Barbara Hartwell

My photo
Independent Investigator, Intelligence Analyst, Journalist. Former CIA (NOC, Psychological Operations) Black Ops Survivor. Sovereign Child of God. Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Ordained 1979, D.Div.) Exposing Government Lies, Crimes, Corruption, Conspiracies and Cover-ups.

Thursday, July 9, 2015

THE SHADOW KNOWS: Former FBI & CIA Counterintelligence Experts on Celebrity Super Spook Ted (“The Gun”) Gunderson (2)

As regards his attitude to me, Ted took a patronizing tack, playing the role of the injured-but-forgiving party, claiming that I was "under CIA mind control", which was the reason I had "turned against" him. In one of his “open letters” to me he stated:

"I have no animosity against Barbara. I love her and always will."

But only a few years later (2005), in another open letter to Barbara Hartwell, he took the gloves off, and made this accusation:

"You admit you were once in the CIA. There are no alumni in the CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a CIA agent. If you attempt to get out or expose them, you either go to jail or you die."

Ted used this claim as his mantra, in efforts to discredit Barbara Hartwell. If he could convince people that I was still “on the payroll”, I would be seen as the enemy, rather than as a legitimate CIA defector/whistleblower. He accused me of being part of a “government disinformation program.” (How very ironic...)

And even more outrageous:

"Do the righteous people of the world a service and, like other slimy creatures, slither back into the hole from which you came."

Ex-FBI Agent Geral Sosbee, as always, came to my defense:
'There are no alumni in the CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a CIA agent. If you attempt to get out or expose them, you either go to jail or you die'

" the rule, but you are proof that he is wrong; the same applies to me and the assassins of the fbi who are trying to kill me in the only cowardly manner they know. My question for gun is why he does nothing to expose the crimes against Humanity that are currently ongoing; and further, with his vast experience as a fbi chief, why he has not confessed to the world of his many crimes against the American people."

"Do the righteous people of the world a service and, like other slimy creatures, slither back into the hole from which you came."

Sosbee, to Ted ('The Gun', as we call him) Gunderson:

"Ted Gunderson, former fbi chief, verbally assaults a true American Hero, Barbara Hartwell, by the use of language that reveals gun's own warped character.”

April 18, 2005

From Geral Sosbee

Sosbee vs. FBI


Ted Gunderson (hereinafter referred to as 'gun') recently wrote the following words to my good friend and professional colleague, Barbara Hartwell:  

"Do the righteous people of the world a service and, like other slimy creatures, slither back into the hole from which you came.

Ted L Gunderson, FBI-SAC(Ret)"
Sosbee writes:

Such words as quoted above when directed against one of the true and great Defenders of Liberty (Barbara Hartwell) offend all sensitive persons who read them, but especially those of us who know and respect Barbara for her stand against government corruption. Indeed the 'righteous' as you call them reject the use of such descriptions above because no human being merits such a label.

However, gun is steeped in the use of labels, especially those that send good and innocent people to torture chambers, to prisons or to their deaths; gun is an expert by his own proclamation of his credentials (i.e.:SAC) in a) black operations, b) mind games, c) secret agent-provocateur dirty deeds worldwide.

No, gun, you are wrong. The world needs Barbara Hartwell more than you could possibly know/imagine; and as you have sold out to the evil forces of a corrupt government (the United States of America) in return for your petty benefits, you are the one who must someday atone for the atrocities you approved, directed, or condoned against men and women over the past half century.
Come clean, gun, about your knowledge regarding offenses and crimes against Humanity; help save the lives of targeted individuals; and renounce the fascist state that you presently support; then, maybe intelligent and informed people will listen to you.

You dare pretend to show a concern for the people of the United States when in fact you exploit the ignorance and fear of all who listen to you in order to further your own private interests and in order to perpetuate the destructive agenda of the cia and the fbi. The downfall of this country into a fascist state is in part your doing, gun, and you should not be proud of that, no matter how high an office you have attained.
Sosbee writes for the record on April 30, 2005:
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.

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."


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.


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.”


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.”


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.


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.”


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


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



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.


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.”


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.


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.


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.


In PART THREE I will cover Ted Gunderson's involvement with white supremacists, Jew-haters and (Jim will enjoy this) the Nazis, whom, he laments, have been "demonized" and made "scapegoats". We'll take a look at some of Ted Gunderson's colleagues, advocates and supporters.

Barbara Hartwell 
July 9, 2015

To be continued...

Barbara Hartwell Percival
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA