Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Refuting More False Accusations Against Barbara Hartwell by Ramola D: “Slander”, “False”, “Defamatory”, “Misrepresentative”

 


"Amazing how it Never ends -- because so many are protecting these operations. And sadly it looks like Barbara is too, now, with these absurd statements!"


--Ramola D, defamatory statement against Barbara Hartwell, to a friend of Hartwell (July, 2022)



Unsurprisingly, Ramola D has continued with her false accusations and defamation against Barbara Hartwell, beginning with this article:

Regarding Barbara Hartwell, CIA Whistleblower


https://everydayconcerned.net/disclosure/swans-against-slander/regarding-barbara-hartwell-cia-whistleblower/


Again, tiresome as it is, I must refute these accusations for the public record, in defense of my honor and my good name.


Here, the defamatory article in its entirety. My comments, prefaced by my initials, BH, are given following the quotes from the article, prefaced by her initials, RD.


RD: “Noting here that the post made yesterday by CIA whistleblower Barbara Hartwell at her site
Ramola D Launches Public Complaint Against Barbara Hartwell: “Defaming Posts” & “Slander” is defamatory, misrepresentative, falsely-accusatory, and false. It is regrettable that Barbara has taken this route, and also regrettable that she has not posted the email (not a public complaint launch) referenced in full, which would enlighten readers as to the real subject/s it covered. This email is posted below for reference, along with pdfs of the referenced posts Barbara has made earlier apparently seeking to slander this writer (inexplicable all round).”


BH: It is clear that Ramola D is extremely ignorant of civil law and does not have the slightest understanding of the legal terms which constitute defamation, the broader term which includes slander and libel.


Her accusations are:


"defamatory", "misrepresentative", "falsely-accusatory", "slander" and "false".


Yet she does not specify precisely even as much as one statement made by me which is supposedly any form of defamation. Of course, anyone who knows the legal definitions will understand that none of her accusations are true or factual, since none of my statements were in fact, defamatory. At no time was I “seeking to slander” her. Case closed.


As for the wrongful actions of an obvious officious busybody (meddling, gossip, attempts to undermine my credibility by sending false accusations, behind my back, to my friends, misrepresenting me to third parties who are strangers, presuming to speak for me, against my clearly stated wishes, thus invading my privacy and personal boundaries, showing no respect whatsoever), all for her own self-serving agenda (whatever that may be), these are unprincipled actions which I have every right to expose as statements of fact, not slander, in my own defense.


And yes, there was slander and defamation in her e-mails to third parties, which, unlike Ramola D, who has no ground to stand on, I very clearly specified.


Not only that, but I have other evidence of defamatory statements which I have chosen not to publish. Suffice it to say that it is far worse than I have made mention of publicly. I refuse to drag in the names of innocent third parties whom RD has tried to recruit in her agenda to discredit me.


I was accused of “protecting operations” which she claimed were being run against her. That is a statement of fact. I have it in writing. This is an extreme insult against my honor, which I will not let stand. No self-respecting person would allow such a defamatory falsehood to stand. Basically, this accusation is tantamount to suggesting I am still CIA (as so many have falsely accused, she wouldn't be the first.)


Note that she does not even make reference to my various specific statements of fact re her actions, which are indefensible and unjustifiable. Typically, she will not even acknowledge them, as there is no defense, and she knows it. She simply denies doing anything wrong, which is evidence of nothing, and carries no weight whatsoever.


Then, she states that it is:


"regrettable that she has not posted the email (not a public complaint launch) referenced in full, which would enlighten readers as to the real subject/s it covered."


Regrettable for whom? Not for me, certainly. Since I am not a publicist for Ramola, I have no concern about the issues she brings up, which have nothing to do with my clearly stated concerns about being misrepresented (both publicly, in her articles and podcasts, and privately, in her unwarranted and unscrupulous gossip to both my friends and to total strangers).


That I vehemently disagree with her on many issues has no meaning. So what? I have no concern about disagreements. She is the one who is trying to make it appear that a disagreement constitutes some form of defamation, on my part, which is ludicrous, on the face of it.


Furthermore, “enlightening the readers”, as she phrases it, is not my concern. My readers (at least the ones who are decent, honorable and knowledgeable on the topics I cover), I have no doubt, are of a very different mindset than the readers of her website, The Every Day Concerned Citizen. Who, from my observations (and from the links she promotes on her site), appear to be made up of new agers, secular humanists, leftists of every stripe, Jew-haters and supporters of the evil, anti-Christian, Luciferian United Nations (as is Ramola herself, who appeals to them and urges others to do likewise).


As usual, she is commingling unrelated issues. Why she seems to believe that I am somehow required to accommodate her wishes, I have no idea. Her letter to me, copied to others, was a clear attempt to quash my reports and to try to foment some sort of group discussion between unrelated parties, to attempt to manipulate others into a consensus viewpoint, which serves her interests.


My actions are never determined by a consensus of what other people think – or even what one person thinks. I couldn't give a tinker's damn what they think. It will not influence me in the slightest. My actions are always determined on principle, and by moral absolutes. I don't care whether they like it, or not. Period.


Aside from that, it is none of their business what I do, or why. I don't answer to them and am not required to explain myself. But for the busybody, that is something apparently incomprehensible.


I was not going to be a part of her unscrupulous exploitation of the names of other persons, dragging them into what is obviously a melodrama of her own imaginings, and which had nothing to do with my very specific and accurate complaints against her unethical behavior.


Again, she shows herself to be ignorant of the law, when she denies that her letter was “published”.


My concern was only that she once again, made false and defamatory accusations against me to third parties (which means, “published”), and that she was requesting that I delete my reports, which only exposed her unprincipled actions, in defense of my honor and my good name, which I refused to do, on principle.


But since she has now published her letter to me for the general public, in addition to “publishing” her letter to only a few others, there may be individuals who will be displeased with her for exploiting their names in her obvious campaign to attempt to discredit Barbara Hartwell. These individuals have nothing to do with my valid complaints against Ramola, nor her unwarranted defamation of me.


Here, she gives links to several articles, the first to her letter to me (June 11, 2023), claiming that all my reports were defamatory:


Click to access Email-Sent-to-Barbara-Re-Her-Two-Defaming-Posts_Redacted.pdf


Click to access barbarahartwellvscia-blogspot-com-2023-06-ramola-d-launches-public-complaint-htm.pdf


Click to access barbarahartwellvscia-blogspot-com-2022-07-warning-zero-tolerance-for-gossip-html.pdf


Click to access barbarahartwellvscia-blogspot-com-2022-12-preposterous-sensationalist-boasts-htm.pdf


Next item:


RD: “Other matters referenced in Barbara’s articles PDF’d here from her website have to do with previous publications and emails referencing “targeted individuals,” a serious subject on which this writer and Barbara Hartwell do not share the same views. Regardless, this writer has never engaged in actions of scurrilous gossip or slander against Barbara Hartwell as implied.”


BH: As implied? No, nothing was ever “implied.” I made a statement of fact about the gossip and slander, not an implication. And I specified, in detail, exactly what was said, quoting her own words. And yes, it was gossip, and certain statements were slander, there is no doubt about it.


Again, all she can come up with is to deny the gossip and slander against Barbara Hartwell, which any recipients of such would know to be a bald-faced lie.


As for the subject of “targeted individuals”, that is a term, one she uses, in sweeping generalities, along with many others, who are part of the so-called “TI community”, which has absolutely nothing to do with me.


The fact that I do not share her views, nor have ever done, has nothing to do with my statements exposing the wrongdoing of Ramola D, which is the only issue of concern to me.


RD: "Vital to note that this writer does not appreciate the language of misrepresentation, false accusation, and veiled threat concluding Barbara’s post against her (“I can guarantee there will be consequences, most certainly not to her liking”) and wishes to keep this matter public for her own protection–while concluding it fully from her own end with this acknowledgment. Any further publication if any from Barbara Hartwell misrepresenting, falsely-accusing, or/and slandering Ramola D will be ignored."


There has never been, nor ever will be, any publication of mine “misrepresenting, falsely-accusing, or/and slandering” Ramola D. That includes this report.

And this may come as a shocker to her, but I do not care what she "appreciates", considering her utterly disrespectful treatment of me.

If she chooses to ignore this report, or others which may appear in future, that is of no concern to me, except that it will save me the trouble of having to refute her additional falsehoods in my own defense.


And of course, there are always “consequences” for a wrongdoer who chooses to exploit or defame my good name. That does not make it a threat. I do not make threats, but nor do I tolerate the unscrupulous actions of such persons, especially when the accusations grossly insult my honor.


RD: "However, the very serious issue of journalism to surface political persecution and crimes against humanity covered by this writer and journalist must be addressed.


This writer would like to note that, in her view, in no way does this matter affect her serious journalism which includes Barbara Hartwell’s testimonials as former CIA Counterintelligence and Psychological Operations officer and journalist herself, nor does it invalidate the many interviews, podcasts, and panels this writer has conducted which have included her."


BH: I have never, at any time, been a part of any “panels”, as she states here. Nor have I been involved with any of the groups with which she interacts. That is a false statement and very misleading as to my former dealings with her. She has certainly dragged my name into some of her writings and podcasts, when it was irrelevant or even a misrepresentation, even after I made it clear that I did not want my name used in connection with certain individuals, whose credibility was non-existent in my view; and some characters who had even slandered me. She did this against my wishes, by which of course I was incensed, with good reason.


I have been a guest on her podcasts, but that is the extent of it. And my work, some of which was published on her website, was never the issue. Why she brings this up, I have no idea. I have not asked her to take down my interviews, nor any of my reports published on her site. They were obviously given with my permission, and just because I have broken off my association with her, for cause, does not mean I wish to “invalidate” my own work.


RD: "Nor indeed does it affect the memories of the warm friendship, support, and collegiateship this writer has shared, over the phone, and in emails, with Barbara Hartwell, from the time that Geral Sosbee, FBI whistleblower made her aware of Barbara’s coverage of his case, many years ago."


BH: I don't deny that it saddened me that I found it necessary to break off the friendship. It was hurtful to me to have to do so. I am not hard-hearted, but to me, it was a matter of principle and self-defense.


This has happened many times before. In my world, I cannot tolerate any form of interference. Loose lips sink ships, as the saying goes. But then, most others do not live in my world, and have no idea what it would be like to come from my background, and to have the need to be ever-vigilant of my privacy and security. And if they don't understand when I try to explain the importance of respecting my privacy and boundaries, then that is unfortunate, but I must protect my own security first and foremost, even if they don't understand.


Again, my only issues were related to interference and lack of respect for my boundaries. And later, her efforts to defame my good name, to my friends, behind my back. And as to why she would believe that I would be “protecting operations”, I have no idea. It does show me that she lacks discernment and that she never knew me, if she could believe such a total falsehood, and especially to accuse me of it to others, behind my back.


RD: "This writer has increasingly been made aware over the years of the extreme strangeness of the so-called “Intelligence Community” in the USA through her interactions with and journalistic coverage of whistleblowers from various prestigiously-named agencies which apparently all seem to actually be filled with people idly entertaining themselves and others with various covers, stories, and lies. Regardless, this writer wishes to wish Barbara Hartwell the very best as she regretfully notes the sad decline evident herein. No doubt one day the full truth of what the more than ignoble “IC” is all about will be fully revealed and be known to one and all."


BH: My name is thrown in here, with what relevance I don't know. I have nothing to do with any of the liars, the charlatans she references. I have mostly kept to myself since going public in 1995, one year after defecting from CIA operations. Just as I never had anything to do with these so-called “targeted individuals” which Ramola has taken it upon herself, for as long as I knew her, to promote. 

And interviewing people who are former intelligence, or who are legitimate whistleblowers, does not equate to having direct personal/professional knowledge and experience about such operations. There is no substitute for hard-won experience. Through blood, sweat and tears, I might add.


Otherwise, it's just a matter of discernment, who to believe, or not, how much to believe, if anything. And that is still mostly a subjective matter, for each individual.


And of course I wish Ramola well. I have never felt otherwise, whatever she may believe. But there are certain lines I can't allow anyone to cross, for my own protection. That is how it is, and how it will always be, at least in my world. It is a world I would not wish on anyone, a world I have done my best to remove myself from in as many ways as possible. But wishing and hoping will not make that world disappear entirely, as I'm sure anyone who was ever a part of it knows, beyond a shadow of doubt.


They're still out there, and they carry a vendetta they will never drop, as long as I live.


RD: "Until then, and beyond, this writer rightfully claims more-than-copyright ownership of all podcasts, articles, panels, videos, audios, text featuring any of her guests, including “IC” whistleblowers, as also previously noted here and here, and assures her readership and viewership that the many years of work in truth-journalism including featuring “IC” whistleblowers she has accomplished–in conditions of absolute warfare against her really–ensures, in her view, the continued importance of her reportage, as per the historic record and as contextually needed. In no way should this writing be seen to detract from the great importance of all extant genuine whistleblower reportage, from both government, military and civilian whistleblowers as surfaced by any and all journalists including this writer; their voices are needed and must be cherished, supported, and upheld. This writer’s journalism in the public domain remains in the public space, and cannot be reprinted or reposted except as is, without modification, and with full credit and linkback, as noted in her copyright notice, and in her view certainly stands as continuing testament to the subjects of political persecution and crimes against humanity (as all other subjects) she has covered with diligence over the years, certainly since 2013, when her investigative and advocacy journalism began.

By:

Ramola D, June 13, 2023, Quincy, Massachusetts”

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

Again, what this last piece of commentary has to do with Barbara Hartwell (the title of this report) I have no idea.

 

I certainly do not consider that the so-called "truth journalism" she claims to be conducting would involve wild speculation, baseless accusations against others, meddling in the professional business of others, against their wishes, or self-aggrandizing boasts and bogus claims, which call into serious question the legitimacy of any statements in her articles, considering the source.

 

In any case, being well aware of any copyright laws, I have not violated them, nor do I intend to do so. I have given proper attribution in reproducing this article by Ramola D, including links, published to be refuted in my own defense, as I've every right to do.

 

Depending on further actions of interference or defamation against Barbara Hartwell, by Ramola D or her associates, I will address them as I see fit.


Barbara Hartwell

CIA Whistleblower

NOT a “Targeted Individual”

In Defense of Truth & Honor for the Public Record

June 27, 2023


 

RELATED REPORTS


Ramola D Launches Public Complaint Against Barbara Hartwell: “Defaming Posts” & “Slander”


https://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2023/06/ramola-d-launches-public-complaint.html


PREPOSTEROUS, SENSATIONALIST BOASTS & BOGUS CLAIMS by Ramola D: “The Story of the Century”, “Whistleblower Retaliation on the World’s Pre-Eminent Journalist Exposing MK ULTRA, DEW, and Neurotech Classified Mil/Intel Crimes”


http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2022/12/preposterous-sensationalist-boasts.html


WARNING: ZERO TOLERANCE FOR GOSSIP & MEDDLING BY BUSYBODIES: Ramola D False Accusations and Defamation Against Barbara Hartwell


http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2022/07/warning-zero-tolerance-for-gossip.html

 

And...to further clarify the hypocritical actions of Ramola D, see these reports:

 

Secret Slander: “Dr.” Katherine Horton’s 2020 Sabotage & Defamation of Ramola D & Barbara Hartwell as She Lied to NSA Whistleblowers Bill Binney & Kirk Wiebe Exposed

 

http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2021/01/secret-slander-dr-katherine-hortons.html

 

ADDENDUM: Since this report was posted, Ramola D has made false accusations against Barbara Hartwell, in a very similar way, sending e-mails behind my back to two (2) of my friends. I was accused of "protecting operations" she claimed were targeting her, as well as other gross insults to my honor.

It has thus been revealed that Ramola is a hypocrite, doing the same thing to me as she has denounced Katherine Horton for doing to her and to me. Again, "secret slander".

This does not change the veracity of this report by Ramola, but it exposes her as a hypocrite and I want it on the record.

 

The Pretensions & False Claims of Amy Rayboun, “TI Investigator” & “Angel of Light”

 

http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-pretensions-false-claims-of-amy.html

 

EXCERPT:

ADDENDUM 2

One of the promoters of Amy Rayboun is Ramola D of the Every Day Concerned Citizen. In fact Ramola was responsible for making trouble for me when she repeatedly used my name in connection with Rayboun in her public articles, even after I made it clear that I wanted nothing to do with this woman and did not want my name ever used in connection with her.

 

These two, leftist New Agers, promote the evil United Nations and much false information about "targeted individuals" which is actually preposterous, sensationalist and self-aggrandizing. BEWARE of any info promoted on Every Day Concerned Citizen.

 

And...see this report for detailed exposure on the nature of the Archetypal Busybody

 

Invasions of Privacy & Meddling: Garden Variety Busybodies

 

http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2010/02/invasions-of-privacy-meddling-garden.html