1100 CIA JFK Assassination Docs

[William Kelly]

In an official response to the Jeff Morley case, the CIA issued a declaration on November 21, 2008 that revealed that they are withholding 1100 JFK assassination records under the JFK Act.

They also mention that 13 of these documents could refer to operations that could involved Joannides, the subject of Morley's FOIA case, and these 13 documents alone account for more than 1100 pages.

That averages to 80 pages per document and over 1100 documents means they are witholding over 88,000 pages of records related to the assassination.

These records are scheduled to be released in 2017, but as this CIA Declaration explains, they can appeal to the president at that time to extend the time.

In this document, the CIA also explains their "GLOMAR" response to requests for records that refer to covert operations, which is now the typical neither "confirm nor deny" the records even exist.

This is the same policy that Israel and MOSSAD are using in response to the questions about the 26 man (two women) hit squad that assassinated a Hammas arms dealer in Dubai, and stems from the government's policy of 'plausible deniability' for covert operations.

This publicly available document is about 75 pages long, pdf that I will send to anyone who asks for it. Thanks to Jim Lesar and Jeff Morley for keeping this case alive.

BK

JFFFERSON MORLEY Plantiff,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Defendant

DECLARATION OF DELORES M. NELSON

...IV. SEARCH OF RECORDS RELEASED TO NARA

40. The Dorn Declaration describes the JFK Act and the Assassination Records Review Board ("ARRB") created there under. See Exhibit A PP 26-30. With the exception of approximately 1,100 documents withheld in their entirety until 2017, all of the CIA's JFK-related documents were released in full or in part to NARA. 7.

7. The approximately 1,100 documents are located in NARA's protected collection and will be released in 2017 unless the CIA appeals to the President to withhold their disclosure. On such an appeal, the CIA would need to argue, and the President would need to certify, that "(i) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (ii) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure." President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, 44 U.S.C. S 2107 note (2000) page 20 Nelson

page 22 "…The index search yielded thirteen documents that were potentially responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request. These thirteen documents totally 1,112 pages…..

59. As noted above, in conjunction with its production of the JFK-related recordspursuant to the JFK Act, the CIA previously acknowledged Joannides' participationin two specific covert projects, operations, or assignments: JM/WAVE or JMWAVE from 1962 through 1964 and Joannides' service as a CIA representative to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations from 1978 through 1979. Joannides had been undercover during both of these assignments."

B. The CIA's Failure to Assert a GLOMAR Response Would Damage National Security.

61. In a typical response to a FOIA request, the CIA's answer, either to provide or not provide records sought, in effect confirms the existence or non-existence of CIA records. Typically, this confirmation neither threatens the national security nor reveals intelligence sources and methods. The response focuses on releasing or withholding specific substantive information and the fact that the CIA possesses or does not possess records is not itself a classified fact. However, when the fact that the CIA possesses or does not possess records is itself classified and reasonably could reveal intelligence sources, methods and activities, the CIA cannot confirm that it possesses such information. On the other hand, the CIA also may not deny the Court or in legal proceedings that it does not have responsive records when it in fact does. Thus, the CIA's only permissible alternative is to neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of responsive records. Such a "neither confirm nor deny" response is called a GLOMAR response. 10.

10. The CIA asserted a GLOMAR response over the unacknowledged time periods in this case because Joannides' participation in covert projects, operations, or assignments during these unacknowledged time periods would itself be classified.

Footnote: 10. The "GLOMAR" term comes from the case Phillippi v. CIA. 546 F.2d 1009 (DC Cir. 1976, which upheld the CIA's use of the "neither confirm nor deny" response to a FOIA request for records concerning the CIA's reported contacts with the media regarding the Hughes GLOMAR Explorer.

Page 32

21 November 2008

Delores M. Nelson

Chief Public Information Programs Division

Central intelligence Agency

Also see:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/morley120707.pdf

Edited March 22, 2010 by William Kelly

[John Dolva]

[minor point: don't know if it's been mentioned but GLOMAR stems from the vessel the GLOMAR which H.Hughes gave cover to in 68'69', The GLOMAR being the vessel built to retrieve a sunken Soviet Sub from 3 miles deep. The results are not clear of that salvage operation, but the term GLOMAR Response stems from this.]

[David Andrews]

The Glomar Explorer supposedly broke the Russian sub in two and only recovered the bow half before the Soviets chased the big catamaran dredge away. Hughes biographical scuttlebut says Hughes paid for the GE and operated it under his company name for CIA, as part of a deal to square himself financially with the US government. The enterprise has been described as another con-job played on the deteriorating Hughes, similar to the mob casinos deal in Vegas and the Mormon infiltration. But don't believe everything.

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Andrews

[John Dolva]

Yes, ''supposedly''. There are varying accounts and the investigation of the matter gave birth to the GLOMAR Response.

[Pat Speer]

The Glomar Explorer supposedly broke the Russian sub in two and only recovered the bow half before the Soviets chased the big catamaran dredge away. Hughes biographical scuttlebut says Hughes paid for the GE and operated it under his company name for CIA, as part of a deal to square himself financially with the US government. The enterprise has been described as another con-job played on the deteriorating Hughes, similar to the mob casinos deal in Vegas and the Mormon infiltration. But don't believe everything.

Con job on Hughes? No way. The deal was set up where the CIA paid for everything, and Hughes only pretended to pay for it, while getting all the free publicity, and the tax write-off. He made millions on the deal. After some pranksters broke into Hughes' headquarters, and stole messages from him that may or may not have mentioned the deal, and the L.A. Times printed an article on it, the CIA in the person of William Colby decided to approach all the top newspapers and ask them to not print any follow-up articles. He was successful for awhile until, if I recall, Jack Anderson decided to break the black out. (Or was it Sy Hersh? Or both?)

In any event, according to Maheu, the merging of Hughes with the CIA was a Hughes dream come true. Maheu, it should be pointed out, was the cut-out between the CIA and the mafia for the hits on Castro. His involvement in this scheme earned him a get out of jail free card after being busted for wire-tapping. Hughes hired Maheu shortly thereafter as his full-time representative. It follows then that Hughes thought Maheu had some magic dust when it came to Washington. When this magic dust failed to pay off in Vegas, however, Hughes became convinced Maheu and his mob friends were ripping him off.

Should anyone ever come across the transcripts of the lawsuit in which Maheu sued Hughes for his calling him a crook, they would undoubtedly prove fascinating.

[David Andrews]

I had read that it was a get-out-of jail (and the IRS; and Congress) card, but I had heard that Hughes absorbed the cost of the Glomar. I admit not being there, though I'd have liked to have been.

Con-job? Glomar couldn't save Hughes from being linked to the sub and the agency on the national news, from being linked financially to Nixon, from enduring press exposure. Whoever paid for Glomar, Hughes only accrued more trouble out of it.

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Andrews

[Pat Speer]

I had read that it was a get-out-of jail (and the IRS; and Congress) card, but I had heard that Hughes absorbed the cost of the Glomar. I admit not being there, though I'd have liked to have been.

Con-job? Glomar couldn't save Hughes from being linked to the sub and the agency on the national news, from being linked financially to Nixon, from enduring press exposure. Whoever paid for Glomar, Hughes only accrued more trouble out of it.

It wasn't Hughes' involvement with Glomar that brought the badness. It was Clifford Irving's fake Hughes autobiography. This led to Hughes' giving a press conference and taking questions. This led to his bad-mouthing Maheu, whom he'd recently fired. This led to Maheu's suing Hughes. Which led to Nixon's finding out that Maheu had put O'Brien on Hughes' payroll. Which led to Nixon getting worried that Maheu had told O'Brien about the 100k payoff he'd handed over to Nixon's people years earlier. Which led to some Cubans, in the name of national security, bugging O'Brien's phone.

Or something like that..

[David Andrews]

Well, there are different schools of thought on the origins and motive of the Irving "hoax." I wonder how early Nixon knew that RFK's people had been put on Hughes' payroll - if it was as late as Maheu v. Hughes.

[William Kelly]

JFFFERSON MORLEY Plantiff,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Defendant

DECLARATION OF DELORES M. NELSON

...IV. SEARCH OF RECORDS RELEASED TO NARA

40. The Dorn Declaration describes the JFK Act and the Assassination Records Review Board ("ARRB") created there under. See Exhibit A PP 26-30. With the exception of approximately 1,100 documents withheld in their entirety until 2017, all of the CIA's JFK-related documents were released in full or in part to NARA. 7.

7. The approximately 1,100 documents are located in NARA's protected collection and will be released in 2017 unless the CIA appeals to the President to withhold their disclosure. On such an appeal, the CIA would need to argue, and the President would need to certify, that "(i) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (ii) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure." President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, 44 U.S.C. S 2107 note (2000) page 20 Nelson

page 22 "…The index search yielded thirteen documents that were potentially responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request. These thirteen documents totally 1,112 pages…..

59. As noted above, in conjunction with its production of the JFK-related records pursuant to the JFK Act, the CIA previously acknowledged Joannides' participationin two specific covert projects, operations, or assignments: JM/WAVE or JMWAVE from 1962 through 1964 and Joannides' service as a CIA representative to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations from 1978 through 1979. Joannides had been undercover during both of these assignments."

[Joseph Backes]

Bill,

Is this 75 page document from the CIA that contains what you've posted available online?