Benjamin Cole Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Federal Judge to Rule on JFK Records Lawsuit Key issues face a jurist who misstated the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations CHAD NAGLE JAN 16, 2024 A federal judge in San Francisco will soon rule on key issues in the case of Mary Ferrell Foundation v President Biden and the National Archives. The foundation and JFK researchers Josiah Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar filed the lawsuit on Oct. 19, 2022, charging President Joe Biden and the National Archives with improper enforcement of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, which was passed unanimously by Congress in 1992. The Mary Ferrell Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization based in Massachusetts, hosts a website with the internet’s largest collection of searchable JFK assassination records. Last week, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg canceled oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 18, indicating that he may be close to ruling on a flurry of motions from the plaintiffs and the Justice Department. Core of the Case More than six years have passed since the deadline for full disclosure of the government’s assassination-related records, as mandated by the JFK Records Act. The law set Oct. 26, 2017, as the date for all assassination records to be released to the public, “except in the rarest of cases.” Yet in 2024, more than 3,400 JFK files still contain redactions on orders from the White House. President Donald Trump issued memoranda decreeing postponement of JFK file releases in 2017 and 2018. President Biden did the same in 2021 and 2022. Last June, Biden went one step further. After lifting some redactions in a few hundred documents, the president issued a memorandum announcing his “final certification” under the JFK Act. His action effectively gutted the deadlines written into the JFK Records Act, a move that I have described on this site as “sinister.” A key issue before Judge Seeborg is a new system for declassifying the remaining JFK files, devised by the CIA and approved by Biden. The plaintiffs argue that the CIA’s “Transparency Plan” is “ultra vires,” i.e., it sets new legal conditions that go beyond the parameters established by the JFK Records Act and thus flout the will of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) I think what many people are missing is that while President Trump failed to release all the documents the truth is the door was still open for disclosure under his actions. President Biden, however, effectively shut the door by his actions. He therefore went beyond merely not releasing records temporarily as he actually made the decision not to release the records permanent. This is the legal distinction Ben is trying to make which most people here are failing to understand because they interpret it wrongly as a political attack. Closing the records off from further disclosure is a distinct legal issue from failing to disclose the records pending further review. Both of these legal issues appear to be under litigation. Whether the Act allows for either scenario is interesting as there are credible arguments on both sides. Edited January 16 by Cory Santos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 13 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: I think what many people are missing is that while President Trump failed to release all the documents the truth is the door was still open for disclosure under his actions. President Biden, however, effectively shut the door by his actions. He therefore went beyond merely not releasing records temporarily as he actually made the decision not to release the records permanent. This is the legal distinction Ben is trying to make which most people here are failing to understand because they interpret it wrongly as a political attack. Closing the records off from further disclosure is a distinct legal issue from failing to disclose the records pending further review. Both of these legal issues appear to be under litigation. Whether the Act allows for either scenario is interesting as there are credible arguments on both sides. Biden wouldn't have been able to do what he did had it not been for Trump's failure to release the records. "Pending further review" - as if half a century hadn't already passed. The point: if someone is mad about what Biden did, Trump is not going to be the one to set things right. Anyone attempting to imply otherwise is going to be called on it. Trump has his chance. He snuffed the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 17 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said: Biden wouldn't have been able to do what he did had it not been for Trump's failure to release the records. "Pending further review" - as if half a century hadn't already passed. The point: if someone is mad about what Biden did, Trump is not going to be the one to set things right. Anyone attempting to imply otherwise is going to be called on it. Trump has his chance. He snuffed the job. That's not the point, Denny. It's the political point, which is beside the point. It turns the important discussion about the failure to implement the JFK Act into a political discussion. And risks the wrath of a moderator or two in their attempts to separate "politics" from the murder. I can lament Biden's atrocious "transparency plan" without any thought to what Trump or anyone else will do following Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said: That's not the point, Denny. It's the political point, which is beside the point. It turns the important discussion about the failure to implement the JFK Act into a political discussion. And risks the wrath of a moderator or two in their attempts to separate "politics" from the murder. I can lament Biden's atrocious "transparency plan" without any thought to what Trump or anyone else will do following Biden. I agree. Moreover, I simply cannot explain this any more elementary. These are two distinct legal issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 No recent media coverage on the JFK Records Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Reiner just addressed this on the 11th episode by explaining how Biden’s administration really is the reason the records will never be seen by the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 On 1/16/2024 at 2:02 PM, Cory Santos said: On 1/16/2024 at 11:51 AM, Roger Odisio said: I can lament Biden's atrocious "transparency plan" without any thought to what Trump or anyone else will do following Biden. I agree. Okay, but lament in silence. Or take it to the Cooler or Political Discussions board. Biden's "Transparency Plan" is not a license to bad mouth a man who a lot of forum members will be voting for. I'm not saying anybody did that. This is just a reminder. (Actually, one person did do that and so I deleted his post. Plus I reported him for using foul language.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 41 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Okay, but lament in silence. Or take it to the Cooler or Political Discussions board. Biden's "Transparency Plan" is not a license to bad mouth a man who a lot of forum members will be voting for. I'm not saying anybody did that. This is just a reminder. (Actually, one person did do that and so I deleted his post. Plus I reported him for using foul language.) SL-- At the risk of having this comment deleted... The Biden Administration is atop the current US government. Perhaps you should allow commentary about the Biden Administration, that does not mention his political affiliation. Or, may we be allowed to criticize "the US government"? As in, "The US government is suppressing the remaining JFK Records." Is that an acceptable sentence? The JFK Records Act and its treatment by the US government is a current issue of great interest to the EF-JFKA. I understand you may want delete political commentary about other non-JFK Records Act issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: As in, "The US government is suppressing the remaining JFK Records." That is perfectly acceptable. Or you can call it the "Transparency Plan" or whatever it is called. Even something like "Biden's Transparency Plan" would be okay if it is said without scorn. But if you do comment on it with scorn, please leave Biden's name off of it. What I want is to keep peace with Biden supporters. I'm sure you can understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Ben, You just did exactly what I told you can't do. So I removed your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 On 1/17/2024 at 5:20 PM, Benjamin Cole said: No recent media coverage on the JFK Records Act. Thanks for your specious "update" and 1/16/24 JFK Records thread bump, Ben. We can add this 1/16/24 JFK Records thread to your redundant JFK Record threads of 1/8/24, 1/9/24, 1/12/24. So far, you have started four different threads here on the same subject in just eight days this month... 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: That is perfectly acceptable. Or you can call it the "Transparency Plan" or whatever it is called. Even something like "Biden's Transparency Plan" would be okay if it is said without scorn. But if you do comment on it with scorn, please leave Biden's name off of it. What I want is to keep peace with Biden supporters. I'm sure you can understand that. It's impossible to talk about the "transparency plan" without heaping scorn on it. It violates the very purpose of the JFK Act, and so guts its usefulness. The Act was passed unanimously by Congress to force the agencies and others who were withholding information about the murder to release that information so people could judge for themselves what happened that day. The TP would throw the release decisions back to those very agencies that have caused the problem the Act was passed to remedy, and remove future presidents from any role in the process! Really. The CIA and cohorts brought the plan to Biden and he signed it. It's Biden's plan now. The TP is a subject of the MFF lawsuit. Presumably the judge will have to decide if it violates the JFK Act. This thread, and others like it, is not about politics. It's about the attack on the Act's viability to get further information about the murder. It's not about Biden either, other than he is the guy who signed it. May I suggest that your attempts to protect Biden from criticism is not, should not be, part of your job as a moderator? No matter how many people you think may want to vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Thanks for your specious "update" and 1/16/24 JFK Records thread bump, Ben. We can add this 1/16/24 JFK Records thread to your redundant JFK Record threads of 1/8/24, 1/9/24, 1/12/24. So far, you have started four different threads here on the same subject in just eight days this month... 🙄 May I make a simple point? A topic, say the JFK Records Act, has many aspects to it. New information about it, and attempts to protect it and enforce it, surface all the time. Simply counting the times a topic is the subject of a post, does *not* establish redundancy. Redundancy requires a showing of needless repetition. That is, it requires showing there is nothing new in the posts in question. Please stop your redundant posts claiming redundancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 20 Author Share Posted January 20 5 hours ago, Roger Odisio said: May I make a simple point? A topic, say the JFK Records Act, has many aspects to it. New information about it, and attempts to protect it and enforce it, surface all the time. Simply counting the times a topic is the subject of a post, does *not* establish redundancy. Redundancy requires a showing of needless repetition. That is, it requires showing there is nothing new in the posts in question. Please stop your redundant posts claiming redundancy. The historical and present treatment of the JFK Records Act, by the US Government, is topic of interest to many, I would wager the vast majority, in the EF-JFKA. 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