"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
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