Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - whatever I think of Trejo's theories, I think your wheels are spinning out of control. To cut to the chase, I would simply say that you believe too much in your ability to know all about the FBI base on what they are willing to show you. If you understood the terrible role they often played in American history you would not be such an easy mark. No amount of 'proof' as revealed in released files can wash the dirty taste out of the mouths of those of us who know the fruits from the rotten tree that J Edgar nurtured. The files will never show the worst, but have shown just enough over the years to be able to read between the lines.

I love the statement you made in an earlier post on this thread that the presence of Jews in the JBS proved that the JBS was never a 'neofascist' organization, to use Paul's descriptor. What a joke. Or did I misunderstand your comment?

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - whatever I think of Trejo's theories, I think your wheels are spinning out of control. To cut to the chase, I would simply say that you believe too much in your ability to know all about the FBI base on what they are willing to show you. If you understood the terrible role they often played in American history you would not be such an easy mark. No amount of 'proof' as revealed in released files can wash the dirty taste out of the mouths of those of us who know the fruits from the rotten tree that J Edgar nurtured. The files will never show the worst, but have shown just enough over the years to be able to read between the lines.

I love the statement you made in an earlier post on this thread that the presence of Jews in the JBS proved that the JBS was never a 'neofascist' organization, to use Paul's descriptor. What a joke. Or did I misunderstand your comment?

Paul B.

(1) Apparently you subscribe to the notion which is common among many conspiracy theorists that truth is unknowable. This is merely your intellectual escape hatch to cope with any situation where available factual evidence does not conform to what you prefer to believe. In other words, if you cannot find something to prove what you believe, you just assume it exists somewhere but is hidden or destroyed or purged. That allows you to claim that the absence of proof becomes proof.

(2) I can assure you that I am more familiar with the role of the FBI in American history than you are. You may have read a few books or articles which contain accusations against the FBI which you believe OR which allows you to speculate about what the FBI might have done. By contrast, I have in my personal collection voluminous primary source documentary evidence from FBI files which PROVES the "terrible" things which the FBI has done -- which is why so many scholars and authors have contacted me over the years to request that I send them FBI documents and files which they subsequently used in their books, articles, conference papers, and doctoral dissertations -- and that even includes JFK researchers by the way.

(3) Contrary to what you wrote, those files DO show the worst --- without having to read between any lines. EVERYTHING (repeat: EVERYTHING) you think you know about the FBI has been the result of the persistent and meticulous research efforts of scholars who have spent most of, or their entire academic careers studying the FBI -- including those academics who worked for legislative investigating committees (such as the Church Committee) which brought to light the "terrible" things which the FBI has done. I have often mentioned Dr. Athan Theoharis. If you have not already done so, I suggest you read several of his books. He devoted his entire career to researching FBI history and his research has revealed, in mind-numbing details, what you think is unknowable.

(4) Lastly, with respect to your comment about neo-fascism and the JBS. No serious person who understands the history of fascism in our country or in world history believes that the JBS is a neofascist organization.

The only published works which have made that claim were published by Communist Party members. One is Mike Newberry's 1964 book, The Yahoos published in New York City by Marzani and Munzell. Carl Marzani served 3 years in prison for concealing his Communist Party membership. The KGB subsidized his publishing firm during the 1960's. Newberry was a writer for the Communist newspaper, "Weekly Worker" in New York City. Newberry's first publication on the JBS was a June 1961 47-page booklet entitled "The Fascist Revival: The Inside Story of the John Birch Society"

One of the more scholarly Communist publications was by a Soviet academic by the name of Viacheslav Nitikin who wrote the 1981 book "The Ultras in the USA" - originally published in the Soviet Union by Moscow Publishers. And yes, I have a copy of that book. It is available in the holdings of 86 libraries around the world (66 in the U.S.) - in case you want to obtain a copy through inter-library loan.

The only official investigation ever conducted into the Birch Society was a 2-year effort begun in 1961 and published in 1963 by the California State Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. The Subcommittee's Chairman (Hugh Burns) and the majority of its members were Democrats who were allies of the liberal Governor of California at that time, i.e. Edmund G. Brown (Jerry Brown's father). Robert Welch told the JBS National Council in 1960 that Edmund Brown was a Communist.

Not surprisingly, after completing their 2-year investigation, the Subcommittee was very critical of the JBS but it concluded that:

"We have not found the Society to be either a secret or a fascist organization, nor have we found the great majority of its members in California to be mentally unstable, crackpots, or hysterical about the threat of Communist subversion. As we have stated, there have been instances of imprudent activity and indefensible statements...We agree with Professor Alan Westin who studied the Birch membership and wrote: '...the Birch Society has been successful in attracting to it some highly substantial figures in local communities--physicians, stockbrokers, retired military officers, lawyers, businessmen (particularly small and middle-size manufacturers in the Midwest and South) and professionals, many of whom have become local Chapter leaders and state Coordinators'..." [1963 Report, page 61]

I have previously referred readers here to the 2009 doctoral dissertation by Samuel Brenner -- which is easily the best researched and best documented contemporary study of the Birch Society ever done. I suggest you look into the background of Brenner. Check his resume here: http://samuelbrenner.com/

Sam is Jewish. He has master's and doctoral degrees in American history and he completed his law degree at University of Michigan. His current research specialty is focused upon race and civil rights. He spent YEARS studying the Birch Society and he has written several peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals about the JBS - and he has also published conference papers about the JBS.

If you contact Sam, he will tell you what I have told you. The Birch Society is not, and has never been, a fascist-type organization nor do its core beliefs conform to fascist ideology. As previously noted, Birchers consider fascists to be on the exact same level as Communists -- i.e. they are both "collectivists" who destroy personal freedom and impose tyranny in the service of their ideology.

You may want to hate everybody who has different political views from those you prefer. Like Paul Trejo, you may want to create cartoon caricature villains so that you can feel intellectually and morally superior to everyone who differs from you. But serious people will simply ignore you because you are a fool.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Ernie, can you comment on this bit from wiki that looks like a disussion of different views, please

"National Socialist?

What is the basis for the assertion that Oliver was a National Socialist, or held any Socialist viewpoints and/or ideology. nobs 05:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about the assertion too. I guess it is pretty accurate to say that he "came to openly embrace an essentially National Socialist worldview", as he was in accord with its main principles (esp. "anti-Semitic" Aryan racialism) and wrote favorably of it. I don't think of him as being an National Socialist in the same way that George Lincoln Rockwell or Savitri Devi were, as they held NS as the answer in a way that Oliver didn't seem to. In "Eminent Sheeny", Oliver asserts that "by destroying Hitler and the National Socialist régime in Germany, [Americans] destroyed their own future." As for being a Socialist, in The Spurious Shekel" he seems to regard National Socialism as "really only a kind of nationalism". —Morning star 06:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Thank you. That is a well researched and well presented response. In this particular case, it is not too much of strech to brand Oliver with the NS label, and seems well deserved too. nobs 14:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel this article is a smear and the accusations of fascist, anti-Semitic, neonazi, advocate of racism and anti-Jewish need to be backed up with proof. I have read some of his material and it is clearheaded intellectual analysis which demonstrates he was a great man with a lot of knowledge. This article makes him sound like some sort of goose stepping nazi. Lightningstrikes 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right. Wikipedia is notorious for its subtle philo-Marxist and philo-Judaic biases. Non-polemical scholarly accuracy in relation to Western racial nationalists is not very likely. See Kevin B. MacDonald on this subject, especially his Culture of Critique.

Comment As an admirer of Dr. Oliver, I don't see this article as particularly biased. It has things in it I like, and things in it I don't much care for, which rather ought to be the reaction of a partisan (on either side) to most neutral articles on controversial figures. I have read Dr. Oliver's America's Decline and The Jewish Strategy. In the first book, he speculates that it would be a good thing if in the future, as he felt was not unlikely, that the dominant religion of the West, Christianity, be replaced by a new faith in which Adolf Hitler would replace Jesus Christ as the central figure. On that basis, as well as the lack of any contradictory remarks in those two books, or in those of his other essays & speeches with which I am familiar, I feel quite comfortable in placing Dr. Oliver firmly in the camp of national socialism. The organization now known as National Vanguard, but previously known in the late 1960s as the National Youth Alliance, was overtly national socialist in orientation (the group's principal founder, Dr. William L. Pierce, was the editor of National Socialist World magazine, which was a publication of George Lincoln Rockwell's American National Socialist White Peoples Party). Dr. Oliver is regarded as one of its (the National Youth Alliance) other founders (in addition to Dr. Pierce, that is) and Dr. Oliver appears in a recruitment film for the National Youth Alliance. I have seen that film on VHS, and it consists of nothing but Dr. Oliver sitting at a desk while explaining the virtues of something which sounds an awful lot like a neo-Nazi perspective, and then he urges everyone watching to join the openly national socialist National Youth Alliance. This really should clear up the matter of whether or not its appropriate to call Dr. Oliver a national socialist. There's no doubt he was one. The fact that he was one of the relatively few American neo-Nazis to have won the respect of non-Nazis is irrelevant; he still was one.KevinOKeeffe 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oliver was favorably disposed, in retrospect, toward National-Socialist Germany, but my impression from having read a good bit of his writing for Liberty Bell is that his views on economics were rather old-fashioned, not particularly socialistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.42.2.195 (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)"

_________________

edit add : some background. Revilo P. Oliver was one of the first off the bat with a conspiracy theory. That can be read at the mississipi sovereignty files. He had some relevant connections. they are worth looking at too.

Here's page one of a jbs promotional booklet.

http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/result.php?image=images/png/cd07/048356.png&otherstuff=6|48|0|2|1|1|1|47653|*

photos of the top advisory council of the jbs (found with "john birch society". (the minute men are found in folder "the minute men)) with Oliver on next page http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/result.php?image=images/png/cd07/048370.png&otherstuff=6|48|0|2|7|1|1|47670|

edit add two, some formatting plus the long link's too long, you gotta add :http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/result.php?image=images/png/cd07/048356.png&otherstuff=6 plus the number sequence* in the bits in the posted links that didn't link witth the link but without the : . I put there in the beginning to prevent the posted link letters from becoming a shortened link in the post..

Edited May 13, 2014 by John Dolva

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, can you comment on this bit from wiki that looks like a disussion of different views, please

National Socialist?

What is the basis for the assertion that Oliver was a National Socialist, or held any Socialist viewpoints and/or ideology. nobs 05:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about the assertion too. I guess it is pretty accurate to say that he "came to openly embrace an essentially National Socialist worldview", as he was in accord with its main principles (esp. "anti-Semitic" Aryan racialism) and wrote favorably of it. I don't think of him as being an National Socialist in the same way that George Lincoln Rockwell or Savitri Devi were, as they held NS as the answer in a way that Oliver didn't seem to. In "Eminent Sheeny", Oliver asserts that "by destroying Hitler and the National Socialist régime in Germany, [Americans] destroyed their own future." As for being a Socialist, in The Spurious Shekel" he seems to regard National Socialism as "really only a kind of nationalism". —Morning star 06:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Thank you. That is a well researched and well presented response. In this particular case, it is not too much of strech to brand Oliver with the NS label, and seems well deserved too. nobs 14:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel this article is a smear and the accusations of fascist, anti-Semitic, neonazi, advocate of racism and anti-Jewish need to be backed up with proof. I have read some of his material and it is clearheaded intellectual analysis which demonstrates he was a great man with a lot of knowledge. This article makes him sound like some sort of goose stepping nazi. Lightningstrikes 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right. Wikipedia is notorious for its subtle philo-Marxist and philo-Judaic biases. Non-polemical scholarly accuracy in relation to Western racial nationalists is not very likely. See Kevin B. MacDonald on this subject, especially his Culture of Critique.

Comment As an admirer of Dr. Oliver, I don't see this article as particularly biased. It has things in it I like, and things in it I don't much care for, which rather ought to be the reaction of a partisan (on either side) to most neutral articles on controversial figures. I have read Dr. Oliver's America's Decline and The Jewish Strategy. In the first book, he speculates that it would be a good thing if in the future, as he felt was not unlikely, that the dominant religion of the West, Christianity, be replaced by a new faith in which Adolf Hitler would replace Jesus Christ as the central figure. On that basis, as well as the lack of any contradictory remarks in those two books, or in those of his other essays & speeches with which I am familiar, I feel quite comfortable in placing Dr. Oliver firmly in the camp of national socialism. The organization now known as National Vanguard, but previously known in the late 1960s as the National Youth Alliance, was overtly national socialist in orientation (the group's principal founder, Dr. William L. Pierce, was the editor of National Socialist World magazine, which was a publication of George Lincoln Rockwell's American National Socialist White Peoples Party). Dr. Oliver is regarded as one of its (the National Youth Alliance) other founders (in addition to Dr. Pierce, that is) and Dr. Oliver appears in a recruitment film for the National Youth Alliance. I have seen that film on VHS, and it consists of nothing but Dr. Oliver sitting at a desk while explaining the virtues of something which sounds an awful lot like a neo-Nazi perspective, and then he urges everyone watching to join the openly national socialist National Youth Alliance. This really should clear up the matter of whether or not its appropriate to call Dr. Oliver a national socialist. There's no doubt he was one. The fact that he was one of the relatively few American neo-Nazis to have won the respect of non-Nazis is irrelevant; he still was one.KevinOKeeffe 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oliver was favorably disposed, in retrospect, toward National-Socialist Germany, but my impression from having read a good bit of his writing for Liberty Bell is that his views on economics were rather old-fashioned, not particularly socialistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.42.2.195 (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

edit add : some background. Revilo P. Oliver was one of the first off the bat with a conspiracy theory. That can be read at the mississipi sovereignty files. He had some relevant connections. they are worth looking at too.

Here's page one of a jbs promotional booklet.

http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/result.php?image=images/png/cd07/048356.png&otherstuff=6|48|0|2|1|1|1|47653|

photos of the top advisory council of the jbs (found with "john birch society". (the minute men are found in folder "the minute men)) with Oliver on next page http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/result.php?image=images/png/cd07/048370.png&otherstuff=6|48|0|2|7|1|1|47670|

My only comment is this:

Revilo Oliver was a malignant hater (anti-Christian and anti-semite) who also happened to be very intelligent and well educated in classical studies.

After he left the Birch Society, he decided to associate himself with George Dietz's publication, Liberty Bell. Dietz grew up in Nazi Germany and was a member of the Hitler Youth. He came to the United States in 1957 and became a naturalized citizen. In 1974 he joined the Birch Society but he soon left with a tirade against Robert Welch for being "a Talmudic tool for the destruction of the White people of America."

Oliver left the JBS in 1966. He also issued a tirade against Robert Welch accusing him of being under the control of several persons (all Jewish) who were major financial contributors to the JBS.

I do not know to what degree Oliver subscribed to literal National Socialist ideology. One has to distinguish between the economic components of national socialism versus the larger philosophical components pertaining to racial superiority. My guess is that Oliver did not subscribe to socialism (as an economic model for the U.S.) but he certainly DID subscribe to the racial superiority theories of Hitler and nazism.

One of the key elements of fascism/nazism is contempt and hatred for those beings perceived as mentally/physically inferior. If you read Oliver's writings, his venom toward most of humanity is omnipresent. I am certain that he thought of himself as a superior intellect who should have been rewarded in life in proportion to his "obvious" superior qualities (but he wasn't). Because of his envy and resentments I am confident that the racial superiority aspects of national socialism appealed to him -- but I doubt he was comfortable with the economic aspects.

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - I am well aware of your bonafides and admire the work you have done. I even agree with much of your critique of Trejo. But even you point out over and over how many files FBI has destroyed over the years.

What do you make of Trejo's assertion that Hoover forbid his agents to join the JBS? Is it true?

[Ernie Lazar]

Here's another new development. I contacted Keith Gilbert to ask him specifically if he believed Paul Trejo's "theory" about a "JBS plot".

Let's briefly recap:

1. According to Paul Trejo (page 71, message #1062), and according to Harry Dean in his publication, "Crosstrails" the "war name" of Loran Eugene Hall was Lorenzo Pacillo.

2. Paul Trejo has also declared in message #1062, that Gilbert confirms parts of Harry's story -- and in fact, Paul emphasizes the point by saying Gilbert presented a "crucial observation" which confirmed "the crux of Harry Dean's account of the JFK murder": [see full excerpt from Paul's message copied below.]

For one thing, Gilbert's claims confirm parts of Harry Dean's main story.

1. That Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald.

2. That Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were also connected with the Minutemen in Southern California.

That is a crucial observation -- it confirms the crux of Harry Dean's account of the JFK murder.

3. Also see Paul Trejo's message #1091 in which Paul shares his brilliant analysis of what Paul characterizes as "obvious facts" from an "eyewitness":

(2) You continue to deny that anything presented by Keith Gilbert "helped to confirm" two claims by Harry Dean -- which everybody here can plainly see -- namely, that (i) Loran Hall knew Lee Harvey Oswald; and (ii) they were both connected with the Southern California Minutemen. Your denial of these obvious facts shows your disconnect from reason and reality. You'll say anything, Ernie, to avoid admitting that you're mistaken -- which you clearly, obviously are.

(5) You don't admit your mistakes, Ernie. You'll say anything at all to wiggle out. YOU posted this Nazi's words on this list. The very obvious fact is that Keith Gilbert's official statement to the Police agrees with Harry Dean's two claims that: (i) Loran Hall knew Lee Harvey Oswald; and (ii) they were both connected with the Southern California Minutemen.

HOWEVER, there is one "small" problem.

According to Keith Gilbert, "Pacillio" was NOT Loran Hall. It was GARY HEMMING! Here is Gilbert's reply to my inquiry:

What I know is that LHO and "Pacillio" (Gary Hemming), used Clinton Wheat, Lafayette St., LA, CA, to try to buy machine guns from me…eventually I declined but it was a personal decision, I didn't like seeing Cubans get US arms that were needed here. Wheat was an active member of the JBS and attended services at Dr. Wesley Swift's church held in the Hollywood Women's Club up to three nights a week. There are only a handful of people still alive that know the truth about LHO…he wasn't a commie, quite the contrary, he was a Patriot…but we, the Minutemen, were able to make the "A commie killed Kennedy" stick and it took attention away from the truth. Diesel aka/Keith Gilbert

Edited May 13, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - I am well aware of your bonafides and admire the work you have done. I even agree with much of your critique of Trejo. But even you point out over and over how many files FBI has destroyed over the years.

What do you make of Trejo's assertion that Hoover forbid his agents to join the JBS? Is it true?

Hoover never forbid anybody from joining any organization. However, every FBI employee was required to complete a form every year which identified the organizations they belonged to and based upon those forms, Hoover stated that no FBI employee was a JBS member.

There is one document from 1964 which mentions that FBI policy precluded acceptance of a JBS member for development as an informant. However, there was an exception made in the case of Delmar Dennis in 1967.

[Ernie Lazar]

DESTRUCTION OF FBI FILES

Because this issue keeps recurring in messages directed to me in this thread, I thought I would address it separately:

1. About 4 or 5 years ago, the FBI began offering FOIA requesters the option of receiving FBI files/documents copied onto a CD instead of just being released as paper documents.

2. When I discovered that new option, I began re-submitting requests for files which I had originally received in the 1980's and 1990's as paper documents so that, ultimately, I would be able to share these files online. And last summer (June 2013) I arranged to have hundreds of FBI pdf files uploaded on the Internet Archive and Building Democracy websites. Several hundred more will be uploaded this summer.

3. What I quickly discovered, however, is that many of the FBI files I obtained 20-30 years ago as paper docs have now been destroyed. Furthermore, in many cases, I was the only person to request and obtain those files so I have the only copies in existence.

4. If it were up to me, Congress should pass a new FOIA law which forbids the FBI from destroying anything for at least 50 more years -- but, unfortunately, not many people recognize the historical value of what is contained in FBI files.

5. As I have previously mentioned several times, there are often many opportunities to re-construct the substance of what was in a destroyed FBI file. First of all, there are all the subsidiary files into which copies of serials were filed as cross-references. So, for example, we no longer have the Chicago field file on Harry Dean but we do have his HQ and Los Angeles files which contain copies of Chicago field summary memos regarding Harry. Similarly, we may no longer have the HQ and field office files on somebody like Joseph Milteer -- BUT -- there are numerous other files which DO contain documents which summarize information about Milteer -- including Constitution Party files (HQ and field) and National States Rights Party files.

6. Another way to re-construct a file is when a "correlation summary" has been prepared. Several months ago, I uploaded Edwin Walker's FBI-HQ main file here and that file contains two very lengthy correlation summaries. As a result, interested researchers can identify many other files which contain copies of serials that discuss Walker and the correlation summary also presents a synopsis of information in those documents.

7. There are many other methods which can be used to resurrect information from destroyed files.

One of the reasons that I have been so critical of both Harry and Paul Trejo is not just because they never bothered to make any FOIA requests (which would have, for example, prevented destruction of Harry's Chicago FBI file) but they are so massively ignorant about the true nature of FBI files (and the FBI filing system protocols) that they both get away with presenting abject FICTION about "secret files" being withheld for "national security" reasons and many of you guys buy into their total FICTION because you absorb it all under a "destroyed files" mythology. Obviously, it is MUCH easier and more convenient to PRETEND that there are "secret files" which nobody has ever discovered --- than to engage in the tedious, time-consuming, (and sometimes expensive) research required to actually ferret out the information which does exist in obscure FBI files.

I cannot afford to obtain ALL the files/documents which might contain references to Harry Dean -- especially the files which are now archived at NARA (because they charge 80 cents per page!) -- but I will obtain enough serials (cross-references from many different files) to make definitive conclusions.

The key thing to remember is that the HQ and field office search slips on Harry reflect very minimal references -- particularly when you compare those search slip listings to Harry's story that he was reporting information to the FBI for at least 5 years and on many different persons and organizations.

If you check the FBI files on any genuine FBI informant or confidential source who actually was providing information to the FBI for 5 years (!), it is not uncommon for their search slips to reflect HUNDREDS of references -- and, almost always, there are multiple serials listed in individual specific files and often those serials reflect numerous pages of one serial that contain some reference to information provided by the FBI's source.

What is particularly striking about Harry's HQ and Los Angeles field files is not just what Paul describes as "insults" made by FBI Agents who dealt with Harry -- but the remarkable LACK of actionable information.

It is very clear from the internal evidence in FBI files (even if Paul does not want to admit this), that Harry WAS merely an annoyance to the FBI. He sought to capitalize upon his BRIEF relationship in Chicago, but he was rejected. Then, the FBI totally ignored him UNTIL Harry's publicity-seeking activities produced inquiries to the FBI in Los Angeles. And almost as soon as Los Angeles opened their file on Harry (July 1962) -- the chief agent assigned to Harry's case recommended that his file be administratively closed (September 1962) because there was nothing significant requiring Harry's file to be kept open.

Harry's file was totally dormant from September 1962 until April 1963. The ONLY reason it was re-opened is because Harry visited the office of the West Covina CA Tribune to tell his story to them because he wanted publicity and that paper contacted the FBI to inquire about Harry's story.

Then Harry's Los Angeles file was dormant yet again from April 1963 until November 1963. It was re-opened ONLY because of Harry's 11/63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover -- and Hoover had no clue who this person was so he instructed two field offices to summarize what they knew about Harry.

Harry's Los Angeles file would have been closed yet again -- but Harry's publicity-seeking activities produced more and more inquiries to the FBI.

Then, Harry started sending unsolicited correspondence to FBI-Los Angeles or he called the Los Angeles office. He did NOT contact any specific Agents because he was NOT assigned to any case agent. He was just a random incoming contact -- like thousands of other people. And the summaries regarding those contacts (mail or phone) make it clear that the information provided by Harry was just clerically filed away -- but not acted upon (with one exception--ie Frank Vega).

That, in summary, is what the documentary evidence reveals.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Thanks Ernie. How extensive was the FBI infiltration of the JBS? Were they considered a subversive organization?

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - what publicity was Harry seeking in 1963 or before?

Even though I see your point about Trejo and Harry not doing what they could to get pertinent FBI files to prove or disprove Harry's assertions, I don't see how you can draw the larger conclusion that the FBI has no secret files. Your extreme diligence is to be commended, but I don't see how it proves there are no secret files.

As for Congress passing a FOIA law forbidding the FBI from destroying documents for 50 years, good luck with that. Congress may have the power theoretically to reign in the intelligence agencies, but they have rarely done so for quite obvious reasons. Congressional hearings into possible excesses of US intelligence agencies are a joke, 9/11 being a recent example. Members of Congress know full well how important historically those files are, they just don't care to confront the FBI or CIA etc. it all comes down to who one thinks is really in charge. It isn't Congress. Recent whistleblowers like Snowden and Assange, who have proven beyond doubt that secrecy is the modus operandi of our foreign policy, are treated as traitors.

Ernie - you are a true expert on the FBI, and have spent a lifetime doing the due diligence that few have the patience for. Your conclusions about Harry Dean may be correct. I for one am not writing on this thread to prove you wrong on that count.

But I think the larger conclusions you draw are not provable, even if well reasoned from your vantage point, because you cannot prove something doesn't exist just because you can't find it. I can see how you, having spent a lifetime doing this work, might believe otherwise. But even I, no expert at all, can see that your logic in this regard is fallacious.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Paul Brancato

[Ernie Lazar]

Thanks Ernie. How extensive was the FBI infiltration of the JBS? Were they considered a subversive organization?

The FBI did not "infiltrate" the JBS.

However, FBI field offices were instructed to keep HQ apprised of the formation of JBS chapters and JBS activities in their territory through use of public sources (media reports for example) and there were numerous individuals who contacted their local FBI office to report what they considered significant information that the FBI should know.

During its preliminary inquiry, the FBI contacted Herbert Philbrick (of "I Led Three Lives" fame) because he was familiar with many of the key JBS figures in the Boston area but once the FBI determined that the JBS was not a subversive organization and it was not engaged in, nor enabling, any illegal activities the Bureau closed its preliminary inquiry -- particularly when the Bureau discovered the prominent persons who were joining and/or endorsing the JBS.

Members and endorsers included well known clergymen (including Catholic priests), major politicians and their children (including former Governors such as Charles Edison of New Jersey, and Archibald Roosevelt---the grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt, numerous Mayors and state legislators), CEO's of major corporations, newspaper publishers (including Philip Chandler of the Los Angeles Times), prominent educators (such as the Dean of Notre Dame Law School), law enforcement officials (including the former Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court), well known authors (such as Taylor Caldwell), and senior retired military officers (US Army and Air Force Generals, Navy Rear Admirals), famous Hollywood personalities (such as actor Walter Brennan and Hollywood gossip columnist Hedda Hopper) etc.

The Bureau never "investigated" or "infiltrated" any organization unless there was clear evidence that "subversive" (or criminal) elements were involved or might be in a position to influence/control the target group. And the FBI certainly did not want to be embarrassed (and have to publicly explain) why they were "investigating" any organization which attracted the caliber of people which the JBS did. The same thing applies to left-wing groups like ACLU.

You may see copies of SAC Letters (Hoover instructions from FBI HQ to all field offices) regarding the JBS in my on-line report about the JBS here:

https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-1 [Just use "control-F" to produce a "search" field and then enter "SAC". The second hit will bring you to the scanned copies of the SAC Letters.]

Edited May 14, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...Even though I see your point about Trejo and Harry not doing what they could to get pertinent FBI files to prove or disprove Harry's assertions, I don't see how you can draw the larger conclusion that the FBI has no secret files...

Well, Paul B., here's an update. Harry Dean has officially requested all FBI records that pertain to him. He recently passed their criteria for him to identify himself thoroughly -- and now Harry is waiting for a full listing of the those FBI files.

It will take some time, but Harry is willing to go to these lengths to demonstrate that everything he said about what he actually witnessed and reported to the FBI in 1961-1963 is true and correct.

I'll repeat that even if some FBI agents are snotty and insulting in their reports, this means little -- Harry already told us that the FBI tended to disbelieve and minimize his reports. The key is that the FBI has a record of Harry's reports.

Soon the records that the FBI is willing to release today will be in hand, and Harry will share them with the world.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - what publicity was Harry seeking in 1963 or before?

Even though I see your point about Trejo and Harry not doing what they could to get pertinent FBI files to prove or disprove Harry's assertions, I don't see how you can draw the larger conclusion that the FBI has no secret files. Your extreme diligence is to be commended, but I don't see how it proves there are no secret files.

As for Congress passing a FOIA law forbidding the FBI from destroying documents for 50 years, good luck with that. Congress may have the power theoretically to reign in the intelligence agencies, but they have rarely done so for quite obvious reasons. Congressional hearings into possible excesses of US intelligence agencies are a joke, 9/11 being a recent example. Members of Congress know full well how important historically those files are, they just don't care to confront the FBI or CIA etc. it all comes down to who one thinks is really in charge. It isn't Congress. Recent whistleblowers like Snowden and Assange, who have proven beyond doubt that secrecy is the modus operandi of our foreign policy, are treated as traitors.

Ernie - you are a true expert on the FBI, and have spent a lifetime doing the due diligence that few have the patience for. Your conclusions about Harry Dean may be correct. I for one am not writing on this thread to prove you wrong on that count.

But I think the larger conclusions you draw are not provable, even if well reasoned from your vantage point, because you cannot prove something doesn't exist just because you can't find it. I can see how you, having spent a lifetime doing this work, might believe otherwise. But even I, no expert at all, can see that your logic in this regard is fallacious.

Paul B: This is part one of a two-part reply to your message

I have never said that the FBI has no "secret files". What I have said, repeatedly, is that one cannot just use "secret" as an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch to perpetually "explain" the absence of documentary evidence.

Instead, one has to be familiar with....

(1) the type of material which was originally classified "secret" or "top secret" -- and whether or not such material is STILL so-classified?

(2) the protocols which came into existence after FOIA legislation was passed -- including the most recent mandatory declassification rules along with several applicable Presidential Executive Orders which govern what can be released - EVEN IF previously "classified" -- AND

(3) the impact of the JFK Records Act of 1992 -- which became the new controlling authority for all JFK-related documents which were previously classified

The problem with Paul Trejo's argument is:

1. Paul uses the word "classified" or "secret" to pretend that ANYTHING he cannot currently find to support his assumptions and speculations must exist somewhere but it is being "withheld" because it is classified "secret" for "national security" reasons. Keep in mind something very important! Paul has absolutely NO evidence that ANY such file(s) regarding Harry actually exist. He just relentlessly uses that as an all-purpose excuse for not finding what he wishes he could find. In short, Paul just INVENTED that excuse which he trots out anytime he hits an evidence brick-wall.

But Paul then invents yet another layer of obfuscation...

2. Paul thinks that there is not even any way to currently discover the existence of such "secret" files. Instead, we must wait until 2017 (and when Paul is being candid, it is clear that he will invent another excuse even in 2017 when the "secret" Harry files do not show up -- nor any references to them).

In other words, (according to Paul) the FBI (or CIA or any other agency) will not even release a document which contains a cryptic reference to such withheld files -- such as a notation on some FBI memo or report or on a "search slip" which reveals the existence one of those "secret" file numbers -- because a knowledgeable researcher would then have a clue about something to pursue.

THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT:

FBI "search slips" were used exclusively as an internal device by FBI employees to identify ALL FBI files containing references to whatever names (persons, organizations, publications, etc.) were asked to be searched.

An FBI employee could ask for a search of "all references" or the request could be limited to only "subversive" references, or "nonsubversive" references. A request could even be limited to a search of only those references which fell into certain FBI file classifications (so, for example, if you wanted to know if suspect "x" ever had any file references which mention his name in connection to bank robbery or counterfeiting OR perhaps just "racial matters" or "domestic security" (which would include all references to CPUSA or nazi/fascist, or any group involved in, or advocating, or condoning or facilitating illegal activities -- including KKK or Minutemen etc.).

So if "Agent X" was assigned to work on a case and he wanted to know everything which the FBI had in its files about some specific person, the Name Check Unit could be asked to search for not just the literal name but also all the possible permutations (such as Robert Scott Taylor -- then Bobby Taylor, Robbie Taylor, R.S. Taylor, Robert S. Taylor, Scott Taylor, Scottie Taylor) etc. etc.

Why is this relevant and important?

Because we have all the HQ and Los Angeles search slips for Harry Dean. Of particular significance are the 11/19/64 Los Angeles search slip and the 12/18/63 HQ search slip. Here's why.

LOS ANGELES

There is no dispute about this. Harry claims that his longest period of "cooperation" with the FBI was after he moved to Los Angeles. He says he moved to Los Angeles approximately July 1961 and he continued his "relationship" with the FBI until approximately May or June 1965.

During this period, Harry claims that he provided information to Los Angeles FBI on JBS members (Galbadon, Rousselot, Loran Hall for example), and on Minutemen, and on pro-Castro and ant-Castro individuals and groups (such as Frank Vega, FPCC, Alpha 66, JURE) and on other subjects.

HOWEVER, the FBI-Los Angeles search slip dated 11/19/64 does not contain any reference to file numbers corresponding to the above-referenced subject matters except for ONE reference on Frank Vega -- and even that reference is limited to ONE serial.

A subsequent Los Angeles search slip dated 5/3/65 (about the time Harry claims he ended his alleged relationship with the FBI), contains only ONE reference which might be pertinent, i.e. file 100-60840 -- which is the Los Angeles file on Edgar Swabeck.

FBI HQ

The FBI HQ search slip is dated 12/18/63. It is possible that there may be subsequent search slip but it is extraordinarily significant that there are no references on this search slip to anything containing Harry's name with respect to JBS or Minutemen files. There are two FPCC-related references but even they reveal something very significant. First, they are single references in two different main files. And second, one reference is only on ONE page of a serial and the second reference is on only two pages of one serial (which might even just be one or two sentences which carried over from the bottom of one page onto the next).

WHAT CAN WE CONCLUDE FROM THIS?

At this time, we do not even know how many of all the search slip references are actually about our Harry Dean. And, we do not know the subject matter of some of those file numbers -- although their classification codes are not what you would expect to discover IF Harry was reporting information of the type he claims he was reporting.

After I receive the cross-reference serials which I have requested, I will be able to give you a more definitive analysis -- but, right now, it seems clear that Harry provided very little information to the FBI. IF Harry provided anything regarding JBS or Minutemen, it is clear from his search slips that it falls into the category which Paul correctly described as "dismissed upon receipt" -- i.e. a clerical record was kept so that the FBI could produce a summary of their contacts from Harry but the actual information he provided (mostly anecdotal and speculative) had no value to the FBI.

3. THE LARGER PICTURE:

(1) The type of information which Harry was allegedly providing to the FBI or CIA (which was largely speculative and anecdotal OR was just processed in a clerical fashion "for information only") was NOT the type of information which would be classified "secret" or "top secret" TODAY.

(2) This is especially relevant when you consider that the Birch Society was never investigated by the FBI (or by any other federal government agency) AND it was never considered to be engaged in ANY criminal or subversive activities nor was it in violation of ANY laws falling under the jurisdiction of the FBI.

(3) The type of information allegedly supplied by Harry (even if he were a genuine FBI informant or confidential source) would be subject to MANDATORY de-classification -- just like all the comparable information which has already been released from GENUINE FBI or CIA informants and confidential sources

(4) THAT is why you can obtain Harry's entire HQ and Los Angeles files (with virtually no redactions) from NARA -- even though Harry (and other people mentioned in those files) were still living and had never signed a notarized affidavit to authorize release of their private information. [in Harry's case, those files even included release of his FBI "rap sheet" containing incredibly personal, intimate, and derogatory details about his background which ordinarily would NEVER be released when somebody is still living unless they authorized it.]

(5) THAT is why Harry's files were released almost THIRTY YEARS AGO (as a result of Mark Allen's larger 1981 FOIA request for all documents which the FBI had sent to the House Select Committee on Assassinations).

(6) Given all of the information presented above, Paul Trejo's assumptions regarding withheld "secret files" pertaining to Harry simply is NOT a credible argument.

(7) There is no valid reason for the FBI to redact references to any purported "secret" file numbers on Harry which Paul thinks might exist.

The WORST-CASE scenario would be that a requester would see the "secret" file number listed on some FBI document but when a request was made for that file, the requester would be told that the entire file was being withheld and they would cite the appropriate exemption code. But the existence of the file would be known -- JUST LIKE the existence of other JFK-related files are already known from the notations appearing in many dozens of other files containing "secret" and "top secret" information.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul B. - This is a VERY brief part two reply to your previous message

With respect to your comment:

Recent whistleblowers like Snowden and Assange, who have proven beyond doubt that secrecy is the modus operandi of our foreign policy, are treated as traitors.

I sincerely do not understand your comment. Do you honestly expect anybody to believe that it took Snowden or Assange to "prove" that "secrecy" is standard operating procedure for our national security and foreign policies?

Also, you are comparing apples and oranges. There is a profound difference between having access to contemporary documents which might reveal our current intelligence methods or sources or reveal an ongoing current law enforcement investigation, or which could endanger our intelligence assets around the world versus having access to historical records -- particularly with respect to someone like Harry who was never even an informant or confidential source.

What you are doing is combining everybody into one undifferentiated mass -- so everything gets processed via lowest-common-denominator reasoning.

Look-----I do not care if you believe Harry or not. It makes no difference to me.

What DOES interest me, however, is discovering what methodology YOU use to separate fact from fiction. How do you prevent yourself from believing absolute falsehoods? Or believing grossly distorted information?

You seem to be saying that you have no way to distinguish between what is true versus what is false. Consequently, all data is equally valid to you and there is no such thing as somebody who is a fraud, or somebody who presents a hoax, or somebody who exaggerates and distorts information to their advantage (perhaps even without intent of deceiving).

(1) Let's say, just for sake of our discussion, that you DO NOT believe Harry's story. Tell us what methodology you would use to disprove or falsify his story.

(2) If we CANNOT rely upon documentary evidence from government agencies and Harry has no documentary evidence to prove his assertions and none of the principals involved in the "plot" are still living --- then what alternative method do you propose be used?

[Ernie Lazar]

...Even though I see your point about Trejo and Harry not doing what they could to get pertinent FBI files to prove or disprove Harry's assertions, I don't see how you can draw the larger conclusion that the FBI has no secret files...

Well, Paul B., here's an update. Harry Dean has officially requested all FBI records that pertain to him. He recently passed their criteria for him to identify himself thoroughly -- and now Harry is waiting for a full listing of the those FBI files.

It will take some time, but Harry is willing to go to these lengths to demonstrate that everything he said about what he actually witnessed and reported to the FBI in 1961-1963 is true and correct.

I'll repeat that even if some FBI agents are snotty and insulting in their reports, this means little -- Harry already told us that the FBI tended to disbelieve and minimize his reports. The key is that the FBI has a record of Harry's reports.

Soon the records that the FBI is willing to release today will be in hand, and Harry will share them with the world.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I will have to re-check your eBook --- but I do not recall you ever previously stating that "Harry already told us that the FBI tended to disbelieve and minimize his reports". Are you referring to ALL of his reports -- as shown in the letters which Harry sent to Los Angeles field (which I scanned onto my Harry Dean webpage)?

OR

Are you referring ONLY to Harry's alleged contact with Wesley Grapp in summer of 1963 when Harry supposedly told Grapp about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK (prior to JFK's assassination)?

This is critically important (and apparently NEW) information from you Paul. Please clarify what your statement means