Ruth Paine

[Paul Brancato]

Wouldn't a law suit also open Ruth Paine to 'discovery'? She would have to be squeaky clean to subject her life to the scrutiny

[Chris Newton]

Wouldn't a law suit also open Ruth Paine to 'discovery'? She would have to be squeaky clean to subject her life to the scrutiny

Yes see Hunt Vs. Liberty Lobby (2nd Trial) for an example of a (assassination related) libel suit that went south.

[Ernie Lazar]

I was told this morning that Paul Trejo's posting privileges have been removed because of a term he used which many people consider offensive -- but which Paul never intended as a derogatory or offensive comment.

Sometimes the Word Police do not make allowances for generational differences in understanding regarding how certain people should be described.

If any moderator is reading this thread, I would suggest re-instating Paul's privileges on a probationary basis and with a warning.

I think everybody here knows that my evaluation of Paul's reasoning ability and his research habits has not been very admirable - but I do not think he intended to use any slur nor do I think his one unintentional lapse should prevent him from making further contributions here.

[Thomas Graves]

I was told this morning that Paul Trejo's posting privileges have been removed because of a term he used which many people consider offensive -- but which Paul never intended as a derogatory or offensive comment.

Sometimes the Word Police do not make allowances for generational differences in understanding regarding how certain people should be described.

If any moderator is reading this thread, I would suggest re-instating Paul's privileges on a probationary basis and with a warning.

I think everybody here knows that my evaluation of Paul's reasoning ability and his research habits has not been very admirable - but I do not think he intended to use any slur nor do I think his one unintentional lapse should prevent him from making further contributions here.

I missed it, but I'm guessing that if Trejo had put the offending word or phrase in quotation marks, he probably wouldn't have been banned.

By the way, whatever happened to Greg Parker, David Josephs, and / or Steven Gaal?

Just wondering.

--Tommy

Edited November 16, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Been wondering the same thing, and missed Trejo's offending word.

Would the moderators consider posting something official when someone is banned?

[James DiEugenio]

Now that Paul is at least temporarily gone, I will post here.

When I wrote that it was open season on the Paines, I did not mean what I think PT thought I meant.

All I meant was that now that all the camouflage around them has dissipated, people can now see them for who they really are and evaluate them by real standards and real circumstances.

Before Carol's milestone work, we could not do that. It was her, Steve Jones, and Barbara La Monica who did the real digging into the Paines. To say that all there is is the Bancroft connection, that is simply wrong. Whether it is deliberately wrong, I do not know.

But to just focus on Michael, his family was Boston Brahmin all the way. He was offspring of both the Cabot and Forbes families, who go back all the way to just about the Puritans. His uncle was governor and ambassador to the Phillipines. Prior to his death, Cameron Forbes then joined his relatives on the board of United Fruit. Also on that board was Michael's cousin, Thomas Dudley Cabot, who was actually a former president of United Fruit.

Now where was Thomas in 1951, along with his brother, John Moors Cabot? They were both in the State Department interacting with the likes of Maurice Gatlin--Guy Banister's buddy-- over preparations for the CIA overthrow of Arbenz. In the early sixties, Thomas was president of Gibraltar Steam ship Corporation, which leased a barren island off the coast of Honduras. That land was called Swan Island. And Gibraltar was a CIA front company. It owned no ships. But it was on that island, through the Gibraltar front, that David Phillips established Radio Swan, used as a psy war arm of the CIA invasion of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs. (Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, p. 196)

Need I add, that Michael was in receipt of trust fund money from both families--Forbes and Cabots--in 1963?

If you want to ignore all of this, then fine. But don't say it does not exist. Or its "weak". Michael Paine had relatives involved in two major CIA covert invasions?

Carol Hewett is an excellent researcher who backed up everything she wrote with documents. She never got the credit or attention she deserved. While others in this community, who never came close to her achievements, somehow did. Which is one reason she is not active anymore. (She is also retiring from the Florida BAR and moving north.)

But that's our research community. It took something like 35 years to see the Paines clearly. And then people get angry because Carol did such good work on them. Go figure.

Edited November 17, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let me add one more thing that I think is very important.

On these forums, especially this one, we tend to get bogged down in what Jim Garrison used to call micro inquiry. We seldom discuss the Big Picture issues.

But of late, I have become convinced that those issues are even more important and even more clear than anyone ever thought of before.

But relevant to this point, Kennedy's policies were directly opposed to those Boston Brahmins and this imperial view of the world, of which Ben Bradlee was one.

[Thomas Graves]

Let me add one more thing that I think is very important.

On these forums, especially this one, we tend to get bogged down in what Jim Garrison used to call micro inquiry. We seldom discuss the Big Picture issues.

But of late, I have become convinced that those issues are even more important and even more clear than anyone ever thought of before.

[...]

Yes, yes, yes!

Then we can roll Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassinations, the MLK assassination, the Malcolm X assassination, the Apollo Program, 9/11, Oklahoma City, ISIS, etc, etc, etc, all into one grand theory!!! (Waving arms in the air and foaming at the mouth)

I mean. Only then does the JFK assassination make any sense!

--Tommy

Edited November 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Tommy,

Please, that is utter nonsense.

If you don't know anything about JFK's revolutionary foreign policy then just say so.

I do, since I read these books and review them.

You can start here:

http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/rakove.html

As I think the Rakove book is the best book on JFK's foreign policy since the Mahoney book, JFK: Ordeal in Africa. Which you probably did not read either.

But if Talbot is right, and I think he is, then we should know this stuff. Because he touches on these matters in his book.

Edited November 18, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

Let me add one more thing that I think is very important.

On these forums, especially this one, we tend to get bogged down in what Jim Garrison used to call micro inquiry. We seldom discuss the Big Picture issues.

But of late, I have become convinced that those issues are even more important and even more clear than anyone ever thought of before.

[...]

Yes, yes, yes!

Then we can roll Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassinations, the MLK assassination, the Malcolm X assassination, the Apollo Program, 9/11, Oklahoma City, ISIS, etc, etc, etc, all into one grand theory!!! (Waving arms in the air and foaming at the mouth)

I mean. Only then does the JFK assassination make any sense!

--Tommy

edited and bumped

[James DiEugenio]

Here is another relatively recent book on JFK's foreign policy that brings up many new areas where he was changing things from Eisenhower/NIxon/Dulles

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/africans.html

Talbot actually references this book and uses it in his text to show the difference in the two administrations.

These books deal only with issues of foreign policy, they say nothing about the JFK murder. That is why they are important.

[Paul Trejo]

From 1993 to 2000, seven years of Probe Magazine articles, edited by James DiEugenio, there have been seven articles that talk about Michael and Ruth Paine.

The authors were: attorney Carol Hewett, Lutheran lay minister Steve Jones, freelance writer William Weston and freelance writer Barbara LaMonica. The seven articles are as follows:

1. "Ruth Paine Finds Evidence: Oswald’s Letter to the Soviet Embassy" by Carol Hewett, Esq. (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 16)

2. "Oswald: Peace Activist in Pennsylvania?" by William Weston (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 4)

3. "United Fruit and the Drug Trade" by Steve Jones (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 6, September-October, 1997, p. 15)

4. "The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting" by Carol Hewett, Esq. (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-February-April, 1998, p. 11)

5. "Friends in High Places" by Steve Jones (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 3, March-April, 1998, p. 9)

6. "Michael Paine and his $300,000 Trust Fund" by Barbara LaMonica (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 5, September-October, 1998, p. 6)

7. "The Testimony of Marina Oswald before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury" by Steve Jones (Probe, Vol. 7, No. 3, May-June, 2000, p. 3)

Four of these articles (2, 3, 5 & 6) merely manufacture guilt out of anything ready-to-hand, including ancestry, relatives-in-law, mistaken identity, or just the fact of being rich. They hardly merit attention from serious readers.

One other article (7) is anemic, but it is also famous because of its successful work in labeling Ruth Paine as a "CIA agent" by using the testimony of Marina Oswald to Jim Garrison -- even though Marina Oswald specifically said that Ruth Paine wasn't a CIA agent in that same testimony. I'll briefly review that sleight-of-hand.

The other two (1 & 4) are quite good -- both by a professional attorney, Carol Hewett. Actually, however, attorneys tend to make poor historians, because attorneys are paid to offer one-sided portraits of people -- either from the defense side of the bench, or the prosecution side of the bench.

In this case, it appears that Carol Hewett was hired to review the WC and Garrison testimony of Ruth Paine in order to construct a case to prosecute Ruth Paine -- perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand.

Carol Hewett makes a few brilliant observations, but because of the built-in bias of her project, she also makes some major blunders in her prosecutorial agenda. I propose to carefully review her work.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

From 1993 to 2000, seven years of Probe Magazine articles, edited by James DiEugenio, there have been seven articles that talk about Michael and Ruth Paine.

The authors were: attorney Carol Hewett, Lutheran lay minister Steve Jones, freelance writer William Weston and freelance writer Barbara LaMonica. The seven articles are as follows:

1. "Ruth Paine Finds Evidence: Oswald’s Letter to the Soviet Embassy" by Carol Hewett, Esq. (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 16)

2. "Oswald: Peace Activist in Pennsylvania?" by William Weston (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 16)

3. "United Fruit and the Drug Trade" by Steve Jones (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 6, November-December, 1997, p. 999)

4. "The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting" by Carol Hewett, Esq. (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-February-April, 1998, p. 999)

5. "Friends in High Places" by Steve Jones (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 3, March-April, 1998, p. 999)

6. "Michael Paine and his $300,000 Trust Fund" by Barbara LaMonica (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 5, September-October, 1998, p. 999)

7. "The Testimony of Marina Oswald before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury" by Steve Jones (Probe, Vol. 7, No. 3, May-June, 2000, p. 999)

Four of these articles (2, 3, 5 & 6) merely manufacture guilt out of anything ready-to-hand, including ancestry, relatives-in-law, mistaken identity, or just the fact of being rich.

One other article is anemic but famous because of its successful work in labeling Ruth Paine as a CIA agent by using the testimony of Marina Oswald -- even though Marina Oswald specifically said that Ruth Paine wasn't a CIA agent in that same testimony. I'll briefly review that one.

The other two are quite good -- both by a professional attorney, Carol Hewett. Actually, however, attorneys tend to make poor historians, because attorneys are paid to offer one-sided portraits of people -- either from the defense side of the bench, or the prosecution side of the bench.

In this case, it appears that Carol Hewett was hired to review the WC and Garrison testimony of Ruth Paine in order to construct a case to prosecute Ruth Paine -- perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand.

Carol Hewett makes a few brilliant observations, but because of the built-in bias of her project, she also makes some major blunders in her paid hatchet job. I propose to carefully review her work.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

What, if anything, does Mr. DiEugenio have to say about Sylvia Ludlow Hyde Hoke?

--Tommy, the Droll

[Greg Parker]

In this case, it appears that Carol Hewett was hired to review the WC and Garrison testimony of Ruth Paine in order to construct a case to prosecute Ruth Paine -- perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand.

Absolute balderdash. The ARRB was prohibited from investigating possible conspirators. It's sole job was to identify and obtain JFK assassination records.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[James DiEugenio]

Greg, glad you are back.

Whenever Trejo enters a thread, his pretentious pronunciamentos, and his ingrained zealotry compel me to leave.

And he has the chutzpah to say Carol was biased?

Here is a man with no sense of irony.

He's all yours.