Communist Propaganda & Oswald

[Greg Parker]

Greg I agree completely on the effort to reestablish an association btw CP, SWP and FPCC. I also find it interesting that it was LHO"s future fave Corliss Lamont, who brought about the challenge to the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, for withholding a copy of Peking News# 2 in 1963. He also challenged the PO right to maintain a list of subscribers wishing to receive "Communist Political Propaganda"! He eventually won the case in 1965. Once again Os is ahead of the curve.

Bill O'Neil

Bill, as a sidebar, in interviews following LHO's NO arrest, Lamont is referred to as Carlos and reports have LHO saying "he" is a "she". What to make of that?

It was while trying to find a description - or better yet, a color reproduction of Crime Against Cuba that I stumbled on this law. My search was due to Mrs Garner (landlady) repeatedly describing what was being held by the Cuban who came looking for Oswald as "pamphlets". In testimony, she added they were yellow and pink. This made me wonder if what was being carried was Lamont's "basic pamphlet" and not LHO's flyers. This would have also accounted for the stack being 5 or 6 inches deep. Her description of them as pamphlets however, seems to have been just a case of poor wording. I did find a description of Crime against Cuba as having "green and white wraps", whilst a description of one of the flyers gave color as "yellow". There are still are number of oddities about this event, though, including the timing - which I believe was earlier than the official records indicate - and also earlier than some authors believe, and whether or not the individual was in fact, Carlos Quiroga. Quiroga was 16 - Mrs Garner gave his age as over 30.

There are other odd coincidences between LHO and a leftist author, but those are still being explored.

The subscribing to Krocadil and other Soviet publications just when a new law came in ensuring such subscription would get him on one or more government lists is just a continuation of a pattern which started 10 years earlier in NYC. Oswald, in fact, had so many red flags flapping off him, I'm surprised he could go to to a bull fight in Mexico without getting gored.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Greg Parker

[William O'Neil]

Greg I agree completely on the effort to reestablish an association btw CP, SWP and FPCC. I also find it interesting that it was LHO"s future fave Corliss Lamont, who brought about the challenge to the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, for withholding a copy of Peking News# 2 in 1963. He also challenged the PO right to maintain a list of subscribers wishing to receive "Communist Political Propaganda"! He eventually won the case in 1965. Once again Os is ahead of the curve.

Bill O'Neil

Bill, as a sidebar, in interviews following LHO's NO arrest, Lamont is referred to as Carlos and reports have LHO saying "he" is a "she". What to make of that?

It was while trying to find a description - or better yet, a color reproduction of Crime Against Cuba that I stumbled on this law. My search was due to Mrs Garner (landlady) repeatedly describing what was being held by the Cuban who came looking for Oswald as "pamphlets". In testimony, she added they were yellow and pink. This made me wonder if what was being carried was Lamont's "basic pamphlet" and not LHO's flyers. This would have also accounted for the stack being 5 or 6 inches deep. Her description of them as pamphlets however, seems to have been just a case of poor wording. I did find a description of Crime against Cuba as having "green and white wraps", whilst a description of one of the flyers gave color as "yellow". There are still are number of oddities about this event, though, including the timing - which I believe was earlier than the official records indicate - and also earlier than some authors believe, and whether or not the individual was in fact, Carlos Quiroga. Quiroga was 16 - Mrs Garner gave his age as over 30.

There are other odd coincidences between LHO and a leftist author, but those are still being explored.

The subscribing to Krocadil and other Soviet publications just when a new law came in ensuring such subscription would get him on one or more government lists is just a continuation of a pattern which started 10 years earlier in NYC. Oswald, in fact, had so many red flags flapping off him, I'm surprised he could go to to a bull fight in Mexico without getting gored.

Greg, Obviously Os didn't really know who Lamont was, and i don't think he ever read the bloody pamphlet. That he described it as containing the necesssary facts, that he or others needed to know re FPCC, gives him away. I'm suprised he even knew who Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was, or Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis. Then again,...... maybe he didn't!

[Greg Parker]

Greg I agree completely on the effort to reestablish an association btw CP, SWP and FPCC. I also find it interesting that it was LHO"s future fave Corliss Lamont, who brought about the challenge to the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, for withholding a copy of Peking News# 2 in 1963. He also challenged the PO right to maintain a list of subscribers wishing to receive "Communist Political Propaganda"! He eventually won the case in 1965. Once again Os is ahead of the curve.

Bill O'Neil

Bill, as a sidebar, in interviews following LHO's NO arrest, Lamont is referred to as Carlos and reports have LHO saying "he" is a "she". What to make of that?

It was while trying to find a description - or better yet, a color reproduction of Crime Against Cuba that I stumbled on this law. My search was due to Mrs Garner (landlady) repeatedly describing what was being held by the Cuban who came looking for Oswald as "pamphlets". In testimony, she added they were yellow and pink. This made me wonder if what was being carried was Lamont's "basic pamphlet" and not LHO's flyers. This would have also accounted for the stack being 5 or 6 inches deep. Her description of them as pamphlets however, seems to have been just a case of poor wording. I did find a description of Crime against Cuba as having "green and white wraps", whilst a description of one of the flyers gave color as "yellow". There are still are number of oddities about this event, though, including the timing - which I believe was earlier than the official records indicate - and also earlier than some authors believe, and whether or not the individual was in fact, Carlos Quiroga. Quiroga was 16 - Mrs Garner gave his age as over 30.

There are other odd coincidences between LHO and a leftist author, but those are still being explored.

The subscribing to Krocadil and other Soviet publications just when a new law came in ensuring such subscription would get him on one or more government lists is just a continuation of a pattern which started 10 years earlier in NYC. Oswald, in fact, had so many red flags flapping off him, I'm surprised he could go to to a bull fight in Mexico without getting gored.

Greg, Obviously Os didn't really know who Lamont was, and i don't think he ever read the bloody pamphlet.

That he described it as containing the necessary facts, that he or others needed to know re FPCC, gives him away.

I've wondered about that. I know the pamphlet was about the BoP, but not having read it, thought, well, maybe it's a got a chapter relevant to FPCC policy'... there was at least one other in the Basic Pamphlet series having more relevance to their foundation concerns - it was on the freedom to travel.

I'm surprised he even knew who Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was, or Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis. Then again,...... maybe he didn't!

You're suggesting forgeries?

[Greg Parker]

Some further info re subscription to "Krokodil".

CE 1117 shows he ordered a subscription to "Krokodil" in Sep, '62 at a cost of $2.20 for a year.

On the next page it shows that in Jan, '63 he ordered subscriptions "Ogonek", "Sovetskaya Belorussiya", "Agitator", and "Krokodile". The cost here was $13.20. If the two different spellings of "Krokodil" are as written in the subscription requests, it may indicate Oswald was not the person who subscribed to "Krokodil" in Sept the previous year, but someone using his name. I say "may" because it's hardly unknown for someone to spell a word correctly, then misspell it next time. I do it all the time (and in fact, have misspelled "krokodil" in this thread). I also say if there was someone else using his name, it was for the Sept subscription because there is strong evidence for him receiving Ogonek, and Sovetskaya Belorussiya per a letter Marina wrote to relatives on April 27, '63 where she mentions having copies. And on April 1, Oswald was seen reading Krododil at work.

The WC attempted to pretend the Jan '63 subscriptions did not include "Krokodil" by not mentioning it in their breakdown of Oswald's expenditure. They only list the other 3. What really gives the game away however, is that we know the Sept sub cost $2.20. The Jan '63 subs cost $13.20 - so even though Krokodil is not listed, it seems highly likely that the odd 20 cents is because of Krododil costing $2.20.

The only reason I can think of as to why they would want to hide a dual, overlapping subscription is simply because they could not innocently explain it away.

One more thing to add... as I now know, even if the "Communist Propaganda" law had been in place in Sep/Oct, 1962, the PO could not have taken any action. It was made freely available in US as part of the Cultural Exchange deal struck by Ike's administration and was therefore exempt as being considered propaganda.

My original point I think, is strengthened; the Jan '63 subs were timed to the introduction of the law, and were intended to raise another flag in Oswald's records.

[John Dolva]

FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Subfinding (a)

In its attempt to implement instructions to protect the security of the United States, the intelligence community engaged in some activities which violated statutory law and the constitutional rights of American citizens.

From 1940 to 1973, the CIA and the FBI engaged in twelve covert mail opening programs in violation of Sections 1701-1703 of Title 18 of the United States Code which prohibit the obstruction, interception, or opening of mail. Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was violated by NSA's program for obtaining millions of telegrams of Americans unrelated to foreign targets and by the Army Security Agency's interception of domestic radio communications.

All of these activities, as well as the FBI's use of electronic surveillance without a substantial national security predicate, also infringed the rights of countless Americans under the Fourth Amendment protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures."

I don't have the time at the moment to dig out all the relevant supporting info, but there is another factor that IMO is important in considering all this topic and its implications and that is:

as far as the intelligence agencies were concered the law was/(is?) irrelevant, There were testimonies to the effect that if a covert illegal op was 'uncovered' it simply receded into the background and resumed in another form, IOW to use specific dates etc to build a case as this what is really highlighted is NON-involvement of agencies. The obverse of that is that such 'coincidences' don't even point to a guiding hand because the fluidity of the agencies versus law is not un known.

IOW while there may be something to it, it could simply indicate further that the conspiracy is of a compartmentalised domestic nature involving a far less broad bad versus good coup, but rather a special interest op which may very well have a number of operatives, but not from within the agencies but rather from citizen style groups. As these could represent large sections of society, the coverup may not have 'who dunnit' but rather that 'whoever it was that dunnit should not be seen as representing a large grouping that should the general population become aware of could lead to severe civil disturbance'. Then having Lee as the person to build a case against serves the purpose of absolution.

[William O'Neil]

Greg I agree completely on the effort to reestablish an association btw CP, SWP and FPCC. I also find it interesting that it was LHO"s future fave Corliss Lamont, who brought about the challenge to the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, for withholding a copy of Peking News# 2 in 1963. He also challenged the PO right to maintain a list of subscribers wishing to receive "Communist Political Propaganda"! He eventually won the case in 1965. Once again Os is ahead of the curve.

Bill O'Neil

Bill, as a sidebar, in interviews following LHO's NO arrest, Lamont is referred to as Carlos and reports have LHO saying "he" is a "she". What to make of that?

It was while trying to find a description - or better yet, a color reproduction of Crime Against Cuba that I stumbled on this law. My search was due to Mrs Garner (landlady) repeatedly describing what was being held by the Cuban who came looking for Oswald as "pamphlets". In testimony, she added they were yellow and pink. This made me wonder if what was being carried was Lamont's "basic pamphlet" and not LHO's flyers. This would have also accounted for the stack being 5 or 6 inches deep. Her description of them as pamphlets however, seems to have been just a case of poor wording. I did find a description of Crime against Cuba as having "green and white wraps", whilst a description of one of the flyers gave color as "yellow". There are still are number of oddities about this event, though, including the timing - which I believe was earlier than the official records indicate - and also earlier than some authors believe, and whether or not the individual was in fact, Carlos Quiroga. Quiroga was 16 - Mrs Garner gave his age as over 30.

There are other odd coincidences between LHO and a leftist author, but those are still being explored.

The subscribing to Krocadil and other Soviet publications just when a new law came in ensuring such subscription would get him on one or more government lists is just a continuation of a pattern which started 10 years earlier in NYC. Oswald, in fact, had so many red flags flapping off him, I'm surprised he could go to to a bull fight in Mexico without getting gored.

Greg, Obviously Os didn't really know who Lamont was, and i don't think he ever read the bloody pamphlet.

That he described it as containing the necessary facts, that he or others needed to know re FPCC, gives him away.

I've wondered about that. I know the pamphlet was about the BoP, but not having read it, thought, well, maybe it's a got a chapter relevant to FPCC policy'... there was at least one other in the Basic Pamphlet series having more relevance to their foundation concerns - it was on the freedom to travel.

I'm surprised he even knew who Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was, or Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis. Then again,...... maybe he didn't!

You're suggesting forgeries?

I meant to suggest that he was instructed to correspond with these infamous 'commies', and or, at least mention them in a "fraternal" context, to show (at least on paper) solidarity.

[Robert Howard]

I don't know if my comments will carry any weight, but after quite a bit of time in the early years of my research, I was very open to the idea that Oswald could have possibly maintained some type of Communist affiliations. But after several years I personally feel the idea is practically laughable.

I do not have the opportunity at this time, to post references to any of the myriad government documents regarding Oswald and the aforementioned possibility, but will add some salient facts that can be checked out.

1. Even though Oswald was more or less, fingered in 1963 as a "Communist" the Dallas Police informants relayed that nothing came up with regards to Oswald associating with "Communist's" in Dallas, if there were any.......

2. When Oswald was in Minsk and Moscow, his modus operandi with regards to the Soviets was not too different from his MO in the United States, he seemed to do as he pleased, was there not some mention in all of the declassified files about even "building a bomb," or some such nonsense. I know his interest in guns was prevalent over there, as it was over here.

3. My last point concerns the fact of the address book, he has George Lincoln Rockwell [Neo-Nazi] listed, he had a proclivity for finding himself in the presence of intelligence assets of the US government, William Gaudet, personages with no definitively clear affiliations Albert Osborne, David Ferrie a CIA asset with plausible deniabilty, he is according to Antonio Veciana meeting with someone who was almost positively David Atlee Phillips in Dallas. Orest Pena stated he frequented a Greek Restaurant on Decatur & Iberville with "other federal agents from the [u.S] Customs House Building," which housed FBI, ONI, CIA and immigration.*

* A Farewell To Justice; page 47

Sound like a Communist to you?

[William O'Neil]

Robert , without trying to sound like a know it all, I have determined after too many years, that Oswald was one of the worst things to happen to the leftist, Marxist , communist and socialist cause, in decades! Virtually nothing he did, benefited his 'cause'. Once you understand this, alot of things start to make sense. Like Greg pointed out, he didn't even know Corliss Lamont was a guy!! Oswald prided himself on his political knowledge, but on several key points , he fails the test, and in the and process exposes himself as a phony leftist.

[William O'Neil]

Greg ; With regard to your post on that other forum, after i did some " digging" i found that indeed there was a bill passed and signed on Oct 11th 1962 by JFK. It was the Postal Service Act and Federal Employees Salary Act of 62', Pub Law 87-793, I guess this was the one that took effect in Jan. 63? I also have a listing of a law approved Sept. 30th 1961, Postal Rate Adjustment HR7927 Public Law 87331. This contained a reinsatement of screening Communist politcal propaganda by Treasury Dept. Same provisions as the later Bills.

[Greg Parker]

Greg ; With regard to your post on that other forum, after i did some " digging" i found that indeed there was a bill passed and signed on Oct 11th 1962 by JFK. It was the Postal Service Act and Federal Employees Salary Act of 62', Pub Law 87-793, I guess this was the one that took effect in Jan. 63?

Yes, that's it, Bill.

I also have a listing of a law approved Sept. 30th 1961, Postal Rate Adjustment HR7927 Public Law 87331. This contained a reinstatement of screening Communist political propaganda by Treasury Dept. Same provisions as the later Bills.

Thanks for pointing that one out. I found it here. I note that the postage rate increases come into effect incrementally up until 1965, while no date or time-frame is given for the start of Communist Literature Propaganda part of it. I can only guess that either it was not set to start for a number of years and Congress decided it couldn't wait, so put up an almost identical law in late '62, or that the law as drafted was found to be faulty and could not be implemented, so was redone in late '62.

This is part of a Time story dated June 4, 1965:

In 1961 the Government discontinued its 13-year censorship of such mail. "It serves no useful intelligence function," said President Kennedy. Congress, how ever, was not convinced. In 1962 it passed a law requiring the Post Office to hold all incoming "Communist political propaganda" for 20 days, then destroy it unless the addressee returned a card saying he wanted it. Respectable critics began to note an obvious danger: Post Office lists of "approved" addressees might well result in the hounding of innocent individuals, such as scholars and journalists.

[John Dolva]

I'm curious to know how people suggest the USPO determined what was being sent was "incoming "Communist political propaganda"?

When speaking of the Treasury Department, what does that mean?

Edited March 7, 2007 by John Dolva

[Greg Parker]

John : Ahhh , now I remember ! It was from a talk Larry Hancock ( HELP Larry!) made at Lancer in 97', regarding the paper trail Os created through the postal system. He said his landlord at Mercedes St. was approached by someone he thought was from the PO, in the fall of 62', about Oswald and the subversive material he was recieving in the mail. When Os found out about this he filed a complaint form, protesting this interference. Perhaps Larry can elaborate, if he sees this !

From John Newman's "Oswald & The CIA:"

Page 268:

"Chester Riggs [LHO's Mercedes landlord] knew that something about Oswald's mail was out of the ordinary. Riggs told the Secret Service after the assassination that the US Postal Investigation Service had investigated Oswald for receiving subversive mail while he was living at 2703 Mercedes."

Footnote: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0093b.htm

Page 273:

"The above was not all of Oswald's mail activity. But it led to actions by the post office which Oswald protested. He had to execute a post office Form 2153-X, instructing them to "always" deliver foreign propaganda mailings. He added this comment to the form: "I protest this intimidation." "

Footnote: "New York Customs received PO Form 2153-X from NYC PO which is executed by Oswald, Box 2915; CD 60 pp 2-3; FBI reports Oswald's writing, "I protest this intimidation"; see CD 205, p.157"

From the Church Committee report regarding FBI mail opening programs:

Seven Special Agents are assigned to [survey No. 1] on a full-time basis. The survey operates 7 days a week and personnel work on rotating 8-hour shifts ... Personnel assigned to the survey work under the guise of Postal Inspectors and are known to Post Office personnel as Postal Inspectors working on a special assignment. ...

Were the two Postal Inspectors who visited Riggs in fact FBI agents? If so, can it be reasonably thought that this is evidence the FBI had more interest in, and knowledge of LHO than it ever indicated?

[John Dolva]

"WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1975- U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENT, OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at l0:08 a.m., in room 318,

Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Church, Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director; Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., chief counsel; and Curtis R. Smothers, counsel to the minority.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. Today the committee continues its investigation of the mail-opening program, endeavoring to determine in depth how it happened that for 20 years mail was opened by the CIA and the FBI, contrary to the laws of the United States.

.......

For that purpose, our first witnesses are three former Postmasters General, Mr. J. Edward Day, Mr. John ,A. Gronouski, and Mr. Winton M. Blount.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Day, when did you hold the position of Postmaster General ?

Mr. DAY. January 21, 1961, until August 9, 1963.

Mr. Schwarz. Was there a time when Mr. Helms and Mr. Roosevelt and Director Dulles came to visit with you about the subject of CIA and mail ?

Mr. DAY. They came to visit me, yes, on February 15, 1961, about 3 weeks after I took office.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. All right. There is a document in your book which is exhibit 8,l dated February l 1961, the day after-

Mr. DAY. I don’t have any book of that kind.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Blount can show it to you. It is right there. This is a CIA document, written by Mr. Helms, reflecting the fact of the meeting and stating in the second sentence of the paragraph, “We gave him the background, development, and current status, withholding no relevant details.”

++++++++++++++++++++

This CIA OP dated from (at least) 1953.

Edited March 12, 2007 by John Dolva

[Greg Parker]

"WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1975- U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENT, OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at l0:08 a.m., in room 318,

Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Church, Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director; Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., chief counsel; and Curtis R. Smothers, counsel to the minority.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. Today the committee continues its investigation of the mail-opening program, endeavoring to determine in depth how it happened that for 20 years mail was opened by the CIA and the FBI, contrary to the laws of the United States.

.......

For that purpose, our first witnesses are three former Postmasters General, Mr. J. Edward Day, Mr. John ,A. Gronouski, and Mr. Winton M. Blount.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Day, when did you hold the position of Postmaster General ?

Mr. DAY. January 21, 1961, until August 9, 1963.

Mr. Schwarz. Was there a time when Mr. Helms and Mr. Roosevelt and Director Dulles came to visit with you about the subject of CIA and mail ?

Mr. DAY. They came to visit me, yes, on February 15, 1961, about 3 weeks after I took office.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. All right. There is a document in your book which is exhibit 8,l dated February l 1961, the day after-

Mr. DAY. I don’t have any book of that kind.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Blount can show it to you. It is right there. This is a CIA document, written by Mr. Helms, reflecting the fact of the meeting and stating in the second sentence of the paragraph, “We gave him the background, development, and current status, withholding no relevant details.”

++++++++++++++++++++

This CIA OP dated from (at least) 1953.

John, it's not clear to me why you posted this, but the key word in the Helms document is "relevant". The CIA did not consider it relevant that the Postmaster General know the full details. What they told him (and all he probably wanted to hear) was that the program involved no more than an inspection of the envelopes.

In Day's testimony, we also find: "It wasn't my responsibility. The CIA had an entirely different kind of responsibility than I did. And what they had to do, they had to do. And I had no control over them."

From Helm's testimony: As I say, "withholding no relevant details." I assume when I wrote that I meant what I wrote. . . . I cannot imagine what the point of holding it back from him would have been. We were going down to get his permission to continue the operation, and after all, it was his Post Office, if we had lied to him, and then he had discovered through his Chief Postal Inspector that something else was going on, that would not have been a very wise way to behave, it seems to me.

The Committee report states:

Day's general recollection is given some support by an internal CIA memorandum written more than a decade later by the Chief of the CI Staff Project (HTLINGUAL). This memorandum, written in August 1971 and attached to Helms' February 16,1961 summary, reads:

The wording of this memo [Helms '61 memo - my insertion] leaves some doubt as to the degree to which Day was made witting. I tend to feel that he was briefed on the "mail surveillance" aspect and NOT the clandestine opening. I find some confirmation in the sentence in para. 2 "This gentleman (i.e. the Inspector Montague) confirmed what we had to say about the Project ..." Montague was NOTWITTING [sic] OF THE clandestine opening and therefore the subject of the briefing of Day must have been mail surveillance only. 105 [Emphasis in original.]

This shows at best, that Helm's testimony was faulty in regard to what "withholding no relevant details" meant, and that he, without much doubt, lied through his teeth when he indicated there was no point in keeping the whole truth from Day since Day might learn it from Chief Postal Inspector Montague. As shown above, Montague himself was "not witting" of what was really going on.

[Greg Parker]

bump