Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul B & Bill & Paul T

Just compared letter to Hoover with copy in 1990 manuscript book,

they are exact in their REDACTION. My reason for using it and

other doc's, all since lost, was to show interested readers/researchers

the connections of that history.

It now seems to me that the FBI took that manuscript document from

my manuscript, because it was I who REDACTED it before publishing.

Also not now able to fill in the missing words,I think it's message

indicates what was transpiring in those days.

I suppose now that Hoover was receiving that letter about the time JFK

was dying in Dallas three days later and FPCC Oswald being hunted.

Harry

Harry, I need some clarification about this response. My question begins by comparing the letter that Bill Kelly typed in for us, and the letter that Ernie Lazar shared with the Forum in a PDF link (in message #270 above).

Ernie presented the link as an "FBI memo which incluides a portion of Harry's 11-19-63 letter to Hoover (without redactions)". Here is the comparison:

------------------ Begin letter that Bill Kelley typed in for us ----------------------

18109 Atina Dr.

La Puente Calif.

Nov. 19, 1963

Director J. E. Hoover

F.B.I.

Washington D.C.

Dear Sir,

[REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information.

[REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness.

[REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact.

[REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED]

J.R.

[REDACTED]

Harry J. Dean

-------------- Begin FBI memo copy supplied by Ernie Lazar -------------

Harry Dean

18109 Atina Dr.

La Puente Calif.

Nov. 19, 1963

Director J.E. Hoover

FBI

Washington, DC

Dear Sir,

From approximately July 22, 1960 to July 14, 1961, I was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and also an officer of same. During this time I gave a great deal of information to FBI Agents in Chicago Illinois...I used only the telephone method in all my dealings with Agents, only the near the end of my activities...did I meet with them...

At this time they began investigating me...Prior to hearings held on this front by the Senate Subcommittee in July, 1961, I was told to quit giving information to the FBI...The thing I would like to bring to your attention, with the hope of being cleared, is that, my name appears in the Senate Subcommittee Report No. 96465 Part No. 2 Pages 84 & 85 as an officer of the Red Front (Fair Play for Cuba Committee)...For our country, I would do any job, any kind, against all her enemies, foreign and domestic...

Harry Dean

--------------- END OF FBI Copy -------------

Now, there are points of identity, points of similarity, and points of difference between these two examples.

The date is the same, the addresses are the same, the sending party and the receiving party are the same. Many of the first few words are the same -- however, after the first two lines, there is a diversion that never returns to a similarity.

Are we to ask whether the FBI 'doctored' this letter that you sent to J. Edgar Hoover?

I ask because the caption at the top of the letter that Ernie Lazar shared reads, "general edwin a walker and jfk assassination".

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Since Harry's 11-19-63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover has been the subject of considerable speculation -- I attach a copy of the entire letter. As can be seen, when the FBI-Los Angeles field office excerpted a portion of Harry's 1963 letter and quoted it in their March 6, 1964 summary re: Dean, they quoted it accurately. They did insert ellipses (i.e. three dots) to indicate when they were skipping over sections in order to present a synopsis of Harry's original comments.

Contrary to what Paul Trejo has suggested in his message to Harry (above) there was no "doctoring" by the FBI. FBI-Los Angeles merely excerpted Harry's long letter as is common practice when dealing with lengthy stuff and they inserted an ellipsis to indicate when they were skipping over certain sections and moving on to Harry's key points in his letter.

[if you are wondering how the Los Angeles field office got a copy of Harry's letter addressed to Hoover in Washington DC -- it is because J. Edgar Hoover forwarded a copy to both the Chicago field office and to Los Angeles on November 22, 1963 and Hoover noted in his cover letter that "Bufiles contain no information indicating that the correspondent was considered an informant or a potential informant by your office" -- so he asked both Chicago and Los Angeles to provide details of any contacts they had with Harry.

This comment by Hoover is very significant for several reasons.

First of all, both FBI HQ and its field offices maintained an "Informant Index" which listed all active and inactive informants (i.e. current informants and those previously operated). The Index listed the informant's name, his/her symbol number, and background information.

The fact that FBI HQ had no listing for a "Harry J. Dean" as a current or former informant means that no field office of the FBI ever sent any report to HQ stating that Harry Dean was being used as an informant. Again -- this is critically important because these documents were created long before there was a Freedom of Information Act -- so the FBI never even dreamed that their INTERNAL communications or documents or Indexes would EVER be made public knowledge. Obviously, when Hoover sent communications or instructions to his field offices. he did so based upon the information contained in HQ files.

Harry's 1963 letter and the FBI explanation of his status also confirms my numerous statements that Harry (like any other American) could contact a local FBI office by phone (or by letter or in person) and give the FBI whatever information which he thought the FBI might find useful -- but that is NOT the same as being an "undercover agent" or informant.

Informants were subject to numerous specific FBI protocols. I won't go into all this in detail -- but suffice it to say that Harry merely provided unsolicited raw information to FBI-Chicago and I feel confident in saying that some of it was probably very useful to the FBI.

The HQ file copy of Hoover's 11/22/63 letter to Chicago and Los Angeles field offices has this comment ABOUT Harry:

"Only references identifiable with correspondent are in connection with the Fair Play For Cuba Committee investigation. He was mentioned in a New York report in 1960 as the secretary of this organization in Chicago. His name is contained on the pages he indicated in the Senate Subcommittee Report he mentioned. There are numerous other references in Bufiles to the name Harry Dean. There is no indication that he has been considered as an informant or potential informant. Numerous criminal references and references which did not appear pertinent were not reviewed in view of the lack of identifying information."

ALSO: Note that Harry spends a lot of time in his 11/19/63 letter discussing his personal problems, i.e. "I have made many errors in my time, as a younger and unmarried man, and until the first meeting [with the FBI agents in Chicago] my inside information sufficed, but at this time they began investigating me, a short time later, just prior to hearing held on this front by the Senate Subcommittee in July 1961, I was told to quit giving information to the FBI by two Agents whom I met on Chicago's north side in a street corner meeting prearranged of course, they made it clear that I was finished by reason of their findings, concerning my past, most of which I would have gladly related to them the year before, when I first pointed the finger at proven, active, communists in, and working against our country."

So this is important because it confirms that standard Bureau procedures were followed, i.e. they accepted Harry's initial phone call and recorded the information he provided. They accepted his subsequent phone calls -- but as soon as he identified himself, the FBI commenced a background investigation in order to determine if this person might be a valuable resource and perhaps even a prospect as an informant. However, as Harry admits, once the FBI discovered his background (what Harry calls his "shady character", the FBI dropped him like a hot potato!

Harry then goes on YET AGAIN to describe himself as an "undercover agent" for the FBI and he declares that he was "saddened to tears" when he learned in 1961 that he would not be accepted by the FBI as an informant.

Now---fast forward to September 1963. Now Harry is living in Los Angeles area. Once again he contacts his local FBI field office -- probably by phone. And once again, the FBI records these contacts. But, once again, the FBI concludes that in view of Harry's background (aka "shady character") he is not potential informant material. During all the interceding time between 1961 and 1963, the FBI appears to have no interest whatsoever in Harry. HOWEVER, when Harry starts making PUBLIC statements to newspapers, to television programs, etc. THEN the FBI feels compelled to set the record straight -- as it typically would always do when somebody misrepresented their connection to the FBI.

Case closed.

Dean 11-19-63 leter to Hoover.PDF

Edited November 10, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, the title of the book is "Understanding the Files of the FBI" and I would have to disagree with you a bit. I've read at least three similar sources and I found it particularly useful in understanding the file retention and disposal guidelines that would have been in play at the time. Of course its not the only source, I think we mentioned three such works in AGOG so I don't want to focus on this alone and certainly your references are most worthwhile. Its been a good three years since I slogged through that sort of material so I certainly could not be specific about what was in which source. My goal was simply to inform thread readers that this is not really an area of mystery, the rules and protocols for recruiting and handling sources and informants were well documented, the construction, distribution, retention and destruction of source and informant files was well documented and at this stage the process is neither shadowy or mysterious. I'll leave it at that.

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

So my questions to PAUL are:

WHY IS IT that only a handful of actual FBI informants (or confidential sources) ever had any problem AFTER they terminated their relationship with the Bureau?

Why is it that so FEW of them used the term “undercover agent” or similar terms? Why is it that ONLY people like Harry Dean – who CLAIM to have been an FBI informant or confidential information source have had controversies develop concerning their relationship with the FBI?

<snip>

Ernie,

I'm not sure why you keep asking me to ask Harry Dean for this, that or the other -- he's right here on this thread, so you can ask him yourself. Though, since you're clearly in 'attack mode,' you shouldn't be too surprised if he doesn't leap towards your less-than-friendly requests.

Further, your continual defense of the FBI is heart-warming though naïve. You seem to imagine that the FBI has made no misdeeds in all its history. (Well, you probably also believe the biased nonsense published by Adam Fairclough claiming that MLK was a Communist.) In my opinion, the FBI sinned against the American people by hammering so hard on MLK during the Civil Rights movement, and failing to provide protection for him at the crucial hour -- probably MLK's room and phone were bugged on the night of his assassination. J. Edgar Hoover was far from perfect.

I'm one of the few around here who strive to give J. Edgar Hoover the benefit of the doubt regarding his ungodly fumble of Lee Harvey Oswald, i.e. I say Hoover's cover-up of the JFK assassination was made in the interest of National Security, and I stand by that until further information comes in. Yet I don't give the FBI a free pass. They aren't perfect, and I suspect them of smearing Harry Dean just as they smeared Silvia Odio. These folks disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's flimsy claims about Lee Harvey Oswald, and for their troubles they were blackballed by the FBI. That's how it appears to me, and to any impartial reader, IMHO.

I'm not persuaded by your one-sided arguments and repetition, Ernie -- not because I'm biased, but because your arguments are biased. I'm open to actual facts, not to mere assertions by the high-falutin FBI. You seem to defend the FBI like a paid attorney, and yet they made too many mistakes in history, IMHO, to merit that sort of blind faith.

To make a rigorous case for my position, of course, I would need several person-years of work, and I'm only one guy. You yourself accumulated your detail after several years of effort. I'm only getting started. Yet quantity of data alone cannot make a case, Ernie. You still don't have the right data to form your conclusions.

As for your questions, I'll number them below:

(1) WHY IS IT that only a handful of actual FBI informants ever had any problem AFTER they terminated their relationship with the Bureau?

(A1) Simple -- because this handful was dealing with the JFK assassination, in which J. Edgar Hoover was personally invested. Silvia Odio is among this handful, and she suffered smears from the FBI for her entire life. Yet she also told the TRUTH.

(2) Why is it that so FEW of them used the term “undercover agent” or similar terms? Why is it that ONLY people like Harry Dean – who CLAIM to have been an FBI informant or confidential information source have had controversies develop concerning their relationship with the FBI?

(A2) Your harping on the semantics of "undercover agent" repeats the FBI harping, Ernie. We have plenty of documents from the FBI about Harry Dean to show that the FBI actually did receive information from him. Yet you focus on their smear campaign, and you don't stop hammering long enough to look around.

(3) Didn't Harry Dean acknowledge IN WRITING in BOTH his November 19, 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover and (previously) in his June 28, 1961 letter to JFK, that the FBI in Chicago told him that his assistance was not required?

(A3) No, Ernie, and you're not paying attention because of your bias. Harry Dean himself said on this very thread only days ago that the memo that you produced (evidently from the Mary Ferrell site) is not the same memo that he sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 11/19/63. As for the FBI redaction of that memo, the internal logic is clearly nil -- the contradictions there don't belong to Harry but to an angry FBI.

Your own chronology is merely a repeat of the FBI nonsense, yet your faith in the FBI is touching. Further, you try to make links between clauses in the FBI redaction with Harry's memo to JFK which are not warranted -- they amount to your own INVENTION.

As for your harping on the bizarre claim that Harry Dean perhaps might have received psychotherapy when he was a young man in Canada -- in this context that is clearly a political maneuver and has no relevance in the slightest to the JFK assassination.

In my humble opinion, it is ludicrous that a man who was "certified insane" and "committed" in 1948 in Canada would in 1949 be walking around, working, paying bills, planning to get married, have children and build a family life in Chicago. The FBI can be so cruel.

The FBI is clearly lying or REACHING (stretching the facts) -- and I don't need to ask Harry Dean about it. Anyway, it is an unfriendly question with no relevance to any important theme. In any case, Harry Dean is reading all these posts, and he is eminently capable of speaking for himself if he so chooses. (Yet the unfriendly and Stormtrooper aspect of this sort of interrogation is not inviting, as I've already noted.)

(4) Isn't it customary for people like yourself who are quick to became apologists for one particular set of conclusions, to see only TWO possible choices -- truth or lies? Isn't it possible that Harry Dean is neither lying or telling the truth, but living in a fantasy world?

(A4) While in principle I admit that there are never only TWO choices -- truth or lies -- in the case of Harry Dean I see no evidence -- on objective grounds -- of any fantasy life in the witness Harry has shared with the world since 1965. Errors are one thing, but a fantasy world has clear distinguishing markers. It would be obvious even to the casual observer if Harry Dean was living in a fantasy world. Clearly Harry operates on an information level lower than a professional FBI agent, but it is simply unkind to accuse him of a fantasy world.

Yet that is clearly what the FBI is doing with their smear campaign. FBI memos must now be used to confirm their smear campaign or refute it. This will take some time, and we are far, far from having enough evidence today to draw a conclusion.

It makes more sense to me that the FBI lied about Harry Dean in the past, and continues to lie about Harry Dean in the present, simply because his case is tied up with the JFK assassination, which remains an EXCEPTION to all the rules of all previous FBI procedure. We don't need to be experts in FBI procedure to know that.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul: I will respond to your comments in the order they appear:

1. I regret that you (or Harry) think I am in "attack" mode. I am trying to ask important questions and get candid and fulsome replies. When I confront bad reasoning or false info -- I say so without sugar-coating.

2. DEFENSE OF FBI: This really galls me Paul. Anybody who knows me knows with absolute indisputable certainty that I am NOT "defending" the FBI -- particularly during Hoover's tenure. In fact, I have engaged in numerous debates online (and in private) where I have explicitly declared that the FBI committed crimes under Hoover which (had they been known at the time) would probably have resulted in senior FBI officials being convicted and sent to prison. Furthermore, I frequently recommend that interested parties consult the writings of Dr. Athan Theoharis -- as I have done here in this thread. Anybody familiar with Theoharis knows that he is responsible for uncovering most of what we currently know about FBI abuses, Hoover's lies and misrepresentations, and the "smears" which the FBI authored and circulated (via friendly politicians and media) against prominent Americans.

3. FBI MISTAKES:

Paul, for the past 33 years I have devoted most of my free time and somewhere in the vicinity of $40,000 of my personal income to obtaining hundreds of thousands of FBI documents which prove, beyond any doubt, the horrible "mistakes" made by the FBI in the name of "national security".

Since 2009, I have received over 250 messages from scholars and researchers all over the world who ask me questions or who want copies of FBI files I have obtained and many of these folks have written books and articles severely critical of both Hoover and the FBI and their "mistakes" -- and, in fact, these authors often cite me in their books and articles as one of their sources.

One recent example is Ivan Greenberg's book, Surveillance in America, Critical Analysis of FBI, 1920-Present, as well as Ivan's former book, The Dangers of Dissent: The FBI and Civil Liberties Since 1965

You can find many more examples by doing a google Book Search on my name:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=ernie+lazar

Last week, I noticed (entirely by accident) that a recent book about Dallas entitled: Dallas 1963 by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis cited me for something.

Are you familiar with Dr. Harvey Klehr and Dr. John Earl Haynes? They have written numerous books and articles about the communist movement in our country and they are universally recognized as among our nation's top scholars concerning the McCarthy period in our history. Dr. Haynes has posted messages in the History of American Communism (HOAC) discussion network concerning the FBI files I have obtained. Both Dr. Haynes and Dr. Klehr have asked me to send them a DVD set containing all the FBI files which I have obtained during the past few years---which I am doing. Both of them have presented severe criticisms of Hoover's FBI in their writings.

So---criticize me all you want, Paul -- but do not misrepresent my beliefs or clear record of antagonism toward Hoover's FBI.

4. ADAM FAIRCLOUGH: Once again you misrepresent what Adam wrote. He NEVER stated or hinted that MLK Jr. was "a Communist". Paul, that is so intellectually dishonest of you that I now wonder who you really are. Adam is a British historian who has specialized in our civil rights movement history and all he did in the article which I sent to you is QUOTE from MLK Jr's private correspondence and public articles where King acknowledged his acceptance of Marxist economic theory---and that is something which any historian would confirm to you, if you bothered to ask. Shame on you Paul! You worry about FBI's "sins" -- well, maybe you should look in a mirror sometime.

5. OSWALD: As I have previously stated (and I will repeat again), I am NOT defending Hoover, or the Warren Commission report. But I do dispute your characterization of the FBI description of Harry Dean as a "smear". You elevate Dean to a level of importance which cannot be found in FBI documents. Virtually everything in FBI documents was limited to internal FBI discussions about Dean because of Dean's public statements. It is clear from FBI memos that Hoover did not even know who Dean was --- except in the context of one of many many people who claimed to have some kind of association with the FBI.

6. DEFENDING FBI: Again you claim I am defending the FBI. I guess you saying that if I discover something which you write does that does not correspond to my experience with FBI files and my accumulated knowledge about FBI policies and procedures, then that information, by definition, must be false because it could be used to undermine your beliefs. Ok fine. Just don't misrepresent me as functioning like a "paid attorney" defending the FBI when, in reality, YOUR defense of Harry Dean could easily be described that way. No rational person advocates "blind faith" in the FBI or Hoover. But there is this inconvenient thing called EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I'm sorry it does not support your fantasies -- but so be it.

7. UNDERCOVER AGENT: Paul, I am not "harping upon" the semantics. Yes, nobody disputes that the FBI "received" information from Harry. He phoned it in -- as did many hundreds of thousands of Americans -- but those hundreds of thousands of Americans never described themselves as "undercover agent". I have never focused on ANY "smear" campaign. I am looking at empirical evidence contained in primary source FBI documents---including Harry's own words in his correspondence to Hoover and JFK. All of YOUR comments are biased interpretations which are NOT supported by available documentation.

8. HARRY'S 11-19-63 LETTER TO HOOVER:

OK -- this morning I posted the entire original letter by Harry. Now you can see EXACTLY what Harry wrote and there is no substantive difference. We knew from the start that the excerpt appearing in the Los Angeles memo which I previously scanned and posted was not the entire document --- because there were ellipses (...) to indicate that portions of Harry's original letter were not quoted. But the substance presented by Los Angeles accurately summarizes what Harry wrote to Hoover. The portion not quoted is general background detail provided by Harry which explains why the FBI decided he was not desirable as an informant. There was no "angry FBI" and there are no "contradictions" -- except in your fevered imagination.

9. HARRY'S MENTAL CONDITION: I clearly stated that I did not care why Harry might have been committed to a mental institution. I merely pointed out that it was not part of a "smear job" to factually summarize that in an FBI memo. The whole point of FBI background checks to is to determine whether or not a person could be a reliable source of information -- OR -- whether there might be personal information which should cause concern. You attribute this whole matter to the FBI -- but the FBI was not the source of that information, It was the RCMP in Canada. And, FYI, many individuals walk around, work, pay bills, get married, have children and build a family -- but nevertheless have serious issues which go unaddressed for one reason or another. If you doubt me -- check into the background of all of the people who recently have murdered multiple people. Almost invariably their neighbors and co-workers or fellow students have stated that they never suspected the person who shot people at a mall, or a theater, or a Navy yard, or a university or school was even capable of such deeds because they seemed so "normal".

10. TRUTH OR LIES: No, it is NOT customary for there to be only "either/or" choices in life. That was YOUR position, not mine. I offered the third option (not you) and my option better fits everything we know based upon empirical evidence. It is YOU who has become an apologist for Harry Dean. I have nothing invested in Harry or the FBI. I will let the chips fall where they may.... which is why I can both criticize the FBI as an institution as well as criticize many FBI informants and FBI Special Agents who subsequently went on to present FALSE information about themselves and about internal security matters generally.

11. FANTASY LIFE: I suggest you re-read your eBook. Harry's story is quite common. See his descriptive comments about how he viewed his participation in radical groups and then with the FBI. Also re-read his description of what he claims Wesley Grapp said to him. It does not have to be a "fantasy world". It can be (as I have previously stated) extreme confusion and gross exaggeration.

When police go to a crime scene and interview witnesses to a crime, there OFTEN are conflicts in the statements made. Are those people "lying"? Were their minds operating in some sort of "fantasy world"? Not usually. Instead, adrenalin kicks in, events move very quickly, assumptions are made, and then mistakes in perception and conclusions occur. Sometimes, witnesses cannot even agree on descriptions of the criminals involved or their vehicles. It is normal for human beings to plod along doing what they do everyday and then, suddenly, there is a unique situation which they have never experienced before (a robbery, a car accident, a plane crash, multiple murders in a shopping mall or theater, etc.) and one's normal world is turned upside down and inside out.

12. FBI LIES: At some point in the future it is possible that you will conclude that Harry's story is not as convincing as you think it is now. One wonders if you will re-visit the comments in your last paragraph and attempt to explain why you could have been so wrong? By contrast, if I live long enough to discover compelling evidence that Harry's story is essentially accurate then I will be happy to acknowledge it without hesitation, because I have nothing invested in him or in his story or in the FBI or in Hoover.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, the title of the book is "Understanding the Files of the FBI" and I would have to disagree with you a bit. I've read at least three similar sources and I found it particularly useful in understanding the file retention and disposal guidelines that would have been in play at the time. Of course its not the only source, I think we mentioned three such works in AGOG so I don't want to focus on this alone and certainly your references are most worthwhile. Its been a good three years since I slogged through that sort of material so I certainly could not be specific about what was in which source. My goal was simply to inform thread readers that this is not really an area of mystery, the rules and protocols for recruiting and handling sources and informants were well documented, the construction, distribution, retention and destruction of source and informant files was well documented and at this stage the process is neither shadowy or mysterious. I'll leave it at that.

Yes I agree with you concerning retention and disposal guidelines and about the general history about when FBI files were created and what sort of data is contained in them. But specific details regarding how to handle informants or pay them or discontinue them are not in "Unlocking". Another good general reference is "The FBI" A Comprehensive Reference Guide" edited by Athan Theoharis and Tony Poveda, Susan Rosenfeld, and Richard Gid Powers. I also recommend an academic journal article entitled "Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The Agent Provocateur and the Informant (American Journal of Sociology, 1974, Volume 80, #2) by Gary T. Marx.

Incidentally, FBI field offices were instructed to present their quarterly informant reports in a standard format -- which was as follows, per section 107 of the FBI Manual of Instructions

The typical format used by field offices was under the following captions:

1. Recommendation

2. Residence and Employment

3. Current Membership in Organizations

4. Summary of Information Furnished

5. Amount Paid For Services

6. Type and Number of Meetings Attended

7. Number of Written and Oral Reports Submitted

8. Information Furnished Of Unusual Value

9. Approximate Number of Persons on Whom Informant Furnished Coverage and Their Importance

10. Steps Being Taken To Advance Informant

11. Stability and Reliability

12. Indoctrination Against Disclosure

13. Action On Information Furnished

14. Miscellaneous

Also, one last point about Harry Dean. One of the documents posted by Mary Ferrell contains a December 1963 "search slip" on Harry Dean requested by a Supervisor by the name of W.P. Dix. This particular search slip was produced because somebody asked for all "subversive references" to Dean contained in FBI files. Altogether there were 20 files/serials identified. Some might have been duplicate info being placed into multiple files but this is useful because if somebody wanted to do so, they could request each individual serial identified to see what information from Harry was serialized. I recognize only one or two file numbers. For example, there is a reference to: HQ 100-3-4-1594. File 100-3 is the CPUSA General Activities file. The -4 suffix probably refers to a specific field office file on the CPUSA and their reports to HQ (probably Chicago) and then serial #1594. A good guess would be that this particular serial contains info that Harry gave the FBI about FPCC.

[Ernie Lazar]

EXHIBITS TO HELP EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN HERE

Yesterday, I received a CD from the FBI containing 6 more sections of their New York City main file on Phil Bart, the National Organizational Secretary of the Communist Party.

By coincidence, this particular release contains several examples of the points I have been attempting to make during our discussion about Harry Dean and about FBI filing practices -- so I scanned several pages and they are attached as numbered exhibits to this message for interested parties.

Here is what you can see:

EXHIBIT #1 = COVER SHEET USED BY FBI FOR INFORMANT REPORTS (FD-306)

Notice that the field next to the date contains a name that is redacted. That field was used to identify the source of information received by the FBI -- either by name or by their FBI symbol number. When I submitted my original FOIA request to the FBI on Phil Bart, I provided birth/death information on about two dozen CPUSA officials -- including most of their National Executive Committee. I also provided birth/death info on the two most important moles which the FBI had inside the Communist Party (Morris and Jack Childs). Since the name in the "received" field is redacted, then the information did not originate from any of the deceased people who I listed.

Nevertheless, there is very significant information available on this form which is useful for research purposes -- and which would also be available with respect to any reports made by Harry Dean. Here is a brief summary:

1. We know that the source originated in New York because the FBI redacted the NY file number (at bottom of page) which pertained to their source. We also can see that this source was assigned to an investigative unit within the New York field office which is identified by code (41). Somewhere I have a route slip which identifies that specific unit -- and if it was of particular interest to me, I would check that out.

2. We know that this source reported to NY Special Agent John A. Haag

3. We know that the original document provided by this source (i.e. a letter sent to all National Committee members of the Communist Party re: a forthcoming meeting in Chicago) was filed in a file identified as NY 100-80641 -- which the FBI created for data on CPUSA Organizational matters. We know further, that this document is not in the main file but in a sub-file identified as "1B" and the document is serial #532 of that file --- so one could do further research there.

4. We know that this document was originally filed into Phil Bart's main file (NYC 100-56579, serial #4247) -- BUT, when this file was released to me, the FBI identified a new file number which now is for Bart's New York field main file (i.e. NYC 229C-10).

5. Lastly, we know that the letter being discussed in this document was obtained at CPUSA headquarters in New York City by the FBI's source.

6. Notice the field on this form (underneath the date) which identifies "method of delivery".. If someone like Harry Dean was regularly providing information to the FBI at their request, his information would be recorded on this type of "cover sheet" and the receiving Special Agent would have checked off the method --- which, in Harry's case, was usually "by telephone". IN ADDITION, if the receiving Agent hand-wrote comments on this form, it is entirely likely that he would then have given his form to the clerical staff in FBI-NYC so that they could type whatever information Harry provided.

7. Notice also that if a Special Agent received an oral report from an information source, there is a field on this FBI form for the Agent to identify on what date he could have dictated his notes to a clerical staff person and then that clerical person would be identified in the "Transcribed" line (with date), AND then, the information source was asked to read the transcribed summary of his/her comments in order to "authenticate" it (date and initials entered on that line of form). So---this begs a question: did Harry ever review the transcribed copies of his oral reports -- and then initial them or orally approve them?

EXHIBIT #2 = Serial Charge Out form FD-5

When I opened section 26 of Bart's file, the very first document I saw was this "charge out" form because serial #4011 was missing from Bart's file and serial #4011 should have been the first serial of section 26.

Notice that this "charge out" form was prepared in April 1970. There could be several possible explanations for why a serial would seem to disappear for a lengthy period of time but my point pertains to what I attempted to explain to Paul Trejo re: standard FBI filing practices -- i.e. when there is a "gap" in a file (missing serials), there is a form in the file which identifies what is missing. Very often it is possible for an FBI records clerk to specify the date(s) of the missing serials and sometimes even the subject matter -- by checking the field office manual index (and all cross-references). It is also possible that the information contained in a field office serial was sent to HQ so the HQ file would have the missing information. See exhibit 4 for more information.

EXHIBIT #3 = LAST PAGE OF FBI REPORT

Notice that the FBI redacted the name of the person who was their source of information for the data contained in this particular serial. However, also notice the comment next to the redacted name. My point here is that the FBI releases "confidential", "secret" and "top secret" documents (even though they might redact the informant or source's name). This particular report (about the Communist Party's 17th National Convention) was marked "secret".

EXHIBIT #4 = CROSS-REFERENCE FILING

Paul Trejo apparently thinks that it is a very simple matter for the FBI (or any large organization) to find every reference to some person which is considered "sensitive information" and then rip it out of specific files so that it can never be found by diligent researchers.

I decided to scan this document because as you can see, this was a report from a "reliable" source who made an oral report regarding the CPUSA Convention in NYC in December 1959. But then notice that there are FIVE PAGES which identify where this ONE report was filed. Fourteen copies were put into HQ files and then 131 (!!!) copies were put into field office files. Of that 131 -- 51 were put into New York field files and 30 were put into Chicago field files. Why Chicago? Because the source was FBI informant CG-5824-S* -- which refers to Morris Childs, our most important mole inside the Communist Party.

Now consider for a moment all of the possible FBI memos and reports (HQ and field office) which might reference information supplied by Morris Childs which this particular memo summarizes at great length.

Then imagine what would be required if the FBI decided months or years after the fact to expunge all copies and delete all index references to those memos and reports or to change the serial numbers or dates of every document or to "modify" (Paul's term) all of the documents which contain any sort of reference to Morris Childs' information.

THEN imagine what would be required with respect to copies of memos, reports, or letters sent OUTSIDE the FBI -- perhaps to the White House OR to a Congressional Committee (or just to a Chairman and ranking member of a Committee), OR to a U.S. Attorney's Office, OR to the U.S. Secret Service OR to G-2 (Army Intelligence) OR to the New York City Police Department "Red Squad" OR to any of two dozen more possible recipients.

Can you imagine how many different documents and indexes would have to be "modified" just to remove all traces of this ONE December 22, 1959 memo? God only knows how many references field office Special Agents put into subsequent memos and reports AFTER they received this 12/22/59 memo -- which mentions this memo by date and by subject and/or by the source who provided the information.

This is why we cannot accept as reasonable Paul Trejo's "theory" about Harry Dean's reports.

ALL bureaucracies (including the super-secretive USSR) create and maintain exhaustive and comprehensive archives at multiple different agencies which no army of clerical employees could ever "modify" without anybody knowing about it and then reporting it.

We won't even get into the matter of how much labor would be required to perform such a task. One could easily imagine the ENTIRE clerical staff at FBI HQ being tasked to "modify" just ONE memo assuming they could know all the places where it wound up (inside and outside the FBI) and that process could easily take WEEKS OR MONTHS.

So...for example, if Harry Dean made an oral report to Los Angeles-FBI on a dozen JBS members and Minutemen members --- it is entirely possible that copies of his oral report were transcribed and placed in several dozen different FBI HQ and field office main files and secondary files PLUS were sent to all sorts of people outside the FBI.

There is no possible way that the FBI could find and retrieve and "modify" ALL of those documents. As previously explained, in many cases, documents were not assigned a serial number so they were "unrecorded". That means some clerical employee would have to GUESS where those "unrecorded" serials MIGHT appear.

Bart File Docs--Exhibits 1-4.PDF

Edited November 10, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Sorry-- page one of Exhibit 4 (my previous messaeg) got missed -- so it is attached to this message....

Exh 4 - page 1.PDF

[Ernie Lazar]

In one of his earlier messages, Paul Trejo maligned a fine, decent, and respected historian (Adam Fairclough) by claiming that Fairclough wrote "biased nonsense" and Fairclough believed and wrote in his article "that MLK was a Communist".

In fact, Fairclough explictly stated the precise OPPOSITE in his article. He declared that MLK Jr was a democratic socialist (not a communist) -- but he agreed that MLK Jr. accepted basic Marxist precepts about how capitalist societies operate and need to be reformed. Many democratic socialists accept Marxian economic analysis as a starting point for discussions of capitalist society.

As Fairclough pointed out in his article (copy attached so everyone can read it for themselves):

King, echoing the conventional definitions of the day, associated Marxism with the rejection of spiritual values, a shallow economic determinism, and the absolute supremacy of the state. All this he emphatically rejected. He summed up his feelings about Marx, both positive and negative, in a talk to the SCLC staff in 1966:

"I always look at Marx with a yes and a no. And there were some things that

Karl Marx did that were very good. Some very good things. If you read him,

you can see that this man had a great passion for social justice. . . . [but]

Karl Marx got messed up, first because he didn't stick with that Jesus that he

had read about; but secondly because he didn't even stick with Hegel."

As always, King then went on to talk about Jesus as his primary inspiration:

"Now this is where I leave Brother Marx and move on toward the Kingdom

[of Brotherhood].... I am simply saying that God never intended for some

of his children to live in inordinate superfluous wealth while others live in

abject, deadening poverty."

That King should have stated 'I am a Marxist', without these qualifications and in such bald terms, is, in the opinion of this writer, unlikely in the extreme. His

hostility to excessive materialism, and his concern for the poor and the oppressed, owed more to the Social Gospel than to Marxist ideology."

The reason why this is important for our current debate is because it reveals the extraordinary ideological bias and venom which so consumes Paul Trejo that he cannot even accurately summarize the clearly-stated position of a prominent historian concerning one of the most important figures of 20th century American history.

So, when someone protests about "biased nonsense" or that person is quick to characterize as a "smear job" a fact-based summary about someone's background --- we need to take a closer look into how their intellect operates.

As i previously noted, no serious student of Martin Luther King Jr. would dispute that he was significantly influenced by Marxist ideology. MLK Jr.'s father acknowledged it in interviews. Pulitzer-prize winning historians such as Dr. David J. Garrow would not dispute it.

Garrow wrote: "King privately described himself as a Marxist" and in his 1981 book, "The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.", Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff meetings, "...we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution.... The whole structure of American life must be changed.... We are engaged in the class struggle."

I also attach another article -- this one by a Professor of Religion and Political Science at Bucknell University, i.e. Douglas Sturm: Martin Luther King Jr. As A Democratic Socialist [Journal of Religious Ethics, Fall 1990, pages 79-105] which is very well-documented regarding MLK Jr., Marxist beliefs.

Why is all this important to our current debate?

Because when we have intellectual disputes (which are totally healthy) there must be acceptance of basic principles regarding what constitutes FACT and regarding how FACT (aka reality) is determined.

Paul Trejo has revealed on several occasions that he cannot accurately quote or paraphrase what I have written or what I believe.

Paul also has revealed that he cannot accurately summarize what Adam Fairclough believes and has written repeatedly over many years.

At some point we have to ask why Paul has this problem?

Fairclough_-_Was_MLK_Jr_A_Marxist_-_History_Workshop,_Spring_83,_pp117-125.pdf

Douglas Sturm-MLK Jr as Democratic Socialist, Jrl Religious Ethics, Fall 1990, pp 79-105.pdf

Edited November 10, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Would this be called an ad hominum attack?

[Paul Trejo]

Since Harry's 11-19-63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover has been the subject of considerable speculation -- I attach a copy of the entire letter. As can be seen, when the FBI-Los Angeles field office excerpted a portion of Harry's 1963 letter and quoted it in their March 6, 1964 summary re: Dean, they quoted it accurately. They did insert ellipses (i.e. three dots) to indicate when they were skipping over sections in order to present a synopsis of Harry's original comments.

Contrary to what Paul Trejo has suggested in his message to Harry (above) there was no "doctoring" by the FBI. FBI-Los Angeles merely excerpted Harry's long letter as is common practice when dealing with lengthy stuff and they inserted an ellipsis to indicate when they were skipping over certain sections and moving on to Harry's key points in his letter.

<snip>

Ernie, whatever our differences, I sincerely appreciate that you can supply these FBI documents to our Forum thread.

All the same, you're posted many accusations all at once, and I don't have time to respond to all of them in one night -- however, I'm happy to take them one at a time.

So, thanks for supplying the full letter which the FBI claims was written by Harry Dean (who is currently reading this thread) to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963. This letter was written 3 days before the JFK assassination.

The context, according to Harry Dean, is that he informed the FBI in September 1963 that WW2 war-hero General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, WW2 war-hero Guy Gabaldon, also two honorably discharged US military men, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (all closely associated with the Southern California John Birch Society and Minutemen) were involved in a JFK conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald.

Furthermore, from 1959-1961 Harry Dean was a Secretary of the Communist organization named, Fair Play for Cuba Committee (just as Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with this group) and Harry claimed that he gave a lot of information to the Chicago FBI about the Communists in Chicago as well.

You provided the letter in a PDF file, Ernie; however that copy is smudgy in parts and is difficult to read. So, I took the time to type out the entire letter for the Forum, because I think this thread has real energy. (I typed it in all capital letters because that is how this PDF file presented the letter.)

Harry Dean suspected (based on the bits and pieces of this letter which the FBI reported in a separate memo) that the FBI may have 'doctored' this memo. So it truly helps the thread along when we can all see the full memo that the FBI claims Harry Dean actually wrote.

We're fortunate to have Harry Dean with us on the Forum, so we can ask him directly. So I hereby ask Harry Dean to please read this letter and kindly tell us if this is word-for-word what he actually wrote to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963.

I note that the FBI version of this letter that Ernie Lazar shared with this thread is ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Did Harry Dean type the letter all in capital letters? Did the FBI re-type this letter entirely in capital letters, using Harry's handwriting? If so, did the FBI make any mistakes in the re-typing? Did the FBI omit anything; add anything or invent anything? Harry Dean is the only person who can answer these questions for us today.

------------------- Start of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover ---------------------

FBI DIRECTOR 18109 ATINA DR

J.E HOOVER LA PUENTE, CALIF

WASHINGTON DC NOV. 19 1962

213-964-5111

DEAR SIR,

FROM APPROXIMATELY, JULY 22 1960 TO JULY 14, 1961 I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE, AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME. DURING THIS TIME I GAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION TO FBI AGENTS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

WHEN I FIRST CONTACTED YOUR PEOPLE VIA PHONT THEY STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS FRONT HAD STARTED IN CHICAGO, AND ASKED THAT I CONTINUE IN THIS POSITION, AND ADVISED ME IN MANY NECESSARY DETAILS AND CAUTIONS.

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS I USED ONLY THE TELEPHONE METHOD IN ALL MY DEALINGS WITH AGENTS. ONLY NEAR THE END OF MY ACTIVITIES (not anticipated) DID I MEET WITH THEM, AND AT THEIR KIND INSISTANCE PRIOR TO THIS IT WAS MY OWN RISK TO RELY ONLY ON THE PHONE METHOD OF CONTACT.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE UNDER SUSPICION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE FRONT PEOPLE. I LATER GAVE THE AGENTS MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. THEY CALLED ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR INFORMATION AND TO ADVISE ME IN DETAILS IN THIS AREA.

ONE ONE OCCASION AN AGENT STATED, "THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION WE HAVE SEEN." THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

I HAVE MADE MANY ERRORS IN MY TIME, AS A YOUNGER AND UNMARRIED MAN, AND UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING MY INSIDE INFORMATION SUFFICED, BUT AT THIS TIME THEY BEGAN INVESTIGATING ME.

A SHORT TIME LATER, JUST PRIOR TO HEARINGS HELD ON THIS FRONT BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE IN JULY 1961, I WAS TOLD TO QUIT GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, BY TWO AGENTS WHOM I MET ON CHICAGO'S NORTH SIDE, IN A STREET CORNER MEETING, PREARRANGED OF COURSE.

THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS FINISHED BY REASONS OF THEIR FINDINGS CONCERNING MY PAST, MOST OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE GLADLY RELATED TO THEM THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN I FIRST POINTED THE FINGER AT PROVEN, ACTIVE, COMMUNISTS IN, AND WORKING AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.

THE VERY FACT OF THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE IN MY YOUNGER DAYS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PUT MYSELF, SO TO SPEAK, UNDER THE THUMB OF THE ENEMY. AS PROOF I TOLD THEM OF MY SHADY CHARACTER, AND ADDED MANY THINGS TO SUPPORT THE STORY. THAT WAS PART OF MY METHOD OF OPERATING.

THIS PUT ME UNDER A [THUMB] FROM THEM, AND I PLAYED ALONG. BECAUSE OF THIS, AND THE FACT THAT I WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ENEMY ONE OF THE MOST DEVOTED, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST STOOGES, THE FRONT MAN AT THIER DISPOSAL, ALSO HELPED. I PLAYED THE PART AS THOUGH I WERE THE BEST OF THEM.

I KNOW THESE [FBI] AGENTS, ALL WHOM I DEALT WITH, WERE MY KIND OF PEOPLE. THEY WENT BY THE BOOK, THEY WERE PATRIOTS. WHEN THEY GAVE ME THE WORD TO NEVER MENTION ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES, OR THEIR NAMES, AND THAT I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT, I WAS SADDENED TO TEARS.

THE FACT THEY WERE SORRY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING TURNING OUT AS IT DID MADE ME REALIZE, THEY ARE NOT ONLY HUMAN BUT ALSO DEDICATED TO THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS ARE WE.

THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE). MANY PEOPLE THAT I ASSOCIATE WITH ARE AWARE OF THIS FACT.

BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD: HAD I BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY IN 1961 I COULD HAVE BLOWN THE CASE FOR THE ENEMY, WHOM I HAD WORKED AGAINST FOR SO LONG. I DO NOT QUESTION WHY. THE REASONS ARE OBVIOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL AMERICANS WERE CALLED TO WORK AGAINST SUCH AN AGENT THAT IS AN ENEMY OF US ALL.

I CONTINUE THE FIGHT, DAY AND NIGHT, ALONG WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INFORMED OF THIS DEVILISH INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, WITH WHICH I AM SO WELL AWARE: OUR GREAT WORK IN THIS BATTLE, INSPIRES MANY OF US.

IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

VERY TRULY YOURS

FOR A STRONG AMERICA

HARRY DEAN

------------------- End of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harrdy Dean to J. Edgar Hoover --------------------

What do you say, Harry? Is this the actual letter that you wrote to J. Edgar Hoover fifty years ago?

This is the key issue today -- whether the FBI got this right or got it wrong. We can deal with all the other issues only after we conclude on this current issue. Thanks, Harry.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 11, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

In one of his earlier messages, Paul Trejo maligned a fine, decent, and respected historian (Adam Fairclough) by claiming that Fairclough wrote "biased nonsense" and Fairclough believed and wrote in his article "that MLK was a Communist".

In fact, Fairclough explictly stated the precise OPPOSITE in his article. He declared that MLK Jr was a democratic socialist (not a communist) -- but he agreed that MLK Jr. accepted basic Marxist precepts about how capitalist societies operate and need to be reformed. Many democratic socialists accept Marxian economic analysis as a starting point for discussions of capitalist society.

<snip>

At some point we have to ask why Paul has this problem?

Ernie, this one is easy to answer. Adam Fairclough was really a sneaky type of writer. Although he would "excuse" Martin Luther King of Communism with one hand, he would take it back with the other. I'm suprised you missed that nuance (or you deliberately ignored it).

Here's my clear evidence -- the very last sentence in that same article about MLK written by Adam Fairclough is the following:

King nevertheless showed every intention of going ahead. In the midst of the preparations for the campaign he went to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers in their fight for union recognition. 'In a sense', he told a reporter shortly before his assassination there, 'you could say we are engaged in the class struggle, yes'."

Anybody who knows the history of Marxism knows that Fairclough is accusing Martin Luther King of Marxism -- the purest form of Communism. So it is Adam Fairclough's writing style of "smiling in your face with a knife for your back" that influences my final opinion about his screed.

For purposes of this thread, I also found this sort of covert hostility to be a key feature of John Birch Society literature generally -- they knew how to appear as good guys to the American people, while in secret rooms they plotted evil against the US government.

Harry Dean is a living witness of the excesses and covert hostility of the JBS and their culture.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 11, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

Paul T.

Hopefully I use the correct word when saying this is a, composite letter, it contains much that I at sometime wrote, but also

has questionable items that I did not write. Someone has mixed this letter and certainly added to it for whatever purpose

The only letter I wrote to Hoover is on page 31 chapter 2 of the 1990 MS/Book.

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - have you read Newman's book Oswald and the CIA? I think you might enjoy it, and if you have read it I would be curious to know what you thought of it.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T.

Hopefully I use the correct word when saying this is a, composite letter, it contains much that I at sometime wrote, but also

has questionable items that I did not write. Someone has mixed this letter and certainly added to it for whatever purpose

The only letter I wrote to Hoover is on page 31 chapter 2 of the 1990 MS/Book.

All right, Harry, thanks for providing the facts. Naturally, our next question will be about the content.

WHICH PARTS did you actually write, and WHICH PARTS did the FBI write in your name. Will you please identify those for the Forum here?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

Paul T.

Comparison of the two different letters mentioned and my post above about them is the answer.

Let us face the direct fact that for urgent personal reasons I decided to cut-off further connections

as a political informant to any concerned federal or state agency,being fully aware of the penalty.

The reward for blabbing publicly about that past were, threats, endless complicated exposure and

denial of efforts on their behalf, especially from the Federal level. In any case I cannot be of further

help beyond this, or that displayed in the eBook, Confessions...

Harry

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T.

Comparison of the two different letters mentioned and my post above about them is the answer.

Let us face the direct fact that for urgent personal reasons I decided to cut-off further connections

as a political informant to any concerned federal or state agency,being fully aware of the penalty.

The reward for blabbing publicly about that past were, threats, endless complicated exposure and

denial of efforts on their behalf, especially from the Federal level. In any case I cannot be of further

help beyond this, or that displayed in the eBook, Confessions...

Harry

Fair enough, Harry. Unless somebody beats me to the punch, after work today I'll make a detailed comparison of the FBI version of your letter to J. Edgar Hoover, with the letter to Hoover that you yourself published in 1990 on page 31 chapter 2 of your MS/Book, CROSSTRAILS.

This promises to be interesting.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 11, 2013 by Paul Trejo