Gerry P. Hemming

[Robert Howard]

In her book Professor Mellen writes:

Gerry Patrick Hemming concurs: "Helms is [was?] behind the entire operation to kill JFK." (Ch. 10.)

I can find no cite to this statement, and Mr. Hemming vigorously denies making it to Professor Mellen (or anyone else, for that matter).

So my question for Professor Mellen is what is your support for Hemming ever blaming the assassination on Richard Helms?

I have Gerald Patrick Hemming on tape to the tune of boxes and boxes of tapes from our conversations. Yes, he cited Helms as behind the assassination - on tape with me in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He also cited Lawrence Howard as being in Dealey Plaza, and as a crackerjack shooter and sniper, although more recently he has denied that. This is a individual who has contradicted himself, as many authors and historians have noted. Note that I do not call him a witness.

Ms Mellen,

It's an honor to have you here. I asked Gerry about this also and he became quite rattled and even talked of lawsuits. I suspected -(and hoped)- that anything he told you would be on tape.

Some of us wonder why you included anything Hemming told you in AF2J?

Dawn

--------------------------------------

Let me see now. I became "rattled" and even talked of "lawsuits" ?! How does one discern one's being "rattled" over the Internet ??!! Apparently, you, like Mellen, have profound difficulties in the interpretation of even short, and to the point, written statements ??!!

Gerry, your written statements are rarely short, let alone to the point. If you were to edit out all the invective and unbecoming barracks-boy potty mouth, they might be short and to the point.

I don't have to repeat what I wrote in that post, as some very simple movements of one finger on your "mouse" -- will return you to said posting. Even in paraphrasing, it comes out with the same intent.

["...It will be up to the law firm's decision as to whether anything "untoward" has been written in Mellen's book..."]

As it was explained to me -- by those more practised in the field of lawthan I am: "Malice" is oft construed as "what a reasonable person" might discern as the "real purpose" behind the writing of any single [or composite] quotes being ascribed ?! More importantly; are these quotes purporting to be "direct", or from some other entity's and/or scrivener's material -- whether it had been published or not ??!!

The case in point seems to revolve around what was said by you into a microphone, which is about as direct as you can get. If those recorded statements contradict what you've told others, it is fair game of Ms. Mellen to point it out to her readers, just to let them know that your record for consistency and veracity may be open to reasonable question. In the event that Ms. Mellen has quoted your words from other sources, and those sources quoted you incorrectly, then your beef is with those sources, not Ms. Mellen. And, from a strictly legal point of view, if you didn't sue those who misquoted you, then you have no recourse against Ms. Mellen if those alleged "misquotes" appear in her work.

It may well come down to the what indeed these "boxes and boxes" of purported "tapes" actually reveal.

Which is what seems to have you "rattled" to the point of threatening legal action, albeit not on the basis of being misquoted, just allegedly being taped without your knowledge, as per your comments below.

I expect, as usual, and down the road -- it will be a case of ascribing ALL blame to either the editor, and/or publisher of said tome.

This presumes, of course, that there is any "blame" to ascribe, a point that is pure smoke and mirrors until demonstrated. If you have said on tape what Ms. Mellen quotes you as having said, there is no "blame" to ascribe, save perhaps your inability to zip your lips when you ought to have done.

I still have great difficulty in grasping the "WHY" of any mention as to ex-DCI Helms; or is he "One-of-the-Usual-Suspects" NOW ??!!

If Ms. Mellen has you on tape making that allegation, then even asking the above question is disingenuous on your part.

Moreover, what would be ANYBODY'S purpose in making ANY reference to Helms, vis-a-vis "The JFK Murder", even if done in a joking manner. During 1963, Helm's was a 4th floor "flunky" -- with a pretentious title !! Not only did he lack any authority over specific clandestine service operations. He wasn't even in the loop !! [just like the Clinton/Reno "WACO" whackers; getting their "promotions?", which is not an undesirable method for quickly removing a "stooge" from the mainstream !!]

Moreover, when it came time to "revise or reveal", with reference to even the inconsequential episodes/events, Helms blundered quite grotesquely. Why? Because he didn't have the slightest "clue" as to what he was supposed to "conceal" !!

The "BIG" question remains -- how the hell would I know anything at all about Helm's activities during the 1960s, and why would I even care ?? Mellen has an "obsession" -- and it is obviously one that grew out of her "gullible-girly-groupie" experience with "Big Jimbo/Gumbo". NOT that I haven't seen that weird behavior repeated time-and-again, over the last 40+ years.

Actually, Gerry, knowing nothing about a topic has never seemed to stop you from spouting off in the past, so why would your self-aggrandizing behaviour stop with Ms. Mellen? You have in this very thread made statements, as though factual, about a person or persons having developed 90% of the data needed to solve this crime, and when challenged, cited what you'd been told by others. In essence, you backed away from claiming sufficient personal knowledge to render such a judgement, and deferred to those who informed you of this. This is not fact; it is gossip, unless and until demonstrated. You make similar assertions all the time, likely on similarly questionable bases, and when called on them, resort to virtriol and poor manners... this forum is chock full of examples. Perhaps what has you irritated with Ms. Mellen is that her "gullible-girly-groupie obsession" is with Jim Garrison, rather than with you, since you keep insisting that all forum members, irrespective of gender, are simply angling to get a "date" with you.

Lawrence J. Howard is still around and breathing. During Larry's years of work as an undercover agent for the A.T.T.U. [i.R.S.], and later for that outfit, when it was reorganized as B.A.T.F. [directly under Treasury] -- he diligently practiced the most important of job skills: Keep an accurate record of all activities and locales associated within every report. [see: Title 18, section 1001, et seq. -- "The Martha Stewart Charges"]

Whether Mellen ascribes her "scribbling" errors to Weberman, Posner, Russo, Larry Hancock, or even Weisberg -- I know exactly where Larry Howard was on 11/22/1963; and so do the agents who closely monitored [and protected] him during those specific periods in question.

First, there are no "errors" to misattribute until they are demonstrated to be errors, which is where certain tapes will no doubt come in very handy for Ms. Mellen. Second, irrespective of what you know about Larry Howard's whereabouts on that date, what matters is what you told Ms. Mellen; what you claimed to be true, not what you now say you know to be true.

I hired Larry Howard during 1977, to act as a co-investigator [and bodyguard] -- and this was while resolving issues as to "Death Squad/Kidnap" activities in Central America. My brother and Larry returned to Central America for that task, and successfully completed said investigation.

During early 1980, when I was again called upon to conduct similar work in Puerto Rico, I hired Larry as a bodyguard to my wife and family. Never once, during all of those years, did we ever have a serious discussion about the JFK matter.

[The one instance was: When, during 1981, while enroute to the Los Angeles BATF field office -- he turned to me and asked who it was, that I had instructed him to "get rid of" -- while our No Name Key crew was being TV interviewed [December 1962] at the Congress Airport Inn motel ?? I had hesitated, and he quickly stated: "...That guy was Oswald..wasn't it..??"!!]

The Los Angeles BATF field office supervisors advised Larry [during 1967] to voluntarily travel to New Orleans -- and thereafter present himself to Garrison for further inquiries.

The only matters that disturbed him were: Government files, which clearly showed that Garrison was a child molester, and that he had serious mental problems. Moreover, those files showed that Garrison was operating under severe strains, most of which were the result of his unfulfilled obligations to Carlos marcello.

However, the government agents didn't think that Garrison would act in a retaliatory manner against Howard, and this was due to the fact that they had informed the NODA that Howard remained an active SSCI (UC) operative for BATF.

And you have those files? Or have seen those files? Or have taken the word of others - whether Howard or anyone else - that these are legitimate files?

Mellen DOES NOT want to hear any of this, as it doesn't comport with her "fantasy-land" agenda; which centers on idolizing her big "Hero". My former spouse is sitting on the couch, right next to my computer desk at this moment, and she has great difficulty grasping the "WHY" of Mellen's claims ?? Especially those where she suddenly purports having tapings of any interviews here in Fayetteville.

Presumably, Ms. Mellen would have asked to see those files, if you possessed them. If you don't, then you're just peddling more gossip, second or third hand, which is not exactly convincing to anyone, whether or not they suffer from "gullible-girly-groupie" syndrome. Moreover, it is no secret that Garrison has been the subject of a decades-long campaign of slander and character assassination. You're simply one of the several lads who was sent to trip Garrison up, and having screwed the pooch on that score, will not rest until his legacy is dirt. How does it feel, Gerry, knowing that this alleged half-wit child-molesting Mafia-fronting scumbag commands a level of respect today that you never will? Is that what put the burr under your saddle?

This is somewhat upsetting to her, because a family member has recently disposed of a nasty lawsuit, and has now reluctantly agreed to testify against said adversary. That party had made illegal tape recordings during the course of several encounters. Which will, without a doubt result in prison time !!

Here in North Carolina, as is the case in Florida, and most other states -- ALL tapings must begin with the voice of the machine operator stating that: "..This is (name & title)..and I am here in the presence of (name of subject)..for the following purposes.."!! The place, date and time must be included with the foregoing and preserved on all voice recording "events/episodes"; and including any changes to a fresh tape spool.

[see: State vs. Lynda Tripp, MD -- RE: The Monica Lewinsky tapings.]

[The only exemptions apply to the recordations & transcriptions of matters connected to law enforcement activities. Even then, the law requires that each spool be prefaced with the above mentioned inclusions, but a "case number" must be recorded in all "prefaces" !!

Recording by concealed devices is a 5 year felony for each event/incident, which translates to each spool, or where considerable time had intervened; that multiple counts might be filed per each spool !!]

All matters admitted & adjudged in even a civil matter in Federal District Court [including transcripts & exhibits] are later admissable in any criminal proceedings held in a state trial court.

So, rather than repudiate your allegedly misquoted comments to Ms. Mellen, which is how you began, you now wish to sue her for having taped your conversations without your permission, presuming that is what happened [and not simply more of your endless bafflegab.] Interesting. You see, this is not simply a case of a person being caught on tape during an involuntary exchange, or being blind-sided. You have admitted here that such conversations took place of your own volition, even in your own abode, and the statements you made were uttered freely and of your own will. If they are captured on tape, it is a testament to Ms. Mellen's professionalism and her desire to ensure that nobody would be misquoted on so important a topic.

Whereas your present, baseless fall-back position seems to be akin to the man who voluntarily appears on camera for an interview, but then squawks because he didn't sign a "release" for its use. You granted Ms. Mellen interviews. You said things you now regret having uttered, as they don't portray you in a light sufficiently flattering to comport with your self-image. So you've taken a page from Tim Gratz's disused legal playbook and begun barking about legal action against the author you willingly confided to. You know, Gerry, for a putative man's man, you're behaving like a petulant teenaged girl. Do get a grip, dear boy. Your current behaviour is unbecoming any man, let alone a self-proclaimed man's man.

Weberman's strategy was to "force" a libel suit, in order that he might arm himself with a stack of subpoenas from the clerk of the court !! He schemed to thereafter serve, "in persona" and "duces tecum" subpoenas, directed against a vast number of irrelevant VIPs !!

Unfortunately for a defendant in an A.D. 2005 libel lawsuit, those very same "Nodules" will now serve to operate "against interest"; and especially in the case where Weberman is joined as a 2nd or 3rd "Party". The proper venue is here in Cumberland County, NC. [see: Digests, "Venue in Internet Cases"]

I am now prepared to serve a "Notice of Intent", coupled with several sworn statements [Notarized Affidavits] -- and specifically with reference to ALL matters concerning mine , and others', interactions with Ms. Mellen. I am prepared to "FAX" said documents to any parties of interest, but only if Mellen's counsel advises (in writing, and on law firm stationary) that she will submit similar sworn statements as a matter of course !!

I do believe that the time has arrived, in that several scriveners will be called to account for their reckless allegations against a multitude of personages. More important, is that they will finally be called to task for bald allegations -- against specific governmental entities and/or employees !!

I would remind all parties: It is of great interest to all -- that a close scrutiny of Forum member Mike Kelly's reference to the "Sheehan-Tactic" is in order. That is: Using the Civil R.I.C.O. Statutes as the correct/proper device, especially where the forum (Tribunal) and venue are quite advantageous. [see: Title 18, US Code, section 1961 et seq.]

I await Ms. Mellen's production of any "consensual" recordations, especially those reduced to a transcribed format.

Oh, for God's sake, Gerry.... you granted the woman interviews, and said things you now regret. You cannot get far claiming that your comments weren't made "consensually," unless someone has been granted power of attorney over you because you're claiming diminished mental capacity or summut similar. Is that your next grand legal strategy?

Most interesting is the allegation that: I described Lawrence Howard as a "Crackerjack" -- said term I have NEVER used in entire my life. Over the last 60+ years, I have deliberately eschewed the use of hundreds of "current & cool" metaphors. I have always been satisfied by focusing my verbal/oral expressions identical to that of the military. and especially those select "Nautical" terms, which are oft used by Marines and Sailors -- and frequently profane !!

No xxxx.

Lawrence J. Howard never received, training, nor ever qualified as a "Sniper".

That may be a fact, but it is immaterial. What is material is what you told Ms. Mellen, and if it was a lie, then it is you who must account, not she.

As for "...Many authors and Historians" stating that I have "..contradicted myself". Please, Ms. Mellen, don't hesitate to cite just ONE "author/historian" who, after "personally" interviewing me; has made such allegations.

Why did you drop in the qualifier "after personally interviewing me?" That is not included in her statement, nor need it be. Your record for consistency is not good, Gerry, as anyone who's read the Weberman site already knows. Whether you just can't keep your story straight, or you play different roles for different audiences is really secondary to the fact that your story wobbles from point to point without payoff.

You claim that this is the direct result of endless clueless brainless scribblers misquoting you. Makes one wonder why you're always so anxious to make yourself available to them, the very same question you claim your family keeps asking you. Why do you do it, Gerry, in light of your consistent disappointment with the results? On the one hand, you offer little of substance and mutter your chagrin about being misquoted or misinterpreted, but on the other hand, you refuse to just shut your mouth and fade into obscurity. Do you suffer from some kind of compulsion, Gerry, or are you just still "on the job?" [Assuming that you ever were, that is.]

That some "scribbler' plagiarizes some other "scribbler', who cited to some tabloid trash article, is all too commonplace. But where Mellen, like all of the other reckless "scribblers" fail -- NO "authoritive cites" to the original document or article. Ms. Mellen has opted to NOT explain any reasons why: That she NEVER attempted to personally clarify any sticky issues, much less make mention of same, at an opportune time, prior to publication ??!!

And where bigmouths fail is to spout off to all and sundry and then feel bitter disappointment with the result. Just sue her, Gerry, and we'll soon see who is credible and who is the buffoon.

I confronted Garrison with his scheming on more than just one occasion. He admitted to same, but claimed that he was forced into doing this because of "pressing matters at hand" !! Even an amatuer viewer of the Perry Mason TV series, would gag when reviewing his modus operandi during the Orleans Parish Grand Jury sessions.

[Harry Connick, Sr. privately stated that he wanted to dispose of "all that trash" because it was a severe embarassment to the N.O. District Attorney's office, and the legacy thereof.]

The worst news is yet to come. The very few "knowledgeable folks", who are currently involved in the JFK matter -- are agreement in the singular point. That is: To date, EVERY name foisted upon the public as either a "suspect" [or even a "subject of interest"] is absolutely, and totally WRONG. NOT EVEN CLOSE !!

Then, presumably, all of your previous preamble for the past nigh-on 40 years hasn't been of much use to us, has it, Gerry? Could you get any closer to admitting that you've got nothing substantive to offer, without actually coming out and saying it?

The one person who had 90% of the real facts assembled in a rational form, died during 1974. His death seemingly opened the door, for the then DCI Bill Colby, to terminate Angleton. However, Colby had made a gross mistake, in thinking that this "Possessor-of-Family-Jewels" was JJA's ONLY "Ace-in-the-Hole" !! Which was the genuine reason that Angleton remained active at his office for the next several months.

This "Person", has only been mentioned by name once, during the last 40+ years !! However, and due to the "infamous character" of the writer, said reference was totally ignored. TOO BAD FOLKS, you've NOT been played ["Like-a-Violin"] by professionals -- you played yourselves, ab initio, into a ridiculous and seemingly endless, quandry.

Not without some help from the professionally slippery, and the mentally questionable.

The best displays may well come, if Mike Kelly, et al. initiate a "forum" under some, as yet unknown, legal theory [or priniciple] !! At that time, his "qualified" legal associates might be encouraged to seek out some sworn statements. Especially those "volunteered" by any member who might be selected as a prospective "witnesse". Which is exactly what the A.R.R.B. failed to do !! This is the reason why, when reading their "wit" transcripts, the educated amongst us are dismayed by the tendency towards comic relief

I am prepared right now, to enlarge upon what was quickly redacted from my H.S.C.A. testimony. An ordeal I submitted to -- despite knowing full well that, those proceedings would result in yet another "cover-up".

I really don't expect that the "Qualified Wits" list will be very long. This is because that: When it comes time to swear under oath, as to "personal knowledge" -- the majority of "Village Idiot" type bookreaders will be summarily excluded. "Book Reading" doesn't count in ANY legal forum. However, depositions under oath [such as from Ms. Mellen, and subsequent to subpoena service] would routinely be admitted by most forums and/or tribunals.

I would expect that those attorneys, who have been retained by authors/historian/scriveners, would caution their clients to make DAMN SURE that they will verify all allegations, and/or supportive commentaries. The only thing akin to "taking the 5th amendment" when called upon to speak the truth, is the lame excuse that: "..My attorney advises me that I shouldn't speak upon these matters..!!"

ONE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT EVEN BEFORE THE SCRIBBLING BEGAN !!

AND PERHAPS ONE SHOULD ASK THE SCRIBBLERS IF THEY'RE TAPE RECORDING A CONVERSATION BEFORE THEY OPEN THEIR BIG MOUTH !!

Chairs,

GPH

_____________________________

--------------------------------------

Once again the "Music Biz - Village Idiot" desireth that I cease and desist from commenting upon matters which are apparently disturbing to her, and to whomever she is snitching for ?! Is CSIS' Judd putting pressure on your little pink behind?

As for my having trusted a few authors and investigative reporters ? In the majority of cases, I insisted that they credit the original sources, rather than naming me. It is quite obvious that in your "Weberman agenda" , that you persist in NOT contributing anything of consequence. Nor do you contribute any credible reponses which might assist some of the experts, authors and investigators on this forum.

I get a considerable amount of private e-mails every day. Those correspndents routinely make direct, and to the point inquiries. If I can answer to their interests, I do so. Moreover, most concur with my reasoning which seems to explain your activities: That you, like the others of the "Weberman ilk" have one goal in mind -- to nag and criticize ALL "direct sources".

I was invited to this forum, and I joined with great reluctance. Having "lurked" on dozens of "blogs" and "forums", I found most to be a mockery of true jounalism, investigative reporting, etc. !! It is NOT my fault that you appear absolutely nowhere in anybody's tomes, or even an index, nor with Danny Brandt's "Namebase.org". Your are a "bookreader", and your erroneous opinions are the result of your soaking up "loads" of bullxxxx, which you frequently attempt to purvey onto this forum !!

As for my language, I have found it a total waste of time to treat "mouthy wannabes" with any respect whatsoever. And this is especially so when their first actions are blatantly antagonistic. Moreover, they always insist upon arguing with people, especially those (now few) -- who were amongst the "actors" and "subjects-of-interest".

If this gives you more "hardcopy" with which to exhibit to your boyfriends & "The 3 Stooges", so be it. Just try not to get the pages stuck together.

As for trusting Ms. Mellen, that was a tremendous "Weberman-style" mistake. I had insisted of her, at the outset, that I didn't want to be a "character" in her writings. She agreed to that, and this got the family off of my back during 2001. It did take some time, before I suspected that: She was obsessed with an idolatry of "pervert" Garrison. Yet, I believeed that once she had examined the facts of the matter, then she would write "the real truth" !! The "WHY" of Garrison's moves, especially against some of the most useless "non-entities" I have ever encountered.

That Mellen will be exposed as a charlatan matters not to me, but it will come. Unfortunately, it might cost her more than can be imagined. I have been cursed with total recall since childhood, and that is why I have opted to eschew diaries and/or journals. Any reports which I have been required to make over the years, I did correctly, and always without even rare references to notes !!

During 1966, Garrison was involved in a scheme to protect Carlos Marcello, et al.!! This involved primarily the blackmailers who had set him up as yet another "patsy"!! However, there arose more serious threats, and this resulted in efforts at thwarting Walter Sheridan's in his investigations. Marcello indeed believed, that he was "owed" -- by the Kennedys, and that for having orchestrated the assassination of Trujillo. But, the realization that Ramfis Trujillo was after his ass, caused panic. Norman LeBlanc, and Arturo Espaillat were the first to warn him [during 1966] that: Trujillo's son (a multi-millionaire) was out for revenge.

I don't have to cite to any authorities, as most are available to anyone not too ignorant, lazy, or stupid !! I am not going to do some strange fool's research for them. If responsible folks have a legitimate inquiry, I will attempt to respond. But, I am not going to write anybody's book or pamphlet for them.

You, like Weberman, have long ago been categorized as prevaricators. Neither one of you have ever done anything of consequence during the whole of your miserable lives.

Weberman's goal was to sucker buck$ out of gullible folks, especially those ignorant of the fact that he was just another Bob Dylan stalker. For years he has been doing somebody's disinformation job , and that it duplicates "Dame" Hoover's cronies' efforts, engenders no surprise.

That I ramble ? Nobody has invited you to read any of my postings, and I am sure as hell not going to give-up 'insider" information to any weirdo wannabes, nor disinformation agents.

You lucked out in your sparring with Gratz, and that, because he spent more time on the keyboard, instead of in a local library. I had advised long ago: Take counsel, even from an antagonist, and check out his dictates before hitting the keyboard. His "Christian bible-thumping" and focus upon abortion matters, was probably more irritating to me, than it was to our left-wing ("progressive") clique !! Especially with those who use this forum as a juvenile chat room !!

That you have consistently opted NOT to ask any serious questions -- long ago confirmed that: You are here to xxxxx !! That you might cite Weberman, Mellen, or other propagandists -- reveals your limited abilities at rebuttal.

The majority of qualified authors & writers, having perused thousands of NARA files, some of which refer to me, have little difficulty in forming queries. Frequently, they want to qualify or expand upon specific items of interest. Many are NOT surprised at governmental scribblers' efforts at evasion in all serious inquiry into even that which is a matter of history. But, that is what their political bosses continue to mandate.

What are the parameters mandated by your bosses, and pray tell, who is calling your shots ??

Chairs,

GPH

_______________

---------------------------------

Oliver Stone had paid Bud Fensterwald's corporate entity [not sure whether it was then a 501(3)©] about $87,000, and part of the package included loads of declassified files. After the big group dinner at the Italian restaurant [December 1990] , which was located just down from "The West End Market Place", Stone asked that I bring a few boxes of my personal FOIA/PA files, so that Rusconi, et al. might sort out that which Bud didn't have in his collection.

Ronald Von Klaussen, who still lives one floor below the Condo where Stone's mother lived [NYC], saw the boxes of documents, and expressed surprise. He had never heard of Title 5 US Code, sections 552, et seq.

[FOIA/PA] and loudly warned us about "possession of classified material"!! However, he quickly grasped the realities of the matter, and thereafter spent hours studying loads of files, especially the CIA stuff.

Ron had been a "CIA Assassin" for years, and in Guatemala was known as "El Tigre". He already had appeared in some of Stone's work, such as playing the mechanic {"Wall Street"] who tips Charlie Sheen as to the destination of the aircraft carrying Mike Douglas' character. At that time he had held an "S.A.G. Card" for over 25 years, and had worked on TV series such as "Flipper", "Everglades", etc. !!

During February 1991, Von Klaussen approached me, and asked about the correct procedures for getting his own CIA, FBI, etc. files released. I gave him my latest copy of the approved "FOIA/PA Manual" and invited his questions as to exactly how I had gone about said activities, and moreover, recommended that he consult both Bud and Jim Lesar for any future "advice". [exercising a bit of caution, as I was on parole at that time].

Once again: while were in the process [in Miami] of signing the contracts with "Camelot Productions", Von Klaussen had called Davy "out-of-the-blue" [the two hadn't spoken in over 30+ years], and wherein Ron stated that he had it on good information that we were being hired by Stone to do a "JFK Assassination Movie".

In an ominous voice, he advised Davis that a whole lot of "Company Folks" were still outraged at the "Platoon" flick, the "Born on the 4th" business, etc., and etc.!! -- and that our participation in "anything" with Stone might cause severe repercussions in the future. Davy, Hargraves, and I then spent about 12 seconds "worrying about it", and agreed upon a future response to Ron, should he call back: "... SO, what else is new ??!!"

After Bob Groden's "Heroic Briefing" at Stone's Stoneleigh Hotel headquarters [production crew], we retired to the small auditorium at Larry Howard's "JFK Museum". Stone wanted US to give a "Real Briefing" on ALL aspects of the Cuban business. Towards the end, and after a long recitation/questioning as to names of specific CIA, FBI, Customs, BA2506, JM/WAVE, et al. personalities, he asked: "... What was the true name of the CIA assassin who was known as "El Tigre" in Guatemala, Miami, and elsewhere..."?!

We hesitated for a moment, and then explained to him that: Tthere might be some problems with the "1982 Intelligence identities Act", specifically should this person remain categorized as a "covert operative" within the Agency.

Stone then said: "... Well then...just give us his initials...if you can do that...!" I responded: "..R.V.K...".

A few hours later Stone, Von Klaussen, Rick, Kitman Ho, et al. had a big laugh at our expense as Oliver introduced "his CIA assassin" -- as the guy who had practically raised him from childhood !! Yuck, Yuck, and we slithered away in total disgrace.

As for "lawyering" and "J.D.s", even under current Florida statutes [and Bar Canons] a person is permitted to "Intern" with a law firm for three years, and upon that law firm's certification, take the "State Bar Exam".

Moreover, said "intern" is given the same privileges [after the 2nd year] as a law student, in that he may represent clients in a courtroom, give legal advice, etc., but under the "ongoing supervision" of one of that law firm's lawyers.

The courts have held that this DOES NOT required that said lawyer be present at all times during said intern's practise, but be informed regularly as to same.

---------------------------------------

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/22/Worldand...yers_need.shtml

Who Says Lawyers Need to go to Law School ?

In Some States, Apprentice "Law Readers" can become Lawyers if they pass Bar Exams.

By Associated Press

Published September 22, 2005

WASHINGTON - Rebecca Valois is working to become a lawyer - without setting foot in a law school.

She's studied for three years at the private Virginia practice of her mother-in-law, Judith Valois, who was admitted to the state bar in 1986 after getting her legal education from her husband.

They are "law readers" - people who study law in offices or judges' chambers rather than classrooms.

California, Vermont, Virginia and Washington allow law readers to take bar exams after three or four years in apprenticeships registered with the state. Three other states - New York, Maine and Wyoming - let people who

didn't graduate from law school take bar exams if they have a combination of office study and law school exper-ience.

Fewer than 150 aspiring lawyers are getting their legal educations in programs that require no law school what-soever, according to the bars of the states that allow the practice. By comparison, more than 140,000 students

attend law schools approved by the American Bar Association, and thousands more attend schools not approved by the ABA.

Despite some challenges, law readers can achieve big things. Marilyn Skoglund, for instance, sits on the Verm-ont Supreme Court, and Gary Blasi is a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"I'm really sort of a bizarre case," Blasi said. "The first time I was ever in a law classroom I was teaching law."

As the only law reader he knows who ended up a professor, Blasi doesn't recommend his route for others inter-ested in teaching law in a university. However, he said there are benefits.

"If I were redesigning the entire legal education system, it would definitely provide more of a real-world, mentored experience," Blasi said.

The next hurdle for Rebecca Valois (pronounced val-WAH), a 30-year-old mother of two in Centreville, Va., will come in February, when she gives the bar a try.

It won't be easy.

Only one law reader passed the Virginia bar last year out of nine attempts. In July 2003, seven law readers took the bar, but the only one to pass was Margaret Valois - Rebecca's sister-in-law.

Judith Valois, who supervised the studies of both her daughters-in-law, said friends tease her about being the "Valois School of Law."

She said a big benefit to law reading is that students get one-on-one instruction from someone who cares about them. Indeed, the supervising lawyers cannot take money for the significant time they put into training their app-rentices.

Barbara Macri-Ortiz in Oxnard, Calif., supervises the education of apprentice Jessica Arciniega because she wants to give something back. "I didn't have to pay for law school - I should be able to help somebody else

do the same thing," she said.

Macri-Ortiz - who has some college but no bachelor's degree, which isn't a requirement for California's bar - got her legal education through an apprenticeship at the United Farm Workers of America, where she worked for

the union's founder, Cesar Chavez. Now she mostly represents the poor, and about a third of her work is pro bono.

A downside to skipping law school is that a degree can be a job requirement.

The elder Valois began working for the Veterans Affairs Department as a staff attorney in 1991. She worked her way through the ranks and in 1998 was set to become a senior Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attorney when she learned that the job required a law degree. The VA ended up giving her a waiver and she got the job - two years later.

Although the ABA maintains rigorous standards for approved law schools, it doesn't advise against law reading. Related groups see it as a state's right to allow an alternative to law school.

"The highest court of each state owns the decision about how to meet the need for consumer protection," said Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners in Madison, Wis. "For some people, it's probably the only way that they can combine working and studying."

Even law-reading advocates caution that there is more to learn these days and it can be tough for a supervising lawyer to provide guidance in legal areas outside his or her specialty.

"For most people - the great majority of people - it's not the best way to try to get a legal education," said Scott Street, secretary treasurer of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners.

"Just putting in the time doesn't come anywhere close to assuring that you've got an education."

Washington is the only state where law readers pass the bar at a higher rate than traditional students.

Sheryl Phillabaum, chair of Washington's Law Clerk Committee, can't explain the success. "But anyone who has devoted so much time to getting through the program is mightily motivated," she said in e-mail.

Law readers don't qualify for federal student loans, and in Virginia - unlike other states - they can't get paid by the law firm training them.

"When you don't have loans, and you can't get paid for what you're doing, you are sacrificing a lot," Rebecca Valois said. "But you're getting a lot in return."

[Last modified September 22, 2005, 01:04:14]

________________________________________

Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.

[Tim Carroll]

Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.

T.C.

[Robert Howard]

Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.

T.C.

Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response.'

Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.

T.C.

Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response', and I don't believe the question was directed towards Tim Carroll.

[Tim Carroll]

Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.

Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response.'

I meant no offense. I didn't refer to anything someone had written as irrelevant; I merely pointed out that the "quoted material" is often more voluminous than the segment to which a response is directed.

T.C.

[Robert Howard]

Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.

Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response.'

I meant no offense. I didn't refer to anything someone had written as irrelevant; I merely pointed out that the "quoted material" is often more voluminous than the segment to which a response is directed.

T.C.

I misunderstood, and over-reacted. Sorry!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Once again the "Music Biz - Village Idiot" desireth that I cease and desist from commenting upon matters which are apparently disturbing to her, and to whomever she is snitching for ?! Is CSIS' Judd putting pressure on your little pink behind?

Wrong, wronger and wrongest, Gerry. Far from wishing you to cease and desist, I have only ever invited you to finally disclose something worth knowing, something relevant to the case that also happens to be true. If you can do both, you'll finally live up to your billing, but unfortunately what you've provided over the past 3-plus decades seems to divide evenly between two options: that which is true isn't relevant to the assassination; that which is relevant to the assassination isn't true, or is at least highly questionable. [The most recent example might be, for instance, the allusion that you had ordered Larry Howard to kill Oswald in December 1962.]

As for snitching for CSIS, I will give you top points for being conversant with Jim Judd, given that he's only been the Director for the past year. So, at least I know you bothered to Google CSIS before posting. Too bad you're prone to bandying about the epithet "snitch," however, since I don't qualify, having never informed any of the authorities of any nation of anything. Whereas you, on the other hand.... well, no need to regurgitate your lengthy CV in that regard.

As for my having trusted a few authors and investigative reporters ? In the majority of cases, I insisted that they credit the original sources, rather than naming me. It is quite obvious that in your "Weberman agenda" , that you persist in NOT contributing anything of consequence. Nor do you contribute any credible reponses which might assist some of the experts, authors and investigators on this forum.

Again, this is not entirely correct. Had you read a number of my posts here, you would see that I have advocated passionately on behalf of several positions, and given my reasons, including citations. However, those posts didn't include anything about you, which is no doubt why they escaped your attention.

My current task is to attempt to squeeze something out of you that might actually move forward our understanding of the assassination. If I cannot do that, perhaps I can at least contribute to the process of investigating your bona fides to discern, after all these years, whether you possess any knowledge of value, or whether your contributions here are simply designed to allow you to continue dining out on your reputation, a la the Oliver Stone retainer you were paid.

I get a considerable amount of private e-mails every day. Those correspndents routinely make direct, and to the point inquiries. If I can answer to their interests, I do so. Moreover, most concur with my reasoning which seems to explain your activities: That you, like the others of the "Weberman ilk" have one goal in mind -- to nag and criticize ALL "direct sources".

Actually, my purpose is not to "nag" you. It is to determine whether you qualify for inclusion in the category "direct sources." To date, I've seen a number of provocative and relevant posts from you, but without proof, and a whole bunch of irrelevant posts for which there may be proof, but since they're irrelevant to the assassination, who cares?

I was invited to this forum, and I joined with great reluctance. Having "lurked" on dozens of "blogs" and "forums", I found most to be a mockery of true jounalism, investigative reporting, etc. !! It is NOT my fault that you appear absolutely nowhere in anybody's tomes, or even an index, nor with Danny Brandt's "Namebase.org". Your are a "bookreader", and your erroneous opinions are the result of your soaking up "loads" of bullxxxx, which you frequently attempt to purvey onto this forum !!

Nor does my name need to be included in Namebase.org. If that were the sole requirement for investigating the assassination, this Forum would be largely empty, and inhabited by a few people such as yourself whose names may be in a zillions books - at their own bidding - but have nothing substantive to offer about the assassination. You've been dining out for decades on your self-proclaimed peripheral involvement in the assassination milieu, and this "bookreader" would like to know whether you actually know anything, or whether this self-promotion is just another means to suppliment your income. However, whenever you're asked a question you don't care for - even when politely worded - you have a hissy fit and resort to unnecessary invective rather than an answer.

One notes that you have a particular animus toward Weberman - which may be justified - but you haven't bothered to sue him for his alleged misquotes and misinterpretations. Rather odd that you should now threaten to do so with Ms. Mellen, when she seems to have done little more than quote you directly. From the scattershot nature of your posts on the topic it is difficult to distinguish which has riled you more: that she allegedly misquoted you [unlikely in the event that she recorded your conversations]; that she depicted you as a fantastist; or that she recorded your conversations, allegedly without your knowledge. Perhaps you do plan to proceed with a legal action against Ms. Mellen, but if you said what she quoted you as saying, and has the tapes to prove it, we'll soon know who's made a career of "purveying bullxxxx," won't we, Gerry?

As for my language, I have found it a total waste of time to treat "mouthy wannabes" with any respect whatsoever. And this is especially so when their first actions are blatantly antagonistic. Moreover, they always insist upon arguing with people, especially those (now few) -- who were amongst the "actors" and "subjects-of-interest".

There it is in a nutshell, Gerry. I cannot even recall where and when I first read about you [it was that long ago], but it was my hope at the time that you were an "actor," which is what made you a "subject of interest," to me at least [and I suspect to a great many others who retain a passionate interest in this case.]

However, in the lengthy interim, we've waited in vain for any revelation from you that might further our understanding of the assassination. Oh, there's been your deliberate attempts to derail the Garrison investigation, your self-admitted penchant for sending interested parties off on "some wild goose chase" [if I recall your words correctly], and a variety of provocative statements for which you can offer no proof [guarding Kennedy @ MIA, the Oswald call to the Courtney radio show, Larry Howard's inquiry if you asked him to kill Oswald in December '62, etc., etc.] But the bottom line, Gerry, is that without revealing something relevant to the assassination, for which you can provide proof, you are only an "actor" and a "subject of not much interest." Surely even you can see why a reasonable person would feel this way after decades of big talk and no proof...? The alternative you seem to insist upon is that we simply take you at your word, and for a budding young law student such as yourself, you must know that this alone carries little weight.

If this gives you more "hardcopy" with which to exhibit to your boyfriends & "The 3 Stooges", so be it. Just try not to get the pages stuck together.

As for trusting Ms. Mellen, that was a tremendous "Weberman-style" mistake. I had insisted of her, at the outset, that I didn't want to be a "character" in her writings. She agreed to that, and this got the family off of my back during 2001. It did take some time, before I suspected that: She was obsessed with an idolatry of "pervert" Garrison. Yet, I believeed that once she had examined the facts of the matter, then she would write "the real truth" !! The "WHY" of Garrison's moves, especially against some of the most useless "non-entities" I have ever encountered.

Again, Gerry, had you been able to supply Ms. Mellen with any proof of your contentions, surely she would have taken your point of view more seriously, and depicted you differently. [What other choice would she have had?] You cannot blame others for assuming you're all talk and no proof, when you talk and talk and talk, and offer no proof. Far from wishing to stifle your contributions, I'd like to see you actually demonstrate why they should be taken seriously, as any genuinely interested party would. If you insist that we must simply take you at your word, you're asking us to indulge in a level of foolishness you wouldn't advise to anyone else, and with good reason.

That Mellen will be exposed as a charlatan matters not to me, but it will come. Unfortunately, it might cost her more than can be imagined. I have been cursed with total recall since childhood, and that is why I have opted to eschew diaries and/or journals. Any reports which I have been required to make over the years, I did correctly, and always without even rare references to notes !!

During 1966, Garrison was involved in a scheme to protect Carlos Marcello, et al.!! This involved primarily the blackmailers who had set him up as yet another "patsy"!! However, there arose more serious threats, and this resulted in efforts at thwarting Walter Sheridan's in his investigations. Marcello indeed believed, that he was "owed" -- by the Kennedys, and that for having orchestrated the assassination of Trujillo. But, the realization that Ramfis Trujillo was after his ass, caused panic. Norman LeBlanc, and Arturo Espaillat were the first to warn him [during 1966] that: Trujillo's son (a multi-millionaire) was out for revenge.

All of which may or may not be true, Gerry. How are we to discern the veracity of such comments without some kind of proof, or at least prima facie evidence that what you say is so? Without that, it's just an opinion, and you know what they say about those....

I don't have to cite to any authorities, as most are available to anyone not too ignorant, lazy, or stupid !! I am not going to do some strange fool's research for them. If responsible folks have a legitimate inquiry, I will attempt to respond. But, I am not going to write anybody's book or pamphlet for them.

So, in the proof department, you're still batting zero and are apparently content to leave it that way. Fine. Suit yourself. But don't complain when others dismiss what you have to say as questionable, to be charitable.

You, like Weberman, have long ago been categorized as prevaricators. Neither one of you have ever done anything of consequence during the whole of your miserable lives.

Well, given that you think I'm a CSIS snitch, you clearly know nothing about me, let alone what I've done with my "miserable" life. Not that this stops you from making sweeping pronouncements, one notes.

Weberman's goal was to sucker buck$ out of gullible folks, especially those ignorant of the fact that he was just another Bob Dylan stalker. For years he has been doing somebody's disinformation job , and that it duplicates "Dame" Hoover's cronies' efforts, engenders no surprise.

One also notes that anybody who questions your veracity or sincerity or motives is invariably branded a "snitch" or a xxxxx by you. Who ate your strawberries, Captain Queeg?

That I ramble ? Nobody has invited you to read any of my postings, and I am sure as hell not going to give-up 'insider" information to any weirdo wannabes, nor disinformation agents.

You lucked out in your sparring with Gratz, and that, because he spent more time on the keyboard, instead of in a local library. I had advised long ago: Take counsel, even from an antagonist, and check out his dictates before hitting the keyboard. His "Christian bible-thumping" and focus upon abortion matters, was probably more irritating to me, than it was to our left-wing ("progressive") clique !! Especially with those who use this forum as a juvenile chat room !!

I didn't "luck out" with Tim Gratz, but simply asked pertinent questions and presented him with facts for which he had no rejoinder. [Pretty much a preview of what's transpired here between us, Gerry.] Moreover, of all the people who have passed comment, I am the one member who doesn't put much stock in the fact that he is an uber-Republican, or uber-Christian, or what-have-you. The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it. A lie is a lie, no matter who speaks it. Let's not confuse the messenger with the message. In my life, I have met many decent Republicans [with whom I disagree], and many despicable Democrats whom I abhor, irrespective of their politics. So what?

That you have consistently opted NOT to ask any serious questions -- long ago confirmed that: You are here to xxxxx !! That you might cite Weberman, Mellen, or other propagandists -- reveals your limited abilities at rebuttal.

And yet every time I post something here directed to your attention, you launch into a name-calling tirade or a torrent of spittle-spewing invective. Fact is, I have asked you many, many questions, and never received a satisfactory answer to a single one of them. Anyone who has followed our correspondence here knows this to be true. That you characterize as "propagandists" two persons to whom you've given extensive interviews illustrates the true nature of your character, Gerry. Apparently none is capable of telling your story properly but you, yet you won't do so. Despite the lure of filthy lucre, there'll be no book contract, no screenplay, no speaking tours, etc.

The majority of qualified authors & writers, having perused thousands of NARA files, some of which refer to me, have little difficulty in forming queries. Frequently, they want to qualify or expand upon specific items of interest. Many are NOT surprised at governmental scribblers' efforts at evasion in all serious inquiry into even that which is a matter of history. But, that is what their political bosses continue to mandate.

What are the parameters mandated by your bosses, and pray tell, who is calling your shots ??

I see. After years of self-confessed utility to various US intel and LE agencies, you are the honest independent operator, and those private civilian citizens with no such background who ask you questions - that you refuse to answer - are the paid disinformation operatives representing government interests. Thanks you for the insight into your worldview and state of mind.

Gerry, I'm sure that you're a charming fellow, an excellent drinking companion, and likely a staunch and loyal friend to those you think worthy. Also, you're clearly possessed of a trenchent wit and have a certain way with the written word. These are all to your credit, but are ultimately irrelevant.

The only barometer that should matter to us is what information you have that can advance our knowledge of the assassination, full stop. Sidetrips down memory lane on unrelated matters are irrelevant, personal knowledge of political affairs around the world that don't somehow impinge on the assassination is irrelevant, and personal background and experiences that don't illuminate the assassination are irrelevant.

I have asked a number of questions in the past regarding things you have posted here. Let's also consider them irrelevant. Let us focus on the two questions that matter most to all who post here, and see where your answers to them might lead:

1. Do you know who killed President Kennedy?

2. If so, who did it?

Chairs,

GPH

[Thomas Graves]

Gerry, I'm sure that you're a charming fellow, an excellent drinking companion, and likely a staunch and loyal friend to those you think worthy. Also, you're clearly possessed of a trenchent wit and have a certain way with the written word. These are all to your credit, but are ultimately irrelevant.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Robert,

I wore my trenchent coat today, but no one thought I was wittae.

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Edited December 24, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Gerry Hemming]

Gerry, I'm sure that you're a charming fellow, an excellent drinking companion, and likely a staunch and loyal friend to those you think worthy. Also, you're clearly possessed of a trenchent wit and have a certain way with the written word. These are all to your credit, but are ultimately irrelevant.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Robert,

I've always wanted to be witty, too. Do you think it would help if I wore my "trenchent" coat?

Just kidding.

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------

I have searched high and low for ANY of "The Village Idiot's" posts, and wherein he might have asked a relevant question. Maybe John has moved them elsewhere. He is now heard to allege that I "ordered" Larry Howard to kill Oswald ??!!.

I suspect that he has imbibed [or smoked] some "bad product" whilst hitting the keyboard. Or maybe he is being distracted by some young lad, who is sitting on his lap -- as he lets his fingers wander to and fro ??!!

Any fool can find the short narratives referencing when LHO showed up at the Congress Airport Inn !! And it clearly states that he had expressed a desire to join the "revolution". Steve Wilson had been initially approached by LHO, and he thereupon strolled over to me, and while boldly interrupting lawyer Chuck Ashman -- imparted the "weird news" about our "fresh" volunteer.

Lawyer Ashmann had been explaining to me exactly how and why TV reporter Silverman had discover our intended lodging, and then "ambushed us" with his TV camerman. I had given specific instructions that NO interviews, or even photos -- would be permitted for the next few weeks, if even then !!

Being quite annoyed with Ashman at that time, I dismissed Wilson rather abruptly. I then instructed Larry Howard to: Tell LHO to get his ass on out of the area. Here in the South, we call that: "politely blowing somebody off "!!

I haven't a clue as to why LHO was there, and I really didn't know who he was, but instinct told me that I had encountered him before, and because that gave me added aggravation beyond the TV interview bullxxxx, I was in no mood to suffer any more fools gladly.

It was only after a few days of swimming back at No Name key, did I recall that this was the same clown that I had dealt with in Monterey Park [Jan. 1959]; at the main gate at MCAF Santa Ana (LTA) [Feb. 1959]; and had been told inside Cuba that he was looking for me [March/April 1959].

All in all, it means zip to me, and I could really give a rat's ass, as I am completely bored with the details any of these minor encounters !! We were not "beer-drinking buddies" [a-la Kerry Thornley's trash]!! The last time I spoke to LHO was during the 20+ minutes at MCAF Santa Ana (LTA).

I have never heard of any FBI S/A Bob Dwyer "memos?" referring to some Augustinovich clown. Are you having trouble finding the posting ?? You know, where I explained that: The guy in the right-hand corner of the group photo [Key West] was a U.S. Marshal ?? I'm not about to re-type that explanation a second time. There was NO Augustinovich around us, or even around Miami. He has been proven to be somebody of the same ilk as James Files; that is: If he ever existed at all ??!!

When somebody cites to genuine authorities, and not some tabloid trash scribbler, I "might" respond. I await some "proof" of anything from any member who has either sworn statements, or video recordings with reference to this whole business.

I don't have to prove a damn thing to any wannabe bookreaders, especially those who are here for entertainment purposes. I NEVER sought out a scrivener/reporter/author in my life, and most of the time those "freebie" giveaways irritated the hell out of my family and associates.

As for "wild goose chases"?? When some scribbler showed up on my doorstep, I asked what the hell might they FIRST do FOR ME ?! They had the connections and support needed to scout out interviews. Especially with those people who I could NOT safely approach. And IF they delivered the goods, I gave them some of the insider scoop they sought.

During 1992, while we were in D.C. for the "JFK Act" hearings, we visited with Harold Weisberg [1992]. One of the first things he did, was to apologize for having supported and aided "Pervert" Garrison in his phony finger-pointing at my crew !!

While I was going about my business over the years, it was the writers/reporters who called me with loads of questions -- I NEVER had any reason to initiate contact with them. The list is quite long !!

Bonafede; Buchanan; Buchanan (Ft. Laud.); Burt; Fabricio; Tamayo; Russell; Fonzi; Twyman; Brewton; Hopsicker; Piper; Marchetti; St. George; Ostroff; Oltman; Summers; Swan; Marquis; Koethe; Hendrix; Wilkerson; Newman; Cummings; Ford; Volkmann; Dunkin; Anderson; Pearson; Hume; Rather; Rudd; Siegel; Cronkite; Nickless; Jennings; Hersh; Russo; Waldron; Turner; O'Shanan; Chase; Ward; Coates; Stuckey;

Wallace; Vernon; Weberman; Kluge; Salah; Talbot; Brown; Armstrong, Malone; Bohning; Buell; Hancock; Frank; Dorschner; and a few dozen others from ABC; NBC; CBS; CBC; Westinghouse; Shinbun; Hsinhua; Prensa Latina; Excelsior; Hoy; Granma; Univision; Tageblatt; DeutshePublik; Der Spiegle; Reuters; FrancePresse; CorreadelaSerra; and,

Those dozens of others that went on to mention and cite, and always without ever having contacted me !!

Garrison got the "inside" on the "west-window" shooter from me [1967]. Oliver Stone thought it only fitting that I play that character in the movie.

Does the "Village Idiot" have ANYTHING cogent on the phony "Sniper's nest" ?? Or will he claim that he is above and beyond all of that ??

Does he have anything to add to why the "phony LHO window" can't have been used ?? Nawh, he falls for "authors" who claim personal quotes and conversations that never happened. He just takes there word for it, just like a sucker. Or just like some snitch trying to get a "Weberman-style-Freebie" by jerking my chain !! NOT.

How about some "inside" on the Mannlicher Carcano, and without plagiarizing Purvis or me ??

Want to tell me about what the "non-existant training camps" were all about ?? Or are you awaiting my solid insights into that bit of scoop ??

How about just give us an "ADIOS" and go back to playing with your punk rockers, cause you don't know xxxx about weapopns, Intel, ballistics, shooting skills, much less how to interpret bullxxxx grand jury games by a "psycho-pervert" NODA !!

So Ms. CANUCK -- take a number, and keep it short and to the point !! If I don't know, or haven't heard from a reliable witness and/or source; I will say so. Do you own "Googling"; you can get more there than from me !!

And Thomas Graves, you just keep up the good work !!

___________________________

[John Simkin]

If anybody studies the history of investigating covert operations, you will see that most of the useful information that we have about cases like the JFK assassination, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran-Contra, CIA and Drug Dealing, etc. has come from “inside” sources or what Gerry Hemming calls “snitches”. My dictionary defines a snitch as: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” Despite its unpleasant sounding name, I believe “snitches” are good people and play an important role in a democratic society. (I prefer to call them by a more respectable sounding name, “whistleblower”). Gerry is also clearly a snitch/whistleblower.

Like it or not, people involved in investigating political conspiracies, have to rely on “inside” sources. As these conspiracies nearly always involve covert and illegal actions, it is virtually impossible to rely on the normal documentary evidence usually available to journalists and historians. It is of course highly unlikely that people involved in these illegal activities will record it for posterity. In rare circumstances this does happen, for example, the tape recordings of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. However, both these men did this to help them write their memoirs and did not expect them to enter the public domain. These two high profile examples have virtually guaranteed this will ever happen again. For example, during the UK investigation into the background of the invasion of Iraq, it was discovered that Tony Blair insisted that no minutes should be kept of these private discussions that took place concerning this proposed action. I expect George Bush did the same.

Since starting my website in 1997 I have been contacted by a large number of whistleblowers. The main reason for this is that my webpage on them is usually ranked very high at Google. For example, both my pages on Gerry Hemming and Tosh Plumlee are ranked number one at Google. Therefore, my interpretation of them becomes very important. It is in their interest to contact me and to negotiate about what I have said about them.

Over the years I think I have become fairly good at working out who is telling me the truth. I use this experience when looking at any information that comes from “inside” sources. These are the sorts of questions I ask of this information:

(1) I am very interested in motivation. Why did this person become a whistleblower? Were they seeking money? Were they attempting to gain revenge against an individual or organization? I have found the most convincing whistleblowers are those who seem to be genuinely appalled by the behavior of the people they are informing on. I am even more impressed if they are appalled by their own behavior.

(2) Do they know too much? One of the problems with disinformation agents is that they often know too much. What we know about conspiracies is that individuals involved are only told about their section of the convert operation. Yet some whistleblowers claim to have details about the whole conspiracy. They would only know about this if they had overall charge of theoperation. Therefore, I am much more willing to believe them if they only tell me a small amount. I am always impressed when they answer “I don’t know”.

(3) It is a fact that one of the problems for the police when they are investigating high profile murders is that a great deal of their time is taken up by people making “false” confessions. These people are suffering from an identifiable psychological problem. They have a strong need to be in the limelight. To be someone of importance, even if it means they have to confess to being a murderer. I suspect this psychological condition explains why some people provide false information on political conspiracies.

(4) Disinformation agents. Victor Marchetti has described this type of CIA operation as a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti: “A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.” All those who come forward with information must be considered as potential disinformation agents.

(5) How do they react when questioned? Some inside sources react in a very aggressive way when asked follow-up questions. This is because that the question implies that you have doubts about the truthfulness of previous answers. Sometimes they even start talking about suing your for libel. Those who are telling the truth are much more relaxed about this questioning process.

(6) It is not enough for the witness to be convinced they are telling the truth. For example, a study of people responsible for death by dangerous driving, came up with some interesting results. Apparently, some people cannot face up to the reality of what they have done. They therefore tell themselves over and over again what they believe actually happened. They also tell the same story to all those who are willing to listen to them. In this story they are not responsible for the death they have caused. However, all the available evidence (witness statements, skid marks on the road, etc.), indicate they are not telling the truth. Even so, they appear very convincing because they really believe they are telling the truth. I think some sources of information fall into this category.

(7) The witness tells their story in a clear and uncomplicated way. This is very important as it allows you to check the story against other available evidence.

(8) The information they give is consistent over time. They do not change their story after evidence is provided that suggests they have made a mistake in an earlier version of events.

[Gerry Hemming]

Gerry, could you talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 (he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them, one of the memos is about an arrest of Interpen members with another individual named Leon Canossa Oswaldo.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.

T.C.

---------------------------------

----------------------------------

Just like the "Eddy Bayo" name screw-ups, and which remain today "uncorrected" on Spartacus, and continues within many other personal postings -- nothing ever changes. I can only guess that: Some folks either have difficulty with reading English, or that ego prevents them from admitting error, and thereafter opt to make corrections ??!!

That particular photo is all over the web, and specifically on Gordon Winslow's "Cuban-Exile.Com" website.

That photo had a very concise caption, and identified only those of us who had been arrest the night before at Sombrero Key, near Marathon.

The caption didn't include the names of law enforcement folks, nor jailers. Also absent from the caption were the names of those NOT arrested, amongst whom were Dick Whatley, Bobby Willis, et al. !!

The man in the right-hand corner is wearing a U.S. Marshal's badge on his left-hand shirt pocket, as the Marshal's had "primary custody" of us all, since is had been a federal arrest.

The Marshal's name is Kenneth McDole, and he was later a member of my Green Beret team [O.D.A. / C/3/20thSFRGrp(Abn)], and dropped out of his fiirst "Jump School" class at Fort Benning [1964], and due to a broken ankle -- leaving me alone to finish the parachute course.

Ken was then a full-time firefighter, and a "part-time" US Marshal in Miami. He was at the Noriega trial during 1990 while I was there. He remains a part-time U.S. Marshal today !!

Malcolm Blunt [Expert UK NARA researcher] threw his hands up in disgust upon learning that he had wasted hundreds of hours on this phony "Augustinovich Story"!! Moreover, for someone who researches at NARA about every two months, and is respected by Mellen as the foremost expert on these matters, I had expected that he would have taken me at my word as to the "limited few" vagabonds "paint-balling" at No Name !!

[Gerry Hemming]

If anybody studies the history of investigating covert operations, you will see that most of the useful information that we have about cases like the JFK assassination, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran-Contra, CIA and Drug Dealing, etc. has come from “inside” sources or what Gerry Hemming calls “snitches”. My dictionary defines a snitch as: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” Despite its unpleasant sounding name, I believe “snitches” are good people and play an important role in a democratic society. (I prefer to call them by a more respectable sounding name, “whistleblower”). Gerry is also clearly a snitch/whistleblower.

Like it or not, people involved in investigating political conspiracies, have to rely on “inside” sources. As these conspiracies nearly always involve covert and illegal actions, it is virtually impossible to rely on the normal documentary evidence usually available to journalists and historians. It is of course highly unlikely that people involved in these illegal activities will record it for posterity. In rare circumstances this does happen, for example, the tape recordings of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. However, both these men did this to help them write their memoirs and did not expect them to enter the public domain. These two high profile examples have virtually guaranteed this will ever happen again. For example, during the UK investigation into the background of the invasion of Iraq, it was discovered that Tony Blair insisted that no minutes should be kept of these private discussions that took place concerning this proposed action. I expect George Bush did the same.

Since starting my website in 1997 I have been contacted by a large number of whistleblowers. The main reason for this is that my webpage on them is usually ranked very high at Google. For example, both my pages on Gerry Hemming and Tosh Plumlee are ranked number one at Google. Therefore, my interpretation of them becomes very important. It is in their interest to contact me and to negotiate about what I have said about them.

Over the years I think I have become fairly good at working out who is telling me the truth. I use this experience when looking at any information that comes from “inside” sources. These are the sorts of questions I ask of this information:

(1) I am very interested in motivation. Why did this person become a whistleblower? Were they seeking money? Were they attempting to gain revenge against an individual or organization? I have found the most convincing whistleblowers are those who seem to be genuinely appalled by the behavior of the people they are informing on. I am even more impressed if they are appalled by their own behavior.

(2) Do they know too much? One of the problems with disinformation agents is that they often know too much. What we know about conspiracies is that individuals involved are only told about their section of the convert operation. Yet some whistleblowers claim to have details about the whole conspiracy. They would only know about this if they had overall charge of theoperation. Therefore, I am much more willing to believe them if they only tell me a small amount. I am always impressed when they answer “I don’t know”.

(3) It is a fact that one of the problems for the police when they are investigating high profile murders is that a great deal of their time is taken up by people making “false” confessions. These people are suffering from an identifiable psychological problem. They have a strong need to be in the limelight. To be someone of importance, even if it means they have to confess to being a murderer. I suspect this psychological condition explains why some people provide false information on political conspiracies.

(4) Disinformation agents. Victor Marchetti has described this type of CIA operation as a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti: “A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.” All those who come forward with information must be considered as potential disinformation agents.

(5) How do they react when questioned? Some inside sources react in a very aggressive way when asked follow-up questions. This is because that the question implies that you have doubts about the truthfulness of previous answers. Sometimes they even start talking about suing your for libel. Those who are telling the truth are much more relaxed about this questioning process.

(6) It is not enough for the witness to be convinced they are telling the truth. For example, a study of people responsible for death by dangerous driving, came up with some interesting results. Apparently, some people cannot face up to the reality of what they have done. They therefore tell themselves over and over again what they believe actually happened. They also tell the same story to all those who are willing to listen to them. In this story they are not responsible for the death they have caused. However, all the available evidence (witness statements, skid marks on the road, etc.), indicate they are not telling the truth. Even so, they appear very convincing because they really believe they are telling the truth. I think some sources of information fall into this category.

(7) The witness tells their story in a clear and uncomplicated way. This is very important as it allows you to check the story against other available evidence.

(8) The information they give is consistent over time. They do not change their story after evidence is provided that suggests they have made a mistake in an earlier version of events.

---------------------------------

John:

Though it is way beyond my bed-time; I will attempt to reconcile and resolve some of your rather naive' "assumptions" !!

-------------------------------------

I hope you don’t mind Al but I would like to broaden this discussion out to consider all “inside” sources.

If anybody studies the history of investigating covert operations, you will see that most of the useful information that we have about cases like the JFK assassination, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran-Contra, CIA and Drug Dealing, etc. has come from “inside” sources or what Gerry Hemming calls “snitches”. My dictionary defines a snitch as: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” Despite its unpleasant sounding name, I believe “snitches” are good people and play an important role in a democratic society. (I prefer to call them by a more respectable sounding name, “whistleblower”). Despite his obvious aggression towards Tosh, Gerry is also clearly a snitch/whistleblower.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A] First off, a "whistleblower is usually someone working inside, either a corporate or government entity, and who -- while doing highly rated and complaint-free work -- grows tired of abuses, corruption, incompetence, etc. !! In more than just a few cases; it is because the work products are immediately hazardous to customers or even a threat to a nation's security !! In many cases the "whistleblower has a very clean record -- and is under no personal obligation to complain of said deficiencies.

Nevertheless, in the immediate aftermath of the exposure, of said malfeasance/misfeasance/nonfeasance; and the subsequent outcry or scandal, the guilty miscreants immediately label the whistleblower as just another "Disgruntled and/or Vengeful Employee. With emphasis placed on statements by supervisors that: said "whistleblower" was always known to be disloyal to the "outfit".

On the other hand, a "snitch" is somebody who has been caught committing an offense, and in order to get a good deal, and avoid prison time, he offers to become a snitch. Usually, he is required to first "snitch-out" his rap-partners [partners-in-crime] and this quickly isolates him from any peer support -- and prepares the ground for future snitch work.

Shortly thereafter, he is being farmed out to do stings, insider-snitching, set-ups, etc. -- all in order to remain free and "on the street" !!

Do you NOTICE the difference now ??

----------------------------------------------

Like it or not, people involved in investigating political conspiracies, have to rely on “inside” sources. As these conspiracies nearly always involve covert and illegal actions, it is virtually impossible to rely on the normal documentary evidence usually available to journalists and historians. It is of course highly unlikely that people involved in these illegal activities will record it for posterity. In rare circumstances this does happen, for example, the tape recordings of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. However, both these men did this to help them write their memoirs and did not expect them to enter the public domain. These two high profile examples have virtually guaranteed this will ever happen again. For example, during the UK investigation into the background of the invasion of Iraq, it was discovered that Tony Blair insisted that no minutes should be kept of these private discussions that took place concerning this proposed action. I expect George Bush did the same.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly why most miscreants at the top levels of government are extremely cautious in their selections of underlings and co-conspirators !!

----------------------------------------------

If anybody studies the history of investigating covert operations, you will see that most of the useful information that we have about cases like the JFK assassination, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran-Contra, CIA and Drug Dealing, etc. has come from “inside” sources or what Gerry Hemming calls “snitches”. My dictionary defines a snitch as: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” Despite its unpleasant sounding name, I believe “snitches” are good people and play an important role in a democratic society. (I prefer to call them by a more respectable sounding name, “whistleblower”). Despite his obvious aggression towards Tosh, Gerry is also clearly a snitch/whistleblower.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[C] Return to [A] -- and review once again the stark distinctions between "whistleblowers" -- with no "Sword of Damocles" hanging over their heads, and which is the prime causal factor in their later making of accurate, to the point, an "honest" revelations !!

The"Snitch" has suffered jail or prison time, or has the threat of future charges and/or indictments hanging over his/her head . That, and only THAT, is the causal factor in their revelations; and rarely are they EVER made public, but remain as "sealed secrets" of grand juries !!

"Tooshee" snitched repeatedly, and ONLY in order to get loose from further incarceration, not from some epiphany or his having suddenly gotten religion. Naturally, all of this must be "consecrated" by a desire to"make-a-clean-breast-of-it" !!

----------------------------------------------

In rare circumstances this does happen, for example, the tape recordings of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[D] Quite a few of the LBJ tapes are phonied, for instance: During the 1965 Dominican Republic Crisis, the captions/narrator claims that: When he is talking to "Davidson" down in the DomRep, that this is supposed to be Abe Fortas !! Well, here is some news !! That is the voice of I. Irving Davidson, and that is exactly with whom he is scheming. During that exact same period of time -- I was working with Davidson to create a "3rd Force" [approved by the OAS].

It's on the web, check it out. Even Weberman got some of that correct !!

----------------------------------------------

Over the years I think I have become fairly good at working out who is telling me the truth. I use this experience when looking at any information that comes from “inside” sources. These are the sorts of questions I ask of this information:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[E] Well, for more than 50+ years, I've never been sure about ANY of the folks I encountered, especially where telling the truth -- was a life and death situation !! NOT some tea party at academe !!

----------------------------------------------

Since starting my website in 1997 I have been contacted by a large number of whistleblowers. The main reason for this is that my webpage on them is usually ranked very high at Google. For example, both my pages on Gerry Hemming and Tosh Plumlee are ranked number one at Google. Therefore, my interpretation of them becomes very important. It is in their interest to contact me and to negotiate about what I have said about them.

Over the years I think I have become fairly good at working out who is telling me the truth. I use this experience when looking at any information that comes from “inside” sources. These are the sorts of questions I ask of this information:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[F] I'm willing to learn, that is: If you will cite to some peer reviewed treatises on these matters !!

----------------------------------------------

(1) I am very interested in motivation. Why did this person become a whistleblower? Were they seeking money? Were they attempting to gain revenge against an individual or organization? I have found the most convincing whistleblowers are those who seem to be genuinely appalled by the behavior of the people they are informing on. I am even more impressed if they are appalled by their own behavior.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[G] Most snitches are quite wise to the gullible. especially with those who want to believe they about to reform, and are "outraged" by something, but you've usually got to tell them, and feed them THAT SOMETHING -- or they get confused, just like "Tooshie' !! If James Richards comes up with another photo, and it is "Spiderman", don't be shocked when "Tooshee" comes clean all over the webmaster-man !!

----------------------------------------------

(2) Do they know too much? One of the problems with disinformation agents is that they often know too much. What we know about conspiracies is that individuals involved are only told about their section of the convert operation. Yet some whistleblowers claim to have details about the whole conspiracy. They would only know about this if they had overall charge of theoperation. Therefore, I am much more willing to believe them if they only tell me a small amount. I am always impressed when they answer “I don’t know”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[H] And here we have a clown who, like "Chickenman" has been Forrest Gumping EVERYWHERE during the last 40+ years, and never even saw a "compartment" -- he knew everything !!

Just yesterday, On "Saenz" [NOT "Saez" of the G-2, D.T.I. matter], he comes up with some bullxxxx about "bayou Bluff??" During 1967, I gave Lou Ivon some insights as to Gordon Novel. This centered upon the fact operations by the "Lighters" [barges] tied up at the Naval Depot dock. This Dock was called "Fort LeBeouf". Just a 100+ yards down the Mississippi was Bayou Grande.

Novel was ordered to remove ["burglarize"] the remainder of that which remained onboard two barges tied up at the Fort Leboeuf dockside. He was then tasked to truck on down to the bunkers at the old "Blimp" base [NAF Houma (LTA)]. Up[on arrival, he was to put the entire load onto another barge, which was docked at nearby Morgan City, LA.

This is exactly how the m/v Santa Ana was loaded just days before the Bay of Pigs !! And moreover, Perry Russo didn't know xxxx about the deal, other than what the barge towboat skipper told him.

Ironically, the Tow boat crew were all from the Lebeouf clan, and their company name was lebeouf Towing, Inc. !! Their ancestors built Fort Lebeouf during the time of Jean Lafitte !!

"Tooshee" read some of that material, which Lou Ivon had later presented to Garrison, and now he stutteringly wants to insert himself into the posting, just as he always does !!

----------------------------------------------

(3) It is a fact that one of the problems for the police when they are investigating high profile murders is that a great deal of their time is taken up by people making “false” confessions. These people are suffering from an identifiable psychological problem. They have a strong need to be in the limelight. To be someone of importance, even if it means they have to confess to being a murderer. I suspect this psychological condition explains why some people provide false information on political conspiracies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John, "Eureka" -- you've just given a complete diagnosis of our "Tooshee" !!

----------------------------------------------

(4) Disinformation agents. Victor Marchetti has described this type of CIA operation as a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti: “A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.” All those who come forward with information must be considered as potential disinformation agents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[J] "Back-Stop Files" are the main component of "limited hang-outs"; and EVERY covert operation is backstopped with "Black-Tape Files", "Legends", and "Diversionary Schemes" !! But they are very RARELY necessary,because 99% of the Covert Ops pass as "ships-in-the-night".

Jack Stockwell and his Angola horsexxxx operation -- was ALL about nothing. And what the hell does he say now -- after he was one of those most responsible for the Cuban LCB troops turning Angola into an impoverished police state.

Because of his sniveling and whining, nasty-ass Zavimbi and the South Africans were called in and supported, all in vain. Take a "Fortnight" on down to Luanda, John !! Virgin or BAC +2 connections will get you to that "people's paradise" for less than $900 !!

----------------------------------------------

(5) How do they react when questioned? Some inside sources react in a very aggressive way when asked follow-up questions. This is because that the question implies that you have doubts about the truthfulness of previous answers. Sometimes they even start talking about suing your for libel. Those who are telling the truth are much more relaxed about this questioning process.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[K] When some Weberman, Mellen type "interviewer" starts arguing with you about matters that you personally witnessed or were directly involved in -- It just seems to me that: The subject might just get a little pissed-off; especially at a less than subtle accusation that you are lying !!

Real professional, my man !! And here they come, with they phony agenda. But, when you refuse to reinforce their "Fantasies"; they get really aggressive !!

WHY the aggressive posturing ?? Because it means the difference between a positive publisher [and buck$] !! They always continue with their shifting rants -- trying to get you to agree with their horse-xxxx !!

NO THANKS, I've dealt with professional interrogators, and wannabe amateurs really SUCK !!

----------------------------------------------

Even so, they appear very convincing because they really believe they are telling the truth. I think some sources of information fall into this category

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[L] I highly doubt that "Tooshee" even believes 1% of his own crappola !!

----------------------------------------------

(7) The witness tells their story in a clear and uncomplicated way. This is very important as it allows you to check the story against other available evidence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[M] And just WHO is it that has ANY solid evidence of anything. I suggest that whomever, immediately get to a Notary Public and put said evidence in a sworn statement!!

Otherwise, one might well tend to believe that a certain somebody is scared xxxxless and lying through their teeth. I want then to risk some prison time !! Get it ALL under oath, or xxxx can it in the "round file" !!

----------------------------------------------

(8) The information they give is consistent over time. They do not change their story after evidence is provided that suggests they have made a mistake in an earlier version of events.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[N] Jesus H. Christ, the very first week in Army C I. D. School, the civilian "shrink" experts come in and tell you that if somebody keeps repeating "word-for-word" the same crap !!

They have MEMORIZED IT, and are lying through their teeth. "Eyeball Witnesses" are said to be 99% worthless by the majority of criminal interrogators and prosecutors.

Why do you think Nosenko had so much trouble, that is: Before they finally "turned him" ??!!

----------------------------------------------

I have been asking Tosh Plumlee questions by email (and on this Forum) for a couple of years. He has always reacted like a man who is telling the truth. Therefore I consider him a reliable witness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[O] Please, Pray Tell, give me ONE specific clue as to what a truthful reaction "Sounds Like" ??!!

"Classi-Fried-Lied" files, give me a break. Have you ever interpreted that irrelevant "pdf"; or the phony "gas station' scribbled-up "Map??"!!

----------------------------------------------

Maybe it is just rougher than hell for many folks that are suddenly forced to admit that they have been "HAD" !! What an ego-buster !!

Chairs,

GPH

_________________________________

[Dawn Meredith]

I have asked a number of questions in the past regarding things you have posted here. Let's also consider them irrelevant. Let us focus on the two questions that matter most to all who post here, and see where your answers to them might lead:

1. Do you know who killed President Kennedy?

2. If so, who did it?[/color]

So Gerry: If you know anything about the above two questions all here would appreciate an honest answer.

If, of course, you are capable of honesty.

Dawn

[Gerry Hemming]

I have asked a number of questions in the past regarding things you have posted here. Let's also consider them irrelevant. Let us focus on the two questions that matter most to all who post here, and see where your answers to them might lead:

1. Do you know who killed President Kennedy?

2. If so, who did it?[/color]

So Gerry: If you know anything about the above two questions all here would appreciate an honest answer.

If, of course, you are capable of honesty.

Dawn

------------------------------------

More "Yanking of the Chain" Ms. Public Defender ?! What part of "The Jury is Still OUT" is it, that you've failed to grasp ??!!

My most intense focus [when I was absolutely bored to death, and had time on my hands] was "Proving" that none of my guys had "dood-da-deed" !!

40+ years later, and after suffering decades of slanderous, libelous, and INANE insinuations, and allegations -- accusing me, and/or my associates, of having murdered the President of the United States, we find a fresh crew of "Garrisonnites" who are dedicated at making a name for themselves !!

When the scribblers shifted to the "Watergate Bungl..er..Burglars", the tramps, Landsdale, Harrelson, Elvis, Mickey Mouse, Judge Crater, Cock Robin, et al. -- one would think that the finger had shifted ?! That, even maybe, we might even gain some respite !! NO, they were puking-up -- just "More faces in the Dealey Plaza Crowd", and destined to be added to the ever-growing list of "usual suspects" !!

Now, and even with Bush 43's press "mouthpiece" looking askance at his very own father, you might believe the finger had shifted away from "No Name Key" !! NOT !!

How the hell would I know the exact who and/or why of the JFK murder ?? 99% of the allegations are seemingly reinforced by what activities we were engaged in at the time. I have attempted to clarify some of the history of those rather unimportant activities.

But the scribblers want to take, even the most innocous of our actions, as proof positive that: This, indeed demonstrates a devious even more devious purposes being self-orchestrated.

I don't know "The Who, nor The Why !! But I do know about some of the WHO, and they are those who indeed possess some pieces of the puzzle. In most cases, they appear to be ignorant of these critical pieces, and therefore can't -- or will NOT, make an attempt at connecting the dots.

I received a UPS yesterday, and just thinking about what I am going to find in those pages; has made me physically ill. I got into the 90%er again [after years of stupid ignorance on my part -- that is: ignoring the obvious] because I thought that a couple of scriveners had been either stupid, or were lying, or had been lied to.

A couple of weeks seeking out some previously "mentally blocked" personalities rammed me down the road to connecting some intrigueing dots. There are strong indications which indicate that: Many of this forum's members have been "partially" correct all along. But, with more scrutiny, facts and evidence, tends to lower a severely darkened caste upon those tragic events of 1963 through 1968 !!

That Fidel would even think about approving a hit on JFK is lunacy. And this despite his own "Kamikaze" attitude of the months previous ["Missile Crisis"]. However, that subordinates, or overzealous protectors, or coup d'etat schemers; acting, either to save his life, or their own grab for power, is NOT to be ignored.

What has NOT been ignored, or missed by investigators is the clear evidence that: Fidel had indeed taken severe punitive actions, some in the immediate aftermath, and some not that long ago. The crux of the mystery is: Were these punitive terminations/neutering -- "a punishment, and/or a cover-up"?? And were they orchestrated by his internal friends, or by his [within his regime] scheming foes ??!!

My quest has been: To locate those who might have Either some of the pieces, or have connected some of the dots. Now I am ruining some worthless holidays by my centering upon this 90%er. I have been totally sickened by it !! At least it will be more interesting study than the other 90%er phony-ass scribbler's crap.

NO, I am NOT about to launch yet another series of faces or names into the worthless side of the fray !!

I have once again, reached out to people who: Either haven't a clue, have no interest, don't give a xxxx, and more importantly; can't remember [and confirm] some innocous series of "nothing" events. All of which, means: The connecting of some very serious dots.

And I am not too happy about this crap at all !! Those with expertise in this matter wouldn't be of assistance whatsoever. The dots are not part of the "nefarious" mozaic of things, but seemingly ordinary happenstance events.

] I can't even think of a person, who, amongst those dwelling in the CT and/or LNer element -- who would of assistance !! This involves locating people [and names] situated on the outer orbital periphery of this entire matter.

Time to go "Back to Work", and you will have to seek your "positive responses" elsewhere, I don't have them -- I DON'T KNOW !!

Chairs,

GPH

_________________________

[John Simkin]

Gerry,

I have a link from my page on you to this thread. However, I suspect my readers will be very confused by this debate about your knowledge of the JFK assassination. It seems that you have been misquoted or misunderstood in the past. I think it would be a good idea to clear-up this confusion. I have therefore started a new thread for you. Maybe, you could state clearly and concisely what you know about the assassination of JFK. Maybe you could also post a timeline of your life (what you were doing and when you were doing it). I would then use this information to correct my web page on you.

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

If you did this you would provide a good response to those who have argued that you have confused people on purpose.

You might also wish to use this new thread to put forward your own theory of the assassination.

The new thread can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5751

[John Simkin]

The one person who had 90% of the real facts assembled in a rational form, died during 1974. His death seemingly opened the door, for the then DCI Bill Colby, to terminate Angleton. However, Colby had made a gross mistake, in thinking that this "Possessor-of-Family-Jewels" was JJA's ONLY "Ace-in-the-Hole" !! Which was the genuine reason that Angleton remained active at his office for the next several months.

This "Person", has only been mentioned by name once, during the last 40+ years !! However, and due to the "infamous character" of the writer, said reference was totally ignored. TOO BAD FOLKS, you've NOT been played ["Like-a-Violin"] by professionals -- you played yourselves, ab initio, into a ridiculous and seemingly endless, quandry.

Is this person named Paul Helliwell?