Ted Gunderson with Ronald Reagan
NOTE:
Over the past few months I have been working to clean up and renovate
this site. This report (2015) was one of a few which was such a mess,
I was unable to reformat it in the original post; I had to start from
scratch and re-type the whole thing, a time-consuming and tiresome
job. I have left the original link where posted in the archives, for
the date stamp, but have added a link to this new version.
https://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-shadow-knows-former-fbi-cia_9.html
For
those not familiar with Ted Gunderson (1928-2011), he was FBI Chief
(Senior Special Agent in Charge) serving in the FBI from 1951-1979.
He
was J. Edgar Hoover's protege and probably the most notorious Kingpin
of Hoover's COINTELPRO (initiated 1956).
Gunderson
was planted on me by CIA in 1997. I worked with him for 3 years, as a
professional colleague and personal friend, going on the lecture
circuit, as government whistleblowers, on radio and TV programs, and
working cases as investigators.
I
broke off my association with Gunderson when I learned that he was
not the whistleblower patriot he was held up by so many adoring fans
to be, but rather a shadow government spook running containment
operations and protection rackets, of which I was one of his
high-profile Targets, former military and intelligence agents who had
become whistleblowers.
Ironically,
he accused me of being a “shadow government spook”. These
characters love to accuse their adversaries of exactly what it is
that they are doing!
Here is what Ted posted on his website, in one of his smear pieces against Barbara Hartwell:
During
the last decade of his life (2000-2011) Ted and I had an adversarial
relationship, though we didn't speak to each other. He slandered me
in the media and at the conferences where we used to speak together,
claiming that I am a “CIA disinfo agent”, a story he fabricated
because in fact he had nothing whatsoever on me which could be used
against me.
But
unfortunately for me, Gunderson established a precedent. His false
claim against Barbara Hartwell became the standard accusation hurled
against me by nearly everyone I have exposed, government and civilian
bad guys, shills, charlatans, and their stooges. And it has been
parroted by hordes of ignorant people ever since.
This
report is one of many exposing the scams and civil and criminal
offenses of Ted Gunderson.
Lastly,
thanks to former FBI agent Geral Sosbee, my friend, colleague and witness for the past 22
years, without whose documentation this series of reports would not
have been possible.
Barbara
Hartwell
July
13, 2023
This
report is Part 2 and not meant to stand alone. Please see Part 1
here:
THE
SHADOW KNOWS: Former FBI & CIA Counterintelligence Experts on
Celebrity Super Spook Ted (“The Gun”) Gunderson
https://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-shadow-knows-former-fbi-cia.html
PREFACE
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), he stated:
"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:
"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"....
"...is
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
v FBI
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com
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."
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 those targeted; 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.
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 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 ot 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:
www.monitor.net
PART
TWO
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
Drbhelthi:
"It
takes courage to bring out accurate information aboutthe 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 arsenic. 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 3.)
(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.)
Calvin:
"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 be just 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 toward 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, Gordon 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 is 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
and 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 “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 crimes 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 coverup 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”.
LC:
"Thanks
Mr. Duff:
In
fact after Gunderson's death & the published remors 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 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 had “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 if I were the evil “creature” as accused by
Gunderson and DeCamp, how could I have possibly bested 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, Ken
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 make a name for themselves.
Although
I had met Len Horowitz at a conference 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 and 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 Jone is a wolf in
sheep's clothing.)
Next,
a comment from another ignorant reader, Beth Mitchell, this one
clearly malicious.
Beth
Mitchell:
"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."
Does
she know Len Horowitz? I doubt it, yet she calls him “Len” and
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
Gundeson was supposedly helping out 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, et 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, is not
verification that 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:
http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2011/05/ted-gunderson-church-of-satan.html
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 & DIANA RIVELY
This
is my formal statement outlining events which relate to Ted
Gunderson's marriage to Diana Rively, ex-wife 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 a 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
[NOTE:
Percival is my family name, not a pseudonym, and is used occasionally
in my work.]
Here
is a transcript of the handwritten letter.
Ted
Gunderson FBI Senior Special Agent in Charge (Ret.)
PO
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 lasted only 2 and one half weeks and I left. It would have been a
catastrophy [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
http://paktribune.com/articles/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Extramarital-Scandal-%5E-FBI-242991.html
"Earlier
in the 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 FBI 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 FBI
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
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 exploit 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.
Here,
one of Adachi's many moronic attempts at “Defending Ted”.
I
found this article, posted on Ken Adachi's site, Educate-Yourself:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/Stew-Webb-The-Constant-Slanderer03may15.shtml#top
"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 in support of Ted Gumderson'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 dismiss 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 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”. 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 personally have no evidence of his involvement. To
me, evidence is King.
Jim
then claims, about the entry in Wikipedia (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
sideshow 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”? 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-fulfilling 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? (I'm afraid 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, he 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 that 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. He 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 Hoover 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 was 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 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 (you guessed
it...) 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.” He continues, “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 that 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 memos and 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: 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 declares, 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 damned
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!”
Jim
pontificates on, “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 and 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.
Jim
wrote:
"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 tha 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 human beings 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 online when I was being tortured by psyops, various
bio/viral 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 (2001) 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 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:
http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2006/11/ex-fbi-whistleblower-attacked-by-former.html
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 unforgivable; 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...
Autographed photo of Ted Gunderson to Barbara Hartwell (1998)
To my "kick-ass" Buddy, Barbara Hartwell -with love and kisses-
Ted L. Gunderson
2/22/98
**********
THE SHADOW KNOWS: Former FBI & CIA Counterintelligence Experts on Celebrity Super Spook Ted (The Gun) Gunderson (3)
*************
For
those who find the reports on this site to be of value and who may
find it in their hearts to offer support (as Christian charity or
gifts), you may send donations (checks, money orders or cash) to:
Barbara
Hartwell
PO
Box 22
Rhinebeck,
NY 12572
Donations in any
amount are greatly appreciated and gratefully accepted.
