James DiEugenio

Here is Part 2 for you:

I talked to Rachel Rendish today. Very knowledgeable about Hugh. She told me that he was one of the most frequent guests on KERA in Dallas about JFK. Why is that odd? Because that is the PBS outlet there. She also told me that the late Wallace Milam made a video out of the Holland McCombs archives at U of Tennessee. In it was a receipt by Life to Aynseworth for his stealing of the so called Oswald Diary and selling it to them. A deal Marina was cut out of. She showed my article to someone who was going to the Aynseworth memorial. When the wife of the program director at KERA saw it she got really angry.

MK :ITS HARD TO THINK OF "FAR FETCHED BELIEFS " WITHOUT THE H AND L THEORY Not hard at all. David LIfton's theory of body interception and alteration. All the bullets came from the front and they surgically altered Kennedy's corpse to make it look like they came from the rear. David Lifton's theory of Zapruder film alteration which goes back to Murder from Within. Almost any installment of Nigel Turner's series which went on for years e.g. the LIggett undertaker angle which he was sued on, the metal detection images, Judy Baker etc etc How many do you want? There are literally scores of them out there.

Ben: Just remember, 2 million budget back then. Today, that is about ten million. For a JFK assassination book?

The other point I was trying to accent was: how quickly Epstein flipped. Inquest was published in January of 1966. And Clay Felker gave it a big blast off at his house, many celebrities there. And it got attention in the press. It was mostly well reviewed. But yet, by the end of the year, Epstein has gone over and is cooperating with the likes of Richard Warren Lewis and FBI fink Larry Schiller. He is on their record album accompanying that horrible book, The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report. Then, he does not show up as part of the Boston debate team with Salandria. But he does approach him later and they have that strange conversation which I took from John Kelin's fine book, Praise from a Future Generation. Where Epstein says to Vince that he has changed. That debate was in November of 1966. And then of course he goes to work on the smear job on Jim Garrison. In light of the record, there are two schools of thought on Epstein and the JFK case. For whatever reason, he turned in late 1966. I mean when you are cavorting around with the lawyers for Clay Shaw, and Jack Ruby and Gordon Novel, and your end product is put out by the CIA as an example of how to counter the critics, then you have changed your ways. The other school is that Epstein was not really ever a critic, because his first book seemed to tolerate the concept of Political Truth. And very soon after he called critics like Mark Lane "demonologists". He even accused Lane of sending a burglar to his house to steal a document. (This turned out to be untrue as Lane already had it from Salandria.) But on top of that he was, by the seventies, firmly in the Oswald did it camp. As can be seen by the conclusion of Legend. He even supports the forensic conclusions of the HSCA! Which is nutty. I mean Guinn, Canning, Baden? They have all turned out to be jokes. For myself, I really don't know which is the answer. If you forced me at gunpoint, I would probably vote for the latter. On the grounds that he hid Specter's reply to him about how he convinced the rest of the Commission into the SBT. Specter told Epstein that he simply showed them the Z film in slow motion and said, "We either go with the Magic Bullet, or we start looking for a second shooter." To my knowledge he did not reveal this until the 21st century.

The importance of the letter is it indicates the kind of connections and backing that Epstein had and could use to pressure Lord to talk to him against his will. These were real and they really bothered Lord. If you look on page 622 of The Assassination Chronicles, it does not look like Lord consented to an interview since it is not noted in Epstein's sources section. And Readers' Digest used their own connections to the FBI and the CIA. A 2 million dollar book budget was huge back then.

On the passing of Edward Epstein, and his rather odd career in the JFK field. How does anyone get a half million advance for a book on the JFK case? And why and how can anyone switch positions as fast as Epstein did? These and other mysteries are noted below. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/edward-epstein-the-critic-who-flipped

If NARA had the powers the ARRB had, then why did they not overrule the Gannon Memo? That memo was an alteration of the law was it not?

Harry Connick was a poor excuse for a DA. He had a tendency to ignore the Brady rule and was sued over this more than once. John Volz, who worked under both Garrison and Connick, once told me that the latter could not convict someone if his name was on the bullet. We all know what he did with the files in Garrison's office, he set them aflame. And the clincher is the Dino Cinel pedophilia case. Look that one up if you want to get nausea.

I just talked to her, and Cory is right, its a three part long form series by the local Fox station. Cory, can you please post the other two? Lisa is becoming quite the TV face of the RFK murder. The last one she did was Kim Iverson.

Is this from like a week or so ago? Because she did not tell me about it.

I agree Ron, I would not grant a pathological xxxx or his pals anything. Its pretty clear Dallas is in denial about Hugh. I mean the stuff about him and the FBI, and him and the CIA in that obit is pretty devastating. And him BSing about it is even worse. And I have more coming on this fink.

Roger, and you keep on leaving out the clause in 12 b about "operations" of the Board.

Roger keeps on saying this: 12(b) mandates that all provisions of the Act not pertaining to appointments to the ARRB and ARRB operations SHALL remain in full force and effect. What were the operations of the ARRB? They were given to the Board by congress. On its own NARA did not have those kinds of powers. That is why Trump called for the delay and then used the Gannon memo. Thanks to Paul Bacon for getting what I said.

Sandy: I could not agree more. How does saying this: "Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." On its own, relate to Armstrong?

Andrew, Are you saying that the MFF suit did not argue that point about the Gannon memo vs the combination of Section 6 and 12? If so this is what I meant about having to knock out the Gannon memo. My other point is this: the archivist does not have the powers invested in the ARRB. No one ever did. I thought this was why when the CIA and FBI went in and read Trump the riot act, they could not do anything about it. But what I think you are saying is that the combination of 6 and 12 could contravene the president.

Everyone should read this, first hand knowledge about ZInn and Chomsky about JFK and Vietnam. Well, I know about this issue because when the Pentagon Papers were released in 1971, they were later published by a maverick press, Beacon Press. The following year, they commissioned a follow-up volume of essays which was edited by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I was asked to write an essay, in which I stated that President Kennedy had plans, which he already began implementing, to withdraw most U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965. Chomsky was out of the country at the time so I sent my essay to Howard Zinn and he, thinking like Chomsky, said, “You don’t want to publish this.” And I said, “Why not?” He said, “It sounds like you think it would make a difference if we had a different president.” And I said “Yes, it did make a difference! That’s the whole point of my essay.” And Howard said, “Peter, that’s bad politics. It’s the system that’s wrong. You’ve got to be against the system.”

Robert, I did say that in my article. Did you not read it?

I am not a lawyer, but I have been in court several times, since in California everyone sues everybody else over anything. (When I lived in Pennsylvania for almost thirty years, i was never once in court.) Judges like it when you can present a case the first time around in a complaint with precedents and proper authorities and every legal claim spelled out. It tells them that you are in control and you understand what you are doing and where you are going.

This is the second paragraph of the ruling, and it directly relates to what Andrew is pointing out above. 1 In the future, Plaintiffs must submit all the relevant documents in one filing on ECF by the deadline, unless ordered otherwise. Relevant documents include any declarations, tables of contents, and tables of authorities, which must be submitted as attachments to Plaintiffs’ briefs, not as separate filings. Plaintiffs are also required to submit any proposed orders by the briefing deadline. The haphazard nature of Plaintiffs’ filings makes it challenging for other parties and the court to follow Plaintiffs’ briefing.

The best analysis of the Gannon Memo anywhere. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-assassination-records-the-picture-is-getting-clearer Trump used this pile of rubbish to initiate the first 6 month delay. I have already talked about Seeborg's ruling on email with Mark and Andrew. How could Andrew have predicted it if he had not analyzed all the filings up to that time.

Roger, I did not distort what you said. Here you go, back at you: "Not until yesterday did I fully realize what Judge Seeborg is saying in his first decision about what Congress intended to happen after the ARRB closed its door in 1998. He was *not* ignoring the question of whose job it was to continue the work the Board had started, as I had thought. " No one, and I mean no one, has published more or more detailed articles than Kennedys and King have on this subject. There is no site even in second place. Mark A and Andrew E (I forgot he's Canadian, therefore cannot read English), have done about five in depth articles on this subject for us. And its Mark who first understood the importance and primacy of the Gannon Memo signed under Trump. That was the key turning point in this whole battle. Do you even know what it is? Because if you do not understand the Gannon Memo you do not understand Seeborg's decision. Secondly, the other issue is that of ministerial duties, and who does them. Mark A and Andrew also realized the key importance of that part of the dispute. Why did you not quote the second paragraph of Seeborg's decision? Just recall, Bill and Larry picked this court to file in--for obvious reasons. PS Sandy is starting to uncover the problem. Congrats.

Larry, That is kind of a cheap shot is it not? Roger just admitted that he is now just understanding the rulings. Andrew has been following them step by step and predicted what Seeborg would do a week before he did it based on the prior filings. You and Bill picked this court. I mean this is as bad as your remarks about Tanenbaum at the Houston mock trial.

Why do we have two threads on this ? Roger did not see the other one? Also, is Roger a lawyer or expert on the FOIA and JFK Act? Where is the actual decision? Has anyone posted it?

I think that the issue of legislative records will now proceed. Which means that you go through discovery etc. But just remember, this is now 2024. I mean whew.