Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul does ask a very pertinent question regarding my PID justification letter to the FBI. Paul asked:

"What possible justification can somebody present in the 'public interest' to see the FBI files on Harry Dean?"

So, Paul, I would like to give you this opportunity to tell all of our readers

(1) WHAT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE have you had with writing PID justification letters?

(2) WHAT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE do you have with respect to individuals who have written successful PID justification letters?

(3) WHAT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE do you have regarding the criteria used by the FBI (or any other agency) which determines whether or not the arguments made in a PID justification are accepted? [such as you reading the actual text of those successful letters?]

Edited November 16, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Ernie. Your need to convince Paul can only be from a perspective of dealing with the confusion that arises from this dialogue in the minds of others. It seems a bit desperate. You won't convince Paul of very much of anyhting anytime soon. I had a series of interactions with Paul on this forum which were very puzzling to me. The fact that Paul now recognises FBI flaws and an apparent change regarding MLK and the FBI indicates to me that Paul is a student, one of those who know just about too much to not be a nuisanse. I think the proper way to treat a student like that is to instruct and leave them to soak up the information and not engage in a confrontational dialogue which won't get anywhere but will just go on and on like a dance stuck in a groove. If you have a glance you'll find that Paul and I share much in terms of where to look for the conspiracy that killed Kennedy. His bloody minded adherence to Hegelian Dialectics, and a liking for Karl Pooper wouldn't surprise me, I supect is a formative factor that is an impediment, but not a lost cause, in a crusade to free an unfortunately shackled mind that has a deep awareness of the shackles. I think such a drive for freedom is best nurtured rather than bashed.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie. Your need to convince Paul can only be from a perspective of dealing with the confusion that arises from this dialogue in the minds of others. It seems a bit desperate. You won't convince Paul of very much of anyhting anytime soon. I had a series of interactions with Paul on this forum which were very puzzling to me. The fact that Paul now recognises FBI flaws and an apparent change regarding MLK and the FBI indicates to me that Paul is a student, one of those who know just about too much to not be a nuisanse. I think the proper way to treat a student like that is to instruct and leave them to soak up the information and not engage in a confrontational dialogue which won't get anywhere but will just go on and on like a dance stuck in a groove. If you have a glance you'll find that Paul and I share much in terms of where to look for the conspiracy that killed Kennedy. His bloody minded adherence to Hegelian Dialectics, and a liking for Karl Pooper wouldn't surprise me, I supect is a formative factor that is an impediment, but not a lost cause, in a crusade to free an unfortunately shackled mind that has a deep awareness of the shackles. I think such a drive for freedom is best nurtured rather than bashed.

John: I appreciate your observations and I normally would agree with most of what you wrote.

However, I am not writing anything to "convince" Paul -- because he obviously has a set of conclusions based upon premises which he thinks are entirely reasonable and sound and he filters all information he receives through those pre-existing premises.

I have seen messages by Paul in answer to other persons which reveal (to me) a tortured logic and a fevered imagination...Maybe that is what you refer to as his adherence to Hegelian dialectics?

Your proposal that I consider Paul "a student" who just "soaks up" information seems rather problematic to me.

By definition, education is a process -- not a destination. As new information becomes available, a student normally acknowledges its existence and then uses certain methods in an attempt to separate fact from fiction.

Obviously, there must be some sort of mutually agreed upon rules of logic and evidence and argument which all parties agree to apply in their discussions. If no such rules are acknowledged to be applicable (OR if they are not employed), then all incoming information becomes of equal importance and equal validity and it all deserves serious consideration. In that case, a form of Gresham's law takes effect, i.e. bad information drives out good information.

The problem I am having with "student" Paul, is that he does not seem to operate by any known set of rules regarding logic, evidence, and argument. For example, if I post 4 or 5 messages where I declare "X" is my position, and Paul then posts messages stating that I said "Z" is my position, then how do we communicate and have a rational conversation? All of us have finite resources (time, money, energy) to apply to whatever is under scrutiny. But if an inordinate amount of those finite resources must be spent correcting "student Paul's" attributions regarding what I believe or what I have clearly stated many times -- then, obviously, we cannot move forward with any rational discussion.

Then, there is a separate matter which I think is important but maybe others do not? Let me give you a personal example about myself.

I know absolutely NOTHING about professional sports. For example, I have never watched a football game in my lifetime. if you forced me to watch a football game, I would not have the remotest clue what was happening because even the terminology used in football is totally foreign to me. Then if you asked me questions about any specific player(s) or team(s), I would be totally blank.

OK---so what if I decided to become a member of a website which was devoted to discussing professional sports and I then decided to participate in a thread which discusses football. If I posted comments about anything football-related, it probably would become instantly obvious to everyone that I was not conversant with the subject matter being discussed. I am sure there are many arcane wonky details which apply to all professional sports teams and only really knowledgeable people could be expected to comment intelligently on those matters. Right?

Well, some (but certainly not all) of the comments posted by Paul in this thread make it obvious to me that he does not have even a beginner's knowledge about the FOIA request process or about FBI filing practices or about how government agencies create and record data about their files and documents. So this puts me at a great disadvantage -- not because I am any sort of "expert", but because I do have 33 years of experience dealing with precisely these matters -- AND -- I constantly am in touch with a group of individuals who, like myself, have spent many years making FOIA requests so I have the benefit of their knowledge -- which I draw upon frequently -- and we comisserate with each other routinely about the hassles we confront. In fact, I created an email distribution list which is entitled "FOIA" and, currently, there are about two dozen researchers, academics, and scholars on it -- including some very famous and well-known Pulitzer-prize winning historians and investigative reporters.

Lastly, my two most recent messages to Paul (re: FOIA Public Interest Disclosure (PID) rules) were designed to illustrate something which I think is important, namely, that Paul makes categorical statements and conclusions about matters he knows absolutely NOTHING about [the equivalent of me discussing football.] So, that is important because it reveals something about how Paul processes new information AND it reveals something about Paul's debate tactics. I direct your attention to Paul's complaint about me that I cannot handle "disagreement". If you consider that comment in the context of our most recent PID exchanges, perhaps you will understand why your "student" analogy does not seem to fit the situation --- but I appreciate your thoughts.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

11/16/13 CORRECTION: In the interest of total accuracy, in message #375 I specified the wrong date for my successful former PID justification letter.

My request was made on Albert F. Canwell in the early 1980's when Canwell was still alive. Canwell died in 2002, about 17 years after my successful FOIA request. Canwell was the first Chairman of the Washington State Un-American Activities Committee. I became interested in him because, during the early 1960's, he was a defendant in a famous libel lawsuit in Washington state.

Among his co-defendants in that libel lawsuit (which incidentally he lost) were several JBS members. Anyway, my PID letter presented my reasons for why his files (HQ and Seattle) should be released without applying the normal privacy exemption even though Canwell was still living and even though I had no affidavit from him authorizing release of his FBI documents.

The FBI accepted my PID arguments and I received his files. My reference in message 375 to year 2005 was for a different Canwell-related request (i.e. for the file on Canwell's Un-American Activities Committee) which was processed for me at that time.

Because Paul will probably doubt my story, I am attaching one page from a huge printout which the FBI sent to me many years ago of all my FOIA requests up to that time. You will notice Canwell's name listed twice. The first FOIA number is 256818-0 and the second one is 256818-1. That second one with the -1 is because I responded to the FBI's request for a PID justification letter. My request on Canwell was made 2/13/85 and it was processed (after the PID was accepted) and documents were released 1/05/87. [During this time, the FBI often took 1 or 2 years to process FOIA requests -- particularly when "classified" files had to undergo a classification review before they could be processed! ]

You can also see listed my requests on Canwell-related subjects which were in my same request letter (i.e. one of Canwell's co-defendants in the libel lawsuit, Ashley Holden, and the JBS-friendly groups/publications which distributed the libelous material (Anti-Communist League, Okanogan County, Vigilante newsletter, Tonasket newsletter).

Canwell Printout.PDF

Edited November 16, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

I note for the record that when you make unkind and untrue statements and conclusions about me, you NEVER QUOTE what I have written. You merely ATTRIBUTE something to me. That is typical of the way intellectually dishonest people proceed in a debate. Do you really want me to go back and copy/paste my explanations from previous messages re: FBI filing practices and then point out for the 100th time why your argument is FALSE?

<snip>

Ernie,

You want more direct quotations, Ernie? OK, here goes. About one month ago you challenged my story about Harry Dean in a thread about Billy James Hargis. Here is the URL.

http://thislandpress.com/11/02/2012/the-strange-love-of-dr-billy-james-hargis/?read=complete

In that thread you said, and I quote:

"I have copies of annual Inspection Reports which were made of the Los Angeles field office...Once again, significantly, there is NOTHING in those Inspection Reports which mention any informant(s) inside the Birch Society or which even suggest that the Los Angeles field office was interested in infiltrating the JBS. I also have the personnel file of the SAC of the Los Angeles field office...There is NOTHING in the SAC personnel file about Dean or ANY informant inside the JBS! The utter, total, complete absence of ANY documentation is what proves, beyond dispute, that Dean is lying."

You also added, and I quote"

"Those of us who have spent decades obtaining FBI files -- particularly FBI informant files -- know that there are many different ways to find data about the FBI's informants...Significantly, there is NOTHING in ANY FBI file which supports Dean's claims. NOTHING!"

So, in this recent post you publicly accused Harry Dean of lying. Yet even in the short space of the month since that post, you have found more information about Harry Dean from the FBI. Yet you continue to minimize the new evidence, instead of admitting you were mistaken, and instead of apologizing to Harry Dean for your unkind words.

Puh-leeze.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 16, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

I note for the record that when you make unkind and untrue statements and conclusions about me, you NEVER QUOTE what I have written. You merely ATTRIBUTE something to me. That is typical of the way intellectually dishonest people proceed in a debate. Do you really want me to go back and copy/paste my explanations from previous messages re: FBI filing practices and then point out for the 100th time why your argument is FALSE?

<snip>

Ernie,

You want more direct quotations, Ernie? OK, here goes. About one month ago you challenged my story about Harry Dean in a thread about Billy James Hargis. Here is the URL.

http://thislandpress.com/11/02/2012/the-strange-love-of-dr-billy-james-hargis/?read=complete

In that thread you said, and I quote:

"I have copies of annual Inspection Reports which were made of the Los Angeles field office...Once again, significantly, there is NOTHING in those Inspection Reports which mention any informant(s) inside the Birch Society or which even suggest that the Los Angeles field office was interested in infiltrating the JBS. I also have the personnel file of the SAC of the Los Angeles field office...There is NOTHING in the SAC personnel file about Dean or ANY informant inside the JBS! The utter, total, complete absence of ANY documentation is what proves, beyond dispute, that Dean is lying."

You also added, and I quote"

"Those of us who have spent decades obtaining FBI files -- particularly FBI informant files -- know that there are many different ways to find data about the FBI's informants...Significantly, there is NOTHING in ANY FBI file which supports Dean's claims. NOTHING!"

So, in this recent post you publicly accused Harry Dean of lying. Yet even in the short space of the month since that post, you have found more information about Harry Dean from the FBI. Yet you continue to minimize the new evidence, instead of admitting you were mistaken, and instead of apologizing to Harry Dean for your unkind words.

Puh-leeze.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you are confusing two entirely different issues. Let me put this in Q&A form to make this clearer

1. HAS ERNIE EVER ACCUSED HARRY DEAN OF "LYING"?

Yes, of course....but you always object to me using that term. Perhaps we have different definitions of "lie"? In my dictionary, a "lie" (as opposed to an honest mistake), is when someone knowingly makes a false statement. Lies can be caused or accomplished by acts of omission (such as leaving out/withholding important details) or by acts of commission (deliberately misrepresenting or providing false testimony).

2. HAS ERNIE FOUND "MORE INFORMATION" ABOUT HARRY DEAN IN FBI FILES WHICH MATERIALLY CHANGES ANYTHING PREVIOUSLY STATED?

Not really. As I stated in my previous reply, there were many items which I had never seen in June 2010 or even before last week -- but ALL of them add even more support to my original statements. You say I "minimize the evidence" -- but you don't cite an example of what evidence you are referring to.

I think our problem here Paul is your lack of definitions -- such as what you consider "minimizing" something that you think is critically important.

A week ago, I had no idea that Harry admitted IN WRITING as far back as June 1961, that he was explicitly told by FBI-Chicago that they did not require his assistance.

And a week ago, all of my comments about Harry Dean's statements were based upon all the AVAILABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE which I had in MY possession. I specifically identified those items -- such as:

April 1977 letter by FBI Assistant Director in Los Angeles re: status of Harry Dean

FBI HQ file on Birch Society

Los Angeles field file on Birch Society

FBI HQ file on John Rousselot

Los Angeles field file on John Rousselot

FBI HQ file on Edwin Walker

Dallas field file on Edwin Walker

FBI Los Angeles office Inspection Reports (which always contain a specific section on informant coverage in their territory)

HQ memos re: informants in Los Angeles office

---and various other HQ and Los Angeles field files which could have had references to Harry or to someone who matches Harry's description -- such as Minutemen -- but I never found anything in them

So what "NEW EVIDENCE" are you referring to? Are you referring to "new evidence" which I have presented in this forum in recent days?

If so, what SPECIFICALLY changes what I have previously written? And if I am so dishonest, then why would I be the person to have provided those documents in this forum???

3. In recent days I also found another interesting item. It is a flyer which Harry prepared in 1966 for a publication of his entitled "I Confess". This appears to be some sort of bi-weekly newsletter Harry was offering.

In his flyer advertising the availability of what Harry describes as his "expose" -- Harry YET AGAIN describes himself "as an undercover informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation". [his exact words]

BOTTOM-LINE FOR PAUL:

-A- Harry says he was an "undercover informant to the FBI"

-B- The FBI is on record for many years in many different contexts stating he was NOT an undercover informant for the FBI. Their statements about that have been unequivocal and unqualified.

Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE INTERNAL FBI DOCUMENT WHICH MENTIONS HARRY (memo, report, airtel, etc.) contains the same description of Harry. In other words, when the FBI communicated exclusively within itself about Harry Dean -- it ALWAYS falsified the idea that Harry was EVER an informant. In MANY internal FBI memos, the FBI reports that: Harry explicitly acknowledged to the FBI that he never considered himself to be an undercover agent for the FBI -- NOR -- anybody authorized to act for the FBI in any capacity and he did not intend to claim any such relationship

-C- When J. Edgar Hoover received correspondence from Harry - and when the FBI received inquiries about Harry --- it is VERY significant that Hoover sent airtels and memos to his field offices instructing them to provide details regarding their contacts with Harry -- because FBI HQ had NO RECORD of any connection to Harry -- which means (as I previously pointed out), that FBI HQ did NOT have Harry listed in its Informant Index.

This ignorance by Hoover (which means at FBI HQ) clearly establishes that Harry had no relationship with the Bureau, other than him calling a field office (like any other person could do) and providing unsolicited information. He also provided FBI-Chicago with some documents regarding FPCC and J25M (such as his membership card and receipts for his dues payments and letters which an official of the Cuban government (Dr. Orta) sent to Harry. Harry volunteered that information -- just like MANY THOUSANDS of other Americans who gave information to the FBI (some of it useful, much of it not useful). But those many thousands of other Americans never claimed to be an undercover informant for the FBI!

-D- Some of the earliest memos which mention Harry do so in the context of stating that multiple OTHER SOURCES were providing information to the FBI.

For example, one memo refers to "a second source who has furnished reliable information in the past advised in October 1960" and "a third source who has furnished reliable information in the past advised in May 1961" and "a fourth source who has furnished reliable information in the past advised in 1961" and "a fifth source who has furnished reliable information in the past advised during 1961-1962". ALL of these "sources" were providing info on FPCC and J25M.

HOWEVER, nobody has yet found ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS FBI DOCUMENT which identifies Harry as "a source who has furnished reliable information in the past". NOT ONE! Not in FBI files. Not in CIA files. Not in any police department documents. Not in any US Attorney documents. Not in any military intelligence documents. Nowhere!

So, Paul, as I have repeatedly told you -- I can only make conclusions based upon AVAILABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I cannot accept YOUR speculation or your theories -- just because you want them to be true.

Lastly---one final point:

From the beginning of our debate you tried to link me to W.R. Morris even though I told you repeatedly that I have never read his book nor does it even interest me. And your contention was that much of my misinformation or false conclusions about Harry were based upon whatever Morris wrote.

Significantly, however, there are MANY sources OTHER THAN MORRIS who made reports about Harry -- usually based upon their interviews of Harry.

And more often than not, those sources presented false information which they quote Harry as saying about himself. YOUR position is that ALL of these sources garbled their stories or were relying upon Morris.....but it strains credulity that multiple independent sources could publish comments attributed to Harry and ALL of them got it wrong! I found three more examples in recent days. One is newspaper article, one is a newsletter, and one is a letter from a JBS member and a Minuteman who headed his own anti-Communist group in Los Angeles. His letter appears in CIA files.\ and he reports his personal knowledge about Harry based upon his own conversations with Harry.

I'm sorry Paul --- but common sense does not permit ignoring the reports of MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES -- including people whose political views were identical to Harry's who have clear recollections of what Harry said or wrote about himself.

In conclusion, I will state one more time: If I discover ANY new materially significant evidence which causes me to change my mind about Harry - I will be the first person to say so -- just as I have presented important documentary evidence here in this thread which you claim supports Harry -- although I cannot understand your reasoning.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

For the past couple days, I have tried to step back, chill out, and re-consider our dispute from different perspectives. So far, we have been arguing about the meaning and importance of documents which appear in FBI, CIA and other files -- and about the data contained in those documents.

But there are other perspectives we might consider that could help us analyze all the information which we are debating.

1. PERSONAL HISTORY and CHARACTER

In order to accept the theory about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK, we must believe very bad things about all of the individuals who allegedly were involved. This is no different than if somebody made a horrific accusation about Paul Trejo and we had to decide if Paul was capable of being the actor described in that accusation. So, one of our first questions would likely be something like: What do we know about Paul Trejo?

What do we know about Paul's personal history?

his education?

his military service (if any)?

his friends?

his reputation in his community and evaluations made by his neighbors?

his family background?

his employment history?

his community work and charitable or volunteer activities?

his religious beliefs?

his hobbies and preferred recreational activities?

his criminal history (if any)

his general public persona?

If we were to get to know Paul Trejo at this level of detail about his personal life, we probably would be in a much better position to make judgments regarding any kind of horrific accusations made against Paul --- right?

Therefore, what I am suggesting is that when a careful and detailed examination is made of the various alleged actors in the "JBS plot", there are at least two key actors whose entire personal history screams "they would never have been involved in such a plot". Because it would be entirely out of character and because of their long personal history (public and private) which contradicts everything one would have to believe in order to accept the idea that they were key actors in a murder plot or criminal activity (of any kind). Those two individuals are Robert Welch and John Rousselot.

2. PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES

The other method to evaluate an alleged murder plot -- particularly one of historic proportions which would be guaranteed to shake our country to its foundations -- is to ask a simple question, namely, "what would come afterward?"

The first obvious questions about any plot to murder somebody would be what do the plotters think they would accomplish? What benefit would result? What do they think would happen afterward that would accomplish some objective they had in their mind?

We can certainly answer that question in other contexts.

For example: suppose a ruthless businessperson perceives an opportunity to make millions or hundreds of millions of dollars BUT there is one or more persons who have a final say with respect to whether or not to accept the proposal being made by this businessperson. In such a circumstance, one could easily imagine that a ruthless person without any particular set of morals would consider financing a plot to murder the persons whom he sees as obstacles to achieving enormous personal wealth, power, influence.

A similar situation could be imagined if the leadership of an institution was up for grabs and a ruthless self-centered person wanted that position no matter what needed to be done to achieve it.

Then there are crimes of passion – i.e. when somebody believes they have been betrayed or somebody wants extreme payback for some perceived slight or humiliation. In that circumstance, the “offending party” is permanently removed and “gets what he/she deserves”.

However, such personal satisfaction cannot be achieved if a successor to the murdered person behaves the same way or makes the same type of decisions which produced the original slight or humiliation or betrayal.

So, in the context of JFK, what would the plotters hope to achieve? What benefit did they anticipate producing by murdering a very popular President?

Obviously, the plotters would know that JFK would be succeeded by LBJ and a grieving nation and a Democratic Party controlled by Kennedy loyalists would demand obeisance from LBJ to Kennedy’s agenda – which is exactly what did transpire.

So in terms of public policies (domestic and foreign) – murdering JFK would not change much of anything and it certainly would guarantee (if only through sympathy and grief) a landslide victory a year later for LBJ’s election.

And, of course, both houses of the Congress of the United States were already controlled by Democrats and the 1964 election was not going to change the internal dynamics of that body – regardless of the Presidential contest. And history proves my point. When LBJ took office (the 88^th Congress) was as follows:

SENATE: 65 Democrats 37 Republicans

HOUSE: 255 Democrats 177 Republicans

The next Congress (89^th)

SENATE 68 Democrats 32 Republicans

HOUSE 295 Democrats 140 Republicans

This was entirely predictable -- for even a moderately informed person.

So we have to ask the obvious question:

Why would the JBS want to participate in or plan the murder of JFK? What did they think might be produced that would benefit their interests?

EVERY conspiracy (particularly complex multi-faceted ones that involve a lot of variables) require numerous individuals to plan, finance, and execute the conspiracy. Historically, most conspiracies are revealed within a short period of time during or after their formative period or just prior to or after the point when they are implemented.

Consequently, one must wonder why the alleged JBS “plotters” (some of whom were extremely intelligent and well-educated individuals with a thorough knowledge about U.S. and world history) would, nevertheless, believe that THEY would get away with the most heinous political murder of the 20^thcentury up to that time whereas everyone else who planned such a crime either failed or was killed or imprisoned for life for their efforts?

[John Dolva]

re post #378.

Thanks for the input. I found that by funneling a discussion with Paul to short staements ultimately most productive and in time we stopped talking, which was rather a relief. I don't really like talking much to people. The reason I alluded to hegelian dialectics was to hint at magical thinking. Anyway these are my ideas on various things. re the JBS in the assassination context it's really about the extreme elements of the minutemen, which inevitably brings in kkk elements. For all that to make sense, I think, one must look as far back as the civil war and the dual governments and where they went after the civil war and where they supporters went. ...I just realised I don't want to go there now, not sure ever really. Anyway. Interesting last post.

[Ernie Lazar]

This morning I was doing some research into the FBI's HQ file on the JFK Assassination (HQ 62-109060) and I noticed a couple examples which illustrate something which Paul questioned during our previous messages.

I attach two documents from the JFK assassination file.

The first document is a "changed to" notice. In this example, serial #5339 was removed from section 134 of the JFK file and moved to another file (HQ 63-15748) where it became serial "X". Serial #5339 was dated May 22, 1967 but it was removed from the JFK file in August 1972 and changed to its new file/serial number. [serials #5338 and #5340 (i.e. the serials before and after #5339) are also dated in May 1967.]

The second document is an unrecorded (aka "not recorded") serial which is in the JFK file but the notation on the right margin indicates that it originally came from another file (hard to read the number but looks like 62-15718, serial #X). Since this is a unrecorded serial, the FBI Central Records System probably would not record any references to names or subjects contained in this document or that it was channeled into the JFK file. However, the file from which it originally came was given a serial number ("X") so that serial probably was entered into the FBI Central Records System.

So, as I previously indicated to Paul, when serials were "purged" from one file and moved to another file, the original file would contain a "change to" document -- as this example illustrates. [if an FOIA request was made on that subject matter, and IF the FBI did not want anybody to receive that "change to" document because the information was super-secret -- THEN the requester would still receive a "deleted page" notice along with the appropriate FOIA exemption code.] That "deleted page" notice would still provide clues for further research OR for an administrative appeal and future potential litigation to compel a "Vaughn Index" itemization of what was being withheld and why.]

One should also keep in mind that the subject matters discussed in "purged" serials are indexed into the FBI's Central Records System (and field offices indexed names and subjects manually on their index cards).

Nobody can know, of course, how many FBI memos or reports or airtels or outgoing letters answering inquiries or complaints might reference information contained in serials which later were purged from one file and moved to another file.

ALSO: FBI replies to inquiries or complaints (particularly those which came from other government agencies or from Congress) usually contain notes at the bottom of Bureau file copies which provide a synopsis of data appearing in FBI files about the subjects discussed in those incoming inquiries or complaints. So, for example, the Bureau file copy of its reply to a Congressional inquiry or a White House inquiry or even inquiries from ordinary citizens frequently include the specific file and serial number(s) which pertain to the subject matters discussed in the incoming inquiries.

Many of my FOIA requests to the FBI were based upon the notations I saw in Bureau file copies of its replies to inquiries -- because the actual FBI file number(s) which pertained to the person, organization, or subject which interested me were listed in the Bureau notations..

This is why I was trying to explain that there is just no possible way for FBI employees to purge ALL references to the existence of a file or a specific serial or a subject matter -- because, in short, there are just too many locations (many of which are totally outside the control of the FBI) which would have copies of FBI documents.

So for Paul's concern to be a plausible explanation --- one would have to explain how the FBI could...

(1) retrieve every single reference ever made in incoming and outgoing FBI documents and

(2) then arrange to purge data not only from its own FBI files and filing records but ALSO from the files and filing records (indexes) of the recipients -- including:

* the White House,

* Presidential Libraries,

* city, county, state law enforcement agencies

* US Attorney Offices

* military intelligence agencies (G-2, ONI, OSI, NSA)

* the CIA

* the U.S. Secret Service

* U.S. House and Senate Committees and Subcommittees [including any reports they published which contain references to FBI data]

* regulatory agencies in both state and federal government

* the Civil Service Commission

* the Loyalty Review Board

* the Subversive Activities Control Board

AND

* Bureau replies to correspondence it received from prominent Americans (many of whom were on the FBI's "Special Correspondents List") which is archived in the personal papers of thousands of prominent Americans (or organizations) who subsequently donated their personal papers to colleges, universities, or other institutions.

FBI Docs Examples.pdf

Edited November 18, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Harry J.Dean]

Until withheld reports re; connections between H. Dean and US. Intelligence become available,

consider reading the e Book Harry Dean's Confessions... located at SMASHWORDS.com, by

Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Until withheld reports re; connections between H. Dean and US. Intelligence become available,

consider reading the e Book Harry Dean's Confessions... located at SMASHWORDS.com, by

Paul Trejo

And if they don't "become available" (i.e. none are found), then won't your explanation be that the files were tampered with and/or purged?

Incidentally, it is important for everyone to remember that (as Paul has admitted) Harry Dean was not writing "a history" of the events which he claims took place. Instead, the Dean/Trejo eBook is a memoir. Like ALL memoirs, the events discussed are merely subjective personal recollections. There are no footnotes, no bibliographic references, no specific paper trail which can be followed to verify anything contained in the eBook.

A relevant observation about memoirs comes from Gore Vidal:

“A memoir is how one remembers one’s own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked”

—from Palimpsest by Gore Vidal (Penguin, 1996).

There are sections of "Harry's" eBook memoir which, stylistically, sound entirely like the words and thoughts of Paul Trejo (not Harry).

Lastly, the final pages of the eBook which propose the "reasons" why the Warren Commission supposedly "covered-up" the real culprits and "allow[ed] the guilty individuals to walk free" is so preposterous that no serious student of 1960's history could possibly believe what is presented.

I am referring to this section:

"If most Americans in 1964 had learned that the John Birch Society, the Minutemen and other right-wing radicals had killed JFK, they most likely would have attacked the Birchers and the Minutemen with violence. The Minutemen would then defend themselves with their ample stockpiles of armaments. An American Civil War would have started in the middle of the global Cold War, and then things would really have spun out of control. Obviously the USSR would have been tempted to support the liberal forces, and then millions of Americans would have responded by joining the Birchers and Minutemen to oppose the USSR, thus igniting World War III. At that point, nuclear war would have become a reality."

First of all, the overwhelming majority of Minutemen and JBS members never publicly declared themselves as members -- so one wonders how any such mob action could take place, i.e. how an outraged American citizenry would choose their targets?

Second, the FBI had a program designed to track all persons known or suspected to represent a threat to our national security during time of national emergency. Those individuals would be apprehended by the thousands (just as occurred during World War II).

Based upon public polling during the 1960's, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans had a very low opinion of the JBS -- just like most Americans currently totally reject white supremacists and neo-nazis and various religious cults along with radical left groups.

ANY outbreak of violence would have been suppressed by overwhelming governmental force (National Guard if necessary). Strict curfews would have been enforced -- as often happens when there have been natural disasters (like Katrina) or civil disturbances (such as race riots during the 1960's).

At its peak, the Minutemen counted about 2800 people as "members" -- although some of those people were listed as members simply because they had made literature requests to MM leader Robert DePugh. No group of 2800 people spread across the entire U.S. could threaten the combined law enforcement resources of state and federal government. There would be no "civil war" because Americans are not forgiving of people who engage in violence. Anything that happened would be treated for what it was -- i.e. criminal acts by a small group of malcontents.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Until withheld reports re; connections between H. Dean and US. Intelligence become available,

consider reading the e Book Harry Dean's Confessions... located at SMASHWORDS.com, by

Paul Trejo

And if they don't "become available" (i.e. none are found), then won't your explanation be that the files were tampered with and/or purged?

Incidentally, it is important for everyone to remember that (as Paul has admitted) Harry Dean was not writing "a history" of the events which he claims took place. Instead, the Dean/Trejo eBook is a memoir. Like ALL memoirs, the events discussed are merely subjective personal recollections. There are no footnotes, no bibliographic references, no specific paper trail which can be followed to verify anything contained in the eBook.

A relevant observation about memoirs comes from Gore Vidal:

“A memoir is how one remembers one’s own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked”

—from Palimpsest by Gore Vidal (Penguin, 1996).

There are sections of "Harry's" eBook memoir which, stylistically, sound entirely like the words and thoughts of Paul Trejo (not Harry).

Lastly, the final pages of the eBook which propose the "reasons" why the Warren Commission supposedly "covered-up" the real culprits and "allow[ed] the guilty individuals to walk free" is so preposterous that no serious student of 1960's history could possibly believe what is presented.

I am referring to this section:

"If most Americans in 1964 had learned that the John Birch Society, the Minutemen and other right-wing radicals had killed JFK, they most likely would have attacked the Birchers and the Minutemen with violence. The Minutemen would then defend themselves with their ample stockpiles of armaments. An American Civil War would have started in the middle of the global Cold War, and then things would really have spun out of control. Obviously the USSR would have been tempted to support the liberal forces, and then millions of Americans would have responded by joining the Birchers and Minutemen to oppose the USSR, thus igniting World War III. At that point, nuclear war would have become a reality."

First of all, the overwhelming majority of Minutemen and JBS members never publicly declared themselves as members -- so one wonders how any such mob action could take place, i.e. how an outraged American citizenry would choose their targets?

Second, the FBI had a program designed to track all persons known or suspected to represent a threat to our national security during time of national emergency. Those individuals would be apprehended by the thousands (just as occurred during World War II).

Based upon public polling during the 1960's, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans had a very low opinion of the JBS -- just like most Americans currently totally reject white supremacists and neo-nazis and various religious cults along with radical left groups.

ANY outbreak of violence would have been suppressed by overwhelming governmental force (National Guard if necessary). Strict curfews would have been enforced -- as often happens when there have been natural disasters (like Katrina) or civil disturbances (such as race riots during the 1960's).

At its peak, the Minutemen counted about 2800 people as "members" -- although some of those people were listed as members simply because they had made literature requests to MM leader Robert DePugh. No group of 2800 people spread across the entire U.S. could threaten the combined law enforcement resources of state and federal government. There would be no "civil war" because Americans are not forgiving of people who engage in violence. Anything that happened would be treated for what it was -- i.e. criminal acts by a small group of malcontents.

Ernie, I don't know why you're so heavy-handed and so eager to smash down the personal eye-witness of Harry Dean. If I were to make a guess based on impressions, I'd say that you're dramatizing being an FBI Agent; taking over where SAC James Hosty left off.

You also seem to be beating a drum for the FBI, and in this Forum that suggests that you accept what J. Edgar Hoover wrote as read.

Yet Hoover was flawed in several ways. His attacks on Martin Luther King cannot be justified. His treatment of Lee Harvey Oswald must be corrected by history in order for justice to prevail.

Harry Dean is perhaps our last living witness of the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I think that his story has historical merit -- although a single part-time writer such as myself is no match for the bureaucratic mountain that confronts such a mammoth task.

My co-authorship of Harry Dean's eBook amounts to a finger pointing at the moon. We started in April of this year to gather this information together, and we gave it out best shot. I'm convinced it's the best statement of Harry Dean's case yet written. (It's a hundred times better than the treatment given by W.R. Morris.)

But Ernie, your attacks on Harry Dean appear to be official -- as if you're working for the FBI. Are you, Ernie? Are you working for the FBI?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Until withheld reports re; connections between H. Dean and US. Intelligence become available,

consider reading the e Book Harry Dean's Confessions... located at SMASHWORDS.com, by

Paul Trejo

And if they don't "become available" (i.e. none are found), then won't your explanation be that the files were tampered with and/or purged?

Incidentally, it is important for everyone to remember that (as Paul has admitted) Harry Dean was not writing "a history" of the events which he claims took place. Instead, the Dean/Trejo eBook is a memoir. Like ALL memoirs, the events discussed are merely subjective personal recollections. There are no footnotes, no bibliographic references, no specific paper trail which can be followed to verify anything contained in the eBook.

A relevant observation about memoirs comes from Gore Vidal:

“A memoir is how one remembers one’s own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked”

—from Palimpsest by Gore Vidal (Penguin, 1996).

There are sections of "Harry's" eBook memoir which, stylistically, sound entirely like the words and thoughts of Paul Trejo (not Harry).

Lastly, the final pages of the eBook which propose the "reasons" why the Warren Commission supposedly "covered-up" the real culprits and "allow[ed] the guilty individuals to walk free" is so preposterous that no serious student of 1960's history could possibly believe what is presented.

I am referring to this section:

"If most Americans in 1964 had learned that the John Birch Society, the Minutemen and other right-wing radicals had killed JFK, they most likely would have attacked the Birchers and the Minutemen with violence. The Minutemen would then defend themselves with their ample stockpiles of armaments. An American Civil War would have started in the middle of the global Cold War, and then things would really have spun out of control. Obviously the USSR would have been tempted to support the liberal forces, and then millions of Americans would have responded by joining the Birchers and Minutemen to oppose the USSR, thus igniting World War III. At that point, nuclear war would have become a reality."

First of all, the overwhelming majority of Minutemen and JBS members never publicly declared themselves as members -- so one wonders how any such mob action could take place, i.e. how an outraged American citizenry would choose their targets?

Second, the FBI had a program designed to track all persons known or suspected to represent a threat to our national security during time of national emergency. Those individuals would be apprehended by the thousands (just as occurred during World War II).

Based upon public polling during the 1960's, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans had a very low opinion of the JBS -- just like most Americans currently totally reject white supremacists and neo-nazis and various religious cults along with radical left groups.

ANY outbreak of violence would have been suppressed by overwhelming governmental force (National Guard if necessary). Strict curfews would have been enforced -- as often happens when there have been natural disasters (like Katrina) or civil disturbances (such as race riots during the 1960's).

At its peak, the Minutemen counted about 2800 people as "members" -- although some of those people were listed as members simply because they had made literature requests to MM leader Robert DePugh. No group of 2800 people spread across the entire U.S. could threaten the combined law enforcement resources of state and federal government. There would be no "civil war" because Americans are not forgiving of people who engage in violence. Anything that happened would be treated for what it was -- i.e. criminal acts by a small group of malcontents.

Ernie, I don't know why you're so heavy-handed and so eager to smash down the personal eye-witness of Harry Dean. If I were to make a guess based on impressions, I'd say that you're dramatizing being an FBI Agent; taking over where SAC James Hosty left off.

You also seem to be beating a drum for the FBI, and in this Forum that suggests that you accept what J. Edgar Hoover wrote as read.

Yet Hoover was flawed in several ways. His attacks on Martin Luther King cannot be justified. His treatment of Lee Harvey Oswald must be corrected by history in order for justice to prevail.

Harry Dean is perhaps our last living witness of the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I think that his story has historical merit -- although a single part-time writer such as myself is no match for the bureaucratic mountain that confronts such a mammoth task.

My co-authorship of Harry Dean's eBook amounts to a finger pointing at the moon. We started in April of this year to gather this information together, and we gave it out best shot. I'm convinced it's the best statement of Harry Dean's case yet written. (It's a hundred times better than the treatment given by W.R. Morris.)

But Ernie, your attacks on Harry Dean appear to be official -- as if you're working for the FBI. Are you, Ernie? Are you working for the FBI?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What an assinine last paragraph--but typical of what we now expect from you!

Of course I don't work for the FBI or for any other federal government entity. My background was in retailing (large department store chains in California and Illinois/Indiana) along with 12 years in the music industry (including a mail order business of my own). Your inane silliness Paul reveals more about yourself than me.

YES Hoover was a DEEPLY flawed individual as virtually all serious historians have documented. And YES, the FBI under his direction committed some very stupid and immoral acts. But that does not mean that a student of history or a careful researcher must accept EVERY cock-a-mamie assertion ever made about either Hoover or the FBI --- which seems to be YOUR position.

The "personal eyewitness" of Harry Dean is subject to ALL the normal rules of logic and verifiable factual evidence which apply to ANY other person

Harry does NOT get a "free pass" (i.e. immediate and unquestioned credibility) just because (1) he is elderly, OR (2) he seems like a nice guy OR (3) his stories are exciting OR (4) because someone hates Hoover or the FBI OR (5) because Harry has produced a new eBook to repeat assertions he first made abput 50 years ago.

For the record, you have once again deliberately MIS-REPRESENTED MY POSITION.

* I am NOT defending the FBI or Hoover.

* I do NOT accept with "blind faith" or "hero worship" whatever the FBI or Hoover said.

INSTEAD (unlike yourself), I seek out PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE and, in particular, I seek out and value the extraordinary scholarship which so many of our most prominent historians have done on FBI history and on Hoover.

Unlike yourself, I don't believe ONLY whatever data conforms to what I already believe or which conforms to the predicates which I want readers to accept as indisputably factual.

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

3. When you refer to Oswald's FBI number, please be specific. Are you referring to an "informant" code? If so, what was it according to the Dallas District Attorney? And how did he supposedly learn about it?

Ernie, according to my notes, Dallas DA Henry Wade claimed in January, 1964, that Lee Harvey Oswald had FBI informant number S179. Wade also claimed that Oswald was being paid $200 monthly for providing information to the FBI.

The sources I've read suggest that Henry Wade's sources were undisclosed. However, Wade was accompanied by Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, and together they brought this to the attention of the Warren Commission in early January, 1964, just as the Warren Commission was setting up its coffee machines, so to speak.

It then became necessary for J. Edgar Hoover to send a sworn affidavit to the Warren Commission flatly denying the truth of these allegations, and affirming that the FBI had no such interaction with Lee Harvey Oswald whatsoever. This affidavit is now a part of the Warren Commission volumes.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Just for clarity, I wanted to comment upon the assertion made by Paul in his November 9th message. Paul states that the Dallas DA (Henry Wade) stated in January 1964 that LHO was assigned FBI informant number S179 However, Paul says that nobody seems to know what Wade's source was for his assertion.

Here, again, familiarity with FBI protocols would help interested parties to separate fact from fiction.

When the FBI assigned a code to an informant (aka "symbol number"), the format used was to begin the code with the FBI abbreviation for the FBI field office where the informant was located; then that informant's specific number - and, (if applicable) there were suffixes added -- which I will discuss below.

Paul did not respond to my subsequent message when I asked him if that alleged symbol code was assigned to LHO when he lived in Dallas but one may reasonably conclude that no such FBI code was ever assigned because that code does NOT correspond to FBI protocols in assigning symbol codes to their informants.

For example --- see very brief list of FBI informant symbol codes below.

There were two older types of codes assigned just after World War II and continuing into the 1950's. One was assigned to what the Bureau described as "Confidential National Defense Informants" (CNDI) . That code began with the first letter of the informant's last name - and then appended their specific FBI number. See Matt Cvetic example below.

The second older code was used for individuals who were NOT official FBI "informants" but were considered "Confidential Sources". See John Lautner example below. Another example is Barbara Hartle (of Seattle WA) -- but I do not know her "CS" number. A "Confidential Source" code began with "CS" then appended the FBI field office location to whom they reported and then their number. Occasionally, these folks were described as "National Defense" confidential sources, i.e. ND instead of CS.

(1) As you can see, each FBI code began with the FBI field office code (such CV for Cleveland in first example) and then the number.

(2) Suffixes were often added to describe the informant. For example "S" referred to a "security" informant. "R" referred to "racial informant"

(3) Another suffix used was an asterisk at the end of the symbol code (see Jack Childs and Morris Childs examples below). An asterisk was used to designate informants (1) whose identity should never be revealed and (2) who were so uniquely valuable that they were NOT available for testifying in administrative or court proceedings

(4) The FBI abbreviation for its Dallas field office was "DL" -- so any FBI informant or confidential source would have a "DL" prefix assigned before their actual number.

(5) Given this background information, it seems VERY unlikely that the number referenced by Paul in his message was an FBI informant or confidential source code of any sort. There is no FBI field office whose abbreviation is the single letter "S".

Julia C. Brown = symbol number CV-264-S

Cleveland file 134-19

Jack Childs = symbol number NY-694-S*

NYC file 134-91

Morris Childs = symbol number CG-5824-S*

Chicago file 134-46

Matthew Cvetic = symbol number CNDI C-113 [CNDI = Confidential National Defense Informant]

Pittsburgh file 134-14

Delmar Dennis = symbol number JN 74-R

Jackson file 157-1136

John Lautner = symbol number CS-NY-588 aka ND-NY-588

NYC file 134-66

Armand Penha = symbol number BS-6122-S (for Boston)

HQ 100-372696 [His Boston field file number was redacted]

Karl Prussion = symbol number SF-1740-S

San Francisco file 134-7

Howard O. Thompson = symbol number SF-1604-S

San Francisco file 134-69

I know Paul does not want to discuss this -- but I will state the obvious.

There is no internal FBI document known at this time (memo, report, airtel, or file copy of outgoing letter) which mentions Harry Dean and then refers to or specifies his "symbol number".

In addition, when the FBI Records Branch did a "name check" on Harry in December 1963, the resulting search slip does not reference Harry's symbol code. Normally, the search slip would include that data so that the employees searching for file references on Harry would be able to distinguish which records pertained to an FBI informant (or confidential source) as opposed to individuals with similar or identical names.

That is yet more evidence that Harry was never an official FBI informant or confidential source.

However, perhaps Harry will share with us what symbol numbers were assigned to him by the Chicago and Los Angeles FBI field offices???

Edited November 20, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

What an assinine last paragraph--but typical of what we now expect from you!

Ernie, whatever your opinions, there is no excuse for this sort of insult.

Sincerely,

--Paul