Ernie Lazar Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Paul, I will respond to your points in numerical sequence. 1a. Nobody who reads Harry's recollections here in Education Forum or in your new eBook or in his 1977 interview with the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley newspaper can make sense out of what Harry actually means. In the Introduction of your new eBook, Harry says that he never finished high school so he was only capable of being a "street informant for the FBI -- which I was". According to his 1977 Las Virgenes newspaper interview, "Dean had been assigned by the FBI to infiltrate the John Birch Society" and, in total, he was "an undercover operative for the FBI from 1960 to 1965." In answer to questions posed to him by John Simkin, Harry stated that he was "advising the Bureau as requested" regarding various individuals and groups -- such as on Minutemen activities in southern California, along with Alpha 66 in Los Angeles -- and, when he lived in Chicago (1960)---on the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. 1b. IF we take Harry at his word, using HIS description of his alleged lengthy "relationship" with the FBI -- then by any prevailing definition, Harry was an official FBI informant -- not a lesser category such as a "panel source" or "established source" or "confidential source". 1c. ALL official FBI informants who provided information to the Bureau on an ONGOING BASIS were subject to standard Bureau protocols pertaining to their informants. Those protocols are discussed in the FBI Manual of Instructions along with various "SAC Letters" (i.e. periodic memos to the Special Agent in Charge of a field office regarding policies and procedures to be followed). 1d. Since there is no verifiable factual evidence to support Harry's contention about his status -- one must employ ordinary caution and rigorous skepticism before accepting, at face value, whatever Harry claims 2a. I never wrote or assumed that Harry was a "paid informant". That is pure invention on your part. What I said is that typically, the FBI paid its official informants for their services AND for the expenses they incurred during the process of obtaining he kind of information which the Bureau wanted. Consequently, that MIGHT be another way to establish the validity of whatever Harry claims IF he was ever paid for services or expenses because there would be all sorts of documentary evidence to support his assertions. I also referred you to a webpage where I posted FBI memos pertaining to Rev. Delmar Dennis (an actual FBI informant) -- to give you an idea of what sort of memos were routinely prepared by field offices and sent to HQ. For example: most FBI informants traveled to meetings -- some might be in their own city but perhaps they also traveled to regional or state or national meetings of an organization they were reporting on. In addition, most informants acquired copies of publications which the Bureau wanted to have for its research purposes. One example would be wanting to review publications so that the FBI could index names in those publications in the Bureau's Central Records System -- so they would know the key figures involved in various groups. Even more importantly, if the Bureau suspected that somebody might potentially be involved in some kind of criminal or subversive activity (and Harry claims he was reporting on some very suspect individuals and groups who were not only planning murder but were also involved in activities that violated other U.S. laws), THEN, obviously, it was critical for the FBI to have documentary or other evidence (photos, tape recordings, etc.) to build a case based upon incontrovertible factual evidence which could prevail in any courtroom. In those sorts of cases, an informant might be asked by the FBI to obtain copies of organization mailing lists, or dues payments lists, or copies of bank statements or financial records and even copies of correspondence. Obviously, an informant normally would be reimbursed for all such expenses. 2b. "OFFICIAL" informant: I am sorry Paul but your apologia for Dean is not rational or credible. ANYBODY who had an ongoing relationship with the Bureau and was routinely making reports to an FBI Special Agent assigned to him --- WAS AN OFFICIAL FBI INFORMANT. And your absurd "classified information" argument is absurd on its face. I'm sorry Paul but since I have spent thousands upon thousands of words explaining Bureau protocols and procedures to you both here and especially through our private emails --- I now am forced to conclude that you are serving as a SHILL for Harry Dean. No serious student of FBI policies and procedures would make the claims you are making. As I have told you REPEATEDLY, I have made DOZENS of FOIA requests for PRECISELY the type of "classified" documents which you think cannot be obtained -- but, nevertheless, I got them -- and often with very few redactions. Furthermore, I went to great lengths to provide you with details from the FBI Declassification Manual which clearly states that ALL records over 25 years old are now AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED -- which means they can be obtained via FOIA requests -- although subject to all the normal FOIA exemptions. I will repeat this ONE LAST TIME: The FBI routinely "gives out" what was originally "classified information". MANY of the FBI files I have obtained not only on FBI informants but on specific individuals and organizations were originally classified "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret" -- but I now have them as do many other FOIA requesters. So please STOP this phony argument of yours. It only makes people wonder if you are not a serious person. 3a. HARRY PART OF FORMAL INVESTIGATION?: Your assertion is absolute nonsense! I have REPEATEDLY told you both here and in our private emails that there was NO FORMAL INVESTIGATION of the JBS. There was ONLY a "preliminary inquiry" which ended in late 1959 or early 1960. You can review dozens of FBI files (HQ and field offices) which contain instructions to FBI field offices from HQ and in document after document HQ tells its Special Agents that the JBS was NOT being investigated. 3b: JBS MEMBER AS FBI EMPLOYEE: Your comment is again absurd. The FBI required its employees to submit an annual form (I forget the number right now), to specify what organizations they belonged to (signed under penalty of perjury). The older versions of that form included a list of all the subversive organizations identified by the Attorney General of the U.S. Based upon that annual document -- Hoover knew that no FBI employees were JBS members. If somebody APPLIED to become an FBI employee, then they were ALWAYS subject to a background investigation. But there was no general investigation of the JBS. There was nothing to "investigate" because there was no federal law falling under the jurisdiction of the FBI which would permit or require an investigation to be commenced. Furthermore, once the Bureau ascertained the type of individuals who were joining and endorsing the JBS (including VERY prominent businessmen (often CEO's of major corporations), politicians (Governors, Mayors, City Council members, U.S. Congressmen, U.S. Senators, State legislators), plus senior retired military officers, well-known clergymen, lawyers and constitutional law professors, and even former FBI Special Agents) --- it was then immediately obvious to the FBI that the Birch Society was not a subversive or criminal enterprise -- so it did not merit significant Bureau attention EXCEPT from the standpoint of keeping generally informed about its activities and assertions because the Bureau was receiving so many complaints and incoming inquiries from prominent individuals. 3c: HARRY REPORTED ONLY ON "SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS": Well, so what? That is typically what informants did. But AGAIN (for the 100th time) there is NO RECORD of any such reports emanating from Harry in the files of the individuals whom he most often mentions (at least in terms of the files I have seen). 4a. DELMAR DENNIS: Paul, after I read your sentence in this section -- I gave up trying to understand you. Delmar Dennis was one of the Bureau's most significant informants because he held a major position within the most violent Klan in our nation's history (White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi). It was HIS testimony that enabled federal prosecutors to put numerous Klan members in jail and it was HIS testimony that was the basis for re-opening some of our most tragic unsolved civil rights murder cases in later decades. ALL of his documents were originally CLASSIFIED. He "named names" (lots of them). He reported critical information about the ILLEGAL CRIMINAL activities of Samuel Bowers (Imperial Wizard). You can read some of his testimony here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/Dennis.htm 4b IF (and this is a BIG IF) Harry Dean was reporting to the FBI the type of information which you and he CLAIM was reported, it was PRECISELY and EXACTLY the type of information which Dennis ALSO reported with one major caveat: Harry reported on a "plot" which had not been implemented. Dennis reported on actual murders and attempted murders and kidnappings plus other violations of both state and federal law. 4c: "CHICAGO AND LOS ANGELES" -- I hope your comment does not mean that you are now claiming that even when he lived in Chicago, Harry was providing information about JBS members to the Chicago FBI field office? IN CONCLUSION: At some point either Harry will sign a notarized affidavit to permit release (via FOIA request) of all responsive FBI and CIA documents pertaining to him --OR-- he can continue to refuse to do that. THEN, when he passes away (or is 95+ years old), an FOIA request can be made even without such an affidavit. As I have previously stated, MANY people contacted their local FBI office (or sent letters to Hoover) to "report" unsolicited information. OFTEN, local field offices were instructed to contact those persons so that they could give a sworn statement. SOMETIMES, the Bureau re-contacted those people to ask additional questions. HOWEVER, NONE of those people were considered "informants" or "undercover operatives" or in any way associated with, or linked to, the FBI in any capacity. They were treated the same way that anyone with information (or a complaint) was treated when they contacted the FBI. We know that an Assistant Director of the FBI totally rejected claims that Harry was an informant or undercover operative or was asked by the FBI to do anything for the Bureau. We also know (hint hint) that there is additional information supporting that Assistant Director. So -- unless and until Harry provides more compelling and verifiable information -- there is absolutely NO REASON to believe what he currently says -- at least in terms of the Birch Society. Edited November 2, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Paul, I will respond to your points in numerical sequence. 1a. Nobody who reads Harry's recollections here in Education Forum or in your new eBook or in his 1977 interview with the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley newspaper can make sense out of what Harry actually means. In the Introduction of your new eBook, Harry says that he never finished high school so he was only capable of being a "street informant for the FBI -- which I was". According to his 1977 Las Virgenes newspaper interview, "Dean had been assigned by the FBI to infiltrate the John Birch Society" and, in total, he was "an undercover operative for the FBI from 1960 to 1965." In answer to questions posed to him by John Simkin, Harry stated that he was "advising the Bureau as requested" regarding various individuals and groups -- such as on Minutemen activities in southern California, along with Alpha 66 in Los Angeles -- and, when he lived in Chicago (1960)---on the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. <snip> IN CONCLUSION: ...We know that an Assistant Director of the FBI totally rejected claims that Harry was an informant or undercover operative or was asked by the FBI to do anything for the Bureau. We also know (hint hint) that there is additional information supporting that Assistant Director. So -- unless and until Harry provides more compelling and verifiable information -- there is absolutely NO REASON to believe what he currently says -- at least in terms of the Birch Society. Ernie, Your evident animus against Harry Dean shows itself in bias and unkindness as well as jumping to conclusions. Here are some examples of your faulty arguments: 1a. You quoted a third party from 1977, the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley newspaper, and you blame Harry Dean for their inaccuracy. That's entirely unfair. Clearly that newspaper was responding to the publications by W.R. Morris who first printed that Harry Dean was a professional operative for the FBI -- even John Simkin was misled by the W.R. Morris in his Spartacus site until just this year. Sensationalism sells newspapers -- but Harry Dean can't be blamed for the excesses of W.R. Morris or newspaper writers who get it all wrong. Harry's answer to John Simkin is correct as it stands. He stands by it and I find no contradiction in his statement, nor any valid reason to disbelieve him. 1b. You have tried to define Harry's relationship with the FBI entirely on your own research -- yet you have not completed your own project of collecting all available FBI documents available on Harry. You have tried through the FOIA to obtain these documents for A LONG TIME and have seen virtually nothing, causing you to draw conclusions about Harry which you must now defend, evidently. Yet this year you have seen more information about Harry Dean from the FBI, and this should and must become a part of this public discussion about Harry Dean. I give Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt, and you don't. It's as simple as that. I'm also waiting to see all the FBI information about Harry Dean as well as Lee Harvey Oswald. It seems self-evident to me that Harry Dean could easily be classified by the FBI as an "established source" or "confidential source". But let the FBI tell us -- let's not jump to conclusions. 1d. You seem to continually claim that "Harry's contention about his status" is the same as the claim by W.R. Morris and the "La Virgenes" newspaper story. That would be an error on your part, not Harry's. 2a. Also, you seem to presume that Harry's life was stable enough for the past 50 years that he kept copies and files of all paperwork he ever saw in his life (like the FBI). You make no allowance for the fact that many people cannot afford to keep fifty years worth of records around, or that people might get robbed or otherwise lose their belongings in a crisis. You presume a middle-class life for everybody, and I think this limits your reasoning in such matters. Regarding the paperwork that the FBI may or may not possess, I want to see it as earnestly as you do -- yet it is not the responsibility of Harry Dean to produce these papers -- Harry has done his job in claiming that they exist. And just because you haven't seen those papers yet cannot be taken as proof that they don't exist. 2b. Even if, arguendo, Harry Dean was an OFFICIAL INFORMANT, this is no guarantee that Ernie Lazar can walk up to the FBI offices and demand to see all the files on Harry Dean. Some information that was formerly classified is now available, but SOME IS STILL CLASSIFIED. Specifically, files related to the JFK assassination are still classified to this day, even after 50 years! You say that my argument about FBI classification is "absurd" yet you have been struggling for years to find information about Harry Dean and could not -- until only recently. Am I right? Your charge that I am a "shill" for Harry Dean is not only untrue, it is unkind. I honestly believe that Harry Dean is telling the truth. I know he's reading these exchanges on his thread, and I also know that he doesn't have the energy to respond to your incessant attacks on his credibility. So, out of kindness I speak up on his behalf. To call me a "shill" for my demand for logic and good manners is only evidence that my position is sound. Just because you are a self-made expert in the history of the procedures of the FBI, Ernie, does not allow you to jump to conclusions based on paperwork you've not seen yet. You should be more cautious in your conclusions until all the facts are in. They are not all in yet. 3a. You misunderstood me to say that Harry was part of a formal investigation on the JBS. I said exactly the opposite. 3b: You admit that "Hoover knew that no FBI employees were JBS members." This was no accident. Your blind spots with regard to the JBS are telling. 3c: You claim that there is NO RECORD of any such reports of Harry Dean reporting on specific individuals -- and yet you should also admit that you have not seen all the FBI records that are classified. This is the heart of my argument, Ernie, and cannot be dismissed. You don't have all the empirical data in your files, yet you are willing to make a conclusion? That's not right. 4a. Regarding Delmar Dennis, my simple point was that he was involved in KKK investigations, and although his files were originally classified, they are no longer classified -- HOWEVER, files relating to the JFK assassination are still classified and not available for you or any private citizen to view. It simply doesn't matter how many examples of formally classified FBI files you can now show us, Ernie -- if you can't produce all of the JFK assassination files that the FBI continues to keep top secret, then you should be more cautious about making conclusions. That's my simple point. 4c: As for Chicago, my comment meant that when he lived in Chicago, Harry was providing information about the FPCC to the Chicago FBI field office. I thought that was clear, but I'm happy to clarify that. IN CONCLUSION: If (and only if) the FBI has classified top secret documents naming Harry Dean with regard to the JFK assassination, then even an affidavit by Harry Dean himself would never release those files to the public. I personally expect all US government files about the JFK assassination to be released on the stated date that Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren established with the Warren Commission -- 75 years after the crime, i.e. the year 2038. Until then, opinions will run rampant, but CIVIL discourse should still be our modus operandi. We need to keep building on the available data from the FBI. An Assistant Director of the FBI totally rejected claims that Harry was an informant or was asked by the FBI to do anything for the Bureau. If there was information supporting that, it should be made public, and if there was information contradicting that, it should ALSO be made public. Harry has done his part -- he has told his story. What he says about the INDIVIDUAL members of the John Birch Society is plausible by my reading of John Birch Society materials -- enough to know that they inject POISON into the political arteries of the USA by spreading lies that US Presidents and other American heroes were Communists and Marxists. In my honest opinion, this JBS drum-beat was a major cause of the assassination of JFK (and MLK). Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 2, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Paul, I will respond to your points in numerical sequence. 1a. Nobody who reads Harry's recollections here in Education Forum or in your new eBook or in his 1977 interview with the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley newspaper can make sense out of what Harry actually means. In the Introduction of your new eBook, Harry says that he never finished high school so he was only capable of being a "street informant for the FBI -- which I was". According to his 1977 Las Virgenes newspaper interview, "Dean had been assigned by the FBI to infiltrate the John Birch Society" and, in total, he was "an undercover operative for the FBI from 1960 to 1965." In answer to questions posed to him by John Simkin, Harry stated that he was "advising the Bureau as requested" regarding various individuals and groups -- such as on Minutemen activities in southern California, along with Alpha 66 in Los Angeles -- and, when he lived in Chicago (1960)---on the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. <snip> IN CONCLUSION: ...We know that an Assistant Director of the FBI totally rejected claims that Harry was an informant or undercover operative or was asked by the FBI to do anything for the Bureau. We also know (hint hint) that there is additional information supporting that Assistant Director. So -- unless and until Harry provides more compelling and verifiable information -- there is absolutely NO REASON to believe what he currently says -- at least in terms of the Birch Society. Ernie, Your evident animus against Harry Dean shows itself in bias and unkindness as well as jumping to conclusions. Here are some examples of your faulty arguments: 1a. You quoted a third party from 1977, the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley newspaper, and you blame Harry Dean for their inaccuracy. That's entirely unfair. Clearly that newspaper was responding to the publications by W.R. Morris who first printed that Harry Dean was a professional operative for the FBI -- even John Simkin was misled by the W.R. Morris in his Spartacus site until just this year. Sensationalism sells newspapers -- but Harry Dean can't be blamed for the excesses of W.R. Morris or newspaper writers who get it all wrong. Harry's answer to John Simkin is correct as it stands. He stands by it and I find no contradiction in his statement, nor any valid reason to disbelieve him. 1b. You have tried to define Harry's relationship with the FBI entirely on your own research -- yet you have not completed your own project of collecting all available FBI documents available on Harry. You have tried through the FOIA to obtain these documents for A LONG TIME and have seen virtually nothing, causing you to draw conclusions about Harry which you must now defend, evidently. Yet this year you have seen more information about Harry Dean from the FBI, and this should and must become a part of this public discussion about Harry Dean. I give Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt, and you don't. It's as simple as that. I'm also waiting to see all the FBI information about Harry Dean as well as Lee Harvey Oswald. It seems self-evident to me that Harry Dean could easily be classified by the FBI as an "established source" or "confidential source". But let the FBI tell us -- let's not jump to conclusions. 1d. You seem to continually claim that "Harry's contention about his status" is the same as the claim by W.R. Morris and the "La Virgenes" newspaper story. That would be an error on your part, not Harry's. 2a. Also, you seem to presume that Harry's life was stable enough for the past 50 years that he kept copies and files of all paperwork he ever saw in his life (like the FBI). You make no allowance for the fact that many people cannot afford to keep fifty years worth of records around, or that people might get robbed or otherwise lose their belongings in a crisis. You presume a middle-class life for everybody, and I think this limits your reasoning in such matters. Regarding the paperwork that the FBI may or may not possess, I want to see it as earnestly as you do -- yet it is not the responsibility of Harry Dean to produce these papers -- Harry has done his job in claiming that they exist. And just because you haven't seen those papers yet cannot be taken as proof that they don't exist. 2b. Even if, arguendo, Harry Dean was an OFFICIAL INFORMANT, this is no guarantee that Ernie Lazar can walk up to the FBI offices and demand to see all the files on Harry Dean. Some information that was formerly classified is now available, but SOME IS STILL CLASSIFIED. Specifically, files related to the JFK assassination are still classified to this day, even after 50 years! You say that my argument about FBI classification is "absurd" yet you have been struggling for years to find information about Harry Dean and could not -- until only recently. Am I right? Your charge that I am a "shill" for Harry Dean is not only untrue, it is unkind. I honestly believe that Harry Dean is telling the truth. I know he's reading these exchanges on his thread, and I also know that he doesn't have the energy to respond to your incessant attacks on his credibility. So, out of kindness I speak up on his behalf. To call me a "shill" for my demand for logic and good manners is only evidence that my position is sound. Just because you are a self-made expert in the history of the procedures of the FBI, Ernie, does not allow you to jump to conclusions based on paperwork you've not seen yet. You should be more cautious in your conclusions until all the facts are in. They are not all in yet. 3a. You misunderstood me to say that Harry was part of a formal investigation on the JBS. I said exactly the opposite. 3b: You admit that "Hoover knew that no FBI employees were JBS members." This was no accident. Your blind spots with regard to the JBS are telling. 3c: You claim that there is NO RECORD of any such reports of Harry Dean reporting on specific individuals -- and yet you should also admit that you have not seen all the FBI records that are classified. This is the heart of my argument, Ernie, and cannot be dismissed. You don't have all the empirical data in your files, yet you are willing to make a conclusion? That's not right. 4a. Regarding Delmar Dennis, my simple point was that he was involved in KKK investigations, and although his files were originally classified, they are no longer classified -- HOWEVER, files relating to the JFK assassination are still classified and not available for you or any private citizen to view. It simply doesn't matter how many examples of formally classified FBI files you can now show us, Ernie -- if you can't produce all of the JFK assassination files that the FBI continues to keep top secret, then you should be more cautious about making conclusions. That's my simple point. 4c: As for Chicago, my comment meant that when he lived in Chicago, Harry was providing information about the FPCC to the Chicago FBI field office. I thought that was clear, but I'm happy to clarify that. IN CONCLUSION: If (and only if) the FBI has classified top secret documents naming Harry Dean with regard to the JFK assassination, then even an affidavit by Harry Dean himself would never release those files to the public. I personally expect all US government files about the JFK assassination to be released on the stated date that Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren established with the Warren Commission -- 75 years after the crime, i.e. the year 2038. Until then, opinions will run rampant, but CIVIL discourse should still be our modus operandi. We need to keep building on the available data from the FBI. An Assistant Director of the FBI totally rejected claims that Harry was an informant or was asked by the FBI to do anything for the Bureau. If there was information supporting that, it should be made public, and if there was information contradicting that, it should ALSO be made public. Harry has done his part -- he has told his story. What he says about the INDIVIDUAL members of the John Birch Society is plausible by my reading of John Birch Society materials -- enough to know that they inject POISON into the political arteries of the USA by spreading lies that US Presidents and other American heroes were Communists and Marxists. In my honest opinion, this JBS drum-beat was a major cause of the assassination of JFK (and MLK). Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul: I'll reply in numerical sequence to your comments. 1a. There are only so many times a rational person is willing to accept your contention that a third party misunderstood or misrepresented Harry. Do you have any reasonable explanation for why Harry's story is so often misunderstood and the subsequent reports contain "inaccuracies"? Most normal people probably would think that Harry would have the capacity to use declarative sentences which a professional newspaper reporter could understand properly. UNLESS and UNTIL you establish with veritifable fact-based evidence that the newspaper even knew about W.R. Morris much less used HIM as their source --your argument is entirely disingenuous. Professional journalists salivate at finding NEW and previously unreported information. They do not just parrot what some other source has written or said. Otherwise, why bother interviewing Harry? Lastly, there is no "bias" on my part. There is just normal respect for logic and evidence. 1b There are no relevant "FBI documents" on Harry to research --- UNLESS he signs a notarized affidavit which would permit release of the 3 files which have been identified. All we know right now (for certain) is (1) the FBI denies any relationship with Harry -- although they have always candidly acknowledged their relationships with other people who publicly revealed their connections to the FBI and (2) the various files on the JBS which should have documents that refer to Harry's "reports" DO NOT CONTAIN any such reports or memos which discuss anybody who fits Harry's description. The absence of information is not "proof". Until that changes, nobody should believe Harry. 1d Wrong yet again. I am relying upon Harry's own words here in EF and in your eBook. I brought up the Las Virgenes newspaper only because they interviewed Harry in 1977 and they reported what he said to them. I have never read anything by Morris and I don't plan to do so. So stop fabricating defenses and, instead, start focusing upon HARRY"S OWN WORDS. Incidentally, as I mentioned to you in a private email, Harry's recollection of his conversations with Los Angeles Special Agent Grapp is another reason Harry is not a credible source. 2a I don't expect Harry to have ANY "paperwork" - so I don't know what you mean. I did ask you one time if, for example, he ever had received anything like a Christmas card or get well note or something from one of his alleged FBI contacts (Walker or Simon or Grapp) -- simply because it was not uncommon for FBI Agents to develop human relationships with long-term informants. But I guess you are saying that Harry has no such documents? Ok fine. And no notes or journals or diaries? Ok fine. I have asked you repeatedly if Harry was given a symbol number or code name? I have asked you if Harry's "reports" were oral or written. I've asked you if Harry was assigned a P.O. Box by the FBI to send his reports to? I've asked you if Harry could report the names of his JBS chapter (their 4-character code), the name of his JBS chapter leader, the name of his JBS section leader, the name of his JBS Coordinator. [i also told you that a JBS Coordinator in southern California who operated at the time Harry claims to have been a member does not recall any "Harry Dean" as a JBS member. so I asked you if Harry might have joined the JBS under an alias? All of these questions were meant to help me (or any other serious researcher) determine if there might be corroboration somewhere regarding Harry's story. None of this sounds like "bias" to me Paul....Sounds like someone who is seriously attempting to find corroboration of what Harry claims. Sorry you do not understand that. FBI documents: You are entirely mistaken. It IS incumbent upon Harry to provide a notarized affidavit permitting researchers to get access to any responsive FBI documents. IN FACT: Why hasn't Harry done it himself? Edwin Walker filed an FOIA request on himself. Why hasn't Harry submitted an FOIA request on himself? As part of his own request he could ask for copies of all "search slips" used by the FBI --and- he could ask the FBI to identify all file numbers (HQ and field office) which pertain to Harry. Doesn't it strike you as particularly odd that Harry has never made such a request during the past 30 years???? Particularly when you consider how much controversy there has been over his assertions? What is he trying to hide? 2b THIS IS WHERE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT COLLAPSES IN ABSURDITY. Anybody can make an FOIA request to the FBI (or CIA) for responsive documents. EVEN IF there are "classified files" -- it means nothing Paul. Will you please stop fabricating bullxxxx about FOIA procedures?? Here is the WORST thing that could happen: (1) You send an FOIA request on Harry to the FBI (with his notarized affidavit). You specify in your letter the individuals and organizations which Harry claims he provided info on to the FBI. You provide birth/death info on any person (under 95yo) who might be mentioned in responsive documents. (2) The FBI will assign your request an FOIA request number. Within approximately 30-90 days, you MIGHT receive a letter from the FBI stating that they located responsive files or documents BUT they are DENYING release of ALL of them for "national security" purposes (or some other reason- which they will specify). (3) You can then appeal the FBI denial. THEN, you can also request a listing of the subject matters on each withheld document. [There is an official term for this type of list but I am having a brain freeze at the moment]. (4) You can also involve a news media organization in your request (if it does not produce documents) -- because they might be willing to commence litigation. [A friend of mine who was a former investigative reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle successfully sued the FBI several times to get documents released on a person whom he suspected (correctly) of being an FBI informant as a result of a cryptic comment he discovered on a heavily redacted FBI memo.] Lastly -- MORE OFTEN THAN NOT -- the FBI does release documents in its files -- although it can use FOIA exemptions to severely redact what is released. However, since Harry claims that he provided general information on JBS members he was acquainted with BEFORE the JFK assassination, it does not seem likely that ALL those documents would be withheld. More FOIA info here: http://www.foiadvocates.com/intro.html (5) Incidentally, part of your FOIA request could also stipulate that you want all "public source" documents about Harry which the FBI has in its files. That could provide us with even more clues with respect to files that might contain documents about Harry -- or, at a minimum, it would indicate the extent to which the FBI was monitoring what Harry was doing/saying -- that was being reported in newspapers or other public sources (radio/TV interviews, any court testimony? legislative hearings? etc.) And we already know that FBI files and documents on people like John Rousselot, Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Robert Welch, Guy Banister, and scores of FBI informants and "confidential sources" HAVE already been released -- INCLUDING, (importantly) files on people who provided the EXACT SAME TYPE of information which YOU claim might be "classified" because it pertains to the assassination of JFK (such as Willie Somersett and Joseph Milteer documents) and of course, many tens of thousands of pages have been released on the Minutemen and on John Birch Society (HQ and field) -- and I have posted many of those files online. On a personal note: I am not "an expert" on FBI procedures. ANYBODY can make an FOIA request. ANYBODY can review the major FOIA litigation over the past 30+ years. ANYBODY can see the FBI Manual of Instructions which contains FBI protocols for dealing with its informants and information sources. ANYBODY can send a message to the FBI Historian to ask a question. ANYBODY can use the voluminous resources online to understand FBI and FOIA policies and procedures. More info here: http://www.foiadvocates.com/intro.html 3b I have no clue what you mean. Hoover did not personally investigate anybody. He relied upon what his subordinates told him. If you review ANY major FBI file (even on very famous people), you will constantly see Hoover's handwritten inquiries such as "What do we have on...?. (enter name or subject here) -- because he often had no idea what info was in FBI files. Obviously, ALL FBI job applicants (clerical, technical, and Special Agents) were subject to a background investigation. I have posted online DOZENS of the personnel files of FBI employees (including Assistant Directors). You can see all the paperwork they were required to fill out and then periodically renew -- particularly with respect to what organizations they belonged to. The FBI did not want to employ anybody who might embarrass the Bureau or call into question its professionalism. Membership in a political extremist organization which described a sitting President as a Communist traitor and which described the Chief Justice of the United States and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the CIA Director as Communist dupes or "agents" -- is obviously NOT somebody who would have ANY prospect for employment with the FBI (or any other intelligence agency). That type of person would NEVER get past their initial paperwork review much less get to sit for an interview -- anymore than a KKK member would. So what is your point? 3c Paul -- you are using a circular argument. Suppose you and I were to sit down and prepare a list of every person, every organization, every publication, and every event which Harry was involved with or had knowledge about during his alleged multi-year cooperation with the FBI. Suppose that our final list consisted of 60 names. Suppose we make FOIA requests on 45 of those names and we get their FBI files but there is NOTHING in any of those 45 files (assuming they all have an FBI file) which can be attributed to Harry or that even mentions that the FBI had any "source" who provided information to them about those names. YOUR argument would be, "Well, Ernie, you have not seen ALL 60 of the files". True enough......MY counter-argument would be: IF Harry was providing information to the FBI over a period of YEARS on these names -- then how would it be possible that there is NOTHING in 45 files to even HINT at Harry's involvement with the FBI? NOW: This is where ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with FBI files and FOIA requests comes into play. In one of my private emails to you, I brought your attention to a specific FBI memo which was filed into TWENTY-SEVEN (27) different FBI files (HQ and field office). There are even more dramatic examples when you get into documents filed as "cross-references" (example: let's say there was a HQ main file on Paul Trejo, THEN suppose you lived in 4 different cities over a period of 10 years so that means 4 main files about you in those field offices and THEN assume you belonged to 5 organizations monitored by the FBI. THEN suppose you were involved with 30 or 40 different people whom were of interest to the Bureau. Thus, potentially, copies of memos about you might be put into SCORES of different FBI files. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? (1) Because Harry claims he provided information to the FBI for at least 5 years (2) Because Harry claims he provided information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) on numerous individuals (3) Because Harry claims he provided information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) on numerous organizations (4) Because Harry claims he worked with at least 3 FBI Special Agents (Simon, Walker, Grapp) -- and perhaps even more? So---obviously, there SHOULD BE NUMEROUS documents pertaining to Harry or which mention Harry (both HQ and field office). Nevertheless, despite the many thousands of pages of FBI files which have been released pertaining to the subjects which Harry claims to have provided information on (let's just focus upon the JBS for now) -- there is NOTHING which refers to or mentions Harry. All we have found are FBI memos or letters which emphatically state that the FBI had no relationship with Harry. If that ever changes, I will be the first person to acknowledge the change. Until then -- common sense dictates that we draw the appropriate conclusion. 4a. YES, some JFK assassination documents are classified. But, nevertheless, that has not prevented me or anybody else from obtaining MANY files and documents on individuals whom you folks think were connected to the assassination or on persons whom the FBI investigated or interviewed re: their knowledge of events preceding or after the assassination. I (and others) have obtained the files on Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, John Rousselot, Willie Somersett, Joseph Milteer, Revilo Oliver, Robert Welch, Loran Hall, etc. I have not personally requested EVERY file -- but I know the FBI file numbers on people like Eladio del Valle, David Ferrie, etc. If all JFK-related information is still "CLASSIFIED", then why did the FBI release these files -- even though they contain references to the JFK assassination? "TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS" Once again, you are wrong Paul. The FBI would STILL acknowledge their existence -- but just deny access to them (and provide the specific FOIA exemption they are using for denying them). EVEN THAT would provide a clue to what was being withheld and why. BUT even then, it is possible that a requester could obtain the list which I mentioned above which reports the general subject matters of the documents being withheld. I don't mean "JFK assassination" as the description. I mean a specific list which identifies the subject matter being discussed in the specific serials being withheld. [i wish I could remember the official term -- so I could give you examples of how that list is compiled. If I remember it later, I will send it to you). However, regardless of what might be withheld, one still has to wonder why Harry has never filed an FOIA request on himself? Instead of SPECULATING about what would be released (or not released), you would then KNOW what would be released (or withheld). ADDENDUM---I just remembered the term -- It is a "Vaughn Index". Check out the court case citation shown below Normally, this is done after administrative appeals have been exhausted, so a lawyer submits the request for the itemized Vaughn Index---as shown below: "Because my clients do not agree that the requested materials are exempt from disclosure, they ask that the Chief reverse the denial of their FOIA request and waive all associated fees. They further request that if any portions of the requested documents are withheld, the Chief should describe the deleted material in detail and specify the statutory basis for the denial as well as your reasons for believing that the alleged statutory justification applies in this instance. Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). Additionally, they ask that those portions of the documents which may indeed be properly exempted from disclosure by exemption 5, should be released pursuant to the Chief's powers of discretionary release under 36 C.F.R. § 200.11(, and 7 C.F.R. § 1.17(." Also see: https://ogis.archives.gov/Page54.aspx?SourceId=1&ArticleId=214 Edited November 2, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 At the risk of butting in to a two-way discourse, let's say that Mr. lazar's suggestion that Harry Dean file some FOIA requests is a good one. Paul T - as you know I read the book. Do you think Dean might have been mistaken about the identities of those to whom he was sharing information? What documented corroboration does Dean have for his stories? Lazar - you are quite the expert on JBS and other organizations. We know what Trejo thinks happened on Nov 22, 1963. What is your theory on the assassination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 At the risk of butting in to a two-way discourse, let's say that Mr. lazar's suggestion that Harry Dean file some FOIA requests is a good one. Paul T - as you know I read the book. Do you think Dean might have been mistaken about the identities of those to whom he was sharing information? What documented corroboration does Dean have for his stories? Lazar - you are quite the expert on JBS and other organizations. We know what Trejo thinks happened on Nov 22, 1963. What is your theory on the assassination? Frankly, I have no theory on the assassination,. As I am sure you already know, there are at least thirteen (13) different (and often mutually exclusive) JFK assassination theories. Obviously, they cannot all be true which means that most of them are false -- but have you EVER confronted ANY author or adherent of ANY of those theories who EVER admits grave errors of evidence or logic in their favored theory? That tells you everything you need to know about the "theories". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Paul: One of the reasons we seem to go round and round in our debate without resolving much of anything is because of your constant repetition of the phrase "classified documents" as sort of an all-purpose boogeyman rationale for not having any specific documentation to support your (or Dean's) assertions. I could write several more thousands of words to explain, in nauseating detail, why your "classified" documents arguments are totally bogus -- but just as a quick summary for those interested in our debate: 1, When the FOIA was enacted in 1966, ALL FBI records were totally exempt. 2. Then, in 1974, Congress passed new law which included the FBI under the provisions of the FOIA. 3. The U.S. Government used 3 "classifications" for sensitive material. From lowest to highest they were: Confidential, then Secret, then Top Secret. 4. For a long period of time, FOIA requests that involved documents containing those 3 classifications were delayed because the entire file had to undergo a "Classification Review" so that legitimately sensitive info would not be released. 5. However, during the past 10 years, (under Presidents Bush and Obama) there was a growing consensus that the U.S. Government wrongly "classified" way-too-many documents -- and, consequently, there was a need for greater public access to such material in the interest of transparency of government activities. 6. In January 2010, President Obama issued Executive Order 13526 which superseded comparable previous EO's. That EO made MANDATORY de-classification required for documents 25 years or older -- with some narrow exceptions. 7. FOIA requesters were allowed to invoke the "Mandatory Declassification Review" [MDR] rule (i.e. they could instruct an agency to perform a MDR if a file was not already subject to automatic declassification) and that process included an appeal provision if a requester was not satisfied with the result. BOTTOM-LINE 1. Most FBI files 25 or more years old (even those originally classified) are now subject to MANDATORY de-classification rules. 2. There is a specific "FBI Declassification Guide" used by the FBI which describes the types of FBI files which now automatically are de-classified. There are Appendices in the Guide which list the FBI file prefix numbers which are now automatically de-classified. See: http://www.governmentattic.org/2docs/FBI-Declass-Manual_2007.pdf 3. Significantly, the type of files which contain documents on individuals and organizations which Harry claims he informed the FBI about (such as John Birch Society and Minutemen) are listed on the automatic declassification list. 4. Now here is the most important part: EVEN THOSE FBI FILE PREFIXES WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC DECLASSIFICATION -- NEVERTHELESS STILL GO THROUGH A DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW PROCESS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF THE DOCUMENTS IN THEM CAN BE DE-CLASSIFIED AND RELEASED---even though there may be redactions subject to normal FOIA exemptions. The FBI file prefix number which would be of greatest interest to you (and the readers of our debate) in this regard would be FBI HQ or FBI field office files that begin with 157. This particular file series is the single most common prefix for all FBI files pertaining to individuals and organizations either involved in planning, financing, or participating in illegal activities -- particularly violent activities OR people/orgs which the FBI thought might provide useful intelligence regarding suspect persons/orgs in their communities. Ultimately, this file prefix was used for files on (for example), the officers and members of groups like: American Nazi Party (later known as National Socialist White People's Party) Black Panthers Weathermen National States Rights Party (JB Stoner, Ed Fields) Minutemen (Robert DePugh) various Klan units and Citizens Council groups (especially those which were Klan-fronts) National Renaissance Party (the first major postwar neo-fascist organization in the U.S.) ----and HUNDREDS of individuals and organizations categorized by the FBI as "hate" groups. The 157-prefix was also used for the FBI's "COINTELPRO--White Hate Groups" file Many Edwin Walker files are 157-prefix files EVEN THOUGH all these 157-series files were NOT subject to "automatic" de-classification -- they were ultimately de-classified after undergoing their MDR. More significantly, I (and many other requesters) have obtained these 157-series files. AND if the requester provided appropriate birth/death information about deceased parties who might be mentioned in those released documents, their release would contain virtually no redactions. WHICH MEANS -- any FOIA requester has access to these files despite the fact that documents in them may have originally been classified as "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret" -- which is why, for example, I (and many others) have now obtained files and documents pertaining to our nation's two most important moles inside the Communist Party (Morris and Jack Childs) --- despite the fact that virtually everything they ever did was classified "secret" and "top secret". This also explains why I have obtained numerous CPUSA files (HQ and field office) which also were "classified": because they contained extremely sensitive information about (for example) our electronic surveillance of CPUSA HQ in New York City and the persons who worked in that building (janitorial service) who provided information to the FBI. This is also why I have obtained secret documents concerning the number of live informants we had insidethe CPUSA and documents which reveal, on a quarterly basis, the finances and membership numbers of the Party and including details regarding what funds were smuggled into the US by a Canadian CP official (Tim Buck). ALL OF THIS WAS "SECRET" and "TOP SECRET" information. So, let's end this nonsense about "classified" documents not being obtainable --- particularly those which were created PRIOR to the JFK assassination. Edited November 2, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Before I ever knew him I had a thick file on Harry Dean of documents that were released under the JFK Act. I haven't looked at it in years, but the US government records on Harry Dean are extensive, and detail his role with FPCC in Chicago, his trip(s) to Cuba and his cooperation with various domestic intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, and the use of him as a informant and agent provocateur. Besides recognizing Oswald as someone who was used - like himself - as an operative - in the same way Robert Hardy was being used in Camden to infiltrate the Camden 28, Harry Dean personally knew Hall and Howard and others who became entwined in the Dealey Plaza operation, so he is a valuable informant, especially to those who are interested in these affairs. Since I have known Harry, I have found him to be an opinionated, but valuable source on the activities of the FPCC, JBS and other groups who were active in the Sixties and became entwined in the assassination events. Of course if the information he knows was of no consequence he would be ignored, but it is important, so his credibility is attacked, but that's okay, everyone can make up their own minds as whether to believe Harry Dean or not. I believe him. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 (edited) Before I ever knew him I had a thick file on Harry Dean of documents that were released under the JFK Act. I haven't looked at it in years, but the US government records on Harry Dean are extensive, and detail his role with FPCC in Chicago, his trip(s) to Cuba and his cooperation with various domestic intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, and the use of him as a informant and agent provocateur. Besides recognizing Oswald as someone who was used - like himself - as an operative - in the same way Robert Hardy was being used in Camden to infiltrate the Camden 28, Harry Dean personally knew Hall and Howard and others who became entwined in the Dealey Plaza operation, so he is a valuable informant, especially to those who are interested in these affairs. Since I have known Harry, I have found him to be an opinionated, but valuable source on the activities of the FPCC, JBS and other groups who were active in the Sixties and became entwined in the assassination events. Of course if the information he knows was of no consequence he would be ignored, but it is important, so his credibility is attacked, but that's okay, everyone can make up their own minds as whether to believe Harry Dean or not. I believe him. Bill Kelly You have created another flawless circular argument. If somebody "attacks" Harry's credibility by asking normal probing questions to arrive at truth, then (in your scheme of things) that becomes "proof" of his accuracy because, in your circular argument, if Harry's "information" was "of no consequence, he would be ignored". Imagine how convenient your "logic" is. ANYBODY who says ANYTHING -- no matter how absurd, irrational, stupid, false, or grossly exaggerated gets to use your intellectual escape hatch, i.e. "Well, see! They are attacking me instead of ignoring me -- so, ipso facto, that PROVES I am providing accurate and truthful information." If THAT is YOUR standard for indisputable logic and compelling evidence --- then the problem is NOT any deficiencies in Harry Dean's recollections. The problem is your intellect! NOBODY gets a "free pass". ALL assertions are subject to normal rules of logic and evidence -- including the need for corroboration with verifiable factual evidence (not speculation, not opinion, not anecdotes, not rumor, not gossip, not hearsay). There are MANY statements made by Harry Dean which are factually false. According to Paul Trejo, Harry finally acknowledged that he (Harry) falsely accused the LDS Church, Harry also has falsely asserted that people like Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, and Robert Morris were JBS members. They were not. He also says Ezra Taft Benson was a JBS member. There is nothing on the public record to support that assertion -- although he (and Smoot and Skousen) certainly did endorse the JBS. Harry refers to FBI Special Agent Wesley Grapp as the Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI field office in October 1963. In reality, Grapp was not SAC until March 1964. In the new eBook, Harry uses quotation marks around comments he attributes to Grapp which no serious student of FBI history or FBI procedures could possibly believe, One of the more interesting aspects of conspiracy theories concerns how often extremely pejorative (and even libelous) comments are made about people -- AFTER the principals are dead and cannot defend themselves or answer important questions about their history, their behavior and their motives. Well, Harry is still alive....so one has to wonder WHY he has never submitted an FOIA request on himself during the past 30 years? So many questions or concerns could be answered if he had ether submitted his own request and released the pertinent documents OR if Harry had signed a notarized affidavit to permit someone he trusts (like Paul Trejo) to make that request to the FBI and CIA. In fact, it is ASTONISHING that Harry and Paul agreed to co-author an eBook which, yet again, discusses all these subjects but, apparently, neither one of them said something like: "Gee---this would be a great time to obtain all the FBI and CIA documents about Harry so that our forthcoming eBook can provide new insights available for the FIRST time -- based upon material that has never been previously available to anybody." As this is written, there are authors who are waiting patiently for their FOIA requests to be processed so that they can include data that is contained in first-time released FBI documents in their doctoral dissertations and subsequent books. How do I know that? Because many of those folks have contacted me to ask questions about their subject matter and/or about the FOIA process. It is absolutely mind-blowing to me that Harry and Paul did not submit an FOIA request to the FBI and CIA before beginning work on their eBook. Perhaps you have an explanation?? Edited November 3, 2013 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Mr. Lazar says there are no supporting documents regarding Dean and the FBI. Mr. Kelly thinks he has many docs on Dean including FBI. At least that's my reading of these posts. Can we resolve this? Lazar - your point on mutually exclusive theories is well taken, and while I accept you have none of your own, you must have opinions. You are after all on this forum and interested in the subject. Do you have an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Oswald re shooting JFK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Mr. Lazar says there are no supporting documents regarding Dean and the FBI. Mr. Kelly thinks he has many docs on Dean including FBI. At least that's my reading of these posts. Can we resolve this? Lazar - your point on mutually exclusive theories is well taken, and while I accept you have none of your own, you must have opinions. You are after all on this forum and interested in the subject. Do you have an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Oswald re shooting JFK? Paul -- let me clarify this so there is no misunderstanding. There ARE FBI documents which discuss Harry Dean -- but only in the context of denying that he had any relationship with the FBI. In fact, I posted one of those documents online https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dean --- it appears in the FBI-Los Angeles field file on the Birch Society. (Los Angeles 100-59001). The document is a copy of the 4/1/77 letter which FBI Assistant Director Robert Gebhardt sent to the publisher (James Kim Coffin) of a Los Angeles area newspaper regarding an article published in that newspaper which reported their interview of Harry Dean. When I write that there are no FBI documents on Dean -- I am referring to FBI memos and reports during the period when Harry claims he was an FBI informant in Los Angeles and he was supposedly regularly providing the FBI in Los Angeles with information about individual JBS members such as John Rousselot and Guy Galbadon. For example, see the new eBook where Harry claims that: (1) In September 1963, FBI Special Agent Wesley G. Grapp dropped by Harry's house in Rowland Heights CA and (quoting Harry), "I told him all about the Rousselot-Walker plan. I outlined the role of the Birchers, Robert Welch, and Guy Galbadon and everyone." (2) In January 1964 "...the FBI finally called me to recount what I'd seen in Southern California in 1963. FBI Agent Wesley Grapp drove out ot my place and invited me into his car. He had reviewed his notes from last September and he recounted my story as well as he could....So Grapp and I drove around to cover the locations that I'd spoken about...We visited the JBS meeting places in El Monte, Pasadena, Monterey Park, and so on, and Minutemen gathering places in Temecula and so on...We drove for hours and we stopped only a few times for coffee and so that Grapp could jot down a few notes." HOWEVER...... _A_ There are NO documents of any kind in the JBS-Los Angeles field file to support Harry's recollections -- nor documents that refer to anybody who matches Harry's description. _B_ There are also no documents in John Rousselot's file that mention any reports by Harry. _C_ There are no documents in Robert Welch's file that mention any reports by Harry. _D_ There are no documents in the FBI HQ main file on the Birch Society which mention any reports by Harry. _E_ There are no documents in the FBI files I have obtained on Edwin Walker which mention any reports by Harry. _F_ In the near future, I should receive Wesley Grapp's FBI file -- and I will be able to see if there are any references in his file to his alleged meetings with Harry. Normally, something as important as a plot to murder our President would be mentioned in the personnel files of the people who worked on such a matter. I also submitted a request on Guy Galbadon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Paul: One of the reasons we seem to go round and round in our debate without resolving much of anything is because of your constant repetition of the phrase "classified documents" as sort of an all-purpose boogeyman rationale for not having any specific documentation to support your (or Dean's) assertions. ... So, let's end this nonsense about "classified" documents not being obtainable --- particularly those which were created PRIOR to the JFK assassination. Ernie, I disagree entirely. You suggest that in effect there are no FBI documents from 50 years ago that remain "classified". I simply don't accept that to be true. I maintain -- with reason and not with emotion -- that the FBI continues to withhold documents about the JFK assassination, specifically about Lee Harvey Oswald. Further, it is precisely because a document refers to an important event prior to the JFK assassination that would make it a candidate to be classified. That should be clear. Nothing you have said in your long messages has demonstrated otherwise -- yet you keep repeating yourself. If you don't accept that the FBI classification of JFK assassination materials is a viable argument, then there's nothing I can say to help you. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) At the risk of butting in to a two-way discourse, let's say that Mr. lazar's suggestion that Harry Dean file some FOIA requests is a good one. Paul T - as you know I read the book. Do you think Dean might have been mistaken about the identities of those to whom he was sharing information? What documented corroboration does Dean have for his stories? Lazar - you are quite the expert on JBS and other organizations. We know what Trejo thinks happened on Nov 22, 1963. What is your theory on the assassination? Paul B., I don't think Harry Dean was mistaken about the identities of those in the FBI about whom he shared information. I continue to believe that the FBI refuses to share its records of such exchanges with the public because of its relation to the JFK assassination. Therefore, I continue to believe that even an FOIA request by Harry Dean himself would make absolutely no difference to the FBI policy of withholding JFK assassination materials. The entire key to solving the JFK assassination mysteries is involved in the FBI (and CIA) classified records on the JFK assassination. Until those records are made public (in the year 2038) it is impossible for any JFK assassination theorist to be certain of his or her results. After those Government records are made public, then everybody will know which theories were correct and which weren't. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my theory might turn out to be wrong -- however, judging by the alternate theories that I've seen out there in the past 20 years or so, I'll stand by my theory and also by Harry Dean's confessions. That's why I advised Harry to name his confessions, "I Might Have Killed JFK." He has no proof -- only the US government has the proof -- and everybody knows it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Mr. Lazar says there are no supporting documents regarding Dean and the FBI. Mr. Kelly thinks he has many docs on Dean including FBI. At least that's my reading of these posts. Can we resolve this? Lazar - your point on mutually exclusive theories is well taken, and while I accept you have none of your own, you must have opinions. You are after all on this forum and interested in the subject. Do you have an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Oswald re shooting JFK? Paul B., the most direct way to resolve this is to present to the public any FBI document which NARA may have declassified since the year 2000. Here is a part of one that I know about. This is an FBI document dated 10 December 1963, from SAC Los Angeles (105-12933), which is about Harry Dean: --------------------- BEGIN FBI AIRTEL -------------------- TO: DIRECTOR FBI FROM: SAC, LOS ANGELES (105-12933) SUBJECT: HARRY DEAN La Puente, California RESEARCH (Correspondence and Tours) RE: Bureau airtel dated 12/2/63 HARRY DEAN was contacted at his residence 18109 Atina Drive, La Puente, California by Special Agents RICHARD L. CROMWELL and WILLIAM J. McCAULEY on 12/10/63. DEAN produced a receipt indicating he joined the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in Chicago on 7/28/60, and was a member of the July 26th Movement in Chicago on 4/5/61. He said he had connections, however, with the July 26th Movement as early as 1958, visited Cuba in June, 1960, and on his return to Chicago had joined the FPCC at the instigation of one JUAN DEL ROSARIO and JOAQUIN FREIRE, then Cuban Council in Chicago (since defected). DEAN said he, shortly after he joined the FPCC and was elected secretary of the chapter in Chicago, discovered he was associated with Communists and Trotskyites, and that about early August, 1963 he contacted the FBI in Chicago. He said he thereafter furnished information concerning the FPCC and July 26th Movement orally to the FBI in Chicago until about July, 1961, when he moved with his family to California. DEAN said that he is fully aware that his association with the above organizations was initiated and continued on his own volition, that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. DEAN said that he has never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it. DEAN said that he was not so concerned over the fact that his name appeared in the Senate sub-committee report on the hearings of the FPCC in Chicago on July 13, 14, 1961, as that he was never called to testify as he feels he could have effectively exposed the whole matter from personal knowledge and helped to ruin the FPCC. ...It is understood that DEAN is in possession of considerable literature of an anti-Communist nature. Additional information relating to the FPCC and the July 26th Movement in Chicago furnished by DEAN will be made the subject of a separate communication. ---------------------- END FBI AIRTEL --------------------- However, Paul B,, although this document refers to "a separate communication" that will add more detail to this Airtel, I have not seen that "separate communication" and I wonder whether it remains classified by the FBI, along with a large body of other FBI documents that might somehow refer to the JFK assassination. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Paul -- let me clarify this so there is no misunderstanding. There ARE FBI documents which discuss Harry Dean -- but only in the context of denying that he had any relationship with the FBI. In fact, I posted one of those documents online https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dean --- it appears in the FBI-Los Angeles field file on the Birch Society. (Los Angeles 100-59001). The document is a copy of the 4/1/77 letter which FBI Assistant Director Robert Gebhardt sent to the publisher (James Kim Coffin) of a Los Angeles area newspaper regarding an article published in that newspaper which reported their interview of Harry Dean. <snip> _A_ There are NO documents of any kind in the JBS-Los Angeles field file to support Harry's recollections -- nor documents that refer to anybody who matches Harry's description. _B_ There are also no documents in John Rousselot's file that mention any reports by Harry. _C_ There are no documents in Robert Welch's file that mention any reports by Harry. _D_ There are no documents in the FBI HQ main file on the Birch Society which mention any reports by Harry. _E_ There are no documents in the FBI files I have obtained on Edwin Walker which mention any reports by Harry. _F_ In the near future, I should receive Wesley Grapp's FBI file -- and I will be able to see if there are any references in his file to his alleged meetings with Harry. Normally, something as important as a plot to murder our President would be mentioned in the personnel files of the people who worked on such a matter. I also submitted a request on Guy Galbadon. Ernie, let's take a closer look at the FBI document you posted on your web site: ------------------- Begin FBI Memo --------------------------- 11000 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024 April 1, 1977 To: NAME WITHHELD Dear NAME WITHHELD I have read your column, "Between The Lines" which appeared in the March 16, 1977 edition of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the FBI, has never been an informant of the Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the FBI. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information to your attention. You might consider furnishing this informatino to the readers of your column. I would like to point out that had you contacted the FBI prior to publication of your column, the above information would have been available to you. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. GEBHARDT Assistant Director in Charge cc: James Kim Coffin, Publisher Las Virgenes Independent Valley News ------------------- End FBI Memo ------------------- What the reader sees here is a series of denials that remain amibiguous. There is some truth and some misdirection in this memo written to the writer, James Horwitz (whose name was withheld in the FOIA copy). First, GEBHARDT denies that Harry was an "undercover operative" in the formal sense, yet as we saw in the FBI airtel that I provided above, Harry himself denied that he ever claimed that. Secondly, GEBHARDT denies that Harry was ever "an informant for the Bureau," yet this contradicts the FBI airtel that I provided, which speaks plainly about Harry Dean's earlier reports to the FBI in Chicago. Thirdly, the idea that that FBI never "investigated" the JBS formally is evidently true, yet that claim evades the fact that FBI agents were not permitted to be members of the Birch Society -- and so some informal research on the JBS must be postulated to explain that fact. GEBHARDT's admonition to writer James Horwitz at the end of his memo insinuates that the FBI would have denied everything earlier if only the writer had been "patriotic" enough to contact them first. GEBHARDT includes a copy of this memo to newspaper publisher James Coffin, clearly to embarrass James Horwitz in the eyes of his publisher. After reading the story by James Horwitz, I find it to be sloppy -- deserving of criticism. Horwitz obviously took as much information from fiction writer W.R. Morris (whose book about Harry Dean came out in 1975) as from Harry himself. Horwitz was not careful with his facts, and so claimed more for Harry than Harry claimed. So, this FBI memo carries a middling weight, by my reading. Also, the fact that you have not been able to find very much information about Harry Dean in your own FOIA searches cannot be used to draw the blanket conclusions that you draw, i.e. that "There are NO documents" in this or that file about Harry Dean. I continue to maintain that you simply haven't seen all the FBI documents that exist, despite your years of effort. In that case you are in good company in this Forum, since many contributors here have also spent years attempting to obtain JFK-related documents from our Government, with middling results. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Paul: One of the reasons we seem to go round and round in our debate without resolving much of anything is because of your constant repetition of the phrase "classified documents" as sort of an all-purpose boogeyman rationale for not having any specific documentation to support your (or Dean's) assertions. ... So, let's end this nonsense about "classified" documents not being obtainable --- particularly those which were created PRIOR to the JFK assassination. Ernie, I disagree entirely. You suggest that in effect there are no FBI documents that are "classified". I simply don't accept that to be true. I maintain -- with reason and not with emotion -- that the FBI continues to withhold documents about the JFK assassination, specifically about Lee Harvey Oswald. Further, it is precisely because a document refers to an important event prior to the JFK assassination that would make it a candidate to be classified. That should be clear. Nothing you have said in your long messages has demonstrated otherwise -- yet you keep repeating yourself. If you don't accept that the FBI classification of JFK assassination materials is a viable argument, then there's nothing I can say to help you. Regards, --Paul Trejo No, Paul, you still misunderstand. I AGREE with you (and I have said so explicitly --- see my message where I outlined "the worst thing that could happen" if you submitted an FOIA request. Where we continue to disagree, is (1) how the FBI processes FOIA requests (2) and how innocuous but substantive documents can still be found as cross-references in many different files. For example, there is absolutely no reason why the FBI would withhold ALL documents which acknowledge in some form that they had an ongoing information source within the John Birch Society in Los Angeles who was regularly reporting to Wesley Grapp EVEN IF they redacted most of the data appearing in the documents which mention Harry. Let me cite two clear examples: EXAMPLE #1 There is a semi-famous June 1960 memo in the Los Angeles field file on the JBS. I will quote its text below -- but keep in mind that this ONE memo was received by me FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES -- and each time there were different redactions on it --- but by putting together all 5 releases, I now know what it says. The five different files which contained the memo produced the same memo as a consequence of my requests for: 1. JBS HQ main file 2. JBS Los Angeles main file 3. John Wayne HQ main file 4. John Wayne Los Angeles main file 5. Ronald Reagan HQ main file For purposes of illustration, I am referencing the JBS-Los Angeles field file serial: Los Angeles 100-59001, #21, 6/1/60 "A source who has furnished reliable information in the past has advised that there are several chapters of the John Birch Society in the Los Angeles area, some in the general Pasadena section (specific number not known to source) and similarly in Beverly Hills, Long Beach, San Fernando Valley, Palos Verdes Peninsula, as well as a chapter in Santa Barbara California." "This source also advised that he understood that the JBS Beverly Hills chapter includes the following members: JOHN WAYNE, noted Hollywood producer; HEDDA HOPPER, nationally known movie columnist; RONALD REAGAN, prominent actor and television personality; ZASU PITTS, Hollywood actress; ADOLPH MENJOU, Hollywood actor; and MORRIE RYSKIND, Hollywood screen and playwright." There ALSO is a SIXTH source -- namely, a 3/17/65 summary memo prepared on Reagan when J. Edgar Hoover asked for a summary memo on him. Page 1 of that memo has this comment: “He has been considered one of Hollywood’s most active conservative figures…He has spoken in various parts of the country on the evils of communism and was a friendly witness before the HCUA in October 1947. One source in 1960 advised that he understood that RR, along with several other prominent Hollywood personalities, including Adolph Menjou, were members of the Beverly Hills chapter of the John Birch Society, but in a 1962 press conference Reagan incidentally mentioned that he was not a member of the JBS." The first time I received this document it came from the FBI processing my request for the JBS HQ main file. I got this particular serial in approximately 1989 or 1990 when Reagan was still alive---so his name was redacted. Each of the earliest releases of this document redacted some of the Hollywood names shown above (because I never provided death records on the people mentioned) and also redacted was identifying information regarding the "source" who provided this information. Subsequent releases produced more and more info because of changes to FOIA processing rules that occurred over time and because of the fact that the documents were over 25 years old. As a result, by comparing all of the five releases, eventually I was able to produce a non-redacted version. EXAMPLE #2 Your contention in your message is that documents created PRIOR to JFK's assassination which pertain to information which the Bureau received re: the murder plot would be entirely withheld by virtue of being "classified". But this is not always the case. As previously mentioned, researchers have requested and received the documents pertaining to Willie Somersett and Joseph Milteer. Somersett was a Miami Police Department informant. You may see details re: their conversations here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.htm Miami Magazine also published their story about it here: http://cuban-exile.com/doc_101-125/doc0122.html -- and numerous books have referenced this by citing the FBI file documents which pertain to the matter. Among the FBI files which discuss Joseph Milteer are: Atlanta 157-608 and Miami 157-900. I did not record the HQ file number but I received it in 2001. There are also copies of memos regarding their conversation on JFK in other files -- such as Indianapolis 105-3292 (serial unrecorded---see below) which is on the Constitution Party (Milteer was involved in it). The FBI does NOT give EVERY document a serial number. Sometimes, it just puts a copy of a memo into a secondary file without assigning a specific serial number to it in that file. So, for example, let's say that the original memo regarding the Somersett-Milteer conversation was in Atlanta 157-608, serial #11 -- but when a copy of that memo was placed into the Indianapolis file on the Constitution Party it was "unrecorded" (i.e. no serial number). THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY for the FBI to find and purge ALL of those "unrecorded" serials because they are not listed in the FBI's Central Records System --- which is why you can ALWAYS find copies of memos pertaining to JFK's assassination in files where you would never anticipate finding them. I have already mentioned to you the fact that important investigations always resulted in memos placed into the personnel files of the Agents and Supervisors responsible for handling those investigations. Many times there are commendation memos; sometimes there are memos criticizing the way an Agent handled something; other times there are monetary awards given for exceptional performance. ALL of those memos are in personnel files. Typically, the FBI releases all those memos although it may redact the names of the subject(s) of the investigation UNLESS the subject is a person who is known to be dead. I have MANY such memos pertaining to the case agents who handled Morris and Jack Childs. The names of the Childs' brothers are not redacted, nor are their FBI symbol numbers, i.e. CG-5824-S* and NY-694-S* nor are their FBI code names. Jack's FBI code name was "MARAT". In conclusion, Paul, you are using "classified documents" as an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch. Anytime you want an excuse for not finding verifiable factual evidence, you bring out "classified documents". I sincerely do not believe that you understand how that term applies with respect to FOIA requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts