Roger Odisio Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Today, on his site, Jeff Morley talked about the latest MMF filing last week. He emphasized the suit's seeking of an injunction to block implementation of the CIA concocted "transparency plan" designed to keep agency records locked away for who knows how much longer, in direct conflict with the language, not to mention intent, of the JFK Act. That's important, but there is much more to the filing. Once the ARRB closed shop it became NARA's responsibility to keep the JFK Collection up to date, per agreements NARA signed and acknowledgements they made. Not only by resolving those records known at the time but for whatever reason not yet in the Collection. But also by adding any record that has come to light since, in the last 25years(!). Yet NARA has done nothing about this, even when records have been brought to their attention (put "under their nose" in an earlier filing). NARA can't refute these facts. So far their only response has been to deny they have such a responsibility. If the judge has even a rudimentary understanding of the JFK Act and all the information that has surfaced in the last 25 years, it's hard to believe he could accept the claim that the updating of the Collection--the place created so that anyone interested in the JFKA could go to decide for themselves what happened that day--was intended to end 25 years ago. Imo, this is the heart of the matter to be pursued and this is a good filing everyone should read. 65a230b0-6c2d-4ad8-ba3a-db9897a2185e.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said: Can't open or copy & paste captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 (edited) Many thanks for posting. The link is ineffective. I will post a truncated version from Morley. Edited June 13, 2023 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Schnapf Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 MFF link to the lawsuit filings is at: https://maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Records_Lawsuit.html @Roger Odisio is correct that we are arguing that NARA not only entered into a number of memoranda of understandings with agencies to pursue assassination record searches of the ARRB that were outstanding when the ARRB went out of business but it also told the American people in the June 27, 2000 federal register that it was the "successor in function" to the ARRB and that it was moving the ARRB regulations to NARA's own section of the federal code of regulations because it was continuing to "supplement" the JFK Collection. NARA used broad and unequivocal language and has failed to carry out the ARRB duties that it told the American people it had assumed in 2000. We are simply asking the court to declare that NARA is the successor to ARRB that it said it was and that means it has to exercise the powers of the ARRB. Tell your Congressional representatives to co-sponsor the Schweikert bill and to ask the chair of the House Oversight Committee to hold hearings on the failure of the executive branch to comply with the JFK Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Venturella Posted June 15, 2023 Share Posted June 15, 2023 On 6/13/2023 at 11:40 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said: MFF link to the lawsuit filings is at: https://maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Records_Lawsuit.html @Roger Odisio is correct that we are arguing that NARA not only entered into a number of memoranda of understandings with agencies to pursue assassination record searches of the ARRB that were outstanding when the ARRB went out of business but it also told the American people in the June 27, 2000 federal register that it was the "successor in function" to the ARRB and that it was moving the ARRB regulations to NARA's own section of the federal code of regulations because it was continuing to "supplement" the JFK Collection. NARA used broad and unequivocal language and has failed to carry out the ARRB duties that it told the American people it had assumed in 2000. We are simply asking the court to declare that NARA is the successor to ARRB that it said it was and that means it has to exercise the powers of the ARRB. Tell your Congressional representatives to co-sponsor the Schweikert bill and to ask the chair of the House Oversight Committee to hold hearings on the failure of the executive branch to comply with the JFK Act. Thank you for your labor on filing this suit and arguing for release of records, Mr. Schnapf. 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