[Email Reply]

Chuck Hayes Versus Bill Clinton II

by J. Orlin Grabbe

"Being the FBI apparently means never having to say you are sorry."
--The Washington Times, October 30, 1996

"What do you say to a hero-turned-bombing-suspect you carelessly and recklessly linked to the Olympic bombing in Atlanta this summer--a man who has seen his reputation ruined from coast to coast and dawn to dusk in newspapers, magazines and on the airwaves, and for three months running has been, in effect, a prisoner in his own home?

"Oops? Sorry? It was a bureaucratic snafu?

"Not if you're the FBI. In that case you say, 'Unfortunately, criminal investigations often intrude upon the lives of private citizens like Mr. [Richard] Jewell and his mother' " ("The Richard Jewell treatment," The Washington Times, October 30, 1996).

It's not just that the FBI can't say they're sorry. They're in the business of creating suspects and victims, in adherence to a legal Say's Law: The supply of law enforcement creates its own demand. FBI agents "used a ploy to try to get Jewell to waive his constitutional right to have a lawyer present while he was being questioned. . . . The agents told Jewell that he was being questioned in a mock setting in connection with a FBI training film about how to interrogate a witness. In the course of the discussion, he was asked to pretend to give up his rights by signing a waiver form" ("FBI's Interview in Bombing Investigated by Justice Dept.," The New York Times, October 30, 1996).

This is the same FBI that killed Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge. Afterward, a high-ranking official, E. Michael Kahoe, destroyed an internal critique of the FBI's performance in the episode.

This is the same FBI whose undercover agent made an illegal interstate phone call from Alabama to Chuck Hayes in Kentucky on September 10, 1996, to discuss the killing of John Anthony Hayes, according to the affidavit of another FBI agent (Affidavit of David R. Keller, October 22, 1996). Such a phone call is in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958. But being the FBI means you are allowed to break the law. Subsequently, the Department of Justice charged Hayes with causing this unidentified, undercover FBI agent to use the telephone in interstate commerce in violation of Title 18, Section 1958.

Now if I pick up the telephone and call U.S. Attorney (and identity expert) Joseph Famularo, it is--of course--quite clear that Joseph Famularo made me do it. "Mr. Famularo, got anyone you would like me to kill for $100?" So there. Can we arrest Mr. Famularo on the spot? The thug (and identity expert) is clearly in violation of Title 18, Section 1958.

This is the same FBI that gassed and burned men, women, and children at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

Of course the FBI does face a certain problem in Kentucky. It is not well-liked. For example, the Washington, D.C. FBI office sent out two cars that were specially equipped to vector in on a ground-to-satellite signal said to be eminating from time to time from an unidentified roving truck. One of these cars was driving down the freeway and mysteriously caught fire. The driver of the other car went into a restaurant and returned to find a bob cat in his vehicle. The bobcat had ripped out the interior and electrical wiring, and shit on the remains. (Apparently even animals don't like the FBI in Kentucky.) While the agent peered at the bobcat through the car window, a lady from the local humaine society showed up and threatened to have him arrested for having a wild animal in his car. (The bobcat, meanwhile, popped out the back windshield and ran away into the woods.) The car was towed away to a locked garage.

But the FBI would like to blame its problems on Chuck Hayes. It has been gunning for Hayes for a long time. It was Chuck Hayes who essentially ran Louis Freeh out of a high-level intelligence meeting convened to discuss the downing of TWA 800. The meeting was being conducted by an explosive expert and friend of Hayes. Freeh kept interrupting with unconstructive political statements--asserting authority before evidence. The altercation ended with Freeh being dragged out of the meeting.

No, Louis Freeh doesn't like Chuck Hayes. This is the same Louis Freeh whose FBI uploaded 2045 of its files into the White House "Big Brother" computer system, for political use by the White House. And it was Freeh's nemesis, Chuck Hayes, who testified about the 2045 files to a closed and secret committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, held without staff participation, but with an audience of eight U.S. senators.

This is the same FBI who aided their informant Emad Salem in constructing the bomb that blew up at the World Trade Center in New York City on February 26, 1993 (combined report by Paul DeRienzo, Frank Morales and Chris Flash, "Who Bombed the World Trade Center?" The Shadow, Oct. 1994).

This is the same FBI that is an unchartered organization--one never authorized by Congress. Thus FBI agents are simply Justice Department employees, illegally receiving benefits, illegally receiving pensions, and illegally carrying weapons. And it is not a crime to lie to the Department of Justice. If your client is in jail for lying to the FBI, I can put you in touch with the proper attorney who has a proven record in obtaining the release of such clients.

This is the same FBI whose head, Louis Freeh, was terminated by the agency's payroll computer in Oklahoma on the basis that the FBI was not a chartered organization. After all, we all know that FBI files are secure and sacred, so the computer could not lie, could it? But Louis Freeh seemed to hold Chuck Hayes responsible for the incident. How could this be so, when official court records have declared that Chuck Hayes is computer illiterate? No, Louis Freeh must be blaming Charles Hayes out of pure spite.

This is the same FBI that rushed to do the bidding of the White House in the Travelgate firings, doing criminal investigations of people who had just been unjustifiably terminated to make room for the friends of Bill and Hillary.

This is the same FBI whose agent David R. Keller writes as follows:

"I, David R. Keller, hereinafter referred to as Affiant, after having been duly sworn, states as follows:

"1. That I am a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), having been so employed since July 19, 1971. . . .

"2. On or about September 6, 1996, the Affiant learned from the FBI Office in Birmingham, Alabama, that Charles Hayes, who resides in Nancy, Kentucky, at the Beckett Motel, was wanting to hire a hit man to kill an individual named John Anthony Hayes who resides in Louisville, Kentucky.

"3. Affiant is aware that on September 10, 1996, an Undercover Agent (UCA) of the FBI, acting in an undercover capacity, made a recorded telephone call from the State of Alabama to Hayes, in Nancy, Kentucky, at telephone number [omitted].

"During this conversation, Hayes told the UCA that he (Hayes) had been expecting a call and that the UCA may be able to help him. Hayes stated that he need it done as soon as possible and agreed to send the UCA a photograph of the victim. Hayes furnished descriptive information and background of the victim.

"4. Affiant is aware that on October 4, 1996, a letter was received at the post office in Birmingham, Alabama, with a return address of P.O. Box 185, Nancy, Kentucky, and appeared to have been postmarked 9/11/96. The letter contained a photograph of the intended victim, John Anthony Hayes, and documents containing background information on Hayes including John Anthony Hayes' address and the vehicles owned by John Anthony Hayes." (Affidavit of David R. Keller, October 22, 1996).

I find this chain of supposed events remarkable. First of all, the FBI affirms its undercover agent violated U.S. law by making an interstate phone call volunteering to kill someone. Then this admittedly illegal phone call is "backed up" by incriminating evidence that arrives via the speedy U.S. Post Office only 23 days later--with Hayes' return address on it!

Well, that proves everything. If the letter had Chuck Hayes' return address on it, Chuck must have send the documents. And I'm sure looking forward to hearing those tape recordings containing the word "victim".

In the meantime, I hope no one sends out any incriminating documents with David R. Keller's return address on them. Or Joseph Famularo's.

(To Be Continued)

October 31, 1996
Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/