ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES

AND RESEARCH CENTER

Activity in Case 1:20-cv-01527-TNM CLEMENTE v. FBI, D.C. et al Status Report

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Duffey, Thomas on 9/21/2021 at 10:52 PM and filed on 9/21/2021

Case Name: CLEMENTE v. FBI, D.C. et al
Case Number: 1:20-cv-01527-TNM
Filer: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
JOHN DOE AGENCY 1 THROUGH JOHN DOE AGENCY 10
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Document Number: 27

Docket Text:
Joint STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, JOHN DOE AGENCY 1 THROUGH JOHN DOE AGENCY 10, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Duffey, Thomas)

Abimael Guzman, leader of Peru’s Shining Path terrorist group, dies at 86

Mr. Guzman, leader of Peru’s Shining Path terrorist group, in a Lima jail in 1992. (Hector Mata/AFP/Getty Images)

September 11, 2021 at 8:52 p.m. EDT

Abimael Guzmán, the mastermind of the Shining Path terrorist organization in Peru, a brutal Maoist movement that nearly toppled the country’s government in the 1980s and early 1990s, leaving thousands of people dead, died Sept. 11 in a hospital at a military prison outside Lima. He was 86.

Peru’s justice minister, Aníbal Torres, announced the death, saying the cause was an infection.

Mr. Guzmán, a onetime philosophy professor and longtime Communist Party member, traveled to China in the 1960s and became a devotee of Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution, a repressive movement meant to reorder Chinese society.

Calling himself “President Gonzalo,” Mr. Guzmán devised a set of principles based on Maoist thought as the guiding ideals of the Sendero Luminoso, or Shining Path, a term derived from an earlier leader of Peru’s Communist Party.

Building a stronghold at a provincial university in Ayacucho in the Andes Mountains, Mr. Guzmán proved to be a charismatic leader whose followers — mostly students and small farmers — considered him a godlike figure. They called him the Fourth Sword of Marxism, after Karl Marx, Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Mao. A U.S. State Department official once described him as “Charlie Manson with an army.”

Mr. Guzmán advocated a violent takeover of Peruvian society, maintaining that true revolution would come only after crossing a “river of blood.” To him, even the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro and the Chinese leaders who succeeded Mao were too soft. His vision of nationalism resembled that of Cambodia’s Pol Pot, whose regime killed nearly a quarter of the country’s population.

“Judgment day has arrived,” he told his followers in 1980, just as the Shining Path’s effort to overthrow the country was beginning. “The future lies in guns and cannons.”

At first, Peruvian officials paid little attention to the movement, which began with the takeover of town halls in rural areas, bombings at polling stations and assassinations of local leaders. By 1981, Shining Path guerrillas had extended their reach to the capital of Lima, announcing their arrival in a particularly gruesome way: by hanging the carcasses of dozens of dead dogs from lampposts, as a warning to “capitalist dogs” and to anyone unwilling to follow Mr. Guzmán’s doctrinaire ideas.

“Violence is a universal law,” he said in 1988. “Without revolutionary violence . . . you can’t overthrow an old order to create a new one.”

Authorities seemed helpless against the Shining Path, as guerrillas disrupted Peru’s electrical system, food and water supplies. Police stations were raided for guns, and bombs were set off in theaters and restaurants, putting the entire nation, then numbering about 20 million people, on edge.

The group financed its widespread campaign of terror through bank robberies and by seizing airstrips used by drug dealers in remote parts of Peru. They demanded huge payoffs from cocaine kingpins, who appeared to be afraid of Mr. Guzmán’s guerrillas.

Kidnapping and murder were key parts of the Shining Path’s ruthless mode of operation, and bodies began to pile up around the country. The first large-scale massacre took place in 1983 in the town Lucanamarca, where 69 people — including the elderly and at least 18 children — were killed with machetes, axes and a vat of boiling water.

“The main thing was to make them understand that we were as tough as a bone, and ready to do anything,” Mr. Guzmán said afterward. “They were facing a different type of fighter.”

In 2003, a Peruvian truth and reconciliation commission determined that almost 70,000 people had been killed in the 1980s and 1990s — about half by Shining Path terrorists and the other half by the government’s police and military forces. Most of the victims were concentrated among Peru’s poor, Indigenous people in rural regions, where Mr. Guzmán had his strongest support.

For years, Mr. Guzmán remained a wraith, invisible to authorities whose efforts to capture him proved futile. By 1990, the Shining Path controlled a substantial part of the Peruvian highlands and countryside. More than 100 local officials had been assassinated in the preceding year, and a third of the country’s courts were idled because they did not have judges. Nearly three-quarters of the country was placed under a state of emergency or virtual martial law.

In 1990, Alberto Fujimori was elected Peru’s president, promising to snuff out the Shining Path and bring Mr. Guzmán to justice. On Sept. 12, 1992, in an operation later found to have been supported by the CIA, Peruvian police raided a house in a middle-class district of Lima, arresting Mr. Guzmán in his hiding place on the second floor above a dance studio. Photographers snapped pictures of him wearing a striped prison outfit, shouting revolutionary slogans in his cell. It was called the “capture of the century.”

After denouncing the notion of human rights, Mr. Guzmán changed his position a year later, when he was convicted of treason and sentenced to life in prison. His second-in-command in the Shining Path movement, Elena Iparraguirre, also received a life sentence. (She assumed her role after Mr. Guzmán’s first wife, Augusta La Torre, mysteriously died in 1988; there were suggestions that she was either murdered or died by suicide.)

Mr. Guzmán said the Shining Path movement would continue, but it soon fell apart without him.

CONTINUE READING AT The Washington Post

Paul Schrade holds no animosity towards convicted RFK killer Sirhan, still pressing for evidence into possible second shooter

In this Thursday, May 31, 2018, photo, Sen. Robert Kennedy aide Paul Schrade holds an evidence photo of gunman Sirhan Sirhan’s revolver with the eight expended shell casings found in the chamber, and the Weisel, Goldstein, and Kennedy bullets, at his home in Los Angeles. When a gunman open fire toward Sen. Robert Kennedy, the first bullet missed the senator and struck Kennedy aide Paul Schrade in the head. Schrade woke up the next day and found out the Democratic presidential candidate was dead. Today, Schrade believes the Los Angeles Police botched the case and failed to investigate possible leads about a second gunman. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

by: José Gaspar

Posted: / Updated:

Sirhan Sirhan, the man convicted of killing Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, was granted parole Friday. Sirhan was convicted of shooting and killing the presidential candidate and wounding five others at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Kennedy had just delivered a speech after winning the California primary. He was gunned down in a hotel hallway moments later.

Among those shot that night by Sirhan was Paul Schrade, a current board member of the Dolores Huerta Foundation. At that time Schrade was with the United Auto Workers and part of the Kennedy campaign.

“They thought I was dead,” said Schrade in a phone interview with 17 News. “A friend of mine from a different union came and put a voter straw hat over my head because he thought I was dead, but then he checked my pulse and found I wasn’t.”

Schrade believes Sirhan was not the one who shot and killed Kennedy and that a second gunman was involved. For the past 52 years, Schrade has been working to bring to light evidence he said proves Sirhan was not the one responsible for killing Kennedy.

“Who was this guy they were covering up? Who was so important for the district attorneys to keep covering up for 52 years that shot RFK?” said Schrade.

Despite being shot by Sirhan, Schrade adds he holds no animosity toward him.

“I don’t excuse him for what he did, but I don’t excuse the LAPD and the district attorneys for 52 years of saying he’s guilty when he is not,” said Schrade.

READ MORE at KGET

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Sirhan Sirhan gets parole on 16th attempt; governor can review

By Ray Sanchez and Cheri Mossburg, CNN

Updated 6:21 PM ET, Fri August 27, 2021

(CNN) Sirhan Sirhan, the man convicted of assassinating Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, was recommended for parole on Friday. After 53 year in prison, the 77-year-old inmate’s fate is now in the hands of California’s governor.

Two of Kennedy’s surviving sons, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Douglas Kennedy, supported his release during Sirhan’s 16th appearance before the parole board.
Sirhan arrived at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in May 1969 after being convicted of first-degree murder and assault with intent to murder.
“I’m overwhelmed just by being able to view Mr. Sirhan face to face. I think I’ve lived my life both in fear of him and his name in one way or another. And I am grateful today to see him as a human being worthy of compassion and love,” Douglas Kennedy, who was a toddler when his father was gunned down in 1968, said during the virtual hearing.
Sirhan smiled.
“I do have some love for you,” Douglas Kennedy told Sirhan, who nodded and lowered his head.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has favored Sirhan’s release in the past, wrote in support of parole. He said he was moved when he first met Sirhan — “who wept, clinching my hands and asked for forgiveness” — and offered to be “a guiding friend for him.”
The two-person panel recommended parole, but said the decision is not yet final. Despite the recommendation for release, the board’s decision could be reversed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who will review the case to determine if the parole grant is consistent with public safety, a process that could take a few months.

READ MORE AT CNN

NEWS: AARC Seeking Documents relating to D.H. Byrd, Werner von Alvensleben, Jr. and the Doolittle Report.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5
U.S.C. § 552, as amended, challenging the failure of the Central Intelligence
Agency (“CIA”), to fulfill the request of the Assassination Archives and Research
Center (“AARC”) and James H. Lesar for documents relating to David Harold
Byrd, Werner von Alvensleben, Jr. and the Doolittle Report.

2. This case seeks declaratory relief that defendant is in violation of the
FOIA for failing to fulfill plaintiffs’ request for records, and injunctive relief that
defendant immediately and fully comply with plaintiffs’ request under the FOIA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and
personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). This
Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue
lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

4. Plaintiff AARC is a non-profit, non-stock corporation, organized in 1984
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. AARC is committed to
collecting, preserving and making available to the public research materials
relating to political assassinations and related subjects; conducting research and
seminars in the field of political assassinations, and publishing and disseminating
scientific and public information concerning political assassinations and related
subjects. As part of its research and public information functions, AARC uses
government records made available to it under the FOIA. AARC’s archive
contains the largest collection of materials on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in private hands.

5. Plaintiff JAMES H. LESAR is a private citizen and attorney and serves as
President of the AARC. Mr. LESAR has devoted decades of study and research as
to the circumstances of the assassination of President Kennedy.

6. AARC has invested considerable organizational resources in publishing
on the internet large quantities of released U.S. government documents related to
political assassinations and related subjects.

7. The CIA’s failure to comply with the FOIA harms AARC’s ability to
provide full, accurate and current information to the public on matters of high
public interest. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(c). Absent this critical information, AARC
cannot advance its goal of informing the public on the documentary record on
critical public issues related to political assassinations and related subjects.

8. AARC will analyze the information it receives that is responsive to its
request and will share it with the public through memoranda, reports, press
releases. letters, emails, videos and social media. In addition, AARC will
disseminate any documents it acquires from its request to the public through a
website that AARC has founded, www.aarclibrary.org . AARC’s website and the
website of AARC’s partner organization Mary Ferrell Foundation, www.maryferrell.org contain hundreds of thousands of pages of documents AARC has acquired from multiple FOIA requests.

9. Defendant CIA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
Defendant is the federal agency with possession and control of the requested
records and is responsible for fulfilling AARC’s FOIA request.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The Freedom of Information Act

10. The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, requires agencies of the federal government
to release requested records or information to the public unless one or more
specific statutory exemptions or exclusions apply.

11. An agency must respond to a party making a FOIA request within 20
working days, notifying that party of at least the agency’s determination whether
or not to fulfill the request and of the requester’s right to appeal the agency’s
determination to the agency head. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

12. An agency must respond to a FOIA appeal within 20 working days,
notifying the appealing party of the agency’s determination to either release the
withheld records or uphold the denial. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii).

13. In “unusual circumstances,” an agency may delay its response to a
FOIA request or appeal, but must provide notice and must also provide “the date
on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B).

14. The FOIA also requires each agency to promulgate regulations
specifying a fee schedule for the processing of FOIA requests and establishing
procedures and guidelines for the waiver or reduction of fees. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(A). Under the FOIA, agencies should produce documents at no charge
to the requester or at a reduced charge if “disclosure of the information is in the
public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public
understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not
primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).

15. This Court has jurisdiction, upon receipt of a complaint, “to enjoin the
agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any
agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 52(a)(4)(B).

16. The FOIA provides a mechanism for disciplinary action against agency
officials who have acted inappropriately in withholding records. Specifically,
when requiring the release of improperly withheld records, if the court makes a
written finding that “the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise
questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously,” a
disciplinary investigation is triggered. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F).

FACTS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

17. On July 4, 2020, AARC and Mr. Lesar sent a FOIA request to the CIA
seeking documents relating to David Harold Byrd, Werner von Alvensleben, Jr.
and the Doolittle Report. Letter from Daniel S. Alcorn, Esq. to CIA, FOIA
Request (July 4, 2020) (attached as Exhibit 1). Specifically, AARC requested:

1. Search for and release all records or information in any format related to
David Harold Byrd (deceased) of Dallas, Texas. Mr. Byrd died on
September 14, 1986 (see attached obituary from the Dallas Times-Herald).
Mr. Byrd owned the Texas School Book Depository Building at the time of
the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, and reportedly removed the
“sniper’s window” from the building after the assassination and displayed it
in his mansion. Mr. Byrd was an owner and financier of government
contracting companies including Texas Engineering Manufacturing
Company (TEMCO), E-Systems, and Ling-TEMCO-Vaught (LTV).
E-Systems was well known as a CIA contractor, so much so that in 1975
CIA solicited E-Systems to purchase its proprietary airline, Air America.
David Harold Byrd was also active in the oil business and varied other
business enterprises. David Harold Byrd co-founded the Civil Air Patrol
(CAP) in 1941 and served in command capacities in CAP until the early
1960’s. Civil Air Patrol is the official auxilary of the US Air Force. In the
1950’s Mr. Byrd served with Cord Meyer, Sr. on the national executive
board of CAP (Cord Meyer, Jr. was a ranking CIA executive).
2. Search for and release all records and information in any format related to
Werner von Alvensleben, Jr. (died 1998), of Mozambique (formerly
Portuguese East Africa). Mr. Alvensleben owned and operated the big
game hunting company named Safarilandia in Portuguese East Africa, later
Mozambique. According to released Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
records, Mr. Alvensleben served as a valued double agent for OSS during
World War II in Portuguese East Africa. OSS records state that Mr.
Alvensleben was a member of the Bavarian Military Police in 1933, headed
by Heinrich Himmler (the Bavarian Military Police became the Nazi SS,
according to OSS records). In 1933 Mr. Alvensleben was sent to Austria to
participate in the assassination of an Austrian official. Mr. Alvensleben was
arrested by the Austrians and imprisoned for this activity. According to
reports in the Dallas Morning News, Mr. Alvensleben was in Dallas, Texas
as a guest of David Harold Byrd in late 1963. Further, David Harold Byrd
was reported to be present at Mr. Alvensleben’s Safarilandia on November
22, 1963, the day of President Kennedy’s murder. Due to Mr.
Alvensleben’s service as a valued double agent for OSS in World War II, it
is likely that Mr. Alvensleben served as an asset of the CIA after the war, or
had contact with the CIA.
3. Search for and release all records and information in any format related to
the Doolittle Report of 1954 and its appendices A-D. The Doolittle Report
was the result of a commission established by President Eisenhower to study
the activities of the CIA and headed by General James Doolittle. The
Doolittle Report called for more aggressive CIA covert activities that had
previously been believed to be repugnant and contrary to American values.
Requesters seek full release of the requested materials. As shown in the
attached obituary of David Harold Byrd, General Doolittle and Mr. Byrd
were substantial friends who shared an interest in aviation from the early
years. Mr. Byrd and General Doolittle were Safari hunting partners on
several occasions.

18. US Postal Service Tracking confirms that AARC and Lesar’s July 4,
2020 FOIA request was delivered to CIA on July 9, 2020. CIA has not responded
to AARC and Lesar’s FOIA request.

19. AARC and Lesar have received no determination on their request.

20. As of the filing of this complaint, the CIA has not provided documents
responsive to AARC and Lesar’s request.

21. CIA failed to make a determination on AARC and Lesar’s FOIA
request within the twenty working days provided in 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(A)(i). .

22. The requested records are highly relevant to several official
investigations, including the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of
Investigation, President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy (The Warren Commission), the Senate Select Committee on Government
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (The Church Committee), and
the House Select Committee on Assassinations (The HSCA). As such, the
exception from search and review of operational files does not apply to these
records pursuant to 50 U.S.C. Sec. 3141(c)(3). The Church Committee
investigated the performance of the intelligence agencies in the investigation of
President Kennedy’s assassination and found it wanting. CIA is required to search
operational files and records for information responsive to plaintiff’s request.
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108,1119 (2007).

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CLAIM ONE
(Failure to Produce Records Under the FOIA)

23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding
paragraphs.

24. Plaintiffs properly asked for records within the CIA’s possession and/or
control.

25. Plaintiffs are entitled by law to copies of the records requested under
the FOIA, unless defendant makes an explicit and justified statutory exemption
claim.

26. The CIA has produced no records to AARC and Lesar.

27. Therefore, the CIA violated FOIA’s mandate to release agency records
to the public by failing to release the records as plaintiffs specifically requested. 5
U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), 552(a)(4)(B).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
(1) Declare that the CIA has violated the Freedom of Information Act by
failing to lawfully satisfy plaintiffs’ FOIA request of July 4, 2020;
(2) Order the CIA to promptly release all records responsive to plaintiffs’
FOIA request without charge for search or duplication fees;
(3) Order defendants to file a Vaughn v. Rosen index and permit
discovery;
(4) Award plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
reasonably incurred in this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and
(5) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper, including but not limited to release of any secret appendices to the
Doolittle Report whether numbered or lettered or not.

Respectfully submitted,
__/s/_Daniel S. Alcorn_____
Daniel S. Alcorn
Counsel for Plaintiffs
D.C. Bar No. xxxxxx
Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx  XXX
Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx
Phone: (xxx) xxx-xxxx

James H. Lesar
Co-counsel for Plaintiffs
D.C. Bar No. xxxxxx
XXX Xxxx xxxxxx
Xxxx xx xxxx
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (xxx) xxx-xxxx
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DOWNLOAD AARC2 v. CIA complaint and exhibit Pacer

RELATED: CURRENT FOIA LITIGATION – 20 July, 2020

RELATED: COLD WAR CONTEXT – THE DOOLITTLE REPORT

RARE VIDEO: Courtesy of Vince Palamara – D. H. Byrd Interview from the 6th Floor of the TSBD