by Mark Lane
132. The court’s ruling engaged in sophistry. The court said that the Statute of Limitations had run and therefore the case was time-barred. However, since the government had concealed the facts, the statute was tolled until Glickman learned about it. Judge Wood stated that Glickman had a “suspicion” of his injury and its cause. Remarkably, the judge felt that the suspicion demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the facts, which the government was still concealing. A lawsuit based upon a mere suspicion would have been dismissed by the court stating that Glickman had not produced “specific facts indicating that a genuine factual issue existed.” In fact, Judge Wood used that very language as a second grounds for dismissing the case citing but not understanding Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-50, 106 S.Ct.2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). I fully grasp the significance of the Liberty Lobby case since I argued it and won it before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in fact, reversed the lower court’s dismissal and reinstated the Liberty Lobby case, the opposite of the decision in the Glickman case.
133. New York Times, March 10, 1999.
134. He and his wife, Shelley, have organized opposition to nuclear-assisted war efforts and have founded a “house of hospitality” for homeless and indigent people who are in need of long-term health care, for which they have earned my admiration and respect.
135. H.R Haldeman, The Ends of Power (Time Books, 1978). All references in this section to Nixon and Haldeman and to Haldeman and Helms are based upon statements made by Haldeman in his cited book.
An Open letter to the president
Hon. Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.
August 17, 2011
Dear Mr. President:
In my most recent book I have published the words of President Truman written one month after the assassination of President Kennedy. He stated that the Central Intelligence Agency, which he had organized as an intelligence-gathering vehicle had become operational and policy making and had therefore imperiled the functioning of our democracy. He asked that it be reformed. At the time of President Kennedy’s death the CIA had been actively involved in one war; it is presently operational in three wars.
However, I wish to bring to your attention its fourth, less-heralded war, the CIA’s effort to limit the First Amendment rights of authors to write and our people to read views that differ from the orthodox CIA analysis of important matters. The CIA has its own website and it presents its positions there. In addition, from the shadows, utilizing its covert assets in the news media throughout the nation and overseas, it has prevented books from being published and has instructed feature writers and book reviewers what to write about books it does not favor. In Last Word I have published those explicit, and previously top secret, CIA documents that I retrieved through actions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act.
Perhaps the enormity of the CIA efforts was best summarized by David Atlee Phillips who served as chief of all operations for the CIA in the Western Hemisphere with the rank of GS18, the highest rank in the CIA not requiring executive appointment.
He publicly stated at a conference at the University of Southern California, “I regret the attempts by the CIA to destroy Mr. Lane.” But the efforts of the CIA were not focused entirely upon me as other authors offering dissenting views were also targeted.
In my view and perhaps in yours as well, the First Amendment remains the single most important sentence in the documents that founded this democracy. Organizations acting in secrecy to traduce its teachings are a threat to what we believe in.
The CIA is an executive agency, and I request that you instruct that agency to cease and desist from its ongoing efforts to interfere with the rights of Americans in America to write and to read. It is well beyond their charter, but above all it is subversive of all that we stand for. I also request that you direct the attorney general, a man for whom I also have the greatest respect, to monitor and enforce that order. We are entitled to transparency in government, and if I am asked if I think we can achieve that I would reply, “Yes, we can.”
Respectfully submitted,
MARK LANE
Appendix
The Commission’s Omissions
The George De Mohrenschildt Story
by Mark Lane (1965)
[I wrote this in 1965 when I was writing Rush to Judgment. I decided against publishing it since it seemed somewhat speculative. It is published here for the first time since it is now clearly supported by other evidence.]
It has no doubt occurred to the reader prior to reaching this point that I offer no theories as to the identity of those who assassinated President Kennedy. I refrain from doing so merely because I have been unable to secure sufficient factual information upon which to soundly base a conclusion. Any attempt to suggest candidates for the role of conspirators would be an effort to deal in speculation and conjecture, an area thoroughly preempted by the commission.
In analyzing the commission’s failure to fully explore obvious leads, I do not wish to create the impression that I anticipate that a valid inquiry along those lines would reveal the assassin’s identity. Such an investigation, however, would have answered questions that at this time remain open.
The commission expended more than one million dollars in amassing data. It secured, or caused to be secured, upwards of twenty-seven thousand interviews and re-interviews, some so peripheral to the issues as to be absurd. In those circumstances no defense seems appropriate to explain its extravagant omissions. During April 1963, Lee and Marina Oswald, and their infant daughter resided in New Orleans (W.C.R.. p. 114). On November 22, 1963, Lee Oswald lived in Dallas and was employed in a building directly on the route of the presidential motorcade. The building in which Oswald worked was located strategically at the site of a sharp curve, requiring the presidential limousine to reduce its speed considerably, thereby offering the president as a better target.
Lee Oswald did not decide to move to Texas. That decision was made by another. Lee Oswald did not seek out employment in the book depository building. That decision was made by another. Lee Oswald did not decide to separate from his wife and find quarters in Dallas. That decision was made by another.
When we determine that none of those now historic decisions could have been made without the assistance and activity of a gentleman named George S. De Mohrenschildt, we are quite naturally curious to learn more about him.
The commission made some startling discoveries regarding Mr. De Mohrenschildt, but was reluctant to share its information with readers of its report.
Mr. De Mohrenschildt testified that he was “in a controversial business,” an “international business” (Vol. 9, p. 169). His testimony revealed that he graduated from a Polish military academy in 1931. His father, he explained, had been the “marshall of nobility of the Minsk Province” under the czar and part of the Russian government as the “elected representative of the landowners to the government” (Vol. 9, p. 169). His brother was “a ferocious anti-Communist” who served in the Russian Imperial Navy (Vol. 9, p. 176). The brother was sentenced to death by the Soviets, but the Polish government “exchanged him against a Communist,” (Vol. 9 p. 176) De Mohrenschildt explained. Counsel for the commission asserted that Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s cousin, who taught him how to make “documentary movies,” was accused of being a “German spy. They made an exchange.” (Vol. 9 p. 182) Mr. De Mohrenschildt, himself, chose a different life. He made an extensive study of “the economic influence of the United States on Latin America” (Vol. 9, p. 178) before arriving in America. He entered the United States just one year before the beginning of World War II (Vol. 9, p. 179). He allegedly was an insurance salesman (Vol. 9, p. 179) but admitted that he did not sell “a single policy” (Vol. 9, p. 180). Agents of the United States government seized Mr. De Mohrenschildt for photographing or sketching the United States Coast
Guard Station at Aransas Pass (Vol. 9, p.185). Mr. De Mohrenschildt conceded that men from the FBI (commission counsel indicated that another governmental agency was involved in the incident) “came out of the bushes, and they said, ‘You are a German spy.’ ” (Vol. 9 , p. 186). Mr. De Mohrenschildt testified that after that experience he proceeded to Mexico (Vol. 9 p. 186) .
Life in Mexico was no more tranquil, for there he was declared persona non grata and expelled from the country (Vol. 9, p. 187). Commission counsel was well prepared for interrogating Mr. De Mohrenschildt. A very thorough research job had been accomplished before Mr. De Mohrenschildt appeared as a witness. At one point the lawyer who questioned him for the commission astounded De Mohrenschildt by refreshing his recollection as to where his grandfather had been born and what business he was in. De Mohrenschildt, amazed, answered “I will be darned. I didn’t know that.” (Vol. 9, p. 183). Therefore, the very specific and probing questions asked by counsel very likely provide some clues to the vast store of data compiled by the government about Mr. De Mohrenschildt. Since the commission’s lawyer had inadvertently left all of his preparatory work documents in a taxi when alighting at the commission office that morning, the grasp of the subject matter is all the more impressive.
After Mr. De Mohrenschildt stated that he had been expelled from Mexico during World War II, he was asked “While in Mexico you engaged in no espionage for anybody?” (Vol. 9, p. 187).
The question was assuredly most irregular unless the commission had some basis to suspect that the proper answer might be in the affirmative.
Mr. De Mohrenschildt stated that he was followed back to New York from Mexico by agents of the FBI. (Vol. 9, p. 188). Sometime thereafter Mr. De Mohrenschildt met and married the daughter of a United States State Department official (Vol. 9, p. 192–4). He then went to Texas and became active with the oil interests there (Vol. 9, p. 196). He then moved to Dallas (Vol.9 p. 198). From Dallas he became interested in international oil trusts.
Mr. De Mohrenschildt associated himself with a Cuban oil development “during the Batista days” (Vol. 9, p. 183). His assignment, he said, was to go to Texas and attempt “to contact the oil companies in regard to purchases of oil” (Vol. 9, p. 184).
After the war ended Mr. De Mohrenschildt became an agent of the United States government. He was sent to Yugoslavia by the International Cooperation Administration (ICA) “as an oil and gas specialist” (Vol. 9, p. 202) although his academic training was woefully meager in that area.
If the government hoped that Mr. De Mohrenschildt would serve as a goodwill ambassador in order to cement relations between the American and Yugoslavian people, they could not have been other than disappointed by his conduct. Alas, Mr. De Mohrenschildt began sketching again (Vol. 9, p. 270). This time, from a boat, he drew pictures of the fortifications surrounding the island where Marshal Tito generally retreated for vacations. The Yugoslavian guard fired upon Mr. De Mohrenschildt. “And they kept on shooting at me. And the bullets were hitting the water right around us—until we were away out into the sea” (Vol. 9, p. 270). After returning from his mission in Yugoslavia, Mr. De Mohrenschildt said he was debriefed by agents of the FBI or CIA (Vol. 9, p. 235). He returned to Yugoslavia again on a private business venture (Vol 9, p. 212). In 1957 Mr. De Mohrenschildt went to Ghana. The cover that he “chose” was that of a “philatelist.” (Vol. 9, p. 211) Counsel asked him why he chose a cover and Mr. De Mohrenschildt explained that: “That was a trick, because … we did not want to let it be known to Shell Oil Co. that I was a consulting geologist.” (Vol. 9, p. 211)
Counsel pressed the point: “Don’t you think Shell Oil Co. would know that George De Mohrenschildt was an oil geologist? ”
Mr. De Mohrenschildt cryptically replied, in explanation: “Well, we didn’t want it to be known, anyway, because I even didn’t go through— I didn’t spend any time in Accra.”
For “almost a year” (Vol. 9, p.211) De Mohrenschildt dropped out of sight. He finally emerged in Guatemala on the very day that the CIA-trained troops embarked from that country to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.
Mr. De Mohrenschildt explained that he had taken a 5,000 mile walk for the past year (Vol. 9, p. 217). The walk, which Mr. De Mohrenschildt said he shared with his wife, took them through impenetrable “jungle” since they did not “follow any road.” (Vol. 9, p. 215) Consequently it is impossible to confirm the story of the strange stroll by calling upon witnesses along the way.
One’s admiration for Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s fortitude and courage in undertaking such a remarkably arduous journey is increased when one uncovers facts relating to his health. During World War II he was rejected for service and classified as 4F since the doctors “found I have high blood pressure.” (Vol. 9, p. 181)
Counsel raised the question of the Bay of Pigs invasion when inquiring about Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s sudden appearance in Guatemala:
“Wasn’t that about the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion?” (Vol. 9, p. 215)
Mr. De Mohrenschildt conceded that it was, adding that he “didn’t know anything about it” (Ibid). The trip finally ended, Mr. De Mohrenschildt said, at the Panama Canal, where he then consulted with the U.S. ambassador there (Vol. 9, p. 216).
After the trip the De Mohrenschildts went to Haiti to visit a man who “used to be a very wealthy man in Russia—also involved in the oil industry in Russia, and in Czarist Russia … And I started preparing my contract with the Haitian government” (Vol. 9, p. 217).
The contract with Haitian dictator Duvalier, for more than a quarter of a million dollars, was consummated before De Mohrenschildt testified. The commission report refrained from informing its readers of Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s outstanding career.
It was only with the most severe understatement that the commission, in its sole sentence devoted to assessing Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s bizarre background, concluded, “De Mohrenschildt frankly admits his provocative personality” (W.C.R., p. 283).
Among Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s domestic accomplishments was his ability to rapidly befriend Lee Oswald. Said the commission, “George De Mohrenschildt … was probably as close to the Oswalds as anyone else during their first stay in Dallas … ”(W.C.R., p. 418). Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s testimony is replete with his concern for association with those of “good family background” and great wealth, perhaps an acquired characteristic passed down from his father, a former marshall of nobility. Whatever the cause, Mr. De Mohrenschildt made plain to the commission on many occasions that he cultivated only those of sufficient social status. Odd that Oswald, the penniless son of a divorced day laborer, qualified for De Mohrenschildt’s special attention.
It was De Mohrenschildt who introduced the Oswalds to the elite Russian émigré community in Dallas. (Vol.9 1:243) It was De Mohrenschildt who gave a party for the Oswalds to which he invited Ruth Paine (Vol. 9, p. 257). Mrs. Paine at once developed a “nice relationship” with Marina Oswald at the party (Vol. 9, p. 258). Mrs. Paine later drove to New Orleans and, in Lee Oswald’s absence, brought Mrs. Oswald to her home in Irving, Texas, where they both remained until Nov. 22, 1963. Mrs. Paine herself put the Oswald belongings in her automobile. If a rifle was placed in the Paine garage, it was Mrs. Paine who put it into her own automobile and Mr. Paine who took it out and placed it in the garage, for when Oswald subsequently arrived he carried only a little suitcase, not large enough to contain the weapon.
And it was Mrs. Paine who secured a position for Oswald at the book depository, the building from which the commission argues Oswald fired the fatal shot.
And it was Mrs. Paine who housed Marina and her children at her home in Irving, Texas, but refused to permit Lee Oswald to live there, thereby causing Oswald to secure a room in Dallas.
After the Oswalds were originally settled in Dallas, Mr. De Mohrenschildt testified that he sought them out. He found them through the good offices of Max Clark. Said De Mohrenschildt, “Max Clark probably told me that Marina is there” (Vol. IX, p. 260). Max Cl
ark was in some way connected with the FBI (Vol. IX, p. 235) and an “ex-colonel in the air force,” (Vol. 9, p. 238) said De Mohrenschildt.
De Mohrenschildt and George Bouhe visited Marina one day while Oswald was not home after Bouhe had informed De Mohrenschildt that “he had checked with the FBI.” (Vol. 9, p. 235).
Bouhe told De Mohrenschildt that it was his intention “to take Marina away from Oswald very soon—not for himself, but to liberate her from Oswald.” (Vol. 9, p. 240).
Together Bouhe and De Mohrenschildt accomplished that objective. According to De Mohrenschildt, Bouhe said, “We have to take this girl away from him,’ and this is one of the things that prompted us to take Marina and the child away from Oswald.” (Vol. 9, p. 240). When asked why he physically took Marina away from her husband, De Mohrenschildt responded, “Now, I do not recall what actually made me take her away from Lee” (Vol. 9, p. 232).
De Mohrenschildt and his wife were the only witnesses, other than Marina, who claimed that they observed a rifle in the Oswald home (Vol. 9, p. 249).
Several days after the attempt upon the life of General Walker, the De Mohrenschildts visited the Oswalds. The commission solemnly reported, “During the visit, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt saw the rifle and told her husband about it.” Without any knowledge of the truth (the truth, in the commission’s view, being that Oswald was responsible for that attempted assassination), De Mohrenschildt jokingly intimated that Oswald was the one who had shot at Walker (W.C.R., p. 724).
