If you’re looking for pieces on Jack Idema and his team, please click on this link.

Image courtesy of Northeast Intelligence Network

Guess what? I can! (For those new to the blog, the underlined areas have links embedded in them as reference material. Feel free to click on those.)

There are all types of terrorism, as we’ve noted earlier. There’s the physical terrorist, the psychological terrorist, the cyber terrorist, the suicide bomber, and…then there’s Gerry Blackwood, actually “outed” by the one and only Kathryn Cramer as her “friend.” With a little digging, Cramer’s slip had legs.

Let me take you back in time to frame this story because you won’t want to miss the underlying value of this revelation.

Back in 2002, Joe Cafasso lied about his military credentials to the Fox News Network after he wiggled his way into the newsroom as a “military consultant” for the Afghanistan war coverage. Spartan Investigators, which is run by real Green Berets, investigated his credentials, and concluded Cafasso’s military credentials claims were false. Where he claimed to be a Lt. Colonel who served in Vietnam and other military theatres, Cafasso actually spent only 44 days in boot camp at Ft. Dix. He was discharged under Chapter 13. For those of you who are not military buffs, that discharge signifies you are not “fit for military duty.” FOX did what any news organization would do – told Joe to hit the road and quietly removed him. This fraudulent representation was so newsworthy the New York Times published it. At the time, Cafasso promised to meet and present his credentials to the New York Times, but he never showed up! Cafasso – like Casper the Ghost - vanished - never to be seen again.

Veriseal, a site run by real Navy Seals, aka real military guys who don’t like pretenders, picked up on this story and had a funny exchange with Private Cafasso. Today, the FBI is on the record confirming the authenticity of Veriseal. Back in 2002, Joe Cafasso was completely obsessed with Jack Idema. Why? Because Spartan Investigators, which outed Cafasso for FOX knows Jack Idema is one of their own; the REAL DEAL. By March 2003 when the Hunt for bin Laden by Robin Moore was published and subsequently reached the NY Times Best Seller’s list, Cafasso was burning up the phone lines! WHY? Have some fun and turn to page 249 in the Hunt For Bin Laden – Cafasso’s FOX outing debut made print!

Although the situation then did not arise to the level it is today, the transformation of Joe Cafasso is once again turning into a serious news story, and this time law enforcement is engaged. Seems Mr. Pretender’s Round Two is far more serious than his Round One. Now, Cafasso has re-emerged with a brand new persona, completely reinventing himself. He claims he is some type of Spook, but not of the Casper the Ghost kind like the last time. He is making leaps from Vietnam to Langley to the White House to Ft. Meade, and telling people whose connections go directly to government agencies! This is eerily reminiscent of the resume he used back when he was trying to steal the rights to the Al Qaeda tapes in 2002.

Yes, folks, he pokes fun at me, because I don’t have a college degree, but claims his father’s engineering degree at Brown university, a school he never even attended. But it gets even better.

He’s baaaaaack sporting a different look, a new name, and is bouncing from university to university - think tank to think tank - reporter to reporter - charity to charity - network to network - dropping names and ‘fantasies’ and leaving a trail all over the place.

He’s a bunny wabbit with hops, scotches, thudds and papertrails! His game? I don’t know what a psychiatrist would call it, but it seems to me some type of psychosis!

He duped once - Will he dupe again? Reportedly he’s grown into his new persona because it’s thoroughly worked with some, and to my knowledge, several people at Columbia University. He’s even attempted to bamboozle one person with a real security clearance!

Which news organization is interested? Which one isn’t? Will the media who have used him as a source come clean, or will they cover it up? This is another example, in my opinion, of a snafu along the lines of the Rathergate memos!!!!

Lock the doors to the newsroom though, and watch who your sources pretend to be!!!
He’s been spotted in New York at the Tribeca Film Festival, on West 24th Street, at Columbia University Library late at night and at Conferences. He wants to be somebody! Now, he has his chance once again to become infamous….

“HE’S BACK - MR. PRETENDER - ROUND TWO!”

Here is a Winter/Spring 2003- excerpt from the Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly of the University of Maryland which describes the psychotic behavior this man displays and shows just a little bit of what he is capable of. I am reproducing this article by Verna Williams here because of her noted personal face to face experience with Joe Caffasso before he morphed into ….Gerry Blackwood, and how he affected one woman’s life. And I’ll bet there are more……

“You cannot dream yourself into a character, you must hammer and forge yourself one.” ~James A. Froude, 19th Century English Historian

“Son, always tell the truth. Then you’ll never have to remember what you said the last time.” ~Sam Rayburn, US Congressmen 1913-1961

Introduction

Although my aim is to discuss the social consequences of rampant lying, I begin with a personal story, a personal failing.

Unexpectedly, a friend telephoned to say that she planned to marry and I hoped to be able to meet her fiancé that next weekend over lunch. Delighted at the happy turn of events, I made plans to meet, and at the appointed time, we sat in a neighborhood restaurant waiting for her beau, who planned to arrive separately. While we waited, she told me that, after a long career in military covert activity, he now worked as a military consultant for a television network.

As she related some of the adventures he had told her, I began to feel uneasy. When her fiancé arrived, he began telling stories about himself, stories of the past, in which he was hardened by experiences in Vietnam and Iran, stories of the present, filled with danger, state secrets, assignments of the highest national priority.

But I knew my friend’s fiancé was lying-about most, if not all, of what he said. I happened to have spent time in the places and during the times he claimed to have been there. The facts were wrong, and my own experience taught me that those whose characters were forged in the fires of great trials tended to speak little, if at all, of terrible events–and never on a first meeting. And here is the personal failing; I smiled and chatted with the couple; our lunch ended and I left the restaurant with my friend as her fiancé went back to his supposed secret assignment -and I never mentioned my certainty-or even suspicion-about the dishonesty of the man she was choosing to marry.

The story has a conclusion of sorts, to which I will return at the conclusion of this article. But meeting my friend’s fiancé raised a series of questions, and while some of them concerned the responsibilities of friendship, what was most intriguing to me was consideration of the harmful effects a certain kind of liar has not just on those he lied to, but on the wider social order. Specifically, my interest resides in what I call the virtue imposter–the person who lies about his experience, knowledge, achievements, or identity, in order to gain advantage over those who abscribe to the imposter aspects of character not possessed by him.

The Western philosophical tradition has extensively considered truth-telling, prizing it as a virtue worthwhile for its own sake. Its presumed opposite, lying, is treated insofar as it serves the prudential purpose of conferring on the liar some sort of personal advantage. Put another way, in the Western tradition truth telling is regarded as needing no justification, but lying does; consequently a philisophical examination of lying typically looks to the advantages sought by the liar. The medieval thinker Augustine, for instance, categorized types of lies according to their helps and harms, as did his philosophical successor, Aquinas, who divided lies into three kinds, depending on intention. Mischievious lies aim to injure someone; jocose lies intend to ridicule another for fun; and officious lies are told for a “useful purpose”.

Although the virtual imposter’s lies confer advantage, it would be a mistake to say that she is nothing more than a con artist or swindler. The goal of swindlers and con artists is the willing transfer of financial benefits from the mark, or victim. Virtue imposters may also realize financial gain, but it usually follows as a by-product of increased status. Although philosophers have considered carefully such important ethical considerations as whether lying is under some circumstances justifiable, how lying differs from other forms of deception, the moral gravity of types of lies, and the possibility of so-called noble lies, the Western tradition has not paid enough attention to self-misrepresentation, perhaps as it confers to immediate economic advantage. The cases I examine below concern several types of virtual imposters. In addition to examining some of the benefits undeservedly accruing to the virtual imposter, the many varied instances of this kind of behavior shows that, although the exploits of virtue imposters are reported daily, we rarely consider the ubiquity of those exploits, nor-so I argue-their wider consequences, which in combination further fray our worn social fabric.

Virtue Imposters

One can arrange virtue imposters along a spectrum of virtues, character, or expertise that one can pretend to possess fairly easily, to those that require great effort or transformation to simulate. My intention is not to present an exhaustive list of kinds of virtual imposters; instead I explore a family of behaviors in which misrepresentation of the self is effected by the adoption of virtues or unearned aspects of character that harm the wider social order.

The Plagiarist. Perhaps the most common kind of virtual imposter is the plagiarist–one typically thinks of students buying term papers from Internet sources, or recycling “A” papers from fraternity brothers. Plagiarism has long been the fodder of news stories, classroom discussions, and uncomfortable discussions between teacher and accused student. Although media scrutiny tends to focus on the ease of buying papers electronically and crafting cut-and-paste assignments, the issue extends beyond the use of the Internet as a research tool.

The plagiarist appropriates the virtue of knowledge, that, in honest attainment, requires effort, discipline, and discernment. But passing off another’s work as one’s own, appearing more accomplished than one actually is, leads not to just better grades (and long-term benefits), but establishes and boosts professional reputations as well. Eminent historian and former University of New Orleans professor Stephen Ambrose responded to charges of plagiarism in his Wild Blue, a salute to World War II Aviators, remarking “if sometimes I fail to put in the quotation marks, I certainly never fail to put in a footnote.” Ambrose echoed an excuse for which any teacher would love to have a recitation. Equally eminent historian Doris Kearns Goodwin also appealed to “citation mistakes” in addressing charges of plagiarism in her 1987 best-selling work, The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. Goodwin did not mention that a financial settlement quietly had been made to historian Lynne McTaggart, from whom items were appropriated.

What neither Goodwin nor Ambrose discussed is that the inadequacies of their research procedures stem from their increasing reliance on the work of assistants (in Ambrose’s case, members of his family). The craft of rendering vivid, accurate portraits of the past disappears when history becomes a celebrity industry. Ambrose and Goodwin found themselves among a small number of eagerly sought-after commentators, and they succumbed to the pressures of celebrity-publishing voluminously as part of an overall strategy to remain in the public eye and receive high-profile media assignments.

Resume Padding. Several times a year, someone is drummed out of a prominent position when it is revealed that he or she had listed on a resume a graduate degree or claimed work experience that turned out to be a fabrication. Sandra Baldwin, president of the US Olympics Committee, resigned a day after she admitted to lying about having earned a doctorate. A reporter from an alumni association, noticing discrepancies in Baldwin’s official biography, found that Baldwin was not listed as a graduate by the registrar’s office.

About a month later, the chief of Washington D.C.’s fire department, along with three of his hand-picked deputy chiefs, were found to have listed ranks and degrees not earned, awards not given to them; in one case, a local newspaper scrutinized the resumes and employment applications after receiving tips about their veracity. After first insisting that he had corrected “erroneous information” on his resume, the embattled fire chief, with his deputies, finally resigned. Perhaps the fire chief did not know that less than two years prior to his short tenure, the D.C. Parks and Recreational director and general counsel to the D.C. financial officer, resigned after discovery of, in the words of one report, their “fictitious” resumes.

While plagiarists lie about what they know, resume padders lie about the extent of who they are. Sadly, the motivation for adding credentials to one’s resume often is just so that one might be offered a position that transforms one into the kind of person who is qualified for the job. For instance, Notre Dame football coach George O’Leary resigned after it was learned that nearly thirty years later he had added to his resume two items that would be repeated after his many years of coaching. He claimed that he had earned a Master’s degree in education and had played three years of college football. While these lies made him attractive enough to be offered his first coaching job, the years of coaching experience that followed prepared him for the pinnacle of his career as Notre Dame’s head coach. Yet few observers felt pity for O’Leary, not only because resume padding can deprive more worthy candidates the job offer, but also because O’Leary lamely tried to excuse his fabrication, stating in part, “Many years ago, as a young married father, I sought to pursue my dream as a football coach.”

The Military Phony. Unlike the plagiarist, who pretends to know more than she can rightly claim, or the resume padder, who pretends to be more than he is, the military phony pretends to be someone he is not. Sometimes a military record is fabricated, as in the case of Joseph A. Cafasso, who passed himself off as a lieutenant colonel in the Special Forces in order to insinuate himself into a consultant position at Fox News Channel and WABC Radio in New York City, and a position as organizer for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan. His fabrications extended beyond himself; Cafasso’s concocted information led to erroneous news reports at Fox, in the New York Times, and elsewhere.

Anyone notice an anonymous CIA source quoted in the articles smearing Jack Idema? I sure did.

And while Joseph Ellis, a historian serving on the faculty at Mount Holyoke, did serve in the Army (in Fort Gordon, Georgia), over time he told his students, and according to some accounts, a wider circle of colleagues and other historians, that he was a platoon leader in Vietnam, a paratrooper with the 101st Airborne, and a member of General Westmoreland’s staff. Following an article in the Boston Globe raising questions about Elliss’s tales, Mount Holyoke suspended Ellis from its faculty for one year.

Consider, finally, the phony war hero, a person who either never served in the military, or did serve, but without special distinction–and then obtained, and proudly wears, unearned medals and decorations. Other veterans are often the first to spot the person who decorates himself with unearned medals. In one instance, a Navy veteran noticed a man wearing two navy crosses (in this case, a Navy cross ribbon accompanied by a gold star pin, denoting a second award, worn above the Vietnam Service medal and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.) The navy veteran happened to have just recently learned that no one had twice received such an honor in the Vietnam conflict. Several veteran’s groups post on their Web sites some of the most extravagant displays of unearned medals. (These groups typically offer advice for verifying claims of military service, past prisoner of war status, and claims of recognition of heroism. [see inset])

Among the most brazen phony war heroes is Ralph Ervin Crowder, who had himself photographed wearing the summer white uniform of a U.S. Navy admiral adorned with several rows of ribbons–and a medal of Honor–pinned to his chest. He later confessed that these items were bought from a surplus shop. There are only 157 living Medal of Honor recipients, and they all know of each other through the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Through the efforts of one genuine recipient, Mitchell Paige, anyone wearing a Medal of Honor now faces a one-year prison term and possibly a $100,000 fine. Mr. Crowder, when questioned by FBI officials about his naval uniform and medal, also boldly produced fraudulent material indicating that he was affiliated with the National Security Agency (NSA). Posing as an officer of the NSA is an even more serious offense than falsely wearing the Medal of Honor; Mr. Crowder now faces a maximum penalty of four-and-a-half years in prison and a $355,000 fine if convicted.

Fraudulent Science. To this point, I have presented several kinds of virtue imposters. The plagiarist adopts the knowledge, understanding, or analysis of others and claims them for herself. The resume padder adds a little (or a lot) more to his experience, augmenting who he really is. The military phony adopts a past not his own, acts of courage he didn’t perform –he impersonates the heroic character and virtues he does not possess.

One final type -some would argue the worst type-of virtue imposter merits discussion here. The scientific fraud invents knowledge of the ways the world works. Not only might she lack such virtues as intellectual dexterity, an inventive spirit, and tenacity, all necessary for true scientific discovery, but she also dooms others in their efforts to apply, replicate or build on a false foundation.

Consider the recent extraordinary case of Dr. J. Henrik Schön, the 32-year old Bell Labs scientist who a year ago was thought to be a fast track to a Nobel Prize as “one of nanotechnology’s brightest stars.” Results published between 1998 and 2001 (in seventeen papers appearing in scientific journals with twenty collaborators, Dr. Schön among them) heralded breakthroughs in physics with applications in molecular electronics–building circuits out of individual molecules. Schon’s contributions were fabrications. Although the investigative committee appointed by Bell Labs concluded that Schön alone was guilty of fabricating data on which others relied, the scandal raised troubling questions about others touched by fraud–the co-authors who noticed nothing unusual (and did not scrutinize one another’s data), Dr. Schön’s post-doctoral advisor and senior author of several scientific papers, the scientific journals that reviewed the papers, Bell Labs and its parent company, Lucent Technologies (which allowed Schön to claim that he saved lab notes, a notable lapse in scientific practice).

Doubts arose only when scientists, frustrated in their attempts to reproduce Schön’s work, were first told that the technique of constructing a novel transistor-where the main switching component was a layer one molecule thick-was difficult to master, but were later told that only a few of the devices actually worked. An investigation began after two physics professors noticed identical graphs that supposedly showed data from different experiments. Schön was fired by Bell Labs following the panel’s finding of scientific misconduct, but he insists his work is valid “I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret. I truly believe that the reported scientific efforts are real, exciting, and worth working for.”

The Virtue Imposter’s Harms

The most artful of swindlers and con artists can extract money from their marks without a gun; at best, the mark happily hands over all he has, gleefully believing he is getting the better deal. The virtue imposter derives benefit, too–recognition, fame, power or authority, honor, professional prestige, and often the financial benefits that follow. The advantages of deceit are clear, but the wrong committed by the virtue imposter is arguably greater than that of the swindler. “You can’t cheat an honest man,” so the saying goes-and con artists will thrive so long as they can find a greedy person willing to cut some corners for a ’special deal’. The swindler plays on peoples’ ethical weaknesses; the virtue imposter, by contrast, plays on peoples’ better natures–generosity, humility, their need for heroes, their aspirations for the goods of knowledge and discovery. Although the virtue imposter’s wrongs are extensive and merit further examination, I want to focus on the wider social harms that result.

Most of the time, discovery of the virtue imposter is followed by examination of those whom the imposter has harmed–her students, colleagues, organization, or profession. But little consideration is given to the social effects of virtue imposters–again, arguably–can be assigned a rank order according to the extent and severity of harms.

Assumption of Authority. One certain harm is that those who believe that the virtue imposter is the genuine article will be misinformed about facts. More importantly, they will be misinformed about what an extraordinary person–the expert, hero, visionary–is like. And they will give the imposter an undeserved authority, seeking advice, looking to-perhaps emulating-how she approaches life’s challenges, or social and political questions. Even worse, those who are taken in by the virtue imposter might apply all the wrong lessons they thought they learned about the imposter’s “character”.

Cynicism. It is now a commonplace to remark that contemporary society is cynical, and to attribute that cynicism to revelations about the acts of leaders and prominent professionals that have eroded the public trust–the Watergate scandal and official misrepresentations about military involvement are most often cited as the greatest breaches of trust in recent US history. But other revelations have contributed to this view. For instance, many were appalled to learn from James Jones’ best-selling 1981 work, “Bad Blood”, of the existence of the Tuskogee study of syphilis (begun during the Great Depression and lasting forty-two years), which followed, but did not treat, 399 siphilitic Afro-American men. This, and other medical exposes–such as the 1994 revelation that some government sponsored physician-researchers had subjected over 16,000 American patients to radiation experiments from World War II to the mid-1970’s–undermine the confidence that medical science truly serves the public health. Populations in nuclear test sites areas in Washington state and Nevada were exposed to nuclear fallout from nuclear testing without their knowledge or consent. Add to these scandals of the garden variety-financial greed sort, such as the savings and loan debacle of the 1980’s, and the recent Enron-type accounting scandals. These incidents can lead one to conclude that, if no one is motivated by good or the common good and all motives must be base ones, then cynicism is the only reasonable stance when regarding public enterprise.

Integrity and its seeming incompatibility with success. Integrity, commonly defined as the quality of adhering to sound moral principles-of being upright, honest and sincere-can seem quaint, irrelevant, and downright antithetical to success in life. Students who plagiarize believe that doing well–regardless how the quality is produced–is essential to success, which increasingly is defined as a white-collar, prestigious occupation with a high income. Cheating is but one step in the long ladder of competition. Adults, and the young people who learn by observing them, no longer find it unseemly to compete for anything-regardless of whether that goal-or good-is what they want. No longer is it shameful to talk about wanting a lot of money-not to do anything uplifting with it, but simply to have it. The pressure some adults feel might differ little from that felt by High School students who, despite high grades, test scores, and class ranking, believes that if she does not cut a few corners, introduce so-called efficiencies, others will surpass her. In a winner-take-all society, the pressure to “win” –whether gaining admission to one’s dream college, or achieving recognition as a sought-after history commentator-becomes increasingly difficult to withstand.

Acceptance of Deception. When lying is seen as a necessary, acceptable part of life, two odd phenomena follow. One is that the public assigns roles to individuals and yet fails to scrutinize its need for those roles. The historian Joseph Ellis is a veteran–but some called him the ‘perfect veteran’ because his claim to have seen action in Vietnam, and then return to the US to become an outspoken opponent of the war, made him attractive to a number of constituencies, including the anti-war community, and others who drew lessons from the Vietnam experience. Dr. Schön, the fraudulent scientist, was initially seen as representative of the selfless seeker of knowledge. When his fraud was exposed, some claimed that this proved that the scientific self-regulatory process worked. The head of the committee that investigated Dr. Schön’s case, Dr. Malcolm R. Beasley, a professor of applied physics at Stanford University, concluded that Schon’s fabrication “got understood and exposed.” And Paul Ginsparg, a theoretical physicist, when asked how Schön got away with his phony experiments, insisted, “He didn’t. That’s a very easy answer. The question you meant to ask was, ‘What was he thinking?’” Ginsparg went on to say that “Schön got the professional equivalent of the death penalty.” But perhaps the exposure of Schön’s deception does not justify reassurance in science’s safeguards; rather it suggests an unwillingness to entertain the possibility that the standard characterization of the scientific enterprise –a cooperative, carefully scrutinized undertaking into nature’s inner workings–is at best an idealization.

The other consequences of accepting lies as ordinary is that the public can easily ridicule those fooled. Just consider the recent popularity of “reality” television shows. Part of the entertainment value of “Joe” (the phony) Millionaire,” to name just one, was that reviewers relished the prospect of seeing the women “Joe” woos when these women learn he is a construction worker-with a modest income. When lying becomes acceptable, it is easy to blame for their victimization those whose stance is not cynicism or suspicion, seeing them as naiive or silly for not assuming that deception and self-serving motives are always at work.

Conclusion

Perhaps the worst effect of the ubiquity of pretense is that the public becomes complacent about being lied to. As citizens we give up our duty of civic involvement and deliberation-accepting that entertainment is not aesthetically uplifting but merely emotionally manipulative, treating all others as involved in personal mechanizations designed to advance only their interests, believing that political and policy decisions invariably obscure basic motives. In the end, we adopt a fatalistic or defensive stance toward public endeavors and withdraw from civic participation. The seventh century jurist and humanist Hugo Grotius, among others, realized that deceit–regardless whether in public or private affairs–conflicts with the liberty of judgment. If one is duped, if one accepts that one will be duped, then one’s judgment is thwarted. Either one is hindered from making decisions, or good decisions are entirely accidental.

In not speaking up to my friend about her fiancé, I helped him impede my friend’s judgment about, among other matters, her life prospects and her best interests. As it happens the New York Times did the kindness of exposing Joe Cafasso, who immediately disappeared, for the time being.

Thanks to Verna Williams at the University of Maryland for this outstanding piece.

Such a lofty prestigious organization bases their ‘truth in journalism and reporting’ on not just a guy with a fake resume, but a guy without a real name!

When Mariah Blake’s anonymous CIA source claimed Jack’s voice could be heard on the Al Qaeda tapes, this is how brilliant these people who tout the highest standards of journalism ethics are; they completely vouch for this fictitious source in court who turns out to be a mythical person! And if they’d done a simple search on this guy’s name, they wouldn’t have discovered he didn’t exist! This is a man who has engratiated himself with the community within the halls of Columbia University–not only attending lectures at Columbia University, but actually has SPOKEN there, and has been used as a source to write articles, participated in discussions, and is someone they apparently trust! And it’s none other than Joe Cafasso, aka Gerry Blackwood!

International Security Policy?

“He gave all kinds of bad information to the press. Most of it was national security implications.”

That is what Blackwood said of Idema in Mariah Blake’s “Tin Soldier”.

School of International and Public Affairs? You’ve GOT to be kidding!!! So…I just have a few questions.

• How did he completely fool Mariah Blake, her associates and all those ‘fact-checkers’ at the Columbia Journalism School, supposedly THE BEST journalism school in the country?
• Is a patch over one eye, an indiana jones hat and a pipe, a made up resume and a few names dropped- all it takes to be considered an “expert” in the ‘best journalism school’ in the nation?
• Where do you suppose the FBI is in all this?
• Where is homeland security in all this?
• While we’re fighting a war on terror, we have frauds like this guy claiming to work for the CIA and nobody even CHECKS HIS NAME?
• How does a complete fraud like this get the authority to speak in public at Columbia University as an expert on national security policy, and where are the authorities?

Blackwood also said that Pakistan was not helping terrorists in Afghanistan. But documents recently released say otherwise, proving Idema right. Blackwood claimed that Iraqis were NOT operating in Afghanistan, that there was “no connection between Iraq and Afghanistan”. That is completely made up! The army recently declassified reports that show that Iraq intelligence officers were operating in Afghanistan through the entire time. So it appears as though Mariah Blake said that Idema was lying on the authority of Gerry Blackwood, the secret “CIA” contact whose identity they wouldn’t reveal.

Well now we know why, lol!

I’m sorry, but I have to wonder about elitists and their snooty superiority when they can’t even figure out that they’re being SCAMMED by an experienced con artist who has done it BEFORE!

Previous posts on Joe Cafasso here and here.

Previous posts on Columbia University here, here, here and here and here.

jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema