Gun [Gunderson]
indicates on his website that he was chief inspector for the fbi in
1973; in such capacity, gun had the responsibility to investigate
Sosbee's reports of fbi crimes during that year. Not only did he fail
to perform his duties as chief inspector, he continued thereafter to
serve in high level positions in the fbi at a time when Sosbee was
being harassed for reporting the criminal conduct of numerous fbi
agents as set forth in Sosbee v. FBI.
ON
COINTELPRO
Although
covert action will be adapted to changing social and technological
conditions, only a limited number of methods exist. A study of
COINTELPRO revealed four basic approaches.
First,
there was infiltration. Agents and informers did not merely spy on
political activists. The main purpose was to discredit and disrupt.
Their presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential
supporters. They also exploited this fear to smear genuine activists
as agents.
Second,
there was psychological warfare from the outside. They planted false
media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in
the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent
anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread
misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement
groups run by agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents,
employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble
for activists.
Third,
there was harassment through the legal system, used to harass
dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers gave
perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for
false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily
enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used
conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and
grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence
their supporters.
Fourth
and finally, there was extralegal force and violence. The FBI and
police threatened, instigated and conducted break-ins, vandalism,
assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and
disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto
Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks,
including political assassinations, were so extensive, vicious, and
calculated that they can only be accurately called a form of official
"terrorism."
SOURCE:
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html
PART TWO
Please read PART ONE before
continuing. This report is given in segments, not meant to stand
alone.
Here are selected comments (some
are excerpts) from readers of 'Veterans Today', in response to Gordon
Duff's article, The Strange Case of Ted Gunderson.
I should first make it clear that I
consider anyone using a screen name to have ZERO credibility. In my
book, “anonymous” = coward, a person who lacks the courage of his
convictions (assuming he has any).
Unless a person uses his/her real
name, right up front, there is no way to know who that person is; no
way to establish his/her credentials (if any); and no way to put
his/her comments in any useful context.
That being said, I address these
comments as a means to show how uninformed people muddy the waters of
any issue with rank speculation, unwarranted assumptions, erroneous
beliefs, as well as those promoting malicious lies for an agenda.
VETERANS TODAY: COMMENTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY
“
It
takes courage to bring out accurate information about the constant
patriot, Ted Gunderson. My impression for years has been that a
well-contrived, disinformation program against Ted Gunderson showed
up about the time he began to support the findings of the tremendous
patriot, John DeCamp. The Washington Times headline, June 29,1989,
and story was adequately documented by credit card receipts and
subsequent, reports by individuals. The information on the issue that
had amassed by that date left NO doubt that the headline was
creditable.”
“
Only
due to his skills as an investigator, and experience with the FBI,
was Ted Gunderson able to hold out for thirty years after retirement,
before the NAZI, pedophile types poisoned him with arsenic.
Congratulations
and thank you, Mr. Gordon Duff, for your enlightened and courageous
revelation.”
Drbhelthi
I did a
search for the silly screen name “Drbhelthi” and found this name:
Gordon Browning. Mr. Browning takes the position of designating Ted
Gunderson and John DeCamp as “constant” and “tremendous”
patriots. And makes a connection between a “well-contrived
disinformation program against Ted Gunderson” and Gunderson's
“support” of John DeCamp.
Nothing could be further from the
truth. Ted Gunderson was tasked by J. Edgar Hoover, as part of his
massive counterintelligence operation, to “spread disinformation”,
targeting political activists, dissidents, religious groups and
especially leaders of movements which might have real influence, such
as Dr. Martin Luther King.
Browning
applauds Duff for his “courage” in bringing out “accurate
information”.
Which
accurate information would that be? Duff has presented no new
information whatsoever about Gunderson and DeCamp; he has only
repeated that which has been in the mainstream (and alternative)
media for many years. And in point of fact, very little of the
information is accurate. And, lest we forget, Duff is an admitted
purveyor of false information; he says we have to “read between the
lines” (which lines?), so how is the reader supposed to tell which
parts might actually be true?
As for
courage, it requires no such attribute to parrot the government/media
party-line. What does take courage is to actually expose the
unvarnished truth, based on one's direct personal knowledge and/or
one's own investigations, knowing that the risks are considerable. At
the least, a libel/slander campaign to discredit the expositor;
possibly a lawsuit; at the worst, being railroaded into prison on
trumped up charges, or the very real possibility of being silenced by
assassination, or in some cases “suicided”. (Consider what
happened to Bill Cooper, Gary Webb, Danny Casolaro, Serge Monast,
Steve Kangas, Brian Downing Quig, Mike Ruppert...all exposed the
truth about criminals in government, all paid the ultimate price.)
The
cause of Ted Gunderson's death, given by Mr. Browning, AS IF it were
a fact? Ted was three months shy of 84 years old, and was suffering
from cancer. He received the standard treatments, which are the
actual cause of death, by toxicity of radiation and chemotherapy
(poison) in most cancer patients. Is it really surprising that an
elderly man, under these conditions, died?
There
would have been no need to poison him with aresenic. Where's the hard
evidence? That story is just another “conspiracy theory”, added
as an element of intrigue, spread by Gunderson's lackeys, like
predicate felon/career criminal Tim White, who want to make a martyr
of him. Mr. Browning cites “NAZI pedophile types” as the perps of
this alleged crime against Gunderson. So, apparently he doesn't know
about Ted's affiliation with the white supremacist/Jew hater
publication American Free Press, a CIA propaganda organ, nor that
Gunderson covered up crimes by pedophiles. (I will cover these issues
in more detail in PART THREE.)
(And
lest anyone accuse me of being callous, I mourned the death of Ted
Gunderson. I prayed for him while he lived, even through the years
when he was my adversary, and after his passing I prayed for his
soul. I would not presume to be the judge of the state of his soul,
that's entirely up to God. But in good conscience, for the sake of
those who were harmed by Gunderson's criminal FBI/CIA cabal, and for
possible future victims, I had no choice but to tell the truth.)
Duff's
“enlightened and courageous revelation”? Please. These toadies to
the likes of Duff, blathering on about what they think they know, are
tiresome indeed. They want to buy the snake oil? Fine, but spare us
the accolades for the salesmen.
Next, we
hear from a person identified only as “Calvin”. (Which means only
another anonymous coward.)
“If
the vote ever means anything someday, it would be this article that
would be said to have influenced me to vote for Gordon Duff for
President. The only concern I have is that someone whose credentials
in the intelligence community go as far as Gordon’s apparently do,
then I am surprised to see this issue come to the fore – as an
apparent revelation – so late in the game. I
can only imagine the terrible suffering of people like Ted Gunderson
(whom I believe to be legit), and Senator John DeCamp. I suppose that
both of them can feel vindication in their having taken the road of
courage. The price, however, must just be awful. Even today, if you
google “The Franklin Coverup” – you find a Wiki that refers to
it as a “hoax” despite John DeCamp’s unassailable credentials
combined with his absolute abhorrence towards having to reveal such
information. He was a “diehard” Republican and prospective
presidential candidate at the time that he made the decision to
commit to the truth. What devious motive would he have to make those
stories up? There isn’t enough one can say, or advertise about the
depravity of hurting children! I hope VT hits this topic repeatedly
from now on.”
Calvin
Gordon
Duff for president? The same idiocy promoted by Stew Webb, who, only
a short time later, called Duff a “conman” and a “liar” and
started a campaign to discredit him. And the motley crew of Veterans
Today “columnists”, jumping on the bandwagon, chiming in to pay
obeisance to the admitted liar, Duff. Gordon Duff for president!
(Barf bag alert.)
Ask
yourself, what kind of people are these? Are people really this
stupid? Apparently so. That and/or they are unprincipled, and just
don't care about the truth. This guy, Calvin, thinks this old,
regurgitated “information” is a “revelation” from Duff?
The
“terrible suffering” of Gunderson and DeCamp is certainly a
possibility. But not for the reasons given by this profoundly
ignorant reader. If they've suffered, I would say it's because of
their own crimes, which came back to haunt them, in one way or
another. I would rather be concerned with the very real and
undeserved suffering of the innocent Victims and Targets, scarred for
life, with little hope of recovery from the atrocities –especially
those who are children.
As for
the Franklin scandal being labeled a “hoax”? Anyone who is
surprised by the lack of truth on any issue from the
government-controlled “Wiki” sites has some serious problems with
discernment.
The main
function of CIA (just as the primary example of wholesale liars), in
the real world, is not “intelligence gathering”, nor “protecting
National Security”. Rather, it is the dissemination of propaganda,
along with manipulation of information (as well as persons), for a
specific agenda –that being all about CONTROL.
When a
scandal breaks, the plotters will orchestrate a scenario that goes
something like this:
Using
the mainstream news media (which they own, lock, stock and barrel),
they will herd the populace into two basic camps, or factions: Those
who “believe” that the charges (in this case, child sex
slavery/trafficking, satanic abuse, etc.) are TRUE, and that, as a
corollary, EVERYTHING the “whistleblowers” (in this case, DeCamp,
Gunderson et al) and their minions promote MUST BE TRUE.
In the
other camp will be those who will denounce the whole scandal/criminal
enterprise as a HOAX, and therefore EVERYTHING connected to it, any
and all the “information” divulged, MUST BE FALSE.
The
facts, and the truth, what actually happened, all that gets lost in
the shuffle. Most of the real perps remain unidentified, and even if
identified (accused) usually evade prosecution. A few scapegoats
(guilty as charged, or not) may take the rap for the rest. Witnesses
conveniently “disappear”, or are victims of suspicious deaths.
Perps are blackmailed by other perps, and so the circle of heinous
crimes continues, just business as usual. Forget justice for the
victims and their survivors.
The
Franklin case was not a hoax. I've known people who were involved, as
victims, some of whom I have interviewed. Lives of children were
destroyed; such hideous abuses are soul-shattering. But it makes me
sick that anyone believes that John DeCamp or Ted Gunderson ever
“took the road of courage” or were ever “committed to the
truth”. Committed to the cover-up is more like it.
“What
devious motive would he have to make those stories up?”
The
“devious motive” need not have been for the purpose to “make
the stories up”. What about a motive for spinning the true stories
to serve an agenda? Can anyone imagine what that might be? Like
maybe, CYA?
Now,
another anonymous coward, “LC”.
Thanks Mr.
Duff:
In fact
after Gunderson’s death & the published rumors against him his
former friend Anthony Hilder (a documentary producer) was very
perplexed of the accusations.
But only
recently a well-know anti-Zionist Dr. Len Horowitz who personally
knew Gunderson had a lady testify that Gunderson had told her that he
had at some point married the Satanist wife of chief satanist Antoan
Levy. I had linked to that clip in a Stew Webb page couple months
back.
LC
Anthony Hilder, Gunderson's CIA
crony, is just as dirty as Gunderson and DeCamp. Hilder is a
propagandist, plain and simple. He's an actor, playing a role. (Not
very convincing to anyone with discernment.) To say Hilder was
“perplexed” is absurd, and only goes to show how gullible so many
of their audience are, and how quick to drink the kool aid, instead
of thinking for themselves and taking the time and effort to do their
own research.
In one video he produced, Hilder
and his guest, Alma Ott (aka “Dr. True Ott”) attempted damage
control against the revelations by Dr. Horowitz, Sherri Kane and
Barbara Hartwell.
In one of the scenes in the script
(which they tried to make appear sincere and spontaneous), Ott brings
up the name of Barbara Hartwell, as he tells the sad tale of a
conversation with his crony, Ted Gunderson, while on his death bed.
But this was no death bed confession. Rather, it was a last ditch
attempt to keep the truth under wraps, to save face.
In this tear-jerker, Ott says that
Ted, having broken down weeping, told him that he “tried to stop
it”(meaning what, exactly? Ott didn't elaborate), but in the end,
he failed. Of course, he blamed Barbara Hartwell (at least in part)
for this failure. My name was the only one mentioned in connection
with this.
But why blame me? Even were I the
evil “creature” as accused by Gunderson and DeCamp, how could I
possibly have bested Ted Gunderson in the public eye?
I personally have no clout, no
influence, no resources, no network of supporters, certainly not in
the sphere of media or government. I've lived mostly as a recluse, in
poverty, for many years, barely scraping by, on a wing and a prayer.
I don't have a high-traffic website
(unlike Gunderson's PR shill, Adachi, or the others who promote
Gunderson as a 'whistleblower'.) I don't have access to the kind of
mainstream media that Gunderson did, at least not since I left CIA.
Nobody ever saw me on Geraldo, and if my name appeared in the
tabloid papers, it was placed there without my knowledge or consent,
exploited by media scavengers for a CIA-issue agenda. Sensationalist
media was Ted Gunderson's province –and he played it for all it was
worth.
No, I've never had much to offer
but my dedication to the truth. But how many people really want to
hear it? Those who committed the crimes, those who covered for the
perps, they only want to destroy all of us who are telling the truth.
I've shed plenty of tears for Ted Gunderson. I loved him. But I hated
the crimes and coverups to which he was a party, and I will stick to
my guns, no matter what, in service to the truth and in pursuit of
justice.
Now, here we have the first mention
of Ted Gunderson's marriage to Diana Rively, ex-wife of Anton LaVey,
founder of the Church of Satan. (Why doesn't this character use a
spell check???)
Here are the facts:
First of all, I, Barbara Hartwell,
am the person to whom s/he refers. I have in my possession a
handwritten letter from Ted Gunderson (1998), in which Ted
acknowledges that the “marriage didn't work out”.
The letter was first made public
when I gave it to my friend, journalist Sherri Kane, Dr. Horowitz's
partner. Dr. Len Horowitz had known Ted Gunderson, for roughly the
same time period (since 1997) that I had known him, and considered
him a friend –that is, until he was able to identify Ted as part of
the counterintelligence campaign being waged against him. (And just
like me, Len didn't want to believe it at first, but had no choice
once he was presented with the evidence. He knows, as I do, that
something like this, betrayal by a person we considered a friend,
hurts like hell, but we also know that unless we face the truth, we
will never be able to do any good for anyone, including ourselves.)
Gunderson, Horowitz and I knew each
other from the same lecture/radio/TV circuit. I removed myself from
that arena around the same time I disassociated myself from Ted
Gunderson, because this whole “conspiracy” crowd was full of
frauds and liars, perpetrating hoaxes, raking in the bucks from
credulous followers, and many of the speakers were
government-sponsored controlled opposition, or just ambitious people
wanting to make a name for themselves.
Although I had met Len Horowitz at
conferences where we were both speakers, during the 1990s, I had not
had any further contact with him until 2010, when he and Sherri Kane
approached me about their investigation of COINTELPRO, when they
discovered that Len Horowitz (one of the few genuine whistleblowers)
had become a Target in 2007.
Len's name was planted on a bogus
“Knights of Malta” list by some of the operatives; he was
persecuted via a libel/slander campaign; his property was stolen, his
family broken up, etc. etc. etc. Len Horowitz is a whistleblower
against Big Pharma, and his well known books have exposed genocide
against people all over the world.
Len Horowitz did not “have me
testify” to anything. I had previously exposed Ted Gunderson's
marriage to Diana Rively on radio and in my reports, and I was yanked
off the air on GCN by Alex Jones in 2003 (not Jones's show) because I
was attempting to tell the truth about Gunderson and DeCamp. I was
subsequently blacklisted from the Genesis Communications Network
through the machinations of government shill Alex Jones, who also
threatened the talk show host, Jeremy Floyd, never to have any
further contact with Barbara Hartwell. Jeremy refused to be censored,
and quit his job at GCN.
Alex Jones is part of the cointel
containment/protection racket. He's promoted Gunderson and DeCamp all
these many years, in the full knowledge that they are
government-sponsored criminals. And, like Gordon Duff and others,
Jones rakes in the bucks from his slack-jawed followers. (BUY MY
VIDEOS! BUY MY PRODUCTS! DONATE TO THE CAUSE! SPREAD THE TRUTH TO
EVERY CORNER OF THE GLOBE! CLICK HERE TO BUY NOW!!!)
(A most unfortunate thing is that
although Alex Jones blacklists certain individuals, such as Barbara
Hartwell, on directives from his overlords, he also promotes other
legitimate people, using them to give credibility to himself, most of
whom are unaware of the true nature of his media campaigns. No
decent, honorable person who knows the truth about Alex Jones would
go anywhere near his programs, but sadly there are many who have yet
to recognize that Jones ia a wolf in sheep's clothing.)
Next, a comment from another
ignorant reader, Beth Mitchell, this one clearly malicious.
“
Len
left his dental practice, only he knows why, to become a conspiracy
fear monger about contagious viruses & He is a Hunan hyperbole
Don't believe him. He's like Kevin Trudeau, who is now in prison for
fraud.”
Beth
Mitchell
Does she know Len Horowitz? I doubt
it, yet she makes statements about him as if they were facts. Dr.
Horowitz has a background in science, as well as psychology and
media, and has written many well-researched books; he knows what he
is talking about, unlike this twit from the peanut gallery.
And why bring Kevin Trudeau into
this? I've read his books, and don't consider him a fraud. The
government targeted him for the same reason they targeted Horowitz:
he was telling the truth, and warning people about the dangers of Big
Pharma. Beth Mitchell? There is no substitute for stupidity, as my
father used to say.
Next item, another comment from
“LC”:
“
Stew
Webb (past couple years) had been writing on VT that Gunderson was a
cointelpro & had married X-wife of Satan Anton Levy because
Gunderson was a satanist himself!!! I was pretty shocked hearing
that!!!
Finding
this independent verification from a woman who Gunderson was
supposedly helping is quite important (if true). That’s why I
linked that here & in a Stew Web page some months ago.”
LC
Once
again, the need arises to state the facts. For the record:
I have
never seen any evidence that Ted Gunderson was a practicing satanist,
nor have ever heard such an allegation, except from Stew Webb, who
has proved himself (just like Gordon Duff, Ted Gunderson, John
DeCamp, Anthony Hilder, Alma “True” Ott, Alex Jones et al, at al,
et al) to be a liar, to use hyperbole and sensationalism in selling
his snake oil.
The
“independent verification”, the letter from Ted Gunderson to
Barbara Hartwell, is not verification that Ted Gunderson was a
satanist, only that he married Anton LaVey's former wife, Diana
Rively.
The
letter is indeed “true” (genuine), and may be seen here:
However,
the “woman who Gunderson was supposedly trying to help” (that
would be me) states for the record that Gunderson's agenda was not
“trying to help”, but rather trying to contain. He failed.
However,
the “woman who Gunderson was supposedly trying to help” (that
would be me) states for the record that Gunderson's agenda was not
“trying to help”, but rather trying to contain. He failed.
Testimony
of Barbara Hartwell re Ted Gunderson and Diana Rively
This is my
formal statement outlining events which relate to Ted Gunderson's
marriage to Diana Rively, widow of Anton LaVey, founder of the Church
of Satan.
In the
late spring/early summer of 1998, I was living in Woodstock NY. At
that time, I had known Ted Gunderson as a personal friend and
professional colleague since 1997.
I received
a telephone call from Ted, in which he announced, "I got
married!" I was surprised by this news, and when I asked, "To
whom?", I was told it was Diana Rively. I had heard Ted speak
about Diana, but did not know her personally.
Shortly
after this call, I received another call from Ted, in which he said
Diana wanted to speak with me. According to Diana, Ted had told her
quite a bit about me and my background with CIA, and I had a lengthy
conversation with her, which was interrupted several times by
government agents (who were listening in, as always) cutting the
phone lines (she had to call me back more than once), and the usual
electronic interference.
This call
came from California, where I was informed that Ted was living with
Diana and her mother. Diana also told me she had "married"
Ted. The relationship was never described to me as anything other
than a "marriage", by either Ted or Diana.
About four
months later, I received by post a letter from Ted Gunderson. [see
document], stating that the marriage did not work out. The next time
I spoke with Ted (shortly after receiving the letter) was when he
called me from a pay phone in a casino in Las Vegas. At that time, I
asked him about the marriage, and to the best of my recollection, he
told me the reason it didn't work out was that Diana wouldn't let him
get any work done, and was "keeping him up all night", or
something along those lines.
My ONLY
sources for information about this marriage were the principals, Ted
Gunderson and Diana Rively. There were no third party sources
involved, at any time.
I broke
off my association with Ted Gunderson in 2000, because by that time I
had learned that he and his cronies (including John DeCamp) were
involved in various criminal activities and I could not in good
conscience continue to work with Ted, nor maintain a friendship with
him.
I did not
publicly expose the information about Ted's marriage to Diana Rively
until 2003 (along with other information regarding criminal
activities.) At that time, I was a guest on The Floyd Report, a radio
program hosted by Jeremy Floyd, aired on Genesis Communications
Network (GCN).
Alex Jones
interrupted that broadcast, telling Jeremy Floyd that he had to "let
go" of his guest, Barbara Hartwell. Jeremy ignored Jones,
because it was his program; but Alex Jones pulled the plug on the
show himself. Alex Jones had also threatened Jeremy, telling him he
could never have anything to do with Barbara Hartwell again. Jeremy
Floyd was outraged about this censorship and bullying by Alex Jones,
and quit his job at the station the next day.
Since that
time, Ted Gunderson has been lying about the marriage to Diana
Rively, both publicly and privately, no matter who asks him. He
denies any such marriage ever took place.
Ted
Gunderson's advocates (such as Alex Jones, Ken Adachi, Doug Millar,
Clarence Malcolm, John DeCamp, Tim White) back him up no matter what
he says, and have all called Barbara Hartwell a "liar" and
much worse.
This lie,
denying the marriage to Diana Rively, is only one of many told and
widely promoted by Ted Gunderson, about himself, as well as about
those who have exposed his many criminal activities (inside and
outside of government service).
Gunderson
publicly accuses me of being CIA (which I am certain he does not
believe), and has been slandering and libeling me for the past
decade, in print, on radio and at conferences where he speaks.
Barbara
Hartwell Percival
May 14,
2011
Here is a
transcript of the handwritten letter.
Ted Gunderson FBI Senior Special Agent
in Charge (Ret.)
P.O. Box
18000-259 Las Vegas, NV 89114
310
364-2280 Fax (702) 650-5674
e-mail:
www.tedgun@Ivdi.net
11/2/98
Dear
Barbara,
I miss
you --hope all is well.
I was
just reminiscing my trip to Ct. when we drank our toast. (a great
toast I must say)
The
marriage (we really didn't perform a civil ceremony) didn't work out.
It only lasted 2 and one half weeks and I left. It would have been a
castrophy [catastrophe (?)] to stay there. Nothing against Diana.
I am
enclosing my latest intelligence memo. Make copies and distribute
them.
Doing
fine but I'm broke.
Say
hello to everyone
XXOO
Ted
Now,
just to demonstrate how this particular scandal has been plastered
all over the media, by those who do not know me, nor knew Ted
Gunderson, here is an excerpt from an article titled:
CIA
Director Petraeus Extramarital Scandal & FBI
“Earlier
in nineties, shocking proof has surfaced to summons a former FBI
Division 5 director for lying about his marriage to Church of Satan
heiress, Diana Rively, Anton LaVey's ex-wife, to keep a secret
child-trafficking sex-slavery network hidden. But CIA and FIB failed
to stop a network of child traffickers from kidnapping, raping, and
sexually enslaving hundreds, possibly thousands, of American children
annually. The reasons were only that many officials of CIA and FIA
were having illicit relations with notorious ladies. The officials
even do not spare in molesting their own colleagues.
According
to New York Daily News, in the handwritten letter, recovered from
1998, Ted Gunderson, a retired FBI/CIA official and informant on
matters of a satanic network of pedophiles and child traffickers
wrote, "The marriage [to Diana Rively] . . . didn't work out. It
only lasted 2 and one half weeks and I left. It would have been a
catastrophe to stay there".
The letter, signed with
kisses and hugs, was sent to Gunderson's professional associate,
Barbara Hartwell, who was programmed to serve in the CIA's
psychological operations unit. She trained in psychological profiling
and in debriefing military and intelligence personnel, and later
toured with Gunderson to "disseminate intelligence on government
corruption," according to Hartwell. Their assignments included a
child-trafficking operation linked to officials of the CIA, U.S.
military, Church of Satan, and Justice Department. "Barbara
case" openly pitched CIA and FBI against each other.”
The
author of this piece of scandal-mongering attempts to combine the two
stories of Ted Gunderson (FBI) and David Petraeus (CIA) and only
succeeds in creating confusion by commingling two unrelated issues.
He has lifted material from other sources, which he has not named,
and taken quotes without proper attribution. (Plagiarism.) He quotes
Barbara Hartwell, using statements that were never made by me, and
certainly not to this author.
Then,
there is the fact that at the time the letter was written (1998), I
had already been out of CIA for more than four years. Gunderson had
officially retired in 1979, though he was still de facto COINTELPRO,
and no doubt had CIA allies (if not also working as a CIA asset.) I,
on the other hand, had taken a very public stand against CIA, a fact
which unfortunately, Gunderson tried to use to make his own public
claims “against” CIA appear more believable. This was not a turf
war between FBI and CIA, as per this author's spin.
I
have no way to stop these scavengers; they are everywhere, and have
made a mockery of my documented evidence with their wild speculation
and sensationalist interpretations of events, while exploiting my
name for their own ends. I can only state the facts, furnish the
evidence and stand for the truth, in a world where the truth does not
seem to matter anymore, only the material and ego-gratification
pursued by those who call themselves “journalists”. Shame on
them.
GUNDERSON'S
PR SHILL KEN ADACHI FEATURES VIDEO BY JIM HOW
Of
all the malicious liars and PR shills polluting the Internet, Ken
Adachi (a pseudonym) has done more real damage to the reputations of
legitimate government whistleblowers and professional journalists
than any other, in my opinion. He's arrogant as all hell, he's
diabolically persistent, and extremely aggressive in defending
criminals and bad guys at the expense of his Targets, whose names are
assigned to him by the cabal that dictates to him.
Adachi
has libeled/slandered many decent, hardworking people, just because
they have exposed the truth about the criminal enterprises of his
government overlords. Adachi is only a government stooge, a
liar-for-hire (and clearly none too bright), but “Defending Ted”
(and his cabal of criminals) has been the focus of his Internet
activities for many years.
In
searching for “sources” to continue his agenda of the defense of
Ted Gunderson & Co., Adachi will indiscriminately latch on to
anything he finds, promoting the lowest criminal element imaginable
(Tim White, Todd Brendan Fahey, Brenda Negri), as well as any other
parading idiot who has so much as a few words to say which might be
in favor of Ted Gunderson's credibility.
I
found this article, posted on Ken Adachi's site, 'Educate Yourself':
Here,
one of Adachi's many moronic attempts at “Defending Ted”.
“I
will post videos by Ted in which he defends himself against Webb's
absurd accusations, but I found a video from a guy named Jim (?) who
was willing to THINK, take the time to read through Ted's FBI file
and realized that there was no evidence to conclude that Ted was a
disinfo agent. Rather, he comes to discover that Ted Gunderson,
rather than being a disinfo agent, was the victim
of character assassination and disinformation. Good for you Jim.”
GOVERNMENT STOOGE JIM HOW “DEFENDS
TED”
Now, yet another claim is made in
support of Ted Gunderson's legitimacy by a character named Jim How.
I found it very difficult to watch
this video. Firstly, because I have a serious problem with stupidity.
Ignorance? At least there's a chance to correct it through making the
necessary effort. But as the saying goes, you can't fix stupid. Then,
there is the grating voice of Jim How, a high-pitched, whiny nasal
inflection, coupled with the visual assault.
As the video opens, we see Jim How, a
grossly obese man in a rumpled T- shirt, sprawled on a couch. He
says, “Hello”. He does not identify himself. (Are the viewers
supposed to know who he is?) He states that he has done some
“in-depth research” on Ted Gunderson. The nature of this research
is that he has read Gunderson's FBI file, published online. The
“in-depth research” has been conducted over “the past few
days.”
Reading a public file, issued by the
government, hardly qualifies as “in-depth research.” And Jim took
“a few days” for this endeavor. Not weeks, months or years. Not
bothering to search for independent sources. Not checking facts. Not
comparing material from various sources, nor seeking evidence to
determine the credibility or legitimacy of individual sources. No,
just a few days, reading what is on offer in a public file. The
shoddiest “research” imaginable. Resulting only in his obviously
uninformed personal opinions. So much for his “in-depth research.”
He opines that Gunderson “seemed
very sincere and interested in the truth.” As he shifts his bulk on
the couch, he talks about how there are many “rumors” about Ted
Gunderson being a disinfo agent, and says, “I'm trying to put truth
out”, and says that he has “looked into the accusations.”
“Gunderson himself was dodging
bullets!”, Jim exclaims. “He pulled people out of satanic rape
rings.” And, he announces that he has “come to the conclusion
that Gunderson was not a disinfo agent.”
“
There's some negative things about
the guy, but he's human. Nobody's perfect”, he whines.
The old standby platitude: Nobody's
perfect. But what exactly does that mean? We should just ignore or
dimiss the “negative things”, sweep them under the carpet? What
if the “negative things” constitute crimes against persons?
Violations of the rights of others? Abuses of official authority and
power? What then? Oh well, nobody's perfect.
Jim then states that he “looked in
the file” and that he could not find any “definitive proof”
that Gunderson was a disinfo agent. Like he really expects that a
government file would actually advertise an agent's activities in
that regard? (GOVERNMENT WARNING: Ted Gunderson was a disinfo agent.
Caveat Emptor. Caveat Lector.)
He then talks about how Wikipedia says
“Gunderson was in charge of the JFK assassination”. Nowhere does
Wikpedia make such a statement. Here is the actual entry:
"According to his son he worked on the Marilyn Monroe and the John F. Kennedy cases."
And I find it interesting that he uses
the phrase “in charge of the JFK assassination”. Not in charge of
the investigation, but of the assassination itself. But considering
his lack of intellectual wherewithal, I wouldn't make anything of it,
except to say that there have been “rumors”, for many years
(maybe Jim has heard them?), that Gunderson had a hand in the JFK
assassination. He was there, in Dallas, when it occurred, for which
there is documentation. But lest anyone accuse me of trying to
implicate Gunderson, I will state for the record that I have no
evidence of his involvement. To me, evidence is king.
Jim then claims, about the entry in
Wikidepia (which he has misstated): “That's proof. We don't need
any more proof than that.” But proof of what? He doesn't say. And I
think Jim should speak for himself, because no reasonable,
intelligent person would consider an entry in Wikipedia as “proof”
of anything. It doesn't even meet the standards for evidence, much
less proof.
Jim goes on to tell us that, “a lot
of people are saying that the people around Ted Gunderson drop dead.”
As his only source (among the
purported “lot of people”) he cites Cathy O'Brien, whom he says
he “trusts”. Does he give us any names of the people who
supposedly “dropped dead”? No. It's just hearsay, and his source
leaves much to be desired for credibility: Cathy O'Brien, one of the
“Monarch sex slaves”, part of the side show promoted by her
handler/husband, Mark Phillips (and by other charlatans, such as
Fritz Springmeier, Doug Millar, “True” Ott et al) to distract the
public from the real CIA black op of MK Ultra, the purpose of which
was to “create the perfect spy” during the cold war era. Not to
provide “sex slaves” for debauched politicians.
So, he “trusts” Cathy O'Brien. But
as for the “people dropping dead” around Ted Gunderson, he
doesn't believe that to be true? Hard to tell what Jim believes, as
he waffles back and forth, back and forth...
Next, Jim moves along to inform us
that Ted Gunderson was “a brown noser in the FBI.” Gunderson
“went up the ranks”, he says. And then apparently contradicts
himself by stating that “if Gunderson was involved in the JFK
investigation, that would “prove he was disinfo”. That if he was
in charge of the JFK investigation, “there is no question he was a
scumbag”.
Jim also tells us that it “looks
suspicious” for Gunderson to be assigned to this position, in
Dallas, just before the JFK assassination. And then, he says, “a
week or two later, he gets a raise.” It sure looks suspicious, he
says, but then again, “nothing you can prove”.
Which is it, Jim? Proof positive, or
nothing you can prove?
Was Gunderson a “scumbag”, or was
he an honest FBI agent, standing for Law & Order, Truth, Justice
and the American Way?
Where are the facts, Jim? And what is
your standard for “proof”? But it's clear that Jim doesn't let
any form of logic or reason interfere with his “putting out the
truth”.
He shifts gears then, rambling into a
longwinded, self-deprecating nonsequitur about his personal
appearance. (As if we could not see this for ourselves?) He didn't
shave this morning, he laments, and nobody will listen to what he has
to say, due to his slovenly appearance.
Well, no, Jim. That's not it at all.
If you had anything intelligent to say, if you actually furnished any
evidence, I would have to overlook your appearance, difficult as that
might be. But as I see it, you've got two strikes against you, just
from the get go.
Jim says that Ted Gunderson, on the
other hand, had “an impeccable appearance.” Which he says is
“one of the things that got him to the top.” Gunderson was
“clean-shaven, nice expensive suit and tie”. With such an
appearance, he says, “You can tell people anything and they'll
believe anything you say.”
(Well, gee whiz, Jim, you mean you've
figured that out? I didn't think you had it in you.)
“I do want to get the word out”,
says Jim, “but unfortunately people won't listen to me because I
look like a slob.”
Is this a self-fullfilling prophecy?
Why then, instead of whining that nobody will listen to him, doesn't
he pay some attention to his personal grooming? Talk about stupid...
Jim gets back to the issue at hand:
“Nothing I could find that could pin him down as a disinfo agent.”
And that means, according to Jim, that his own failure to “find”
anything is “proof” of his assertion that Gunderson is not a
disinfo agent? (It's not looking good for you, Jim.)
Next, Jim addresses his audience with
another longwinded soliloquy, on those individuals he does believe to
be spreading disinfo (he names a few), and launches into his personal
opinions on NASA. Not that this has anything to do with Ted
Gunderson, but what the hell, might as well throw in the kitchen
sink.
For example, he names Alex Jones as
being “a little more honest” than some others. Which only goes to
show his level of gross ignorance where the dissemination of disinfo
is concerned. Of course, Alex Jones has always been among the staunch
advocates of Ted Gunderson and his crony, John DeCamp.
But back to Ted Gunderson. “I don't
see anything obvious, a few iffy things about it.” Now, he returns
to calling Gunderson “a major brown noser in the FBI”. How
Gunderson wrote letters to J. Edgar Hoover, and “he did get to be
really tight with Hoover.” And calls this “questionable”.
Questionable, how? He doesn't explain.
Now Jim gets to the scandalous
“rumors”, those being that both J. Edgar Hoover and Ted Gunderson
were homosexuals. But, says Jim, there is “no evidence” that Ted
Gunderson was a homosexual. (Suddenly, he cares about evidence?)
Hoover was known to be a
cross-dresser, that is a well documented historical fact. “Rumors”
abound that he was a homosexual. But frankly, I couldn't give a damn
about Hoover's sexual proclivities. He could have been a drag queen
from the planet Venus, for all I care.
What matters to me is only that he
proved, by his actions, to be corrupt, and that the way he treated
others was unjust and unconscionable. (Digging up dirt on individuals
for his secret files, which he kept in a closet in his home, that
alone would be enough to brand him as a bad guy in my book.) Same
goes for Gunderson.
And no, I have never seen any
indication whatsoever that Ted was a homosexual. From my firsthand
observations, he appeared to be something of a womanizer. His
entourage of Monarch “sex slaves” were throwing themselves at
him, left and right, and quite a few claimed to be under his
“protection”, that he had rescued them from certain doom.
But according to Jim, the “rumors”
about Gunderson and Hoover were part of a “smear campaign.” Note
that he lumps Hoover and Gunderson together, as if they were one
entity, rather than reaching the reasonable conclusion that the
“rumors” about one man could be based on fact, but that the
other's reputation could have easily been tainted merely by
association.
As for Ted Gunderson, Jim points out,
he continued to say Hoover was “a great guy”. Yes, I heard him
say that many times, including in his conversations with me. I never
agreed with him, and explained why, but Ted was nothing, if not
stubborn, in his resolve to defend Hoover. Ted also denied that
Hoover was a cross-dresser. In any case, being a cross-dresser is
neither here nor there, in my opinion. So what? That in and of
itself, wouldn't make him a bad guy.
(An aside: When I was working a case
with Ted in Connecticut (1997) he took me for a drive through his old
neighborhood, where he had lived with his wife and children. He told
me that on Halloween night every year, he had a custom of dressing up
in drag, wearing an evening gown, and going from house to house,
brandishing a martini glass, trick or treat, for a few cocktails. Or
maybe, knowing Ted, more than a few. The image of Ted, 6'4”, built
like a linebacker, sashaying down the street, sent me into gales of
laughter. Not making this up, that's what he said, but it was clear
to me Ted considered this nothing more than a joke. Who knows, maybe
he was inspired by J.Edgar himself.)
Jim suggests that “maybe Gunderson
didn't know”? Or, “maybe in the end he did know”? Know that
Hoover was corrupt, that is. Is he serious? Ted worked with Hoover
for more than two decades (1951-1973, when Hoover passed). He knew
what Hoover was, all along. And he defended Hoover until the bitter
end. What does that tell you?
Jim further informs us that “Hoover
was seen at mob restaurants”. You don't say! Like this is a news
flash? That the FBI is in bed with the mob? I've been to plenty of
mob restaurants myself (I lived in Little Italy, NYC, for a number of
years), including having dinner at them at various locations around
the country, with Ted Gunderson. So what? (The food was good, the
conversation always entertaining. Ted was a charmer, I'll give him
that.)
But Jim is on the case, in his valiant
quest to “put out the truth”. He speculates, maybe this mob
connection was disinfo too. Part of the smear campaign. But, he adds,
“I haven't looked into it.” As far as I can see, what he has
looked into would not fill a thimble. He's operating on rumors,
speculation and guesswork, at best.
Yes indeed, Jim is vigilant, as he
plods on. Now, he goes back to the JFK assassination, and states that
it is likely that the “smear campaign” against Ted Gunderson is
responsible for the “rumors” that Gunderson was involved. But, he
adds, “I don't know.” No, he doesn't know. He doesn't have a
clue. So why does he continue rambling on about it?
Next up on the agenda: The allegations
that Ted Gunderson was “scamming people out of money”. No, no,
protests Jim. That too was only part of the “smear campaign”. And
he would know this, how?
(Why doesn't Jim take the time to do
some actual research? He could check the court records in any of the
areas Ted was operating. If he really wants to find the truth, he
could discover scams, swindles and con games galore! And let's not
forget the lawsuits...)
It appears that Jim started his
“in-depth research” with a preconceived notion: Ted Gunderson was
the victim of a “smear campaign”. None of the lurid “rumors”
contain any truth. Poor old Ted, boo hoo...
As for where he got this notion, it
seems he has been doing some of his “in-depth research” by taking
a trek through the swampland of Ken Adachi's government disinfo,
controlled opposition website.
Maybe he was even tasked by Adachi to
take on this research project. After all, the pickings are slim in
Adachi's search for the defenders of Ted. The fact that none of them
know what the hell they are talking about seems to pose no problem
for Adachi, himself nothing but a liar-for-hire.
But back to more of those pesky
rumors. Jim says that some people say Ted Gunderson was a pedophile.
Again, Jim couldn't find any evidence of that. And so, once again,
Jim decides it was part of the smear campaign.
On this subject, the only knowledge
(along with evidence) I personally have is that Gunderson was
covering for pedophiles. (As well as the fact that he admitted this
to me, where certain individuals were concerned.) I have no reason to
believe that he himself was engaged in such activities. (I certainly
hope not, but then, I couldn't rule it out.)
And finally (Jim saves the best for
last), we come to the crowning achievement of Jim's “in-depth
research”. Jim proudly presents his “evidence” in the case of
the controversial marriage of Ted Gunderson to Diana Rively, ex-wife
of Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan. (Did he or did he not
marry Diana? Only The Shadow knows...)
Jim begins by informing us that
“Gunderson was supposedly married to the ex-wife of Anton LaVey.”
“At first I thought it was true. I saw a letter supposedly written
by Ted Gunderson.”
But Jim (always on the case in his
search for the truth), has “looked into it.”
Jim tells us that he “compared the
letter to other things written by Gunderson.” And, lo and behold!
(drum roll, please), “it was NOT the same handwriting”, Jim
smugly informs his audience.
No, says Jim. He has concluded it was
only “something somebody made up.”
Does he give us the name of this
presumptive “somebody”? No. Does he indicate any source for where
he found the letter published? Again, no.
How does Jim know that Ted Gunderson
was not the author of the letter? Is Jim an expert on handwriting
analysis? I would venture to say, not.Is Jim a professional in any field? I'd bet my bottom dollar, not. Yet Jim rushes in, where
angels fear to tread. Jim has pronounced Ted Gunderson's letter to
the unnamed “somebody” (aka Barbara Hartwell) to be a fake.
I can state, for the record, with
absolute certainty, that I was the recipient of this letter, written
by Ted Gunderson. The letter was sent by post, in November 1998, to
my PO Box in Woodstock, NY.
I will also state that I have a large
file of documents, also in Ted Gunderson's handwriting. Some of which
were furnished by Ted himself, others which I received from other
sources. They are all genuine, and I know the provenance of each one.
Ted did not know how to type. At the
time of my association with him, he did not own a computer, and did
not know how to use one. He wrote all his intelligence reports by
hand, or dictated them to someone else.
What's more, I am very familiar with
Ted Gunderson's handwriting. In addition, I am trained in handwriting
analysis, along with other disciplines necessary for psychological
profiling and forensic analysis.
So again, I can attest, with absolute
certainty, that Ted Gunderson's letter to me was written by none
other than Ted Gunderson himself. Case closed.
But, apparently, Jim had some “help”
in coming to his conclusion that the letter was a fake.
Now, we are shown a copy of the actual
letter, from Ted Gunderson to Barbara Hartwell. And beside it,
another letter comes up on the screen. This letter was allegedly
written by Ted Gunderson to J.Edgar Hoover.
The source of this false information
is stamped across the two letters: PARAPOLITICAL DOT COM
And above the letter to Hoover (1966)
we see: REAL. Above the letter to Barbara Hartwell we see: FAKE.
Jim edifies us, using the “REAL”
and “FAKE” letters from Ted Gunderson. He says that if we look,
we can see that the “letters are different”, especially the “m”
and the “i”.
No, no, this is definitely NOT the
same handwriting! And clearly, Jim smugly tells us, this was, again,
only “part of the smear campaign.”
In actuality the viewer would need a
magnifying glass to take a closer look. And who are the “sources”
from this site, PARAPOLITICAL DOT COM? Jim doesn't bother to tell us.
No, Jim doesn't name the liars, the government shills, who produced
this fraudulent exhibit. Given his track record, thus far, his level
of discernment –nonexistent, as far as I can see-- he simply
believes anything he reads, or hears, as long as it supports his
preconceived notions about Ted Gunderson.
Now, I must say I have to take this
personally, Jim, since you are falsely accusing me of forgery. You
are falsely accusing me of being a liar. You are falsely accusing me
of bearing false witness. You are falsely accusing me of being part
of a conspiracy to run a “smear campaign” against Ted Gunderson.
I don't like to be falsely accused,
Jim. In fact, I am outraged when idiots like you (and there have been
hundreds over a period of years) take it upon themselves to poach my
material (documents or writings) and attempt to discredit it, and/or
twist it to serve the agenda of evildoers.
Oddly, Jim never mentions the name of
Barbara Hartwell. Has he checked, as part of his “in-depth
research”, to find the name of the (supposed, purported, alleged)
recipient?
Maybe, then again, maybe not.
Evidently, Jim doesn't consider this to be important, not worth
mentioning. Why is that, Jim? Is it because you've been instructed,
by those who put you up to this, not to mention the name of Barbara
Hartwell? Is it because, in your “in-depth research”, my name
never came up in connection with the letter from Ted Gunderson? Or is
it because you are just too damn stupid to research your way out of a
wet paper bag?
But alas, we are nearing the end of
Jim's presentation. Jim moves along now to focus his attention on
Stew Webb, whom he says is “leading the disinfo campaign against
Ted Gunderson.”
A photo of Stew Webb is displayed on
the screen.
Jim then brings in the “Nazis”. He
says that Stew Webb talks about Nazis, and informs us that “As soon
as you start hearing Nazis are responsible for everything, you know
who it is.”
Tell us, Jim. Who is it? According to
Jim, they are the “hook noses”, and “the Nazis are their
favorite scapegoat.”
He points to the photo of Stew Webb,
and exclaims, “That's a big honker!”
“They will never stop demonizing the
German people, ever. They (the “hook noses”) can't change, they
will still be demonizing the Nazis.”
So, Jim's “evidence” against Stew
Webb, who he claims is the leader of the disinfo campaign against Ted
Gunderson, is that Stew Webb has a “hook nose”, a “big honker.”
Therefore, he reasons, Stew must demonize Nazis. After all, it is an
inescapable conclusion. No further “in-depth research” is
necessary.
Now, that's just plain stupid.
But what does any of this asinine
theory promoted by Jim, have to do with Ted Gunderson? He doesn't
say. But (aside from the obvious stupidity) we are left to conclude
that Jim doesn't like people who “demonize” Nazis. He doesn't
like people who have “hook noses”.
Well, let me pose a question. For the
sake of argument, what if I don't like fat, slovenly people in
rumpled T-shirts? Does that mean I would consider them all stupid?
No, but in your case, Jim, I'd have to say the evidence would support
that conclusion.
But back to Ted Gunderson. Jim says
that Gunderson's life was saved many times by “divine
intervention.” And announces his conclusion: “The preponderance
of evidence suggests that Ted Gunderson was NOT a disinfo agent.”
What evidence is that, Jim? The
“evidence” that the letter from Ted Gunderson was a “FAKE”?
The “evidence” that the “hook noses” (like Stew Webb) are
demonizing Nazis? The “evidence” from the FBI file, in which
there was no indication that Ted Gunderson was ever involved in
anything like spreading disinformation? The “evidence” that the
“smear campaign” is the reason for all the lurid “rumors”
about Ted Gunderson?
Jim doesn't give us a summary of the
“evidence”, so I guess we'll never know. But, nonetheless, Jim
has reached his conclusion: He is “90-95% certain that Ted
Gunderson is legitimate.”
Yes indeed, Jim enthuses, you can
“take it to the bank.”
But, lest the video fall short in
answering our questions about Ted Gunderson (whom Jim has never met,
did not know, never had any contact with, etc.) here is Jim's written
summary, which we'll surely want to keep for our “evidence” files.
Was Ted Gunderson a Disinfo Agent?
“I've
spent the last several days looking into Ted Gunderson. I had heard
many times he was a dissinfo agent and I tended to believe he was,
not the least of which because he was an X FBI executive. But there
have always been things that made me unsure of that assumption, he
seems credible like he actually cares. Also he gives a lot of high
quality information on "real" criminal activities going on
in the country. My conclusion is that like all humans he probably has
made a few mistakes over all I think Ted Gunderson is legitimate.”
Well,
you've had your say, Jim. So here's my answer to your “in-depth
research” on Ted Gunderson.
PRESENTED TO JIM HOW, JULY 9, 2015, The Year of Our Lord
It's
time to wrap up this segment of the report. But as promised in PART
ONE, I will include a statement from my friend, former FBI agent
Geral Sosbee, exposing Stew Webb, often cited as a player in this
drama, as a malicious liar.
TESTIMONY OF FORMER FBI AGENT
GERAL SOSBEE
This
message is in support of my very best friend in this life, the
splendid Barbara Hartwell, and against Stew Webb who is our former
mutual friend.
I first
met Barbara on line when I was being tortured by psyops, various
bio/viral assaults, and other assaults and battery on my person by
fbi street thugs in Los Angeles, California. The goal of the fbi was
to drive me insane, or to kill me. Barbara and I immediately became
friends, more than a decade ago, and our close professional
association has increased every day since then.
Briefly
stated, Barbara stayed a constant and loyal ally during the worst
time in my life when the fbi was trying to harm me and when everyone
else abandoned me. Further, she helped me through the crisis that I
was facing in my efforts to grasp the horrors confronting me by the
fbi's 24/7 campaign of terror which continues today. For that and for
her superb support of me (at her own great personal risk and cost)
and of others who are similarly being tortured and murdered by the
United States of America's intelligence community, she is truly a
heroine & a liberator of mankind by showing all the world the
cruel methods and murderous objectives of the fbi/cia/dod, etc. I
believe that history records Barbara Hartwell as one of the bravest
and most spiritually blessed leaders of our time and that her service
to humanity is beyond compare.
Now when a
one time friend of Barbara attacks her, as Stew Webb recently did on
a radio show, I am reminded of the many instances when Barbara came
to my defense (and to the defense of many others) under attack by
so-called friends. One such example in my life was the psyop campaign
run against me by one Charles Bruce Stewart who pretended to befriend
me at a time when I needed a friend, then abruptly turned against me
for no apparent reason and attacked me in a most vile manner. Barbara
addressed the fraud of Charles Stewart and suggested to him that he
has no right to attack me and no legitimate basis to do so.
See:
The recent
claim on air by Stew Webb that Barbara engaged in certain criminal
conduct [including murder] when she was associated with the CIA is
one of the most blasphemous lies I have ever witnessed and I cannot
withhold my contempt for Webb's low verbal assault on Barbara
Hartwell.
I first
met Stew Webb through my contact with Barbara; I drove from my
residence in LA to Las Vegas to meet Webb in person because I felt
that he was a bright and promising figure in the resistance efforts
against the fbi/cia assassins (including the Bush clan mafia group
which underpinned the presidencies of both Bush men). I found Stew
Webb to be very knowledgeable on numerous issues and to possess a
wealth of information on corruption in government.
I also
learned to my dismay that Stew Webb is arrogant and self possessed
beyond reason. For example, at one point during my visit with Webb,
he interrupted the dialogue by invoking the name of God to chastise
me for my language. In doing so, he displayed a disrespect for my
personal boundaries that all civil men should honor and I felt that I
was in the wrong place in his company. I cut short my visit with
Webb, but I remained friendly with him until he turned against
Barbara.
I point
out parenthetically that a verbal attack by a former friend hurts a
great deal, and Webb knows that he inflicted pain on Barbara by his
lies against her on the air. His complete disrespect for the personal
boundaries of Barbara Hartwell, as shown in the radio show referenced
above, is as despicable as it is unforgiveable; for what can motivate
a man to try to destroy a former friend with lies and contrived
calumny by association.
Stew Webb
should apologize and retract his absurd, libelous lies against
Barbara and he should get in closer touch with the God on whose
behalf he pretends to speak from time to time. God is never a party
to evil and Stew Webb has crossed into that domain (absent God's
company) by his gratuitous lies against one of America's national
treasures & spiritual giants, Barbara Hartwell.
