MFF lawsuit response

Yesterday, Bill Simpich and Larry Schnapf, lawyers for the MFF lawsuit over JFKA records, filed their response to the defendants' motion to dismiss their suit. It's pretty good. It skewers defendants several misreadings of the JFK Act and NARA's responsibilities under it.  But the courts are pretty bad having been overrun by rightwingers, so we'll see what happens
 
This time (unlike the initial filing) they reference the Records Review Board's definition of a JFK record:  "all records, public or private regardless of how labelled or identified, that document, describe, report on, analyze or interpret"...the JFKA. Such as the Darnell and Wiegman films.  The news gets better.
 
One of their arguments is that NARA has failed in its responsibility to add records to the Collection when they become known. They used my emails to NARA as an example:
 
"In November 2022, when researcher Mr. Roger Odisio provided to NARA's general counsel a request to obtain NBC footage that allegedly portrays Mr. Lee Oswald watching JFK's motorcade from the front steps of the Texas School Depository (sic)--video footage that would provide Oswald with an alibi--NARA's response was to tell Mr. Odisio to provide his information to their general counsel. Mr. Odisio did, with no response." 
 
Darnell and Wiegman are now front and center to the suit.  The statement that the films (allegedly) would provide Oswald with an alibi, and all that means, should at least grab the judge's attention as to the seriousness of the request.

Roger Odisio wrote:Yesterday, Bill Simpich and Larry Schnapf, lawyers for the MFF lawsuit over JFKA records, filed their response to the defendants' motion to dismiss their suit. It's pretty good. It skewers defendants several misreadings of the JFK Act and NARA's responsibilities under it.  But the courts are pretty bad having been overrun by rightwingers, so we'll see what happens
 
This time (unlike the initial filing) they reference the Records Review Board's definition of a JFK record:  "all records, public or private regardless of how labelled or identified, that document, describe, report on, analyze or interpret"...the JFKA. Such as the Darnell and Wiegman films.  The news gets better.
 
One of their arguments is that NARA has failed in its responsibility to add records to the Collection when they become known. They used my emails to NARA as an example:
 
"In November 2022, when researcher Mr. Roger Odisio provided to NARA's general counsel a request to obtain NBC footage that allegedly portrays Mr. Lee Oswald watching JFK's motorcade from the front steps of the Texas School Depository (sic)--video footage that would provide Oswald with an alibi--NARA's response was to tell Mr. Odisio to provide his information to their general counsel. Mr. Odisio did, with no response." 
 
Darnell and Wiegman are now front and center to the suit.  The statement that the films (allegedly) would provide Oswald with an alibi, and all that means, should at least grab the judge's attention as to the seriousness of the request.

Thanks Roger.

It is heartening that they did that.

Not so sure about what the judge's reaction would be. On the surface, it sounds like it could be another Altgen's/Lovelady disaster from uber conspiracists instead of the measured, careful analysis that it actually is. We'll see. Either way - again - good on them for taking the plunge with it.

Kudos to Bill and Larry.

I neglected to mention this sentence in the MFF response that follows a few pages after their discussion of NARA so far ignoring my recommendation to add the Darnell and Wiegman films to the Collection:  "Plaintiffs' core contention is that NARA must engage in a serious effort to identify documents as 'assassination records' when the opportunity is put "under their nose"--and follow up with prompt transmission and release of assassination records."  Brilliant.
 
I sense there has been a gradual shifting of emphasis in the lawsuit from a primary focus on "what are government agencies like the CIA hiding", toward how can NARA be made more useful to researchers by adding missing records and reorganizing what is there.  They know judges are historically looking for ways to defer to a president, sometimes no matter how much he flouts the law. Especially when the term "national security" is thrown around.  I have always believed that adding records and reorganizing the Collection is likely to be more beneficial than squeezing more bits of information out of the CIA, etc.
 
Last night Larry posted this message on EF.  "If anyone has requested suspected JFK records from NARA and were told to either use FOIA or got no response, send me a note." You could add, Greg, couldn't you: or were lied to by NARA staff about their authority to add records to the Collection. 
 

Bill and Larry are preparing for the oral argument next month.  I suspect they want to present as full of a case of NARA stonewalling and ignoring their responsibilities as they can.  larry@schnapflaw.com.

Roger Odisio wrote: 
Last night Larry posted this message on EF.  "If anyone has requested suspected JFK records from NARA and were told to either use FOIA or got no response, send me a note." You could add, Greg, couldn't you: or were lied to by NARA staff about their authority to add records to the Collection. 

I forwarded it to Bill as I couldn't find Larry's email. Just realized you supplied it.

Sent 4 or 5 days ago, but no response.

I think there is a division of labor on the MFF suit between Bill and Larry.  Larry has done most of the posting on EF about the case, and is everywhere on the media.  He's the one who asked me for the details about my interaction with NARA, tho Bill once posted a piece on EF indicating that he understood about Darnell, Wiegman, and Prayerman.
 
Larry has typically responded quickly to an email from me and he's the one who asked for details from others on their dealings with NARA.  You should send your stuff to him.  larry@schnapflaw.com.  One issue in the case that has clearly emerged for them to pursue is NARA's failure to take on the responsibilities left to it when the ARRB closed. Particularly updating and organizing its JFK Collection.
 
Last week I emailed Larry to suggest that during oral argument in April, he explain the importance of Darnell and Wiegman, since he alluded to it in their latest filing.  If that is Oswald on the steps, it means he didn't do it.  The Warren Report is destroyed.  The government is left with *no* explanation for the murder.
 
No, Larry said, at least in the initial stages, they want to concentrate on the basic legal issues--what the law requires and how Biden and NARA have failed to follow it.  I don't disagree with that as a strategy. I don't know the judge. The context here is they are asking an appeals court judge to tell the President he's full of shit.  Always an uphill battle.

Roger Odisio wrote:I think there is a division of labor on the MFF suit between Bill and Larry.  Larry has done most of the posting on EF about the case, and is everywhere on the media.  He's the one who asked me for the details about my interaction with NARA, tho Bill once posted a piece on EF indicating that he understood about Darnell, Wiegman, and Prayerman.
 
Larry has typically responded quickly to an email from me and he's the one who asked for details from others on their dealings with NARA.  You should send your stuff to him.  larry@schnapflaw.com.  One issue in the case that has clearly emerged for them to pursue is NARA's failure to take on the responsibilities left to it when the ARRB closed. Particularly updating and organizing its JFK Collection.
 
Last week I emailed Larry to suggest that during oral argument in April, he explain the importance of Darnell and Wiegman, since he alluded to it in their latest filing.  If that is Oswald on the steps, it means he didn't do it.  The Warren Report is destroyed.  The government is left with *no* explanation for the murder.
 
No, Larry said, at least in the initial stages, they want to concentrate on the basic legal issues--what the law requires and how Biden and NARA have failed to follow it.  I don't disagree with that as a strategy. I don't know the judge. 

Bill did end up getting back to me. I have now sent him all the relevant exchanges. And a personal wish list of other stuff. 

I don't know the judge. The context here is they are asking an appeals court judge to tell the President he's full of shit.  Always an uphill battle.

I think that brings home just how far you are from a true democracy. John Q Citizen does not get to tell the president he is full of shit up close and personal. 

Happens here on average about once a year to whoever the schlub is who happens to be occupying the Prime Minister's chair in parliament.

That Simpsons episode was not too much of a stretch.

Watching you guys operate on this is like listening to Bob Dylan. Sweet. Exciting. Keep up the great work and thank you.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking,  sprinkled with a frosting of good old fashioned fOOish paranoia,  but to my mind at least,  NBCs ( and the 6th floor museum's) actions- reticent,  uncooperative,  and that's being incredibly polite- speaks volumes 

On this occasion their continuing silence speaks far louder than any words,  and,  perhaps their inaction speaks even louder still. 

What possible reason is there to keep such ( apparently) bland and uninteresting black and white footage hidden for 60 years?

A few flickering frames of a doorway? Some ( allegedly) anonymous and unimportant onlookers?

It's hardly earth shattering stuff.

Or so you would have thought. 

There's no point in being unrealistic and naive about this, to get the footage released is going to involve negotiating the wilderness of over pampered egos, over polished mirrors , not to mention politics,  entrenched in the higher echelons of the American media/ political hierarchy.  To have someone who is knowledgeable,  savvy and who knows how the game is played , fronting the effort,  is surely a huge bonus. 

Perhaps, the real problems will start when the footage is finally released..

But,  fuck it, whatever the risks,  and when has anything truly worthwhile come without risks? Especially when a subject as dangerously controversial as the JFK assassination is involved?

To my mind they wouldn't be hiding the footage unless it was footage worth hiding. 

Too simplistic?

Maybe 

Maybe  not 

As Ebenezer Larsen,  skipper of the Flying Banana IX, Utah's entry to the 1901 Pan American Sail boat cup,  said, when his bo'sun, St Vitus Butler,  told him he'd eaten all the rope and they were drifting aimlessly towards a shark infested reef,  with no more food, water, sails, or trousers , " Full steam ahead "