Bernice Moore Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) Bernice: what "lies" do you think the FBI told about their informants? How do you explain that informants who never testified in court were, nevertheless, acknowledged to be informants when the Bureau received inquiries about them? [i am of course referring to the period after they were discontinued as informants]. Again, I feel like Alice In Wonderland. Do you want me to believe what I can see in dozens of actual FBI informant files (including many persons who never testified in court proceedings) or should I believe what you claim Swearingen wrote? Incidentally, in your judgment, was Swearingen in a position to know about Bureau-wide practices concerning informants? Or, do you think his knowledge was primarily limited to the Chicago field office? However, let's assume for sake of discussion that we take what Swearingen wrote as complete literal truth. Was he not referring to PUBLIC acknowledgements -- which might "scare" other informants? Obviously, that would not pertain to what I have been discussing here because I am referring to documentation in FBI files which was intended for internal use only -- not public disclosure. For example: many of my reports discuss information about FBI informants. The data I reveal has NEVER been previously known because it only existed in confidential memos that exist in FBI informant files and, often, I have been the first (and only) person to acquire those files. I have brought the attention of Birch Society officials to data which even they did not know about former FBI informants who later associated themselves with the JBS as speakers and writers! ERNIE IN M.WESLEY SWEARINGEN'S LATEST BOOK, PAGE 160, HE STATES; QUOTE "does the fbi always lie about Informants?? I EXPLAINED, YES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN COURT. OTHERWISE THE FBI WILL DENY THAT ANYONE IS AN INFORMANT FOR FEAR THAT OTHER INFORMANTS WILL BECOME SCARED THAT THEIR IDENTITY WILL BE REVEALED AND STOP GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, THE FBI WILL LIE TO PROTECT AN INFORMANT EVEN IF IT MEANS INNOCENT MEN GO TO JAIL." B THAT WAS A QUICK NOTICE AND REPLY. WHAT I QUOTED PAGE 160 IS VERBATIM DO NOT TRY TO EVEN HINT OTHERWISE,EVER. QUOTE ERNIE or should I believe what you claim Swearingen wrote? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO MR SWEARINGEN, I SHALL SEE THAT HE RECEIVES THEM,HE WAS IN THE FBI FOR 25 YEARS I KIND OF THINK HE JUST MIGHT KNOW A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN YOU DO, THROUGH YOUR DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS.PLUS HIS MANUSCRIPT FOR HIS BOOK WAS SUBMITTED TO THE FBI IN JAN 2008, FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW, THE ONLY THAT THE FBI OBJECTED TO AND HE COMPLIED WITH WAS THAT HE COULD NOT NAME AGENTS BELOW THE LEVEL OF ASST.S.A I.C WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION OR WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF THAT THEY ARE DECEASED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD, THE AGENTS, VIOLATED CRIMINAL LAWS AND THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, SO HE USED PSEUDONYMS, WHERE NEEDED... BUT THE REST INCLUDING THE QUOTED INFORMATION I POSTED ABOVE FROM PAGE 160 THAT YOU DOUBTED WAS CLEARED FOR PUBLICATION... .. THANKS... B EXCUSE CAPITALS THX THAT TIME OF DAY, WITH MY HANDS.. SORRY BOUT THAT.. Edited July 13, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) What do you mean by your phrase "cleared for publication"? Are you suggesting that the FBI "cleared" his comments? Bernice, as I have previously written, ultimately all of these matters become what I refer to as epistemological debates, i.e. what rules of evidence and logic do we acknowledge should be applicable for proving or disproving whatever assertions are made? Swearingen worked for the FBI 25 years. There are many Special Agents who worked at the Bureau for 25 years or longer. Insofar as other Special Agents dispute Swearingen's statements, then how do we go about figuring out whose statements and assertions and recollections are closest to being accurate and truthful? My purpose is not to defend the FBI. My purpose is to ask what rules of evidence and logic should be used to determine what is truthful? In the context of discussing FBI informants, I am simply suggesting that Swearingen's statement that the FBI always lied about its informants does not comport to the evidence I have seen in the FBI informant files I have acquired. What is true, however, is that the FBI became very hostile toward former FBI informants (and even former FBI Special Agents) whom, AFTER their FBI service, associated themselves with extremist organizations or who attempted to use their FBI service to inflate their credentials for opportunistic reasons. When we are hostile toward some person or organization or we do not have a favorable judgment about their motives or behavior, it increases our susceptibility to believing whatever derogatory accusations we read or hear about them. Even when derogatory accusations have a reasonable basis from verifiable fact, it becomes easy to develop arguments which exceed the actual evidence available -- simply because we are pre-disposed to believing the worst possible explanations and assertions. No rational person thinks that the FBI, during Hoover's tenure, always obeyed the law or always made correct judgments or always followed applicable rules, policies and procedures. But acknowledging that does not mean we should believe every adverse statement or assertion which someone makes about Hoover or the FBI. Bernice: what "lies" do you think the FBI told about their informants? How do you explain that informants who never testified in court were, nevertheless, acknowledged to be informants when the Bureau received inquiries about them? [i am of course referring to the period after they were discontinued as informants]. Again, I feel like Alice In Wonderland. Do you want me to believe what I can see in dozens of actual FBI informant files (including many persons who never testified in court proceedings) or should I believe what you claim Swearingen wrote? Incidentally, in your judgment, was Swearingen in a position to know about Bureau-wide practices concerning informants? Or, do you think his knowledge was primarily limited to the Chicago field office? However, let's assume for sake of discussion that we take what Swearingen wrote as complete literal truth. Was he not referring to PUBLIC acknowledgements -- which might "scare" other informants? Obviously, that would not pertain to what I have been discussing here because I am referring to documentation in FBI files which was intended for internal use only -- not public disclosure. For example: many of my reports discuss information about FBI informants. The data I reveal has NEVER been previously known because it only existed in confidential memos that exist in FBI informant files and, often, I have been the first (and only) person to acquire those files. I have brought the attention of Birch Society officials to data which even they did not know about former FBI informants who later associated themselves with the JBS as speakers and writers! ERNIE IN M.WESLEY SWEARINGEN'S LATEST BOOK, PAGE 160, HE STATES; QUOTE "does the fbi always lie about Informants?? I EXPLAINED, YES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN COURT. OTHERWISE THE FBI WILL DENY THAT ANYONE IS AN INFORMANT FOR FEAR THAT OTHER INFORMANTS WILL BECOME SCARED THAT THEIR IDENTITY WILL BE REVEALED AND STOP GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, THE FBI WILL LIE TO PROTECT AN INFORMANT EVEN IF IT MEANS INNOCENT MEN GO TO JAIL." B THAT WAS A QUICK NOTICE AND REPLY. WHAT I QUOTED PAGE 160 IS VERBATIM DO NOT TRY TO EVEN HINT OTHERWISE,EVER. QUOTE ERNIE or should I believe what you claim Swearingen wrote? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO MR SWEARINGEN, I SHALL SEE THAT HE RECEIVES THEM,HE WAS IN THE FBI FOR 25 YEARS I KIND OF THINK HE JUST MIGHT KNOW A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN YOU DO, THROUGH YOUR DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS.PLUS HIS MANUSCRIPT FOR HIS BOOK WAS SUBMITTED TO THE FBI IN JAN 2008, FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW, THE ONLY THAT THE FBI OBJECTED TO AND HE COMPLIED WITH WAS THAT HE COULD NOT NAME AGENTS BELOW THE LEVEL OF ASST.S.A I.C WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION OR WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF THAT THEY ARE DECEASED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD, THE AGENTS, VIOLATED CRIMINAL LAWS AND THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, SO HE USED PSEUDONYMS, WHERE NEEDED... BUT THE REST INCLUDING THE QUOTED INFORMATION I POSTED ABOVE FROM PAGE 160 THAT YOU DOUBTED WAS CLEARED FOR PUBLICATION... .. THANKS... B EXCUSE CAPITALS THX THAT TIME OF DAY, WITH MY HANDS.. SORRY BOUT THAT.. Edited July 13, 2010 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Hi Ernie, I think we are all getting around to being on the same page if not the same wavelength. Like you, most of us here have an agenda that's bigger than Harry Dean and his special relationship with the FBI, whatever it was. Most of us want to better understand what happened at Dealey Plaza, and Harry's FBI and CIA files, since they were released by the government under the JFK Act, help us in that pursuit. When we first started reading Harry's files in the mid-1990s, some of us noticed how similar Harry and Oswald were, especially in regards to the FPCC and Cuba, but also in regards to the JBS. Your posting of the FBI's official response regarding their association with Harry reads almost identical to that of JEH's sworn afidavit that Oswald was not an FBI informant, as that would be reflected in the files, an assertion that was disputed by Dallas DA Henry Wade who claimed to have handled covert undercover informants while working as a special agent of the FBI, and Hover acknowleges this in his affidavit. Fortunately, unlike Oswald, we have Harry to answer our questions, and his answers seem honest and sincere, especially since he himself has not read his complete FBI or CIA files. Both Harry and youself have called attention to the role of the JBS in the assassination and those connections are now being given closer attention, as is our understanding of what is in the FBI files and what it all means. I do have a few comments on what you have stated here: What do you mean by your phrase "cleared for publication"? Are you suggesting that the FBI "cleared" his comments? Bernice, as I have previously written, ultimately all of these matters become what I refer to as epistemological debates, i.e. what rules of evidence and logic do we acknowledge should be applicable for proving or disproving whatever assertions are made? Swearingen worked for the FBI 25 years. There are many Special Agents who worked at the Bureau for 25 years or longer. Insofar as other Special Agents dispute Swearingen's statements, then how do we go about figuring out whose statements and assertions and recollections are closest to being accurate and truthful? BK: Well, we know that Swearingen is a black bag job - break and entering specialist who actually wrote a book about the subject. Have you read it? Has anybody read it? Does it refer to the break in at the FPCC in New York City the same week Oswald wrote to them? Swearingen is also one of the few FBI agents who publicly recognize that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy, an important national security issue that all of the other agents fail. My purpose is not to defend the FBI. My purpose is to ask what rules of evidence and logic should be used to determine what is truthful? In the context of discussing FBI informants, I am simply suggesting that Swearingen's statement that the FBI always lied about its informants does not comport to the evidence I have seen in the FBI informant files I have acquired. BK: We all use the the rules of evidence and logic to make up our own minds about everything. Does Swearingen actually say that the FBI ALWAYS lies about its informants? Does the FBI have a policy to lie about its informants, and to maintain accurate files about them, especially now that it knows the files will eventually be released to the public? What is true, however, is that the FBI became very hostile toward former FBI informants (and even former FBI Special Agents) whom, AFTER their FBI service, associated themselves with extremist organizations or who attempted to use their FBI service to inflate their credentials for opportunistic reasons. BK: You should check out the role of Bob Hardy in the Camden 28 case, as well as the more recent case of the FBI informant who encouraged and incited the young arabs to consider attacking the Fort Dix/McGure/Lakehurst mega base using a pizza delivery truck. After paying his informant hundreds of thousands of dollars and using him to get a conviction against the kids in court, he was cut off and is now out in the cold, and talking about how the FBI betrayed him. When we are hostile toward some person or organization or we do not have a favorable judgment about their motives or behavior, it increases our susceptibility to believing whatever derogatory accusations we read or hear about them. Even when derogatory accusations have a reasonable basis from verifiable fact, it becomes easy to develop arguments which exceed the actual evidence available -- simply because we are pre-disposed to believing the worst possible explanations and assertions. BK: Many members have the same feelings towards both the FBI and the JBS simply because of their roles in the assassination, and there's nothing you or the FBI can say that will change that. No rational person thinks that the FBI, during Hoover's tenure, always obeyed the law or always made correct judgments or always followed applicable rules, policies and procedures. But acknowledging that does not mean we should believe every adverse statement or assertion which someone makes about Hoover or the FBI. BK: You mean Hover wasn't a cross dressing fag whose photos with Clyde Tolson were used by the Mafia to blackmail them? Bernice: what "lies" do you think the FBI told about their informants? How do you explain that informants who never testified in court were, nevertheless, acknowledged to be informants when the Bureau received inquiries about them? [i am of course referring to the period after they were discontinued as informants]. Again, I feel like Alice In Wonderland. Do you want me to believe what I can see in dozens of actual FBI informant files (including many persons who never testified in court proceedings) or should I believe what you claim Swearingen wrote? Incidentally, in your judgment, was Swearingen in a position to know about Bureau-wide practices concerning informants? Or, do you think his knowledge was primarily limited to the Chicago field office? However, let's assume for sake of discussion that we take what Swearingen wrote as complete literal truth. Was he not referring to PUBLIC acknowledgements -- which might "scare" other informants? Obviously, that would not pertain to what I have been discussing here because I am referring to documentation in FBI files which was intended for internal use only -- not public disclosure. For example: many of my reports discuss information about FBI informants. The data I reveal has NEVER been previously known because it only existed in confidential memos that exist in FBI informant files and, often, I have been the first (and only) person to acquire those files. I have brought the attention of Birch Society officials to data which even they did not know about former FBI informants who later associated themselves with the JBS as speakers and writers! BK: So Ernie, does your FBI files reflect anything about the people were are interested in besides Harry, like Castellanos the Cuban who at a JBS meeting threatened to surprise JFK when he came to Dallas ? Or Austin Cook, the JBSer who hired JD Tippit as a moonlighting security guard at his barbecue? Or the guys who took out the JFK Wanted for Treason ad in the paper? Thanks, BK ERNIE IN M.WESLEY SWEARINGEN'S LATEST BOOK, PAGE 160, HE STATES; QUOTE "does the fbi always lie about Informants?? I EXPLAINED, YES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN COURT. OTHERWISE THE FBI WILL DENY THAT ANYONE IS AN INFORMANT FOR FEAR THAT OTHER INFORMANTS WILL BECOME SCARED THAT THEIR IDENTITY WILL BE REVEALED AND STOP GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, THE FBI WILL LIE TO PROTECT AN INFORMANT EVEN IF IT MEANS INNOCENT MEN GO TO JAIL." B THAT WAS A QUICK NOTICE AND REPLY. WHAT I QUOTED PAGE 160 IS VERBATIM DO NOT TRY TO EVEN HINT OTHERWISE,EVER. QUOTE ERNIE or should I believe what you claim Swearingen wrote? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO MR SWEARINGEN, I SHALL SEE THAT HE RECEIVES THEM,HE WAS IN THE FBI FOR 25 YEARS I KIND OF THINK HE JUST MIGHT KNOW A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN YOU DO, THROUGH YOUR DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS.PLUS HIS MANUSCRIPT FOR HIS BOOK WAS SUBMITTED TO THE FBI IN JAN 2008, FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW, THE ONLY THAT THE FBI OBJECTED TO AND HE COMPLIED WITH WAS THAT HE COULD NOT NAME AGENTS BELOW THE LEVEL OF ASST.S.A I.C WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION OR WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF THAT THEY ARE DECEASED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD, THE AGENTS, VIOLATED CRIMINAL LAWS AND THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, SO HE USED PSEUDONYMS, WHERE NEEDED... BUT THE REST INCLUDING THE QUOTED INFORMATION I POSTED ABOVE FROM PAGE 160 THAT YOU DOUBTED WAS CLEARED FOR PUBLICATION... .. THANKS... B EXCUSE CAPITALS THX THAT TIME OF DAY, WITH MY HANDS.. SORRY BOUT THAT.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) ERNIE READ ""FROM AUTHOR'S NOTE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK, "" HIS MANUSCRIPT FOR HIS BOOK WAS SUBMITTED TO THE FBI IN JAN 2008, FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW, THE ONLY THAT THE FBI OBJECTED TO AND HE COMPLIED WITH WAS THAT HE COULD NOT NAME AGENTS BELOW THE LEVEL OF ASST.S.A I.C WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION OR WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF THAT THEY ARE DECEASED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD, THE AGENTS, VIOLATED CRIMINAL LAWS AND THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, SO HE USED PSEUDONYMS, WHERE NEEDED... BUT THE REST INCLUDING THE QUOTED INFORMATION I POSTED ABOVE FROM PAGE 160 THAT YOU DOUBTED WAS THE ONLY OBJECTION FROM THE FBI MENTIONED ABOVE RE THE NOT NAMING AGENTS BELOW THE LEVEL OF ASAIC,WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THEM THE FBI FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW, THE FBI RULED ON THAT ABOUT THE AGENTS, NO OTHER OBJECTIONS,FROM THEM ARE MENTIONED, SO YES AS IT READS THEY MUST HAVE CLEARED IT FOR PUBLICATION AS IT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED..... BILL YES, ONE MORE TIME SWEARINGEN STATES ON PAGE 160, JAKE ""Does the FBI ALWAYS LIE ABOUT INFORMANTS ?" I EXPLAINED,( SWEARINGEN) YES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN COURT. OTHERWISE THE FBI WILL DENY THAT ANYONE IS AN INFORMANT FOR FEAR THAT OTHER INFORMANTS WILL BECOME SCARED THAT THEIR IDENTITY WILL BE REVEALED AND STOP GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, THE FBI WILL LIE TO PROTECT AN INFORMANT EVEN IF IT MEANS INNOCENT MEN GO TO JAIL." I HAVE FINISHED THE BOOK BILL, I FOUND IT AN INTERESTING READ, AS FAR AS ANY MENTION OF ""FPCC in New York City the same week Oswald wrote to them?"" NO NOR ANY MENTION IN THE INDEX THAT I SEE.THERE IS VERY LITTLE ON THE FPFCC.BUT I WILL REREAD WHAT HERE IS.B Edited July 13, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) BILL CONDENSED RE FPFCC MENTIONED,ON P 67 THAT BANNISTER WAS CLOSE TO LHO IN N.O AND SOMEONE WAS FURNISHING INFORMATION ABOUT THE FPFCC, IT TURNED OUT TO BE BANNISTER. P 146 WITH MIKE SIMON, THE UNDERHILL, BILL HUNTER AND KLOETHE DEATHS ARE MENTIONED THEN MIKE MENTIONS ABOUT BANNSTER INFORMING ON LHO WHEN HE WORKED THE FPFCC .. PAGE 161 MENTION THAT THE FBI SHOULD HAVE PASSED LHOS INFO ONTO THE SS SO THEY COULD WORRY ABOUT IT, SHOULD HAVE PUT HIM ON THE SECURITY INDEX. ALERTED SS THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN HE WAS ACTIVE FOR THE FPFCC, IF THE SS HAD BEEN ADVISED OF A POSSIBLE ATTEMPT ON KENNEDY'S LIFE IN DALLAS THEY COULD HAVE PUT THE BUBBLE TOP ON, IT MAY HAVE SAVED HIS LIFE.THAT IS IF LHO DID TELL HOSTY THAT KENNEDY WAS GOING TO BE ASSASSINATED?, P 179AGAIN, REFERS TO BANNISTER KNOWING LHO IN THE FPCC. LAST PAGE 255 "" THE FBI WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD,TRAVELED TO RUSSIA, PUBLICLY SUPPORTED FIDEL CASTRO IN N.O BY HANDING OUT FPFCC FLYERS AND LEAFLETS , AND OSWALD ATTEMPTED TO KILL MAJOR GENERAL WALKER,IN APRIL 1963, IN DALLAS YET THE FBI DID NOT SO MUCH AS INTERVIEW OSWALD UNTIL KENNEDY WAS KLLED. ? GIVE ME A BREAK FOLKS...'' NO MENTION RE THE BREAK IN IN NY..B.. Edited July 14, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) BILL CONDENSED RE FPFCC MENTIONED,ON P 67 THAT BANNISTER WAS CLOSE TO LHO IN N.O AND SOMEONE WAS FURNISHING INFORMATION ABOUT THE FPFCC, IT TURNED OUT TO BE BANNISTER. P 146 WITH MIKE SIMON, THE UNDERHILL, BILL HUNTER AND KLOETHE DEATHS ARE MENTIONED THEN MIKE MENTIONS ABOUT BANNSTER INFORMING ON LHO WHEN HE WORKED THE FPFCC .. PAGE 161 MENTION THAT THE FBI SHOULD HAVE PASSED LHOS INFO ONTO THE SS SO THEY COULD WORRY ABOUT IT, SHOULD HAVE PUT HIM ON THE SECURITY INDEX. ALERTED SS THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN HE WAS ACTIVE FOR THE FPFCC, IF THE SS HAD BEEN ADVISED OF A POSSIBLE ATTEMPT ON KENNEDY'S LIFE IN DALLAS THEY COULD HAVE PUT THE BUBBLE TOP ON, IT MAY HAVE SAVED HIS LIFE.THAT IS IF LHO DID TELL HOSTY THAT KENNEDY WAS GOING TO BE ASSASSINATED?, P 179AGAIN, REFERS TO BANNISTER KNOWING LHO IN THE FPCC. LAST PAGE 255 "" THE FBI WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD,TRAVELED TO RUSSIA, PUBLICLY SUPPORTED FIDEL CASTRO IN N.O BY HANDING OUT FPFCC FLYERS AND LEAFLETS , AND OSWALD ATTEMPTED TO KILL MAJOR GENERAL WALKER,IN APRIL 1963, IN DALLAS YET THE FBI DID NOT SO MUCH AS INTERVIEW OSWALD UNTIL KENNEDY WAS KLLED. ? GIVE ME A BREAK FOLKS...'' NO MENTION RE THE BREAK IN IN NY..B.. B. Thanks for the comeback, and for the details of Swearingen's book, and I look forward to reading it myself, but I think you are quoting from a more recent book - or even the latest one? - when I am referring to an earlier, small edition book that Swearingen is credited with writing on Black Bag Jobs, the details of which I will get ASAP, but can't do right now. Also, I think there's a thread posted already devoted to Swaringen that I'd like to revive and focus some attention on the some of the ideas he brings to the table, while keeping this thread devoted to Harry Dean and the FBI Informants Files, both of which should entertwine at points. I'd especially like for John Simkin to convice Swearingen to join the forum and make a statement in support of his books and answer some questions, but like other authors of books who have been here before, most don't stick around if they're asked a difficult question they would prefer not to address. But Swaringen looks like he could be convinced to come by, at least to meet everybody, and see how it goes - but I think he would be intimidated by people like me and Ernie, for different reasons. I don't think Swearingen is a clean whistle blower, but only became one after he had another problem with the agency, though I'm just speculating here - but unlike Bill Turner and Henry Wade and Guy Bannister, whose portraits of the agency are interesting, Swearingen was a stand up guy for the FBI until something happened, and then he saw the light. I don't know what that thing was, but I suspect it. In any case, I hope Swearingen is convinced to drop by and answer a few questions for us, and promise that I won't ask him what it was like to work in a headquarters named after a crossdressing pervert, and maybe Ernie can refrase a few questions that don't intimidate him to be a xxxx just because he is contradicted by some other 20 year veteran Special Agents of the FBI whose pensions and reputations were also on the line. What do you say Ernie, can we call a truce and try to get Swearingen to come aboard and answer some questions, or do you just want to intimidate him, since I suspect you are pals with the agents who contradict Swearingen's story? Bill Kelly Edited July 14, 2010 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) YOUR WELCOME BILL; AGREED THIS THREAD SHOULD STAY ON THE HARRY TOPIC THIS INFO IS FROM HIS NEWEST BOOK,JUST RELEASED, ""TO KILL A PRESIDENT"" HIS OTHER IS THE ONE I BELIEVE YOU ARE MAY BE MOST INTERESTED IN, THAT IS ""FBI SECRETS'" 1995, it has not arrived as yet..i think though this NEW BOOK and all FBI CIA AND SUCH is not my fort,but to someONE as youself, there could be information that could add to or perhaps lead to new information to your studies...take care best b THE REST MOVED TO THE SWEARINGEN THREAD..B Edited July 14, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) MOVED TO THE SWEARINGEN THREAD Edited July 14, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 It is an interesting topic about if governments spy on right-wing groups. It reminds me of Ramsay MacDonald becoming Britain's first Labour prime minister in January 1924. Two days after forming his government MacDonald received a note from General Borlass Childs of Special Branch who said that "in accordance with custom" a copy was enclosed of his weekly report on left-wing revolutionary movements in Britain. MacDonald wrote back that the weekly report would be more useful if it also contained details of the "political activities... of the Fascist movement in this country". Childs replied that he had never thought it right to investigate movements which wished to achieve their aims peacefully. In truth, MI5 had instigated the formation of the British Fascisti in 1923. Maxwell Knight was the organization's Director of Intelligence. In this role he had responsibility for compiling intelligence dossiers on its enemies; for planning counter-espionage and for establishing and supervising fascist cells operating in the trade union movement. This information was then passed onto Vernon Kell, Director of the Home Section of the Secret Service Bureau. This government organization had responsibility of investigating espionage, sabotage and subversion in Britain and was also known as MI5. In 1925 Kell recruited Knight to work for the Secret Service Bureau and played a significant role in helping to defeat the General Strike in 1926 and by the early 1930s was placed in charge of B5b, a unit that conducted the monitoring of political subversion. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRmacdonald.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSknightM.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 14, 2010 Author Share Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) Bill: Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not acquainted with any FBI Agents except deceased Agents whose files I have obtained. All FBI employees sign a "Classified Information Non-disclosure Agreement" (currently form SF312 but previously SF 189). Consequently, it is unlikely that Mr. Swearingen can reveal anything that would help us in this debate. He is subject to rather severe penalties for violations of various sections of Title 18 of the U.S. Code which pertain to revealing the identity of covert agents/informants or making use of classified information for personal gain. So, Bill, it is not a matter of some "difficult question" which Mr. Swearingen might not like to answer. It is his fidelity to his non-disclosure agreement. Lastly, I have no interest in "intimidating" anybody and I resent your characterization. Discovering truth about complex matters requires careful examination of evidence. Obviously, asking probing questions and familiarity with the subject matter are requirements. One cannot simply look for what Karl Popper called "confirmations". One must candidly recognize and address the existence of contradictory evidence. And, as I have previously stated numerous times, one MUST define terms. If a word or concept is defined too narrowly or too broadly, the end result is confusion, if not outright deception. When people refuse to define terms it is a sign that they are not serious-minded. BILL CONDENSED RE FPFCC MENTIONED,ON P 67 THAT BANNISTER WAS CLOSE TO LHO IN N.O AND SOMEONE WAS FURNISHING INFORMATION ABOUT THE FPFCC, IT TURNED OUT TO BE BANNISTER. P 146 WITH MIKE SIMON, THE UNDERHILL, BILL HUNTER AND KLOETHE DEATHS ARE MENTIONED THEN MIKE MENTIONS ABOUT BANNSTER INFORMING ON LHO WHEN HE WORKED THE FPFCC .. PAGE 161 MENTION THAT THE FBI SHOULD HAVE PASSED LHOS INFO ONTO THE SS SO THEY COULD WORRY ABOUT IT, SHOULD HAVE PUT HIM ON THE SECURITY INDEX. ALERTED SS THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN HE WAS ACTIVE FOR THE FPFCC, IF THE SS HAD BEEN ADVISED OF A POSSIBLE ATTEMPT ON KENNEDY'S LIFE IN DALLAS THEY COULD HAVE PUT THE BUBBLE TOP ON, IT MAY HAVE SAVED HIS LIFE.THAT IS IF LHO DID TELL HOSTY THAT KENNEDY WAS GOING TO BE ASSASSINATED?, P 179AGAIN, REFERS TO BANNISTER KNOWING LHO IN THE FPCC. LAST PAGE 255 "" THE FBI WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD,TRAVELED TO RUSSIA, PUBLICLY SUPPORTED FIDEL CASTRO IN N.O BY HANDING OUT FPFCC FLYERS AND LEAFLETS , AND OSWALD ATTEMPTED TO KILL MAJOR GENERAL WALKER,IN APRIL 1963, IN DALLAS YET THE FBI DID NOT SO MUCH AS INTERVIEW OSWALD UNTIL KENNEDY WAS KLLED. ? GIVE ME A BREAK FOLKS...'' NO MENTION RE THE BREAK IN IN NY..B.. B. Thanks for the comeback, and for the details of Swearingen's book, and I look forward to reading it myself, but I think you are quoting from a more recent book - or even the latest one? - when I am referring to an earlier, small edition book that Swearingen is credited with writing on Black Bag Jobs, the details of which I will get ASAP, but can't do right now. Also, I think there's a thread posted already devoted to Swaringen that I'd like to revive and focus some attention on the some of the ideas he brings to the table, while keeping this thread devoted to Harry Dean and the FBI Informants Files, both of which should entertwine at points. I'd especially like for John Simkin to convice Swearingen to join the forum and make a statement in support of his books and answer some questions, but like other authors of books who have been here before, most don't stick around if they're asked a difficult question they would prefer not to address. But Swaringen looks like he could be convinced to come by, at least to meet everybody, and see how it goes - but I think he would be intimidated by people like me and Ernie, for different reasons. I don't think Swearingen is a clean whistle blower, but only became one after he had another problem with the agency, though I'm just speculating here - but unlike Bill Turner and Henry Wade and Guy Bannister, whose portraits of the agency are interesting, Swearingen was a stand up guy for the FBI until something happened, and then he saw the light. I don't know what that thing was, but I suspect it. In any case, I hope Swearingen is convinced to drop by and answer a few questions for us, and promise that I won't ask him what it was like to work in a headquarters named after a crossdressing pervert, and maybe Ernie can refrase a few questions that don't intimidate him to be a xxxx just because he is contradicted by some other 20 year veteran Special Agents of the FBI whose pensions and reputations were also on the line. What do you say Ernie, can we call a truce and try to get Swearingen to come aboard and answer some questions, or do you just want to intimidate him, since I suspect you are pals with the agents who contradict Swearingen's story? Bill Kelly Edited July 14, 2010 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 14, 2010 Author Share Posted July 14, 2010 There is no "if" about it. Our intelligence-gathering agencies (e.g. CIA, military, FBI, BATF) as well as Police Department "countersubversive" units routinely "spied" on both right-wing and left-wing groups and they did so for decades. I'm sure you are familiar with the books by Frank Donner which are a good general introduction to this subject: (1980) The Age of Surveillance: The Aims & Methods of America's Political Intelligence System (1991) Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Political Repression in Urban America With respect to FBI informants, I recommend an article in the Summer 2001 issue of Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems by Amanda J. Schrieber entitled "Dealing With the Devil: An Examination of the FBI's Troubled Relationship With Its Confidential Informants" Also the following references are useful: http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/bibliographies/informants.htm It is an interesting topic about if governments spy on right-wing groups. It reminds me of Ramsay MacDonald becoming Britain's first Labour prime minister in January 1924. Two days after forming his government MacDonald received a note from General Borlass Childs of Special Branch who said that "in accordance with custom" a copy was enclosed of his weekly report on left-wing revolutionary movements in Britain. MacDonald wrote back that the weekly report would be more useful if it also contained details of the "political activities... of the Fascist movement in this country". Childs replied that he had never thought it right to investigate movements which wished to achieve their aims peacefully. In truth, MI5 had instigated the formation of the British Fascisti in 1923. Maxwell Knight was the organization's Director of Intelligence. In this role he had responsibility for compiling intelligence dossiers on its enemies; for planning counter-espionage and for establishing and supervising fascist cells operating in the trade union movement. This information was then passed onto Vernon Kell, Director of the Home Section of the Secret Service Bureau. This government organization had responsibility of investigating espionage, sabotage and subversion in Britain and was also known as MI5. In 1925 Kell recruited Knight to work for the Secret Service Bureau and played a significant role in helping to defeat the General Strike in 1926 and by the early 1930s was placed in charge of B5b, a unit that conducted the monitoring of political subversion. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRmacdonald.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSknightM.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) My latest replies in green Ernie, Since you're currently recapping and reviewing (without bothering yourself with little things like direct quotes which may go toward proving whatever point you're attempting to make), I thought it at least should be done properly. Quote You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill) 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. This is a prime example of how you take everything literally, when it would have been obvious to most that Bill was exaggerating the number of KKK informants to underline a point. Greg, how could I know if Bill was exaggerating or to what degree? Many people I have debated have made a comparable statement because they actually believed that half of the active members of the KKK were FBI informants. Other people have made similar claims about CPUSA members. I rest my case. You are incapable of reading the meaning; all you read are the words. Your seeming complete inability to grasp such nuance, along with your quirky fixation on John Birch conspiracy theories which has gone on for decades, your fastidiousness and obsession with protocols and inability to read, when necessary, between the lines of documents or other written materials, your compulsion to reply multiple times to one post despite previous claims any reply at all would be a waste, taken together may be the indicia for underlying problems of a medical nature. But isn't it odd Greg that I am the one (not you) who early-on in this debate told you that you could not rely upon the literal wording of the Mobile memo because one had to understand what the FBI meant by "investigation" as opposed to other methods by which it acquired information? No, I don't believe you told me that at all, Ernie. You asked several times for my definition of "investigation" which is part of your MO. In other words, one must "read between the lines" to properly understand the "nuance" of what "investigation" meant in BureauSpeak? That's not reading between the lines. That's just making xxxx up. The very best you could claim is that "Bureau policy not to investigate the WCC" means something different in each individual field office. Go ahead. Knock yourself out and make that case. I promise I'll pay attention. Am I not also the person who previously told you that Hoover violated instructions he received from his superiors simply by re-creating a forbidden policy or program under a different name? Thanks. But I already knew that. With respect to your comment about my "fixation" with JBS conspiracy theories: I am not sure I understand what you mean. The reason the JBS is so fascinating to me is because their publications discuss so many different subjects and they were able to do what no other right-wing organization (up to that time) was successful at doing i.e. building a large, well-financed grass roots network across the country while securing the support/endorsement from numerous prominent persons from all walks of life. I am referring to the reasons you posted back in March of this of this year to your google blog: I am a "conspiracy buff" and a freelance researcher. I am not connected to any organization. My interest in this subject matter began in the early 1960's. A relative of mine (who was a police officer) had a subscription to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin which I read regularly. Every issue had an "Introductory Message" authored by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. One day while reading one of Hoover's messages, I noticed that he made a comment which flatly contradicted a statement which, coincidentally, had just been published in a letter-to-the-editor to my local newspaper. So I responded to that person's letter. I quoted Hoover's comment and I added some additional material from a recent report by the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. After my reply was published, I received several hostile anonymous phone calls and one individual (whom I later discovered was a John Birch Society member) replied in the form of a poem which was published in my local paper. One part of her poem inquired: "Is it just coincidence that Ernie's words so arty, sound just like the Communist Party?" I never understood (then or now) how quoting Hoover or our state un-American activities committee could put me in the company of the CPUSA --- and thus began my life-long interest in right-wing conspiracy theories and their adherents. For more than 29 years I have been acquiring FBI (and other agency) files and documents via Freedom of Information Act requests. Of particular interest to me have been those persons and organizations who espouse a conspiracy explanation of current events and past historical developments---such as the John Birch Society. A list of many of the subjects of my FOIA requests may be seen here: To me, that is a fixation. Moreover, it's a fixation of Rainman-like significance and proportions. I mean, it may as well be baseball stats, if only because that is how you treat it. Incidentally, it is not only my "fixation". Every scholar who has written a book during the past 20 years about postwar conservative movement history has devoted considerable attention to the impact of the JBS. Every scholar, Ernie? Are you exaggerating to make a point? How do I know you are exagerating? And if you are, to what degree? Many people I have debated have made a comparable statement because they actually believed every single scholar who has ever strung two sentences together about postwar conservatism, has devoted a considerable number of phrases to the JBS. Other people have made similar claims about conspiracy buffs-slash-freelance writers. JBS activity was not officially acknowledged. For example: individual Birchers often were the primary actors in major controversies all over our country, but they did not identify themselves as being JBS members. Yes, Ernie. I think I have explained front groups, splinter groups and individuals working "underground" (at arms length for plausible deniability) And, yet again, instead of just presenting your best case, you feel the need to engage in ad hominem attack attack attack, i.e. "underlying problems of a medical nature" --- but you consider that sort of comment to be helpful because you are so superior to everyone else, right? No. I am sincerely concerned that I may be debating someone with an underlying problem. Put my mind at rest. Take the Rainman test. Which airline has the best safety record? As for being (or feeling) superior… I'm certainly not a scholar. Nor a freelance journalist. Not an educator. Just someone who gives a toss and puts in a little effort to try and scratch the surface and gets mixed results. Quote You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill): 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. Quote Bill, in reply to the above. See Post #6: Take Bob Hardy, the ex-USMC, not recruited, but a walk in, a volunteer FBI informant and agent provocateur who inspired the Camden 28 to raid the selective service office and try to steal their records, a good example of how the informant role often gets out of hand. You failed to address the issues surrounding Hardy as they may apply to Dean. Correct. I know nothing about Hardy. You don't HAVE to know anything about Hardy. The question was assuming Bill has accurately characterized Hardy's relationship to the FBI along with his activities, is it possible Dean was in a similar situation? And when I say possible I don't mean theoretically in some alternate universe. Based on your personal knowledge, is it possible? The Bureau denied as early as 1974 (and probably also earlier) that HD was an "undercover operative" <A title="External link" href="http://www.maryferre...80&relpageid=27/">http://www.maryferre...80&relPageId=27 However, it did admit he had volunteered information about the FPCC and that his FBI number was 4657880. I think if Harry gave the FBI information which it accepted; he is entitled to call himself an informant, as what he did would meet the ordinary meaning of the term. Greg, the FBI "accepted" ANY information it received from ANYBODY. This is another example of how you want to dumb-down our debate by using a definition which becomes so all-encompassing that it becomes meaningless. <B><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"></B> You've given me an idea, Ernie. I'm going to write a 6,254 word essay on terms favored by JBS conspiracy buffs in debate. "Dumb-down" and "malicious" are sure to be in there. Of course the FBI accepted any information. Did Harry know that? Put yourself in his shoes. He offers information to the FBI. They accepted such information multiple times. Harry does not know they take information from any ol' Tom, Dick or Harriette. He is not a "conspiracy buff" and therefore has not acquired 12,000 FBI files it takes to learn the FBI definition of "informant". It matters not what you or I know or think. If Harry called himself an "informant", it is likely because he applied the ordinary meaning. How am I "dumbing down" the debate by pointing that out? Genuine FBI informants were subjected to rigorous background investigations. I previously posted a link to two FBI memos regarding Rev. Delmar Dennis to illustrate the typical format which a field office used to document its desire to use someone as an informant. And Delmar was an FBI informant around the time HD claimed he also was an informant. Here is the link again in case you missed it: Notice that the caption on the Jackson field office memo is "Delmar Dennis, RI Prob" which refers to "racial informantprobationary". In other words, the field office proposed acceptance by HQ of their use of an informant and then the informant was on probationary status to determine if he/she provided reliable and credible information. If not, they were dropped. But you want to use lowest-common-denominator reasoning to discuss this matter. You want EVERYONE who sent a letter to the FBI, or called a field office, or appeared in person at an office to be legitimately entitled to be considered an "informant" regardless of what "information" they provided. For crying out loud! It's like walking in molasses! Get a grip! I was NOT making that argument at all, but apparently you are incapable of viewing the world through anyone else's eyes except Hoover's! But thank you anyway. I"ll add "lowest common denominator" to my essay! I have seen hundreds of letters in FBI files where the Bureau summarizes unsolicited "information" that they received from somebody and a Bureau file copy notation (or separate memo discussing the matter) states that the person who provided the information was mentally unbalanced...but, nevertheless, in your scheme of things, that person should be considered "an informant". Cripes! Are you STILL carrying on a like a pork chop over your own warped definition of what I said? He may not have even been aware that the Bureau had a more stringent definition. It makes no difference if Harry knew the FBI definition. The question remains: why does HD claim that he was "requested" by the FBI to infiltrate and inform on the JBS? I'm not certain he did claim that. He may have but I don't think it's a "given". I have seen where he said he informed on the FPCC and where he also said he joined the JBS as a genuine supporter of it while still informing on other groups. And is there any factual evidence to support HD's contentions about the type of information he supposedly provided and to whom? You seem to be so emotionally invested in HD that you do not want to consider the possibility that he is misrepresenting his status. Should I add "emotionally invested" to my essay? I don't recall seeing where you've used that one before. Is it going to be trotted out and exercised on a regular basis? I know less than you do about Harry, and have exchanged maybe one or two posts at most with him here in 6 years. And, if, as Bill states, Hardy was a "volunteer" informant AND agent provocateur operating (apparently) in that capacity at arms length from the Bureau, who is to say Dean was not a similar case? As I have previously stated, fiction writers can fabricate any scenario they want. I cannot prove a negative proposition. "Negative proposition" added. Thanks. BTW, asking if it is possible is not making a statement of fact. Quote You, post # 15 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. I have given you 3 sources already relating to the Hoover era which showed that those protocols were not always adhered to. Here is a Washington Post dated Sept 13, 2005 which indicates the problem was never really fixed and had indeed, become endemic. Gregbelieve whatever you want. You prefer a Washington Post article. I prefer reviewing actual FBI informant files. Did you even bother looking at the story? Or are you accusing the Post of lying about its source? From the Post story: Many FBI agents have ignored Justice Department rules for handling confidential informants that were established in the wake of several high-profile scandals, according to a study released yesterday. In an analysis of 120 informant files from around the country, the Justice Department's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found that FBI agents violated procedures in 87 percent of the cases, including some in which informants allegedly engaged in illegal activity without proper oversight or permission. Oh dear. What a conundrum! Ernie has reviewed informant files and found next to no problems. The DOJ Inspector General reviewed a randomly selected 120 files from across the nation and found significant problems in 87% of the cases - or in raw numbers, around 104 of 120. Well, it's almost impossible to choose really, isn't it? Ernie, or Glenn, Glenn or Ernie. I might have to sleep on it… Quote You, from Post # 189 (1) WCC and JBS and FBI INVESTIGATION First, if I was Greg, I would have focused my attention on what initially produced our dispute i.e. the notion that the FBI never "investigated" the WCC or the JBS. I would have written something like this: Ernie, with respect to WCC, I believe you are mistaken about this matter because the memo I found in the Goldwater file appears to falsify your contention. You have stated that the FBI conducted investigations of the WCC after that initial period in the mid-1950's. In order for me to agree with you, you would need to provide me with the following information. My understanding about what constitutes an FBI investigation is as follows [Greg then would enter his data here]. So, have you seen anything in the WCC files you have obtained that meets those criteria? Ernie you also dispute my contention that you stated that the JBS was never investigated even though you acknowledge that Bureau memos frequently include a comment to the effect that the Bureau "has not investigated the JBS". If plain English declarations are not adequate for making a correct determination, then what criteria are you proposing that we substitute? The problem is, Ernie, the first person who had the opportunity to ask questions along those lines, was YOU. But you put yourself above that. It is all the contemptuous creatures who unfortunately for them are not Ernie Lazar that must ask the questions. So… instead of asking what I was basing my comment on, as you would have others do, you simply ended your lecture with "obviously, your knowledge about this matter is not credible." (Post # 15) GregI offered numerous times to bring our discussion into the realm of facts. I asked you to define investigation because I believed that if you did so, we would have a common understanding from which to proceed. You refused. If you had agreed, then our discussion probably would have been much more productive. That's not how you get your kicks in these forums, Ernie, no matter how much you protest otherwise. The evidence is, as they say, out there. You break into a cold sweat waiting to apply your ever-ready, handy-dandy sets of labels and lectures to expose ever more of those dastardly conspiricists and their broken epistemology! Edited July 14, 2010 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 14, 2010 Author Share Posted July 14, 2010 I don't know if this would interest anybody, but there are hundreds of detailed monographs which the FBI produced that reveal FBI practices and procedures and which summarize information in FBI files about all sorts of subject matters. These reports were written exclusively for internal FBI use--and they often were utilized as training material for Special Agents. Listed below of some of the more interesting titles. I also copy below a section from the FBI Manual of Instructions which might be helpful to our discussions here: FBI MONOGRAPHS “16th National Convention of the Communist Party USA” “A Threat Assessment For Domestic Terrorism” “Allegiance of the Communist Party USA to the Soviet Union” "American Nazi Party" (June 1965) “Analysis of Accomplishments of TOPLEV Program” “Analysis of Successful Communist Informant Interviews” “Basic Ideas of Communist Philosophy” “Bibliography on Communism” “Charts – Communist Front Organizations” “Communication Methods of the Communist Party USA” “Communism versus the Jewish People” "Communist China Counterintelligence” “Communist Front Movement in the United States” “Communist Party Line” 1955-1968 – semiannual report “Communist Party USA – Funds and Finances” “Communist Party USA — Semiannual Intelligence Digest” 1955-1968 “Communist Party USA – The Underground Apparatus 1953-1955” “Communist Party USA—School System” “Communist Press USA – Statements Directed Against American Society, Sept-Dec 1919” “Communist Press USA – Statements Directed Against American Society 1925-1929” “Communist Propaganda in the United States, Parts 1 thru 9” “Communist Strategy and Tactics, Part 1: General Principles Governing Communist Strategy and Tactics” “Communist Strategy and Tactics, Part II: Current Strategy and Tactics of the Communist Party” “Current Weaknesses of the Communist Party, USA” “Definitions of Socialism” “Development of Racial Informants” "Discipline in the Communist Party USA" “Distribution of Individuals Dangerous To The Internal Security of the U.S.” “Evidence of Religious Bona Fides and Status of the Church of Scientology” “Fact-Finding Interviews” “FBI and Civil Rights” “FBI Research and Writing” “Fund For The Republic, Inc.” “Funds and Foundations” “Glossary of Marxist Words and Phrases” “History of the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels” “Intelligence and Security Services Study – Internal Security Manual” “Israeli Intelligence Service in the United States” “Klan Organizations, Section III, 1958-1964” “Leading New Left Revolutionaries” "Lenin’s Revolutionary Thoughts, Part I (A-M)" "Lenin’s Revolutionary Thoughts, Part II (N-Z)" "Leninism-Stalinism: The Deadly Parallel" “Mafia, Section II, United States” “Marxist Influence in the American Labor Movement With International Ramifications” “Material on Communism” – to be used before Police Schools and Conferences of Police Executives “Membership of the Communist Party USA, 1919-1954” “Menace of Communism in the United States Today” “Minutemen: Extremist Guerilla Warfare Group” “National States Rights Party” “Politics of Street Revolutionists” “Purge Victims of the Communist Party USA” “Reasons Why People Accept and Reject Communism” “Reasons Why Rank-and-File Members of the Communist Party Have Accepted and Rejected Communism” “Security Informant Development” “Security Informants” – Section 1 thru Section 9 “Significant Dates and Events in World Communist Movement” “Smear Campaign Against The FBI—The Nation, October 18, 1958” “Socialist Workers Party, 1955-1965” “Soviet and Satellite Defectors” “Soviet Counterintelligence Organizations” “Soviet Defectors—A Study of Past Defections” “Soviet Intelligence Targets in the United States 1946-1953” “Soviet Intelligence Targets in the United States From 1954 to April 1959” “Soviet State Security” – Section 1 thru Section 6 “State of the Domestic White Nationalist Extremist Movement in the United States” “State Legislation Relating to the Control of Subversive Activities” “Stool Pigeon Or Loyal Citizen?—Part II” “Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee” "Polish Intelligence Activities in the United State" "Role of the Communist Party USA in Soviet Intelligence" "Soviet Illegal Espionage in the U.S." "Soviet Intelligence Targets in the United States 1946-1953" "Soviet Intelligence Targets in the United States 1946-1953" "Soviet Intelligence Travel and Entry Techniques" "The Communist Front Movement in the U.S." "The Communist Party – The Internal Danger to all Free Nations" "The Communist Party and American Labor" "The Communist Party and Social Reform" "The Communist Party USA and its Tactic Peaceful Coexistence" "The Communist Party USA versus Earl Russell Browder and Browderism" "The Educational Program of the Communist Party USA, Part I – Communist Front Schools “The Educational Program of the Communist Party USA, Part II – Inner Party Schools" "The Menace of Communism in the U.S. Today" "The Sabotage Plans and Potential of the Communist Party USA" "The Urban Guerilla in the United States" “White Extremist Organizations” (ANP, Minutemen, NSRP, NSWPP, NRP) “White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement” “Who’s Who of National Leaders, CPUSA” (1963 and 1969 editions) “Why People Accept and Reject Communism (Lecture Material For Use of FBI Police Schools)” FBI MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS 1971, Section 122, pp 1-10 = Racial Matters “Investigation of White Extremist Organizations and Individuals” A1 = “FBI is charged with gathering and disseminating intelligence information regarding extremist groups and individuals. To carry out our responsibilities it is necessary for us to have accurate knowledge of activities of these groups and their members, as well as of individual extremists unaffiliated with organizations.” A2 = Investigative criteria: Investigation is confined to organizations or individuals that: a. have actually or allegedly committed or conspired to commit acts of violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution, or b. have adopted or have allegedly adopted a policy of advocating, condoning, or inciting use of force or violence to deny others their rights under Constitution, or c. have been designated pursuant to Executive Order 10450 or d. have actual or alleged affiliation with a designated organization A3(: “Investigative reports concerning Klan and other white extremist organizations must be submitted annually by each office having an organization in its territory. These reports must reach Bureau and office of origin by February 15…” A3(d): “Details of rallies, demonstrations and other pertinent activities should be promptly furnished to Bureau in form suitable for dissemination including full details of speeches and identities of speakers.” … A3(e): “Follow through public sources and established sources activities of organizations which do not come within criteria for investigation under 2 above. Initiate investigation upon receipt of information which brings organization within investigative criteria and at same time advise Bureau of action taken and basis therefore.” A4(a): Investigation of Individuals: “Individual cases should be opened, investigation conducted, and report submitted on following individuals: (1) all officers at or above state level in these organizations (2) officers and individuals in units of less than state level who formulate policy or direct activities of unit (3) individuals affiliations or unaffiliated with white extremist organization who have demonstrated a potential for violence (4) individuals not enumerated above who in judgment of SAC should be subject of investigation due to extremist activities (5) wholesale investigations of individuals affiliated with organizations should not be undertaken. If there is any question as to whether investigation should be initiated, present facts to Bureau for consideration.” … A7 = Infiltration of Law Enforcement – Instructs field to report info concerning white extremist affiliations of high-ranking officers of state police, sheriff’s office and local police department to governor of state or Mayor. A9 = Dissemination of Klan, white extremist organization and individual reports (a) To Army, Navy and Air Force ( To Secret Service (reference to Section 87I-Volume III of this manual) A10 = Agitator Index = Section 122D VIOLATIONS: (1) Rebellion or Insurrection = Title 18, USC 2383 = “Proscribes the inciting or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against authority of the U.S.” (2) Seditious Conspiracy = Title 18, USC 2384 “Proscribes conspiring to overthrow or to destroy by force the Government of the U.S. or to oppose by force the authority thereof or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of U.S.” (3) Advocating Overthrow of Government = Smith Act of 1940, Title 18, USC 2385 (4) Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War = Title 18, USC 2388 “Proscribes making or conveying a false report of U.S. military or naval forces or to promote success of its enemies, or counseling insubordination, disloyalty, or mutiny in the armed forces.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted July 14, 2010 Author Share Posted July 14, 2010 Greg: there is so much sarcasm and so many snide insults in your message that it obviously is pointless to reply to your comments. Let's face it Greg: you do NOT want to have a civil discussion with me. All you want to do is attack me, disparage me, while simultaneously insisting that you know more than me and you are incapable of being wrong about anything. My "discussion" with you is now ended. You can continue to believe whatever you want. My latest replies in green Ernie, Since you're currently recapping and reviewing (without bothering yourself with little things like direct quotes which may go toward proving whatever point you're attempting to make), I thought it at least should be done properly. Quote You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill) 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. This is a prime example of how you take everything literally, when it would have been obvious to most that Bill was exaggerating the number of KKK informants to underline a point. Greg, how could I know if Bill was exaggerating or to what degree? Many people I have debated have made a comparable statement because they actually believed that half of the active members of the KKK were FBI informants. Other people have made similar claims about CPUSA members. I rest my case. You are incapable of reading the meaning; all you read are the words. Your seeming complete inability to grasp such nuance, along with your quirky fixation on John Birch conspiracy theories which has gone on for decades, your fastidiousness and obsession with protocols and inability to read, when necessary, between the lines of documents or other written materials, your compulsion to reply multiple times to one post despite previous claims any reply at all would be a waste, taken together may be the indicia for underlying problems of a medical nature. But isn’t it odd Greg that I am the one (not you) who early-on in this debate told you that you could not rely upon the literal wording of the Mobile memo because one had to understand what the FBI meant by “investigation” as opposed to other methods by which it acquired information? No, I don’t believe you told me that at all, Ernie. You asked several times for my definition of “investigation” which is part of your MO. In other words, one must “read between the lines” to properly understand the “nuance” of what "investigation" meant in BureauSpeak? That’s not reading between the lines. That’s just making xxxx up. The very best you could claim is that “Bureau policy not to investigate the WCC” means something different in each individual field office. Go ahead. Knock yourself out and make that case. I promise I’ll pay attention. Am I not also the person who previously told you that Hoover violated instructions he received from his superiors simply by re-creating a forbidden policy or program under a different name? Thanks. But I already knew that. With respect to your comment about my "fixation" with JBS conspiracy theories: I am not sure I understand what you mean. The reason the JBS is so fascinating to me is because their publications discuss so many different subjects and they were able to do what no other right-wing organization (up to that time) was successful at doing i.e. building a large, well-financed grass roots network across the country while securing the support/endorsement from numerous prominent persons from all walks of life. I am referring to the reasons you posted back in March of this of this year to your google blog: I am a “conspiracy buff” and a freelance researcher. I am not connected to any organization. My interest in this subject matter began in the early 1960’s. A relative of mine (who was a police officer) had a subscription to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin which I read regularly. Every issue had an “Introductory Message” authored by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. One day while reading one of Hoover’s messages, I noticed that he made a comment which flatly contradicted a statement which, coincidentally, had just been published in a letter-to-the-editor to my local newspaper. So I responded to that person’s letter. I quoted Hoover’s comment and I added some additional material from a recent report by the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. After my reply was published, I received several hostile anonymous phone calls and one individual (whom I later discovered was a John Birch Society member) replied in the form of a poem which was published in my local paper. One part of her poem inquired: “Is it just coincidence that Ernie’s words so arty, sound just like the Communist Party?” I never understood (then or now) how quoting Hoover or our state un-American activities committee could put me in the company of the CPUSA --- and thus began my life-long interest in right-wing conspiracy theories and their adherents. For more than 29 years I have been acquiring FBI (and other agency) files and documents via Freedom of Information Act requests. Of particular interest to me have been those persons and organizations who espouse a conspiracy explanation of current events and past historical developments---such as the John Birch Society. A list of many of the subjects of my FOIA requests may be seen here: To me, that is a fixation. Moreover, it’s a fixation of Rainman-like significance and proportions. I mean, it may as well be baseball stats, if only because that is how you treat it. Incidentally, it is not only my "fixation". Every scholar who has written a book during the past 20 years about postwar conservative movement history has devoted considerable attention to the impact of the JBS. Every scholar, Ernie? Are you exaggerating to make a point? How do I know you are exagerating? And if you are, to what degree? Many people I have debated have made a comparable statement because they actually believed every single scholar who has ever strung two sentences together about postwar conservatism, has devoted a considerable number of phrases to the JBS. Other people have made similar claims about conspiracy buffs-slash-freelance writers. JBS activity was not officially acknowledged. For example: individual Birchers often were the primary actors in major controversies all over our country, but they did not identify themselves as being JBS members.<B><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"></B> Yes, Ernie. I think I have explained front groups, splinter groups and individuals working “underground” (at arms length for plausible deniability) And, yet again, instead of just presenting your best case, you feel the need to engage in ad hominem attack attack attack, i.e. “underlying problems of a medical nature” --- but you consider that sort of comment to be helpful because you are so superior to everyone else, right? <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> No. I am sincerely concerned that I may be debating someone with an underlying problem. Put my mind at rest. Take the Rainman test. Which airline has the best safety record? As for being (or feeling) superior… I’m certainly not a scholar. Nor a freelance journalist. Not an educator. Just someone who gives a toss and puts in a little effort to try and scratch the surface and gets mixed results. Quote You, Post # 5 (reply to Bill): 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. Quote Bill, in reply to the above. See Post #6: Take Bob Hardy, the ex-USMC, not recruited, but a walk in, a volunteer FBI informant and agent provocateur who inspired the Camden 28 to raid the selective service office and try to steal their records, a good example of how the informant role often gets out of hand. You failed to address the issues surrounding Hardy as they may apply to Dean. Correct. I know nothing about Hardy. You don’t HAVE to know anything about Hardy. The question was – assuming Bill has accurately characterized Hardy’s relationship to the FBI along with his activities, is it possible Dean was in a similar situation? And when I say possible – I don’t mean theoretically in some alternate universe. Based on your personal knowledge, is it possible? The Bureau denied as early as 1974 (and probably also earlier) that HD was an "undercover operative" <A title="External link" href="http://www.maryferre...80&relpageid=27/">http://www.maryferre...80&relPageId=27 However, it did admit he had volunteered information about the FPCC and that his FBI number was 4657880. http://www.maryferre...80&relPageId=28 I think if Harry gave the FBI information which it accepted; he is entitled to call himself an informant, as what he did would meet the ordinary meaning of the term. Greg, the FBI “accepted” ANY information it received from ANYBODY. This is another example of how you want to dumb-down our debate by using a definition which becomes so all-encompassing that it becomes meaningless. <B><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"></B> You’ve given me an idea, Ernie. I’m going to write a 6,254 word essay on terms favored by JBS conspiracy buffs in debate. “Dumb-down” and “malicious” are sure to be in there. Of course the FBI accepted any information. Did Harry know that? Put yourself in his shoes. He offers information to the FBI. They accepted such information multiple times. Harry does not know they take information from any ol’ Tom, Dick or Harriette. He is not a “conspiracy buff” and therefore has not acquired 12,000 FBI files it takes to learn the FBI definition of “informant”. It matters not what you or I know or think. If Harry called himself an “informant”, it is likely because he applied the ordinary meaning. How am I “dumbing down” the debate by pointing that out? Genuine FBI informants were subjected to rigorous background investigations. I previously posted a link to two FBI memos regarding Rev. Delmar Dennis to illustrate the typical format which a field office used to document its desire to use someone as an informant. And Delmar was an FBI informant around the time HD claimed he also was an informant. Here is the link again in case you missed it: http://sites.google....ie124102/dennis Notice that the caption on the Jackson field office memo is “Delmar Dennis, RI – Prob” which refers to “racial informant—probationary”. In other words, the field office proposed acceptance by HQ of their use of an informant and then the informant was on probationary status to determine if he/she provided reliable and credible information. If not, they were dropped. But you want to use lowest-common-denominator reasoning to discuss this matter. You want EVERYONE who sent a letter to the FBI, or called a field office, or appeared in person at an office to be legitimately entitled to be considered an “informant” regardless of what "information" they provided. For crying out loud! It’s like walking in molasses! Get a grip! I was NOT making that argument at all, but apparently you are incapable of viewing the world through anyone else’s eyes except Hoover’s! But thank you anyway. I”ll add “lowest common denominator” to my essay! I have seen hundreds of letters in FBI files where the Bureau summarizes unsolicited "information" that they received from somebody and a Bureau file copy notation (or separate memo discussing the matter) states that the person who provided the information was mentally unbalanced...but, nevertheless, in your scheme of things, that person should be considered "an informant". <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> Cripes! Are you STILL carrying on a like a pork chop over your own warped definition of what I said? He may not have even been aware that the Bureau had a more stringent definition. It makes no difference if Harry knew the FBI definition. The question remains: why does HD claim that he was "requested" by the FBI to infiltrate and inform on the JBS? I’m not certain he did claim that. He may have – but I don’t think it’s a “given”. I have seen where he said he informed on the FPCC and where he also said he joined the JBS as a genuine supporter of it while still informing on other groups. And is there any factual evidence to support HD's contentions about the type of information he supposedly provided and to whom? You seem to be so emotionally invested in HD that you do not want to consider the possibility that he is misrepresenting his status.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> Should I add “emotionally invested” to my essay? I don’t recall seeing where you’ve used that one before. Is it going to be trotted out and exercised on a regular basis? I know less than you do about Harry, and have exchanged maybe one or two posts at most with him here in 6 years. And, if, as Bill states, Hardy was a "volunteer" informant AND agent provocateur operating (apparently) in that capacity at arms length from the Bureau, who is to say Dean was not a similar case? As I have previously stated, fiction writers can fabricate any scenario they want. I cannot prove a negative proposition.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> “Negative proposition” added. Thanks. BTW, asking if it is possible is not making a statement of fact. Quote You, post # 15 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. I have given you 3 sources already relating to the Hoover era which showed that those protocols were not always adhered to. Here is a Washington Post dated Sept 13, 2005 which indicates the problem was never really fixed and had indeed, become endemic. http://www.washingto...5091201825.html Greg—believe whatever you want. You prefer a Washington Post article. I prefer reviewing actual FBI informant files. Did you even bother looking at the story? Or are you accusing the Post of lying about its source? From the Post story: Many FBI agents have ignored Justice Department rules for handling confidential informants that were established in the wake of several high-profile scandals, according to a study released yesterday. In an analysis of 120 informant files from around the country, the Justice Department's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found that FBI agents violated procedures in 87 percent of the cases, including some in which informants allegedly engaged in illegal activity without proper oversight or permission. Oh dear. What a conundrum! Ernie has reviewed informant files and found next to no problems. The DOJ Inspector General reviewed a randomly selected 120 files from across the nation and found significant problems in 87% of the cases - or in raw numbers, around 104 of 120. Well, it’s almost impossible to choose really, isn’t it? Ernie, or Glenn, Glenn or Ernie. I might have to sleep on it… Quote You, from Post # 189 (1) WCC and JBS and FBI INVESTIGATION First, if I was Greg, I would have focused my attention on what initially produced our dispute – i.e. the notion that the FBI never "investigated" the WCC or the JBS. I would have written something like this: Ernie, with respect to WCC, I believe you are mistaken about this matter because the memo I found in the Goldwater file appears to falsify your contention. You have stated that the FBI conducted investigations of the WCC after that initial period in the mid-1950's. In order for me to agree with you, you would need to provide me with the following information. My understanding about what constitutes an FBI investigation is as follows [Greg then would enter his data here]. So, have you seen anything in the WCC files you have obtained that meets those criteria? Ernie – you also dispute my contention that you stated that the JBS was never investigated – even though you acknowledge that Bureau memos frequently include a comment to the effect that the Bureau "has not investigated the JBS". If plain English declarations are not adequate for making a correct determination, then what criteria are you proposing that we substitute? The problem is, Ernie, the first person who had the opportunity to ask questions along those lines, was YOU. But you put yourself above that. It is all the contemptuous creatures who – unfortunately for them – are not Ernie Lazar – that must ask the questions. So… instead of asking what I was basing my comment on, as you would have others do, you simply ended your lecture with "obviously, your knowledge about this matter is not credible." (Post # 15) Greg—I offered numerous times to bring our discussion into the realm of facts. I asked you to define investigation because I believed that if you did so, we would have a common understanding from which to proceed. You refused. If you had agreed, then our discussion probably would have been much more productive. That’s not how you get your kicks in these forums, Ernie, no matter how much you protest otherwise. The evidence is, as they say, out there. You break into a cold sweat waiting to apply your ever-ready, handy-dandy sets of labels and lectures – to expose ever more of those dastardly conspiricists and their broken epistemology! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) Greg: there is so much sarcasm and so many snide insults in your message that it obviously is pointless to reply to your comments. Ernie, let's face it.... you would not have replied regardless, because you have nothing with which to defend your stance on certain issues. You're simply copping out using the well-worn excuse by posters blind-sided by reality. Let's face it Greg: you do NOT want to have a civil discussion with me. All you want to do is attack me, disparage me, while simultaneously insisting that you know more than me and you are incapable of being wrong about anything. Your record on internet forums suggest any who disagree with you, are attacking you (at least, according to you). Yet it is you and your inability to communicate in anything but Hoover-like pedantics and self-deceit housed within a framework of key words and phrases that is usually the genesis of the xxxxstorms which gather around your posting visitations. My "discussion" with you is now ended. You can continue to believe whatever you want. Yeah, whatever, Ernie. Edited July 16, 2010 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now