Infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists

[Douglas Caddy]

Historians and the world’s citizenry in general owe a debt of gratitude to John Simkin for creating the J. F. Kennedy Assassination and Watergate sections on Spartacus. The contributions of material and information by Forum members have created a treasure trove that will be mined for years to come.

So valuable have the Kennedy Assassination and Watergate archives become in disseminating this information on a world-wide basis that the Forum’s members need to face the real possibility that the Forum may soon be targeted for some form of annihilation or destruction, if it is not already.

On this past Monday I attended a special event in Houston sponsored by Pacifica radio station KPFT at which Greg Palast of the BBC and The Guardian newspaper spoke. Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse, which last week hit the New York Times Best-Seller list, and of a previous best-seller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

KPFT in Houston is one of five Pacifica non-commercial radio stations in the United States, situated in major cities, whose daily public affairs programming is a constant thorn in the side of the authoritarian Powers That Be who control all three branches of the government and most of the mass media in the U.S. today.

At the reception preceding the Palast lecture to a packed auditorium audience, one of the KPFT directors recounted to me how over the years the Powers That Be have sent infiltrators, saboteurs, and fifth-columnists into the Pacifica community in an attempt to take it over or at a minimum neutralize its effectiveness. These Trojan horse efforts have been repulsed successfully by the mobilization of more than a million listeners, volunteers and financial contributors who make possible the on-going educational and non-profit work of Pacifica.

A similar effort in my opinion is or soon will be mounted against the Forum. Members of the Kennedy Assassination and Watergate sections of the Forum should be on guard to spot those who join our ranks whose motivation is to end the effectiveness of the Forum as a group effort in gathering and posting valuable information.

Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility.

These concerns are very valid, though how to fashion steps to deal with them is difficult. John Simkin has a very deep committment to free speech, but the forum will lose its value if any Tom, Dick or Harry can join and post any kind of nonsense, as Brendan Slattery does.

[Guest]

Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility.

These concerns are very valid, though how to fashion steps to deal with them is difficult. John Simkin has a very deep committment to free speech, but the forum will lose its value if any Tom, Dick or Harry can join and post any kind of nonsense, as Brendan Slattery does.

All prospective members have to first submit a biography and an avatar photograph of themselves before they are allowed to post. Members are supposed to be either teachers, educators or researchers (hence the name of the forum), but we are pretty flexible about that.

On signing up they tick the box to agree to our Board Guidelines. If they break these guidelines repeatedly we get rid of them.

The chances of any "Tom Dick or Harry" or indeed "Sue, Trish or Mary" joining are fairly remote

[Guest John Gillespie]

"KPFT in Houston is one of five Pacifica non-commercial radio stations in the United States, situated in major cities, whose daily public affairs programming is a constant thorn in the side of the authoritarian Powers That Be who control all three branches of the government and most of the mass media in the U.S. today."

_____________________________________

Couple of things here, Doug. First, there is something fetid in the released odor of this bald-faced and pathetic attempt at obfuscation. It's a rather transparent effort to diffuse the recent Watergate postings. Also, it's the usual Liberal/Leftist accusations that it's those others, not you, who engage precisely in what you and yours bring to the world.

But let's do a quick Babelfish translation on your theme(s): any 'free speech' as practiced on the sanctified Pacifica and other of those pure, non-commerical stations cannot be challenged, else we will excoriate and dismiss you out of hand with the most vituperative, personal invective known to man. So toe the line, newcomers. Doug is watching.

ANN COULTER IS CORRECT: Leftism is the most dogmatic and excommunicative of all the world's religions, and spare me the notion that it is not religion. But we Agents Provocateur and Confusion Agents will continue to sabotage and snipe at you, much like the Minutemen did to the passing Redcoats.

John Gillespie

[Ashton Gray]

The chances of any "Tom Dick or Harry" or indeed "Sue, Trish or Mary" joining are fairly remote

I, personally, think that you and the rest of the moderators and John do an absolutely sterling job at what you do. Simply outstanding.

In fact, I'm having a little difficulty trying to understand why someone thought you needed some unsolicited help in the form of stepping in (in what, I won't say) and wearing your hat.

But speaking of hats, my hat's off to you (avatar notwithstanding).

Ashton Gray

[Douglas Caddy]

Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility.

These concerns are very valid, though how to fashion steps to deal with them is difficult. John Simkin has a very deep committment to free speech, but the forum will lose its value if any Tom, Dick or Harry can join and post any kind of nonsense, as Brendan Slattery does.

All prospective members have to first submit a biography and an avatar photograph of themselves before they are allowed to post. Members are supposed to be either teachers, educators or researchers (hence the name of the forum), but we are pretty flexible about that.

On signing up they tick the box to agree to our Board Guidelines. If they break these guidelines repeatedly we get rid of them.

The chances of any "Tom Dick or Harry" or indeed "Sue, Trish or Mary" joining are fairly remote

Dear Mr. Walker:

This is request that you, as Administrator, review all the postings in the Watergate section from June 1, 2006 to the present date to ascertain whether there have been violations of the Board Guidelines by any member of the Forum.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas Caddy

[Guest]

Dear Mr. Walker:

This is request that you, as Administrator, review all the postings in the Watergate section from June 1, 2006 to the present date to ascertain whether there have been violations of the Board Guidelines by any member of the Forum.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas Caddy

A far more realistic alternative given the breadth of this forum is for members to use the Report facility when they think a member has violated board guidelines. This sends the post and the complaint to all administrators and we can respond more effectively.

[Dawn Meredith]

Dear Mr. Walker:

This is request that you, as Administrator, review all the postings in the Watergate section from June 1, 2006 to the present date to ascertain whether there have been violations of the Board Guidelines by any member of the Forum.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas Caddy

A far more realistic alternative given the breadth of this forum is for members to use the Report facility when they think a member has violated board guidelines. This sends the post and the complaint to all administrators and we can respond more effectively.

Since when is asking questions, posting testimony, pointing out discrepancies in said testimony any kind of violation????

Did I miss something here?

Oh, sarcasm, that must be it. Well I don't recall that being a violation either. If it were most of us would have

been kicked off a long time ago.

With all due deference to Attorney Caddy's post: why not just answer the questions, instead of complaining about the questioner. I mean no disrespect here Doug. I have truly enjoyed your posts, and as I said yesterday copied and pasted many of them to my right-wing cousin in an effort to show him that sometimes conservatives actually "see the light" and leave behind the repugnant thinking that now controls the Republican party.

So I do not think that the "questionalbe" (by you and Pat) posts are meant to offend, at least I do not read them that way, but to try to reach a deeper understaning of this thing called "Watergate".

Sincerely,

DAwn

[Jack White]

Mr Caddy reported:

"Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility. "

I could not agree more. I could name (and have frequently to administrators

here without action) at least 6 to 10 such forum persons. Most of them I believe to

be paid provocateurs. In 45 years of research I have encountered dozens of

them. The first one in the mid-1970s was a "former CIA agent" named Roy Pope,

but he was only the first of many. An anonymous one came even earlier who

wrote me a nasty threatening letter from a distant city a day after I wrote a

letter to the editor in Fort Worth. The letter was addressed to my place of

business and included my title, and was addressed to the company P.O. Box,

even though my letter to the editor was signed only with my name. I attempted

an FOIA on this without success, since a person in a distant city had no way

of knowing all of this private information.

Thanks, Mr. Caddy, for speaking up!

Jack

[Pat Speer]

While I'm not convinced anyone here is anything but interested the truth, some are undoubtedly convinced they already know the truth, and immediately suspect those who won't agree with them of being liars, etc. I watched Rashomon the other day. I suggest others watch it as well. That said, I have a problem with the tone of Mr. Gray's questions. It goes way beyond sarcasm, Dawn. When Mr. Baldwin did not answer a question the way Mr. Gray wanted him to he responded in an extremely hostile manner. He then declared that Mr. Baldwin, and by extension Mr. Caddy, were part of an evil ongoing conspiracy blah blah blah, and that he'd finally exposed them blah blah blah. All he needed to say was "Well, I have a problem believing that, Mr. Baldwin because..." This might have encouraged Mr. Baldwin to continue the discussion, whereby we could have LEARNED something. Instead, Mr. Gray's antics have completely discouraged Baldwin and Caddy from discussing anything in a meaningful way.

[Dawn Meredith]

While I'm not convinced anyone here is anything but interested the truth, some are undoubtedly convinced they already know the truth, and immediately suspect those who won't agree with them of being liars, etc. I watched Rashomon the other day. I suggest others watch it as well. That said, I have a problem with the tone of Mr. Gray's questions.

It goes way beyond sarcasm, Dawn. When Mr. Baldwin did not answer a question the way Mr. Gray wanted him to he responded in an extremely hostile manner. He then declared that Mr. Baldwin, and by extension Mr. Caddy, were part of an evil ongoing conspiracy blah blah blah, and that he'd finally exposed them blah blah blah. All he needed to say was "Well, I have a problem believing that, Mr. Baldwin because..." This might have encouraged Mr. Baldwin to continue the discussion, whereby we could have LEARNED something. Instead, Mr. Gray's antics have completely discouraged Baldwin and Caddy from discussing anything in a meaningful way.

Pat:

There has been some hostility, but it has been between both you and Ashton. Ashton's writing style employs sarcasam. Only after pointing out discrepancies in what Hunt says vs. what Atty Caddy says does Ashton say one of the "realities" cannot be true. Doug Caddy could just answer the questions and be done with all this....Perhaps he is too busy, but since he posted the thread on"inflitrators" in both Watergate and JFK assasination, that tells me he read the posts, thus the questions and has chosen not to answer. So we have to wonder why? This does not mean that his reply would reveal something sinister. Said reply could be perfectly innocent. We know that Mr. Hunt in all likelihood has a GREAT deal to hide..

I would like to see these questions answered as one who watched every second of the Watergate hearings, read every article and knew we were only getting a part of the truth.

I wish we had others here TO ask questions of.

Don't you think it would be terrific to have, for example Haldeman to ask him WHY- (what basis)- he told us in "The Ends OF Power" Nixon's use of the tern "whole Bay of Pigs thing" (6/23/72 tape) was a term Nixon employed when referring to the assassination of JFK? But he's dead and gone, so we cannot ask.

I am sure there are many questions you would have of other participants as well. Ashton is merely asking questions of those participants in the event we call "Watergate" in an effort to arrive at a deeper knowledge.

If you don't believe there was more to Watergate than we got, then you may not be interested in questioning anyone else. But from where I sit, I see the two events linked and have LOTS of questions.

IN fact I shall ask one myself:

My Caddy: How did Billie Sol come to ask you to represent him before the Grand Jury in 1984? Given that your law practice was not in criminal defense, this seems to be a legitimate question.

Were you hired by Barr McClellan in May 1998 to attend a press conference in DC, re the fingerprint match? You did not go. IF you recall could you tell me why not? I realize that this was several years ago

but I have been curious about these two questions since then.

I appreciate your reply. (And I promise that I WON"T utilize sarcasm, regardless what your response may be.)

Dawn

[Douglas Caddy]

While I'm not convinced anyone here is anything but interested the truth, some are undoubtedly convinced they already know the truth, and immediately suspect those who won't agree with them of being liars, etc. I watched Rashomon the other day. I suggest others watch it as well. That said, I have a problem with the tone of Mr. Gray's questions.

It goes way beyond sarcasm, Dawn. When Mr. Baldwin did not answer a question the way Mr. Gray wanted him to he responded in an extremely hostile manner. He then declared that Mr. Baldwin, and by extension Mr. Caddy, were part of an evil ongoing conspiracy blah blah blah, and that he'd finally exposed them blah blah blah. All he needed to say was "Well, I have a problem believing that, Mr. Baldwin because..." This might have encouraged Mr. Baldwin to continue the discussion, whereby we could have LEARNED something. Instead, Mr. Gray's antics have completely discouraged Baldwin and Caddy from discussing anything in a meaningful way.

Pat:

There has been some hostility, but it has been between both you and Ashton. Ashton's writing style employs sarcasam. Only after pointing out discrepancies in what Hunt says vs. what Atty Caddy says does Ashton say one of the "realities" cannot be true. Doug Caddy could just answer the questions and be done with all this....Perhaps he is too busy, but since he posted the thread on"inflitrators" in both Watergate and JFK assasination, that tells me he read the posts, thus the questions and has chosen not to answer. So we have to wonder why? This does not mean that his reply would reveal something sinister. Said reply could be perfectly innocent. We know that Mr. Hunt in all likelihood has a GREAT deal to hide..

I would like to see these questions answered as one who watched every second of the Watergate hearings, read every article and knew we were only getting a part of the truth.

I wish we had others here TO ask questions of.

Don't you think it would be terrific to have, for example Haldeman to ask him WHY- (what basis)- he told us in "The Ends OF Power" Nixon's use of the tern "whole Bay of Pigs thing" (6/23/72 tape) was a term Nixon employed when referring to the assassination of JFK? But he's dead and gone, so we cannot ask.

I am sure there are many questions you would have of other participants as well. Ashton is merely asking questions of those participants in the event we call "Watergate" in an effort to arrive at a deeper knowledge.

If you don't believe there was more to Watergate than we got, then you may not be interested in questioning anyone else. But from where I sit, I see the two events linked and have LOTS of questions.

IN fact I shall ask one myself:

My Caddy: How did Billie Sol come to ask you to represent him before the Grand Jury in 1984? Given that your law practice was not in criminal defense, this seems to be a legitimate question.

Were you hired by Barr McClellan in May 1998 to attend a press conference in DC, re the fingerprint match? You did not go. IF you recall could you tell me why not? I realize that this was several years ago

but I have been curious about these two questions since then.

I appreciate your reply. (And I promise that I WON"T utilize sarcasm, regardless what your response may be.)

Dawn

You state, "In fact I shall ask one myself:"

However, in fact you asked two questions. Why the imprecise language by you, an attorney?

In answer to the two questions:

(1) Billie Sol never asked me to represent him before the Grand Jury in 1984 in Robertson County. We never discussed his proposed appearance.

He was represented by two attorneys, Mr. Alan Brown and Mr. Mark Stevens, both of San Antonio, Texas.

On March 20, 1984 Mr. John Paschall, District-County Attorney for Robertson County, Texas wrote a letter to Messrs. Brown and Stevens. The letter's first paragraph states, "This letter is to confirm our previous oral agreement regarding transactional immunity for your client, Billie Sol Estes."

Thus, your question is based on a false premise.

I covered this topic previously in the Douglas Caddy: Questions and Answers topic in the Kennedy Assassination thread on Feb. 5, 2006 at 09:44 A.M. At that time I stated:

"I talked to Billie Sol within a few days following his grand jury appearance in March 1984 in Robertson County, Texas. He had received transactional immunity from the prosecutor before testifying. The grand jury appearance had been arranged with Billie Sol's consent by U.S. Marshal Clint Peoples. It was my impression in talking to Billie Sol afterwards that he wanted his testimony before the grand jury to be made public and had so authorized public discussion by the prosecutor, U.S. Marshal Peoples, and his own attorney. There were a number of press reports at the time, so it would be impossible now to state which exact source of information about Billie Sol's testimony was used by the writer of a particular press report."

(2) I was never hired by Barr McClellan to attend a press conference in Washington, D.C. in March 1998 on the fingerprint match issue. I wish I had been invited as I certainly would have attended. I am a strong supporter of Barr McClellan's on-going efforts to get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination and the role played by a key figure in his former law firm. In fact, I am mentioned as a source in his book, Blood, Money and Power: How LBJ killed JFK. Mr. McClellan states on p. 338, "Billie Sol Estes' attorney Doug Caddy was very helpful in his legal analysis and comments. I had many contacts with him in Houston and emailed him as needed."

I previously answered this question in the Douglas Caddy: Questions and Answer topic in the Kennedy Assassination thread on Jan. 24, 2006 at 08:40 A.M. At that time I posted the following:

"I was not asked to attend the press conference in May of 1998 regarding the fingerprint match by print expert Nathan Darby. Barr McClellan had informed me of Mr. Darby's conclusion about the fingerprint but I did not learn about the press conference until some time afterwards.

"Based on Mr. Darby's superb professional credentials, I have every reason to believe his conclusion about the fingerprint is accurate."

I don't mind answering questions posed by fellow forum members whose intent is to bring truth to light. However, answering questions again that have previously been answered by me wastes my time. I am in the midst of writing a new book, which will be my sixth published book, and do not have the time, energy or inclination to answer questions that pose an inaccurate premise or are abusive in nature.

[Dawn Meredith]

My apology Mr Caddy. YOu are correct. I did say "one" question. And it was asked hastily at that. So I shall try this again: How did you come to write letters on Bilie Sol's behalf to AG Trott?

As to question 2, the press conference, I was told by Barr, as well as J Harrison and Richard Bartholomew that you were to do the DC press conference. If, as you say Barr neglected to hire you for such, then I truly aplologise and stand totally corrected.

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

I have a problem with the tone of Mr. Gray's questions. It goes way beyond sarcasm...he responded in an extremely hostile manner. ...Mr. Gray's antics have completely discouraged Baldwin and Caddy from discussing anything in a meaningful way.

Well, Pat, just as in the Watergate forum, here you seem to be an infinite fount of literary criticism concerning my tone, my style, my satire, my sarcasm, my "antics," and my other limitless demerits. If only ever you could find a few minutes to devote such passion to the actual issues I've raised, or even use your own manifest exemplary diplomatic and social skills to persuade Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Caddy to address the issues themselves, you could help us all to advance, rather than to sink into the sticky mire of your boundless ad hominem.

Won't you consider that as an alternative?

If you honestly feel it's my "antics" that are keeping Mssrs. Baldwin and Caddy right now as mum as the Sphinx, why not issue to them a simple apology for this behatted barbarian—I won't say a word—and submit the many relevant questions I've posed to them yourself, with your own obvious mannerly, considerate charm? Don't you feel that might be more productive than dashing over to the JFK forum and doing a smear job—as you did?

Let me say why I believe you won't opt for this civilized path: it's because you know quite well and thoroughly that it isn't the tone, the hat, the "antics," the satire, the sarcasm, the writing style, my one slightly chipped tooth, my choice of deodorant or mouthwash, or any other personality or literary flaw that has caused the sudden vacuum: it is the relevant substance of the questions themselves.

But by all means, prove me wrong by asking the questions yourself with all the courtly grace and charm that you've already demonstrated, and by getting actual, substantive, responsive answers from the now Sphinxlike Mssrs. Baldwin and Caddy. If you do, I vow to acknowledge it here.

Or, why not don the mantle of peacemaker, diplomat, arbiter for the sake of getting important information into view? I'm perfectly amenable to your asking either of both of them what reparations or apologies for what specific offenses, real or perceived, would be needed in order to pour banana oil on the troubled waters and make advances in shared knowledge. I'm now on permanent record as being a willing party to any such responsible and fair dispute resolution or mediation you would care to mount.

But I predict you won't.

Instead, I believe you will post yet another message attacking me, my motives, my "agenda," my questions, my opinions, my ancestry, my cat, my hat, the cat in my hat, or dream up any other possible device to wave hands in the face and distract from the terribly simple truth: they won't answer the questions because they won't answer the questions.

Of course, you always can prove me wrong.

But I predict you won't.

Ashton Gray

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have a problem with the tone of Mr. Gray's questions. It goes way beyond sarcasm...he responded in an extremely hostile manner. ...Mr. Gray's antics have completely discouraged Baldwin and Caddy from discussing anything in a meaningful way.

Instead, I believe you will post yet another message attacking me, my motives, my "agenda," my questions, my opinions, my ancestry, my cat, my hat, the cat in my hat, ......Of course, you always can prove me wrong.

But I predict you won't.

Ashton Gray

I don't think Pat Speer has ever questioned your motives, your ancestry, or even your hat (I have expressed my own thoughts about your hat on another thread, and in your last post on this thread I suspect you are talking through it).

Mr. Speer questioned only your methods, or rather your tone, which some forum members feel can be, at times, unneccessarily confrontational. I'm sure you know the old proverb about getting with honey vs. getting with vinegar.