Aron Kay Sues FBI for Document on David Ferrie

8/13/2019 Aron Kay Sues FBI for Document on David Ferrie.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aron-kay-sues-fbi-for-document-on-david-ferrie 1/118

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------XARON KAY

P la in t i f f

-aga ins t -

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

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

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

P la in t i f f by h is at torneys Levy, Gutman, Goldberg

Kaplan, respec t fu l ly a l leges as and for his ver i f ied complaint as

fol lows:

I . JURISDICTION

FIRST: This i s an ac t ion under the Freedom of Information

Act [FOIA] 5 U. S.C. §552 e t . ~ as amended, to order the

product ion of a s ing le two page document in the possess ion o f the

Defendant Federal Bureau of Inves t iga t ion . P la in t i f f seeks

declara tory and in junc t ive r e l i e f . This Court has j u r i sd ic t ion

pursuant to 5 u.s.c. §552 and 28 u.s.c. §1331. Venue i s proper

in t h i s d i s t r i c t pursuant to 5 u.s.c. §552 a 4) (B) and 28 u.s.c.

§1391.

I I . PARTIES

SECOND: P la in t i f f i s a c i t i zen of the United Sta tes

i n t e r e s t e d in American h i s to ry and, i n pa r t i cu l a r the

assass ina t ion of President John F. Kennedy. P la in t i f f res ides a t

424 Brighton Beach Avenue,. Brooklyn, NY 11235 within the



j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s Court .

THIRD: Defendant i s an agency of t he United Sta t e s and t

has possess ion of and con t ro l over the record t ha t P l a i n t i f f

seeks .

I I I . AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION

FOURTH: On or about February 15, 1992, P l a i n t i f f mailed to

Defendant a request under the Freedom of Informat ion Act for

access to a ce r t a i n two page FBI t e l e t ype dated November 26,

1963. [A copy o f t he reques t i s annexed as Exhibi t A.]

FIFTH: The reques t was received by Defendant on February

20, 1992. [A copy of the c e r t i f i e d mail re turn r ece ip t i s

annexed as Exhibi t B.]

SIXTH: Defendant acknowledged r ece i p t of the reques t

( 357579) on March 2, 1992. [A copy o f the Acknowledgement i s

annexed as Exhibi t C.]

SEVENTH: More than t en days have passed s ince Defendant s

r ece ip t of P l a i n t i f f s reques t and no subs tan t ive response o f any

kind has been received .

EIGHTH: P l a i n t i f f has a s t a t u t o ry r igh t to t he r ecord he

seeks and the re i s no l ega l bas i s for Defendant s r e fusa l t o

d i s c los e t to him.

WHEREFORE P l a i n t i f f prays t h a t t h i s cour t :

A. Declare t h a t Defendant s r e fusa l t o d i s c los e t he record

reques ted by P l a i n t i f f i s unlawful ;

B. Enjoin P l a i n t i f f from fur ther re fus ing to d i s c los e the

record to P l a i n t i f f ;

2



c. Award P l a i n t i f f h i s cos t s and r e a sonab l e a t t o r n ey Is

f e e s i n t h i s ac t i on ;

f u r t h e r and d i f f e r e n t

r li f as t h i s Cour t may d e e ~ j u s t a ~ d p rope r ;

Dated : New York, New YorkMay , 1992

3

Je remiah S. Gutman

Levy Gutman Goldberg KaplanAt to rneys fo r P ~ a , c i n t i f f75 th Avenue, .S1,t:i,te. 1776

New. Y o r k A ~ N ¥ * · ~ I o o i h : ... . . .

(212) 807-9733



) · - .

STATE OF NEW YORK

ss . :COUNTY OF

ARON KAY being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the Pl a i n t i f f in the with in act ion . I have read the

foregoing C O ~ P L I N T and know the contents the reo f and I know the

same to .be. t rue to my own knowledge except as to ma.tters t he r e i n

mat te rs I be l i eve them to be t r ue .

Sworn to before me t h i s

day of May, 1992

Notary Publ ic

ARON KAY



- . .... . ; . .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------·-xARON KAY,

Pla in t i f f ,

- aga ins t -

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,.

Defendant .------------------------------- x

Index No.92 c iv . 2438KORMAN)

SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY

MEMORANDUM OF LAW '

Having j u s t been no t i f i ed em February 8, 1993 t h a t the Court

wishes a s t a t us conference on t he af ternoon of February 12, 1993,

t he und:ersigned a t torney for t P la in t i f f has had occas ion only

c ur s o r i l y to examine Publ ic Law 102-526 [S. 3006] en t i t l ed

Pr esident John F. Kennedy Assctss ina t ion Records Col lec t ion Act

o f 199211

• now appear ing a t 106 Sta t . 344 3 , 11 u.s . Code

Congress ional Adminis t ra t ive e w s January , 1993. The Senate

Report appears a t 11(A) u.s. Code Congress ional Adminis t ra t ive

News 2965 (January, 1993).

The P r e s i d e n t John F. Kennedy Assass inat ion Records

Col lec t ion of Act o f 1992 (Records Col lec t ion Act) was approved

on October 26, 1992 and i s now J.n e f f e c t . 28 Weekly Compila t ion

o f P re s id e n t i a l Documents (1992) : Oct . 26, Pres ident i a l

Statement .

.

In re levant pa r t t provide:; , among othe r th ings:

Sec. 2 (a) (2) a l l Government records concerning theassass ina t ion of Pres iden t John F. Kennedy should ca r rya presumption of immediate disc losure , and a l l recordsshould be even tua l ly d i sc losed to enable the publ ic tobecome fu l ly informed about the his tory surrounding theassass ina t ion;



Sec. 2 (a) (5) l eg i s l a t ion i s necessary because theFreedom of Informat ion Act, as implemented by theexecut ive branch, has prevented the t imely publ ic

d i sc losu re of records r e l a t i ng t o the a ssass ina t ion ofPres iden t John F. Kennedy;"

Sec. 2 (a) (7) "most Df the records r e l a t ed t o the

assass ina t ion o f Pres i.dent John F. Kennedy a re almost30 years old , and only in the r a r e s t cases i s the re anyl eg i t ima te need fo r cont inued pro tec t ion of suchrecords .

The Records Col lec t ion Act by Sec. 3(2) (I) spec i f i ca l ly

inc ludes "a record t h a t i s re la ted to the assass ina t ion of

Pres iden t John F. Kennedy, t ha t was crea ted or made ava i l ab le fo r

use by, ·obtained by, or otherwise came in to the possess ion of

any Executive agency" and therefore ; beyond argument, inc ludes

the mater ia l which P la in t i f f seeks in t h i s ac t ion to have

disc losed .

Sect ion 6 provides the grounds for postponement of publ ic

d i sc losu re of records only i f t he re i s c l ea r and convincing

evidence t ha t -

(1) the t h r ea t to the mil i t a ry defense, in te l l igenceoperat ions , or conduct of fore ign r e l a t i ons of the UnitedSta tes posed by the publ ic d i sc losu re of the a ssass ina t ioni s of such gravi ty t ha t t outweighs the publ ic in te re s t ,and such publ ic d isc losure would reveal -

A) an i n t e l l i g e n c e a ge n t whosecur ren t ly requ i res protec t ion;

i d e n t i t y

B) "an i n t e l l i ge nc e source o r method which i scur ren t ly u t i l i zed ; or reasonably expected to be

u t i l i zed , by the United Sta tes Government and which hasnot been o f f i c i a l l y disc losed , the d i sc losu re of whichwould i n t e r f e re with the conduct of i n t e l l i ge nc eac t i v i t i e s ; o r

C) "any other mat te r cur ren t ly r e l a t i ng to

- 2



··

m i l i t a ry defense, in te l l igence operat ions o r conduct of

fore ign r e l a t i ons of ~ h e United Sta tes , t he d i sc losu reo f which would demonstrably impair the na t iona lsecur i ty of t he United Sta tes ;

2) the pub l ic d i sc losu re o f the assass ina t ion record

would reveal the name or iden t i ty of a l iv ing person who

provided conf ident ia l informat ion to t he United Sta tes andwould pose a subs tan t ia l r i s k of harm to t h a t person;

3) the publ ic d isc losure of t he assass ina t ion record

could be reasonably expected to cons t i t u t e an unwarrantedinvas ion of personal pr ivacy , and t h a t invas ion of pr ivacy

i s so subs tan t ia l t h a t it outweighs t he pub l ic i n t e r e s t ;

4) the publ ic d isc losure of the assass ina t ion record

would compromise t he exis tence of an unders tanding ofc onf ide n t i a l i t y cur ren t ly r equ i r ing pro tec t ion between a

o v e r n ~ e n t agent and a coopera t ing ind iv idual or a fore ign

government, and pub l ic disc losure would be so harmful t h a t

it outweighs t he pub l ic i n t e r e s t ; or

5) the pub l ic disc losure of t he assass ina t ion record

would reveal a s e c ur i t y or protec t ive procedure cur ren t lyu t i l i z e d , or reasonably expected to be u t i l i zed , by: t he

Secre t .Service or another Government agency respons ib le forpro tec t ing Government o f f i c i a l s , and pub l ic disc losure wouldbe so harmful t h a t it outweighs the pub l ic i n t e r e s t .

Sec. ll of t he Records Collec t ion Act provides t h a t i t

sha l l t ake precedence over any o ther law , j ud i c i a l dec i s ion

cons t ru ing such law, or common law doct r ine t h a t would otherwise

p r o h i b i t such t ransmiss ion or d i sc losu re Clear ly ,

the re fore , re l i ance by t he Federal Bureau of Inves t iga t ion in

th i s case upon t he provis ions of t he Freedom of Informat ion Act

i s overr idden by t he Records Collec t ion Act.

Examination of t he Senate Repor t Number l02-328 l l A) U.S.

Code congress iona l Adminis t ra t ive News 2965) makes c lea r t h a t

the purpose of t he Records Collec t ion Act i s , among o ther

- 3 -



cons i s ten t objec t ives , to achieve speed o f records disc losure ,

and enforceabi l i ty . At 2966, the t h r u s t of the Act i s to

provide for the most comprehensive d i sc losu re o f records re la ted

to t he assass ina t ion o f Pres iden t Kennedy. id . The Senate

found (a t 2969) tha t the Freedom o f Informat ion Act, as

implemented by t he Execut ive Branch, has impeded the t imely

pub l i c d i sc losu re of the assass ina t ion records and t h a t only in

the r a r e s t cases i s the re any legi t imate need for cont inued

pro tec t ion of such records . In deal ing with Standards fo r

postponement (a t 2976), the Senate Report s t a r t s with a

presumption of d i sc losu re es t ab l i shed by the Act , but cont inues

tha t even postponement (never permanent concealment) requi res

t h a t the re be c l ea r and convincing evidence t h a t pa r t i cu l a r

s tandards for postponement a re t r igge red .

In t h i s case, the FBI r e l i e s upon pro tec t ing the anonymity

o f a 30 year old source but the Senate Report (a t 2977)

requ i res t ha t considera t ion be given to whether the source or

method i s i nhe r i t en t l y sec re t , or whether t was the in format ion

col lec ted t ha t was sec re t . In the i n s t an t case , the in format ion

col lec ted has al ready been revea led and the name o f an ind iv idual

has been redacted. Clear ly the name of tha t ind iv idua l , in the

con tex t of the t ex t of the documents so f a r re leased, cannot meet

the Congressional s tandard of inherent sec recy nor requi re

secrecy to prevent harm to tha t person. Sect ion 6(2) .

4 . -



:0

·, ;

Section 5 (2) (b) (G), as amplif ied in the Senate Report a t

page 2978, deals with cases such as th i s which are the subjec t o f

l i t i ga t i on under the Freedom of Information Act on the date of

enactment (Oct. 26, 1992). The Report ca l l s for immediate and

d i l igen t e f for t to disc lose the per t inent records to these

requestors s ince continued delay in re l ease of such records

wi l l only serve to undermine confidence by those members of the

publ ic whose pas t in te re s t resu l t ed in the Freedom o f Information

Act l i t i ga t ion .

t i s respec t fu l ly submit ted tha t , the i s sue having been

tendered by the cross-mot ions now pending before the Court , and

the FBI now having had months to cons ider t h i s small redact ion ,

the mat ter should not be remanded to ther FBI for more

considera t ion and then subjec ted to the inevi tab le delays of the

Assass ina t ion Mater ia l s Review Board to be es tab l i shed under the

Act, but tha t , given the publ ic pol icy enunciated in the new

l eg i s la t ion and the c l a r i t y of the mat ter al ready before the

Court , e i ther the Federal Bureau of Inves t iga t ion should submit

to the w i l l of Congress

Court to do so.

C--

Dated: New York, New orkFebruary 11, 1993

now a r t ~ ~ c r r l a t e o r be ordered ~ h~ ~/· / / ~ <0

Resp. e · fulz: ; · subnn ed· · /,/.:::-;/I ~ · ~ / · ~.._ / /L · · / /

· · ·rAfis ~ T M N ··,... evy, Gutman,· Goldberg Kaplan

t torneys for l a i n t i f f

275 Seventh Avenue Sui te 1776New York, New York 10001(212) 807-9733

5




--------------------------------xARON KAY,

P l a i n t i f f ,

- aga ins t -


Defendant .

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

Index No.92 Civ. 2438

KORMAN)

SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Having j u s t been no t i f i e d on February 8, 1993 t ha t the Court

wishes a s t a tus conference on t he a f t e rnoon o f February 12, 1993,

the unders igned a t to rney fo r the P l a i n t i f f has had occas ion only

c u r so r i l y to examine Publ ic Law 102-526 [S. 3006] e n t i t l e d

Pres ident John F. Kennedy Assass ina t ion Records Col lec t ion Act

o f 1992 now appear ing a t 106 s t a t . 3443, 11 u . s . Code

Congress ional Adminis t ra t ive News, January , 1993. The Senate

Report appears a t 11(A) U.S. Code Congress ional Adminis t ra t ive

News 2965 (January , 1993) .

The P r e s i d e n t John F. Kennedy Assass ina t ion Records

Col lec t ion of Act o f 1992 (Records Col lec t ion Act) was approved

on oc tober 26, 1992 and i s now in e f f e c t . 28 Weekly Compila t ion

o f P r e s i d e n t i a l Documents (1992) : Oct . 26, Pre s ide n t i a l

Statement .

In r e l ev an t p a r t t prov ides , among o ther th ings :

Sec . 2 (a) (2) a l l Government records concerning t hea s sa s s i n a t i o n o f Pres iden t John F. Kennedy should car ry

a presumption o f immediate d i sc losu re , and a l l records

should be even tua l ly d isc losed to enable the pub l ic tobecome fu l l y informed about t h e h i s to ry surrounding t heassass ina t i on ;



.

Sec. 2 (a) (5) l eg i s l a t i on i s necessary because t heFreedom o f Informat ion Act , as implemented by the

execut ive branch, has prevented the t imely pub l ic

d i sc losure of records r e l a t i ng t o the assass ina t ion o f

Pres ident John F. Kennedy;

Sec. 2 (a) (7) most of the records r e l a t e d t o t heassass ina t ion o f Pres iden t John F. Kennedy a re almost

30 years o ld , and only in the r a r e s t cases i s t he re anyl eg i t ima te need for cont inued pro tec t ion of suchrecords .

The Records Col lec t ion Act by Sec. 3(2) (I) spec i f i ca l l y

inc ludes a record t h a t i s re la ted to t he assass ina t ion of

Pres ident John F. Kennedy, t h a t was c rea ted o r made ava i l ab le fo r

use by, obta ined by, o r otherwise came i n to t he possess ion of

any Executive agency and the re fore , beyond argument , inc ludes

the mate r ia l which P la in t i f f seeks in t h i s ac t ion to have

disc losed .

Sect ion 6 provides the grounds fo r postponement of pub l ic

d i sc losu re of records only i f t he re i s c l e a r and convincing

evidence t ha t -

(1) the t h r e a t to the mi l i t a ry defense, i n t e l l i ge nc e

operat ions , o r conduct of fore ign r e l a t i ons o f t he UnitedSta tes posed by the pub l ic d i sc losu re of the assass ina t ioni s o f such grav i ty t h a t t outweighs t he pub l ic i n t e r e s t ,and such p u l ~ i c d i sc losu re would r evea l -

(A) a n i n t e l l i g e n c e a ge n t whosecur ren t ly requ i res p ro tec t ion ;

i d e n t i t y

(B) an i n t e l l i ge nc e source o r method which i scur ren t ly u t i l i zed , o r reasonably expected to beu t i l i zed , by t he United Sta tes Government and which hasnot been o f f i c i a l l y d isc losed , the d i sc l o su re of whichwould i n t e r f e r e with the conduct o f in te l l igence

a c t i v i t i e s ; o r

(C) any o ther mat te r cur ren t ly r e l a t i ng to

- 2 -



'

mi l i t a ry defense , i n t e l l i ge nc e operat ions o r conduct of

fore ign r e l a t i ons of the United Sta tes , t he d i sc losu reo f which would demonstrably impair t he na t iona ls e c u r i t y of the United Sta tes ;

2) the pub l ic d i sc losure of the assass ina t ion record

would reveal t he name o r i de n t i t y o f a l i v ing person whoprovided conf iden t i a l informat ion to the United Sta tes and

would pose a s ubs t a n t i a l r i s k o f harm to t h a t person;

3) the pub l ic d i sc losu re o f t he assass ina t ion record

could be reasonably expected t o c ons t i t u t e an unwarrantedinvasion of persona l pr ivacy, and t h a t invas ion of pr ivacy

i s so s ubs t a n t i a l t h a t it outweighs the pub l ic i n t e r e s t ;

4) the pub l ic d i sc losure o f the assass ina t ion record

would compromise t he exis tence o f an unders tanding o f

c onf ide n t ip l i t y cur ren t ly requ i r ing p ro tec t ion between aGovernment agent and a coopera t ing ind iv idua l o r a fore ign

government, and pub l ic d i sc losu re would be so harmful t h a tit outweighs t he pub l ic i n t e r e s t ; o r

5) the pub l ic d i sc losu re of the assass ina t ion recordwould reveal a secur i ty o r protec t ive procedure cur ren t lyu t i l i zed , o r reasonably expected to be u t i l i zed , by t heSecret Service o r another Government agency respons ib le fo r

p ro tec t ing Government o f f i c i a l s , and pub l ic d i sc losu re wouldbe so harmful t h a t it outweighs the pub l ic i n t e r e s t .

Sec. 11 of t he Records Collec t ion Act provides t h a t i t

sha l l t ake precedence over any o ther law , j ud i c i a l dec i s ion

cons t ru ing such law, o r common law doc t r ine t ha t would otherwise

p r o h i b i t such t ransmiss ion o r d i sc losu re Clear ly ,

t he re fo re , re l i ance by the Federa l Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion in

t h i s case upon t he provis ions of the Freedom o f In format ion Act

i s overr idden by t he Records Collec t ion Act .

Examination of the Senate Report Number 102-328 11 A) U.S.

Code Congressional Adminis t ra t ive News 2965) makes c l ea r t h a t

t he purpose of t he Records Col lec t ion Act i s , among o ther

- 3 -



cons i s ten t ob jec t ives , to achieve speed o f records d i sc losu re ,

and enforceabi l i ty . At 2966, the t h rus t o f t he Act i s to

provide fo r the most comprehensive d i sc losu re of records r e l a t ed

to t he a ssass ina t ion of P res iden t Kennedy. id . The Sena te

found (a t 2969) t h a t the Freedom o f Informat ion Act, as

implemented by t he Executive Branch, has impeded t he t imely

publ ic d isc losu re o f the assass ina t ion records and t h a t only in

the r a r e s t cases i s t h e re any l eg i t ima te need fo r cont inued

pro tec t ion of such records . In deal ing with Standards fo r

postponement (a t 2976) ' t he Senate Report s t a r t s with a

presumption of d i sc losu re es t ab l i shed by t he Act, bu t cont inues

t h a t even postponement (never permanent concealment) r equ i res

t h a t t he re be 1 c l e a r and convincing evidence 1 t h a t p a r t i c u l a r

s tandards for postponement a re t r igge red .

In t h i s case , t he FBI r e l i e s upon pro tec t ing the anonymity

o f a 30 year old source but the Senate Report (a t 2977)

requ i res t ha t cons idera t ion be given to whether t he source or

method i s i nhe r i t e n t l y sec re t , o r whether t was t he in format ion

c o l l e c t e d t ha t was sec re t . In t he i n s t an t case , t he in format ion

col lec ted has al ready been revea led and the name o f an ind iv idua l

has been redacted. Clear ly t he name o f t h a t i nd iv idua l , i n the

con tex t o f the t e x t o f the documents so f a r re l eased , cannot meet

t he Congressional s tandard o f inheren t s ec recy nor r equ i re

secrecy to prevent harm to t h a t person. Sect ion 6(2 ) .

4



;·

Sec t ion 5 (2) (b) (G), as ampl i f ied in t he Senate Report a t

page 2978, dea ls with cases such as t h i s which are t he su b jec t o f

l i t i ga t i on under the Freedom of Informat ion Act on t he date of

enactment (Oct. 26, 1992) . The Report c a l l s fo r immediate and

d i l igen t e f fo r t to d i sc lose the pe r t i ne n t records to these

reques tors s ince cont inued de lay in re lease of such records

wi l l only serve to undermine confidence by those members of the

pub l i c whose pas t i n t e r e s t re su l ted i n the Freedom o f Informat ion

Act l i t i g a t i o n .

t i s re spec t fu l ly submit ted t ha t , t he i s sue having been

t endered by the cross -mot ions now pending before t he Court, and

t he FBI now having had months to cons ider t h i s smal l redact ion ,

t h e mat te r should not be remanded to t he FBI fo r more

cons idera t ion and then subjected to the inevi tab le delays of t he

Assass inat ion Mater ia ls Review Board to be es tab l i shed under t he

Act , bu t tha t , given t he pub l ic po l i cy enuncia ted in t he new

l eg i s l a t ion and t he c l a r i t y o f the m atter a l ready before the

Court , e i t h e r the Federal

to t he wil l of Congress

Court to do so.

c -

Dated: New York, New orkFebruary 11, 1993

Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion should submit

now r t i ~ c r r i ~ or be ordered b:[._;the

// / / / . . / . / ? § <;:;;

/ Resp. x { f . J : I J : I l l y s u 3 - ~ t ; ed : ~ ; : : : : _ ; -\ _ ; / ; j : .··L 1 /--'-

J EIDlili: s . GUTMAN

_ evy, Gutman, Goldberg Kaplan·· Attorneys fo r P l a i n t i f f

275 Seventh Avenue Sui t e 1776New York, ew York 10001(212) 807-9733

5



LAW O F F I C E S

· · cEVY, GUTMAN GOLDBERG KAPLAN

LEOPOLD LEVY 1 9 1 3 1 9 ~ 9THEODORE GUTMAN 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 4 8

G E O R G E G O L D B E R G 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 8 0

JEREMIAH S . GUTMAN

PHILIP KAPLAN

EUGENE N. HARLEY

J im Lso_sar E s q ~9l8 F St r ee t N.W.Room 509Washington D.C. 20004

Dear Mr. Lesar:

May 3 l993

Re: Kay v. FBI

275 S E V E N T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 7 7 6

NEWYORK N.Y. IOOOJ

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9733

FAX ~ 1 ~ 1 8 0 7 - Q 7 3 7

WEST CHEST ER OFFICE

Z RJYE:RVIEW PLACE

HAST ING 5-0N-HUDSO N, N Y 1 0 7 0 6

Q I4 /47B-3 ' 5 ' 5Q

I regre t t h a t Judge Korman did not wri t e an opinion inour case and I m sure t h a t t he reason i s t h a t the FBI didno t want one publ i shed.

I m happy to send you a copy o f t he document a t i s suein t he redac ted form. I unders tand t h a t you al ready have itas re l eased pursuan t to t he order in our case .

You might want to t ake a look a t Weberman v . FBI SecondCi rcu i t 80-6l97 where another person way back then sought

t he same document unsuccess fu l ly .

I enc lose as you reques ted a copy o f our SupplementalSummary Memorandum o f Law dated February ll l993 based onthe Kennedy Assass inat ion Records Col lec t ion Act . A copy o ft he s t i pu l a t i on of 8 ~ ~ l e m ~ n ~ and urcter o ~ m i s s a l ass igned by the Judge i s a l so e n c l o s e d . ~ .

I f you want o ther documents i n ~ h e record l e t me knowand I wi l l have them copied fo r ~ 7 ~

JSG:j fEnc.cc: Aron Kay

~ ·iny

Gutman



Je remiah S. Gutman Esq.Levy Gutman Goldberg Kaplan275 Seventh Avenue Sui t e 1776New York NY 10001

U S Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Eastern District o New York

I Pierrepont Plaza

lith Floor

Brooklyn New lVrk ll201

March 1.5, 1993

Re: Kay v FBI 92 CV 2438

Dear Mr. Gutman:

Enclosed p lease f ind t he s t i p u l a t i o n of se t t l emen tfo r your s igna tu re Once it has been s igned and r e tu rned tome I wi l l send you a copy o f t he t e l e type

By:

. 1 /~_ / I }

Very t r u l y yours

M RY JO WHITEUnited Sta t e s Attorney

S R H J LUM =Ass i s t an t U.S. Attorney718-330-2757/7100



· ·

RLB:SJL

F. 9204632



- - - - -X

ARON KAY

P l a i n t i f f

aga ins t -


Defendant .

- - - -X

STIPULATION OFSETTLEMENT AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Civ i l Act ionNo. CV 92-2438

WHEREAS the p l a i n t i f f f i l e d t h i s ac t ion seeking a

c e r t a i n document r e l a t ing to t he a s s a s s ina t ion of Pres iden t John

F. Kennedy, and

WHEREAS the defendant Federa l Bureau of Inve s t iga t ion

has aga in reviewed t he reques t and has in exerc i s ing i t s

d i sc re t i on decided to re lease an unredac ted copy of the document

sought by t he p l a i n t i f f to assuage pub l i c i n t e r e s t i n t he events

surrounding t h e a s sa s s i n a t i o n

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and

between t he p l a i n t i f f ARON KAY by h i s unders igned a t t o rn e y and-- · - -

defendant Federa l Bureau of Inve s t iga t ion by i t s a t to rney MARY

JO WHITE, United Sta tes Attorney fo r the Easte rn D is t r i c t o f New

York, Sarah J . Lum, Ass i s t an t U.S. Attorney o f counse l t h a t t he

above capt ioned a c t i o n sha l l be dismissed wi th pre jud ice without

cos t s or a t to rneys fees and t h a t upon such d i smissa l t he



defendant sha l l re lease to t he p l a i n t i f f an unredac ted copy o f

t he document sought in t he complaint .

Dated: New York, NYMarch 1993

New

B y : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S. GUTI1ANY J O ~

United Sta t e s Attorney EDNY

Attorney fo r Defendant

2

Dated: Brooklyn, NY

March 1993

One Pie r repon t Plaza 11th Fl .Brooklyn, New York 11201

By:

SO ORDERED:

Dated: Brooklyn,NY

March 1993

HON. EDW/>..RD R. KORMAN .U.,S. D. J

SARAH J . LUM SL3571)Ass is tan t U.S. Attorney



L A W O F F I C E S

LEVY GUTMAN GOLDBERG KAPLAN

L E O P O L D LEVY 1013-1020

THEODORE OUTMAN 1013·1048

GEORGE GOLDBERG 1013- 1 ;180

.JEREMIAH S. OU T MAN

PHIL IP KAPLAN

EU G ENE N . HA RL EY

Mr. Aron Kay

February 16 1993

424 Brighton Beach AvenueBrooklyn Y 11235

Re: FBI Case

Dear Aron:

2 7 5 S E V E N T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 7 7 6

N E W Y O R K , N . Y . 1 0 0 0 1

T E L E P H O N E 2 12 / 807 9733

FAX 2 1 2 8 0 7 - 7 7

W E S T C H ~ S T E . O II P IC E

Z RIV E RV IEW P LA CE

H.O.STIHGS..OH- HUDSOH , H . Y . 1 7

Q I4 / 4 7 · 3 S S Q

Since wri t ing my e a r l i e r l e t t e r I have heard from JudgeKorman. He has persuaded Deputy Direc tor Carp of the FBI tor e l ea se t he en t i r e document without dele t ions . The Judgew i l l be ente r ing an Order marking t he case s e t t l e d andwithdrawn subjec t to being r e i n s t i t u t e d if t he FBI does no t

make good on i t s promise . We w i l l not be e n t i t l e d to seekcos t s o r a t to rneys fees .

I w i l l keep a f t e r t he U.S. Attorney to make su re t ha tt he FBI does in f ac t r e l eas e t he docurnen i ck ly asposs ib le .

We should now t h ink ab what e l s el i g h t o f t he Archives Ac r e f e r r ed to inf i l e d a couple o f day ago and in l i gh to f t he FBI.

JSG: j f

ant to demand ine Memorandum I

f t he new a t t i t ude



.

ME UM

DATE: November 13, 1992

TO: Fi l e

FROM:Jeremiah S.

~ t m a nRE:

IKay v . FBI - Telep ne al l November 13, 1992 From the

chambers of Judge;lll orman. ; '•'

T h ~ .Judge i s t i e d up and cannot make t he l:OO P.M.conferenCe. c a l l today. The lerk asked me to ca l l Ms. -L m to

ad.wi:se ;;her-of-:--·tll:at f c t ana· -che-chclmbers woUld c ntac ·both

O f ilil s td , .set up a new conference ca l l appointment .

Aron ay



DATE:

TO:

FROM

RE:

M E M O R N D U M

November 2, 1992 / fFi l e 1

Jeremiah s. G m j p Argument o f M October 30, 1992, Kay v. FBI

Before u d g o a n

The Government conceded t h a t we were c or r e c t and t h a t wewere now a t t he subs tan t ive i s sue o f whether t he f a i l u re tosupply t he redac ted mater ia l was j u s t i f i e d . After l i s t en i ngto us and the Government, t he Judge s a id t h a t a f t e r 30 yearson such an impor tant i s sue , the Government ought tor econs ider . The Judge d i rec ted the Ass i s t an t U.S. Attorney

to have t he Direc to r of the FBI himse l f not somesubord ina te , bu t t he Direc tor review t h e dec i s ion and dec idewhether t he mater ia l i s to be r e leased . The Judge s e t at e lephone conference c a l l fo r Friday, November 6, 1992 a t3:00 P.M. The c a l l i s to be i n i t i a t e d by Ms. Lum and i s toinc lude h e r and the Judge and me, and if t h e U.S. Attorneywants it a rep resen ta t ive of the FBI. The Judge s a id t h a tif t h e Government dec ides to r e l e a se the in fo rmat ion , he wi l lbe plea sed not to have to dec ide it bu t t ha t , if theGovernment does no t , he w i l l dec ide t he cross-mot ions fo rsummary judgment.

cc: Aron Kay



The Judge then asked y permiss ion to c a l l Judge Sess ions

persona l ly and to br ing t he mat t e r to h i s a t t e n t ion s ince it was

a mat te r of gre a t h i s t o r i c a l importance concerning an event

v i t a l l y a f fec t ing t he h i s to ry o f t he Republ ic and keeping it

s e c r e t could only l ead to more specu la t ion as to what was be ing

hidden. I agreed h e a r t i l y t h a t t he Judge should c a l l Judge

Sess ions . Ms. Lum was r e l uc t an t and t he Judge i n t e r j e c t e d t h a t ,

i Judge Sess ions wanted to have h i s counse l on t he l i n e with

him t h a t would be f ine with t he Judge. The Judge then s a id t h a t

he would c a l l Judge Sess ions persona l ly and a new conference c a l l

was s e t fo r 11/13/92 a t l:OO PM t he c a l l to be i n i t i a t e d by Ms.

Lum and to be pu t through to the J u d g e s chambers a t 718/330-

7837.

cc: Aron Kay



MEMOR NDUM OF CONVERSATION

November 6, 1992

Conference Cal l 11:00 M

Judge Korman JSG and Ass is tan t U.S. Attorney Sarah Lum

Ms. Lum r e p o r t s t h a t t he de le t ion number cons i s t ing o f t he

s ing l e area between words . Galveston and ind ica ted i s not

occupied by the name Fe r r i e . She sa id t h a t she had confer red

wi th FBI counsel and t he Bureau had decided t h a t t was aga ins t

ts po l icy t o revea l t he i den t i t y o f a conf ident ia l in formant and

t he d i sc losu re o f t h a t word would revea l such i den t i t y . The

Judge asked whether she had conferred wi th t he Di rec to r himse l f

bu t she sa id she had not , t h a t t had gone only as f a r as Bureau

counse l .

The Judge s a id t h a t t was h i s d i rec t i on t h a t an independent

judgment be made by a person o f consequence with in t he FBI and

t h a t Judge Sess ions was the person t h a t t he Judge thought be s t

su i t ed to do t he job . Ms. Lum s a id t h a t t he dec i s ion had been

made by t he Bureau and t h a t was a l l she could do. The Judge

asked her to a r range fo r Judge Sess ions , o r a l e a s t a high

ranking Deputy, to review t he mat ter . She was unable to

under take to accomplish t ha t .



KAY

Pl.ainti£f s)

-agains t -ORIER

F . B . I . r:efendant s ) 92 CV 2438 ERK)

A s ta tus =nfererx:e w i l l be held in th is case a t _:_o_o_P_ _M_.

on _ . . : : : N : : : o : . . : v : . . . : · : . . . . . . . : 4 ~ ....' -1z9z9..:.2 before A. SiiiDn Olrein, U¢.ted Sta tes

Magist ra te , in Roan 352. 225 eaanm Plaza East . B:rookl.yn. New Yo:dc. All

= u n s e l nust be present . In the event an an5 oier has not yet been f i led,

p l a i n t i f f ' s =unsel s to not i£y =unseJ. for the defendant of th is conference

as soon as an answer s f i led. I f an an5 oier s not f i l ed p l a i n t i f f ' s =unseJ .

s to not i£y the umersigned, in wri t ing, to reach rre two days before t he

scheduled =nfe rerx;e. No request for adjourment w i l l be =nsidered unless

Imde a t l eas t forty-eight 48 l mur s before the scheduled =nferenoe .

Clerk: s c . i=ted to rrai1. a =r r f of th is order to =unseJ. for a l l

p r t ies aweariflg in th is case.

r::ated: B:rookl.yn, New Yo:dc

Se p t . 10, 1992

·



L A W O F F I C E S

LEVY GUTMAN GOL DB E RG KAPLAN

LEOPOLD LEVY 1 9 1 3 -1 9 2 9

T HE O DO RE GUTMAN 1913-1< ;148

G E O RG E G O L DB E RG 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 8 0

.JEREMIAH S . GUTMAN

PHIL IP KAPLAN

EUGENE N. HARLEY

Mr. Aron Kay

424 Brighton BeachBrooklyn New York

Dear Mr. Kay:

Avenue11235

Ju ly 6 1992

Re: FOIA

275 S E V E N T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 1776

N E W Y O R K , N. Y . 10001

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9733

FAX (212) 807 Q737

W t: ITCHt :STER O f " nC t :

RI V E RV I E W P LA CE

HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON N Y 1 0 7 o e

9 1 4 / 4 7 9 · . 3 5 5 0

I enclose a copy o f t he F B I s answer to our appeal .

ENHjwl

Enclosure

cc: A.J . Weberman



Je remiah S. Gutman, Esqui reLevy, Gutman, Goldberg

Kaplan275 Seventh AvenueSui t e 1776New York, New York ~ U l

ueparnnent or ustice

Office of Policy and Communications

Office o nformation and Privacy

Ubshington D.C. 20530

June 30, 1992

Re: Aron Morton Kay, FOIPA 357,579

Dear l·fr. Gutman:

This i s to advise you t h a t your admin i s t ra t ive appeal fromt he a c t i o n of t he Federa l Bureau o f Inve s t iga t ion on your reques tfo r informat ion from t he f i l e s o f the Department of J u s t i c e wasr ece ived by t h i s Off ice on June 22, 1992.

The Office of In format ion and Privacy which has t her e spons i b i l i t y o f ad jud ica t ing such appea l s has a subs t an t i a lbacklog o f pending appea ls r ece ived p r i o r to yours . In ana t tempt to a f fo rd each appe l l an t equal and impar t i a l t rea tmen t

we have adopted a genera l pra c t i c e o f as s ign ing appeal s in t h eapproximate order o f r ece i p t . Your appeal has been ass igned

number 92-1572. Please mention t h i s number in any fu tu re

correspondence to t h i s Off ice regarding t h i s mat te r .

e wi l l no t i fy you o f t he dec i s ion on your appeal as soon aswe can. The necess i ty o f t h i s de lay i s r e g re t t e d and your

c o n t ~ n u i n g courtesy s apprec.ia t.ed

Sincere ly~ c : q ~rema A. Hanshaw

Para lega l Spec i a l i s t

Off ice o f Informat ion and Privacy



RLBF .



- - - - -xARON KAY

P la in t i f f

- agains t -

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Defendant .

- - - - - - - - - -x

ANSWER

Civ i l ActionNo. CV 92-2438

Kerman, J .

Defendant FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION by ts

a t torney ANDREW J . MALONEY United Sta tes Attorney for t he

Eas tern Dis t r i c t of New York, SARAH J . LUM Ass i s t an t Uni ted

Sta t e s Attorney, of counse l answers t he correspondingly numbered

and l e t t e r ed paragraphs of t he compla in t of ARON KAY on

informat ion and be l i e f as fol lows.

FIRST : This paragraph con ta ins conclus ions of law as

to which no response i s r equ i red .

SECOND: Defendant lacks knowledge or in format ion

su f f i c i en t to form a be l i e f as to the t r u t h of these a l l ega t i ons .

THIRD: Denies defendant i s an agency of t he Uni ted

Sta t e s . Admits defendant has con t ro l over t he record .

FOURTH: Defendant lacks knowledge or in format ion

su f f i c i en t to form a be l i e f as to t he t r u t h of these a l l ega t i ons

except t h a t defendant admits p l a i n t i f f s igned a l e t t e r dated





AF FIDAVIT OF MAll JNG

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ss:

being duly sworn says that on the day

I deposited in Mail Chute Drop for mailing in the U.S. Courthou

Cadman Plaza East Borough of Brooklyn County of Kings City and State of New York a

of which the annexed is a true copy contained in a secure

enclosed postpaid wrapper directed to the person hereafter named at the place and address stated below:

Sworn to before me this

day of

AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICES

STATE OF NEW YORKCOUC:TY OF KI:\GS

EASTERN DISTRICT OF N W YORK. ss:

. being duly sworn says that he is employed in the office

the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. That on the ___ day of_____

he served a true copy of the annexed on the office

attorney for

Borough of

a true copy of same with his clerk or other person in charge of said office.

Sworn to before me this

day of

herein. located

City of New York by leavi

Form USA·52a

tRev 7 82



TAKE NOTICE that the witltin will be

settlement and signature to the Clerk

United States District Court in his office at

Courthouse , 225 Cadman Plaza East,

New York , un the day of __

, at : 30 o clock in the forenoon .

: Brooklyn New York,

19

United States Attorney,

Attorney fo r

for -

NOTICE that the within is a

of _____ _ _ dul y entered herein

day of

, inthe

o ffice ofthe

Clerk ofDistrict of New York,

Brookly n, New York

19

United States Attorney,

At to rne y fo r

for

Civi l Action No. CV-92-2438


Eastern District of New York

RON KAY,

Pla in t i f f

- Against -


Defendant .

ANSWER

NDREW J. MALONEY

llnilt>d Stairs Attorney,

Attorney tor DefendantO f f a n anJ Post Office AJdrrss,

llniteJ States Courthouse

Cadman Pla1.a F.ast

Brooklyn, New York I I : 0 I

Due Sl rvice o f a copy of the within _____

is hereby admitted .

Da L'd : (() ___

Attornl y for

SARAH J . LUM, AUSA

(718) 330-2757/7100



Jeremiah s. Gutman Esq.Le¥7 , Gutman c l d b a ~ g Kaplan

~ ~ e v e n t h Avenue Sui te 1776New York , NY 10001

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Eastern District o New York

I Pierrepont Plaza

lith Floor

Brooklyn NewYork 112 1

June 18 1992

Re: Kay v . FBI. 92 CV 2438

Dear Mr. Gutman:

We a re wr i t ing to confi rm our agreement reached over

the t e lephone today t h a t t he government wi l l have u n t i l Ju l y27 1992 to e i t h e r e n te r a s t ipu la t ion s t ay ing the abovereferenced ac t ion or to answer o r otherwise respond to t he

compla in t .

We apprec ia t e your cour tesy in t h i s mat te r .

Bv:

Very t r u ly yours

ANDREW J o MALONEY

United Sta t e s Attorney

J ~SA.RAi I J o LUM

Ass is tan t U.S. Attorney718-330-2757/7100



L A W O F F I C E S

LEVY, GUTMAN, GOLDBERG KAPLAN

L E O P O L D L E V Y 1Q13-1Q2Q

T H E O D O R E GUTMAN 1Q13-1Q48

G E O R G E G O L D B E R G I Q I 3 - I Q 8 0

J E R E M I A H S O U T M A N

P H I L I P KAPLAN

E U G E N E N . H A R L E Y

Sara Lum Esq.Uni ted StaEes Courthouse225 Cadman Plaza Eas t

Brooklyn Y 11201

Re: Kay v. FBI 92 Civ. 2438

Dear Ms. Lum:

275 S E V E N T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 1776

NEWYORK, N.Y. 1 0 0 0 1

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9733

F X 212) 8 0 7 - Q 7 3 7

WE:STCHE:STE:R OI" ""ICE:

2 RIVERVIEW PLACE

HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, N .Y . 1 0 7 0 0

0 1 4 / 4 7 6 · 3 . 5 . 5 0

June 15 1992

In accordance with our conversa t ion o f Fr iday evening enclosedyou w i l l f ind in t r i p l i c a t e a proposed s t i pu l a t i on .

It i s t he in ten t ion of the p l a i n t i f f as r ec i t ed in thes t i p u l a t i o n to f i l e an admin i s t ra t ive appeal wi th the ass i s t an tAttorney General Off ice o f Legal Pol icy a t the of f i ce of theDepartment of Jus t i ce in Washington. For your informat ion a

copy of t he l e t t e r enc los ing the excised product ion i s enclosed.

By s t ipu la t ing to s t ay t h i s ac t ion un t i l t e rminat ion o f theadmin i s t ra t ive proceeding it wi l l be poss ib le to d iscon t inue the

ac t ion in the event t h a t the p l a i n t i f f i s s a t i s f i e d but to f i l ean amended or supplemental complaint to bring the mat ter up toda te and address t he exc i s ion r a t h e r than the en t i r e den ia lshould the proceeding end in t h a t m2-.nner • .

If you have any d i f f i c u l t i e s comments or sugges t ions I wil l behappy to hear from you.

Very t r u ly yours

Jeremiah S. Gutman

JSGjmw

Encl .cc: Aron Kay

b e e : Alan J 1veberman





5 . The pa r t i e s agree t h a t t h i s ac t ion be s t ayed pending

t he t e rmina t ion o f t h a t appea l and a l l admini s t ra t ive proceedings

in connect ion the rewi th .

Dated: June lS l992 Levy Gutman Goldberg KaplanAttorneys fo r Pl a i n t i f f

By:

Andrew J . MaloneyUni ted Sta t e s Attorney f o rt he Eastern Dis t r i c t o f New YorkAttorney fo r Defendant

By:~ S ~ R ~ ~ L ~ U M ~Ass i s t an t U.S. Attorney

2



_ _ _S_T = E = R:..:.N::..;___ _DISTRICT OF - NEW YORK ARON KAY

Pla in t i f f

v.


Defendant .

TO: (Name and Address of O e f e ~ a a ~

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

CASE NUMBER: 9ZCet/ ZV31GitMfUJ a ~

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk of this Court and serve upon

PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY (name and addressJ

LEVY, GUTMAN GOLDBERG KAPLAN

275 Seventh Avenue, Su i t e 1776New York, New York 10001

212) 807-9733

an answer to the complaint . Jhich is herewith served upon you, within 60 days after servithis summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be tagainst you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

ay l , 1992CLERK DATE





--------------------------------------XARON KAY,

Pla in t i f f

- aga ins t -


Defendant.

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

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Pl a i n t i f f by hi s a t to rneys Levy, Gutman, Goldberg

Kaplan, r espec t fu l ly a l leges as and for his ve r i f i e d complaint a

follows:

I . JURISDICTION

FIRST: This i s an ac t ion under the Freedom o f Informatio

Act [FOIA] 5 u.s.c. §552 e t . s eq . as amended, to order th

product ion of a s ing le two page document in the possess ion of th

Defendant Federal Bureau of Inves t iga t ion . P l a i n t i f f seek

dec la ra tory and in junc t ive r e l i e f . This Court has ju r i sd ic t io

pursuant to 5 u.s.c. §552 and 28 u.s.c. §1331. Venue i s prope

in t h i s d i s t r i c t pursuant to 5 u.s.c. §552 a 4) (B) and 28 u.s.c

§1391.

I I . PARTIES

SECOND P l a i n t i f f i s a c i t i z e n of the United States

i n t e r e s t e d in American h i s t o r y and, in pa r t i c u l a r th

assass ina t ion of Pres ident John F. Kennedy. P l a i n t i f f res ides a

424 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11235 within th



j u r i s d i c t i on of t h i s Court .

THIRD: Defendant i s an agency of the United Sta t e s and

has possess ion of and cont ro l over the record t h a t P l a i n t i

seeks .

I I I . AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION

FOURTH: On or about February 15, 1992, P l a i n t i f f mailed

Defendant a r eques t under the Freedom of Informat ion Act f

access to a cer t a in two page FBI t e l e type dated November

1963. [A copy of the reques t i s annexed as Exhib i t A.]

FIFTH: The reques t was rece ived by Defendant on Februa

20, 1992. [A copy of the c e r t i f i e d mail r e tu rn rece ip t i

annexed as Exhib i t B.]

SIXTH: Defendant acknowledged rece ip t of the reques t

( 357579) on March 2, 1992. [A copy of the Acknowledgement i

annexed as Exhib i t C.]

SEVENTH: More than t en days have passed s i nce Defendant

r ece ip t of P l a i n t i f f s r eques t and no subs tan t ive response of an

kind has been rece ived .

EIGHTH: P l a i n t i f f has a s t a tu to ry r i gh t to the record h

seeks and there i s no l ega l bas i s fo r Defendant ' s re fusa l to

d i sc lose t to him.

WHEREFORE P l a i n t i f f prays t h a t t h i s Court :

A. Declare t ha t Defendant ' s re fusa l to d i sc lose the record

reques ted by P l a i n t i f f i s unlawful ;

B. Enjoin Pl a i n t i f f from fu r the r r e fus i ng to disc lose the

record to Pl a i n t i f f ;





Freedom of Informat ion Off ice r

Federal Bureau of Inves t iga t ion

9th and Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.Washington, D.C. 20535

Re: Freedom of Informat ion Act Request

Dear Si r or Madam:

Under the provis ions of the Freedom of Informat ion Act, 5 U552, I hereby reques t access to a ce r t a in two-page FBI te l

from Special Agent · in Charge, Houston, to Specia l Agencharge Dallo.s a 1 ~ d ~ c : : ; C ~ l = . . n s , d:.:ted Novi=nnber 26 ·1963

bel ieve th i s document i s or was a t one t ime loca ted in the Df i e ld off ice of the FBI and i s known, or a t one t ime was kas Dallas ie ld Off ice Document No. 89-43-879.

I am making t h i s reques t p r imar i ly fo r the benef i t of the pbecause I be l ieve t h a t t he document conta ins informat ionthe publ ic i s e n t i t l e d to have and I t he re fore reques t t h areduce or waive any fees which may in involved fo r searchinor copying the document.

I f a l l or any p a r t of t h i s reques tspec i f ic exemption which you th inkprovide me with copies of a l lava i lab le to me.

i s denied, please c i tj u s t i f i e s your re fusa

re levant appeal proce

Since a l l I seek i s a s ing le document, the exis tence of a baof searches should in no way in te r f e re with the a b i l i t y ofBureau to comply with t h i s reques t within t he t en days proby la;.;, and I t he re fore look forward to a prompt and comresponse within the t ime provided by law.

Date> " t - r c ~ · : Yc::-:k, ~ = . : . : : ~ c : : : kFebrliary ~ , 1992

Mf LV N R ~ B r . •Nmar -- utllc. Sta· ::. 7 .....

~ 2 4 · 3 1 9 0 rl)J

SS 551-80-8180D O.B. 11/14/49Residence Address:424 Brighton BeachBrooklyn, NY 11235

AOualmed n Kmgs Coum-.

rtJbmmiSSIOn Expires Feb. 8 ..•..

Please address y ~ ; ; response to t h i s FreedomRequest to my at torneys Levy, Gutman, Goldberg

of InformKaplan, 275



....c

<0U1

CJ....c

.....

a.iIj

I

·.·

;)I

00

g's I

' 0c

s ' I

'

u "

·-::i

I

I 0~ . .I

' "".::: § 0

I gc cc u.;;: c i ~Q

-:;; -:;;• 0

i0 c

"ic

I0

"0

i0ci a:a: c 5§

..' ,; < E

< i :;;

" 0 aa: - I I c a.

SB6l unr ·oooc w J o ~ Sd

/ . ? : o . t e O I D ; ; n v e ; v ~ ~ ~ 1 . : ..... ······ . .... ;

DOMESTI RETURN RE EIPT

Exhibit 6



• •

I \U.:S. epartment f u s ~ c e

Federal Bureau oflnvestigation

MR. ARON MORTON KAY Washinxron D.C. 205 ?5

C 0 LEVY, GUTMAN GOLDBERGAND KAPLAN

SUITE 1776 Request No. _3_5_7_5_7 =...9275 7TH AVENUE

NEW YORK NY 10001 RE: FBI TELETYPE/FROM SAC HSAC S) DL AND NO

Dear Requester:

1jj This acknowledges your recent Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) requessubmitted to the FBI.

0 Based on the limited information you provided. we cannot make an accurate search

our records. Please furnish your complete name, alias, date and place of birth, prio

addresses, employments. and any specific data that would permit us to locate thedocuments you seek.

0 Please submit your notar ized signature. This procedure is designed to insure that

documents, if located, are released only to an individual having right of access to theinformation.

0 If you want a search of our Identification Division records for any arrest record that m

pertain to you, ·please comply with the enclosed instructions set forth in Attorney Gen

Order 556 73. Fingerprint impressions are needed for compa,ison with records in th

Identification Division to insure that an individual s record is not disseminated to an

unauthorized person.

0 We are currently searching the indices to our central records system files at FBI

Headquarters for any documents which may pertain to your request. Upon completio

of this search you will be notified of the results.

0 Provroe the complete name, date and place of birth for the subject of your request.

If subject is deceased, give date of death and any proof of death you have.

Your request has been assigned the number indicated above. Please use this number in

correspondence with us.

0 Enclosure

Sincerely yours.

Chief

Freedom of InformationPrivacy Acts Section

Records Management Division

··- •

xhibit



STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF

)55 :

)

ARON KAY being duly sworn deposes and says :

I am the P l a i n t i f f in the with in ac t ion . I have read

foregoing COMPLAINT and know the contents t he reo f and I know

same to be t rue to my own knowledge except as to mat te rs t he r

s ta ted to be a l l eged upon informat ion and be l i e f and as to tho

mat te rs I be l i eve them to be t rue .

TEV-at ROMMNOTARYPUilUC St:rte o New York

No. 24 4817743

Qualified In t<klgs County < zCommission Explma Nav 30 ~ ___.;

( ·- ·c _

ARON KAY

I··

I( .. ..





-

L AW O F F I C E S


L EO PO L D LEVY IQ I3 IQ2 Q

THEODORE OUTMAN IQI3-1Qo4B

GEORGE GOLDBERG IQ I3 - I Q 8 0

.JEREMIAH S. OUTMAN

PHIL IP KAPLAN

EUGENE H . HARLEY

v ia c e r t i f i e d Mail

A ss i s t an t Attorney GeneralOff i ce o f Legal Pol icyAt tn: Off ice o f Informat ion and Pr ivacy

Uni ted Sta tes Department o f Jus t i c eWashington, D.C. 20530

2 7 5 S E V E N T H A V E N U E S U I T E 1 7 7 e

N E W Y O R K N .Y . 1 0 0 0 1

T E L E P H O N E 2 12 / 807 9733

FAX 1212l B 0 7 Q 7 3 7

WESTCHESTE O,.I ICE.

2 I ' I IVERVIEW PLACE

HASTINOS.ON-HUDSOH N .Y . 1 0 7 0 e

GI .. / .. 71S· 3 5 S G

June 15, 1992

Re: Freedom o f Informat ion Appeal / In format ion AppealRequest No. 357579United Sta te s D i s t r i c t Court , Eastern D i s t r i c t o f New YorkCase No. 92 Civ. 2439 Korman, J .

Dear Madam o r S ir :

Aron Morton Kay, by h i s unders igned a t t o r neys , hereby appea l s a l lexc i s ions made to a ce r t a in t e l e type dated November 26, 1963.The exc i s ions a re a l l j u s t i f i e d by purpor ted r e l i ance upon5 Uni ted Sta t e s Code §552 b) 7) D).

sense

t he event ,

be expectedand

name o f a

The person

noby



.


res tor ing the excis ion. Furthermore, no conf ident ia l informat iocould be disc losed o ther than what i s already in the te le typbecause the disc losure by the excised person i s s e t for th .

Apparently there were two other persons in the room, one of whommight be the one who ind ica ted they were fr iends o f Oswald.These persons are Melvin S. Coffey (or Cofey) and a blonde, whitfemale whose name was unknown. t might have been one of thoswho made the ind ica t ion but it could not be the l a t t e r s ince thHouston SAC did not know her name and disc losure t ha t it waCoffey would compromise no conf ident ia l source since hi s name i sa Lready cuntained i:ti th document ~ c l e a s e dOn the second page of the te le type there are two dele t ions , thf i r s t does not seem, by grammatical cons t ruc t ion both before ana f t e r the excis ion , to iden t i fy a person and so the exci s ion i

not wi th in the exemption claim. The second exci s ion on thsecond page r e fe r s to a t h i rd par ty whom t he un iden t i f i ed ananonymous source does not want to know o f h is contac t with th

FBI. This t h i rd par ty , whose name i s excised, i s notconf ident ia l source nor could the exi s t ence of a t h i rd par ty bconf ident ia l informat ion from a conf ident ia l source and there fort h i s excis ion cannot log ica l ly be included within the exemptioclaim.

Even i f one could make a to r tu red conf ident ia l i den t i ty o r sourcor materia l argument for any of these de le t ions , the passage onear ly 29 years s ince t h i s urgent t e l e type was dispatched fromHouston to Dal las and New Orleans renders it incred ib le t ha t thpurpose of the exemption i s served by the excis ions whereas th

cont ra ry appears to be the case, t ha t i s , t ha t the purpose of th

Freedom of Information Act i t s e l f i s subver ted thereby.

cc: Aron Kay

be e : Alan J . Weberman

S R FOR· · t is a p p e a l is

re spec t fu l ly submit ted on behal f oAron Morton Kay by Levy, GutmanGoldberg Kaplan, a t torneys foAron Morton Kay.



Mr. Aron Morton Kayjo Levy, Gutman, GoldbergKaplan

Suite l776275 7th AvenueNew York, NY lOOOl

Dear Mr. Kay:

U S epartment ofJustice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington D. C 20535

June 5, l992

Request Number: 357579Re: FBI teletype/from S C HO

to SAC(S) DL a. .d NO

Enclosed i s an excised copy of the te le type you

requested dated November 26, l963. Also enclosed i s a copy o fthe explanation of exemptions sheet .

You may submit an appeal from any denial containedherein by writing to the Assistant Attorney General, Office ofLegal Policy (Attention: Office of Information and Privacy) ,United States Department of Just ice Washington, D.C. 20530,within th i r ty days from rece ip t of th i s l e t t e r . The envelope andthe l e t t e r should be clear ly marked Freedom of InformationAppeal or Information Appeal. Please c i te the FOIPA numberassigned to your request so tha t t may be easi ly ident i f ied.

Enclosures (2)

sincerely y u r ~v · > ~ 1/ cc_. 9 :lf t vr

J . Kevin O'Brien, ChiefFreedom of Information-

Privacy Acts SectionInformation Management

Division



.• a R e ~ . 12·4·B6

-. 1.

EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS

SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552

b) 1) A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or fore

policy and B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Execut ive order; ·

:b) 2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

:b) 3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute other than section 552b of this title), prov ided that such statute A) requires that the

matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or B) establishes particular criter

withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

b) 4} trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

b) 5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency n litigation

with the agency;

b) 6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure ol which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privac

b) 7) records or information compiled tor law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement reco

or information A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, B) would deprive a person of a rig

a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, C) could reasonably be expected to constitu te an unwarranted invasion of personal priv

D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identi ty of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authori

or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compil

a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national sec

intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enfor

ment investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosur

could reasonably be expected to risk circumvent ion of the law, or F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life of phy

safety of any individual;

b) 8) contained in or related to examination, operating. or condition reports prepared by, on beha lf of, or for the use of an agency responsib

for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions: or

b) 9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps. concerning wells.

SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a

{d) 5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a c1vil action proceeding;

U 2)

k) 1)

k) 2)

k) 3)

k) 4)

k) 5)

k) 6)

material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crimor apprehend criminals, except records of arrest

information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 2356 in the interest of the national defense or fore

policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods:

investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benef it or priv

under Federal programs. or which would identity a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her dentity would

be held in confidence:

material maintained in connection with providing protect ive services to the President of the United States or any other ndividual pursu

to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Sect1on 3056:

required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;

investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employm

or for access to class ified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished i n f o r m t i o ~ pursu

to a promise that his identity would be held in confidence:

testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Governmen t servi

the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;

{k) 7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the d isclosure of which would reveal the identity of the perso

who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his identity would be held in confidence.

F



- U S: Department ofJusticee - ? f i r : : ~ ~ . ~ : - - ~ ~

Federal Bureau of Investigation

MR. ARON MORTON KAYW ~ h i n g t o n . D C 20535 .

C/0 LEVY, GUTMAN GOLDBERGAND. KAPLAN

SUITE 1776

275 7TH AVENUE

NEW YORK NY 10001

Dear Requester:·

MAR 0 3 1992Request No 357 579

RE: FBI TELETYPE/FROM SAC HO TO

SAC S) DL AND NO

· · ~ · · · ..

This acknowledges your recent Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request

submitted to the FBI. ·

0 Based on -the limited nf·xme.tion ~ ' O L prov ded, He ce.:mct m a ~ e an accurate eea:-ch of

our records. Please furnish your complete name, alias, date and place of birth, prior

addresses, employments, and any specific data that would permit us to locate the

documents you seek.

D Please submit your notarized signature. This procedure is designed to insure thatdocuments, if located, are released only to an individual having right of access to the

information.

0 If you want a search of our Identification Division records for any arrest record that might

pertain to you, please comply with the enclosed instructionsset forth in Attorney General

Order 556-73. Rngerpr 1nt impress 1ons are needed for-comparison with records in the

Identification Division to insure that an individual s record is not disseminated to anunauthorized person. · _ , · · ~ .,·/·

D We a r ~ currently searching the indices to our central records system files at FBI

Headquarters for any documents which may pertain· to your'request. Upon completion

of this search you will be notified of the results.

0 Provide the complete name, date and place of birth for the subject of your request.

If subject is deceased, give date of death.and any proof of death you have.

. Your request has been assigned the number indicated above. Please use this number in all

correspondence with us. ____

D Enclosure

Sincerely yours,

Q . / 1_,_/ r

• )' ,..2./'..r.r-/'-.,I

.Chief . - .

Freedom of Information·

Privacy Acts Section

Records Management Division



Freedom of In format ion O ff i c e r

Federa l Bureau of Inve s t iga t ion9 th and Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20535

Re: Freedom of Informat ion Act Request

Dear S i r o r Madam:

Under t he prov is ions of t he Freedom of In format ion Act, 5 U.S.C.552, I hereby reques t access to a ce r t a in two-page FBI t e l e t ypefrom p e ~ i ~ l ~ g e n t in Charg e. HoustQ :, t 2 p e c i ~ l AgentsCharge, Dal las and New Orleans , dated November 26, 1963. Ibe l i eve t h i s document i s or was a t one t ime loca ted in t he Dal las

f i e l d of f i ce of the FBI and i s known, o r a t one t ime was known,as Dal las Fie ld Of f ice Document.No. 89-43-879.

I am making t h i s reques t p r imar i ly fo r t he be n e f i t o f t he pub l i c

because I be l i eve t h a t t he document conta ins informat ion whicht he publ ic i s e n t i t l e d to have and I therefore . reques t t h a t youreduce o r waive any fees which may in invo lved for sea rch ing fo r

o r copying the document.

I f a l l o r any p a r t o f t h i s reques t

s p e c i f i c exemption which you t h inkprov ide me with copies of a l la va i l a b l e t o me.

i s denied, p lease c i t e anyj u s t i f i e s your r e f u s a l and

re levant appeal procedures

s ince a l l I seek i s a s ing l e document, t he ex is tence o f a backlog

o f searches should in no way i n t e r f e r e with t he a b i l i t y o f yourBureau to comply with t h i s request wi th in t he t en days providedby law, and I t he r e fo r e look forward to a prompt and completeresponse within t he t ime prov ided by law.

Dated: New York, New YorkFebruary , 1992

Very t r u ly yours

Aron Morton Kay

SS 551-80-8180

D.O.B. 11/14/49Residence Address:424 Brighton Beach AvenueBrooklyn, Y 11235

Please address your response to t h i s Freedom of In fo rma t ion

Request to my at torneys Levy, Gutman, Goldberg Kaplan, 275 7th



Avenue Sui t e 1776 New York NY 10001 whom I have r eques ted toforward t h i s reques t with t h e i r cover ing l e t t e r .

Aron Morton Kay

STATE OF NEW YORK

s s . :COUNTY OF

On t h i s day o f February 1992 be fore me persona l ly

came ARON MORTON KAY to me known and known to me to be t he

i nd i v i dua l de sc r i b ed in and who execu ted the foregoing

ins t rument and he duly acknowledged to me t h a t he executed t he

same.

Notary Publ ic



LAW O F F I C E S

LEVY GUTMAN, GOLDBERG KAPLAN

LEOPOLD LEVY 1913-19 2 9

T HE O DO RE GUTMAN 191 3 · 1 9 4 8

GEORGE GOLDBERG 1 9 1 3 · 1 9 8 0


PHIL IP KAPLAN

EUGENE N . HARLEY

Alan J . Weberman318 Thi rd Avenue, 520

New York, Y 10010

Dear AJ:

January 29, 1992

Re: FBI Document

275 S E V E N T H A V E N U E SUIT E 1776

NEW Y O R K N . Y . 10001

T E L E P H O N E 212 807 · 9733

FAX 1212 8 0 7 ·9737

W£STCHE:STER O,.P ICE

2 RIVERVIEW PLACE

HASTIH05 0H·HUDSO . H . Y . 1 0 7 0 8

Q I4 / 4 7 B · 315SQ

Aron w i l l have to s t a r t a l l over aga in by making ar eques t under the Freedom o f Informat ion Act and t hen

appea l ing up the l i ne and l i t i g a t i n g i necessary . He w i l lhave to ask fo r the document and, i and when he r ece ives as a n i t i z e d vers ion appeal t he de le t ions .

As long as a demand i s being made, should we not demandmore than one document? I s t he re not o ther ma te r i a l to beinc luded in the demand?

You and Aron a re the exper t s so p lease l e t me hear fromyou. I must hear from Aron a l so ~ I ~ e d h i sau thor i za t ion and he wi l l have to s ign s o ~ e papers . I a l s oneed h i s res idence address pl'ld t e lephon / i1umber .

JSG: j f





0

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: J a n u a r y 30 , l992

TO: F i l e

FROMJe 'Lemiah s . Gutman

RE: c o n v e r s a t io n w i t h Aron Mor ton Kay who l i v e s .a t 424Brcighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn , N.Y. l l 2 3 5 ; d a t e o fb i r t h , November l 4 , l 9 4 9 ; S o c i a l S e c u r i t y No.55i l -s b -S l80 ; t e l ep h o n e 7l8-648-7055

Arory :Wil l make t h e demand f o r t h e FBI document · o rdocumen,ts . and fo l l o w up t h e appea l and any l a w s u i t . Fe e s

w i l l be p a i d by AJW.



L A W O F F I C E S


LEOPOLD L..EVY IQ I3 - I Q2 Q

THEODORE GUTMAN IQ I3 - IQ48

GEORGE GOLDBERG I Q I 3 - I Q 8 0


PHIL IP KAPLAN

EUGENE N . HARLEY

Mr. Aron Kay424 Brighton Beach AvenueBrooklyn ew York 11235

Dear Aron:

May 7 1992

Re: Kay v . FBI

2 7 5 S E V E N T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 7 7 6

N E W Y O R K , N . Y . 1 0 0 0 1

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9733

FAX 1212) 8 0 7 - Q 7 3 7

WE STCHESTEft O . . ICE

2 IVERVIEW P LA CE

HAST IHOS-OH-HUDSOH , H . Y . 1 0 70 e

Enclosed for your f i l e s i s a copy of the three-page complaintwhich wi l l be necessary to commence the ac t ion agains t the FBI.Also enclosed are an or ig ina l and a copy of the ver i f i ca t ionpage. Please complete the ver i f i ca t ion page by f i l l i ng in thecounty where you s ign i t s ign your name and have a notary publ ic

comple te the swearing form. send the or ig ina l of t h a tve r i f i ca t ion back to us to be at tached to the o r ig ina l complaintso t h a t the proceeding can be commenced upon payment o f theappropria te f i l i ng fee and f i l i n g papers with the c l e rk of the

cour t .

We ask t ha t we be immediately providedtowards those expenses and fees .

JSG/Wl

Enclosures

bee : A.J . Weberman



LAW O F F I C E S


LEOPOLD LEVY IQ I3 - IQ 2Q

TH E OD OR E OUTMAN I Q I 3 - I Q 48

GE OR GE GOLD B E R G I Q I 3 - I Q 80


P H I L I P KAPLAN

EUGENE N. HARLEY

Mr. Aron Kay424 Brighton BeachBrooklyn, ew York

Dear Aron:

Avenuel l235

May 7 , 1992

Re: Kay v. FBI

2 5 S E V E N T H A V E H U E , S U I T E 1 7 7

NEWYORK, N.Y. 10001

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9733

FAX (212) 6 0 7 - Q 7 3 7

W £ S T C H £ S T £ O . . . . C ~

2 RIVERVI £W PL.. .o.CE

HASTINO ";. .OK-HUD50N, N . Y . I 7 e

Enclosed for your f i l e s i s a copy of the three-page complainwhich wi l l be necessary to commence the ac t ion aga ins t t he FBIAlso enclosed a re an or ig ina l and a copy of the ver i f i ca t ionpage. Please complete the v e r i f i c a t i o n page by f i l l i n g in the

county where you s ign it s ign your name and have a nota ry publ ic

comple te the swearing form. . send the or ig ina l of t have r i f i c a t i on back to us to be a t tached to the or ig ina l complainso t h a t the proceeding can be commenced upon payment of the

appropr ia te f i l i ng fee and f i l i ng papers with the c le rk of the

cour t .

We ask t ha t we be immediate ly provided with 2,500 as a re ta inetowards those expenses and fees .

S ince re ly

Jeremiah S. Gutman

JSG/Wl

Enclosures

b ee : A.J. Weberman



.L A W O F F I C E S


L E O P O L D LEVY 1913-1929

THEODORE GUTMAN 1 9 1 3 -1 9 4 6

G E O RG E G O L DB E RG 1 9 1 3 -1 9 6 0

JEREMIAH S . GUTMAN

PHIL IP KAPLAN

E U G E N E N . HARLEY

Alan J . Weberman

May 28, 1992

318 Third Avenue, Apt. 520

New York, Y 10010

Dear AJ:

275 S E V E N T H A V E N U E , S U IT E 1776

N E W Y O R K N.Y . 10001

T E L E P H O N E 212/607 9 33

FAX 2 1 2 ) 607 9737

WESTCHESTER OFf ' ICE

2 RIVERVIEW P LA CE

HASTING5-0N-HUDSON N . Y . 10 7 0 C

0 1 4 / 4 7 8 - 3 S S O

Enclosed i s a pr in tout of your account which gives youc red i t for the 524.75 you mentio her day. As youknow, the lawsui t has been c need and th prel iminaryl ega l work done, and cour i l i ng fee pa id t c .

I would apprecia

JSG: j fEnc.

payment as soon you can manage it.

Sincere ly



05/27/92


ATTORNEYS AT LAW

275 S E V E N T ~ AVENUE

NEW YORK NEW YQRK 10001

Levy, Gutmau G o ~ e r g i Kaplan

Ledger Lis t ing For 0808, Alan J . Weberman

Seq.# Matt

26464

2709027236

26586 1

26587 126588 l

27026 1

27027 1

27279 127280 1

27281 1

27282 1

27283 1

27284 1

27285 127779 1

277801

27781 1

27782 1

28066 1

28067 128068 1

28069 1

28078 1

I tem

POST

PAYMNT

PAYMNT

FEE

FEE

FEEFEE

FEE

FEEFEE

FEE

FEE

FEEFEE

FEEFEE

FEE

FEE

FEE

FEE

FEEFEE

FEE

FEE

Cost Adv. Pos tage .Payment Thank You

Payment Thank You

JSG 92:Tcs re :Rob/photos a

JSG 92:Tramp M1

. JSG 92:Ls,TASA & G·erriilla

JSG 92:1/7-15 Cl Tc/TASA rpI

Cl/ Cl he re / arrange ·2nd reJSG 92:1/27-30 Credent ia l s

Tcs /cor r . / a r range 2nd opin i

JSG 92:L Tasa iJSG 92:AmEx c o r r . / 2 ~ d r a f t& out iJSG 92:AAron demand in & baL TASA/Fahey

JSG 92:Fahey Tc/Tc C l / f o l l oFOIA/Kay ttr in & out

JSG 92:TASA TcENH 92:Tcs Genna re :Tramp.

I

ENH 92:Tc AJ re :GennaJSG 92:3 /3-6 Foia c o r r . / T r a

AJ here /L FaheyJSG 92:3/9-13 Fahey/TASA/ClTcsJSG 92:Tasa L & Ans. ;JSG 92:L Kay & AJ re :FBI/Fo

ENH 92 :Reseco.rch/FOIA co : pla

ENH 92:Proof Cmpt, Ver i f .

ENH 92: Summons, Desig.. shee

cos t Adv. - Court Fi l i ng FeENH 92:To EDNY - f i l e cmptAVSA/mail serve AG & FBI

Current Balance

Bi l lQty

1. 001.001.00

0.400.200.301.50

0.60

0.100.60

0.30

0.50

0.100.300.201 .50

0.50

0.100.20

1. 80

0.201.201.002.00

Rate

2.25-227.50-524.75

250.00250.00

250.00250.00

250.00

250.00250.00

250.00

250.00

250.00215.00215.00250.00

250.00

250.00250.00

215.00

215.00

215.00120.00215.00

Page

A

-2

-5

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

3

214

23



- · . ; LA W O F F I C E S


L E O P O L D LEVY I Q I 3 · 1QZQ

T H E O D O R E GUTMAN I Q I 3 - I Q 4 6

G E O R G E G O L D B E R G I Q I 3 - I QB O

.JEREMIAH S . OUTMAN

P H I L I P KAPLAN

EUGENE N . HARLEY

Mr. Aron Kay

424 Brighton BeachBrooklyn New York

Dear Mr. KAy:

Avenue11235

May 21 1992

Re: FBI

275 S E V E N T H A V E N U E S U I T E 77e

N E W Y O R K N . Y . 10001

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9 7 33

FAX (212> B 0 7 · Q 7 3 7

W ~ S T C H ; . S T I : O ... P tC E2 RIVERV IEW PLACE

HASTIHOS-OH-HUOSOH, N . Y . 1 0 7 0 e

Q I4 / -47B·3 5SQ

The summons and compla in t wereenclose a copy. Service hass i x t y days to se rve an answer.

f i l ed and t he ac t ion commenced. Ibeen completed and Defendant has

t r u l y yours

u g e n e · ~NH / wl

Enclosurec c : Alan J . Weberman



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. . . ~

EASTERN Dii:S,TRICT OF NEW YORK

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ XRON KAY,.

P la in t i f f

- aga ins t

FEDERAL' BuREA:U OF INVESTIGATION,

. : < o Defendant.

~ 7 x

~ : · . ~ ? ~ ~ : \--... : 4 ~ ~

::·

PLAINTIFF MEMOR NDUM OF L W .IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL SUPERVISIONND OTHER RELIEF

·

Eugene N. Harley 5578)Jeremiah s . GutmanLevy, Gutman, Goldberg & KaplanAttorneys for P l a i n t i f f275 Seventh Avenue, Sui te 1776New York, New York 10001212) 807-9733 '





-----------------------------------XARON KAY

P l a i n t i f f ,

- aga i ns t -


Defendant.

----------------------------------XPLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL SUPERVISIONAND OTHER RELIEF

INTRODUCTION

P la in t i f f f i l ed a Freedom o f Informat ion Act FOIA) request

fo r a s ingle document. When t he Defendant Federal Bureau of

Inve s t iga t ion f a i l ed to respond, P l a i n t i f f commenced and act ion .

The P l a i n t i f f f i n a l l y responded with a heav i ly exc i sed document

and P l a i n t i f f f i l ed an adminis t ra t ive appeal . Bela ted ly ,

Defendant rep l ied t ha t t would no t process the appea l because

t h i s ac t ion i s pending. P l a i n t i f f , by t h i s motion, mere ly seeks

to have t h i s Court r e t a in j u r i s d i c t i o n of the ac t i on while

r e qu i r ing Defendant to move forward exped i t ious ly with the

adminis t ra t ive appea l in order t ha t a f ina l determinat ion can be

made on P l a i n t i f f s FOIA reques t .

ARGUMENT

The s i tua t ion ex i s t i ng in t he presen t case i s exac t ly the

kind of s i tua t ion contemplated by t he Act, 5 USC§552 a) b)C and

permi ts the Court to r e t a in j u r i s d i c t i o n whi le t he agency deals



permi ts the Court to re ta in ju r i sd ic t ion while the agency deals

with i t s adminis t ra t ive process ing in a reasonable manner. See

Grove v . C.I .A. 752 F.Supp. 28,31 D.D.C. 1990); Allen v . Federal

Bureau of Inves t iga t ion 551 F.Supp. 694,696 D.D.C. 1982) .

P l a i n t i f f has exhausted h is adminis t ra t ive remedies. The

reques t for a s ing le document, spec i f i ca l ly descr ibed, was made

on February 15 , 1992 and rece ived on February 20, 1992.

P l a i n t i f f commenced t h i s ac t ion on May 21, 1992, approximately

nine ty days a f t e r the reques t . The response and excised document

was re leased on June 5, 1992, and an appeal was f i l ed on June 15,

1992. Defendant, with twenty days to respond to the appeal

50.S.C.§552 a) b) A) i i ) responded seventy- f ive days l a t e r saying

t h a t t was c los ing i t s appeal due to the pending l i t i ga t i on .

P l a i n t i f f has acted in good fa i th throughout , despi t e

unconscionable delays by the Defendant in responding to a reques t

fo r a s ing le document, spec i f i ca l ly descr ibed. I t s ac t ions .serve

only to f ru s t ra te f i r s t the Pl a i n t i f f and now t h i s Court with

respec t to the c lea r langauge of the Act.

None of the reasons s e t for th in the ac t i n subsect ion

a) 6) B) would be appl icable to a reques t for an extens ion for

even t en days, much l e s s the in te rminable delays of the Defendant

thus fa r . P l a i n t i f f seeks only a s ing le document concerning

which a decis ion on the admini s t ra t ive appeal should be made

swif t ly .

This Court may, and should, requi re the Defendant agency to

complete the admini s t ra t ive appeal with in a spec i f ied t ime so

2



t h a t t h i s mat ter can proceed to a determinat ion . This Court must

r e t a i n j u r i sd i c t ion while t he adminis t ra t ive appeal i s completed.

Dated: ew York, New YorkSeptember ll 1992 one fiaf t o m

e emiah S. GutmanLevy, Gutman, Goldberg KaplanAttorneys for P l a i n t i f f275 Seventh Avenue, Sui t e 1776New York, ew York 10001

212) 807-9733

3






-------------------------------XARON KAY

P l a i n t i f f ,

aga ins t -


Defendant_

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

- _

Index No.92 Civ. 2438

KORMAN)

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, t h a t upon t he annexed a f f i d a v i t of

EUGENE N. HARLEY sworn to the 29th day o f September, 1992,

P l a i n t i f f wil l move t h i s Court in Court Room 6, 225 Cadman

Plaza Eas t , Brooklyn, New York, on t he 30th day of October

1992 a t 11:00 o c loc k in the fore noon of t h a t day o r as soon

t h e r e a f t e r as counsel can be heard for an Order requi r ing

Defendant to respond to P l a i n t i f f s adminis t ra t ive appea l ,

r e t a in ing ju r i sd i c t ion o f t he a c t i on , and exerc i s ing c los e

superv i s ion of the ac t ion to insure reasonable adminis t ra t ive

process ing of the claim, and grant ing to P l a i n t i f f such

other , fu r ther and d i f f e ren t r e l i e f as may be j u s t and

proper .

Dated: New York, New YorkSeptember 29, 1992

TO: Andrew J . Maloney

E N . HARLEY (JE MIAH S- GUTMANLEVY, GUTMAN GOLDBERG KAPLANAttorneys for P l a i n t i f f275 Seventh Avenue - Sui t e 1776

New York, New York 10001212) 807-9733

United Sta tes AttorneyEas te rn D is t r i c t of New York225 Cadman Plaza Eas tBrooklyn, New York 11201Attn: Sara Sum, Esq.





----------------------------------xARON KAY

P l a i n t i f f

- agains t -


Defendant .

----------------------------------xSTATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

)) ss . :)

Index No.92 Civ. 2438(KORMAN, J .

AFFIDAVIT

EUGENE N. HARLEY being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am an a t torney in the f i rm of LEVY GUTMAN GOLDBERG

KAPLAN a t torneys for P l a i n t i f f here in. I am fu l ly fami l i a r

with the fac t s of t h i s mat te r and make t h i s a f f idav i t in support

o f t he with in motion to regu la te the s ta tus o f t h i s ac t ion

pending an adminis t ra t ive appeal .

2. This i s an ac t ion under t he Freedom of Informat ion Act

FOIA) 5 u.s.c. § 552 e t seq . commenced on May 21, 1992

fo l lowing Defendant s fa i lu re to provide the requested document

with in the t ime period spec i f i ed in the Act. The reques t was

made on February 15, 1992 [a copy o f the request i s annexed as

Exhib i t A]

3. Therea f te r On June 5, 1992, Defendant responded to the

reques t by l e t t e r enclos ing an excised copy o f the s ing le

document reques t . [A copy of t he l e t t e r of June 5, 1992 i s

annexed as Exhibi t B, the document i s annexed as Exhib i t CJ

4 . This o f f i c e on b e h a l f o f P l a i n t i f f f i l ed an

adminis t ra t ive appea l from the excis ions on June 15, 1992. [A



copy of the adminis t ra t ive appeal i s annexed as Exhib i t ]

5. Defendant responded by l e t t e r dated August 31, 1992,

near ly seventy- f ive days l a t e r , al though the Act provides for a

response to an adminis t ra t ive appeal with in twenty days. The

l e t t e r sa id, in essence, t ha t the adminis t ra t ive appeal was being

closed due to t he exis tence of t h i s ac t ion. [A copy of

Defendant s l e t t e r o f August 31, 1992 i s annexed as Exhib i t ]

6. Although a P l a i n t i f f must exhaust his admini s t ra t ive

remedies pr io r to f i l i ng s u i t , a reques te r i s deemed to have

exhausted sa id remedies i the Agency in ques t ion f a i l s to comply

with the FOIA s t ime l imi t s fo r a response. (5 U.S.C. §

a) (6) c ) . Defendant had t en (10) days to respond to

P l a i n t i f f s or i g i na l reques t and P la in t i f f waited approximately

nine ty days before f i l i ng a response.

7. The same Sect ion 5 U.S.C. § (a) (6) (c) provides t h a t i f

t he Agency can show except ional circumstances , and t ha t it i s

exerc i s ing die di l igence , the Court sha l l r e ta in ju r i s d i c t i o n and

al low the Agency t ime to complete it review.

8. P l a i n t i f f wishes the Defendant to f in i sh i t s review by

ac t ing on the adminis t ra t ive appeal . This wil l give the COurt a

more complete record upon which to review whether o r not the

Defendant has proper ly exerc ised i t s d i sc re t i on in excis ing

por t ions of the requested document.

9. P la in t i f f at tempted to obvia te the necess i ty of t h i s

motion b y s t i p u l a ti o n . Annexed here to as Exhibi t s F and G are a

l e t t e r and proposed s t ipu la t ion to hold t h i s ac t ion in abeyance

2



pending an adminis t ra t ive determinat ion . Defendant decided not

to s ign the s t ipu la t ion but ins tead an answer to the complaint

a l l e g i n g among o th e r t h i ngs l a ck of s ub j ec t m a t t e r

j u r i sd ic t ion and f a i lu re to exhaust adminis t ra t ive remedies .

10. In t h i s motion, P l a i n t i f f seeks to have the Court

r e t a in ju r i sd ic t ion over the ac t ion require Defendant to

complete i t s adminis t ra t ive appeal , and to monitor Defendant s

di l igence in responding to the appeal which, I repea t concerns

only a s ing le document.

11. Defendant s act ion i s an at tempt to f rus t r a t e both the

adminis t ra t iveappeal

and t h i s ac t ion . t

s tops the appeal and

f rus t r a t es review.

12. The r e l i e f requested by P la in t i f f i s cons is ten t with

t he Act and, in fac t contemplated, by the Act. t cont inues the

adminis t ra t ive process while t h i s ac t ion remains in exis tence

and provides a spur to the Agency to d i l igen t ly complete the

process in order to provide meaningful review by t h i s Court .

WHEREFORE deponent respec t fu l ly reques ts t ha t the r e l i e f

prayed for here in be granted , toge ther with such other fur ther

and d i f fe ren t r e l i e f as may be j u s t and proper .

JEREMIAH S GUTMAN

N o t a ~ : Pu_blic State of New YorkOuahfJed m Westchester Coumy

. No. 60-6709850ommiSSion Expires Feb 28 9 ~

3







L

•.

URGENT , l l -26-63 8-)1 PM VBR

TO .SACS DALLAS AND. NUl ORLEANS

FROM SAC, HOUSTON ~ 2 - 2 1 1 5

·: .'

·.·'

• • •• ..._, ••;

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT ~ O H N F KENNEDY, NOVEMBER TWENTY

1V01 SIXTYTHREE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

.

.RE ALVIN B E A U ~ ~ F ; f AND DAVID. i i r ~ , E . _

~ T FOUR FIFTEEN PM NOV. TWENTYSIX I N S ~ A N J i i l l l l l l l l .. : .

-. ..

. .ll£AUBAOUEF AND DAVID ii FERRIE AT THE DRifTWOOD MOTOR EOTEL,

r;ALVESTON. INDICATED ,HEY WERE FRIENDS OF OSWALD. ·' ....

1 • · . : : .·;. : • .:

..)

• ..... : . : . ·:. ·.. ,;

l HA T ABOVE INDIVIDUALS REGISTERED IN .1 .001' ONE ONE SEVEN

DRIFTWOOD MOTOR HOTEL, T H R ~ ONE TWO EIGHT BOULEVARD,·-

• :- • • • · •

CALVESTON, ELEVEN PM ON NOVEMBER TliENTYTHREE SIXTYTHRIT, AND

C H E C X E ~ OUT AT TWO 1' 1 <JN JiOVEMBER TWDITYFOUR •. ·c;AVE

THEIR ADDRESS SIX ONI EIGHT NORTH ~ I E R C E N w O R L ~ N S~ O U I S I A N A . WERE DRIVING

END PAGE ON£

'

Exhibit

- .. P g I

.. . . .. .

....'; • T . . . . . . . , .

- . .

. ·.2. . ,

. :af ..- ~ _ . c



C ,

• <

• .- .

·-. .·

PAGE TWO

~ N K N O W N lOUISIANA LICENSE SEVEN E I ~ H T TOUR DASH E I G H T ~ I N E- - . . .

FIVE.ALS.O IN THE -ROOM WITH T ~ 'iAS ~ L V I N s r.or . · · · · · L ~ ·. WERE WHITE MALES. -ALSO IN THE ROOM WAS BLOND iHITE TEMALE,

..

....

·... . . .-- ...

' ·

...NAME UNKNOVN. . • :- ..- .-

. WHILE AT MOTEL PLACED LONG DISTANCE CALL TO

ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA, TELEPHONE NUMBER UNKNOWN.

HOUSTON DOES NOT NOW SIGNIFICANCE Of ABOVE AND

... .:

·. - ·.• .• •

.. ·. ::'.··...

HIS CONTACT IIITH FBI.. . : · .·:·.· ·.-.-- .: ' · : .-f· · .. ·:

UAC DALLAS, NEW ORLEANS ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY ABOVE · ., .

INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR POSSIBLE CONNECTION iiTH LEE HARVEY

.. osWALD. ....-.. . -....... . .

ND AND ACK ··

. . .-.....- .

.• • t

: .

.DL -14 PM CST OK ·:rBI DL lJH

NO ADV SEP TU CLR

-· : :· ... -; ..

-----

0



LAW OFFICES


L EO PO L D L E V Y

THEODORI : : OUTMAN I Q J 3 I Q A8

O E O R O E G O L D e ERG IQI . : J IOeO

. .JEREMIAH 5 OUTMAN

P H I L I P KAPLAN

E U O E H E H . H A R L E Y

Via Cer t i f i ed Mail - RRR

Ass i s t an t Attorney GeneralOff ice of Legal Pol icy

Attn : Off ice of Informat ion and Privacy

United Sta t e s Department o f J us t i c eWashington, D.C. 20530

275 S E V E N T H AVENUE, SUITE

NEWYORK, N.Y. 10001

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9733

W ~ . : I T C H I I ' ; I T I I ' ; I ' I OI'"I'"ICII';

Z RIVERVIEW PL ACE

H A ~ T I M 0 5 - 0 K - H U O ~ O l i , M Y • ]0700

Ql.oil/"' l71"1-3 0

June 15, 1992

Re: Freedom o f Informat ion Appeal / Informat ion AppealRequest No. 357579United Sta te s D i s t r i c t Court , Eas te rn D i s t r i c t o f New Yorcase No. 92 Civ. 2439 (Korman, J . )

Dear Madam o r Si r :

Aron Morton Kay, by his unders igned a t torneys , hereby appealsexci s ions made to a ce r t a i n t e l e t ype dated November 26, 19The exci s ions a re a l l j u s t i f i e d by purpor ted re l i ance upon5 United Sta te s Code §552 (b) (7) (D).

It i s asse r t ed t ha t , near ly th ree decades a f t e r the eved i sc losu re of t he ma te r i a l exc ised could reasonably be expecto d i sc lose the i den t i t y of a conf iden t i a l source . . . andin format ion furn i shed by a conf iden t ia l source .

The t e l e ty p e purpor t s to inform t he SACs a t Dal las andOrleans t h a t something was se rved by undisc losed people on

named persons , Alvin Beaubaoeuf and David W Fer r ie (or Ferie)the Drif twood Motor Hotel in Galveston, Texas w i th in

j u r i s d i c t i on of Houston SAC. Next i s dele ted the name o fperson who ind ica ted they were f r i ends o f Oswald. The perswho so ind ica ted would, by inev i tab le impl ica t ion , be e i t hAlvin Beaubaoeuf o r David W F e r r i e . Since t he i den t i t y of bthose ind iv idua ls i s disc losed a t l e a s t twice in t he por t ions t he t e l e ty p e not exc i sed , t he exci s ion a t t h i s po in t makes sense and no conf iden t ia l informant could be revea led

xhibic j

~ I 10



Jeremiah S. Gutman Esq.Levy Gutman Goldberg

and Kaplan275 Seventh AvenueSui te 1776New York N.Y. 10001

Dear Mr. Gutman:

.

Office of Policy and ornmunicatibns

Office o nfonnation aruJ Privacy

l lshingwn, D C 20530

Re: Appeal No. 92-1572RIJI: D H

You appealed from t he ac t i on of the Federal Bureau of

Inve s t iga t ion on your r e que s t for access to records per t a i n i ng tyour c l i e n t Aron Morton Kay.

Because t h i s reques t i s presen t l y t he sub j ec t o f j u d i c i a lreview a dm in i s t r a t i ve ac t ion by t h i s Off ice would beinappropr ia te . Accordingly I am c los ing your a dm in i s t r a t i ve

appea l in t h i s Off ice .

Since re ly

Richard L. Huff Co-Director

Off ice of Informat ion and Privacy

Exn c;

g i



L..AW O I F I C ~ S


LEOPOLD LEVY 1013- U .ZO

TH E O C O R : OUTMAN l ~ i l l l . : l I O • eO :.ORO :. OOLD IERO 1013- 1060

.J :.R :.MIAH OUTMAN

PHI L I P KAPLAN

EUOEN :. N HARLEY

Sara Lum Esq.United Sta tes Courthouse225 Cadman Plaza Eas tBrooklyn NY 11201

Re: Kay v. FBI 92 Civ. 2438

Dear Ms. Lum:

2 7 5 SEVENTH AVENUE, S U I T

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10001

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 973

rAX l2J2> eo7 0737

W ~ T C H I I : ~ T I I : ' O,, . . ,CI :

Z ' I V ~ A V I ~ W ~ L A C £H A I T I M O S . . . O t - 1 - H U D ~ O N , N.Y. 1 0 7 0 e

June 15 1992

In accordance with our conversa t ion of Friday evening enclyou wil l f ind in t r i p l i c a t e a proposed s t ipu la t ion .

It i s the in ten t ion o f the p l a i n t i f f as r ec i t ed in s t ip u la t io n to f i l e an admin i s t r a t i ve appeal with the ass i sAttorney General Off ice o f Legal Pol icy a t the of f ice ofDepartment of J us t i ce i n Washington. For your informationcopy of the l e t t e r enclos ing the excised product ion i s enclos

By s t ipu la t ing to s t ay t h i s ac t ion un t i l t e rminat ion ofadminis t ra t ive proceeding it wi l l be poss ib le to discont inueac t ion in the event t ha t the p l a i n t i f f i s sa t i s f i ed but toan amended o r supplemental complaint to br ing the mat ter up

date and address the exc is ion r a th e r than the ent i re de

should the proceeding end in t h a t manner. ·

I f you have any d i f f i c u l t i e s comments or sugges t ions I wilhappy to hear from you.

Very t r u ly yours

Jeremiah s. Gutman

JSGjmw

Encl .cc: Aron Kay

b ee : Alan J Weberman

Exh o;·t F

pg J





------------------------------------ARON KAY

Pla in t i f f

- aga ins t -


Defendant.

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

Index No. 92 Civ. 2438Korman, J .

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between th

at torneys for the respec t ive par t i e s here to as fol lows:

1 . The se rv ice and ver i f i ed complaint was served herein b

mail on the 21st of May, 1992.

2. The complaint seeks to compel the defendant Federa

Bureau of Inves t iga t ion to produce a ce r ta in document pursuant to

t he Freedom of Informat ion Act.

3. After t he serv ice of the complaint and on June 5, 199

the defendant Federal Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion provided to

p la in t i f f an excised copy of the document requested .

4. The p la in t i f f in tends to exerc i se hi s r igh t to appea

the excis ions from t ha t document.

ExhIb t ---=-G::....--Z



'

5. The pa r t i e s agree t ha t t h i s ac t ion be s t ayed pending

the te rminat ion of t h a t appeal and a l l admini s t ra t ive proceeding

in connect ion therewi th

Dated: June 15 1992Levy Gutman Goldberg KaplanAttorneys for P l a i n t i f f

By: __________________________

Andrew J MaloneyUnited Sta tes Attorney fo r

the Eas te rn D i s t r i c t of New York

Attorney for Defendant

By: ~ S ~ R ~ ~ L ~ U M ~Ass i s t an t u.s. Attorney

2

xhibit y ~ ~ -Pg of



.

. ~ . - : 7 ~ ) . , - r : : .

.:,.



i.{

,.,.

. . · : · , . . , - , ; : : : . - . ~

URGENT .11 26 63 8 J l PM VBR

. . .TO SACS DALLAS AND NEil ORLEANS

fROM SAC, HOUSTON ~ 2 - 2 1 1 5 ·ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT ..JOHN F. KENNEDY, NOVEMBER lVENTY

1VO,l

SIXTYTHREE, DALLAS, TEXAS. .

RE ALVIN B E A U ~ ~ ~ F ; F AND DAVID. W. F ~ E . _ . liT FOUR FIFTEEN PM NOV. T\iENTYSU I N S J : A ~ . ··:::.if·

..llEAUBAOUEF AND DAVID W. FERRIE AT THE DRifTWOOD MOTOR liOT.El.,

~ A L V E S T O N . I N D I C A T E D lHEY WERE FRIENDS OF OSWALD. ··

\ . I.:._:.•• ;:; · . . : : . : :

ND .DETERMINED ..) . .

. - · ' ' · - - : - ~ · · - = · " : : " " :l'HA T ABOVE INDIVIDUALS REGISTERED IN .ROOM ONE tiNE SEVEN · .

DRIFTWOOD MOTOR HOTEL, THREE ONE TWO EIGHT BOULEVARD, .

: · . :

. · ........ ······ '· .. . . .

. .c:;ALVESTON, ELEVEN PM ON NOVEMBER TWDITYTRREE SIXTYTHREE, AND

CHECKED OUT AT TWO PM <lN )IOVEMBER TWENTYFOUR • . . AVE

THEIR ADDRESS SIX ONE EIGHT NORTH ~ I E R C E HEW O R L ~ N S~ O U I S I A N A . VERI DRIVING

END PAGE ONE

~ ~ ...: :

• • T · ; · · : - ~ · . : _ • ..

- . . :· · .

..

\ . - - · ' · - · - · - - · - - - ~ · · · · · · · · · _ . __ • .... ·· • _r.. .------- · --- . -·- ----··- --



....__

. -

. -- ·• __.·.

'·

•.-.

.

J

PAGE IlriO....... ':-·

UNKNOWN LOUISIANA LICENSE SEVEN II HT tOUR DASH EIGHT ·WINE.

·.. . . - · - ~.J - .

TIVE •

· ALSO IN THE ROOM WITH THEM WAS

. WERE WHITE MALES. -ALSO IN THE ROOM YAS BLOND WHITE TEMALE' f

NAME UNKNOWN.

. WHILE AT MOTEL PLACED LONG DISTANCE CALL TO

ALEXANDRIA LOUISIANA TELEPHONE NUMBER UNKNOWN.

HOUSTON DOES NOT XNOW SIGNIFICANCE OF ABOVE AND

. .· :- .. .... ----··.

. : ..

----·-·- ....... ~ - ; ; . ~ - - ..... : ';:t : .• -:- -COMPROMISE SOURCE WHO DOES NOT WANT

..: •. )..:.·.f·.·;\'- /

UAC DALLAS NDrl ORLEANS ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY ABOVE · · . · · · · : ~ f · ~ : - - ' :, .

INDIVIDUALS AND HEIR POSSIBLE CONNECTION WITH LEE HARVEY

.. QSiiALD.

I:ND AND ACK

L 8 14 PM CST O .FBI DL LJH

NO ADV SEP TU CLR

. . 0

..... · - - - - - - - - - · · · · - -

' .

..... .. · .-

· . -. ':·.. · -..... ' . : .

-·- .' . : '- ; . - . .

.... • ? ..· :

...

-

··

-- _....... -

.......



LAW O F F I C E S


L E O P O L D L E V Y 1913-1929

T H E O D O R E GUTMAN 1913-1948

G E O R G E G O L D B E R G 1913-1980

J E R E M I A H S , GUTMAN

P H I L I P KAPLAN

EUGENE N . HARLEY

Mr. Aron Kay

424 Brighton Beach AvenueBrooklyn, Y 11235

Dear Aron:

2 75 S E V E N T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 7 7 8

NEWYORK N.Y. 1 0 0 0 1

T E L E P H O N E 212/807 9733

FAX C212l 8 0 7 - Q 7 3 7

WESTCHESTER O F F I C E

2 R-IVERVIEW P L ACE

HASTI I IG5-0N-HUDSOI I , I I ,Y, 1 0 7 0 8

October 16, 1992

I have j u s t reviewed t he motion papers of the governmentin suppor t of i t s app l i ca t ion fo r summary judgment e tc .A copy of those papers has a l ready been s e n t to you by

Eugene.

All t he nonsense about whether t he cour t should compeldec i s ion o f t he appeal e tc . i s , in my judgment, moot becauset he government i s now moving fo r summary judgment on t he

subs tan t ive i s sues and i s t he r e fo r e submi t t ing the whole. t h i n g to t he cour t as though the appeal has been denied and It h ink t h a t i s t he pos i t i on we should t ak e in order to movet h i s along most expedi t iously without be.i..ng fo:rced back i n tot h e bureaucra t i c procedure. - I am gra t e fu l t he government hasproceeded in t h i s way.

Our job i s to convince the cour t t h a t t he de le tedpor t i ons of the document do no t o r cannot revea l thei d e n t i t y of a c o n f i d e n t i a l source o r lead to t he r e ve l a t i ono f i n fo rma t ion which might d i sc l o se t h a t source ' s i d e n t i t y .

We have u n t i l October 23 t o de l ive r t o the US a t t o rn e ycopies o f our opposing papers fo r the October 30 r e tu rn da te

on t he motion. I sugges t we meet the dead l ine and do no t pu tt of f and t h a t i s why I am asking you to t ak e some immediate

ac t ion .



The ac t ion I want i s fo r you l og i ca l l y to s e t ou tevery th ing you know o r t h i n k you know, based upon t he con tex to f t he f ac t s as you know them to be, to show t h a t t he speaker

whose i den t i t y the government i s t r y i n g to c was no t o ri s no t an informer and was not engaged · any

conf iden t i a l d i sc losu res to t he gover ent .

Perhaps the be s tbe fo r AJ to c a l l andt through within t he

JSG: incc: A.J . Weberman



L A W O F F I C E S


LEOPOLD LEVY 1 9 1 3 · 1 9 2 9

T H E O D O R E GUTMAN I Q I 3 · 1 Q4 8

GEORGE G O L DB E RG 1 9 1 3 · 1 9 8 0

JEREMIAH S . GUTMAN

PHIL IP KAPLAN

E UG E NE N . HARLEY

Mr. Aron Kay

424 Brighton Beach Ave.Brooklyn NY 11235

Re: FBI

Dear Mr. Kay:

2 7 5 S E V E N T H A V E N U E S U I T E 776

N E W Y O R K , N . Y . 1 0 0 0 1

T E L E P H O N E 212 807·9733

F A X 2 1 2 1 8 0 7 · Q 7 3 7

Wt:5TCHE: ITE:R Otr,.ICI :

2 RIVERVIEW P L A C E

HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON N . Y . 1 0 7 0 0

QI"I / 47B-3 5 5Q

October 23 1992

I enc lose our answer ing s t a t emen t and memorandum o f law.The motion wi l l be argued on October 30 1992.

v_:; ry -t r u l yoy±s

/ - . - - • 0 _ ;

._

.•

./ . .I: ·

-I

__ : r : . / _ /EUGENE N. HARLEY

ENH: in / -cc: A J Weberman



_ f



------------------------------------xARON KAY

P l a i n t i f f ,

aga ins t -


Defendant .

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

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO RULE 3(g) :

MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE

c i v i l Act ionNo. CV 92-2438

(Korman, J . )

Pursuant to Rule 3 (g) o f t he Civ i l Rules o f t h i s Court ,

P l a i n t i f f submits t he fol lowing s ta tement o f m a t e r i a l fac t s

concerning which the re i s a genuine i s sue to be t r i ed . This

s ta tement i s submit ted in oppos i t ion to Defendant ' s motion fo r

summary judgment.

The excis ions from t he document could not have been made to

p ro t e c t t he i den t i t y o f a c onf ide n t i a l source because:

A. As to t he f i r s t exc i s ion cons i s t ing o f a por t i on o f one

l i ne , two complete l i nes , and a por t ion o f a four th l i ne , the

con tex t makes c l ea r , and t he circumstances .made known in t he

numerous pub l i ca t ions and m a t e r i a l s which have been wide ly

c i rcu l a t ed and pub l i c i zed s ince the assass ina t ion o f Pres iden t

John F. Kennedy confirm, t h a t what has been exc ised i s in a l l

l i k e l i h o o d a s ta tement t o the e f f e c t t h a t informat ion had come to

the Federa l Bureau o f Inve s t iga t ion t h a t Alvin Beaubaoeuf and

David W. Fer r ie had checked i n to t he Driftwood Motor Hotel a t

t he t ime and p lace i nd ica ted . The i d e n t i t y o f t he i nve s t i ga t ing

agents o f t he Federa l Bureau o f Inve s t iga t ion on November 26,

1963, cannot in any way it with in the a s se r t e d except ion o f a

conf ident ia l source . The i den t i t y o f t he room c l e r k of o ther



employee of t he Motel who t h r e e decades ago may have ca l l ed t he

FBI can no longer reasonably be protec ted . Obviously , t he

agents o f the Federa l Bureau o f Inve s t iga t ion were q u i t e proper ly

fo l lowing up l eads genera ted a t t he Motel o r out o f New Orleans ,

o r elsewhere nearby in Louisiana, as to ind iv iduals assoc ia t ed

with the presumed a s sa s s i n Oswald. t i s un l ike ly , in t he

context o f a communication from t he Houston of f ice o f t he FBI to

t he Dal las and New Orleans of f i ces o f t he FBI, t h a t t he e n t i r e t y

o f t h e d e l e t e d l i n e s could , o r even might, i den t i fy a

c o n f i d e n t i a l source o f twenty-nine years ago. I f by some s t range

argument, the FBI i s contending t h a t t he c o n f i d e n t i a l source i s

e i t h e r Alvin Beaubaoeuf and jo r David W Fe r r i e , t he i d e n t i t y

o f t hese two i nd iv idua l s i s spec i f i ca l ly s e t fo r th a t l e a s t twice

in the very communication a t i s sue . I f , upon examining the t e x t

in camera t h i s cour t conc ludes t h a t t he re i s a name o r

i de n t i f y ing word o r two i n t he t h r e e p lus l i ne s de le ted , a l l the

o t h e r n e u t r a l words should , a t a minimum, be revealed .

B. As t o the nex t de le t i on , cons i s t ing o f what appears to

be a s i n g l e word two l i n e s below t he f i r s t de le t ion , t h i s i s

l i k e l y the name o f a person . Based upon t he phys ica l s i z e of the

de le t i on and t he l oca t ion the reo f ·and t he con tex t o f t he

sentence , P l a i n t i f f be l i eves t h a t t he word de le ted i s in a l l

l i ke l i hood the name Ferrie , o r They o r The two o r

equivalent , giv ing no more informat ion than a l ready revealed

e l sewhere in t he document. The con tex t o f t he document ·• indicates

t h a t a conversa t ion had been had between one o r more FBI agents

- 2 -



to the e f f ec t t h a t t he Beaubaoeuf and Ferr ie persons had sa id

they were f r i ends of Oswald. The con tex t i nd i c a t e s t h a t the

re fe rence a t t h a t po in t could l og i ca l l y be only as P l a i n t i f f

pos tu l a t e s . Since t hese two people a re both c l e a r l y and

s p e c i f i c a l l y named in the document and t he context makes c l e a r

t h a t some one o r both i nd ica ted t h a t t hey were f r i ends o f

Oswald, it i s not conce ivable t h a t t he i den t i t y o f some o ther

t h i r d p a r t y not al ready named i n t he document i s what was de le ted

a t t h i s place .

c . Here aga in , as in connect ion with a l l t he d e l e t i o n s

purpor tedly j u s t i f i e d , the argument i s made t h a t t he s o l e b a s i s

o f exc lus ion i s to pro t e c t t he i den t i t y o f a conf ident ia l source

who provided informat ion . This de le t i on of the opening o f a

paragraph i nd ica tes t h a t some one o r more persons did something

as a r e s u l t o f which t h a t person o r those persons made a

determinat ion t h a t Beaubaoeuf and Fe r r i e had r eg i s t e red in a

p a r t i c u l a r room a t

communicat ion, a t a

t he motel , i den t i f i ed

s p e c i f i c hour , g iv ing

e l sewhere in the

informat ion about

themselves. The de le t i on can l og i ca l l y only be ac t ion by one o r

more of the FBI agents , o r inqu i ry o f a room c l e rk , o r

examina t ion o f a room r e g i s t e r to make t he determinat ion . t i s

beyond b e l i e f t h a t a c onf ide n t i a l source who had been granted

an express gran t o f c onf ide n t i a l i t y was t he sour.ce o f t h a t kind

o f informat ion taken from the l ega l l y r equ i red room r e g i s t e r , a

pub l ic document.

D. In t he penu l t ima te paragraph on t he second and l a s t

3



page o f the sub jec t communicat ion, t h e t h ree separa te de le t i ons

a re , a t the very l e a s t , l og i ca l l y arguably i nc ons i s t e n t with

de le t i on o f t he i den t i t y o f a conf ident ia l source . Here t he

communicat ion, from t he por t ion o f the grammatical s t ruc t u re

l e f t , would i nd i c a t e t h a t t he au thor be l i eves some kind o f

ac t ion , s ta tement , or d i sc losu re would compromise a source . The

words de le ted could not poss ib ly be t he source which would be

compromised by whatever ac t ion might lead t o t he fea red

compromising. The s t ruc t u re of the language and t he con tex t o f

t he verbiage preceding and fo l lowing the f i r s t de le t i on in t he

irst and second l i nes o f t he penu l t ima te paragraph do not

l o g i c a l l y l ead to a poss ib le pa rs ing which could i den t i fy o r l ead

to t he i den t i f i ca t i on o f a c onf ide n t i a l source which o r who i s

no t i den t i f i ed , o ther than t he fo l lowing s ta tement t h a t whoever

t h i s source i s does not want someone, o r some people o r some

en t i ty , to know t h a t t h i s unnamed source had some kind of

con tac t with t he FBI. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f whoever t h e unnamed

source d id not want to know o f t he con tac t does not i d e n t i f y t he

source .

E. There i s no way t h a t merely looking a t t he d e l e t i o n s

and t he ba ld a s s e r t i on in paragraph ·s o f the FBI s Rule 3 (g)

s ta tement can l ead to a determinat ion which would j u s t i f y t he

unsuppor ted a s s e r t i on t h a t every s ing l e one o f t he exc i s ions in

the document was made fo r t he s o l e purpose o f pro t e c t ing t he

i den t i t y o f a conf ident ia l source and the re a re t hus genuine

4



. . . . • • • • ~ ..··<r ji:--':

t

i: 5sues o f f a c t to be d e t e r mi n ed as to what words have been,·

·· ".;;·.-D a t e d , ~ t - ~ * N e w York,)¢;>'· ·october

t:'

New York

' 1992

R e s p e c t f u l l y Submi t t ed

LEVY, GUTMAN, GOLDBERG & KAPLAN

Atto rneys f o r P l a i n t i f f

275 S e v e D ± ~ e - S u i t e 1 7 7 6

New ~ o r k New ~ k 10001 .

(21Z) 8 0 7 - 9 7 3 3 / .-

1/ / //?)··:

B ~ v ' i f 1 ~ ~ - ~ JE,,./,....,;

...

AH S .1GUTMAJ r/

- 5 -





------------------------------------xARON KAY

P la in t i f f

- aga ins t -


Defendant .

Civ i l ActionNo. CV 92-2438

(Korman, J .------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF

DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JEREMIAH S. GUTMAN ESQ.(Of Counsel)

LEVY, GUTMAN GOLDBERG KAPLAN

Attorneys fo r P l a i n t i f f275 Seventh Avenue - Sui t e 1776

New York, New York 10001

(212,) 807-9733



PRELIMINARY ST TEMENT

In t h i s ac t ion under t he Freedom of Informat ion Act to

compel d i sc losu re of a p a r t i c u l a r document by t he FBI, s u i t was

f i l e d when no t imely response was given. Afte r t he s u i t was

f i l e d , t he document was d i sc losed with subs t an t i a l de le t i ons and

P l a i n t i f f appea led a dm in i s t r a t i ve ly from those de l e t i ons . When

t he FBI did not a c t wi th in the t ime provided for determining t he

appeal , P la in t i f f moved to compel determinat ion of the appeal .

The FBI has now moved for summary judgment on the ground

t h a t the de le t ions made a re proper under t he Freedom of

Informat ion Act. Thus, t he motion for summary judgment now

befo re t h i s Court as a c ross -mot ion to P l a i n t i f f s motion

c o n s t i t u t e s a de fac to de te rmina t ion of the appeal aga ins t the

P l a i n t i f f with an a pp l i c a t i on to t he Court to sus t a i n t he denia l

o f P l a i n t i f f 1 s appea l . The FBI has thus rendered P l a i n t i f f s

motion func t iona l ly moot bu t has r a i sed a new i s sue on t he motion

f o r summary j udgment which P l a i n t i f f i s happy t o j o in .

P l a i n t i f f , the re fore , and asks t he Court to t r e a t t h i s oppos i t ion

to t h a t motion, in conjunct ion with P l a i n t i f f s Rule J g)

s ta tement submit ted herewith , as a cross-mot ion fo r summary

judgment in favor o f P l a i n t i f f .

Poin t I

LTHOUGH THERE RE QUESTIONS OF

F CT TO BERESOLVED

THE COURT

ITSELF C N RESOLVE THEM IN C MER

As i s t yp ica l ly t he case in a Freedom of Informat ion

redac t ion lawsui t , t he government agency knows what has been

- 1 -



de le ted and the P l a i n t i f f does not whi le t he agency comes in wit

a conclusory a l l ega t i on t ha t what has been s t r i cken and concea le

from the P l a i n t i f f was proper ly s t r i cken and concea led . Here

t he FBI r e l i e s exc lus ive ly , with r e s pe c t to a l l the redac t ions ,

upon 5 U.S.C. 52 (b) (7) (d) to pro tec t the i d e n t i t y o f a

c onf ide n t i a l source who provided informat ion to the FBI, under an

express grant o f conf iden t i a l i t y , dur ing the course o f i t s

c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t he assass ina t ion o f Pres iden t

Kennedy.

As appears from P l a i n t i f f ' s Rule 3(g) s ta tement , t he various

de le t i ons are not cons i s t en t with the asse r t i on of the Government

in each case. As a mat te r o f fac t , as P l a i n t i f f de ta i l ed in i t s

Rule 3 (g) s ta tement , the a s s e r t i o n i s i nc ons i s t e n t with t ha t

pos i t i on in some cases and, i n o the r cases , the con tex t o f the

remain ing language ind ica tes a t l e a s t as p laus ib l e othe r

explanat ions of what has been removed. Thus, the conclusory and

se l f - se rv ing a l l ega t i ons o f t he FBI requi re t e s t ing .

Point I I

THE COURT SHOULD REQUIRE THE FBI TO

DELIVER THE UNRED CTED DOCUMENT TO

THE GOVERNMENT FOR IN C MER INSPECTION

There are f ac t s in d i spute but t 'hey can be reso lved on t h i s

motion and cross -mot ion . Defendant says t h a t the de l e t e d words

and phrases would revea l the iden t i ty of a conf i den t i a l source

and P l a i n t i f f has advanced de t a i l ed arguments with r e s pe c t to

each i tem of redac t ion and arguably sound r e fu t a t ions o f the

f ac t ua l conclus ions asse r t ed by t he Government. The only way

2



to determine the i s sues in each case i s for the Court to d i rec t

t ha t t he Government de l ive r to t he Court in camera an unredacted

copy of the document so t ha t t he cour t can determine whether or

not the conclusory a l l ega t i ons o f the Government a re sound, or

whether the P l a i n t i f f i s not cor rec t with re spec t to each o r some

of the redac t ions .

To gran t the Government summary judgment a t t h i s s tage would

be to accept a t face value the Government s conclus ions based

upon fac t s the concealed language) known to it and it alone .

In making i t s judgment, t he Court should bear in mind t h a t

near ly three decades have passed s ince the event and t h a t the

i n t e r e s t in what happened and what was concealed has l ead to

n o v e l i z a t i o n s , fictionalizations d r a m a t i z a t i o n s and

specula t ions , while t he w r i t i ng of an accura te h i s t o ry based upon

the records of t he t ime has been f rus t r a t ed . Also to be borne in

mind a re the under ly ing F i r s t Amendment pr i nc i p l e s of the f ree

f low· o f in format ion as wel l as t he purpose and i n t e n t of the

Freedom of Informat ion Act f a c i l i t a t i n g access to informat ion

with only the except ions provided . Those except ions , in t h i s

case only the one of conf ident i a l sources asse r t ed by the

Government, should be evaluated in l i gh t of the passage of t ime

and t he in ten t ion o f Congress t o p ro t ec t the privacy and sa fe t y

of ind iv idua ls . The a pp l i c a t i on of the conf iden t i a l i t y of source

except ion should be cons idered in l i g h t o f the importance of

events , t he passage of t ime and whether there o n t i n u e ~ ,·to be, in

t he p a r t i c u l a r c i rcumstance as to each redac t ion , a requirement

3



of t he conf i den t i a l i t y in tended to be protec ted by Congress .

CONCLUSION

The Court should t r e a t as moot P l a i n t i f f s motion r e qu i r ing

Defendant to determine t he adminis t ra t ive appeal ; t he Cour

should regard the Defendan t s motion for summary judgment as an

acknowledgment t h a t t he appea l has been determined; t he Cour

should examine the unredacted document in camera in orde r to t e s t

t he asse r t ions o f Defendant t h a t the de le t ions it wi th in the

conf iden t i a l i t y except ion carved out by Congress; and t he Court

should order Defendants to disc lose to P l a i n t i f f each and every

redac ted word found by t he Court not to it with in t he p rec i se

asse r t ed exemption; and P l a i n t i f f should be gran ted such othe r

and fu r t he r r e l i e f as i s j u s t .

Dated: New York, New YorkOctober 23, 1992

Respec t fu l ly submit ted ,

LEVY, GUTMAN GOLDBERG KAPLANAttorneys fo r P l a i n t i f f

275 Seventh Avenue - Sui t e 1776New York, New York 10001212) 807-9733

•.

- 4 -



I . .AW OFF I CES


L.EOPOL.D L.EVY 1913-1929

THEODORE GUTMAN 1913-1948

GE ORGE GOI..DBERG 1913-1980


PHIL.IP KAPI..AN

EUGENE N . HARL.EY

Mr. Aron Kay424 Brighton BeachBrooklyn, ew York

Re: FBI

Dear Mr. Kay:

Avenue11235

2 7 5 SEVENTH AVENUE SU ITE 1 7 7 6

NEWYORK N . Y . 10001

TE I . .EPHONE 212/807 9733

FAX 1212) 8 0 7 - 9 7 3 7

W E S T C H ~ S T E A OI P ICE

2 RIVERVIEW PLACE

HASTINGS-ON -HUDSON N .Y . 10 7 0 e

Qlo4/ o478 · 3 5 5Q

October 16, 1992

judgment.arguments,

I enclose a copy of the FBI sI f e i the r you or A.J. have any

e t c . please l e t us know.

motion fo r summarythoughts , comments,

ENHjamEnclosure

cc: A.J. Weberman

~ ~ y f 9Urs,

t ~ t Ai y:t?/ u g e n e N l y

.



RLB:SJLF. 9204632



- - - - - - - - -X

ARON KAY

P l a i n t i f f

aga ins t -


Defendant .

- - - -X

NOTICE OF MOTION

C i v i l ActionNo. CV 92-2438

(Korman, J .

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t upon t h e a t t ached d e c l a ra t i o n

o f Michael D. Turner , a memorandum o f law, and a l l t he plead ings

and proceedings f i l e d h e r e in t he defendan t Federa l Bureau o f

In v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l move t h i s Court be fore t h e Honorable Edward R.

Korman United Sta tes D i s t r i c t Judge fo r t he Eas te rn D i s t r i c t o f

New York, in Courtroom 6 a t t he United s t a t e s Courthouse, 225

Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York, on October 30, l 992 a t

l l :OO a.m. o r as soon t h e r e a f t e r as counsel can be heard fo r an

order pursuant to Rule 56 o f t he Federa l Rules of Civ i l Procedure

g r an t i n g summary judgment to t h e defendan t .

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t pursuan t t o t he Motion

Pra c t i c e Rules of t he Honorable Edward R. Korman, United s t a t e s

D i s t r i c t Judge , United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court fo r t h e Eas te rn

D i s t r i c t of New York, a l l opposing pape rs i any, must be served



and f i l ed a t l ea s t seven 7) days pr io r to the above r e t u rn da te

of t he wi th in motion.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

o c t o b e r ~ ~1992

By:

TO: Eugene N. Harley, Esq.Jeremiah S. Gutman, Esq.

Andrew J . MaloneyUnited Sta tes AttorneyEaste rn Dis t r i c t of New YorkOne Pier repont Plaza l l t h Floor

Brooklyn, New York 11201~ lR H J . LUM sl3571)

Ass is tan t United Sta tes Attorney718) 330-2757/7100

Levy Gutman Goldberg Kaplan275 Seventh Avenue, Sui t e 1776New York, NY 10001

2



D E C L A R A T I 0 N

THERES PEKAR, hereby declares and s t a t e s asfol lows:

That on the 15th day of October, 1992I caused to be hand de l ive red :

NOTICE OF MOTION

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

DECLARATION OF MICH EL D. TURNER

ST TEMENT PURSU NT TO RULE 3 G)

of which the annexed i s a t rue copy, conta ined ina secure ly enc losed pos tpa id wrapper d i r ec t ed t o the

person s) a t the place s ) and address es) as fol lows:

Eugene N. Harley, Esq.Jeremiah S. Gutman, Esq.Levy Gutman Goldberg Kaplan275 Seventh Avenue, u i t ~ 1776New York, New York 10001

The unders igned aff i rms under pena l ty of pe r ju r yt ha t the foregoing i s t rue and cor rec t .

Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkOctober 15, 1992



{

.

•



, - ,

tmi IED STATES DISTRICT OOVRTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -xAAON lCAY,

Pla in t i f f ,

• agains t -

FEDERAL BVl EAU OF Iwt:S I IGATION,

Pefendant.

- - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - -x

PECLARATION OF1 CljAEL D. 'I'URNER

Civil ActionNo. V 92a24J8

(Korman, J . )

I , Michael D. TUrner, h e r e ~ y ~ e e l a r e as follows:

l .~

am a Speeial~ g e n t

of the Federal aureau of~ n v e s t i g a t i o n (FBI), assigned in a supervisory capacity to t h ~Freedom of Znformation/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) Section, l n o ~ t i o n

M ~ n a g e m e n t Division, a t FBI h e a Q q u a r t e r ~ (FBIHQ), Washington,

l:l C

2. I familiar with the procedures followed in

processing r e q u e s t ~ r e e ~ i v e d ~ ¥ the FBI p u r ~ u a n t to Ti t le 5,

United States Code, Section 552, commonly known as the Freedom of.

In fo=a t ion Act (FOIA), and 5 u .s.c. S 552a, commonly known as

the Privacy Act of l974.

~ I am familiar With the FOIA reque5t made by Aron

Morton Kay to FB HQ for access to a cer ta in t w o ~ p a g e FEI ta letype

~ r o m Speeial A 9 ~ n t in Charge, Houston, to S p ~ c i a l Agents n

Charge, Pallas and N a ~ or leans , dated NovemPer 26, 1963. All

infor.mation e o n ~ i n e d in t h i s declarat ion i s b a ~ e d Qn i n f o ~ a t i ~ nfurnished to me in my of f ic ia l capacity.

P.F F 1 9 9 2 19 : 1 8

F ' A G ~ . u 0 2



4. I ~ a k e th is declarat ion in support of the ~ ·~ c t i o n for s ~ r y j u e q m ~ n t .

s ~ u r i n g the years from 1986-91, t h ~ FBI has received

an avQraqe of 15,708 FOIA requests p ~ y ~ a r , up from an a v e r a q ~-o f 11,S35 r e q u ~ t s each year during 1983-SS. This 5ignif icant

qrowth.from ear l ie r years, however, has pot been matched byinereasQs in personnel available to process these requeGts. In

part icular the .FOIA backlog n\.111\bered 9 266 requests a t the encl

of Auqust 1992 1 which i$ almost dOuble the level t was in 1985.

Because of th is ~ a c k l o g of FO A requests , the FBI was not able to

respond to ~ a y s request within the 10-day s tatutory ~ r i o d .6. Also contributin9 to the delay in the FBI's

rgsponse was the fact that the pla in t i f f had s ta ted tha t the

requested material was thought to be in the Dallas f ie ld o f f i o ~of the FBI, w h i ~ h c a u s ~ d a search to be m a ~ e in t h ~ D a l l a ~office . In fact, the r ~ q u e s t e d document, in i t s redacted form,

h s been available in the public reading room a t FBIHQ in

Washington, D.C. for several years.

7. This document was created during the course of the

~ I s criminal investigation of the assassinat ion of President

John F. Kennedy.

8 This November 26, 1 ~ 6 3 tQletype bas ~ n excised in

tour places, a l l under the exemption se t forth in 5 u.s.c. S

S S ~ ( b ) (7) (D). These excisions were made to protect the ~ a e n t i t yof a confidential source who provided i n f o ~ a t i o n to the FBI,

~ n d e r an express grant of confidential i ty, durinq the course of

APR 19 92 J9: 19

F RC;E.3



it criminal investigation of the a5sassination of r e s i ~ e n t~ e n n e d y . The f i r s t excision, Which e o n s i s ~ s of p a r t ~ of four

consecutive l i n ~ s on t h ~ f i r s t page, contains t h t name t the

confidential sourcee n ~

other information tha ti ~

•o sp .e i i c

3

tha t t can reasonably be expected to reveal the identi ty of the

confidential source. The second excision, two l ines below the

f i r s t , also contains information tha t i s so specif ic tha t 1 t can

reasonably be expected to reveal the ioenti ty of the e o n f i ~ e n t i a lsource. The third excision c o n t a i n ~ the name of the confidential

source ana other specif ic information that can reasonably b t

expQCted to reveal the identi ty of the confidential source.

Las t , t h e f cu r th e x ~ . i s i ~ m which covers partlJ of three l i n ~ > s on

·pa92 two of thQ teletype, also contains specif ic information that

ean reasonably be expeeted to disclose the identity o the

confidential source.

declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing

i s t rue e.nd correct, to the .best of y knOi'lledge, i·,1 onoation and

bel ief .

Executed: October / ~ 1992Wa10hington, D.C.

APR 19 9 2 19 : 19TOTAL F· 04

F AG[. Cl04



._.·



RLB:SJLF. 9204632



- - - - -X

ARON KAY

P la in t i f f ,

agains t -


Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - -X

STATEMENT PURSUANTTO RULE 3(G)

c i v i l ActionNo. CV 92-2438

(Korman, J .

Pursuant to Rule 3(g) of t he Civ i l Rules of t h i s

Court , defendant Federa l Bureau of Inves t iga t ion submits t he

fo l lowing s ta tement of mate r ia l f a c t s concerning which t he re i s

no genuine i ssue to be t r i e d , in suppor t of i t s motion fo r

summary judgment:

1. Aron Kay submi t ted a reques t dated February 15,

1992, pursuant t o the Freedom of Informat ion Act, for a two-page

FBI t e l e t ype dated November 26, 1963. This request was de l ive red

to t he FBI on February 20, 1992.

2. Kay f i l e d t h i s ac t ion on May 21, 1992.

3. By l e t t e r dated June 5, 1992, the FBI responded to

Kay 's FOIA reques t , and s e n t him a copy of t he document.

4. The copy of the November 26, 1963 t e l e t ype provided

to Kay was redacted i n severa l p laces under exemption 5 u . s . c . §

552 (b) (7) (D).

5. The exc i s ions in the document were made to p r o t e c t

t he i e n ~ i t y of a c onf ide n t i a l source who provided informat ion ,



under an express gran t of conf i den t i a l i t y to t he FBI dur ing t he

course of i t s cr iminal inves t iga t ion of t he a s s a s s ina t ion o f

Pres iden t John F. Kennedy.

6. By l e t t e r dated June 15, 1992, Kay submit ted an

admin i s t ra t ive appeal to t he Off ice of In format ion and Pr ivacy

U.S. Department of J u s t i c e to con tes t t he excis ions made in t he

November 26, 1963 t e l e t ype .

7. The Off ice of Informat ion and Pr ivacy responded in

a l e t t e r dated August 31, 1992, t h a t t would not t ake a c t ion on

Kay s adminis t ra t ive appeal in view of t h i s pending ac t ion .


o c t o b e r ~ ' 1992

Respec t fu l ly submit ted ,

NDREW J . M LONEY

United Sta tes AttorneyEas tern D i s t r i c t of New York

One Pierrepont Plaza 11th Fl .Brooklyn, New York 11201

By: S R H J . LUM

Ass is tan t U.S. Attorney(718)· 330-2757/7100



·;·



RLB:SJLF. #9204632



- - - - -X

ARON KAY

P la in t i f f

- agains t -


Defendant .

-X

Civ i l Act ionNo. CV 92-2438

(Korman, J.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITIONTO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR"JUDICIAL SUPERVISION," AND IN

SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SARAH J . LUM

Ass i s t an t U.S. Attorney(Of Counsel)

ANDREW J . MALONEY

United Sta tes AttorneyEas te rn Dis t r i c t o f New YorkOne Pie r repon t Plaza 11th Fl .

Br9ok yn, New York 11201





2

PRELIMINARY ST TEMENT

Defendant Federa l Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion (FBI) submits

t h i s memorandum of law in oppos i t ion to p l a i n t i f f ' s motion fo r

j ud i c i a l supervis ion and o ther r e l i e f and in support of t he

FBI ' s motion for summary judgment. In t h i s ac t ion , the p l a i n t i f f

sought the re lease o f a two-page t e l e t ype pursuan t to the Freedom

o f Information Act (FOIA) Afte r t h i s s u i t was f i l e d , the FBI

provided the p l a i n t i f f with a copy o f t he reques ted document,

r edac ted in severa l p laces to pro t ec t t he i de n t i t y of a

conf ident ia l source. The p l a i n t i f f did not dismiss h i s a c t i on ,

nor d id he seek to amend t he complaint . Ins tead , he f i l e d an

admin is t r a t ive appeal and now asks t he Court to compel

adminis t ra t ive review of t he exc i s ions . The FBI opposes

p l a i n t i f f ' s motion because he has c i t ed no con t ro l l ing a u thor i t y

fo r t h i s reques t , and because t he t he r e i s no meri t t o the

under ly ing act ion .

ST TEMENT OF FACTS

P l a i n t i f f Aron Kay commenced t h i s ac t ion on May 21,

1992, seeking dec la ra to ry and i n junc t ive r e l i e f in connect ion

with h i s FOIA reques t fo r a document r e l a t ing to the

inves t iga t ion of the a s sa s s i n a t i o n of Pres iden t John F.

Kennedy. 1 Kay s i n i t i a l reques t was made in a l e t t e r da ted

February 15, 1992. P l a i n t i f f ' s Ex. A, a t tached t o the Aff idavi t

1The pa r t i e s agreed to extend t he t ime in which the

defendant would have to answer o r otherwise respond to t he

complaint , to July 27, 1992. On Ju ly 10, 1992, the defendantanswered the complaint .



3

of Eugene Harley (Harley Aff idav i t ) By l e t t e r dated June 5,

1992, t he FBI provided Kay with a copy of t he document sought by

h i s FOIA reques t . This copy had been redacted in severa l p laces

to conceal the i de n t i t y of a c onf ide n t i a l source who had provided

informat ion to the FBI under an express gran t of conf i den t i a l i t y .

Decla ra t ion of Spec ia l Agent Michael D Turner , a t 8. Kay

appealed these de le t ions to the Ass i s tan t Attorney Genera l ,

Off ice of Information and Privacy, in a l e t t e r dated June 15,

1992. P l a i n t i f f ' s Ex. D to Harley Aff idavi t .

The Off ice o f Informat ion and Pr ivacy responded to Kay

t h a t no fu r the r admin i s t ra t ive a c t i o n would be taken in view of

Kay's pending ac t ion fo r j u d i c i a l review. P l a i n t i f f ' s Ex. E to

Har ley ' s Aff idav i t . Kay then submi t ted t h i s motion fo r j ud ic i a l

supervis ion and o ther r e l i e f .

RGUMENT

Poin t I

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SHOULD BEDENIED BECAUSE THERE IS NO

BASIS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED

The no t ice of motion announcing t h i s motion does not

spec i fy any ru le or s t a t u t e upon which t h i s app l i ca t ion i s

predica ted , as r equ i red by Local Civ i l Rule 3(d) . This ru l e

s t a t e s t h a t Upon any motion based upon ru l e s or s t a t u t e s t he

no t i ce of motion or orde r to show cause sha l l spec i fy t he ru l e s

o r s t a tu t e s upon which t he motion i s predica ted . I f such

s pe c i f i c a t i on has not been made, t he motion may be s t r i c ke n from

t he ca lendar . The p la in t i f f ' s · memorandum of law submi t ted in



4

suppor t o f h i s se l f - s t y l ed motion fo r j ud i c i a l supervis ion

c i t e s no con t ro l l ing au thor i ty upon which such r e l i e f can be

granted . Indeed, t he re i s no such b a s i s fo r t h i s motion.

Kay c i t e s 5 u . s . c . § 552(a) (b)c 2 for the propos i t ion

t h a t t he Court may order the agency to hea r t he admin i s t ra t ive

appeal and r e t a in j u r i sd i c t i on while t he admin is t r a t ive appea l i s

pending . P l a i n t i f f ' s Memorandum o f Law a t 2. That prov is ion ,

however, appl ies in s i t ua t i ons where t he government shows t h a t

t he r e a re except ional c i rcumstances and t h a t more t ime i s needed

to respond to the reques t . In such a case , the cour t may r e t a i n

j u r i sd i c t i on , cont ra ry t o the p l a i n t i f f ' s c la im t h a t the cour t

sha l l r e t a i n j u r i sd i c t i on (see l 7 o f Harley Aff idavi t ) Here,

t he FBI has not sought add i t iona l t ime to respond to the appea l .

Ra ther , it has dec l ined t o r u l e on t he adminis t ra t ive appea l

because o f t h i s pending act ion . See P l a i n t i f f ' s Ex. E to Harley

A ff ida v i t .

Moreover, because t he FBI did not respond to t he

i n i t i a l reques t within t he 10-day per iod , Kay i s deemed to have

cons t ruc t ive ly exhausted any ava i lab le adminis t ra t ive remedies .

see Spannaus v. U.S. Department of Jus t i ce , 824 F.2d 52, 58 (D.C.

c i r . 1987) ( Once cons t ruc t ive exhaus t ion occurs , any a va i l a b l e

admin i s t ra t ive appea l - - i . e . , a c tua l exhaust ion--becomes

permiss ive in the sense in which t he te rm i s used here; t he

r e q u e s t e r may pursue it but h i s f a i lu re to do so does not ' bar a

2This i s apparent ly a typograph ica l e r ro r . The in tended

c i t a t i o n was p r o b ab ly § 552(a) ~ ) C ) , not a ) ~ ) (C).



l a w s u i t . ) . Thus, as fo r any admin i s t ra t ive appeal to chal lenge

t he exc i s ions , Kay i s deemed to have exhausted t h i s remedy

because t he s t a tu to ry t ime fo r the FBI to respond had passed

p r i o r t o h i s f i l i ng s u i t . 3

Kay also c i t e s two cases in suppor t of his argument

t h a t t h i s Court should compel t he agency t o r u l e on h i s

5

admin is t r a t ive appeal : Grove v. Centra l In t e l l i ge nc e Agency, 752

F. Supp. 28 D. D.C. 1990) and Allen v . Federa l Bureau o f

Inves t iga t ion , 551 F. Supp. 694 D. D.C. 1982) . Nei ther of t hese

cases supports Kay s argument . In Grove, t he cour t he ld t h a t i

an agency f a i l e d t o respond to a FOIA reques t within the

s t a t u t o ry t ime, t he p l a i n t i f f would be deemed to have exhaus ted

admin i s t ra t ive remedies , but t h a t i f an agency did respond with in

t he s t a t u t o ry t ime-frame, t h a t ac tua l exhaus t ion would be

requ i red by the p l a i n t i f f . Grove, 752 F. Supp. a t 31.

Accordingly, the Grove cour t dismissed t he ac t ion as to two

defendant agencies , the DE and CIA, because they had proper ly

responded to the p l a i n t i f f ' s reques t s . The cour t then permi t ted

t he p l a i n t i f f t o admin i s t ra t ive ly appeal the decis ions o f those

two agenc ies . Id . a t 32.

In Allen, the p l a i n t i f f did not f i l e s u i t u n t i l a f t e r

he had admin i s t ra t ive ly appealed t he FBI ' s decis ion . (Here, t he

p l a i n t i f f f i l ed s u i t pr i o r to f i l i n g an admin i s t ra t ive appea l . )

3 However, i f Kay had dismissed t h i s ac t ion when he r ece ived

t he document, he could have pursued an admin i s t ra t ive appea l , andthen sought j ud i c i a l review o f ·any adverse decis ion . See 5 U.S. C.

§ 552 a) (6) (A) ( i i ) .



6

Moreover, Allen dea l t mainly with t he i s sue of whether t he

p l a i n t i f f was r equ i r ed to admini s t ra t ive ly appeal the agency s

dec i s ion on a fee waiver reques t . There, t he cour t he ld t h a t

there was no exhaust ion requirement t o co ntes t the den ia l of a

fee waiver . Allen, 551 F. Supp. a t 696. Thus, ne i t he r Grove nor

Allen supports Kay s argument t h a t t h i s Court should r e t a i n

j u r i s d i c t i o n over t he presen t ac t ion while compel l ing t he agency

to decide the admini s t ra t ive appeal regard ing t he exc i s ions .

Accordingly, there i s no con t r o l l ing au tho r i ty for t h i s Court to

compel the agency to ru le on Kay s admini s t ra t ive appeal whi l e

t h i s ac t ion i s pending. 4

Poin t I·I

THE EXCISIONS IN THE DOCUMENT

RE STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM

DISCLOSURE; THEREFORE SUMM RY

JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GR NTED TO

THE DEFEND NT

The s tandard for gran t ing summary judgment under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56 requi re s t he moving par ty to show t ha t t he re i s no

genuine i s sue of mate r i a l f ac t i n d i spu te and t ha t t i s e n t i t l e d

to judgment as a mat te r of law. Fed. R. c iv . P. 56(c) ; Anderson

v. Libe r ty Lobby, Inc . , 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). In addi t ion , a

pa r ty opposing a motion for summary judgment must s e t fo r th

spec i f i c f ac t s demonstrat ing the exis tence of a genuine i s sue of

f ac t . Id . Here, t he only i ssue fo r t h i s Court i s whether t he

4Furthermore, a l though Kay may now seek j ud i c i a l review ofthe dele t ions , t ha t i s sue i s not square ly before the Court , as

more f u l l y explained in t he next sec t ion . The p l a i n t i f f has no t

amended or supplemented t he complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15,nor has he reques ted t he Cour t s permiss ion to do so.



7

exc is ions made in the document a re exempt from d i sc losu re . On

t h i s po in t , t he re i s no genuine i s sue of mater i a l fac t .

Kay s compla in t demanded t he re lease of a two-page FBI

t e l e type dated November 26, 1963. Afte r t h i s s u i t was f i l e d , t he

FBI provided a copy of t h i s document to Kay, redac ted to concea l

the i de n t i t y of a c onf ide n t i a l source . The copy of t h i s document

conta ined nota t ions ind ica t ing t h a t the exc i s ions had been made

pursuant to the exemption under 5 u . s . c . § 552(b) (7) D)

(exempting the i d e n t i t i e s o f conf ident ia l sources) . Along with

the document, the FBI sen t an explana t ion of the exemption. See

P l a i n t i f f s Ex. B and C a t tached to the Harley Aff idav i t . Thus,

t he p la in t i f f has al ready received the r e l i e f reques ted in h i s

complaint .

Moreover, even i f t he Court cons t rued the compla in t in

i t s presen t form to chal lenge t he de le t ions or i f t he p l a i n t i f f

amended or supplemented t he complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15,

t he FBI r e s pe c t fu l ly submits t h a t t would st ll be e n t i t l e d to

judgment in i t s favor because the di spu ted excis ions a re

s t a tu to r i l y exempted from d i sc losu re . The re l evan t s e c t ion

provides t h a t the fol lowing a re exempt:

(7) records o r informat ion compiled for lawenforcement purposes , but only to the ex ten tt h a t t he produc t ion of such law enforcementrecords o r informat ion . D) could

reasonably be expected t o d i sc lose thei de n t i t y o f a c onf ide n t i a l source , inc luding

a Sta te , l oc a l , o r fore ign agency o r

au thor i ty o r any pr iva t e i n s t i t u t i o n whichfurnished informat ion on a conf ident ia l

bas i s . ;



8

5 U.S. C. § b) 7) D). As s t a t ed in the Decla ra t ion of Michael D.

Turner , the excis ions were a l l made to protec t the i d e n t i t y o f a

conf iden t i a l source who provided in format ion under an expre ss

grant o f c onf ide n t i a l i t y . Turner Decla ra t ion a t 8.

The i den t i t y o f a c onf ide n t i a l source i s not s ub je c t to

d i sc losu re , nor i s informat ion 'which can reasonably be expec ted

to d i sc lose t ha t source ' s i den t i t y . 5 U.S.C. § 552 b) 7) D);

United Technologies Corp. v. NLRB, 777 F.2d 90, 93 2d Cir .

1985) . See also Schmerler v. FBI, 900 F.2d 333, 336-37 D.C.

Cir . 1990) even where no express gran t o f conf i den t i a l i t y given,

promises of conf i den t i a l i t y a re inheren t ly impl i c i t when

in format ion i s s o l i c i t e d by t he FBI; t hen p la in t i f f has burden to

show evidence t o rebu t the presumption of conf i den t i a l i t y ) .

The 7) D) exemption pro t e c t s the i den t i t i e s o f

c o n f i d e n t i a l sources desp i t e the passage of t ime, and even

pro t e c t s the i d e n t i t i e s of conf ident ia l sources who have died .

See Schmerler , 900 F.2d a t 336. Indeed, the pro tec t ion con t inues

unless and un t i l t he source i s c a l l e d as a witness . United

Technologies , 777 F.2d a t 94. In view of the s ta tements made in

t he dec la ra t ion o f Specia l Agent Michael Turner , the FBI

r e s pe c t fu l ly submits t h a t t he exc i s ions in the document r eques ted

by the p l a i n t i f f were proper ly made. Thus, the FBI r e spec t fu l l y

submits t h a t t i s e n t i t l e d to summary judgment.



9

CONCLUSION

For the reasons s t a t e d above, the FBI r e spec t fu l l y

r eques t s t h a t t h i s Court deny p l a i n t i f f ' s motion for j u d i c i a l

supervis ion and o ther r e l i e f and grant the FBI s motion fo r

summary judgment.


oc tober f 5 19 9

S R H J . LUH

Ass i s t an t U.S. Attorney(Of Counsel)

Respectfu l ly submi t ted ,

NDREW J . M LONEY

United Sta tes AttorneyEaste rn D i s t r i c t of New YorkOne Pierrepon t P laza , 11th Fl .Brooklyn, Ne•v York 11201



LAW OFF ICES


LEOPOLD LEVY 1913-1929

THEODORE OUTMAN 1913-1948

GEORGE GOLDBERG 1913 - 1980

,JEREMIAH 5 . GUTMAN

PHILIP KAPLAN

EUGENE N . HARLEY

Mr. Aron Kay

December 10 1992

424 Brighton Beach AvenueBrooklyn Y 11235

Re: FBI Case

Dear Aron:

2 7 5 SEVENTH AVENUE SU I TE 1770

NEWYORK N .Y . 10001

TELEPHONE 212 / 807 9733

FAX <2121 8 0 7 - 9 7 3 7

W E : S T C H I : S T ~ OIFP ICE.

2 RIVER V IEW PLACE

HAST ING5-0N-HUDSON N . Y . 10701 1

Q I4 / 471 1-3 5 5Q

I heard on December 8 from Mr. Yu law c le rk to JudgeKorman. Judge Sess ions has not ye t re tu rned the Ju dge s c a l land the Judge put o f f the t e lephone conference which had beenscheduled for December 9 to give him a chance to get hold o fJudge Sess ions . I have been i n s t ruc t ed t o c a l l Ms. Susi ,appointment c le rk to Judge Korman in two weeks to s e t up a

new te lephone conference ca l l among M s ~ u m the u.s.Attorney ~ the case , the Judge and mysel and perhapsJudge Sess1ons o r another person from th FBI.

I wi l l continue to keep you adv is d of developments.

JSG: j f



J c L G : ~ i : : h S.. S:..:.tm::Yl ~ iLevy, Gutman, Goldberg ·Kaplan

United States ttorney

Eastern District o New Thrk

I ierrepont Plaza

th loor

Brooklyn New iOrl: 11201

March 25, 1993

275 Sev =nth Avenue1

Su ite l 7 7 -

ewYork, NY 10001

Re: Kay v . FBI, 92 CV 2438

Dear Mr. Gutman:

Enclosed p lease f ind an unredac ted copy o f t he

t e l e t y p e as we agreed.

Encl.

By:

Very t r u l y yours

M RY JO WHITE

United S ta t e s Attorney~ ~ [ ~S R H J . LUM

Ass i s t an t U.S. Attorney718-330-2757/7100

- - -



URGENT .11 26 63 8 11 PM VBR

TO SACS DALLAS AND NEW ORLEANS

FROM SAC HOUSTON 62 2115 2?

..

:

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY NOVEMBER TWENTY

TWO SIXTYTHREE DALLAS TEXAS. IRE ALVIN B E A U ~ A r e ~ F AND DAVID w r E R ~ E .AT FOUR FIFTEEN P ~ l NOV. TWENTYSIX INSrANT CHIEF OF

POLICE WILLIE BURNS PAREN NA PAREN CLOSED G A ~ V E S T Q NTEXAS ADVISED-HE HAD RECEIVED T E L ~ H O N E CALL FROM CAPTAIN

- . .

CECIL PRIEST HOUSTON PD · ASKING HIM TO CHECK ON.ALVIN

BEAUBAOUEF AND DAVID w FERRIE AT THE DRifTWOOD MOTOR HOTEL

GALVESTON. PRIEST I N D I C ~ T E D T HEY .WERE FRIENDS OF OSWALD.. - .

BURNS STATED HE HAD DETECTIVE CHECK AND DETERMINED

THAT ABOVE INDIVIDUALS REGISTERED IN ROOM ONE ONE SEVEN

DRIFTWOOD MOTOR HOTEL THREE ONE TWO EIGHT BOULEVARD

GALVESTON ELD TEN PM ON NOVEMBER TWENTYTHREE SIXTYTHREE AND

CHECKED OUT AT TWO PM ON NOVEMBER TWENTYFOUR. GAVE AS

THEIR ADDRESS SIX ONE EIGHT NORTH PIERCE NEW O R L E ~ N SLOUISIANA. WERE DRIVING FOUR DOOR STATION W A ~ O N MAKE ·

END PAGE ONE 4 ~ J ::____ 0

L A : I H ~ p .. N D ~ X E Q . .

d \ i i . ~ ~ ...

NOV 2 6 1963



PAGE TI/0

UNKNOWN, LOUISIANA LICENSE SEVEN EIGHT FOUR DASH EIGHT NINE

FIVE.

ALSO IN THE ROOM ~ I T H THEM ~ S MELVIN s. C O ~ · LL

~ E R E ~ H I T E MALES. ALSO. IN_ THE R00l1 ~ S BLOND WIHITE FEMALE,

NAME U N K N O ~ NlllHILE AT MOTEL ?LACED bONG--DISTANCE CALL TO

ALEXANDRIA, LOUIS IAN[), ITLEPHONE NUMBER UN)(NQWN.

HOUSTON DOES NOT KNOW SIGNIFICANCE OF ABOVE AND INQUIRY

AT HOUSTON PD WOULD COMPROMISE SOURCE W ~ O DOES NOT ~ N THOUSTON PD TO KNO <I HIS CONTACT WITH FBI.

UAC DALLAS, NE1il ORLEANS ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY ABOVEI

INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR POSSIBLE CONNECTION WIITH LEE HARVEY

OSWALD.

END AND ACK

DL g 14 PM CST OK FBI DL LJH

NO ADV E SEP TU CLR