[BH: No surprise that Vanessa Davis is "perplexed."
Seems to be an ongoing state of mind with her. Perhaps that is
because she tends to focus on minutiae and personalities rather
than the larger issues; and because she seems more interested in
dissecting the (purported) motives of individuals, about which she
repeatedly jumps to unwarranted conclusions, rather than basing her
opinions on facts; or on direct testimony from the individual(s) in
question. Quite simply (which will become increasingly
clear as this message progresses) Vanessa Davis has shown
repeatedly that she does not know what she is talking about. In
many cases, she simply parrots what she has heard or read in the
writings of others; jumps on the party-line bandwagon of the moment; draws
unsubstantiated conclusions; and finally presents a disjointed
mish-mash of "information" which only succeeds in
muddying the waters, while showing her own ignorance of the subjects she
addresses.
As for her "plea to no one in particular" (in which
she actually did refer to certain individuals,namely the moderators of
RC forum and WTPC forum, though my name was not among them in
her original post) I had every right to voice my opinion regarding
what I saw as her aggressive attitude of admonishing whole groups of
people, in vague terms, which did not address the actual ISSUES under
discussion. Further, she interpreted what were heated
exchanges (such as those between Rick Stanley and Steven Yantis of WTPC)
as "bashing". The old standby: Bashing. It seems a
handy all-purpose word for those who wish to stem all disagreement on
issues . Serious disagreements on issues are commonplace, and to
be expected, especially in political groups or forums. People
get angry and outraged. Often with good reason. Some people
have a temper. So what? Nothing gets resolved,
one way or another, unless these issues are aired in the open. And
who is Vanessa Davis, to admonish people for exercising their right to
freedom of speech, including arguments in which people express
their views and feelings about the behavior of others?
Vanessa Davis is clearly projecting her own feelings, standards and
opinions on others and draws her conclusions from her own uninformed assumptions
about others. As several people have pointed out, with great
annoyance, she also routinely puts words in the mouths of others,
attatching her own flawed perceptions to their words, thereby twisting
the meaning of their message. The actual ISSUES (as well as
the facts) get lost in the shuffle; and those who find it
important to set the record straight in response to one of
Vanessa's generalized, speculative and unfocused commentaries
are forced to respond if only to clear up the confusion and defend their
own credibility or legitimacy; or that of the issues under discussion.]
VD: I and many others are not involved in your dealings with Larry
Lawson, Tim White, Todd Fahey, or any other such person, that you
apparently so much love to advertise. ALL of you insist on
involving many others in your disputes. Which is, in my opinion, a waste
of time, resources and bandwidth. Please give it a rest.
[BH: Give it a rest? Once again, Vanessa Davis presumes to dish
out unsolicited advice on issues she knows absolutely nothing
about. But if she wants the facts (which I doubt) here they
are: Larry Lawson, Tim White and Todd Fahey are in collusion as
part of a criminal conspiracy for which I, Barbara Hartwell, am a
designated target. There are other targets of this conspiracy as
well. Just to name a few: Stew Webb; Rick Stanley; Karl Schwarz; Tom
Flocco; Tom Heneghan; John Perna; Carl Worden; Jeremy Floyd; Geral
Sosbee.
Furthermore, these provocateurs are not the ones who orchestrated
this conspiracy. Various former and current government
officials are responsible for that. No, Vanessa Davis is not
"involved." Why would she be? She is not a
target. She poses no threat to these government criminals or
their criminal minions, being a person of no consequence, one way or
another, to them. She doesn't know anything; was never
involved in anything; nor does she have the capacity to do anything of
consequence in relation to these issues.
And speaking for myself, I have not "insisted" on involving
ANYONE in any so-called "disputes", least of all a
self-appointed monitor and busybody like Vanessa Davis. If
anything, she "involved" herself, by butting in, of her own
volition. Nobody is forcing Vanessa Davis to read my reports.
And her opinion of them does not interest me.
I fight my battles with my enemies as I see fit. I expose criminal
activity as both a right and a duty and I pursue justice. Vanessa
Davis has no business sticking her nose where it does not belong.
Her opinion counts for nothing, as these issues do not involve her.
And as I've said before, it would behoove her to learn to mind her
own business, before she gets caught in the crossfire.]
VD: Remember you were the one who threatened me, not the other way
around.
[BH: Now, I am accused of "threatening" Vanessa Davis?
Where in hell did she come up with that? At most, I
warned her to stop meddling in my business. A warning she
would be well-advised to heed.]
VD: You were the one to attempt to rehash this whole 3NPC conference
info, not I. Do you think I should get it in writing from Mr. Vovak, who
was the first member of the RC to contact him? No, I had better not, I
wouldn't feel right involving someone in an argument that has nothing to
do with them, unlike you Barbara.
[BH: Firstly, I did not "rehash" anything.
And I never even mentioned who was the "first"
to contact the organizer, nor did I make such a claim. Again, the
ever-proliferating minutiae surfaces and the MAIN POINT gets lost
in the nonsense. I simply pointed out that Vanessa Davis engaged
in meddling by presuming to speak FOR ME, when I had already spoken to the
organizer myself, which was unnecessary and inappropriate on her part.
And that she further claimed to have "secured" a speaking
engagement for me which had nothing to do with her. 1) Anyone can
speak for the Revolutionary Coalition, as Rick Stanley has stated time
and again. 2) Anyone could have attended this conference and spoken on
behalf of a party or coalition, as long as they paid the fees.
Where this conference was concerned: Money talks. I had direct
contact with the organizer regarding my own business. If Vanessa
Davis feels the need to micro-manage the affairs of other people, I
would advise her to stick to those who want to be
"managed". I don't. And there will be hell to pay
for anyone who tries to interfere with me or my personal or professional
business. Nor do I wish to get embroiled in silly arguments as a
result of her misguided meddling.]
VD: I will not engage in your time wasting character assassination
attempts. You are a self admitted (albeit supposedly former) government
agent and for that reason and that reason alone I do not trust you
further than I could throw you. You may feel the same about me, but how
you feel about me is of no consequence to me, unless and until you
attempt to assassinate my character publicly. You are now guilty of the
same underhanded tactics as those you accuse. Congratulations Barbara.
Are you proud of that COINTELPRO training?
[BH: Okay, now she's trotting out the old CIA gobbeldygook and implying
that my affiliation with them is not over. Fine,
whatever.....Just like so many others of her ilk, she's free to
believe what she will. And once again, Vanessa Davis acts as
judge, jury and executioner. She seems to favor the word
"guilty" which she has slapped on me several times before.
Personally, I could not give a tinker's damn whether or
not Vanessa "trusts" me. Why should she? I never
asked her to. She does not even know me, nor will she ever.
I am not her friend, nor her associate; have had no dealings with
her, aside from setting the record straight from time to time about
her misinformed forays into political "activism" which she
seems to believe consists of shifting her position like a weather vane,
depending on which way the wind blows; or whose attention or approval she
is hoping to gain. Nor do I have anything at all in common
with her, not that I can see. And her ideas of "character
assassination" don't hold water. Advising a person to MIND
HER OWN BUSINESS; or expressing disagreement with her methods of
operation; or countering some of her flaky ideas with the
facts do not constitute character assassination.
As for her accusation of "underhanded tactics"?
Nothing could be further from the truth. I say exactly what I
mean, in a direct straightforward manner, without concern for who might
be offended. If they can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
And for Vanessa's edification, I was never trained in COINTELPRO nor was
I ever involved in anything of the kind, despite the fact that I am
extremely knowledgable about the issue due to many years (inside and
outside) dealing with the problem of COINTELPRO. She probably read something
on the Internet, perhaps in one of Larry Lawson's
"reports." Barbara Hartwell: COINTELPRO!!!!!
Barbara Hartwell and Stew Webb: Lying government agents!!
Larry Lawson, government-sponsored disinformer. How ironic. But
let's not "bash" Lawson. Let's not even bother
exposing him for what he is. No, let's allow him to just continue,
with impunity, spreading his lies and disinformation all over the
World Wide Web, along with his cohorts, Tim White, Todd Fahey, Ken
Adachi, Mike Eggleston and all the rest......
COINTELPRO was an FBI operation, run under the direction of J. Edgar
Hoover, which certainly continues in other guises (and used by
several agencies) to the present time. If Vanessa Davis wants
to make wild and unsubstantiated allegations about Barbara
Hartwell, she should at least get the facts straight beforehand and
get educated on the issues she brings into a public forum. As for
COINTELPRO, she has shown herself to be clueless, as usual. Not
to mention helping the opposition in the process, by shooting off
her mouth indiscriminately about people and operations about which she
knows nothing.]
VD: Let's dissect this response shall we:
You said:
I need to make a few points
clear to set the record straight and I will have nothing further to say
on this
matter, as I have neither the time nor inclination to engage in
arguments with
anyone, including those who disagree with me.
RESPONSE: You have proven this statement false by responding in the
manner in which you did, bringing up past events which apparently still
bother you. Otherwise they would be a non-issue.
[BH: Not at all. Vanessa Davis assumes, once again. How very tiresome
it gets... The "issue" was the propensity of certain
individuals, including herself, to repeatedly interfere in certain situations
and overstep their bounds, thus creating problems for myself and
certain others. And maybe she needs to take a course in logic.
I have not "proved" anything. Try proving a negative, it
can't be done. Again, a course in logic would be helpful.]
VD: You said:
In the past, I have been accused by both Gerry Donaldson and
Vanessa Davis of
"bashing" persons they claimed were "others in the
movement."
RESPONSE:
Again, I never accused anyone in particular, until you responded to my
first e-mail asking people to quit bashing others on public forums. You
stuck your own toe out on that one.
[BH: Well, once again, Vanessa Davis assumes and gets it all wrong.
I never mentioned a time frame for her accusations, I simply stated
the facts. In two of her responses to my commentaries,
she certainly DID accuse me of "bashing others in the
movement." And once again, I repeat: Exposing the facts about criminal
stalkers, liars and provocateurs who have targeted me for CRIMINAL
HARASSMENT does not constitute "bashing." As to
what "movement" these scumbags belong to, it might be any
number of them, but the "patriot" movement certainly is not
among them. And I will continue to tell the truth about these criminals
as I see fit. If my reports get "moderated out" by the
Gerry Donaldson/Vanessa Davis contingent on any message board (and
I certainly won't post on theirs) I'll simply post them elsewhere.
I will not have these misguided people interfering with me in any
way. And if they choose to call me a "disinformer"; a
"government agent" or make other false claims, I will refute
their claims with the facts, as I always do.
What Vanessa Davis believes about any of that is meaningless to me, but
I sure as hell will set things straight on a per-case basis, in
order to counter any such attempts to discredit me. Because
mark my words: The government-sponsored provocateurs will
seize upon all such efforts to further their cause, which Vanessa Davis
and others like her are helping along quite nicely, by playing right
into their hands, whether they know it or not. The term "useful
idiot" comes to mind.]
VD: You said:
For example, I have a psychotic stalker by the name of Todd Brendan
Fahey on my
case, who has followed me to any message board I have posted on for well
over a
year.
RESPONSE:
I see a pattern developing here. You want people to mind their own
business, yet you broadcast yours for the entire WWW to see. How's that
for double standards? Must have something to do with that mind
control programming.
[BH: Unbelievable. Now this silly woman is trying to
psychoanalyze me? Does this woman ever actually THINK before
shooting her mouth off? Does she think at all? I do
not "broadcast" my "business" to anyone. A
psychotic stalker targets me. The stalker fabricates outrageous
lies about Barbara Hartwell, which are then disseminated by him and his
cohorts (all under the control of government criminals) all
over the World Wide Web. I expose his crimes and harassment for
the public record. How in hell does Vanessa Davis consider
this a "double standard"? She really, really needs
a course in logic, and probably one in ethics as well. As
for the "mind control programming" comment, if the best
she can come up with is a cheap shot like this, maybe she's been
reading Ken Adachi's disinfo tabloid too long and the neurons in
her brain are misfiring. What Vanessa Davis knows about mind
control programming couldn't fill a thimble.]
VD: You said:
Gerry Donaldson publicly admonished me a few months back, on his Awaken
American
Christians forum, simply for telling the truth about the stalking and
harassment
of this provocatuer, as well as others, including Larry Lawson and Tim
White.
My response was to politely set the record straight, and disengage
myself from
that forum.
RESPONSE:
You must have done something to warrant it, namely driving people away
by discussing personal problems on a public forum. People don't admonish
others for no reason. You could have simply stated, that the info was
untrue and asked others to contact you if they cared to know the
details, then disengaged from the forum. But, you chose to publicly
declare private matters in a public forum and involve others whom you
claim need not be involved in your business. Your last name should have
been Bush. With your Barbara can do no wrong and never needs to adjust
her tactics attitude.
[BH: I think Vanessa Davis needs to get a grip.
Make a reality check. She has NO IDEA what I "must
have done." Or maybe she considers Gerry Donaldson an infallible
arbitrator of my business. To admonish me on a public forum
is NO ONE's prerogative, not Gerry Donaldson's, not Vanessa Davis's.
And I never, at any time, "discussed personal problems on a public
forum." On the contrary, I posted a REPORT, exposing a criminal.
And for her further edification, I do not seek out contact with
strangers on the Internet to discuss my "personal problems."
That seems to be Vanessa Davis's province, with her silly chatter board
babbling. I write and publish reports, FYI, as I see
fit. They are not based on "private
matters" either, as per Vanessa Davis's foolish assumptions. The
perps created a very PUBLIC matter by engaging in stalking, harassment
and outrageous libel. As for my "attitude", it is
NONE OF VANESSA DAVIS'S BUSINESS. Let her worry about her own
attitude and leave off speculating about mine, as it is none of her
concern. And once again, another cheap shot, about Bush, a
typical malicious ad hominem attack, since she can't find any
relevant or truthful claims to "prove" her false assumptions.]
VD: You said:
Rick asked me if I would be willing to represent the Revolutionary
Coalition at a Third Party National Conference in New Hampshire. I
agreed to look into it and contacted the man organizing the conference
directly, as Rick asked me to do. I told him I was willing to be a
speaker, assuming I could get a time slot that did not conflict with my
work/personal schedule, which is very tight without much free time.
He and I agreed on a time and I thought it was all set. However,
Vanessa Davis (just before the time she was publicly accusing me of
being "guilty" of "bashing" people on the forum)
took it upon herself to contact this man, claiming that "we"
are "sending" Barbara Hartwell as a representative; and
further, that she will accept ANY speaking slot available. She further
(falsely) claimed to have "secured" my speaking engagement,
which was a done deal between me and the organizer and had nothing to do
with her.
RESPONSE:
This is so full of inconsistencies, half truths and outright lies, I'm
not even going to begin to touch it. If anyone is enough of a busybody,
or MUST know the truth of this matter, don't take my word for it.
Contact Mr. Vovak yourself at danielvovak@hotmail.com.
[BH: There are no lies; no inconsistencies; no half truths stated here.
Vanessa Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Vovak which I found posted
on the Internet. But again, the point is the MEDDLING and
presuming to speak for me. It never should have happened.
She had no right. Aside from that, there IS no point and I don't
see how the details could be of any interest to anyone, except perhaps
those like Vanessa Davis, who spend their time dissecting
minutiae and apparently expect others to do the same. No one
speaks for me without my consent, and that is the end of the
matter.]
VD: You said:
As a result, I was unable to make it to the conference at all, simply
because the organizer
changed my time slot without telling me (on the "authority" of
Vanessa Davis)
and that happened to be a time when I could not make it.
RESPONSE:
How irresponsible to blame someone else for your inability to show up to
the event. It's not my fault you didn't make the conference. Even if you
couldn't make the time slot that Mr. Vovak allotted to you, you still
should have attended the conference. At best the RC missed a chance at
networking via the conference and at worst the RC's image may have been
tarnished in the eyes of Mr. Vovak and others who were expecting the RC
to be represented. I did not interfere in any way with the scheduling of
your speaking event. I secured an agreement from Mr. Vovak that we could
have a speaker there and then the scheduling was strictly between you,
Rick and Mr. Vovak. I never gave anyone the authority to reschedule any
time slot.
[BH: Does this tiresome woman never leave off her meddling?
Or making her uniformed judgments? Now, she presumes
(once again) to tell me what I "should" be doing, what I
"should" have done. Who the hell does Vanessa Davis
think she is? As if I must just "accept" what is
"allotted" to me, no matter what conflicts it may cause for
me. As if I do not have the right to determine my own
professional work schedule. I have news for the
presumptuous Vanessa Davis: I don't answer to Vanessa Davis,
nor any conference organizer, nor anyone else. I am not required
to explain myself or my actions either. If she feels so compelled
to interfere and to attack a person who refuses to tolerate her
meddling, maybe she should see a shrink. Or maybe she could just
join the Neo-Bolshevik party as a minor functionary, where she could
monitor the affairs of her like-minded comrades to her heart's
content.]
VD: You said:
As for those who would hold my CIA background against me and/or accuse
me of
spreading disinfo, being a "COINTELPRO agent" or
"bashing" people, nothing I
can do about that. Interesting though, that some of the same people
accuse Rick
Stanley of being a government disinfo agent.
RESPONSE:
Funny, I've never accused Rick of anything.
[BH: Same old assumptions. I never once claimed she did.
Strange as it may seem to her, the world does not revolve around Vanessa
Davis, nor does every word I wrote in my report pertain to her.
Some discernment might be in order, along with putting aside the pole
vault she uses to reach her faulty "conclusions."]
VD: You said:
As for me, I'll just continue my activism in the way I see fit, the way
that works for
me, no need for approval of any "committees"; no interference.
I've had more
than enough of that in my life --from the U.S. Government, here in the
Police
State of America.
RESPONSE:
Please do that and leave others out of your circle of bickering.
I wonder how much time you and I have wasted on this worthless
communication. Save your comments because I will neither read nor respond
to them. This is the last minute I will waste on Barbara Hartwell.
Peace,
Vanessa
[BH: Vanessa Davis should speak for herself. I don't
"waste" my time, I use it as I see fit. But thank
the Lord for small miracles. I guess this means I can finally get
Vanessa Davis off my case. Maybe she'll even start minding her own
business, for a change, but I seriously doubt it. After
all, even in her parting shot, she still presumes to speak for
"others" as always. There is no "circle of
bickering", not that I'm involved in. And I will say what I
please, when I please, about anyone who tries to interfere with me in
any way. If she had simply gone about her own business (hard
to figure out what that might be) without trying to interfere in
mine, I would not have found it necessary to set her straight for the
public record. But there you have it, there are consequences for every
wrongful action.
I don't care if Vanessa Davis reads this. I didn't write it for
her benefit, but for the public record. And I certainly hope
she won't respond. There's only so much bullshit one person should
have to wade through, and I've certainly had my fill from the
Vanessa Davis's of this world. But this report certainly will
be posted in various places and will be read by many others.
If Rick Stanley, as the moderator of the RC forum, chooses to post it,
that is his decision. I will have no problem if he chooses not to.
I respect his right to determine the content of his own forum, just as I
know he would respect my right about what to post on my own website.
As for the Revolutionary Coalition, I still stand in support of it, and
I will continue, as long as the agenda remains uncorrupted and
uncompromised; and as long as I am not considered a
"liability" by the consensus of the "committee"
mentality (should they take over) for not being a team player, or
for bluntly speaking my mind.
There is no need for me to have dealings with those (mentioned here or
not) who believe me to be a "disinformer"; a
"government agent"; a "basher"...or whatever.
To each is own, that is what liberty is all about, as long as they don't
attempt to interfere in any way with others. As for those who
don't get the point, may God give them a love of the truth.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Liberty or Death. Don't Tread on Me.
Barbara Hartwell
November 20, 2005
Please also see this report on:
Join the Revolutionary Coalition
Defending our God-given (natural) unalienable, Constitutionally
protected and guaranteed rights.