Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

FYI:

I do not have enough space to upload the FBI HQ file on Rousselot here in EF but I emailed the main section of the HQ file to Paul Trejo so he can post it online.

Significantly, even Rousselot's more liberal colleagues in the House of Representatives recommended him for the White House position because his reputation in Congress was spotless.

For example, Rep. Barber Conable recommended Rousselot as a person of unquestioned integrity and loyalty. At one point, Conable was voted the "most respected" member of Congress by his colleagues because of his character, honesty, and integrity. After leaving Congress, Conable was appointed President of the World Bank -- an institution which the Birch Society considers to be akin to satan!

Significantly, when the FBI checked on Rousselot with all their usual sources in order to discover any potential adverse info (aside from info in their own files) -- such as local police departments in areas where Rousselot had lived, and the CIA, and the U.S. Secret Service, and HUAC etc. they found NOTHING derogatory about Rousselot.

I DO have enough space left to post the Los Angeles field investigation re: Rousselot so it is attached. So, now, Paul can stop whining and moaning and just admit there is NOTHING in FBI files to support any derogatory conclusions about Rousselot's character or integrity -- and nothing, in particular, to support the assertion that Rousselot was ever involved in, aware of, or facilitated ANY kind of illegal activity.

If the FBI failed to mention Rousselot's membership and advocacy of the John Birch Society in their investigation of him for a position at the White House, then they were seriously derelict in their duties.

Thankfully, the paltry few pages of "research" that Ernie has posted here does not represent an FBI investigation, but mainly consists of (1) several pages of the intent to investigate; and (2) a few interviews with Rousselot's close friends and neighbors all of whom said he was a great guy, good neighbor, no drugs, no criminal record, and best of all, was once a Congressman in California.

In other words -- it barely scratches the surface of a true investigation. Insofar as there really was an FBI investigation of John Rousselot, and insofar as John Rousselot failed to obtain a full-time position with the Reagan White House, we must therefore conclude that Ernie Lazar continues to withhold vital information about the John Birch Society and John Rousselot.

Why? For what purpose? Clearly because any official light on the John Birch Society would show them in an unflattering position -- and by proxy, John Rousselot would also be shown in an unflattering position.

At least Harry Dean is honest about it -- he admits he was once a member of the JBS, that disloyal organization that accused US Presidents of being Communists, Communist-controlled, Communist-dupes and so on -- but Harry Dean quit the JBS and criticized them fiercely afterwards.

It was, after all, according to Harry Dean, leading members of the John Birch Society, like Congressman John Rousselot, Ex-General Edwin Walker, and frequent speakers like Guy Gabaldon and Loran Hall, who conspired during the second week of September, 1963, at a Southern California office of the John Birch Society, to organize and finance their participation of the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK in Dallas in November of that year!

The evidence continues to pour forth from history and research. Experts like Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have narrowed our field of suspects to those involved in feverishly Anti-Castro people, like those mentioned above, and including rogue CIA agents like David Morales and David Atlee Phillips, as well as Cuban Exile trainers and leaders like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall, with their comrade Larry Howard, whose name was on the lease of the Lousiana paramilitary training camp used by the paramilitary Minutemen along with Cuban Exiles in the DRE and Alpha/66 led by Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Beckham.

Guy Banister was also a leading member of the John Birch Society as well as the Minutemen.

The visits of Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gerry Patrick Hemming at the home of Ex-General Walker in Dallas throughout 1963 is confirmed by actual correspondence between Walker and Hemming in the personal papers of Edwin Walker currently stored at UT Austin.

The field is narrowing. We are getting closer and closer to naming the ground-crew with every passing month. And the closer we get, the more brightly the banner of the John Birch Society shines in that billboard in the background, screaming, IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you are spouting absolute nonsense. And your summary reveals (yet again) how you are prepared to DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENT factual evidence instead of honestly presenting what documentary evidence reveals. See specific details below.

(1) The FBI DID NOT fail to mention Rousselot's connection to the Birch Society. See pages 7-8 and 56 of the HQ file section which I sent to you. Why do you have to DELIBERATELY LIE about factual evidence in order to make your best argument?

In addition, review the 3 pages of search slips in Rousselot's file that I sent to you (see pages 3-5 of the file).

NOTICE that the Name Check Unit was instructed to find "All references (Subversive and Non-Subversive)". With respect to the Birch Society, there are TWENTY ONE (21) listings for the FBI HQ file on the JBS (HQ 62-104401). There are also 3 references to HQ file 94-54427 which is the HQ file that pertains to Rousselot's inquiry to the FBI regarding Harry Dean.

(2) The "paltry" FBI investigation in the file section I sent to you, discusses:

* the dozens of people who were interviewed by the FBI

* the local, state, and federal agencies which the FBI contacted to determine what information they had in their files about Rousselot -- including CIA, Secret Service, Office of Personnel Management, Department of HUD, Federal Housing Administration, DMV offices, and (as mentioned above) all references in FBI files were checked regarding Rousselot. They also checked the FBI ELSUR Index (electronic surveillance)

* the reports of FBI field offices (in Alexandria VA, Baltimore MD, Dallas TX, Los Angeles CA, Pittsburgh PA, Richmond VA, Springfield IL, and Washington DC) who pursued numerous leads to verify background information about Rousselot -- including checking credit reporting agencies, DMV records, court records, law enforcement agency records, educational institutions, and information regarding Rousselot's relatives etc.

* verification of Rousselot's employment from 1949 thru 1983 and comments made about Rousselot by his former employers

* interviews conducted with numerous neighbors and associates of Rousselot -- particularly people who knew him for 15-20 or more years. As the report summary states:

"Thirty-three persons, consisting of current and former supervisors, and co-workers, colleagues, present and former neighbors, references, professional associates, and social acquaintances, were interviewed. They advised Mr. Rousselot is a loyal American whose character, reputation, and associates are above reproach. He was described as diplomatic, patriotic, honorable, capable, even tempered, and hardworking. All persons interviewed highly recommended him for a position of trust and responsibility."

* comments made by persons whom Rousselot listed as character references (such as U.S. District Court Judge Kenyon and a California Superior Court Judge -- both of whom knew Rousselot for many years. In addition, the Attorney General of the U.S. (William French Smith) knew Rousselot for 20 years and recommended Rousselot for the White House position as did Edwin Meese, Reagan's Counsel who knew Rousselot for 16 years.

This is what Paul characterizes as "barely scratches the surface of a true investigation".

WHAT EXACTLY are you proposing that I am "withholding"??

The only other FBI main file about Rousselot is a 66-page file (HQ 89-2749) which pertains to phone calls received by Rousselot's office in January 1974 which threatened his life. The "89" FBI file classification is: "Assaulting ot Killing A Federal Officer" which included threats against Congressmen and other elected officials.

AGAIN: This is a MAJOR difference (morally and intellectually) between Paul and myself. I never make derogatory accusations about somebody's character or integrity UNLESS there is CLEAR INDISPUTABLE AND VERIFIABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support my accusations. That is why I can confidently state that Paul is a DELIBERATE xxxx -- as the above information proves.

Lastly -- it is also significant that:

(1) In November 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed Rousselot as Chairman of the U.S. Section of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense for the United States and Canada. Which means Rousselot had a security clearance because of sensitive defense information he was privy to.

(2) Paul chose NOT to post the FBI HQ file section which I sent to him -- because HE KNOWS it would reveal how intellectually dishonest he is.

POSTSCRIPT:

Notice that Paul claims (with no evidence of any kind to support his assertion) that Rousselot "failed to obtain a full-time position with the Reagan White House" (bold emphasis on "failed" in original comment by Paul).

We have to ask the obvious question. WHERE did Paul find that information?

I previously copied the official Congressional Biography on Rousselot which points out that he was appointed as Special Assistant to Reagan -- but I guess Paul thinks that is not reliable?

Well, I guess Paul does not believe the information in serial #22 of the file I sent to him. The serial summarizes Rousselot's employment and states:

"A search of the files of the Personnel office, Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President, revealed the following information concerning John H. Rousselot."

The 6th listing is dated 4/11/83 and states:

"Presidential appointment (Commissioned) as a Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director, Office of Public Liaison. The appointee remains in this position."

So which would YOU prefer to believe? Paul's baseless assertions and insinuations? OR documentary evidence from the Personnel Office of the White House?

AND if that is not enough, then read Rousselot's OBIT in the Los Angeles Times here:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/12/local/me-rousselot12

As the article states:

After Rousselot left Congress, he was in the Reagan White House as special assistant for business matters, then served as Western states coordinator for Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

No, Paul, I DID share the FBI's findings about Rousselot. Please pay attention.

You see, Ernie, it's precisely because we're paying attention that we can all see that you're holding back vital data.

(2) YOU may feel differently -- but there is nothing in any FBI file to support Harry or your belief. Sorry -- but that is simply the FACT about this matter.

No, Ernie, you're mistaken. All of the many records that the FBI has released about Harry Dean (which you used to claim never existed) all verify that (I) Harry Dean really did communicate with the FBI in Chicago as he always claimed; (II) Harry Dean really did belong to the 26th of July Movement in Chicago as he always claimed; (III) Harry Dean was an officer of the FPCC in Chicago as he always claimed; (IV) FBI really did communicate with the FBI in Los Angeles as he always claimed; (V) Harry Dean really was active with the John Birch Society and Minutemen in the Los Angeles area as he always claimed.

Your blindness to these clear and general facts makes me question your judgment more and more.

(3) It is NOT "common knowledge" that Hoover "forbade any FBI Agent from joining the JBS."

Ernie -- I'm surprised at you. While I never claimed that the FBI investigated the John Birch Society (that has been your own hobby horse) I have always promoted the facts that show that J. Edgar Hoover was nevertheless personally annoyed with their Un-American ideology, and he did collect information about them, and had an FBI file made on their organization.

I can't believe, Ernie, that you're ignorant of the fact that in late January, 1959 (only 6 weeks after the JBS was founded by Robert Welch) the FBI Milwaukee field office SAC, sent a memo to Hoover from his source who attended a JBS recruiting meeting where Mr. Welch fired up the room. The source said:

"The meeting was conducted by Welch in a very secretive manner. Those in attendance were instructed not to divulge what had transpired to their office personnel or even to their wives at this juncture.” [HQ 62-104401, #6; 1/20/1959 SAC Milwaukee to J. Edgar Hoover.]

And I refuse to believe that you're ignorant of the fact, Ernie, that after that memo, FBI HQ sent memos to all SAC's of all FBI field office, alerting them about the JBS and Robert Welch, and Welch's semi-secret book, "The Politician." Hoover's very own memo stated:

“This book attacks the reputation of the President of the United States, particularly chapter nine, which is a violent attack on President Eisenhower.” [HQ 62-104401, #10; 3/6/1959 Hoover memo.]

I know you're aware that the FBI never launched a formal investigation of the JBS, Ernie, but how could you possibly be ignorant of the fact of the FBI SAC Letter of 3/10/1959 which responded to Hoover's alarm by saying:

“The personnel of your office should be made aware of Welch’s activities and contemplated plans. You must be certain that your employees are alerted to promptly report to the Bureau any information concerning further activity by Welch in this regard. In the event information is received regarding any activity of Welch in the furtherance of setting his plan into operation, no investigation should be made but the Bureau should be promptly advised.” [sAC Letter 59-13, 3/10/1959]

Surely, Ernie, you can't be ignorant of the fact that FBI Chief Inspector W.C. Sullivan wrote an alerting memorandum to Alan H. Belmont (Assistant to the Director, in charge of the FBI Domestic Intelligence Division) about the John Birch Society, saying:

"The supporters of this organization and those influenced by the vicious propaganda it has been putting out are typical of the fanatics who have been attempting lately to disparage and discredit Bureau speakers who have been giving audiences a true, factual picture concerning the nature of the threat which communist activities in this country represent." [HQ 62-104401-791, 3/9/1961, W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont].

I can't believe, Ernie, that you're ignorant of the fact that the FBI Dallas office received reports that Dallas JBS members claimed that the FBI was supporting them! Surely you must know that J. Edgar Hoover himself instructed the FBI Dallas office to tell those JBS knuckleheads "in no uncertain terms to cease and desist from making any statements such as those set out above...indicating the Bureau is in agreement with or in back of any of their activities." [HQ 62-104401, No. 1443, 9/29/1961 reply by Hoover to Dallas SAC]

Finally, Ernie, I just can't believe that you're ignorant of the fact that at his press conference on November 18, 1964, J. Edgar Hoover said this:

"Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism." [HQ 62-104401, No. 2381, 11/20/1964 and HQ 100-114578-152, 10/22/1965].

So, Ernie, you see -- and all your readers can see -- once again you overstate your case, you're too quick to attack, to accuse and to insult, and really, you don't seem to check your facts as well as you claim to.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 31, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

No, Paul, I DID share the FBI's findings about Rousselot. Please pay attention.

You see, Ernie, it's precisely because we're paying attention that we can all see that you're holding back vital data.

(2) YOU may feel differently -- but there is nothing in any FBI file to support Harry or your belief. Sorry -- but that is simply the FACT about this matter.

No, Ernie, you're mistaken. All of the many records that the FBI has released about Harry Dean (which you used to claim never existed) all verify that (I) Harry Dean really did communicate with the FBI in Chicago as he always claimed; (II) Harry Dean really did belong to the 26th of July Movement in Chicago as he always claimed; (III) Harry Dean was an officer of the FPCC in Chicago as he always claimed; (IV) FBI really did communicate with the FBI in Los Angeles as he always claimed; (V) Harry Dean really was active with the John Birch Society and Minutemen in the Los Angeles area as he always claimed.

Your blindness to these clear and general facts makes me question your judgment more and more.

(3) It is NOT "common knowledge" that Hoover "forbade any FBI Agent from joining the JBS."

Ernie -- I'm surprised at you. While I never claimed that the FBI investigated the John Birch Society (that has been your own hobby horse) I have always promoted the facts that show that J. Edgar Hoover was nevertheless personally annoyed with their Un-American ideology, and he did collect information about them, and had an FBI file made on their organization.

I can't believe, Ernie, that you're ignorant of the fact that in late January, 1959 (only 6 weeks after the JBS was founded by Robert Welch) the FBI Milwaukee field office SAC, sent a memo to Hoover from his source who attended a JBS recruiting meeting where Mr. Welch fired up the room. The source said:

"The meeting was conducted by Welch in a very secretive manner. Those in attendance were instructed not to divulge what had transpired to their office personnel or even to their wives at this juncture.” [HQ 62-104401, #6; 1/20/1959 SAC Milwaukee to J. Edgar Hoover.]

And I refuse to believe that you're ignorant of the fact, Ernie, that after that memo, FBI HQ sent memos to all SAC's of all FBI field office, alerting them about the JBS and Robert Welch, and Welch's semi-secret book, "The Politician." Hoover's very own memo stated:

“This book attacks the reputation of the President of the United States, particularly chapter nine, which is a violent attack on President Eisenhower.” [HQ 62-104401, #10; 3/6/1959 Hoover memo.]

I know you're aware that the FBI never launched a formal investigation of the JBS, Ernie, but how could you possibly be ignorant of the fact of the FBI SAC Letter of 3/10/1959 which responded to Hoover's alarm by saying:

“The personnel of your office should be made aware of Welch’s activities and contemplated plans. You must be certain that your employees are alerted to promptly report to the Bureau any information concerning further activity by Welch in this regard. In the event information is received regarding any activity of Welch in the furtherance of setting his plan into operation, no investigation should be made but the Bureau should be promptly advised.” [sAC Letter 59-13, 3/10/1959]

Surely, Ernie, you can't be ignorant of the fact that FBI Chief Inspector W.C. Sullivan wrote an alerting memorandum to Alan H. Belmont (Assistant to the Director, in charge of the FBI Domestic Intelligence Division) about the John Birch Society, saying:

"The supporters of this organization and those influenced by the vicious propaganda it has been putting out are typical of the fanatics who have been attempting lately to disparage and discredit Bureau speakers who have been giving audiences a true, factual picture concerning the nature of the threat which communist activities in this country represent." [HQ 62-104401-791, 3/9/1961, W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont].

I can't believe, Ernie, that you're ignorant of the fact that the FBI Dallas office received reports that Dallas JBS members claimed that the FBI was supporting them! Surely you must know that J. Edgar Hoover himself instructed the FBI Dallas office to tell those JBS knuckleheads "in no uncertain terms to cease and desist from making any statements such as those set out above...indicating the Bureau is in agreement with or in back of any of their activities." [HQ 62-104401, No. 1443, 9/29/1961 reply by Hoover to Dallas SAC]

Finally, Ernie, I just can't believe that you're ignorant of the fact that at his press conference on November 18, 1964, J. Edgar Hoover said this:

"Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism." [HQ 62-104401, No. 2381, 11/20/1964 and HQ 100-114578-152, 10/22/1965].

So, Ernie, you see -- and all your readers can see -- once again you overstate your case, you're too quick to attack, to accuse and to insult, and really, you don't seem to check your facts as well as you claim to.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- there are so many LIES in your message that it would take me hours to address them all. I will briefly address your major whoppers.

1. Your first lie is that I claimed at some point that there were no FBI records about Harry Dean. We have discussed this many times. But you continue to deliberately LIE about what I originally wrote in June 2010 and thereafter. For the 100th time -- I said there were no references to Harry in any FBI HQ or field office file about the JBS -- nor any references about Harry in other files which should contain some reference to him (if his story is accurate and truthful) -- such as Minutemen. Remember the original CONTEXT of my June 2010 message. I was addressing the assertion that Harry had been an informant or undercover operative for the FBI with respect to the JBS.

Why can't you understand that? WHY do you have to DELIBERATELY LIE about this every time you discuss this matter? THE CONTEXT FOR MY ORIGINAL 2010 COMMENTS WAS IN RESPECT TO THE BIRCH SOCIETY (and related subjects) .

2. Nobody (including me) has EVER disputed that there are some limited FBI documents concerning Harry. But NONE of those documents support Harry's narrative regarding his alleged "undercover agent" or "informant" or "spy" status for the FBI regarding the JBS, or Grapp, or Rousselot, or Welch or the Minutemen.

TO QUOTE SOMETHING OUT OF CONTEXT -- means, BY DEFINITION, that you deliberately change the author's intended meaning. AND THAT is precisely what you have repeatedly done -- including in your current message when you respond to my statement (2) when I wrote "but there is nothing in any FBI file to support Harry or your belief" -- What "belief" was I referencing? Obviously, it was a direct clear reference to Harry's assertions regarding Grapp, Rousselot, Welch, Galbadon, and the alleged "JBS plot".

AND YOU KNOW THAT. SO STOP LYING ABOUT IT.

3. I have NEVER written ANYTHING denying or disputing Harry's connection or association with FPCC and other pro-Castro groups. NEVER. Not in 2010 and never since. So STOP LYING ABOUT THAT.

4. I have NEVER written ANYTHING denying or disputing that Harry was "active" in the JBS in the Los Angeles area. Another phony straw-man argument by you. SO STOP LYING ABOUT THAT.

5. You ALWAYS have claimed that the FBI "investigated" the JBS. See your message #141 in this thread (page 10) where you claim (falsely) that I "admitted" that the FBI investigated the JBS and you falsely claimed that: "Hoover did have the JBS investigated. Hoover did forbid FBI agents from joining the JBS. (And so did the CIA.)."

SO STOP LYING ABOUT THAT.

6. You quote the comment made by James R. Shinners of Milwaukee in 1959 about his attendance at a JBS recruitment meeting and you suggest that I am "ignorant" about it. But that comment has been in my JBS Report since the very first edition I wrote in 1984. SO STOP LYING ABOUT THAT.

7. You also suggest I am ignorant about the history of The Politician. But unlike yourself, I have a copy of the unpublished 1950's manuscript and my JBS Report has contained a detailed summary about it since I first wrote my JBS Report in 1984. In addition, I have scanned copies of SAC Letters about The Politician into my JBS Report which were sent to all FBI field offices SO STOP LYING ABOUT THAT.

8. You refer to the controversy regarding what the FBI in Dallas supposedly said about the JBS and how JBS members reported it -- but ALL of their information was based upon one source that was totally mistaken.

9. You use ALL of these examples in a tortured argument to claim yet again that Hoover forbade any FBI Agent from joining the JBS -- but he never did so. Which is why you cannot quote ANYTHING by Hoover or by any other FBI official or by ANY author who corroborates your assertion.

The point continues to be that Hoover NEVER made ANY policy statement regarding whether or not a prospective or existing FBI employee could be a JBS member. The ONLY thing he ever said was that, based upon FBI personnel records, no FBI Agent belonged to the JBS. And that comment was based solely upon the information provided by FBI employees in their annual personnel forms. IF, for example, an Agent was a JBS member but chose NOT to list their membership on their form, there is no way Hoover or anybody else would know about it. Similarly, JBS sympathizers could have been FBI employees and the Bureau would never have known. BUT we do know that the FBI DID ACCEPT JBS members as informants -- including Delmar Dennis and Ruth Gordienko and Gerald Kirk -- even though there was one 1964 memo which stated that they would not consider JBS members for development as informants. They made exceptions when they wanted coverage of certain organizations but they had problems finding reliable people (who were NOT JBS members) such as when they recruited Delmar Dennis because of his position within the White Knights of the KKK.

10. Lastly, it is morally despicable that you emulate the JBS in your debate tactics by making pejorative assertions for which you have NOT ONE IOTA of factual evidence such as claiming I am "holding back vital data". My JBS Report (which contains ALL of the examples you cited) has been PUBLICLY AVAILABLE for THIRTY YEARS.

And then you have the nerve to claim that I make "wild charges"!!!! YOU are the very epitome of an intellectually dishonest fanatic.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Because Paul continually makes his false charges against me -- based upon my original comments in June 2010 in this thread....I am copying below THE ENTIRE message I wrote.

This conclusively PROVES (beyond ANY dispute) that Paul is a conscious, deliberate, chronic, habitual, pathological, xxxx and he can NEVER be trusted to report accurately upon what somebody has written or about what they believe.

NOTICE THE OPENING STATEMENT OF MY JUNE 2010 MESSAGE. THAT WAS THE CONTEXT WHICH PAUL ALWAYS REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE BECAUSE HE IS A DISHONORABLE AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON.

Notice also that the second paragraph of my message ALSO refers EXCLUSIVELY to my research into FBI files ON THE JBS!

And then the third paragraph addresses Harry's claims about his "informant" status with the FBI with respect to what? AGAIN: THE JBS!

How much more clear can somebody be without having to face Paul's RELENTLESS LIES?

Posted 08 June 2010 - 09:52 AM

A while back I was asked for information concerning Harry Dean who claims that he infiltrated the John Birch Society from 1962-1964 and that he was an informant for the FBI.

During my research into FBI HQ and field office files pertaining to the John Birch Society I received an FBI document which pertains to an inquiry about a column by James Horwitz on page 2 of the 3/16/77 issue of the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley News.

The Horwitz column reported upon an "exclusive interview" with Harry Dean during which Dean repeated his claims about his alleged association with the FBI as an undercover operative or informant from 1960-1965 (notice that in this interview, Dean changed the years to include 1965).

The Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office (Robert E. Gebhardt) saw a copy of the Horwitz column because of an inquiry which he received about it. Gebhardt responded to the inquiry about Dean’s assertions and he forwarded a copy of his 4/1/77 reply to James K. Coffin, the Publisher of theLas Virgenes Independent Valley News.

You may obtain a copy of the column, the inquiry, and the reply by requesting Los Angeles FBI field office file #100-59001, serial #1258.

Here is the pertinent excerpt:
“In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has never been an informant of this Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information your attention. You might consider furnishing this information to the readers of your column.”

Since I have obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the John Birch Society (12,000 pages), as well as almost all of the FBI field office files on the JBS -- it seems very odd that there is no mention whatsoever of anybody who "infiltrated" the JBS at the request of the FBI.

More significantly, there is the matter of standard Bureau procedure regarding ALL prospective informants:

1. Standard Bureau procedure regarding field office interest in using informants of any kind was that the field office had to submit a detailed investigative report about the proposed informant.

2. In addition, the informant was placed in probationary status until it could be determined whether or not the informant was providing useful and reliable information. Field offices prepared periodic summaries of the information which every informant provided.

3. Furthermore, any expenses incurred by informants (such as travel, purchasing literature, attending conferences etc) were itemized and requests for reimbursement were routinely submitted to HQ for approval (or rejection).

4. Any other monies paid to an informant also had to be explicitly approved by HQ.

5. Any verbal reports by informants were converted into typewritten memoranda summarizing what information they provided. Those written reports were placed into the files of the subjects they discussed (along with cross-referenced copies in other pertinent files).

6. I might also add that standard Bureau procedure regarding its informants was to provide a factual summary of their status. For example, here is the summary which the Bureau routinely sent out when people inquired about Julia Brown, an FBI informant within the Communist Party who subsequently became a Birch Society member and paid speaker under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau:

"Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way."[HQ 62-104401-2499, 4/24/65].

THERE IS NO COMPARABLE BUREAU STATEMENT REGARDING HARRY J DEAN!

Given everything I have mentioned above, I would bring everyone's attention to the following facts:

1. There is no record of any kind whatsoever in any FBI HQ or field office file that Harry Dean ever was even considered as an informant much less accepted as one.

2. No official investigation of the JBS was ever opened by the FBI. There was a preliminary inquiry during 1959 and 1960 -- but once it was established that the JBS was an anti-communist organization which did not advocate or participate in criminal or subversive activities, there was no reason to "infiltrate" it.

3. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever concerning payments made to any "informant" within the JBS for expenses of any kind.

4. There are no documents of any kind whatsoever reflecting continuing periodic reports (verbal or written) by a specific "informant" whom the FBI authorized to "infiltrate" the JBS

Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials.

Furthermore, Harry Dean is on record stating that former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen were "members" of the Birch Society. But that is a total falsehood. Neither Smoot or Skousen joined the JBS. They did, however, support the JBS and both spoke at JBS functions or wrote for JBS publications.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ernie1241@aol.com

FBI FILES ON JBS: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

Edited July 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Once again, Ernie Lazar is having one of his rants. He now admits that I'm right about the FBI and the John Birch Society, but now he claims that this was all his idea own in the first place.

As for John Rousselot, Ernie did send me a summary report from the FBI about this John Birch Society mouthpiece, and the FBI did indeed report that Rousselot was once an Editor of the American Opinion magazine. But without even investigating Rousselot's income, the FBI merely interviewed 33 of Rousselot's closest friends, and verified that the Congressman had no prior arrests or convictions. .

This FBI investigation was obviously a formality, evidently done for the convenience of President Reagan to shoo his rightist pal into some temporary, "advisory" office somewhere, now that Rousselot had reached the age of 60. Probably Reagan owed him a political favor.

It was interesting, though, that the names of these 33 friends were BLANKED OUT, yet one of them was recognizable by his Title, former "Secretary of Agriculture under the Eisenhower Administration in 1952." That would be Ezra Taft Benson, the racist leader of the Mormon Church in the 1950's and 1960's, and a stalwart supporter of the John Birch Society. What a surprise that Benson would give Rousselot a five star recommendation.

A few interesting tidbits about Rousselot did show up -- his work history is obscured by "destroyed records" until age 29. Also, his college grades showed an average GPA of 4.3 out of a range of 8.0. In other words, Rousselot was a C student. Well, that was better than Ex-General Edwin Walker, another John Birch Society leader, who was a "D" student at West Point.

As for Harry Dean, Ernie continues to try to cloud the truth -- accusing Harry Dean of having claimed to be an official, paid, FBI Informant -- which has always been a total lie. The evidence shows that this lie was used by the FBI fifty years ago to throw researchers off of the Harry Dean trail.

Then, to cover his own lies, Ernie has the NERVE to call me a xxxx -- multiple times -- in public. What a maroon.

Anyway -- if this was the good old days when we had a MODERATOR on the EDUCATION FORUM, Ernie Lazar would have been suspended long ago. Sadly, this is no longer the case, and the FORUM must somehow tolerate this maroon going forward.

So, once again I'll fix my FORUM settings to "Ignore" all the posts by Ernie Lazar. I recommend that you, dear reader, do the same.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 31, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Once again, Ernie Lazar is having one of his terrible rants. He now admits that I'm right about the FBI and the John Birch Society, but now he claims that this was all his idea in the first place.

As for Harry Dean, he continually tries to cloud the truth -- and accuses Harry Dean of claiming to be an official, paid, FBI Informant -- which is a total lie.

Then, to cover his own lies, he has the NERVE to call me a xxxx in public. What a maroon.

Anyway -- if this was the good old days when we had a MODERATOR on the EDUCATION FORUM, Ernie Lazar would have been suspended long ago. Sadly, this is no longer the case, and the FORUM must somehow tolerate this maroon going forward.

Perhaps I'll simply need to set my FORUM settings to "Ignore" all the posts by Ernie Lazar, and recommend that you, dear Reader, do the same.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

It is not a "rant" Paul to point out clear evidence when somebody is lying.

And at no time have I ever "admitted" that you are right. You have a massive reading comprehension problem.

I have never once claimed that Harry was an "official paid informant". Significantly, you have NEVER ONCE quoted such a statement by me -- because, you always deliberately LIE. The only thing I have ever written in this regard is that IF (repeat IF) Harry was ever paid for his services by either FBI or CIA -- it would be another method by which a researcher could discover EVIDENCE of his alleged relationship with either agency. So AGAIN you deliberately LIE.

You have NEVER identified a single LIE by me. You disagree with everything I write -- no matter how much evidence I present.

[Ernie Lazar]

Once again, Ernie Lazar is having one of his terrible rants. He now admits that I'm right about the FBI and the John Birch Society, but now he claims that this was all his idea in the first place.

As for Harry Dean, he continually tries to cloud the truth -- and accuses Harry Dean of claiming to be an official, paid, FBI Informant -- which is a total lie.

Then, to cover his own lies, he has the NERVE to call me a xxxx in public. What a maroon.

Anyway -- if this was the good old days when we had a MODERATOR on the EDUCATION FORUM, Ernie Lazar would have been suspended long ago. Sadly, this is no longer the case, and the FORUM must somehow tolerate this maroon going forward.

Perhaps I'll simply need to set my FORUM settings to "Ignore" all the posts by Ernie Lazar, and recommend that you, dear Reader, do the same.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

It is not a "rant" Paul to point out clear evidence when somebody is lying.

And at no time have I ever "admitted" that you are right. You have a massive reading comprehension problem.

I have never once claimed that Harry was an "official paid informant". Significantly, you have NEVER ONCE quoted such a statement by me -- because, you always deliberately LIE. The only thing I have ever written in this regard is that IF (repeat IF) Harry was ever paid for his services by either FBI or CIA -- it would be another method by which a researcher could discover EVIDENCE of his alleged relationship with either agency. So AGAIN you deliberately LIE.

You have NEVER identified a single LIE by me. You disagree with everything I write -- no matter how much evidence I present.

I should add one more VERY important point.

My position in 2010 was based upon evidence in my possession AT THAT TIME.

At THAT time, I had never seen FBI file documents ABOUT Harry that I subsequently saw in 2013 on the Mary Ferrell website, i.e. his letters to JFK and Hoover and Harry's acknowledgement IN HIS OWN WRITING that the FBI told him in 1961 that they did NOT want his assistance because of information they discovered about his background.

I also HAD NOT seen Harry's Los Angeles field file (which was at NARA). And that file covers the entire period when Harry was a member of the JBS.

So, the point is simply this: ALL FACTUAL EVIDENCE which became available AFTER 2010 proved, beyond dispute, that Harry had NO relationship to the FBI as an informant or undercover operative with respect to JBS or with respect to Grapp. If he had such a relationship -- there would have been EVIDENCE of it in his Los Angeles file. Instead, Los Angeles office Agents thought Harry was a "mental case" -- and former Agent Wes Swearingen made the SAME conclusion.

Paul can whine and moan and complain forever about me....but ALL the available evidence proves, beyond dispute, that Harry never had the type of relationship with "intelligence agencies" which he claims.

Lastly, as a public service, I am going to spend another $200 to obtain Harry's HQ file which is at NARA -- even though I know the substance of it from reviewing what is on the Ferrell website. And I will post that entire file online -- just like I am doing in a few weeks with Harry's Los Angeles file. BY CONTRAST, neither Paul Trejo or Harry Dean will EVER post online ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT to prove ANYTHING which they assert. [Because Paul always rips my comments out of their intended context -- let me be VERY clear about what I meant by my last statement. Neither Paul or Harry will EVER post online ANY documentary evidence which supports their narrative about Harry's alleged relationship with Grapp or his alleged reports to the FBI in Los Angeles about the JBS, about Rousselot, or his reports to the FBI about Walker, or his reports to the FBI about Galbadon or his reports to the FBI about Minutemen or his alleged reports to the FBI about any "JBS plot" to murder JFK or his reports to the FBI about any other related matters or any verifiavble documentary evidence or testimony about his alleged relationship with the CIA.]

So, in perpetuity, both Paul and Harry will DEMAND that everybody accept ONLY WHAT ONE SINGLE SOURCE claims is true (i.e. Harry). They will both totally ignore the MOUNTAINS of documentary evidence which falsifies their contentions.

FYI: I just sent NARA a request for Harry's FBI HQ file -- so I should receive their form within the next few days and I will then call their fiscal unit to arrange payment -- and if the process is similar to what happened last time, I should have that file within 10-14 days.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

In message #882 (March 13, 2014), Harry wrote the following:

Posted 13 March 2014 - 11:10 AM

My reason to not bother requesting my FBI records was simply that I was there in every situation. However being goaded into

the fray on E Forum my request for these records is well underway. Upon their arrival hopefully soon, everyone will know

the facts already known for years to me.

These FBI records will be 'destructive' to the over spoken Lazar, but informative to interested persons. It is important to notice

that a result of these exposures may cause threats or physical harm from this vicious critical source.

THEN...in message #903 (March 17, 2014) Paul made the following statement:

Soon I anticipate that Harry Dean will receive from the FBI all of its records about Harry himself, and then this thread won't need to depend on Ernie Lazar to be its main source of FBI records. At that point we can all begin a truly objective reading of the FBI record, instead of the bias we still receive from Ernie Lazar today.

SO LET'S ASK HARRY AND PAUL SOME OBVIOUS QUESTIONS --- based upon the predicate that in mid-March (according to Harry) his FOIA request to the FBI was "well underway":

1. Normally, the FBI acknowledges receipt of an FOIA request within 2 weeks and assigns a specific FOIA number to the request.

2. Within a short period after that first acknowledgement letter (usually no more than another 3-4 weeks) the FBI normally tells a requester if they have NOT been able to identify any responsive records OR if records have been destroyed OR if files have been transferred to NARA.

3. ALTERNATIVELY, if the FBI locates documents which would exceed $25 in cost to the requester --- they send a "cost letter" to the requester for the purpose of getting confirmation that the requester will pay the estimated cost for whatever number of pages have been identified OR to give the requester a chance to change the scope of their request (such as eliminating certain years) --- in order to reduce costs and speed processing of the request.

SO.....

(1) Harry --- did you receive your acknowledgement letter with FOIA number? If "yes" -- what is the FOIA number assigned to your request?

(2) Harry -- did you receive subsequent correspondence from the FBI about your request? For example: did you receive anything which stated that the FBI had destroyed certain files (i.e. your Chicago file) and had transferred other files to NARA (i.e. your HQ and Los Angeles file)?

(3) Harry---did you receive ANY "cost letter" from the FBI -- because they located documents whose total cost they estimated would exceed $25? (Since they charge 10 cents per page for paper documents, that would mean anything in excess of 250 pages---but first 100 pages are normally free)

(4) Harry-- if you DID receive a "cost letter" -- did you respond within the required 30 day period to affirm your willingness to pay estimated costs?

(5) Harry---lastly, if you received correspondence from the FBI which identified all files responsive to your request which are still available from the FBI -- then please specify what files they are.

Thanks.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Once again, Ernie Lazar is having one of his rants. He now admits that I'm right about the FBI and the John Birch Society, but now he claims that this was all his idea own in the first place.

As for John Rousselot, Ernie did send me a summary report from the FBI about this John Birch Society mouthpiece, and the FBI did indeed report that Rousselot was once an Editor of the American Opinion magazine. But without even investigating Rousselot's income, the FBI merely interviewed 33 of Rousselot's closest friends, and verified that the Congressman had no prior arrests or convictions. .

This FBI investigation was obviously a formality, evidently done for the convenience of President Reagan to shoo his rightist pal into some temporary, "advisory" office somewhere, now that Rousselot had reached the age of 60. Probably Reagan owed him a political favor.

It was interesting, though, that the names of these 33 friends were BLANKED OUT, yet one of them was recognizable by his Title, former "Secretary of Agriculture under the Eisenhower Administration in 1952." That would be Ezra Taft Benson, the racist leader of the Mormon Church in the 1950's and 1960's, and a stalwart supporter of the John Birch Society. What a surprise that Benson would give Rousselot a five star recommendation.

A few interesting tidbits about Rousselot did show up -- his work history is obscured by "destroyed records" until age 29. Also, his college grades showed an average GPA of 4.3 out of a range of 8.0. In other words, Rousselot was a C student. Well, that was better than Ex-General Edwin Walker, another John Birch Society leader, who was a "D" student at West Point.

As for Harry Dean, Ernie continues to try to cloud the truth -- accusing Harry Dean of having claimed to be an official, paid, FBI Informant -- which has always been a total lie. The evidence shows that this lie was used by the FBI fifty years ago to throw researchers off of the Harry Dean trail.

Then, to cover his own lies, Ernie has the NERVE to call me a xxxx -- multiple times -- in public. What a maroon.

Anyway -- if this was the good old days when we had a MODERATOR on the EDUCATION FORUM, Ernie Lazar would have been suspended long ago. Sadly, this is no longer the case, and the FORUM must somehow tolerate this maroon going forward.

So, once again I'll fix my FORUM settings to "Ignore" all the posts by Ernie Lazar. I recommend that you, dear reader, do the same.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

I let one point in Paul's message slide by without commenting but since Paul thinks it is significant -- maybe I should discuss it.

1. Paul makes reference to Rousselot's income and Paul claims that the FBI never investigated it. I'm not sure what Paul means. First of all, what relevance would there be to his income? What the FBI concerns itself with during background investigations is whether or not somebody is of good character (such as by paying their bills on time) so they request records from credit reporting agencies and they look for tax liens or other adverse financial information such as collection agency activities for bad debts.

2. Second, the FBI is not the IRS. The FBI does not have automatic access to tax return information. Normally, they request tax return information ONLY WHEN they have evidence of possible tax fraud or illegal financial transactions. Does Paul have any such evidence to share with us?

3. Paul also makes a point of mentioning that Ezra Taft Benson was ONE person whom was contacted by the FBI. But why focus upon him as the single most important contact? Why not (for example) focus upon the comments made about Rousselot by the Attorney General of the United States (William French Smith) or the comments made by Reagan's Chief Counsel (Edwin Meese) both of whom knew Rousselot much longer and in much more intimate circumstances than Benson? Why not focus upon the comments made by U.S. District Court Judge Kenyon -- who had known Rousselot for almost his entire life?

4. In politics, it is very unusual for someone to have near universal respect from members of both political parties. Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy were friends because they respected each other. Sen Orin Hatch and Teddy Kennedy were close friends and Hatch cried when Teddy died. This is what William Buckley Jr. once called "trans-ideological" friendships and Buckley also had many liberals as personal friends -- and he often invited them to appear on his TV program, Firing Line.

Significantly, Paul wants us to believe that unless there is EXTREME HOSTILITY toward Rousselot which is reported from his FBI investigation, there must be something wrong with the investigation. THAT is how Paul thinks! He wants cartoon character villains (all good vs all bad) to rail against.

Whatever flaws and defects Rousselot had in terms of his political beliefs -- it is, nevertheless, also true that people who ACTUALLY KNEW HIM PERSONALLY, respected him -- even though they might have perceived him as a worthy political adversary --- as Kennedy thought Goldwater to be. Kennedy looked forward to a series of debates with Goldwater patterned upon the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 19th century - i.e. a principled battle between modern conservatism and modern liberalism.

But Paul cannot entertain such ideas. Like the Birch Society, Paul believes that ONLY relentless hostility is required toward everybody different from his personal political preferences. For Paul, all Birchers are a NAIL, and Paul is the omnipresent HAMMER. Reminds me of the email I received from one JBS member who read a critical comment about the JBS which I had posted online. He observed that I was "worse than Al Qaeda" -- because THAT is how many fanatical Birchers respond to ANY criticism. Paul is EXACTLY the same mentality.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

ANOTHER UPDATE:

I received an email from NARA.

They will be sending me a cost quote shortly. I also pointed out that when I previously requested FBI HQ file 94-54427 (which pertains to Rousselot), the FBI informed me it was at NARA ---BUT--- NARA told me when I requested Harry's Los Angeles file, that when they searched for 54427 they could find only 8 pages -- which did not make a lot of sense since there were at least 30 serials in that file. But now I think I know what happened.

I have a portion of serial #30 from that file---which pertains to Rousselot's inquiry about Harry Dean. The 4 pages I have are the FBI Legal Counsel's analysis about whether or not (and how) to respond to Rousselot's inquiry about Harry. Almost certainly, there are several more pages in serial #30 -- such as Rousselot's actual correspondence to the FBI as well as the reply which the FBI sent to him.

NARA now thinks that the remainder of the 54427 file is not part of the JFK Records Collection but is filed separately elsewhere --- whereas serial #30 was designated by NARA as a JFK-record.

So, with a little luck, I may be able to obtain the entire 54427 file. I have copies of about 6 serials from that file because they appear in the JBS-HQ file but I suspect there are about 30-40 pages I have not seen. If and when I get it, I will post it online or share it with interested parties.

[Ernie Lazar]

"Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word xxxx is banned from use on the forum"

We have had too much of this, and are receiving complaints. Since the new forum Terms of Service and Forum rules have not been posted as of yet, I am relying on you two, Paul and Ernie, to go clean up your posts. I realize both of you feel that your view is correct, but it must be expressed in other ways. I am hoping that there are no further complaints, because that may result in a locking of the thread.

Kathy:

I have no problem whatsoever adhering to the principles outlined in your message.

But I still have to ask you a fundamental first-principles question.

When a poster DELIBERATELY misrepresents or misquotes the clearly stated beliefs and statements made by another person, THEN what is the appropriate response in your judgment?

Do you expect there to be no candid response which draws attention to what is being done no matter how egregious the misrepresentation or how outrageous the falsehoods?

FOR EXAMPLE: Suppose, Kathy, that I research what YOU have posted on this website and you have repeatedly made very clear and very precise comments about some subject matter.

BUT, suppose that I come along and DELIBERATELY misrepresent or misquote what you have written by ripping your comments out of their context so that I change your obvious meaning -- and I do that not just one time, not just twice, not just three times, not just four times, BUT repeatedly and incessantly? Then what would be YOUR appropriate response to me?

Kathy -- the problem here is NOT just a difference of opinion between two people.

Nor is it (as you wrote) that two people believe their particular view is correct.

We ALL have our personal opinions---and that is totally ok.

BUT...there is such a thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH -- which DOES NOT DEPEND upon my opinion, or yours, or anybody else's.

For example: if YOU post a message stating that Miami FL is the capital of the U.S. -- then you are simply mistaken and nobody should take offense if somebody posts a message correcting your error.

SO:

If I post a message in 2010 whose first, second, and third paragraphs makes it explicitly clear that my subsequent comments are based upon research into specific FBI files in my possession (and I identify the subject matters of those files) AND I then point out that those files contain no references of any kind to "person X" by name or by description ---- THEN is it permissible for another poster to FALSELY claim, incessantly and repeatedly, that my position since the beginning of this thread has been that there are no FBI documents of any kind whatsoever about "person X" --- as if my original comment was referring to ALL FBI files in existence rather than JUST the files I identified in my original message?

NOBODY wants to be on the receiving end of the word "xxxx" or "dishonest" or "biased" or "irrational" --- or any such descriptive terms.

However, those words do exist in the English language. They have a meaning. AND if someone can demonstrate through evidence and direct quotation that those words are applicable (AFTER first politely and repeatedly correcting the offending party) , then nobody should be offended because the adjectives used are defensible and reasonable. This is like someone writing that Bill Clinton was a serial adulterer. It is not a nice accusation. It should NOT be made unless there is indisputable verifiable PROOF that it is accurate and truthful. And the same principle applies here in EF.

[Thomas Graves]

"Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word xxxx is banned from use on the forum"

We have had too much of this, and are receiving complaints. Since the new forum Terms of Service and Forum rules have not been posted as of yet, I am relying on you two, Paul and Ernie, to go clean up your posts. I realize both of you feel that your view is correct, but it must be expressed in other ways. I am hoping that there are no further complaints, because that may result in a locking of the thread.

Hi Kathy,

Instead of "xxxx," is "prevaricator" okay? I mean, "prevaricator" sounds better than "xxxx," right?

( lol )

--Tommy

[Ernie Lazar]

"Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word xxxx is banned from use on the forum"

We have had too much of this, and are receiving complaints. Since the new forum Terms of Service and Forum rules have not been posted as of yet, I am relying on you two, Paul and Ernie, to go clean up your posts. I realize both of you feel that your view is correct, but it must be expressed in other ways. I am hoping that there are no further complaints, because that may result in a locking of the thread.

Hi Kathy,

Instead of "xxxx," is "prevaricator" okay? I mean, "prevaricator" sounds better than "xxxx," right?

( lol )

--Tommy

I doubt Kathy will accept that either Tommy. Anything conveying adverse personal attributes is probably what she will object to -- no matter how egregious the provocation. So...your previous use of "word twister" is also verboten.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Thomas Graves]

"Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word xxxx is banned from use on the forum"

We have had too much of this, and are receiving complaints. Since the new forum Terms of Service and Forum rules have not been posted as of yet, I am relying on you two, Paul and Ernie, to go clean up your posts. I realize both of you feel that your view is correct, but it must be expressed in other ways. I am hoping that there are no further complaints, because that may result in a locking of the thread.

Hi Kathy,

Instead of "xxxx," is "prevaricator" okay? I mean, "prevaricator" sounds better than "xxxx," right?

( lol )

--Tommy

I doubt Kathy will accept that either Tommy. Anything conveying adverse personal attributes is probably what she will object to -- no matter how egregious the provocation. [...]

Ernie,

Not that it's happened on this thread, but I wonder if it will continue to be okay for members to call other members "xxxxx"?

That seems to be acceptable.

LOL

--Tommy

PS Keep up the good work. Whenever Paul "A. J." Trejo twists your words or puts words in your mouth, just grin and bear it and try to point him in the right direction without expending too much of your own time and energy.

[Ernie Lazar]

"Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word xxxx is banned from use on the forum"

We have had too much of this, and are receiving complaints. Since the new forum Terms of Service and Forum rules have not been posted as of yet, I am relying on you two, Paul and Ernie, to go clean up your posts. I realize both of you feel that your view is correct, but it must be expressed in other ways. I am hoping that there are no further complaints, because that may result in a locking of the thread.

Hi Kathy,

Instead of "xxxx," is "prevaricator" okay? I mean, "prevaricator" sounds better than "xxxx," right?

( lol )

--Tommy

I doubt Kathy will accept that either Tommy. Anything conveying adverse personal attributes is probably what she will object to -- no matter how egregious the provocation. [...]

Ernie,

Not that it's happened on this thread, but I wonder if it will continue to be okay for members to call other members "xxxxx"?

That seems to be acceptable.

LOL

--Tommy

PS Keep up the good work. Whenever Paul "A. J." Trejo twists your words or puts words in your mouth, just grin and bear it and try to point him in the right direction without expending too much of your own time and energy.

Thanks -- in the final analysis nobody is fooled by Paul's debate tactics.....After I post Harry's HQ and Los Angeles files online I doubt that there will be anybody who seriously believes the narrative presented by Paul or Harry -- especially since they have no counter-evidence of any significance. Everything relies upon Harry's memory which has already been proven deficient or confused. And that is fairly typical of what happens when somebody expends the effort to actually do the time-consuming and expensive research required to discover the truth.

There used to be a police drama on TV during the 1950's and 60's called The Naked City which ended with the comment: "There are eight million stories in the Naked City. This has been one of them." --- and that pretty much summarizes what has been discussed in this entire thread -- merely a story presented by one of many people who convinces gullible or low-information people to believe just about anything.