• • :. ,SJJJII?..MONS IN A C:IVIL ~CTION.

_. . CIV. la (2~64) , {Formerly D. C. Form ~·o.45a Rev. (6-49))

lllnttrn ~tuba. iintrirt. @nurt . FoR THE .· . . Jlln~E P\ERCE

~ctU1Ht(l,J }ll5r/Vt;l Of- ;JtvJ ittJW~ . ·

Pt--llr-J :J (JJ£.§3er?-Mfl :J (p 8L--[;iCK f:;(t. ~( pJ l(G (o612_

Plaintiff

;

. . v. ' .·· "· :.

Uf'll1 tO. 51fl1fi (.{&.OUT Str<vl~E 86 0 rtfr" 5 -r fJ vJ . . . vJASf-/ I DG 26223 .

Defendant

To the above named Defendant :

You are hereby summoned and 1'equired to serve upon·

.;_- .

.J·

..-::p "0 .s .J2_

plaiiitiff'TI attorney , whose address

79 c1v.· 0779 CIVIL ACTION FILE No. -~~-

SUMMONS

'·.: \ (. : '

,al) answer t? the complaint which is herewith served upohyou, within . days after service of this ' . •,, ' • i \ ' • •

summons tip~n you,-: exclusive of the day of service. If you .fail to do so, judgment by default will be

taken

----7---::-------------------------------------Deputy Cle1·k.

Date: [Seal of Court]

' ' . " .. •'. ;. '· '•·'

: -,,·:

- .. ·,,

RETURN ON SERVICE OF WRIT

I hereby certify and return, that on the day· of 19

I received this summons and' served· 'it together with· the' COI)tplaint =herein as follows:

. ;

MARSHAL'S FEES ,,

Travel ___ $ ------'-"----' .

Service ___ _

. . . ' . \ r•

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a

day' of , 19

·[SEAL)

'•'

\ ' .·\•·'

' . )

.·• ..

·---~----------------------------------------

By

United States. Marshal.

·--------------------------------------f,..J.. (

'·

Deputy United StatesMarshal.

this

·-----------------.:..---------·------------- -----

, ; \., '1 ' ' Note:-Affidavit required. only if service is made ·by a pel-sOh' other than a United States ~farshal or his Deputy.

I '" I I ,.,

I I

"' I ~ I

"" I I I ~ I z I " -H I I ·~ '-'

tl " I s I ~ tl I

I I E-< I I !;:;) I

I '-I I u . I 0 I ~ I ~ I ..... I u I

I "' I ·- .... I "' ·l:i I N

I I

""" " I ,-I .~ l'::l I . ' ~ ' > " I ~ I fl¢uc I ,. ,a I 0 I I """ I ~ u ~ I .I, ,; ,., I'

""' I .,o;: 'I \'; J. z: :'··~, 1$·· I I

~~ I I

,. I 1-<

~ I I I U1 I I fifi:, I z +' I I I 0 I 0 I 0 " I "" I iS " I :<:; " I

:0 '" I ~ I iS -~ I - I

"' I 1'it I p " > I. ,., I U1

,., " I

\-1 ·. I

" '" I I +' I ·I " '" I ~ " I I +' I I 'H I I

"· I , .. - \

r ! "·

;_ ' 'I

. '·

··- . ,,. .:, '

• .......

U.S. MARSHALS <:J:<Hirll

PROCESS RECEIPT and

-~/A:) [N( (].{: f(Mfl::­(; 1]1. t f..( V: f: (l _.__,I

77'1 -t LJP

TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN

/)L Number of process to be served with this Form-285

Number of parties to be served in th\.s case

Check for service on U.S.A.

{

L P"~C-- I oo/Z-·--------------------------------------------------------------------------,..:;:::.~,:c;:-..::;:c.:::::-;;c':",.-,;-:--~---;--;-;:--~L......--:=-:-:--SPEC\Ab!NSTRUCT\ONS OR.OTHER-1NFORMAT10N THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE Business and Alternate Addresses, All Telephone Numbers, and Estimated Times Available For Service): . · ·- · ·· -- · ·- -~~ ·--··-· ---~- --Fo<

Total Proc%s District of Origin

L- No.J L-

District to Serve -­No.

TELEPHONE NUMBER DATE ;?t;··t!}-u~ .. : ?r-~71.

Signature of Authorized USMS Deputy or Clerk

(:A // /I ./_i "- _;-'./ /J '' d /1'

l her8by certify and return that 1 0 have personal\y served, D. have \ega\ evidence oi1 ervice, 0 have exec.uted as shown in "Remarks", the process described on the individua.,l. company:corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, company. corporation, etc.; shown at the address inserted below.

0 \hereby certify and return that lam unable to \ocate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above. (~ee remarks below)

Name and title of Individual served (if not shown above)

Address

Forwarding Fee

/ iHIS JS .YOUR OffiCIAl Sll~ . ~

Jlll Procesw"l llccolillred. fo(k'·'-'?"'"" Initial Oeposl!: .::::;;? 1 3 . Cost lor S~rvice: ~;·..;;:::.¥2~:::--Bcb-sTTIJ!; ,..._..,_~·~--~

~.:?7 P!aase make remittance payable to U. S. Marshal,. SONY, U. S, Courthouce, Annex

NOTE

3. NOTICE OF SERV!Cffilw York, N, Y. 10007 FDRMUSM·285(Re•.

~~~~~~~----

Fold

' SiT:!

'1

' . Y 'u will pleilse take notice that a _____ _ of 1 ~~ich the 1~itldn is a copy, was this day dul1~ ente?·ed in the within entitled action, in t )( of}ice of the CleTk of this Court.

Di'ted, N.Y.,------------------, 19 ___ _

t Youn, etc.,

·---1------- -----------------------------

r4fo • United States Attorney

Attorney for---------

J ·---,~~~----:--~---------~~~~'~:~~~~~==~-~==~ Si1·:.

Pfease take notice that the within _____ _ willl·! be presented fo?' settlement and sig­nat te to the Honorable ----------------­Uni ed States District Judge, at the office of the Clerk, United States Cou?·thouse, Foley Squffn, Borough of Manhattan, City of New Yo?:~, on the ____ day of ____ , 19 ____ , at 10'~t'o o'clock in the ______ noon O?' as soon

·-·er a~ counsel can be hea?'d.

n1ate~·Y., ------------------, 19 ___ _

I To I:

.\

Yo·w·sJ etc.,

-----------------------------------United States Attornei;

A ttmtwy for ---------

·--'r------;-------~--------------------

Attorney /o?· ---------

,.,_----------,---,-----------

Form No. USA-33s-270 {Rev. 9-77)

;lffuitcl't ;§tatcs 2£listrrct C!Innd

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Al.AH Jtt181 WUI.'WU.M I

He.intU'f,

-~ a.plut ..

m• t'l'Aml Sl!'..n!T BE!tvtct ~d lL S, lQIIQrf., MUct'OB. OJ!! Tim tll!fl;'l.En STAtU $~'1 S~v:tCJ~

llifill'f tL f!Uf., .T&. ----------------------------------------(21'-) 791.,.!>.1.09 United States 1Jlff.\€l.'ttllml':$

A ttonLey for ________ :....·

Due,se?'Vice of a copy of the within iS here­by arlmitted.

.Ne1u Y01·k, --------------------, 19 _____ _

----------------------------------------Attorney for

To

----------------------------------------Att01-ney for

Si1·: I

·r >

Y 'u will ple<1se take notice that a -----­of 1 V!ich the 1bithin is a copy, was this day dnl1~ ente?'ed in the 1oithin entitled action, in t e office of the Cle1·k of this C01wt.

' Di'ted, N. Y., ------------------, 19 ___ _

r Yon?'S, etc.,

·---+----- -- ·----------------------------United States Attorney

Attontey for---------

[~0:.

J ----.r----~-------------,;~:~~~-~~~~~~~-~~== /P- .lr. '" -

Si1·:

P(ease take notice that the within _____ _ will be presented fm· settlement and sig­nat+·e to the Honomble ----------------­unifed States Dist?-ict Judge, at the office of the ~Clerk, United St,ates Cou?·thouse, Foley Squ'Ve, Bo1·ough of Manhattan, City of New Yor/!:, on the ____ day of ____ , 19 ____ , at 10'3b o'clock in the ______ noon or as soon

'\ ··;~er a~ counsel can be heard.

Date .Y., ------------------, 19 ___ _

I

To i: .\

You1·s, etc.,

United States Attorney Attorney for ---------

---'-1~---------------T""--------------------

;J Attor·ney for ________ _

"'

Form No. USA-33s-270 (Rev. 9-77)

~lnitdi JS\tatez ~istrict CIIumt

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALAl .rtn:.B$ WH'I.UUJf,

l'iabtillf,

_,.., aplnst ~

'l'llltt'l'.Ml S'l'AUS S!CUXT SE.EtV!ct ~d !1:. $, l(J.ttw:t,. MUC'.l.'OU. Q¥· ~ tlltt'.!:ll$ STAn.i :S&tn'l SBVlt:J.~

IC.'IBBlY lL Jt&K:i!:, J&. ·---------------------------------------

·I

(112.} 79l.,.~l09 United States 1:fl£f~ant; Attorney for ________ :... S

Due,se?·vice of a copy of the "oithin iS here-by admitted.

.New York, ____________________ , 19 _____ _

Attorney jo1·

To

Attorney jo1·

FP!•MAR-5·15·78

,_,

--------~--------................................................. ...

..... ·-

-)_~-.; ·,

,•.

··.

... ::,:;_: -.~

'K

-:.: ·--~~~

··~ .-~--~i

.-, .. .. ,k· ... ~ ·:-.

"

.:>lf·

have been. . . ..,;·

~-. '""·

•.

~; .·'

., ..

_ .. _i. '

. •

. , __ .

...

c:~\ -~~ :.

.;.- -~~~ .--__;..

... . -.4 . · . .:.:,. •.·

'. ; '

·-·+

'-~- ~- ·.-. ·--~ ....

·:~:~:;~s;~~ -- :.;...;. ~- ·;.-:-'-

.o~~--

~· ~.. ,; - ,--~-: ~-;~~· 3 ;.'<~ . ---~-' .Jf!.,.-~:iiiP

"}-•• !< •• :;

.. , ''\ --~

. -.:.. __ _.- -!.

\ ,_.: '~

.·~ . ' ~---~

·-.-..-c'

;. ·-

..... _

NEFijsw

. .

•··

.. , ... , •"·

·-- ··.:.;t-·· ·-

'_f:.'

·.,_

-:f.• ?.:'""'". ~:

~~1'-~-: -~ >

-;., . ·-:r/:_..;..

•.

·-.•. ---''!!' ~

£42-t&~~:. --~-~

._,; ... ·, . . ·-

,,_

.• . . -": .

~-. ~· _,_

•!<-.--

, ___ _

-~

-·

' ..... ...... ;·

!.i_:·· ·.;;:

__ , .

-··

.. , __

:.~""' -~ .$,-r-~ ,,

-..: ·c

-~ ....

~ ... l~~

'7.....--~;~

<~ -"'~

"';~_'

'·

•. ,..1 ·'!-

.

PRO-, . •

SE-OFFIGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x

: ALAN JULES WEBERMAN :

: 79Civ779 (LWP) Plaintiff, :

vs. :

: ·uNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and : H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED: STATES SECRET SERVICE, :

Defendants. :

. . ----------------------------.---,----x

(pro se)

ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, pro se, in ansHer to .the

defendants motion to dismiss, alleges as follows:

1. With respect to the allegations in paragraph three of

defendants Answer, plaintiff has attached photocopy of page from

book titled Coup D'Etat In America by Alan J. Weberman and Micheal

Canfield published by Third Press, 1995 Broadway, New York, NeH

York (1975) which contains statements critical of the United State

Secret Service. This document has been labeled "Plaintiff's Exhibi

A". Plaintiff has also attached photocopy of article from the

Village Voice, 80 University Place, New York, New York, dated

27 November 1978 titled-"Tom Forcade: Death of a Radical Romantic"

by A.J. Weberman, which contains a paragraph critical of the

Secret Service. This photocopy has been labled "Plaintiff's Exhibi

B." Attached also find Affidavit In Fact in ,.,hich plaintiff swear

to the authenticity of the aforementioned Exhibits.

2. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs six,

seven and ·eight, plaintiff contends allegations are moot. On 13

Feb. 1979 Plaintiff received documents from Secret Service, in

highly deleted form.

3. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph nine,

First Defense, plaintiff admits Secret Service is exempt from

requirements of Privacy Act. Plaintiff maintains, however, that

the Secret Service is not exempt from requirements of Freedom of

----·----·-·----·----------------·-- .. ....., I.

,... ___ -.,~.

~.,..j:·:~ • • Information Act.

4. With respect to the allegations in paragraph ten, defendants

Second Defense, plaintiff contends he has exhausted his Adrninis-

rative Remedies. Attached and labeled plaintiff's Exhibit "C" ,

is letter from United States Secret Service dated 13 Feb. 1979

which substantiates this contention.

5.-With respect to the allegations in paragraph ten; defendant'

Third Partial Defense, claiming exemption under 5 u.s.c. 552 (b)

(7) it should be noted that this clause is primarily a pro-

tection against prejudicial publicity in criminal or civil trials

of individuals. In Bristol'-Myers Co. vs. FTC 424 f.2d 935 (D.C.

Cir.) documents originally compiled during a law enforcement

investigation _vrhich ended_ vlithout _prosecution, lost their pro-

tected status as law enforcement files. Plaintiff has been subject

of Secret Service investigation vrhich ended vrithout prosecution.

6. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph

tvrel ve. Defendant 1 s Fourth Partial Defense, exemption ( 2) (b) has

been definitively construed by the Supreme Court of the United

States of America in Department of the Air Force v Rose, u.s.

, 44 ·u.s._L.w. 4503 (21 April76). Rose holds that " ••• at least

VThere the situation is not one vrhere disclosure may risk circum-

vention of Agency regulation, exemption two is not applicable to

matters subject to·a genuine and significant public interest."

One District Court has held that even documents which deal with

an Agency's filing proceedures must be disclosed; even though the

documents "appear to verge on the trivial" (Lord and Taylor vs

Department of Labor 22WH cases 1245, 1248 S.D.N.Y. 3 Sept. 76)

Plaintiff represents a certain segement of the public that has

manifested a distinct interest in these passages, as plaintiff

is journalist and author.

·'" .. __.._.:• .. ~.,;~ • •

Wherefore, plaintiff prays (1) That the Court order defendant

to produce requested documents to him for inspection and copying

(2) That this eourt grant the complainant his costs and

disbursements herein; as specified in the Freedom of Information

Act, 5 USC 552.

Dated: New York, New York Apri~ 10, 1979

&aJ i-_-rr ALAN JUlES WEBERNAN (pro se.) SIX BL~~KER STREET NEW YORK CITY 10012

\. ---~··:~

~ ;I :[J f J' It JL '·(_) "J' {;~,z LJA;; Q~ ~ :t:':..'tf ~ !( ~-L!J/ff. !{~~ ~~:'0t:~ ~ ~:~t 4 'L U '/ :Y ~ L ~ Y J 1-· J-. ~, ~ ! · ··,; · .. , •._ ·;~·:··~· :-:.:··.; :r~: ..,:_'b'. ."I·,..·'J;·.: : . .... J'~'..""'~'!U{·-l;~·.-"~\' 1\J,iJ\'-~\; .. •::·):,.:-;·:.-···; i ·.'-:. 1_.·:1 :-· }1 .u . n \' lto b B ri II . -· ,·, I ·-!j ,. . . -i .; : :-.-: ;~~·-~::\:I.-~ .i.'·'r' 'j, .. P~·-1;.:,">:'/~:.-.·~ ,:)··. j1:, t;.;::.! .. ·:'-;:,1:(·:;-:.:~J{Ii' ~\,":1-:;,:-.)':r·J;(~',!..>IJ~·!!}I~ \:~:--. >. '··· !! . 'i• . ,: l I ::." ~: ·: • • . ~ • .,·, .n r . ·I··.· .-.-~·:·:.\·(~l'-·.~····1 :,•;•.i·\::Y:,l.'·'·'<=-~~- j.l;'.-;:r;~~(·"/ ,;)tl~~-:~;··-~ .. :,.,_,.,''; .. ·-~~ .. ~-·_t::,.~:l•, .. ···!·· ..... ··.I,·. : ,'• ·· . • ~ · jT0:n Fcrcoue, rodiol rolitkoiJctil'ist'and A'mori\n'i;tci" [q.;on \icin'g'(Jc,ikd'ioercditl-' '\vhat his'cullcaliu~s ·'"\led his l)~sii\ess "wiz· :onc-.about··thc ·punk ntovc:ncnt is <n ;,1; " · § uidcrcw:>::J publisher,' die~ bs 1 f'ritlay eye: tio!l· by, th~. \'ihti!q', j·!?l)S' ,·'i,J(bruu(!ht sue: artl;y." I (icli 'J'iwcs,' which has i d rcul.1tion w_orr~. l l!s fricntls ? n~ ·pvl iticulolli;s pil iscJ w ning ot St. Vincent's Jiospnll o( J .~5 gtln- ccsslul suit ug:>.inst the government ... ~ .::.:;., ol.at 'lcast:100,000, last wed; bunched a lum for Ius generoSity "'J unwa~·onng ftn:lfl-6 ·:shot \\'O"nd to the hood. Porcnde's dc-lth, at .' Fo;ca?c's hassles witli l)lc ('lixol) ?9minis'.' spinoiJ ·mag'a~c 'called Stone tlgc ... F~rcadc cia! suppo;t· for a var!«v of rc~istantc • .> ·. 33, wa.s bbcled z suicide .. , •,'. · .. ·, .,, '·. nation·contin't'ic<!'\vhcn··linvas charged 1vitl: also hclpc<i prpdtic~:~murglm,'·?· fil!n t!ocu- ousc.s-Ke<:h ~ucu;o, d:ccctor c! t:·' :\a·

.. ~ .. In recent yc,:.Jrs1 FOicadc w.:~s perh:lps be~. po%c;.si0n ol..cXp]r;sfvcS Ourinri 1-.::i-r:.:rtiLip:;,- no-:IH=try· that will be' rdc:t~cd soon.·AnOlLt:r W)11JJ Or~.~:w.Juur: f\..;· ;L..: 1-:.cf ..... r:!i cf .\L:-> . :. "'·known as 1he launder wJ U"idin~ spiritol tioilinYippicprotc'oJSlt.thc.\~7ZG.O.l'.na·' r-:-:,;;::'.(,·'·r;:~:;;.:. ·r./;:·,·:·.~:.;,.;.':· juana Laws (NORAIL), saiJ fli~h Tir:~cr'~ '

. l!i~h Time~, the 'monthly magozinc· of th~ tional'co 11ven.rjo'r(ThaiC:ise'agiliiist him\v•s : -support for h:s crgc:~:,~::c:r h:d ;orcw:! <>-·\· ··.··drug cUhu.rc. Ironically, while he frequently qropJ)cd.:.~:-~:~:':.\\t.~:.~:1~~~·;~)}~~~.~: .. \~.;:;;~:.f::t~::·~~.'~$·;?l;{~: : .· Scntbl to !.ts continued cxi~lcncc. Two .yea:-s

' conveyed personal shyness, Porcadc was ncv-: ·:"!In 1970 I?orcadc'nppcarcd \Jcfoic thc.Prcsi- · ~go, Forcadc ICI up 3 non-profit ch3mablc er lor from the spotlight of the m~dia.:..his dciitio.l'Con1mission.on Obscenity and Por- trust· maldng .Hiuh · 'l'i1nc»-- cmpluyccs, .

. chosen forum for politico. I nnd socbl chungc, :- nography. When.;1skcd to' ci:plnin his 9'ccus~-- NORML, nnu bte Altcrnatiye Me db ilccm .. ·It was" a correspondent lor thc_Undcr: tiop;I)Jat the ,on)mission i)nd.~'.cngagcd i~·q'. :Corpora~ion (succ,ssor IO \Itt Undcrcr•IUnd.

gr0und Pres> Syndbtc thlt he became the' blltant MCCnrthycsquc\vitchhunt,".Forcndc·. ', fress Syndicnte) bcnefida,·ic> to the profit~ 0f fir~t member ?I the nltcrmtivc media t~ rc- flung a p!c nt h,is i.n,q:tis!to.r,.,s·{V.'iic·.?·i\c'.~C.~i:ff.:\· , . .the .'l~r;n_I·High ~orr.o:ation, the ~mbrcll~

. 'Te congrcSS<~nnl P[~.s: ~a.l;~jc;5~'nl!.~t:, '";\:U~;~r~;~!;~.i2,i?,~~;,;;$.,l;~.~g0;ift.0~:?t~(:\~~t> ~- ~r~u~I~t.'o;dor h1: b~rnes) ent~rpmcs .. " BY A J \ V c bcrtnu n · · :~:~.~:.::·:; :•;'"-::· · i -~: ·; :~··-~;:--:?>~·k\~: t~;~~\~.-~~i:~1~';~!;J.J~;.:Vi:~=:.~~(1·~'·::1··:~·;,~ .;_~-:~::.~· · {·· ·:- · .: >···.· · · . · -~ · · -~ · · · ·· ·.; ·

'. ' • ~ • . ..._';;.)· •. ; .. '~··: j,- •. ~;·,.;·';1.·:~:-·:iJ~!,;,_.·,·>/: ,,,1;;:'·~: 'i•."I._ •. J·;~.'~·;.'(,• •. •:!1 ,'.·.~ •: •.·~ •· .·~, •.. 1 • • • •

Tom ForcJde was on'c "of my closest I bers)'nnd bcgan~to follow \Yii ;Jet llt·os.' Car:., or his ceil. Dunn Deal ond I started the Tom . :r:o.cJs. I idoli_ze~ him. · _,::.;·;·' :. ·. ·, · · , ; ' " avgn_ of.' L~y!--';nri·':a'poli~i~~~·, y,r':iRn, of the . and Cindy Defense C~mndttce, A_arun Koy .

I lirst met hnn tnl97l when he came to my Hqg .. FurnJ.;.,nr9y~d ... the. cquf\lry_;;,hrcude • collected muncy. fur l'om at vanous West Dybnclut;y .c!m atth•; AltcrMtJ; U_niversity-; un~/echvcr~. nl;nost. ~tnbbcg, Wn.,.)'(lu~nc(: Coast rock co<,lCcits. l;i1t1: did .~o.:ron how

. -

·'·

Al:ormtJs I om took me out'to d1nner and llros:t.hug lor.tryUlg to put ~om~ politJcs mto tlllt Tom ho.d Ull'entd pol meal p~eLog-btcr . •' . told mCJboUI his participation in every phaie tlle li.lni';. Bcc~tise'o(t.his Tom' could rchitc iii. to. be-come Kny's shlick-when he lhrtw ' '.' : .;::/ ?lt~c ont!inr ino~cmcnt-up to nnd inc!~d: n;Y s!Io,-ts 16{it[:iight'c'fl·'o~t'::':B.o.9 I!~lao.'.·. pic at a pornogro.phy commidoncr \li 1970.' ·:

.·mg c-omb:;Jg--,_Whllc a member of the Wcnth- We grew dose; nne\ when I wen Unto a:statc·. , .Very few other people would help Tee•. Ru-cr Undcrgrcund llction of SDS. Prior · of depression alter Jo)ui and Yoko 'prcs:surcd' bin i'!'id Hoflm:lfl had c:liku him a coP. ci.lrbg' . jo:ning !~O Weather Underground Organi7.:1· me, into npologi'l.ing''w,Dylan,:it was Ton\" "i tile Yippic-Zippic ronlli~t in Minmi. ond tllc tion To::; l::d stnncd a ':hippicsOJ1tmunc" in who pnlle~ me out of it,' He corivinc>d n1c t9 · @ io.bcl stuck. Ewntunlly both Abbie and Jerry.

· ..

his native Phoenix, Arizonl. Alter the cops go after Bent\C manager Allen Klein who had , E .\ldmittcd this was the wrnn~ thing to do. In- . .. · . busted the plnc_c.lor LSD the cummun; be-. nlkgeJJy·nijsappr?printe~ ~0 cents on 'each.' , ;.:/,-':~T'•'i>;;·Yl:~·;\<'ct :; ;-:;·'Ui:·.:.':·IG'·.Y,.::;' :<:. lm 1973, Tom and Cindy were acqr:_ittcJ of · '· . came mo:·c poilllcli: Torn bcgnn\ocd<tan llnngbdcsh·bendll LP,·1ont told me he· ·· ·.' .,_._,..,._.., .. ::;'·~- ,,. ... , ... ,.-.:·.•, nllchlfgcs, . . . .. · . . . ·._ · _,. · um!crgro:<od mng:tJ.inc cnllcd:O:phcus. -I.n ~uught Klein ir_ .aJ:ckvnt?f ::;;d ~u~chcd. ~im_. f

1 :~j:'~~lh:c ,~ 0~,;e.ntl?,!l h~ljd,-,:\l~9>:hNc ??cge~ly . .~·Tom, frazzled !rom th.c· ardell Of ~1\e t<~l,

.. · · · · 1967, Tom bent Ius part of tllc uad rJp and ill the head.·~'·,.,: ... -<:-,>-'-'-.,,.- ....... : . .-: · ·.: .<\.\ ·" .. \ ' 1!0!. "!"t .. 9ecwr: ·?''en ' Lxon I IUS .came buck· ru New Yor< and cononucd • _ . ·:. moved to New York City; wl;erc he founded \,Tar:'· a!w~ys ~·au·.'j( i~: f9~ 'Abbi~ H~_rrn·;u;;. n~llllnnl'?:: .. il.~_-lc~~t :.t,lus:o.~;-)?'hut }the· FBI ·,run tl1e Undcr~rotll\d Pre." _$ynuic.ate. A fc ?.-- . · the Un·oc:r)roud Press SynuJCnte, UPS was . and coulCl not understand why·I;\VUs jnc~dlY. th~ygh_t,; Sill~- ~hc,,_,tt,,d. toJ!l~e ,him ,and weeks IJter he and Rex \'1' c:~er .s towed,-awny · , ;, .. :, (~nanced through a deal Tom h.1d arr;uigcd · . with .-hinii:Whcn: Abbie' a tid !forit'hnd 'a 'dis'; Jl;e .a~s')"t~tet .. Ci;'.(iy. \)!"jt~ns.\rC~,·:!o;_·posE>1:· ,on "·ship' fulcd witli ·l'l :\SA. scientist;,· This · ·. ~-::''>.··giving Dell ;od J1owell the' rights to ini-. putc::oi!e'rSr<<ii:Thi; iJ~ok·,~lvhic~· they hnd {:on·,_of_:~~f'!l.~'H'e~c'}tlyd·~:Nam~y,ha. ;episodc'.,i·~s right out 0!' .\L:trx Brotlicrs · .:.;. ' .. ":· · crofilm the undcrground·prcsj. Duri~g tnc . both syo_rkc~ 9n!.tl;c? :creed ~o.holc( a mov,; · 0.'~';r· ... :,·smtc:'._IY ... ~. ~ . , .. ~t;a\e t•. ': tl)ovie, -~; -..':·. ·•··: ;·~ '· .. ; .. _ .. , · , ...... _ .:. :, .· . : Jatc 196Cs and cnrlv 1970s UPS served as the· .mcnt·tmi·cUl\my.-nomc:.\Tom Wolf; but the· z,pp:cs .~ns .. come.forwnrd.ill\u a~mntcd thltt ·:.When Tom returned he b<gan work on

.· · . · war room in the l)ndorground Press's fight . "court!' could ~ut iniorcc-thc decisioh:>: '.- ': , tllc Jusuce Department 1:'unted him t~Julsel_y High Tiu!es p1agazinc, a sUck monthly dci'Ot- · :.. lor sun·i•:ol. The Flll's · C0mtd :p1ogrnm In the sp(ing cif·l972, To<n started t.hc· Zip: .testify aJ:oli\·.Tom nn4 Ctntly, NaJ1ICy, who :s ed .exclusively to dmus. 'The story ·of Hi~h

.lza:r.sr .tJ-.e undcrcround "'" in full swing pies in 'reaction to Abbie nnJ Jerry's lnck of now, d~tn~: a ,?oQk._..lor. Quadrangle Press Tiu<.es is publishing history. From a circula­oncJ Tom tlid his best to combat it:·::'! ·' -:: ;. Yippie lcadmltip:,The Zippks· put tin tlte n~out. hisp;p~r,'~~cfs, .r:fu.scd t? .~:IP. frame tion-of less tho.n )CO, J!igh 'J'i'"" b,·ea:nc a

· · . ~o: o:·.:;• did Tom fight the intelligence first;Nationnl ,\\arijunn~ -Day Smoke-in in tlr_cm_. · ·,.,,:,.;,-.,y.:.,:.; ':'; .;,'-.'<r'·.~i · .:· ;::. · milliou-dolbr busiucss in bs th:lfl a yco.r. -~ c.,mmu:l::y, he also wenr after riJJS in tltc Central·Pnrk.· Jhat sunuucr Tom took the .:. : To1n wns"o.rr~S\ed it the UPS office'by' tk Tom financd · his . puhli<hinc vcmur~ .. : r:·::;ll"' :_: :re. b \970, Tom a:ul st:c;tsin3~ Zips:_.·! a ,\\iomi; \;whccc :wC'- demonstrotcd FilL He-told them he .was a member of the throuch. "llobby's"-J smukc,easy u:t -.' .. :. ( : cr D.l'.':.: i'·::i b,wdcd " s :okn Cot\i!inc·limo . agai~st.'b'oth McGo\·cr'n;-nnd .N Lxoti .. :DIIfinc .. _Weather'. Underground and tnJt !tis comndcs Broadway tl:n1 was par"titio:~cd in:\' .?.0 di:Tc:- · · .. ' .. '. v::·h a s::-·:~ .wc\dt•J i.O ~~ (:: ("~:c:~\~:t~:::dt the ·D:-a!ccr:ltic. .1-!:.t:en;:l Cc.nvent:Cn. Tcm \von!d·Sooa h::~ hin1,.Jhc·.· bdic.vcd hirn n;:tl: cnt rooms :;o tho:: cU3toi:·.;.:~5 \.,.i..::JlJ :Wt·rr.c::t

· -~;·· ·:.· :::r-.:~~~:::: -~ :-:~d ~o yd·.:~k :t.:cr.l::.~.:~icn m:u;,· :~~oi~ a sbui pilciloGr;tph o"r LyadOn· Johr:~;on j·:plo.ccd·two· Ghot(!1lil·\vit>l~in~ r;u:1rd$ i:l irl\nd ;)· ;.: .. : ··· · ~ · .. · 1 ·. ·. C:n:li":~:;~,t v1: }'::,\·c f.; ~~ •:. --- -~-. . .. ··.~.:.;·:.:.!·;.:~:··;·'.·,-;:~·~i:>H::~::\·:~ . . , , . , .t .. ;-!,.· •.• , . ··---·----------·· ·-··-- ·-··------

! .

I, ' I

·- --·-\ Corttin:.~.hlfrompcg~ 8-:.-~ ~ · :.~~.-.:-~ .:.: ·- .. The onl:f·P'~rs.on who cOuld pull_To~ OUL

t3Ch oilier. Aleg'-...nd holds duriorr.ron~whD "of ili<Se fi<l of dep,es.sion wos Jack, a former tried w rip the p]2.cc off cc.U.:=d_l'.p-wea..r;..ng a \:7hire: Panther Parr'; le-.1d:::r. Jack took Torn. P-air of ce:a::.~Ot plador:n s1:c..:S:._ ... ;.::.-:· ;;>·: ·--; tq a psychi.ltrist who prescribed lranquitizers

l!i?!t.Tirr.n b~.ml1rc-and !n.Gre.suc-.- for him. In 1973,. Tom-arid Gabrid.le-we:rc- ·. . ~ . . . . ~

~.;.sful;YetTom'sn.:unerrcv=.rap~any- .married .. · . . . .. ·.:>·· ~:~:z-:.-·\ _,. : . .:::. ~h::r::..in ic~Tom'.Vr-..s afr:-!!U.Ih.at th;!;_"copn· · · Recently; _Tom h.Jd bealrlle iim:n:sted in !Jl:~-1 ilie· Yippid-lud. put on. him would ad~ the.punk scene and began.to film the S ""Pis-. ·. · ve:rsdy. aff~:rhc ~~--!~.:And- by 1975, _·tal's · Am~rican.:. tour.:..: Un.forru.n.:ncly, .. tl:ey-- .: ... Tom bd -~IT!C. even more. f3.m.Ous.. for his thoUght bt. Yi:ls- :1 gov~romeni:. aoe.nt wlio W::tS ·~ n.hrou.S-o:~idi:!~ p-arties.. than fci(."hls ~0-azin~-. ·rru...lcing: ~ film tlut Hould_ be us~d. in a·su~-·. ·; ~ .: At.onc···p.Jiilt .. Tom_and·k-t:~tOOk.."~·t..-uc..t;:"· .. quent.d~Port:ltion h~g_-:"Tom Iud IO st:1i -~ .:.,_·· f:.ilcd~ it~ wi:h 6:L.::s. of_nitrous 7 ' ~d drOve all _"in hoH~l rooms wh.i.l;! the filming W3.5 going on··:·:.:!. aOurid 1\bnh.::t(Wl tu.rcing ~pleori.. To:Oi- b«ausi he wa5 a.foid he mi£T.ht freak out the- -:; ~· v.·:LS·n·i..,Cr duH · in.d IDe richer he ~'li~ the ·baed: -~c.::··;· .. · · .. · ::.·c:.::.-.· .~-::-.. : ·~ ). ··. i.:::: ~ · .. ·:·. -::. ·<::•-;: co'e h= u5cti hos mon<y as a cacliyst.H" be~ .-;;rn· icid-1973; Jac.'<. ·w~5 kilkd ~viuJ~ ~g -:~~::

'I·

gw contributing ti:ou.s.:md." of doll:u:s to th= .. to hn"d on 3. cbnd:!Stinc alrsaip in Columbia~ .. :-:~;· ~hrioP...J] Org3.niz:icion.to Reiorm"],!.arijuim A·weck before: he :.dlltd himsdi J:oin told nit!·~:;.-; Laws. Tom wmintd i loyal Yip pie and~: · th the believed the PEA Spi:cial Operationi .::;l g.l.D n.>" giY!! uS frC;! ads and gcxxl covc::o.gc in· Dl\ "5ion :_plight.". hi:t~S:lbot.lged· Jack's air- ~~-: Hig~ Tiu:r:l_~· l ~~d~--Jom ~ som~~e_::l:~- .. cr:!).}. Since tl!e .re·rn·1in$.·of·.~ b3r?mctricall~f.. 7l:::~:l

. ~~ -·~'-·._tJ:<;;::SJ-''-~-~,arrd ._re?ID<?. /'?, . ac'!vaied bom~ wo~ fotl!!_d m th<_ w.r~o: -:;:~l tnt~nt~...~:??f=):.:;_:-5-St.~~~:~~ ... :.-:::-:--:-~;:-=..,~~ .r~om -~d lo-st his d?>t:St friend . ..,.~.::-::-:~; .i/ .... -..;~_··~:.P;.::-21

\

- ~.~. 97 0

Tom. s .. how_«i:.up at th. ~ Republic:1n i ~.Around. this n.- me .. Tom's loft was broken. -~_.::. :.·1 .. ! Con'l~nt!an irl·IG.nsasCity; Duri.cg-a Yippie into.;·, .. The·.Iock:·:was pro[~ionally. pic...l(td_.~:[::;t: ~ C::monit:":l.cion-'Tom yrd.S beaten bj Secrc:.t SevCi-31. floorbo2.r0s..".wcre· pri~· up~·yei·.th.::)J;/

S'"Mce agents whq"Were <~.c&~ by_~ sUe.: orJy"~ ~g .sroitn· ·w~ Gabric:~e's. mother'~·:~~~:; ·; ·&ss:ir.---:. g:Ucin&-mem.1:-e.rsb.ip" in_: the ·-White w~~g_ring_·_T~Iil ·wss sha.l.(en..~y tJ:e inci:.:-~t:f~

\ ~'"' ~?~..i:9-:n±.;Yenw Tom,~~d":" ·-~~nt~.w~ch. <; ar;ributed. to. ~,s~C:~S/?::;[;}~~:r, .,. . m~ nem;x .. ··shlp 7 Anomey \"Villiaro<h.uns- ·lUY;.:mg:n~on Lnto his fin:tnce~~ ·· ·::· 1 :_:_.,.~;,:.::~.;::=:~~ .. ~

u<j:.:Hi sutdthe-S=ef_Scr~cea~~ >?OU~;J· .. :~ -J"Hckg;'n cik;ing Qu;u.l_ud<;"<flii 7112 mtd ~;-;iilJ e---­:;' ud 977; a·fcd=l'· grar.d lillY l!l Bmo:Uyn t,. stop _hun from ov=rdomg tt •. The cloak. ot ,~;,:"};' ~~=san :1n ibydrig:uiou_coce:!cni.n~ ~--o~ Fo.r- ~ecy To_m spread ¥over his ·accivities"w_ouJd -~-~·ij . ade bas<d- on tbc to.srunony of Cilic)oder;a smothor h1m. On. };ov=~r 16, 1978, ar 1-:,:~c & . high-levd DEA inlonnant who ms b<en cha- p.m., while 109m.ing down from Q!L-uhidos;· ::·~-~ . , rJ.Ctt::ri..:--d ~ :t3 ·· 1 \\l.r .. },iariju3.rd~ in s.cvc:ral Tom shot hirasdi i.:l the b6d at poim-blmk.: .-". rru~.:1~ articks: The pressure- bt::.fill to nn~GobrieUe had SClyed horne tbJt 'ruy. ·-:­bu.il~t.:lnd Toe1 ·sw.ncd to go into p::riods. of because sh~ was. wor.i~ :tbout hio. She and :

I exu:::me C.~r~i.ou.. E:: would as.surnc a feta.l Jim Druf,Us found ~ in a pool Of b!Or.........:c!. : · po5ition, Cov::.r h!rnxH "Yr--irh a sheer., andre- Tnere was as~ !:ok i.il. his temp1e. . ~ . .. ·

I r:1ain like th.J( for d:1ys. At Cnc-point he too~z : The news of To~'s dc:ath upsc:t and d~-an oY~dos.c of Qd.:Utcle:i and srumbkd ov::-r st;bitizbi me. I r.::v~r thought it wOuld end· ~ .

, to G:!bricll:: Scha.ng .. s apuTi1Jc::.nr, where be li1--...e this since I had r!O ~:nowled~c of his pre-" · · 1! culbpst"d. Oabrklk and. h::r (ri~nd JL-n Dru· Yiuus suicide aar:rnpts. 1 b~ipn m bbme. any ..

I gm,- who w0d:c-J in·TOL'1'~ Ix?o~~torc across one who"W:-!3: lur:dy .fur his demise. \\y f:~.vor­frr>m (f.ibrkHc's apartrncnt_. took him _to ite. syrilbol of rcsist~c.c·.;; btcnmc·J syffibul of Bdkvu(: w!:crc hi::; stom:tch ·sas pump-!d. th~ uhim:uc sllr.tndo::r. tl ~

-l ,I

.. -

.,,,,. . • •

·; .-;'-- •

THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY

•

Michael Canfield Alan J. Weberman

Foreword by Henry B. Gonzalez

U.S. Congress

THE THIRD PRESS Joseph Okpaku Publishing Co., Inc.

444 Central Park West New York, N.Y. 10025

A Third Press Special

'

• fl - ·j;;=-...4<tt<tr·',~~~~~~..,.;....;..;.··-·..,:~ ... \"" ... -... ~ ............. c.....-.................. ""'-~" .. i1P ........ _ .. , .. 'f .. _- .. -...... .a* ... i .... .., •••• ........ / ••• A

• -~ i i'

162 COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA

The FBI questioned all the people she had mentioned-they all agreed she was a liar and a whore. The Bureau seized upon the fact that she was a prostitute to destroy her credibility, just as they did in the case of Eileen Curry. They failed to realize that Perrin's credibility might have been enhanced by this fact be­cause people like Ruby associated almost exclusively with the criminal element. Only someone like Perrin would be in a position to know. They also discounted a letter of reference from the Oakland Police Department which stated that Perrin had worked as an undercover agent in an abortion case and had supplied them with valuable 'information. According to the FBI and Secret Service, Perrin was not to be believed. 42

Many researchers ,have wondered who "The Colonel" really was. Some have suggested it was Colonel Castorr who was described by Father McChann as " ... a retired Army Colo­nel. .. generally interested in the plight of the Cuban refugees (who was) 'playing the role of an intelligence officer' in his contacts with the Cubans ... he seemed more interested in their political beliefs than in their economic plight ... " 40 Maybe Frank Sturgis can throw some light on this-he told Canfield that in Cuba in 1959 his contact was " ... an Army Colonel ... I told him more than one time, within a six-month period [that he could kill FideL]" Note that the Interpen/IAB forces were "training in the Everglades [with] thirty surplus Enfield rifles.""'

Jack Ruby Visits Cuba To date, the general impression has been that the only thing

Jack Ruby had to do with Cuba was the fact that he once ate in a Cuban restaurant. It may therefore come as a shock to the reader to find out that Ruby visited Cuba shortly afier Fidel Castro came to power in 1959.

When he first came to Dallas in 1947 Ruby was introduced to the pitman of The Top Of The Hill casino, Lewis J. McWillie, by his friend from Chicago, Benny Binnion. McWillie and Ruby immediately hit it off and when McVvillie's mother was ques­tioned by the FBI she told them that they saw each other on a daily basis around this time."

-'>.,.

'>~iiitiQi.'.q·; fJ.Jji.]CQJ$il}l1QSl-.4# ##,#PlAth hY:U 4'..; 4.

1 1 j j

1 l

l ' I l

• • DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Mr. Alan Jules Weberman

WASHINGTON, D.C.-20223

U FEB 1979

cjo Independent Research Associates 6 Bleecker Street New York, New York 10012

Dear Mr. Weberman:

Reference is made to your letters received January 16, January 26 and January 30, 1979, appealing a decision of ~tr. William Bacherman, Freedom of Information Officer, United States Secret Service, denying you certain information under the Freedom of Information Act and requesting files under the Privacy Act. Treasury regulations regarding administra­tive appeals of initial denials by the United States Secret Service vest the review authority in the. Deputy Director of the Secre·t Service ( 31 Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A, Part 1, Appendix D and 40 Federal Register 49089, dated October 21, 1975).

The records and correspondence pertinent to your appeal have been reviewed. I have determined that the exemptions claimed by Mr. Bacherman in his letter of January 4, 1979

. were proper. The Secret Service records contain investigatory information compiled for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, Subsection (b) (7) (C) and (E), information is being withheld since disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

In addition, pursuant to Subsection (b) (2), Secret Service information is being withheld since it contains matters relating solely to internal administrative procedures.

I have also determined that certain information in the files may be properly disclosed to you. The documents containing that information are enclosed with this letter.

' ••

-· --------------------

"l

• • As to your letter regarding the disclosure of informa­

tion under the Privacy Act, the system of records, from which information is requested, is exempt from the Act pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a(K) (3). Therefore, to provide you with the greatest ·access, your request both initially and on appeal has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act.

Any denial on appeal is subject to judicial review in the District Court in the district where the complainant resides, has a principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.

For the purpose of appeals of initial denials under the Freedom of Information Act, the undersigned is the official making this determination for the United States Secret Service.

Encl.

' •,

sJ;:~~ Myr~n I. Weinstein Deputy Director

- --· ···- ··--·--·- ·---

l :

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

• ---------------------------~---------x

: :

ALAN JULES WEBEID•lAN : :

Plaintiff, : 79 Civ 779 (LWP) :

vs. : : :

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and AFFIDAVIT IN FACT H.S. ~<IGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET : SERVICE, :

: :

Defendants. : : :

. ------------------------~-~----------x

I, Alan Jules Weberman do hereby affirm that the excerpt

from the book Coup D'Etat In American and the photocopy of the

article from the Village Voice dated 27 Nov. 78 attached to

Plaintiff's Answ~r To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, are true

and correct reproductions from aforementioned publications.

Sv10rn to _a111.d signed:

\ . (&...l ''l,i'i) q.

\~~MlRibi:\,§ER~ Notarj ?ubffc';'-st<:tB of r~cw York

No. 24·1415290 Qualified in Kitigs County

Cert. Filed in New Yor:\ Caunty ommission Expires March 30, lSBl

----'-------

ULES viEBEilllAN BLEECKER STREET. YORK CITY 10012

----1.

·- • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NE>·T YORK

• ----------------------------------x

ALAN JULES WEBERMAN,

Plaintiff,

-against-

. • : : : :

:

79 Civ. 779 . (LHP)

: HOTION UNDER VAUGHN vs. ROSEN : TO REQUIRE DETAILED JUSTIFI-: CF.TION, ITE1HZATION AND INDEX

UNITED ST!I.TES SECRET SERVICE : and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF : THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE :

Defendants. : ----------------------------------X

Plaintiff ALAN JULES WEBEFJ1AN move this C~mrt for an order

requiring. defendant, United States Secret Service, to provide,

v1ithin 30 d\iys of the filing of the complaint in this action,. a

detailed justification for any allegations that the requested

documents are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Inform-

ation Act, 5 u.s.c. 552 ae-amended-by Pub. L. No. 93-502, 88

Stat. 1561, including an itemization and index v1hich would cor-

relate specific statements in such justification vlith actual

portions of the requested documents. See Vaughn v. Rosen , 484 F.

2d 820, 826-28, cert denied, 415_U.S. 977. (1974).

Dated: New York, New York April 1·0, 1979

R~f~,u~-t-t-ed-· -----~-!\LAN JU4S \'/EBERHAN (prq... se) PRESIDENT, . INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES SIX BLEECKER STREET NEW YORK, NEIY YORK 10012 TELEPHONE: (212) 791-915 3

·--------------____ .. ________ --------·. .. ----· ----------·---\ .

- -----.-.-.-·~~~~~~~-~-

..

.

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NE\'1 YORK --------------~-------------------x

: :

ALAN JULES WEBEPJ1AN, :

•

: 79 Civ. 779 (LWP) Plaintiff, :

: -against- :

: :

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE : UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

Defendants. : : : :

-------------------------------•--x

MEMOR!'NDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HOTION UNDER VAIGHN vs. ROSEN

. In this ·action under the Freedom of Information ll.ct plaintiff

seeks access to all records compiled between 1945 and 1979 in

the possession of the United States Secret Service pertaining to

Alan Jules Weberman. Although the defendants had over two months

in which to consider plaintiff's request, they have failed and

refused to produce any significant documents for inspection. The

purpose of this motion is to compel defendants to provide the

Court and plaintiff \vhich a detailed and specific justification, . .

itemization and indexing, as required by law, for their refusal

to disclose the requested documents. Vaughn v Rosen, 484F.2d 820

(D.C. Cir. 1973), ~· denied, 415 u.s. 977 {1974). See Ash

Grove Cement Co. vs. FTC, 511 F.2d 815 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Pacific

Architects & Engineers, Inc. v. Renegotiation Board, ·505 F. 2d 38 3 .

(D.C. Cir 1974; Cuneo v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir.

1973), cert. denied sub ~· Rosen v. Vaughn, 415 U.S. 977 (1974)_.

Plaintiff is prevented from making a Hotion "for Summary

Judgement because of a total lack of knowledge of the contents of

the records defendants have >vi theld, as well as of the purported

justification for ~Jitholding them. The denials by the Secret Ser-

vice provide only conclusory claims that certain of the requested

··-··-··---- .. -------·--------··· .. ----····-···-·-··----------

• • documents fall within exemptions (b) (7) and (b) (2), 5 USC 552,

and make no attempt to correlate the claimed exemptions with

specific portions of the requested documents. ITt was for just

such problems which the Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit sought

to remedy in Vaughn vs. Rosen. The order sought by the plaintiff

would compel defendants to provide the type of information to

proceed vlith this laHsuit. The Court of Appeals in Vaughn also

required defendants to itemize and index the disputed documents

so as to correlate statements in the justification with actual

portions of the documents. Y.lithout the order which the plaintiff

seeks, neither he nor the Court will know specif·ically which

exemptions are claimed to apply to which documents or portions of

documents.

In executing the Vaughn mandate, several Federal Court Judges

have explicit~y ordered defendants to supply plaintiffs with a

detailed itemization, justification and index, and the instant

motion is consistant with this proceedure. E.g., Cutler vs CAB,

375 F. Supp. 722, 724-25 (1974) (Gesell, J.); Robertson vs. DeJ2t·

of Defense, Civ. No 74-664 (Order of August 23, 1974) (Parker, Jy.

The fact that plaintiffs have been::exempted from requirffinents of

the Privacy Act by 5 u:.s.c. 552a (k) (3) is irrelevant to a Freedom

of Information Act Request.

Respectfully submitted,

ALAN J LES HEBERMAN SIX BJ',EECKER STREE'l' NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.

.. -··

..

-----------.-- ·-·--···-·--- ------ ---------·· -- ----- --------------------------- •.:-"!"

··~ '\)

. 'J', Sit·: ,e \ i h •· ': Yon 1oill.please take notice that a _____ _ ot'·which the 1oithin is a copy, was this day djdy entel'ed in the within entitled action, in t.he office of the Cle1·k of this Cotwt.

Datpd, N.Y.,------------------· 19 ___ _

You1·s, etc.,

United States Attorney

Attorney for--------­A.,, . . To;

:'lr)P ··ri:r>:· ·1'.;,(.·~.:-----------------;;~~,~~:-/~~~===-~===

'I . . '.':

} I' \. •

Si1·:

~.Please tHke notice that the within ----;-­uJ.ill. be presented for settlement and stg­?!~t1,lre to .fj~e. Honorable ----------------­u:r:'ited States Dish·ict Judge, at the office of tlii!yCle1·k, United States Courthouse, Foley Squa1·e,,Borough of Manhattan, City of New Xork dn the ____ day of ____ , 19 ____ , at

I ' ~9' 3o o'clock in the ______ noon 01· as soon t~ereafter as counsel can be hea1·d. 'I p .: f!ated, N. Y., ------------------· 19 ___ _

'·

To

YouTs, etc.,

United States Attorney

Attorney for---------

''t~ .L~----'~~----------------------------­Attorney for---------

~~ .:.~A

I.

:Form No. USA-336-270 (Rev. 9-77) ·~

~lltnitei:t ~tates :!.Bistrid Qlourt

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALAN J. WEB ERMAN,

Plaintiff,

-v-

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,

Defendant's.

NOTICE OF MOTION & RULE 9(g) STATE~ffiNT and DECLARATION

79 civ 179 IT.WP)

ROBERT B. FISKE, JR. ------------~----~----------------------

United States Attorney Attorney for _!!_~!\ __ _

Due service of a copy of the 1oithin is here­by admitted.

N e1v Y m·k, --------------------· 19 _____ _

----------------------------------------Attomey for

To

----------------------------------------Attorney for

!'PI-MAR 5·15·78

I'

,, •• 1

i I \

I

I j l

'.

l .l

' ·I

i I

. j

:

~

NEF:em 79-58/+

• .I _/ - _,

~-· . ..

!uNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEH YCJR'Z ---------------~-------~--------------x

AN J . \.JEBERNAN,

Plaintiff,

- v -

• ' r

NOTICE OF MOTION

UNITED STATES SECP~T SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,

79.Civ. 779 (LHP)

Defendants.

--------------------------------------x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed declara-

tion of Myron I. Weinstein, the accompanying memorandum of

law and all prior proceedings and pleadings in this action,

the United States Secret Service .and H.S. Knight, Director

of the United States Secret SerVice, by their attorney,

Robert B. Fiske, Jr_, United States Attorney for the

Southern District of Ne-v; York, will move this Court before

the Honorable Lawrence W. Pierce, United States District

Judge, in Room 2002 on May 24, 1979 at 10:00 o'clock or as

soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order granting

sunrruary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissing the

Complaint, pursuant-to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of .Civil

Procedure, and for such other and further relief as the Court

may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

May 4 , 1979

To : ALAN J. WEBERNAN Plaintiff Pro Se. · 6.Bleecker~reet New York, ·New York

ROBERT B. FISKE, JR. United Sta.·tes Attorney for the Southern Di.s:trict of New York Attorney for the United States

of America

10012 l:,: .. :;, .I'

·'

~-· •

j

'·1.·

! . . ...... ·~, ., . ~"' ... ~

.. ~-JITED STATES DLSTRICT tdOUit'F' 1 .

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x

LAN JULES WEBERHAN,

Plaintiff,

. -against-

ITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and . S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF ITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,

Defendants.

------------------------------------x

. -···~-..---~·~--: ~

RULE 9(g) STATEHENT

79 Civ. 779 (LWP) Pro Se

Pursuant to Rule 9(g) of the General Rules of this

ourt, defendants United States Secret Service and its

irector, H.S. Knight, respectfully submit the following

statements of material facts as to which they conten~th~~r•e~ ... -

s no genuine issue to be tried:

l. Defendants are engaged in providing protective

ervices to the President of the United States and other

3, 1978, that the Secret Service disclose to him any

ocuments pertaining to himself (the "December Request")

ursuant to the FOIA privacy Act. See Exhibit B to the

eclaration of Hyron I. Weinstein, dated May 3, 1979 (the

'Weinstein Declaration").

3. Under cover letter dated January 4, 1979, the

ecret Service disclosed to plaintiff portions of the re-

uested material. By said letter, the Secret Service further

"nformed plaintiff that deletions had been made from the

aterials and that certain materials had been withheld pur-

uant to provisions under the FOIA exempting from disclosure

,. I

i

I I I

~ i

l ' ! l. i I

I I

·i

. . :

. l ,,

"·.··.

! I I.

i

NF:ss 04-6778

to requesters (a) matters pertaining solely to internal rules

and practices of the Secret Service and (b) certain investi-; .. :0: .... j ·~

iatory.:_r,ecords compiled for law enforcement purposes. See

Exhibit C to the \•leinstein Declaration.

4. By letter dated January 12, 1979, plaintiff

informed the Secret Service that he sought to appeal the

January 4, 1979 determination. Plaintiff initially sent

this letter to the Secret Service's "FOI/PA SEC." See

Exhibit D to Weinstein Declaration.

5. By certified mail, receipt No. 989321, plain-

tiff sent the January 12, 1979 letter to the Deputy Director.

See Exhibit E to Weinstein Declaration.

6. By letter dated- January 18, 1979, sent to the

Secret Service "FOI/PA" by certified mail, receipt No.

989322, plaintiff requested under the Privacy Act "any and

all documents" pertaining to him. See Exhibit F to \\'einstein

Declaration.

7 . By letter dated February 13, 1979, the Secret

Service responded to plaintiff's appeal by releasing ad-

ditional requested material and re-stating the FOIA exemp-

tions on which any non-disclosures were based. See Exhibit G

to Weinstein Declaration.

Dated: New York, New York

May 4 , 1979

By:

....

':

. .··

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT B. FISKE, JR . Uni.ted States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

~'tfc£~ 1 ..

NANCY E.( RIEDHAN . . 1· Assistant United States Attorne Telephone (212) 791-9153

.: . ..

( I !

.I

i

I l

I l ! I I

. ··--~---~-. ..- ~

j •. •• r·-

F:ss 4-6778

'

TNITED STATES DISTRICT 'COURT· OUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------x

-;LAl! J. WEBER1-1AN,

Plaintiff,

-v-

~NITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, ~nd H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR pF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,

Defendants.

r----------------------------------x

DECLARATION

79 Civ. 799 (U>'P)

Ji.YRON I;. WEINSTEIN, declares under penalty of

perjury that the follov1ing is true and correct:

1. I am Deputy Director of the United States

Secret Service and have held this office since November 1,

L978. As Deputy Director, I am responsible for the pro-

l::essing of Freedom of Information Act appeals for the United

States Secret Service. I ani £"a.miliar with pla.i.n tiff's

atest request under the Privacy Act, having supervised the

processing thereof. This most recent request is one of

twelve Freedom of Information Act requests received by

he Secret Service from plaintiff within the past three I -~----~~~--~~~=-~~~~~~~~~~~~~--=c==~-~--~~,w=·~~~--~-~·~·~=~-·~~ I• =-ears.*

The Secret Service has complied to the fullest extent Nith the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act as to ach of plaintiff's twelve requests. With the exception of ~lain tiff' s first re_g.':!,.<i.st .. (received M;r~ .... 2.Q.,_:t.9),.1.t,:a,;,d:Y,~'--equest wnicn is the"_s.ub.J.ec.t .. oCthis .~ction, both of which

~dn~h~--d'o~~illents about plaintiff person~l~~he subject natter sought has_been for material generally involving the ~nvestigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination. ·A p.umber of requests were for documents which this agency no

I

anger maintained at the time of the-rVq'ties_J, o.r=c.o:t\1].::;:~:--- ;e-:LeienEi":f'L'e'O as Secret Service records; a number of documents

1-ougl'it: vlere documents of another agency cfr contained material J ~f another agency and, therefore, were forwarded to those ~gencies for processing and release. A schedule of plaintiff' reedom of Information Act requests and the Secret Service's espouses is attached as Exhibit A.

If. :

I I .}

I

-!

i I I

l '

i,

.. ,

.

,, I

NF:ss 04-6778

. i~·.····:· _;.

·~/!. •. ·-·-

2. By.letter to the Secret Service, dated

December 23, 1978, plain.tiff made a Freedom of Information

Act and Privacy Act request for any documents pertaining to

himself (the "December Request") : A copy of· this letter is

attached as Exhibit B.

3. The Secret Service is exemp~ from the pro~

visions of the Privacs. /l,ct und.er 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(3), since

the Secret Service provides protective services to the

President of the United States and other designated persons.

4. ·By letter dated January 4, 1979, William J_

Bacherman, Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge, Freedom

of Information and Privacy Acts Office, responded to plain-

tiff's December Request and construed it as a Freedom of In-

formation Act ("FOIA") request. Portions of the requested

material were disclosed to plaintiff and other portions were

!withheld· pursuant to two ·FOIA exemptions: that the withheld

documents contained investigative information compiled for

law enforcement purposes and that the deletions in the dis-

11.---------closed documents pertained solely to the internal rules and

p~actices of the agency. A copy of the January 4, 1979 lette

'---------------------is attached as Exhibit C.

5. By letter to the Secret Service, dated

January 12, 1979 and received on January 16, .1979, plaintiff

appealed the January 14 decision of William Bacherman, statin,

that his request was also under the Privacy Act and that he

sought all documents about himself (the "Appeal Letter"). A

copy of the January 12, 1979 Appeal Letter is attached as

Exhibit D.

I

.....

''

-:_ij.-_._1

.-,

'•

. '

I ~- r--· /. • _____ : ____ \

NF:ss 04-6778

6. By certified mail, receipt no, 98932l~~~t~- .· -I

marked-• January 23, 1979-., plaintif-f sent to the Deputy Direc- I

tor of the Secret Service another copy of his January 12,

1979 Appeal Letter. Copies of the envelope and the Appeal

Letter received in this manner are attached hereto as Ex-

hibit E. This letter was received by the Secret Service

personnel handling appeals on January 30, 1979.

7. By letter dated January 18, 1979, sent to

the Secret Service by certified mail, receipt no. 989322,

postmarked January 23, 1979; plaintiff again requested under

1

the Privacy Act "any and all documents" pertaining to him (th

(the "January 18 Letter"). By the January 18 Letter, plainti f

simply repeated the December Request and his Appeal Letter.

Copies of the January 18 Letter and envelope postmarked

January 23, 1979 are attached as Exhibit F. The January 18

Letter was construed by the Secret Service as a further com-

munication by plaintiff regarding his appeal and <vas forv;arde

to the appeals section for inclusion in the file and pro-

ceedings concerning the December Request.

8. By letter dated February 13, 1979, I responded

to plaintiff's Appeal Letter dated January 12, 1979 and the

January 18 Letter by releasing additional reguested materials. ---·~

Thus the Secret Service ~ltimately disclosed eleven p~g~eas~-­

(with some deletions) out-of a toLt..aJ-o,:f~,.J,7-p_ag;_e.s-o.P..m-a.t>e,J;.:i,al-.,_

that were encompassed l?.:z pl<ti.nt:,:L,f,f_'_s_~reques t. In the February\

13 letter, I further advised plaintiff that the system of

records from which inf,:,rmation was being requested through

the Privacy Act is exempt under Section 552a(k)(3) of the

Privacy Act and that to afford him maximum access to the info~­

mation he sought, his request was being processed under the

Freedom of Information Act. A copy of the February 13, 1979

letter is attached ~s Exhibit G.

I -I

I

-j

l . l

l j

---i .-;,.

~

. '

I -I

NF:ss ()4- 6778

I .1 ./·. -···.···· .._ .. ).- -···- ··- - '""···"-·--- 4··· --..;-

9. I am advised by counsel that the instant.

action was filed in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York on February 9, 1979: lam

further advised that copies of the summons and complaint

were served on the United States Attorney's Office fo:r the

Southern District of New York on February ;10, 1979.

10. Plaintiff's complaint refers only to a letter

I

"dated" January 23, 1979, and sent certified mail under recei t

no. 989322. The letter received by the Secret Service under

this certified mail receipt number was the January 18 Letter

which -;.;ras postmarked January 23, 1979. Because plaintiff's

December Letter and January 18 Letter requested the same

material, the complaint herein is being construed as <'· chal-

lenge to the Secret Service's determinations dated January 4

and February 13, 1979.

ll. Under my supervision2 an index was compiled . _ .. -- - = :O:Q:a:Q44 == =-=- :c&-~~~~=~,., . .,_, .

of the requested material. The index sets forth a de-

scription of each of the ·seventeen pages which Here VJi thheld, ~=-~=-=-~~.

in part or in total, from plaintiff; identifies the type of 11-...-,.;. _________ ..,;=--------~ :::::= == ===:._..,.'--~--

material deleted from those documents released to plaintiff;

and identifies the .,::;:,;~~7,:;-n (~)-~2{';[_;.';~!" t~- sup;;;;"t'"';;-;_·ch··--· "·

deleti_ons. A copy of this index is attached as Exhibit H.

12. By his December 23 Request and January 18,

Letter, plaintiff sought "any and all documents on [himself]",

specifically mentioning a "tomatoe incident", for which he

was arrested by the Nel-l York. Police Department, and the

revocation of his pistol permit. Construing this request as

an FOIA request, a records search <vas made and it Has deter-

mined that the Secret Service does not maintain a p)JY.s.:i,;:;.as,_,..,1,._

_, . !

.·-_··_.··_J·.

··' - --~

L

,;

..... ~

-

I F: ss ra4-6778

/ /" • ; z •

twelve-page computer print-out concerning an incident on

lormer President Nixon's visit that day toNe'" York City; a . ·------ ----- .. ---

one-page UPI Hire service report; and two Secret Service II ---====-=~--~-=======~-~··=-·-=---==~-11- UW:SJ-- ~-~>J%:0:: ;ou;_ &::0: ------==- ·=---------·-_ _... documents, a one-page "Duty Desk Incident Report" ("Report")

- . . . . .,.._

( "Hemorandum") . 11:::---------~~-~=·=-==·=--·=·=·=-~=--=-~--=---~-~----- --- --incident involving plaintiff. As explained beloH and to l-:-..__...:-""'-~~==-=====c:·~~~~-=-•-•c-o~oo'~'-~--,.oc_~-.­plaintiff in the Secret Service's letters to him, all non-

----~··e"':::::-=>."·-~:.--:-6-.-:·-~_;_c":'~-~.._"<"~ ... ::-cc:z:--:-~- __ ;_:.-::-.,··.· ,·_-:-;:·:.·~--'"'='~:~=-:""-"~--:-::.-·.·.:.·-->:·•·<.::. .•. ~:-~·-··.-,-_~~-'~---- .. ·:.--

disCTOSed material ~~~P- o_g_records '"as withheld on the • -~--- ~ ..... ~"=::::"~.:..~."')'--~"":r.--.. ~---.-~--

grounds that it was exemp_t from disclosure by one or more ._);,- __ ._ --··

provisions of the FOIA.

13. As indicated on the chart attached as Exhibit

H, portions of the requested material Here withheld on the

basis of the exemption from the disclosure requirement in

FOIA in section 552(b)(2) ("(b)(2) exemption"), Hhich- pertains

to information relating solely to the internal rules and prac-

Secret Service H-en;()·;:::,;,-ndum and Report bear administrative file

numbers, identifier numbers, and other markings used for the

purpose of storing, locating, retrieving, identifying or clas-

_,

sifying information in ou~ Intelligenc~ivi~ion_' ~ •• phy~~cal =1 files and electronic data system. These administrative nota- I

,.. I•· __ ,.1 !liHtW...,"""*""""':st"'Am==a·"'~=--=·-"-~''='-=-·--"'--"'-="·"-=-=-~-_,-- ..... __ ~ I

tions relate solely to Secret Service internal procedures for

maintaining information. They have no other significance.

Disclosure of these markings would not benefit plaintiff or

the public, but would permit them to interfere with the .

maintenance and integrity of our computer records and elec-

tronic process of recQrdkeeping. The (b)(2) exemption

justification was cited in Documents -11- 2, 3 (pgs. l, 2 & 3),

and 4 (pgs. l through12)

... ·

.·.,." ····\ r .

' 1

' i 1 I

I >I . I

l I

J ~ •

)

I I

NF: ss 04-6778

• • --~--~-·· -·----~-- ----~--~--~·-------~- ·-.------·-----.

--~.

14, Other portiona of the requested material were

withheld on the basis of the exemption in section 552(b)(7)(C)

of the.FOIA ("(b)(7)(C) exemption"),·which covers disclosure

of information in investigative records compiled for law

enforcement purposes that would constitute an unwarranted -11~======~~=============·====~~--=--=-=---==~==~

invasion of personal privacy. The (b)(7)(C) exemption was 11--=====~======~~.Q asserted by deleting from the material names or identifying

data (i) that referred to another subject of investigation '

(i.e., third party subjects) or (ii) that disclosed the iden-

tity of Secret Service agents, other federal law enforcement

agents or local police officers.

(i) .In determining whether to release the identity

of third party subjects, the public's right to know must be·

!balanced with the individual's right to personal privacy.

This balancing standard is indicated by various pertinent

statutory provisions. The Pd.vacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a

prohibits the release of personal information about any

individual to another party without prior written consent

of that individual. However, there is an exception~o-this .-., =or =~ .... -.

2rohibition in the Priv~cy Act; documents may be turned .,. - = = .::aa;:u=oc GUJ :;.:a:~~ ___ ....,,~ .. -.,...":1""""-···"'· .. ''--""'"'",.-u·•---.>'":1--...,.,-, .. ..,.._,. .. ,., ... .,..,..,, ·c'-·-"~· ··- .

over to another party when disclosure is "required" by . -- ---------

the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2). Nevertheless, disclosure ~~~~~~~~~~=

is not ~~regyj,_>;~der the FOIA, and therefore, not per-

mit ted under the Privacy Act, <vhen release of the records

would be an "unHarranted invasion of [another person'. s]

personal privacy." There can be no clearer example of an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy than the disclosure

to plaintiff of the fact that another individual is the sub-ne_es .. =-===·

ject of Secret Service records, since that fact might raise

an inference that the third party s:i,j ect -~s i;;;-;;Iv;;;-cii.nt1ie

Release of

I -I

'

i

I

I

l -· I

'l .,

I I

' I

'•

/

NF:ss 04-6778

'}~: __ ,:::')" .•. · .... ·. ,._ ,.~ J J .. · . .'/ .

f. . . -~

·. ; ·,_f/ • • • • .. ,_,._~ ~-- .. -·-----.:.....:: ..

is the bas· is for certain of the (b) ( 7) (C) exemptions claimed

in Documents lf 2, 3 (pg. 3), and 4 (pgs. 5, 6, ll & 12).

----(ii) The names of Secret Service agents, other _ _....... uw "" = ............ ---. . ..._ _____ ..... _,..,...,.,,_,......"''''··-,.

f~deral law~en.Lo:t?ee·nrent:='a"g·errt.•s=and ___ l&(:;.~~P/?~~~:i,£.L.<;L~Ra:s,.t;lp<;I1..~ ...

~±,'fi~e;:..:~.';~';,"; •. J?,\".en~~>iEQe-ted ....... ;[_~is essential that these names

remain an?nymous due to their involvement Ln investigating,

prosecuting and monitoring criminal and protective intelli-

gence cases. There can be little public benefit in having

the identities of these persons made known to plaintiff.

Although they are employed by a public agency, their in-

dividual duties and assignments are not public, Considerable

damage could result to the public, and the activities of the

agents and of·ficers could be hampered in that their work

performance could be impeded through possible harrassment or

countersurveillance. Release of these names might jeopardize

their effectiveness on current investigative assignments

especially if the person is involved in any undercover

assignments. In addition, there is also a legitimate privacy

consideration to protect agents and police officers from

unnecessary unofficial intrusion into their private lives by

members of the public. The performance of la'" enforcement

duties entails serious intrusions into the lives of people, - -- _______ .c=- ·- . . --- ·-·--- -·-·-- . ....:=-:~:.-~-:::--~:--.:--:-.--.--.---.- .

and many people hold grudges against the law enforcement

personnel involved in __ a_ p~.fula~,irYyl!s_t_:($ation. Release . _ of their names could possiblY.}.,E,e);_iiJ2.,~~~P.:i-)]Q.;o>ity t .. ?.Jo!_a2;~ ~~This justification is ithe .]?.§~:\,_s..,...£",9~:t;.."'.e..:r.;,t,a;Lg_9_!_the

==» :::-==. =·-=== :;::: ·- ,_ .. :<::: .

(b) (7) (C) exemptions as claimed as to Docum"'"l]J;.s=if 2, 3

(pgs. l & 3), and 4 (pg. ll).

...... --

r--·-

'

\ I

-!

l '

i I

i ~ I

I . l

NF:ss 04-6778

• 15. Finally, other portions of the requested

material were wi thileld on the basis of the exemp'tion in

section 552(b)(7)(E) ("(b")7)(E) exemption"), which covers

investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes ':"--:~-.... -----,~~~,..,---":"':'"'=""'"~"':=--~-':'"'"· .,~~--=--~..-..........,-... the disclosure of vlhich would reveal investigative techniques

...,.........- 0 '*'"::« •• -" :::::;._; = JC,,: ,~1 -.C.L.•-··••• (,.:t. ,_.~<~-...~-·: -::"":""'::""--;--~""1"··--:.-·!"•-=.--..,-·":.·:··-·.~.-. · ---·.

and procedures not commonly known to the public. The deleted ~J-· t-= --~...::.~---·· -- ·· - __ ,. _______ .,,.,.~..:;:-~-::'~-'=-~:--_,...,-;---- ~.-.aa .. ; ... s.;;tlt •. :;; ... _sr=M > ,,...,,.

information involves material pertaining to actual operational --------=-=·"""-===,.·=-~~--==--=-=~l-'' ......... :l~:o------ --=r~~

details of a special investigative technique and ·procedure. ~·tle­

ferences to routine. investigative techniques and procedures _, ·= --·- -· --,_~-=.::--:-'"'-"::::-·:.:;~~;.. .. ~-::;;>::-.::.;.-. =..:::;:-;.•:::.·~~-":.7.,-."'--·:-o-..· =;,-o·.7"- .,:,cc· . • ... . ·--,-:·.;···· ·-.-. ·: ..•.• , __ •

such as the existence of an undercover surveillance, were n ~ ~-~~~--x~~~~~·-.~-.~===a======xo-=c:~~=:~~====~za~~Rd~

deleted. Disclosure of this deleted material would impede

the usefulness and effectiveness of the operations of the

Secret Service. The nature of this investigatory technique C::::~;.. __ ..,.. ______ ~., .. ~~~G--0_.....,..:-.rt~f-~,.,....~.,.,..~":"t;..~~··~~=·,.,,;>r:"_ ... .tl'~"''"':~::;<.l,L~j':'::".,,•_,.,--.,~,

is such that it is not possible to explain it in a specific -11-----~-~-~~-~-=·---=·~==~-~~-..,C:..~~..:C~.Z:.....'-L~-~~-O."",~-:.!' •-• ,_• • "'·•c '

fashion without revealing its substance-:-· All·' 'th ... aYinay·"b·e-~ c •= .zu.-~. ·-·-- ~~-- .. ___ : ___ - .

said is that it is vital in the Secret Service's protective

intelligence investigations and in performing our physical

protective responsibilities, including assisting in the

evaluations as to the seriousness of potential threats to the

safety of persons being protected by the Secret Service. :Jo:a:,c .. ea:r.t •. _c::ti' 1-- .e:::s ..• - ---L-- Jl .• - •. ··· -·· --~-- .. , --·--·~~---~---::-..--.:----,-- __ _

Moreover, disclosure of the deleted information would affect 11-~--~"""""~-_.,..,....,.~ . ..,..,...=-=·· ~~~-·~--~ . .,.............-~-.---. -· . --the Secret Service's ability to obtain information pertinent

to these investigations in the future. It also could prevent ..-• == = ..... "'":;,:.;··,;;,...--====·----.:.-

the Secret Service from identifying individuals of interest

to it. ,.... ..

viduals advance warning of evaluation criteria, thereby pos

sibl,y influencing their future courses of action or statement

giv~n to investigating personnel. Finally, disclosure of -~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~ I.

this withheld informat,ion would reveal certain procedures and·

operational details of actual physical protective functions ~·-·--·-· _____ ._-.-.............. _.,. __ ,...,~-~~-~-,.,...,..~ ... -.,. ... ..,..,~-""""=-> ·-

.. -·

,'

' I

" .. ·.'

I I

"I

-. ·-.. ~.-. 1

-I

NF:ss 4/27/79

1.

were withheld entirely. None of the material withheld

under this exemption pertains to plaintiff direc_!lO:: .. _~ut

rather involves techniques and procedures unique· to the

"Secr*e"ta'Service' s protective duties. Disclosure of thi;·--

information utiliz~d by the Secret Service would reveal

those areas which the agency deems of highest importance

to it in its attempt to accomplish the mission of pro-

tecting the President and other persons for whom protection

is authorized by law. This justification is the basis for

certain of the (b)(7)(E) exemptions claimed as to Documents

# l, 3 (pgs. l-3), and 4 (pgs. 2, 3, 9 & 10). - tJ_..., --· ---~ ~tc .. _ .1: ---·.-

16. Based upon the foregoing, the defendants

respectfully request that summary judgment be granted dis-

missing the complaint since there are no questions of

material fact and the applicable laws have been fully

complied with . .,_. u:z. m-.;:::::n:;;; Clia:Ji

MYR~ I. WEINSTEIN

Executed this

day of 1979

•• •

; •

EXHIBIT A

. ,; . .....

.

• { .,.;,. ~ .,_ ., .. • "'::,:=:-~ •·.

'.•

"

DATE OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

. 1. (Received) 5/20/76

.. . 2. (From CIA forwarding 2 5 Secret

Service documents regarding plaintiff's request of CIA) 3/2:</77

3. 5/2/77

4. 5/12/77

5. 6/29/77

8/12/77

.8/24/77

6. 8/10/77

9/5/77 (Received) 9/13/77

-----·- --- ,.

SUBJECT OF REQUEST

Any files concer~ing plaintiff .

Specific 1\larren Commission documents.

List of documents re: JFK assassination.

'··

Declassify a document re: JFK assassination.

Destruction order re: above request .

Appea·l from 7/19/77 response.

Appeal fro~ 8/16/77 response .

99 named documents re: JFK assassination.

Appeal from 8/22/77 resp_onse, Appeal from 8/22/77 response.

DATE OF SECRET SERVICE RESPONSE SECRET SERVICE ACTION TAKEN

5/27/76

4/6/77 4/15/77

5/20/77 6/9/77

5/20/77

7/19/77

8/16/77

9/23/77

8/22/77

10/26/77

····:

Documents (with deletions) forwarded to plaintiff .

Extension of time invoked . All 25 referred documents (in total) were released to plain tiff.

Extension of time invoked. Plaintiff told Secret Service documents were fonvarded to him on 4/15/77; Third agency documents were referred to originating agencies for review and response to plaintiff.

Pliintiff advised that document does not exist in Secret Service records.

Administrative document illustrating negative search result forwarded to•plaintiff.

Secret Service retention schedule forwarded (with deletions) .

Upheld 8/16/77 response.

Documents (with deletions) forwarded to plaintiff; Third agency documents referred to originati'ng agencies for review and response to plaintiff.

Documents (with deletions) forwarded to plaintiff; upheld exemp_tions claimed.

--------.

DATE OF~PLAENTIFF'S REQUEST

7. 1/18/78

r. 8. (Rec,"ived) 4/7/78

(Treasury Deparment Hemo forwarding plaintiff's 4/7/iB request which was also sent to Treasury) 5/16/78

9. 4/8/78

\. 5/2/78

10. (Received) 6/1/78

11. 9/5/78

SUBJECT OF REQUEST

Documents concerning Marita Lorenz.

~FBI list of documents re: JFK assassination.

Same as above.

Documents pertaining to JKF~'~s visit to Chicago on 11/1/63.

Appeal from 4/21/78 response.

Documents concerning Marita Lorenz.

L.:-~~--

DATE OF SECRET SERVICE RESPONSE~

1/24/78

4/21/78

5/19/78

4/21/78

5/23/78~

6/14/78

Newsfilm re: ~ JFK Assassinatiori. . 9/19/78

-· ----~·-r-

SECRET SERVICE ACTION TAKEN

Plaintiff advised that documents do not exist in Secret Service records.

Plaintiff advised that Secret Service processed requested documents which were returned to and available through FBI.

Same as above.~

1'"-,

~ i

Documents (with deletions\ '! forwarded to plaintiff. ~

" }'\ Documents (with~ deletions) ..•... · ( forwarded to plaintiff; l•

upheld exemptions claimed ..

Same response as 1/24/78.·

Plaintiff advised to contact originator for approval.

···.v

..

EXHIBIT B

' ~: ' .; .·.- ....

I '1 (

'

I I ,. - I -!

' . -- '

. iii.. ' . r. _.~ .. INDEPENDENT RESEARC-. ,...,.... - . .

6 BLEECKER STREET. NEW YORK CITY 10012. I . H As.::') 0 cIA T E s . . PHONE. AJ WEBERMAN (212) 477-6243 .

fo( /fA 5t:C U5.5"5' VJASH1 De

DEC 2 3 197R

: 1 1/flOtK f!ioUtJ(ot1S for /fit fUl:. )lf;r//J ft;tl'{

I !lt0? /f'rU_-' p D{__U l1 &J(J 0 ;J

J A {iff! 5 r/LM tJtf. t?f:(! fl !l ;/ tJo tJ ;;_ c n 11 y 1 r 1-f

Z- 1-IU1 tflf£JA'C~Y :J-YrX:llrt-tO ;jl 1)0CUJ1./;;{P(S .

· ff:/L1 ft ( tJ!;) (r 1:1 [H/r_ Su -C/1-CcJ~ jJ 1 r to 1'1 f! 7t~ t::_

/tlC{f){:;;J[ 1r o;J qjJ(/~ Atlv 11Cf 5·urJJtQuKiJr /t(l (\_ t s 1_ (}; y 1l-{ (c__ tJ'{ f 0 ' A tJ'-1. D 6 c u M (v(/J{ {

D~f;{.~Uu lr. f./J( [(r-~J u&;lf\-r_corJ v,;;_ 1/1- L[ (lu'!:aL-

..

1

p {/(L\f"i.l'L ~?;, 1' tJi [) 0. · I/ ·-- fi.M 1.1 (...-- -c,o [;JCU(L ALL co<;-r_sS£/'rf:O(-J I / . :1 ·· . vv l(j _ _.( iN

1 DJfLACf\((or-J·

. . , \)k:cc~/'/)'/ ·;~ ' ~flU ti'--. ~ //~ ~ .. ---:;/7 _.. / ~

: · \lil;0'r1~~~:p~5f-~ 'lori<,_c?f(7~· / /(

Q"'': ,lin l" ·:·~. c:~m:J r.!,;:. I .. I ::1 :-: .•. , '1:,;\ {'-;\:01'/

r · ··. :·'1 • l, l':H9 ..... ~ . . . "

. j --

I • ' J

A

' 1

..

.;;·· .

• SWBJECT FILE U.S. SECRET SERVICE

800.7 I78-05124 ·

;, ... ·.:.:.;.:.:.

:--!~

··.:;\:

··'·

• ' . J. ·:. ~-. -"·: ·.~ ...... : '{t'''?·'

·~- . :.~.:~:~. :~::;:~.;;:·:~~t.!.~f.~(-~I~~;:~~·~;;]~t

Reference is made to your letter pursuant to the Freedom of Informa-1 A ~ .. t .on ct.. , . . ...... · ... ·.• .... , , ... , ......... __ ,,, .. ,--·.

~ ' • ·'. ;·~_..:-;::-.,.,< ~·

Enclosed are cb'p1es of Secret Servl ce documents whfch pertain' to you.;,_"~'''->'·' . Some documents have been withheld from disc"losure and others have had ·· · · :·;. information deleted from them because they contain investigatory'- .:-:,"~='~:;•::·!:,_,,· informatf::>r. compiled for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to THh:

;.·. 5, United States Code, Section 552(b)(7)(C), (E) and (F). they have :h•:··.Y been exempted since disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion ..... ·. . of personal privacy to other persons mentioned in the requested fi1e; -~~~;:.,:c"·>J),:disclose inv<:stigative techniques and procedures and endanger the life. ;>-.;: ;: .. ···or physical aafety of law enforcement personnel. Some deletions have J

.Ji·,;, ',~·L?'': .. .'been made in accordance with Title 5, United States Code, Section ·.·; · .. ~ .-:. · p:·::.~:.: . .. 552(b)(2) as information thatpertains solely to the internal rules · · ·· ,., .. ;,~.1-;:;.c~'; · .· and practices of the agency. The citations of the above exemptions··.'-"'":'',;o;'.l.''':i'···:

).<yo-·". ·•e. are not· to be construed as the only exemptions which .may_be. available · ·.·, ·.' .. •, :.1' ; under the Freedom of Information Act. · · · ' · · ...

:;. ·-~ ·:: :.·-'

:·i;}"' If you disagree with our determination, you have the right of admini-;1.:··'·~- strative appeal vlithin 35 days by vlriting to Freedom of Information :i.~ Appeal, Deputy Director, U.S. Secret Service, 1800 G Street, N.W., ·-;,· Room 944, Washington, D. C. 20223.

•·

.. ~ ~~

':1."''''1. ·•.!""t. ' .;.:.:;:._.:.:(;/:);;...- · .... ~··· :.:

Sincerely, ·

~y/Jl:B~~ Hn Ua~ J. Bacherman ATSAIC Fraedom of Information & Privacy Acts Officer

-

.· .-... _.;

~ -~ ., _ ... •)- -

:;. .

,;,

. . :~ :-~ .. -- -- -~~

... · .. ' . ·~. ,._ .

··. :;

~;,.Y

'·-~·.:;;.' .,.

.,

·. ,·_.

'··::<··

j •.. I

' . i

I . i

' i . '

I '

' ·i

.~ ~ - . . - .. . -- ~~. . ... -- -- -~ -~ r:e . INDEPENDEI\!T RESEARCH ASSOC

6 BLEECKER STREET. NEW YORK CITY 10012. PHONE· ' . . I AT E.S

f.o f (fA )f:C­

U5~5 WIAJ!ft De_

· AJ WEBERMAN (212) 477·6243

f. T /;J/J!{ Cr:J ltrfilrL 1)6-(tj(HtwvAJ{{otr-1 o~ US5...f

(I£ Jt 4-+o L. fv t jr fi 1\ t r;z l:d M 55 to r,; aiL

. r?ll--rto 1-J!tt07! 2.A.~Y · ,1f:Ji(vi-S!'_ vAs · f_ot /fA ---- ;VcJ7 Jl/!o!

fol/4. /3. I (Zf_lS( '-{{:;;) 1:1{0 A ~L- DtLUY! rfr/TJ )/U7 JVS(

jotrl.iA.f'()C (;JC.JtJtf:;v( or.Jr.£S. {IJC f/l.(fcc/-..---5.

c...-:r (Zrf:.C,} r/lj160 Curl'C V"yL 1--HN jf.:!-'7 (0 ;J'/f[) ((t ((t.Uoc AC(or-J o~ r-'1 fltxra c f/i£(Z.Vf.t(

?:. r-r ~(iolll.() Bt ~Tt.-0 /nrir u;JU~t: f1}( (?(1../3).){UJ,

~f:0l_uVs1J -r tflib,VO L• ff(IS<Ii 711rr; orJif-(rJ . f'(O{~NL-- (dJ (li. yv 5"Mi l/-5. ·tt'!'ft?!IYVf f'[(OL.{;Jj f.,:f{:rJ5 t fL.5& 5 t/0 i)OC.S I (i{QV!

[(frPJ~fl .

/tt;ti1~

--.

.•

• ~' ..;· ... r·-:

.L

. , --~ ~ . ·. ·' ..

I i

_INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AS . 6 BLEECKER STREET . NEW YORK en 10012 S 0 CIA T E S

• . . 1 • PHONE: AJ WEBERMAN (212) 477-6243

fo ( (f!t )f;c_

U5f5 Wflif~ De

• ' r , .

1J~Jl 1 ,:, : . ·

:1 { T /;Jif!{ co ltf(fi+L 1)61t!(H(wtl'({tav-J u~ US5_f

c- (/_ {_ df 4-4--o 2. fo l /r f4, fJ; Q f:yf(Lt_SJ f;;J / rJ L7 /(_

., i

. .

-' .

I l '

.: I

: (

. r7!1--rto 1-Yt1rl7j .

. 13. I (Z£ Q '-4~) -(I{_ 0 A L- L- DeL(/,''( (:: r/fJ )JU7 7VS(

(ov-'1Af0t (;VC(r)rf::;v( orJLS . 1rJC ffl-l({c.f'5.

c..· I (!{;Cy vi:j 160 CcJrl'C i/t/- 1--HM .)f:-r-7 (cJ -;J'/ ( D . · ((t. (?I(;Uoc A({o~ u{-- · ;vt-'{ pa-ro c P6rZVJ~f{

?. T( 5ffoUL() Gt: (/JvTtf-0 [Hf77 utJUV:t t-t-Y (?(lf:.IAOJj

(1fc.Ju~;1S / Y rtJC(;;v'rJ L• ff(lJtfl_ 7<11f urJtC ;;J f(O(jlf!C (U.J (l-1. :[D 5'A'f~ \)5 Cfi'frJI/Yibr(J f{( Ou!JJ f.Yf'krJJ ( f'L5 ( 5 fv'O 1)0<'-S 7 (lfQV<J

[(61'/tl)

/f! /1 11.,·

• • u '

< ·.;~· .. ..... . :.~~ . I

1 . ,

.·.I

. ~- .... '

"' .( ;,. -.: :-•• : <l" : ~ ''• . , .. ;.1-~·-~.r ~· .....

I '·

j

. ' •, , __ .. '"' ...

I

j. ! ' ---!!..:'.l !.

·••···~r• .. ~·~~

• ··.r ... _.

I

. < I

J '

.. • . - .. L

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ASSO , 6 BLEECKER SlflEET. NEW YORK CITY 10012. PHONE· cIA T E s

... : _·.

fo f/fA UffJ

· AJ WEBERMAN (212)'477·6243

_: 1 Vltff1 r rJ [

j 1

''

. '

I 'I

/. [/JV!}(;j( f!(oJr5(JrJ 1 f-

p~)VACY ACT (t {:/'!/; b- t ;J ;J ;J}yV1 /.Lf,w.V :;1-7 L 0 o c 0 n t::: ;AJc s jtC{A-rJ -:TULt.J vJf:_(5£y(_rtArJ

D 6{] S· 2 &:, . <f s:

/

Po~ · fJYC:- ss if oC::/1- 3 G. ~ '831-+--

,. •0

-· i

:~~~~~~ ;:;;;..··'" "':;~~':'} ..:.:··" . ·L· ;;:l. :_;• ·'

•

c ----~

~ \.0 ~' \:') 'J\

~ 7- ~ ~· Q;_ """' "(%.

~ V\ ~ \"" -\ ~ V\

\'0 ::sc ~ l~·~ 0

~ \'

~ ~~

w

• '

~ ;:::::::,

~

~ ~

~ ·,

i 'V'-.,

~· ~ e::,

~

.. \ .··

\_ ·:··":'_:l,··.: ...... ·- -·--................. . 1'•-v:J:>C>;o,"');a''~"'~~·'-"'<'i~~ h:.....~~-~!!~.tr~~::::~.h.;:~+-~~ ;.•·: I . . , . .

I

~;,."' .. "·c~~.~··:'~;;;~::•~~.-."~'"., .. ,. .... ..,._._

!··- .- :·· ·,.:.,i :: .• ;~t~:-~!~~~~~:·-~ 1 • • •• -.. '•&;'-~~ .::;:-:,_,.y.;~,~~-

.. ~ . . ~ . . ,,.._ .... ·.·-·~~- .... , ......... --~~iL~~~.:.L ..

L,· •

! :. l '

. r· ::, : l .... ,. .. ~:. ! · •. :·

I

'

'•

.. ·~ ··,,; ·'.

•• '··.

'I

I •

-I

I

. '

.-· ..

.,

. '· •

,.

Hr. Alan Jules 1-leberli)m, c/o Independent Research·Associates 6 Bleecker Street

• U.S. SECRET SERVICE 800.6

iS FEB 1979

.. :. :; ... '~

,.

ih ·"v·New York, Net'>" York 10012

f. '

·•,i.!·•.

·t ••

Dear Mr •. Weber~n' . . ~

., Reference is made to your letters received January 16,

January 26 and January 30, 1979, appealing a decision of Hr. William Bacherman, Freedom of Information Officer, United States Sec~·et Service, denying you certain info=ation under the Freedom of Inforreation Act and requesting files under the Privacy Act. Treasury regulations regarding administra-

. ti ve appeals of ... initial denials by the UnL!:ed States Secret · Service vest the revie>v- authority in the Deputy Director of tho Secret Service (31 Code 0f Federal Regulations, Subtitle A, Part 1, Appendix D and 40 Federal Register 49089, dated October 21, 1975).

The r<words and correspondence pertinent to your appeal· have been revie,;ed. I have determined that the exemptions claimed by P~. Bacherman in his letter of January 4, 1979

..

were proper. The Secret Service records contain investigatory .information compiled for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, Subsection (b) . , . (7) (C) and (E), information is being \vithheld since disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invi'l.sion of personal privacy, · or disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

In addition, pursuant to Subsection (b) (2}, Secret Service 'information is being v1ithheld since it contains matters relating solely to internal awninistrative procedures.

I have also determined that cartain information in the files may be properly disclosed to you. 'l'he documents containing that information are enclosed with this letter.

•,

,~· ..... ~·~··

·'

: .

,, .

I • ~·-

~ '! ••

... ~- •'

.• I

• •. •

As to your letter regarding the disclosure of inform~­tion under the Privacy Act, the system of records, from which information is requested, is exempt from the Act pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a(K) (3). Therefore, to proviue you with the greatest access, your request both initially and on appeal has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act.

Any denial on appeal 1s subject to judicial review in the District Court in the district where the complainant

·resides, has a principal place of business, or in which the ~~ency records are situated, or in the District of Col Ul'J.bia.

For the purpose of appeals of initial denials under the Freedom of Information Act, the undersigned is the official mak1ng thi.s determination for the U!~ited States Secret Service. · ··

Encl.

cc: FOIA Office

llyron I. Weinstein Deputy Director

MD,:ROG:JEVezeris:db 2/13/79

..... . • ..

;

.-..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ALAN JULES WEBERMAN,

Plaintiff,

- against - 79 Civ. 779 (LWP)

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ..

. SUMMARY 'JUDGMENT . ... · .... .

· Pro' 'Se

ROBERT B. FISKE, JR. United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for Degendant

NANCY E. FRIEDMAN Assistant Unied States Attorney

- Of Counsel -

•

..

'

NF:bj E-171

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALAN JULES WEBERMAN,

Plaintiff,

-x

- against - 79 Civ. 779 (LWP)

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES SECRET SE_RVICE,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION I'OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Preliminary Statement

Pro Se

Defendants United States Secret Service ("Secret

Service") and its Director, H.S. Knight , submit this memo­

randum of law, the accompanying Rule 9(g) Statement and the

declaration of Myron I. Weinstein, Deputy Director of the

Secret Service (the "Weinstein Declaration"), dated May 3,

1979, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing - -the complaint which was filed pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA' 1), and the Privacy

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Exhibit H to the Weinstein Declaration

is submitted in response to plaintiff's motion under Vaughn

v~ Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D . C. Cir. 1973), for an indexing of

the requested documents which have been withheld or released

with deletions .

NF:bj E-171

i

As demonstrated in the accompanying Weinstein

Declaration, the Rule 9(g) Statement and the authorities

cited herein, there are no questions of material fact, the

defendants have complied fully with their responsibilities

under the law, and consequently summary judgment should be

granted dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff, in a document entitled "Answer to

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, "·A- correctly concedes in

paragraph 3 that the Secret Service is exempt from the

Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C . § 552a(k)(3) (exemption for records

"mail).tained in connection with providing protective services

to the President of the United States or other individuals

pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 3056].") Accordingly, plaintiff's

requests to the Secret Service for documents and his com­

plaint herein have been construed as seeking materials under

the FOIA only. Consequently, this motion addresses only

that statute.

* No such motion has been made by defendants. Plaintiff, ar£ se , apparently is confused by the defendants' affirmative

ense in their answer dated March 21, 1979.

-2-

NF:bj E-171

;

•

Statement of Facts

The facts giving rise to this action, the materials

requested, the disclosures made and the exemptions relied ' upon all are explained fully in the Weinstein Declaration,

and the Court is respectfully referred thereto. A brief

summary of these matters is set forth below for the Court's

convenience.

Plaintiff requested, by letter dated December

23, 1978 (the "December Request"), pursuant to the FOIA

(and Privacy Act), that the Secret Service disclose to him

"any and all documents on [himself]",

"especially ... documents pertaining - to the so-called 'tomatoe incident'

on 9/13/78 and [his] subsequent arrest by the NYPD. Any documents dealing with revocation of [his] pistol permit by NYPD . "

See Exhibit B to the Weinstein Declaration.

By letter dated January 4, 1979, the Secret

Service d.isclosed portions of the requested material and, as

to the withheld material, the agency cited several of the

FOIA exemptions covering· investigative material compiled for

law enforcement purposes and the ex~mption covering information

pertaining solely to· internal rules and practices of the

agency. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(2), (b)(7). See Exhibit C to the

Weinstein Declaration.

-3-

NF:bj E-171

•

By letter dated January 12, 1979, received by the

Secret Service Deputy Director by regular mail on January

16, 1979 and by certified mail on January 30, 1979 (receipt

no. 989321) (each referred to herein as the "Appeal Letter"),

plaintiff appealed this initial determination. See Exhibits

D and E to the Weinstein Declaration.

Plaintiff, also sent to the Secret Service by

certified mail (receipt no. 989322) another letter, this

one dated January 18, 1979 and postmarked January 23, 1979

("January 18 Letter"). See Exhibit F to the \-Jeinstein

Declaration. This letter, the only one on which plaintiff

appears to base his complaint, requested under the Privacy

Act the very same documents plaintiff had sought in his

December Request. Consequently, the Secret Service, upon

receipt of this January 18 Letter, treated it as part of plain­

tiff's pending appeal and forwarded it to the Deputy

Director's office for inclusion in the December Request pro-

ceeding. ·

By letter dated February 13, 1979, the Secret

Service responded to plaintiff's appeal by disclosing several

additional documents and again explaining to plaintiff the

exemptions relied upon as to the deleted or withheld material.

See Exhibit G to the Weinstein Declaration. Thus, of the

seventeen pages which were encompassed by plaintiff's December

Request and January 18 Letter, plaintiff received eleven

pages (with some deletions), as indicated in Exhibit H to the

Weinstein Declaration .

-4-

NF:bj E-171 Plaintiff never filed an administrative appeal re-

garding the lack of response to the January 18 Letter.

ARGUMENT

The defendants submit and will demonstrate below

that the Weinstein Declaration and the accompanying exhibits,

including an index of requested documents with explanations of

the reasons for deletions · 6r non-disclosure, ~atisfies its

burderi of proof under FOIA and that the exemptions claimed as --to the requested documents are fully justified. - POINT I

THF WEINSTEIN DECLARATION SATISFIES THE DEFENDANTS' BURDEN OF PROOF ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEETS THEIR BURDEN UNDER VAUGHN v. ROSEN

This is a case where the Secret Service has ucted

promptly and in total good faith. Not only were many of the

requested documents turned over to p.laintiff_ in the first

instance, but on administrative review, additional material

was disclosed.

The Weinstein Declaration and the index appended

thereto as Exhibit H demonstrate that there is no issue of

.material fact as to the withheld records and that the Secret

Service's claimed exemptions are valid.

-5-

NF:bj E-171 n a. FOIA suit, the burden is on the Government

to justify any withholding of requested agency records.

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The defendants have met their

burden of proof in this case by submitting an itemized index

of each page of the requested documents with an explanation

·----

of the exemptions relied upon as to any deletions or non­

disclosures. The items in the index then are cross-referenced

to the Weinstein Declaration. Mink v. Environmental Protection

Agency, 410 U.S. 73,_ 92-92 (1973.) ; Mead Data Central,._, Inc. v.

United States Department of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251

(D.C. Cir. 1977) . Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F . 2d 820, 826-27

(D.C. Cir. 1973); Shaver v. Bell, 433 F . Supp. 438 (N.D. Ga. 1977).

This index satisfies Vaughn since the Court there held that

the Government's index "would not have to contain fact:ual

descriptions that if made pub~ic would compromise the secret

nature of the information, but could ordinarily be composed

without excessive reference to the actual la.nguage of the

documents." Vaughn v. Rosen, supra, 484 F.2d at 826-27.

The Weinstein Declaration and the accompanying index

(Exhibit H) more than suffice to enable the Court to resolve ....

the legal issues presented. See, ~· Mead Data Central,

Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, supra, 566 F. 2d at

250-51.

-6-

NF:bj E-171 POINT II

THE SECRET SERVICE'S CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION UNDER 5 U.S.C . § 552(b)(2) ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED

Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) exempts from FOIA's

disclosure requirements information solely pertaining to .. the internal rules and practices of an agency . Pursuant to

this exemption the Secret Service deleted from the documents

released to plaintiff all .. the · internal administrative file

numbers, identifier numbers and other markings used for the

purpose of storing, locating, identifying or classifying

information in its Intelligence Division's physical files and

electronic data system. Weinstein Declaration, ~ 13. The

defendants submit that such markings are properly exempt

from disclosure.

The (b)(2) exemption permits the withholding of ·

routine "housekeeping" matters, as opposed to matters

subject to "a genuine and significant public interest." .._ Dep't of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 364, 369-70 (1976) ;

Vaughn v~ Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1975). With

respect to the documents in issue in this case, there can

be no public interest in the deleted non-substantive ad-

ministrative markings . Maroscia v . Levi, 569 F . 2d 1000,

1001-02 (7th Cir. 1977) .

-7-

NF:bj E-171

·-----Moreover, in . the seminal case of Department of the

Air Force v. Rose, the_ Supreme Court emphasized that dis­

closure should not be made where it would "risk circumvention

of agency regulation." 425 U.S. at 366-67, 369. Accord ..... r~aplan v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, slip.

No. 78-6097 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 1978), at 156-58.

Disclosure of the presently deleted administrative

markings would permit the public's interference with the Secret

Service's computer and electronic recordkeeping systems, which

are instrumental in its performance of its law enforcement

functions. Such disclosure clearly would "risk circumvention

of agency regulation'', and should not be granted. Capl·an,

supra.

The withholding of the administrative markings in

issue here has been specifically approved by several courts

with regard to Secret Service documents. ~. Boyce v.

Deputy Director, et al., slip. op., Civ. Action No. 78-84

(D.D.C. Oct. 25, 1978), a copy of which is attached for the

Court's convenience; Cattano v. United States Secret Service,

Civ. Action No. 78-1828 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 1978)(order).

Therefore, the Secret Service's deletions of material

meet the requirements of FOIA as to Documents # 2, 3, (p . 1,

2 & 3), and 4 (pages 1-12) to the extent that the Secret

Service relies upon the (b)(2) exemption.

-8-

NF:bj E-171 : POINT III

THE SECRET SERVICE'S CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION UNDER 5 U.S.C. §

. 5"52 (b) (7) ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED

A. The Withheld Materials .Are Investiga­tory Records Compiled For Law Enforce­

. iiient· Purp·os e·s·. ·

Section 552(b)(7) of the FOIA exempts from the act's

disclosure requirements:

"investigatory records compiled for law en­forcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such records would . . . {C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of per­sonal privacy, ... (E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforce­ment personnel."

It can hardly be disputed that the records of the

Secret Service are investigatory materials compiled for law

enforcement purposes. The primary duty of the Secret Service

is a law enforcement function to protect the President of the

United States and other authorized persons. To do so, records

are kept for investigations of individuals who are or may be a

threat to· persons being protected. See Tarnopol v. Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 442 F. Supp. 5, 7 (D.D.C . 1977) .

The issue confronting the Court is simply whether the

further requirements set forth in the subsections of (b)(7)

are met as to the deletions based upon these exemptions. The

Secret Service respectfully submits that these requirements

are met as described below and that no further disclosure is

required.

-9-

NF:bj E-171

B. The Secret Service's Deletion of the Names and Other Identifying Data on Investigative Subjects, Secret Service Agents And Other Law Enforcement Agents Was Proper Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F)

The Secret Service deleted the names and other

identifying information on third party subjects of investigation,

Secret Service agents and other law enforcement personnel.

These deletions are justified under the FOIA exemptions in

subsections 552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F), as discussed below.

As the quotation at page 9 above reveals, the

(b)(7)(C) exemption covers material disclosure of which would

be an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Analysis

of this exemption must be with reference to a similar provision

in section 5SZ(b) (6), which protects from release personnel,

medical and similar records whose disclosure "would constitute

a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." See

Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Irving, 548 F.2d 1131, 1136 n.7

(4th Cir. 1977) (emphasis added.)

In order to determine whether disclosure of the

personal material would constitute an "unwarranted" invasion of

personal privacy, the Court must consider and balance, on the

one hand, the public's (the requester's) interests in dis-

cl6sure as against the subject individual's privacy interests,

- _pn the other hand. Department of Air Force v. · Rose, 425 U.S .

352, 372 (1976). The (b) (7) (C) ex.emption extends this

balancing tes.t to the area of investigatory records. In

light of Congress' omission of the word "clearly" in the

-10-

NF:bj E-171

(b)(7)(C) language, as compared to the (b)(6) phrasing,

Congress indicated that the (b)(7)(C) exemption should be -

·----·

available to protect investigatory records more often than the

(b) (6) exemption. · Dee·ring· Milliken, · Inc. v. Irving, supra,

548 F. 2d at 1136 n. 7; Providen·ce· Jour'n'al Co. v. Federal

Bu:r-e·au ·of· Ihvest'iga·t ·i ·on, 460 F. Supp. 778, 786-87 (D.R. I.

1978).

Numerous courts have held that it is proper under

(b)(7)(C) to delete names and other identifying data of third

party subjects of investigation from materials released from

!-law enforcement investigatory records. ~. Maro·sica v. Le~. l · ·supra, 569 F. 2d at 1002; Boyce v. · Deputy Dire·ctor, slip. op., )

Civil Action No. 78-84 (D . D.C. Oct. 25, 1978); Tarn·opol v.

· Fe·deral Bureau· of· Investigation, supra, 442 F. Supp. at 7;

Shaver v. Bell, 433 F. Supp. 438, 440 (N.D. Ga. 1977). In

each of these cases the strong privacy interest of the named

third party subjects was found to outweigh any public interest

in their 'identity. In the cases at bar, the outcome of the

balancing test is even clearer in favor of non-disclosure

since plaintiff fails t~ cite any predominant public interest

in the documents regarding· his activities.~·~ Plaintiff's

curiosity cannot outweigh the subject individuals' interest

in avoiding publicity that might cause embarrassment. See

Weinstein Declaration, 1 14(i).

* It is reiterated that the Privacy Act does not apply in this case. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(3).

-11-

NF:bj E-171

The balancing ·test applies equally to the privacy

interest of . the Secret Service's agents and other law enforce­

ment officers whose names and other identifying data have been

deleted from the released material. See, ~, Tarnopol v.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, supra, 442 F. Supp. at 8, and

cases cited in the preceding paragraph. As explained in the

Weinstein Declaration, disclosure of these agents and other

law enforcement officers' names and personal information may ... -

lead to harassment or other interference with their privacy.

Rafter v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, slip. op., 77 Civ.

1131 (S.D.N.Y., Frankel, J. July 21, 1977), aff'd without

opini·on, Dkt. No. 77-6186 (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 1978) ,* a copy of

which is attached hereto. Moreover, thus far plaintiff

has demonstrated no public interest as a basis for his request

for such personal information. See Weinstein Declaration, , 14(ii).

Compare Columbia Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture,

417 F. Supp. 651, 655 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd, 563 F.2d 495

(1st Cir~ 1977).

It is noted in passing that additional support for

non-disclosure of the Secret Service agents or other law enforce­

me~t officers' names is found in section 552(b)(7)(F) since

such disclosure might endanger these persons' lives or

physical safety. ~, Maroscia v. Levi, supra, 569 F.2d at

1002; Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, supra, 460 F. Supp. at

792; Shaver v. Bell, supra, 433 F. Supp. at 441.

-12-

NF:bj E-171 · It thus is clear that the limited deletions from

the requested materials, pursuant to (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F),

as described in the Weinstein Declaration, ,~ 14(i), (ii),

are justified.

C. The Secret Service's Deletions From The Requested Material To Avoid Revealing Investigative Techniques Or Procedures Is Fully Justified Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E)

Exemption (b)(7).(E) protects from disclosure under

the FOIA "investigative techniques and procedures". Malloy v.

United States Department of Justice, 457 F. Supp. 543, 545

(D.D.C. 1978); Ott v. Levi ~ 419 F. Supp. 750, 752 (E.D. Mo. 1976).

In this case, the Secret Service has relied on this exemption

to withhold material that cont~ins discussions of investigative

techniques not generally known to the public and to withhold

detailed information about the Secret Service's actual

• operational details in this connection. See Weinstein

Declaration, , 15.

As recently as October 25, 1978, these very matters

were protected from disclosure by Judge Smith ~ he District

Court for the District of Columbia in Boyce v. Deputy

Director, supra, slip. op. at 4-5. Disclosure of these

operational details and unknown investigative techniques and

procedures, which continue in use, would permit the subjects

of Secret Service investigations to ta~e steps to circumvent -the agency's protection of the President and other persons. ·

Thus, releas~ of the contested matt.er would diminish the

Secret Service's effectiveness. This result is clearly

contrary to Congress' intent, . as evidenced not only by this

-13-

NF:bj E-171 exemption in the FOib, but also the specific exemption

covering the Secret Service in the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. §

552a(k)(3).

Consequently, the Secret Service submits that its

assertion of the ' (b)(7)(E) exemption has been adequately

justified and should be sustained as to the documents listed

in the Weins t ein Declaration, , 15.*

CONCLUSION

The defendants have met their burden of proof here-

in and there are no questions of material fact Plaintiff

is entitled to nb ··rurther 'dis-closure and, accordingly,

summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted

at this time.

Dated: New York, New York

May 4, 1979

NANCY E. FRIEDMAN

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT B. FI SKE, JR. United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for Defendant

Assistant United States Attorney

- Of Counsel -

* In the foregoing discussions, the January 18 Letter

J

has been construed as part of appeal on the December Request. Insofar as plaintiff may con.t.end ~.Qr his complaint may be con­strued to assert that the J anuary 18 Letter is a separate request for information, plaintiff's complaint nevertheless should be dismissed. Pl§l_intiff has never filed an appeal from the_Pecre~ Service's JTebruary 13, 1979 response to said letter. ~herefore, plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), (C).

_...:<,... , \ -

-/

JAMES ,, . BOYCE I

v

U!-11'!'1': ! 1 !:T1\1'ES OI STRICT COURT f'OR 'I'J!~: DIS'I'RJCT OF' COLUHBII\

Plaintiff Civil Act ion

No. 78 -84

DEPUTY DIRECTOR , et al., FILED /

Defendant~ OCT 2 5 1978

0 P I N I 0 N JA:-.l E:S F. DAVEY, Clerk

This is an ac tion filed pursuant to 5 U. S . C . § 55 .

seek inc; disr.losu r c of certa i 11 documr~nts under the Freedom

of l nform~tion Act . l'lair.til'f reques t ed 1 ) ind~x sheets

identifyinc:; "systems of r ecords" ma nua l numbe r s, 2) n ames o :

Spe cia l hg0nts wh o h~d participated in h is ar r est a nd inter-

r oga t i on in lJecembcr 1 97(, , J ) the nuz01c o f t h e a gent who

had t alked ~ith h i m i n the U . S . Marsha l' s office in Ba l timoJ

Maryland in March 1977, 4) t~c names of two specified super -

visors of inves tigative pcr :-:unncl a nd 5) a su:n.rna r y o r deletEc

copies of Lhc ~~ - Secret S t•:-v ice 1976- 77 invest i gative fil E"

on plainLiff. ;, n umbt~r of d ::Jc uments have been r e leased to

pla intiff in whole or with d~ letions. The defendant c ontend

that the documents and porUc•ns o f docume nts being 1• i thheld

are t?>:en.pt r :·om di !<closurc u nder the _Frei'"dom o f In for ma tion

Act, 5 U . S . C. §55::> r bJ ( 2) , ( 5 l , ( 7) (C) , ( 7) (D ) , ( 7) (E) and

(7)(F) . 'I'l!E:: matter is bcfn1· ,, the Cour t on defencilnt ' s

motion t •J cl i,; 'll.iss or in t.ll-:• ••l h: l· n.:~tive for sumr.t<~.ry judsmen t

file n•.!mher :-; , f o rt:: nur.: l ·<: ~ - -. \.J,•n lifil:!r num!::lc:rs , l.:~b numbers

and codes and other u d tll jnl st : .1 tlve :1otations. E>:~n•i"' cion two

- 2 -

of the Act is intended t o deli~cate between mutte rs of -genuine public i n terest <Jnd t!\~)se in which the public has 1

I no legitimate interest . §_ee, ~artment of the Ai r Force v . .1

~~ 425 U.S . 352, 36 9 (1976); Fondu v. Central Intelligence

Agency, 434 F . Supp . 498, 503 (D .D . C. 1977). Routine "house-

keeping" matters in wh i ch it i~ presumed the public has no

,substantial interest fall within exer.~ption two . ~. Vaughn

v. Rosen, 173 U.S. App . D.C. J87 , 194, 523 F. 2d 1 136, 1143

( 197 5) . " [F) il e numbers, initials und other administrative

markings related to . . . internal procedures . .. " are routine

~housekeeping matters and ar~ e>:empt under §522 (b) ( 2) of the

Act . Shaver v . Bell, 4 33 F . Supp . 438, 439 (N .D. Ga. 1977);

See , Ott \'-~ , 419 F . Supp . 750, 752 (E .D . t-!o. 1976) .

Defendant has also withheld , pursuant t o exemption

five, documents or portions thereof containing opinions and

evaluat i o n s of Secret Service agents concerning plaintiff ' s

character and inte~rity which were elicited during investi -

gations conducted for luw enfo rcement purposes . C:xem;:>tion

five was intendeJ to insure the free flow of ide~s e;sential

to r easoned deci s ion ma~in g within an agency. NLRB v . Sears,

Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 13~ (1975) . Therefore , under

exemption five there is a gene ral bar to probing the mental --....._ processes o f agenci es . ~_n_L_S:orp_ v. NLRB, 530 F . 2d 612

(5th Cir . 1 976). Becuusc o f thi s, an agency "may r efuse to

.- · produce any material that contains opinions, advice,

evaluations, delib0rations, po licy f o rmulations, proposals,

conclusions or re>comw: ncht ion s ." ~lorton -Norwich Pt·o_? ucts,

Inc . v . ~lathews, 415 F'. Su pp. 78,81 (D . D.C . 1976 ) . Such

material i s inte gru l t o an a nc ncy ' s deliberative processes

and is protected fro m publi c 5Ct' 1Jtiny . Acco rdingly, the

opinions aad e \:alua ti o n s o f S · . .. · :- t? t. Service a9ents n :> ;JJrding

plaintiff are exemr t fr o m d i ~clnsur~ .

' .

.I

II

l I I

- 3 -

Exemption seven ( c) excludes from disclosure:

"investigatory records complied for law enforcement p u rposes,

but only to the extent that tl'E production of such records

would .. . constit11te an unwarranted invasion of personal

privacv." 5 U.S.C. _ fii5.52Jbl (7) ICl. An "unwarranted "

invasion of personal privacy within exemption (b) (7) (C)

means "wlthout i.!Js tific::.tion or adequate reason . "

Philadelphia NC"-"Spapers, Inc. v. United States Department

of Justice, 405 F. Supp. 8 , 12 (E.D . Pa. 1975).

De fe ndant has withheld documents pursuant to this

exemption which include investigation reports ~ pardon and

parole reports, fingerprint reports, si~ned statements by

con fidential sources , repor ts of examiners of questioned

documents, letters between the Secret Service and Department

of Treasury,evidence inventory sheets , handwriting specimen

sheets , police reports a nd "-"arning and consent to speak

forms, among othe r s. In _acldi ti on , a number of the documents

withheld i n "''hole or i11 r;<H L contai n the names and signa­

t u res of Secret Service age nts , pol ice officers, Treasury

Departme nt personnel, FHI n~~n ts, a U.S . Attorney and

several Assistant U.S . ~tto~ney s involved in investigating

and prosecuting criminal and protect i ve intell ig e nce cases .

E:<"!mption (7) (C) •..;as intended not only t o protect

the confid0ntial inforr.1 .:mt himself, but also the information

provided and third p:lrtie5 who provide information to law

enforcement ag t::ncies. ?~<!_~er v. Bell, supra; Ott v Levi,

supra, !1allo•::_y . Uni_ted Stat_cs Department of Justice, C.A.

No . 77-440 (D.f'.C. 197 8) . Di s r. los ure of thi s ty?e of

information woul d en1blv the' rrcipieut to discover the

identities of these indl\'i<hn l~, thus constitu ting .:111

unwarranted invasion ot rriv 1cy . This ma larial in this case

was properl y wi t~held 11ndc:· ;:;:emption (7) (C).

·.

..

- 4 -

Similarly 5 U.S.C . S552(b) (7) (Dl exempts from

disclosure information that would "disclose the identi ty of

a c onfidential source and, in the case of a recor d compil ed

by a criminal law enforcement authority in the cou::se ,o f

a criminal investigation, or by an age ncy co nducting a

l awfu l national security in telligence investigation, c on fi -

d ential information fur n ished only by the conf idential

s ource. " Confidential sources include law enforcc~ent

agencies , as wel l as individuals . Church of Scientology of

California v. United States Department of Justice, 410 F.

Supp. 1297 (C.D . Ca l 1976). Requiring d isc l osure of confi-

den t ia1 sources of the Secret Service wou l d severe~•hamper

its work since much i nformat i on is gi•;en on

that both the in f o rmat i on and the sou r ce wi l l be kept in

s t rict confidence . Exemption (b) (7) (D) p r otects the

identity of the i n formant and the information r e ceived.

Shaver v. Bell, supra at 4 41 ; Committee o n Mason ic Home s of

the R.lv. Grand Lodoc !__!__& r, M of Pa . v. NLRB, 414 F. Supp.

426, 433 (E.D . Pa . 1976). ~ce, Forrester v . United States

Department 2 f Labor, ~~pra , at 989; ~och v. Department of

Justice, 3 7r. F. Supp. 313, 315 (D . D.C . 1 974 ) ; Nal10i~

Def0ndants hav~ deleted information pertaining to

actual oper~tional ~c· tails o f procedures that continue t o be

u tilize d by th e Se~re t Service as well as some invest i gati ve ..... _ ~ocedures that are uni~uc to counterfeit investiga tion s .

5 U.S.C . !;5 'i 2 (b ) (7) (E) r.xt•n:;Jts ma tte rs fror.1 law enforcement

. r

, I

- 5 -

investigation records that would "disclose investigative

techniques and procedures." In view of the fact that

release of this information would jeopardize future Secret

Service investigat ions, it is pr o perly withheld.

Shaver v . Bell , su~, at 441; SJtt v Levi, suora, at 752; ...

Accor~ i ngl y, d efendant 's Mot ion to Dismiss is

denied and tlefcndi.lnts ' ~lo ti on in t he Alteri'lative for Summary

Judgment i s granted .

October~ , 19 78

...

. ~·.::

i I

•' I

. , •

' ' .. I .... ••

.. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA F l LED

OCI 2 5 1978

JAMES. A. BOYCE, f . DAV'O.Y, Clerk JAMSS

Plaintiff Civil Action

v No. 78-84

DEPUTY DIRECTOR , et al . ,

Defendants

0 R D E R

Upon con sideration of def~ndants ' motion to

dismiss or for summary judgment, points and authorities in

support thereof, and the fact that plaintiff fa i led to

respond as required by Rule l - 9(d ) , Rules of United State s

District Court for thQ District of Columbia, it i s by the

Court this-2J>~ay of October 1978

ORDERED that defendants ' ~lo tion t o Dismiss is

d en i ed and defenda n ts ' Motion i n t he Alte r native for Summary

Judgment is granted.

I i

I

l f i I.

' r. ~

i

I

,

-

~ .

U~ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

,R.CJBERT v. RAFTER I .,....,.. .

--Plaintiff,

-against-

- - - - X

r · ·-

PRO SE ,

FEDER..?\L BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES

·-7-=J- Giv. 1-1-34 ( MEF)

·??C~ ·v 11J>/ DEPART~ENT OF JUSTICE

Defendant .

t·1Ei•JORANDUM AND

ORDER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - X

FRANKEL, D. J.

Plaintiff , an at tcrney procc ~·;,~ .~ :·_:;; pro se,

brought this actio~ to coDpel disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act of F . B . I r ecords pertaining to

him. It nO\v appears without material dispute that the thin

sheaf of records in question pertains to an F.B.I~ . I " -

investigation made in 1 967 at plaintiff ' s request of ~~ · -.

Connecticut sheriff and others who were alleged by ·this

plaintiff to have violated his federa l civil rights by -

attaching his Ford automobile and by other actions connected ' .

'-\vi th a dispute over the rent due under a surnmer l ease of

a house in Hartsdale , New York . (The same events were

evideni:ly the occasion for a .privat0 f ederal civil rights

v.c ·t ion by plaintiff dismissed by J uclge ;~ Clffl[l-:i no j n 19 6 7 .

The la·i: •.:-r. his tory of that action, if any , does not ai?:t')ear .)

7he F . B.I. has now deliver8d to plaintiff its file on him ,

~o~plete except in one particular to be not2d below . At least, it is

() .

,.

declared on oath by a responsibl e agent charged hith

· FOIA compliance that the file is complete, and there is

no c ontrary indication generat·ing a genuine issue of fact. ~ ~

The agent covers this subject in full a nd circumstantial

detail, describing the procedures for file searches

for this s ituation and swearing to carefu l fulfil l~en t

of these procedures. Plaintiff's conclusor y averment

that "there are other records" Gannet be thought to

t e nder a triable i ssue or to justify the series of depositions

he proposes.

The sing l e issue, legal rathe r than fact u a l,

a ri ses frc~tl1e undisputed fact that the F. B.I . has delete d

in about t~rac places the name of the agent conducting

the investigati on made at plaintif f 's behest. In this

state of affairs, p l aintiff has sought to depose 'four

F . B.I. people and t he City Bar Associ ation 's Counsel

"to determine the existence of. New York records and the

* extent thereof." Defendant has moved for sum:nary j udg;nen t

di smissing the c omplaint. The l atter motion,~ ll be granted .

1 . Th~ name or name s of the ·investigati ng

agent(s) have been withheld under the as3~rtad authority of

5 U.S.C. §552 (b) {7) (C), whic h protects against any "un\.-larranted

invasion of personal privacy" through disc l osure of

"investigat~ry records compiled for la\v enforcement

purposes . II It may be debatable whether the

*P l a i ritiff 's affidavit~ sworn May 25, 1 97 7 , p.2 .

-2-

"privacy" thus . safeguarded ~vas intende d, or primarily

. intended, to embrace that interest of law enforcement

personnel as distinguished from private persons . However,

the only cited precedents on the subject favor the

defendant, Day v. Federa l Bureau of Investigation, 76 Civ .

3209 (S . D.N.Y . 1977) (Knapp, J .);· Ott v. Levi , 419 F. _Supp .

750, 752 (D. Mo. E .D. 1976 ), and this court finds no

justification for considering departure from those precedents

in the circumstances of this c ase . Plaintiff suggests

no r eason of any kind why he· needs ·the names of investigating

agents . If there is room for debate , there is also ample

room for holding that F.B.I. age~ts too retain ~~ne claims

to personal privacy and security , at least against

c asual disclosures of the kind here sought without any

suggestion of purported purpose .

2. A second argument adv anced by the Government

both reinforces the first and supplies an independent

basis for dismissal . Plaintiff, as he was duly infoirned ,

had a right of administrative appeal to the Deputy Attorney

General. He has chosen to ignore that. right. This is the

clearest kind of case for requiring exhaustion of administrative

r emedies. If p l aintiff has some special need for the

name of any investigating agent , a need not disclosed

to the court , it would be the kind of submission appropriately

to be weighed by the agency's responsible l e adership in the

first instance . But this merely illustr~ttes the sound

principle defendant invokes . . The failure to exhau st

is a n independently sufficient ground for dismis s al.

-3-

I .·

3. The effort to ~ake depositio ns must

·be overridden. The mere assertion , with no semblance of

specificity, that the re may . be more records cannot be

accepted as a basis for either keeping cases like this one

alive or for allowing routinely the interrogation of

agency personnel.

The complaint is dismissed. It J.S SO

ordered.

Dated, New York, New York July 21, 1977

.. -·-·r ... ·---- - -

U.S.D.J .

. ,

.-4-

h ?: (1 tt'2" ('" ·~ • tn. \' r· .1 .. ;1 • • . t I ~ ' ·:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, . .

: 79Civ.779(LWP) Plaintiff,

-against-

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and · H.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

Defendants.

. .

. .

. . :

. . ------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Now comes the plaintiff, Alan Jules Weberman, and prays that

this Court grant him a Summary Judgement against the defendant,

United States Secret Service, and provide him with i~junctive

relief by ordering defendant to ~rovide unexpurgated ~~pies of

all United States Secret Service documents pertaining to the

plaintiff. Since the defendant states that it "does ··not maintain

a physical file concerning plaintiff " these documents are

obviously not primary to the protection of any Government officials

(See WEINSTEIN DECLARATION -instant matter-paragraph 12) Addition-

ally, defendant, United States Secret Service, has shown bad

faith in the administration of 5 USC 552: in plaintiff's "Motion

Under Vaughn vs. Rosen To Require Detailed Justification, Item-

ization And Index" (dated 10 April 1979), plaintiff made reference

to "requested documents". This clearly refers to previous Freedom

of Information and Privacy Act requests. In Plaintiff's first two

request letters to the United States Secret Service, dated December

23rd, 1978 and January 12th, 1979, which have been iabeled Exhibits

B and D in the WEINSTEIN DECLARATION, Plaintiff specifically

requested ~ documents on Alan Jules Weberman, not just those

compiled in 1978-1979. YeL Exhibit H of the WEINSTEIN DECLARATION,

l ~---·- ·

It

the list required under Vaughn vs. Rosen, begins and ends in 1978.

Plaintiff has attached documents pertaining to him compiled by the

Secret Service in 1976 which are not listed on Exhibit H.

Plaintiff therefore requests a Summary Judgement against the

United States Secret Service and a Court Order allowing him to

examine any and all files pertaining to him located in 800 G

Street N.w. , Washington , D.c., and for such other and further

relief as the Court may deem proper.

DATED: New York, New York May 24, 1979.

Respectfully submitted

ALAN LES WEBERMAN PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATE SIX BLEECKER STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10012 TELEPHONE 212-477-6243

- -- ----------~~-

'EPARTMENT OF THE.TREA!RY

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

Hr. Alan J. Weberman f Bleecker Street Nevr York, NY 10012

Dear Hr. Weberman:

' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20223

May 27, 1976

Reference is made to your letter received on May 20, 1976 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Enclosed are copies of all Secret Service documents 'ivhich pertain to you.' The documents have had information deleted from them because they contain investigatory information compiled for lav; enforcement purposes. Pursuant to Title 5, United States. Code, Section 552(b) (7) (C), (D), (E) and (F), they are being exempted since disclosure w-ould constitute an unv;arranted in-vasion of personal privacy to other persons mentioned in the request­ed file; disclose the identity of a confidential source and/or information furnished by a confidential sourcei disclose investigative techniques and proce~ures and endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. Some deletions are-being made pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552 (b) (5) as matters that are inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda. The citations of the above exemptions are not to be construed as the only exemptions which may be available under tl).e Freedom of Information I1ct.

Fees are charged in accordance with Title 31 of tbe Code of Federal Regulations, Part lA, Section l.6(g). For your file, retrieval time Has one hour (l) at $3.50 per hour and four (4) xerox pages at $.10 per page. Please send a certified check or money order in the amount of $3.90 payable to U. S. Secret Service, Financial Management Division, 1800 G Street, N.W., Room 905, Washington, D. C. 20223.

' I

'

-

)

• 2

If you disagree with our determinations you have the right of administrative appeal within 35 days by \'lriting to Freedom of Information Appeal, Deputy Director, U.S. Secret Service, 1800 G Street, N.W., Room 944, Washington, D.C. 20223.

Enclosures

Robert Freedom of Information & Privacy Acts Officer Office of Administration

:;.--, ·w

" • • c

c

(

('

I

(

(

r ~

("

'· r c r·

I ,. ' '''-· , .. ,.

' ! r :·:::: · .. ·-

c

(

'· [

(

r · ......

, .

. @ e ' · • \ \ 1

( ) WEBER~AN ALA N JULES

I"'; \:_;

c·

·sEx MALE RACE

~HITE DATE OF BIRTH

IO FILE No

IN NA MS SEARCH UNTIL 0~-05-8 1

YIP LEADER IN KANSAS CITY, Mo

LAST UPDATE 02-05-76 EST 02-05-76

C* NEXT SUBJECT (* ABSTRACT (

--o ·

{/',./ . -- . \

.r.... '.J

......

...

. ,,

"\

'

EVE ~1T DSP r-~---.~~-s· '"''· '·\tr~il I ' hdwill :Ji~~~~'·. ~ ~ - ·,..

1

:

wEBERMAN ALAN J

SE X· MALE

RACE WHITE

. YOUTH INTERNAT IO NAL PARTY

DATE OF BIRTH

ID FILE NO

IN NAME SEARCH UNTIL 02-24-BI

PLANS TO DE-1WNSTRATE AT RNC AND DNC

LAST UPDATE 02-24-76 EST 02-24-76

[* NEXT SUBJECT (* ABSTRACT

o:

I , ........

~' ,,..,.,u;r""ac-.l":it • -'"'·"'''~ :up.t<~~J"'-~.;.:::tJ

~·-: ·.::.~=-~~~~. ·:·~~~:~~-."::: .~~~ .~ ,·h-.~ ....... ~~j~ ·: ·:. -· ;·

l }

I N A DEC E f·18 E R 2 , 1 9 7 5 • ART I C l E I N " THE K ANSA S C I T Y T I ~~ E S •' , A l h N · J • \'o' E BE R i'l AN STAT ED T H A T THE Y I P P I E S '.: 0 U L D 8 E J 0 I N ED I N K A: : SA S C I T Y BY SEVE RA L THOU SAND RADICALS IN AUGUST 1976 TO PROTEST THE REP UBLICAN NATION~L CONVE NTION• WE BERNA N STATED SIMILAR DEMONSTRA -TIONS \~ILL BE HE LD DURING THF Dn10CR~ TIC NATION Al_ CO~IV '- NT I0 ~·l U ! .

. :--- - "'""_....:;;;. .... -..:~~·~--·-~.-.-.:. . . ~.;··-r.=-'\~-·r~,.._ .... ~;::1""'""V:-:,~..::!!' \ N.E\oJ YORK cITY H' IUL y 1976 : . .. "·" ' . ., '·,. W ' . .... ~ ,·-· " . • ' .. • • •• •' ••• • ---j:-;,J

. [ ~ .~ .:· .::·" ··~ .·:: ::=:~:~~:~~~~' . ,, '•' .,.,, '""'' ~* .... "' ,_,' ··-·· ,, :.~: .. ·~ .. -~~-=) ,t .

,.

-~.~ .. . . .; • ~~ '?' ' .. ~~~~ ;;:2 ''"'·~-'\.'f. • .. ,('i ... ~~~·~=t:~ :.::''?'t"?-r>:s ..... -..s ...... :-<,.v.:v.~~. -i:=:•e-·-;n . . <•.w .... -. :-: •-JJtP~ ':"';n'~~r-...... ~. , ·'.4·~."'?~~

£:.4:, ; .. :. • ;,., ·. , ·a~-.::~::~~~:::~-;~~::~~ .. ~::~:~~.::~~::~~~~~:;."·~,.~+ _;. >-,;,; ri.' ';S,l t >..S(I & ilei!h' _.,;, ., +.wwyi£6 W :·~--~;;ih•-• :i:'- ~"_,) . .. J..:.:.:;·.,.,.-,,\·.,, ~.-J

/._ .. _ ....

., F PO< t .... -i . IC C: P. { . • ' rii:e

• •s,;l, • ... , . oM + .... .•. ,

>oet' swrv at • edtd zo

Xb .. t.s:: .~~~'r.:"ft'-~._ottf'...: t"X"f"'"!7T. ... ~";'"" .. :• : ~ ,.:~

~1 j

" ' , * ... ""' "' ' " ,......,..,_, ........ ,.., .......... .,....., • ...,.w_"""""'"_._.._ ................ ~_,,~l

--- .~.---"- -- --. ~ ...... ~···-~==:=J ........... ,,.. ... .,.....-...u.~~· ~-~~----·-..... · ....... ...

·----------- -----

NEF:ka

79-05811

October 9, 1979

Honorable Lawrence W. Pierce United l:ltates District Judge United States District court for ths·

Southern District of 1lew York United States Courthouse

. -.Foley Square '-New York, New York l0007 -

r ' Re: ~leberman v. United States

Secret Service, et al. 79 Civ •. 0799 (LWP)

Dear Judge Pierce:

This letter is in response to plaintiff's entitled 11 Motion for Summary Judgment and Injunctive Relief" dated September 13, 1979 ("notion"). C

do_c_lll)lent '--.

''~____.!

PlaiJltiff 1 s notion seeks summary judgment uncler the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") allowing hit! to examine "any and all files pertaining to him" locatecl in defendant United States Secret Service's vlashington, D. C. office. (Ci.iotion, at 3). This rel;tef is precisely the same relief

· that plaintif'f' seeks by his colilplai:fit in thiS action-, i.e· •• disclosure of documents in :t•esponse to plaintiff's December 1978 FOIA request'. It appears t.hat this Hotion is submitted in answer to defendants' motion for summary judgment dated May 4, 1979.

--l I

------ _j

\

N:CP : k a 79- 050!1

Ionoraule Laurence i;/. Piei•ce October 9 , 1 979

Pl aintiff ' s Ilotion should be denieu and defcudants ' uotion for s uiJrmry j udgracnt nhould be (;ranted. Plaiutiff ' s ilotion doe s not li!Gtablinh any 1Jas1s on \Thich to gr unt j udL;mt:mt in llin favor nud does no t raise any r.;enuinc q uostiono of r:w.torial f a ct on vrhich the Cour t coulcl bnsc n denial of c.lcfcn<lants' motiou . 'l'o defonduuta' l·:nowledt;e , l-l lail.tit't' llaa not submitted uny other reE;p onses to defendants' n otion .

The l> laintiff ' s lenr~thy recitation of the handlinG of a 197'/ FOIA request included in hio notion is oiJv iouol y irr e l e vant to t he isoucs in thio <! a.se . Plaintiff ' o 19'/ 5 FOIA req uest -- the only one at issue here -- s ou~ht solely i u foroa­tiou on file with the defendants about plaintiff himself. Tile l'J77 request aou{~ht entirely dif'fereut docmu:mts , to \·tit, u ocw.1ent s per taining to the J ohn F . K~mncdy t:HHHUlSination. Thus , t her e is no q uestion of r.tat e ria l fact r•niscd l>y p l aintiff' s noti on .

It is t iltn•efore r cf.ipcotfully r equested that for the reasorw vtated in the moving pavers, dc!'endant s ' Cilotion fo1• nu tunnry j udGment be c r antt!d.

cc: Alan Julc;!S He berman Six Ul eeker Street

Dy :

tlmr Yoric, tlel'T Yorl~ 10012

Very truly yours,

HOB.LH'J.' B . PIS~~E , JH . United States Attorney

HANCY I: . Ihf tLDr1AH Aosiutant tin1ted States Attorney Telep hone : 791-91 53

;I

r

II e e ll UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUWr

. ,:~~~:~=~-~=~:~=~:-~~-~~~-=~~~-------~ ALAN JULES WEBERMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE and lH.S. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED ST.7\TES SECRET SERVICE

Defendants.

------------------------------------x

79Civ •. ~779 (LWP)

MOTION FOR SU~lHARY JUDGEHEliT AND INJUCTIVE

RELIEF

NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, Alcm Jules \'leberman, and prays

l

I

that this Court grant him a Summary Judgement against tpe defendantl

the United States Secret Service, and provide him with injunctive

relief by ordering the defendant· to provide him ,.,i th unexpurgated

!copies of all United States Secret Service documents pertaining to

lthe Plaintiff. The United States Secret Service has previously

I shovm bad faith in fullfilling their responsibility to the public

under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

On August 10, 1977 Plaintiff mailed in an Freedom of

Information request for 99 specifically named documents regarding

the assassination of John F. Kennedy tha.t .were missing from the

National Archives in Washington, D.C. Defendant acknowledges this

request and has labeled it· "Exhibit A Item 6 I Weinstien Declara~"

ion." I have attached a copy of this list of 99 Secret Service

documents to this motion and I have labeled it Plaintiff's Exhibit

-~In response to this.request Plaintiff received document.numbers

C0-2-3'4030 #94.4 ,' 902, 988, 1368, 950., 1118 and perhaps one or two

additional documents. The rest of the document? were unaccounted for

and presumably unavailable. Tlfe United States Secret Service re-

fused to provide Plaintiff with an itemized list stating v1hy each . . .

specific documen·t requested was· with-held. When I had made a

simil.ar request a few months .earlier. (see vleinstien Declaration

Exhibit A Item 5) I w.as sent a copy.-of the United States Secr~t

. I

::: ;: q ~ fl f1~ "J'l~' s orne'* ;Service's "Retention Schedule" which stated that .all "non-judicial

~intelligence cases, inc.luding all pertinent .records Here cut-off at

'the end of the calender year in which the title is closed; hold five

additional years then destroy." This implied that the majority of

rhe documents I had requested had been destroyed. This ,.;as not the I lease. \'/hen the_ House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) re- i

lquested identical documents they were provided 'to them by the SecreJ

! 1

service. For example, C0-2-34030 #1266 was reprinted .in "Hearings !

•Before The Select Committee on Assassinations of the United States

lllouse of Representatives, Volume III page 3 83." I have attached copi

ies of these pages and marked them Plaintiff's Exhibit B. The HSCA

cited this document as proof that the Secret Service's actiens

prior to the Kennedy assassination were subject to criticism. In

their final ·report, HSCA concluded-" ..• the Secret Service did in

fact: possess information that was improperly analyzed." I have

attached a copy of this conclusion to this motio.n and labeled it

,Plaintiff's Exhibit C. The reason 'for this criticism is revealed

in.Volume Ten of the HSCA Hearings when the J!SCA cites the fact

that C0-2-34030 #1266 mentions Cuban exile terrorist Orlando Bosch

as reason for criticising the Secret Service's pre-assassination

proceedures. I have attached copies of the relevant pages from

Volume Ten and labeled them Plaintiff's Exhibit D.

I In November,

documents", I had

1977, prior to making my request for the "99

vrritten an article, copies of which are attached

and labeled Plaintiff's Exhibit E, In this article I pointed-out

the fact that Orlando Bosch's name ,.,as mentioned in # 126 6. Copies •

of this article were furnished to Geaton Fonzi, Dan RardvTay and

!·Edwin Lopez of. the RSCA, since I was furnishing these researchers I withinformation on a regular basis. The Secret Service sent an

agent to the Yipster Times Washington, D.C. office for a copy of

jthi.s . article.

In summary, as a result of my having uncovered information

detrimental to the reputation of the Secret Service, thein'formation

' ;

• • was supressed in violation of the spirit of the Freedom of

Inf•nmation Act by the United States Secret Service.

Plaintiff therefore requests a summary judgement against

the United States Secret Service allowing him'to examine any and

all files pertaining to him located in 800 "G" Street N.W.,

Washing~on, D.C., or other and further relief as the Court may

deem proper .

• DATED: New York, New York,

September '13, 1979

at~~'! ernBeeMAN PRESIDE T, INDEPElDENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES SIX ~LEECKER BUILDING NEW YORK, NEiv YORK 10012 TELEPHONE 212-477-~243

----------,----------~--------- --

. . . . ~

A J WEBERMAN 6 BLEECKER STREET

NEW YORK CITY, NY 10012

PHONE (212) 477-6243

-,_. C0-2-34030 #944 - - ATF Rep on 6.5 Mann1incer-Ca.rcano ammo sold in Dalla s 2. C0-2-340 30 #1042 ALPrffi 66 Movement re ; JOHN KLINNER 3. C0- 2-340 30 4~ 270 Lansky associate VINCENZO ALO aka Jit1MEY BLUE EYES 4. C0-2-34 030 #769 P~ERICAN RED CROSS-assis tance fo r Oswald in re-defec t 5 . C0-2-34030 #1429 AMMO OF S~1E TYPE USED BY OSWALD (6.5 mm) 6. C0-2-340 30 #197 OSWALDS ADDRESS BOOK-REPORT by SECRET SERVICE 7. C0-2-34030 #221 DARBRA ANN BLISS - friend of SYLVIA DURAN 8 . C0-2-34030 #372 MRS DORIS BLISS

W9• C0-2-34 030 #993 -- DOM BONAFIDE-reporter w/CIA connections. , ... Jai/10 . C0-2-34030 #126 6 -- DR ORLANDO BOSCH-convicted Cuban exile terrorist ~- '-·11. -"C0-2-3 ill04 41 ? - - DR ORLANDO BOSCH-convicted CUban exile terrorist'

12 . C0-2-34030 ' 41 501 -- INTERNATIONAL ANTi-COMMUNIST BRIGADE 13. C0- 2-34030 #551 -- RUBY SMUGGLING ASSOCIATE DONALD Em~ARD BROWDER 14. C0 -2-3403 0 #649 -- BRUNER - name in RUTH PAINE's notebook 15. co- 2-34030 #1310 BRUNER, E.E. (a BRUNER was named by Ruby as poss att 16 . C0-2-34030 #12 51 McGeorge Bundy -JFK advisor 17. C0-2-34030 #924 -- CUBAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS aka INTERPEN/IAB 18. C0- 2-34030 # 943 -- CUBAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS

~~v-19. C0 -2-3 4030 #15 CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY COUNCIL iP~O . C0-2-34030 #454 BILL BYE~S - Texas millionaire .

21. C0-2-34 030 #542 -- Cabana Motel - Teamster-owned hotel where Ruby fr eq. 22. C0-2-34030 #916 :-~ lion·.- EAPJ.,E CABELL, .tvt.AYOR OF DALLAS w/brother in CIZ\. 23. C0-2-34030 411001 -- .. COMMUNISM KILLED KENNEDY., 24. C0-2-34030 #647 - - COPLEY PRESS - News Service w/c lose ties to CIA 25. C0-2- 34030 #1058 -- JACK CRICHTON - Army Intel! Agent 26. C0-2-34030 4F70 -- WALTER CRONKITE 27. C0-2-34030 #256 MAGIUL ~1 . CRUZ--got into fight w/Oswald 28. C0-2-34030 fF754 - - ~'HLLI.N-1 E. DANFORTH - Micheal Paines boss at BARTOL F-29. C0-2-34030 #674 -- WILLIAM E. DANFORTH . 30. C0-2-3 4030 #223 -- ALEX DES FOINTAINES re; EUGENE DINKIN 31 . C0-2-34030 #1 046 -- RUBY/HOFFA Association 32 . C0-2-34030 #1420 - - JE.SUS ORLANDO DIAZ-active Cuban affairs Chicago 1 9 63 33. C0-2-34030 #202 -- JOHN ·E DONOVAN -Osl.-lald' s commanding officer 34. C0-2-3403 0 #6 29 -- LYDIA DYMITRUK

-......gs. C0-2-34030 #902 -- FRANK ELLSWOR'l'H ATF Agent , Dallas 36. C0-2-34030 #1453 -- FRANK ELLSWORTH interviewed by BURT GRIFFEN

....;~: gg:~=~:g~g :~~~ :: ~!~iLT G~i~:NE , Cus toms Agent, New Orleans-~k.t Uolf. -\-~It 39. C0- 2-340 30 #756 -- HILLCREST STATE BANK - name found in LHO notebook

~0. C0-2-34030 #1368 - - OSWALD 19 62 TAX REFUND CHECK 41. C0-2-34030 #84 - - OSWALD ' s 1962 INCOME TAX RETURN 42. C0-2- 34197 lt ? --LANSKY assoc . ,JIMMEY BLUE EYES see #2 on this list 43. C0-2-34030 #901 -- Ruby Assoc. PAUL ROLAND JONES 44. C0-2-34030 #13 -- FRED KORTH , former Sec . of the Navy 45 . C0-2-34030 #2 99 -- NOID~\N LABLANC- assoc of ROBERT VESCO

~t.lfr ~ .. '/46.

l-4 7. 48. 49. so. Sl. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

Jf. . 6 4. 65. 66. 67. 68 .. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 7').. 80. 81.

. 82. 83, 84. 85. 86. 87-.-88. 89.

..-flO.

C0-2-34030 C0-2-34266 C0-2-34030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-32030 C0-2-34412 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34341 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 co-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 eo-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 'C0-2-34364 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34245 C0-2-34030 C0-2-34030

• A J WEBERMAN 6 BLEECKER STREET

NEW YORK CITY, NY 10012

PHONE (212) 477-6243

•

if363 Sale of MACHINE GUNS ·to GEORGE JOESPH KING JR. # ? GEORGE JOESPH KING JR. ~- ... --=-it 800 HASON' s GUN SHOP -assoc. Orcharberro -sold 6. 5 a!ll!l>o #996 Receipt for Class Doc given to JOHN J McCLOY-SA Lbza #1000 Rec. for Class. Doc. McCLOY · #1233 Rec. for Class. Doc. McCLOY #810 -- ''Re sealed manila envelope" McCLOY 4fl237 "0/H forwrdg to Colfu-n class. doc. rec. fr Hr McCLOY." if1292 "Redelivery class. doc. to Nr NcCLOY 3,26.64." #749 Dr. JOHN BRYAN HcFARLAND··Hitness to LHO Hex City tri jiJ.3 2 8 DR HcFARLAND #1498 Dept of State Dispatch req. HcFARLAND's affidavit #574 HURDER INCORPORATED #1036 RICHARD CASE NAGEL -kne'i7 about JFK Ass prior:'Nov"22 # 87 8 NAGEL\ J #950 NAGEL) jo~ ,}._~.J f€«J~i. #1118 NAGEL) # ? NAGEL #238 "ONU"-group of Ukranians who p1ot·ted to kill FDR #316 RAHON OROZCO - Cuban Terro:i:ist #1188 RAHON OROZCO (same as item ir62.) # ? .Hr.OROZCO (CRESPO) #1031 CARtOS FRIO's Authentico Party in Exile #1493 PRIO #573 #14 l\46 lf 53 #212 #609 #131 #10 #139 #792 #224 # ? #792 #1329 #587 #104 #766 #1249 # ? #256 #73

ALFRED PECOR!~ - New Orleans- friend of JACK RUBY NICHOLAS PETRULLI- defected to USSR around same time PETRULLL\ PETRULJ"I

BYRON PHILLIPS-affidavit for LHO ret to USA frm USSR PHILLIPS

PHILLIPS Photos pass Oswald in Mexico City

EMITJIO PORTUNODO -suspicious tel con w/ Hex Cit WILLIS D PRICE -gas station owner who saw CARSWELL ARNESTO H RODRIGUEZ'"friend of Oswald in Ne\•7 Orleans MANUEL RODRIGUEZ ORCARBERRO ORCARBERRO (see item 79.) interview v7/ BURNS 'ROTTHAN assoc Oswald

RAYHOND TELLES AHB TO COSTA RICA TIPPITT contribution to Mrs Tippett info frm YJH BAUDLN'·'that AH GOLDEN. DPD is info on TIP BAUD IN/GOLDEN

Oswald's Course in Aircraft Control US NAVY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE REPORT ON 08\'IALD

.. . f ' ·•·

91. co-2-34030 #924 92. C0-2-34030 #943 93 . co-2-34030 #1475 94. co-2-34288 # ?

~~ 95. co-2-34030 #492 t4

96. co-2-34030 #791 ~ 97. co-2-34030 #116

• 9 a .. co-2- 3 -1 o 3 o # 1 o 9 9 99~ C0-2~ 34030~1383~-

•

A J WEBERMAN 6 BLEECKER. STREET

NEW YORK CITY, NY 10012

PHONE (212) 477-6243

JOliN ROBERT 'KLINNER (see i tern # 2. ) KLINNER ,JOHN MARTINO ROBERT EDl•TARD WEBS'fER -Def to Sov Union 1959 WEBSTER WEBSTER ALEX ZIGER -friend LHO Sov Union .• f-10SLEY, ECHEVERIA Chicago incident MOSLEY/ECHEVERIA

INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

HEARINGS BEFORE TH;E

SELECT OO~IMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS OF THE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS .

~ECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20, AND 21, 1978

VOLUME III

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations

{l-3i2 0

U_.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON :· 1979

For sale br the Superlntebdent o! Documents, U.S. GovNnment Prlntln~ .Office Washington, ·n.c. 20402

~\. >OJ

~- ·-·1

., .

' ----------;

~} n.

~ " " ,,, -·I

"' 00

"'

··.--~tt-._.,. .,

. :~:- ::~-~·'-"/'.~

Union Calendar No. 962 95th ·Congress, 2d Session - - - - House Report :t-,To. 95-1828, Part 2

REPORT OF THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS U.S. HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FIFTH. CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1IARcH 29, 1979,-Committed to the Committe-e of the Whole House on the State qf the Union and ordered to be printed

43-112 0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFIJ:ICE

WASHINGTON- : Hl7Q

For snle b:;· the Superintendent of Documents, U;S. Go!'ernment Printin!! Office "\Ynshlngton, D.C. 20402

Stock ·r-.·o. 0G2-071-00G90-1

236

(b) Tlw ?'espomibility of the SecTet Se1'Vice to investigate the a8sas­s-inatwn 1vas te1woinate,z when the FedeTal B"1'ea1e of hwestign­tion os-s-mne,z primwy -investigative 1'espomibiUty.

The c9mmittee found that the investigation by the Secret Service after the assassination was terminated prematurely when President Jo1mson ordered that the FBI assume ·primary investigative respon­sibility. (114) Although the initial investigative efforts of the Secret Service lacked coordination, individual field ofliccs with information that might have been related to the assassination had started their mvn investigations and pursued them aggressively. .

How the Secret Service responded after the assassination is illns­t~ated by the investigation conducted by the Chicago Secret Service offiCe .. After the assassination, the acting special ng~nt-in-churgc of the_ Chicago field office wrote an urgent report indicating he had received reliable. information about "a. group in the_ Chicago aren 1vho (sic) nmy lmvc "connection with the JFK assassination."(1J5) This repOrt 1vas based on information recei\rccl after the assassination from a._ reliable. informant who reported n, con\·ersati.on he had hac1 on No­v.ember 21, 19G3. (116) The informant, Thomas :Hosley, reported that for some tiil1e he had been involved in negotiUtii'lg the sale of illegal am1s with '' Cubltn exile, an outspoken critic of President Kennedy nmned Romer S. Echevarria. (111) On November 21, Echevarria- had said his group now had "plenty of money" and tlmt they were prcparecl to proceed with the purchases "as soon as we [or they] take care of Kennecly."(118) · -

After receiving the initial report, the Secret Service sun-eilled sub­sequent meetings-,between l\Iosley and EclHwarria, (119) received reports from Mosley about the convcrsations,(Jl?O) and discussed the progress of the investigation with the local FBI office.(I;BJ) By December 3, 19G3, a fuller picture of Echevarria was obtained (1lill) ancl reportecl to the Protective Research Section. (1:B3) By that date, it appeared that Echeva\Tia. was a member of the 30th of November (Cuban exile) Movernent,(1:B4) that an associate of his who luid also spoken directly with Mosley about the arms sales was Juan Fnmcisco

- Blanco-Fernandez, military director for the Cuban Student Revolu­tionary Directorate (Dl~E) ,(1!'35) 'and that the arms purchases were being financed through Paulino Sierra nrurtinez, a. Cuban expc. who h~cl become a Chicago lawyer. (/m) Mosley inferred from his con­versation \vith Echevarria. and Dlanco that Sierra's financi-al backers consisted in part of "hoodlum c1cments" who wei'C "not restricted to Chicago." (113'7) ·

The committee's investigation provided snbstantioJ corroboration for the Secret Service's concern about the Mosley allegations. The cmmnittee found t1utt the 30th of NOvember :Movement -was receiving financial backing through the ,Junbt del Gol1ierno cle Cuba en el Exilio (JGCE), a Chicago-based organization led by Sierra. ,TGCE was essentially a coalition of predoniinantly right-wing anti-Castro groups. (JiBS) It had been formed in April1963 and abolished itbruptly in January 1964. (1!1.9) During its short life, ,TGCE apparently acquired enormous financ-ial hayking) secured at }east in pm·t from

~As previon'{ly notetl, the l!'HI hnd len rued that the Minm~·hnsed DRE hnd n,_ repu•scntn· t-j,·o i!' "'\"•'W n:-t••,\TJ-·: l';,r!<.-, Pr\I'~·J\1-'r. who h~ol ,..-,,·!'H't 1nt!1 0~<'\""!ld !n t'." -<HI' ~Ji"r (''

237

oegynizccl gam.bling interests i1i'Las V cgas and Cl.cvelancl. (130) JGCE actiVely used. 1ts funds to purchase large quimtities of \veapons and to support 1ts member groups in condnctin()"" military raids on

11 Cuba.(131) The aHUiatcs of JGCE, in addition to the 30th of Nove1n-

. ber 1vlovcment, includccl Alpha 6G, !eel by Antonio Veciamt Blanch,'

. and the MIRR, whose leader was the militant anti-Castro terrorist - rlando Bosch Avila. (13:B) - '

'- 10 Oecret 0erv!Ce recognized the neecl to investi()"ate the al1eo·ecl plots by Cuban exile groups more -fully, especially thnto-£ Echcva.rria.'s 30th of N ovembcr group. (133) But when the proiTress of the investi­gation was discussed with the FBI, the FBI respon°decl thatthe 30th of Novem~er 7gl'~up was not l:ik.el_y .t~ ~1avc been involved in any i1lccral acts.(Ju4) 'I he Secret Service mitmlly was reluctant to accept tl1is representation i!' li~ht '!f the evidence it had developed that indicated t!le group was m f~ct mvolvccl in illegal activities,(137) and there­fore begun. prepn.rntwns to pJncc an underco\•er a()"ent in Echevarria's groups to lnYestigate his activities more c10sely.{JSS) On November 2p, 1063, 'however, President J olmson created· the \Varren Commis­SI01t ancl gave the FBI J?rimary investigative responsibiliLy.(139) Ale th~ugh the Secret S:yv1c~ understood the President's order to mean pnmtu:y, not cxcl us1 vc, m vesti <>ati vc responsibility (140) the FBI -accorcbng to testimony of forme~ Secret Service Chid£ James J. Rm\·~ ley and Inspector Thomas J. Kelley, soon made it clear that it diclnot c,onstder ~he Secret .Service to be an equalcollaborator in the post-assas­Sllln.twn 1nvest1gat10n. Rowley testified that "in the ultimate" there 1vas "no P!lrticulnr jurisdiction" on the part of the Secret Sc~·vice to coopcrr:te Hl the p·ost-assassinatimi in\·cstig:ation. (LF) Inspector I\:cl­ley tesbfiecl that"'·' order came down not only to the Secret Service but to th~ :p~n';~ Pollee Dep~rtmcnt th~t .the FBI would take "full re­~ponsi.bJhty, (Lji!!) not JOmt respmlSlbJllty, for the postassassination 1n vestigabon of conspiracies. . I~ summary, .th: com1!1ittee concluded thut the Secret Service did m fact possess wformntwn that was not properly analyzed and put to use w1~h re~pcct to a protective investigation in ad \·ance of President I(ennccly s tnp t.o Dnl1as. J?urther, it was the committee's opinion that Secret Service agents 1n the PresidentinJ motorcade in Dal1as "'?re not adequately prepared for an attack by a concealed sniper. Fu;';lly, tl:e com,nnttec fm!nd .that the in1·estigation by the Secret Sc1 \Icc of .t poss:blc assassmatwn conspiracy was termin."ated prema­turely. wh~n PteS1{]en.t ;T ?hnson ordered that ·the FBI assume primary

-... _111 veshgabve respons1bthty.

~. 'l'IUJ DEPART)fENT OF .TUSTICE l''AILED TO EXERC:IS:r: I:XI'riA'llVB JN SITPER­

\'I~S!N"G AND DIHECTlNG ·rng INVESTIGATION BY 1'IIF. FEDERAL uuimAU OF IN\ESTIG.\'l'IO:s" OF 'l'IIg ASSASSINATION

The (>Osition of "':tt,arney G.cneral was created by law in 1'!'89, but not unt1l after the C1v1l \Var chcl the role of the chief legal officer of the

~ .:::ee section I C :1 on anti-Castro Cuium exlleH. , 1 .As dlscu:;Red In the sect! m tl FBI 1 ·

Intelligence Section. the n;ost 'kno~\ro~iallle abo~f:ci~ft~8~nt' tl(f bBureaJ11's NatJouuUtleH not actively _pnrticlpate in the lnv ti ati did 8 ro U an c.x, e actlvitles, dld question of C'uhan involvement ( 1 nl g•\ft~~· t~or S tf~ Bureau ever fully Investigate the EclleYarrln lnvestlg-ntlon to ·th~ FDI fne -l!~Br e ~ere~ d err1ce pr1oridecl the .results or Ih1

l"to-<Ptl tltf> f'U><~ nn hin• 1 1.:11;) ' con t.Jc,e on J' It I mlted investigation nnd

r i ·· r---- .. I I (

II ·:,

~ . . .

I lj

~ ·~·

'--(

I ' (

l

f ,·. \

V. · \

. ~

,.

~ !

I ~ '

l

.. "

. ,

A. ·--· , ..... ·-· '• -. " " -- . '

· ~· . ... _ .... , 0 • • • • ... .. .... _.., .. .... ~,·.,. .~ ...

------=~~-:,,, .. ; .

· -- · _. ~ · · :/'rom to,;, bined sources-. ·• ,. -· ,·. . .. MIAMI, Sept. 23-The same forces that sCiiP'ted •

_ the assassination of fohn F.Kennedy are at work_· plotting to kill Jiniiny Carter Within_si)( Il16nths of diplomatic recOgnition of Castro., -·. :;; /C ·- .···.-. c • .· ,-.

Cubans exiled after decades O.f bic;ioclleiting __ their homeland have again joinect w)th ;their_::c;; counterparts<this ·••time to ':blOW l_iilJriJ.'y~:C~itef Kingdom _ Conie;_ anq ·lllake #t iJQOkWke . a · ;R.icanni!tionaiiSt g'rotip did it.

1 ,;;,,""'" "" """" '' . · The _plo't~ Ur~,;.-~JT, -- ,~

. ~ ~ '~ !

' • -. -/' ,·-· ~- .. ~:-~>~ ' .

.~-.

--~. '

' . '

,: \

'·

••

-~-~;::~~:-.·'·:~-~ .:: . t

'

7·

~ .. . ·-.

'1 .·•

:'\ '!

f \

... , ........... J :"' <:'•· u . ·dli0 H~ ( fl.:-.J ::c Ca!>tro ·s ex-m1stres~. recrP! t. t!a oy --gatJ6Su;r t«ckcrs'· , who to this dc:y movie, inc-apab k o i t hro wing fmgered E. Howard Hunt as his CIA . . Fr~ Sturgis to kill him. She told do not ac~ept the loss of their Cuban · a_pything but an occass~onal pie.

tr~e:s·es~~~lic . Miami-area ·b~~b= _·;.-·rllllllllll~!~illiiliiliielliliiillii~~~!!iMG;:n ings were followed by vicious attacks on civilians at a safer distance from the Exile's base in "Little Havana" most notably the LaGuardia blast which took 26 lives.

Then their very success in blowing · that Cuban airliner out of the sky landed Bosch and most of his key peo­ple in jail. Bosch, however, could not . be extradited from his Venezualan jail cell by either U.S. or Cuban authori­ties because of his "friends" in the Venezualan secret police.

When the State Dept. admitted they were trading information on the ac­tivities of Cuban Exiles with the Castro Government, Bosch's group · read the riot act to any and all Cubans · who work with the Carter Administra­tion. Either quit or face maiming and death at the hands of experienced bombers and assassins.

To prove they meant it, they not long ago exploded bombs on the Ellipse (the · grassy knoll south of the White House), and in a downtown building 5 blocks north of the White House.

It is quite obvious the Cuban's tac­tics are escalating. The next target will probably be the Cuban Embassy whiCh has partially re-opened. It is in Washington, D.C ..

Our informant, a source deeply emeshed in Cubao exile affairs, told us the code of "macho" dictates their

Blasts from tbe past: 26 died at LaGuardia. FBI di~erted attention from multiple; exact similarities to explosion shortly after­. wards of bomb claimed by' Anti-Castro Cubans and planted-you guessed it-in locker at Miami International Alrport.

carrying this argument to it's logical NEWS reporters she rode to Dallas crimeland. Finally, the SS is giving independent end. with Frank and Orlando Bosch jusJ 1'he crowrling revelation by the researcher Weberman the run-arodnd

JFK Killers Still at Large prior to Nov 22, 1963. N.Y.TIMES of complete gangster in- on his freedom of information re-Jimmy Carter's problem is that this Frank would disguise himself as a filtration of the FBI-26 of its top quests. When A.J. requested their file

is one terrorist group that has already bum and blow a quarter of JFK's mafia informants have been ter- on Orlando Bosch for his own Protec-killed a President, and gotten clean brain away shortly thereafter. minated by the Mob's own "22 tive Research investigation, they sent awa with it. This revelation, coming after a year Caliber Killer"...:_is a sute sign the him two newspaper articles from 1975

n ependent Investigator A .J .· of gradual disclosures in articles and public and Congress are -being which could have been retrieved from Weberman recently uncovered proof- on tv, indicates that the American mobilized again, this time because any library. ·that Orlando Bosch was questioned in people a-re being prepared for decisive there 's no way of telling how far the . The only thing keeping Carter alive connection with the Kennedy measures to curb the Exiles by the chains of complicity in Bosch's new is the wisdom of his choice, as Vice assassination when he was in Chicago Carter Administration, which ·Presidential snuff plot may stretch in- President, of some one even more in November of 1963. presumably has access to the not-yet- to the Government's "own" police unacceptable than he to the Cubes:

At the National Archives,an index ~~d~e~c~la~s~si~fi~e~d~t~ru~t~h~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!~~·~W~al~t~e!!r!!M~on~d~al~e·~~· ~ .. !!!!!!~~· ~~=~ card reading BOSCH, DR. ORLAN- t-

~~Th:~~:~\~~~f~:~l'~~i~~ .MOllE ciA oVmiD~I'li~;~"zj; 2tJ· Bosch. "No. 1266" i~ t:' :e o t a ~e

.,

j

/ { ·~····

,

-.

-;

,_:·

\ ·r I \ 1·. \: t

\

\

-~--

··.: .; .. ·.:·.

Continued From Page One ·-.... Carter is reacting to all' this by

CUBAN EXILES PLOT desparately 'trying to purge the

: "cowboys" . from the CIA Plans "· ·" · 'Directorate .. So far over a thousand ·• ·•· ·· 'c_overt operators have been forced into .

CARTER'S DEATH ··- retirement, including· the ones who ·

:supplied explosives to the Cuban Ex­iles just before they blew Letelier to bits, with impunity, blocks away from

The plot allegedly calls for a prior series of "Puert_o Rico-linked" bomb­ings culminating in a final, fatal blast that will take out Carter and be traced back to "Puerto Rican Nationalists" by cooperative authorities ·once he's out of the way.

The plot is said to be masterminded by Dr. Orlando Bosch, the mild­

. mannered pediatrician turned terrorist who engineered the explosion aboard the Cuban airliner which killed seven­ty eight people. last year.

Bosch has been linked by recently declassified documents . to the JFK assassination.

· Exile Menace Growing Freed after serving 3 years on a '68

-conviction for firing a bazooka on a Polish freighter, Bosch was arrested again in Guatemala in 1975. But though charged with plotting to kill Kissinger, Howard Hunt's friend Manuel Artime was able to get him out of jail. ·

When, shortly after his release, then-Secretary of State Rogers started making overtures to Castro, Bosch's compadre Rolando Otero set off

· bombs at the FBI and two post offices in Miami in protest. During his trial he fingered E. Howard Hunt as his CIA trainer. ·

These symbolic' Miami-area bomb­ings were followed by vicious attacks on civilians at a safer distance from the Exile's base in "Little Havana" most notably the LaGuardia blast which took 26 lives.

Then their very success 'in blowing · that Cuban airliner out 'o'f the· sky

landed Bosch and most of his key peo­ple in jail. Bosch, however, could not . be extradited from his Venezualanjail cell by either U.S. or Cuban authori­ties hecause of his "friends" in the VPtlP"I'~l~n <:'t>t"r,..t nAil,~""

have been linked to the JFK assassina-tion. .' ·

According to Warren Commission counsel W. David Slawson's hand­written notes, No. 1266 was a Secret Service Report about how they quash­ed the "Mosley-Echevarria Incident".

Thomas Mosley was an Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Unit Informant who was approached by Echevarria and friends to sell them sub­machineguns two days before Ken­nedy's assassination. Mosely was told that the Exiles' new backers were Jewish gangsters, who would have plenty of money to invade Cuba as soon as they murdered John Kennedy.

Secret Service Kennedy Assassina­tion report No.l266 is not in the Na­tional Archives. Slawson himself had to go to Secret Service H.Q. to see it. There's a good chance the Secret Ser­vice has destroyed it. But the index

·card remains, proof that ORLANDO BOSCH was prominently n\entioned in S.S. No 1266 as one of those ~~friends" of Echevarria.

Meanwhile, adding another clue to Bosch's role ,THE NEW YORK DAI­LY NEWS just broke the story of Castro's ex-mistress, . recruited by Fran~ Sturgis to kill him. She told

Yet the interests Carter 'represents, having tolerated the Exiles and others who initiated the JFK hit for so long·, are ill-equipped to move against them.

FBI, Othel"!'! Compromised From thi corpofate boardrooms to

the inner sanctums of the intelligence community, the relationship has been so cozy, that few are anxious to see a full-scale investigation of Exile con­nections.

The FBI, for instance, whose agents just demonstrated on the steps of a U.S. Courthouse against one indict­ment of Bureau personnel by the Carter Administration, has for years camouflaged the fact that Miami has more bombings than the whole rest of the country combined.

The FBI rushed out the conclusion that the LaGuardia blast was the work of "leftists" (Clarence Kelly, citing "lack of motive" blamed the FALN), despite the fact that the M.O.--putting · the bomb in a locker--was identical to an Exile bombing at the Miami Inter­national Airport shortly afterwards.

· The FBI's patron Saint Hoover even denied, until forced by Congress to admit it, the existence of the Exiles' "gangster backers", who to this day do not accept the_loss of their Cuban

the White House. · With the FBI already cooperatively

blaming Exile ·terrorism on Puerto Rican community organizers, the Ad­ministration has no choice but to 11 £0 outside", to the Congress and the public.

A current crackdown by feds on Cuban Exiles has generated little en~ .thusiasm, and is, according to our source inside the Exiles, really "a PRS affair". The Protective Research Divi-

. sian of the U.S. Secret Service in­vestigates threats to elected officials. -­

. ~cret !jer:_~ce Goofs Off . Even the Secret Service is mofe ih­

terested in harassing leftwingers than in protecting the President.

This summer Special Agents Steve Smith and Dave Haynor appeared at

· numerous rock concerts put on by the · Yippies in Washington,D.C. They

said they were there to make sure Ben Masel didn't spit on elected officials, even though there were no elected of­ficials around.

The Secret Service also . wasted valuable time . questioning Pieman Aron Kay, despite the fact that he is a known refugee from a 3 Stooges movie, incapable of throwing

· a_nything but an occassional pie.

'·

•

• :

.. •