‘Released under the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1997 (42 USC SI0T Hote; . DATE: 11-14-2017 4/14/201 JFK Assassination System Date: Identification Form eee Agency Information AGENCY: FBI RECORD NUMBER: — 124-10325-10075 RECORD SERIES: HQ AGENCY FILENUMBER: —197-636-4, 5 Eee Document Information ORIGINATOR: DOJ FROM: _ [Restricted] TO: EOUSA TITLE: DATE: 09/01/1970 “PAGES: 5 SUBJECTS : HAROLD WEISBERG DOCUMENT TYPE: PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION: — Unclassified RESTRICTIONS: — Consulted CURRENT STATUS: Withhold DATE OF LASTREVIEW: 06/11/1998 OPENING CRITERIA: APPROVAL OF DOJ REFERRED TO DOJ, INC MEMO COMMENTS : ll  —- -—- ———— — ———eeE v9.1 Docld: 323127876 Page 1
[ Refeased under the John F. Kennedy ‘Assassination Records Collection Ac i ATE, 11-14-2017 / aa ~ . a os ate = : S United States Attorney . Re er 15 1970 District of Coluibia © Guy a Mga WOR: JFAxelrad:bd William D, Ruckelsheus . 15 -12s24hg ae Assistant Attorney General, Civil Divisien By: Harland FP. Leathers. chief, Genéral Litigation Section ; Harold Weisberg Vs Department of} “Jus Beem ) . / USDC DCs, Civil Action Yo. 2301-76 sn eet seen PISEP TOE Sees RUE ETE ae Rik sey ae RIEL AO BAY F Tndlosed are 1) copy of memorandum fron the FBI dated ge" x \ LA | August 20, 19703 end 2) origiaal and four copies of an affie 2b in. Gute hy i) nad davit executed by Special Agent Marion E. Wilidems. For the Ae te Mr in Apa i of * reasona given below we suggest that you file a motion to dis</"] Pa toy mies or, in the alternative, for summary: judgment pursuant an to Rules 12(b)(1)(6) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro~ cedure » Supported by Mr. Williams" affidavit, befere our time. to respond to the etmplaint runs, E Mr. Walter’. @ Pte, Sovars. q Tele. Room... _ Ths Sele basis of Suriediation. alleged in the complaint son axempee ‘from sy Ss aCe. 552 investigatory files compiled for law enforeement purposes except to the extent available by law to a party other than en agency." (imphesis added). ‘Thus, --the plain wording of the exemption renders it yr gomearted to all ‘Ginvestigation files “coupiled for. dew enforce: " | “al: files which the Government coli iies. ig ihe ‘Course of ior cenforcement investigations which may or thy Fict—Teag to formal ep roceedings «, As the Court held in Barcethbagta Shoe VOID. Vs. comp tony: OT Fs Supps 591, 592-593 (D Fe coy 33 = "Te general terms I agree imine S somal! 7, 7 — Go 3h. ' o “" General's analysis of the nature and.ecope of: a the exemption, in his Memorandun cn the Public | Infanstien Section of thé Administrative Pro- . | eedure a dated June 1967, wherein he states Ht) at at pw». 36 : cng } ta Beety, pyre omeinieent wares ° 75 TT ct oAPe "The effect iB dangunge an, exemption (fasEP 22 1970 | < é rT ee on theoe er h & ‘to be to confirm the Ce Te Ras aval labta ES eB 168 ‘of docutients Fromme —me eommme | ane 0) investiy £22 ae tay to which. EY Peg . ste» , eoneréss ‘ther die). then avails | Le oo FT Seay nts Por exatiple), 2. i } ae gants Jone ecuupiens wmensof the Jencks ‘ in } ii . “WG cv be ' Docld: 32312876 Page 3
ay i Doeld: 32312626 Page 4 Ssassination Records Collection Act of 1997 (44 USC 2 - - “ statute (16 U.S.C. 3500) may cbtain prior Statements elven to an PRI egent or an SEC , duvestigatory by a witness who is testifying ‘in @ pending case; but cince such statenents might contain information unfairly da: to the litigant or other persons, the now lew, like the Jencks statute, does. not permit the st tenent to be mae: erasable to he party “bedbeectly’ a any voor ier of greater access te investigatery files than he would have di- e (ieRevt, in é pelt }atdeation oY procesdings.' As I suggested before, Congress could not have in- ‘tended +o. erent. lesser rights of inspection and are fenced with the deprivation of their life oe liberty, than to persons faced only with remedial adiinistretive orders under ‘Fegulatory statutes." ‘tithes eempiton covers investigatory fies related to enforcenent oft a 2 kinds of 3 gation | and r padenebive yeoceseings Re Report: # 197, 89th. Cones ena Beasig pe Se. as 99 A> oe ect ee et a i et seme - _—
Réleased under the John F. DATE: 11-14-2017 a . Bayt, ° tm ot v bce ee we zoct a i roe vt ~‘ “se In sum, it is clear that the plaintiff eould obtain the emloyees' statements taken by the Board if the employees. had been called to testify -~ in fact, the plaintiff was given access to the etate- ments of the employees. who did so testify. However, the plaintiff is not entitled te employee statements absent such use. Since, the records plaintitr seeks have not been made part of the record in agency proseedings, plaintiffs may not obtain them “absent auch use.” 2 Accord: Benson v. United States, 309 F.. Bupps Tbh (D Neb. I970)~ Unlike Bristol-Myers v. FIC; supra, there can be no serious question that the PBI records “piaintit? seeks are exempt from disclosure: they are part of en “investigative file, which was compiled for law enforcement purposes and is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning the investigation of #he assassination of President Joha F. Kennedy." (Williams’ Affidavit, Par. 3). This investigative file is not publicly disclosed (Wiliiems' Affidavit, Par. 4). Disclosure of such. files would seriously hinér the operations of the FBI (Wildiams’ Affidavit, Pars 5). Thus, the above analysis establishes that exemption 7 to 5 U.S.C. 952 applies to exempt the material plain- ‘if? seeks from disclosure.. In addition, the legislative history to 5 U.8.Cs, 552 confirms that "[t]he PBI would be protected under exenption Ho,. 7 prohibiting disclosure of ‘investigatory files.’ Remarks of Representative Gallegher, a strong supporter of the dagislation, 8oth | Cong. 2nd Sess., Cong. Record, Pe 19026, + which. involved on ; pro- ceedings , not. & suit Saradont to "5 U.S.C. 552, is to the contrary; it is plainly wrong for the reasons stated above.. It is signifi-~ cant that ‘the panauage Congress chose, "compiled for law enforce- be Fe Supp: SED. ‘Pas 196 r Ve, ‘ment purposes" was criticized at hearings on the proposed legis- lation as unduly restrictives. 89th Cong., Ist Sessiom, Hearings on HR: $012 before the Houge Committee on Government Operations, pps 2b5-2h7,. Notwithstanding this criticism Congress enacted exenption 7 as referred to above because it thought the broad protection against aigclosure eontained therein necessary to ef- fective operation. of the agencies which compile . investigation - reports. In any event, “the: records ‘plaintifr secks are presently *asintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" as investiga= tory files, (Williems’ Affidavit, Pare. 3): Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1997 (44 US Vint Hotes. te, Sy ' Docld:32312826 Page 5
~. Indeed, Rep. Gallagher expressly noted that the bill (comtaini: exemption 7 in a form similar to that enacted as 5 U.S.C. 552(b (7)) “prevents the disclosure of .. . ‘sensitive’ Government information such as PGI files... ." Thus, the legislative . history to 5 U.S.C. 552 and the decided cases are in accord that plaintiff may not obtain the FBI records he seks. Please send us copies of all papers filed and keep us informed of al] developments. aos. Bre diy; Edger Hoover Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation , Docld: 32312826 Page 6