Moot Court

[Tim Carroll]

Bruce has made a good, perhaps even fun suggestion that we have a civilized moot court debate about JFK's legacy. I believe Bruce will be using Hersh's book for his case and presumably Bob and I, and of course whomever else chooses to participate, will be on the other side (since we agree that JFK was an admirable president who made important contributions).

I am slightly handicapped in that I have given away large portions of my JFK book collection, including Hersh's book. Nevertheless, I believe I can hold up my end of that debate. It should be noted, as I have previously said, that I have no defense to accusations that JFK was a degenerate drug-using phillanderer. I stipulate to that, which removes about 90% of any discussion about Hersh's perspective right off the bat.

I will actually go further with Hersh's smutty stuff and say that I actually credit JFK's rule-breaking, lack of respect for authority as underlying many of his greatest accomplishments.

Tim

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Tim Carroll,

I have just reviewed your email.

I will make copies for Jimmy, and myself.

Tim, I was posting the beginning of The Dark Side Of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh while you were writing this.

Tim, Thank You for a really great response, as always. You totally understood the spirit within which I was writing, and yes, it was also intended as fun.

I understand that you agree with much of Hersh's book, and I understand your position of supporting JFK. I am not ignoring you when I will be posting some of the "garbage." My thought pattern will be to get this information in front of other JFK Forum Members who may not read as much as you and I do.
Also, obviously I will be trying to "shape" their opinions, to a degree.

Tim, again, Thank You. There will be no winner, and no loser.

Best Always,
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Tim Carroll]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:I understand that you agree with much of Hersh's book, and I understand your position of supporting JFK. I am not ignoring you when I will be posting some of the "garbage." My thought pattern will be to get this information in front of other JFK Forum Members who may not read as much as you and I do. Also, obviously I will be trying to "shape" their opinions, to a degree.
I consider the best debating tactic to get out in front of the weakest points of one's argument. In that spirit, I will concede that JFK's womanizing wasn't just an irresponsible proclivity in a couple of the cases. Having an affair with Judith Campbell Exner at the same time that she was involved with Giancana made JFK highly vulnerable to blackmail. Knowing full well what the various claims are, I admittedly find it difficult to sort out the truth of that story, with regard to using her as a courier and such. Also, the affair with Ellie Romesch was fundamentally irresponsible and reckless, given her connections to the East German secret service. I would concede that these vulnerabilities make for a strong case that a president's sexual activities aren't a strictly personal matter.

Tim

[Raul Valdez]

Hello Tim,

When you say Moot court, do you mean like a MOCK TRIAL ?

In reponse to Jfk's drug use, it is no surprise, many politicains indulge in some sort of chemical stimulation, more so today than back then.

This link here tells some small stories about Sinatra's freindship with JFK and some parties at the time

http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkplayboy.shtml

A line from this article is very true, I quote.

Everything he fought against is still fighting against him, and against decent people everywhere.

Does anyone know if it is true that Sinatra knew of an ordered hit and if he could have done anything about it at the time, he was one of the biggest man in show business aside from ELVIS and a few others in ' 63.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Raul Valdez,

I have just reviewed your email. and the attached website.

I will make copies for Jimmy, and myself.

Raul, Thank You Very Much for this information.

As Lee Harvey Oswald was set up to be a patsy, so to was the Mafia set up to be a patsy for the CIA.

The JFK Assassination was given to Tony Accardo. He in turn handed it off to Sam Giancanna. And he to Charles Nicoletti, and Jimmy Files. The Mafia could only handle shooting. They could not control the parade route, the autopsy, the Secret Service Badges, and most importantly the 40 year cover up.

Although the Mafia did not request the assignment, the comment was made in front of Jimmy Files, then Jimmy Sutton. ""This was an early Christmas present for the Mafia. Members of the CIA asking the Mafia to help kill JFK. It doesn't get any better than that."

Raul, today we would call this a win-win situation.

As you can see from your post, Sinatra and the Mafia, and others had all kinds of hatred for the Kennedy's.

Raul, a Moot Court is like a Mock Trial. However, what I was hoping to encourage was open debate, Pro JFK vs. Con JFK. I offered to take the Con JFK, or anti-JFK side, admitting that I would argue against JFK, even though I thought he did some good, and accomplished some things. For the sake of our exercise I am going to play what we call Devil's Advocate arguing against JFK.

Tim Carroll, and hopefully Bob, will argue for JFK.

Tim has already begun with several posts. And although I will call Tim an
"extremely formiable opponent," I am NOT against Tim personally.

Tim and I both thought that this might be fun to many. Time will tell. If it works, Tim will deserve credit. If it fails, I will take the blame.

Tim and Bob are two really excellent researchers, writers, and seriously interested in the JFK Forum, BUT MUCH, MUCH MORE.

Of course anyone is welcomed, and invited.

I personally have developed an admiration for both Tim and Bob's work, and although my "professed purpose" will be to argue against them, it will never be personal for me.

But I am seriously interested in hearing what people think about JFK, and why ?

I was dead set against Viet Nam.

I am dead set against Iraq.

I have lost dear friends, and family in both wars. Also, I have friends who came home mutillated from both wars.

I may have to argue, at times, academically for this exercise in favor of these wars, but that will not "be me."

Also, at times, I will support positions to inspire people, debate, etc.

Between Tim, Bob, and I there will be no winners, or losers. Everyone who contributes, in my opinion, is a winner.

The real losers are the apathetic American's who refuse to do anything, read, write, debate, etc.

Raul please stay involved as you really surprised me with your contribution.

Unfortunately due to the nature of my work, I am often unavailable 3-6 days a week. Sometimes I only get one day a week for Private Time.

I would suggest that you make an effort to study everything from Tim and Bob as they are very well read, good writers, and focused.

As an interesting commentary, I have posted probably over 100 books on the JFK Forum about JFK, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Nixon, Watergate, The Mafia, Jim Garrison, Wim Dankbaar, Dan Marvin, and of course Jimmy Files, 09.11.2001, Iraq, and other related matters. There may only be aboput 10 books there now, as many times my material was lost when Wim's JFK Forum was "attacked."

ANYWAY, MY POINT, OUT OF ABOUT 100 BOOKS, ETC., THERE ARE LESS THAN 3 PEOPLE WHO EVER CLAIMED THEY ACTUALLY READ A BOOK, OR ARTICLE. VERY INTERESTING TO ME ?????????????????????????????????

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Tim Carroll]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:As Lee Harvey Oswald was set up to be a patsy, so to was the Mafia set up to be a patsy for the CIA. The JFK Assassination was given to Tony Accardo. He in turn handed it off to Sam Giancanna. And he to Charles Nicoletti, and Jimmy Files. The Mafia could only handle shooting. They could not control the parade route, the autopsy, the Secret Service Badges, and most importantly the 40 year cover up. Although the Mafia did not request the assignment, the comment was made in front of Jimmy Files, then Jimmy Sutton. "This was an early Christmas present for the Mafia. Members of the CIA asking the Mafia to help kill JFK. It doesn't get any better than that."The foregoing is a strange argument for the proposition that the Mafia, like Lee Harvey Oswald, "was set up to be a patsy." In the common parlance, the word "patsy" implies innocent fall-guy. That is what is meant when Oswald is referred to as a patsy. Bruce just made the whole argument for how the Mafia was anything but a patsy. He traced the full lineage of the orders for the assassination. And for icing on the cake, Bruce described the Mafia delight, referring to the assignment as a "Christmas present for the Mafia."But in the spirit of generousness and understanding, what if we interpret Bruce's comment to mean that by being given the assignment, even if undertaken with gusto, the CIA was setting up the Mafia to take the blame. That is an interpretation that would be difficult to contest, given the CIA's expertise with the techniques of counterintelligence and misdirection. We already know it to be true that the CIA hired Mafia killers in its attempts against Castro. Oswald was sheepdipped as pro-Castro so that it would be thought that Castro was behind the hit. The next tier of blame was to be the Mafia; hence the Jack Ruby performance. If the Mafia role became too transparent, the next in line for blame was the off-the-books anti-Castro groups, like Alpha 66, Commandos L and Interpen.Regarding the idea that Files learned that it was a CIA-ordered operation from a comment that was made in his presence, there are contrary versions on the record, which support the idea that the Mafia was a patsy, but not a guilty one. As Jimmy Fratianno reportedly said to Johnny Roselli, "You know, Johnny, the more of this bullshit I read, the more I'm convinced that we've become fucking scapegoats for every unsolved crime committed in this country. What's this mob the papers are always talking about, for Christ's sake? It's against the fucking rules to kill a cop, so now we're going to kill the President." Roselli responded, "Jimmy, what're you going to do? I'll bet you any amount of money the CIA never tells the Warren Commission about their little deal with us."* Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Raul, a Moot Court is like a Mock Trial. However, what I was hoping to encourage was open debate, Pro JFK vs. Con JFK. I offered to take the Con JFK, or anti-JFK side, admitting that I would argue against JFK, even though I thought he did some good, and accomplished some things. For the sake of our exercise I am going to play what we call Devil's Advocate arguing against JFK.He can call it being a "Devil's Advocate" now, but Bruce is on record as having said the very opposite of what he said in the above quote about thinking that JFK "did some good." That's not spin; that's a logical inconsistency which will undermine whatever arguments he attempts. For the record, and independent of the context of this debate, Bruce has expressed himself about JFK unequivocally: Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:JFK never accomplished anything of value.That is the position that I understand Bruce to be defending here, and as I said, he has already contradicted himself.Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:I was dead set against Viet Nam. I am dead set against Iraq. I have lost dear friends, and family in both wars. Also, I have friends who came home mutillated from both wars. I may have to argue, at times, academically for this exercise in favor of these wars, but that will not "be me."
While I can generally debate historical issues in a friendly manner, war is not a joke and far too immediately real right now. So I recommend that Bruce doesn't venture into making comments for argumentativeness' sake, regardless of his true position. If he has an argument "in favor of these wars," let him make it without preempting his own sincerity with comments like, "that will not 'be me'."

Tim

*Ovid Demaris, The Last Mafioso: The Treacherous World Of Jimmy Fratianno, 1981, NY: Bantam Books, p. 235.

[Bob]

Tim has already made some excellent points, but I will try to add a few more. First, JFK did have some vices that could have left him vulnerable in his postion as President. Everyone looks to the womanizing, but JFK also needed a large doses of medication due to the various ailments that he suffered from. Still, I think JFK functioned very well as President. Remember, JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam from the Eisenhower administration. I believe Kennedy showed great character in personally taking blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Compare that to the current resident of the White House. The next time Dumbya Bu$h takes responsibility for something, it will be the FIRST time. Anyway, JFK had nothing to do with the planning of the Bay of Pigs, it was Nixon, Dulles, etc. who did, but JFK stood in front of the nation and took the blame. And again, unlike Bu$h, he made those who were responsible for that mistake accountable. He fired Allen Dulles and others in power in the CIA. He was also reversing the CIA policy in Vietnam by scaling down the U.S. involvement there. He was going to break up the CIA basically. If JFK had been President after the debacle in Iraq (he never would have invaded anyway), Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet would all have been out on their asses. That is how people are made accountable. That is what JFK did after the Bay of Pigs. That is strong leadership. Speaking of strong leadership, the Cuban Missile Crisis will go down as the most important foreign policy decision of his Presidency and maybe of the 20th century. Had JFK followed the advice of the neocons in the military, there is no doubt that nuclear war and possibly WWIII would have followed. JFK was very cautious in his approach to the crisis and he made the right decision which basically made the Soviets blink. JFK averted nuclear war and saved millions of lives. As bad as WWI and WWII were, the events that would have taken place in a nuclear war would have been far worse. Again, thank God that an incompetent idiot like Dumbya Bu$h wasn't President in 1962. Instead we had a President in JFK who dutifully studied his options and correctly made a decision that saved the world from a hideous outcome.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Tim Carroll,

I have just reviewed your email.

I will make copies for Jimmy, and myself.

Tim, I agree with your previous email overall totally. What I was trying to do was explain to Raul, and others, Very Simply a little about Moot Court,
and creating a JFK Pro vs. Con debate.

I was trying to explain that I would be arguing a position to generate
Research, Writing, and Actual reading and analysis of authorities out there.

Tim I'm trying to generate interest in worthwhile written "sparring" among others that clearly don't have your degree of sophistication, in hopes that others may be encouraged to come to the JFK Forum, and contribute.

Tim, anyway, yes I showed inconsistencies to Raul, and others.

In law school classes, like Moot Court, you are called on to explain, and debate a case from the Plaintiff's Side against another student, or students. Then you must all shift sides, and the person arguing for the Plaintiff then argues for the Defendant,, while the person arguing for the Defendant then argues for the Plaintiff. Note, this is in Civli Law Action Cases.

In Criminal Law Action Cases the Plaintiff is called the State, or the People, and is handled by the Prosecution. So first your argue for the People vs. The Defendant, then you argue for The Defendant.

In Illinois many famous prosecutors go into private practice as defense attorneys because they have learned how to defend, and the theories of practice of the City/County/State/Federal Prosecutors. For example right know I am heavily following the Federal vs. George Ryan Corruption Trial.
Dan Webb, a former Federal Prosecutor now works for the law firm of Winston & Strawn, and he now specializes in Defense of "alleged corrupt politicians" that he previously would have been prosecuting.

Like in Martial Arts & Martial Science Training, the real "teacher" or Sensei
as an experienced Black Belt can probably beat the hell out of most beginners. However, the White Belts would only learn how to be beat up.
A good instructor cultivates, and nurtures his students, without beating the hell out of them.

In this spirit, I am trying to nurture other minds, knowings that they will score some points on me, while Tim will certainly kick the hell out of some of my positions.

Tim is correct in his very accurate definition of the word "patsy." Of course the Mafia wasn't "innocent." But many think that this was a "total Mafia Hit." Perhaps there is a better term of art, maybe for some the Mafia has become a historical patsy, if you will.

Also, on Seymour Hersh's books, and others, I will continue to update that, as I am very far behind in my Professional and Personal work due to two major eye surgeries that I had in January. Right now, I still can't be as responsive as I want to be.

Anyway, Tim, Bob, Raul, and other Newcomer's, I hope that that makes some sense. Also, not making excuses, but when I posteded my previous post, it was extremely late for me, I had been up, and just coming off of a Major Investigation for 48 hours. I tried to be clear, but not argumentative, to draw in "students" to the JFK Forum. As Tim correctly points out I could have been more consistent. But I was trying to be responsive to Raul.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY: In the history of the JFK Forum I have probably posted over 100 books and articles about JFK, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Nixon, Watergate, 09.11.2001, Irag, etc. Since Wim's Forum has been hacked several times, only about 10 of the books that I have read and posted are currently available. But a rough count shows that only about 3 people have ever claimed they had read any of these books. Therefore, I was hoping to entice people to get involved in a different way.

I atually had this discussion with Wim yesterday as to why so few JFK Forum members have read absolutely nothing. Any Answers ???????????

Also, it is painfully obvious that many argue against Wim's Forum who have never seen his DVD, or read his book, or watched Judyth Vary Baker's DVD about Lee Harvey Oswald. Just a point.

Hope I make some sense.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Tim Carroll]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:In law school classes, like Moot Court, you are called on to explain, and debate a case from the Plaintiff's Side against another student, or students. Then you must all shift sides, and the person arguing for the Plaintiff then argues for the Defendant, while the person arguing for the Defendant then argues for the Plaintiff....I don't consider the operating logic of attornies and mercenaries to be relevant here. They can play both sides; so what? I grew up facing the Vietnam draft and now we are engaged in another costly and immoral war, both of which are the results of Kennedy being killed and the country being taken over by a Texas-centered power elite (largely owned by Saudis now). These autocrats are the successors to the Nazi elitists who hijacked the country following WWII, a war which Germany lost but the Nazis won. That is too real and too current for a game-playing debate. But that is not what this "exercise" was said to be about. In previous posts, Bruce has said that JFK made no meaningful contribution to the country. By implication, this means there was no real reason to kill him, since there were no policies that changed as a result of his death. I disagree and am prepared to advance historical fact to support my position. It was my understanding that we would hold a friendly, courteous but tough, debate on the merits of JFK's presidency. Since Bruce believes there were no merits, he would argue the con, while Bob and I would argue the pro. Obviously, the participation of others would be encouraged. But if, as he now says, Bruce believes we should be able to argue both sides, I invite, even dare, him to publicly engage in that kind of exercise, as a lead-off example, about his friend, James Files. Let him make the strongest argument he can muster for why no one should believe Files. That's what it would be like for me to try to argue that JFK was not a great president when I believe otherwise.Getting back to the general topic of whether or not JFK was a good, if not great, if not the best, president in U.S. history, Bob has already made that case eloquently, and his arguments have yet to be contested whatsoever:Bob wrote:Everyone looks to the womanizing, but JFK also needed a large doses of medication due to the various ailments that he suffered from. Still, I think JFK functioned very well as President. Remember, JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam from the Eisenhower administration. I believe Kennedy showed great character in personally taking blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Compare that to the current resident of the White House. The next time Dumbya Bu$h takes responsibility for something, it will be the FIRST time. Anyway, JFK had nothing to do with the planning of the Bay of Pigs, it was Nixon, Dulles, etc. who did, but JFK stood in front of the nation and took the blame. And again, unlike Bu$h, he made those who were responsible for that mistake accountable. He fired Allen Dulles and others in power in the CIA. He was also reversing the CIA policy in Vietnam by scaling down the U.S. involvement there. He was going to break up the CIA basically. If JFK had been President after the debacle in Iraq (he never would have invaded anyway), Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet would all have been out on their asses. That is how people are made accountable. That is what JFK did after the Bay of Pigs. That is strong leadership. Speaking of strong leadership, the Cuban Missile Crisis will go down as the most important foreign policy decision of his Presidency and maybe of the 20th century. Had JFK followed the advice of the neocons in the military, there is no doubt that nuclear war and possibly WWIII would have followed. JFK was very cautious in his approach to the crisis and he made the right decision which basically made the Soviets blink. JFK averted nuclear war and saved millions of lives. As bad as WWI and WWII were, the events that would have taken place in a nuclear war would have been far worse. Again, thank God that an incompetent idiot like Dumbya Bu$h wasn't President in 1962. Instead we had a President in JFK who dutifully studied his options and correctly made a decision that saved the world from a hideous outcome.
Tim

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Messers. Tim Carroll, and Bob,

I have just reviewed your email.

I was trying to explain simply to Raul, and other potential JFK Forum Members a little about our Moot Court Idea, and about trying to advance arguments either Pro vs. Con. There are those that have emailed me privately and said that they would like to get involved, but weren't sure since they had not done this before. I was trying to simplify things for newcomers also.

I have no intention of arguing both sides at this point in time about JFK,
or any other point for that matter. I was trying to explain how law school teaches you to argue both sides of cases, or points, so that you can understand each side better, for both strengths and weaknesses.
I am very content to argue the Con JFK side as I previously indicated.

Tim, I'm trying to encourage others to get involved.

As to Jimmy Files, I know that he shot Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll.
I have been aware of the proof since approximately 1968. I have no need to debate either side, as I have proof.

And I do agree with Jimmy that many wanted JFK killed at that point in time for a variety of reasons.

As to Bob's response, I have not had time to really study it, and respond to it.

I have the greatest respect for Bob, and did not want to address him as an after thought.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.