I have a question and need some help.

[Scott Kaiser]

After going through 100's of pages of documents on my father received from the FOIA. I discovered one page in particular that really grabbed my attention. Now, I know that my father was involved in the anti-Castro committee travel extensively throughout the United States during 1961-68, until we finally settled down in Miami late 1968. I appealed the redacted information in this document as well as requesting all documents related to my father be released.

As you may have seen in my previous post, the CIA and or FBI has said the the information on my father warrants continued classification, but why would they need to warrant continued classification if my father has been dead now of over thirty three years and apparently he was mostly involved in the anti-Castro groups? Or was he? And why let something like this slip by and send it to me? Am I now to beleive that my father was in Dallas at one time? Would anyone know about this information?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20673422/Dad%20in%20Dallas%20%28question%29.jpg

[Scott Kaiser]

After going through 100's of pages of documents on my father received from the FOIA. I discovered one page in particular that really grabbed my attention. Now, I know that my father was involved in the anti-Castro committee travel extensively throughout the United States during 1961-68, until we finally settled down in Miami late 1968. I appealed the redacted information in this document as well as requesting all documents related to my father be released.

As you may have seen in my previous post, the CIA and or FBI has said the the information on my father warrants continued classification, but why would they need to warrant continued classification if my father has been dead now of over thirty three years and apparently he was mostly involved in the anti-Castro groups? Or was he? And why let something like this slip by and send it to me? Am I now to beleive that my father was in Dallas at one time? Would anyone know about this information?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20673422/Dad%20in%20Dallas%20%28question%29.jpg

I'm now beginning to think that this document may have something to do with my father meeting Oswald in Miami in 1962, is this why they decided to not investigate it because it was going to take three months of work? Who else would've/could've known? Why would the "Security Supervisor" from the CIA, from Dallas be interested in my father? And isn't this right around the time the HSCA was working on selecting a committee? Then two years later in 1976 it gets off the ground? Then on Oct 30 1976 Aldo Vera is killed, Jan 1977 Pawley kills himself(?) And a month later Feb 7, 1977 my father is killed, the question as to whether my father ever met Oswald in Miami at the HSCA never gets asked, Hmmmm?

[Len Colby]

As you may have seen in my previous post, the CIA and or FBI has said the the information on my father warrants continued classification...

Can you post copies of your FOIA requests and replies (refusals)?

[Scott Kaiser]

As you may have seen in my previous post, the CIA and or FBI has said the the information on my father warrants continued classification...

Can you post copies of your FOIA requests and replies (refusals)?

Can you post copies of your FOIA requests and replies (refusals)?

I already did, not long ago, both CIA and FBI letter's have been posted, they are on some thread I post within the last week, going to bed now Tylenol PM's are kicking in.

[Len Colby]

1) Reread the CIA letter they did not say “the information on [your] father warrants continued classification”. They told you the opposite the info you sought was available to the public but was held by the NARA.

2) The FBI however did say most of the info is still classified but said they forward pages 2 – 4 of a file to you which they confusingly said was “four pages”. a} Can you post those pages to this thread? b} they cited Title 5 US Code - Section 552 (bN1) to justify the continuing classification of the rest. Here is the link to 552 if you want to try to figure out what bN1 is.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/5/I/5/II/552

[Scott Kaiser]

1) Reread the CIA letter they did not say “the information on [your] father warrants continued classification”. They told you the opposite the info you sought was available to the public but was held by the NARA.

2) The FBI however did say most of the info is still classified but said they forward pages 2 – 4 of a file to you which they confusingly said was “four pages”. a} Can you post those pages to this thread? b} they cited Title 5 US Code - Section 552 (bN1) to justify the continuing classification of the rest. Here is the link to 552 if you want to try to figure out what bN1 is.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/5/I/5/II/552

Wow! Colby I'm impressed that you found the records, now if I may point a few things out, the first letter pertains to my father, (FBI). I have received several 100's of pages on my father and piecing together his life's adventures took weeks, months over a year to do, I felt there was information missing, so I appealed within my allowed appeal time, I later received a letter from the US Justice Department indicating I won my appeal. I was certainly excited to hear that I may now receive everything on my father, so the US Justice Department remanded my appeal back to the FBI.

While I was awaiting their release on the additional information, the FBI takes my father's information to a review committee board that shuts me down, now I've had to hire an attorney Patick Hundley who is working with a Federal Attorney to file a lawsuit in the Southern District of San Antonio Texas to retrieve these records.

The information the FBI and the CIA are withholding may be damaging evidence against both agencies. Furthermore,

Your reading of the CIA document is inaccurate, please read the document carefully, as the CIA document refers to President "John F. Kennedy", not my father, and if the CIA has released ALL information pertaining to the said subject and the NARA is in compliance with the JFK Act then they should have no problem releasing ALL information, that means, we no longer have to wait until the year 2017 for the release of ALL documents. Are you following me so far?

I am now in the process of sending a letter to the NARA along with the copy of the letter sent me by the CIA. Also, your request asking me to post the documents the FBI has released me cannot be posted here, I do hope you understand my concerns, thanking you in advance.

/srk

[Scott Kaiser]

1) Reread the CIA letter they did not say “the information on [your] father warrants continued classification”. They told you the opposite the info you sought was available to the public but was held by the NARA.

2) The FBI however did say most of the info is still classified but said they forward pages 2 – 4 of a file to you which they confusingly said was “four pages”. a} Can you post those pages to this thread? b} they cited Title 5 US Code - Section 552 (bN1) to justify the continuing classification of the rest. Here is the link to 552 if you want to try to figure out what bN1 is.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/5/I/5/II/552

2) The FBI however did say most of the info is still classified but said they forward pages 2 – 4 of a file to you which they confusingly said was “four pages”. a} Can you post those pages to this thread? b} they cited Title 5 US Code - Section 552 (bN1) to justify the continuing classification of the rest. Here is the link to 552 if you want to try to figure out what bN1 is.

Thank you for your post on what the FBI has cited, however, all that Title, US Code, Section crap is crap, to throw you off the tracks, confusing isn't it? You should refer to what they have cited and that's "Continued Classification under Executive Order No. 12958."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html

/srk

[Scott Kaiser]

This is what Title 5, United States COde, Section 552 ((1) means.

http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

Another words, each agency shall "separately" state abd currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public.---

This is the kicker....

( "(Statements) of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined" Hmmm?

Edited August 23, 2011 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

This is what Title 5, United States COde, Section 552 ((1) means.

http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

Another words, each agency shall "separately" state abd currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public.---

This is the kicker....

( "(Statements) of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined" Hmmm?

Those smiley faces or not suppose to be there I typed in the letter b and they came up, sorry.

[Len Colby]

Your reading of the CIA document is inaccurate, please read the document carefully, as the CIA document refers to President "John F. Kennedy",

True but you can't have it noth ways if the letter doesn't refer to records concerning your dad then you have produced evidence the CIA is refusing to give you what you want. Can you, as previously requested, post the FOIA request letter you sent them.

[Scott Kaiser]

Your reading of the CIA document is inaccurate, please read the document carefully, as the CIA document refers to President "John F. Kennedy",

True but you can't have it noth ways if the letter doesn't refer to records concerning your dad then you have produced evidence the CIA is refusing to give you what you want. Can you, as previously requested, post the FOIA request letter you sent them.

I think, I would better understand you if you started to write in Spanish.

[Len Colby]

Your reading of the CIA document is inaccurate, please read the document carefully, as the CIA document refers to President "John F. Kennedy",

True but you can't have it noth ways if the letter doesn't refer to records concerning your dad then you have produced evidence the CIA is refusing to give you what you want. Can you, as previously requested, post the FOIA request letter you sent them.

I think, I would better understand you if you started to write in Spanish.

True but you can't have it both ways if the letter doesn't refer to records concerning your dad then you have not produced any evidence the CIA is refusing to give you what you want. Can you, as previously requested, post the FOIA request letter you sent them.

Happy now?

[Scott Kaiser]

Your reading of the CIA document is inaccurate, please read the document carefully, as the CIA document refers to President "John F. Kennedy",

True but you can't have it noth ways if the letter doesn't refer to records concerning your dad then you have produced evidence the CIA is refusing to give you what you want. Can you, as previously requested, post the FOIA request letter you sent them.

I think, I would better understand you if you started to write in Spanish.

True but you can't have it both ways if the letter doesn't refer to records concerning your dad then you have not produced any evidence the CIA is refusing to give you what you want. Can you, as previously requested, post the FOIA request letter you sent them.

Happy now?

Please don't tell me what I can and cannot have, post or say, I don't know where you live, but I'm an American. An if you can't read what I'm posting its not my problem, furthermore, the FBI is a gathering of information agency, and if the FBI says they have been granted to continue "non-disclosure" of my father's information by the US Justice Department because it poses a "National Thereat to Security" you can rest assure that the CIA has not released ALL information on my father either. The CIA sent me three FULL pages of redacted information. That was a waist of tax payer's money don't you agree?

And after, when I received that letter from the CIA saying they have now released ALL information to the NARA referring to "KENNEDY" and I can't get all of my father's information, what makes be believe that I'm going to get Kennedy's too?

The New York Times, on October 17, published a page-one story by Scott Shane about the CIA’s defiance of a court order to release documents pertaining to the John F. Kennedy assassination. If they are saying they have now released ALL documents to the NARA, then they, the (CIA) are full of xxxx.

And Len, You may contiue to converse with me, about what ever you like, in fact. I'm beginning to like you, now that I understand you. But you will not get any more information out of me or get me to play anymore taped conversations, or get me to talk about David, Frank, my father or anything else before the release of my book, afterwards. I will be more then happy to answer any of your questions. And,

By the way, I will try and make it as simple reading for you as I can so you will not not need a scorecard reading my book, I want you to keep up.

/srk

Edited August 27, 2011 by Scott Kaiser

[Len Colby]

Please don't tell me what I can and cannot have, post or say, I don't know where you live, but I'm an American.

Obviously I was not suggesting any restrictions on your free speech rights. “Have it both ways” means “Achieve two mutually exclusive objectives.”

* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/have+it+both+ways

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/have-it-both-ways

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+it+both+ways

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/way

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=have+it+both+ways

Like I said your command of English is poor. If the files the agency mentioned did not concern your dad, the letter is not evidence they have refused to release document about him. However you indicated it was referring to files about him at least two times. For example you wrote:

-“the CIA and or FBI has said the the information on my father warrants continued classification” and cited the letter as evidence. AND

-I have recently received a letter by the CIA indicating that all of my father's records have been released.

Thus you are trying to “have it both ways.”

An if you can't read what I'm posting its not my problem,

Did you mean “…if you can’t UNDERSTAND what I’m posting…”? Perhaps it’s because you write phrases like “the FBI is a gathering of information agency, and if the FBI says they have been granted to continue "non-disclosure" of my father's information…”

furthermore, the FBI is a gathering of information agency, and if the FBI says they have been granted to continue "non-disclosure" of my father's information by the US Justice Department because it poses a "National Thereat to Security" you can rest assure that the CIA has not released ALL information on my father either.

You want us to take your word for it? You haven’t produced any evidence in support of this claim. In any case the CIA and FBI are entirely separate agencies; one releasing or not releasing their files on a subject doesn’t add or subtract credence from the notion that the other did or didn’t do so.

The CIA sent me three FULL pages of redacted information. That was a waist of tax payer's money don't you agree?

Waist or waste? Wasn’t it the FBI that sent you the 3 pages. There is no way anyone can answer your question without seeing your FOIA request and the pages they sent you. A fiscal conservative might argue that the FOIA programs are all a WASTE “of tax payer's money” but democracy is always cheap.

And after, when I received that letter from the CIA saying they have now released ALL information to the NARA referring to "KENNEDY" and I can't get all of my father's information, what makes be believe that I'm going to get Kennedy's too?

??? Did you ask the CIA for your father's “information”? If so did they reply? The letter you posted was in reply to a ‘your…(FOIA)…request…for records pertaining to the “assassination of President John F. kjennedy”’

"The New York Times, on October 17, published a page-one story by Scott Shane about the CIA’s defiance of a court order to release documents pertaining to the John F. Kennedy assassination. If they are saying they have now released ALL documents to the NARA, then they, the (CIA) are full of xxxx."

It wouldn’t surprise me if “the (CIA) are full of xxxx” but:

-the NYT article was from October 17, 2009 and the letter you received was dated almost 2 years later so it is possible they had released the records during the intervening period. That said it seem like they said they had released the documents at the time of the ARRB investigation.

-they claimed (to the NYT) that the withheld documents weren’t relevant to the assassination.

-them being full of it would not lend much support to your claim they are withholding documents about your dad.

"And Len, You may contiue to converse with me, about what ever you like, in fact. I'm beginning to like you, now that I understand you. But you will not get any more information out of me or get me to play anymore taped conversations, or get me to talk about David, Frank, my father or anything else before the release of my book, afterwards. I will be more then happy to answer any of your questions. And,

By the way, I will try and make it as simple reading for you as I can so you will not not need a scorecard reading my book, I want you to keep up."

Uuuuh, the irony!

Edited August 28, 2011 by Len Colby

[Scott Kaiser]

Len,

Here's is an ole cliche for you, "quit while you'll ahead," your making me yawn.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Scott Kaiser