The Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Table of ContentsOptions

Table of Contents

Summary and Quotations Summary, Dedication, and Other Items

Final Judgment is, beyond question, the most “controversial”—and certainly the most widely denounced—book on what is perhaps the most written about subject in American history…

Yet, most of those who have so hysterically condemned this book have never even read it…

Critics viciously attack the author, but they refuse to debate him…

This is the one book on the JFK assassination that no major publisher dared print…

Despite all this, those open-minded individuals who have dared to read Final Judgment—including some very well-known names—have concluded that this book is the one book that most completely outlines the entirety of the conspiracy that took the life of John F. Kennedy.

Final Judgment presents what the author, Michael Collins Piper, calls “the other side of the jigsaw puzzle”—the long-ignored, but otherwise freely available details (all found in “mainstream” literature), which present a stark new light on the circumstances surrounding JFK’s assassination.

This book demonstrates the strong likelihood Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, collaborated alongside the CIA and the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate in the JFK assassination because President Kennedy was working to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons of mass destruction, a fact that remained a dark secret for decades.

However, because it was not until the mid-1980’s that the truth about President Kennedy’s behind-the-scenes war with Israel emerged, many otherwise diligent JFK assassination researchers never considered the possibility Israel did have good reason to align with other powerful forces that wanted to remove JFK from the White House. Once you’ve read Final Judgment you will see the evidence of likely Israeli involvement is there.

Although first published in 1994, only one newspaper, a small Washington-based weekly, even mentioned the book. Despite that, Final Judgment has now sold more than 40,000 copies, achieving he proverbial status of “underground” bestseller. Yet most Americans never heard of this groundbreaking historical bombshell or of its controversial thesis.

However, on August 21, 1997, newspapers across the United States―echoing a report that first appeared in The Los Angeles Times―told the story of an uproar over a scheduled lecture at a small California college by Michael Collins Piper, the author of Final Judgment.

Pro-Israel pressure groups were working overtime to prevent Piper from being heard. They feared college students would be “too impressionable” and might actually take Piper’s thesis seriously.

Piper was being attacked for daring to speak the truth―the little-known fact that JFK had been embroiled in a bitter (then-secret) conflict with Israel over its drive to build a nuclear arsenal, weapons of mass destruction.

What made this so objectionable to the Israeli lobby was that in Final Judgment Piper had documented that there were multiple connections of Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, to many key players often linked (in other widely-known books on the subject) to the JFK conspiracy―a point missed (or deliberately suppressed) by others who had studied the assassination over the years.

Whether the CIA or “the Mafia” or “the right wing” or “the military industrial complex”―you name it―Piper demonstrates that the Mossad connection is there. And that’s why his thesis is so “controversial.”

If you initially have any doubts about the thesis, the author himself suggests you first take a look at the comprehensive photo section which summarizes the book… and then, take it from there, if you dare.

In recent years, as word about the explosive revelations appearing in Final Judgment began to circulate worldwide, demand for the book became so immense that second-hand copies were selling on the Internet for as much as $185 per copy, demonstrating the drastic need for re-publication of a new, easily accessible edition of this important work.

While the major media continues to ignore Final Judgment―as much as is possible―a number of individuals whose expertise cannot be ignored have begun to publicly lend their support to the thesis, one which becomes all the more significant in light of growing global concern about the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction in Middle East.

The author continues to ask other JFK assassination theorist to debate him publicly about the thesis of Final Judgment and begs for his critics to demonstrate where he has misinterpreted facts or distorted the writings of others who have delved into the subject―but thus far no one has come forth to do so. They either ignore his work or call him names.

However, thousands of satisfied readers believe Michael Collins Piper has indeed “pinned the tail on the donkey.”

Once you’ve read FINAL JUDGMENT, you’ll never look at the JFK assassination in the same way again .

“The Other Side of the Jigsaw Puzzle”A Foreword by the Author

On August 21, 1997 a front-page article appeared in the Los Angeles Times describing an uproar in Southern California that erupted over my impending lecture at a community college seminar on the JFK assassination. The seminar was being held under the auspices of the South Orange County Community College District. Although four speakers were scheduled, it was my expected presence—my presence alone—that created the controversy. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith was (not surprisingly) upset that I contend in this book, Final Judgment, that Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, played a front-line role in the JFK assassination alongside the CIA and the Lansky Crime Syndicate.

The Times reported that the ADL accused yours truly “of being a proponent of Holocaust denial and labels his claim that Israelis killed Kennedy ridiculous.” The ADL failed to cite any evidence of my being a “proponent of Holocaust denial,” but evidently the ADL considers that the ultimate kiss of death and that such accusations are fair game when trying to silence anyone who runs afoul of its agenda.

That the ADL presumes to label my charge of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination as being “ridiculous” is downright laughable. Inasmuch as the ADL not only functions as a major force in the Israeli lobby in the United States, but is also an intelligence and propaganda arm of the Mossad, it seems unlikely the ADL would ever endorse my thesis.

In any case, as a direct result of intense and highly hysterical clamor by the ADL, the JFK seminar was canceled, although college officials and others said publicly and forthrightly that they were concerned about the implications and consequences of the ADL’s heavy-handed pressure campaign to restrict freedom of speech, particularly in an academic forum.

Nonetheless, news reports about the affair appeared in newspapers nationwide, even including a Newsweek commentary by George Will, a strident supporter of Israel.

So, as a consequence, I’m pleased to say, there was a positive side to all of this. Now—for the first time since Final Judgment was published in 1994— readers of “mainstream newspapers” across America have been told that there is a theory floating around out there that Israel’s Mossad was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

As I told the Los Angeles Times and which was quoted in a second article on August 22: “The Anti-Defamation League has not heard the last of Final Judgment. The door has been kicked open. There is now going to be a lot of debate about this book” —whether the ADL likes it or not.

Although the Los Angeles Times reporter, Michael Granberry, made some attempt to present my views, I do feel compelled, however, to comment on various aspects of the Los Angeles Times article, inasmuch as the whole story behind the article needs to be told.

The Times quoted one Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed, as an authority on JFK conspiracies. The fact is that Posner has been widely reviled by serious longtime JFK assassination researchers for having written Case Closed which claims that the Warren Commission Report was correct (despite some flaws) and that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The cosmopolitan Mr. Posner was said to be “aghast” that the seminar was scheduled and said “This strikes me as being similar to the notion that the Holocaust was a hoax.” This happens to be precisely the propaganda line now promoted by the ADL which has said that if people believe there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination, they might also end up believing that there was no Holocaust.

ADL National Director Abe Foxman, writing in Antisemitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths, stated forthrightly:

“If segments of the population are really willing to believe that President Kennedy was killed by the military-industrial complex because he was too soft on Communism… then it is not hard to imagine some of these same people falling for the lies of Bradley Smith or the fabrications of Louis Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries.

“All of these conspiracy theories share the core feature that the `research’ which supports them—little more, in fact, than a compendium of anecdotes divorced from their original context—is rigged to arrive at predetermined conclusions, not historical revelations or insights.”

(The aforementioned Smith, by the way, promotes the view, held even by so-called “mainstream” JFK assassination researcher Jim Marrs, that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust has been over-stated.

(Farrakhan and Jeffries, of course, are outspoken Black figures who have documented a major Jewish role in the slave trade and have given the ADL much distress.)

In short, if you believe in any JFK assassination conspiracy theory, you might actually believe something else about another matter—such as the Holocaust or the slave trade—that the ADL doesn’t want you to believe.

But back to the ADL’s friend, Posner. In fact, Posner’s book is little more than a rehash of the original Warren Commission Report supplemented with an offensive mish-mash of virulent attacks on not only a number of JFK investigators but also citizens who came forth with credible evidence pointing toward a conspiracy behind the assassination of the president. But just who is Posner anyway? Why has he emerged as a sort of fair-haired boy for the ADL and the other critics of Final Judgment (and JFK conspiracy theories in general)?

The aforementioned Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire, a popular compendium of JFK conspiracy theories, has been fiercely critical of Posner and he’s been pretty public in those criticisms and he has his own opinions (worth citing) about where Posner is coming from.

In the fall 1995 issue of Paranoia magazine, an expose of Posner reveals that Posner had privately admitted to Marrs that Bob Loomis, an executive at Random House, had approached Posner asking him to write a book on the JFK assassination, promising Posner that the CIA would open its own JFK assassination files to Posner so that he could write the book.

As a consequence, Marrs has condemned Posner as a CIA front man. Why did Loomis ask Posner—out of all of the authors in the world—to write the book? According to Mans: “Probably because [Posner] had been used as a CIA tool in his earlier book, Hitler’s Children. In this book he interviewed the children of top Nazi leaders. How do you go about doing that? How do you find who they are? They’ve all changed their names. How do you locate them? Posner had to have been set up by the CIA for that book, too,” says Marrs.

Marrs is (rightly) upset by the way the mainstream media promoted Posner’s book on the 30th anniversary of the JFK assassination. It was then obvious (as it is today) that the media does want the public to believe that the JFK affair is a “case closed.” What is notable is that by far the biggest media push for Posner’s book came in the August 30th 1993 issue of U.S. News & World Report, which gave the book a widely-advertised cover story. I’ll probably upset some people by pointing out that U.S. News is owned by Mort Zuckerman, one of the most outspoken and powerful figures in the Israeli lobby in America.

In an appendix in this edition of Final Judgment, I have analyzed Posner’s book and showed precisely what a pathetic fraud it is. However, for those interested in a comprehensive critique of Posner, I would heartily recommend Case Open by veteran JFK researcher Harold Weisberg.

So much for Gerald Posner. Although he’s not a reliable source (obviously), the Los Angeles Times took great delight in citing his critique of Final Judgment which Posner, the Times said, considers one of the more “outlandish” theories presented to date.

The Los Angeles Times also quoted one Chip Berlet, whom it described as one “who has studied the assassination extensively,” and as a “senior analyst” at a “think tank… that examines authoritarian thinking.” Berlet said that my views represented “the outer limits.”

First of all, I am not aware of anything Berlet has ever written on the JFK assassination (other than random attacks on other JFK conspiracy theorists) so I know of no published evidence of his “extensive study.” This in stark contrast to what was, at that time, the 385-page third edition of Final Judgment which was documented with 746 footnotes.

Furthermore, the so-called “think tank” that employs Berlet has its own axes to grind. The Times failed to point this out when presenting Berlet as some sort of objective “analyst.” What the Times also failed to mention is that Berlet’s “think tank” has been funded by at least two known CIA front companies. So we can see, even now, where Berlet is coming from.

At this juncture I should also note that prominent “New Left” activists of the 1960′s such as (the since-deceased) Ace Hayes, publisher of the Portland Free Press, and Daniel Brandt of the NameBase NewsLine newsletter, had long kept a close watch on Berlet and concluded that:

1) There is no question that Berlet has collaborated closely with the ADL to the point that they consider him little more than a “shill” for the ADL and at worst, possibly one of its paid operatives; and

2) Berlet himself may also have covert connections to the CIA, including involvement with a CIA-financed “student” group of the 1960′s.

There are others who have pointed out that despite his preppy nickname, Berlet’s real name is John Foster Berlet. He was named after former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who was apparently associated with Berlet’s father. Dulles’ brother, Allen, of course, was not only fired as CIA director by JFK but later went on to serve as a member of the Warren Commission which covered up the truth about the assassination.

So inasmuch as Final Judgment indicts the CIA for collaborating with the Mossad in the JFK assassination we can understand why Berlet (and Posner) are eager to keep Final Judgment under wraps. Obviously, the ADL directed the Los Angeles Times to both Posner and Berlet, knowing that the two CIA-connected “authorities” would come through as they did.

The Times also quoted Roy Bauer, a philosophy instructor, at the Irvine Valley College, as referring to me (and the other scheduled speakers at the conference) as “crackpots.” (It was Bauer, it seems, who originally called the ADL to complain about my impending presence at the seminar.)

I am certain Bauer never read my book, so for him to accuse me of being a “crackpot” is malicious and baseless name-calling of the worst sort. What’s more, although I am not familiar with the “philosophy” espoused in the classroom by the good professor it is clearly not a philosophy in line with the American tradition of freedom of speech.

I made repeated efforts to contact Bauer to speak to him directly but he refused to return my calls. When I finally did reach Bauer, he told me that he had been “advised” not to speak with me and promptly hung up. This advice, I’m sure, came directly from Bauer’s friends at the ADL. For years the ADL has maintained a policy of “refusing to debate” those it otherwise so feverishly attacks through the press. The anguished Bauer, evidently was comfortable throwing brickbats from afar and by calling in the “thought police” at the ADL, but he didn’t have the fortitude to confront me directly.

The Los Angeles Times also reported, incidentally, that college trustee Steve Frogue, the sponsor of the ill-fated college seminar, had claimed some time ago that “the ADL was behind” the Kennedy assassination.

Frogue did not say this. What Frogue, in fact, said was that there was evidence (clearly documented in Final Judgment) that it was possible that Lee Harvey Oswald’s strange activities in New Orleans were part of one of the ADL’s famous (or infamous) “fact finding” operations.

The Times reporter (perhaps) misunderstood Frogue’s remarks about the ADL’s connection to Oswald, but now that misinterpretation has been reported again and again and has taken on a life of its own. But Frogue didn’t say what he was alleged to have said. However, in Final Judgment Oswald’s (surprising) ADL connection(s) are examined for the first time.

Poor Mr. Frogue. As a young admirer of JFK, Frogue was preparing to join the Peace Corps, inspired by Kennedy’s New Frontier. Upon the death of the president, however, Frogue was so frustrated and disillusioned that he instead joined the Marine Corps. A high school teacher and community leader (and a part-time student of JFK conspiracy theories) Frogue thought that an academic forum—through the auspices of the South Orange County Community College District (of which he was elected president)—would be an ideal way to debate the theory presented in Final Judgment, along with other competing theories—including one that “The Nazis Killed JFK.”

But the ADL thought otherwise. They had no desire to allow college students and other interested participants to even hear what I had to say. They considered the thesis of Final Judgment so dangerous that they did all in their immense power to prevent me from being heard. Thus, Steve Frogue’s project was scuttled through a smear campaign against me and against this decent man that he probably never imagined possible.

The Los Angeles Times did correctly report my comment that JFK was involved in a fierce battle with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion over Israel’s efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. The young reporter, Mike Granberry, had asked me specifically (and it was a good question, needless to say): “My editors want to know why you think that Israel would be opposed to John F. Kennedy?” So I told him and he reported my response.

What the Times did not report was that I had additionally noted that upon JFK’s death U.S. policy toward Israel under Lyndon Johnson did a complete and immediate 180-degree turnabout and that—most importantly— Israel’s nuclear bomb program went forward unimpeded.

As I told the Times (but which was not reported): “Although there is some debate about whether or not the U.S. would have remained involved in Vietnam had JFK lived, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the drastic reversal in U.S. Middle East policy from which Israel was the prime beneficiary.” I pointed out to the Times that four prominent authors, Seymour Hersh, Stephen Green and Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, wrote extensively about JFK’s policy toward Israel and that I relied almost exclusively upon their findings.

I did not say, as the Times further reported, that I disputed the muchreported figure that “six million Jews” died at the hands of the Nazis, nor did I ever once allude to claims that the figure is actually much lower. What I said was this: “First of all, my book is about the JFK assassination. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. The JFK assassination took place in 1963. The Holocaust ended in 1945. My views on what did or did not take place during the Holocaust have nothing to do with my book on the JFK assassination. It is another subject altogether.

“As far as the numbers are concerned,” I pointed out, “I have heard the figure of Six Million all of my life. You can’t turn around without reading something about it in the press all of the time. However,” I added, “in recent years, some Jewish historians have claimed that the figure is as high as seven million or even eight million. So I don’t know what the figure is.”

(For an example of such a claim that the figure may be as high as seven million, see the ever-august Washington Post of November 20, 1996, the issue of the highly reputable Jerusalem Post for the week ending November 23, 1996 and the May 23-May 30, 1997 edition of the New York-based Jewish Press—all of which are considered quite “responsible” by the ADL.)

At no time did I ever suggest to the Los Angeles Times that I believed, as the Times falsely reported, “that no Jews were killed in gas chambers.” This was literary license on the part of the reporter who presumed that these were my views based upon what the ADL had already (falsely) told him my views happened to be on this irrelevant issue.

Despite all this, of course, my JFK book had nothing to do with the Holocaust, the ADL’s false and malicious rantings notwithstanding.

And it’s probably worth noting that a handful of characters who are self-styled Holocaust revisionists—”Holocaust deniers” in the parlance of the ADL—have not only tried to stop distribution of Final Judgment and discredit it, but these same intriguers successfully sabotaged a pending Russian-language translation of the book! So much, then, for this nonsense about “the Holocaust.”

Frankly, I doubt very much that if I happened to be “pro-choice” on the issue of abortion that the Catholic Church would have, on that basis, launched a major smear campaign to stop me from speaking on the unrelated subject of the JFK assassination. So therefore, again, we have to wonder precisely why the ADL was so adamantly opposed to my lecture being heard and then dragged in the irrelevant issue of “the Holocaust.” The answer is obvious. When all is said and done, the ADL’s hysterical reaction to Final Judgment validates the thesis of this book. It’s that simple.

The Los Angeles Times made reference to another proposed speaker at the scuttled seminar, John Judge, and pointed out that he was known for his adherence to “the conspiracies theories of the late New Orleans Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison” and that “those theories had no anti-Semitic overtones.”

What is interesting to note is that Judge refused to permit me to speak at a JFK conference that he organized here in Washington in October of 1996. The diplomatic excuse at the time (in the words of Judge’s associate, Philip Melanson) was that the program at that conference was “attempting to focus on evidentiary issues and questions rather than broad historical themes and theories.” However, Judge’s associates told one attendee, who asked why Final Judgment wasn’t on display at that conference: “Neither Michael Collins Piper nor his book are welcome here.” Ultimately, when Judge’s name was linked with mine in press reports, Judge rushed off a letter to the Orange County Register to assure its readers that he and his colleagues would certainly not have anything to do with an extremist like me. Yet, even Judge is in the soup as far as the ADL is concerned: after all, Judge, too, believes in a conspiracy theory—and that’s baaaaad!

Thus, I find it quite amusing that Judge has now been labeled a “crackpot” alongside me. Likewise with another individual who was scheduled to speak at the seminar in California—one Dave Emory—who contends the Nazis were behind JFK’s assassination. I won’t burden the reader with commentary here on that peculiar notion, although in Chapter 15 of Final Judgment I do provide some interesting information about Emory’s so-called “Nazi connection” which proves it was anything but that.

In fact, the thesis presented in Final Judgment, if anything, vindicates Jim Garrison’s indictment of Clay Shaw for involvement in the JFK assassination conspiracy. Garrison first pinpointed the role of Clay Shaw in the conspiracy and, in Chapter 15, Shaw’s Israeli connections are outlined in sharp detail. However, I must say that the theory presented in Final Judgment does not hinge on Clay Shaw. With or without Shaw there is firm evidence in many, many other areas that points in the direction of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination. However, Shaw’s complicity in the conspiracy simply brings things full circle, as you’ll see.

As far as the suggestion by the Times that my thesis has “anti-Semitic overtones,” I will say this: I don’t think the book is “anti-Israel” or “antiSemitic.” Period. To criticize the actions of Israel and its lobby in this country is not “anti-Semitic” and common-sense people who have no fanatical religious or political axes to grind realize this.

One reviewer, Kenn Thomas, in his conspiracy theory journal, Steamshovel Press, commented that “the book cannot be read without trying to identify the fine line of an anti-Israel/anti-Zionist critique with oldfashioned anti-Semitism.” I think that’s nonsense. However, to be perfectly honest, I have to think that Thomas made that remark (in the context of a grudgingly friendly review) simply in hopes of avoiding being called an “anti-Semite” himself for suggesting (as he did) that the reader could learn a great deal about JFK’s little-known behind-the-scenes struggle with Israel by reading the book. You see, there are a lot of cowards out there among self-styled conspiracy researchers: “Mossad involvement? Oh no!” they cry, and then add, whispering among themselves: “But, if there was, by all means don’t say it. We’ll be discredited in our research.” Poor folks.

Israel, in my view, is just another foreign country and doesn’t deserve any special treatment any more than Ireland or Iceland. However, there is a very strong pro-Israel lobby in America (which includes some of its strongest backers such very Christian men as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson) and as a consequence, Israel has immense power over U.S. foreign policy making. Because of that “special relationship” Israel does occupy a unique position that has put Israel right there in the line of fire to be pummeled with criticism. Israel is not above reproach and because it wishes to exert its influence it must expect to be criticized.

I firmly believe that the Mossad had a hand in the assassination of JFK and that Israel must be held accountable for its actions. It’s that simple. If there was evidence that Arabs had a hand in the JFK assassination, they, too, would have to be held accountable. However, the evidence does not point in the direction of the Arabs.

At any rate, I do have the right under our good old-fashioned American Constitution (at least at the present) to make my views heard. If someone (wrongly) construes those views to be “anti-Israel” or “anti-Semitic” that is also their right. But being opposed to the misdeeds of Israel is not being “anti-Semitic,” no matter what the ADL says. However, in any event, I don’t frankly care what the ADL thinks.

The evidence presented in Final Judgment stands on its own, no matter what the name-callers at the ADL and their assorted shills might say. Anyone who contends that I believe the JFK assassination was a “Jewish plot” is a liar or a fool or both—or illiterate, at the least. Despite all this, as I’ve said, the frenzy over the college seminar brought an amazing amount of fully-unexpected publicity to the thesis presented in Final Judgment.

Of some 27 different news accounts of the controversy that came to my attention in the days following the initial Los Angeles Times article, fully 21 of those subsequent accounts (based on the Times‘ report and on coverage by the Associated Press) said specifically that the seminar featured a speaker who contended that the Mossad had a hand in the president’s murder. Most of the references, in fact, actually appeared in the opening paragraphs of the articles in question.

Not all of the accounts mentioned Final Judgment by name—although many did—but the thesis herein was definitively referenced and no doubt surprised those who had never heard of the theory before.

Some of the headlines on the articles themselves were quite forthright: “Speakers say Kennedy killed by Israeli plot” read the article in the Bryan College Station Eagle out of Texas. “Guest speaker claims Israel masterminded the killing” announced a sub-headline in the Miami Herald. “Class lecturers blame JFK death on Israelis,” reported the Chicago Sun-Times. “Community college speakers blame JFK death on Israel,” declared the Birmingham News. The Pasadena Star-News, in announcing that an “uproar” had forced the cancellation of the seminar, added (falsely) that “One panelist said Jews behind death of JFK.”

And so it went—all across the country. In the end, what is so ironic is that if the ADL had just ignored the seminar, the role of Israel’s Mossad in the JFK assassination might never have received the widespread national exposure in the daily press that it at long last has.

Ironically, Michael Granberry, the young man who covered the story for the Los Angeles Times—and whose byline appeared in many of the stories across the country—left his post shortly after his story appeared. Did Granberry pay the price for telling too much about the thesis of Final Judgment to his readers? I don’t know, but it’s something to think about.

To his credit, noted commentator Nat Hentoff, who writes a widely read column on First Amendment issues, weighed in on the controversy. Hentoff wrote: “There is no academic freedom unless one has the freedom to speak about any idea no matter how offensive or disgusting” (the suggestion being, obviously, that my thesis is “disgusting” by the very nature of the fact that I have said something less than friendly toward Israel—a unique re-definition of the word “disgusting” indeed!).

Hentoff’s comments were featured in a report entitled “Free speech in academe under fire” published by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. It turns out that none other than Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late president, is a member of the center’s advisory board. So evidently Caroline has probably heard about Final Judgment—as have several members of her family and possibly her late brother, as we will see.

In any case, as a direct consequence of its hysterical (and successful) effort to prevent me from appearing at the seminar in Orange County, the ADL suffered a historic (and much-deserved) “double-whammy” within eight days time, stemming directly from the controversy.

First of all, on October 12, 1997 the Orange County Register, the biggest daily newspaper in one of the most densely populated metropolitan regions in the country, published a lengthy commentary in which I responded to the ADL’s attacks and outlined the thesis of the book.

This was the first time since Final Judgment was published in January of 1994 that any “mainstream” newspaper gave any substantial publicity of any kind to the allegations made in the book.

Although a flimsy attempt at a “rebuttal” by an ADL spokesman, Bruno Medwin, was published in conjunction with my commentary, the ADL’s lame response never once attempted to refute any of my specific allegations. The ADL commentary actually misled readers by suggesting that the ADL believes that “mainstream” theories about a possible JFK assassination conspiracy have a right to be heard.

In fact, as noted previously, ADL national director Abe Foxman had said elsewhere that any theory of any kind relating to the assassination is potentially dangerous and has no basis in fact. Evidently, the ADL is ready to shift its position, depending upon the audience—which, of course, says a lot about the basic dishonesty of the ADL to begin with.

Then, just one week later—on October 20, 1997—the ADL suffered an even more critical blow. At a meeting of the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) Board of Trustees, the board’s president, Steven Frogue—who had invited me to the JFK seminar in Orange County—was re-elected by a 4-3 vote, much to the ADL’s dismay.

Although the ADL clamored for Frogue’s head and sent its supporters to lobby for his resignation from the board—or his forced removal—that effort failed. Then, another board member, Marcia Milchiker—herself a member of the local ADL chapter’s board of advisors—introduced a resolution for Frogue’s ouster, but her scheme fell flat.

The failed attempt to punish Frogue came following a raucous crowded public meeting in which some forty people from the general public were permitted to speak and most of them—average citizens, teachers, students and others—rose in Frogue’s defense, publicly defying the ADL even though ADL operatives were on hand taking photographs of the meeting’s participants. “This is thought control,” said one speaker, James Scott, denouncing the ADL campaign, saying (to much applause) that “the buck is stopping here tonight.”

When the ADL’s Marcia Milchiker saw that there was such a genuine grassroots outcry against her effort to dislodge Frogue—as opposed to the orchestrated campaign by the ADL—Milchiker could only respond in a rambling, disjointed and rather pathetic fashion that led to other board members asking that she cut her remarks short.

Describing her “research” into the origins of Final Judgment and citing her so-called findings, Milchiker, at one point, referred to me as “William Collins Piper,” showing precisely how adequate her research really is. Milchiker called herself a “scientist” (and is thus presumably able to read) but she didn’t respond when an Orange County taxpayer angrily called out, asking her “Did you read the book?” when Milchiker was attempting to explain (without any documentation whatsoever) why Final Judgment simply could not be believed.

Rolling into the meeting, Milchiker had been confident that Frogue was on his way out. What a surprise she had in store. Ultimately, Milchiker claimed the theory in Final Judgment was “scientifically unprovable” and “outrageous” and “preposterous” but didn’t demonstrate why. Nor could she. In the end, another board member, Dorothy Fortune, speaking in Frogue’s defense, publicly accused Milchiker—who is Jewish—of “playing the religion card for political gain.” So Frogue was re-elected.

Yet, the ADL had another card up its sleeve. Using a retired minister, Buckner Coe, as its front man, the ADL orchestrated a recall drive against Frogue. Although the effort failed to gather the required signatures of 35,000 college district voters by March of 1998, an “anonymous” source came up with a $10,000 donation and the recall drive was reinvigorated

At that juncture, the ADL attempted to forge a “united front” against Frogue, roping a variety of special interest groups, including AsianAmerican, Latino, Black and homosexual rights activists into backing the recall. Although that gimmick likewise failed to generate any further interest, the ADL refused to give up and called on a host of prominent Southern California politicians including two GOP members of Congress— Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Christopher Cox—to demand Frogue’s ouster. Along with other Republican functionaries, the two lawmakers joined with Democratic Party hacks to dip into their own campaign slush accounts to help finance the ADL campaign to dislodge Frogue, generating some $40,000 at a much-ballyhooed fund-raiser.

One Orange County resident, George Kadar, who formed an ad hoc committee to rally support for Frogue was also subjected to media attacks. In one instance, a newspaper reporter proclaimed that Kadar was, according to the ADL, also “anti-immigrant” only to learn to her embarrassment that Kadar was himself an immigrant who had fled the very communist “thought police” of Eastern Europe whose tactics were being mimicked so well—echoed in Orange County by the ADL and its allies.

In the midst of the anti-Frogue petition drive, one ADL member, Harriet Walther, claimed that she was the victim of an “anti-Semitic” attack outside the county registrar’s office. Walther claimed people in the registrar’s office saw the incident but according to even the Orange County Register‘s report on February 4, 1998, a supervisor in the office, Mai Kang, said that, according to the Register, “no one saw the assault.”

For my own part, at the height of the frenzy, I traveled to Orange County to speak at a public meeting of the SOCCCD board of directors in June of 1998. The event was a veritable media circus, with the press and armed guards very much in evidence as hundreds of people crowded into the meeting room and into an adjoining room where the overflow audience was able to watch the proceedings live via the magic of video.

Waiting outside, prior to the meeting, an idealistic young reporter for a local Jewish community newspaper made energetic efforts to pin me down as a “Holocaust denier” and an “anti-Semite” and to challenge the thesis of Final Judgment. However, Bob Ourlian, a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, was overheard whispering to the young lady, “Don’t try to argue with this guy. He’s very articulate and knows what he’s talking about,” and she quickly (and wisely) changed her approach.

One week prior to this, I had actually sent Ourlian a copy of Final Judgment, so he knew full well the book was thoroughly documented and that I was fully in command of the information that I had presented. As far as the Holocaust was concerned, I told the press this:

I’m tired of hearing about the Holocaust. It’s boring. Enough already. It happened more than 50 years ago—long before I was born. My grandmother sent four of her sons—my father and three of his brothers—off to fight in World War II.

They were involved in Holocaust rescue activities as members of the U.S. military. My father spent time in a veteran’s hospital for his efforts on behalf of the Jews. So please: I really don’t want to hear about the Holocaust. I’m here to talk about the JFK assassination.

But if you want to know about a real Holocaust, that’s happening right now, let’s take a look at what’s happening to the American Indians on the concentration camps in the United States that are euphemistically called “reservations. ”

My great-great-grandfather was a full-blooded American Indian and for all I know, I have relatives on the reservations today, suffering malnutrition, alcoholism, high rates of suicide and other tragedies.

Despite all this, the federal government is cutting aid to the reservations, yet billions of American tax dollars are going to Israel. If you want to talk about that Holocaust, I’ll be more than glad to.

Needless to say, the reporters didn’t seem interested in discussing that subject, and frankly, I’m not surprised.

It was quite a drama. The corpulent Professor Roy Bauer also put in an appearance accompanied by a coterie of giggling and notably unattractive women who cooed at his witticisms as he circulated a malicious four-page “report” entitled “Just Who Is Michael Collins Piper?” which purported to detail my crimes against the Jewish people. But what was interesting was that Bauer had backed off in his charge that I was a “Holocaust denier,” now contending that I was only “reportedly” a Holocaust “revisionist.”

Missing, however, was Marcia Milchiker, my foremost critic on the SOCCCD board. Although for an entire year she had much to say about me and about my publisher, including making the patently ridiculous accusation that we were attempting to “bring back the Nazi Party,” she refused (in ADL fashion) to face me when I came to confront her. Although I had been the center of bitter public argument at SOCCCD meetings for almost a year, the board, unfortunately, would not permit me any more than three minutes to speak (the same amount allotted to other speakers).

However, the entire time I was speaking, Irv Rubin, the head of the violent Jewish Defense League (JDL), and two equally-repugnant associates were shouting from the audience, resulting in the police finally expelling one of Rubin’s cronies, a bizarre troll named Barry Krugel.

At one point, in exasperation, I told the board, quite frankly, “There’s been a lot of talk here about ‘anti-Semitism,’ but if ever there was an argument in favor of anti-Semitism, it’s this self-appointed spokesman for the Jewish community right here,” referring to Rubin.

There was a positive side to this most raucous event, however. The day afterward, I was invited by Saddleback College journalism professor Lee Williams to address his class on the college campus. Williams issued the invitation on behalf of the staff of the college newspaper and I met with the staff in the newspaper office on the campus where the students posed thought-provoking questions and exhibited the very type of intellectual curiosity that the ADL was so determined to suppress.

Not only did the students defy the book banners at the ADL by asking me to pose for a picture with them, but later they went even further and, as a group, publicly defied the ADL by coming to the defense of Steve Frogue.

But the ADL-instigated clamor for the destruction of Frogue still continued. The ADL even managed to contrive a short-lived alliance between Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez of Orange County and her bitter foe, former Rep. Bob Dornan, the Republican whom Mrs. Sanchez narrowly defeated in 1996 and then dispatched into oblivion in the 1998 election. Both Mrs. Sanchez and Dornan endorsed the recall campaign at the ADL’s behest. However, Mrs. Sanchez back trailed after many of her Hispanic supporters (who despised Dornan) recoiled at her “deal with the devil.”

Despite all this firepower, the ADL’s recall scheme crashed and burned. In the end, on November 12, 1998 the ADL hate-mongers suffered an embarrassing defeat. The ADL’s media-backed 16-month-long campaign to oust Frogue came to a crashing halt. The Orange County registrar of voters ruled that a two-dozen member team of petition circulators had fallen short, having submitted some 13,000 invalid signatures.

The media’s coverage of the ADL’s Waterloo was interesting. The Orange County Register‘s Kimberly Kindy, who had reported the ADL’s campaign against Frogue with particular relish, failed to mention the ADL’s role in the scuttled recall in her notably brief report on the demise of the recall drive. Instead, Miss Kindy focused on the role of Democratic and Republican politicians in the effort, never once indicating the ADL had been the prime mover behind the bungled effort to eviscerate Frogue.

There was an interesting footnote to this. My old nemesis, Professor Roy Bauer was ordered to seek psychiatric counseling because of the inflammatory writings in his scurrilous campus newsletter in which I had been one of his targets. Bauer sued the SOCCCD board, charging that his First Amendment rights were violated. Bauer’s concern for free speech meant little when he was working to suppress my liberties, but when the tables were turned, he took a second look at the Bill of Rights. Bauer won his suit and I’m glad he did, because, unlike Bauer, I do believe in the First Amendment, even though he and the ADL do not.

Steve Frogue declined to seek reelection to the SOCCCD board in the year 2000, but we can be certain the “Final Judgment Affair” would have come back to haunt him. However, the fact is the ADL suffered a walloping defeat in Orange County and it happened again in Schaumburg, Illinois, as we will see later. The ADL will continue to be defeated over this issue as long as I have anything to say about it—and the ADL knows it.

For his own part, the loathsome Irv Rubin of the JDL is now dead— allegedly having committed suicide while in federal custody after having been arrested in late 2001 on charges of plotting to bomb the office of California GOP Congressman Darrel Issa, an Arab-American. Yet, Rubin was precisely the type of speaker that the ADL and its allies welcomed at the SOCCCD—saying much about what the ADL’s agenda really is.

What is it about Final Judgment that so upsets the ADL? Why indeed does the ADL “protest too much”? Here’s your opportunity to find out. Then, perhaps, you’ll understand why Final Judgment really is on the mark.

Had I not amended Final Judgment after its first edition, I would say— even now—that the book could continue to stand on its merits with no further emendation whatsoever. Now that the book has been substantially expanded, more so than I would have thought possible, I do believe the book will stand the test of time.

The facts speak for themselves. Israel’s Mossad was indeed a primary player alongside the CIA and the Lansky Crime Syndicate in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Ultimately, Final Judgment will prove to be the first-ever comprehensive record of that conspiracy.

I believe I have taken a new look at a very big jigsaw puzzle that displays a remarkably complex and somewhat murky picture. On the puzzle you see before you all of the various groups and individuals implicated in the JFK assassination conspiracy. It is an immensely confusing picture. However, when you turn the puzzle over you find one complete picture—and that’s a great big very clear picture of the Israeli flag. All the other flags on the front of the puzzle are, in intelligence jargon, “false flags,” and Final Judgment proves just that.