LOCKING THE PROTEST THREAD? I PROTEST!

[John Simkin]

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

Then why not bring him back and start with a clean slate on both sides?

Kathy C

Over the years I have constantly defended Peter’s right to post on this forum. So much so that I have damaged long-term friendships. But enough is enough. His recent posts on the Deep Politics Forum and his abusive emails have gone too far. While I own this forum he will never be allowed to be a member of this forum. Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation.

[Evan Burton]

I asked that Kathy's request be considered, but I am forced to agree with John. There are claims - untrue and / or unfounded - made by Peter on another forum that basically preclude his return here.

I am sure that all the mods and admins here appreciate the repercussions of such a decision. We are going to lose members who we would prefer continue to post here; that being said it is in the longer term good of the Forum for this to occur.

I would ask members who are considering resigning to ask themselves: why they cannot be part of this Forum? If you cannot abide by the published rules, then it is sadly a case where you must move on. If you think the rules are wrong, then why not accede to them for the short term and discuss why they should be changed? If you disagree with a system, then does withdrawing from it help to initiate change?

I'm reminded of something I heard, which may being incorrect / paraphrased: Decisions are made by those who show up.

Just something to think about.

[Bernice Moore]

Evan, may i ask, will the history in and his posts eventually be enabled...thanks b

[William Plumlee]

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

Then why not bring him back and start with a clean slate on both sides?

Kathy C

Over the years I have constantly defended Peter’s right to post on this forum. So much so that I have damaged long-term friendships. But enough is enough. His recent posts on the Deep Politics Forum and his abusive emails have gone too far. While I own this forum he will never be allowed to be a member of this forum. Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation.

"... Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation...".

Does that mean if we support some of his concepts and ideas and voice same; pro or con, that we too could be put on moderation or have our membership cancelled and our postings eliminated?

Well that about does it for me.. For these past few days I thought there was still a little hope for this forum, but now I have reconsidered my position. I see the light. I want no part of a system that takes this one sided position.

I now go back to my original post of a few days ago. John and all; Cancel my membership and take me off your roll. I can not abide by your one sided rules, censorship, personal grudges, and setups. As I have said I do not always agree with Peter and his positions and have went head to head with him more than once. But I do know that he is honest in his beliefs and has worked diligently in his research and has tried to be a benefit to this forum and other researchers. With that said... "so long Its been good to know yA'".

Edited March 18, 2010 by William Plumlee

[Guest Stephen Turner]

[

"... Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation...".

Does that mean if we support some of his concepts and ideas and voice same; pro or con, that we too could be put on moderation or have our membership cancelled and our postings eliminated?

".

No, you appear to have completely, probably wilfully, misunderstood Johns post. Still, if thats your pleasure, goodbye.

[John Simkin]

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

Then why not bring him back and start with a clean slate on both sides?

Kathy C

Over the years I have constantly defended Peter’s right to post on this forum. So much so that I have damaged long-term friendships. But enough is enough. His recent posts on the Deep Politics Forum and his abusive emails have gone too far. While I own this forum he will never be allowed to be a member of this forum. Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation.

I now go back to my original post of a few days ago. John and all; Cancel my membership and take me off your roll. I can not abide by your one sided rules, censorship, personal grudges, and setups. As I have said I do not always agree with Peter and his positions and have went head to head with him more than once. But I do know that he is honest in his beliefs and has worked diligently in his research and has tried to be a benefit to this forum and other researchers. With that said... "so long Its been good to know yA'".

You said that by email several days ago. Yet you continued to post on threads where you wanted to get your story out. I am sure that will be true again in the future.

[Pat Speer]

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

Then why not bring him back and start with a clean slate on both sides?

Kathy C

Over the years I have constantly defended Peter’s right to post on this forum. So much so that I have damaged long-term friendships. But enough is enough. His recent posts on the Deep Politics Forum and his abusive emails have gone too far. While I own this forum he will never be allowed to be a member of this forum. Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation.

"... Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation...".

Does that mean if we support some of his concepts and ideas and voice same; pro or con, that we too could be put on moderation or have our membership cancelled and our postings eliminated?

Well that about does it for me.. For these past few days I thought there was still a little hope for this forum, but now I have reconsidered my position. I see the light. I want no part of a system that takes this one sided position.

I now go back to my original post of a few days ago. John and all; Cancel my membership and take me off your roll. I can not abide by your one sided rules, censorship, personal grudges, and setups. As I have said I do not always agree with Peter and his positions and have went head to head with him more than once. But I do know that he is honest in his beliefs and has worked diligently in his research and has tried to be a benefit to this forum and other researchers. With that said... "so long Its been good to know yA'".

Tosh, I suspect you are misreading John's intention. It isn't that people cannot write "researcher Peter Lemkin has long noted that researching the JFK assassination is the sure road to hell..." but that they can't write "well, Peter asked me to post the following: 'John Simkin is a doo-doo head, etc."

It's not Peter's ideas that are banned, but his presence on this forum as a disruptive force.

Some of those reacting to his ouster with jaws agape, I think, are being a little hypocritical. This is an almost exact replay of the Tim Gratz imbroglio. Tim was, for several years, the forum's most active member. He was a conspiracy theorist, but a right-winger, and a resident of Southern Florida, where anti-Castro feelings run high, and so had a gut reaction to the assassination that told him Castro was somehow behind it. Tim pushed this like an Amway salesman and would never back down on this. A number of forum members assumed from this that he was some sort of disinfo agent. One researcher looked into Tim's background and found out he was a long-time attorney, who for some mysterious reason had been disbarred. This led to discussions not unlike the recent discussions about Peter--when is the revelation of embarrassing personal information about a forum member appropriate, etc.

When it was exposed--by myself, if I recall--that Tim was a minor Watergate figure, and a former associate of "turdblossom" Karl Rove, suspicion of Tim only increased. Occasionally he would step across a line--such as cruelly criticizing a young female forum member who'd acknowledged having an abortion--that forced him further and further into isolation. His attempts at dumb humor proved futile.

Then one day, Tim was discussing something with John, and all hell broke loose. As I recall, Tim wrote something, and John misquoted Tim while criticizing him. While, for most, this would be a "gotcha" moment, whereby one would let loose a "you know I'm right or you wouldn't have to misquote me" or some such thing, Tim's reaction was totally out of line: he accused John of "setting him up" and threatened to sue him for damages. Sound familiar? At that time, I tried to step in and be the voice of reason. I tried to talk Tim down. But no, he said, he'd had enough of John's condescension, etc., and didn't feel like backing down. So, naturally, he was banned. (Some time later, he was allowed to return, but never fully did so.)

Anyhow, at that time, most everyone on the forum was on John's side. John was the left-winger, and Tim the right-winger, so they felt no loss when Tim left. Only the late Tim Carroll, as I recall, left the forum for awhile in protest at Tim's treatment.

So when Peter started talking of the damage done to his reputation, etc., and, fueled by those who'd already left the forum in part because there was too-much free speech allowed here, started talking about bringing a lawsuit, we all should have known what was coming. People who create websites and forums just don't dig those enjoying the use of their website or forum threatening to sue them. It's a deal-breaker.

Anyhow, that said, I am with most everyone else in that I hope Peter's posts and threads will be pulled back from the memory hole. Hopefully his being "disappeared" was just a temporary measure. If not, well, Andy clearly over-reacted, and hurt the credibility of the forum in the process.

[John Simkin]

Some of those reacting to his ouster with jaws agape, I think, are being a little hypocritical. This is an almost exact replay of the Tim Gratz imbroglio. Tim was, for several years, the forum's most active member. He was a conspiracy theorist, but a right-winger, and a resident of Southern Florida, where anti-Castro feelings run high, and so had a gut reaction to the assassination that told him Castro was somehow behind it. Tim pushed this like an Amway salesman and would never back down on this. A number of forum members assumed from this that he was some sort of disinfo agent. One researcher looked into Tim's background and found out he was a long-time attorney, who for some mysterious reason had been disbarred. This led to discussions not unlike the recent discussions about Peter--when is the revelation of embarrassing personal information about a forum member appropriate, etc.

When it was exposed--by myself, if I recall--that Tim was a minor Watergate figure, and a former associate of "turdblossom" Karl Rove, suspicion of Tim only increased. Occasionally he would step across a line--such as cruelly criticizing a young female forum member who'd acknowledged having an abortion--that forced him further and further into isolation. His attempts at dumb humor proved futile.

Then one day, Tim was discussing something with John, and all hell broke loose. As I recall, Tim wrote something, and John misquoted Tim while criticizing him. While, for most, this would be a "gotcha" moment, whereby one would let loose a "you know I'm right or you wouldn't have to misquote me" or some such thing, Tim's reaction was totally out of line: he accused John of "setting him up" and threatened to sue him for damages. Sound familiar? At that time, I tried to step in and be the voice of reason. I tried to talk Tim down. But no, he said, he'd had enough of John's condescension, etc., and didn't feel like backing down. So, naturally, he was banned. (Some time later, he was allowed to return, but never fully did so.)

Anyhow, at that time, most everyone on the forum was on John's side. John was the left-winger, and Tim the right-winger, so they felt no loss when Tim left. Only the late Tim Carroll, as I recall, left the forum for awhile in protest at Tim's treatment.

Just a few points about this piece of Education Forum history. Tim Gratz joined the forum and got involved in the discussions about Watergate and other conspiracies without revealing his role in these events. Nor did he explain why he was such a fan of Karl Rove. This is a brief summary of Tim’s activities.

As a student, Tim Gratz was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom. At the time it was an extreme right-wing organisation that campaigned against Civil Rights legislation brought in my LBJ.

On 18th December, 1971, Tim Gratz received a phone call from a man calling himself Don Simmons. In fact, his real name was Donald Segretti. Apparently, Dwight Chaplin had hired Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. Gratz later recalled: "Simmons said he was interested in running a "negative campaign" in Wisconsin. He explained that the purpose of the campaign was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible.... He also said he was interested in planting spies in the Democrat candidate's offices."

Donald Segretti offered Gratz $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. Gratz agreed to work on the project and he was given an advance payment of $50.00. Gratz later told Anthony Ulasewicz that "although the whole incident seemed strange" he agreed to help "as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway". However, Gratz claimed he told Karl Rove, Chairman of the College Republican National Committee, about this dirty tricks campaign. We now know that Rove himself was part of Segretti's campaign. In fact, he probably played a leading role in this dirty tricks operation. Rove had become friends with CIA asset, Robert F. Bennett in 1968. According to one report, Bennett became a "mentor of Rove's".

In 1970, Karl Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Illinois State Treasurer, and stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead. Rove then printed fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon's rally.

It is also significant that Rove put Gratz in touch with Anthony Ulasewicz. We now know that Ulasewicz, was in charge of Operation Sandwedge. This was a highly secret operation that has never been fully revealed. In fact, as Ulasewicz points out in his autobiography, The President's Private Eye, the Senate Committee looking into the Watergate Scandal, avoided all questions on Sandwedge.

Donald Segretti later told the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (3rd October, 1973) the main objective was to discredit Edmund Muskie as he was the candidate that Richard Nixon feared the most. As one political commentator pointed out: "he seemed unstoppable; he had had ample financial backing, name recognition, experience, image, endorsement, and top standing in the polls."

Other targets included Edward Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. It was decided that George McGovern was the candidate that Nixon wanted to face in the presidential election. Gratz was one of 28 people hired by Segretti to carry out this smear campaign.

During the New Hampshire primary, the Manchester Union Leader, published a letter that claimed Muskie had made disparaging remarks about French-Canadians. The newspaper also attacked the character of Muskie's wife Jane, reporting that she drank heavily and used bad language during the campaign. Muskie made an emotional speech defending his wife. The press reported he had broken down in tears and this damaged his image as a calm and rational politician. Although Muskie won the New Hampshire primary, this incident had raised doubts about his ability to be a strong president.

As Keith W. Olson (Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America) has pointed out: "Segretti carried out his tricks to the fullest extent in Florida". Patrick J. Buchanan told John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman on 2nd January, 1972, "clearly, the Florida primary is shaping up as the first good opportunity and perhaps the last good opportunity to derail the Muskie candidacy".

One of Segretti's agents stole Muskie campaign stationery and mailed a fraudulent letter to 300 supporters of fellow contenders, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. This letter claimed that Jackson had fathered a child with an unmarried teenager and that the police had arrested him on homosexual charges. It went onto claim that Humphrey had been arrested while in the company of a prostitute, for driving under the influence of alcohol. It was assumed that Muskie was behind this smear campaign and his credibility as a honest politician was severely damaged.

Other dirty tricks in Florida included a naked girl running through Muskie's hotel claiming that she was in love with the Democratic contender. Segretti's agents, posing as Muskie supporters, telephoned voters in the middle of the night asking them to support their candidate.

George Wallace, won 42% of the vote in the Florida primary. Hubert Humphrey came in second, with 18.6%, then Henry Jackson with 13% and the the pre-election favourite, Edmund Muskie, finished fourth with 8.9%. This result added support to Segretti's claim that his dirty tricks campaign had the ability to remove people like Muskie from the race.

Segretti and his team of agents, including Gratz, now began to concentrate on the Wisconsin primary. Dirty tricks included distributing leaflets that appeared to have been produced by Muskie's campaign team. One of these invited Milwaukee's black residents to a free lunch and beer picnic at which they could meet Coretta Scott, the widow of Martin Luther King and famous television stars. When they arrived their excitement turned to anger when they found "no celebrities, no lunch, and no beer."

Once again this dirty tricks campaign worked. On 4th April, 1972, George McGovern won the Wisconsin primary. George Wallace came second with Edmund Muskie in fourth position. A few days later, Patrick J. Buchanan reported to John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman that "our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early primaries.... and uniting the Democratic Party behind him for the fall has been achieved." Buchanan then recommended that they concentrate on assisting McGovern's bid to be the presidential candidate "in every way we can".

During their investigation of the Watergate Scandal the journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discovered that Donald Segretti had attempted to smear leading politicians such as George McGovern, Edward Kennedy, Edmund Muskie and Henry Jackson. This included the letters sent during the Florida primary elections. The FBI had also revealed that the letter that had been sent to the Manchester Union Leader during the New Hampshire primary was also a forgery.

On 27th October, 1972, Time Magazine published an article claiming that it had obtained information from FBI files that Dwight Chaplin had hired Donald Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. The following month Carl Bernstein interviewed Segretti who admitted that E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were behind the dirty tricks campaign against the Democratic Party.

It is not known what role J. Timothy Gratz played in this dirty tricks campaign. However, in his book, The Taking of America, Richard E. Sprague argued that Gratz was involved with Donald Segretti and Dennis Cassini in supplying money to Arthur Bremer before he attempted to assassinate George Wallace. William Turner has also linked Tim Gratz with the Bremer attempt to kill Wallace (at the time Wallace as third candidate posed a serious threat to Nixon's chance to beat McGovern).

I put this information on a web-page on Tim Gratz.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

Strangely, Tim Gratz did not threaten me with lawyers about this web page. Instead, he threaten to sue me because I accused him of lying about his involvement in Nixon’s dirty tricks campaign (a word I should not have used).

Tim Gratz was later allowed to rejoin the Forum. He participated in smearing Democratic candidates for president but stopped posting when it became clear that the Republicans were leaving office.

Tim Carroll might have claimed he left the forum over the banning of Tim Gratz. Tim Carroll was a good researcher, however, he had a problem with alcohol and sometimes posted under the influence. This resulted in him making some very inappropriate posts. As a result he was placed on moderation. He continued to post until Tim Gratz was banned. He then used this as an excuse to leave the Forum. Tosh has been threatening to leave the Forum for several years. Like Tim Carroll he has used this opportunity to resign from the Forum. However, like Tim Carroll, he will return to post when it suits him. (Tim Carroll died a couple of years ago).

[John Dolva]

May he rest in peace.