Benjamin Cole Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 EXCLUSIVE: Justice Dept. Seeks Dismissal of JFK Records Lawsuit---Jefferson Morley Court brief argues Biden has discretion to hide as many assassination files as the CIA wants. The Biden Justice Department responded Monday to a lawsuit brought by the non-profit Mary Ferrell Foundation charging President Biden and the National Archives with failure to implement the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act. The 30-page brief, signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, seeks to dismiss the foundation’s lawsuit on the ground the president has discretion to implement the JFK Records Act without regard for the original intent of Congress, which passed the law unanimously in October 1992. The motion was filed in the 9th District federal court in San Francisco, Judge Richard Seeborg presiding. DOJ Motion to Dismiss MFF v. BIden 311KB ∙ PDF File Download Administration responds to lawsuit over JFK assassination files The Mary Ferrell Foundation and counsel are reviewing the brief and will issue a statement shortly. The Mary Ferrell Foundation sponsors the largest collection of authenticated JFK assassination material on the Internet. The foundation’s civil complaint, filed in October 2022, charges Biden and the Archives have failed “to comply with their mandatory non-discretionary duties to ensure full and timely disclosure of all Assassination Records as required by the JFK Records Act.” This failure “interferes with Plaintiff’s core mission to educate the public regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.” The JFK Records Act, approved unanimously by Congress, mandates release of all government files that are in any way related to the murder of the popular liberal president in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Last October four members of Congress, led by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) called on Biden to release all the remaining JFK documents. Joining Cohen were Democrats Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Anna Eshoo of California, and Republican Tim Burchett of Tennessee. 44 Undisclosed Documents In December 2022, the CIA released several thousand JFK files for the first time. Nonetheless, at least 4,400 files related to JFK’s assassination still retain government ordered redactions—including 44 records, which have been denied in full, about the CIA’s pre-assassination interest in Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspected assassin who denied killing Kennedy. For complete background on the historic MFF vs. Biden lawsuit, go here. Please share the Biden Justice Department’s brief with anyone who: 1) favors full disclosure around JFK’s assassination; 2) is concerned about the aggrandizement of the power by secretive U.S. government agencies; 3) has a podcast about secrecy, transparency, or American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Doubling down aren't they ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Dammit. Biden is pulling a Trump on us. If I recall correctly, when President George H.W. Bush ("Mr. George Bush of the CIA") signed the JFK Records Act in 1992, he attached a rider granting the POTUS the authority to withhold records at his own discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 7, 2023 Author Share Posted February 7, 2023 3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Dammit. Biden is pulling a Trump on us. If I recall correctly, when President George H.W. Bush ("Mr. George Bush of the CIA") signed the JFK Records Act in 1992, he attached a rider granting the POTUS the authority to withhold records at his own discretion. Biden is pulling a Biden. Has there ever been a more-obvious Deep State apparatchik---unless it was the Bush presidencies or HRC? Believe it or not, not every conversation involves Trump or the Koches. Biden is a long, long, long-time Deep State apparatchik, and should be viewed in that light. Biden is present standard-bearer for the New Donk Party. Will the Donks rise up in unison against this Biden Administration tactic to suppress JFKA information? Let me re-phrase the question: Will any Donks rise up against Biden on this issue? None? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Dammit. Biden is pulling a Trump on us. If I recall correctly, when President George H.W. Bush ("Mr. George Bush of the CIA") signed the JFK Records Act in 1992, he attached a rider granting the POTUS the authority to withhold records at his own discretion. My understanding is that the President can withhold records...personally. IOW, he has to take responsibility for withholding the records. Both Trump and now Biden have allowed agencies to withhold records, without the president's personal review. It seems probable, moreover, that T and B have no idea what they've been withholding. To my understanding, they are in violation of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Well, this is BS of the highest order. Maybe it will truly upset the apple cart. What will the media say? Is the fix on already? A brief stir up, then it fades away? First, who is Seeborg? Is it already a done deal? Second, can it be appealed? All the way to the SC? We know what the answer there would be. But, if possible, it should be done. If, for nothing else, the sake of posterity. The Government was given multiple times, at multiple levels (e.g., Jeff's suits for individual files in previous years) to do the right thing for the People and Democracy. But they are failing to serve the people they are elected to do so for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 The last record release was a joke. They unredacted one or two words in each document and passed this off, successfully I might add, to the media as being a "new" release of documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaleen Kilroy Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 OK, Joe, you’ve officially made my shyte list. As Jeff keeps repeating the recent media mantra that has arisen in some quarters - WHAT are they hiding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 It's disappointing to find out after all these decades since the 1990s that they never had any intention of handing over the documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 7, 2023 Author Share Posted February 7, 2023 Let re-sing my usual lament. For decades I thought there probably was not much left in the JFKA records, as they were scrubbed long ago, and obviously, a lot never made it into the docs. Now, I wonder. Maybe dedicated JFKA researchers have been connecting enough dots, and looking at Joannides records and other matters, and figuring out enough details that the CIA now realizes it is sitting atop some time bombs. For example, LHO was a CIA asset. I still fear existing records could vanish into the night. I mean, how secure are the National Archives? The CIA has resources up the wazoo. Diligent researchers report many JFKA records have already disappeared. This thing gets fishier and fishier, and I smell a rat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Anybody who thought they had a legitimate chance of prying these records out of the hands of the CIA was naive. You and I will NEVER see these files unless someone within the agency copies them and releases them. No amount of political pressure or media pressure is going to get these files released. Period. Nothing I post about the right-wing and its involvement in the assassination is going to change that either way. This isn't about the truth. This is about protecting the Agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 I’m assuming Larry et al. have been expecting this motion to dismiss and already have a legal strategy in place to counter it. I don’t know anything about this Judge Seeborg but I vaguely recall hearing Larry mention that they had a potentially sympathetic judge, so hopefully he’ll give the MFF team a fair hearing and not just side with the government. I agree with Gerry that this latest record “release” is a massive joke. The one or two word redactions isn’t even the worst part. The worst part is that they released probably thousands of records with literally identical redactions to the previous release, which made it seem like they released a lot more than they actually did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 5 hours ago, Tom Gram said: I’m assuming Larry et al. have been expecting this motion to dismiss and already have a legal strategy in place to counter it. I don’t know anything about this Judge Seeborg but I vaguely recall hearing Larry mention that they had a potentially sympathetic judge, so hopefully he’ll give the MFF team a fair hearing and not just side with the government. I agree with Gerry that this latest record “release” is a massive joke. The one or two word redactions isn’t even the worst part. The worst part is that they released probably thousands of records with literally identical redactions to the previous release, which made it seem like they released a lot more than they actually did. Reading their Brief, the defendant's lawyers don't seem to know what a JFKA record is or where to find its definition, why the ARRB was created, why the JFK Record Collection was established, what the ARRB's job was, or what it did to implement the Act before it closed its doors (the ARRB is barely mentioned in the brief). The reader can decide whether this is ignorance or willful obfuscation. The ARRB, not the ACT as the brief cites, defined the term JFKA "record", and set out to collect all of the records that meet the definition. The purpose was to provide information in a central Collection at NARA so that the public--individuals--without interference from government agencies or the President, could decide for themselves what happened that day. It goes without saying that each piece of evidence to be included in NARA's collection must have been determined individually to be a JFKA record. It follows then, that for that record, once identified, to be denied release it, individually, must be found to meet at least one of reasons for withholding specified in the Act. Just as whether a piece of information is a JFKA record must be determined on its merits individually, so must the decision about whether to release that information be determined for each specific record. There is no such thing as a blanket decision by the President or anyone else that covers all information still withheld. Moreover neither Trump, Biden, or the Brief even identifies or discusses a main subject of the lawsuit--the records known to have existed within for example the CIA, like the Joannides or Souetre files, but are being withheld from release once again. This is where any discussion of withholding JFKA records must begin--with a discussion of the specific records being with held The Brief claims Biden has the sole discretion over whether to allow the public to see any JFKA record. This is false. Biden can "postpone" release of a particular record only *after* he has decided and made public the basis for his decision that the harm of release outweighs the public's right to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 The Justice department has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The federal judge entertaining the motion may decide to grant the motion to dismiss or may decide the deny the motion to dismiss. We must wait for the judge's decision on the motion to dismiss. He may well decide not to grant the motion and the lawsuit will go forward. "The Mary Ferrell Foundation and counsel are reviewing the brief and will issue a statement shortly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 (edited) Hi Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette 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