Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 45]
The affirmativo qualities and qualifications of the subject are fully roported.Over and above the minimum standards, the full field investigation may be tailored to obtain infomation in depth concerning special attributes and qualifications required for propor performance in the particular kind of position involved.To facilitate early completion of this study, I should like to receive your comments by December 31, 1965. Mr. Kimbell Johnson, Director, Bureau of Personnel Investigations, is available to discuss any aspect of the proposed standards with members of your staff. He may be reached on Code 183, Extension 7205.Sincerely yours,![signature of John W. Macy, Jr.]John W. Macy, Jr.Chairman
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 46]
# Mr. J. Walter YeagleyAssistant Attorney GeneralDirector, FBI.## SCOPE OF FULL FIELD INVESTIGATIONSDecember 15, 1965Reference is made to your letter of December 9, 1965, forwarding a copy of Chairman Macy's letter of December 2, 1965, concerning minimum standards for acceptable full field coverage.As you are aware, this Bureau conducts our own personnel investigations. The scope of these and other full field investigations conducted by this Bureau under various programs, such as the Federal Employee Security Program and the United Nations Loyalty Program, exceeds the minimum standards set forth in Chairman Macy's letter. The letter of December 2, 1965, does not change the investigative responsibilities of this Bureau.In view of the above, this Bureau has no comments to make concerning the proposed minimum standards of acceptable investigative coverage for Federal civilian employment. This Bureau took a similar position in connection with this matter in a letter to Mr. Kimball Johnson dated April 23, 1950.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 47]
The Attorney GeneralMarch 20, 1973.Acting Director, FBIEXECUTIVE ORDERS 9835, 10450, AND 11605Executive Order 9335, Part III, paregraph 3, provided that the Attorney General "after appropriate investigation and determination" would furnish to the Loyalty Heview Board the name of each foreign or domestic organization which the Attorney General had designated "as totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means."Executive Order 10450, Section 12, revoked Exccutive Order 9835, as anwended; however, it provided that the Departo:ent of Justice "shall continue to furnish the information described in paragraph 3 of Part III" of Executive Order 3835, "but directly to the head of each department or agency."Executive Order 11605, paragraph 2, amended Ecction 12 of Executive Order 10450 by, among other provisions, providing that "the head of each department and agency shall bo furnished by the Attorney General with the more of each organization which shall be or has been heretofore destinted under this order r" and that nothing.. herein shall... affect previous designations made pursuant to Exocutive Order 10460, as amended." (Subparagraph (b)) Executive Order 11605 further provided that "the Subversive Activities Control Eoard shall, upon potition of the Attorney General, conduct appropriate hearings to determine whether any organization is totalitarian, fascist, communist, subversive, or whether it has adopted a policy of unlawfully advocating the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution or lawg of the United States or of any tote, on which seeks to overthrow the government of the United Staten or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means," (Subparagraph (c))JFM:glw(10)SEE NOTE PAGE 2
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 48]
The Attorney Gene alTo date, Congress has refused to appropriate funds for the operation of the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB).During a current study of FEI jurisdiction by this Bureau, the questions have arisen: has the authority to designate organizations been taken from the Attorney General and given to the SACB by Executive Order 11605, or is this authority concurrent; and at this time, what are the responsibilities and authority of the FEI under Executive Order 10450, as amended, and Executive Order 11605?Would you please provide me with a statement of the Department's current position on these questions.1- The Deputy Attorney General1- Assistant Attorney GeneralInternal Security Division
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 49]
TED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandum..TO:L. Patrick CrayActing DirectorFederal Bureau of InvestigationFROM: Henry E. PetersenAssistant Attorney GeneralCriminal DivisionDEPARTMENT OF jubDATE: April 3, 19:3SUBJECT: Executive Orders 9835, 10450, and 11605This is in reference to your memorandum dated March 20, 1973 in which you requested to be advised regarding the Department's position relating to the above executive orders.In the event the Subversive Activities Control Board ceases to function after July 1, 1973, the designation program as authorized by E. 0. 10450, as amended, will continue to remain in effect. The Board's demise will, however, eliminate it as the body which at this time has the exclusive authority to conduct, upon petition of the Attorney General, the evidentiary hearings and make the determinations as to whether an organization should be designated within the criteria and standards specified by E. O. 10450, as amended by E. Ο. 11605.The question of revising E. O. 10450 to overcome any deficiency which arises as a result of the demise of the Board is currently under study in the Department. There is also legislation pending to afford Congressional approval to E. 0. 11605. Until such time as these matters are resolved, it is requested that the Bureau continue to conduct the investigations which it has carried out under E. Ο. 10450 which is, of course, still in effect.NW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 50
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 50]
May 8, 1974Deputy Assistant Attorney GeneralCriminal DivisionDirector, FBI## EXECUTIVE ORDER 10450Executive Order (EO) 10450 is currently being amended by the Department and representatives of this Bureau have participated in a task force headed by Mr. Oran Waterman, Director, Department Security Staff, which is recommending certain changes be made in EQ 10450.During the course of discussions within the task force, it was pointed out to Mr. Waterman the Bureau's authority to conduct investigations in the domestic subversion field has come under considerable scrutiny. The. Bureau is now conducting investigations of domestic cubversion on the basis of existing Federal statutes. This investigative policy may not adequately meet the needs of an effective security of Covernment employees program under EO 10450..The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, previously solicited our views on abolition of the Attorney (encral's List.. In our response captioned "Abolition of the Attorney General's Dist," dated April 11, 1974, cur comments included advice that under our current statutory basis for domestic subversion investigations may not adequately meet the needs of LO 10450 and the observation the FBI has never received speciile instructions from the Attorney General to conduct intelligence-type investigations to identify and determine the activities of organizations described in Section 8 (a) (5) of EC 10150. We also requested to be advised as to the instructions of the Attorney Ceneral relating to the FBI conducting intelligence-type investigations uncer EOI0450, as well as the scope and parameters within which such Investigations should be conducted.NW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 51
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 51]
Deputy Assistant Attorney GeneralCriminal DivisionOur current practice of conducting subversive-type Investigations based on Federal statutes may tend to restrict our intelligence gathering concerning organizations, associations, movements, groups and combinations of persons as defined in Section 8 (a) (5) of EO 10450. In responding to our above-referred-to memorandum of April 11, 1974, it is recommended the Attorney General consider issuance of some form of Departmental instructions or order establishing firm guidelines for intelligence-type investigations which would define our authority in this regard. It is believed this would put the FBI on a firm foundation to conduct intelligence-type investigations involving groups defined in Section 8 (a) (5) to adequately support EO 10450. We have previously recommended that the Department seek a comprehensive Executive Order, and furnished suggested language, which would provide a firm basis for FBI intelligence-type investigations in the security field. This recommendation is still under study by the Department.We would be glad to meet with representatives of the Department to discuss this matter in more detail.1 - DirectorDepartment Security StaffNW 88326 DocId:32989603 Page 52.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 52]
Deputy Assistant Attorney GeneralCriminal DivisionDirector, FBIFEDERAL EMPLOYEE SECURITY PROGRAMEXECUTIVE ORDER 10450August 19, 1974Since the issuance of Executive Order 11785 on June 4, 1974, abolishing the Attorney General's list of designated organizations, one of the standards used by the FBI in initiating investigations of individuals pursuant to Executive Order 10450 has been eliminated. This is true with regard to investigations under captioned matter of individuals which may be initiated by the FBI based on information contained in our files as well as in evaluating requests for investigations of individuals received from other agencies and departments pursuant to Section 8(d) of Executive Order 10450.In this connection it is noted that the Criminal Division of the Department in its letter of July 11, 1974, advised that continued investigation by the FBI of the Nation of Islam is warranted because, among other things, "its reported activities appear to come within the criteria of Executive Order 10450."In view of the issuance of Executive Order 11785, it will be appreciated if you will furnish guidelines to be used by the FBI in initiating investigations of individuals under captioned matter pursuant to Executive Order 10450 and specifically criteria to be utilized in determining whether available information is sufficient basis for an investigation.1 - DirectorDepartment Security StaffNW 88326 DocId:32989603 Page 53
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 53]
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICETO: Clarence M. KelleyDirectorFederal Bureau of InvestigationDATE: AUG 23 1974FROM: Glen E. PommereningAssistant Attorney Generalfor AdministrationSUBJECT: Federal Employee Security ProgramExecutive Order 10450The practice as set forth in your subject memorandum of August 14, 1974, for furnishing to the Office of Management and Finance copies of investigative reports satisfies the needs of the Department.NW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 54
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 54]
# Assistant Attorney General for Administration# Director, FBI# FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SECURITY PROGRAM EXECUTIVE ORDER 10450August 14, 1974This will confirm the request on August 6, 1974, of Mr. Oran H. Waterman, Director, Department Security Staff, advising he was acting on a request from your office, that copies of reports containing the results of investigations of individuals conducted under captioned matter pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 10450 bo furnished, where pertinent, to his office directly rather than through your office. This procedure was instituted on August 6, 1974. After review by the Dopartment Security Staff it is understood that the reports are forwarded to the Crininal Division.As in the past, these reports are furnished to the Department in order that consideration may be given as to whether any Federal laws have been violated and for information concerning possibic subversive infiltration into, the Executivo Branch of the Government.With regard to a determination as to whether any Federal laws have been violated, it is noted the violations generally involve Title 18, U. S. Code, Section 1001, and a response is received from the Criminal Division.Information concerning subversive infiltration into the Executive Branch of the Government is furnished for the Department's assistance in discharging its responsibilities under Section 13 of Executive Order 10450 which reads: "The Attorney General is requested to render to the heads of departments and agencies such advice as may be requisite to enable them to establish and maintain an appropriate employee security program."It1ZMAILED 20preciated if you will advise if the practice set forth above is responsive to the needs of the Department. AUG 141974 1NW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 55
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 55]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Clarence M. KelleyDirectorFederal Bureau of InvestigationFROM: Glen E. PommereningAssistant Attorney GeneralFor AdministrationSUBJECT: Federal Employee Security ProgramExecutive Order 10450DATE: NOV 1 1974This is in response to your memoranda, entitled as above, dated May 8, 1974 and August 19, 1974, directed to the Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, and referring to problems which have arisen as a result of the promulgation of Executive Order 11785 which amends Executive Order 10450. In view of the involvement of my staff in these matters, I will undertake to answer your questions with the concurrence of the Criminal Division.As you know this matter has been under continuing review both in the Task Force, chaired by a representative of this office, of working level representatives of various agencies in the security field and is now under study to a lesser degree in Project #10 of the "Domestic Council on Privacy".You ask that the Department; (a) provide specific instructions to the Bureau to conduct intelligence-type investigations to identify and determine the activities of organizations now described in the amended Section 8(a) (5) of Executive Order 10450; (b) furnish guidelines to be used by the Bureau in initiating investigations of individuals under the captioned matter pursuant to Executive Order 10450 and specifically, criteria to be utilized in determining whether available information is a sufficient basis for investigation.Under the amendment to Section 8(a) (5) of Executive Order 10450, we now have only two types of organizations; (1) those which unlawfully advocate or practice the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the constitution or laws of the United States or
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 56]
any State, (2) or which seek to overthrow the Government of the United States, or any State or subdivision thereof, by unlawful means. (Emphasis added).Of course, the key words which are underlined indicate that the investigation should be initially based on a possible violation of a federal (such as the Smith Act) or state statute prohibiting unlawful advocacy or the commission of any unlawful act of force or violence. However, in order for the Bureau to detect organizations with a potential of the above nature, it is important that the investigation proceed on the basis of information indicating that the organization may be of the nature mentioned. It is not necessary that a crime occur before the investigation is initiated, but only that a reasonable evaluation of the available information suggests that the activities of the organization may fall within the proscription of the Order. The most recent example of the type of organization, that you have advised is becoming more prevalent, is the small but dedicated to violence, Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). Organizations of this nature would clearly fall within the Order and should be investigated as soon as information is available indicating their potentiality for violence and of course, if possible, prior to the fulfillment of their purposes.It is true that Executive Order 11785 eliminated the prior communist, totalitarian, fascist, and subversive characterizations and definitions, but there was no intention of restricting the investigations of such organizations if their programs call for acts of force or violence or the unlawful advocacy of the commission of acts of force or violence in furtherance of these programs.It is not possible to set definite parameters covering the initiation of investigations of potential organizations falling within the Order but once the investigation reaches a stage that offers a basis for determining that the activities are legal in nature, then the investigation should cease, but if the investigation suggests a determination that the organization is engaged in illegal activities or potentially illegal activities it should continue.It follows in answer to your second question that individuals' who are active either as members of or as affiliates of
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 57]
organizations described above should be investigated when information is received indicating their involvement. The same yardstick indicated above for organizations in determining whether the investigation should continue, should apply concerning individuals and when a determination can reasonably be made that the individuals activities, either within the organization or as an individual, do not appear to be in violation of any law, then the investigation should cease.
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 58]
December 11, 1974Assistant Attorney Generalfor AdministrationDirector, FBIFEDERAL EMPLOYEE SECURITY PROGRAMEXECUTIVE ORDER 10450Reference is made to your memorandum datedNovember 1, 1974, in answer to our previous inquiriesrequesting advice concerning the effect of ExecutiveOrder (50) 11735 on our investigations of organizationsand individuals engaged in subversive activities.While refcrenced memorandum advises we shoulduse the same yardstick for investigation of subversiveorganizations and subversive individuals, the commentsfollowing that advice, concerning individuals, arebelieved subject to intergrotation as being morerestrictive in scone. Specifically, concerning organ-izations, you essentially advised that when investigationdotermines the activitics are loral in nature, thanthe investigation should cesso, out if the activitiesare illegal or potentially illemal, the investigationshould continue. Concerning individuals, thememorandum advises essentially that the same yardstickbe used but adds when the activities do not appear tobe in violation of any law, then the investigation shouldcease.Further, the tenor of your memorandum,particularly comments contained in page two, paragraphone, follow the concept of investigative scope consistentwith the advice as to investication of subversiveorganizations but does appear to conflict with thelatter comments concerning investigation of individualswhere the phrase "not in violation of any law" is used.We would appreciate clarification concerning this matter.CWT/RLE:djr(7)SEE NOTE PAGE THREENW 88326 Docld:32989603 Page 59
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 59]
Assistant Attorney Generalfor AdministrationYour memorandum of November 1, 1974, in part,responded to this Bureau's memorandum of August 19, 1974,which asked for guidelines to be used by the FBI ininitiating investigations of applicants and employees inthe Executive Branch of the Government pursuant to Section8(d) of EO 10450. This Section specifically instructsother agencies to promptly refer to the FBI for investi-gation those cases which develop information indicatingthat an individual may have been subjected to coercion,influence or pressure to act contrary to the interests ofthe national security, or information relating to any ofthe other matters described therein.Since the guidelines furnished by you areconcerned primarily with possible violation of law, adecision to be made by the Department, it will beappreciated if you will furnish additional guidelinesto cover "sympathetic association" and other standardsmentioned in Section 8(a) (2) through (8) when theinvestigation concerns an applicant or employee in theExecutive Branch of the Government.In considering the foregoing, it should be notedthe FBI has another responsibility under EO 10450 which is'set forth in Section 5. This Section provides thatwhenever there is developed or received by any departmentor agency information indicating that the retention inemployment of any officer or employee of the Governmentmay not be clearly consistent with the interests of thenational security, such information shall be forwarded tothe head of the employing department or agency or hisrepresentative.Your attention is also invited to Chapter 736. ofthe Federal Personnel Manual, which instructs agencies topromptly refer to the FBI for investigation cases 'whichdevelop information indicating that a person may have beensubject to coercion, influence or pressure to act contraryto the interests of the national security, or information onpossible disloyalty to the United States."- 2 -
[124-10183-10277_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 60]
# Assistant Attorney General for AdministrationChapter 732 of the Federal Personnel Manual instructs that before an agency issues a letter of charges under 10 10450, the Department of Justice shall be consulted to assure that the rights of the employees are fully considered. Section 13 of 10 10450 requests the Attorney General to render to the heads of departments and agencies such advice as may be requisite to enable them to establish and maintain an appropriate employee security program.Available information indicates that difficulties of proof imposed by the courts in loyalty and security cases have proved almost insurmountable and as a resuit no removals or other adverse actions have been taken on these grounds for several years and the adjudicative basis has apparently shifted from loyalty and security to suitability.An early response in this matter will be appreciated.NOTE:We have corresponded with the Department concerning amendments to EO 10450 by EO 11785 and requested guidelines as to our investigations of subversive matters defined in EO 10450 as amended by EO 11785 as none have been previously furnished by the Department. This is necessary because the Federal Employee Security Program depends on subversive information originating with our subversive investigations. The foregoing requests clarification in conflicting language in the Department 's response as to subversive investigations and response to questions concerning the FBI's investigative role in the above Program.Although our original inquiry was directed to Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, the Department memorandum notes Assistant Attorney General, Administrative Division, answered with concurrence of the Criminal Division. We are, therefore, directing our request for clarification to Assistant Attorney General for Administration.