Note: This report was written in November, 2005. Though it doesn't address current issues, I am reposting it for its value in exposing hypocrites, fools, dupes and "useful idiots" in the "patriot" movement. Call it a character flaw, but I have never "suffered fools gladly."
Loud, self-righteous, nosy, meddling busybodies are definitely NOT my cup of tea. It's no wonder that the older I get, the more reclusive I become. Recently, I saw a bumper sticker that read: The more people I meet, the more I like my cats. Amen and amen!
Earlier this week, I commented briefly on a series of messages in the Revolutionary Coalition forum, which related to several of the members and their efforts to form some sort of "committee" in connection with the coalition. "Committee" was not my word --that was the term used in the messages written by others.
My response (To Hell with the Committee) was due to my observations that these individuals appeared to be engaging in activity which might derail the "one-line platform" of the coalition by a small group whose "consensus" would decide policy or make changes (in the form of micro-management) which might compromise the focus of the coalition.
I based my assessment on reading the messages and analyzing what facts were available to me, as per the testimony of various persons involved.
The second reason I found it necessary to state this opinion was because Rick Stanley, the founder of the Revolutionary Coalition, came under heavy criticism, even attack, by several persons on what I believe are unwarranted grounds, such as "ego", simply because he repeatedly stated that he, as the "steward", intended to keep the coalition on track in its original intent and goal: Uniting various like-minded groups and individuals to form a super third party which would defend God-given rights as protected and guaranteed under the Constitution.
Since I have always agreed with Rick about this one all-important issue (which is why I joined in the first place); and since it appeared that these "committee" types were ganging up on him, attempting to strongarm him into some sort of "rule by consensus" (mob rule, as I saw it) I simply offered some back up in his defense --as well as in defense of the stated purpose of the coalition, which is what I also stand for.
Gerry Donaldson saw fit to respond to me with unwarranted accusations of using the tactics of a "disinformer"; and of "bashing" other members of the forum. I noticed that no one else (including Rick Stanley, whose position was in basic agreement with mine and in fact, if anything, stated in a more vehement manner) was singled out by Donaldson for these accusations.
So I wrote another commentary outlining my position in more personal and specific terms, which in a nutshell, is this: I do not tolerate being admonished or interfered with by aggressive people who overstep their bounds.
This shows a lack of respect for my personal boundaries as an individual and I have every right to confront the offenders. A very simple position, based on solid uncompromising principles and ethics, which I backed up with specific examples, including the behavior displayed by both Gerry Donaldson and another coalition member, Vanessa Davis, on more than one occasion.
Individual rights, as bestowed by God, are the very soul of Liberty. When people who claim to defend the Constitution, which was designed to protect and guarantee these rights, under the Rule of Law; and then show themselves in reality to be would-be micro-managers, riding herd over how those rights will be apportioned to others, then I for one, feel it is imperative to bring this to attention, right out in the open.
I would be remiss if I failed to do this. I've done it before and I'll do it again, whenever the need arises. And the readers, as always, may assess my position statements and make of them what they will.
As an independent activist, investigator and journalist; and as an established whistleblower (ex-CIA) on government corruption, I conduct my own work in the way I see fit, as I have done for many years. I make my own decisions and take full responsibility for my own actions.
I am not required to submit to "consensus" decisions, committees or answer to officious, meddling busybodies and snoops who try to tell me what I "should" or "should not" be doing, saying, writing, publishing, etc.
I would not join any organization with such requirements, as I might as well just kiss my freedom, privacy and autonomy goodbye, join the Neo-Bolshevik party and have done with it!
As a "member" of the Revolutionary Coalition, I am simply ONE individual who agrees with the one-line platform. I am a member, nothing more; nor do I seek to be anything more in connection with this coalition.
I am not (and never will be) a team player, nor have I ever pretended to be something I am not. As I told Rick when he invited me to join, I have reservations about getting involved with ANY group, simply because there are always those who do not respect the personal boundaries of others and who attempt to assert some form of control, manipulation or "authority" over how others conduct their activism; and/or feel the need for "special status" such as being a "director"; a "state representative"; forming a "steering committee"; being named as some type of "official representative" and so on and so forth.
Many groups and organizations adhere to this type of hierarchical structure and I avoid them like the plague for this reason. If I do involve myself with a group effort, I need only to be left in peace to pursue my activism in my own way, with no interference....or I leave, as simple as that. And I've been there, done that, in more organizations than I care to enumerate here.
Which is why it greatly concerned me when I saw the "committee" forming out of what was (and hopefully will continue to be) a simple, no-nonsense hard-core agenda of defending individual liberties and rights, as protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Some people connected to this "committee" expressed concern about the name: Revolutionary Coalition. These folks wanted to change it, so they wouldn't alienate potential recruits.
Wishy-washy weathervanes, people-pleasers and approval seekers. That is NOT what a Revolution is about. A Revolution is conducted by Revolutionaries --hard-core freedom fighters.
Revolutionaries do not seek consensus to make their decisions, nor are they in doubt about how to proceed. Revolutionaries do not need special official status among their brothers and sisters in the cause. Revolutionaries are not political hacks who depend on party-line positions to make their decisions.
Real Revolutionaries take matters into their own hands and make things happen by standing up for their Individual Rights on a daily basis. Their position --defending Liberty--remains consistent and uncompromised over time, no matter how much time it takes; no matter how many times they get knocked down, they stand back up and fight --to the death, if that's what it comes down to.
Revolutionaries do not seek permission to act, nor wait for approval from their presumed "superiors." or "leaders." Revolutionaries become their own leaders.
Revolutionaries do not compromise, in the cause of Freedom, for any reason.
Revolutionaries do not recognize authority over their lives from anyone save God Almighty, whence their rights issue.
Revolutionaries say: Liberty or Death. Don't Tread on Me. And they mean it with every fiber of their being.
Just because I'm a lone gun by nature and preference does not mean that I am not able and willing to cooperate with others for this common goal: Revolution. It will certainly take a revolution to change things in this country, whether it be by relatively peaceful means or not. Things are simply too far gone for any other solution.
But aside from that specific common goal, that one-line platform: Defending our God-given (natural) Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights-- I have no interest and no involvement, with any group or organization.
And as for my affiliation with the Revolutionary Coalition, it is just that: an affiliation, one of a number of affiliations with various individuals and entities, all revolving around the same basic issue.
This particular coalition is not my main focus, professionally or personally. It is simply one of a number of endeavors I am involved in, which I believe will further my own agenda: Revolution.
It should go without saying that if I did not believe it were worthy, I would not commit any of my time or effort in connection with it. I should add that Rick Stanley has remained remarkably consistent in sticking to the main issue, this one line platform, which is defending God-given rights, guaranteed and protected under the Constitution.
Unfortunately, certain others have not. They have taken it upon themselves to attempt to steer the direction of a coalition of what is meant to be INDEPENDENT third parties and individuals in such a way that the voice and activism of the INDIVIDUAL in connection with the coalition is censored, monitored, moderated, modified and otherwise generally watered down; thus rendering the coalition a less than dynamic force in its efforts to rid this country of tyranny and return it to the Rule of Law under the United States Constitution.
Two of these individuals, Vanessa Davis and Gerry Donaldson, are owners of group forums in affiliation with the Revolutionary Coalition, RC Chat & News, and Awaken American Christians, respectively.
Now, to Gerry Donaldson's latest response (a message to Vanessa Davis) to a commentary by Barbara Hartwell, in which I outlined some of the attempts of these individuals, to interfere with me personally; and who apparently mistakenly believe it is their prerogative to "ride herd" over the activities of other individuals affiliated with the coalition.
[Gerry Donaldson wrote: Vanessa, FYI. Barbara must have been having a bad time when she mentions "admonishing" her on Awaken American Christians. Actually, she was the one getting attacked and I stepped up and said, "those who bash other members of the forum rather than keeping with the mission of the forum to educate Americans as to their unalienable and Constitutionally guaranteed rights..will be removed from the forum." See what happens when you defend some people? LOL]
Here, I present the ACTUAL postings to which I referred in my commentary; and which refute Gerry Donaldson's contentions and prove my original point: That he admonished me for purported "bashing."
I should add that Gerry Donaldson DELETED one of my posts before he wrote this, which is what started the whole thing. The post in question was about cyber-stalking and criminal harassment by Todd Brendan Fahey, who in collusion with his cohorts, Tim White and Larry Lawson, was posting outrageous lies and character assassination against Barbara Hartwell on various message boards, including this one, Awaken American Christians.
Gerry Donaldson did NOT "defend" me, as per his claim. On the contrary, here is the evidence shown by his actual words:
[Patrick and Barbara Hartwell,
I have posted several times that bashing other members will not be allowed on this forum. This goes for everyone on here.
While I've seen postings on other forums from both sides of this mess and am fully aware of the allegations that both sides make. This is not my issue as I'm not involved, nor do I wish to be. I'm not lending creedence to either side here.
However, for the purpose of this forum, I do not condone this type of activity as it is counterproductive and serves no useful purpose in returning this government to its biblical basis. We can debate, discuss and sometimes argue over issues regarding our government, and some of these will get heated, but this type of posting will not be allowed here.
I really hate to remove members, but I will have no choice but to do so if I see this continue.
The message I mention [Barbara Hartwell's post] will be deleted immediately.
["Patrick Alexander" wrote: Then delete ALL of the trash put up by this slanderer-Hartwell. If you do not act evenly and fair on this then you will be suspect.]
[Gerry Donaldson wrote: That is fair. Tonight I will review previous messages for "bashing" of members and delete those messages. People on this forum will find that I am a fair person and will not hold a double standard. I am easy to get along with as long as we don't have a lot of this kind of posting which, as I said before, is counter productive. Hopefully we will not have any further conflicts on this. Gerry Donaldson]
Response of Barbara Hartwell:
[Given above] is an exchange between Gerry Donaldson and one Patrick Alexander.
[Note: "Patrick Alexander" is non other than the psycho-stalker, predicate felon, transvestite, Timothy Patrick White. At the time this was written, I suspected this, but had no evidence. Since that time, I've collected plenty. The little coward, White, hides behind this alias and others (such as "George Mateski") so he can invade and disrupt message boards and attack targets.]
I have no idea what is being referred to here. I do not know, nor have I ever heard of, this person, "Patrick Alexander". This is the first time I have ever seen his name. Nor, obviously, have I ever read anything written by him, on this forum or elsewhere.
I have certainly never used his name in any of my writings, not knowing of his existence until this moment. Whomever he is, he does not know me. He calls me a "slanderer" and claims that I post "trash". He is entitled to his opinion. I will make a note of it, conduct my own investigation and perhaps will address him (whatever his real name may be) elsewhere. However, since he is allowed to call me by this epithet and state this opinion on this forum, please have the courtesy to allow me this response, which will be the last thing I post on this forum.
The only post of mine that I have ever seen be removed was on August 4. I assumed that since the forum is moderated, it was removed at the discretion of the moderator, Gerry Donaldson. That is his prerogative. Having the post removed does not concern me. I have posted it elsewhere.
However, I disagree with Gerry Donaldson about what constitutes "bashing". My reports are based on facts, are backed by solid evidence and expose the criminals and their minions who are destroying this country from within, which was exactly what the post in question was about. I believe in exposing crimes and corruption and naming names, especially when the criminals are persecuting me personally. These people are my enemies and I refuse to pretend otherwise. I call a spade a spade. And that is what I will continue to do.
Many of the posts I have seen here are just second hand information, common knowledge among educated and informed people for many years. Yet they are presented with a dramatic flair by the uninformed, as if they were some sort of "news flash". Personally, I find no value in them. They just take up space.
Please consider this my formal notice that I will no longer be posting here and will remove myself from the membership. I'm sure that will make everyone happy. Feel free to remove all my previous posts.
Thank you for your consideration.
August 6, 2005
So much for Gerry Donaldson's purported "defense" of Barbara Hartwell. And let him "LOL" to his heart's content. I don't find it amusing, though I'm sure his like-minded pals do.
This display of hypocrisy, in an attempt to cover for himself (while accusing me of being a "disinformer") leads me to wonder about the motives behind it.
So, evidently, according to Gerry Donaldson's policy, stalkers, porno-mongers, provocateurs, liars and criminals, just because they are "members" of some message board (which anyone can join under various aliases and screen names) should be coddled by a moderator who claims to be "fair."
This attitude is reminiscent of "hate crime" or "hate speech" legislation: Whatever you do, don't offend anyone. Heaven forbid! Censor and ride herd over everyone. Don't be "divisive" even when you're dealing with the enemy.
Don't take sides, either. Keep it all under control. Utter nonsense, if ever I've heard it.
Tyrannical? To the max. Autocratic? You bet it is. And highly suspect, I might add.
I will now address the latest by Vanessa Davis, the other individual named in my commentary. In this case, I have placed my comments in brackets, in the main body of text, preceded by my initials, BH. Vanessa Davis is represented by her intials, VD.
Vanessa Davis wrote:
Response to Barbara
Here we go again LMAO! Hmmm. It perplexes me why A) You chose to bring up this whole scenario and B) Why you are using this event that is really unrelated to me (since I wasn't present during the conference call) to further bash my name. Remember it wasn't I who called you to the carpet. You did a fine job of that yourself when you responded to my plea to no one in particular to grow up and quit bashing each other.
[BH: No surprise that Vanessa Davis is "perplexed." Seems to be an ongoing state of mind with her. Perhaps that is because she tends to focus on minutiae and personalities rather than the larger issues; and because she seems more interested in dissecting the (purported) motives of individuals, about which she repeatedly jumps to unwarranted conclusions, rather than basing her opinions on facts; or on direct testimony from the individual(s) in question.
Quite simply (which will become increasingly clear as this message progresses) Vanessa Davis has shown repeatedly that she does not know what she is talking about. In many cases, she simply parrots what she has heard or read in the writings of others; jumps on the party-line bandwagon of the moment; draws unsubstantiated conclusions; and finally presents a disjointed mish-mash of "information" which only succeeds in muddying the waters, while showing her own ignorance of the subjects she addresses.
As for her "plea to no one in particular" (in which she actually did refer to certain individuals, namely the moderators of RC forum and WTPC forum, though my name was not among them in her original post) I had every right to voice my opinion regarding what I saw as her aggressive attitude of admonishing whole groups of people, in vague terms, which did not address the actual ISSUES under discussion.
Further, she interpreted what were heated exchanges (such as those between Rick Stanley and Steven Yantis of WTPC) as "bashing". The old standby: Bashing. It seems a handy all-purpose word for those who wish to stem all disagreement on issues .
Serious disagreements on issues are commonplace, and to be expected, especially in political groups or forums. People get angry and outraged. Often with good reason. Some people have a temper. So what? Nothing gets resolved, one way or another, unless these issues are aired in the open. And who is Vanessa Davis, to admonish people for exercising their right to freedom of speech, including arguments in which people express their views and feelings about the behavior of others?
Vanessa Davis is clearly projecting her own feelings, standards and opinions on others and draws her conclusions from her own uninformed assumptions about others.
As several people have pointed out, with great annoyance, she also routinely puts words in the mouths of others, attatching her own flawed perceptions to their words, thereby twisting the meaning of their message.
The actual ISSUES (as well as the facts) get lost in the shuffle; and those who find it important to set the record straight in response to one of Vanessa's generalized, speculative and unfocused commentaries are forced to respond, if only to clear up the confusion and defend their own credibility or legitimacy; or that of the issues under discussion.]
VD: I and many others are not involved in your dealings with Larry Lawson, Tim White, Todd Fahey, or any other such person, that you apparently so much love to advertise. ALL of you insist on involving many others in your disputes. Which is, in my opinion, a waste of time, resources and bandwidth. Please give it a rest.
[BH: Give it a rest? Once again, Vanessa Davis presumes to dish out unsolicited advice on issues she knows absolutely nothing about.
But if she wants the facts (which I doubt) here they are: Larry Lawson, Tim White and Todd Fahey are in collusion as part of a criminal conspiracy for which I, Barbara Hartwell, am a designated target. There are other targets of this conspiracy as well. Just to name a few: Stew Webb; Rick Stanley; Karl Schwarz; Tom Flocco; Tom Heneghan; John Perna; Carl Worden; Jeremy Floyd; Geral Sosbee.
Furthermore, these provocateurs are not the ones who orchestrated this conspiracy. Various former and current government officials are responsible for that. No, Vanessa Davis is not "involved."
Why would she be? She is not a target. She poses no threat to these government criminals or their criminal minions, being a person of no consequence, one way or another, to them. She doesn't know anything; was never involved in anything; nor does she have the capacity to do anything of consequence in relation to these issues.
And speaking for myself, I have not "insisted" on involving ANYONE in any so-called "disputes", least of all a self-appointed monitor and busybody like Vanessa Davis. If anything, she "involved" herself, by butting in, of her own volition. Nobody is forcing Vanessa Davis to read my reports. And her opinion of them does not interest me.
I fight my battles with my enemies as I see fit. I expose criminal activity as both a right and a duty and I pursue justice. Vanessa Davis has no business sticking her nose where it does not belong. Her opinion counts for nothing, as these issues do not involve her. And as I've said before, it would behoove her to learn to mind her own business, before she gets caught in the crossfire.]
VD: Remember you were the one who threatened me, not the other way around.
[BH: Now, I am accused of "threatening" Vanessa Davis? Where in hell did she come up with that? At most, I warned her to stop meddling in my business. A warning she would be well-advised to heed.]
VD: You were the one to attempt to rehash this whole 3NPC conference info, not I. Do you think I should get it in writing from Mr. Vovak, who was the first member of the RC to contact him? No, I had better not, I wouldn't feel right involving someone in an argument that has nothing to do with them, unlike you Barbara.
[BH: Firstly, I did not "rehash" anything. And I never even mentioned who was the "first" to contact the organizer, nor did I make such a claim. Again, the ever-proliferating minutiae surfaces and the MAIN POINT gets lost in the nonsense.
I simply pointed out that Vanessa Davis engaged in meddling by presuming to speak FOR ME, when I had already spoken to the organizer myself, which was unnecessary and inappropriate on her part.
And that she further claimed to have "secured" a speaking engagement for me which had nothing to do with her. 1) Anyone can speak for the Revolutionary Coalition, as Rick Stanley has stated time and again. 2) Anyone could have attended this conference and spoken on behalf of a party or coalition, as long as they paid the fees.
Where this conference was concerned: Money talks. I had direct contact with the organizer regarding my own business. If Vanessa Davis feels the need to micro-manage the affairs of other people, I would advise her to stick to those who want to be "managed". I don't.
And there will be hell to pay for anyone who tries to interfere with me or my personal or professional business. Nor do I wish to get embroiled in silly arguments as a result of her misguided meddling.]
VD: I will not engage in your time wasting character assassination attempts. You are a self admitted (albeit supposedly former) government agent and for that reason and that reason alone I do not trust you further than I could throw you. You may feel the same about me, but how you feel about me is of no consequence to me, unless and until you attempt to assassinate my character publicly. You are now guilty of the same underhanded tactics as those you accuse. Congratulations Barbara. Are you proud of that COINTELPRO training?
[BH: Okay, now she's trotting out the old CIA gobbeldygook and implying that my affiliation with them is not over. Fine, whatever.....Just like so many others of her ilk, she's free to believe what she will. And once again, Vanessa Davis acts as judge, jury and executioner. She seems to favor the word "guilty" which she has slapped on me several times before.
Personally, I could not give a tinker's damn whether or not Vanessa "trusts" me. Why should she? I never asked her to. She does not even know me, nor will she ever. I am not her friend, nor her associate; have had no dealings with her, aside from setting the record straight from time to time about her misinformed forays into political "activism" which she seems to believe consists of shifting her position like a weather vane, depending on which way the wind blows; or whose attention or approval she is hoping to gain.
Nor do I have anything at all in common with her, not that I can see. And her ideas of "character assassination" don't hold water. Advising a person to MIND HER OWN BUSINESS; or expressing disagreement with her methods of operation; or countering some of her flaky ideas with the facts do not constitute character assassination.
As for her accusation of "underhanded tactics"? Nothing could be further from the truth. I say exactly what I mean, in a direct straightforward manner, without concern for who might be offended. If they can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
And for Vanessa's edification, I was never trained in COINTELPRO nor was I ever involved in anything of the kind, despite the fact that I am extremely knowledgable about the issue due to many years (inside and outside) dealing with the problem of COINTELPRO.
She probably read something on the Internet, perhaps in one of Larry Lawson's "reports." Barbara Hartwell: COINTELPRO!!!!! Barbara Hartwell and Stew Webb: Lying government agents!!
Larry Lawson, government-sponsored disinformer. How ironic. But let's not "bash" Lawson. Let's not even bother exposing him for what he is. No, let's allow him to just continue, with impunity, spreading his lies and disinformation all over the World Wide Web, along with his cohorts, Tim White, Todd Fahey, Ken Adachi, Mike Eggleston and all the rest......
COINTELPRO was an FBI operation, run under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, which certainly continues in other guises (and used by several agencies) to the present time.
If Vanessa Davis wants to make wild and unsubstantiated allegations about Barbara Hartwell, she should at least get the facts straight beforehand and get educated on the issues she brings into a public forum. As for COINTELPRO, she has shown herself to be clueless, as usual. Not to mention helping the opposition in the process, by shooting off her mouth indiscriminately about people and operations about which she knows nothing.]
VD: Let's dissect this response shall we:
I need to make a few points clear to set the record straight and I will have nothing further to say on this matter, as I have neither the time nor inclination to engage in arguments withanyone, including those who disagree with me.
RESPONSE: You have proven this statement false by responding in the manner in which you did, bringing up past events which apparently still bother you. Otherwise they would be a non-issue.
[BH: Not at all. Vanessa Davis assumes, once again. How very tiresome it gets...
The "issue" was the propensity of certain individuals, including herself, to repeatedly interfere in certain situations and overstep their bounds, thus creating problems for myself and certain others. And maybe she needs to take a course in logic. I have not "proved" anything. Try proving a negative, it can't be done. Again, a course in logic would be helpful.]
VD: You said:
In the past, I have been accused by both Gerry Donaldson and Vanessa Davis of "bashing" persons they claimed were "others in the movement."
RESPONSE: Again, I never accused anyone in particular, until you responded to my first e-mail asking people to quit bashing others on public forums. You stuck your own toe out on that one.
[BH: Well, once again, Vanessa Davis assumes and gets it all wrong. I never mentioned a time frame for her accusations, I simply stated the facts. In two of her responses to my commentaries, she certainly DID accuse me of "bashing others in the movement." And once again, I repeat: Exposing the facts about criminal stalkers, liars and provocateurs who have targeted me for CRIMINAL HARASSMENT does not constitute "bashing."
As to what "movement" these scumbags belong to, it might be any number of them, but the "patriot" movement certainly is not among them. And I will continue to tell the truth about these criminals as I see fit.
If my reports get "moderated out" by the Gerry Donaldson/Vanessa Davis contingent on any message board (and I certainly won't post on theirs) I'll simply post them elsewhere. I will not have these misguided people interfering with me in any way. And if they choose to call me a "disinformer"; a "government agent" or make other false claims, I will refute their claims with the facts, as I always do.
What Vanessa Davis believes about any of that is meaningless to me, but I sure as hell will set things straight on a per-case basis, in order to counter any such attempts to discredit me. Because mark my words: The government-sponsored provocateurs will seize upon all such efforts to further their cause, which Vanessa Davis and others like her are helping along quite nicely, by playing right into their hands, whether they know it or not. The term "useful idiot" comes to mind.]
VD: You said: For example, I have a psychotic stalker by the name of Todd Brendan Fahey on my case, who has followed me to any message board I have posted on for well over a year.
RESPONSE: I see a pattern developing here. You want people to mind their own business, yet you broadcast yours for the entire WWW to see. How's that for double standards? Must have something to do with that mind control programming.
[BH: Unbelievable. Now this silly woman is trying to psychoanalyze me?
Does this woman ever actually THINK before shooting her mouth off? Does she think at all?
I do not "broadcast" my "business" to anyone. A psychotic stalker targets me. The stalker fabricates outrageous lies about Barbara Hartwell, which are then disseminated by him and his cohorts (all under the control of government criminals) all over the World Wide Web. I expose his crimes and harassment for the public record.
How in hell does Vanessa Davis consider this a "double standard"? She really, really needs a course in logic, and probably one in ethics as well.
As for the "mind control programming" comment, if the best she can come up with is a cheap shot like this, maybe she's been reading Ken Adachi's disinfo tabloid too long and the neurons in her brain are misfiring. What Vanessa Davis knows about mind control programming couldn't fill a thimble.]
VD: You said: Gerry Donaldson publicly admonished me a few months back, on his Awaken American Christians forum, simply for telling the truth about the stalking and harassment of this provocatuer, as well as others, including Larry Lawson and Tim White. My response was to politely set the record straight, and disengage myself from that forum.
RESPONSE: You must have done something to warrant it, namely driving people away by discussing personal problems on a public forum. People don't admonish others for no reason. You could have simply stated, that the info was untrue and asked others to contact you if they cared to know the details, then disengaged from the forum. But, you chose to publicly declare private matters in a public forum and involve others whom you claim need not be involved in your business. Your last name should have been Bush. With your Barbara can do no wrong and never needs to adjust her tactics attitude.
[BH: I think Vanessa Davis needs to get a grip. Make a reality check. She has NO IDEA what I "must have done."
Or maybe she considers Gerry Donaldson an infallible arbitrator of my business. To admonish me on a public forum is NO ONE's prerogative, not Gerry Donaldson's, not Vanessa Davis's.
And I never, at any time, "discussed personal problems on a public forum." On the contrary, I posted a REPORT, exposing a criminal.
And for her further edification, I do not seek out contact with strangers on the Internet to discuss my "personal problems." That seems to be Vanessa Davis's province, with her silly chatter board babbling.
I write and publish reports, FYI, as I see fit. They are not based on "private matters" either, as per Vanessa Davis's foolish assumptions. The perps created a very PUBLIC matter by engaging in stalking, harassment and outrageous libel.
As for my "attitude", it is NONE OF VANESSA DAVIS'S BUSINESS. Let her worry about her own attitude and leave off speculating about mine, as it is none of her concern. And once again, another cheap shot, about Bush, a typical malicious ad hominem attack, since she can't find any relevant or truthful claims to "prove" her false assumptions.]
VD: You said: Rick asked me if I would be willing to represent the Revolutionary Coalition at a Third Party National Conference in New Hampshire. I agreed to look into it and contacted the man organizing the conference directly, as Rick asked me to do. I told him I was willing to be a speaker, assuming I could get a time slot that did not conflict with my work/personal schedule, which is very tight without much free time. He and I agreed on a time and I thought it was all set.
However, Vanessa Davis (just before the time she was publicly accusing me of being "guilty" of "bashing" people on the forum) took it upon herself to contact this man, claiming that "we" are "sending" Barbara Hartwell as a representative; and further, that she will accept ANY speaking slot available. She further (falsely) claimed to have "secured" my speaking engagement, which was a done deal between me and the organizer and had nothing to do with her.
RESPONSE: This is so full of inconsistencies, half truths and outright lies, I'm not even going to begin to touch it. If anyone is enough of a busybody, or MUST know the truth of this matter, don't take my word for it. Contact Mr. Vovak yourself at [e-mail address removed].
[BH: There are no lies; no inconsistencies; no half truths stated here. Vanessa Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Vovak which I found posted on the Internet.
But again, the point is the MEDDLING and presuming to speak for me. It never should have happened. She had no right. Aside from that, there IS no point and I don't see how the details could be of any interest to anyone, except perhaps those like Vanessa Davis, who spend their time dissecting minutiae and apparently expect others to do the same. No one speaks for me without my consent, and that is the end of the matter.]
VD: You said: As a result, I was unable to make it to the conference at all, simply because the organizer changed my time slot without telling me (on the "authority" of Vanessa Davis) and that happened to be a time when I could not make it.
RESPONSE: How irresponsible to blame someone else for your inability to show up to the event. It's not my fault you didn't make the conference. Even if you couldn't make the time slot that Mr. Vovak allotted to you, you still should have attended the conference. At best the RC missed a chance at networking via the conference and at worst the RC's image may have been tarnished in the eyes of Mr. Vovak and others who were expecting the RC to be represented. I did not interfere in any way with the scheduling of your speaking event. I secured an agreement from Mr. Vovak that we could have a speaker there and then the scheduling was strictly between you, Rick and Mr. Vovak. I never gave anyone the authority to reschedule any time slot.
[BH: Does this tiresome woman never leave off her meddling? Or making her uninformed judgments?
Now, she presumes (once again) to tell me what I "should" be doing, what I "should" have done. Who the hell does Vanessa Davis think she is?
As if I must just "accept" what is "allotted" to me, no matter what conflicts it may cause for me. As if I do not have the right to determine my own professional work schedule. I have news for the presumptuous Vanessa Davis: I don't answer to Vanessa Davis, nor any conference organizer, nor anyone else. I am not required to explain myself or my actions either.
If she feels so compelled to interfere and to attack a person who refuses to tolerate her meddling, maybe she should see a shrink. Or maybe she could just join the Neo-Bolshevik party as a minor functionary, where she could monitor the affairs of her like-minded comrades to her heart's content.]
VD: You said: As for those who would hold my CIA background against me and/or accuse me of spreading disinfo, being a "COINTELPRO agent" or "bashing" people, nothing I can do about that. Interesting though, that some of the same people accuse Rick Stanley of being a government disinfo agent.
RESPONSE: Funny, I've never accused Rick of anything.
[BH: Same old assumptions. I never once claimed she did. Strange as it may seem to her, the world does not revolve around Vanessa Davis, nor does every word I wrote in my report pertain to her. Some discernment might be in order, along with putting aside the pole vault she uses to reach her faulty "conclusions."]
VD: You said: As for me, I'll just continue my activism in the way I see fit, the way that works for me, no need for approval of any "committees"; no interference. I've had more than enough of that in my life --from the U.S. Government, here in the Police State of America.
RESPONSE: Please do that and leave others out of your circle of bickering.
I wonder how much time you and I have wasted on this worthless communication. Save your comments because I will neither read nor respond to them. This is the last minute I will waste on Barbara Hartwell.
[BH: Vanessa Davis should speak for herself. I don't "waste" my time, I use it as I see fit. But thank the Lord for small miracles! I guess this means I can finally get Vanessa Davis off my case.
Maybe she'll even start minding her own business, for a change, but I seriously doubt it. After all, even in her parting shot, she still presumes to speak for "others" as always.
There is no "circle of bickering", not that I'm involved in. And I will say what I please, when I please, about anyone who tries to interfere with me in any way. If she had simply gone about her own business (hard to figure out what that might be) without trying to interfere in mine, I would not have found it necessary to set her straight for the public record. But there you have it, there are consequences for every wrongful action.
I don't care if Vanessa Davis reads this. I didn't write it for her benefit, but for the public record. And I certainly hope she won't respond. There's only so much bullshit one person should have to wade through, and I've certainly had my fill from the Vanessa Davises of this world. But this report certainly will be posted in various places and will be read by many others.
If Rick Stanley, as the moderator of the RC forum, chooses to post it, that is his decision. I will have no problem if he chooses not to. I respect his right to determine the content of his own forum, just as I know he would respect my right about what to post on my own website.
As for the Revolutionary Coalition, I still stand in support of it, and I will continue, as long as the agenda remains uncorrupted and uncompromised; and as long as I am not considered a "liability" by the consensus of the "committee" mentality (should they take over) for not being a team player, or for bluntly speaking my mind.
There is no need for me to have dealings with those (mentioned here or not) who believe me to be a "disinformer"; a "government agent"; a "basher"...or whatever.
To each is own, that is what liberty is all about --as long as they don't attempt to interfere in any way with others. As for those who don't get the point, may God give them a love of the truth.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Liberty or Death. Don't Tread on Me.
November 20, 2005