Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ashton Gray: His repeated violations of Board Guidelines


Recommended Posts

In accordance with the instructions of Administrator Andy Walker in his June 24, 2006 posting in the Kennedy Assassination thread under the topic of Infiltrators, Saboteurs and Fifth-Columnists, I have used the Report facility to file a number of violations of Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton Gray.

The Board Guidelines state:

“You are responsible for what you post on this board. You will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law”.

Mr. Gray, who only joined the Forum on May 26, 2006, has repeatedly violated the Board Guidelines by being abusive, hateful, and harassing in his postings against two Forum members: Mr. Alfred Baldwin and myself.

Mr. Gray has also used vituperative and threatening language against other members who find his postings to be in violation of Board Guidelines.

From the Alfred Baldwin thread on Watergate:

Less than a month after his joined the Forum membership, Mr. Ashton in his posting in the Alfred Baldwin thread of Watergate wrote on June 21, 2006 at 05:04 AM: “Well, you’ve made your record. Just keep sticking to your story, Mr. Baldwin. I’m walking away for now. I’ve had all of your brand of truth I can take at the moment without puking on the keyboard.”

That same day, on June 21, 2006 at 6:06 P.M., Mr. Ashton wrote in the Alfred Baldwin thread:

“I’m done, Mr. Baldwin. You made your record. I’ve made mine. I’m done with you, with your soul-less, conscienceless, lying co-conspirators, and with the entire evil hoax.”

In his posting on the Alfred Baldwin thread, Mr. Ashton wrote on June 22 at 11:51

P.M.: “ 1. Hunt and Liddy both lied. 2. You lied. 3. All three of you lied.”

Member Pat Speer replied on June 21, 2006 at 10:40 PM by posting:

“Mr. Gray, what is your purpose here? You came to this Forum for exactly what? You didn’t come here to gain information, that is for certain. I doubt that Mr. Caddy or Mr. Baldwin even respond to your insulting rants.”

From the Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen and the CIA thread on Watergate:

Mr. Ashton in his posting on June 16, 2006 at 10:46 AM, falsely accused me of having a conversation with my client that never took place. It is a complete fabrication by Mr. Ashton, who wrote:

“Surely you'll recall that you couldn't hold a conversation after June 13, 1971 in Washington, D.C. that wasn't "almost entirely consumed with" talk about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg.

Right?

“And surely, surely you'd recall if you, Barker, and Hunt discussed the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg just a couple of months before Hunt and Barker were involved in the Fielding op that gave Ellsberg his "get out of jail free" card. Right? I mean, Hunt was your client at the time.”

Mr. Ashton in his posting of June 16, 2006 at 6:56 PM wrote of myself:

“1) Hunt Lied, 2)You lied, 3)You both lied..”

Mr. Pat Speer replied to Mr. Ashton on June 16, 2006 at 8:21 P.M.:

“Ashton, might I request you tone down your questions? While you have done a good job of demonstrating that Mr. Caddy, in order to keep Hunt's involvement secret, probably lied to a newspaper about a phone call from Barker's wife--(geez, isn't that what lawyers do, protect their clients?)--the relevance is not immediately apparent to some of us on the outside, who value Mr. Caddy's contributions to this forum. Your desire to play "gotcha" with Caddy is understandable, but not altogether appropriate, as he has repeatedly tried to answer any and all questions on his role in history. Ask the questions in a nice manner and I suspect he'll provide you with a response. Point out an inconsistency and he'll offer an explanation if he has one. Ditto with Mr. Baldwin, who has been nothing but a gentleman. I do sympathize with your desire to play "gotcha" however...However long the list you have for Caddy about what appears to be inconsistencies in his statements, I guarantee you it positively PALES in comparison to the mental list of questions I have for Robert Maheu, should I ever be able to ask him a question.

“Please play nice.”

Mr. Ashton in his posting of June 22 at 3:50 PM, addressed to Mr. Pat Speer, appeared to borrow the malevolent lines of Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs:

“And you can take the rest of your non-sequitur, irrelevant, disruptive, off-topic, red-herring bag'o'crap message and shove it anywhere you want, as long as you don't try shoving it in my face again.

“I might stop being so polite. You wouldn't want that.”

Mr. Pat Speer on June 23, 2006 at 9:12 PM replied to Mr. Ashton’s latest threat against him:

“As far as you reporting me to the authorities, give me a break. You come to this Forum, start insulting its members--yes, that's right, Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin are members and not just visitors propped up here for your abuse--and even do a victory dance after insulting Mr. Baldwin off a thread bearing his name. And then you CRY like a child when I won't let you control the thread. Earth to Mr. Gray, this Forum was not created for your sole benefit. You decided to confront Mr. Baldwin on some possible holes in the record, and have accused him and others of being part of an ongoing conspiracy to hide the fact that the Watergate break-in was a CIA coup designed to put Gerald Ford in power. Never mind that this was many months before Ford was even in a position to reap the benefits of this coup. Never mind that Ford was not a friend of the CIA, but a friend of their political rival, the FBI, and that Ford's regime oversaw the most exhaustive investigation of the intelligence agencies in our history, spurred on in part by his own big mouth. While there is almost certainly more to the Watergate story than in the public record, your theory, frankly, appears a bit looney. Those coming to this Forum and wishing to read about Mr. Baldwin should not be subjected to reading your diatribes and ramblings without seeing that at least one member of this Forum found your distortions a bit looney, IMO. Sorry to rain on your hostility parade.”

Mr. J. Raymond Carroll in his posting on June 24, 2006 at 1:04 PM wrote:

“Mr. Ashton Gray is accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy, directly or by implication, of being a xxxx. This is a clear violation of forum rules. Mr. Gray is clearly a truth-seeker, but throughout this thread he shows every evidence of falling into the fallacy of guilt by association. I do not have the slightest doubt that Mr. Caddy is an honest man. If he was not, then he would avoid this forum like the plague.

“I gather it is true that Mr. Caddy had the misfortune to be retained to represent some unsavory characters connected to the Watergate break-in. I would guess that he now regrets that experience, and wishes he had confined himself to representing widows and orphans. It is no wonder that not everyone wants to be a lawyer, despite what they see on TV.

“But it is a logical fallacy to assume, as Mr. Gray seems to do, that you can attribute the client's knowledge to his lawyer.”

Mr. J. Raymond Carroll, later that same day of June 24, 2005 at 5:24 PM wrote of Mr. Ashton’s repeated attacks on me:

“In this case, I see no reason to suggest that a valued fellow forum member is lying. I suggest you take off that cowboy hat and replace it with your thinking cap.”

The evidence would seem to indicate that Mr. Ashton Gray, who entered membership only recently on May 26, 2006, did so with a hidden agenda. No one can know what is in his mind, but his actions do meet the signs of an Infiltrator, Saboteur and Fifth-Columnist as denoted in my topic of the same title posted June 23.

“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.”

Mr. Ashton always closes his postings with his favorite motto: “Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.”

However, even in this assertion he is wrong. The fiction that he has posted since joining the Forum less than a month ago has left tell-tale paper trail, one which indicates that his actions are malevolent and destructive in their nature.

My Reports of the violations of the Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton Gray are now in the hands of the Administrator and Moderator. At stake is whether the Forum will continue to be a valuable and credible source of research information or whether it will be reduced to its lower common denominator, that of character assassination by one of its members.

I am placing this topic on the Watergate and J.F. Kennedy Assassination threads of the Forum because of my past postings in each thread due to my involvement in both historical events in my capacity as an attorney.

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bravo, Mr. Caddy...but you are very unlikely to get

any action from Walker or Simkin, who favor "free speech"

over enforcement of guidelines.

I have repeatedly complained about the ad hominem attacks

by about 6 or 8 provocateurs who follow me around the

internet forums. I do not ask for banishment of these fools...

just that their untrue attacks be edited or removed, and that

the moderators censure them. The only reply I get is that

I should be able to defend myself from the attacks. But

I do not participate in xxxxfights; I have better things to do.

Attacks on persons have no place in research about facts,

ideas and truth.

Thanks for your presence here in the interest of truth.

Good luck.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo, Mr. Caddy...but you are very unlikely to get

any action from Walker or Simkin, who favor "free speech"

over enforcement of guidelines.

I have repeatedly complained about the ad hominem attacks

by about 6 or 8 provocateurs who follow me around the

internet forums. I do not ask for banishment of these fools...

just that their untrue attacks be edited or removed, and that

the moderators censure them. The only reply I get is that

I should be able to defend myself from the attacks. But

I do not participate in xxxxfights; I have better things to do.

Attacks on persons have no place in research about facts,

ideas and truth.

Thanks for your presence here in the interest of truth.

Good luck.

Jack

Dear Jack:

Your valued comments are most appreciated. My thanks go to you.

Below is the posting that I just made in the Watergate thread on the subject of the violations of Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton Gray. My posting was in reply to Mr. Pat Speer on the matter.

Pat: I am indebted to you and Mr. J. Raymond Carroll for posting your incisive comments on Mr. Ashton Gray’s gratuitously insulting remarks directed towards his fellow members, Mr. Alfred Baldwin and myself.

I can assure you that if persons who have direct knowledge of historical events come to believe that by participating in the Forum they will be subjected to character assassination, the Forum will become the “kiss of death” to be avoided at all costs. This will result in all of John Simkin’s skillful diplomacy over the years in getting persons with direct historical knowledge to join the Forum going down the drain, obviously through no fault of Mr. Simkin but as the result of one or more members with malevolent and destructive tendencies.

I may be mistaken but it appears that Mr. Baldwin has already been driven from the Forum and from participating in the thread that bears his name as the direct result of the offensive actions of Mr. Ashton Gray. That Mr. Gray now belatedly is editing his past posted remarks of character assassination against Mr. Baldwin probably will do little to correct the situation. I can categorically state that the only reason I decided to join the Forum was when I saw that Mr. Baldwin had joined and through the well-meaning inquiries posed by Mr. Simkin and other members was providing new information. Mr. Baldwin’s role in Watergate had always piqued my interest and I found his replies of great interest.

And by the way, I apologize for mistakenly labeling you as Mr. Pat Gray in your June 23 reply and will edit the posting to correct this. This mistake on my part will probably cause some question to be posed later on in the Forum as to whether I ever knew or had a conversation with Patrick Gray while he was FBI director, knowing as I do now how some members think.

In regard to the matter of my telephone conversations with the wife of Bernard Barker in the early days of Watergate, I already covered this subject in my posting of Feb. 6, 2006, which can be found in the Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer thread.

It is my intention to do no more posting, besides the immediate one, until John Simkin returns from Sicily next week when he will undertake an investigation of the Record that I filed with him and Administrator Walker of a large number of violations of the Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton.

I may be old-fashioned but I believe that if the Board Guidelines are repeatedly violated by a member, then the appropriate disciplinary measure should be invoked. If not, of what purpose are the Board Guidelines and why should they be observed?

For the historical record, to be placed in the Forum’s archives, I am posting below an article by me about my role in Watergate that was published by The Wall Street Journal in 1998.

The Wall Street Journal

Editorial Page

March 24, 1998

WHAT IF JUDGE SIRICA WERE WITH US TODAY?

By Douglas Caddy

(Mr. Caddy is a Houston lawyer)

The Clinton scandals, with all the claims of coverup and executive privilege, are certainly reminiscent of Watergate. But there is a crucial difference: This case lacks a John Sirica, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who played such a crucial role in Watergate. The untold historical record reveals that the early actions of Sirica, who assigned the Watergate case to himself, helped spur the subsequent coverup and obstruction of justice that ultimately led to the resignation of President Nixon and the criminal convictions of many Watergate figures.

The Watergate scandal began at 2:30 a.m. on June 17, 1972, when Washington, D.C. police arrested five men on burglary charges at the Watergate office building. At 3:05 a.m. E. Howard Hunt phoned me from his White House office and asked if he could come immediately to my Washington residence. I had been Hunt’s personal attorney for several years.

Hunt arrived half an hour later and informed me what had transpired earlier at the Watergate. He retained me to represent him in the case and then called G. Gordon Liddy, who also hired me. At that time, about two hours after the burglary, both Hunt and Liddy requested I also represent the five people arrested, four Cuban-Americans and James McCord, who were then incarcerated in the D.C. jail.

On June 28 – 11 days later – while working on the case in the federal courthouse in Washington, I was served with a subpoena bearing the name of Chief Judge Sirica, to appear “forthwith” before the federal grand jury investigating the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Campbell grabbed me by the arm and pulled me into the grand jury room.

From June 28 until July 19 I was to appear before the grand jury on six occasions and answer hundreds of questions. I drew the line, however, on the advice of my own legal counsel, at answering 38 questions we felt invaded my clients’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege. A typical question: “Between the hours of Friday at midnight, June 16, and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, June 17, did you receive a visit from Mr. Everett Howard Hunt?” We believed answering such questions would incriminate Hunt and Liddy, who had not been arrested, and would violate their constitutional rights.

Judge Sirica, rejecting such arguments out of hand, threatened to jail me for contempt of court. When I went before the grand jury on July 13, I refused to answer the 38 questions. Within an hour I was back before Judge Sircia, who immediately held me in contempt of court and ordered me to jail. Five days later, on July 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the contempt citation and ordered me to testify under threat of being jailed again. The opinion, which I found gratuitously insulting, declared: “Even if such a relationship does exist, certain communications, such as consultation in furtherance of a crime, are not within the privilege.”

In his July 19, 1972, Oval Office tape, Nixon is recorded as expressing dismay to John Ehrlichman: “Do you mean the circuit court ordered an attorney to testify?”

Ehrlichman replied, “It [unintelligible] me, except that this damn circuit that we’ve got here, with

[Judge David] Bazelon and so on, it surprises me every time they do something.”

Nixon then asked, “Why didn’t he appeal to the Supreme Court?”

The answer is that my attorneys and I believe we had built a strong enough court record that if Hunt, Liddy and the five arrested individuals were found guilty, their convictions could be overturned on appeal because of Sirica’s and the appeals court’s abuse of me as their attorney.

However, Judge Sirica’s actions had an unintended consequence. Hunt and Liddy, seeing their attorney falsely accused by Judge Sirica of being a participant in their crime, realized early on that they were not going to get a fair trail, so they embarked on a coverup involving “hush money.” As Hunt has written: “If Sirica was treating Caddy – an Officer of the Court – so summarily, and Caddy was completely uninvolved in Watergate – then those of us who were involved could expect neither fairness nor understanding from him. As events unfolded, this conclusion became tragically accurate.”

Liddy appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, claiming that my being forced to testify denied him his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court upheld his conviction: “The evidence against appellant...was so overwhelming that even if there were constitutional error in the comment of the prosecutor and the instruction of the trial judge, there is no reasonable possibility it contributed to the conviction.” Neither Judge Sirica nor the appeals court acknowledged that their assault on the attorney-client privilege helped spur the ensuing coverup and obstruction of justice.

I was never indicted, named an unindicted co-conspirator, disciplined by the Bar or even contacted by the Senate Watergate Committee or the House Judiciary Committee, whose staff included a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham.

Now the issue of the attorney-client privilege is again being raised, this time by Monica Lewinsky’s first lawyer, Francis D. Carter, who has been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and bring the notes he took while representing Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Carter got involved when Vernon Jordan referred Ms. Lewinsky to him in January. On March 4, Mr. Carter’s attorney, Charles Ogletree, argued before Chief Judge Norma Hollaway Johnson that the subpoena should be quashed: “Once you start to allow the government to intrude on the attorney-client relationship and allow them to pierce the attorney-client privilege, clients will no longer have a sense of confidence and respect that lawyers should have.”

Coming days will reveal how Mr. Carter fares in his fight to protect Ms. Lewinsky’s constitutional rights and what effect this will have on the case’s ultimate outcome. To date, at least, Judge Johnson has shown a restraint that her predecessor Judge Sirica did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any action is taken by administrators on Mr. Caddy's request,

I plan to resubmit my complaints about members:

1.______________

2.______________

3.______________

4.______________

5.______________

6.______________

7.______________

8.______________

...over their repeated ad hominem attacks on me. Names will be

supplied to moderators. I believe that these individuals are paid

to disrupt internet forums which discuss assassinations, govt misdeeds,

911, Apollo moon missions and the like. It is documented that intel

agencies use such methods. And hey, it is easy money for perverted

internet trolls. They may get paid by the word, since their modus

operandi is length, not facts. Virtually all of them post messages only

in reply to certain members; the rest of the time they are silent.

I do not expect a response, however.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any action is taken by administrators on Mr. Caddy's request,

I plan to resubmit my complaints about members:

1.______________

2.______________

3.______________

4.______________

5.______________

6.______________

7.______________

8.______________

...over their repeated ad hominem attacks on me. Names will be

supplied to moderators. I believe that these individuals are paid

to disrupt internet forums which discuss assassinations, govt misdeeds,

911, Apollo moon missions and the like. It is documented that intel

agencies use such methods. And hey, it is easy money for perverted

internet trolls. They may get paid by the word, since their modus

operandi is length, not facts. Virtually all of them post messages only

in reply to certain members; the rest of the time they are silent.

I do not expect a response, however.

Jack

Jack

I agree that certain perple do come to these forums for the sole purpose of disinformation. And I have long known that this IS an intel MO. I agree also that there are people who engage in these practices for money.

BUt, that said, I think Ashton has a legitimate concern about Watergate. In a different thread I stated that it would be very good if we had all the people associated with Watergate here to question. Not to attack. If you know anything about me you know that since I joined this forum I have tried to have people who care about these matters do so in a united manner. I detest the flame throwers. Flaming as disinformation has hardly escaped my attention.

I have a question for you: If Ashton made his inquiry in a different manner, sans the sarcasm, would you consider his questions legitimate? Have you actually read the first post: "There was no first Watergate breakin"?

I have seen you attacked on these pages and it has angered me because I agree with most of what I have seen you write. I know from my associations with other people in the research community that you are an honest and dedicated researcher. And that you CARE about these matters.

So I repeat my question: If Aston's TONE were different would this make any difference to you?

"Caring" is why I am here and I believe it is also why Ashton is here. In fact I am positive of it.

I harbor no ill will against Mr. Caddy. He is a friend of my friend Barr McClellan. And my dear friend J Harrison respected Mr. Caddy. BUT Watergate happened to this nation and, like with much of our history, we did not get the full truth. Do you think we DID???? Do you have no questions about- for example- the ill fated plane crash of Dorothy Hunt 12/8/72?

If Watergate is a "resolved" issue then why is there even a "Watergate" section here on this forum.?

Respectfully,

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn...I have not read ANY of "Ashton's" postings...not that I

am not interested in Watergate...but I just don't have time to

read everything. I only read topics I am very interested in, and

Mr. Caddy's posting about internet provocateurs I found very

interesting.

If I had to place a bet, I would put my money on Mr. Caddy...

who was INVOLVED in many of these things...rather than any

outside sniper. He seems like a man of integrity who has

inside information and wants the truth to get out.

I am particularly interested that the criminal defense attorney

for Billie Sol Estes might know inside information about LBJ

and cronies that he might share with us. There are probably

things outside of his client/lawyer relationship that he can

reveal.

Pardon me for not butting into the Ashton-Caddy hair-pulling.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jack White' date='Jun 27 2006, 02:13 AM' post='66529']

Dawn...I have not read ANY of "Ashton's" postings...not that I

am not interested in Watergate...

WHAT???? So you are calling for his being banned without so much as reading a word?

I am incredulous!!!. Whatever happened to the concepts of "benefit of the doubt" or "fair play"?

Pardon me for not butting into the Ashton-Caddy hair-pulling.

Jack

But you have done EXACTLY that, and rather unfairly so I now see.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not recall mentioning Ashton or his postings. I was commenting

only on the very apt Caddy descriptions of internet provocateurs.

I did NOT call for the banning of Ashton. I do NOT EVEN KNOW

what their dispute is about, and do not CARE. I am for banning

anyone for ad hominem attacks. From what LITTLE I know, it

appears that Ashton has been attacking Caddy, but I do not

know ANY specifics. I have no idea why YOU are upset with

Caddy. Neither of them have made vicious attacks typical of

many others here.

That you think I sided with Caddy against Ashton, I ask you to

please reread what I wrote. I wrote ONLY about provocateurs,

NOT Ashton. As an attorney, surely your reading comprehension

is better than demonstrated. Please reread my postings and

quote any derogatory references to Ashton which I made.

I do not know why he is such a hero to you nor Caddy such

a rogue.

As a participant in some of these events, Caddy has information

I would like to hear. Wouldn't you?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh here we go agian, you attack my friggen profession...

Never mind Jack.

Typical!

I have no more to say to you.

If you don't take the time to read posts then

why should I bother to appeal to a sense of logic or

fairness that is completely lacking?

I never ONCE attacked YOUR profession (whatever it is)

NOR have I attacked Mr. Caddy, EVER!!!

But you would not know this since you "don't have the time"

to actually READ, you just post "get em" responses

to someone who has called for someone to be banned.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh here we go agian, you attack my friggen profession...

Never mind Jack.

Typical!

I have no more to say to you.

If you don't take the time to read posts then

why should I bother to appeal to a sense of logic or

fairness that is completely lacking?

I never ONCE attacked YOUR profession (whatever it is)

NOR have I attacked Mr. Caddy, EVER!!!

But you would not know this since you "don't have the time"

to actually READ, you just post "get em" responses

to someone who has called for someone to be banned.

Dawn

Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh here we go agian, you attack my friggen profession...

Never mind Jack.

Typical!

I have no more to say to you.

If you don't take the time to read posts then

why should I bother to appeal to a sense of logic or

fairness that is completely lacking?

I never ONCE attacked YOUR profession (whatever it is)

NOR have I attacked Mr. Caddy, EVER!!!

But you would not know this since you "don't have the time"

to actually READ, you just post "get em" responses

to someone who has called for someone to be banned.

Dawn

Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare.

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

"Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare."

No Jack. You're off base here. "The lady doth NOT protest too much."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo, Mr. Caddy...but you are very unlikely to get

any action from Walker or Simkin, who favor "free speech"

over enforcement of guidelines.

****Since you have not read one word of the other side, why do you simply presume there

have been guideline violations? (DM)

I have repeatedly complained about the ad hominem attacks

by about 6 or 8 provocateurs who follow me around the

internet forums. I do not ask for banishment of these fools...

just that their untrue attacks be edited or removed, and that

the moderators censure them. The only reply I get is that

I should be able to defend myself from the attacks. But

I do not participate in xxxxfights; I have better things to do.

Attacks on persons have no place in research about facts,

ideas and truth.

****I have seen this and I posted yesterday that I was sympathetic to this re. you. (DM)

Thanks for your presence here in the interest of truth.

Good luck.

Jack

I have responded above beginning with ****prior to my words.

****Since you have read ONLY his comments what makes you so certain it's the "truth" that he is interested in? If so why does he post long complaints, while saying he is too busy writing a book TO post, yet totally avoids answering the questions that have been asked of him.?

By your own admission you are siding with Mr Caddy because of attacks made on YOU. Assuming the arguments/ questions etc posed by Ashton Grey are without merit. Yor "don't have the time" to read a word of it, but you sure have the time to post like some cheer leader, on now several threads.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[color=#999900]

I do not recall mentioning Ashton or his postings. I was commenting

only on the very apt Caddy descriptions of internet provocateurs.

I did NOT call for the banning of Ashton. I do NOT EVEN KNOW

what their dispute is about, and do not CARE. I am for banning

anyone for ad hominem attacks. From what LITTLE I know, it

appears that Ashton has been attacking Caddy, but I do not

know ANY specifics. I have no idea why YOU are upset with

Caddy. Neither of them have made vicious attacks typical of

many others here.

Jack:

Again you were joining in on calling for Mr. Gray's being banned. Your first post was in reference to his talk of infiltrators, saying "Bravo". To which I replied in kind. I agree that we do not want infiltrators and disinformationists here.

That you think I sided with Caddy against Ashton, I ask you to

please reread what I wrote. I wrote ONLY about provocateurs,

NOT Ashton. As an attorney, surely your reading comprehension

is better than demonstrated. Please reread my postings and

quote any derogatory references to Ashton which I made.

I do not know why he is such a hero to you nor Caddy such

a rogue.

I have read your posts. No you did not

say the name "Ashton" but it was clear that is who you meant,

as you then went on to draw lines across the page regarding several "others"

you would like to see banned. IF Mr. Caddy's specific request to have Ashton banned is succesful.

YOu did not NEED to actually say Ashton's name. It was already said and you cheer this on.

As a participant in some of these events, Caddy has information

I would like to hear. Wouldn't you?

Jack

[/color]

Yes, yes yes!!! But he will not answer the questions. (And you "don't have the time" to READ them, just make assumptions, based on only having read one side. Pretty unfair.)

Dawn

I forgot to mention...I think the Dorothy Hunt plane crash was to

send a message to Eduardo to keep mum. Nixon probably gave

the order. The Bohemian Grove secrets must be kept.

Jack

I totally agree, tho am not sure just WHO gave the order, only that it was given and that it worked.

Tho Hunt has said a few things. Some of which are in Ashton's posts. Others are in comments made two or so years back in either Slate or Salon mag.

Then of course there is the information in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby lawsuit.

Sure would be nice to ask Mr Hunt some questions, but the murder of his wife, mother of their 5 children

pretty much guarenteed his silence.

I agree about the Bohemian Grove, as well.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...