Document date: 00/00/0000

# DOCID-32176694

## Page 1

Date: 07/27/94

Page: 1

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM.

IDENTIFICATION FORM

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : FBI

RECORD NUMBER

: 124-10186-10067

RECORDS SERIES :

Released under the John F. Kennedy

Mssassination Records Collection Act of

992 (44 USC 2107 Note). Case#:NW

65994 Date: 11-01-2021

BH

AGENCY FILE NUMBER

... ...

: 66-2204-27 THRU 33

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

FROM

TITLE :

DATE : 00/00/00

PAGES

SUBJECTS :

NAR

DOCUMENT TYPE

CLASSIFICATION

RESTRICTIONS

CURRENT STATUS

:

DATE OF LAST REVIEW :

OPENING CRITERIA:

INDEFINITE

: NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED

07/27/94

COMMENTS :

[R]

- ITEM IS RESTRICTED

NW 65994 Docld:32176694 Page 1

---

## Page 2

Date: August 2, 2021

From: National Archives and Records Administration

Subject: Reconstructed FBI File BH 66-2204, Serials 27-33

To: The File

This memorandum briefly summarizes the status of missing original Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) case files or portions of case files in the President John F. Kennedy

Assassination Records Collection (JFK Collection) and documents the National Archives and

Records Administration's (NARA) efforts to reconstruct these records, where possible, from

duplicate copies of documents located in other FBI files.

As the JFK Collection was first compiled and reviewed in the 1990s, the Assassination Records

Review Board and the FBI designated some records as "not believed relevant" (NBR) or "not

assassination related" (NAR). The FBI retained custody of the NBR/NAR records and

postponed their transfer to NARA úntil a later date. Every document or group of documents

("serials"), however, received an indexed Record Identification Form (RIF) and FBI inventory

sheet for insertion into the JFK Collection.

After an extensive search, neither the FBI nor the National Archives could locate a small

number of NAR documents or case files.

This compilation represents NARA's efforts to reconstruct the original file or portions of the file,

as completely as possible, with duplicate copies of documents located in the FBI field office and

headquarters files within the JFK Collection. Each reconstructed file or compilation contains a

Record Identification Form, an explanatory cover memo, existing administrative documents

available within the JFK Collection, and copies of identified duplicate documents. The table

below summarizes the status of FBI file BH 66-2204, Serials 27 through 33.

RIF Number

FBI File

Number

List of Serials

From Inventory

Sheet

List of Identified

Serials at NARA

124-10186-10067

BH 66-2204

27-33

27, 30-31

Reconstructed

Status (None,

Partial,

Complete)

Partial

NW 65994 Docld:32176694 Page 2

---

## Page 3

!

FEDERAL, BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

POSTPONEMENT INFORHATION SHEET (JFK MATERIALS)

2/ Page(s) withheld entirely at this location in the file.

One or more of the following statements, where indicated,

explain this deletion (these deletions) •

[]

Deletions were made pursuant to the postponement

rationale

available

indicated below with no segregable material

for disclosure.

All references relate to

Section 6 of the "president John F. Kennedy Assassination

Records Collection Act of 1992."

[] Subsection 1A (intelligence agent's identity)

Subsection 1B (intelligence source or method)

[]

Subsection 1C (other matter relating to miiitary

defense, intelligence operations or

the conduct of foreign relations)

subsection

(living person who provided

confidential information)

[]

[]

Subsection 3

(unwarranted invasion of privacy)

Subsection 4

(cooperating individual or foreign

government, currently requiring

protection)

Subsection 5 (security or protective procedure,

currentry or expected to be utilized)

[]

Information pertained to a matter unrelated to the JFK

Assassination investigation.

For your information:_

The following number is to be used for reference

regarding this page (these pages) :

3466-2204-27 thRu 33

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

xXXXXXXXXX

xXXXXxxxxXX

xxxxxxxxXX

xxxxxxxxxx

NW 65994 Docld:32176694 Page 3

---

## Page 4

NW 65994

10

• 12

13

14

, 15

Page:

03/24/75

03/25/75

05/02/75

05/20/75

06/16/75

05/28/75

06/28/75

09/04/75

09/05/75

09/11/75

09/12/75

09/26/75

10/09/75

11/12/75

66-2204

Document.

Type

TT

TT

RS

MEMO

TT

TT

TT

MEMO

11/21/75 RS

Document

From

HQ

BH

HQ

HQ

BH

HQ

HQ

HQ

BH

BH

HQ

HQ

BARNETT

HQ

11/20/75

NEWS ARTIC

Document

ALL SACS

HQ

ALL SACS

ALL SACS

ALL EMPLOY

AT

ALL SACS

HQ

HQ

ALL SACS

ALL SACS

BH

3rd

Agy

JFK Inventory Sheet

(Committees

Files)

Section #: 1

Other

Direct

Dupes

ACTUAL PERT.

Rev.

Re: CHURCH COMM.

Rel.

with-

FBI Ref

held

3rd Agy

Duplicate

Location

Postponements

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

---

## Page 5

NW 65994

Docld:32176694

Serial

Number

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

22

23

24

26

27

28

29

29

30

Page:

Document

Date

Document

Type

12/12/75

12/02/75

TESTIMONY

12/04/75

RS

12/10/75

TT

12/02/75

TRANSCRIPT

12/05/75

RS

12/24/75

AT

12/24/75

LHM

01/05/76

RS

11/11/76

AT

01/28/76

01/28/76

LHM

AT

02/12/76

TT

02/24/76

AT

07/16/76

AT

04/21/76

MEMO

03/01/70

MEMO

08/24/76

MEMO

Document

From

To

BH

CHURCH COM

HQ

BH

ALL SACS

CHURCH COM

HQ

BH

BH

HQ

BH

HQ

BH

BH

BH

HQ

BH

HQ

ALL SACS

BH

HQ

HQ

THIRD PART NY

THIRD PART

HQ

ALL SACS

3rd

Agy

Other

Direct

Dupes

14

61

17

ACTUAL PERT. Rev.

with-

FBI Ref

Duplicate

Rel. held

3rd Agy Location

14

61

34

34

16

16

-

-

-

Postponements

NONE

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NONE

NONE

NAR

NAR

NONE

NONE

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

NAR

---

## Page 6

NW 65994

Serial

Number

Document

Date

08/31/76

09/07/76

06/28/77

Document

Type

TT

TT

MEMO

33

Page:

Grand Totals……...

End of Report....

Document

From

HQ

HQ

HQ

Document

To

ALL SACS

BH

ALL SACS

3rd

Agy

Other

165

Direct

Dupes

ACTUAL PERT.

50

215

56

Rel.

With- FBI Ref

held

3rd Agy

56

56

Duplicate

Location.

..:

Postponements

NAR

NAR

NAR

---

## Page 7

NRD64 WA PLAIN

1D: I5PM NITEL 2-11-76 TKR

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR

YESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE CIVIL RIGHIS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHIS

SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 11, 1976.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL' AND I TESTIFIED BEFORE

CAPTIONED SUBCOMMITTEE TODAY CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE

POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE FBI. COPIES OF THE

STATEMENTS PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL AND ME ARE BEING MAILED TO ALL OFFICES TODAY. FOR

YOUR INFORMATION, THERE FOLLOWS A SYNOPSIZED ACCOUNT OF THE

MAJOR AREAS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS TO ME, TOGETHER

WITH MY RESPONSES:

(1) IN RESPONSE IO QUESTIONS REGARDING, THE

PREVENTIVE ACTION PROVISION IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR THE FBI WHICH ARE CITED IN HIS

PREPARED STATEMENT, I STATED THAT THE PRIMARY MANDATE OF

LAW ENFORCEMENT IS PREVENTION; THAT WE CANNOT INVESTIGATE

SOLELY "AFTER THE FACT"; THAT ACTION TO PREVENT LEGITIMATE

DISSENT UNDER OUR DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT WOULD BE

INTOLERABLE; THAT

PRIOR

TO TAKING PREVENTIVE ACTION IN A

/1. SAC

insy

62-2445-254

2.

ASAG_

SEARCHED

INDEXED

3. Sec. Supir.

SERIALIZED

F/FILES

4. "es: 4

w. Beca

129 105)

6. Desk 6

FEL - SUFRALO

7.LASH

SAC(LAST)

NW 65994 Docld:32176694 Page 7

---

## Page 8

PAGE TWO

DOMESTIC SECURITY CASE TODAY WE WOULD ASCERTAIN THE NATURE

AND EXIENT OF THE THREAT INVOLVED, CONSULI WITH THE DEPARIMENI,

AND REACH A WORKABLE SOLUTION AS TO ANY NECESSARY AND PROPER

ACTION TO BE TAKEN.

(2) REGARDING THE GUIDELINES, QUESTIONS WERE ASKED

CONCERNING MY INPUT MY RESPONSE WAS THAT THE FBI HAS A

REPRESENTATIVE ON THE GUIDELINES COMMITTEE, AND I RECEIVE

REPORIS FROM TIME TO TIME CONCERNING THE THRUST OF THESE

GUIDELINES) AND WHETHER THE GUIDELINES IN PRESENT FORM ARE

TOO STRICT OR LOOSE MY RESPONSE WAS THAT THE FBI IS NOT

UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE GUIDELINES; THAT I CANNOT BROADLY

CATEGORIZE THEN AS STRICT OR LOOSE; THAT THEY ARE STILL

UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT AT THIS POINT ARE NOT TOO RESTRICTIVE:

(3) IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE

DEPARIMENI OF JUSTICE SUPERVISES THE FBI, I STATED THAT I

RECOGNIZE THAT IT DOES AND THAT I CAN STATE UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT

I HAVE A VERY PLEASANT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND THAT WE GET ALONG VERY WELL.

(THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AGREED AND POINTED OUT IHAT

THE FBI HAS TO HAVE CONSIDERABLE AUTONOMY, THAI THE FBI

DIRECTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY IS GREAT, AND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

' NW 65994-Docld:32176694 Page 8-

---

## Page 9

PAGE THREE

HAS GENERAL OVERSIGHI RESPONSIBILITY OVER THE BUREAU. HE NOTED

THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "IS NOT RUNNING THE FBI" - - OR HE

WOULD NOT HAVE TIME FOR ANYTHING ELSE -- AND THAT THERE

IS "SOME DISTANCE" BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE FBI

DIRECTOR.)

(4) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONTINUED

OVERSIGHI OF THE FBI BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, I STATED

THAT, SINCE APRIL, 1975, THE FBI HAS DEVOTED 4500 AGENT DAYS

AND 2221 CLERICAL DAYS TO PROVIDE CONGRESS WITH THE INFORMATION

THAT IT HAS REQUESTED; THAI SOME SOURCES AND INFORMANIS

HAVE BECOME UNWILLING IO URNISH US INFORMATION BECAUSE OF

• THE WIDESPREAD DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL WE HAVE PROVIDED

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES; THAI THE FBI DOES NOT OBJECT TO

OVERSIGHT; THAT WE ARE WILLING TO HAVE OVERSIGHT AND

GUIDELINES BUT THAT WE WANT TO DEVELOP SOME BALANCE SO

THAT WE MAY MAINTAIN OUR CAPABILITIES INTACT TO FULLY

DISCHARGE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES.

ALL LEGATS ADVISED SEPARATELY.

END

DMB FBI BU

NW-65994-Docld:32176694 Page-9

---

## Page 10

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

ERSONAL ATTENTION

MEMORANDUM 36-76

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535

August 24, 1976

MEMORANDUM TO ALL SPECIAL AGENTS IN CHARGE:

80,662

employees, as well as the United States Government, are defendants in

numerous civil suits, and a number of FBI employees have expressed concern

regarding the extent

to which courts are requiring us to produce documents in

these suits. Questions have been raised regarding the scope of discovery in

civil litigation, the means by which discovery can be resisted, and the extent

to which executive privilege can be invoked.

For your information, Rule 26 (b) (1), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, provides as follows regarding the scope of discovery:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,

not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter

involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the

claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the

claim or defense of any other party, including the exist-

ence, description, nature, custody, condition and location

of books, documents, or other tangible things and the

identity and location of persons having knowledge of any

discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that

the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if

the information sought appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

This rule 'apparently envisions generally unrestrictive access to

sources of information, and the courts have so interpreted it. " Horizons

Titanium Corp. V. Norton Co., 290 F. 2d 421, 425; Harris v. Nelson, 394

U. S. 286,.297.

To understand the reason for the wide scope of discovery permitted

by the Federal rules, it should be kept in mind that a clear distinction is made

between the right to obtain information by discovery and the right to use it at

the trial. Rule 26 (b) allows great freedom in discovery. Rules 32 (a), 33 (b),

and the rules of evidence generally limit what may be used at the trial.

80-662-17

SEARCHED..

_ INDEXED,

8-24-76

MEMORANDUM 36-76

SERIALIZED.

AUG? Y 1976

FEI-JACKSON

1788-1978

NW 65994- Docld:32176694 Page 10 -

---

## Page 11

The Supreme Court spoke of the proper scope of the discovery

rules in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495:

We agree, of course, that the deposition-

discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and

liberal treatment. No longer can the time-

honored cry of "fishing expedition" serve to

preclude a party from inquiring into the facts

underlying his opponent's case. Mutual knowledge

of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is

essential to proper litigation. To that end, either

party may compel the other to disgorge whatever

facts he has in his possession. The deposition-

discovery procedure simply advances the stage at

which the disclosure can be compelled from the

time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing

the possibility of surprise. Id. at 507-508.

The discovery rules apply to the United States just as fully as

they apply to any other person. U. S. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S.

677, 681. It is also true that, like other litigants and witnesses, the United

States--and other Governmental units--frequently resists discovery. There

are more grounds on which to do so than when discovery is sought against

private persons. The United States has, or has claimed, among others:

(1) a privilege not to disclose the identity of informers; (2) a privilege for

military or state secrets; and (3) a qualified constitutional privilege to

, refuse to disclose whatever the executive chooses to keep secret. Privilege

may be invoked only by the head of the Executive agency, i.e., the Attorney

General.

What is usually referred to as the informer's privilege is in

reality the Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity

of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged

with enforcement of that law. Roviaro v. U. S., 353 U. S. 53, 59. Such

a privilege is well recognized.

"The privilege for communications by

informers to the Government is well established and its soundness cannot

be questioned. " Mitchell v. Roma, 265 F. 2d 633, 635. Indeed, it has been

extended beyond those who give information to law enforcement officers to

include others who render assistance that is necessary to effective law

enforcement. Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America, 47 F. R. D. 263, 265.

8-24-76

MEMORANDUM 36-76

- 2 -

NW 65994 Docld:32176694-Page' 11,

---

## Page 12

The privilege is a qualified one, however, and requires balancing the public

interest in protecting the flow of information and assistance to the enforce-

ment authorities against a party's right to prepare his case. Roviaro v. U. S.,

353 U. S. at 62.

It is only the identity of the informer that is protected. The

contents of his communication are not privileged (Roviaro v. U. S., 353 U. S.

at 50; Foltz v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 189 F. 2d 537, 539-540,

certiorari denied 342 U. S. 871) unless they would tend to reveal his identity.

Wirtz V. Robinson and Stephens,

Inc., 368 F. 2d 114; Black v. Sheraton Corp.

of America, 47 F. R. D. at 269. The privilege belongs to the Government,

but it is waived if either the informer or the Government has disclosed his.

identity (emphasis added). Mitchell v. Bass, 252 F. 2d 513.

There is also a privilege for state secrets that protects

information not officially disclosed to the public concerning the national

defense or the international relations of the United States. McCormick,

Evidence, 1954, Section 144. U. S. V. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1. The

Supreme Court in Reynolds, supra, rejected contentions that the decision

of the Executive is final as to the existence of this privilege. A court itself

must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim.

In each case, the showing of necessity which

is made will determine how far the court should

probe in satisfying itself that the occasion for

invoking the privilege is appropriate. Where there

is a strong showing of necessity, the claim of

privilege should not be lightly accepted, but even the

most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim

of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that

military secrets are at stake. A fortiori, where

necessity is dubious, a formal claim of privilege,

made under the circumstances of this case, will have

to prevail. Id. at 11.

There was also the contention, until United States v. Nixon,

418 U. S. 683 (1974) was decided, that by virtue of the separation of powers

in the Federal Government the Executive has an absolute privilege to with-

hold from Congress or the courts any information that the executive branch

8-24-76

MEMORANDUM 36-76

- 3 -

NW-65994-Docld:32176694-Page-12 =

---

## Page 13

deems confidential. This contention goes back as far as Marbury v. Madison,

1803, 1 Cranch (5 U. S.) 137, 144, and the trial of Aaron Burr. U. S. v. Burr,

25 Fed. Cas. 187, 190, No. 14, 694.

Recent lower court cases, as well as the Nixon case, recognized

a qualitied executive privilege, well-described in the following passage:

In asserting the privilege, the Government

cites no authority to establish the privilege as an

absolute one. In fact, the cases make it clear that

the privilege is a discretionary one that depends

upon ad hoc considerations of competing policy

claims, the policy of free and open discovery

juxtaposed to the need for secrecy to insure candid

expression of opinions by Government employees in

the formulation of Government policy. ** * Thus,

when the privilege is claimed, it is necessary to

balance interests to determine whether disclosure

would be more injurious to the consultative functions

of Government than non-disclosure would be to the

private litigant's defense. U. S. v. 30 Jars, More

of "Ahead Hair Restorer for New Hair

Applying a process of this kind, courts in many cases have

sustained claims of executive privilege. In cases in which the litigant's

need for the information has seemed to outweigh the Government's interest

in secrecy, however, the claim of privilege has been overruled, and

disclosure has been ordered.

A discovery order, not being a "final" order, is not appealable,

but a party may attempt to obtain relief by applying to the court of appeals

for a writ of mandamus. To obtain such a writ, however, the petitioner

must show that the trial court has substantially abused its discretion. Be-

cause Rule 26 (b) (1) envisions generally unrestrictive access to information

and because a trial court has extremely broad discretion in this area, such

a writ is extremely difficult to obtain.

8-24-76

MEMORANDUM 36-76

- 4 -

NW 65994 Docld:32176694 -Page 13

---

## Page 14

Refusal of a Government officer to comply with a court order

overruling a claim of executive privilege and ordering disclosure could

lead to conviction for contempt.

If the Government is a party, the court

may penalize it for its failure to comply with a discovery order by

invoking any of the sanctions set forth in Rule 37 (b) (2), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. The court may, for example, prohibit the disobedient

party from introducing designated matters in evidence, or it may enter a

judgment by default against the disobedient party.

(Security pages attached)

8-24-76

MEMORANDUM 36-76

NW 65994 Docld:32176694-Page 14

---

## Page 15

#4 Dech - No.

#2 Del -No

H001836 2442029

RR AFD

DE HO

R 312000 AUG 76

FM DIRECTOR

TO ALL SAC'S ROUTINE

CLEAR

TESTIMONY BEFORE

THE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

SENATE GOVERNME

NT OPERATIONS SLBCOMPITTEE :

TO AID FBIHA IN PESPONDING TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY

CAPTIONED SUBCOMMITTEE, SUTEL BY SEPTEMRER 7, 1975, AITENTIN!

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THE TOTAL

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BEING SOUGHI CUPRENTLY AS FUCITIVES

BECAUSE OF THEIP FAILURE TO APPEAF CE "HO OTHERWISE DEFAULTER

ON THE TERNS OF THEIR PRETRIAL RELEASE IN THOSE CRIMES QUER

WHICH THE FBI HAS PIMARY INVESTIGATIVE JURISDICTIn%

Cosail

frbuded

80-662-1811

SEARCHED.

_INCERED

SERIALZED KBAFILED *

AUG 3 1 1976

V53S

NW-65994- Đocld:32176694-Page 15 -

staudle

---