Black Ops, Mr. Garrison: People in My Business.

Why Does Rice Play Texas?

Seasonal Greetings!I believe it was Jim Garrison who in 1969 in New Orleans had quoted Tennyson, stating that authority forgets a dying king." And, although in the past my success in simply receiving a response under the FOIA provisions, first signed into law under President Lyndon Johnson, have been disappointing, even given the statutorily codified right to injunctive relief, and the priority of action for matters presented to the courts under this provision of law, as stated in 28 U.S.C. Section 1657, the President has himself recently acknowledged that I am "passionate", and like with COVID-19 countermeasures developed with no knowledge of infectious dose, in evolving science, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

According to the National Archives, approximately 515 documents remain withheld in full and an additional 2,545 have been withheld in part, many belonging to the CIA, an executive branch agency.

Apparently, the CIA has held back documents pertaining to whether it had an operational interest in Oswald at the time of the assassination, an interest apparently that missed the fact that, at least according to the Warren Commission, their possible person of interest was about to assassinate the President, a significant failure of intelligence if true.

However, as you are aware, Aljazeera has reported that "a newly released September 1964 memo to the presidential commission investigating the assassination said 'the Central Intelligence Agency has no indication that Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald ever knew each other, were associated, or might have been connected in any manner'".

Moreover, as the Washington Post had reported, "A December 1963 document described how CIA officials in Mexico City 'intercepted a telephone call' Oswald made in October from that city to the Soviet Embassy there 'using his own name' and speaking 'broken Russian,'" which suggests some level of interest.

A CIA spokesperson has said that t "CIA believes all of its information known to be directly related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 has already been released."

Furthermore, they have at least proffered as pretext the justification that "the continued redaction of some documents, saying they contain information that details CIA intelligence sources and methods — some from as late as the late 1990s, given to help provide context about the CIA’s methods and terminology."

Yet, under Executive Order 12,958, National Security Information, April 17, 1995, Section 1.1, the President is the ultimate original classification authority and all other agencies have delegated derivative authority. Accordingly, in the public interest, as a candidate for Delegate in Virginia's 49th District, and hence entitled to a fee waiver, I am requesting the immediate release for the American people, subject to judicial review in camera, as authorized under U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), regarding the President's recent assertion of executive privilege, of the remaining documents pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. And "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 683 (1803). As all are aware, or should be aware, under Executive Order 12,333, United States Intelligence Activities, December 4, 1981, Section 2.11, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

However, as a matter of public policy, this is not codified as a misdemeanor nor felony under the provisions of the criminal code and has been recognized exclusively in the case of conventional military operations, counterinsurgency operations, and peacetime counterterrorist operations.

Moreover, there is granted recognized exceptions in the case of any clandestine, low visibility or overt use of military force against legitimate targets in war, or against similar targets in time of peace where such individuals or groups pose an immediate threat to the United States citizens or the national security of the United States, as determined by competent authority.

Still , "no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom." Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 1 (1905) (1 Story's Const. § 462).

As all are aware, under Executive Order 12,958, Section 1.8(a), "In no case shall information be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security."

However, "[i] is said that this power in the President is dangerous to liberty, and may be abused", and "[a]ll power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands", Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), but "“[t]he courts cannot prevent abuse of power, but can sometimes correct it.”U.S. v. Chalk, 441 F.2d 1277 (4th Cir. 1971).

The President has suggested, "Temporary continued postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure."

Under Executive Order 12,958, Section 1.4(b)(2), "'Top Secret' original classification authority may be delegated only by the President or by an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2), above." And this appears to encompass the concerns expressed by the President.

The President has stated that the National Archives and relevant agencies “shall jointly review the remaining redactions in the records that had not been publicly disclosed”, until May 1, 2023, and that "any information withheld from public disclosure that agencies do not recommend for continued postponement” will be released by June 30, 2023.

As you are aware, under Nixon, "[a]bsent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide." And certainly the federal district court would be more readily able to provide a far more expeditious resolution than the current proposed schedule on a matter long overdue and of great concern to the Kennedy family and the American people. Major Mike Webb God's Advocate in Pandemic You can’t save the world if you are NEVER born!