Daniel Sheehan, Jesuits FBI Scientology



    For an investigative journalist, reporting on official misconduct involving covert operations, intelligence-gathering, and national security issues is like competing in a potato-sack race in a minefield. All officials tend to be suspicious of the motives of nosy journalists; government spokespersons frequently deny first and dissemble later; meanwhile, actual spies tend to keep their mouths shut. As a result, sources for such stories frequently come from a murky netherworld of ex-intelligence agents, retired military officers, and self-anointed investigators. Some offer valuable information along with frustrating fantasies; some are well-meaning but confused; others are professional or amateur charlatans. A few are brilliant paranoid crackpots. Some people just plain lie.

    Over the past three years, this reporter has interviewed or read the relevant writings of more than fifty investigative reporters and researchers spanning the political spectrum. Most of them thought one should not minimize the continuing reality of illegal and unethical conduct by government and private intelligence operatives. But even those who agreed that tough reporting on these subjects helps defend constitutional safeguards added that they have grown very weary of hearing the same unproved or debunked conspiratorial stories over and over again.
    “A lot of stories with conspiratorial themes have gone a great distance with very few credible witnesses,” says Michael Kelly of “The New York Times”. “Some reporters use a much lower standard of evidence with these stories. They are tempted to take what they can get, and overlook the fact that the source has been convicted twice for perjury and on alternate Tuesdays he thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte.”
    If many of the key sources for conspiracy stories are unreliable, why are so many journalists tempted to use them? One reason is that, in an age of official denials, many journalists give unofficial sources the benefit of the doubt. Another is that, in some cases, the tales these sources tell provide a fairly clearcut explanation of what may otherwise be a confusing welter of conceivably related events. In short, they provide a story line. A third reason is that they can usually supply details that seem to substantiate their version of events. When the details provided by two or three such sources mesh, the theory gains in credibility and the story built on it may gain wider attention in the media. Meanwhile, talk radio shows, interviews on small FM stations, even messages posted on computerized information networks contribute to keeping theories alive–and building an audience that wants to hear more.

    The following look at a selection of individuals and groups that have served as sources for recent conspiracy stories may help to point up the problems they can pose for journalists in both the print and broadcast media.

    Several spooky sources contributed to the October Surprise story line, according to which the 1980 Reagan-Bush presidential campaign made a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of American hostages until after the November elections, to help assure the defeat of Jimmy Carter. A key figure in that story, and one whose usefulness as a source has been attacked and defended in these pages, was former Israeli intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe (see “The October Surprise: Enter the Press,” CJR, March/April 1992, and “October Surprise: Unger v. Weinberg,” Letters, May/June 1992).

    One journalist who took Ben-Menashe’s allegations more seriously than most was Craig Unger, author of an October 1991 “Esquire” article titled “October Surprise.” Following several attacks on the Surprise theory, Unger wrote a long, interesting article called “The Trouble with Ari,” which appeared in “The Village Voice” in July 1992. There, more clearly than in his “Esquire” piece, Unger explains the dilemma a source of this kind poses for the journalist. After reminding readers that some of BenMenashe’s claims can be corroborated and that he was “the guy who started talking about the clandestine American arms pipeline to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. . . long before the story started breaking in the press this spring,” Unger writes:
    “Ari has put five or six dozen journalists from all over the world through roughly the same paces. His seduction begins with a display of his mastery of the trade craft of the legendary Israeli intelligence services. A roll of quarters handy for furtive phone calls, he navigates the back channels that tie the spooks at Langley to their counterparts in Tel Aviv. His astute analysis and mind-boggling revelations can stir even the most jaded old hand of the Middle East. . . But trust him at your own risk. . . .”

    “Listen to him, trust him, print his story verbatim–then sit around and watch your career go up in flames.”
    Another oft-cited source in the October Surprise story was Michael Riconosciuto, who provided many tantalizing leads to investigative reporter Danny Casolaro before the free-lancer’s death, which was ruled a suicide (see “The Octopus File,” CJR, November/December 1991). Riconosciuto claimed to have specialized knowledge in computer science and software design, the kind of knowledge that, he said, made him useful to intelligence operatives. Casolaro was looking into the alleged theft by the Justice department of a privately owned software program called Promis. Riconosciuto offered an explanation: he told Casolaro that someone in the Justice department had given the software to American intelligence operatives for resale to intelligence agencies in Canada and abroad. One form of payment, he told the journalist, was the orchestration of the release of the American hostages being held in Iran.

    Riconosciuto went on to weave a tale involving the Cabazon Indian reservation in southern California, purportedly the site of a supersecret research and testing base for weapons of interest to intelligence operatives. Casolaro began to see the reservation as part of a globe-spanning entity of untold power, which he called The Octopus.

    Jerry Uhrhammer of the Tacoma, Washington, “Morning News Tribune” was the only reporter to cover Riconosciuto’s three-week-long drug trial, held in Tacoma in April 1991. In the July/August 1992 “IRE Journal”, Uhrhammer wrote:
    “Any reporter who checked the court file prior to Riconosciuto’s trial could have found documents that offered a psychiatric explanation for [his] conspiracy tales. Psychiatrists who examined him in 1972, prior to his first drug conviction, portrayed him as a mentally unstable person who had trouble discerning between fact and fiction.”
    Uhrhammer added:
    “I have been dismayed and appalled by some articles in which Riconosciuto is quoted as a primary source, if not sole source, in support of some conspiracy theory, but without any warning to the reader that his credibility is suspect or nonexistent.”
    Free-lance reporter Jonathan Littman spent four months investigating charges regarding the Cabazon Indian reservation, including those circulated by Casolaro, who had been using Riconosciuto as a source. Littman wrote a fascinating three-part series for the “San Francisco Chronicle” on how outsiders were abusing tribal sovereignty. Littman and “Chronicle” reporter Michael Taylor also wrote a story about Riconosciuto’s claims about several murders linked to persons associated with the Cabazon reservation. “We had to throw out tons of stuff from Riconosciuto wholesale,” says Taylor.

    In addition to individual sources such as these, there are organizations that disseminate conspiracy theories through every segment of the media. Despite their political differences, these organizations tend to reinforce one another. “There has been some odd communion of the minds between the far left and the far right in viewing the world as one vast and varied conspiracy,” says Michael Kelly, “and that communion has exponentially increased the ability of looneys of various stripes to get their nonsense into print. These people have started a sort of referral service: they all refer people to each other. So what you are doing is chasing a rumor around a closed circle.”

    Listen to talk radio, for example, and chances are that when the talk turns to conspiracy the same sources will be cited: the Christic Institute; the right-wing, anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby and its “Spotlight” newspaper; and Lyndon LaRouche publications, including “Executive Intelligence Review” and “The New Federalist” (formerly “New Solidarity”).

    These groups were among the first to provide pieces of the Irancontra puzzle. But, as Kelly observes, “the true nuggets were usually mixed into a great stew of falsities and improbabilities.”

    The Christic Institute is something of a rarity among advocacy groups: starting out on the left of the political spectrum, over the years it was drawn into the conspiracy theories woven by the radical right. The case that made the institute famous, or infamous, in the journalistic community was “Avirgan v. Hull”, also known as the LaPenca case, after the Nicaraguan town where, in 1984, a bomb exploded during a press conference held in the headquarters of dissident contra leader Eden Pastora. The assassination attempt left three journalists dead and more than a dozen wounded. Among the wounded was American free-lancer Tony Avirgan, who, with his journalist wife, Martha Honey, subsequently brought suit against several individuals whom they believed responsible for the bombing. One was John Hull, am American living in Costa Rica who was widely thought to be helping to train and supply contra groups in neighboring Nicaragua.

    The suit was dismissed by a federal district court in Miami in 1988. Avirgan issued a statement explaining why he felt that the Christic Institute and its general counsel, Daniel Sheehan, bore at least “partial responsibility for the dismissal.” It read, in part:
    “As plaintiffs in the suit, Martha Honey and I struggled for years to try to bring the case down to earth, to bringing it away from Sheehan’s wild allegations. Over the years, numerous staff lawyers quit over their inability to control Sheehan. . . .”

    “The case, before it was inflated by Sheehan, was supposed to center on the LaPenca bombing. On this, there is a strong body of evidence. . . enough evidence to get a reluctant Costa Rican judiciary to indict two CIA operatives, John Hull and Felipe Vidal, for murder and drug trafficking. Unfortunately, little of this evidence was successfully transformed into evidence acceptable to U.S. courts. It was either never submitted or was poorly prepared. In large part, this was because Sheehan was concentrating on his broad, 30-year conspiracy.”
    The conspiracy Avirgan refers to was spelled out in a two-page circular sent out to promote the sale of the “Affidavit of Daniel P. Sheehan,” filed in 1986 and revised in early 1987. The circular began:
    “For the last 25 years a Secret Team of official and retired U.S. military and CIA officials has conducted covert paramilitary operations and “anti-communist” assassination programs throughout the Third World. . . .”

    “The international crimes committed by this group in the name of the United States are at the heart of the Iran-contra scandal. . . “For a quarter of a century this group has trafficked in drugs, assassinated political enemies, stolen from the U.S. government, armed terrorists, and subverted the will of Congress and the public with hundreds of millions of drug dollars at their disposal.” [Emphasis in original.]”

    “The leaders and chief lieutenants of the Secret Team are defendants in a $17 million civil lawsuit filed in May 1986 by the Christic Institute on behalf of U.S. journalists Martha Honey and Tony Avirgan. . . .”
    Among the twenty-nine defendants named were retired Generals Richard Secord and John Singlaub, businessman Albert Hakim, Colombian druglord Pablo Escobar, and contra leader Adolfo Calero.

    In a thoughtful analysis of the Christic Institute’s lawsuit, David Corn observed in the July 2-9, 1988, “Nation” that the institute “deserves credit. . . for recognizing the Iran-contra scandal and its significance early on.” He added: “It has kept the investigative fires burning, sought to hold individuals accountable for their roles in the affair, and probed issues overlooked by the congressional investigating committees (including the contra drug connection and the La Penca bombing. . . )” The institute’s “advocacy of the Secret Team theory,” on the other hand, struck Corn as a serious flaw. It might be handy for raising money in direct-mail solicitations but it presented problems for people who prefer evidence to rhetoric. (This past February, Avirgan and Honey filed a motion seeking Sheehan’s disbarment.)

    The institute no longer uses the term “Secret Team”–a term that gained currency as the title of a 1973 books by retired Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty: “The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World”. The Liberty Lobby’s “Spotlight” elaborated on Prouty’s thesis, weaving into it a conspiracy theory that saw a “dual loyalist” Jewish influence at work in U.S. foreign policy. By the mid-1980s, a number of critics of U.S. intelligence operations, including Prouty, Mark Lane, and Victor Marchetti, had adopted positions similar to “Spotlight”‘s. In 1991, Prouty was listed as a member of the Liberty Lobby’s Populist Action Committee, as was also Pauline Mackey, national treasurer for the 1988 David Duke Populist party presidential campaign. Prouty’s “Secret Team” was recently republished by Noontide Press, the book and distribution arm of the Institute for Historical Review, a group best known for promoting the theory that the Holocaust is essentially a hoax perpetrated by Jews to benefit the state of Israel.

    It is interesting to note in passing that Prouty was an adviser for Oliver Stone’s “JFK”–a conspiracy-theory movie that sparked renewed interest in conspiracy theories–and was the model for the film’s Colonel X, who, as played by Donald Sutherland, moves around Washington, D.C., warning that the entire militaryindustrial complex contracted the JFK hit.

    Another major source of conspiracy theories are the LaRouchians–followers of former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, presently serving a jail term for mail fraud and tax evasion. The LaRouchians are perhaps best known for their theory that Great Britain’s political leaders are basically puppets of Jewish banking families and that Queen Elizabeth and others are in league with these families to control the smuggling of drugs into the U.S.

    Back in the early days of the Reagan administration, the LaRouche information-gathering operation received a tribute from the he national Security Council’s senior director of international affairs, Dr. Norman Bailey, who called it “one of the best private intelligence service in the world.” (The LaRouchians’ links to the NSC’s staff were terminated after producer Pat Lynch exposed the relationship in a 1984 segment of NBC’s short-lived “First Camera” news program. LaRouche sued NBC, including Lynch and correspondent Mark Nykanen; free-lancer Dennis King; this author; and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith for defamation. A jury ruled that characterizing LaRouche as an antiSemite, “small-time Hitler,” cult-leader, and crook was not defamation.)

    Several journalists who published early Iran-contra stories say that the LaRouchians were important players in the traditional Capitol press corps game of trading tips and theories and sometimes swapping sources and documents. Her Quinde, an intelligence policy analyst for the LaRouchians, confirms that he and other LaRouchian investigators were then, and are now, in constant touch with journalists and researchers across the political spectrum. The LaRouchians’ “Executive Intelligence Review” even gets a footnote acknowledgement from Ben Bradlee, Jr., in his “Guts and Glory: The Rise and Fall of Oliver North”. There he acknowledges the help of “EIR” in decoding the shorthand used by North in his notebooks.

    The largest audience for unverified conspiracy theories seems to be listeners to small or alternative radio stations, where interview programs and talk shows create a universe seldom sullied by fact or logic. Most radio conspiracy peddlers use standard propaganda techniques. One is to mesmerize the audience with details concerning various relationships among key villains while sliding past the fact that there is little or no evidence connecting the anecdotes. Another technique is to suggest that if one event follows another, the first event caused the second: CIA chief William Casey went to Paris to talk about hostages; the hostages were released after the election; therefore the deal was cut in Paris. The sequence warrants investigation, but in itself proves nothing. A third technique is to present affidavits as proven fact rather than untested claims. Secret sources with “inside information” and “high-level” contacts are ubiquitous. Pyramiding is popular: conclusions drawn from one set of facts are later referred to as facts on which another level of the conspiracy may be constructed.

    One of the most popular such programs is Chuck Harder’s “For the People”, aired by more than 140 AM and FM stations, and also on short wave and satellite frequencies.

    The Sun Radio Network, essentially owned by Liberty Lobby, carried a popular daily program that churns the conspiracies “du jour”: Tom Valentine’s “Radio Free America”. Midwest bureau chief for “Spotlight”, Valentine is a member of the advisory board of Liberty Lobby’s Populist Action Committee. According to Shelly Shapiro, director of Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice, the Sun Radio Network is one of the most significant sources of anti-Jewish and pro-fascist propaganda in the U.S.

    On the left of the spectrum, Pacifica Radio Network affiliates KPFA-FM in San Francisco, KPFK-FM in Los Angeles, and WBAI-FM in New York City air long hours of conspiracy-mongering discussions. Pacifica affiliates and scores of small FM stations play tapes by or air interviews with a cast of characters including John Judge, David Emory, Sherman Skolnick, Bo Gritz, and Craig Hulet (aka K.C. Depass). These “experts” weave webs so intricate they make a Hitchcock plot seem like a script for Mr. Rogers: cures for AIDS and cancer are intentionally being suppressed by a government/media plot; Naval Intelligence secretly controls the U.S.; the CIA arranged the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas confrontation.

    Perhaps most farcical is Hulet’s analysis of the book “Report from Iron Mountain”, which he presents as a secret document outlining the necessity for a war-based economy. In fact, the book is a brilliant satire of the military-industrial complex by author Leonard Lewin (editor of “A Treasury of American Political Humor”). Nevertheless, Hulet and his audience regularly discuss the book as if it were an official document.

    Is it worth a journalist’s while to try to check up on claims made by conspiracy theories? Michael Taylor of the “San Francisco Chronicle”, who reported on goings-on at the Cabazon Indian reservation, says, “I will talk to anybody, no matter how outlandish their theory, and see what is documentable.” Jonathan Marshall, the “Chronicle”‘s economics editor, says that “sometimes [the LaRouchians] are a source of good leads–their work on Panama has been of particular use.” But, he adds, “given their history, I never take [their information] at face value.” Marshall says that he will sometimes pursue LaRouchian leads, “and then do my own independent research.” If the lead pays off, he considers it his own effort and does not credit the LaRouchians–in part, he admits, because doing so might hurt his credibility as a journalist. “If you look across the board at cultish groups that do ‘research,'” he says, “you find sometimes that they have found amazing documents that do, in fact, check out. But,” he hastens to add, “documents are one thing, accepting their analysis is simply not responsible.”



    See also:

    Snepp, Frank. (1991). “Brenneke Exposed.” Village Voice, September 10, 1991, pp. 27-31.

    Snepp, Frank. (1993). “Last Rites: The Implications of the Final Debunking (We Hope) of October Surprise, Village Voice, February 2, 1993, p. 36.


    The Right-Wing Roots of Sheehan’s “Secret Team” Theory

    Christic no longer uses the “Secret Team” slogan, but for the first several years of the case, the Christic Institute used the term “Secret Team” to describe the legal conspiracy they alleged in court (a copy of the Prouty book sat in Sheehan’s personal bookshelf in his Christic office). There is no dispute that the “Secret Team” theory came from the political right. The “Affidavit of Daniel P. Sheehan” filed on December 12, 1986 and revised on January 31, 1987, refers frequently to the “Secret Team,” and states explicitly that the term came from right-wing sources.

    …I was contacted by Source #47, a right-wing para-military specialist, former U.S. Army pilot in Vietnam and military reform specialist in January of 1986.

    Source #47, the Specialist, who was unaware of my investigation, informed me that he had met–at a right-wing function–a former U.S. military intelligence officer, Source #48…this source began to discuss with Source #47 the existence of a “Secret Team” of former high-ranking American CIA officials, former high-ranking U.S. military officials and Middle Eastern arms merchants–who also specialized in the performance of covert political assassinations of communists and “enemies” of this “Secret Team” which carried on its own independent, American foreign policy–regardless of the will of Congress, the will of the President, or even the will of the American Central Intelligence Agency.

    Critics of the Christic thesis say the “Secret Team” was not a cabal operating against the will of the president or the CIA, but was an illegal, secret government-sponsored operation established by CIA director William Casey and coordinated by White House aide Oliver North, with assistance from a network of ultra-right groups who were determined to circumvent the will of Congress. This “Enterprise” at times worked closely with the Mossad and carried out clandestine counterinsurgency missions. Some of these counterinsurgency missions were based on the same model of pacification used by U.S. Special Forces and clandestine CIA operations in Vietnam. It is just this emphasis on counterinsurgency and clandestine operations rather than direct military battles that forms the basis of criticism in Fletcher Prouty’s book Secret Team. Prouty criticized the CIA for promoting covert action techniques which he traced to the influence of the British intelligence service MI5 on the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the CIA. Prouty said such meddling and convoluted efforts at fighting communism resulted in the needless deaths of American servicemen. There is no evidence of any obvious anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in the original Prouty book.

    Some of the undocumented conspiracy theories regarding the CIA and U.S. foreign policy that were widely circulated in progressive circles before the Iran-Contragate scandal hit the headlines seem to have appeared first in the LaRouchian’s Executive Intelligence Review or New Solidarity (later New Federalist), or in the pages of Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight newspaper.

    The Spotlight for instance carried the first exclusive story on “Rex 84” by writer James Harrer. “Rex 84” was one of a long series of readiness exercises for government military, security and police forces. “Rex 84” –Readiness Exercise, 1984–was a drill which postulated a scenario of massive civil unrest and the need to round up and detain large numbers of demonstrators and dissidents. While creating scenarios and carrying out mock exercises is common, the potential for Constitutional abuses under the contingency plans drawn up for “Rex 84” was, and is, very real. The legislative authorization and Executive agency capacity for such a round-up of dissidents remains operational.

    The April 23, 1984 Spotlight article ran with a banner headline “Reagan Orders Concentration Camps.” The article, true to form, took a problematic swipe at the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith along with reporting the facts of the story. The Harrer article was based primarily on two unnamed government sources, and follow-up confirmations. Mainstream reporters pursued the allegations through interviews and Freedom of Information Act requests, and ultimately the Harrer Spotlight article proved to be a substantially accurate account of the readiness exercise, although Spotlight did underplay the fact that this was a scenario and drill, not an actual order to round up dissidents.

    Many people believe that Christic was the first group to reveal the “Rex 84” story. According to the 1986 Sheehan “Affidavit” revised in 1987:

    During the second week of April of 1984, I was informed by Source #4 that President Ronald Reagan had, on April 6, 1984, issued National Security Decision Directive #52 authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency director Louis O. Giuffrida and his Deputy Frank Salcedo to undertake a secret nation-wide, `readiness exercise’ code-named `Rex 84….’

    The impression left is that a Christic source exclusively developed this information and quietly handed it over to Sheehan. In fact, the second week of April 1984, the “Rex 84” story was bannered on the front page of the Spotlight and available in coin-boxes all over Capitol Hill. Spotlight had previously reported extensively on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government initiatives that threatened civil liberties.

    Sheehan has told reporters that the “Rex 84” story did not come from Spotlight, but would not respond to questions as to whether or not Source #4 could document where the information came from. This is important because in at least one other instance, previously published research was attributed by Sheehan to Source #4. According to the 1986 Sheehan “Affidavit” revised in 1987:

    In early May of 1984, I was supplied by Source #4 with a number of documents describing, in some detail, a project supervised by then Special Assistant California State Attorney General Edwin Meese code-named “Project Cable Splicer” …part of a larger program, code-named “Project Garden Plot” –which was a nation-wide war games scenario…to establish a nation-wide state of martial law if Richard Nixon’s “political enemies” required him to declare a State of National Emergency.

    While the descriptions of Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are accurate, the source is deceptively obscured. The original story of Cable Splicer and Garden Plot broke in the alternative press in 1975 in an article by Ron Ridenhour with Arthur Lublow published in Arizona’s New Times. Garden Plot was also the cover story for the Winter 1976 issue of CounterSpy magazine. Dozens of pages of the unedited official documents from Garden Plot and Cable Splicer were reprinted in the magazine. Copies of the official documents were made available to trial teams in several cities litigating against illegal government intelligence abuse.

    Several former Christic staffers, who asked to remain nameless, suggest that, at the very least, a critical reevaluation of some allegations made in the Christic case would be beneficial in light of the possibility that material from far-right, conspiracist or anti-Jewish sources was uncritically woven into the original “Secret Team” Christic thesis. They say that the Christic theories need to be reassessed with the ulterior motives and credibility of those sources in mind.

    The Christic Institute was supplied with the text of the criticisms raised in this section of the report, as well as an extensive list of written questions. With the exception of the quote regarding the LaRouchians, they chose not to respond.




    Interesting on how you happen to mention Michael Riconosciuto near the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

    I do not know if this very intelligent man was used as a patsy to be sacrificed or he had inside knowledge which he share to his detriment and freedom.

    Notice how Canada and Jesuit Quebec features prominently in the 9/11 saga just like in the Lincoln and JFK assassination.

    “Riconosciuto’s Letter, The Smoking ‘Howitzer’ of 9-11?

    Michael Riconosciuto’s 2/5/2001 Letter Warning of Planned
    Hijack Plane Attacks in the U.S. by Al Qaeda Terrorists

    [Editor’s Note: This letter was sent U.S. certified mail (#7000 0600 0027 1175 1175) by Michael Riconosciuto, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Allenwood, PA, .to his attorney, Don Bailey, on February 6, 2001, seven months before planes struck the twin towers of World Trade Center in New York City. The original four page letter was hand written by Riconosciuto and can be viewed at these links: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4 and certified proof of post mark. I typed the letter shown below without changing abbreviations, contractions, or misspelled words in order to match the original handwritten copy as accurately as possible. .Square bracketed items, “[ ]”, are informational clarifications by me, Ken Adachi (or indicate blacked out words). Ted Gunderson included a copy of this handwritten letter as “Exhibit A” in a large multi page report ( Ted Gunderson 9-11 Terrorists’ Report) presented to 155 U.S. Senators and members of Congress, to every congressional committee, to the Department of Justice, and to numerous members of the Executive Branch in Washington D.C. on January 7, 2003; two days after interviewing Michael Riconosciuto at FCI in Allenwood.

    On Feb.. 13, 2001, Riconosciuto sent a certified letter (“Exhibit B” in Gunderson’s Report) to his congressman, Bryan Baird (D-WA), to expedite contact with appropriate authorities to report his intelligence information. Louis Buffardi, a second attorney working with Riconosciuto, sent a letter on February 19, 2001 toSecretary of State Colin Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft (“Exhibit C” in Gunderson’s Report) reporting that he had a client who possessed highly detailed information about an imminent terrorist attack to take place on the United States, but requested that some agency other than the FBI should debrief his client. OnFebruary 20, 2001, Riconosciuto requested from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) (“Exhibit D”) a private, unmonitored telephone line to convey sensitive information about 37 Soviet-made missiles being shipped from Bulgaria to Colombia and finally to Quebec City within a 30 hour ‘window’ of opportunity of interdiction. Attorney Louis Buffardi passed this same information along to the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office in Chicago, Illinois, while Riconosciuto spoke directly over the phone with John O’Neill, former FBI terrorist expert in charge of security for the World Trade Center ( killed in the WTC attacks).

    On an unspecified date in March, 2001, Riconosciuto was paid a visit by FBI Special Agent Keith Cutri from the Williamsport, PA FBI office. Riconosciuto identified for Cutri an individual in New Jersey who: (1) was coordinating forthcoming terrorist attacks on the U.S.; (2) had information on the movement of Soviet-made shoulder-fired missiles coming into the U.S.; (3) was coordinating skyjacking operations, bombings, and espionage in the U.S.; and (4) knew the identity of “sleepers” in the U.S. and overseas. Riconosciuto also gave Cutri information about a false ID ring operating in Montreal and New Jersey and gave him the exact fake ID’s of 30 terrorists who had been chosen for carrying out operations inside the United States. Riconosciuto told Special Agent Cutri that Thabet Aviation of Quebec City, Canada was brokering older D.C.-9’s, 747’s, and other high performance military aircraft that could be used for terrorist attacks and he knew the names of terrorists who were taking flight training in the US for those very types of aircraft. Riconosciuto indicated that Thabet Aviation was the company scheduled to receive the 37 Soviet-made, shoulder-fired missiles. Riconosciuto’s only request of the FBI was immunity from government prosecution for himself and his informants. From the end of the interview with Cutri in March, 2001, until September 13, 2001, Riconosciuto did not hear one word from the FBI, Special Agent Keith Cutri, or any federal investigative agency.

    On September 13, 2001, two days after the attacks of Sept. 11, Cutri returned with another FBI agent to talk with Riconosciuto and accused Riconosciuto of being “anti-FBI”; “anti-government”; a “conspiracy theorist’; a “know-it-all”; a “hoaxer”; and a “publicity seeker” who wanted to “bother the FBI and waste its time”. Cutri told Riconosciuto that he discounted his terrorist information because the info Riconosciuto had provided about a prison staff member at Coleman, Florida FCI was “untrue”. He also warned Riconosciuto that he was under investigation by the FBI for “threats” made against that staff member at Coleman (this trumped up charge by prison officials at Coleman and the FBI was designed to intimidate Riconosciuto and sequester him in solitary confinement for 7 months. Riconosciuto was later acquitted of the charge at a BOP hearing).

    The stonewalling, obfuscations, non-response, denials, feigned ignorance, and threats emanating from the FBI, from the Justice Department, and from high government officials in both the Legislative and Executive branches following this Sept. 13 meeting between Michael Riconosciuto and the two FBI agents (including the non-reportage of Riconosciuto’s dead-on warnings by major newspapers in the United States approached by Gunderson) leave no doubt that Ted’s 9-11 Cover Up Report contains the most powerful documentation to date of the government’s complicity and fore knowledge in the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Further details can be read from Ted Gunderson’s full public report titled: Terrorism Cover up in America which will posted in its entirety at this web site and atwww.tedgunderson.com . Ted’s Summary of Michael Riconosciuto’s information in the report is listed here. ..Ken Adachi]

    Written By Michael Riconosciuto
    Posted Sept. 27, 2003



    I have written to the editor of Insight magazine to request a copy of the Wackenhut letter, and the taped telephone conversation transcript. The Wackenhut letter makes reference to Dr. Harry Fair, describing me as a potential national resource because of certain of my technical abilities. Dr. Fair is the former head of tactical technology research for DARPA. At the time Dr. Fair made this characterization of me, he was in this position. This is a very strong statement for a govt. agency department head to go on record with. It is also significant that the govt. prevented this type of information from being in front of the jury in my case! The motion in liminal filed by the govt, and granted by the judge, contains some of the most bizarre legal reasoning I have ever encountered. The taped conversation was a telephone call I had with an FBI agent to make a pretrial proffer. One of the significant things about my pretrial proffer is that every single detail of it turned out to be true. The only fault in its accuracy is that my proffer was an understatement. Even as such, the US Attorney in charge of drug prosecutions stated that my pretrial proffer was, “a lot of garbage and delusional”! The US Attorney in charge of drug prosecutions actually testified at my trial, so these remarks are part of the actual trial record. My detailed and specific proffer was given almost five years prior to some of the parties I named were indicted on the same charges I outlined in my proffer.

    The material contained in my pretrial proffer (the Abell/Cali cartel connection), had it been acted on in a timely manner by the govt., would have led to the interdiction of over 200 tons of cocaine. Most of the bad acts charged in the indictment against Abbell et. al., occurred a significant time after my original proffer. A question that needs to be addressed is the legality of the US Attorney interfering with my proffer.

    To facilitate my pretrial proffer, I did the following:

    1) I had Ted Gunderson as an investigator to help independently corroborate key points of my proffer.

    2) I had Alan Boyak, an attorney and former DEA agent, prepare the pretrial proffer. Alan also had direct knowledge of some of the key points in my proffer because he had worked cases against some of the targets when he was a DEA agent.

    3) The head of the intelligence unit of the Tampa Bay Fla. Police Dept. offered to be the intermediary for the deal.

    The govt. reacted to my proffer by:

    1) Threatening Ted with arrest and banning him from visiting me in the county jail before and during my trial.

    2) Refusing to allow Alan Boyak to attend any of the pretrial proffer meetings with my other attorneys.

    3) Formally demanding that the Tampa Bay P.D. refrain from interfering with a case outside of their jurisdiction.

    4) Filed a motion with the court for 4141 and 4142 competency hearings. This go vt. motion questioning my competency was based in part on the govt’s stated position that my proffer was delusional.

    5) The AUSA prosecuting my case flew to Los Angeles from Seattle and presented Robert Booth Nichols with a copy of my pretrial proffer where I had named Nichols and his associates as targets.

    I would have been declared incompetent had not the series of articles appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle outlining the bio warfare projects at the Wackenhut /Cabezon joint venture. My claim to have been involved in bio warfare work was cited, by the govt, in the motion for the competency hearing These clearly documented my claim concerning bio warfare work. When the forensic evaluation was sent to the court, it established that “…some of my most unlikely sounding claims turned out to be true upon checking with collateral sources. The govt. response was that so what if it is true, it is not relevant to their case in chief which is a drug case.

    My proffer was never reconsidered by the govt after the determination of my competency. The fact of the matter is that I have a solid established record of reliability in the counterintelligence field. This is clearly documented in my central file. The US Attorney handling my pretrial proffer certainly had this information available to him at the time. The glaring question is why did the AUSA reveal the details of my pretrial proffer to potential targets!?

    As I have stated to you in past letters,and telephone calls, I have been attempting to proffer against Nichols and his crew. The DOJ/BOP [Department of Justice/Bureau of Prisons] has consistently interfered with all of my attempts in this proffer. I have stated that I need you to facilitate my communication with other parties that have direct knowledge against Nichols et. al.

    Things have now come to a head! I now have contact with an operative that is in an Arabic group known as The Base. They are presently engaged in preparation for a major attack in the US. [..blacked out words..] currently represents the Abuhouran brothers, two of the brothers are incarcerated in the US. The third is a fugitive facing 15 years jail time in the US. We have an insider to this group that handles fake ID and passports for the group’s operations. I also have contact with one of the parties that supplies explosives materials to this group. I am deliberately keeping myself with a paucity of specific details until the govt issues an immunity agreement with my contacts. If the govt will not issue the immunity agreement, no more details of these ongoing activities will be forthcoming from anybody. My bonafides are:

    1) I have family members in the [..blacked out..] leadership (..blacked out..) a Christian militia group

    2) Thirty-four days before the two US Embassy bombings in East Africa happened, I notified the FBI in Miami! Two days before these bombings occurred, I made an emergency request of BOP staff at FCI Coleman to make an overseas telephone call to ECOMAG security headquarters to warn African officials. The BOP categorically turned me down on this call. I have the documentation on all of this.

    3) In the 1980’s, Ted Gunderson , myself, and Ralph Olberg were involved in negotiations with the Afghan Mujahadeen on behalf of the US govt. Ted will verify that we had these meetings and that OSAMA BIN LADEN was present in the US under the name of TIM OSMAN. Mr. Osman was taken to special demonstrations at US military bases.

    4) I have an exemplary track record in the counter intelligence field.

    Mr. [..blacked out..] is flying out to visit me this week. This letter is my authorization for you to discuss the details of all my written and oral communications with him. The Abuhousan Brothers are writing similar letters to their attorneys: [..blacked out words..] to authorize them to speak to both you and [..blacked out words..] on this matter. This authorization will also include your access to documents.

    As soon as we learned that an actual attack was in the works, we realized we can’t fool around with this. On the other hand, we don’t want to get screwed by the govt.

    Mike Riconosciuto”


    Satanic Masterpiece SMOM

    Iran-Contra VATICAN policy middleman

    William Joseph Casey

Leave a Reply