CONTENTS MARCH 14, 2000
Click. TIME TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT by Barbara Hartwell
Click. ARRESTED AGENT HANSSEN'S PARISH, ST. CATHERINE'S, A HAVEN FOR POWER.
Click. KIDS MUST PAY MONEY FOR THEIR ABUSER'S IMPRISONMENT
Click. MEDIAWHORES EXPLAINS THE BUSH RECESSION TO ALL THE VILLAGE IDIOTS OUT THERE.
TIME TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT: PART I
by Barbara Hartwell © 2001
Barbara Hartwell Legal Defense and Research
Fund PO Box 832 Woodstock NY 12498 websites: http://www.ulster.net/~babs7/ http://www.homestead.com/barbarahartwellsurvivor/
I find it necessary to address some issues, in regard to information about myself and my case as well as my dealings with certain people who have also gone public with their testimony, research and viewpoints regarding mind control, gov't black ops and related topics. My main concern is that there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there -both on the Internet and floating around as rumour.
You've read it on the Internet ? Heard it on a radio show ? Heard it from someone who claims to be a close associate of mine or a purported "insider" ? It ain't necessarily so !
So before things get too far out of control, it's time for me to set the record straight. In light of the rapidly worsening circumstances of my life, designed by the perps to drive me further into the downward spiral of illness and poverty which has become an ever-more-serious threat to my life; as well as the escalating sabotage of all my attempts to disseminate my own material, I need to clarify the truth about as many of these issues as I can --while there is yet time. God willing, there will be.
I won't be able to cover it all in the length allowed by this report -not by a long shot ! Just consider this the first of a series of reports. My intent is only to tell the truth as I know it; to correct misinformation; to refute false allegations, erroneous suppositions or theories which I have seen published or which have come back to me as rumours through the grapevine. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own; and I do not presume to speak for anyone but myself. But since it's my life that's the issue, and my reputation that's at stake, it's important that to the best of my ability, I let the truth be known. As for the facts I present here, they should also speak for themselves.
FACTUAL DATA I was born on March 12, 1951 on Manhattan Island in NYC. ( March 13, Universal or 'Zulu' Time.) I am indeed 50 years of age, despite the opinions expressed by those who insist that I "could not be old enough" to have the extensive history which I claim as my own. It seems these folks are judging by the photos of me posted on my website. Those photos were all taken between 1997-2000. I can't help it if I look younger than I am; but I'm tired of my appearance compromising my credibility.
I AM a survivor of the following gov't black operations: CIA MK ULTRA; Phoenix Project -colloquially known as Montauk- and otherwise known as 'Rainbow'; and of other 'deep black' CIA sponsored or related operations which for now shall remain nameless.
I was NEVER involved in the project known as 'Monarch', that being publicized by Mark Phillips and others.
I was NEVER victimized/utilized as a so-called 'sex slave' or 'presidential model' as many people seem to have falsely assumed --erroneously supposing that my experiences have been similar to those being publicized by Cathy O'Brien; Susan Ford aka Brice Taylor and others in this milieu.
I am NOT a survivor of Satanic Ritual Abuse.
I am NOT a survivor of pedophilia, child pornography or incest.
I broke out of CIA black ops and related mind control programming not suddenly, or all at once -but FINALLY and IRREVOCABLY in 1994- after a years-long battle with my handlers- and started to go public in 1996. I have not been 'deprogrammed' by any formal methodolgy or with the help of any professional 'deprogrammer'. I broke the mind control programming through many years of prayer and with God's help.
SOME BACKGROUND INFO There's not enough space to include all the details here, but only an overview. My professional background, education, training and credentials are mainly in the areas of metaphysics/ parapsychology/spiritual disciplines. I was ordained and licensed as a minister in the Universalist Church in 1979, and specialized in spiritual/pastoral counselling, but I have not practiced as a minister in many years and am no longer affiliated with any church or organized religion. I am trained in the Jungian/Transpersonal method of psychotherapy and 'psychological' astrology. I am a certified hypnotherapist and my work as a Jungian-method astrologer, psychotherapist and lecturer on these subjects has been endorsed by the Carl Jung Society in NYC and Wesport, CT as well as numerous other educational institutes. I lectured and taught classes on metaphysics and spiritual disciplines for over 20 years at various institutes. During this time frame, I also worked as a professional clairvoyant. In practicing these various disciplines my work included private counselling for individuals and families; investigative work on cases for legal firms and DA's offices, some of which were international in scope; personnel counselling and consulting for corporate entities.
CIA 'fronts' and proprietaries (including some of these corporations and legal firms) regularly contracted my services. I was considered a professional CIA asset and utilized in various capacities as such for many years. My "cover" was that I was working as an "independent contractor" or "talent". On the 'outside' I appeared to be 'self-employed', which though legitimate, does not describe the complex nature of my situation. In actuality, I functioned as a deep cover operative, acting partially -though not totally- under programmed controls.
I have also worked as an investigative journalist in both electronic and print media for over 20 years. From 1987-1995 I hosted/produced radio and TV programs in Connecticut, on WGCH radio, Greenwich, CT and Cablevision of CT, Norwalk, while residing in Greenwich, CT. The topics I addressed on these programs were related mostly to the spiritual/paranormal/metaphysical; UFO research; gov't corruption/conspiracies; human and animal rights, and political activism. My training as 'on-camera talent' and in TV production was sponsored by a CIA front co. who also funded my TV programs and paid me a monthly stipend for various consulting services. I had been trained and groomed by CIA ( among other things ) as a 'media representative' (read propagandist) for the 'New Age' and New World Order. ( I will address these issues in more detail in an upcoming article : CIA Propaganda Ministry: The New Age and New World Order ) During the 1980s, I served as a press representative and investigator for Amnesty International.
From 1986 to the present I have conducted extensive research on UFOs and related phenomena, both as a field investigator and an investigative journalist. While hosting/producing my radio and TV programs I interviewed many of the most well-known UFO researchers and 'abductees' ; 'contactees' ; 'experiencers' as they variously described themselves. Between 1994 and 1997 I conducted an intensive investigation in Pine Bush, NY and surrounding areas, including nearby West Point. My investigation mainly focussed on covert gov't/military black ops being run out of this and other areas, some of which I had been personally utilized in while still under programmed control.
For many years I led what I can only describe as a 'double life', or even more strange, a 'multiple life'. And by that I DON'T mean 'multiple personality disorder'. Due to the utterly bizarre nature of the so-called 'paranormal' aspects of the projects I was utilized in, such as Phoenix/Montauk -which can only be characterized as 'deep black' ops- some of my experiences defy description. I realize the extreme difficulty of gathering solid evidence, not only to substantiate my own experiences and involvement - but for the very existence of the operations. When you are dealing with hyper-space, multi-dimensonal/interdimensional planes of existence and the like, it can be next to impossible to nail down the absolute truth, much less prove it.
I am well aware that speaking about the stranger-than-fiction aspects of my experiences, and what I KNOW-but cannot prove- to be true has been a major stumbling block as regards my credibility. Therefore, I have tried to stick as much as possible to the more mundane aspects of the operations, though my frustration in not being able to do justice to the 'real truth' often gets the better of me.
What I find most important is to expose the massive violations of human rights which are instrumental in the black operations and mind control programs in which I and others were victimized. I consider myself a champion of individual rights; a defender of the constitution; an advocate for the oppressed. Before such violations can be stopped -the ultimate goal- they must be exposed. I chose to go public about my own involvement in black ops for these purposes. As a whistleblower, I can offer my own testimony. As an investigative journalist I can publicize cases of other victims/survivors/targeted individuals. And as someone who has been involved in human rights activism for over 30 years -my first arrest for civil disobedience was in 1969- I continue to do all in my power to put a stop to the abuses which I have witnessed and experienced.
I am not now - nor have I ever been- affiliated with any group or organization for survivors of mind control or other forms of abuse. I currently work as an independent researcher and journalist. Since I have been blacklisted own material on my website and in my newsletter, the Hartwell Intelligence Report. I intend to start serializing on the Internet the material intended for my book, so that in the event I don't live long enough to finish the book, at least I will have put out as much material as possible which can later be edited by others into an anthology or comprehensive volume.
RE MY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS
TED GUNDERSON, FBI Senior Special-Agent-in-Charge, Bureau Chief Los Angeles, CA, ret. I first met Ted in 1997 when he and I were both speakers at the Global Sciences Congress in Denver, Colorado. I subsequently developed a friendship and professional association with Ted. Ted conducted an investigation of my case between 1997 and 2000. During that time, I spent many hours in phone conversations and meetings with Ted, which took place at various locations around the U.S. I also spoke publicly with him in radio and TV interviews and shared the same podium in lectures and seminars.
Any rumours that I was romantically involved with Ted are false; there was a close friendship and professional relationship but nothing more. Also false are rumours that Ted was ever my 'handler' , 'programmer' or 'deprogrammer'.
In January 2000, I had a serious disagreement with Ted which created a conflict of interests and led to my decision to break off my professional association with him. The major point of contention concerned Ted's allegations -in conjunction with those of Susan Ford aka Brice Taylor- that Kurt Billings was a 'CIA plant'. I told Ted that based on my own interactions with Kurt, I strongly disagreed that Kurt was a 'plant'. I asked Ted and Sue to furnish evidence for this allegation, but no evidence whatsoever was forthcoming, only their personal opinions. Speculative hearsay was also relayed by other associates of Ted and Sue whose 'bona fides' and credibility I considered dubious at best. I told Ted at that time that I was unwilling to take part in what I could only see as a slander campaign for the purpose of discrediting Kurt, a colleague whom I also considered a friend, and still do.
As a result of these (IMO, false) allegations, which were being disseminated by Sue and Ted, and which may have compromised Kurt's reputation, I subsequently wrote a public testimonial in Kurt's defense, because I believed -and still do- that Kurt's reputation and character were being unjustly defamed. Kurt did not ask me to write anything on his behalf; it was my decision based on what I deemed to be the ethically correct thing to do.
I will not offer a lengthy opinion here as to the reasons why Sue Ford and Ted Gunderson claimed to believe Kurt to be a 'plant'. I will only say that from Sue's perspective, I believe it had to do with Kurt's unwillingness to follow along with what he considered Sue's ill-advised ideas regarding what was best for her daughter Kelly, who has been seriously damaged as a result of extreme abuses dating researcher of mind control and has worked with mind control victims, and in this capacity Sue had asked Kurt to see if he might be able to help Kelly. But Kurt clearly stated to Sue after observing Kelly's seriously debilitated physical and mental condition that he was simply not qualified in the capacity of a psychiatric/ mental health professional to work with Kelly and that the type of help Kelly needed could not possibly be provided by him. As for myself, I can understand Kurt's position. There is much more to this story, which it is not my place to publicly tell; and also because I must honor confidences that were shared with me. But I have NO reason to believe Kurt to be a ' CIA plant ' ; and in fact many good reasons to disbelieve it, having been in a position to observe certain situations and to hear both sides of the controversy.
So let's set this one to rest: I do NOT believe Kurt Billings to be a "CIA plant" nor have I ever been part of a campaign to discredit Kurt, publicly nor privately. And while we're on the subject, one more thing: any rumours that Kurt was ever my 'handler' or 'programmer' are also FALSE and are based purely on speculation from uninformed sources and/or have been planted as purposeful disinformation in an attempt to discredit myself and Kurt.
A number of people subsequently contacted me claiming to have information about Ted Gunderson.Some claimed they had "inside info" re Ted. I listened with an open mind to what all of them had to say. All I was ever interested in was finding the truth. Some of the people whose testimony I heard regarding Ted -both pro and con- are people I respect; others are people for whom -with good reason- I have no respect. I cannot speak for any of these people, nor can I prove or disprove their allegations. But I don't form my own opinions based on anyone else's good or bad experiences, especially if there is no hard evidence to substantiate their testimony. And I refuse to be a part of spreading public slander about ANYONE, including Ted. All I can go by are my own personal experiences with ANY individual along with facts and evidence I am able to establish. Although my disagreement with Ted was a source of great sadness; caused me considerable stress; and prompted much soul-searching on my part, in all fairness to Ted I must say that he never treated me personally with anything but kindness, respect and concern for my well-being. I will also say that he never refused to help me when I was in need of it and that there were times when his help and advice were instrumental in saving my life. Ted never took any money from me; in fact he repeatedly spent his own money in connection with my case.
In the spring of 2000, journalists from NewsMakingNews published the Ted Gunderson Data Dump. https://newsmakingnews.com/gunderson.htm Included in the 'dump' was "Gunderson Delves Even More Deeply Into Mind Control: The Case of Barbara Hartwell ". This link to my case on the site was NOT placed there by my request nor with my permission; but I am aware that since the security letter I wrote, dated Oct. 13, 1999, which contained my testimony -some of it in reference to Ted- had already been published on several sites on the Internet, it was not a breach of my legal rights by the journalists from NewsMakingNews. They offered to publish an article written by me re my dealings with Ted; but in the context of the 'data dump' which is decidedly anti-Ted, I decided that it would not have served any good purpose.
RE THE LINDA WIEGAND CASE: In October/November 1997 I was asked by Ted Gunderson to assist him in his investigation of the Linda Wiegand case. My involvement was as a journalist, helping to get publicity for the case through my media contacts in Connecticut and in helping to re-write and edit a legal case summary. (I am not an attorney but have sufficient legal training to write briefs and am fluent in 'legalese'. )
To my knowledge, Ted received no compensation for working on the case. Donations from Linda Wiegand's supporters payed only travel expenses, accomodations, etc. Ted did not even have a car, and for a few days I let him use one I had borrowed from a friend and later arranged for him to be driven around by one of my associates who lived in the area. At that time Linda was living in an apartment in Connecticut.
I will not go into all the details I learned about the case. Information is available elsewhere from many sources, promoting various conflicting viewpoints. All I will say is that from MY OWN observations and analysis - which PRECEDED Ted later publicly denouncing the Wiegand case as bogus- my opinion was that Linda was in collusion with federal authorities for the purpose of 'setting up' and discrediting certain people in the Christian/Patriot community, including Ted and Bo Gritz, among other agendas.
While working with Ted and Linda, it was clear to me that Ted really believed in the veracity of Linda's case and sincerely wanted to help -for all the right reasons. But I did not approve of the way Linda treated Ted - ordering him around as if he were a servant, and snapping at him if he didn't move fast enough to do everything she wanted, which I witnessed repeatedly. She showed little appreciation for Ted's help, especially considering the fact that he wasn't being paid.
Although I was horrified by Linda's tale of the satanic and sexual abuse of her children, I saw something in Linda's eyes which I can only describe as a coldness, which did not seem in keeping with the trauma and heartbreak one would expect to be displayed in the countenance of a mother whose children were being so brutally abused. I honestly can't claim to know the absolute truth of the situation and I don't claim to have x-ray vision regarding other people's feelings or motives. I am only giving my observations, for what they're worth - and they may be worth nothing. As a professional psychic for over 20 years, I had worked on many legal cases and my intuitive feeling from the beginning -in this particular case- was: 'Something is wrong with this picture'.
I also got the feeling that Linda regarded me with suspicion, and didn't trust me. She seemed uncomfortable and somewhat defensive when I was asking detailed questions in order to establish facts and a timeline for events relating to the case so that I could write an accurate case summary.
Anyway, when Ted finally had to leave Connecticut because no more money was available to pay his expenses, I decided not to continue working on the case with Linda, as Ted asked me to do, because by that time I knew it was in my own best interests to leave. And the arrest of Bo Gritz for 'kidnapping' Linda's children at the school further confirmed my feeling that all was not as it seemed; and certainly not as it was being presented by Linda.
My last discussion with Ted re the Wiegand case was two years later, in November 1999, and we established at that time that we were in agreement that Wiegand was a gov't plant being used for a sub rosa agenda.
In summary, since I've known Ted, he and I have agreed about a number of things and disagreed about others. I enjoyed working with him. Ted never attempted to exert undue influence over me and even when we disagreed or when I declined to take his advice, he well knew I wasn't the type to be strongarmed by anyone. Sometimes he thought I was stubborn because I refused to defer to his advice and insisted on fighting my own battles, unlike some of the other survivors he was used to working with, who seemed to regard Ted as someone who had all the solutions to their problems. Although I was -and still am- grateful for his support, I never viewed Ted in this way and he knew it.
But sadly, some of my disagreements with Ted - his allegations re Kurt Billings as well as his continued unconditional endorsement of the testimony and activities of Susan Ford, which I considered -by association- a liability to myself and others- created a conflict of interests and that is the reason I no longer have a professional association with Ted, though I care no less about him as a friend and still consider him as such.
SUSAN FORD AKA BRICE TAYLOR
I first met Sue Ford in 1997 at the same conference where I met Ted Gunderson. I developed a friendship with Sue and over roughly a 3 year period, I had spoken publicly with Sue on a number of occasions, in radio and TV interviews and on the lecture circuit.
In January 2000, I finally broke off contact with Sue for a number of reasons. As previously mentioned, I could not in good conscience support what I considered Sue's unfair treatment of Kurt Billings, nor share her viewpoint that he is a "CIA plant". But this particular disagreement between Sue and myself was only one of the reasons for my decision not to continue a professional or personal association with her. Frankly, I found her overall treatment of me to be inappropriate and unacceptable.
For one thing, Sue repeatedly overstepped her bounds by trying to tell me what issues I should -and should not- be addressing in public. Among the issues which she did NOT think I should be speaking about were my involvement in 'deep black' operations such as Phoenix/Montauk ; the 'paranormal' aspects of these projects as well as my extensive research in connection to UFOs and related phenomena. She told me that the public was "not ready to hear or believe " these things and that speaking about them could only serve to discredit me and other mind control survivors -including herself- if I added them to the mix in speaking about my own experiences of mind control.
I strongly disagreed with Sue and bluntly told her so. In my experience, the audiences I had addressed, whether on radio and TV or -as a guest or interviewer- and in my seminars and lectures - over a 20 year period of public speaking- were very open-minded about these topics and wanted to know more. More significant is the fact that since these 'deep black' projects constituted the bulk of my own experiences and are the primary area of my expertise, NOT speaking about them would have placed me under severe limitations. NOT telling the whole truth -at least what I know of it- would only have muddied the waters and compromised my credibility even more.
More importantly, I do not allow anyone to tell me what issues I should -and should not- be addressing, since that is my prerogative and since I speak only for myself, based on my own experiences and research, and never as a member or representative of any group. I do not join groups, pure and simple, since I refuse to toe anybody's party line or adopt or promote consensus opinions - about mind control or anything else. I also refuse to allow anyone to practice "containment" strategies on me. It's been tried many times, by various agents and minions of the US gov't - and has always failed. As far as I could see, this 'containment' of my testimony - and the larger issues it involved- was part of the larger agenda - an agenda certainly not designed by Sue Ford, since she was clearly not the one calling the shots.
Sue also repeatedly tried to persuade me that I should stay in the background and let her have the "lion's share" of time in public appearances, lectures and media interviews where we were both invited to present. I often didn't have much choice in the matter. Somehow or other it was always 'arranged' for Sue to TAKE the lion's share of alloted time -whether I agreed to it or not- using it to promote her specific viewpoints and 'party-line' position. Since I have no desire to compete with anyone, nor to become anyone's satellite or sidekick, I realized that I was better off not making public appearances with Sue, whose background and experiences had little commonality with my own. And whose viewpoints and agenda appeared to have been determined by someone else. A 'someone' who was NOT operating out of a love of truth, freedom and justice.
But I later learned that Sue had also been telling people, including professional colleagues and conference promoters -behind my back- that she thought I should NOT be speaking AT ALL in public about mind control since I had never been formally "deprogrammed" by the methods Sue and some of her associates endorse, foremost among them the EEG bio-feedback method which Sue has been promoting and practicing for the past several years. Unfortunately this meddling and spreading of disinformation by Sue and some of her cronies caused me to lose speaking engagements because I was not invited back - or else "blacklisted" even before I had the opportunity to speak at certain conferences where the promoters had in fact been considering me as a speaker.
It is true that I have never been formally 'deprogrammed'. This has been by my own choice, since I have always been very careful as to whom I allowed to mess with my psyche --considering the fact that the CIA programmers and handlers had already made quite a mess of it !-- and I had never found anyone I trusted enough whom I also considered qualified AND who was willing to work with me. Since I could not afford to pay for such services, the field of my options was woefully narrow: I can only compare it to trying to discern how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. There were several people who offered their services as 'deprogrammers' gratis- AFTER I had already broken out of the program- including Sue Ford herself, via the EEG biofeedback method, but I declined, for what by now should be obvious reasons. I sure didn't have any desire to be 're-programmed' . No thank you, No Ma'am !
As I tell everyone who asks: I broke mind control programming by many years of prayer and by the grace of God. And what I choose to speak about publicly is my own business - not the business of some self-styled ad hoc comitteee of people who bill themselves as "experts" on mind control or 'deprogramming'. I do not claim to be an expert on mind control. I speak only about my own experiences and research. And I understand that my own experiences have little in common with most of the other mind control survivors I have ever met; read about or heard about.
I also experienced other problems with Sue. In 1999 Sue produced her own videotape, Mind Control Goes Public, mostly featuring herself in interviews and lectures. Also included in this tape is a TV interview featuring Sue Ford; FBI agent Ted Gunderson, retired ; ex-CIA agent Chip Tatum, and yours truly, Barbara Hartwell. The moderator is journalist Ryan Elliott of Chicago Health Television, who interviewed the four of us after we gave a seminar at Global Sciences Congress in Daytona Beach, Fla. titled Insider Secrets of Gov't Corruption. To my knowledge, the original interview was never aired on the TV station because there may have been intimidation tactics used against the journalists/producers. The issues we addressed in this interview were of a very sensitive nature: CIA assassinations; drug running; black ops, mind control, etc.
However, a 'bootleg' copy of this interview was simultaneously taped by John Gentry, a videographer who often worked with Ted. The first I heard of the existence of this tape was when a man e-mailed me to say he had seen me on the tape, which he had purchased from Sue Ford. I later learned that Sue had made copies of the 'bootleg' tape, incorporated it into Mind Control Goes Public and started selling them like hotcakes via mail order and on the Internet. Sue never even told me she had made the tape ! Worse, Sue never shared with me any of the money from sales. I had never signed a release for anyone to use the taped interview on which I appeared: EXCEPT Chicago Health Television.
Currently, this tape is being sold like crazy all over the Internet: not only by Sue Ford but also by Amazon.com; by David Icke; by Mark Phillips; by John Gentry and God knows how many others. Apparently there are now also OTHER versions of the tape for sale -on which I appear- not only in the Ryan Elliott interview, but in portions of my public talks, pirated by the various producers and vendors of these tapes. I have NOT EVEN SEEN these new versions. That's because ironically, I can't afford to buy them. Meanwhile, other people -including John Gentry and Sue Ford- have sold thousands of copies and are raking in the bucks. And I have never received a penny from any of those people who exploited the fruits of my labor and -to this day- continue to collect the profits.
But to add insult to injury, as Sue and others well know, I am dirt poor - a result of the perps' machinations and destruction of my finances, so I have not been able to afford to produce my OWN tapes, even using my OWN materials. If that's not exploitation, I don't know what is !
I started my Legal Defense and Research Fund in 1997, in an attempt to raise money so that I could survive long enough to continue my research, with the goal of exposing CIA black ops in which I was involved, and to eventually file a class action lawsuit against CIA for damages in connection with violations of human and constitutional rights perpetrated against myself, certain family members and others.
Sue told me that she thought it would be more beneficial to us both if she and I worked TOGETHER on fund raising, instead of me working alone through my Legal Defense and Research Fund. I - in hindsight, foolishly- agreed to this proposal, as Sue assured me she had adequate financial resources and had made plans with a lawyer to legally incorporate a fund-raising organization. Sue promised me that she and I would "split the funding" so that we could each use our respective shares to pursue various avenues of endeavor.
I waited for Sue's plan to materialize, since I had no resources at all and could barely pay the rent to keep a roof over my head. But I waited in vain. I was later told by Sue that she had decided to work on this project with someone else's organization in Canada instead of working with me, in association with my Legal Defense and Research Fund. And then, a short time later, I found out, in a phone conversation with Ted Gunderson -who assumed I had already been invited to participate- that Sue had arranged for a meeting in Los Angeles, for various activists, mind control survivors and therapists, to raise money on a large scale for the purpose of exposing mind control and providing legal and 'mental health/deprogramming' services for victims/survivors. A meeting - as I told Ted- to which Sue apparently considered me unworthy to be invited.
In a lecture at Global Sciences Congress, 1998, Sue Ford made a statement which I -and many others- found extremely disturbing: "Anyone who claims that they did NOT abuse their own children is NOT a real survivor. " When Sue issued this proclamation, I was sitting in the front row and when I heard this, I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I also have it on videotape (the aforementioned Mind Control Goes Public ) and every time I hear Sue's words, it feels the same. As I and many other "real survivors" know, the measure of a "real survivor" is NOT whether they did -or did not- abuse their own children ! I can state categorically that I NEVER abused my children. I know this, and so do my children. There are many types of "survivors", and we all have had our own tragic experiences. But to make such a blanket statement - which is patently false- only serves to cast aspersions on those of us who did NOT abuse our children. It also serves to provide cover for the abusers - whether those abusers are 'mind control survivors' or not- with the idea: They couldn't help it, they were under mind control !
It is not that I don't have compassion for Sue or for others who were involved in intergenerational child abuse in connection to mind control. But it is just NOT TRUE that EVERYONE who was EVER under ANY kind of mind control was involved in child abuse -as a victim and/or an abuser. And no matter how great my compassion, it does not mean I am willing to be lumped into a category where I do not belong and to be falsely accused of something I have not done.
But there is another problem here: What about those people who are just waking up to the possibility that they MAY have been under mind control ? For these people, hearing such a blanket statement -and not knowing better than to believe it- can effectively serve to keep them from being motivated to explore the possibility that they may have been under some form of programming. Because the very IDEA that they may "remember" having abused their own children -sexually or otherwise- may well be too much to bear. So for the benefit of any such people: I implore you, don't believe everything you hear, just because one person who claims to be an expert on mind control says it's so. I repeat: IT AIN'T NECESSARILY SO !
In February 2000, when I had finally reached the limits of my endurance, I wrote a letter to Sue Ford, confronting her with all the ways in which I felt she had treated me exploitively, manipulatively and unethically. I was very direct -as is my way- but not unkind. I reminded her that I had always tried to help her in any way I could and that I had loved her like a sister; but that I could no longer continue a professional association with her, since under the circumstances it was not in my best interests to do so. I told her that I was more than willing to discuss the issues; explained that I truly did care about her and that I hoped she would see fit to make an effort to resolve things with me.
But Sue just sidestepped my attempt to confront her. She never acknowledged any of the issues I brought up in my letter. All I got back from Sue was a brief personal e-mail with an attached long 'form letter' addressed to "Friends-in-the-Know". This letter mostly consisted of details about her daughter's case and more allegations against Kurt Billings, described again as a "CIA plant" and whom she apparently was blaming for a multitude of her problems as well as her own shortcomings as a mother. In her short personal reply to me she also tried to blame Kurt for the rift between her and myself. But the fact of the matter is: I had not even KNOWN Kurt for most of the time I was involved with Sue. And there was no excuse for Sue to make a scapegoat of Kurt. Like myself, all Kurt ever did was try to help her, at HER request. And like myself, he refused to be manipulated or to do whatever Sue wanted on her own terms, at the expense of violating his own principles.
I will now refer to an article by Katherine Sullivan, titled The Latest Adventures of Mark Phillips, published in Conspiracy Planet. http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=36&contentid=34
Katherine mentions that Sue/Brice repeatedly claimed that directives issued by "Jesus" were behind requests she made of Katherine; in such cases where Brice was attempting to influence Katherine in one way or another. Katherine gives an example: Brice claimed that "Jesus" told her that the two of them should confront Mark Phillips at a conference in Atlanta about his lies and his exploitation of Brice, Katherine and others. But then, in contradiction of this, Brice told Katherine at the last minute that "Jesus" apparently changed his mind and said that it was "not the right time" for her -Brice- to confront Mark Phillips, leaving Katherine to face the situation alone.
I don't doubt the veracity of Katherine's statements regarding her experiences with Brice/Sue; not only because I believe Katherine to be an honest person but also because similar advice claimed to issue from "Jesus" was also relayed to ME by Sue/Brice on a number of occasions. Sue told me that "Jesus" had been talking to her about me and that he advised her about what I "should be doing". Coincidentally, it just so happened that the opinions of "Jesus" were in perfect alignment with Sue's own ideas and agenda --none of which could have benefitted me in the slightest. As I told Sue, I have access to my own spiritual guidance which I have been able to rely on for many years. And in any case, the way I see it, if I want advice from Jesus, I can always ask him myself.
Although I had discussed some of these issues with Katherine and we did seem to agree regarding a number of things, including about the M.O. being used by Brice Taylor/Sue Ford, we had also disagreed about several other issues.
Katherine and I certainly never reached any such definitive agreement about Ted Gunderson. I do know that Katherine considers Ted one of the "cadre of bad guys" along with Mark Phillips, Walter Bowart, David Icke, as she describes them in her article. (And BTW: I do NOT disagree that Phillips, Bowart and Icke fit in that category, for my own reasons. ) Thus, my concern is that Katherine includes a comment about me in her article which is misleading and which does not accurately describe my viewoint, nor the true nature of my situation.
Katherine writes: "If the puppet victims are openly promoted by the cadre of bad guys working together behind the scenes with support nobody else can get, and if those survivors who do break away suddenly lose their support and are hounded mercilessly (like Barbara Hartwell when she started to wake up about Ted Gunderson ) how can we circumvent their crap and find a safe and clean way to get the information out ? "
As regards this statement, it's important for me to correct and to clarify some things in relation to myself. Although I have discussed Ted with Katherine, I did so privately -not as a discussion meant to become a public issue-and I never indicated to her that I had reached the conclusion that Ted was one of the 'bad guys '. In fact, I repeatedly made it clear that Ted had always treated me well, and that despite the negative opinions certain other survivors -including Katherine- had about Ted, I was not about to let myself be unduely influenced by these opinions.
By the time I met Ted, I was far removed from the point where anyone -bad guys or whomever- could exert undue influence on me, no matter how desperate or life-threatening my circumstances became. It had been tried many times: The CIA tried to re-recruit me by offering me money; protection; publicity - on their terms, of course. My answer was always the same : No deal.
More importantly, I never believed -nor did I tell anyone, including Katherine- that the harassment being directed at me had anything to do my connection to Ted Gunderson. First of all, as mentioned previously, I finally broke out of CIA black ops in 1994, after many years of battling with my handlers. The "merciless hounding" which Katherine describes has certainly been a fact of my life. But the persecution I have been subjected to -which continues to this day- started LONG BEFORE I ever met Ted Gunderson and in fact did not begin with my decision to break off my professional association with him.
Rather, the extreme harassment had do with my refusal to cooperate with my handlers and my refusal to allow the CIA to get returns of their considerable investment in me -both financially and otherwise- an investment which began in my early childhood. I was targeted for 'neutralization' starting in 1994, when the perps deemed me a threat to 'national security' --in reality a threat to their nefarious agenda-- because they know I am willing to do whatever it takes to expose and stop their massive violations of human rights, even if that means I have to pay for it with my life.
Although Katherine's statement about me is merely a parenthetical "example", it seems to be placed there as if to illustrate or be emblematic of, her thesis that 'puppet victims' who break away from their handlers are punished by being divested of support and the endorsement of those same "recycled handlers and programmers". For all I know, that may have been true in some cases, including the people she mentions by name in her article, such as Cathy O'Brien and Brice Taylor. But I have no way of knowing that for sure and do not wish to publicly engage in such speculation. However, speaking strictly for myself and about my particular case, I need to make it clear that Katherine's opinion regarding me is only that - an opinion- and does not stem from any factual information, nor from any viewpoints I have ever expressed to Katherine nor to anyone else.
I respect Katherine, consider her a good friend and know her well enough to say that I am sure she meant no disrespect to me. It is clear to me that she was only stating her opinions and that her intent was honorable. But I also need to make it clear that Katherine and I see some things very differently. As Katherine describes her own experiences in her published writings, they are similar in some ways to those of Cathy O'Brien and Sue Ford, whereas mine were very simply...NOT. I also have never been involved in any way with the other men she describes as being among the "cadre of bad guys" and "recycled handlers and programmers"-- Mark Phillips, David Icke, or Walter Bowart. To date, I have not publicly revealed who my handlers and programmers were and will not do so until I have something resembling solid evidence, and unless I feel it would serve a good purpose. But I will say that none of the people Katherine mentions in her article -including Ted Gunderson- were among them.
I hope that this report has answered some questions. I hope that it has corrected some misinformation and cleared some of the muddy waters of disinformation. I hope that it has called into question some inaccurate theories and refuted some false allegations. At the very least, I hope that in speaking FOR MYSELF I have made my own position clear. Whatever.... I've done my best. After all, it's my life. And you've heard it here -from the horse's mouth.
In closing, please consider these words:
"By honors, medals, titles no true man [woman] is elated. To realize that which we are, this is the honor for which we are created"....Angelus Silesius
"Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life. "....Marcus Aurelius
"Whoso would be a man [woman] would also be a nonconformist"....Ralph Waldo Emerson
"The words of truth are always paradoxical"...Lao Tzu
Thanks for listening and God bless ! For Freedom and Justice, Barbara Hartwell
Stay tuned for Part II of SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT and other upcoming reports.
To SUBSCRIBE to Hartwell Intelligence Report, please send a DONATION to: Barbara Hartwell Legal Defense and Research Fund PO Box 832 Woodstock NY 12498
KIDS MUST PAY FOR THEIR ABUSER'S IMPRISONMENT by Bill Bickel © 3/14/01 About.com Crime
http://forums.about.com/n/main.asp?webtag=ab-crime&nav=messages&msg=1550.1For years, a New Jersey brother and sister were physically and sexually abused by their father. He was finally imprisoned, and the children were put in their aunt's custody.
When the father's prison term was up, the state determined that he should continue to be incarcerated in a psychiatric facility for sex offenders (New Jersey law permits indefinite involuntary incarceration in these cases). The problem is, New Jersey law also requires that the "patient's" family help pay the expenses, and makes no exception for cases where family members were the victims (divorced spouces are exempt, actually, but not children).
So unless they're successful in an appeal, or the law is changed, Christina and Michael McMickle are going to have file financial reports with the state this year to determine the extent to which they'll be required to pay for the support of the man who victimized them
Arrested agent Hanssen's parish a haven for power
BY BILL BROADWAY AND DAVID CHO © 3/11/01 The Washington Post Service
WASHINGTON -- For 20 years, St. Catherine of Siena Catholic Church has attracted some of the area's most influential people to a secluded sanctuary in a grove of evergreen trees on Springvale Road in suburban Great Falls, Va.
Doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, technology executives, politicians, artists and intelligence operatives have found solace and unity in traditional Masses and in the deep-seated piety of the church's 4,000 members.
They also have enjoyed the anonymity of worshiping in a quiet parish 20 miles from downtown Washington.
``Everybody supports [the church's work], but nobody stands out,'' said its pastor, the Rev. Franklyn McAfee.
Or so it was until Feb. 18, when parishioner and FBI Special Agent Robert P. Hanssen was arrested on espionage charges. Suddenly the church came under public scrutiny, and the names of its most famous members became widely
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his wife attend regularly, as do Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and FBI Director Louis Freeh and their families. So does Kate O'Beirne, the National Review's Washington editor.
Two Redskins quarterbacks, Gus Frerotte and Mark Rypien, belonged to St. Catherine's during the years they played here. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., and wife Jane Byrnes Gephardt attended for many years.
About 30 percent of the members, including Scalia, O'Beirne and Santorum, live outside the geographic boundaries set by the diocese and had to make a written request to join.
McAfee said that percentage is high compared with most parishes.
McAfee, 57, is aware of his potential power because of the influence on society some of his listeners have. The late Bishop John Keating knew it when he sent the priest there four years ago, telling him that it would be an awesome responsibility, McAfee recalled.
``It scares me sometimes,'' he said. ``You rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, but you really want to prepare [sermons well]. You don't want to misguide them or say something wrong.''
Members say the presence of high-profile parishioners doesn't change the church's character. ``There's no VIP section here,'' said one parishioner.
Generally, people leave their professional labels at the door. McAfee said that until the Hanssen arrest, he was unaware that at least a dozen members are current or former FBI agents. Do any congregants work for the CIA? ``Maybe,'' he said. ``If I ask somebody what they do and they don't tell me, I don't ask again.''
During Masses the first weekend after the discovery of Hanssen, McAfee asked congregants to offer special prayers for the Hanssen family and for the FBI.
After each service, one or more agents approached the priest to share their disappointment about the revelation.
Membership at St. Catherine's, founded in 1979, grew from 1,272 in 1981 to 4,068 last year.
Scalia, Freeh and Santorum declined to be interviewed about St. Catherine's. Other members spoke freely of their appreciation of the church's colorful services and orthodox Catholic teachings.
They said they like to hear Bach and Mozart played by a classically trained organist and sung by a choir in bright red robes. They like Sunday's 10:30 Latin Mass, which the priests celebrate the old-fashioned way -- with their backs to the congregation, facing the cross. They like the monthly services when everyone sings Gregorian chants.
And they like priests whose attitude toward church teachings is to tell it like it is -- to assert that abortion is wrong, that divorce is a sin and that women can lead but not be priests.
``At St. Catherine's, they will talk about things that may not be popular, but they never avoid topics or saying what's wrong,'' said Roger Dolak, 70, who left what he considers a more liberal church near his home to drive eight miles to St. Catherine's.
``God fills souls through orthodoxy, through the parish's steadfast commitment to the Gospel of Christ and to Catholic teachings,'' Dolak said. ``And that's what's attracting people.''
Julian Heron, senior partner in a Washington law firm, said the first time he heard a sermon at St. Catherine's, in 1993, was the day God entered his life. Heron soon converted from his Episcopal faith to Catholicism, and now regularly studies Scripture and attends Mass.
Located in one of the wealthiest sections of Fairfax County, the parish has a 2000 budget of $830,000 and tithing pledges this year of more than $1 million. The congregation also raised $3 million for a new educational building on its 15-acre site.
Hanssen, the third FBI agent ever charged with espionage, has been accused of selling secrets to the Soviets and Russians since 1985.
That revelation has been an embarrassment for some of St. Catherine's parishioners. But foremost, they say, it's a sad moment for the church.
Heron began crying when asked what effect Hanssen's arrest has had on the parish.
He didn't know Hanssen, he said, but hearing about the charges against him was an emotional blow, almost like the death of a family member.
``It's a tragedy for all of us,'' Heron said.
The Bush/Media Whore Recession
by Mediawhoresonline © 2001 http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/
Remember in December how President Clinton, the nation's most-recently-elected-president, who understood better than anyone the complex relationships between any two domestic, political, and foreign policy elements including psychology and the market, warned the Bush boy about the dangers of "talking down the economy"?
Remember how the Bush boy persisted, because he was instructed by Poppy's friends to continue to talk down the economy so that a sense of "crisis" could take root, thereby bringing about support for a tax cut that would benefit FOP's (Friends of Poppy) and screw everyone else while reversing the course of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility?
Remember how, following Smirky's continued gloom-and-doom talk, consumer confidence plummeted?
Remember how just around the time consumer confidence plummeted, the stock market plunged into a precipitous downward spiral, which continues to this day and is getting worse?
Remember how during the election farce, every time the slightest dip in the market would coincide with good news for the Gore campaign, the media whores would associate the two as "Wall Street reacting to a possible Gore victory", but when the converse happened, or when the same happened on good news for the Bush campaign - silence?
Notice how none of the media whores are now associating the disaster in the stock market with Bush's irresponsibility and deliberate efforts by his puppetmasters to exacerbate any downturn for their own ends? Why?
Because they're whoring for a tax cut for their corporate bosses in exchange for "getting to be on TV" every night, that's why.