Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Judge's Decision on MF v Biden and NARA

 Larry Schnapf Writes:

Posted Sunday at 07:31 PM

On Friday nite, the court issued an opinion which partially granted some aspects of the Defendants' motion to dismiss and while denying the government's request to dismiss other counts. The court dismissed the claims against President Biden but allows some of the claims involving the National Archives  to continue.

Here is the official MFF statement:

“The July 14 court order provided several victories for the Plaintiffs, including the right to seek immediate release of 1,720 assassination records created due to legislative action by the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the right to investigate the history of the documents destroyed in the course of the JFK investigations and the right to compel improvement in the usability of the National Archive's JFK Collection.  However, the court’s order also narrowed the scope of our lawsuit by not providing a transparent process for the release of other assassination records.  We are reviewing all of our options.” 

 

Bill Simpich writes:

NARA is not barred from adding new items to the JFK Collection.   The court's order did not address that issue.

There will be more analysis after MFF reviews its options.   Here is the MFF press statement:

“The July 14 court order provided several victories for the Plaintiffs, including the right to seek immediate release of 1,720 assassination records created due to legislative action by the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the right to investigate the history of the documents destroyed in the course of the JFK investigations and the right to compel improvement in the usability of the National Archives JFK Collection.  However, the court’s order also narrowed the scope of our lawsuit by not providing a transparent process for the release of other assassination records.  We are reviewing all of our options.” 

Here was what I posted on the Ed Forum today:

The judge's decision was a mixed bag, with victories and defeats for both sides.  Both sides have the option to take action to affect the shape of the lawsuit in the days to come.  This is not a hard-and-fixed situation yet.

MFF, Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar will take the next few days to review their options.

I can't attach the entire decision, but it will be posted at Mary Ferrell Foundation's JFK site in the next day or two.

One item worth thinking about is below.  We have created a good list of destroyed and missing documents at the Assassinations Archives and Research Center.  website.  As many know, AARC, Jim Lesar and Dan Alcorn are indefatigable allies in these battles for openness and transparency.  If anyone has any additions, please post them on this thread - after reviewing these two ARRC lists highlighted above?

Below is the excerpt:

Federal Records Act

Plaintiffs plead that NARA has violated the Federal Records Act by failing to request that the Attorney General take action after the ARRB identified destruction of assassination records by certain agencies. Under the Federal Records Act, if the Archivist becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of” an agency, they are required to notify that agency’s head and assist them “in initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully removed and for other redress provided by law.” 44 U.S.C. § 2905(a). If the agency head “does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action,” the Archivist must “request the Attorney General to initiate such an action.” Id.

Plaintiffs aver that the ARRB Final Report identified intentional destruction of records by the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service, SAC ¶ 61(f), thus triggering the Archivist’s duty to ask the Attorney General to initiate an action for their recovery. Defendants argue this count should be dismissed because a referral to the Attorney General is only required under § 2905(a) for the recovery of records unlawfully removed, rather than destroyed. Defendants cite several cases interpreting an analogous provision to § 2905(a)—44 U.S.C. § 3106(a), which governs federal agencies—holding that agencies only have a duty to involve the Attorney General when records have been unlawfully removed. See, e.g., Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, No. 21-CV-00866-HSG, 2023 WL 163144, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023); Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. S.E.C., 916 F. Supp. 2d 141, 146–148 (D.D.C. 2013).

However, Defendants fail to contend with the differences in language between § 2905(a) and § 3106(a). While § 3106(a) only requires an agency head to “initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed,” § 2905(a) requires the Archivist to assist an agency head in “initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully removed and for other redress provided by law.” 44 U.S.C. §§ 2905(a), 3106(a) (emphasis added).

Likewise, if the agency head fails to “initiate an action for such recovery or other redress” after being notified of “any such unlawful action,” the Archivist must request the Attorney General to initiate such action. 44 U.S.C. § 2905(a) (emphasis added).

In other words, as compared with § 3106(a), § 2905(a) includes an additional clause enabling the Archivist to initiate action through the Attorney General. § 2905(a) thereby seems to impose a broader referral duty on the Archivist than § 3106(a) imposes on agency heads because of its inclusion of “other redress provided by law.” Such a distinction also seems to be made within § 3106. Compare 44 U.S.C. § 3106(a) (requiring agency heads to take action for “the recovery of records . . . unlawfully removed”) with § 3106(b) (requiring the Archivist to make a referral when an agency head fails to “initiate an action for such recovery or other redress” after notification of “any such unlawful action described in subsection (a)”).

The legislative history of § 2905 and § 3106 supports this interpretation. In 1984, Congress amended § 2905 and § 3106 to require an Attorney General referral by the Archivist if an agency head failed to take action. The House committee report only discusses the provision in the context of initiating action for the “recovery of records unlawfully removed.” H.R. Rep. 98-707, at 21. By contrast, the final conference report explained the provision as requiring the Archivist to make a referral to the Attorney General if they are aware of “any such unlawful action,” where “destruction” was listed several sentences before as one action prohibited by law. H.R. Conf. Rep. 98-1124, at 27, as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3894, 3902. The conference report then explained that Congress would be notified in such instances “because of the frequency of incidents of removal or destruction.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added).10 Because the language of § 2905(a) and § 3106(a) are markedly different, Defendants’ references to cases interpreting § 3106(a) are not persuasive. § 3106(a) seems to require the Archivist to make an Attorney General referral in more circumstances than unlawful removal of records. It instead seems to require that the Archivist make a referral to the Attorney General if the agency head has failed to act and the Archivist is aware of, among other unlawful conduct, destruction of agency records.

Plaintiffs aver that certain agencies intentionally destroyed records, these agencies’ destruction of records was reported in the ARRB final report, and both the Archivist and the agencies failed to refer the matter to the Attorney General, thereby stating a plausible claim. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count 5 is denied, except to the extent it references NARA’s failure to pursue outstanding record searches.


 From my reading he gave them 3 things- MF can continue to press for
NARA to release the Church Committee documents (legislative documents);
MF can press for NARA to create the Finding Aids; and MF can press for
the Archivist to report destruction of documents to the Attorney
General.  All else is dismissed or denied.  The Judge's tone is harsh at
times.- Dan 

Judge limits lawsuit to congressional records and destroyed assassination files

JEFFERSON MORLEY

JUL 17


 Jefferson Morley writes: 

On July 14 Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed three counts of the Mary Ferrell Foundation's lawsuit against President Biden and the National Archives but allowed the litigation to proceed over two other counts.

Judge Richard Seeborg

The judge’s decision gives the foundation, the sponsor of the largest online collection of JFK records, the right to:

seek immediate release of all still-redacted assassination records created by Congressional investigations of the Senate’s Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations;

investigate the destruction of JFK documents the course of three official investigations, and

compel improvements in the usability of the National Archives' JFK Collection.

The Foundation's attorneys are considering all options concerning this litigation.

See Mary Ferrelll Foundations’s “JFK Records Lawsuit” page for more information about Judge Seeborg’s decision and the lawsuit.







Dan

No comments:

Post a Comment