Fir. Quin Shea, Director Offide of FOIA/PA Appeals Degrtmont of Justice Washington, D.C. 20550 Dear hr. Shea,

7/10/79

Your letter etude dated the 6th and relating to Dallas bulkies and information in the public domain, came today. Because I-am,eoncerned about some of thOvIangnagS you use I respond im.cdiately. "On occasion, such items as exhibits and real evidence are destroyed, or otherwise disposed of, when it ie determined that there is no (further) need for them." als cannot relate to the aatLassination investigation because the Attorney r General issued an order requiring preservation, the B.O. of 10/31/66i beeaUse: Director hoove.: tentified to the contrary to the Warren Commission.and beCansie":0f- a number of contrary official policy statements subsequent to the above. In!Additien, any destruction is contrary to FBI regulations when there is pending litigatidn Until I received tide letter from you I had absolutely no reason to believe that the FBI engaged in any unrecorded file shifting. You may recall that I have appealed a number of tranefere oftrecords outside of assassination files. You state that the bulkies "are routinely rearranged and transferred in files. " If this means:thatethey are physically movec11 41I,p one thing. If it means that they are placed in.different files, that is anotrierwiwnaere is no record provided of this, particularly if the twansfer is subsequent to the filing of an information request that includes he information involved. What you seem to be saying about this is that the FBI is inconsistent, that'is. right and propert and the requester is required to read its mind as well as its in visible records. Until now I am eerie:tin that if thoro were any unmeplained gaps in serialization they were few and I an sure I uould have appealed any. Now all of a sudden it becomes the norm in hiotorical caeesand the norm that i 4100.1 not ONE accounted for bilthe processing worksheets. Your two attaehmento raise questions you do not address and would net appear to be indirectly 'explained ie,your letter.

T You attach 1WW-10461-1h6 '(no Serial number). IA the course of shifting this the. FBI: gave the record no other identification. It rem dos allegedly Dart of 1B6. But I have been provided with no 1136 at all, as the list 1 gave you indicates. What:rwas provided skips from 11h to 1137 in Section identifications. Now we did some checking of this record after reeeiviag yourletter. We find that the record was added to the end of lowC1B, witLout any change in its number. Within my experience with FBI wecords this is unique. Or my recollection fails me. Six Immo Sections also appear to have been 'Wiped out.

While there aro other and undated notations oft the second FD-192 I do not dispute that the listed items wore sent to the Lab on 3/17/64 and not returned to DOlae. have no way of knowing. I do know that this is not universally true and that much if not most was returned to Dallas by the Lab. 1.1eanwhile, what, was provided to me jumps from 1B17 to 1B20, as the list 1 provided indicates, and I have no explanation that what you say about these two records applies to all.

In fact it can't from the illustration that follows. It can t when the exhibits relate to cases in court. I have reeorde of the sending of specimens to the Lab for the kind of testing that is within my C.A. 75-226, earlier 0.A. 2301-70. The Lab did not provide any ouch information, oven indication of the existence of the records I. refer to, La those oases in which it did provide a number of affidavits some of which disputed each other.

Tour oaeual reference to the destruction of records on page one when this is supposedly probibitisii with JPK records is followed at the top of page 2 by "To whets.; ever extent Imiesinst items still exist elsewhere in the Kennedy files..." T11043.. of course, is my concern - the uncertainty of their existence when there is this radical departure of careful 2131 practise of recording all such transfers and I recall no, such recording of transfers Sein.. provided. The volume of what is represented by t cro h be Seotions not acuountettNalpssoyconsiderabse.

Such records as those of testing of basic evidence lather than of odds andseade -- of books and a sweaterepresent my concern. My concern is 'not relieved by the :general

I nature of your Litter. t does not state, for example, that all represented by. the gaps on the list I provided were returned, to various, persons or were trauererrekto. other files or Sections.

I do not believe that expecting supposedly consecutively numbered recossie'to accounted for when the L.O. states all, records were to be "preserved intact" as I recall its language is asking the FBI to do research for me„ In this conneeticaq Also remind you that this is not a run-of-the-saill ease but one found to be historieal and there is the land uase of the appeals court mandating the responsibility of, estajalielas. ing the existence or non-existence ofinformation relating to the assassination inVesis-gation. I would hope yeu can agree that unexplained gaps in serial nisubering4o*ss' raise questions about continued existence of such information.

141 You remind sir so of the probloems from "Operation Onsalught." It is my belief that

those agents had bees returned to field posts prior to the processing of the reeo in question. I La oortc4in of this with regard to Some. I cannot state with regard to all. However, 1 den't know that violation of the Act is its own justificatip404Ph is what you appear to argue.

Here you ruses to the . processing of "the Warren Commission files." This is unoleAr to me. The release of FBI recordS in the files of the Commission to which I referred' is the release tiries to the Acy, ily point was thatijuhat was not withheld Twistp to the

W.

Act vss, withhold the Act was the law of the lurid. -,Cders4cally that informations If you meant VBI seeords included in the Commission s files t than those FBI records were processed throushout the processing of FBIHQ steel-de. (There can be no "Operation Onslaught" applieabilJ ty to bullies or field office records, if there can be any at all. They were not processed all at one time. They were processed serially. I provided,you-with a Uncle i l.t.uetraatjon you neither explain nor justify. I used one big hunk at one point, not all such ustrations. Asss sisVistsd v 01-1H-

You etsto that this was at "a time when it was not anticipated that worksheets were goins to be released." If this is what the FBI informed. you it is not accurate on several eounto.

Fisst of all the year before this processing the FBI was releasing worksheets to me One of the reasons these say be present problems r4an be from the FBI's reaction to my specifications of improprieties refleoted in them and my pinpointing of the processors whose work was not in accord with the ,lot. Thereafter the FBI withheld this informatien always reSsised to so and made spurious claims to cover it, like claims to prim-AV..

In addition, the Acel requires that all withholdings be justified. WitheUt the exemption being, 41siMod on the record the only meals of noting any exemptien, Claimed is on the worksheets. Wile .e more th..n one claim is made a single redortiss • Of .course, is oosfusing and doos not conform to the Act, which is why have appealed

remains withheld. 4' i.; does not account for the mind-set that planned to withhe Your esplanatle does not account for the withholding of the public derilainax4

t public dosairhisaS VI some instances was changed. So while sI do not know what. 4 kitchell ohm% how i: else proVided you with specific illustrations of the -witaolding of the publio nisi eis these and in other rbcords.. It is so mach the FBI's way_ of Life that just this morisins I saw where it withheld under various claims, inclUdialoito

what it had alooloaed teo years earlier. I Mean .the identical record the identical - .Serial qa, iu 1 et LIAO file.

"that; hear .teaCalleets cval be quite coufusina" cannot be attributed to either "Project aeataualli," or the enticipation that they were not ;;sing to be released. There had to be ewe aceeenLiaa for the withholdings and no other one has been provided. kiorbove•e, ft, you uell'al le-low if Department counsel did not keep secrets from you, I have provided ,iii f rizuLtilio(Y1;t1 in the caeca in court, covering supposedly the sosle reeerde provided to anotherrequester. They are not consistent in the :records listed or the eaeaptiolle elaiaed, as I recall it. I sugaest it would be helpful as well as eeeaoalcal i.i. L! 1(.; cippealrs ai al. litigation units could establish diplomatic relatioaa roll the leak:at:Ls office could have knowledge of Incontested evidence . presented in courts.

One of acme oenteaces is subjectato later out-of-context quotation so I address it int,, 117..)7i;10 tidal._ aou intend: "lie (Mr. Iiitchell) found no evidence that any public de: uLin informaaion had actually' boon withheld." I preuume this refers to the illuatrat:Lem l paevided, ehere -the Pa had .actually withhold what was disclosed in Warren Co; Leleololi reeerde diacloaurea of ale re than a decade aeo mid then aeaci of this was caujit ()aro:el:ed. erovided coaiee of workeh eta indicating thhis ao I was aware of it.

You de state ttat there la "no evidende that any public domain information wax had actualty hi )011 „1 I; ithegal.." A nguber of my captioned appeals include . this caption and I am not tal re 11: 1.1, ty iiiuput:Lng of 1,VI re preiaentatioilia in those appeals.

Year I:110 eta a "aeveral of year recent letters, to me have raised this same quest:Lou 1;11 i)osoible clanaification of recorda put into the public domain by the Vheevea do, II i ma ea." Of couree as pleased that two years after the initial cleia i u aleami 1, iLott )A -L the Beariew Cola:it-toe is brain,,; aalcod to review at some future time. Hollow, t14e euee not reflect all that I have appealed relating to claims to elaa;:lifJ eralaaa 11; taw does not aefloct all I have appealed with regard to classification of the publle ilea/de oe the illuateations 1 have provided over a considerable length. of Ufa°, it ounveidant illustration off the top of the head is the Mexico matters.

Al]. of thin a Liana it. rciou; questioa I have raised before: how is the Review Committee going to L110.4 what is within the public domain? How is it going to go about ascertaining foot about what is within the public domaira

I have repeatedly offered my cervices on this together with suggested means . of not diacionilla what might be properly elassified. bit I have had no response.

The requirement ia that there have been proper classification. A number of my appeals are fro: ea eo to facto classification, of records that were not classified as of the time of ma r (pleat aaa after ;amoral POIA reviews of them being classified so they would be withheld from me alien requests acre processed. Does this situation

. require :,:eviou ,y eatrtment• fj Review Committee? I am sorely troueled by tide' and what it represents. I have requests for an:

assassiaataon recaaala 61Dind back more than a decade without compliance. Redently I sent you proof tl u ewe still denied to me are being provided to another. I have heard nothing free eon ore the P.BI. The records to which you rE4er were processed two years Liao. liy apaiala ,;o back not no very much lose time as they relate to those records and much tortilla, ne 1;11.3 relate to other records and roqueste•

ItestrietinL; to classification, I did request a review under the new E.O. proMptly. 1 aloe tad that the records being procesaed be processed in accord With the proVieiolht EI.O. 'I have had no reaponse. I boliolte the records of the general rel.( 1).4)0c:wind When the proviaions of the new B.O. yore known and were hot diee:la;,.d eCter the now B.O. was effective. And ia-41 you write that your 1-ir. Schrbedev "will :Ica into 2161 the bi.tter wilen,..and cly3eif40d,Kenned3/ .1000.111011101116

w L e s evict e f. ns'derat t • b the De • r u E9.4 Re et. C 0 !!!!

tua I correct in boLieving that at this late date there is still a two-step further

delay vflave I have ad,ied emphasis, first a delay within your office and -*en a further

delay before the matter Gets to the Review Committee plus any still additional daisy

after it received thu natter? And this relating to improper classification in an

historical case only - having nothing to do with the many other appeals goinglkmak

more than a decade?

If I misinterpret your letter please correct me. If I do not and you can think

of any reasob I should be other than Sorely troubled I sure would like to :.4$011.4- .. .

Sincer

Harold Weisberg

•