Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court

Relevant to the AARC’s efforts to seek the release of critical assassination-related materials being withheld by the U.S. federal government:

In the Supreme Court of the United States. ____________________

Assassination Archives and Research Center,

Petitioner,

-v-

Central Intelligence Agency,

Respondent. _____________________

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit _____________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ____________________

This Court granted of a writ of certiorari on February 28, 2020 in case # 19-547, Fish and Wildlife Serv., et al. v. Sierra Club, Inc. That case presents an issue closely similar to one in Petitioner’s case involving the deliberate process privilege under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). The results of the two cases arising from different circuits are in conflict. The Fish and Wildlife Service case presents an issue of compelled release under the FOIA of draft documents for which the government asserts a deliberative process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5. Petitioner AARC’s case involves the Central Intelligence Agency’s successful assertion of the Exemption 5 deliberative process privilege for information reflecting CIA’s search activities in responding to Petitioner’s FOIA request. Petitioner’s FOIA request relates to a matter of public importance- new information about the circumstances of the assassination of President Kennedy.

AARC v. CIA12 cert petition

AARC v. CIA12 final appendix

AARC FOIA suit on CIA’s 1963 study of plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler

Doc. 26. Reply in Support of AARC’s CMSJ & Opp. to CIA’s MSJ (180220)

Doc. 26-2. AARC FOIA suit on CIA’s 1963 study of plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler

CIA Responds to AARC FOIA suit on CIA’s 1963 study of plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler

Center Seeks CIA Documents on Plots to Kill Hitler, Castro

The ‘deep state’: From scholarly critique to toxic conspiracy theory

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has been a subject of “deep state” conspiracy theories that falsely claim he’s working to undermine President Trump’s reelection campaign. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Dina Temple-Raston

Dina Temple-Raston is a long-time correspondent for NPR and was the host and creator of “I’ll Be Seeing You,” an NPR series of radio specials that looked at the technologies that watch us. She is the author of four books, including “The Jihad Next Door: The Lackawanna Six and Rough Justice in the Age of Terror.”

April 30, 2020 at 11:53 p.m. EDT

To hear President Trump’s supporters tell it, there is a secret army of malcontents lurking deep within the bowels of government whose goal is to drive Trump from office. Think Eisenhower’s military industrial complex, but on steroids. It is referred to as the “deep state,” and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and investigative journalist David Rohde went out in search of it. The result is a fascinating new book called “In Deep: The FBI, the CIA, and the Truth About America’s ‘Deep State.’ ”

In Rohde’s account, Trump became the first American president to apply the term “deep state” to the U.S. government, in 2017. As often seems to happen these days, it began with an accusation by retweet. The president forwarded to his 60 million followers a post by Fox News host Sean Hannity, in which Hannity accused the deep state of trying to reverse the 2016 election. From that moment on, the term became “part of the Trumpian lexicon, along with ‘witch hunt’ and ‘fake news,’ ” Rohde writes. “President Trump himself increasingly invokes the term. In 2019, Trump used the phrase as at least 23 times, twice the number he did in 2018.”

To be sure, Trump came to office primed to distrust the Washington establishment. He has a deep suspicion of civil servants held over from previous administrations, convinced that they are part of a vast Never Trump conspiracy. No less contentious was his relationship with the intelligence community and the FBI, which first raised concerns about his campaign’s links to Russia. No one, it appears, was immune from his suspicion.

Even Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-diseases expert, who has become America’s Doctor in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, has been accused of being a deep state actor. The notion went viral when Fauci put his hand in front of his face in a gesture interpreted as disbelief after the president referred to the State Department as “the Deep State Department.” Fauci then found himself in a fantastical narrative in which he was accused of exaggerating the virus’s threat to damage the economy and hurt the president’s reelection chances. (The doctor’s security detail has since been beefed up.)

How did we get here?

The idea of the deep state, Rohde writes, is inextricably linked to a particular view of presidential power. There is a contingent of conservatives who have long believed “that a powerful presidency, unhindered by aggressive oversight from Congress and the courts, was necessary in order to defend the country,” Rohde writes. “Their maximalist view of executive power remained largely on the fringes of American politics. It would gain greater currency during the Reagan administration, after the 9/11 attacks, and unexpectedly, when Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 — forty years after the Church Committee completed its work.” (That committee had investigated the misdeeds of the FBI and the CIA in the late ’60s and had helped produce the reforms establishing congressional oversight of the agencies.)

The term “deep state” first appeared in the United States in a 2007 book, “The Road to 9/11,” by Peter Dale Scott. Scott, a retired University of California at Berkeley professor, accused the U.S. military of fueling conflict both inside and outside the country from the Cold War right up until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In that context, the idea seemed to be fodder for a reasonable political discussion. It took conservative talk radio, Rohde writes, to add toxicity.

While promoting the book, Scott became an occasional guest on Alex Jones’s far-right radio program, and it was there that his discussion of the deep state began to be seen through a more conspiratorial lens. Rohde interviewed Scott and learned that “he regretted appearing on the show and was angered by how Jones and his audience have used the concept of a ‘deep state.’ ” Scott told Rohde, “They have vulgarized the term.”

The concept of the deep state popped up again in a Breitbart News article titled “The Deep State vs. Donald Trump,” shortly before Trump took office, Rohde reports. Writing under the pseudonym “Virgil,” the unnamed author defined the “ ‘deep state’ as all federal employees as well as their political supporters, the policy elite (the ‘chattering class’) and the mainstream media,” Rohde records, adding that the very idea that there is some secretive club working the levers of power taps into “Americans’ long-standing suspicions of government, particularly among conservatives.”

CONTINUE READING AT THE WASHINGTON POST

* * * * *

Who Is Really Running the Government?

Steve Bannon, 2019. — Credit…Jeenah Moon/Reuters

By Fred Kaplan

Published April 21, 2020

IN DEEP
The FBI, the CIA, and the Truth About America’s “Deep State”
By David Rohde

The specter of a “deep state” has served as a useful scapegoat in Donald Trump’s presidency, the alleged locus of resistance to his reign. Early on in his book “In Deep,” David Rohde, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, asks “whether a ‘deep state’ exists in America.” At the start of his final chapter, he concludes, “There is no ‘deep state.’” But in the intervening pages, he raises more questions than he answers.

He begins with a brisk history of the phrase, which is rooted in Egypt and Turkey, where the military ran everything and nipped the slightest buds of democratic reform. The former Berkeley professor Peter Dale Scott first applied it to American military and intelligence elites, in a book entitled “The Road to 9/11.” The alt-right adopted it in December 2016, after an anonymous author, using the pen name Virgil, wrote “The Deep State vs. Donald Trump,” a 4,000-word article in Breitbart News. Steve Bannon had been the executive chairman of Breitbart News, and became Trump’s chief strategist. Virgil broadened the term to encompass “the complex of bureaucrats, technocrats and plutocrats that likes things just the way they are” — including the “highly politicized” intelligence agencies and the “liberal apparatchiks” installed by President Barack Obama — who were now all engaged in “a great power struggle” with the newly elected president. Trump himself first invoked the term, Rohde reports, on June 16, 2017. He was retweeting a post by Sean Hannity, his favorite Fox News host, who had hawked a segment on his show that night on the ties between the “deep state” and the news media.

Did Trump and Bannon — does anyone in power — believe this conspiracy theory? Rohde goes back and forth on the question. He notes in passing (more detail would have been welcome) that Bannon fed the idea to Trump as a way of getting him to “distrust the advice of career government officials who opposed Bannon’s policy goals.” Meanwhile, Trump soon realized its power as a narrative device, invoking it last year at least 23 times. But Rohde also writes that, especially during Robert Mueller’s probe of his ties with Russia, Trump came to believe that “a cabal of Democrats and ‘deep state’ members were trying to force him from power.”

At times, Rohde suggests there is a deep state, though he calls it “institutional government,” a term he chose “for its relative neutrality.” Its denizens don’t form “an organized plot,” but they do exhibit “bias, caution and turf consciousness.” And, he writes, “the Justice Department and the F.B.I. and senior intelligence officials proved to be the most formidable resistance” the administration would encounter from within the federal government, initiating a “struggle for power that would define Trump’s presidency.” Notice: Rohde isn’t paraphrasing Trump’s point of view here; he’s describing what he sees as an objective situation.

So, is there a deep state, though one with a more neutral name and less cabalistic motives than the conspiracy theorists portray?

Continue reading the main story at The New York Times

Robert Kennedy, Jr. discusses the assassinations of his uncle and his father

Watch the complete interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLi6ZrFp6vQ

The Wheaton Lead: An Exploration

by Larry Hancock and David Boylan, April 2020

Introduction

In support of the JFK Records Act of 1992, an independent agency – the Assassination Records Review Board – was formed, with the charter of locating and bringing into the national archives materials pertinent to the assassination of President John Kennedy. While the Board’s primary focus was on unreleased government documents, it operated under the premise that assassination materials included both public and private materials – regardless of how they were labeled – which described, reported on, or interpreted the activities of persons or events related to the assassination itself as well as to subsequent inquiries.

The Board and its staff began work in October, 1994 and operated for four years. As part of its activities, Board staff held regional meetings to identify new sources of JFK materials, in particular those which might be held outside the primary agencies involved in the initial Warren Commission inquiry. Going beyond documents and written materials, its staff took testimony from individuals felt to hold relevant information – primarily from those with firsthand knowledge of events related to the assassination. Due to media visibility over the JFK Records Act and the Board’s public meetings and work, a number of individuals privately contacted the Board with information they felt to be relevant to the Kennedy assassination. [ i ]

Gene Wheaton

One of those individuals, Gene Wheaton, approached the ARRB with a fax to its chairman John Tunheim on October 20, 1995. Wheaton indicated that he felt he might have information relevant to the Board’s work. As part of that contact Wheaton provided a four page biography of himself, as well as a letter of commendation from President Richard Nixon for Wheaton’s earlier anti-drug work during an assignment in Iran. Wheaton’s career experience was in law enforcement and security operations, initially with police work and then service with both the Air Force Office of Special (criminal) investigations and with the Army Counter Intelligence Division (criminal and narcotics investigations). Following military service he had obtained his Bachelors Degree in law enforcement, and a Masters Degree in Public Administration. After obtaining his Masters he had moved into security consulting in the Middle East, working in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt (security design for the Cairo Airport) and as an advisor on security, police practices and anti-terrorism to the government of Iran. His work on counter-drug activities with Iranian law enforcement resulted in a special commendation from President Richard Nixon.

While in Iran he also worked as Director of Security for Rockwell International on its IBEX program, a project involving both photographic and communications intelligence surveillance and intelligence collections. [ ii ] Following his IBEX assignment, Wheaton did security consulting work with Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; his assignments included working for Bechtel Corporation in the development of the huge Jeddah airport project. Wheaton’s biographical data – which has been confirmed – was impressive, not only in respect to law enforcement, but in terms of his experience in intelligence and security practices.

Gene Wheaton’s follow-up letter to the ARRB (click to view)

See all ARRB Wheaton docs

In response to his initial outreach to the ARRB, Wheaton was sent a standard form letter signed by John Tunheim, the ARRB Chairman, thanking him for his interest and advising a staff member would be in touch with him. A follow-up letter was sent to Wheaton by ARRB staff member Thomas Samoluk in early February 1995, and Wheaton responded in a two-page written fax, accompanied by a CV of the individual whom he wanted to offer as a potential source of information on the assassination. He noted that the individual had worked for him in the mid-1980s, and had been a close personal friend at that time. The individual had an earlier career as a senior CIA paramilitary officer (his wife was also a high level CIA employee). He had worked as an operations officer on the CIA’s Cuba project as well as in follow-on anti-Castro activities – his work had involved infiltrations, sabotage and assassination. While working for Wheaton in air transportation/logistics sales related to the Nicaraguan Contra effort, the individual had introduced Wheaton to Cuban and American veterans of the CIA’s anti-Castro operations.

Wheaton’s two-page fax stated that the conversations he had heard suggested that the former CIA officer and one of his key Cuban operatives had knowledge of a conspiracy against JFK and of individuals involved in the murder of President Kennedy. When Wheaton had first become aware of that information, he offered to work with the two men to arrange for Congressional immunity for their information – they had adamantly rejected that idea. At that point Wheaton was not sharing the identity of the CIA officer with the ARRB, instead he requested a personal meeting to discuss his information.

Continue reading this important article at The Mary Ferrell Foundation

Joe Backes, ARRB Summaries: Page 16.

ARRB 13th Batch

Part Two

Document # 124-10087-10332 Is a one page document from SAC, Chicago to Director dated 11/26/63.

Enclosed herewith are five copies to the Bureau and one copy to New York of a LHM dated as above, captioned “Polish Reaction to The Assassination of President Kennedy.”

Also enclosed are an equal number of copies of an FD-323 evaluating the source. The source referred to in the enclosed LHM is [CS CG [ ]-S who furnished the information to SA William E. Duff on 11/24/63 and 11/25/63.

The enclosed LHM and FD 323 are classified secret since the relationship of [CS CG [ ]-S with his Polish contacts tends to fall within the category of double agent operations.

Document # 124-10100-10040 Is a 5 page document from SAC Miami to Director dated 2/20/64. Only one page is here.

Set out below is a translation of an article which appeared in “Bohemia” on 12/20/63, furnished by MM [ ]-S to SA James D. Hayes on 2/17/64. This article, which criticizes the Director and the Bureau, was translated by Sophie Y. Saliba at Miami.

MM [ ]-S, an individual who is acquainted with both pro and anti-Castro activities in Cuba and the United States, advised “Bohemia” is a weekly magazine published in Havana, Cuba, under the direction and control of the government of Cuba of Fidel Castro Ruz. MM [ ]-S advised the author of the article, Mario Kuchilan, is also known as Mario Ernesto Ku Chilan Sol.

“Ready for Action”

Every Limitation becomes a Point of Departure

Mario Kuchilan

“F.B.I. `Striptease’ ”

Jack Rubenstein, alias `Ruby’, the hero of Dallas, is about to be released. His attorney, Melvin Belli, has…

(The rest is missing.)

Document # 124-10100-10306 Is a copy of Cover Page D from Document # 124-10069-10000.

Document # 124-10102-10077 Is a four page document from SAC, Albuquerque to Director dated 11/26/63. Actually, two copies of two pages. It is a copy of Document # 124-10070-10347.

Document # 124-10102-10200 Is missing

Document # 124-10103-10219 Is a three page document from SAC, Miami to Director dated 11/29/63. Only two pages are here.

Re my tel to Bureau 10:38 a.m. 11/26/63 re Jose Antonio Carbarga.

Emilio Nunez Portuondo called FBI, Miami, November 27, `63 to call attention to violence in Venezuela and the reported attempt on the lives of various officials there by means of bombs disguised as gifts. On November 29, `63 he noted these additional acts of violence are apparent proof of the statement of Jose Antonio Carbarga that “Castro’s plan of violence continues in Venezuela, Peru and all the Americas.”

Nunez claimed that Carlos Lechuga, Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations in New York is at the head of all Cuban espionage and subversive activity in the United States. He admitted he had nothing to base this statement, but stated it is common knowledge and the FBI should investigate Lechuga. Nunez noted the Miami Herald for November 29, `63 reports arrest of Jose Antonio Carbarga, Mexico City, for allegedly giving article to Mexico city daily paper, “El Universal” quoting Nunez Portuondo as stating that the assassination of President Kennedy was a Castro plot. Nunez believed arrest of Carbarga due to FBI action. He was assured that FBI had nothing to do with arrest of Carbarga.

In view of violence in Latin America and kidnaping of assistant military attache in Venezuela, it is suggested Bureau may wish to remind State Department, for such instructions and precautions as may be deemed appropriate, of information secured by MM[ ]-S from Raul Roa Kouri in Rio De Janeiro that “there would not be a safe U.S. Ambassador in any foreign post in event of violence”. This information is already reported and disseminated by Bureau by LHM from Miami November 12, `63 captioned “Cuba’s relations with Soviet Bloc countries, is – Cuba Bufile 64-47156.

Document # 124-10105-10245 Is a two page document from SAC, Cleveland to Director dated 11/27/63. It is a copy of Document # 124-10070-10297. Only one page is here.

Document # 124-10108-10046 Is a two page document from SAC Dallas to Director. it is a copy of Document # 124-10070-10297.

Document # 124-10108-10090 Is a copy of Document # 124-10077-10059.

Document # 124-10108-10141 Is a copy of Document # 124-10072-10190.

Document # 124-10110-10420 is a copy of one of the Cover Pages from

Document #124-10065-10076.

Document # 124-10112-10058 Is a copy of Cover Page D from Document # 124-10069-10000. Actually, there are two copies of the same page here.

Document # 124-10119-10129 Is a 6 page document from SAC, Chicago to Director dated 11/25/63. It is a copy of Document # 124-10077-10025.

Document # 124-10119-10134 Is a copy of Document # 124-10068-10034.

Document # 124-10119-10142 Is a copy of Document # 124-10068-10016.

Document # 124-10119-10287 Is missing

Document # 124-10125-10102 Is a four page document from SAC, San Francisco to Director dated 1/30/64. It is about Dr. Walter Bromberg, a defense witness for Jack Ruby for his trial. Dr. Bromberg and his wife, Esther, lived in Sacramento, California since 1948. He moved to New York city in 1963.

Dr. Walter Bromberg, MD

A source advised on January 30, 1952, that Dr. Bromberg was employed by the Department of Public Health, State of California, as an assistant physician and surgeon at the Sacramento Police Emergency Hospital, Sacremento, California, since October, 1951.

Dr. Bromberg was born December 16, 1900, at New York City, New York. He attended elementary and high school in Brooklyn, New York. He received a B. S. degree from the University of Cincinnati in 1924. He received a M. D. degree from Long Island College.

Dr. Bromberg served in the U. S. Navy as a Commander in the Medical corps from May, 1942, to June, 1946, having U. S. Navy Serial Number 216461. From June, 1946, to August, 1950, he conducted a private practice as a medical psychiatrist at Reno, Nevada. From August, 1950, to September, 1951, he was employed with the California State Department of Mental Hygiene at Mendocino State Hospital. The source furnished the following description of Bromberg:

Name: Dr. Walter Bromberg

Race: White

Born: December 16, 1900, at New York City, New York

Height: 5’10”

Weight: 180 lbs.

Marital status: Married

Residence: 1907 21st. Street, Sacramento, Calif. (1952)

In the November 9, 1951, issue of the San Francisco “Examiner”, a newspaper published in San Francisco, California, there appeared an article headlined “Dr. Bromberg Under Fire.” A subheading stated “meddled at Agnews, Director Says.” The article set out as follows:

“Dr. Walter Bromberg, ousted Director of Clinical Surveys at Mendocino State Hospital, was accused today of meddling in Agnews State Hospital affairs.

“The accusation was made by Dr. Walter Rappaport, Director of Agnews, in a State Personnel Board hearing on Bromberg’s appeal from his dismissal.

“Rappaport said Bromberg twice consulted women patients at Agnews while he was employed at Mendocino. Rappaport said this was the first time in the history of California that a state hospital director intervened in the administration of another state hospital.”

In the September 26, 1951, issue of the New York “Daily News”, a newspaper published in New York city, there appeared an article showing a photograph of Belle Bromberg and her two children in connection with the arrest of Walter Bromberg on the grounds that her alimony payments were in jeopardy in that he had threatened to go to California if she did not agree to a Florida divorce. The article reflected that Belle Bromberg alleged that Walter Bromberg had been to California on a trip with a Welfare Department employee by the name of Esther Boyd and that Dr. Bromberg had been living with Boyd since 1939.

A second source advised on October 27, 1952, that she is a very close acquaintance of Hazel Nystron, who admitted to her that she has been a member of the Communist Party of the USA. Nystron encouraged the source to become a member of the Communist party and in this connection arranged an introduction for the source with the Organizational and Membership Director of the Communist Party in the Sacramento area.

Nystron invited her to various social functions in Sacramento. Nystron and some of her associates have, with some frequency, engaged in “sex parties” where base, immoral practices took place. The source attended one such function without prior knowledge of the practices to take place. Present at this “party” was Dr. Walter Bromberg who was then employed as a physician at the Sacramento City Hospital and who formerly was clinical director at the Mendocino State Hospital.

Document # 124-10126-10080 Is a copy of Document # 124-10068-10034.

Document # 124-10126-10124 Is a copy of Document # 124-10068-10034.

Document # 124-10126-20345 Is a copy of Document # 124-10125-10102.

Document # 124-10127-10018 Is a copy of Document # 124-10081-10142.

Document # 124-10133-10055 Is a copy of Document # 124-10003-10038.

Document # 124-10143-10394 Is a copy of Document # 124-10103-10219.

Document # 124-10160-10009 Is a three page document from SAC, NY to Director dated 11/26/63.

NY [ ]-S on 11/26 instant, conferred with Gus Hall, CPUSA General Secretary, in room 707, Chelsea Hotel, NYC. Hall stated he would not visit CPUSA headquarters during the present week for “security reasons”. He stated further that he felt there will be an ultra right attack against the CP in view of the alleged involvement of Lee Oswald with the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.

Shortly after the informant met with Hall, Arnold Johnson and Irving Potash arrived at the room with two copies of the “NY World Telegram and Sun” for this date. Both were in an excited state. The “World Telegram” article, according to the informant, indicated that the Dallas, Texas, PD, had leaked the fact that among Oswald’s personal effects were some letters on CPUSA stationery dealing with how he should proceed in his activities in the FPCC and as the informant stated, “how to handle noisy neighbors”. According to the informant it was apparent that Johnson had not revealed the fact that he had corresponded with Oswald. He then told Hall that there were three letters from Oswald which he had answered. He recalled one dated August 28 last to Elizabeth Gurely Flynn and one to himself on September 1 last. He indicated that there apparently was one sent some time previously and that he added that Oswald probably wrote to Flynn because he obtained Flynn’s name from literature enclosed to Oswald in the earlier reply.

As to the disposition of Oswald’s letters, Johnson could not specifically recall, but it was his belief that he sent them to George Meyers, because Meyers is in charge of the Southern region of the CP and would normally handle matters from the south. From this Johnson recalled that to the best of his knowledge all the Oswald letters came from, and the replies were sent to, an address in New Orleans.

Hall instructed Arnold Johnson to phone George Meyers immediately and instruct him to bring to NYC any and all correspondence concerning Oswald he might have in his possession.

The assembled group then decided upon answering newspaper inquiries concerning the story in the “World Telegram” with a statement to the effect that the CPUSA answers all correspondence received by it as a matter of courtesy even though some of it may be from anti-Communists. In these letters of acknowledgement, they often enclose various pieces of current literature.

From the conversation of the group, the informant learned that general attitude of the CP leaders present was that Oswald was a “nut” used by the FBI to send letters to the CPUSA office in order to get answers. Continuing, they feel that Oswald was prevailed upon to become part of a conspiracy but that he did not shoot President Kennedy. Someone in the group concluded that the rifle was not of the type that could fire with such accuracy, frequency, and impact to do the damage that it had done. They feel that someone else did the shooting, but that all the evidence was stacked against Oswald to point to him as the guilty person. It is their feeling that Jack Ruby was also a member of the ultra – right who was prevailed upon to kill Oswald because indications were that he was about to talk.

After some additional discussion along the same lines, Johnson and Potash left the room and no additional information on this matter was developed.

It was learned that George Meyers is scheduled to be in NYC, 11/27 next.

Document # 124-10163-10133 Is missing

Document # 124-10169-10052 Is a copy of Document # 124-10003-10038.

Document # 124-10178-10493 Is a copy of Document # 124-10103-10219.

Document # 124-10182-10122 Is a copy of Document # 124-10087-10328.

Document # 124-10272-10091 Is a copy of Document # 124-10103-10219.

All the CIA Documents Postponed in Part are missing.

CIA Documents: Postponed in part

1.) Document # 104-10015-10030

2.) Document # 104-10015-10035

3.) Document # 104-10015-10037

4.) Document # 104-10015-10058

5.) Document # 104-10015-10129

6.) Document # 104-10015-10150

7.) Document # 104-10015-10158

8.) Document # 104-10015-10178

9.) Document # 104-10015-10220

10.) Document # 104-10015-10223

11.) Document # 104-10015-10227

12.) Document # 104-10015-10240

13.) Document # 104-10015-10259

14.) Document # 104-10015-10269

15.) Document # 104-10015-10330

16.) Document # 104-10015-10348

17.) Document # 104-10015-10364

18.) Document # 104-10015-10375

19.) Document # 104-10015-10385

20.) Document # 104-10015-10396

21.) Document # 104-10015-10402

22.) Document # 104-10015-10403

23.) Document # 104-10015-10410

24.) Document # 104-10015-10435

25.) Document # 104-10015-10448

26.) Document # 104-10016-10007

27.) Document # 104-10016-10022

28.) Document # 104-10017-10000

29.) Document # 104-10017-10008

30.) Document # 104-10017-10009

31.) Document # 104-10017-10010

32.) Document # 104-10017-10011

33.) Document # 104-10017-10021

34.) Document # 104-10017-10035

35.) Document # 104-10017-10048

36.) Document # 104-10017-10052

37.) Document # 104-10017-10062

38.) Document # 104-10017-10063

39.) Document # 104-10017-10068

40.) Document # 104-10017-10076

41.) Document # 104-10017-10080

42.) Document # 104-10018-10000

43.) Document # 104-10018-10004

44.) Document # 104-10018-10005

45.) Document # 104-10018-10006

46.) Document # 104-10018-10041

47.) Document # 104-10018-10048

48.) Document # 104-10018-10055

49.) Document # 104-10018-10065

50.) Document # 104-10018-10082

51.) Document # 104-10018-10092

52.) Document # 104-10018-10094

53.) Document # 104-10018-10096

54.) Document # 104-10095-10001

HSCA documents postponed in part are also missing.

HSCA Documents: Postponed in Part

1.) Document # 180-10084-10094

2.) Document # 180-10086-10235

3.) Document # 180-10101-10053

4.) Document # 180-10102-10278

5.) Document # 180-10106-10011

6.) Document # 180-10107-10194

7.) Document # 180-10111-10065

8.) Document # 180-10115-10028

9.) Document # 180-10120-10343

Additional Releases – HSCA Documents Open In Full

Document # 180-10110-10034 Is a two page document on the HSCA’s trip to Cuba. It is dated August 11, 1977. Actually it is four pages as the two page letter is copied.

CONFIDENTIAL / LIMDIS

August 11, 1977

Memorandum for the Record

Subj: Select Committee on Assassinations

– Proposed Staff Trip to Cuba

By: H-Alexander Schnee

On Monday, August 8, James Wolf, head of the Legal Section of the Select Committee on Assassinations (House) called to request a meeting to discuss a proposed trip to Cuba by Robert Blakey, the Chief Counsel and three staff assistants. He strongly emphasized the need for secrecy and for limiting this information to people with a need-to-know. I briefly mentioned previous discussions of a Cuban connection with the staff of the Committee and we agreed to meet the next day.

On Monday evening, Ambassador Stedman advised me to point out to Wolf the establishment of “Interests Section” on September 1st and that this would provide a good channel to explore the Cuban reaction and make any arrangements that became necessary. We should offer to get the Committee staff together with the

U. S. head of the Interests Section soon after he is appointed. The Committee, alternatively, could choose to work through the Cubans in their Interest Section in the Czech Embassy.

Mr. Wolf, Tuesday morning, August 9, readily accepted the concept of working through the Interests Section and asked for general guidance as to how they should proceed. With the caveat that I had not cleared my views in the Department,

I suggested they proceed as follows:

–The approach to the Cubans should be based on reports the Committee had received that Castro had informed some American visitors that he is prepared to cooperate in a serious and comprehensive investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy by the USG.

–Our representatives in the Interest Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana could probably approach the Cubans on this within a month of their opening the Section. The Cubans might reply within two weeks. If the answer is positive, the first contact could be established by October 15. (Wolf thought timing was important because the Committee would have to report to the Congress early in the fall.)

–Rather than arrive with a staff prepared to go to work in Cuba, I suggested that the Chief Counsel, or one other person arrive alone, to ascertain what the Cubans were prepared to do and how they wished to proceed.

–The Embassy would set up the meeting with the appropriate Cuban official and make hotel arrangements. If the hotel presents a problem as regards avoiding publicity, other arrangements might be feasible.

–The best way to travel would be by the Cuban carrier out of Montreal. Air Canada is an alternative, but more people apt to recognize the traveler and be interested fly on Air Canada. Mexican Airlines is another alternative.

–The Department will handle the visas.

Subsequently, Wayne Smith, the Director of Cuban Affairs approved of this approach, stressing the expediency of a one man visit.

Mr. Wolf, in a telephone conversation August 11, said he had discussed the proposed arrangements with Professor Blakey and he is in complete agreement. The projected time frame is more than adequate. If the Department finds that more time is needed, a few more weeks won’t create problems. They understand the advantages of one person making the initial contact, but wonder whether the Chief Counsel and one aid might be acceptable. They will also want advice from our representatives as to whether a hotel registration might not be picked up by a knowledgeable and interested newspaper reporter. The Canadians, for example, are very much interested in the activities of the Committee.

We agreed that they would hear from me when our Interests Section head is available, or that they would contact me if they have additional questions or thoughts about he matter.

Document # 180-10110-10035 Is a one page letter from Alexander Schnee to Lyle F. Lane dated September 2, 1977.

SECRET

TOP SECRET enclosures September 2, 1977

Lyle F. Lane, Esquire

Chief, U. S. Interests Section

Havana

Dear Lyle:

I trust that you are enjoying your arrival in Havana as much as you appear to be on TV morning, noon and night.

Professor Blakey asked me to stop by today to pick up the enclosed two envelopes. You will note one is marked “Background: C”. That translates as a background paper which you are free to turn over to the Cubans, if you so desire. The other enevlope is marked “Lyle Lane: P not C”. That translates as highly classified background material for you, NOT to be shown to the Cubans.

I believe you will find both useful. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to communicate with me. Professor Blakey is very anxious to be as helpful as he can be.

Hopefully this letter finds you well and enjoying the challenge.

Sincerely,

Alexander Schnee

Office of Congressional Relations

Enclosures:

As Stated.

cc: Prof. Blakey ( ltr only

Amb. Stedman (Ltr only)

Document # 180-10110-10036 Is a one page letter from L. E. Connell,

U. S. Naval Investigative Service to Mr. Douglas J. Bennet, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations. It is undated but stamped August 15, 1977.

This Service is processing a request by the U. S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations for all materials concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (enclosure (1)).

All such materials are contained in or cross-referenced to this Service’s file holdings on Lee Harvey Oswald. Among those holdings are seven documents originated within the Department of State (enclosure (20), and a portion of one document originated by this Service (enclosure (3)).

Enclosures (2) and (3) are forwarded for your review and direct transmittal to the Select Committee. This Service interposes no objection to the declassification and transmittal of enclosure (3).

Document # 180-10110-10037 Is a one page letter from Douglas J. Bennet to G. Robert Blakey dated 9/27/63.

September 27, 1977

Professor Robert Blakey

General Counsel

Select Committee on Assassinations

3331 House Office Building, Anex 2

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Professor Blakey:

There are transmitted herewith copies of several documents concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy which originated in the Department of State, and a copy of a portion of one document which originated in the Naval Investigative Service (enclosure).

These documents are forwarded pursuant to a request to this office from Captain L. E. Connell, Director, Naval Investigative Service. A copy of the Captain’s request is attached (enclosure).

Unfortunately, we are not able to obtain a more legible copy of the dispatch from our Embassy in Moscow dated October 26, 1959. You will notice that a clearer copy of the November 2, 1959 dispatch is provided.

The Department would appreciate appropriate security protection of the classified materials, and prior consultation in the event the Committee might wish to publicize or downgrade the classification of these documents.

Sincerely,

Douglas J. Bennet, Jr.

Assistant Secretary for

Congressional Relations

cc: Capt. Connell, Naval Investigative Service

Enclosures as Stated.

Document # 180-10110-10038 This is a three page document. This a letter, dated May 10, 1962 from John Noonan, Chief, Records and Services Branch, for the Director, Office of Security, State Department to the Director of Naval Intelligence, Attn: Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Department of the Navy.

This is in reply to your cited memorandum and previous, concerning the Subject: April 26, 1962, OP-921E2/cn, SER (I’m guessing the middle letter is an “E” as it’s badly blurred) 8128P92.

The Passport Office, with jurisdiction in this matter, has advised as follows:

“On the basis of the evidence and information of record in this case, it is considered that Mr. Oswald, who was born at New Orleans, Louisiana on October 18, 1939, has not expatriated himself under the pertinent laws of the United States.”

There were two enclosures. One a letter dated May 1, 1962 to PPT (passport Office) from John Noonan.

Supplementary to the reference, there is enclosed a copy of ONI letter of April 26, with copy of its attachment concerning the subject.

As ONI has again requested information on Oswald’s citizenship status, it will be appreciated if you can advise as soon as possible so that an appropriate reply may be prepared.

Then the last enclosure a letter dated April 4 1962 to the Passport Office from Otto F. Otepka, For the Director, Office of Security.

OSWALD, Lee Harvey

Reference Your memorandum dated December 28, 1961

Please advise if there has been a change in the Subject’s citizenship status, and further any other information which might be of assistance to the Navy in considering his case.

Please have the two enclosures returned with your reply.

Enclosures:

The two (2) ONI Memoranda, March 19 and 23, 1962.

There is a notation that the enclosures were not returned with PPT [Stimons?] obtained from PPT / [Johnsons?] office 5/9/62 [?] to file.

Document # 180-10110-10039 Is a one page telegram from Tokyo to the Secretary of State dated November 9, 1959. It is telegram 1448. This is John Pic’s reaction to Lee’s “defection”.

PRIORITY

SENT DEPARTMENT 1448, REPEATED INFORMATION PRIORITY MOSCOW 23, CINCPAC, COMUS / JAPAN UNNUMBERED

USAF Staff Sergeant John E. Pic Tachikawa Air Base, called at Embassy November 6, concerning news reports that his half-brother, Lee Harvey Oswald, 20 years old, intends to renounce US citizenship and become Soviet citizen.

According to Moscow AP dispatch in PACIFIC STARS AND STRIPES November 1, Lee Oswald is at Metropole Hotel, Moscow. UPI story datelined Fort Worth, Texas, reports another brother, Robert L. Oswald, has attempted to reach Lee Oswald by cable to Moscow and has also sent telegram to Secretary Herter pleading for assistance in contacting him.

Pic asked that Embassy inform him of any developments about Lee Oswald and requested that Embassy Moscow if possible transmit to him following message: “Please reconsider your intentions. Contact me if possible. Love. (Signed) John”.

Request any information this matter which Embassy can pass on to Pic.

CA informed

MACARTHUR

Document # 180-10110-10040 Is a three page document from Embassy Moscow to Department of State, Washington dated 11/2/59. This is really a legible copy of the dispatch. The barely readable dispatch is Document # 180-10110-10041.

FOREIGN SERVICE DISPATCH

From Amembassy MOSCOW

To THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON November 2, 1959

Ref Our tel 1304, October 31, 1959

SUBJECT CITIZENSHIP: Lee Harvey OSWALD

Mr. Lee Harvey OSWALD, an American citizen, appeared at this Embassy October 31, 1959 and stated to Second Secretary Richard E. Snyder that he wishes to renounce his American citizenship and that he had applied to become a citizen of the Soviet Union. He presented to the interviewing officer his passport and the following signed, undated, handwritten statement, the original of which is retained by the Embassy (misspellings are as in original):

“I Lee Harey (cq) Oswald do hereby request that my present citizenship in the United States of america, be revoked.

“I have entered the Soviet Union for the express purpose of appling for citizenship in the Soviet Union, through the means of naturalization.

“My request for citizenship is now pending before the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

“I take these steps for political reasons. My request for the revoking of my American citizenship is made only after the longest and most serious considerations.

I affirm that my allegiance is to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

s/ Lee H. Oswald

Oswald is the bearer of Passport No. 1733242, issued September 10, 1959 (retained by Embassy). The passport shows that he was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 18, 1939, and gives his occupation as “shipping export agent” 4936 Collinwood Street, Fort Worth, Texas. A telegram subsequently received at the Embassy for him indicates that a brother, Robert L. Oswald, resides at 7313 Devenport, Fort Worth, Texas. He stated that he was discharged from the U. S. Marine Corps on September 11, 1959. Highest grade achieved was Corporal. Oswald evidently applied for his passport to the Agency at San Francisco while still in service. He stated that he had contemplated the action which he took for about two years before his discharge. He departed from the United States through New Orleans with the intent of traveling to the Soviet Union through Northern Europe. He states that he first applied for a Soviet tourist visa in Helsinki on October 14, that he applied for Soviet citizenship by letter to the Supreme Soviet on October 16 in Moscow. He stated that he did not mention his intent to remain in the Soviet Union to the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki at the time of his visa application.

Throughout the interview Oswald’s manner was aggressive, arrogant, and uncooperative. He appeared to be competent. He insisted that he did not wish to waste time in discussion or answering questions concerning his “personal” affairs beyond what was directly related to divesting himself of his American citizenship. He was contemptuous of any efforts by the interviewing officer in his interest, made clear that he wanted no advice from the Embassy. He stated that he knew the provisions of U. S. law on loss of citizenship and declined to have them reviewed by the interviewing officer. In short he displayed all the airs of a new sophomore party-liner.

Oswald gave as the “principal reason” for his decision that “I am a Marxist”, but declined any further elaboration of his motives. However, other remarks bearing on his attitude were made during the interview. At one point he alluded to hardships endured by his mother as a “worker” and stated that he did not intend to have this happen to him. He also referred to himself several times as a “worker”, but admitted that he never held a civilian job, having entered the Marine Corps directly from junior year of high school. (He claimed to have completed high school while in service.) He stated that his service in Okinawa and elsewhere “gave me a chance to observe `American imperialism.’ ” At another point he reacted sensitively when asked, in connection with his rank in the Marine Corps, whether he felt he should have had a higher grade.

Oswald categorically refused to discuss his family beyond stating that he was not married and that he has a mother in Texas. He had obliterated the address written on the inside cover of his passport and steadfastly refused to give any last home address until it was elicited by the “threat” that nothing could be done about his request to renounce his citizenship without this information. After giving the address noted above, he then confirmed that it was his mother’s address. He would not say whether he had informed his mother and rebuffed any suggestion of concern for her.

Oswald offered the information that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he had voluntarily stated to unnamed Soviet officials that as a Soviet citizen he would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his speciality as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest.

Oswald is presently residing in non-tourist status at the Metropole Hotel in Moscow awaiting the Soviet response to his application for citizenship. As his Soviet visa and militia registration expired on October 22, 1959, and have not been renewed, he is patently in a technically illegal residence status with the tacit consent of the Soviet authorities.

For what significance it may have, the foregoing was also the pattern in the Nicholas Petrulli case (our Dispatch 111, September 11, 1959). Having evidently concluded after allowing Petrulli to languish “illegally” in a local hotel for a month, that he was no asset as a Soviet citizen, the Soviets suddenly invited him to depart pointing out that he had “overstayed” his visa.

In view of the Petrulli case and other considerations the Embassy proposes to delay action on Oswald’s request to execute an oath of renunciation to the extent dictated by developments and subject to the Department’s advice.

/s/ Edward L. Freers

Charge d’Affaires, ad interim

Document # 180-10110-10041 Is a copy of Document # 180-10110-10040.

Document # 180-10110-10042 Is a one page State Department telegram dated October 31, 1959 7:59 A.M. From Moscow to the Secretary of State. It is numbered 1304.

Lee Harvey Oswald, unmarried age 20 PP 1733242 issued Sept 10, 1959 appeared at Emb. today to renounce American citizenship, stated applied in Moscow for Soviet citizenship following entry USSR from Helsinki Oct. 15. Mother’s address and his last address US 4936 Collinwood St., Fort worth, Texas. Says action contemplated last two years. Main reason “I am a Marxist”. Attitude arrogant aggressive. Recently discharged Marine Corps. [That was encircled] Says has offered Soviets any information he has acquired as enlisted radar operator.

In view of Petrulli case we propose delay executing renunciation until Soviet Action known or Dept. advises. dispatch follows. Press informed.

Document # 180-10110-10043 Is a four page document dated 10/26/59.

The first three pages are a Foreign Service Dispatch but the subject is Robert Edward Webster, not Oswald. The first three pages are impossible to read clearly.

Oddly, the fourth page is about Oswald in Mexico City and specifically about Silvia Duran’s arrest. This is a weird document. On the top is “ORCES REFERENCE SHEET” and this is dated 8 Jan 1964. Then half the page is blank.

There is only about a paragraph of interest which states:

In one of the bitterest exchanges on record between Cuba and Mexico since Castro came to power, the two Governments clashed last week over the investigation conducted by Mexican police into the activities of President Kennedy’s suspected assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in Mexico from September 26 to October 3. Mexican Foreign Minister Tello announced on November 28 that the Mexican Ambassador to Cuba had been instructed to return as “unacceptable” the Cuban Government’s note of November 26 which had protested the action of Mexican police in questioning an employee of the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, Senora Silvia Duran, about Oswald’s application for a Cuban transit visa.

Then there is about a paragraph on nuclear vessels not being allowed to dock in Mexican ports until some agreement on risks is reached.

This document was something akin to a news ticker.

Document # 180-10110-10044 Is a one page letter dated August 2, 1977 from Andy Purdy to Captain Donald Nielsen, Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, Department of Defense.

The Select Committee on Assassinations requests access to the material concerning Lee Oswald and the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy currently in the possession of the Naval Investigative Service of the Office of Naval Intelligence.

Document # 180-10110-10045 Is a one page letter from Alexander Schnee to Lyle F. Lane dated 10/5/77

Yesterday I received from Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel and Director of the Select Committee on Assassinations the attached memorandum. A covering memo to me stated that this memorandum should be made available to you for your information.

If you have any questions concerning the attachment please do not hesitate to get in touch with me and I will take them up with Blakey. He would, of course, be pleased to receive any information you may have concerning his proposed visit or concerning the timing of your presentation of the subject to the appropriate Cuban officials.

Document # 180-10110-10046 Is a two page letter from Lyle F. Lane to Alexander Schnee dated October 17, 1977.

Thank you for your letter of October 5, which followed up an earlier one of September 2 on the same subject.

I have not yet taken any action on this matter, since I am still feeling my way and have not had an opportunity to see anyone absolutely privately with whom I would presently feel comfortable about raising such a sensitive matter. Of course, I can always do it at a working level of the Foreign Ministry, but I prefer not to do it that way unless time runs out. Since my recollection is that Professor Blakey was not thinking of coming much before the end of the year anyway I have felt we have some time. Please let me know if this is not correct.

In the meantime, I am intrigued by the memorandum enclosed with your October 5 letter. Does it mean that Gonzales has had a recent approach on this subject from the Cuban Government–since we met with Professor Blakey in Washington? If so, it would of course be of interest and possibly great significance to me to know who contacted him. I realize that this may be considered sensitive information which cannot be diviluged. But at the same time I am left in the position precisely of trying to gauge the sensitivity and level of the contact I should try to make at this end. It seems to me that we should cooperate on this by pooling our intelligence as much as possible.

One possibility is that Gonzales should simply go back directly to his latest contact–assuming that it is indeed a recent one–and make the pitch for Professor Blakey’s visit directly. That certainly would simplify and expedite the whole business. I would have no trouble with that approach, provided only that Gonzales says at the same time that the Department of State and I have been informed and that I will know about the Professor’s visit when it is undertaken. (I assume you will keep Bill Stedman informed.)

I will take no initiative on this matter until I hear from you again, unless–as is possible at any time in this Byzantine place–I am presented with the clear opportunity of a private meeting at a very high level where I am confident that this subject can be safely raised and treated with the security and sensitivity it deserves.

Document # 180-10110-10047 Is a one page letter from Alexander Schnee to Lyle F. Lane dated November 1, 1977

Thank you for your letter of October 17, received about 10 days later.

In response there is attached a memo to me from Professor Blakey in which I trust you will find the answers to the questions in your memo concerning the Gonzales contact.

Professor Blakey is very keen on visiting in December. Considering the very meticulous cross-checking and analysis which would be required with respect to new information acquired, and the probably need for a second visit, a December start would leave no extra time for proper handling and incorporation in the initial substantive report. We would, obviously, appreciate your views as to possible timing as they develop.

I am also enclosing an excerpt from the Congressional Record dated September 28, 1977 concerning the authority of the Select Committee and other information which I believe you will find of interest, and a related report in the New York times dated October 17, 1977.

Document # 180-10110-10048 Is a one page letter from Alexander Schnee to Blakey dated November 16, 1977. There are two copies of it.

Enclosed are copies of the classified messages we discussed on the phone.

Enclosure:

State # 274299

Havana 0594

Document # 180-10110-10049 Is a one page cable from the Department of State dated November 16, 1977. This is State #274299. There are two copies of the cable.

Prof. Blakey endeavoring contact Acosta but no success to date. Interests Section states Acosta has been in Chicago. We will inform you of developments. Vance.

Document # 180-10110-10170 This is a 36 page document from Douglas J. Bennet Jr. to Blakey dated April 7, 1978.

Enclosed you will find those documents which the Department has located in response to the Committee’s March 15 request for information about Antillo Ramerez Ortiz. At this time, we have also enclosed certain Department of State documents which appeared among the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These documents were originally withheld from the Committee’s review pursuant to the third agency rule.

The Department has provided these documents to the Committee with the understanding that all classified material will receive appropriate protection under the conditions of Executive Order.

The first page is an incoming telegram to the Dept. of State from Habana (Via Pouch) to Secretary of State. Unnumbered, May 10. Control 7969, Rec’d May 13, 1958 8:58 a.m.

SENT SANTIAGO UNNUMBERED, REPEATED INFORMATION DEPARTMENT UNNUMBERED

Antulio Ramirez Ortiz of Puerto Rico sentenced three years Friday for attempting join rebels. Admitted intent and ownership various implicating documents. Sentence considered heavy and lawyer appealing to Second Section of Supreme Court, Habana.

Message Unsigned.

Document # 180-10110-10072 Is a three page memorandum for the record dated April 17, 1978.

Memorandum for the Record

Subject: Select Committee on Assassinations Visit to Cuba, Liaison with GOC on Investigation of President Kennedy’s Assassination.

Background

Several visitors to Cuba last year were personally advised by Castro that he would cooperate with a “serious” investigation by the government of the assassination of President Kennedy. When the House Select Committee on Assassinations was reorganized under Chairman Stokes, a visit to Cuba to explore this potential was given a high priority. The visit was arranged through the Cuban Interests Section in Washington. Neither the Department nor the US Section in Havana were involved in making the arrangements, but we were kept informed by the Committee Chief Counsel. Most of the following information was obtained during a conversation with Chairman Stokes.

Arrangements

The Committee was represented by the Chairman – Representative Louis Stokes, the Chief Counsel – Dr. Robert Blakey and two staff members, one of whom could serve as a translator. They departed Washington by private plane on March 30 and returned to Miami, Florida on April 4. In Havana they were put up in what appeared to be private homes. They were very well cared for in every respect. The Cubans were responsive to the chairman’s concern that there be no publicity — and there has been none to date.

Atmosphere

They were received cordially by Castro, and their counterparts in the discussions. The Cubans were generous and considerate as hosts. Chairman Stokes received the impression that the Cubans want to maintain momentum towards better relations with the US, despite current differences.

Substance

The Cubans anticipated that the meetings would consist of an exchange of intelligence concerning the assassination and were clearly disappointed. The Committee representatives explained that the function of the Committee was solely

to conduct an investigation and that their interest in Cuba was to obtain information which might be pertinent to that investigation. They further explained that in conducting the investigation to date they had obtained some information on a classified basis from various sources and were not at liberty to divulge such classified intelligence. Finally, the Cubans understood the Committee’s position and their attitudes softened. The Committee undertook to provide some information requested by the Cubans which is in the public domain, as for example, the debate on the establishment of the Select Committee and they agreed to look into the possibility of obtaining for the GOC some information gathered by the Ad Hoc Church Committee. A liaison point has been named by the Cubans to continue contact with the Committee. The Chairman envisions that the contact will take place in Washington normally. He does not see a role for the Department or the US Interests Section at this point.

cc: ARA/CCC – Mr. Wayne Smith

US Interests Havana – EYES ONLY Mr. Lyle F. Lane

Select Committee on Assassinations

EYES ONLY – Dr. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel

Document # 180-10110-10077 Is a 232 page document. It is from Douglas J. Bennet to Blakey. It is dated 5/11/78.

The first page is a May 11, 1978 letter describing that what follows are records from the Central Foreign Policy Records about Lee Harvey Oswald. Also, included are records relating to Marina. There are two copies of this.

There is then a list of LHO files.

Repatriation Loans Warren Commission

Repatriation Loans

Correspondence with Dept re LHOswald

PPT-Oswald

Material relating to after release of Warren Commission Rept.

Dept of State Witnesses before Warren Commission

P-Oswald

Correspondence Dept. with Mother of Oswald

Congressional Correspondence – Oswald

FBI reports re Oswald

SI and PPT re Oswald case

VO – Oswald

SCS file re: Oswald

Oswald SCS file original

Rept. of State Dept LHOswald

Dept telegrams re Oswald

Request for info from Warren Commission ltrs to and from L

Clippings re Oswald

Oswald file – IX

Oswald file – XII

Memo from PPT Warren TF

Report of Dept of State LHOswald – book cover.

There is then an 8 page report on the issuance of a visa to Marina.

It begins, “Sometime in May 1962 the United States Consulate in Moscow issued a non-quota immigrant visa to Mrs. Oswald.” Why the vagueness of the date? Remember John Newman’s book and presentations on his book, “Oswald and the CIA” and how the CIA was saying in October of 1963 that the latest info they had on LHO was a State Dept report dated May 1962? I’m struck by the same date.

The report is very technical and legalese in nature. “There is no question that Mrs. Oswald was entitled to non-quota status under section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, by reason of her marriage to a United States citizen. However, issuance of an immigration visa to Mrs. Oswald in Moscow required determinations under two other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act – Section 212 (a) (28), dealing with admissibility of aliens who are members of or affiliated with communist organizations; and Section 243 (g), dealing with the issuance of immigrant visas by consuls in the territory of countries which have refused acceptance of the return of persons sought to be deported from the United States.”

The Section 212 (a) (28) was granted because Marina had to join Trade Union for Medical Unions in order to work. There was a waiver for that.

Page 4 explains about 243 (g) a bit. There was some tit for tat thing going on. We wanted to deport some Soviet nationals, they wouldn’t take them back so we weren’t going to take any new people, this was in 1953. But there was an understanding with the State and Justice Depts that waiver powers existed. It was to be waived to prevent separation of families, and persons eligible for non quota visas and first preference visas. This was supposedly policy as reflected in the Department of State’s Visa handbook last issued on February 15, 1961.

The request for Marina’s petition for a visa went to the State Dept.’s office in San Antonio. The request was approved on February 28, 1962 but the waiver under Section 243 (g) was not approved. No reason was stated for the disapproval. Technically there is no grounds for a waiver, as there is no waiver.

The statutory procedure for handling petitions for non-quota or preference status by reason of relationship calls for a determination of eligibility for such status by the Attorney General, and the responsibility for making such determinations has been delegated to the District Directors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

On March 23, 1962 the Director of the Visa Office accepted the advice of the Soviet Affairs Office and prepared a letter for the Acting Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs urging that the INS reconsider the denial. The Soviet Affairs Office wrote an additional supporting memorandum to the Acting Administrator on March 23, 1962. Accordingly, on March 27, 1962 the Acting Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs wrote a letter to the Commissioner Of the INS, Dept. of Justice reconsideration of the decision not to waive the provisions of 243 (g) in the case of Mrs. Oswald.

The text of this letter refers to a number of telephone conversations between the State Dept and the INS about getting that waiver.

On May 9 the INS agreed to waive the sanction of 243 (g).

“As the above-quoted exchange of letters indicates, the issue of section 243 (g) in the case of Mrs. Oswald was not handled as a routine matter. While apparently no records of this kind of case are kept, persons in the State Department who regularly deal with consular problems arising in Iron Curtain countries state that refusals to grant waivers in section 243 (g) cases involving close personal relationships were very rare. Apparently, the State Department requested reconsideration in each of these cases by the Immigration and Naturalization Service Central Office.”

Then there is a March 23, 1962 on the immigrant visa case of Mrs. Oswald.

SCA – Mr. Michael Cieplinski

SOV – Robert I Chen

Immigrant Visa Case of Mrs. Marina M. Oswald.

SOV has cleared the attached letter to to Mr. [?], Commissioner of Immigration and naturalization and the telegram to Moscow about the immigrant visa case of Mrs. Marina M. Oswald. In considering this case I believe it would be helpful for you to have the following additional information. It refers to the second paragraph of VO’s memorandum relative to Mr. Oswald’s statements that he intended to reveal information to Soviet authorities about his work as radio operator in the Marine Corps.

Oswald appeared at the Moscow Embassy on July 8 on his own initiative in connection with his desire to return to the United States with his wife. He was questioned at length concerning his activities since entering the Soviet Union. There is quoted below the applicable paragraph from Embassy dispatch No. 29 of July 11, 1962:

“Oswald stated that he had never been called upon to make any statements for radio or press or to address audiences since his arrival in the Soviet Union and that he has made no statements at any time of any exploitable nature concerning his original decision to reside in the Soviet Union. He recalled that he had been interviewed briefly in his room at the Metropole Hotel in Moscow on the third day after his arrival in the Soviet Union by a reporter from Radio Moscow. The reporter represented himself as seeking comments from American tourists on their impressions of Moscow. Oswald stated that he made no more than a few routine comments of a visiting tourist nature, the whole lasting no more than two or three minutes and of no political significance. When queried about a statement which he had made to the interviewing officer at the time of his first appearance at the Embassy on October 31, 1959 to the effect that he would willingly make available to the Soviet Union such information as he had acquired as a radar operator in the Marine Corps, Oswald stated that he was never in fact subjected to any questioning or briefing by the Soviet authorities concerning his life or experiences prior to entering the Soviet Union, and never provided such information to any Soviet orgas. [sic “organizations”] He stated that he doubted in fact that he would have given such information if requested despite his statements made at the Embassy.”

Then there is a telegram from Dept of State to, presumably American Embassy Moscow, dated May 29, 1964.

Department has understood that embassy had previously pouched entire Oswald files to Department. Presence of Oswald supplementary questionnaire in embassy raised question whether there are other Oswald files in embassy. If so please advise and pouch them immediately.

BALL

Then there is a telegram from Helsinki dated May 28, 1964.

Embassy has never maintained records which would provide information requested, as embassy is only occasionally involved in Soviet visa application cases when an American tourist asks advice of Consulate. A check with Finnish police authorities confirms that they also are without pertinent records. conceivably a reference to CAS headquarters may produce samplings of the information desired.

An embassy contact, at our request but without knowing purpose, has sought Soviet visa application time-factor information from three Helsinki travel agencies involved in processing of applications for clients. These agencies report that, uniformly for five years 1959 through 1963, usual time required for receipt of Soviet visa applied for by Americans has been seven to fourteen days.

INGRAM

Another telegram, Control No. 3986, date May 26, 1964 5 pm.

Department may wish refer to Moscow’s monthly visitors reports for 1959 in attempt to contact some “non-official” Americans who may remember Soviet visa waiting period for themselves at that time. Consular officer presently at Embassy Moscow visited Moscow on tourist visa issued in Belgrade in 1959 with waiting period of 2 days. According to Embassy’s information gained from informal conversations with American tourists in 1962-63, waiting periods seem to vary with individuals. One case is remembered wherein American visa application in 1963 was delayed if not denied by Soviet Embassy in United States; American subsequently flew to Stockholm, made application for tourist visa there and flew on to Moscow within twenty-four hours.

Intourist official states tourist visas generally issued within two to three days after application and always within seven working days.

Another telegram, Control 3985 May 26, 1964 4 p.m.

Supplementary questionnaire signed by Oswald, without consul’s signature but carrying Consular seal and typewritten name, being forwarded by Airgram in May 30 pouch from Moscow. Embassy cannot say if this is the original.

In answer to Department questions, Embassy notes that under Embassy’s normal procedure two, rpt, two copies, of questionnaire are filled out by applicant. Normally Consul does not rpt not administer oath inasmuch as bulk of such work is carried out in USSR by mail. In such cases however applicant is asked to have both copies signed by two witnesses. When supplementary questionnaire is filled out in Embassy, Consul does administer oath and sign.

Under normal procedures, if applicant completes form 176 (Registration or Renewal of Passport) one copy of supplementary questionnaire accompanies Form 176 to Department.

Another, control No. 8728, REc’d May 26, 1964.

Questions from the Warren commission.

“The copy of the supplementary questionnaire signed by Oswald on July 10, 1961, and presently in the Oswald passport file does not have the signature of the Consul who apparently administrated the oath to Oswald…

Another, Control No. 8632 May 23, 1964 1:40 am,

From Dept

No 3408 May 22, 11 am.

Action Helsinki 394 Moscow 3408

President’s Commission of the Assassination of President Kennedy has requested further information in response to Dept’s statement in letter to Commission that issuance by Soviets of tourist visa to Oswald in October 1959 in Helsinki was “unusual” because it was within two days after his application.

Report as much statistical information as possible concerning Soviet visa applications by Americans in Helsinki in 1959. Specifically: approximately how many applications? What was average length of time for processing applications? What were the longest and shortest times and approx how many applications fell into various categories of times for processing (e.g., one month, one week, three days)?

Note – Oswald first applied in Helsinki and above requests refer only to Sov tourist visa applications by Americans in 1959 under comparable circumstances.

Next is a cover letter or telegram from American Embassy Moscow dated May 29, 1964. “The Embassy herewith forwards to the Department all papers in its files on Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife, Marina N. Oswald, dated prior to November 22, 1962.” It is addressed for the Ambassador from Thomas A Fain, Second Secretary of Embassy.

An Embassy telegram 3593 dated May 29, 1964.

There is attached for the Department’s information two copies of application executed by Lee Harvey Oswald on July 10, 1961 for renewal of passport. A supplementary questionnaire is attached. The 3″ x 5″ note stapled to the front of the two copies appears to be a reminder for fee collection initialed by the consular office at the time he received the application.

Then a telegram, Control No. 3949 date, May 22, 1964, 6:35 pm,

Action Secstate Washington 3562

For Chayes from Kohler

Deptel 3394.

After thorough check of Embassy files in connection with Department’s memorandum (based on SOV draft responses to four questions), Embassy finds it has nothing to add to detailed answers given.

Then a letter from John C. Guthrie, dated April 20, 1964 to Walter J. Stoessel, Minister-Counselor, American Embassy Moscow.

The Legal advisor recently asked SOV to comment upon four questions which had been presented to the Department by the…(Warren Commission). There is enclosed a copy of the memorandum…

That memorandum is 12 pages long. Dull reading.

On p. 10 a question is asked, “The Soviet government issued Lee Harvey Oswald a passport which described him as being without citizenship, and he was issued a Soviet visa on a temporary, year to year basis. Were these procedures customary at the time Oswald was in Russia?

It is impossible to comment upon whether or not these procedures were “customary’. Decisions of this character are made arbitrarily by the Soviet Government to fit the case in question and apparently to serve Soviet interests. There are apparently two ways to document non-Soviet citizens, i.e., with a Soviet passport for “stateless” persons or with a passport for a foreigner. Oswald held both documents at different times. On January 4, 1962 he was issued a passport for foreigners.

The Commission then wants to know of similar cases to Oswald and the State Dept refers them to the following people and requests they contact them.

1.) Robert E. Webster (there some info here but you know his story)

2.) David P. Johnson – David Johnson was a resident of Philadelphia who with his wife and four year old twin sons went to the Soviet Union in April 1962 with the expressed purpose of taking up permanent residence. The family became disillusioned in several weeks and obtained permission to leave the Soviet Union soon thereafter. Mr. Johnson appeared before the House Committee on Unamerican Activities after his return to the United States.

3.) Tom Mooradian – Tom Mooradian was sent to Soviet Armenia in November 1947 by his American parents of Armenian background for the purpose of being educated in Soviet Armenia. He thereafter lived in Soviet Armenia and is believed to have held a Soviet citizen’s passport. He became a national figure in Soviet society as a basketball player and traveled extensively in this capacity. Only after many years (April 1960) was he able to get permission to leave the USSR. During the period in which he was trying to leave, he visited the American Embassy in Moscow a number of times. It was the Embassy’s belief that his occupation enabled him to visit Moscow more frequently than other applicants for Soviet exit visas.

4.) Father Walter Ciszek – An American Roman Catholic priest who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union from 1941 to April 1955 and thereafter was restricted to certain areas of the Soviet Union. Father Ciszek was permitted to return to the United States in the fall of 1963.

5.) Louis Alhonite – Louis Alhonite resided in the USSR for several years during which time he obtained employment with a film studio. He became disillusioned with life in the USSR and was allowed to leave about two years ago.

6.) Mrs. Mary Dutkanicz – She was the wife of Sergeant Joseph Dutkanicz who defected in 1960 from American Army control in Germany and took his wife and children to Lvov, USSR. Following the usual pattern, Sergeant Dutkanicz soon thereafter became disillusioned with Soviet life and made efforts to return to the United States. Mrs. Dutkanicz was given permission to return in 1962 because of the illness of her mother and grandmother. After arrival in this country she gave birth to another child. She did not return to the Soviet Union and made strong efforts to assist her family in obtaining exit visas. The Soviet authorities informed the American Embassy that Sergeant Dutkanicz died in November 1963. About two weeks ago the Soviet Government finally gave permission for the three Dutkanicz children to be repatriated to their mother.

There is then a letter from Abram Chayes, Legal Advisor to Mr. Foy D. Kohler, American Ambassador, Moscow, dated April 21, 1964 with the draft of responses to the Warren Commissions questions.

Then there is a very odd document about Protection passports issued by Swiss authorities to United States Nationals departing from Cuba. No. CA-6444, January 31, 1961. Only one page of this is here. I believe it is supposed to be at least two pages in length. Dept. of State instruction 2159. Rec’d in Moscow Feb 11, 1961.

Another instruction, A-173, April 13, 1961

Citizenship and Passports: Lee Harvey Oswald

The American Embassy MOSCOW

The Embassy’s Dispatch No. 585 of February 28, 1961 concerning Lee Harvey Oswald has been studied with particular reference to the last two paragraphs thereof. Dispatch No. 659 of March 24, 1961 concerning him has also been noted.

If and when Mr. Oswald appears at the Embassy, he should be thoroughly questioned regarding the circumstances of his residence in the Soviet Union and his possible commitment of an act or acts of expatriation and, as contemplated by the Embassy, his statements should be taken under oath. If the Embassy is fully satisfied that he has not expatriated himself in any manner and if he presents evidence that he has arranged to depart from the Soviet Union to travel to the United States, his passport may be delivered to him on a personal basis only, after being rendered valid for direct return to the United States. For security reasons, the Department does not consider that it would be prudent for the Embassy to forward Oswald’s passport to him by mail.

The Department is not in a position to advise Mr. Oswald whether upon his desired return to the United States he may be amenable to protection for any possible offenses committed in violation of the laws of the United States or the laws of any of its States.

The developments in the case of Mr. Oswald should be promptly reported. In particular, a report of his travel data should be submitted when the Embassy receives confirmation of his travel plans.

It may be added that Mrs. Marguerite Oswald has been informed of the address given by Mr. Oswald in his recent undated communication referred to in Dispatch No. 585 and of his desire to return to the United States. She has also been appropriately informed in the light of Dispatch No. 659.

There is then a memorandum for Mr. David Slawson from Richard A. Frank, an attorney with the Office of Legal Advisor for the State Department. This is dated September 2, 1964.

Subject: Publication of Department documents.

As you will recall, we concluded yesterday that it might be advisable to delete the names of defectors from the Department documents given to the Commission. If the Department decides to recommend this action and if the Commission accepts that recommendation, I suggest the following change be made on Commission Document No. 977: Delete page 3, beginning “to his wife” and ending “for which” and also the first paragraph of page 4, beginning “his skills” and ending “the U.S.” of question 3, attachment A, and replace with the following:

“to his wife to leave the country was not considered a routine matter. We do have detailed information concerning another American defector whose case was somewhat different since he actually obtained Soviet citizenship and was not, therefore, classified as “stateless.”

[I believe they are talking about Robert Webster here.]

“This person applied for Soviet citizenship in the summer of 1959 and received it that fall. At that time he gave up his United States citizenship and the American Embassy submitted to the Department a Certificate of Loss of Citizenship. By the spring of 1960 he had changed his mind and communicated to the Embassy his desire to return to the United States. Early in August he applied for a Soviet exit visa, but it was not until the spring of 1962 that he was able to obtain an exit visa, issued on a Soviet citizen’s passport. Thus, in comparison to Oswald, it took this defector a year and nine months to get permission to leave the Soviet Union. His case differs in that he had been granted Soviet citizenship and was employed in an industry, for which his skills were particularly desired by the Soviet authorities.”

As I mentioned, it may be advisable not to publish certain of the INR Morning Reports contained in Commission Document No. 1135. I am attaching a more polished article which has most of the information in those reports and which could be published. Let me know if you would like to use it.

There is then a draft of a letter to Mr. Rankin. The State Dept wants to delete information in some of the documents they gave to the Commission.

First are the names of defectors that appear in CD 977 and 1114 (documents II-23, 36, 52; III-8, 11; IV-1, 3, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, 65; V-49; Vi-21; X-63, 73, 75, 77, 78; and XI-6)

Second, Cables to and from Bern which concern procedural steps related to the request from the Commission to the Cuban government for documents (For instance, Commission documents 1081 and 1114 (documents I-1 and I-2)).

Third, Those parts of documents I-42 and 44 of Commission documents 1114 which are completely unrelated to the assassination.

Fourth, names of individuals listed in Commission exhibit 949 who have been denied passports.

Fifth; there must be another page but it’s not included.

Next is a three page letter from, I’m assuming Abba Schwartz to Francis Knight.

Set forth below are answers to the questions from the Warren Commission, as requested in your memorandum of June 15, 1964.

Question:

Precise information concerning the time it took any American “defector” in the Soviet Union to renew his passport or to obtain a new passport.

Answer

Two recent cases in point involve a man and a wife – Morris and Mollie Block – who went to the Soviet Union in 1959 with the apparent intention of residing there permanently. Mr. and Mrs. Block departed Montreal on July 3, 1959 abroad the SS Batory, bound for Copenhagen and Gydnia. Mrs. Block was properly documented with a United States passport. Mr. Block, who had previously been denied passport facilities because he had travelled to Communist China in 1957, in violation of the restrictions contained in his passport, was traveling on a passport he had fraudulently obtained in the name of Henry Warren Stern.

The next information concerning the Blocks was gleaned from an article which appeared in PRAVDA UKRAINY (Ukraine Pravda) of December 12, 1959. This article, attributed to Morris Block, was mainly an anti-United States propaganda piece, which stated in part that Block, a typical American, had arrived in Odessa with his family and was working as a metal worker in a ship repair yard.

On July 7, 1960 Mrs. Block appeared at the Embassy in Moscow. She stated she had separated from her husband and requested her passport be renewed. She was informed that the passport would be renewed and validated for direct and immediate return to the United States when she had completed her travel plans.

Mrs. Block did not again appear at the Embassy until March 5, 1962, at which time she sought passport facilities for herself and Mr. Block. At that time she stated she would wait until passports could be issued to her and Mr. Block simultaneously, as she would not travel without her husband.

On July 26, 1962 Mr. Block came to the Embassy, Moscow, and submitted an application for passport, at which time he admitted he and his wife had been members of the Communist Party USA before coming to the Soviet Union.

Both Mr and Mrs. Block’s passport application were referred to the Department for determination of their citizenship and decision as to their entitlement to passports.

In the absence of information that they had committed any expatriative act it was determined they were citizens of the United States. The Embassy was, however, requested to have both Mr. and Mrs. Block execute – as part of their passport applications – sworn statements concerning their membership in the Communist Party USA.

On January 10, 1963 Mr and Mrs. Block appeared at the Embassy, Moscow, at which time Mrs. Block executed an affidavit concerning membership in the Communist Party USA. This Mr. Block refused to do.

On January 30, 1963 an Operations Memorandum was sent to the Embassy, Moscow, authorizing issuance of a passport to Mollie Block; limited for direct and immediate return to the United States. Because of Morris Block’s refusal to execute the statement regarding Communist Party USA membership, and his previous history of passport fraud, the Embassy was authorized to document him only with an Emergency Certificate of Identity for return to the United States.

Due to difficulties with Soviet authorities Mr. and Mrs. Block were unable to travel from Odessa to Moscow to pick up their travel documentation until July 2, 1963.

Thereafter – until May 1964 the Department was informed that the Soviet government had reached a decision to grant Soviet exit visas to the Blocks.

On June 12, 1964 the Blocks arrived back in the United States.

Question:

In the event there were any “defectors” who, like Oswald, applied for renewals of their passports, or for new passports, after an attempted defection, information should be furnished as to the processing time involved.

Answer :

One individual, who has been reported by the Department of Defense to have been a “defector” applied for and has been issued a passport.

The individual is Paul David Wilson, born September 4, 1929, at Kokomo, Indiana. He applied for a passport at the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, El Paso, Texas, on January 20, 1964 by the Passport Agency, Los Angeles, California.

At the time the passport was issued the Passport Office had no information concerning the background or activities of Paul David Wilson, aside from the information contained in his passport application and his birth certificate.

There is then a letter from Thomas Ehrlich to Mr. Schwartz dated June 11, 1964.

During Mr. Chayes’ testimony before the President’s Commission he was asked to supply for the record precise information concerning the time it took any American “defector” in the Soviet Union to renew his passport or to obtain a new passport. I am not certain that there are any “defectors” who, like Oswald, applied for renewals of their passports or for new passports after an attempted “defection.”

I would appreciate it, however, if you would ask the Passport Office whether there are such cases and, if so, to provide the information requested by the Commission.

There is then a memo from Schwartz to Knight, dated May 20, 1964.

Would you, as soon as possible, forward to me a memorandum which answers the questions and provides the information requested in the attached memorandum from Mr. Chayes.

Then a two page letter from Chayes to Schwartz, dated May 21, 1964.

The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy has requested the Department to supply additional information relating to the subject matter of the Department’s letter to the Commission of May 8, 1964. I would appreciate your providing information on the following subjects:

(1) The passport histories of as many defectors as possible I.E., a description of the travels taken by as many defectors as possible after they return to the United States.

(2) A list of those cases where passports have been withdrawn or denied on the basis of 22 CFR 51.136 (b) and (c) and the specific reasons given for the withdrawal or refusals.

(3) In relation to Answer 16 in the Department’s letter, it is stated that a determination was made that a lookout card was not required for Oswald when the Department was informed that Oswald appeared at the Soviet and Cuban embassies at Mexico City. Would you provide a statement indicating whether that determination was made in written form, and, if it was, would you provide a copy of that determination?

[Note, another document that Oswald was at the Soviet and Cuban Embassies. See John Newman’s “Oswald and the CIA” for more.]

(4) a statement indicating whether or not there is a written instruction, regulation, or procedure which states that on telegrams, such as the one from the New Orleans Passport Office to Washington on June 24, 1963, a symbol indicating the city of origin should be marked on the telegram and that the proper marking for New Orleans is “NO”. If such a written instruction, regulation, or procedure exists, please provide a copy.

(5) An example of the type of instruction or piece of paper which is transmitted from the Finance Office to the Passport Office authorizing the preparation of a lookout card when a repatriation loan is made.

(6) A statement as to whether there is a written instruction, regulation, or procedure which states that a lookout card need not be prepared when the Finance Office only provides the name of the individual involved and does not provide his address or date of birth. If such written instruction, regulation, or procedure exists, please provide a copy.

(7) It appears that in July 1961 the Embassy in Moscow stamped Oswald’s passport valid for direct return to the United States only, at a time before he had applied for and received a repatriation loan. Would you verify that this in fact was done. If it was, would you indicate (1) whether or not this is standard procedure, the reason for this procedure in light of the fact that defecting is usually not a reason to deny an individual a regular passport if the defector has not committed an act of expatriation

(8) A list of those people who were known to have seen the Oswald passport file up to the date of the assassination.

(9) The copy of the supplementary questionnaire signed by Oswald on July 10, 1961, and presently in the Oswald passport file does not have the signature of the consul who apparently administered the oath to Oswald. Do you have or know where the original of this supplementary questionnaire is located? Under normal procedures, how many copies of the questionnaire would be completed? If more than one copy is made, would the consul under normal procedures sign all copies? Under normal procedures, would a copy signed by the consul be forwarded to the Department to be placed in the passport file?

Then there is a memo from Edward J. Hickey to Abba Schwartz dated April 23, 1964. This is a draft response to 12 questions from the Warren Commission.

A lot of this has to do with why no Lookout Card was in place when Oswald requested to return to the U. S. One response stands out, “From the file and from the procedures then in effect it appears that someone in the Files or Clearance Section missed the “Refusal” prepared on March 25, 1960 and failed to follow standard operating procedures to prepare a lookout card. The individual who overlooked the “Refusal” cannot be identified from any material or information available to this Office.”

Then there is a 9 page document from the Government of Mexico from their Department of Interior. There is a copy of Mexican tourist card No. 24085. They have Oswald leaving on October 3, 1963. It lists 6 things as being enclosed, only two are here, #1 and #6.

1. Certified photostatic copy of tourist card (F. M. 8) No. 24085, valid for 15 days, used by Lee Harvey Oswald to enter Mexico on September 26, 1963, at Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas.

2. Certified photostatic copy of several pages from the register of the Comercio Hotel at No. 19 Fray Bernardino de Sahagun Street, Mexico city, where Lee Harvey Oswald stayed on September 27, 1963.

3. Certified photostatic copy of the reservation sheet of the bus company “Transportes Frontera” for October 2, 1963, on which Oswald’s name appears as No. 4

4. Certified photostatic copies of the records of passenger entry and departure (F. M. 11) at Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, for September 26 and October 3, 1963, which show that Oswald entered Mexico on September 26 and departed on October 3.

5. Certified Photostatic copy of the statement made before Mexican authorities on November 23, 1963 By Mrs. Silvia Tirado Duran.

6. Certified photostatic copy of the report made November 30, 1963, by Inspector Jose Mario del Valle of the investigations conducted in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, regarding Oswald’s passage through that city.

The Sylvia Duran statement is 5 pages, actually six but that’s just where those who questioned her sign off.

Sylvia states that when she heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald mentioned as the suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy it, “made her remember that that was the name of an American who, at the end of September or beginning of October, had come to the Cuban consulate and applied for transit visa for Cuba, en route to Russia. In support of his request, he had presented his passport, which showed that he had lived in Russia for three years, his work card from that country, in Russian, and letters in that language. He also presented evidence showing that he was married to a Russian woman, and that he appeared to be the leader in New Orleans of the organization known as “Fair Treatment for Cuba,” claiming that he was accepted as a “friend” of the Cuban Revolution.”

Her statement goes on to say, “In view of all that, the declarant, performing her duties, took all his data and filled out the necessary application. He then left the office but returned in the afternoon with his photographs, and the declarant, admitted that she exceeded her duties, unofficially called the Russian Consulate in a desire to facilitate the processing of the Russian visa for Lee Harvey Oswald. However, she was told by that consulate that it would take approximately four months to process his application, which annoyed the applicant, because, he said, he was in a hurry to obtain the visas to go to Russia. He insisted on his right to them because of his background and his support and personal activities in behalf of the Cuban movement. The declarant could not state — because she did not remember — whether he said he was a member of the Communist Party. Her did say that his Russian wife was at that time in New York, from where she would follow him, having come from the above mentioned city of New Orleans;

That when Oswald heard that a Cuban visa, being a transit visa, could not be issued to him until after he had obtained a Russian visa, he became excited and very angry, and so the declarant called Consul Ascue, who was in his private office with Mr. Miraval, who later replaced him. The Consul came out of his office and began to argue with Oswald in English. Ascue finally said, “If it were up to me, I would not give you a visa,” and people like you, instead of helping the Cuban Revolution, only do it harm,” it being understood in their argument, they were referring to the Russian Socialist Revolution and not the Cuban Revolution. Oswald maintained that he had two reasons for wanting a visa so urgently, and they were: his permit to stay in Mexico was about to expire; and he needed to reach Russia right away. Despite the dispute, the declarant gave Oswald a piece of paper identical to the one on which she was writing in the proceedings, on which she wrote her name “Silvia Duran” and the telephone number of the Cuban Consulate “11-28-47,” and his visa application was processed in any case. It was sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, which sent a reply in the routine manner, 15 to 30 days later, granting the visa on the condition that the applicant first obtain a Russian visa. The declarant did not remember whether or not Oswald later called the declarant on the Consulate telephone. She said that her entire conversation with Oswald, as well as the conversation the Consul had with him, was in English, since Oswald did not speak Spanish at all;

That when she saw the photograph that appeared in today’s newspapers, precisely in El Dia, she immediately recognized him and identified him as the one whom she had been calling Lee Harvey Oswald.”

The rest are letters to Congressmen and Senators from the public asking about Oswald and how he got a new passport, the repatriation loan, etc.

Document # 180-10110-10092 Is an 18 page document from the Office of the Adjutant General dated 6/1/71. This is about “Acquisition of Information concerning Persons and Organizations not Affiliated With the Department of Defense”. This appears to be a guidebook, or a new addition of rules to one.

Document # 180-10110-10093 Is a similar guideline to the above. It is 9 pages long, dated 2/9/72. It is a notice that the Archivist of the United States has approved a request to dispose of certain investigative types of records. Might be related to the destruction of records relating to Oswald by the DOD.

Document # 180-10110-10095 Is a really a four page document, though the RIF says one page. It is a Fact Sheet on Marine Corps Aircraft. It is a list of all Marine Corps aircraft stationed at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro and Marine Corps Station Knaeohe, Hawaii, for October through December 1963 is attached at Tab A.

As no Marine Corps aircraft were stationed at Camp Smith, Hawaii during 1963, the listing includes the nearest Marine Corps aviation facility, Kaneohe, Hawaii.

The copies of aviation status board data at Tab B provide additional detail on the number, location, and unit assignments of Marine Corps aircraft.

Information concerning Master logs are not available at Marine headquarters but may be obtained from the Master Flight files located at Washington National Record Center, GSA, Washington, D.C. 20409. Inquiries for specific flights should include Pilot’s name, Model of aircraft, Bureau Number, and appropriate dates of interest.

Who wanted this information and why?

I would like to know the exact layout of Andrews Air Force Base on November 22, 1963, including every aircraft that took off, landed, was parked, who was flying, who was in as crew and / or passenger, who was in the radar tower giving or receiving instructions, and who were the ground personnel, including personnel drawn from other agencies or units to provide any assistance that day.

Document # 180-10110-10096 Is a one page State Department cable from American Embassy Moscow to Secretary of State dated August, `78.

Ref: Moscow 17878

Further questioning of MFA USA Division Counselor Zaytsev July 31 and August 1 regarding transmission of Soviet documents on Oswald (paragraph two reftel) resulted in his clarifying that the only such documents passed to USG were those transmitted to the Warren Commission via the State Department. Zaytsev repeated the line he had taken during initial discussion of this matter July 31. All relevant Soviet documents on Oswald had already been sent to the USG.

Toon

Document # 180-10110-10097 Is a 15 page document from Douglas J. Bennet to Blakey August 8, 1978.

The first page is a letter from Douglas J. Bennet, Jr. to Blakey dated August 8, 1978.

“This responds to the Select Committee’s request of March 7, 1978. On August 3, Ms. Cynthia Cooper reviewed material from the Central Foreign Policy Records concerning Dominick E. Bartone, Sam Benton, Edward Browder Jr., Martin Zamora Fox, John Martino, Michael McLaney, Edward Moss, Norman Rothman, Santo Trafficante, Jr., and Robert Todd. Ms. Cooper asked that the Department release the enclosed records as a result of this review.

“At Tab A, you will find two documents from the records on Dominick E. Bartone. Tab B contains all Central Foreign Policy Records about Robert Todd.

There are two copies of this letter.

Next is a State Dept telegram stating that a Mr. R. J. Todd was in an automobile accident in the town of Veiloa, Switzerland and taken to a nearby hospital. This was in a Orlando newspaper which quoted a State Dept. official. The Dept. found no record of a Mr. R. J. Todd. This report is made by Kissinger.

Another page is a Freedom of Information request by a Robert Todd, who is enquiring about a UFO incident on 11/4/57 in Fort Itaipu, Brazil. Teresa Ferrell found no information relevant to the request.

Then there is Robert Todd’s original request, dated January 20, 1976. Mr. Todd lived at 2526 Belmont Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania. According to Todd two Brazilian Army sentries were injured by a UFO and “High Brazilian” officials asked the American Embassy for help.

Another Robert Todd, from Odessa, Texas requested help in securing a visa for a friend, Merl Gavin, a teacher from Kingston, Jamaica. He wrote to his Congressman, George Mahon. And he (Rep. Mahon) wrote to Leonard F. Chapman, Commissioner, INS. There are 8 letters in total dealing with this visa request.

Then there is a State Dept cable to Cuidad Trujillo sent June 5, 1959.

Federal Grand Jury Miami indicated the following on charges of conspiracy (1) to export munitions of war in violation Mutual Security Act and (2) to bribe United States Officers: Leonard Trento; Augusto Ferrando; Joseph Liquori; Domenic E. Bartone; Samuel E. Poole; Sidney Neubauer; Charles Colle (later two not arrested with original group). Julio Laurent named co-conspirator but not co-defendent.

Trial date has not been set. No charges brought against others arrested on May 22.

The last page is a cable in reply from Cuidad Trujillo to Secretary of State, No. 440, May 25, 1959 3 p.m.

Embassy has so far received no official reaction to arrests GODR CONGEN and staff in Miami and resultant US publicity. No publicity subject yet local newspapers and none expected.

Jim Farley President Coca Cola International had conference with Generalissimo today and after stated to Charge Trujillo in jovial mood and made no mention Miami fracas.

President has declared three days official mourning for late Secretary Dulles and Foreign Minister has sent Embassy appropriate note condolences.

LOFTON

Document # 180-10110-10110 Is a 26 page letter from Douglas J. Bennet to Louis Stokes, dated 9/20/78. This is about Charles William Thomas.

It’s really about Elena Garro de Paz and the Oswald-Duran “affair” and the twister party. For more information on this see John Newman’s, “Oswald and the CIA” p. 377-392. Newman identifies Thomas as, “a CIA covert action operative, and a key player in the development of the Oswald-Duran sex story. That story gained credibility in CIA channels in a way that leaves open an unsavory possibility: the story may have been invented after the Warren Commission investigation to falsely implicate the Cuban government in the Kennedy Assassination.”

The first page is a letter to Stokes dated Sept. 20, 1978:

“This refers to my letter of September 15, 1978 concerning your September 13 request for the declassification and release of six documents about Charles William Thomas and Elena Garro de Paz.

“The Department’s Bureau of Inter-American Affairs concurred in the declassification and release of the major portions of the documents, enclosed at Tab A. These six documents contain certain information which still warrants classification pursuant to E.O. 11652. The deleted information, if released, could damage U. S. Latin American relations or reveal confidential sources and methods which remain a part of U.S. embassy operations.

“The Bureau of Inter-American Affairs also agreed to the declassification and partial release of four other documents, which appear in the CIA files on Elena Garro de Paz. These documents appear at Tab B. However, the Department requests that the Select Committee not make these documents a matter of public record. These documents may assist the Select Committee in understanding the background story of Elena Garro de Paz. However, because the nature and substance of these documents relate more specifically to U.S. Latin American relations and not directly to Ms. Garro de Paz, the Department would prefer that the Committee not cite these documents in the public record.”

Next, is a letter from Charles William Thomas to then Secretary of State William P. Rogers.

In winding up my affairs at the Department of States, there is a pending matter which I believe merits your attention.

Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumed assassin of President Kennedy, was allegedly present at a party given by a Mexican communist sympathizer and attended by the Cuban Consul, a veteran intelligence officer, when he was in Mexico shortly before the assassination. There are allegations that the Mexican government may have been aware of Oswald’s presence at that party and that the Cuban government may have tried to intimidate others who saw him there.

A careful investigation of these allegations could perhaps explain them away. Until then, however, their public disclosure could reopen the debate about the true nature of the Kennedy assassination and damage the credibility of the Warren Report.

Since I was the Embassy officer in Mexico who acquired this intelligence information, I feel a responsibility for seeing it through to its final evaluation. Accordingly, I have prepared a memorandum (enclosed) explaining this information and its initial assessment, keyed to three memorandum of conversations with my Mexican informant.

I believe you would want to consider carefully whether to let well enough alone in this case, or whether the risks attending possible public disclosure of these allegations make further investigation warranted.

The three page memorandum still has redactions. This document is supposed to be open in full! They are very sneaky. The redactions are whited out, not in black ink. The third page clearly has two whole lines of text redacted.

First page of memorandum, dated, July 25, 1969:

” 1. While serving as Political Officer in the U. S. Embassy in Mexico City from 1964 to 1967, I became quite friendly with the Mexican playwright, Elena Garro de Paz. And intelligent, witty, and outspoken woman, I found her very useful if sometimes biased source of political gossip and personal history on significant Mexican personalities. She introduced my wife and me to many important people in Mexico. She was also particularly knowledgeable about agrarian affairs. A biographic report that I prepared on her on May 3, 1966 is attached.

2. On one occasion, Miss Garro inadvertently mentioned to me that she had been at a party with Lee Harvey Oswald and two American companions when Oswald was in Mexico just before the Kennedy assassination. The party had been at the home of her cousin, Ruben Duran. The memorandum of that conversation, dated December 10, 1965, is attached (Tab B). I had not read the Warren Report, but I assumed that if Oswald had been to such a party in Mexico, it would have been well known to the Embassy. I also knew Miss Garo to be something of a professional anti-communist who tended to see a communist plot behind any untoward political event. However, the episode about her being escorted into hiding at an obscure hotel intrigued me. I gave the memorandum of conversation limited distribution within the embassy, and did not send any copies to Washington.

3. A few days later I was called to the office of Mr. Winston Scott, who headed the Embassy’s Political Research Section [whited out] Also present was Mr. Nathan Ferris, the Embassy’s Legal Attache [whited out] They had noted with interest my December 10 memorandum of conversation. They pointed out that there had been

a great many rumors about Oswald at the time of the assassination and that some could not be verified and others had proved false. They asked me, however, to try and get a more detailed replay of Miss Garo’s story. Mr. Scott made clear that the FBI had full responsibility for any further investigations of the Oswald case.

On page 3 paragraph 10 there clearly is still a sizeable redaction.

10. It would appear that whereas the FBI has discounted the Elena Garro allegations, the CIA is still considerably disturbed by them. The CIA may not have pressed for further investigation, however, for a number of reasons: 1) considering the sensitive overlap and subtle competition between two intelligence collecting agencies, it had to yield to the FBI’s clear jurisdiction; 2) there are obvious complications in conducting such an investigation in a foreign country: [ ———————————————-WHITED OUT————————————] Under

the circumstances it is unlikely that any further investigation of this matter will ever take place unless it is ordered by a high official in Washington.

Obviously there is something in “3)” and “10.)” that they don’t want us to see.

There is then a three page biographical data form on Elena Garro de Paz.

Then the December 10, 1965 version of the story.

Then the December 25, 1965 version

The July 13, 1966 version.

There are a few documents in which the exemptions (8) (2) per Francis J. McNeil, ARA 9/15/78 have remained. This may be per E.O. 11652. They are all whited, not black inked, out.

One is about Hernandez, Amador – A Director of Education for the State of Chihuahua, then there is about two and a half lines of text whited out.

Another, a document dated May 12, 1960, “The Consulate learned from a very reliable source that several weeks ago [two lines of text whited out] sent three agitators, [several words whited out] and a third not yet identified,…

And another, dated Jan 13, 1965, a Dept of State Airgram, Mexican Treatment of Sixth Anniversary of Castro Regime. The second page seems to have a whole paragraph whited out, and a large paragraph at that.

Document # 180-10110-10143 Is a 12 page document from Abba P. Schwartz to Frank A. Bartino. It is dated 1/10/64.

The first page is a letter, dated January 10, 1964, from Schwartz to Bartino.

I refer to our recent telephone conversation regarding military personnel who may have defected to Communist countries or areas.

In order to keep up to date the look out records of the Passport Office of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, I would appreciate if you will furnish me with identifying information, particularly names and dates of birth, of military personnel who have defected, including those who may have redefected, to communist countries or Communist dominated areas.

Next, is a memo written on the same date by Schwartz to SCS Mr. Allyn C. Donaldson.

You will recall that in connection with turncoats who arrived in Hong Kong from Red China after January 1961, the Secretary of State determined that repatriation loans would not be granted to such persons. This is, as you know, a change of the policy which was followed under the previous administration.

In view of this position, it has not been determined whether the repatriation of persons other than turncoats who have voluntarily resided in restricted areas, such as Communist China, will be facilitated by the United States Government through repatriation loans. Until a clear-cut case arises and the Secretary reaches a decision, it is not to be assumed that a United States citizen who has voluntarily resided in Red China, or in any other communist country or Communist dominated area to which travel of United States citizens is restricted, will be assisted by repatriation loans.

Then there is an operations memorandum, dated September 8, 1964.. It is from the American Embassy in Moscow to Dept of State. The subject is an affidavit of Robert Korengold.

Enclosed are the original and one copy of the sworn statement of Robert Korengold concerning his brief interview with Lee Harvey Oswald in the fall of 1959. Since the embassy is uncertain as to which bureau of the Department the affidavit would be transmitted, it would be appreciated if SOV would forward the enclosures to the appropriate persons.

One copy of the affidavit is being retained in the Embassy files.

Before me James A. Klemstine, consul of the United States of America at Moscow, U.S.S.R., duly commissioned and qualified, personally appeared Robert J. Korengold, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

(1) My name is Robert J. Korengold and I reside at Apt. 272, 15 Kutuzovsky Prospect, Moscow.

(2) In the fall of 1959, while I was working in Moscow as a correspondent for the United Press, I received a report that an individual who wished to defect from the United States to the USSR was at the Hotle Metropole. After several unsuccessful attempts, I finally was able to talk to Lee Harvey Oswald for approximately ten to fifteen minutes at the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole. Mr. Oswald stated that he knew what he was doing and insisted he did not wish to talk to anyone.

(3) After unsuccessfully attempting to elicit further information, I returned to my office where I discussed the matter with Miss Aline Mosby, another correspondent for the United Press. I subsequently telephoned Mr. Oswald who finally agreed to give an interview to Miss Mosby. She later had a long conversation with Mr. Oswald. When she returned to our office, we discussed Oswald’s case. We both were convinced that Mr. Oswald was an individual who had a chip on his shoulder and that when he had an idea or conviction, nothing could induce him to change his convictions.

(4) Mr. Oswald subsequently remained at the Metropole Hotle. Although some stories were subsequently filed on his case until he disappeared from Moscow, I do not remember ever seeing him again. I knew nothing of his later departure from the USSR until after he had left.

And further deponent saith not.

signed

Robert J. Korengold

Subscribed and sworn to me this eight day of September, 1964.

signed

James A. Klemstine

Consul of the United States

Then a telegram from American embassy in Moscow No. 565 September 5, 1964 2:30 p.m.

Consul and Cultural affairs officer interviewed Korengold Sept. 5. Korengold states had short fifteen minute talk with Oswald at Metropole Hotel sometime after latter’s arrival in Moscow. Oswald had nothing substantial to state and Korengold left with impression Oswald individual “with chip on his shoulder.” Oswald subsequently interviewed by Aline Mosby of UP. Korengold recalls no further contact with Oswald.

Then another telegram from State Dept. to American embassy Moscow, No. 610 Sept. 3, 6 p.m.

//LIMDIS//

Emb requested, on behalf Warren Commission, to interview and take statement from Robert J. Korengold, Chief, Moscow Bureau for Newsweek, to determine whether he has any information Oswald that might be of interest. Korengold apparently had been involved with Petrulli and had attempted convince him not renounce American citizenship in fall 1959. McVickar had told Priscilla Johnson, another reporter, that Korengold might know something about Oswald.

Korengold’s statement, even if amounts to declaration that he knew nothing about Oswald (GARBLE) should be sworn before official of embassy. Reply soonest.

GP-________.

RUSK

Action officer please insert GP nbr.

There is another copy of the above.

Another telegram from Trieste to Dept of State, Control No. 1414, No. 22 December 3, 1963 10:44 a.m.

For Chayes from Wise

Reference Department WIROM 25

I have no recollection of any interview with Oswald. to best of my memory, closest contact was single perfunctory exchange of greetings at Embassy. Interviews which occurred were held with other Consular officers.

Through correspondence with Embassy and comments of other officers, I remember Oswald as arrogant person, demanding of his rights as United States citizen and single mindedly devoted to pursuit of his immediate goal whether it be, as at first, renunciation of United States citizenship in favor of Soviet, or later, issuance of passport for return to United States. It was my impression that, in matter of obtaining Soviet exit visas for himself, wife and child, he seemed to experience less difficulty than other Americans in similar position

FIDEL

Lastly, is an Airgram from Amconsul TAMPICO to Dept of State, dated March 16, 1967.

1. During the course of recent evening of buying drinks for a couple of Tampico newsmen, one of them mentioned to me he had recognized the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald when it appeared following the assassination of President Kennedy. He said he commented on this to his editor at the time. The latter advised him to keep the matter to himself. Later during the evening he requested that I not reveal to anyone what he had told me, claiming to fear for his job if anything came to light at this point.

2. When I approached him subsequently (during daylight hours) for permission to inform the Department of what he had “confessed” to me, his reply was a flat no. He insisted his knowledge of Oswald had been slight. He claimed simply to have met Oswald at the university in Mexico City and to have been aware he wished to travel to Cuba, as well as that the Cubans were not prepared to grant him a visa. He said his contacts with Oswald had been fleeting and of no consequence, and he repeated his request I inform no one. He stated again he would lose his job if the matter came to light.

3. When I pressed him further, assuring him if I reported the incident, it would be treated in strictest confidence, he finally agreed to my doing so. I believe he is telling me the truth about having met Oswald, as well as that his fear is genuine he will lose his job if the incident receives publicity. I also doubt he can be expected to add much, if anything, to the facts already developed.

RUYLE

Document # 180-10110-10142 Is a DOS document, dated 2/23/65. It is 19 pages long.

The first page is a memorandum for Mr. Mace from Richard A. Frank dated February 23, 1965. The subject is “Persons seen by Oswald at the United States Embassy in Moscow”.

1. On October 31, 1959, Oswald appeared at the United States Embassy in an attempt to renounce his United States citizenship. He was received by a receptionist. He was interviewed by Richard E. Snyder. During the interview, Mr. John A. McVickar was present in the room during other work. Apparently, as Mr. Oswald left, he exchanged remarks with Mr. McVickar and a secretary.

2. On July 8, 1961 and July 10, 1961. Mr. Oswald appeared at the Embassy to secure his United States passport. He again dealt with Mr. Snyder.

3. On July 11, 1961, Mr. Oswald returned to the Embassy to discuss a visa for his wife. He dealt with Mc. McVickar.

4. After corresponding with the Embassy in order to obtain a repatriation loan, Mr. Oswald apparently went to the United States Embassy on July 1, 1962, and signed a note promising to repay $435.71 to the United States government. Apparently, this matter was handled in the Embassy during his visit by Winifred Williams.

Next are two pages which seem to instruct what to do with “Defector Type Cases” and the issuance of passports and the proper notification to Security / Intelligence agencies. When this document was written is unknown but it is stamped Nov 10, 1964, which might only refer to when it was received. This is written by Francis G. Knight.

1. Purpose. The purpose of this instruction is to insure, insofar as possible, that cases falling within the category of cases designated as “Defector type Cases’ are thoroughly reviewed prior to the issuance of passport facilities and that information concerning this type of case is at all times promptly disseminated to appropriate Security / Intelligence Agencies.

2. Background. The importance of “Defector Type Cases” and the proper review of such cases was spotlighted by the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent investigation by the Warren Commission of the Department’s procedures in connection with the Oswald case. In its report the Commission concluded, “Investigation of Oswald’s complete dealings with the Department of State…reveals no irregularity suggesting any illegal actions or impropriety on the part of government officials. The Commission believes, however, that in applying its own regulations the Department should in all cases exercise great care in the return to this country of defectors such as Oswald who have evidenced disloyalty or hostility to this country or who have expressed a desire to renounce their United States citizenship and that when such persons are returned, procedures should be adopted for the better dissemination of information concerning them to the intelligence agencies of the Government.”

3. Definitions. Cases within this category cover a wide and somewhat vague area of activity. It is almost impossible to draw an arbitrary line defining what cases come within the category, “Defector Type Cases.” The inclusion in or exclusion of, cases from the category will require the exercise of intelligent judgement by the responsible individuals. The definition outlined below are not to be considered as exclusive but only as guidelines in determining whether a case falls [ a word or two is obliterated] category.

a. Defector – relates to any person in possession of, or having had access to

information affecting the national security or the conduct of foreign affairs

who travels or proposes to travel with the intent to adhere to a foreign

government or ideology to the detriment of the United States.

b. Expatriate – refers to United States citizens who have not lost their

citizenship but who have resided abroad under circumstances indicating

a transfer of allegiances to a foreign country or ideology

c. Repatriate – refers to United States citizens who are returning to the United

States after residence abroad under circumstances indicating they may

have transferred their allegiance to a foreign country or ideology.

d. Persons suspected of disloyalty or subversion – relates to persons whose

activities, organizational affiliations or relations with officials or

organizations of foreign governments are such as to render their

allegiance to the United States suspect. This includes all persons who have

evidenced disloyalty or hostility to the United States or have expressed a

desire to renounce their United States citizenship.

4. Responsibility.

a. Legal Division. The responsibility for handling “Defector Type Cases” has

been assigned to the Legal Division (PT/LS). PT/LS shall insure that

refusals coded “AL” are placed in the lookout file in all appropriate cases.

They will review such cases prior to the issuance of any passport facilities

and will disseminate information concerning such cases to appropriate

agencies.

b. All Divisions All Divisions of the Passport Office are responsible for

reporting and forwarding all cases which appear to fall within the category

“Defector Type Cases” to the Security Branch of the Legal Division.

There then is a memorandum from Francis G. Knight to Mr. Abba P. Schwartz dated July 6, 1964. The subject is repatriation loans.

I cannot find any inconsistencies in my memorandum to you dated June 22, 1964. it is clear and unequivocal and not it conflict with any previous statement, written or oral, made by this office on the subject.

The arrangements made by the Passport Office and Office of finance are spelled out in a memorandum dated January 16, 1962, and this memorandum is part of the record submitted to the Warren Commission.

The underlined and emphasized wording in your memorandum of July 1, 1964 is correct. Equally correct is the information in my memorandum to you dated June 22, 1964.

I agree that there is an obligation for the Department to make every effort to have look out cards prepared when repatriation loans are made and to this end the Office of Finance issued instructions on April 16, 1964, to all diplomatic and consular posts overseas to provide the place and date of birth of the individual making application for such loans.

It seems to me that this action is the efficient way of handling the situation. The Passport Office cannot guess at the identity of the individual. There is no reason to engage in a guessing game when the information must be available at the post taking the application for the loan. This is precisely why the Passport Office recommended and agreed that the Office of Finance obtain this information prior to advising us of such a loan.

The entire situation is now academic since the Office of Finance is insisting on obtaining the information we require prior to informing this office of the granting of the loan. But we suppose, in a case of extreme confusion and aberration the Office of Finance should send us the name of a Joseph Smith or Robert Jones or John Adams or a thousand other names on which we have scores of files, without any further identification, we would have to return it to the Office of Finance for further information. In such cases a card could not be made because we would have no way of identifying the individual. A unidentifiable card in the file is a waste of time and money and it would revert the file to the “old days” when anyone whose name was distasteful for the time being had a stop card filed for the purpose of delaying service.

As I have pointed out, this situation which pertained two years ago, no longer exists. It has been corrected at the source, namely, at the overseas posts where the discrepancy and incompleteness of information originated.

There is then a 4 page instruction for look out cards, dated February 20, 1964.

A two page attachment on preparing lookout cards. Then a three page instruction for clearance procedures.

There is then a three page report from Allyn C. Donaldson to Mr. Schwartz dated June 17, 1964. Subject: Repatriation loans to individuals being repatriated from communist countries or areas. Reference is made to a memorandum from Schwartz dated June 12, 1964.

Our records have been checked for the current Fiscal Year 1964 and no repatriation loans were granted to any known turncoats or defectors during this period.

In accordance with your request, all future loan applications which are received from any Iron Curtain country will be submitted to your office for approval. We have enclosed for your information, those applicants in Iron Curtain countries who have been granted repatriation loans since the beginning of the current Fiscal Year 1964. It will be noted that there is a heavy demand made upon the repatriation funds for the return of destitute United States nationals in Rumania. The demand is continuing. In the early part of the current fiscal year the Rumanian government changed its policy after many years and is permitting United States nationals to depart for the United States. In almost every case these individuals are without private resources, and are dual nationals.

There is then a two page attachment listing various people, from certain countries and how much was loaned, etc.

There is then Schwartz’s June 12, 1964 memo.

As you are aware, some time ago in connection with the last turncoat who arrived in Hong Kong, I decided with the approval of the Secretary that the Department would not grant repatriation loans to any turncoats.

I would appreciate your informing me whether or not any repatriation loans have been granted to defectors other than turncoats since the above determination was made. If any such repatriation loans have been granted, would you indicate the name of the recipient, the date of the loan, the amount of the loan, and the area from which he was being repatriated.

Hereafter no repatriation loans are to be made to any individual being repatriated from any Iron curtain country, Red China, or any communist dominated area without the express approval of the Administrator of Deputy Administrator of SCA.

Document # 180-10110-10141 is a 10 page document on George DeMohrenschildt. It is dated 9/26/57.

First, there is a two page report from the Department of State, Office of Security. It is from the Security Office in Bonn. It covers the period September 9 -26, 1957.

Synopsis – Confidential source identified subject as Georges Von Mohrenschildt, born 4 April 1911, Mozyrz, USSR; that subject was a journalist of Polish nationality and that he was a student at the Institut Superieur de Commerce d’Etat, Antwerp and the University de l’Etat at Liege. Subject did journalistic work for the Polish journal “Slowe” of Wilno while attending the University at Liege. Subject awarded doctorate and “sciences consulaires” degree in 1935. He was sentenced to eight days imprisonment in 1931 for resisting an officer, drunkenness and use of a false name; sentence suspended pending completion of three year probation. Embassy, Brussels files negative.

There is then a two page report from Caracas.

Synopsis – Mr. Santiago Segovia of the Personnel Department of Pantepec Oil company stated no company records exist for 1945-1946, but personally remembered applicant, worked with him in oil fields during these years. Good personality, background, character, average habits. Left company on good terms to work on project in California. Advised Mr. Warren Smith, former president of Pantepec could furnish more information. Mr. E. H. Adkins, Servicos Industriales, Creole corporation, advised no record of employment of applicant. Record checks through Embassy sources and local police check revealed no information. Status closed.

There is then a 6 page report on Mohrenschildt from Mexico.

Investigation in Mexico disclosed the following:

1.) sources of information and indices in the American Embassy in Mexico had no information on the captioned subject.

2.) Inquiry at Secretaria de Gobernacion (Mexican Imigration Service) revealed certain biographical information on the subject which included that he was questioned by the U. S. law enforcement agency as a German spy suspect.

3.) Interview of several informants in Mexico revealed that the subject had an unfavorable reputation. He “lived” with a woman in Mexico and passed himself as a baron. So far as informants were aware, he was not employed in Mexico and was considered an adventurer and incompetent.

Document # 180-10110-10140 Is a one page document dated January 23, 1943 concerning deMohrenschildt and his marriage to Lilia Perdo Camargo. Entry to Mexico was granted and that he can marry Camargo.

Document # 180-10110-10139 Is from R. B. Shipley, Dept of State dated 10/8/42. George DeMohrenschildt is alleged to be a Nazi agent. Refer any application to the fraud section.

Document # 180-10110-10138 is a one page document dated 1/4/57 on de Mohrenschildt. It is his letter to a Miss Sheppard in the Passport division requesting the accelaration of granting him a passport for him and two of his friends.

Document # 180-10110-10137

Is a four page document.

First is a letter from Earl Cabell to David M. Abshire, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations dated June 8, 1971. Second is Abshire’s letter to Cabell dated May 27, 1971. Third, is a two page letter from De Mohrenschildt to Rep. Cabell about his claim against the government of Haiti. DeMohrenschildt states he and his staff performed a detailed survey of Haiti while he was there March 1963 to September 1967.

Document # 180-10110-10136 Is a one page letter from Douglas J. Bennet to Blakey dated November 6, 1978. Ms. Sorell Brady and Mr. Robert Genzman requested the release of certain documents to the Select Committee on Assassinations. Therefore, I have enclosed these documents from various record systems at the appropriate tabs.

Tab A contains documents from the Central Foreign Policy Records on George de Mohrenschildt. Enclosed at Tab B are the Passport Records and at Tab C are the Security Records on Mr. de Mohrenschildt which Ms. Brady selected for release. At Tab D and Tab E, I have enclosed documents from the Central Foreign Policy Records and the Security Records of Lee Harvey Oswald which Mr. Genzman requested during the course of his review.

There are a few FBI records noted as duplicates with this release

Document # 124-10035-10420 Is a copy of Document # 124-10027-10161 from the 10th Batch.

Document # 124-10144-10355 Is a two page document. It is a cover page and Cover page B to a report by Charles S. Harding of the Atlanta office, dated 12/12/63. this is supposed to be a 34 page report.

Document # 124-10173-10071 Is a 36 page report, only two pages are here. It is from SAC, NY to Director dated 12/3/63.

John J. Abt, representing Arnold Johnson advised that Johnson will make available correspondence between Lee Harvey Oswald and the Communist Party, USA.

Document # 124-10242-10265 Is a copy of the above.

Document # 124-10023-10245 It is a copy of Document # 124-10144-10082 from the 10th Batch. Is a 2 page report from F. J. Baumgardner to W. C. Sullivan dated 11/25/63. Only one page is here. Document # 124-10144-10082 from the 10th Batch has both pages.

On the evening of 11/24/63 I called our New York Office and told them that

Lee Oswald had been corresponding with certain Party leaders and instructed our New York Office to make every effort to obtain any such correspondence.

At 3:55 p.m., 11/25/63, ASAC Roney of our New York Office called and furnished the following information.

NY [ ]-S advised this date that upon examining old dictation notebooks used by her at Communist Party headquarters she discovered notes of a letter dictated to her early in September 1963, by Arnold Johnson to a Mr. Oswald. Informant stated that in her shorthand notes no date appears nor does the full name of Oswald appear nor does his residence address appear. The body of the letter reads as follows:

“Dear Mr. Oswald: Your letter of August 28 to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was turned over to me for reply. Since I received your letter of September 1 indicating you are moving to Baltimore, I suggest that when you do that, that you get in touch with us here and we will find some way of getting in touch with you in that city.

“While the point you make about your residence in the Soviet Union might be utilized by some people, I think you have to recognize that as an American citizen who is now in this country, you have the right to participate in such organizations, including the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which are of a very broad character and often it is advisable for some people to remain in the background, not the underground.”

Document # 124-10143-10038 Is a copy of Document # 124-10018-10491 from the 10th Batch.

A correction (Note, this document was found among the 12th Batch material)

Document # 124-10058-10007 This little guy was bitterly fought over. Only three pages in length it has four pages from the ARRB explaining 13 postponements.

It is from the Legal Attache in Mexico City to the Director dated 4/10/64. This is about Joseph Bernstein, Reva Frank Bernstein. See Document # 124-10079-10230 from the 11th Batch for more information on the Bernsteins.

It states that enclosed are 37 copies of a letterhead memorandum (LHM), 25 for Dallas, 1 for Detroit, one for New York. What about the other 10?

Additional instructions were being sent to the Detroit and New York offices. The Mexico office is not in receipt of those instructions and wants to know what they are.

There are apparently quite a few Mexican informants still living who are protected.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court

RELATED:

AARC FOIA suit on CIA’s 1963 study of plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler

Doc. 26. Reply in Support of AARC’s CMSJ & Opp. to CIA’s MSJ (180220)

Doc. 26-2. AARC FOIA suit on CIA’s 1963 study of plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler

RELATED:

CIA Responds to AARC FOIA suit on CIA’s 1963 study of plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler

RELATED:

Center Seeks CIA Documents on Plots to Kill Hitler, Castro

The ‘deep state’: From scholarly critique to toxic conspiracy theory

CONTINUE READING AT THE WASHINGTON POST

Who Is Really Running the Government?

Robert Kennedy, Jr. discusses the assassinations of his uncle and his father

The Wheaton Lead: An Exploration

Introduction

Continue reading this important article at The Mary Ferrell Foundation

Joe Backes, ARRB Summaries: Page 16.

ARRB 13th Batch