Larry Hancock Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 Some of the media are getting a good grip on the real story: https://www.axios.com/2022/10/19/jfk-records-lawsuit-biden-national-archives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 (edited) 19 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: The audio tapes have mostly all but turned to powder! They must be digitized now! Not true. Have you been to Archives II? Ever? BTW, many have been. Digitized, I mean. Edited October 20, 2022 by Joseph Backes To clarify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Blackmon Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 8 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said: Bill and I are the attorneys of record. Great job Larry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 (edited) There were other lawyers involved though. And they deserve credit. Mark Adamzyk, Patrick McCarthy and Mark Zaid. This is getting a lot of coverage, I think because of the MFF TInk Thompson and Gary Aguilar are also named on the lawsuit since they live in that area. Edited October 20, 2022 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Simpich Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 (edited) Mark Adamczyk and Patrick McCarthy have been incredible. Everyone in our group put many hours into this project for which they should be recognized. We all brought different strengths and perspectives. MFF's Rex Bradford, Jeff Morley, Larry Hancock and Debra Conway have also put in a great deal of time and effort. I hope everyone will consider donating to MFF. Rex has a great page breaking down the details of the lawsuit that can be seen here. You never know what the courts are going to do. We have to focus on what all of us can do. Getting the word out about hard facts on the history of the USA is worth the effort. Edited October 24, 2022 by Bill Simpich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 The story is also being covered by The Guardian today. Biden officials sued over delayed release of JFK assassination records | John F Kennedy | The Guardian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Boylan Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 (edited) Huffington Post. This is getting some good traction. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mary-ferrell-foundation-biden-lawsuit-jfk-files_n_6350072be4b051268c4feba0 Add CBS News - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-president-joe-biden-national-archives-jfk-assassination-records/ Edited October 20, 2022 by David Boylan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 10 hours ago, Bill Simpich said: Mark Adamczyk, Andrew Iler and Patrick McCarthy have been incredible. All five of us put many hours into this project. We all brought different strengths and perspectives. MFF's Rex Bradford, Jeff Morley, Larry Hancock and Debra Conway have also put in a great deal of time and effort. I hope everyone will consider donating to MFF. Rex has a great page breaking down the details of the lawsuit that can be seen here. You never know what the courts are going to do. We have to focus on what all of us can do. Getting the word out about hard facts on the history of the USA is worth the effort. This is a big deal with possible enormous ramifications. The suit naturally concentrates of the documents currently held by fed govt agencies like the CIA, FBI, etc. and in dispute. But the ARRB's original 1995 definition of a JFK record was much broader. They were careful to go beyond information held by fed gov't agencies to include all documents "public and private" that were "in the possession state and local gov't (the board successfully sued to get Garrison records from the New Orleans DA), private institutions, private individuals (they got the original Zapruder film by paying $16 million to the family), all courts, and all foreign gov'ts". They arrived at that definition, they said, to "provide the public the opportunity to judge for themselves the surrounding history of the event". When the Board closed in 1998 the responsibility for maintaining, and upgrading the Collection passed to NARA. The responsibility of NARA to add records as more information appears in the last 24 years has received little attention. I note that the suit also recognizes this . One example: "the JFK provides for periodic review for 'additional assassination records'" (p. 37). Which NARA has obviously neglected. In recent weeks I have left messages with NARA asking how they do that periodic review looking for new records. No answer yet of course, except to say they were swamped with work and reviewing their whole approach to the Collection, which they expect to complete by the end of the year. Possibly anticipating your suit? That's good news. My focus is the Darnell film and getting NARA to wrench it from the grasp of Comcast/NBC Universal. It obviously meets the definition of a JFK record. Bill and Dave: Is it possible, if you get to the stage of specifying what records to identify, that you include the Darnell film and much other new information we now know? My guess is adding these things to the Collection is likely to be more important for research than anything you may succeed in getting the CIA and FBI to dribble out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 21 hours ago, Larry Hancock said: Some of the media are getting a good grip on the real story: https://www.axios.com/2022/10/19/jfk-records-lawsuit-biden-national-archives Axios, while primarily a news aggregator, also does some good investigative work. They've become my "go-to_ news source of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 12 hours ago, Bill Simpich said: Mark Adamczyk, Andrew Iler and Patrick McCarthy have been incredible. All five of us put many hours into this project. We all brought different strengths and perspectives. MFF's Rex Bradford, Jeff Morley, Larry Hancock and Debra Conway have also put in a great deal of time and effort. I hope everyone will consider donating to MFF. Rex has a great page breaking down the details of the lawsuit that can be seen here. You never know what the courts are going to do. We have to focus on what all of us can do. Getting the word out about hard facts on the history of the USA is worth the effort. Thanks to you and Lawrence Schnapf and the others for the work on this. I have a question: will this action assist in gaining access to FBI surveillance tapes of Marcello of New Orleans which have been widely reported to contain statements of confession from Marcello to knowledge and/or involvement in the JFK assassination, but which remain inaccessible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 Greg, if you read though the actual brief you will find reference to the material that relates to Marcello....check page 25 https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/files/jfkrecordslawsuit/mffvbidenfiledcmp.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 I wish them all the luck in the world. There is no excuse for withholding those records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 57 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said: Greg, if you read though the actual brief you will find reference to the material that relates to Marcello....check page 25 https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/files/jfkrecordslawsuit/mffvbidenfiledcmp.pdf I see it Larry! Fantastic! I didn't see anything about it in the MFF description of the lawsuit and itemization at https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Records_Lawsuit.html but its there. "b. Attorney General Referral to Unseal FBI Surveillance Tapes of Carlos Marcello: In the late 1970s, the FBI recorded approximately eight months of electronic surveillance on Carlos Marcello pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2501 et seq. With the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New Orleans, the AARB obtained court order to review transcripts of the FBI's surveillance on Marcello in New Orleans. The AARB determined that 13 of the conversations were Assassinations Records.(76) Though the transcripts were part of the JFK Collection, researchers have been unable to hear the actual tape recordings because they remain sealed.(77) Likewise, the FBI recorded conversations between Carlos Marcello and his cellmate, Jack Van Laningham, between 1985 and 1986. According to the FBI unit director, Thomas Kimmel, Mr. Marcello told Van Laningham that he was involved in JFK's assassination. While the relevant files were turned over to NARA in 2006, the tape recordings of the Marcello-Van Laningham conversations remain unavailable to researchers. Plaintiffs cannot fully evaluate the veracity and significance of these conversations without being able to listen to the actual recordings. Upon information and belief, Defendant NARA, as successor to ARRB, has failed to request the assistance of the Department of Justice to unseal all tape recordings of Marcello conversations mentioning JFK's assassination(78) in violation of its ministerial non-discretionary duty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 The complaint gets pretty detailed in certain areas, especially where we cite examples. And of course if opportunity allows Bill and Larry can get even more detailed in terms of specific, known materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted October 20, 2022 Share Posted October 20, 2022 53 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said: The complaint gets pretty detailed in certain areas, especially where we cite examples. And of course if opportunity allows Bill and Larry can get even more detailed in terms of specific, known materials. Are you guys familiar with the place of the Darnell film in the question of Oswald's guilt? Has it been part of your discussions of which new records to seek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now