Lawrence Schnapf

Good stuff. You must like Geoff Shepard's work ! I've read all his books. provocative stuff.

You are assuming that the bullet the FBI tested in November was the same bullet that was stored at the Parkland lab for the prior six months? Misnomer or was Curry speaking accurately?

@Greg Doudna The Darnell film is one of the issues we are pressing. NBC is in possession of this "assassination record" and refuses to allow it to be analyzed. perhaps a media blitz can be directed towards NBC to embarass it to fork over this film and the Sheriden records. but both of these issues are subject of our lawsuit

@Jim DiEugenio- While Roger is not a lawyer, his analysis is superior to that of Canadian lawyer Andrew Iler who does not undestand US administrative law and whose analysis continues to be encumbered by his emotional need to grind his bitter axe.

NARA said it was the "successor in function" to the ARRB when it published it regulation in 2000 and that it continued to "supplement" the JFK Collection. There is no disupte that the ARRB had the authority to compel agencies to search for Assassinatin Records. After NARA failed to pursue any of the outstanding ARRB searches, MFF sought an injunctive relief and asked the court to simply order NARA to do what it said it would do- carry out the duties of the ARRB as its "successor in function." Remedial statutes such as the JFK Act are supposed to be broadly intepreted to achieve the goals of the statute. And courts are supposed to give deference to the intepretation of agencies that are tasked with administering a statute. Despite the fact that the JFK Act is a remedial statute and that NARA told the American people that it was the successor in function when it adopted the JFK Act regulations in 2000, the court said the NARA really did not mean it was a successor in function. The decision reminded me of the Wizard of Oz's admonition to Dorothy to ignore the man behind the curtain.

@Tom Gram we have some ideas about missing or destroyed records. For example, there are footnoes in Book V of the Church Committee Report that cites documents that are not in the JFK Collection or the current Church Committee records. The LHO mexico city tapes were destroyed but we know Mexican Government was given dupes. We are asking for them. The Sheridan files were physically removed from the JFK Library (technically a part of the NARA presidential records system) and given to NBC. What happened to the reports sumarizing the investigation conducted Donald Heath over the weekend of the assassination into potential exile and cuban involvement in the assassination. his memo said he saw those reports in 1973 in a storage cabinet at Langley. What happened to them? were they destroyed? We have accounts that a ONI investigation on oswald was done in the weeks after the assassination and the investigatve materials were stored at naval bases around the world so they would not be found if a record search was done in DC. we also want to find out what records were actually searched at CIA. did they actually search every nook where records could have been stored? It is unclear. I'd like to depose CIA officials to see where they looked. Just some examples. I'm sure others have ideas/suggestions. if you do, please contact Bill Simpich and me. BTW- not only did NBC refuse to turn over the Sheridan files to ARRB (who commenced lawsuit that was terminated when ARRB went out of business) but it has also refused to share the Darnall film so that it can be analyzed usingmodern forensic techniques. There should be an outcry launched against NBC for withholding these materials that have been identified as "assassination" records.

and here is an objective and more accurtate article from Bloomberg News by a reporter without an axe to grind as andrew does. JFK Assassination Records Suit Gets Partial Green Light (1) Peter Hayes Reporter Documents N.D. Cal. Opinion N.D. Cal. Docket Plaintiffs may pursue claims for ‘destroyed’ records Court denies ‘repackaged’ claim for missing records Archivists seeking records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy can proceed with claims under the Federal Records Act against the National Archives and Records Administration related to destroyed documents, but not missing ones, the Northern District of California ruled. The plaintiffs sued the National Archives and Records Administration under the Federal Records Act, saying that the agency improperly failed to request that the US Attorney General recover records related to the assassination. The plaintiffs may pursue claims for “destroyed” records because they sufficiently allege that there are ways these documents could be recovered, including retention of a “computerized version,” Judge Richard Seeborg of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Thursday. NARA, however, has no duty to pursue “missing” records, Seeborgsaid. A claim for “missing” records is a “repackaged version” of the plaintiffs’ failed effort to compel NARA to pursue outstanding record searches, he said. The court reiterated its July 14 ruling that NARA has no obligation to complete searches begun by the Assassination Records Review Board, which was terminated in 1998 after issuing a final report. The board was an independent federal agency created to oversee the identification and release of records related to the assassination of Kennedy. It was established by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. Plaintiffs Mary Ferrell Foundation Inc., Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar filed the lawsuit on Oct. 19, 2022. They filed a third amended complaint on Sept. 11, 2023, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the JFK Act, and the FRA. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that NARA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA. The plaintiffs’ motion to compel agency action under the APA also fails, with the exception of the claim that NARA failed to maintain identification aids for each assassination record and to release legislative records, Seeborg ruled. Lawrence Schnapf of New York and William Morris Simpich in Oakland, Calif., represent the plaintiffs. The case is Mary Ferrell Foundation Inc., v. Biden, N.D. Cal., No. 22-cv-06176, 1/18/24. (Story updated with additional reporting throughout) To contact the reporter on this story: Peter Hayes in Washington at PHayes@bloombergindustry.com To contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick L. Gregory at pgregory@bloombergindustry.com

This is not a "major blow" as the headline would suggest. This was pretty much a status quo ruling. we are still in the case and can do alot with what is left. Bill and I believe this judge ruled incorrectly on a numebr of issues. we forced the judge to rule on several issues he declined to address in his earlier ruling and he basically doubled-down on his earlier flawed reasoning. these motions were strategic to create and preserve a record for a possible appeal to the 9th circuit where we would be before 3 judges, not one. some points that the original poster does not appreciate: Here are some of the erroneous rulings by the judge. He continues to refer to NARA actions as “recommendations”. He did not explain why our argument that the approval of the transparency plans were the consummation of a multi-year process and was final agency action because they imposed legal obgligations on the agencies. He repeated his incorrect conclusion that his July 14 conclusion that it was the president’s order that created legal consequences. Biden's order directed the NDC to implement the plans, not the agencies. The agencies committed to the plans that were approved by NARA. That is the final agency action that we can argue on appeal. The President’s order never said NARA had "recommended" the transparency plans be implemented. He says that NARA advised him the plans would ensure the Act would be complied with- which they don’t because of the non-staturory, less-stringent criteria. He continues to wrongly conclud that the president has “broad discretion” under Section 5(g)(2)(D) to use any criteria for postponement. He ignores that Congress limited the discretion of the president by imposing the grounds for postponement and that section 6 continues provides the specific justifications for postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D)(see next comment) In saying section 5(g)92)(D) creates a distinct authority for the president, he ignores that the agencies have continued to use section 6 to support their postponements. The idea that section 6 ended on 10/24/17 is belied by the actions of the agencies and NARA. He refuses to recognize that periodic review has been ongoing. Again the actions of the agencies, NARA and the president refute the legal, post-hac rationalizations offered by DOJ I am confident that when we get before three judges on the 9th circuit, they will admonish the district court for his cramped intepretation of a law that is supposed to be broadly construed since it was a remedial statute.

Knott Labs was hired by John Orr to develop photogrammetry for a 3D animation of DP. Orr provided the details and instructions to Knott to do a bare-bones 3D animation that focused on two frames of the Z-film. Stoll-the CEO of KL- knew very little about the assassination and to this day continues to make serious mistakes when discussing the assassination, the project and the implications of the project. After the initial 3D animation was completed in 2018, John Orr and I formed a limited partnership to fund further work on this project. We subequently parted ways with KL when the person who worked on the project left KL. We have continued to revise the animation and are close to finishing it. Stoll/KL is promoting an old version of the animation and I would not put much credence in anything Stoll or KL says. -FWIW

there is an intersection of copyright law and first amendment protections.

I suspect he may have been aware that there was going to be a "demonstration" to protest JFK policy regarding Cuba and was not aware there would be an assassination attempt.

I am in touch with a leading first amendment lawyer to see what our options are for trying to force NBC to release the Darnal footage.

This is the full and raw video footage of the interview that Jeff Morley and I did with Jim Robenalt- advisor and confidant of former secret service agent Paul Landis. Hopefully you will find that it answers some of your questions. https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3zrbxui3vzocsk/Robenalt Interview (Full unedited) Video.mp4?dl=0.

the link only provides first page view. do you have the entire article?

I interviewed Louck on several occasions to see if we should have him speak at a CAPA event. I did a "soft" cross-examination and his story did not hold up- as much as i wished it would.

i interviewed Louck several times -essentially a "soft" cross examination. unfortunately, i did not find him credible. his story did not hold up under scrunity.

thank you for recognizing the value of the MFF lawsuit. I know you did not think much of our effort in the beginning and it is rewarding to see you recognize its value. Bill and I believed this would be a good platform to make progress. we have more quivers to use to continue applying pressure.

i will be speaking with Jim to resolve many of the questions.

Let's tease this apart. 1. we only have news articles with selected excertps. Mr. Landis will be speaking at the Wecht institute on November 15th where we will have opportunity to ask questions. Until then, any attacks of his story or pronouncements that the SBT are premature and simply knee-jerk reaction. As a former secret service agent, i think we need to treat him with respect until such time that we have the chance to examine his story. 2. it is quite possible that Clint Hill did not see a bullet that may have been under or stuck between the bodies of JFK and Jackie. Hill never examined the backseat after the president was removed and he helped Jackie out of the car. 3. The NYT piece says that Hill cautioned Landis from writing his book because of "implications". Would be interesting if he was referring to personal implications or bigger picture implications. Not surprisingly, Hill went on NBC last night to discredit the story, Dr. James Young said in his oral history of the Naval Medical Bureau Office of History in 2001 that a mishapened bullet was found by corpsmen that were sent to the limo to retrieve skull fragments during the autopsy at the request of Boswell so they could try to reconstruct the president's head. Young said a an envelope with the bullet was sent to Boswell. this bullet has been lost to history. 4. A Mr. Louck claimed some years ago that his former neighbor, Sam Kinney (the backup car vehicle), told Louck that HE had found a bullet in the front carpet of the limo and HE was the one who placed it on the gurney. After I interviewed him several times (more like a"soft" cross-examination), I found his account not credible. But the idea that any secret service agent would tamper with evidence to a murder is just incredible. I would like to know if Mr, Landis was aware of this account. 5. Mr. Landis' November 30th statement is interesting because he said he scanned the windows and roofs while riding in the backup car. when they turned onto Houston street, he reports that he looked at a building that had to be the TSBD and said all windows were closed and no one was in the windows! He also says he believes the head shot was from the front.

Trump did not merely pass the buck. he approved a procedure for postponement that did not comply with the law. Biden has adopted it.

we heard these were coming last week when we met with DOJ and NARA

Efron passed away on 11/22/93. The fact they kept his name redacted for thirty years suggest CIA was trying to hide his operation. Usually, names are released after they die which is not the test set forth in the JFK Act. Names may be released unless the disclosure would"pose a substantial risk of harm to that person" which is a more stringent test. Indeed, when the FBI initially sought to postpone disclosure of mafia informants in 2017, NARA pushed back saying the grounds were not consistent with the JFK Act. Of course, NARA was forced to fall on its sword and agree to postponement in 2017 and 2018.

I have an autographed copy of Judge Griffin's book. Over the years, I've had many interesting conversations with him and various aspects of the assassination and the WC. One of the things he told me was that the WC used Ruth Paine to put guardrails on Marina's testimony. what this means is that they took Paine's testimony to establish the facts about Oswald and then whenever Marina said things that contradicted Paine's testimony, they would use that to pressure Marina to keep her testimony within the facts established by Paine's testimony. This was done allegedly b/c the WC did not trust Marina. But it also could have been used to impose the desired narrative- FWIW

@James DiEugenio If the wilkerson's feel theyare being sent on a wild goose chase, have them contact me. Maybe we need to address this in the MFF lawsuit. the court has preserved our claims for missing, destroyed and removed records...

Since many of you are loathe to watch this show, i had posted link to excerpt where he (1) explains his covid statement and (2) discusses the JFK assassination. https://hannity.com/media-room/rfk-to-hannity-i-will-sign-an-order-day-one-to-end-weaponization-of-gov-agencies-watch/