be a VERY expensive proposition. [More and more FBI files are being transferred to NARA which makes them totally cost-prohibitive because NARA charges 75 cents per page for reproduction costs!] Some college/university libraries have purchased the microfilm of some major FBI files through Scholarly Resources Inc.. See for example some available subjects here: http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=SR567&cf=n&type=4&id=G0006 However, almost always only the FBI HQ files have been microfilmed and many of them have major redactions. (7) Consequently, having a knowledgeable discussion about FBI files (or practices) is difficult because the overwhelming majority of people who want to discuss them usually are relying upon exaggerated or superficial media reports, OR internet articles by persons/groups with some ax to grind, OR parties who have no in-depth familiarity with the subject matter. (8) Lastly, correcting obvious errors is not (as you claim) "bad form". It is a fundamental part of the educational process by which we all learn from each other. You may resent me for discussing or revealing your errors--but it does not change the fact that you are mistaken about materially important matters. You are however, correct, in one respect: You are neither Master or Pupil. Your arrogance precludes either. (9) One final observation concerning the difference between you and I: When I confront information which seems to contradict what I believe, I normally ask questions for two purposes: (-a-) to make sure I understand the point being made - and perhaps request further substantiation (-b-) to determine if I need to revise my own conclusions In this respect, I bring your attention again to your message #11 and my subsequent replies: (-a-) you made a definitive statement (-b-) I stated that you were mistaken (-c-) I then provided you with extensive quotations from a senior FBI official which would help you understand (if you were genuinely curious) what the underlying problem was and is regarding your declaration. I copy the pertinent comments again below and I italicize and bold the wording which you need to understand in order to arrive at a correct conclusion about what would permit or trigger an FBI investigation. The Bureau's use of that term was quite elastic in order to give field offices freedom of action when appropriate (as outlined in various Bureau SAC Letters and Manuals). Thus, one has to be familiar with all the relevant instructions -- and not just with individual memos, at one point in time, or with respect to one particular matter. Notice, in the second paragraph below, the prospective nature of what would permit an "investigation" to commence -- i.e. the hypothetical possibility of some future activity or developments even though the current status of the organizations under scrutiny did not justify across-the-board official investigations. This general policy description (what is described below as "investigative background") is repeated in many FBI memos -- not only with respect to White Citizens Councils -- but also with respect to many other organization(s) or person(s) who came under review by the Bureau. Another term used was "preliminary inquiry". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On May 16, 1955, Alan Belmont (Assistant Director in charge of the Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division) wrote a memo captioned “Citizens Councils and States’ Rights Movement – Internal Security – X”. In his memo, Belmont acknowledged that with respect to the Associations of Citizens Councils of Mississippi: “The Internal Security Division of the Department by letter 12-10-54 suggested an investigation of this organization…. Investigation has been conducted and reports submitted to the Department.. The Criminal Division of the Department has made several requests for investigation of possible civil rights violations in connection with the Association of Citizens Councils. These possible violations concern alleged attempts to prevent Negroes from voting and refusal by employees of the Federal Home Administration to make loans to Negroes affiliated with the NAACP. The NAACP was quick to secure affidavits in the latter cases and furnish them to the White House.” Belmont then summarizes the policy of the FBI: “Current Bureau policy is that we do not investigate groups that advocate or employ legal means to achieve their objectives; however, where advisable the field is authorized to investigate organizations established for purpose of combating or advocating affirmative action against racial minorities. Such groups activities may result in civil rights violations and in cases such as these organizations it is believed desirable that determination of those involved be made and any activities of the organization be followed. This investigative background will be most useful in the event civil rights violations should occur in the future in connection with their activities. By letter dated 3-22-55, twelve southern offices were informed of the rapid spread of these groups and were instructed to be alert for the formation of such organizations in their territory. These offices were instructed that upon receipt of such information to advise the Bureau immediately by letter setting forth pertinent data concerning the organization and officers thereof. No investigation was to be conducted without prior Bureau authority.” Belmont then observed: “The Supreme Court has not yet handed down any date on which integration is to take place. At that time it is probable that these organizations will become more active and that extra-legal steps will be taken to prevent integration. Therefore, it is believed that we should have information concerning these groups and the individuals connected therewith prior to any incidents which may take place. In view of the above, the field has been following the activities of these organizations to determine whether others are being denied their rights under U.S. constitution and reports have been furnished Department for consideration under Executive Order 10450.”

GREG: I usually do not bother to answer critics, like yourself, who accuse me of dishonesty – but I will make one final attempt to bring us back to a civil and productive discussion. I use bold type/italics on your comments and my comments appear underneath yours in BLUE FONT. I will try to answer all your questions, comments, and concerns. But first, I do not understand why you consider my previous comments to betoken “intellectual snottiness”. I have taken your comments seriously and I have tried to specifically address your comments and questions. Ernie, you have not, as we will see, even been honest, let alone earnest. But I note for the record that there is a major difference between you and I. Apparently, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) – you have NOT reviewed actual FBI files – i.e. the primary source evidence? -- correct? This is a perfect example of your snottiness. Did I not provide a quote from my review of the first 100 pages of the Goldwater FBI file (which itself was part of a series reviewing the whole file)? As for other FBI files, those who know me here, know how wrong that comment is. Greg: you never indicated that you reviewed any file. You simply quoted what you claimed was ONE document appearing in the Goldwater file. However, my inquiry was specifically referring to whether or not you have reviewed the files pertaining to the WHITE CITIZENS COUNCILS movement. So, it is not “snottiness” – it is simply an inquiry to determine the nature and extent of your knowledge. Apparently, you do not like to be challenged –and that is what you consider “snottiness” So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources. And if you find two secondary sources that seem to agree with one another – then THAT is what you consider compelling factual truth – correct? Uh - huh. Let's see what you admit further down... Now with respect to your specific comments. I bold type your comments; my replies are in blue font. Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules? Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.] That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants. Of course there may have been individuals who “deliberately flouted [bureau] procedure” but with respect to deliberately flouting “regs involving informants” – I would have to address the specific evidence for each specific case you want to present. It certainly was not a widespread practice---if that is what you are getting at. Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical! I don’t know what your purpose is in attempting to discredit, wholesale, all of our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history. Everything which you think you know about Bureau improprieties was discovered largely as a result of their research. Scholars like Dr. Athan Theoharis have devoted their entire careers to unearthing factual data about the FBI as an institution. Theoharis has forgotten more about the FBI than you will ever know. Oh I wasn't discrediting them, Ernie. I do note you snipped what I had replied to, so let's reinsert it: But the fact remains that Bureau Agents were accountable to their superiors for even the smallest infractions of Bureau policies---including, as previously mentioned, grammatical mistakes in their reports or failure to follow Bureau policies. Even the scholars who are among the Bureau’s most severe critics have reported in great detail on this culture within the FBI. My response was just taking the piss out of you. In essence, you said "even critics were critical". No big deal. I just found your wording amusing. You seem to have missed my point (again). There are many scholars who have devoted considerable time and resources to researching FBI history – particularly by acquiring first-time-released files and documents and interviewing numerous FBI officials. You denigrated, through sarcasm, my respect for their research. I then responded to your sarcasm. My larger point was that those scholars do not agree with your interpretations as reflected in your comments in this thread. Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”. And the historian, David Iredale pointed out "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc I have never heard of David Iredale. What “history” has he written about? No problem Glad to. As soon as you tell me what “history” Popper” wrote about. What has been his exposure to FBI files/documents? First what was Popper’s again? Not sure what you are asking me here. Are you asking me to identify who Popper is? If so, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Broad generalizations can’t really help us deal with specific matters we are discussing here. Your comprehension is slipping yet again. I stated what SPECIFICALLY my quote could be applied to. Your quote was the one given as a generalization. No, Greg, your quote was a generalization made by someone (Iredale) about whom I know nothing whatsoever. If, for example, he has had no exposure to FBI history or files, then what is the relevance of his comment? One could make the exact same comment about everything in life – i.e. our initial contacts with people or information may not be trustworthy or there may be “prejudice” which colors our perceptions. Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness. Memoirs are subjective and often self-serving. Can I have a citation from a relevant authority on this assertion, please. There is no “authority” – it is just common sense. Memoirs are not normally documented – they are simply subjective personal recollections. Often, assertions are made which cannot be verified because the parties discussed in the memoir are deceased (and cannot be asked pertinent questions) or the incidents mentioned are incapable of being proven or disproven. Consequently, they are among the most unreliable sources available. They have usefulness primarily as a starting point for further research--not an ending point from which reliable conclusions can be drawn. The Kennedy assassination btw, is replete with FBI files that are self-serving. Many times they are written to excuse or defend or divert attention from behavior which would reflect unfavorably upon the author. They are primary sources only in the sense that they reveal the thoughts of the person writing them. Okay. Progress. You’re admitting you were wrong when you said the memoires I quoted from were secondary sources (“So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources.”) Were you mistaken, bluffing or lying, Ernie? Inquiring minds need to know! No, Greg, I made no such "admission". The only source you specifically identified was the Swearingen memoir. A serious researcher has no way to determine if what Swearingen has written in his book is accurate and truthful – although, interestingly, he makes a comment which could be interpreted as undermining a major component of your previous argument and supporting my statement about protocols regarding informants. He mentions FBI Supervisor Joseph M. Culkin and he then observes: “I could not tell Joe Culkin that Rockne had two bogus informants because Culkin would pass the buck and tell the SAC of the office, Richard D. Auerbach and Rockne would be in trouble for falsifying government documents. I would then be in trouble for informing on a fellow agent.” When you cite Swearingen as a reliable source of information about FBI practices, we are left with the obvious question concerning how you went about verifying his assertions? Did you contact him to ask questions? Did you contact anyone he mentions in his book to inquire if Swearingen’s recollections were accurate or if there might be alternative interpretations? Have you compared Swearingen’s memoir to other FBI Special Agent memoirs or the research done by scholars into FBI practices? The fact is, I have presented two authors independently saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruption of the Chicago office. Greg: This is very difficult to discuss as an abstraction – and, in any event, I’m not sure how it pertains to our original discussion. Periodically, field offices were instructed by HQ to increase their informant coverage in certain groups as a result of specific events --- but that does not obviate the fact that informants were subject to certain protocols which were spelled out in the Bureau’s Manual of Instructions. And being subject to such protocols is no guarantee the protocols were always followed. You seem to live in a twilight zone where the very existence of a rule ensures it is always followed. No—I have already acknowledged the obvious: in any large organization there are people who do not follow established rules and procedures—and who look for short-cuts. The operative question here, however, is what happens to people who violate such rules and procedures? That is why I mentioned my report concerning FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot. I provide specific evidence for your correct observation that the existence of a rule does not mean it is always followed. I think I understand where we are headed here. It is what I describe as “Argument By Anomaly”, i.e. find a few exceptions to a general practice and then pretend that the exceptions were the general practice or, at a minimum, use the exceptions to de-value, dismiss, or ignore more voluminous and more compelling factual evidence. And once again you're stating what you wish I said instead of what I have actually said. I have no problem believing or accepting what the memoires state about faked informants was the exception and not the rule. My purpose was to suggest, since such anomalies did exist, then perhaps the subject of this thread also fits within those anomalous spaces. OK fine – then we can agree upon this. Maybe we just had a mis-communication about this matter because your original statement (see below) was so absolutist. Greg – the problem we have here is that you want this to be a philosophical discussion. Yet, so far, you are the only one to quote a philosopher. Go figure. If you think what I wrote above is a philosophical argument, I’m afraid there is little purpose in wasting further time. A philosophical discussion does not require quoting a philosopher. My point is that it is much easier to deal in specific details rather than broad generalizations or abstractions. I prefer we deal with specific cases. But the problem is that you have no first-hand knowledge of FBI files – and specifically with FBI informant files – correct? Not correct, but it yet again demonstrates your snottiness. It is not “snottiness” Greg. You simply have not identified what files you have obtained and reviewed whereas I have. I will repeat mine again: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/foia In particular, we have been addressing your statement concerning White Citizens Councils not being investigated by the FBI. You have never once indicated that you have seen any FBI file on any of the White Citizens Councils. Nor did you identify any informant files you have reviewed, whereas, again, I have done so. So how do we address that? Your snottiness? I fear it may be too ingrained. You should have had it knocked out of you in kindergarten. As previously mentioned, anybody can search internet and find a universe of data which will always provide “confirmations” for anything whatsoever that one wants to believe. This puts me at a great disadvantage because you can always come up with something which contradicts a statement I make -- and then I have to continually refute your "evidence" but you are not required to present any primary source evidence of your own because you have never reviewed the actual FBI files we are discussing. Let’s just get something straight here. You are not the Master; I am not the Pupil. Obtaining 500,000 – or even 5,000,000 FBI files does not automatically endow you with expertize in reviewing them. Though you may possess some expertiize, I have seen little sign of it here. You are too busy lecturing others about what you percieve their shortcomings to be. Bad form, old boy. Bad form. I’m sorry if I have offended you by giving you some specific details about the nature and extent of my research and what I have acquired. I can understand, however, why you don't want to provide comparable details. So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations? Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the period under discussion here. Greg: I note for the record that you did not answer my questions. In order to answer you intelligently, please define your terms: Excuse me, I did answer your question as far as I could since it was predicated on the incorrect notion that I was speculating. No—you totally ignored my questions – and you continue to do so with ever-increasing hostility. (1) What do YOU think constitutes an “active investigation”? Please give us the specific elements which you believe comprises an "active investigation" Again, I am not playing pupil to your master. If you don’t know, I may help you out if you ask properly. Your “snottiness” is beginning to show. Obviously, any discussion or debate must begin by mutual understanding of terms of reference. Your unwillingness to answer a basic question reveals more about you than me. (2) What type of information exists in an “investigative file” that does NOT exist in other types of FBI files? As above. (3) Why do you want to limit the discussion to one particular year – 1963? The subject of this thread alleges he was an FBI informant inside JBS during what - ? 61 -64 period? The real question is why you brought up investigations during the ‘50s which were not relevant. Huh? I did not bring up any investigations during the 1950’s except in answer to your falsehood that the Bureau never investigated White Citizens Councils. And, just for clarity, those investigations continued into the 1960’s. I thought we were discussing your original comment in message #11 that the Bureau never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement? Yes. The period I was indicating was defined by you in the subject of the thread. Sorry if that confuses you. Huh again! The subject of this thread is Harry Dean. YOU introduced White Citizens Councils, not me. Your original comment never limited the discussion to one particular year. You then introduced a single document which you state exists in the FBI file on Goldwater and apparently you want everyone to accept that one document as definitive – even though you have never seen any of the 400+ FBI HQ files or the hundreds of field office files on the White Citizens Councils movement – correct? (It just occurred to me that I could, if you like, introduce the idea that it is YOU that is accepting "at face value" whatever documentation you think will advance your argument.) If you are alleging the FBI document I quoted from does not mean what it says, just spit it out. Your comprehension needs some improvement. As I previously stated, one document does not make a case--particularly when the subject matter covers 2 or 3 decades and involves 12-15 field offices. You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document. Greg, one does not have to “lie” in order to recognize that there are different instructions at different periods of time or unique instructions which apply to specific locations for some period of time. I am troubled by the way you attempt to use evidence. I think the problem here (once again) is that you have never seen any FBI file and, more importantly, you have never bothered to provide us with YOUR definition of what constitutes an “investigation”. And I can find your definition where exactly in thread? Since you are the one who stated that no investigations were made of White Citizens Councils – I suggest that you explain your comment. Let me quote from your message #11 again – in case you forgot: Ernie, you are absolutely correct that the FBI did not investigate groups like the JBS and White Citizen's Council (amazingly even when they had cause to). You are also absolutely wrong in believing that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants. Read FBI secrets: an agents exposé by Lesley Swearington. Incidentally, notice the unconditional nature of your comment concerning FBI adherence to policies and procedures. Instead of declaring the obvious, i.e. there are examples of violations, you instead declared with absolute certitude that it is "absolutely wrong" to "believe that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants". This all-or-nothing approach to evidence is quite revealing re: your mindset. Until you answer that question – we cannot proceed to discuss this matter intelligently. And, again, I wonder if you are proposing that we "accept at face value" every document you introduce simply because you think it advances your argument? No. We can’t discuss it intelligently until you learn to read and stop putting up straw arguments. Your weasel words do not divert us from the fact that you will not answer the obvious question which would quickly and easily resolve our dispute

I don't understand your comment. I have no "theory" about the JBS. Everything I have ever written and posted on-line is merely a summary of what is contained in FBI files -- my personal opinions or analysis is irrelevant because I let the documents speak for themselves. ALL genuine research starts with a neutral question. The question that I started with in 1980 when I began making FOIA requests was this one: "What did J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI think about Robert Welch, the Birch Society, and the assertions they made?" Everything I have written and posted on-line is my attempt to answer that question. With respect to how I learned about Harry Dean -- the answer is that several people who read my on-line reports sent me emails and asked me what I thought about HIS "theory" concerning JBS involvement in the assassination of JFK. They then told me that Dean was an "FBI informant" within the JBS -- which I knew was false -- so I started reading what Dean has posted online.

I've read Turner but not Noyes. Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are not falsifiable -- which means they really are not "theories" at all since every genuine theory must have the potential for being falsified. In fact, I have a challenge for you. Every conspiracy theorist that I have confronted in my lifetime insists that they have superior and unique analytical skills (i.e. they unearth data and connect dots which escapes 99.9% of the rest of humanity). So my challenge to you is this: (1) Choose ANY theory which YOU think is totally mistaken. (2) Contact the author(s) of that theory (or a sampling of the most devout adherents of the theory) (3) Present to the authors/adherents your best factual evidence which you think refutes their theory (4) Then come back and let us know how many times you are successful in getting the authors/adherents to agree with you that their theory is gravely mistaken (5) Repeat that process several times with several different conspiracy theories (6) If the end result is that nobody is willing to discard their theory by admitting it was false to begin with -- then what does that tell you about the very nature of conspiracy theories?

Nope -- I attempted to join the Forum for two years but I constantly received a message stating that no new registrations were accepted so I contacted John Simkin to inquire when registrations would be open and he added me. I detect more than just "suspicion" on your part. I detect hostility because you are uncomfortable with critics or skeptics or persons who present data which contradicts something you prefer to believe. You keep copying the info about Grinnan/Surrey as if it has some significance to what I have posted in this thread when, obviously, it does not. Simply repeating the same info over and over doesn't address the points I have raised here. Try focusing on what I have written instead of your talking points.

I haven't read Kiel's book. I'll add it to my list for future reading. There are also doctoral dissertations pertaining to Hoover and the FBI which are quite helpful for understanding the history of the institution and its key players -- but which most people know nothing about. I compiled a bibliography which includes many of them and posted a link to it on-line. For anyone interested it is at: BIBLIO

JOHN: 1. You are correct that most of the COINTELPRO operations were concerned with left-wing individuals and groups. If you want to know the extent of the paper trail created here is the breakdown: Cointelpro (12 Programs) -- 52,680 pages a. Black Extremist Hate Groups -- 6,106 pages b. Cointelpro-Espionage Programs -- 482 pages c. CPUSA -- 30,743 pages d. Cuban Matters (Pro Castro) -- 59 pages e. Disruption of White Hate Groups -- 5,457 pages f. Hoodwink (To Cause Dispute Between CPUSA and "LCN ") -- 60 pages g. Mexican CP Matter (Border Coverage Program) -- 122 pages h. New Left -- 6,244 pages i. Puerto Rican (Groups Seeking Puerto Rican Independence) -- 1,190 pages j. Socialist Workers Party -- 688 pages k. Special Operations (Nationalities Intelligence) -- 1,450 pages l. Yugoslav (Violence Prone Yugoslav Emigres in U. S. ) -- 84 pages 2. The Bureau was not "the major fund source for the CPUSA" -- not even remotely. Many millions of dollars were smuggled into the U.S. by Soviet agents to finance CPUSA operations. We have a general idea about how much money was involved because the FBI had two moles inside the CPUSA (Morris and Jack Childs) who reported on this in great detail. Morris Childs is particularly important because of his frequent trips to the Soviet Union and his senior leadership position within the Party. Here is one brief CNN summary about Childs: OPERATION SOLO "Few people have heard of Morris Childs or "Operation Solo." But "Solo" -- in which Childs infiltrated the Communist Party of the United States and through it the international communist hierarchy -- was one of the greatest intelligence coups in U.S. Cold War history. Childs, a communist in his youth, traveled to Moscow in 1929 to study revolutionary tactics at the Lenin School, where his classmates included future Eastern bloc leaders Walter Ulbricht (East Germany) and Josip Tito (Yugoslavia). When he returned home, he became a leader of the Communist Party of the United States in Wisconsin, then Chicago. He was a rising red star. But in a return trip to Moscow in 1947 he became disillusioned, finding the Soviet Union in the throes of Stalinist repression, corruption and anti-Semitism. Upon returning home, he inwardly rejected the cause and volunteered his services to the FBI. Childs became a key mole inside CPUSA, informing on American communists and their contacts with Moscow. Childs himself made 52 trips to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to meet with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and other top Soviet leaders. For more than 30 years, he and his brother Jack provided the FBI with detailed and valuable information on Soviet affairs, including crucial perspective on the Sino-Soviet split and inside information on Soviet attitudes toward U.S. Cold War policy. His story largely unknown, Childs died in 1991 at the age of 89. “ 3. ALABAMA INFO: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please clarify what info you are seeking? Ok, Ernie. I have Zack as an assistant during WWII. True that doesn't mean he had much to do with Hoover. I did a statistical analysis some time ago (havent got the results on hand) and while the FBI (cointelpro) did spend time on WHG's they spent far more on what they percieved as left. At one time they were the major fund source for the CPUSA with a large portion of due paying members being FBI informants. The States Rights Party docs should be interesting. Have you got much Alabama info?

GREG: I will try to answer all your questions, comments, and concerns. But first, I do not understand why you consider my previous comments to betoken “intellectual snottiness”. I have taken your comments seriously and I have tried to specifically address your comments and questions. But I note for the record that there is a major difference between you and I. Apparently, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) – you have NOT reviewed actual FBI files – i.e. the primary source evidence? -- correct? So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources. And if you find two secondary sources that seem to agree with one another – then THAT is what you consider compelling factual truth – correct? Now with respect to your specific comments. I bold type your comments; my replies are in blue font. Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules? Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.] That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants. Of course there may have been individuals who “deliberately flouted [bureau] procedure” but with respect to deliberately flouting “regs involving informants” – I would have to address the specific evidence for each specific case you want to present. It certainly was not a widespread practice---if that is what you are getting at. Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical! I don’t know what your purpose is in attempting to discredit, wholesale, all of our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history. Everything which you think you know about Bureau improprieties was discovered largely as a result of their research. Scholars like Dr. Athan Theoharis have devoted their entire careers to unearthing factual data about the FBI as an institution. Theoharis has forgotten more about the FBI than you will ever know. Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”. And the historian, David Iredale pointed out "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc I have never heard of David Iredale. What “history” has he written about? What has been his exposure to FBI files/documents? Broad generalizations can’t really help us deal with specific matters we are discussing here. Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness. Memoirs are subjective and often self-serving. Many times they are written to excuse or defend or divert attention from behavior which would reflect unfavorably upon the author. They are primary sources only in the sense that they reveal the thoughts of the person writing them. The fact is, I have presented two authors independantly saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruction of the Chicago office. Greg: This is very difficult to discuss as an abstraction – and, in any event, I’m not sure how it pertains to our original discussion. Periodically, field offices were instructed by HQ to increase their informant coverage in certain groups as a result of specific events --- but that does not obviate the fact that informants were subject to certain protocols which were spelled out in the Bureau’s Manual of Instructions. I think I understand where we are headed here. It is what I describe as “Argument By Anomaly”, i.e. find a few exceptions to a general practice and then pretend that the exceptions were the general practice or, at a minimum, use the exceptions to de-value, dismiss, or ignore more voluminous and more compelling factual evidence. Greg – the problem we have here is that you want this to be a philosophical discussion. I prefer we deal with specific cases. But the problem is that you have no first-hand knowledge of FBI files – and specifically with FBI informant files – correct? So how do we address that? As previously mentioned, anybody can search internet and find a universe of data which will always provide “confirmations” for anything whatsoever that one wants to believe. This puts me at a great disadvantage because you can always come up with something which contradicts a statement I make -- and then I have to continually refute your "evidence" but you are not required to present any primary source evidence of your own because you have never reviewed the actual FBI files we are discussing. So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations? Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the the period under discussion here. Greg: I note for the record that you did not answer my questions. In order to answer you intelligently, please define your terms: (1) What do YOU think constitutes an “active investigation”? Please give us the specific elements which you believe comprises an "active investigation" (2) What type of information exists in an “investigative file” that does NOT exist in other types of FBI files? (3) Why do you want to limit the discussion to one particular year – 1963? I thought we were discussing your original comment in message #11 that the Bureau never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement? Your original comment never limited the discussion to one particular year. You then introduced a single document which you state exists in the FBI file on Goldwater and apparently you want everyone to accept that one document as definitive – even though you have never seen any of the 400+ FBI HQ files or the hundreds of field office files on the White Citizens Councils movement – correct? (It just occurred to me that I could, if you like, introduce the idea that it is YOU that is accepting "at face value" whatever documentation you think will advance your argument.) You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document. Greg, one does not have to “lie” in order to recognize that there are different instructions at different periods of time or unique instructions which apply to specific locations for some period of time. I am troubled by the way you attempt to use evidence. I think the problem here (once again) is that you have never seen any FBI file and, more importantly, you have never bothered to provide us with YOUR definition of what constitutes an “investigation”. Until you answer that question – we cannot proceed to discuss this matter intelligently. And, again, I wonder if you are proposing that we "accept at face value" every document you introduce simply because you think it advances your argument?

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement "the Bureau always denies any claim of association with them". By "them" do you mean their former informants? If that is what you meant -- then you simply are wrong. I have DOZENS of informant files which include inquiries received from the media and/or from citizens who asked the Bureau to confirm whether or not someone was actually one of their informants. The Bureau routinely acknowledged the basic facts of their informant status, i.e. dates when they provided information. I list some of those persons below. Incidentally, just for clarity, the Bureau acknowledged the informant status of these individuals while they were still living. Julia Brown, Louis Budenz, Paul Crouch, Matt Cvetic, Delmar Dennis, Bella Dodd, Martha Edmiston, Barbara Hartle, Lola Belle Holmes, Manning Johnson, Joseph Kornfeder, John Lautner, Maurice Malkin, Mary Markward, Leonard Patterson, Armand Penha, Herbert Philbrick, Karl Prussion. With respect to your statement below about the Birch Society: The wording is quite ambiguous. In previous statements you stated that the Bureau asked you to infiltrate and inform on the JBS but in your comment below, it appears that you are saying that you were involved in pro-Castro activities and you mentioned the Birch Society to your "contacts" within the FBI. So please take this opportunity to clarify once and for all: 1. Did anyone within the FBI ever instruct you to infiltrate and inform on the Birch Society? If so, what was the name of the person who gave you that instruction? 2. If you did infiltrate/inform on the JBS at the instruction of the FBI, please identify the name(s) of your FBI control agents -- i.e. the person(s) you reported to. 3. What was your FBI code name? 4. During your time as a JBS member, approximately how many reports did you make on the JBS to the FBI? Were they verbal or written or both? Hey Lazar the Bureau always denies Any claim of association with them, a two purpose security measure, Especially after one quits then blabs about it. Such is policy. I once believed it was for my protection as well as for the Bureau. Haw Haw. In any case having been a 'Fink for the Feds' in Chicago and Los Angeles,the following: Outlined in this thread a reprint of Memoirs. My labor for the FBI, southern California, dealt specifically with Intelligence in exposing pro-Castro activities as mentioned. Also clearly stated, it was not until September 1963 that I informed my Los Angeles FBI contact{s} of plans underway by some of my fellow Birch Society associates of arrangements to kill the president. I had become a sincere believer in and follower of The John Birch Society philosophy and ideals in 1962. It is certain that I quite early-on became aware of the subverting 'ultimate goal' by the Society and it's allies aimed at a final takeover of the entire US. political apparatus which I was then in total agreement, upon the actual death of Kennedy I labored to openly expose all details. Publicly exposing my association with the Los Angeles Bureau caused trouble for me, for the Bureau embarrassment and denial. No amount of the note writing, record keeping people, is reliable when some of it is beyond our present view.

John: Former FBI Special Agent Zack Van Landingham was not a "Hoover assistant" -- if you mean that he was someone who communicated frequently with Hoover or received specific assignments from Hoover. After his retirement from the FBI in September 1958, Van Landingham became Chief Investigator for the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. In a 5/18/59 speech before Northside Civitan Club in Jackson MS he said: “To begin with, I would like to say that there is nothing political in what I have to say. I am not a politician and seeking no office. I am first, last, and always a Mississippian. I yield to no one a more passionate desire to maintain our way of life, and in order that I may not be misunderstood, I mean by that, total and complete segregation of the races. I believe that all responsible Mississippians feel that way. We may differ on the methods of achieving this end.” With respect to your comment about the Bureau's COINTELPRO programs: the Bureau did devote considerable time and resources to their COINTELPRO program "Disruption of White Hate Groups". [WHG]. The FBI HQ file on this is about 6000 pages. A friend of mine who wrote his doctoral dissertation on this FBI program against WHG has published many articles in academic journals concerning this subject and he is working on a book which will be published in the future. The Bureau did concern itself with "right wing extremists" but its main focus was upon individuals and groups who violated laws or were perceived as inciting or facilitating illegal activities. There was a major increase in Bureau attention as a result of the October 1958 Atlanta Temple Bombing case. A new HQ and field office file was created under the caption "Bombings and Attempted Bombings Having Racial or Religious Basis" and virtually every field office was asked by HQ to produce updated reports on all "hate groups" in their territory. Among the groups or topics discussed in this new file: American Committee For Advancement of Western Culture American Nazi Party Christian Anti-Jewish Party Christian Educational Association (Conde McGinley) Christian Nationalist Crusade (Gerald LK Smith) Christian Patriots Crusade Confederate Underground Liberty and Property, Inc. National Citizens Protective Association National Renaissance Party National States Rights Party Nationalist Party Nationalist Conservative Party Silver Shirt Legion of America White Citizens Council of D.C. aka Seaboard White Citizens Councils Williams Intelligence Summary (newsletter) I am in the process of obtaining both the HQ and Birmingham field files on the National States Rights Party (which attracted numerous right wing extremists from across the country). The Birmingham file is over 15,000 pages and the HQ file is estimated at 21,750 pages. I already have most of the other files on the subjects listed above.

GREG: In reply to this comment by you: "And there is really no need to apologise for taking around 20 paragraphs in which to try and blur the fact that the quote I provided from an FBI report in Goldwater's file was correct. Bureau regs prohibited investigation of Citizen's Councils." You could not be more mistaken Greg. But your confusion stems from what the Bureau considered an official "investigation" as opposed to a preliminary inquiry or other term of art. As my previous message clearly documented, there WERE "investigations" of numerous White Citizens Councils groups as even the Assistant Director in charge of the Domestic Intelligence Division acknowledged in his memo. In addition, I previously mentioned the March 1957 10-page memo in the Citizens Councils movement file (HQ 105-34237) which was devoted entirely to listing the FBI headquarters file numbers, alphabetically by state, of all files then opened by the Bureau on the Citizens Councils and other pro-segregation groups. (There are about 400 groups listed--along with their FBI HQ file numbers.] I happen to have copies of many of those files (both HQ and field office), for example: Citizens Councils of West Alabama, Seaboard White Citizens Council, Citizens Council of Greater New Orleans, Greater Los Angeles Citizens Council, Citizens Councils of Kentucky, Citizens Council of Georgia, Association of Citizens Councils of Mississippi, and on and on. In addition, I have many of the investigative files on major figures within the Citizens Councils movement. So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations? Postscript: FYI: The Bureau never opened an official "investigation" on the John Birch Society. Nevertheless, the FBI HQ file on the JBS (62-104401) is 12,000 pages! and every FBI field office also opened a main file on the JBS. Those field files (such as Boston and Los Angeles) often also were several thousand pages! So, Greg, is it YOUR contention that the Bureau amassed 12,000 pages on the JBS in its HQ file -- but it did not amount to an actual "investigation"? Please enlighten us Greg. Tell us SPECIFICALLY what constitutes an "FBI investigation" in your opinion? What type of data exists exclusively in a FBI "investigative" file which is NOT present in other types of files? You declare above that "Bureau regs prohibited investigation of Citizens Councils". So please tell us from your vast experience with reviewing ACTUAL FBI FILES -- what type of data is MISSING from (for example) the Seaboard White Citizens Council file -- which illustrates why it is NOT (in your judgment) an "investigative" file. I'm sure all of us will be fascinated to discover your answer to this question!

GREG: In answer to your questions/comments: 1. Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules? Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.] But the fact remains that Bureau Agents were accountable to their superiors for even the smallest infractions of Bureau policies---including, as previously mentioned, grammatical mistakes in their reports or failure to follow Bureau policies. Even the scholars who are among the Bureau’s most severe critics have reported in great detail on this culture within the FBI. So, the real question is: what happened to Bureau employees who “deliberately flouted procedure”? Were they routinely praised and promoted? Is that YOUR contention? 2. Do I place “trust” in the efficacy of FBI procedural guidelines? It depends upon what specific matters we are discussing. Yes, in the real world, “people are creative in getting around unworkable policies” but inside the FBI it was VERY dangerous to do so – IF one planned upon staying in the Bureau and building a career. Hoover and Tolson were hyper-sensitive to anything which would cause embarrassment to the Bureau or which could be used by politicians to question the integrity of the Bureau. Nothing which I have written should be interpreted to mean that Hoover did not understand how to play the bureaucratic game. For example, when he was instructed to terminate certain programs, he often re-created them under different names so that he could truthfully answer superiors if they asked if “program x” had ended. 3. Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”. You ask me how I verify the accuracy of FBI reports I rely upon because I appear to take them at “face value”. First, your predicate is mistaken. I do not take them at face value. But, perhaps, here is the difference between you and I? I have acquired over 500,000 pages of FBI files and documents on hundreds of persons, organizations, and publications. I have copies of many internal memos circulated among senior Bureau officials which discuss Bureau policies --- including many documents and files which reveal adverse information about Bureau practices or the most sensitive Bureau programs -- such as "JUNE" mail and the various indexes used by the Bureau to capture data about "subversives" or security risks who were to be apprehended during times of national crisis. Furthermore, I have made it a point to read numerous scholarly books, articles, doctoral dissertations, conference papers, legislative hearings/reports, and court cases concerning the Bureau’s history and its internal practices. So contrary to your false assumption, I do not rely upon the “face value” of everything contained in Bureau documents. But the fact remains that I rely upon PRIMARY SOURCE evidence – not secondary sources or sources which are wedded to a particular point of view. Could I be mistaken about something of material importance? Of course! But whoever wants to dispute something I write needs to rely upon PRIMARY SOURCE evidence and demonstrate that he/she has familiarity with the subject matter that goes way beyond reading one or two books or memoirs -- particularly if they are not even documented with verifiable footnotes or bibliographic citations.

Greg: I understand your confusion about this matter and I will give you some background which should clarify the matter. Let’s start at the beginning. May 17, 1954 The precipitating event which resulted in the creation of White Citizens Councils (which, incidentally, often were organized under totally different names including as gun clubs) was the 1954 Supreme Court de-segregation decision. By letter dated December 10, 1954, William F. Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division, sent a memo to J. Edgar Hoover concerning the first citizens councils formed in Mississippi AND the American States Rights Association. Tompkins attached an article which was published in the Washington DC Post and Times-Herald on Sunday, November 21, 1954 regarding those organizations. In his short memo to Hoover, Tompkins instructed Hoover as follows: “It is suggested that an investigation be made regarding these organizations with a view to their being considered for designation pursuant to Executive Order 10450 relating to the Federal employee security program. Particular emphasis should be placed on any policies or activities which indicate that the organizations have ‘adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force and violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States’ “ That last sentence (in italics) is the operative wording for when the FBI could commence an official investigation – i.e. something that might suggest actual or potential violations of federal laws. On March 22, 1955, J. Edgar Hoover sent a memo to 12 FBI field offices. Here is the pertinent text: “At the suggestion of the Department, the New Orleans and Memphis offices are conducting an investigation of the Association of Citizens Councils (of Mississippi) for consideration by the Department pursuant to Executive Order 10450. The Mobile office is also conducting an investigation of the Citizens Councils of Alabama….The Citizens Councils disclaim affiliation with or similarity to the Ku Klux Klan. The stated objectives include discouraging Negroes from voting and maintaining segregation in public schools. These objectives are being carried out by economic pressure brought to bear on Negroes seeking to vote or who are in favor of integration in schools. The Councils claim no violence will be used and only legal means employed. All offices receiving copies of this letter are instructed to be alert for the formation of Citizens Councils in the territory covered by your offices. Upon the receipt of such information you should advise the Bureau immediately by letter setting forth all pertinent data concerning the organization and the officers thereof. No investigation should be conducted without prior Bureau authority.” On May 16, 1955, Alan Belmont (Assistant Director in charge of the Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division) wrote a memo captioned “Citizens Councils and States’ Rights Movement – Internal Security – X”. In his memo, Belmont acknowledged that with respect to the Associations of Citizens Councils of Mississippi: “The Internal Security Division of the Department by letter 12-10-54 suggested an investigation of this organization…Investigation has been conducted and reports submitted to the Department. The Criminal Division of the Department has made several requests for investigation of possible civil rights violations in connection with the Association of Citizens Councils. These possible violations concern alleged attempts to prevent Negroes from voting and refusal by employees of the Federal Home Administration to make loans to Negroes affiliated with the NAACP. The NAACP was quick to secure affidavits in the latter cases and furnish them to the White House.” Belmont then summarizes the policy of the FBI: “Current Bureau policy is that we do not investigate groups that advocate or employ legal means to achieve their objectives; however, where advisable the field is authorized to investigate organizations established for purpose of combating or advocating affirmative action against racial minorities. Such groups activities may result in civil rights violations and in cases such as these organizations it is believed desirable that determination of those involved be made and any activities of the organization be followed. This investigative background will be most useful in the event civil rights violations should occur in the future in connection with their activities. By letter dated 3-22-55, twelve southern offices were informed of the rapid spread of these groups and were instructed to be alert for the formation of such organizations in their territory. These offices were instructed that upon receipt of such information to advise the Bureau immediately by letter setting forth pertinent data concerning the organization and officers thereof. No investigation was to be conducted without prior Bureau authority.” Belmont then observed: “The Supreme Court has not yet handed down any date on which integration is to take place. At that time it is probable that these organizations will become more active and that extra-legal steps will be taken to prevent integration. Therefore, it is believed that we should have information concerning these groups and the individuals connected therewith prior to any incidents which may take place. In view of the above, the field has been following the activities of these organizations to determine whether others are being denied their rights under U.S. constitution and reports have been furnished Department for consideration under Executive Order 10450.” All Special Agents in Charge of FBI field offices were reminded by J. Edgar Hoover in SAC Letter 55-66 (dated 10/25/55) regarding their responsibilities for filing reports in a timely manner about Citizens Councils groups in their territory. Item #5 stated: “Convert inquiries to full-scale investigations under 87D, Manual of Instructions, only on specific Bureau instructions.” In October 1957, the Attorney General of the U.S. met with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. The AG told Hoover that in view of the racial unrest in connection with the desegregation of Little Rock AR schools, and the fact that “disturbers of the peace were citizens councils members, he believed the Bureau should develop coverage in Councils. Appropriate instructions were sent to the field on October 9, 1957, and the need for caution and discretion was stressed. The field was informed the Bureau was not interested in legitimate activities of councils, but only in gathering intelligence in advance of possible violence or information regarding violations within the Bureau’s jurisdiction. Nineteen offices were involved in the program.” [HQ 105-34237, serial #442 dated 11/19/62] In May 1958, the FBI interviewed a citizen in Newport News VA who was a member of the Peninsula Citizens Council. The local newspaper made an inquiry to the Bureau as to whether the FBI was investigating integration in public schools and opponents thereof. As a consequence of this publicity, informant coverage within citizens councils was discontinued and in June 1958, all field offices were instructed to discontinue their programs. HOWEVER, the Bureau discovered that in some locations Klan organizations had adopted Citizens Councils names in order to camouflage their activities and to seek greater support within their communities from people who otherwise would not join a Klan group. In those instances, a formal investigation was initiated. In addition, because so many prominent individuals were known to be Citizens Councils members and supporters (including Governors, State legislators, Mayors, city council members, prominent businessmen, clergymen, newspaper editors, etc.) the Bureau did NOT authorize wholesale investigation of Citizens Councils nor did it authorize massive informant coverage through infiltration. Instead, the Bureau relied upon what it called “established sources”. Established sources is BureauSpeak for public records, informants, confidential sources, panel sources, and citizens “who in time-proved dealings [with the FBI] have been found discreet, reliable, and are in a position to furnish or obtain pertinent information.” In other words, people who would keep their mouth shut! In June 1961, J. Edgar Hoover sent updated instructions to all field offices which addressed when it was appropriate to develop informants within Citizens Councils. In November 1962, senior Bureau officials discussed via memo “the Bureau policy concerning investigations of Citizens Councils in light of the recent situation which occurred at the University of Mississippi and the trouble which may arise when attempts are made to desegregate universities in South Carolina and Alabama.” Sorry this message is so long -- but I thought you deserved a serious reply.

GREG: You obviously have no knowledge about the disciplinary procedures routinely undertaken within the Bureau – particularly when field offices were subjected to inspections and they had to account for each and every violation of standard Bureau policies. These inspections even commented upon grammar errors in Special Agent reports submitted to headquarters OR inappropriate headings used on field office memos! Many FBI Special Agents had their careers ruined because of their inability to follow Bureau procedures or their inattention to picayune instructions from Headquarters. Apparently, you place great trust in the Swearingen book. But you never explained HOW you went about verifying the accuracy of the statements he made in his book. Perhaps you could share with us exactly what you did in this regard? Have you ever bothered to read any of the very detailed books and articles written by our nation's foremost scholars on the FBI as an organization as well as on Hoover? I suggest, for example, that you read books by arguably our nation's most knowledgeable scholar on FBI history -- Dr. Athan Theoharis. You will INSTANTLY discover that the FBI "bureaucracy" was NOT run in some slipshod manner where omissions and commissions were dismissed or ignored.

Bill: I wrote a lengthy reply to your comments but, for some reason, it was deleted. I don't feel like re-typing it again so I will just say this: you have created several straw man arguments and misrepresented what I have previously written. If you wish to continue this discussion -- you may contact me at: ernie1241@aol.com List of my FOIA requests: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/foia

The Subcommittee's "investigation" consisted of taking about 100 sworn affidavits from JBS members in California and reviewing JBS literature. There are some factual errors in the Subcommittee Report and one JBS National Council member sent a letter to another Council member which stated that the Subcommittee's Chief Counsel (Richard Combs) "is on our side" -- which might explain why the Report was, overall, quite favorable -- although it did contain some perceptive criticisms. The FBI had no connections with the Subcommittee. There is nothing in the FBI file on the JBS to indicate that the Subcommittee ever contacted the Bureau or vice versa with respect to the JBS. However, the FBI did obtain a copy of the 1963 Report when it was completed. Keep in mind that the Bureau had much better sources of information than the Subcommittee had. One source, for example, was Herbert Philbrick (of I Led Three Lives fame) who was very familiar with many of the senior leaders and prominent members of the JBS. The Bureau also received reports from ONI (Naval Intelligence) and G-2 (Army Intelligence) which were quite illuminating concerning the beliefs of the JBS and the type of persons who were associated with the organization. In addition, the Bureau received THOUSANDS of letters from JBS members and supporters along with JBS critics and numerous frightened citizens who listened to JBS speakers or read JBS literature-- so it was quite aware of the type of alarmist and extremist beliefs promoted by the JBS. Very early on, the Bureau concluded that the JBS was a "right wing extremist" organization and it characterized the JBS as "irrational", "irresponsible", "lunatic fringe" and "fanatics" --- which is certainly much different from what the California Subcommittee Report presented.

John: you are referring to the only official investigation ever conducted into the JBS by the California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. The Chairman was State Senator Hugh Burns (Democrat, Fresno). The investigation commenced in 1961 but the Report was not issued until 1963 -- and it was updated again in 1965. Robert Welch praised the Subcommittee for presenting what he considered a fair fact-based report even though the Subcommittee was controlled by Democrats -- some of whom (including Chairman Burns) were hostile toward the JBS. In fact, Welch was so impressed with the Report that he reprinted it along with a detailed critique of sections which he thought contained errors. The FBI was NOT consulted. I will attempt to attach a copy of the JBS reprint to this message but if it doesn't work and anyone would like a copy of the report and Welch's critique, send me your email and I will forward it to you. ernie1241@aol.com

Greg, you are wrong on two counts. The FBI did investigate the White Citizens Councils and, in fact, there is a SAC Letter (instructions to all Special Agents in Charge of field office) which explicitly instructs pertinent field offices how they should handle their investigations. I recently received the file on the Association of Citizens Councils of Mississippi (HQ 105-34237) which contains an 11-page memo that is devoted entirely to listing the investigative file numbers for every FBI file opened on a Citizens Council group -- alphabetically by state. So, obviously, your knowledge about this matter is not credible. Second, every field office was required to adhere to specific protocols regarding use of informants. Those protocols were spelled out in mind-numbing detail in the FBI's Manual of Instructions. All of the files I have obtained of FBI informants make it very clear that field office SAC's (Special Agents in Charge) were aware of those protocols and followed them -- OR -- they received blistering letters from HQ Supervisors which addressed their shortcomings.

John: I acquired the entire FBI file on Reagan but I was looking for specific data concerning allegations that he might have been a member of the Birch Society. There was nothing in his file except one June 1960 memo from someone who speculated that if Reagan was a member, he might belong to a Beverly Hills chapter that included actors Ward Bond and Walter Brennan and columnist Hedda Hopper and actress Zazu Pitts. A 9/8/60 memo from Milton Jones to Cartha DeLoach, page 2 contains the following summary under caption “Information in Bufiles”: “The Bureau has not investigated Ronald Reagan. Our files do contain numerous references to him chiefly in connection with his anti-Communist activities in different Hollywood organizations. Informants have advised us that he is definitely anti-communist and he so indicated when he appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities as a friendly witness in October 1947. He has been contacted on several occasions by Agents of our Los Angeles office and in every instance has been cooperative and helpful; he in turn has visited our Los Angeles office and our relations with him have been cordial." A 11/22/66 memo discusses contact by Donald Mulford (former member of California legislature) who inquired on behalf of Reagan (newly elected as Governor) if the Bureau could provide assistance to Reagan’s 10-member policy guidance committee “to assist Governor Reagan in identifying communists and other left-wing extremists. The purpose will be either to eliminate them from the State government or to prevent their receiving an appointment to a State position.” Your reference to the JBS comment was a statement allegedly made by JBS PR Director John Rousselot. After Rousselot left the Birch Society, he became Special Assistant to President Reagan, Deputy Director of Office of Public Liasion. Interestingly, the JBS has changed its opinion of Reagan. In fact, the widow of Robert Welch (the founder and leader of the JBS) terminated her membership because the new leadership of the JBS savaged Reagan in the JBS magazine.

Bill: 1. First, with respect to Rabbi Kahane. When I contacted his widow, Libby, she replied to me as follows: "My information on this subject is based only on Rabbi Kahane's own statements. The FBI informed me that they had no information about any connection between him and the Birch Society. I received a hundreds of photocopies of memos and reports from the FBI, and cited them in my book about Rabbi Kahane. I found nothing in any of that material about the John Birch Society." 2. Second, I am not "on a campaign to clean up FBI informant files and expose those who make a living claiming they were FBI informants when in fact they were not". How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion from what I have written thus far? I am sharing factual data from my years of research into FBI files. I am sorry if that upsets you -- but it does not change the facts of the situation. Maybe you are emotionally invested in this matter and you don't care what the facts are? 3. If I was in your position, perhaps I too would claim that the FBI is covering up Harry's true status. But you don't explain why they would be interested in doing that. We are perilously close to a circular argument here. A circular argument starts with an unproven predicate (such as Harry Dean was an FBI informant within the JBS) and then all subsequent statements are based upon and flow from the unproven predicate. Please share with us your methodology regarding HOW you separate fact from fiction. 4. As I previously mentioned, over the past 30 years I have acquired the FBI files of many actual FBI informants. Some of them were discontinued as informants because of specific personal problems. For example, Matt Cvetic was initially a very productive and useful informant but his chronic alcoholism and domestic violence and relentless demands for more money caused his Justice Dept handlers to conclude he was no longer reliable. Karl Prussion was dropped because he revealed his FBI informant status, without permission, to a Los Angeles TV personality and because of his inconsistent statements. Other informants who surfaced and testified in court proceedings or before legislative committees were highly regarded by the FBI (such as Julia Brown and Lola Belle Holmes) until they associated themselves with political extremist groups such as the Birch Society and they started fabricating lurid stories in order to increase their prospective income opportunities. All of these pecadillos and problems are thoroughly documented in their FBI files -- so one wonders why Harry Dean would be treated so differently? (a) WHY is there is NOT ONE document in any JBS file that refers to him? ( WHY is there NOT ONE expense report? © WHY is there NOT ONE summary concerning information he supposedly provided? (d) WHY is there NOT ONE reference to ANY person whom the FBI used as an "informant" within the JBS -- other than the persons who contacted the FBI on their own and provided unsolicited information of no particular consequence?

Bill: The FBI had very clear and specific protocols regarding when it was appropriate to develop informants. As you correctly point out, they were obviously interested in the KKK (although you are mistaken about "half of the active members" being FBI informants). But the reason that the KKK came within the guidelines for active recruitment of informants was related to known or suspected violations of federal law. There was never any such suspicion with respect to the Birch Society because it was never considered or even suspected of being engaged in criminal or "subversive" activities or any violations of federal law. However, initially, before the Bureau had compiled factual data from its field offices about the nature and purposes of the JBS, there was a concern that perhaps subversives might attempt to join and use the JBS for reasons which are spelled out in FBI documents. But when the Bureau became aware of the type of individuals who actually became JBS members -- they quickly realized that it was simply one of many "extreme right" organizations which came into existence during the 1950's and 1960's -- but it was NOT "subversive" or a security concern -- which is why no official investigation was ever undertaken of the JBS. Lastly, I want to re-emphasize something for both you and Bernice: Without exception, every person who actually became an FBI informant (and I am referring to those people whom the FBI recruited -- not individuals who just provided unsolicited information) had a very substantial paper trail which was archived in various FBI files. For example, I previously mentioned Julia Brown. The FBI file pertaining to her is more than 3000 pages and it includes copies of all her reports. Similarly, I could give you comparable data about DOZENS of other FBI informants whose files I have acquired. It simply is NOT possible for Harry Dean to have been (as he claims) an FBI informant (for years) within the Birch Society without there being ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT anywhere that refers to him! I have the entire FBI HQ file on the JBS. I have the entire Los Angeles field office file on the JBS. If Harry Dean wants to enter this discussion, then let him do two things: (1) Provide us with his FBI code name (2) Give someone a notarized authorization so that they may submit an FOIA request to obtain any FBI documents which pertain to him. Lastly, I have gone through this many times previously. Recently, for example, the widow of Rabbi Meir Kahane also mentioned the "FBI informant" status of her husband. Mr. Kahane ALSO claimed to have "infiltrated" the JBS for the FBI. But that, too, is FALSE. There are MANY people (including JBS members) who earned their living by CLAIMING to be associated with the FBI and then using their alleged FBI association as a credential for selling books, giving speeches under the auspices of various organizations, publishing newsletters, etc. The Bureau sarcastically referred to many of these folks as "professional anticommunists".

A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI. During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News. The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965). The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Dean’s assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258. Here is the pertinent excerpt: “In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column.” Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI. More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants: 1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant. 2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided. 3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection). 4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ. 5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files). 6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau: "Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way." [HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65]. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE BUREAU STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN! Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts: 1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one. 2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it. 3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind. 4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials. Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ernie1241@aol.com FBI FILES ON JBS: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI. During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News. The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965). The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Dean’s assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258. Here is the pertinent excerpt: “In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column.” Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI. More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants: 1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant. 2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided. 3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection). 4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ. 5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files). 6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau: "Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way." [HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65]. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN! Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts: 1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one. 2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it. 3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind. 4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials. Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ernie1241@aol.com FBI FILES ON JBS: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1