Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I have decided to ban Tim Gratz from this Forum. He joined the Forum on 9th November, 2004 and over the last 16 months has made 4,703 posts. It soon became apparent that he had extreme right-wing opinions. I particularly found his attempts to justify any action as long as it was part of the war against communism, fairly nauseating. This included the use of death squads in Latin America, the overthrow of democratic regimes by the CIA, the McCarthy blacklists and the defence of any form of government corruption as long as it involved members of the Republican Party. Although I found these views very unpleasant , I rejected calls from some members to ban him from the Forum.

This was mainly because I am a firm believer in free speech. As Rosa Luxemburg once pointed out: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” I also share the view of John Milton "Truth is not established by prohibitions and punishments, but in a free and open encounter with falsehood." I also thought Tim’s debates with Robert Charles-Dunne, Pat Speer, Mark Stapleton were highly educational. I also thought his ridiculous posts, as long as they were challenged, did considerable harm to the right-wing cause. Although I grew increasingly concerned about of time members of the Forum spent answering his bizarre posts. It did also seem that he was making a concerted effort to side-track certain subjects. Sometimes it seemed every thread was turned into “Castro killed JFK”.

However, the real problem with Tim Gratz concerned his attempts to stop other people from posting comments on the Forum. While researching Arthur Bremer’s attempted assassination of George Wallace, I discovered that Richard E. Sprague had claimed in The Taking of America that:

At the time he was shot, he (George Wallace) was drawing 18% of the vote according to the polls, and most of that was in Nixon territory. The conservative states such as Indiana were going for Wallace. He was eating into Nixon's southern strength. In April the polls showed McGovern pulling a 41%, Nixon 41% and Wallace 18%. It was going to be too close for comfort, and it might be thrown into the House - in which case Nixon would surely lose. There was the option available of eliminating George McGovern, but then the Democrats might come up with Hubert Humphrey or someone else even more dangerous than McGovern. Nixon's best chance was a head-on contest with McGovern. Wallace had to go…

Arthur Bremer was selected. The first contacts were made by people who knew both Bremer and Segretti in Milwaukee. They were members of a leftist organization planted there as provocateurs by the intelligence forces within the Power Control Group. One of them was a man named Dennis Cossini…

What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz.

I also discovered that a J. Timothy Gratz was approached by Donald Segretti to take part in the 1972 Vixon dirty tricks campaign. According to the Senate Investigation into Watergate, Gratz informed the White House about Segretti’s approach and as a result Nixon sent Tony Ulasewicz to meet him. We now know that Ulasewicz was part of Operation Sandwedge. This was the dirty tricks campaign that was attempting to stop George Wallace, Edward Kennedy and Edmund Muskie from standing in the 1972 presidential election. We also know that Ulasewicz was at Chappaquiddick at the time Mary Jo Kopechne died. (Ulsaewicz claimed he had been asked by Nixon to investigate Kopechne’s death).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4017

I posted what I found about J. Timothy Gratz on the Forum. He admitted he was the J. Timothy Gratz mentioned in the Senate Watergate Report but denied he was part of Nixon’s dirty tricks campaign. Tim tried to get me to remove this information from the Forum. Even though he threatened me with legal action I refused.

I suspected that his involvement in these dirty tricks resulted in him being debarred as a lawyer. However, he has always refused to answer why he was removed from the legal profession.

Later, another member, Shanet Clark, repeated Richard E. Sprague’s claims about Gratz. As a result Gratz threatened Shanet with legal action. Shanet believed him and after making an unnecessary apology, left the Forum. I was appalled by this action and told Gratz that if he did this again I would remove him from the Forum. I was also disturbed when I discovered that two members of the Forum had received telephone calls from Gratz. One of these members, an elderly, well-respected investigative reporter and the author of numerous books, was disturbed enough by this phone call to say he would no longer post on the Forum.

This issue is an important one. The main purpose of setting up the “Controversial Issues in History” section was to investigate examples of government corruption and cover-ups. This has been highly successful as it has encouraged several witnesses to come forward to provide information on these cases. It has enabled researchers, journalists and historians to share their information on these cases. As a result the Forum is used as a source of information by both journalists and authors.

However, using a Forum for this kind of work does bring risks. Several people have threatened to sue us over postings that have been made on the Forum. It is a common tactic used by people with money to keep people from publishing details about their wrongdoings. Even if they are guilty of the offences that they have been accused of, they know that the threat of legal action will persuade some people to withdraw their comments and to cease investigating them.

In recently weeks I have become involved in a dispute with Tim Gratz over the CIA organized overthrow of the democratically elected government in Guatemala in 1954. Tim posted untrue information based on the CIA black propaganda campaign carried out at the time of the military coup. This issue is not in dispute as these CIA documents were released on the orders of Bill Clinton in 1997. When I accused him of spreading false information he threatened me with legal action. This included the following message: “I offer you one last opportunity to apologize for your statements that I have lied and posted information I knew to be false. I guess the best time to serve the summons on you is when you attend the seminar in Dallas next November. I can wait that long. So you need necessarily worry about litigation until that time. It is my understanding that once US jurisdiction is acquired you as a party can be required to give deposition testimony in the district in which the suit is filed.”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5945

One of the things that I have learnt as a teacher and a parent, is that if you must always carry out your threats. I have therefore banned Tim Gratz from the Forum. I am sorry if I have upset members and non-members of your enjoyment but I am sure you will find Tim posting his nonsense of some other Forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John, this is your house and you do as you wish.

I was one of the members contacted by Tim over the phone shortly before I joined the forum. In fact, he called me two days in a row. My belief it was because he yanked my post regarding Cesar Diosdoda off of the Lancer forum and posted it here. He's a fast talker but I enjoyed the conversation although I believe he downplays U.S. intel/customs role in the assassination to much.

I'm just going to put this out there for what it's worth but I believe that Tim's political views and place in history began the slow route to his undoing. I saw a lot of goading of the guy personally. No, Castro arranging the assassination of JFK isn't a popular theory but it IS a theory. Tim needed to provide more secondary and tertiary documentation for it than what he did however....

Some of the discourse, I'll miss. Again, all my personal opinion so take it for what it's worth.

Jason Vermeer

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim needed to provide more secondary and tertiary documentation for it than what he did however....

Jason Vermeer

__________________________________________

Gratz posted an average of about ten "jokes," comments, monologues, denials, "rebuttals," diatribes, accusations, attachments, and/or "essays" per day since he joined the Forum on 11/09/04. He even threw in a few honest questions from time to time, probably just for "appearances." He certainly had his chance, didn't he? (And guess what?-- He blew it.)

FWIW, Thomas :ice

__________________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

I regret that this has come to pass, for all the nobler reasons that John Simkin has cited in his post. Moreover, as an educator himself, I suspect strongly that John has made this decision despite of and against some of his better instincts. I further suspect that this single decision has probably been among the more difficult he's made since starting this wonderful Forum.

I was encouraged to join this Forum by an Australian member for whom I have the highest regard. He and I had become cyber-acquainted via another JFK Forum many years back, and he assured me that the level of discourse here was superior to anything he'd encountered elsewhere. He was correct about that, and I did join.

However, one of my reasons for signing on here was the presence of Tim Gratz. It well and truly boggled my mind that somebody could seriously propose the Castro-did-it theory - or any theory - without troubling themselves to do the necessary research, and present any substantive evidence to make it persuasive to others.

No matter how much I goaded, needled and ridiculed his lack of effort in this regard, he still would not do the yeoman's work necessary to mount an effective argument. No matter how many times I pointed out to him that his source material all originated with CIA, which alone should have called its credibility into some question, he would not be shaken from his firm resolve that Castro did it. However, nor did he seek to elevate the quality level of his argument by finding other sources that might bolster his hypothesis.

Those who've been here the past year-plus will know that I went at Tim hammer and tongs on this topic, and soon, on other topics as well. Again, irrespective of the subject matter, the same pattern played itself out: the calibre of what he presented was strictly small-arms... a supposedly damning sentence from this book, a paragraph from that newspaper article, a quote lifted out of context from this or that source, a snippet from a dubious website, all dressed up as something meaningful for our consumption, but nothing remotely compelling to those who didn't already share his views.

As is stated in my bio here - and was repeatedly mocked by Gerry Hemming, who seems to have made himself scarce of late - I've been studying this subject for a very long time, and have devoted a goodly portion of my life to acquainting myself with the circumstances of the crime. The same is clearly true for many, perhaps most, of the others who post here, and it shows. Except for Tim. I had really hoped that there was more to Tim's argument than just a crazy quilt of random quotations and bluster.

However, along the way, I did also note a few details that raised my suspicions Tim might not be the garden variety JFK-wonk. To wit:

Most of the JFK obsessives [by which I mean no offense, since I proudly count myself among their number] who post on web-boards such a this one have devoted a lot of time and energy to studying the crime. Irrespective of which particular theory they may favour, they have done sufficient homework to mount a strong case for their beliefs. Any member here can attest that this is true of Pat Speer, Ron Ecker, James Richards, Tim Carroll and a host of others. Tim seemed an anomaly in this regard, to my mind at least, and I sincerely hope that I'm not misjudging him by damning him with this faint praise. I always got the feeling that a purely superficial level of interest was at play, and that anything that required too much more research or effort just wasn't worth the time it took to achieve.

With an average of ten posts per day, and an aggregate of nearly 9 per cent of the total posts on this Forum, Tim was, without doubt, second only to John Simkin in the amount of time and energy spent here crafting posts. However, whereas others have laboured long and hard on many of their posts, a good portion of Tim's were dashed off in seconds, consisted of "jokes," or otherwise contributed little or nothing to the theads in which they appeared. For somebody serious about the topic, he seemed to take it quite lightly, to the point of causing offense with some misguided comments that he was apparently alone in thinking were funny.

What makes this output astonishing is that Tim didn't post from home in his spare time, as is true of most others here. All of Tim's posts were made from his place of work, on company time. When he recently seemed to have switched jobs [according to one of his posts], the pattern continued. I don't know what to make of a job where so little work is required that one is free for hours on end to patrol websites and post at will, but I'd sure like to know where one obtains such employment. Then, perhaps, I could also spend all my time on this topic as well. That Tim was lucky enough to find one such job is remarkable, but two such employments, back to back? It does tend to strain one's credulity.

John has said in his initial post above that he suspects Tim will soon be contributing his ideas to some other JFK Forum. It will be most interesting to see if this is true, or whether this Forum was Tim's assigned beat and, having been precluded from posting here, he will be forced to seek employment that requires actual work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is regrettable that it has come to this. Personally, I'm not in favor of banning individuals from expressing their views but Tim's habit of threatenng to sue members was highly unpleasant and a threat to the Forum's ongoing viability. Some time ago Tim threatened that he would bring an action which would force the Forum's closure.

It's interesting that Tim got so upset on the Guatemala thread in relation to the question of who was telling the truth. Insults and allegations of dishonesty flew back and forth and Tim, to his discredit, threatened to sue. However, on the "Final Judgement" thread Michael Collins Piper recently accused Tim of being a xxxx seven times in one post, by my count (post #318). He called Tim among other things, a xxxx, a dirty xxxx, an egregious xxxx and a big fat xxxx. Here I was thinking that the lawsuit threats would soon be flowing but Tim's commendable response was on the lines of, "what are you getting so upset about?". No anger, no threats of lawsuits, no demands for an apology. It doesn't square with Tim's subsequent indignation with John Simkin.

Using threats of legal action to bludgeon other members into compliance is a low tactic and should be roundly condemned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting that Tim got so upset on the Guatemala thread in relation to the question of who was telling the truth. Insults and allegations of dishonesty flew back and forth and Tim, to his discredit, threatened to sue. However, on the "Final Judgement" thread Michael Collins Piper recently accused Tim of being a xxxx seven times in one post, by my count (post #318). He called Tim among other things, a xxxx, a dirty xxxx, an egregious xxxx and a big fat xxxx. Here I was thinking that the lawsuit threats would soon be flowing but Tim's commendable response was on the lines of, "what are you getting so upset about?". No anger, no threats of lawsuits, no demands for an apology. It doesn't square with Tim's subsequent indignation with John Simkin.

Using threats of legal action to bludgeon other members into compliance is a low tactic and should be roundly condemned.

My two cents of dimestore psychology are that Tim reacted differently for two reasons. One, he didn't feel personally threatened by Piper; he considered Piper a disreputable figure and enjoyed making Piper blow his cool. When the table was turned, however, and the authoritarian and respectable father figure of the forum, John Simkin, called Tim to task for his head-in-the-sand attitude towards Guatemala, he just couldn't handle it. Tim, like far too many Americans, has let himself be deceived into thinking that America is the world's hero, the shining light of freedom on the hill.. When forced to face the sad reality of our history--that honest Americans have been lied to by Imperialist capitalists interested primarily in PROFIT, with god, mother, and country miles behind, they look away or pick a fight. Tim, as we all know, has had a tremendously hard time accepting that any reputable American figure could have played a role in the assassination. Whether Democrat or Repub, black or white, Tim can't fathom that any patriotic American could kill his president. Tim can't accept that patriotism and anti-communism can be BAD things. He still won't admit that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

As I've said before, I've known guys like Tim my whole life and consider many of them friends. Yes, I consider Tim a friend. But he was wrong. Hopefully, he can learn from this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that Tim got so upset on the Guatemala thread in relation to the question of who was telling the truth. Insults and allegations of dishonesty flew back and forth and Tim, to his discredit, threatened to sue. However, on the "Final Judgement" thread Michael Collins Piper recently accused Tim of being a xxxx seven times in one post, by my count (post #318). He called Tim among other things, a xxxx, a dirty xxxx, an egregious xxxx and a big fat xxxx. Here I was thinking that the lawsuit threats would soon be flowing but Tim's commendable response was on the lines of, "what are you getting so upset about?". No anger, no threats of lawsuits, no demands for an apology. It doesn't square with Tim's subsequent indignation with John Simkin.

Using threats of legal action to bludgeon other members into compliance is a low tactic and should be roundly condemned.

My two cents of dimestore psychology are that Tim reacted differently for two reasons. One, he didn't feel personally threatened by Piper; he considered Piper a disreputable figure and enjoyed making Piper blow his cool. When the table was turned, however, and the authoritarian and respectable father figure of the forum, John Simkin, called Tim to task for his head-in-the-sand attitude towards Guatemala, he just couldn't handle it. Tim, like far too many Americans, has let himself be deceived into thinking that America is the world's hero, the shining light of freedom on the hill.. When forced to face the sad reality of our history--that honest Americans have been lied to by Imperialist capitalists interested primarily in PROFIT, with god, mother, and country miles behind, they look away or pick a fight. Tim, as we all know, has had a tremendously hard time accepting that any reputable American figure could have played a role in the assassination. Whether Democrat or Repub, black or white, Tim can't fathom that any patriotic American could kill his president. Tim can't accept that patriotism and anti-communism can be BAD things. He still won't admit that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

As I've said before, I've known guys like Tim my whole life and consider many of them friends. Yes, I consider Tim a friend. But he was wrong. Hopefully, he can learn from this.

****************************************************

Pat, thank you for putting it so correctly and succinctly for me. I'm in total agreement with what you've said and with R.C.D. As I've stated before, I really enjoyed their debates, but had to draw the line on that last post of his that I answered. I've always held Robert Charles Dunne in the highest of esteem from the other forums he's posted on of which I've also been a member. The same can be said for you as well, Pat. But, it's as if T.G. kind of self-destructed, and I find that extremely unfortunate. Carry on without him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I also find Tim's banning regrettable, however, rules are rules and I support John's decision.

I find Tim's stand re Piper as a holocaust denier and as someone who shares happily a platform with the people he does, progressive.

For someone like Tim to take such a stand introduces some irreconcilable conflicts in other areas of ideology. The attempt to successfully resolve such conflicts usually happens over time and usually not under duress. For example a logical extension would be to recognise Goldwater as a racist.

As this would be in stark contrast to a formative youth of YAH, this would mean reviewing a great deal of past history.

I doubt that many people would do so gracefully, publicly and completely according to agendas set by others. Particularly on the defensive.

We live in a world where might rules. Those who are seen to be wrong are, if offered up as sacrifice on the altar of righteousness, torn to shreds by hordes of reactive hyenas.

Those who are in a position to direct through exclusion such behaviour should not take that position lightly. Tim has had a lot of opportunity, and not being able to post does not put an end to that opportunity.

As one christian to another, Tim, perhaps this is an opportunity to take a couple of weeks off down by the beach with a fishing rod, a bottle of port, and the bible.

PS>>>re skull..Pat thank you very much for the input/direction. I shall look very carefully at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too concur with the sentiments of the above posters.

I have a feeling however that RC Dunne's points were hitting their mark and that this time around Tim could not escape the awful truth about his beloved leaders: that they HAD assassinated, both at home and most certainly in Latin America.

It appeared that he was having a meltdown and his response was to become completely defensive and simply behave like a child with his threat to sue. He had been fully warned that such a threat would result in his being banned from this forum.

I do believe that Tim does care about this subject but his right wing views present a problem. A multitude of problems, in fact. So he looks to writers like Russo who share his "truth" to bolster his innane CIA-sponsered view that Castro killed JFK.

I used to believe that TG was a paid disinformant - that no one could seriously study this case and honestly hold his views. But I came to believe that these are his views. This blind patriotism that I have always found so repugnant made Tim's world all black and white, and this time he'd been backed into a corner. His country right or wrong was shown to be SO very wrong. Instead of dealing with this he lashed out at John.

I do hope he comes to his senses, but such would require a great deal of growth and maturity.

Be well Tim, even tho we TOTALLY disagreed on this case, and on most matters political, I will miss you.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
Be well Tim, even tho we TOTALLY disagreed on this case, and on most matters political, I will miss you.

So will I. It is desperately important that a dialogue is created between liberals and conservatives. In reality we are not too far apart. The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be well Tim, even tho we TOTALLY disagreed on this case, and on most matters political, I will miss you.

So will I. It is desperately important that a dialogue is created between liberals and conservatives. In reality we are not too far apart. The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society.

***********************************************

"The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society."

I certainly hope so, for all of mankinds' sake.

I will always be grateful to you for putting a name on this, John. For many years I'd struggled to explain what I'd perceived to be this very same ploy. People were only too quick to laugh at the idea that they may somehow have been manipulated in such an insidious way, especially by a medium they considered to be totally innocuous. Operation Mockingbird revealed just how extensive and inter-relative this actually became. Aside from the realization of how easily masses of humanity might be psychologically, though involuntarily programmed, and consequently controlled in the process, there are still those who refuse to acknowledge their political affiliations' complicity in any of these actions. Unfortunately, they're destined to remain in a state of denial through their blind loyalty, or false pride.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From the little I understand of US law I believe Tim's case has no merit.

Unlike in Britain where the burden of proof is on the defendant, in the US the plantif has to show that the defendant knowingly made a false statement. He also has to show you dammaged his reputation. If that weren't enough the U.S. courts might not have jurisdiction.

The case of Wilson v. Belin & Blakey came up in another thread. The cases are similar, you like Belin and Blakey are not a resident of the jurisdictions in which Tim could file his case, nor did you make your comments in them. Blakey IIRC is a member of this forum and is of course a lawyer perhaps he could advise you, or maybe Dawn could ask some of her collegues.

I could be wrong, but I think Tim is basing his idea that he can serve John when he comes to Dallas on the recent lawsuit against the kid in the Natalie Hollaway case. Personally I don't think this lawsuit is going to fly, but we shall see. It's been a very long time since I studied Civil Procedure in law school but there must be some minimum contacts in order to establish jurisdiction over a potential defendant. The fact that this family visited New York does not confer such I don't think. Anymore than it would on John if and when he re-visits Dallas. Libel law is a highly specialised area and one I have abslutely zero experience in but I do recall from my law school days that there also has to be damages, that the defendant published something he knew to be false.

Re: Tim Gratz threat: this article includes information about the NY civil suit filed recently in the Holloway case against the Aruba boy and his father. It shows that even if the civil case is decided against the boy and his father, the impact on them would probably be of no effect.

Spilbor: The Case of Missing Alabama Teen Natalee Holloway

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...27_spilbor.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...