Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

Robert Charles-Dunne · October 23, 2007

What do you mean, do you believe me? Do you assert I lied about my communications with Mrs. Eisenhower? Unless you do (and I can PROVE I did and what she told me) MY credibility is not in issue, for that is the only point at which my credibility comes in to play.
Uh-oh. Shouldn't have gone there, ex-counsellor.

BEA is a decorated veteran with no reason to lie. ["Sell books" based on disparaging a failed Presidential candidate from the previous century? Please, dear boy; that's not exactly stop-the-presses material in anyone's world. Oh, perhaps in your world, but it has a population of one.]

Whereas you were found guilty of lying, fraud, malfeasance, etc., by the Wisconsin Bar and stripped of your licence. Yet you really cannot fathom how your credibility is open to question? Forest and trees, people.

Tim strenuously demands what others should do, and yet has no apparent self-awareness when he fails to meet the same standards he sets for others. It is imperative to find second sources for confirmation, he rightly lectures others [as though they need it], yet fails to provide anyone who can vouch for what he has been told by Ms. Eisenhower.

Having already branded BEA a "xxxx," Tim nevertheless volunteered more than a week ago that he would write to Ayers to seek out additional information. Again, only yesterday, Tim expressed the same intent - meaning that he hasn't bothered to do what he promised to do a week earlier - "I do intend to write him to ask for his explanation. The fact that he never attempted to verify the story that alleged Pearl told him suggests to me there never was a Pearl. But we shall see what he says."

This is how our ex-counsellor operates; first comes the guilty verdict, based solely upon Tim's say-so, then comes the discovery process and the trial.

Astounding.

Tim also wrote: "If Ayers made up the Pearl story, BK, how can we believe a word he says about anything or anybody?"

Tim seems, again, sufficiently divorced from his own past misdeeds that he cannot see the same standard applies to him, a legally-convicted xxxx who stole from his own clients.

Tim's shrill hysteria over this matter indicates his desperation to discredit a knowledgeable witness. After all, if the "Pearl" story turns out to be less than accurate, we can blithely dismiss what BEA has to say about CIA's nefarious activities and discount the implications of those nefarious activities vis a vis the Kennedy assassination. And yet this same legally-convicted and self-admitted "xxxx" has the cheek to claim he seeks only the "truth."

This just keeps getting richer by the day.

Tim Gratz · October 23, 2007

Robert, this is clearly an ad hominem attack. You are trying to discredit my thoughts by dragging up an incident from fifteen years ago. Despite my bar problems, I am an honest person and can cite various incidents and character references to demonstrate that. The fact that I did not get into more serios problems was that there was a clear pattern of my paying money into my trust account to repay the funds I had "borrowed" so I obviously had no intent to keep the money. Nevertheless, and it goes without saying, what I did was egregious to the extreme and I am (rightfully) still paying a heavy penalty for it. I regret deeply that you feel so strongly opposed to my POV that you would go to the effort of researching the problems I had--the sins I had indeed committed--and post them here in an obvious attemot to smear me. But I guess your ethics and morals are different than mine. I would never stoop that low as to embarrass someone over an event that happened years ago.

The ONLY way MY CREDIBILITY is in issue here is if I totally lied about what Mrs. Eisenhower told me. If you really think I did that, Mr. Charles-Dunne, why did you not take some of the effort it took you to research my bar problems and simply call her and verify thev information yourself? The reason is that you know darn well I am telling the truth about my talks with her; you just used it as an opportunity to attempt to drag my name through the mud.

What is important here is that I have little important "first-hand" knowledge of the assassination; the only thing that might count as personal knowledge is posting what a witness like Mrs. Eisenhower has told me. And I hereby vouch before my Maker that I have never ever posted any false information about the assassination. (Obviously my opinions about what happened are simply opinions that anyone can evaluate based on their factual support and the logic of my arguments.)

But it would appear Mr. Ayers has. One could make the argument that posting false information about the assassination which could hinder an investigation (even by costing valuable time) is tantamont to being an accessory after the fact to the assassination.

If you really CARED about what happened to JFK rather than using his assassination to further a political agenda your ire would be directed against Mr. Ayers.

To satisfy you, I will provide someone on the Forum with my e-mail exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower. What are you going to do then, Robert? Apologize?

You wrote:

After all, if the "Pearl" story turns out to be less than accurate, we can blithely dismiss what BEA has to say about CIA's nefarious activities and discount the implications of those nefarious activities vis a vis the Kennedy assassination. That of course is precisely the point and precisely why you and BK are so desperate to attack me rather than Ayers. Some of the things Ayers says support your theory of the case. But you know darn well that if he made up the Pearl story from whole cloth, there is no way anyone can believe a single thing he has written about the assassination absent third party verification.

I also note that while you had the time to engage in this personal attack on me, just like Bill you have never uttered a sentence to answer my observation that the Pearl story is utterly implausible on its face. I fully understand why: there is no way one can support the logic of the Pearl story. The mafia had plenty of foot soldiers who had pledged to take mafia secrerts to their grave. If Bonnanno needed dirty money delivered to Rosselli (who was regularly in Vegas anyway) why would he employ any courier other than a mafia gopher? It makes no sense at all.

And for you to dismiss the possibility that Ayers included this story in his book to further sales is ridiculous. Every extra hundred books Ayers sells is more money in his pocket. Ayers had a motive to lie. I do not. Also of course consider that Ayers never ever claims he tried to verify a single part of Pearl's story. Kind of hard to verify a story you made up.

I will leave this challenge with you. Do YOU believe the Pearl story? Are you willing to allow YOUR reputation as an assassination researcher to be based on the truth or lack thereof of the Ayers' claims about a lady named Pearl? I betcha you know darn well the story lacks the "ring of truth" and you are not prepared to vouch for it. And ditto for BK.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Tim Gratz

Robert Charles-Dunne · October 24, 2007

Robert, this is clearly an ad hominem attack. You are trying to discredit my thoughts by dragging up an incident from fifteen years ago. Despite my bar problems, I am an honest person and can cite various incidents and character references to demonstrate that.

One such unsolicited character reference was provided to, and posted here by, John Simkin. It came from a former employer and included the glowing recommendation that: "Tim is still alive and kicking, still trying to promote his Kennedy Assassination ideas, and is still completely and utterly loony."

The fact that I did not get into more serios problems was that there was a clear pattern of my paying money into my trust account to repay the funds I had "borrowed" so I obviously had no intent to keep the money. Nevertheless, and it goes without saying, what I did was egregious to the extreme and I am (rightfully) still paying a heavy penalty for it. I regret deeply that you feel so strongly opposed to my POV that you would go to the effort of researching the problems I had--the sins I had indeed committed--and post them here in an obvious attemot to smear me. But I guess your ethics and morals are different than mine. I would never stoop that low as to embarrass someone over an event that happened years ago.

To the contrary, Tim. I’ve known for years how to obtain your Wisconsin Bar records and never made that effort. However, a number of months back somebody else
did
expend that effort and sent the results to me, in what I can only surmise was their assumption I would use it to gas you. However, I refrained from doing so, in large measure because I am nobody’s proxy.

Nevertheless, you have branded somebody a “xxxx” without first having done the very due diligence you insist others should do. You insist that Bill Kelly should himself seek confirmation from Ayers prior to proclaiming him honest, yet you
failed
to seek
anything
from Ayers prior to branding him a “xxxx.” To me and to others, you have insisted that journalistic ethics
require
a second-source confirmation prior to making claims about a witness’ veracity, with which I agree, to the extent that such is possible. Yet you
failed
to do this, too.

I have little doubt that you spoke with Ms. Eisenhower, and that she told you what you have claimed here. Where is the confirmation for Ms. Eisenhower from a
second
source that you think is required of
others
? Apparently you think different rules apply to you. They do not.

Moreover, as a trained lawyer, you should know that when witnesses make a statement about their own credibility, the issue becomes open for cross-examination. In doing so, they invite the admission of past bad acts to illustrate that their own credibility it open to debate. You extended that invitation when you made an issue of your credibility, and your own record of past dissembling has been admitted. It is unfortunate, to be sure, but past bad acts do come back to bite one’s bum from time to time. If you don't welcome the scrutiny of your own credibility, quit inviting it.

The ONLY way MY CREDIBILITY is in issue here is if I totally lied about what Mrs. Eisenhower told me. If you really think I did that, Mr. Charles-Dunne, why did you not take some of the effort it took you to research my bar problems and simply call her and verify thev information yourself? The reason is that you know darn well I am telling the truth about my talks with her; you just used it as an opportunity to attempt to drag my name through the mud.

Please see above.

What is important here is that I have little important "first-hand" knowledge of the assassination; the only thing that might count as personal knowledge is posting what a witness like Mrs. Eisenhower has told me. And I hereby vouch before my Maker that I have never ever posted any false information about the assassination. (Obviously my opinions about what happened are simply opinions that anyone can evaluate based on their factual support and the logic of my arguments.)

Presumably your Maker has greater faith in your credibility than I do.

But it would appear Mr. Ayers has. One could make the argument that posting false information about the assassination which could hinder an investigation (even by costing valuable time) is tantamont to being an accessory after the fact to the assassination.

I notice you are quite haphazard about the authors to whom you apply this standard. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least a dozen authors who have demonstrably and knowingly peddled mis/dis-information – Gerald Posner ring any bells? – without you appending the epithet “xxxx” to their name or carping that they are accessories after the fact. Why the inconsistent application of your criteria? Could it be due to Ayers raising questions about CIA intrigues, relevant to the JFK case, that you prefer remain unasked, let alone answered?

If you really CARED about what happened to JFK rather than using his assassination to further a political agenda your ire would be directed against Mr. Ayers.

Whereas if you really CARED about what happened to JFK rather than using his assassination to further a political agenda, you would have contacted Ayers with your questions prior to pronouncing him a "xxxx," and having to endure the subsequent result.

To satisfy you, I will provide someone on the Forum with my e-mail exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower. What are you going to do then, Robert? Apologize?

Tim, this is less about what transpired between you and Ms. Eisenhower – though I’m sure it would make an interesting read – than the lack of a second confirming source that you would require of Ayers, Kelly, me, et al, but – seemingly – not yourself.

You wrote:

After all, if the "Pearl" story turns out to be less than accurate, we can blithely dismiss what BEA has to say about CIA's nefarious activities and discount the implications of those nefarious activities vis a vis the Kennedy assassination. That of course is precisely the point and precisely why you and BK are so desperate to attack me rather than Ayers. Some of the things Ayers says support your theory of the case. But you know darn well that if he made up the Pearl story from whole cloth, there is no way anyone can believe a single thing he has written about the assassination absent third party verification.

It is time to ask yourself some fundamental questions, Tim.

If Ayers has a true tale to tell, why would he wish to undermine his own veracity by including something that could only accomplish that end? It is sensational only to you and a few others who care.

Do you really think that if Ayers wanted to sensationalize his book to stimulate sales, he would pick on somebody like Goldwater, a man about whom the world – yourself excluded - could not care less? Aside from some old YAF hands, who would give a tinker’s cuss? Assuming he wished to “sex up” his book with falsehoods for additional sales, using Goldwater is a non-starter.

Do you really think that, just because he didn’t necessarily include chapter and verse on how he did it, Ayers didn’t make every effort to confirm Pearl’s story. You have jumped to the conclusion that Ayers made no such effort, without knowing it to be the case. I don’t know how legal-minded Ayers’ publisher is, but I suspect that prior to publishing so provocative a book it retained counsel to vet the contents. If so, Ayers presumably had something probative to back up the “Pearl” contentions.

You have mentioned Omerta several times, suggesting that either Pearl’s father would never have told her the tale, or that Pearl would never have repeated it, for fear of being murdered. It is a fair point, but you fail to consider the other side of the ledger.

Assuming, arguendo, that Pearl’s tale is true, does it not make sense that her father would have shared it only with someone to whom he was very close? It is not something one bandies about in cocktail chatter with mates, even the oldest of friends.

If Ayers has gone to any trouble to disguise the identity of his informant – which I would
hope
he
did
do – it could go beyond the name to include the gender. Of what relevance is Ms. Eisenhower’s contribution in that case?

This is something you might have elicited from Ayers had you not called him a “xxxx” first and only then decided to contact him. But now, should you contact Ayers [though I doubt very much that you’ll bother, based on your past un-kept promises here], do you really expect him to share chapter and verse with you after you’ve already called him a “xxxx?” Not terribly clever, old boy.

Worse by far, your vilification of a potentially crucial witness may disincline him from making any further effort to place his knowledge in the public record. He may very well simply throw his hands in the air and wonder why he even bothers to try. Should he be contacted by Bill Kelly’s hypothetical grand jury, will he still be willing to testify knowing that presumptuous slander will likely be his only reward? Rather than you mounting an attempt to determine the truth, as you claim, your one-man campaign to vilify may serve only to silence one of the few remaining witnesses we have to events that have thus far remained largely unplumbed. Is that your intent? Because that’s the way it looks.

You know, Tim, you could easily have framed your concerns without resorting to the “xxxx” invective. It is fair game to say “We should be skeptical because….” Or “The author fails to resolve the following questions…..?” It is parliamentary language that still asks appropriate questions, but without prejudging either the answers or the man who’s expected to give them.

But for some reason you find it necessary to insist upon somebody’s guilt prior to expending the effort necessary to prove it. In so doing, you seek – by your own admission – to detract from all else the book contains, encouraging others to dismiss what you find to be untenable revelations about CIA. Is that your intent? Because that’s the way it looks.

I also note that while you had the time to engage in this personal attack on me, just like Bill you have never uttered a sentence to answer my observation that the Pearl story is utterly implausible on its face. I fully understand why: there is no way one can support the logic of the Pearl story. The mafia had plenty of foot soldiers who had pledged to take mafia secrerts to their grave. If Bonnanno needed dirty money delivered to Rosselli (who was regularly in Vegas anyway) why would he employ any courier other than a mafia gopher? It makes no sense at all.

Dear boy, the world is more complex than you imagine. A number of ways to achieve one’s ends do exist, and some are more clever – and less prone to being detected – than others. Again, this is something you might have determined for yourself by simply contacting the author with your questions prior to branding him a “xxxx.”

And for you to dismiss the possibility that Ayers included this story in his book to further sales is ridiculous. Every extra hundred books Ayers sells is more money in his pocket. Ayers had a motive to lie. I do not.

You clearly have a motive here. Whether or not it includes lying is something undetermined as yet. The totality of your purported correspondence with Ms. Eisenhower, in original unedited form, would help to establish that, perhaps. Though I don’t think it necessary, feel free to make good on your offer to provide it to another impartial Forum member for posting here, if it’ll make you feel better.

Also of course consider that Ayers never ever claims he tried to verify a single part of Pearl's story. Kind of hard to verify a story you made up.

It would, of course, also be very hard to verify a story never intended to become widely known and, hence, was a closely held secret. It is additionally complicated by another small matter; that those privy to the secret may all have since died. The one possible verification that Ayers may have sought and received was confirmation from somebody other than Pearl that her father had told them the same story, too. That way, Ayers is not a xxxx, and Pearl is not a xxxx. It remains possible that Pearl’s father was a xxxx, though one wonders why he would select that particular story, but that doesn’t seem to have ever been your contention.

I will leave this challenge with you. Do YOU believe the Pearl story? Are you willing to allow YOUR reputation as an assassination researcher to be based on the truth or lack thereof of the Ayers' claims about a lady named Pearl? I betcha you know darn well the story lacks the "ring of truth" and you are not prepared to vouch for it. And ditto for BK.

This is the ultimate difference between us, Tim. Half-cocked, you’ve predetermined Ayers’ veracity to your own satisfaction, and the news for Ayers is not good. The news for CIA is, consequently and quite predictably, excellent. I am happy to suspend judgment until I know more. As for BK, he is more than capable of speaking for himself.

Tim Gratz · October 24, 2007

Robert, you essentially admitted my credibility is not in issue because you KNOW I spoke with Mrs. Eisenhower. Thus, the problems I had with the Bar had no possible relevance other than to "smear" me (I admit "smear is too strong a word since the facts you stated were in substance true although they did not include mitigating circumstances). Since you knew I did not lie about talking to Mrs. Eisenhower, the only purpose for the recitation of that Bar incident fiftteen years ago was to embarrass me.

I find that troubling. I have "embarassing information" about someone who regularly offers posts contrary to my POV and I could use that information almost every day to ridicule him. Even though doing so would advance my refutation of his posts, I do not use the information out of a sense of decency.

You agree that journalistic ethics would require verification of someone's story to the extent possible. Hence, you implicitly admit that Ayers' publication of the Pearl story violated such standards--even assuming that Pearl existed. (See below.)

(It is nice to have something to agree about. I am in complete agreement with you about Gerald Posner. But Ayers becomes an issue here because Bill Kelly vouches for his honesty and offers him as witness for his "grand jury". If anyone suggested using Posner as a credible witness re anything aboutthe case, my attack would be as relentless. That is the reason why my focus is on Ayers--Bill Kelly had the temerity to label him an "honest" witness.)

You wrote:

Do you really think that, just because he didn’t necessarily include chapter and verse on how he did it, Ayers didn’t make every effort to confirm Pearl’s story.

Yes indeed I do. Not only do I think he did not make EVERY effort, I think he made NO EFFORT whatsoever. Obviously there are parts of Pearl's story (again assuming that Pearl ever existed outside Ayers' mind) that probably could not be verified. But the very simplest thing to verify was whether Pearl's father indeed worked for BG (technically I believe he would have been employed by the US Senate). Do you really think that if Ayers had verified that BGhad ever employed such a fellow, he would have mentioned that in his book? Obviously he would have.

You wrote:

You have mentioned Omerta several times, suggesting that either Pearl’s father would never have told her the tale, or that Pearl would never have repeated it, for fear of being murdered. It is a fair point, but you fail to consider the other side of the ledger. Robert, you completely missed my point. Only mafia members are bound by omerta. It makes no sense whatsoever that if Bonnano needed money delivered to Rosselli, he would not have used a mafia soldier who knew his life was in danger if he squealed. Pearl (again with the important caveat IF there was a Pearl) claims her father was a law-abiding and honest person. Why in the world would Bonnano involve a law abing citizen in the plot to kill the President? Had Pearl's father gone to the authorities with his information, presumably both Bonnano and Rosselli would have been arrested, tried and fried. Why would they risk that? If Oswald had to be killed to guarantee his silence, why did the conspirators alloiw Pearl's father to live--since he was NOT bound by a pledge of omerta?

You state:

If Ayers has gone to any trouble to disguise the identity of his informant – which I would hope he did do – it could go beyond the name to include the gender. Of what relevance is Ms. Eisenhower’s contribution in that case?

Obviosly, "dear boy", I thought of that. Here is exactly what I wrote Mrs. Eisenhower:

Have you had a chance to read you the material I sent you re the allegations of Bradley Ayers re the father of a lady he identifies as "Pearl" who Ayers says Pearl says was a long-time member of Sen. Goldwater's staff?

Was there anyone associated with BG who met the description of the man Ayers describes as "Pearl's father" even if the man had no daughter named Pearl?

Ayers' description of "Pearl's father". which even extends to his education and early employment, is extensive. Mrs. Eisenhower says that no person like that ever worked for BG.

I remain absolutely STUNNED that you are not incensed by the probability that Ayers for whatever reason invented this cock-and-bull story. If someone deliberately plants false information in to the "record" it clearly himders and impedes the search for the truth.

Then again I probably should not be stunned. You have to support Ayers' credibility because you desperately want what he says about the CIA to be true. As you noted, there is no one else left who claims support for your view of the events leading to the assassination. If Ayers goes, your entire house of cards collapses. But don't be upset with me, the messenger. Ayers put himself in that position because of the preposterous Pearl story he tried to pass.

What else Ayers says may or may not be true. But if he lied about the Pearl story, we obviously cannot believe anything he says. And I think Mrs. Eisenhower's statement is prima facie evidence that he lied.

So when I provide information from a second source who worked for BG during the period in question, and who verifies that no such person worked for BG, are you then willing to apologize to me, dear boy? Will you ire at last be directed toward Ayers, as it should be?

Most, I think, have concluded that Files' entire story is a lie. IMO Ayers is in the same category as Files.

I would in closing point out that it was Bill Kelly who vouched for the credibility of Ayers. One would think that after I raised this issue, Bill would have wasted not one second before writing to Ayers demanding an explanation.

With all the time BK has spent on this thread attempting to disparage me, he obviously had the time many times over to contact Ayers. The fact that he did not says volumes.

I assert again: both you and BK know full well that the story of "Pearl's father" is as false as a four dollar bill.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz · October 24, 2007

I wrote:

I also note that while you had the time to engage in this personal attack on me, just like Bill you have never uttered a sentence to answer my observation that the Pearl story is utterly implausible on its face. I fully understand why: there is no way one can support the logic of the Pearl story. The mafia had plenty of foot soldiers who had pledged to take mafia secrerts to their grave. If Bonnanno needed dirty money delivered to Rosselli (who was regularly in Vegas anyway) why would he employ any courier other than a mafia gopher? It makes no sense at all.

To which Robert Charles-Dunne responded (with his usual condescending wit*):

Dear boy, the world is more complex than you imagine. A number of ways to achieve one’s ends do exist, and some are more clever – and less prone to being detected – than others.

No, Robert, I do indeed understand there are "clever" criminals who employ means less likely to be detected--and less clever ones, who might, for instance, engage a complete outsider to be the bag man" carrying the money. It is of course obvious that the ones who planned the Dallas operation were the "less clever ones", which is why they were so quickly apprehended. Employing Pearl's father was of course but one of their stupid mistakes.

* Robert, you may be witty but Richard Greenleaf was Whittier.

Tim Gratz · October 24, 2007

Query to Robert and Bill:

If the assassination involved the Mafia and the CIA, as Chapters 31 and 32 of Ayers' book certainly implies, how likely do you think it is that the conspirators would have used a man not associated with either the Mafia or the CIA to transmit their money from Vegas to Dallas and New Orleans?

And if you think there is ANY chance this happened, my next question is why? Where all of their own flunkies too busy?

Would you at least concede that "Pearl's story" is rather implausible? And if it seems implausible on its face, would that not impose am even greater obligation on Ayers to attempt to verify it? And the first step would be to verify that Pearl's father actually worked for Barry Goldwater.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Tim Gratz

Robert Charles-Dunne · October 25, 2007

Robert, you essentially admitted my credibility is not in issue because you KNOW I spoke with Mrs. Eisenhower. Thus, the problems I had with the Bar had no possible relevance other than to "smear" me (I admit "smear is too strong a word since the facts you stated were in substance true although they did not include mitigating circumstances).

Whatever the "mitigating circumstances" might have been, they were insufficient for you to mount a defense for, as we both know, you filed a petition for your licence to be revoked when you “stated that [you were] unable to successfully defend against allegations of misconduct under investigation by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility.” Seems to be an admission that the Wisconsin Bar had an open and shut case and you had no recourse except to plead nolo contendre. If there were such "mitigating circumstances," perhaps you shouldn't have waited 15 years to raise them, and should have raised them with the Wisconsin Bar then, rather than with us now.

Since you knew I did not lie about talking to Mrs. Eisenhower, the only purpose for the recitation of that Bar incident fiftteen years ago was to embarrass me.

When an admitted xxxx uses the Forum as a bully pulpit for purposes that can only help silence potentially important witnesses, the admitted xxxx begs to be “embarrassed.” You really ought to move on from this pose of indignant self-righteousness, because dwelling upon it only begs for more of the same, and we both know that what I’ve cited isn’t the end of your tale.

I find that troubling. I have "embarassing information" about someone who regularly offers posts contrary to my POV and I could use that information almost every day to ridicule him. Even though doing so would advance my refutation of his posts, I do not use the information out of a sense of decency.

That hyper-inflated “sense of decency” just doesn’t extend far enough to grant Brad Ayers the same consideration you now demand for yourself. It certainly doesn’t extend far enough that it requires you to actually perform the very same journalistic effort that you demand of others, Ayers included. What rank hypocrisy.

You agree that journalistic ethics would require verification of someone's story to the extent possible. Hence, you implicitly admit that Ayers' publication of the Pearl story violated such standards--even assuming that Pearl existed. (See below.)

Since you have made
no
effort to find out what Ayers did or didn’t do to confirm the Pearl story, this is all just so much piffle on your part. You seem to think that Ms. Eisenhower is the only rebuttal witness upon whom you need rely to impeach what Ayers contended. Aside from violating the code of “ethics” you
insist
upon for
others
, it is also rather dimwitted.

You seem to argue that even if Pearl existed and her story was true, Ms. Eisenhower would blithely admit this to some total stranger. She may well have her own reasons for wishing the Ayers story to die a quiet death. If you’ve done the slightest homework on her role within Goldwater’s operations, you know that she ruled the roost and the
only
people who got to see him or even speak with him on the phone were those
she
allowed access to the Senator. This being the case, if the Pearl story is true, it is highly unlikely she didn’t know of the circumstances. Which means that
she
would have aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy. Yet you, in your capacity as an Inspector Clouseau impersonator, would actually expect her to
admit
this to a complete stranger. You seem to have declared “somebody I don’t know, or know anything about, told me what I wanted to hear and that’s good enough for me.” Well it’s
not
good enough, Tim. You grow less clever by the day.

(It is nice to have something to agree about. I am in complete agreement with you about Gerald Posner. But Ayers becomes an issue here because Bill Kelly vouches for his honesty and offers him as witness for his "grand jury". If anyone suggested using Posner as a credible witness re anything aboutthe case, my attack would be as relentless. That is the reason why my focus is on Ayers--Bill Kelly had the temerity to label him an "honest" witness.)

There’s no “temerity” on Bill Kelly’s part. If Ayers has a past track record of lying, as you do, enter it into evidence for our inspection. That you have not done so to date can only indicate Ayers has no such checkered past. [Or if he does, you’ve made
no
effort to find it.] You are grasping at a single straw, and it is the Pearl story, for which your only rebuttal is to allude to – but not provide,
as you said you would
– Ms. Eisenhower’s testimony.

Now, let us see: the man attacking Ayers is a convicted and self-admitted xxxx, but we are expected to accept
his
word as to what Ms. Eisenhower told
him
, without any confirmation, and without regard to her
own
possible motives for dissembling. Is that about right, counselor?

You wrote:

Do you really think that, just because he didn’t necessarily include chapter and verse on how he did it, Ayers didn’t make every effort to confirm Pearl’s story.

Yes indeed I do. Not only do I think he did not make EVERY effort, I think he made NO EFFORT whatsoever.

What you "think" is irrelevant, and grows increasingly so with each indication of your own slipshod methods. What can you
prove
? Presumably, nothing, for that’s all you’ve offered thus far.

Obviously there are parts of Pearl's story (again assuming that Pearl ever existed outside Ayers' mind) that probably could not be verified. But the very simplest thing to verify was whether Pearl's father indeed worked for BG (technically I believe he would have been employed by the US Senate). Do you really think that if Ayers had verified that BGhad ever employed such a fellow, he would have mentioned that in his book? Obviously he would have.

These are all things you may have ascertained had
you
bothered to contact Ayers before condemning him as guilty. Apparently your much-vaunted “sense of decency” doesn’t require this of you.

You wrote:

You have mentioned Omerta several times, suggesting that either Pearl’s father would never have told her the tale, or that Pearl would never have repeated it, for fear of being murdered. It is a fair point, but you fail to consider the other side of the ledger. Robert, you completely missed my point. Only mafia members are bound by omerta. It makes no sense whatsoever that if Bonnano needed money delivered to Rosselli, he would not have used a mafia soldier who knew his life was in danger if he squealed. Pearl (again with the important caveat IF there was a Pearl) claims her father was a law-abiding and honest person. Why in the world would Bonnano involve a law abing citizen in the plot to kill the President? Had Pearl's father gone to the authorities with his information, presumably both Bonnano and Rosselli would have been arrested, tried and fried. Why would they risk that? If Oswald had to be killed to guarantee his silence, why did the conspirators alloiw Pearl's father to live--since he was NOT bound by a pledge of omerta?

The foregoing only makes it clearer that you know nothing about the way in which Mobsters operate, and even less about Goldwater’s own family and business associates, as we'll soon see.

You state:

If Ayers has gone to any trouble to disguise the identity of his informant – which I would hope he did do – it could go beyond the name to include the gender. Of what relevance is Ms. Eisenhower’s contribution in that case?

Obviosly, "dear boy", I thought of that. Here is exactly what I wrote Mrs. Eisenhower:

Have you had a chance to read you the material I sent you re the allegations of Bradley Ayers re the father of a lady he identifies as "Pearl" who Ayers says Pearl says was a long-time member of Sen. Goldwater's staff?

Was there anyone associated with BG who met the description of the man Ayers describes as "Pearl's father" even if the man had no daughter named Pearl?

Ayers' description of "Pearl's father". which even extends to his education and early employment, is extensive. Mrs. Eisenhower says that no person like that ever worked for BG.

And because Ms. Eisenhower is both the font of all knowledge, and of unimpeachable character herself, we can simply accept her account as true beyond dispute, without a second source corroboration that you require of others. Again, you know
nothing
about Goldwater’s own family and business associates, and refuse to perform the due diligence measures you would require of others.

I remain absolutely STUNNED that you are not incensed by the probability that Ayers for whatever reason invented this cock-and-bull story. If someone deliberately plants false information in to the "record" it clearly himders and impedes the search for the truth.

Which is precisely why it is imperative that you are called out on all this malarkey you insist upon posting. Moreso, when guilty parties are being protected in the process, as may be the case in this instance.

Then again I probably should not be stunned.

Nobody should be, but you clearly are.

You have to support Ayers' credibility because you desperately want what he says about the CIA to be true. As you noted, there is no one else left who claims support for your view of the events leading to the assassination. If Ayers goes, your entire house of cards collapses. But don't be upset with me, the messenger. Ayers put himself in that position because of the preposterous Pearl story he tried to pass.

Given that I own neither of Ayers’ books, and further given that I don’t recall ever having posted a
single comment
on him prior to this little pas de deux with you, I hardly think Ayers to be the critical lynchpin that you assert him to be, either to my own worldview or anyone else’s. There
is
desperation on display in this thread, an hysterical one-man witchhunt to discredit Ayers. Your motives for conducting this failed campaign become increasingly transparent with each additional post.

As for a “house of cards,” you seem determined to remain oblivious to Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, our own Larry Hancock, David Talbot, Jefferson Morley and a dozen others who offer equally probative evidence of CIA perfidy. And, by the way, you are not “the messenger” because nobody has asked you to relay anything. Or
have
they?

What else Ayers says may or may not be true. But if he lied about the Pearl story, we obviously cannot believe anything he says. And I think Mrs. Eisenhower's statement is prima facie evidence that he lied.

Well, according to the Cornell University Law School, the definition of “
prima facie
” is:

“Latin for "At first sight." A prima facie case presents enough evidence for the plaintiff to win the case barring any defenses or additional evidence presented by the defendant.”

As even pre-schoolers know, not everything is what it seems to be “at first sight.” And since your prima facie evidence consists
solely
of Ms. Eisenhower’s unknown and uncorroborated statements to you, you have now opened up the issue of
her
credibility, which we will soon plumb in greater depth.

So when I provide information from a second source who worked for BG during the period in question, and who verifies that no such person worked for BG, are you then willing to apologize to me, dear boy? Will you ire at last be directed toward Ayers, as it should be?

"
When
you provide?" I think, based upon your past track record of unkept promises - dating back to at least April of 2005 - you really mean "
If
you provide....."

As for an apology; for what? The foregoing only points out, yet again, that you have a single arrow in your quiver, Ms. Eisenhower, despite demanding that others have at least two such arrows before they state their case. The foregoing only demonstrates, yet again, that you hold others to one standard whilst allowing yourself to slide by with considerably less. And when you are called, again and again, on this rank hypocrisy, you think you are the blameless victim and are entitled to an apology when you
eventually
get around to doing what you
should
have done
prior
to branding Ayers a “xxxx?’ Astounding.

Most, I think, have concluded that Files' entire story is a lie. IMO Ayers is in the same category as Files.

I would in closing point out that it was Bill Kelly who vouched for the credibility of Ayers. One would think that after I raised this issue, Bill would have wasted not one second before writing to Ayers demanding an explanation.

With all the time BK has spent on this thread attempting to disparage me, he obviously had the time many times over to contact Ayers. The fact that he did not says volumes.

I assert again: both you and BK know full well that the story of "Pearl's father" is as false as a four dollar bill.

You can keep bleating this same old refrain to your heart’s content, old son. The fact remains that if you wish to brand Ayers, or anyone else, a “xxxx,” it is
you
who must offer proof for the assertion. What’s been provided thus far doesn’t begin to cover it.

Now, as to your gullible reaction to Barry Goldwater, former US Presidential candidate, ever consorting with the likes of Mafia scumbags, your own hubris and idol-worship have clearly blinded you to a few facts that are long overdue for your attention.

Far from being a galaxy away from such criminal interests, the Goldwater family has its own past history of questionable associations. If Ms. Eisenhower was the iron-fisted gatekeeper in charge of determining who did and didn’t get access to Goldwater, one wonders how her boss could have maintained a lifelong relationship with such questionable persons without
her
ever learning of these unsavoury characters. Perhaps once you’ve acquainted yourself with the following, you’ll have your own reasons to understand why Ms. Eisenhower’s own motives are open to question. This is an excerpt from a piece that should be required reading for anyone who cares about the topics raised in this thread.

http://weeklywire.com/ww/06-22-98/tw_curr4.html

More telling is how Bob Goldwater skipped those charming tales of when he and his sibling hobnobbed with known Mafia thugs, ran shady citrus farms, exploited illegal aliens and were linked to land deals that stank to high heaven, in a state already reeking with real-estate scullduggery.

And maybe he just forgot about the pack of angry journalists that descended upon Phoenix 20 years ago, dispatched by the national Investigative Reporters and Editors organization to uncover facts surrounding the grisly assassination of Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles.

Bolles was dissecting the state's murky land fraud network when his Datsun was bombed in June 1976. Pieces of his flesh were found up to 10 feet away from the shredded car.

By the following February, IRE reporters had uncovered a shadowy trail of influence peddling and shady deal-making that started with the Bolles murder, weaved through the mob-laced terrain of Arizona's power structure, and landed smack on the doorstep of the brothers Goldwater.

Indeed, soon after the murder Barry Goldwater was interviewed by police about his ties to Phoenix attorney Neal Roberts, who in turn was linked to Bolles' death. A witness said that Goldwater made five phone calls to Roberts just before and just after the bombing.

At the time, Goldwater aide Judy Eisenhower denied that her boss made the calls. "We were in Washington when the bombing occurred," she told police, "and no telephone calls were made to Mr. Roberts or received from Mr. Roberts at any time."

She said Goldwater knew Roberts only from a joint appearance on a local Phoenix TV show, and possibly from "some later cocktail party." But Roberts' culpability was manifest, especially after he admitted arranging a flight out of town for one of the killers.

Either way, it was a portentous connection. In March 1977, the IRE reporters began publishing a series of stories incriminating the Goldwaters in newspapers across the country, including The Arizona Daily Star.

For his part,
Robert Goldwater was longtime buddies with Moe Dalitz, a Cleveland gangster who made extensive investments in Arizona in the late '30s. A decade later, Dalitz confederate and Mafia underboss Peter Licavoli Sr. bought a Tucson ranch, while Dalitz set up shop in Las Vegas with the help of Licavoli and Mafia moneyman Meyer Lansky.

Before long the Goldwaters had opened a Vegas store exclusively placed in Dalitz' Desert Inn, and Robert Goldwater even went into the restaurant business with a tight pal of Licavoli's.

And that was just the surface. Ultimately, all these links go back to Harry Rosenzweig, the colorful onetime state Republican chairman, 1975 Phoenix Man of the Year--and Barry Goldwater's financial/political mentor. The night Barry Goldwater was crushed by Lyndon Johnson in the race for president, there was only man by his side: Harry Rosenzweig.

Rosenzweig in turn had close ties to Gus Greenbaum, a racketeer whose throat was slit in 1958 by former "business associates," and to extortionist and pimp Willie Bioff.

In the '40s, Bioff had testified against members of Al Capone's gang. He later moved to Arizona under the alias William Nelson, and soon carved himself a niche in Phoenix high society, becoming fast friends with the Goldwaters and Rosenzweig. He even traveled around the state with Barry Goldwater on the senator's private plane.

At first, Goldwater denied knowing of Bioff's past. Later, when it became public knowledge, he justified his continuing relationship with the gangster by saying it was an attempt to gather information about labor racketeering.

Bioff was blown to bits in 1955, by a bomb hidden in his pick-up truck. He was reportedly killed by the mob after dallying with $300,000 earmarked for racetrack investments. That money belonged to Peter Licavoli and his hoodlum pals.

A month before he was killed, Bioff and his wife, Barry Goldwater and his family, and Harry Rosenzweig vacationed together in Las Vegas. At one point, Bioff even loaned Rozenzweig and Robert Goldwater $10,000 for a farming investment in California.

Bioff also contributed to Barry Goldwater's first senate campaign, and the Senator paid his respects by attending the funerals of both Greenbaum and Bioff.

Next in this sublime parade comes a childhood friend of the Goldwaters named Mike Newman. He grew up to take over Greenbaum's gambling racket, and operated unhindered in Phoenix.

The web thickens further:
Greenbaum regularly hosted the Goldwaters gratis at his mob-owned Flamingo and Riviera casinos. Following Greenbaum's murder, Rosenzweig became the unpaid appraiser of Greenbaum's real estate, along with an official from the now-defunct Valley National Bank. At the time, Robert Goldwater was a bank director.

When Newman's gambling operation was eventually busted--in a building owned by Rozenzweig and frequented by Robert Goldwater--Sen. Goldwater used his power to get Newman a lenient sentence and prime prison conditions.

The IRE investigation also led to liquor magnate Kemper Marley Sr. Before his death, Gus Greenbaum had established the Transamerica Wire Service, a racing network for Arizona bookies that Marley and Peter Licavoli later took over.

A major state powerbroker, Marley was soon playing hardball to land a seat on the Arizona Racing Commission. He was appointed to the post in 1976 by then-Gov. Raul Castro, only to resign several days later when his ties to organized crime surfaced.

It was Don Bolles who had brought those connections to light.

Though never officially charged, it's widely believed that Kemper Marley ordered Bolles' murder. He was fingered by John Adamson, a suspected burglar and arsonist who had confessed to carrying out crime. Adamson also named two co-conspirators, James Robison and Max Dunlap. Both were later were convicted of killing the reporter.

During the trial, surprise witness Howard Woodall, himself a convicted land scam-artist, testified that Robison told him Bolles was killed in part because he'd uncovered evidence of a loan swindle involving Marley, Rosenzweig--and Barry and Robert Goldwater. One of the convicted killers made the same claim in a police affidavit.

Finally there's the Arrowhead Ranch, a huge spread of Phoenix citrus groves established by a pair of Detroit Mafia bosses, and later owned in part by Harry Rosenzweig and Robert Goldwater. Barry Goldwater was also rumored to have a stake in the business.

Besides the operation's Mafia-laced past, Arrowhead also hired illegal aliens from Mexico, and housed them in subhuman conditions. At the time, the United Farm Workers Union was pushing hard to infiltrate the ranch, where pickers were regularly beaten by guards and told that the Border Patrol would be called if they escaped.

At one point union official Lupe Sanchez crashed a tribute party to Barry Goldwater, confronting the Senator firsthand about his brother's hiring practices at Arrowhead.

In The Arizona Project, Michael Wendland's book about the IRE investigation, Sanchez recalled his encounter with the Senator: "Well, right there, in front of all these people, Barry looked me right in the eye and said that if all my people, the Mexican-Americans, weren't so lazy and would get off their butts and work for a living, his brother wouldn't have to hire wetbacks. And he was cheered."

Barry Goldwater consistently dodged interviews with IRE reporters
, and referred to evidence of his links to Bioff and Greenbaum as "trash." He labeled the exhaustively researched stories "totally false and libelous." Robert Goldwater likewise dismissed the evidence gathered against him as "poppycock."

And so it went. Now, some 20 years later, Don Bolles has become little more than a historical footnote. Kemper Marley has a UA building and an Arizona Historical Society museum named in his honor. Barry Goldwater is dead, and his brother eulogizes the Senator's fondness for kitschy underwear.

Just goes to show that time, dosed with selective recall, is a very curious and comforting thing. Perhaps British humorist William Trevor summed it up best. "The nice thing about having memories," he said, "is that you can choose."

Is Ms. Eisenhower indulging in selective memory recall? Let us see the totality of your correspondence with her, and we might be better able to judge this.

Better still, simply drop this charade before you and your unsupported contentions get further deconstructed. Really, Tim, don’t you ever wonder if it wouldn’t be better to
not
have your foolhardiness eviscerated with such clockwork regularity?

William Kelly · October 26, 2007

The Zenith Secret – A CIA Insider Exposes the Secret War Against Cuba and the Plot that Killed the Kennedy Brothers, by Bradley E. Ayers (Vox Pop/Drench Kiss Media Corportation, 1022 Corelyou Road, Brooklyn, NY 11218. [www.voxpopnet.net]

A somewhat expanded and updated version of Bradley E. Ayers' "The War That Never Was" (Bobbs-Merrell, 1976), The Zenith Secret takes it's name from the Zenith Technical Enterprises, the cover company for the CIA's Miami, Florida, JMWAVE station at a remote part of the University of Miami campus.

As acknowledged by the CIA, since Ayers was a military officers assigned to covert work at the CIA and not a CIA officer, he did not sign a CIA secrecy oath and therefore his published work did not have to be vetted by the CIA's Publication Review Board (PRB), which did review and apparently approve other recently published books about William Harvey and by E. Howard Hunt.

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that both Harvey's biographer Bayard Stockton and Hunt both died of natural causes after completing their manuscripts but before their books were published.

So it is quite fitting and safe that Bradley Ayers would be holed up in a wilderness cabin with his dogs, and without a computer or contact with anyone other than his New York attorney, leaving us with book to ponder. And there is much to ponder if you can get past the small type, typos and errors that have Ayers threatening to sue his Vox Pop for going to print before he approved it.

Unlike Vox Pop, a radical, alternative coffeeshop/publishing operation run out of Brooklyn, New York, Bobbs-Merrill is a mainstream company. In 1973, Ayers' manuscript was reviewed by the managing editor, Tom Gervasi.

"Unbeknownst to me," writes Ayers, "…upon retirement from the CIA, bill Harvey went to work for Bobbs-Merrill. Apparently my manuscript was intercepted and the book's contents carefully reviewed by the agency and some of its entities. For the next two and a half years, I made revisions and rewrites of the manuscript at the suggestion of Gervasi. The pattern was one of whittling away at those parts that were the most sensitive or potentially embarrassing to the agency. Gervasi explained that Bobbs-Merrill could not accept the libel risks that portions of the book presented. One of the requirements set by Gervasi was that I change all the names of the major figures. Also excised was text on David Morales, and Ferrie's presence at JM/WAVE….just getting the book into print was better than no book at all."

I remember reading "The War that Never Was," and sharing Ayers' feelings that the operations he was connected with at JMWAVE were somehow connected to the assassination of President Kennedy, but it was hard to put a finger on exactly what that point was.

For Bradley E. Ayers, "The chain of events that lead me to [uSArmy Deputy Chief of Staff for Special Operations] Colonel Bond's office....began in the spring of 1963. I had held the rank of captain, and as a senior officer in this grade, nearing promotion to major, I was serving as the executive officer of the Army Ranger Training Camp at Eglin Air Force Base in northwest Florida….The mission of the Ranger Camp was to train volunteer officers and non-commissioned officers in the techniques of clandestine jungle and swamp operations for small units….Lt. Col. Hakala,…commanded the camp…on a sunny April day I made my move and requested a transfer."

Assigned to Colonel Bond, Special Warfare Section, Pentagon, tested by Lt. Colonel Garrett, and placed under General Rosson, deputy chief of staff, Special Warfare, Ayers was paired with Major Roderick, an engineer officer and demolitions expert.

They were ordered to stop saluting and transferred in civilian clothes to the Cuban Operations Center in the basement of the CIA HQ at Langley, Virginia, "We were first taken to a plush first floor office and introduced to the head of the Cuban desk, Mr. Des Fitzgerald,…then escorted to an adjacent office and introduced to Mr. William Harvey and Mr. James O'Connell, both of whom exhibited an unmistakable air of authority."

Flown to Florida, they were met by Bob Wall, assistant chief of operations at the station. "He went on to explain that the Miami headquarters was covered under a civilian corporation known as Zenith Technical Enterprises. The station, or 'company,' was located on the University of Miami's South Campus, adjacent to the abandoned Richmond Naval Air Station, which had been developed by the Navy during World War II as a dirigible base. A hurricane had devastated the immense hangers, and only girders and concrete foundations remained. The airfield was still intact but not open for use, except covertly by the agency….."

Officially attached to the U.S. Army Support Group, "…we met the station chief, Ted Shackley…I saw that they had missed no detail in setting up the false front Zenith Technical Enterprises. There were phony sales and production charts on the walls and businesses licenses from the state and federal governments….Shackley…welcomed us with poise, a Harvard air, and a Bostonian accent…His polished but informal manner put us at ease while his cool professionalism instilled confidence and respect….The station had separate, distinct departments:

personnel…intelligence….operations…logistics…cover…security…maritime….communicat

ons…real estate….A separate branch had been set up, to develop training programs for all Cubans and foreign volunteers because of the need for competent agents."

"Bob Wall discussed the control the president's Special Group exercised over all operational activities. The station developed plans for operations and recruited, trained, and equipped Cuban exiles to accomplish specific missions….I was given the fictitious identity of Daniel B. Williams, a former military pilot employed by Paragon Air Service,…a legally chartered Delaware Corporation..."

"One of Bob's 'outside' agents took us to the Homestead marina where we met Rip Robertson, a former Marine. We'd already heard stories about the tall, rawboned man, his daring escapades at the Bay of Pigs, and, more recently, with his Cuban commando group. Rip, in his mid-forties, was a contract employee of fairly long standing with the CIA. Almost everyone held him in high esteem. Like Dave Morales, nicknamed 'the Big Indian' (a.k.a. El Indio), to whom he was directly responsible, Rip was said to be stubborn, independent, and jealously protective of his men…."

"…Rip filled us in on the details of the V-20 boats used in the commando strikes. Their 20 foot V-shaped hulls had been extensively modified and reinforced, at a cost of more than $30,000 each. They were made of double-thick fiberglass to withstand the beating of high speeds on the open seas and to damage from coral and objects submerged in shallow water. Armor plating was embedded in the fiberglass to protect the fuel tanks and the occupants. Plastic foam and rubber, installed in critical places, added protection against the bullets and afforded the crew some cushioning within the open cockpit. Equipped with twin 'souped up' hundred horsepower Greymarine inboard engines with retractable outdrives, the boats could travel 35 miles per hour while using no more than 75 percent of their full power….I recalled Bob telling us that the 'company' was searching for better, stronger craft, and was trying to improve the performance of the V-20…."

[ BK notes: Unknown to Bradley Ayers, at least until the November 1, 1963 New York Times ran a photo of the Rex on its front page, was the fact that the CIA ship was owned by Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, "one of the godfathers of the Bay of Pigs" and contracted to the Belcher Oil Company and "leased" as a cover to Collins Radio, of Richardson, Texas. Also unknown to Ayers is the fact that Collins collaborated with the CIA in Operation Paperclip, and utilized one of the former Nazi scientists in developing the swift boats for Cuban commandos in conjunction with General Dynamics. Like automobiles and planes, the boats used by the anti-Castro commandos left a paper trail that leads to the government and corporate defense contractors who participated in these operations. ]

"It took us about 40 minutes to reach Elliot Key…The CIA rented or purchased dwellings for agents' use and were considered safe and secure after being checked for outside surveillance….In one corner of the main room the Cubans had created a small shrine in memory of the men who had been killed or lost on earlier missions…."

"Training did not begin until mid-morning…The class was presented quite informally, in Spanish, by Rip's personal assistant, a Cuban named Felix….Rip showed us their newest piece of equipment, an item called a silent outboard motor which was about 50 percent quieter than the standard outboard. The Navy had developed it for underwater demolition missions…and were not available through civilian channels,…made by the Johnson Company…"

"Under temporary cover as a real estate broker and developer, I began to search for a training area….I was able to narrow down the possibilities to three general areas: upper Key Largo, including Lingerman Key and the 'Pirate's Lair' island safehouse owned by the University of Miami, the Old Card Sound Road area on the west side of upper Key Largo, and the Dynamite Pier area opposite and east of it; the Flamingo-Cape Sable area on the southernmost edge of the Everglades National Park."

At a social gathering at Key Biscayne, "After chatting for a few minutes, Colonel Bond….introduced me to some of the guests. I shook hands with Mr. Harvey and Mr. O'Connell. Both addressed me by my first name. There were several people I recognized from Zenith….I met Mr. Hunt, one of the few present there who looked the part of the classic intellectual espionage type. With Hunt was a Cuban introduced as Mr. Artime. I spotted Mr. Fitzgerald and he acknowledged me with a nod of his head. Colonel Bond told me it was Richard Helms, head of CIA covert operations, standing next to him. Relaxing from the Manhattans, I laughed, realizing that most of the people looked gentle and conservative. Yet when they pulled a string, men lived or died. These men around me were guiding our national policy toward Cuba."

"Suddenly there was a stir of activity near the courtyard door. The reception line was breaking up. Apparently the VIPs, whoever they were, were leaving. As they passed through the living room, they talked amiably with some of the guests. One man, his back to me, caught my eye. He was younger than the rest, and his full head of hair was conspicuously longer, reaching his collar. He was slim, with a wiry, catlike stance. He wore a sports coat and loose, baggy slacks. His hands were thrust into his pockets and his shoulders slumped forward, casual, almost sloppy. There was something about him I remembered from somewhere….It was Robert Kennedy, the president's brother, the attorney general! I wedged my way even closer, and as he began to walk toward the front door, I thrust out my hand, Robert Kennedy shook it, smiling warmly."

"Good to see you."

"It wasn't every day that one met the attorney general of the United States….I believed that President Kennedy's promise to the Bay of Pigs survivors was more than just an effort to pacify the exiles. There was something special going on. I was thrilled to have some small part of it."

"I threw myself into preparing the new training program with gusto after that,… Larry would continue to teach basic weapons, use of compass, land navigation, and other miscellaneous subjects,…Walter, a training instructor and Rudy would continue to teach tradecraft,…Theoretically, after these two phases of basic paramilitary instruction, the volunteer would have enough fundamental knowledge to go into the field. These exiles, whose primary function involved handling larger boats and engines, such as the V-20, would receive specialized training during this concluding period. Ideally, a team would complete training and shortly thereafter embark on a mission while still somewhere near peak."

"…It was summer now and the heat and mosquitoes were even more intense. Jose Clark and I had to devise and construct all of our own charts and training aids. I would sketch them out….Jose would then translate them to Spanish…Dewey, a former Navy warrant officer, was responsible for the small boat training. He had been working with two to five man infiltration teams for nearly a year….Before leaving for the Keys, I stopped by the station to pick up a few supplies. There was a note on my desk. I was to see Gordon Campbell, the deputy chief of station, before leaving. I'd never met him….Shackley's secretary Maggy told me to go to the second floor of the old barracks, a floor above my own office in the training branch. I'd never been in that area of the building."

"…Campbell's office was well-decorated, with all sorts of Zenith Technical Enterprise corporate plaques…his secretary buzzed him to my arrival and I was escorted into his plush office. Campbell came around his desk, introduced himself, and shook my hand. I judged his age to be around 40 and he appeared to be in robust physical condition. Dressed as if he had just come off the golf course, tanned, clean shaven, with trim build, balding blond hair, and penetrating blue eyes, he greeted me cordially. I liked him immediately."

"My good friend Ed Roderick….was coming for dinner….Rod had been drinking before he got to the house that night. In fact, he confided, he and the recently arrived Colonel Rosselli were working on a plan to ambush Fidel Castro and had been on a weekend binge together. They'd become close friends as they spent time together; their drinking friendship was a natural extension of their on-duty relationship."

"…He told me Rosselli had high level Mafia and Havana connections….The last American attempts to penetrate with larger craft such as the Rex and Leda had ended in disaster….In the future, Rod said, operations hoped to rely on smaller, faster, lightly armed boats that could make it all the way across the Florida Straights…Several new V-20s had been developed with a fuel capacity sufficient to assure at least a one way crossing of the straights…."

"About 30 minutes before we were scheduled to sail, two fish delivery trucks pulled into the warehouse, and, after the overhead doors rolled closed, men began jumping out. It was the commando team, previously hidden somewhere in Tampa. I was surprised to see familiar faces among the team and to be greeted again by my old friend Julio from the Point Mary safehouse…Martinez and Julio gave the commandos their ship bulleting assignments…..we were turning eastward off the Dry Tortugas and heading toward Cay Sal. Julio the commando team leader, had lived in the Isabela area and knew the…surrounding terrain…."

"…Bosch, with non-attributable CIA support, had a base of operations and a safehouse just north of Key West, near Oceanside Marina. He kept his boats there…a big, old decaying two-story stucco mansion a short distance from the marina….The V-20s were docked at the marina and could be brought around to the canal for lading. On arrival I was delighted to find my old friend Julio Fernandez the man in charge…."

[ BK notes: Now the name Fernandez might be as common as Smith or Kelly, but those familiar with JFK assassination lure know the name very well. It was on the evening of the assassination, November 22, 1963, that Clare Booth Luce received a telephone call from Fernandez. In the summer of 1963 she wrote an article about her sponsorship of an anti-Castro Cuban exile commando boat team, lead by Fernandez. Now with the President's murder, Fernandez told her that his group had information on Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin. Also recall the extended search House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigator Gaeton Fonzi spent in pursuit of Julio Fernandez, who Clare Booth Luce later told him was probably a "war name," and not his real name, causing Fonzi to give up the search, despite the evidence of a real person by that name.]......

..........

"…The order to disband came first to the commando groups that were hidden around southern Florida. Gordon Campbell asked me to meet him for dinner at Black's Caesar's Forge. This would be our first face to face meeting since well before the assassination and I looked forward to it. Campbell was at a table near the rear of the lower level dining room. He greeted me cordially, asked me about my family and, for a few minutes, made small talk as we ordered our meal. Something about Campbell had changed. I had never seen this smooth, polished man ill at ease. But this night, he seemed edgy, a worried look on his face, and his hands shook a bit as he lit a cigarette. Despite his troubled appearance, speaking to me, he was his usual matter-of-fact, unemotional self, a man who was never out of control."

"Campbell explained major foreign policy changes had been made by President Johnson, and the paramilitary effort developed by the CIA under the previous administration was being phased out. The commando group I was responsible for would be given a security briefing and terminated in the same fashion and sent home. All equipment would be removed, and the safehouse would be thoroughly 'swept' for security items, documents, and so on. I had one week to get the job done. Then I was to return to the training branch to supervise the closedown of my other training bases. Were there any questions?"

"'What do I tell the Cubans, Gordon?'"

"'You don't have to tell them a damn thing. Just tell them you're carrying out orders. Your company has lost its government contract. You know, nothing more than that.'"

"He excused himself from dinner early, leaving half of a thick, rare filet mignon. I drank what was left of his double martini while anger boiled inside me. My country wouldn't do this. But my country had! I never again saw or communicated with Gordon Campbell…."

(p. 109 – Zenith Secret, Ayers, B.)

Forge doesn't mess with '50s-style success

Victoria Pesce Elliott

Miami Herald

Published: Thursday, July 6, 2006

It's a matter of perspective when dining at The Forge, Miami Beach's icon of excess. Some view it as our tackiest throwback, while others see it as an oasis of elegance and charm.

From the facade with its faux gold-rimmed columns flanked by scraggly plastic hedges to the polished wood paneling, crystal chandeliers, nude oil paintings and real Tiffany glass, the place looks more like a bordello than a restaurant.

Like any old dame worth her name, this one has a history, beginning in the 1930s when the place was an actual forge. By the '50s, it was a popular watering hole for celebrities like Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland, Arthur Godfrey and Jackie Gleason.

After lawyer Alvin Malnik purchased ''The Old Forge'' in 1969, it continued attracting boldface names, some of the infamous variety, like Malnik's mobster client, Meyer Lansky. By the late '80s, many of the regulars had as much age on them as the vintage wines in the storied cellar.

All that changed after a multimillion-dollar fire in 1991, when the elder Malnik handed the keys to son Shareef. (He'd changed his name from Mark when he married a Saudi princess.) Then 33, the younger Malnik soon made The Forge the in spot for those who have the cash to pay for flash.

Fifteen years on, the prices are still stratospheric and the service theatrical, beginning with solicitous attention from a cadre of tuxedo-clad veterans. Water and wine glasses are filled quickly but not needlessly. Roll your eyes if you must, but the ceremonious lifting of the silver-domed lids to reveal the entrees seems romantic to me. I only wonder why the flatware is cheesy Chinese-made stainless and the glasses industrial-grade.

The food -- classic steak-house fare with a few contemporary additions -- is notable, too, especially when la carte entrees start at $26 and top out at $66. When it comes to spending, it's easy to get carried away with a wine list that reads like a stack of Wine Spectator back issues. Trophy bottles are interspersed with a few affordables, like the $35 Markham chardonnay.

Chef Andrew Swersky, who took over the kitchen nearly two years ago, has a gift for making old-fashioned work. All the retro Continental classics are competently executed, from escargot and lobster bisque to dover sole and lobster thermidor.

A pair of crisp, golden crab cakes served over a rich red-pepper coulis are buttery and moist, though they lack the flavor of the sea that I crave.

A wedge salad is comfort food incarnate, chunky Maytag blue cheese dressing and perfect cubes of smoky applewood bacon over half a head of iceberg lettuce. The chopped salad is a bit prissier, belted by a band of shaved cucumber and dressed with a fine balsamic glaze.

The steaks are what bring the boys in and the house down. Choose from a dozen cuts and know that you can't go wrong. What our waiter described as ''the Ferrari of steaks that ought to be in a showroom in Boca'' was the so-called ultra-trim, a $66 number ordered and delivered perfectly medium-rare that was indeed as tender as a filet and yet full of meaty, minerally flair.

I'd still go for the super steak, 16 ounces of prime New York strip wet-aged in house for three weeks and deftly grilled in nothing but salt and pepper. It's big enough to share, especially with a platter of decadent Parmesan- and white truffle-flecked French fries or an order of luscious, garlicky creamed spinach.

For those who prefer fish, there's a fine sea bass and a decent salmon, but if black grouper, it's a must-order. The chef prepares it with two slabs of tomato and a puddle of tomato jam and avocado puree. The fish itself was immensely fresh, flaky and perfectly seared. Unfortunately, on one visit, the thin Tuscan-grilled snapper was dry.

The signature blacksmith pie can be fridge weary, so soufflés are the way to end a meal. The Grand Marnier version was overwhelmed with lemon zest, but the Belgian chocolate was high, light and pleasantly crusty with a pot of silky chocolate sauce alongside.

See: Alvin Malnik

Edited October 26, 2007 by William Kelly

Tim Gratz · October 26, 2007

So from what Ayers writes, the major beneficiary of the assassination was Fidel Castro.

Tim Gratz · October 26, 2007

I have not the time tonight to reply to the recent broadside by Robert Charles-Dunne. I do offer this observation: I think there is often an inverse relationship between the logic and merit of one's position and how much one must rely on personal attacks and sarcasm directed toward the person with an opposing view.

But with time constraints, let me offer brief comments.

Clearly, someone is lyin' here.

Who? Consider the possibilities.

(1) IT'S ME. RCD would suggest that because of my bar difficulties fifteen or so years ago I might be lying. Maybe I never talked to Mrs. Eisenhower, I suggest he knows this is not the case but he must offer it to justify his repeated references to my sins of yore, believing if he tarnishes me he somehow tarnishes my arguments. But I believe many readers of this Forum are smarter than RCD gives them credit for and can see righht through that tactic. Besides, I will be able to verify me e-mail correspondence with Mrs. Eisenhower (probably later today).

(2) Judy Eisenhower is the xxxx. Despite her denial, there was indeed someone meeting the description of "Pearl's father" who indeed worked for BG for many years. She's lyin' to protect her former employer BG. Never mind that once we determine the real name of "Pearl's fatther", if such a man ever existed, whether he ever worked on the BG staff is easily verified or refuted through public records. I guess Mrs. Eisenhower was just too stupid to think about that.

Now assuming that I did talk to Mrs. Eisenhower and she told me the truth that BG never had a staff member who fit the description of "Pearl's father", then someone else is lying and as discussed bewlow it is either Pearl or Ayers.

(3) Pearl did not lie to Ayers but her father lied to her. I think RCD once suggested that. But it only takes a minute's reflection to dismiss that possibility. If there was a Pearl (see nelow) she would certainly know whether her father worked on the staff of a U.S. Senator or worked in the local grocery or service station or whatever.

(4) Pearl lied to Ayers. He believed her and never bothered to attempt to verify her story. Her motive for lying is hard to fathom unless Ayers cut her in for a share of the profits of the book.

(5) Pearl did not lie to Ayers about her father because she had no father--or mother for that matter. Pearl was not conceived in the same way the rest of us were, she was conceived only in the mind of Ayers. Ayers' claim that BG was at the heart of the assassination plot might not sell as many books as the book accusing LBJ, but heck some sales are better than none.

Since I know I did not lie about my contact with Mrs. Eisenhower, and find it highly unlikely she would lie about something easily refuted or verified by public records, I think it is quite clear that Pearl lied or Ayers lied. Hopefully, we will be able to find this out.

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

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

I do want to comment on the following in the last post of RCD. I had written:

Robert, you completely missed my point. Only mafia members are bound by omerta. It makes no sense whatsoever that if Bonnano needed money delivered to Rosselli, he would not have used a mafia soldier who knew his life was in danger if he squealed. Pearl (again with the important caveat IF there was a Pearl) claims her father was a law-abiding and honest person. Why in the world would Bonnano involve a law abing citizen in the plot to kill the President? Had Pearl's father gone to the authorities with his information, presumably both Bonnano and Rosselli would have been arrested, tried and fried. Why would they risk that? If Oswald had to be killed to guarantee his silence, why did the conspirators alloiw Pearl's father to live--since he was NOT bound by a pledge of omerta?

To which he replied:

The foregoing only makes it clearer that you know nothing about the way in which Mobsters operate, and even less about Goldwater’s own family and business associates, as we'll soon see.

Now I have no personal knowledge of "the way in which Mobsters operate" except that both logic and reading the literature re the mob indicate that mobsters do not use "civilians" to transfer their funds between themselves. Heck, that even opens the possibility that the "civilian" might take off with the cash. RCD suggests he has a greater knowledge of the operational procedures of mobsters than I do. But he does not state from where his knowledge is derived.

Nor does he offfer a SINGLE example of a mobster employing a civilian to play the role of "bag man". I say again the notion that Bonnano would use a nobody-civilian like Pearl's father to get money to Rosselli is risible.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Tim Gratz

William Kelly · October 26, 2007

I have not the time tonight to reply to the recent broadside by Robert Charles-Dunne. I do offer this observation: I think there is often an inverse relationship between the logic and merit of one's position and how much one must rely on personal attacks and sarcasm directed toward the person with an opposing view.
But with time constraints, let me offer brief comments.

Clearly, someone is lyin' here.

Who? Consider the possibilities.

TIM, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP INSISTING BRAD AYERS IS LYING AND HARP ON THE PEARL AND GOLDWATER ISSUES YOUR PERSONAL CHARACTER, MORALS AND ETHICS WILL BE THE ISSUE - AND NOT BEA. - BK

(1) IT'S ME. RCD would suggest that because of my bar difficulties fifteen or so years ago I might be lying. Maybe I never talked to Mrs. Eisenhower, I suggest he knows this is not the case but he must offer it to justify his repeated references to my sins of yore, believing if he tarnishes me he somehow tarnishes my arguments. But I believe many readers of this Forum are smarter than RCD gives them credit for and can see righht through that tactic. Besides, I will be able to verify me e-mail correspondence with Mrs. Eisenhower (probably later today).

(2) Judy Eisenhower is the xxxx. Despite her denial, there was indeed someone meeting the description of "Pearl's father" who indeed worked for BG for many years. She's lyin' to protect her former employer BG. Never mind that once we determine the real name of "Pearl's fatther", if such a man ever existed, whether he ever worked on the BG staff is easily verified or refuted through public records. I guess Mrs. Eisenhower was just too stupid to think about that.

Now assuming that I did talk to Mrs. Eisenhower and she told me the truth that BG never had a staff member who fit the description of "Pearl's father", then someone else is lying and as discussed bewlow it is either Pearl or Ayers.

(3) Pearl did not lie to Ayers but her father lied to her. I think RCD once suggested that. But it only takes a minute's reflection to dismiss that possibility. If there was a Pearl (see nelow) she would certainly know whether her father worked on the staff of a U.S. Senator or worked in the local grocery or service station or whatever.

(4) Pearl lied to Ayers. He believed her and never bothered to attempt to verify her story. Her motive for lying is hard to fathom unless Ayers cut her in for a share of the profits of the book.

(5) Pearl did not lie to Ayers about her father because she had no father--or mother for that matter. Pearl was not conceived in the same way the rest of us were, she was conceived only in the mind of Ayers. Ayers' claim that BG was at the heart of the assassination plot might not sell as many books as the book accusing LBJ, but heck some sales are better than none.

Since I know I did not lie about my contact with Mrs. Eisenhower, and find it highly unlikely she would lie about something easily refuted or verified by public records, I think it is quite clear that Pearl lied or Ayers lied. Hopefully, we will be able to find this out.

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

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

I do want to comment on the following in the last post of RCD. I had written:

Robert, you completely missed my point. Only mafia members are bound by omerta. It makes no sense whatsoever that if Bonnano needed money delivered to Rosselli, he would not have used a mafia soldier who knew his life was in danger if he squealed. Pearl (again with the important caveat IF there was a Pearl) claims her father was a law-abiding and honest person. Why in the world would Bonnano involve a law abing citizen in the plot to kill the President? Had Pearl's father gone to the authorities with his information, presumably both Bonnano and Rosselli would have been arrested, tried and fried. Why would they risk that? If Oswald had to be killed to guarantee his silence, why did the conspirators alloiw Pearl's father to live--since he was NOT bound by a pledge of omerta?

To which he replied:

The foregoing only makes it clearer that you know nothing about the way in which Mobsters operate, and even less about Goldwater's own family and business associates, as we'll soon see.

Now I have no personal knowledge of "the way in which Mobsters operate" except that both logic and reading the literature re the mob indicate that mobsters do not use "civilians" to transfer their funds between themselves. Heck, that even opens the possibility that the "civilian" might take off with the cash. RCD suggests he has a greater knowledge of the operational procedures of mobsters than I do. But he does not state from where his knowledge is derived.

Nor does he offfer a SINGLE example of a mobster employing a civilian to play the role of "bag man". I say again the notion that Bonnano would use a nobody-civilian like Pearl's father to get money to Rosselli is risible.

Tim Gratz · October 27, 2007

MY NAME IS MARK HOWELL. I AM A SENIOR WRITER FOR "SOLARES HILL", THE WEEKLY ARTS & LITERATURE SUPLLEMENT TO "THE KEY WEST CITIZEN".

AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, TIM GRATZ AND I HAVE AUTHORED SEVERAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION, OFTEN CONCENTRATING ON THE POSSIBLE KEYS' CONNECTION.

TIM EXPLAINED TO ME THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WHETHER A MAN IDENTIFIED AS "PEARL'S FATHER" WORKED ON THE STAFF OF SEN BARRY GOLDWATER. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD CONTACTED MRS JUDY EISENHOWER, THE LONG-TIME CHIEF OF STAFF TO SENATOR GOLDWATER, FIRST BY PHONE AND LATER BY E-MAIL. SHE DENIED ANY SUCH PERSON WORKED ON THE GOLDWATER STAFF.

TIM THEN SAID THAT AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAD ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT HIS CONTACT WITH MRS, EISENHOWER. HE ASKED ME TO LOOK AT HIS E-MAIL TO CONFIRM HIS CONTACT WITH MRS. EISENHOWER, SO A THIRD PARTY COULD DO SO.

I DID.

TIM SENT THIS E-MAIL TO MRS EISENHOWER ON SAT OCT 20 AT 6:28 p.m.:

Dear Mrs. Eisenhower:

Have you had a chance to read you the material I sent you re the allegations of Bradley Ayers re the father of a lady he identifies as "Pearl" who Ayers says Pearl says was a long-time member of Sen. Goldwater's staff?

Was there anyone associated with BG who met the description of the man Ayers describes as "Pearl's father" even if the man had no daughter named Pearl?

Thank you for any assistance you can provide so I can definitively "debunk" this lie.

I ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WHAT TIM SENT MRS EISENHOWER WAS CHAPTERS 31 AND 32 OF BRADLEY AYERS' BOOK.

THIS WAS MRS. EISENHOWER'S E-MAIL REPLY TO TIM, SENT TO TIM SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21st.

There was no one who met the description of a man such as [Ayers] describes on the Goldwater staff ever.

----- Original Message -----

I DO NOT FEEL AT LIBERTY TO DISCLOSE THE E-MAIL ADDRESS OF MRS. EISENHOWER.

I PRESUME THIS DISPOSES OF ANY POSSIBLE THOUGHT THAT TIM LIED ABOUT CONTACTING MRS. EISENHOWER OR WHAT SHE TOLD HIM.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO, I CAN VERIFY THIS POSTING MADE BY TIM BUT AT MY DIRECTION. MY E-MAIL ADDRESS IS

mhowell33040@yahoo.com.

THANK YOU.

Tim Gratz · October 27, 2007

I am proud to have Mark as a friend. I met him due to my research on the Kennedy case. For what it is worth, his politics are considerably to the left-of-center.

Mark just won FIVE first place prizes from the Florida Press Association for articles he wrote for "Solares Hill". I understand this is a record of first place prizes ever awarded to one journalist in one year by the FPA.

Tim Gratz · October 27, 2007

Bill wrote:

TIM, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP INSISTING BRAD AYERS IS LYING AND HARP ON THE PEARL AND GOLDWATER ISSUES YOUR PERSONAL CHARACTER, MORALS AND ETHICS WILL BE THE ISSUE - AND NOT BEA. - BK

Mark Howell has now confirmed that I told the truth about my contact with Mrs. Eisenhower.

So we are now done to only three possibilities:

(1) Mrs. Eisenhower lied. BG in fact had such a staff member.

(2) Pearl lied to Ayers. (But Ayers never attempted to verify what she told him through Mrs. Eisenhower or any other member of BG's staff.

(3) Brad Ayers lied about the whole "incident" which he just made up.

Research continues. Stay tuned.

William Kelly · October 27, 2007

Bill wrote:
TIM, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP INSISTING BRAD AYERS IS LYING AND HARP ON THE PEARL AND GOLDWATER ISSUES YOUR PERSONAL CHARACTER, MORALS AND ETHICS WILL BE THE ISSUE - AND NOT BEA. - BK

Mark Howell has now confirmed that I told the truth about my contact with Mrs. Eisenhower.

So we are now done to only three possibilities:

(1) Mrs. Eisenhower lied. BG in fact had such a staff member.

(2) Pearl lied to Ayers. (But Ayers never attempted to verify what she told him through Mrs. Eisenhower or any other member of BG's staff.

(3) Brad Ayers lied about the whole "incident" which he just made up.

Research continues. Stay tuned.

TIM, IF IT IS ME WHO YOU ARE ACCUSING OF SAYING THAT YOU LIED ABOUT YOUR EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH MRS. EISENHOWER, WELL I DON'T DOUBT THAT AT ALL.

ALL I AM SAYING THAT AS LONG AS YOU CLAIM BRAD AYERS IS LYING ABOUT ANYTHING, AND CONTINUE TO THREATEN TO "DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER" TO INTERFERE WITH MY GRAND JURY PROJECT, I WILL MAKE YOU, YOUR MORALS, ETHICS AND CHARACTER THE ISSUE.

YOU AND MRS. EISENHOWER CAN DO AND SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, AND THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT BRAD AYERS IS A DECORATED US RANGER AND VETERAN AND FORMER TRAINER OF ANTI-CASTRO COMMANDOS AT JMWAVE WHOSE FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS CONFIRM THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JMWAVE MARITIME OPERATIONS AND WHAT HAPPENED AT DEALEY PLAZA.

BILL KELLY

Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements