You set up the "Mena Summit." You got to interview Russell Welch and Billy Bottoms. Russell Welch offered to show you his case notes.
You rejected what Welch told you. You rejected what Bottoms told you. You weren't interested in looking at case notes. You became upset that you weren't going to be able to tell the story that wanted to tell.
Then you decided that you'd tell it anyway, even if it was pure fantasy.
Now you look like a self-serving, dishonest, pigfucker asshole, which is precisely what you are. At least you've managed to document *that*.
I was there. I will vouch that Hopsucker was not even curious. To be clear...he did not so much as look at them. I did. Welch was good. Louisiana could have made good use of such an investigator.
Russel Welch allowed me to take his 'files' back to Los Angeles, where they were perused, and interesting items photo-copied.
When he had his hissy fit over the fact that I was interviewing 'spooks,' as he called them, he requested the file back, and it was returned.
Should you be referencing anything else, you should know that 95% of what he's got is not original with him.
Russel Welch is a far more complicated individual than he has been given credit for.
When my book is published, the portrait of Welch you will see is of a stubborn man whose persistence in the face of federal intimidation qualifies him as an authentic American hero, in a time where there were virtually none...
At the same time, Russel Welch is deeply flawed, both in ways which are germane to the Mena coverup still going on, and in ways which are not.
But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
>> >> >You remember him, don't you, Hopsucker? He's the >> >> >guy whose notes you wouldn't look at.
>> >> s, Hopsicker, when they >> >> were right there on the table in front of you? How come you never >> >> answer this question? >> >> Billy
>> >I have received email asking me to respond to a query about welch.
>> >okay. i'll do it, for my correspondent. and it figures it would be >> >crypoto-fascist roy-cohn wanna-be beck who brings it up.
>> >Perhaps if he learned to use english. When heu says, >> >"Why weren't you interested in Welch's file?" what, specifically, are >> >you talking about.
>> Are you going to sit there and deny:
>> That you were in Russell Welch's home to interview him?
>> That he presented for your inspection his complete investigative >> file on his kitchen table?
>Russel Welch allowed me to take his 'files' back to Los Angeles, >where they were perused, and interesting items photo-copied.
>When he had his hissy fit over the fact that I was interviewing >'spooks,' >as he called them, he requested the file back, and it was returned.
>Should you be referencing anything else, you should know that 95% >of what he's got is not original with him.
>Russel Welch is a far more complicated individual than he has been given >credit for.
>When my book is published, the portrait of Welch you will see is >of a stubborn man whose persistence in the face of federal intimidation >qualifies him as an authentic American hero, >in a time where there were virtually none...
>At the same time, Russel Welch is deeply flawed, both >in ways which are germane to the Mena coverup still going on, and in >ways which are not.
>But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, >and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which >are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
j...@inxpress.net wrote in message <35E78270.6...@inxpress.net>... >econtv wrote:
>> But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, >> and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which >> are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
>If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged >by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
econtv <eco...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >You remember him, don't you, Hopsucker? He's the >> >guy whose notes you wouldn't look at.
>> s, Hopsicker, when they >> were right there on the table in front of you? How come you never >> answer this question? >> Billy >I have received email asking me to respond to a query about welch.
>okay. i'll do it, for my correspondent. and it figures it would be >crypoto-fascist roy-cohn wanna-be beck who brings it up.
>Perhaps if he learned to use english. When heu says, >"Why weren't you interested in Welch's file?" what, specifically, are >you talking about.
Are you going to sit there and deny:
That you were in Russell Welch's home to interview him?
That he presented for your inspection his complete investigative file on his kitchen table?
> > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
>> > > > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, >> > > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which >> > > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
>> > > If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged >> > > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
>> > promises, promises.
>> Promise.
>oh puuuuleeeze, osmalov. we both know if you didn't have the net you'd >be pulling >a bottle of Old Crow out of your back pocket while staring morosely down >into a hole >in the ice.
> >> > > > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we > all, > >> > > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of > which > >> > > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> >> > > If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > >> > > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> >> > promises, promises.
> >> Promise.
> >oh puuuuleeeze, osmalov. we both know if you didn't have the net you'd > >be pulling > >a bottle of Old Crow out of your back pocket while staring morosely down > >into a hole > >in the ice.
> >they don't get much more gs-puke than you, pal.
> > > > > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > > > > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > > > > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> > > > If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > > > > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> > > promises, promises.
> > Promise.
> oh puuuuleeeze, osmalov. we both know if you didn't have the net you'd > be pulling > a bottle of Old Crow out of your back pocket while staring morosely down > into a hole > in the ice.
> they don't get much more gs-puke than you, pal.
> i'm not impressed.
Impressing you isn't on my agenda, Hopsicker. Suing you is -- if you ever manage to get out debt. And in the meantime, it pleases me to have helped you prove yourself to be a mealy-mouthed scumbag with nothing more than an agenda and an attitude.
>> >> > > > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we >> all, >> >> > > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of >> which >> >> > > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
>> >> > > If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged >> >> > > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
>> >> > promises, promises.
>> >> Promise.
>> >oh puuuuleeeze, osmalov. we both know if you didn't have the net you'd >> >be pulling >> >a bottle of Old Crow out of your back pocket while staring morosely down >> >into a hole >> >in the ice.
>> >they don't get much more gs-puke than you, pal.
>> You will be, I promise. Class action...it's in the mill.
>Thank you. you made me laugh. CLASS ACTION??
>The only class action you'll ever be involved in was called 'ditch day.'
>--
We will see Hoppy. BTW, I talked with Joey Marcello about David Ferrie or whoever and told him about your allegations. He said he was interested in some aspects of who your sources of funding were after he had a good laugh. I also told him about your black suburban story and he nearly wet his pants with laughter. The only serious thing he said is something about "ducks in a row."
> > > > > > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > > > > > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > > > > > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> > > > > If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > > > > > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> > > > promises, promises.
> > > Promise.
> > oh puuuuleeeze, osmalov. we both know if you didn't have the net you'd > > be pulling > > a bottle of Old Crow out of your back pocket while staring morosely down > > into a hole > > in the ice.
> > they don't get much more gs-puke than you, pal.
> > i'm not impressed.
> Impressing you isn't on my agenda, Hopsicker. > Suing you is -- if you ever manage to get out debt. > And in the meantime, it pleases me to have helped > you prove yourself to be a mealy-mouthed scumbag > with nothing more than an agenda and an attitude.
i got an attitude, i got backers,a dni got a laweyer'll kick your fucking drug-smuggler coddling ass anytime anyplace--unlessd you'd rather i do it personally, you fascist asshole. -- Daniel Hopsicker
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:24:16 -0500, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> >econtv wrote:
> >> But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > >> and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > >> are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> >If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > >by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> Why would Michael Osmalov, a person who *presumably* had nothing whatsoever > to do with anything that went on at Mena, be threatening Daniel Hopsicker > with a civil suit. If Hopsicker were to publish something about Mena which > was way off base, why in the hell should Osmalov care?
Because, as my 7th grade nun always told us, 'birds of a feather stick together...'
and the 'threats' are just what the fascistii <do>.
> >> That you were in Russell Welch's home to interview him?
> >> That he presented for your inspection his complete investigative > >> file on his kitchen table?
> >> That you did not examine it?
> >> Is that your story?
> >Russel Welch allowed me to take his 'files' back to Los Angeles,...
> No, he didn't, Hopsicker, and you and I both know it. I don't > know what you took to L.A. (although I do know that Welch eventually > saw through you enough that your relationship was over before he > demanded that you send it back to him), but he never let that file out > of his possession. It represented a capital investment in his very > *life*, and he's smart enough to not let a creep like *you* get away > with it. No, Hopsicker: you didn't even *look* at Russell Welch's > investigative file beyond the effort to open the top folder with a > thumb & forefinger and glance at the first page. It all happened in > his home, and no place else.
> You completely stiffed a major investigative resource when it was > right in front of you - where a *real* reporter would have put on a > pot of coffee, rolled up his sleeves and gone to *work* - and then you > had the nerve to ask him later about stuff like Weinberger's "Swiss > bank account number" and whether he'd steal a DOJ document for you.
> That's because you're a *punk* who; A) can't pull your own > weight, and B) isn't interested at getting at the *facts*.
> This...
> >When he had his hissy fit over the fact that I was interviewing > >'spooks,' as he called them, he requested the file back, and it was > >returned.
> ...tells me one thing: you're cunning enough to know which way > the shit's going to fly every time you get your narrow ass busted on > this point. That's right: Welch didn't "eat" the note, Hopsicker, and > your cheesy little Bic & notepad strong-arm game didn't work on him. > He threw your ass out into the data-ditch where you belong.
> >Should you be referencing anything else, you should know that 95% > >of what he's got is not original with him.
> How the fuck would *you* know?
> Billy
You and Roy Cohn would have made such a fun couple! Ah, timing! -- Daniel Hopsicker
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:24:16 -0500, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> >econtv wrote:
> >> But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > >> and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > >> are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> >If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > >by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> Why would Michael Osmalov, a person who *presumably* had nothing whatsoever > to do with anything that went on at Mena, be threatening Daniel Hopsicker > with a civil suit.
For slander, peckerwood. And possibly for making threats.
> If Hopsicker were to publish something about Mena which > was way off base, why in the hell should Osmalov care?
I'd care about that because I value the truth. But I wouldn't be suing over it. I'd be riding his skanky back over it, like I have been doing.
> > > > > > > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > > > > > > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > > > > > > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> > > > > > If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > > > > > > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> > > > > promises, promises.
> > > > Promise.
> > > oh puuuuleeeze, osmalov. we both know if you didn't have the net you'd > > > be pulling > > > a bottle of Old Crow out of your back pocket while staring morosely down > > > into a hole > > > in the ice.
> > > they don't get much more gs-puke than you, pal.
> > > i'm not impressed.
> > Impressing you isn't on my agenda, Hopsicker. > > Suing you is -- if you ever manage to get out debt. > > And in the meantime, it pleases me to have helped > > you prove yourself to be a mealy-mouthed scumbag > > with nothing more than an agenda and an attitude.
> i got an attitude, i got backers,a dni got a laweyer'll > kick your fucking drug-smuggler coddling > ass anytime anyplace--unlessd you'd rather i do it personally, > you fascist asshole.
Keep it coming, psycho. Dig it deeper. You've been working on your hole for way over a year.
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:24:16 -0500, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> > >econtv wrote:
> > >> But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, > > >> and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which > > >> are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
> > >If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged > > >by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
> > Why would Michael Osmalov, a person who *presumably* had nothing whatsoever > > to do with anything that went on at Mena, be threatening Daniel Hopsicker > > with a civil suit. If Hopsicker were to publish something about Mena which > > was way off base, why in the hell should Osmalov care?
> Because, as my 7th grade nun always told us, 'birds of a feather stick > together...'
> and the 'threats' are just what the fascistii <do>.
Withdraw your various slanders, if you're concerned.
> it helps them compensate for their little dicks.
I'm not interested in your sexual fantasies, Hopsucker.
>> > > > > > But, germane to the Mena Coverup, Welch is fair game, as are we all, >> > > > > > and will be judged by the verdict of history, the first drafts of which >> > > > > > are being prepared even now, Billy Beck, by your betters.
>> > > > > If you make some $$$ on it, you're going to be judged >> > > > > by a jury of your peers, in a civil suit.
>> > > > promises, promises.
>> > > Promise.
>> > oh puuuuleeeze, osmalov. we both know if you didn't have the net you'd >> > be pulling >> > a bottle of Old Crow out of your back pocket while staring morosely down >> > into a hole >> > in the ice.
>> > they don't get much more gs-puke than you, pal.
>> > i'm not impressed.
>> Impressing you isn't on my agenda, Hopsicker. >> Suing you is -- if you ever manage to get out debt. >> And in the meantime, it pleases me to have helped >> you prove yourself to be a mealy-mouthed scumbag >> with nothing more than an agenda and an attitude.
>i got an attitude, i got backers,a dni got a laweyer'll > kick your fucking drug-smuggler coddling >ass anytime anyplace--unlessd you'd rather i do it personally, > you fascist asshole. >-- >Daniel Hopsicker
I'm not one to usually assert my masculinity Hop'sicker'. In this case, I would rather settle this one at high noon. I would rather you try personally to kick my ass...I accept the offer. Name the place...maybe you could sell tickets. Name your backers, of course I have someone with considerable skills and noteriety working on dat one.
>> >> That you were in Russell Welch's home to interview him?
>> >> That he presented for your inspection his complete investigative >> >> file on his kitchen table?
>> >> That you did not examine it?
>> >> Is that your story?
>> >Russel Welch allowed me to take his 'files' back to Los Angeles,...
>> No, he didn't, Hopsicker, and you and I both know it. I don't >> know what you took to L.A. (although I do know that Welch eventually >> saw through you enough that your relationship was over before he >> demanded that you send it back to him), but he never let that file out >> of his possession. It represented a capital investment in his very >> *life*, and he's smart enough to not let a creep like *you* get away >> with it. No, Hopsicker: you didn't even *look* at Russell Welch's >> investigative file beyond the effort to open the top folder with a >> thumb & forefinger and glance at the first page. It all happened in >> his home, and no place else.
>> You completely stiffed a major investigative resource when it was >> right in front of you - where a *real* reporter would have put on a >> pot of coffee, rolled up his sleeves and gone to *work* - and then you >> had the nerve to ask him later about stuff like Weinberger's "Swiss >> bank account number" and whether he'd steal a DOJ document for you.
>> That's because you're a *punk* who; A) can't pull your own >> weight, and B) isn't interested at getting at the *facts*.
>> This...
>> >When he had his hissy fit over the fact that I was interviewing >> >'spooks,' as he called them, he requested the file back, and it was >> >returned.
>> ...tells me one thing: you're cunning enough to know which way >> the shit's going to fly every time you get your narrow ass busted on >> this point. That's right: Welch didn't "eat" the note, Hopsicker, and >> your cheesy little Bic & notepad strong-arm game didn't work on him. >> He threw your ass out into the data-ditch where you belong.
>> >Should you be referencing anything else, you should know that 95% >> >of what he's got is not original with him.
>> How the fuck would *you* know?
>> Billy
>You and Roy Cohn would have made such a fun couple! Ah, timing! >-- >Daniel Hopsicker
Your a liar and a sick man Hop'sicker.' You will never be able to afford *real* shoes for your girlfriend from this one my sicko. Talk about "birds of a feather"...at least your girlfriend lies too.
econtv wrote in message <35E8D759.BB41C...@earthlink.net>... >Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> Billy Beck wrote in message <35e7f292.26921...@news.mindspring.com>...
>this beck guy--does anybody else get that salieri vibe?
>Daniel Hopsicker
I just posted some devastating material fresh from Russ Welch which corroborates Billy Beck. It is easy to show what you really are Hop'sicker.' A sick man and a liar.
econtv <eco...@earthlink.net> wrote: >Billy Beck wrote: >> >Russel Welch allowed me to take his 'files' back to Los Angeles,...
>> No, he didn't, Hopsicker, and you and I both know it. I don't >> know what you took to L.A. (although I do know that Welch eventually >> saw through you enough that your relationship was over before he >> demanded that you send it back to him), but he never let that file out >> of his possession. It represented a capital investment in his very >> *life*, and he's smart enough to not let a creep like *you* get away >> with it. No, Hopsicker: you didn't even *look* at Russell Welch's >> investigative file beyond the effort to open the top folder with a >> thumb & forefinger and glance at the first page. It all happened in >> his home, and no place else.
>> You completely stiffed a major investigative resource when it was >> right in front of you - where a *real* reporter would have put on a >> pot of coffee, rolled up his sleeves and gone to *work* - and then you >> had the nerve to ask him later about stuff like Weinberger's "Swiss >> bank account number" and whether he'd steal a DOJ document for you.
>> That's because you're a *punk* who; A) can't pull your own >> weight, and B) isn't interested at getting at the *facts*.
>> This...
>> >When he had his hissy fit over the fact that I was interviewing >> >'spooks,' as he called them, he requested the file back, and it was >> >returned.
>> ...tells me one thing: you're cunning enough to know which way >> the shit's going to fly every time you get your narrow ass busted on >> this point. That's right: Welch didn't "eat" the note, Hopsicker, and >> your cheesy little Bic & notepad strong-arm game didn't work on him. >> He threw your ass out into the data-ditch where you belong.
>> >Should you be referencing anything else, you should know that 95% >> >of what he's got is not original with him.
>> How the fuck would *you* know? >You and Roy Cohn would have made such a fun couple! Ah, timi...
|
