Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 5 Num. 82

("Quid coniuratio est?")

Having been forwarded a message, purported to have originally been written by James Norman, author of "Fostergate", I decided to go directly to Sherman Skolnick and see what he had to say.

Here, first of all, is what is purportedly a message written to "Mike" by James Norman which "Mike" then forwarded to me:

Subject: gierum denies all - Jim Norman

Mike: I don't think there are any depositions. Gierum denied there were. He claims Sherman took some offhanded joke out of context and turned it into a conspiracy. I just don't have the time myself to persue this track. If you do, I guess you've got to go back to Sherman and make him produce something real.

Good Luck. Cheers, Jim N.

To which "Mike" adds:

Well, Brian, unless you can get something more out of Sherman, we have a dead end and a blast to Sherman's credibility. Pretty ugly the way it stands, isn't it?



"Mike" then sent the following, containing a message purportedly written by Orlin Grabbe.

"Mike" begins

I've got the Andreuccetti stuff.

I emailed Grabbe and asked him his advice on pursuing the RTC bank fund link to Arkansas that Sherman claims Gierum told him about. His response:

About the RTC, I don't know. I have too many good leads to follow to worry about that part of it. It is possible that someone supplied Skolnick with disinformation, for which the basic structure of the story was true, but the names were changed to create a diversion and confusion, and hence debunk the whole thesis.

For a story like the one you are pursuing, you need to get specific wire transfer information of amounts from institution to institution. (Good luck in getting any cooperation from the banks in question.)

Right now I am focusing on a single wire transfer, which is going to blow this whole thing wide open. And that is the $286,000 from vince's sister to her sister-in-law. Think about it.


I spoke by phone with Mr. Skolnick on August 18, 1995. Note that in what follows I neither necessarily agree nor disagree with either all or parts of statements made by Mr. Skolnick. Persons mentioned are invited to send rebuttals, of reasonable length, for probable distribution.

-- Brian Francis Redman, Editor-in-Chief

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

To me, you had voiced suspicions as to, why is Jim Norman so intent on getting you to release some of your sources.

All right. Well first of all, let's deal with the purported e- mail that you saw, where somebody claims that they're relating something that Norman said: that he interviewed a key witness in the Whitewater matter -- a key witness as far as I'm concerned -- John E. Gierum. And Gierum, according to the e-mail, says that the whole thing was "an offhand joke".

That's ridiculous. Because my declaration, the declaration of the other witness who was once a client of Gierum as a lawyer, Joseph Andreuccetti {1}. Our declaration, under the penalty of perjury, is in the federal court record. Gierum was served a copy, and from January '94 on, when it came up in court, he never disputed it.

Now, supposedly -- if we understand that Norman questioned him; if that's what happened, that Gierum made such a statement -- he isn't telling the truth! In other words, that it was "an offhand joke"? Like hell it was.

All right. And according to this supposed message from Jim Norman to this person, he supposedly says, "I guess you've got to go back to Sherman and make him produce something real." And that goes back to this thing of...

In other words, I can produce the thing where his confession is referred to in the court record, where he was served a copy of it. And our declaration, me and the other witness, Andreuccetti, is in the record. I've said that all along to anybody that inquires.

Now as to the other question, about my sources: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when a journalist or a news organization or an editor of a news service or newspaper promises confidentiality to a source, that that is a binding contract. And were that to be violated, the source -- if he is named actually in the news story -- can sue for damages that may result, if he loses his job as a reprisal, and so on.

That was a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

And I not only abide by that decision, but further than that: every good investigative journalist never divulges his sources, because it's like burning down a bridge! You don't do that. I mean, I've been at this since 1958. Do I have sources in key places in the government over a period of more than 3 decades? Of course; the answer is, "yes". Will I identify who they are? No. And I don't care how much some so-called "establishment" reporter pushes and shoves me, questioning my credibility, I still won't reveal my sources. And, neither will Jim Norman!

But what happens is, the mass media looks down their nose at people like me. And, in other words, they can demand my sources, but I can't demand theirs. So, I mean, because he's a paid journalist and I'm an unpaid journalist and I head up a not- for-profit group, does that mean that I'm therefore considered a nobody, that my credibility immediately is zero? I hope that isn't true. I mean, I've got a long track record of judges and others who've gone to prison, been put to the wall, each one of whom called me a liar! And one of 'em just got out of jail, that called me a liar.

All right. But you had, before, suggested that Norman might actually be some kind of spy {2}.

Well I now know approximately where his story comes from. And he probably has reasonably good sources. But I have a question in my mind -- and if Norman says something to the contrary, why I would stand corrected -- but I don't believe that Norman has a background as an investigative journalist. He certainly, so far as I know, is not a known quantity in espionage stories. And his story about "Fostergate" appears to be an espionage-type story.

There are known writers in the espionage field. (Because they know retired "spooks" and stuff like that.) But I don't think Norman is one of them.

[ be continued...]

---------------------------<< Notes >>--------------------------- {1} The transcript of my interview of Joseph Andreuccetti is available online: (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom (4) look for "Andreuccetti Affair" under sub-menu "Whitewater".

Here is a relevant portion of that interview:

CONSPIRACY NATION: One final question: John E. Gierum was your attorney, right?
JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI: At one time, he was my bankruptcy attorney. CONSPIRACY NATION: Okay. Any comments you've got on Gierum? JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI: Today I know that Gierum, first of all, is a Jesuit. Second of all, he (I don't know if Skolnick told you) is a senior litigator for the SBA [Small Business Administration] loans. He's a crony of Hillary [Rodham Clinton]. We know that. And he admits that the money [$58 million] was secretly wired to Arkansas! SHERMAN SKOLNICK: And that the White House is trying to frame him for it!
JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI: And the White House tried to frame him for that.
CONSPIRACY NATION: And, but when you say he is a Jesuit, you mean he's a priest!? Or he's connected with them? JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI: Well... He [Skolnick] can explain better... SHERMAN SKOLNICK: There were three lawyers that were practicing together: R. Barton Kalish (who was his lawyer), Forrest Ingram, and the third guy is John E. Gierum. But the group has split up.

Gierum is now with a group of lawyers in Park Ridge who represent international bankers. And Gierum has got his office inside there.

And it was outside that office, that he got into [Andreuccetti's] Jeep and sat and talked about his problem, with us: that they are framing him (this was January '94), and that he was worried that they were gonna send him to jail. (And you heard the little interview we did: where he said the law, and the facts, cannot protect him, because it's a set-up.)
JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI: And he also said, he was very concerned, "They're gonna send me to jail,"... CONSPIRACY NATION: You were a witness to that, though? JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI: Oh yeah.
..."One of them is connected to my little five-year-old daughter," and it was all kinds of concern. I mean, he was like a man that was ready, just about, to be shot! CONSPIRACY NATION: And you believed his confession. JOSEPH ANDREUCCETTI: Absolutely! You can look a man in the face, [and tell] whether he's lying or telling the truth. You can see it in the eyes. He was a man practically in despair at the time.

{2} Skolnick had previously wondered aloud about why was Norman so insistent that Skolnick let loose with some of his sensitive information. For the record, there is no solid information that Mr. Norman is any type of spy nor is such meant to be implied by me. The question (above) is purely speculative.

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" to -- To cancel, send a message in the form "unsubscribe conspire" to
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9

Brian Francis Redman "The Big C"

Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"