Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Steven Gaal]

, I expect the FBI to cough them up before the end of 2017.// Paul Trejo

##########################################################

If you go to the government site that discussed this issue,you will see a cavet to the JFK records release.

The POTUS can withold the JFK records on grounds of National Security.

Please dont hold your breath.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Larry Hancock]

In addition to Steven's comment, the President will undoubtedly respond as the judges have consistently in Morley's efforts - if the Agency produces a list of documents they certify as being of national security concern, the President will literally accept their list - in reality he and his staff have no other option and if he released something operational or actionable by mistake it would mean political crucifixion by the other party. National Security is one issue no President can leave themselves politically exposed on....that's just the hard, cold fact. Of course why anyone would expect any known smoking gun documents to still exist seems curious to me.

[Ernie Lazar]

...

(6) Once again, you repeat your malicious falsehood about what I wrote in 2010. And once again you refuse to QUOTE what I wrote -- because you know it does NOT support what you claim. Do you have no decency Paul? I have never EVER claimed that the FBI had no records about Harry. How could I do that in 2010? I never even heard about Harry Dean until late 2009 or early 2010 -- so, obviously, I had no clue regarding whether or not there were FBI records about him. What I said in 2010 and I have said repeatedly since then is exactly what my four bullets summarized in my previous message. You are either exceptionally malicious or profoundly ignorant if you cannot understand after all this time that the ONLY reason I even entered this debate in 2010 is because of Harry's claims about his alleged FBI association IN THE CONTEXT OF THE JBS and JBS-RELATED MATTERS. I had no knowledge in 2010 regarding whether or not the FBI had "records" regarding Harry about any other matters. So PLEASE STOP LYING IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

...

1) Ernie, I think that FBI Agents have no business insulting people who come to them in good faith with information that they believe may be vital to the USA. The FBI Agent who wrote in his own handwriting that Harry Dean was a “mental case” should have been fired. It’s unprofessional, and un-American.

I AGREE WITH YOU --- IF the FBI makes PUBLIC statements which are "insulting". BUT comments made exclusively internally merely reflect their candid unvarnished evaluations of the person(s) they have PERSONAL contacts with and those comments give all of us a clear understanding of what people inside the FBI believed.

For example, when Hoover hand-wrote "Walker is nuts" on a memo -- that was not "insulting" -- it was a reflection of how absurd Walker's assertions were considered to be from the perspective of our nation's primary internal security agency. There is no substantive difference between saying "Walker is nuts" versus saying Walker is a "mental case".

Significantly, IF we had found EFFUSIVE PRAISE about Harry in FBI internal memos or reports, you would NOT have been disturbed. It is ONLY because of derogatory judgments made by several Los Angeles agents that you are upset. This reflects YOUR pervasive bias. You do not want to see ANY derogatory references to Harry anywhere.

Also significantly, PERSONAL evaluations made by FBI Agents were NOT incorporated into official memos distributed outside the Los Angeles office. It is ridiculous to characterize such comments as "un-American". YOU make equivalent comments all the time about people whom you have characterized as liars. And in fact, YOU created an elaborate psychiatric HOAX to discredit the "long version" of Harry's 11/19/63 letter to Hoover. YOUR psychiatric hoax turned out to be a complete fabrication of your mind and a total FALSEHOOD.

SO WERE YOU "INSULTING" and "UN-AMERICAN"?

(2) Yes, Ernie, I completely insist that only medically qualified personnel should be permitted to offer any sort of judgment about anybody’s mental condition within the context of official US Government records. I repeat – that FBI Agent should have been fired on the spot.

Very silly position but reveals a lot about the quality of your intellect.

As for KKK or other Aryan Supremacist groups, I don’t bother to consider their sanity or insanity – their position is political and depends entirely on the power they are able to obtain within a given governmental context. Thankfully, in the USA, they can obtain no more power than the Odd Fellows Society, and that is sufficient protection for the rest of us. And yes, even in the context of something as reprehensible as this sort of extreme rightist politics, it is offensive for any US Government official to record any non-medical opinion about the mental condition of these political partisans.

You could make the same comments about Harry Dean and the Minutemen and the JBS and American neo-nazis or other white supremacist organizations.

None of them (except KKK for brief period) achieved any significant "political power" but if you do any careful research into the backgrounds of many of the people involved with neo-nazi and other racist organizations, you will discover an unusually large percentage of them have had VERY serious psychological problems. In fact, many of these folks were dishonorably discharged from U.S. armed forces and then went on to be convicted of all sorts of sexual and non-sexual crimes. All of that is discussed in their FBI files (and often in their military service records). But, according to Paul Trejo, all the government employees who reported or commented upon such information should be fired!

(3) If Harry Dean actually gave information to the FBI about the JBS, as he said, then it would only have been in the context of the JFK murder. As we know, FBI records related to the JFK murder are still Top Secret and cannot be released to the public yet. Furthermore, Harry Dean’s unsolicited report to the FBI would have insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices, and absolutely did not act alone. Thus, Harry Dean’s information to the FBI would have contradicted J. Edgar Hoover’s enforced doctrine of Lee Oswald as the “Lone Shooter,” or “Lone Nut” as the FBI rendered that. Naturally, then, these records (if they were not destroyed) still remain to be released by the FBI. In all good faith and honesty, I expect the FBI to cough them up before the end of 2017.

You are mistaken Paul but we have covered this matter many times and you refuse to recognize the truth so no point in going through it again.

Briefly, however, whether or not something was originally classified "Top Secret" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You just use the term "Top Secret" as an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch to mask your profound ignorance about FOIA and the JFK Records Act and then to confuse and misdirect people into thinking you know something which you do NOT.

(4) You keep saying that Harry Dean never gave the FBI any information about the JBS (or its famous members) because you yourself haven’t yet seen “one single iota of evidence to establish that he did.” I simply keep reminding the readers here that you yourself haven’t seen all the FBI records that are still being held by the FBI, and so your hasty conclusions suffer from the faulty logic of concluding on the basis of incomplete evidence. Period. You keep insisting that it “DOES NOT EXIST,” but actually you don’t know that. Only the FBI knows whether that is true or false today.

You keep referring to other FBI records which are being withheld (re: JBS) but you have NEVER ONCE identified those records.

As I have told you repeatedly, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to hide the existence of JBS files. What happens (at worst), is that the file number is identified (often on FBI search slips or in summary memos) but then the requester receives a notice stating that file is EXEMPT from disclosure for reasons which are then also specified. Because of YOUR profound ignorance, however, you just INVENT explanations which have NO BASIS IN REALITY.

I have specifically challenged YOU and other people here (many times) to contact the former Chairman of the Assassinations Records Review Board in order to ask him if any JBS-related files are being withheld until 2017. You refuse to do that for obvious reasons.

(5) From the beginning I have always characterized Harry Dean as a private citizen who courageously volunteered information to the FBI about the FPCC and the JBS entirely at his own risk and expense. Your attacks on Harry Dean on this very thread since 2010 have been most offensive and out of all proportion to the situation. It seems you are tracking some special agenda, without telling our readers here what that might be.

Neither you or Harry have claimed that Harry "volunteered" information to the FBI.

Instead, BOTH of you have always claimed that Harry was "recruited" by the FBI (and CIA?) and then "asked" by them to "investigate" and then "report" upon the JBS and other organizations.

YOU described Harry's relationship to the FBI as him being "an undercover agent" who was given "a mission" to perform.

Harry's 1975 affidavit says the same thing. Harry has also REPEATEDLY written that he was a "political spy" for the FBI and in his 1966 flyer captioned "I Confess" Harry described himself as "an undercover informant to the FBI".

It is manifestly self-evident that YET AGAIN you are playing WORD GAMES to confuse and misdirect the discussion.

I have always clarified that whenever the terms “undercover agent” might have been used to describe Harry Dean, it was always informally, colloquially, as an ‘agent’ may be simply anybody who acts on behalf of another, and ‘undercover’ may simply mean somebody who hides his intentions to pass information to the FBI or some other US Government group. The same applies to Harry Dean’s use of the terms – since the FBI’s official reservation of those terms was unknown to Harry at the time. Despite repeating this countless times, you continue to accuse me of claiming that Harry Dean was an Official FBI Undercover Agent. That accusation is unfair and inaccurate in the extreme.

FIRST: This comment by you is a conscious, deliberate LIE:

"...you continue to accuse me of claiming that Harry Dean was an Official FBI Undercover Agent. That accusation is unfair and inaccurate in the extreme."

ONLY YOU use phony terms like "Official FBI Undercover Agent" -- just like YOU use "official paid informant". These are YOUR CREATIONS Paul -- not mine.

My objections have ALWAYS BEEN very explicit. I will summarize them again for you here. So STOP LYING:

1. Harry was NOT an FBI "informant"

2. Harry was NOT an FBI "political spy"

3. Harry was NOT an FBI "street informant"

4. Harry was NOT an FBI "undercover agent" (whether "official" or "unofficial" -- whatever the hell that means TO YOU

5. Harry was NOT an FBI "undercover operative" (whether "official" or "unofficial "-- whatever the hell that means TO YOU

6. Harry was NOT an FBI "official paid informant" nor a "paid informant"

7. Harry was NOT a "private investigator" (whether "official" or "unofficial" -- whatever the hell that means TO YOU)

8. Harry did NOT "investigate" anything for the FBI (whether "officially" or "unofficially" -- whatever the hell that means TO YOU)

9. Harry was NOT an FBI "double agent" (YOUR description in November 2012)

10. In 1962, Harry was NOT (as he wrote in 2006) "involved with the Bureau in gathering political and subversive intelligence information."

11. Harry was NOT "a former U.S. intelligence informant" (as he described himself in November 2007)

12. Harry was NOT a "U.S. intelligence...infiltration operative/informant" (as he described himself in September 2011)

13. Harry was NOT "operating underground for the FBI, spying on the JBS in Southern California" (your description in March 2012)

I hope this BRIEF introduction covers all of your phony excuses and objections.

AND as I have repeatedly told you -- there is NO record of Harry EVER making any sort of definitive clarification during the 1960's or 1970's.

Harry never publicly wrote or said anything like:

"When I refer to myself with terms such as 'undercover agent' or 'undercover operative' or 'political spy', I am using those terms colloquially and informally.

I do not mean to suggest that I ever had any sort of formal relationship with the FBI and I certainly did not mean to suggest that I was an FBI employee or FBI Agent nor that I had any training nor did the FBI ever ask me to do anything for them. Not at all. Instead, I just occasionally gave the FBI some information in my possession which I thought they might like to have -- and I do not even know what they did with my information."

IN FACT: CAN YOU GET HARRY (EVEN TODAY) TO POST A MESSAGE HERE IN EF IN WHICH HE EXPLICITLY AGREES WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT? I DOUBT IT!

Paul, the problem with your current weasel-word explanation is that it contradicts the plain English meaning of the words which YOU have previously (and repeatedly) used to describe Harry's relationship with the FBI. Your explanation also contradicts Harry's previous explanations and he has NEVER said or written ANYTHING which corresponds to your current tortured attempt to whitewash him.

BUT---here is what I am going to do.

I wish I had a copy of "Crosstrails" because I suspect that publication has even more examples to prove my point -- but I am going to prepare a chronological summary of the numerous comments which Harry has made (verbal and written) in which he described himself vis-a-vis "intelligence agencies".

This is going to take me considerable time because there is so much material to review. But I will eventually post a comprehensive list so everyone can see how DISINGENUOUS your explanation is.

Final point: Ultimately what matters is how ordinary laypersons understood Harry, i.e. what THEY thought he meant to convey by his comments -- not what YOU CLAIM he meant.

And, lastly, I repeat something I have said before: There are only a handful of people who have had this problem. What you have never addressed is WHY Harry has been so consistently "misunderstood" by so many people over so long a period of time and in so many different locations. And please do not bring up W.R. Morris again. I am referring to Harry's OWN WORDS -- not to anything Morris wrote or said.

The malice by W.R. Morris was to switch Harry Dean’s informal usage of those terms into an official usage of those terms, for his own private gain. Harry Dean objected to this back in 1965. It is offensive to see anyone continue to make those claims of W.R. Morris with regard to Harry Dean today, or to continue to blame Harry Dean for the malice spread by W.R. Morris about Harry Dean.

WHEN AND WHERE DID HARRY "OBJECT" to anything Morris wrote or said?

QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT HARRY WROTE OR SAID -- DO NOT PARAPHRASE.

AND LIMIT YOUR QUOTATIONS ONLY TO HARRY'S ALLEGED OBJECTIONS TO HOW HE SHOULD BE DESCRIBED VIS-A-VIS HIS ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FBI AND CIA.

(6) I have plenty of documentation to support everything I write, Ernie. I even have email from you, personally, to back up my claims about you. Still, I’m under no obligation to produce all my documents with every post I write. Everything will be revealed in due season.

In actual fact, you told me publicly that Harry Dean had no FBI case number. That was in the context of a 2012 discussion under the web article, The Strange Love of Dr. Billy James Hargis, which discussion has since been removed from that web article by the owner. But I also have your own email, and I can back up all my statements. Because that is the case, I am deeply offended by your unkind remarks and your claim that I’m lying here. I hereby ask the Moderator to step in and moderate this exchange.

IF, as you claim, IN ACTUAL FACT, I "PUBLICLY" STATED THAT HARRY DEAN HAD NO FBI CASE NUMBER -- THEN QUOTE MY COMMENT.

I previously uploaded in this thread (page 85, message #1270) ALL of the comments which appeared in that Hargis article. QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE. DON'T ATTRIBUTE IT -- QUOTE IT.

Enough said.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- my replies are underneath your comments

POSTSCRIPT:

I just went back and re-read the entire Hargis article comments section and there is NO comment by me which corresponds to what Paul has falsely claimed in the last paragraph of his message above--- which is why, of course, Paul NEVER QUOTES what I write!

What I wrote in the comments section is EXACTLY and LITERALLY what I have written here in EF, i.e. that there are NO references to Harry Dean in any JBS or JBS-related file which substantiate Harry's claim that he provided information to the FBI about the JBS, Welch, Rousselot, Walker, etc.

IF Paul SINCERELY thinks I ever made a comment corresponding to his falsehood that I said Harry Dean had no "FBI case number" --- then LET HIM QUOTE IT VERBATIM or, alternatively, ADMIT he is a xxxx!

Edited September 28, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

In addition to Steven's comment, the President will undoubtedly respond as the judges have consistently in Morley's efforts - if the Agency produces a list of documents they certify as being of national security concern, the President will literally accept their list - in reality he and his staff have no other option and if he released something operational or actionable by mistake it would mean political crucifixion by the other party. National Security is one issue no President can leave themselves politically exposed on....that's just the hard, cold fact. Of course why anyone would expect any known smoking gun documents to still exist seems curious to me.

There is nothing which Harry Dean allegedly gave to the FBI which would rate "Top Secret" status -- which is why his HQ and field office files were released over 30 years ago and those files contain the contemporaneous search slips which were produced in the 1960's by the FBI to track ALL documents in FBI files containing the name "Harry Dean". Significantly, NONE of the references on those search slips correspond to any file classification which would be withheld because they are almost all "administrative files" -- which is why (for example), FOIA requesters have no problem obtaining JBS files, Minutemen files, and files on people like Rousselot, Walker, Galbadon, Welch, Loran Hall (although most of his files are now at NARA), Joseph Milteer, Guy Banister, Wesley Grapp, FPCC, JURE, Alpha 66, etc. etc.

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, I was not commenting on anything in regard to Harry Dean but rather the overall concept that all previously classified documents would be mass released on a given date.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, I was not commenting on anything in regard to Harry Dean but rather the overall concept that all previously classified documents would be mass released on a given date.

Yes, I know that Larry. I was just using your observation to make it clear that the kind of phony excuses and explanations used by Trejo do not apply to the type of documents or files which the FBI archived concerning Harry Dean or about the right-wing individuals and organizations which Harry and Paul claim Harry provided information about

[Paul Trejo]

IF Paul SINCERELY thinks I ever made a comment corresponding to his falsehood that I said Harry Dean had no "FBI case number" --- then LET HIM QUOTE IT VERBATIM or, alternatively, ADMIT he is a xxxx!

Whatever else results from this thread, I hope that the Moderators will take special note of the sort of language that Ernie uses.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

, I expect the FBI to cough them up before the end of 2017.// Paul Trejo

##########################################################

If you go to the government site that discussed this issue,you will see a cavet to the JFK records release.

The POTUS can withold the JFK records on grounds of National Security.

Please dont hold your breath.

Well, you might be right, Steven, because with the rise of a potentially global threat like ISIS, it just might be the case that the US Government would not want to raise an issue that could divide the USA into left-wing and right-wing political factions even more than they are already.

It's been a long time since the US Government was as polarized as it is today, IMHO. It seems to me that the TRUTH about the JFK murder (which I believe will point directly at a right-wing conspiracy) might still be too sensitive to reveal to the American People as early as 2017.

Perhaps we'll need to wait the entire 75 years announced by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and wait until 2039.

Yet even somebody as rightist as Edwin Walker himself recognized that hiding the Truth about the JFK murder was bad for morale in America. Americans really need the TRUTH.

The unspoken message is that the TRUTH must be pretty doggone bad to be held back from Americans for 75 years.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

IF Paul SINCERELY thinks I ever made a comment corresponding to his falsehood that I said Harry Dean had no "FBI case number" --- then LET HIM QUOTE IT VERBATIM or, alternatively, ADMIT he is a xxxx!

Whatever else results from this thread, I hope that the Moderators will take special note of the sort of language that Ernie uses.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

What OTHER word applies to a situation when you FABRICATE FROM WHOLE CLOTH a FALSE assertion?

And notice that Paul objects to the word -- but REFUSES to QUOTE what I wrote in order to substantiate his accusation.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

IF Paul SINCERELY thinks I ever made a comment corresponding to his falsehood that I said Harry Dean had no "FBI case number" --- then LET HIM QUOTE IT VERBATIM or, alternatively, ADMIT he is a xxxx!

Whatever else results from this thread, I hope that the Moderators will take special note of the sort of language that Ernie uses.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

What OTHER word applies to a situation when you FABRICATE FROM WHOLE CLOTH a FALSE assertion?

And notice that Paul objects to the word -- but REFUSES to QUOTE what I wrote in order to substantiate his accusation.

It's not a matter of refusal -- it's a matter of common courtesy. Your language brings down the level of discourse on the Forum, Ernie.

This has been pointed out since 2010, by the way.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

It's not a matter of refusal -- it's a matter of common courtesy. Your language brings down the level of discourse on the Forum, Ernie.

This has been pointed out since 2010, by the way.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, numerous other contributors on this website have pointed out how you twist words and make utterly absurd and false statements.

IF you genuinely want to elevate the level of discourse (which I doubt), then there is but ONE thing you need to do. JUST ONE!

THAT one thing is this:

When you make an unkind accusation against someone (especially when you disparage a person's honesty, integrity and character) --- then QUOTE VERBATIM what they have written so that EVERYONE understands what you are referring to so there can be NO misunderstandings,

But YOUR consistent pattern (since 2010 which MANY people have noticed here) is that you make FALSE assertions.

So, AGAIN, if you GENUINELY want to elevate the level of discourse so that ONLY evidence is discussed and there are no personal attacks or comments -- THEN follow the one normal rule of debate and discussion which ALL honorable people subscribe to, i.e. DOCUMENT and SUBSTANTIATE your accusations and assertions by QUOTING VERBATIM the original source you are using to make your accusation.

[Most recent example: if you TRULY believe that I ever wrote that there was "no FBI case number" on Harry -- then QUOTE VERBATIM what I actually wrote.]

YOU brought up this matter -- so, apparently, it is important to you because YOU think it has importance for our discussion. Therefore, you are obliged to QUOTE what I wrote to prove that you are accurately and truthfully presenting EVIDENCE of what I allegedly stated. Incidentally, I did the hard work for you! I contacted the editor of the website that contained the Hargis article in order to obtain the entire "comments" section and THEN I posted it here in EF.

So---I did the hard work FOR YOU. NOW, you should have the decency to QUOTE what I wrote that proves your point.

Are you man enough to follow that ONE principle of debate?

Edited September 29, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, after years of struggle with your insulting manners, I've had enough of it. I'm asking for Moderator input for your mannerisms on this thread.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, after years of struggle with your insulting manners, I've had enough of it. I'm asking for Moderator input for your mannerisms on this thread.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

That's right Paul -- just whine and moan and complain - but NEVER, under ANY circumstances, prove with evidence what you claim.

As Greg Burnham wrote to you in April:

Paul, You are putting words in my mouth, forcing me to conclusions that I do not hold and misinterpreting my positions. I have lost patience and now I am done.

As Tommy Graves wrote to you in May:

IMHO it takes way too much time and energy to "debate" you because of your lackadaisical approach to research and fact checking and, more importantly, your devious nature and willingness to "grossly exaggerate" as exhibited multiple times on this forum's pages. So like Greg Burnham and others, I'm finished with you.

So, now we know what YOUR principles of debate are. You have revealed yourself yet again. You REFUSE to substantiate your unkind falsehoods and you REFUSE to graciously apologize when you are mistaken about ANY matter.

So now we all know what YOU mean by "common courtesy".

Edited September 29, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Moderator, please address the tone of this poster.

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I would like to briefly comment upon a point which Paul raised which I know confuses a lot of people. In a recent message Paul repeated one of his most frequent accusations about government records and files. Paul wrote:

I simply keep reminding the readers here that you yourself haven’t seen all the FBI records that are still being held by the FBI, and so your hasty conclusions suffer from the faulty logic of concluding on the basis of incomplete evidence. Period. You keep insisting that it “DOES NOT EXIST,” but actually you don’t know that. Only the FBI knows whether that is true or false today.

Frankly, it is VERY difficult to discuss this intelligently with someone who has never pursued FOIA requests because NON-requesters (like Paul) do not have any FACTUAL familiarity with all of the rules and protocols which apply to FOIA requests nor are they familiar with the numerous FOIA lawsuits which have addressed the very issues which ill-informed and mis-informed people (like Paul) bring up repeatedly.

First -- let's start with what Paul is CORRECT about.

1. YES, there are government agency documents and files which are exempt from disclosure OR which might be released but with extensive redaction.

2. YES, there are government agency documents and files which are classified (i.e. "confidential", "secret", "top secret").

3. YES, government agencies often attempt to prevent disclosure of information which they CLAIM is "national security" related.

4. YES, I have not seen "all" FBI files which pertain to JBS-related subjects.

Now -- let's briefly discuss why Paul is profoundly mistaken in his assumptions

1. ALL bureaucracies (whether government agencies, corporations, or other entities) have detailed written records-retention and records-destruction rules and procedures

2. With respect to the FBI, there is controlling Congressional legislation along with mandatory rules, regulations, and (in particular) numerous controlling court decisions which the FBI is obligated to follow.

3. Unlike every other government agency, the FBI was subjected to an exhaustive court-ordered study and inventory of its filing systems and records-keeping practices. That study took years to complete and there is a massive 568 page detailed "records appraisal" report about the FBI which was completed by the Archivist of the United States. There also have been numerous Congressional hearings and reports.

3. As I have repeatedly stated, it is not possible to perpetually hide the existence of FBI documents and files because there are so many different ways to discover them. For example: FBI documents (memos and reports and correspondence) are located in Presidential Libraries and in private papers of politicians and government officials which are archived in literally HUNDREDS of colleges, universities, state historical societies, and other locations.

First, let me mention some basic information which should be self-evident -- even to people like Paul:

5. FBI professional employees did not personally go into their file rooms (at HQ or at FBI field offices) to retrieve file(s) about any matter.

6. Instead, FBI Agents, FBI Supervisors, FBI Section Chiefs, FBI Assistant Directors submitted their requests for a search of files to a specific FBI unit.

7. That FBI clerical unit would search for ALL references contained in FBI files about whatever name or subject was identified. However, the requester could provide search parameters such as requesting only "subversive" references OR limit the search to only specific years.

8. Obviously, those "search slips" which appear in FBI files are an extremely important tool for serious students and researchers into FBI history because they identify EVERY file (subject to search parameter limitations) that contained ANY reference to the subject or name --- EVEN IF they could not initially be certain that the listing was identical to the person, organization, or subject requested. [Example: as I have pointed out, many of the search slip references to "Harry Dean" or "Harry J. Dean", turned out to be about somebody OTHER than our Harry Dean.]

9. Even more significant, many FBI files have numerous search requests over a period of many years or even decades. Which means serious students and researchers can see EVERYTHING which was ever identified as being potentially responsive to the search request--regardless of its classification (i.e. "confidential", "secret", or "top secret" -- or unclassified or de-classified).

10. Readers here may recall that several months ago I uploaded Edwin Walker's HQ file. Walker's file contained two lengthy FBI serials which are called "correlation summaries".

I want to discuss this briefly because it so clearly falsifies Paul's contentions which are totally a product of his fevered imagination.

An FBI "correlation summary" is much a more significant document than any FBI search slips. Here's why:

11. Usually, a correlation summary was requested and compiled when the FBI wanted to have a very detailed summary of every single serial ever created about any subject -- usually a person or organization. And, unlike search slips, they are limited to only those references which actually are about the specific person or organization or subject pursued.

12. Correlation summaries are almost always in chronological order -- so they represent a complete history in date sequence (from document #1, on day #1) where the FBI had some kind of reference to the subject matter of the summary.

13. Those references could be newspaper articles, Congressional hearings testimony or reports, incoming correspondence and Bureau replies, comments entered into the Congressional Record, contacts the FBI had with local and state law enforcement agencies OR with other federal entities -- such as military intelligence or CIA or State Department etc., and, of course, relevant investigative reports by FBI Agents in many different FBI offices.

14. And to be clear: the correlation summary does not just provide a summary of the content of any document mentioned. In addition, it identifies EVERY file and serial number ever created about the particular subject being discussed. THAT is why sometimes a correlation summary serial can easily consume HUNDREDS of pages.

Remember---the entire purpose of a correlation summary was to provide FBI employees with a quick-reference that summarized EVERYTHING significant in FBI files about a specific subject -- particularly for large files so that employees did not have to review, potentially, 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 pages or more pages in the original files.

IN CONCLUSION

1. If a researcher finds a "correlation summary" or finds copies of "search slips" in any FBI file, that is the easiest and most productive method to ascertain exactly what serials and files the FBI has created about any given subject.

2. THAT is why I have repeatedly pointed out that there is no way to prevent researchers from discovering at least the existence of relevant documents and files -- EVEN IF the FBI should decide to claim they are exempt from disclosure for whatever reasons.

3. THAT is why Paul's argument about "not seeing all the FBI records" is TOTALLY BOGUS --- because there are NO files pertaining to the JBS or about Harry Dean which are unknown. YES--his Chicago field file was destroyed in May 1990 -- but there are Chicago summary memos which still exist in Harry's HQ and Los Angeles files so we know what Chicago field told HQ and other offices from contemporaneous serials they wrote.

4. BUT-- Paul's larger argument is BOGUS and he believes what he believes because he has NO experience with making FOIA requests and he has NO knowledge about FBI filing systems, indexing systems, and, particularly, lawsuits and court-ordered studies which have produced extensive details about FBI records-keeping practices and procedures.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Ernie Lazar