index

Wilkins / Olmstead Newsgroup Discussion 2

next

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 17:08:26 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Paul: here is a outline (longer then what you might want) of the
> relationship
> > between Clark and myself on Oswald.
> >
> > I will give you my side or view......Clark can provide his or his overall
> opinion.
> >
> >
> > In a sense Clark and I have "done battle" against each of our opinions in
> a very
> > open way.....on the newsgroup. Agreeing to disagree on anything just to
> keep
> > the avenue of discussion open. We have very rarely exchanged email on the
> > topic being discussed or other aspects of the case.
>
> James and I usually start an exchange on a point of agreement and then end
> it on a point of disagreement. We almost always agree on "effect and intent"
> behind actions relating to LHO but, eventually, not the why motivating the
> action in the first place. JKO operates from a wider information base than I
> do.
>

I found it necessary to do so......for the extension of original work in other projects
to show how each interact. Remeber the JFK case is not the only interest I have
in developing filmscripts.

> Neither one of us has any problem being proven wrong by the other. That is
> actually helpful. It allows us to narrow down the possibilities even
> further - And there are not many left. So few, that JKO and I differ only
> over the details. But there are a lot of details.

The process of narrowing things down is vital.

>
>

> >
> > I'm putting out on the table some of the primary findings of my research,
> >some of which I have made seperate posts on in the past. Clark is
>>expressing either his support, his questions on my work or his version of
>>his take on things. In some cases his version of what I think or the direction
>>in which my work goes.
>
> I try and identify those moments.
>
> > But Clark does not have all the material that I have to support my
> considerations.
>
> And I try and identify that also.
>
>
We both find this benifical in expressing views.


> >
> > That's the "background" on the exchanges and my basic opinion. I do not
> > feel that Lee's defection was on "his own".
>
> My finding also - And by independent means.
>

Clark has indicated in the past, material that he has been able to learn of
that has helped him in reach his opinion. Basically we disagree on his
"task"

> >I do not believe his military service
> > was as presented.
>
> The first inkling that something is wrong is when DOD withheld Lee's
> military files from the WC - And then where Lee's records were actually at.
> But I did not know what clues to look for.

The records were easy for me to examine, having spent so much military
service time dealing with records, proceedures etc.

>
> This problem arose again for me with the Private Schrand (sp?) case. Then
> with his two courtmartials - particularly the "Derringer".
> I had a suspicion I couldn't prove.

I've mentioned in various threads some of these aspects in the past.

>
> >I can support my research from a point around July 1955
> > to July 25th, 1963, dealing with Lee's military service and defection. Up
> to
> > July 25th, 1963 I strongly believe Lee is working with the USG at first,
> in a minor
> > role associated with intelligence gathering against "subversives".
>
> Lee could be engaged in such activity in New York.
> I found the clues but not the answers.

I looked a little deeper, however I have alot of NYC research that needs
to be done. I call that the "DORIS PROJECT". I know alot of material
is on record......it's location.....etc.....just getting to NYC to verify and
expand on things have been on the back burner. I used to have to work,
now I'm doing many research projects from the back burners forward.

>
> > After July
> > 1963, the ball game changes.....
>
> I find Lee suspects July 25, 1963 is coming - And the idea for the "new ball
> game" occurs to him in June, 1963 (I believe June 14 if bad memory serves).
> After July 25, 1963, the wheels of June turn in motion beginning in late
> August, creating the "September conspiracy".

Lee's action from the day he returns from the USSR need to be presented.

>
>
> >but that leads into my script "The September
> > Conspiracy". The early part of his "enlistment" put him in position to be
> > selected for the 1959 "defection".
>
> Yes. Something needs to cause Lee to stand out for consideration from all
> the Marines, Air Force, and Army personell.

Here I think the CAP comes into play.

> There was no sign posted on Lee's barrack's bulletin board requesting
> volunteers for a "mission" inside the USSR. While he may have volunteered
> for the mission, he can't volunteer for a mission he doesn't know about. It
> hasn't been posted.
>

Seveal "recruiting missions" for duty in SEA were such "postings".....however
that's a seperate consideration, that deals with what projects Lee could have
been associated with while in Japan.

> This means Lee is somehow already in a "pool" of candidates, and someone
> involved with Nixon's "sharing of ideas" with Kruschev is going through the
> files of the available "pool" and stopped on Oswald's.

Any number of actions including the two SCM's are such valid considerations.
For example the "interviews" upon entering the "Brig" and exiting the "Brig"
are documents destroyed. This is a prime location for the selection of individuals
wishing to make "changes" in their lives.

>
> This suggests that we try and identify what "pool" of files Lee's name was
> in. It was JKO that made this identification - not me.

I have several "pools" to look in......because I've looked for them.

>
> My assumption was that Lee's incoming mail and request to take a Ruussian
> language course brought him to the attention of "higher ups".
>
> >

This is another prime consideration, but one I feel is associated with the
first stages of his enlistment.....and the orginal goals, dealing with his
military service.

> >
> > Key documents and records connected to Lee's military service, 5
> intelligence
> > reports and two Courts-Martial records, were "destroyed", my FOIA
> requests
> > to the USN/USMC verify that fact.
>
> Can you tell us about the five intelligence reports?

I have in the past.

1. Entry level investigation for his clearance to attend school.
2. Investigation in relationship to his first SCM
3. Investigation in relationship to his second SCM
4. Investigation into death of Scharnd
5. ONI/FBI shared investigation after defection.

>

> > My basic view is that if Lee was acting alone.....as a true "Marxist
> Marine" then
> > he would have been arrested once he walked into the U.S. Embassy, and
> > the "defection" started.
>
> Or arrested when he returned - As happened with Bruce Frederick Davis.
> Our boy is a prime candidate for "hard labor".

Ln's can't accept the letter of the law in this area. They can't have this
on the table.


>
> > The grounds for doing so and the laws in support
> > were there......but Lee was allowed to walked out of a "closed" embassy.
> > (it was only open half a day on Sat).
> >
>
> Nor were any instructions send by the Navy to the USEMB Naval attache' in
> Moscow to arrest Oswald if he should return. Considering the Navy had been
> informed of Lee's intent to deliver knowledge on US radar, this was an
> extremely simple order to give.

The efforts by ONI and the AUSNA are of great concern, in this area, details
were tightly controled I will make a seperate thread on this based on the documents.

>
> So "stupidity" has set in on the side of the USG. We have a traitor in our
> midst threatening to reveal US secrets. We don't know what he may have
> learned to turn over. Snyder does not order his arrest. No orders to Snyder
> are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald. No orders to the US Naval
> attache' are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald.
>
> Oswald is treated as if he never said anything about providing the USSR with
> US radar information at all.
>
> Since Lee would be returning, this required Lee to be of "low level" rank
> and, therefore, of "no importance". If he was "of importance" then those out
> of the loop will press for his prosecution. Further, if "of importance", he
> might actually relay info "of importance".
>
> So a private is sent.
> But so was Bruce Frederick Davis - And he didn't get ignored.

Rank has little to do with this......anybody in the right "position" could be used.
I've had alot of power as a PFC in VN. Almost total freedom, for two years,
to do my job as I saw fit.

>
> > Now to this actual thread........on the "early out". To obtain a 90 day
> early out,
> > the law and the military require "verification" of the grounds for
> seperation.
> > That "evidence" is evaluated and the discharge is granted or denied. In
> this
> > case Lee acts early to start the process.....too early in my opinion and
> in
> > two seperate directions, Dependency and Hardship.....which can be
> combined.
> > The "evidence" of either should have been in place (in the hands of the
> board)
> > prior to the "First Endorsement" of the discharge. This was not the case.
> > The board is proceeding without the required documentation. Some of which
> > comes in well after the long process of "Endorsement" is underway. Some
> > never reaches.....ie verification by the Red Cross, the hands of the
> endorsers.
> >
>
> Bottom line, the USMC simply approved Lee's request without having the
> supporting documents in the possession - and with the effect that Lee was
> exited from the USMC at the earliest possible legal date.

Going over my documents......and what I feel should be released, there are
considerations I did not mention earlier. The 17 August request was offically
approved by the CG, 3dMAW on 31 Aug 1959. Well before all the evidence
was available for reaching any approval of discharge. Two weeks, without
evidence in support for dependency or hardship. Well before all the 6 endorsements
were finished within the chain.

>
>
> > There are alot of little details, that support the above, when combined
> show
> > that Lee could not have seperated "early" on his own, through normal
> channels.
> > He had to be "assisted" in seperating "early".
>
> Someone should have asked, "Where's the paperwork supporting this request?"

Improper lines of questioning were followed.......it's that simple. Most of
these conflicts would have surfaced early and without difficulty if the proper
cosiderations of investigation were made and followed through.

>
> > This supports that Lee is not
> > as he is presented......ie the "Marxist Marine" and his trip to the USSR
> is
> > supported by the USG.
>
> Agreed. The USG sponsored his trip to the USSR, Marxist or not.

I doubt Lee was Marxist......or even leaning to the left, more in the center
with a right cold war lean.


>
> At the same year the National Security Training Corps was formed, the
> National Security Council (NSC 5412/1 and NSC 5412/2) created the Special
> Group Committee composed of the NSC, the CIA, State, and the President - in
> order for them to all regularly meet and address joint issues.

Actually the NSTC has earlier considerations. However major changes were
made in the Reserve Forces Act of 1955.

>
> If one looks at the names "National Security Council" and "National Security
> Training Corps", we wonder if there isn't a link between the Council and the
> Corps?
>

We knew from 50-54 that greater flexibility were needed concerning intell
and military service...hence the RFA of 55.

> In 1961, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Special Group could become the
> "Special Group Augmented" or SGA by adding RFK to the room. Both the
> "Special Group" and SGA have been connected to "assassination planning" -
> usually involving Castro. The addition of RFK was to include him to protect
> the
> President from the Special Group getting caught at these things. Therefore,
> by January, 1962, he was also on the Special Group's Counter Insurgency
> Subcommittee, composed of General Taylor [Chairman], the Attorney General,
> Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Deputy Secretary of
> Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of Central Intelligence,
> Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
> Administrator, Agency for International Development. This allowed Taylor to
> bypass the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, and work directly
> with their deputies to carry out counter insurgency programs approved by the
> Special Group. RFK was present to police the programs to make sure any
> possible failures did not trace back to JFK. The nature of this Group's work
> was such that neither the Secreatary of State nor the Secretary of Defense
> wished to be involved or connected either.
>
> By April, 1962 there is no record of any more Special Group meetings - only
> Special Group Augmented, meaning RFK had become permanently attached to all
> Special Group meetings. Thus, RFK was on hand to police any "anti-Castro
> plots" devised by the SGA and, further, he sat on the Counter Insurgency
> Subcommittee which would have carried them out (This Group was involved with
> illegal activities - but not assassination - Or else John McCone would not
> have been a member).
>
>
> Lee returned to the US in 1962 with RFK policing JFK's
> "assassination/counter insurgency" programs with the idea that JFK not get
> caught by any exposure of these Group's illegal activities. What RFK needed
> was "plausible denial".
>

RFK is a major consideration from 1954 on. Including his "Russian Journey
in 1955.


>
> > The USMCR
> > was used, to "train Lee" and take advantage of various actions that are a
> > known part of his "service".
>
> Lee's enlistment papers show him enlisting in the USMCR and not the USMC
> (James discovered this - not me). This is a major "tilt" in the enlistment
> process.
>

Several legal considerations dealing with the enlistment of minors (under 18).

> The USMCR is the Reserves.
> Lee must either be "recalled to Active Duty" to serve at Atsugi or he is
> performing "Reserve training."

His entire military assignement was "training".....however not as a radar
operator......in my opinion Lee spent less then 30 days actually working
his radar MOS during the entire period.


>
> Lee is "Active" - either "Active Reserve" or "Active Duty". According to his
> enlistment papers, he is "Active Reserve."

Active Duty is active service regardless of reserve status....it's just "Active Duty"
weither its for a weekend, two weeks or period of extended training....it's
Active Duty.

>
>
> On leaving the USMC and satisfying USMCR time, he should be released as
> "Inactive" - which he was on September 12.

No, the Reserve service was a longer committment.

>
> But on September 11, he was released as "Active" - meaning control over the
> individual has not been lost.
>
His PAPERWORK WENT TO THE ACTIVE SIDE.......in the in processing of
his service record.

> I "think" that JKO believes that Lt. Ayers corrected the "mistake" of
> 9/11/59 on 9/12/59. If so, I disagree.
>

I think you are abid off on the aspects of status, service committments, and
witholding of information to Oswald. On Ayers, his actions I think have you
abit confussed. The paperwork should have gone to the "inactive" section
for inprocessing but went to the "active" section that handled incoming records.

Ayers turns the "dependency" into the "dependency discharge, by reason of
hardship on the part of his mother". The early out would not be granted just
on "dependency". Neither the dependency or hardship have been established.
I think the confussion came into play by moving on too fast towards allowing
him to return. Not all the details had been presented.

> >
> > I wanted this thread to focus only on the aspects of the seperation.
> Clark wants
> > to expand it into areas of "the defection"........but I feel that confuses
> some,
> > as you indicate by this request.
>
> I also want to stay on the aspects of separation. I simply brought up how
> his separation effected his "defection". Was he "Active" or "Inactive" in
> the USSR? According to Lee, he's "Active". According to the USMC, he's
> "InActive".
>

It is a AD mission, while he is on a Reserve assignment, Lee is not going
to tell anybody his true "status".....especially PJM. Nobody is going to
hide Oswald's true status from Oswald. He knows....he accepted the
assignment and all the "effects" it would have on his life and how people
would view his actions.


>
> >
> > To address some of the considerations mentioned by Clark. There has to be
> > a "project" that fits into the ongoing "history" of the time. It has to
> be associated
> > with the Navy, requires information to be passed off to the Soviets and of
> prime
> > consideration, it has to fit Oswald and his known actions. It is the
> reason for the
> > "early out". There are about 15 such projects, relating to National
> Security
> > intelligence operations going on in 1959. In my opinion Project TP is the
> best
> > one to consider and I use that as the foundation of Lee's "defection".
>
> Gee! And I only found one.
>

TP had more factors in relationship to known history etc etc.

> >
> > The problem is that "ALL OF" the offical reports and investigations of
> Lee's
> > defection are not "included" in the WCR and Exhibits.
>
> Particularly his military records.
>
Many were destroyed or never turned over.


> > The prime example of
> > this is the investigation to "prosecute" Lee for various violations of the
> law,
> > known to have occurred. This would be what I call the "AG's report" by
> direction
> > of RFK.
>
> And undoubtedly performed by Nicholas Katzenbach if I am allowed to make an
> "educated guess".

If not directly under his guidence or control.
>
>
> > There were a dozen other intelligence agencies looking into this
> > "defection".....those reports are also "incomplete"......the prime example
> is
> > the conflicts surrounding the CIA's handling of the case, which is why so
> many
> > believe Lee was working for the CIA from 1959 on. They are wrong in
> belief
> > that Lee was in the CIA.
>
> Agreed also.
> Technically, Lee comes under DOD, but, more realistically, he comes under
> another "group" altogether.

Various agencies are used in various operations.....which makes full knowledge
difficult, I settle on the EOP, created by J.P. Kennedy during FDR's presidency.
Look at the two "Hoover Commissions" (President Hoover). Based on his network
established in the Court of St. James..........he used Joe jr, JFK and Kit as his
prime agents for projects "undercover". They were the only ones he could trust.
FDR used Joe jr.....far more then Papa Joe did.....this pissed off Papa Joe. Ian
Flemming was the MI operative to keep track of these three "kids". Nixon later
had his own EPO "Plumbers".....consider the EOP the "Beast". Read Lasky
"It didn't start with Watergate" for a general view of "The Beast".

>
>
> >
> > All of my research can be supported, either by the law or known cases
> against
> > "subversives" "spies" and "defectors". There is alot of details that have
> to be
> > considered from approximately Feb-59 to Feb 1960, just concerning the
> > seperation of Oswald from the USMC......which have never surfaced in the
> > past. These actions......having NOTHING to do with the assassination,
> except
> > as "background" that puts him on the path to Dallas.
>
> And I don't want to skip it.
>
> >
> > Now, for the kicker.......I can use the material, to show that Lee was
> part of
> > the outline above.....or I can show Lee acting on his own, using the same
> > material. But it requires a "higher" opinion of Lee than most will ever
> accept.
>
> Lee would pretty much have to be a god to perform this alone.

As I said, you would have to have a much higher opinion of Lee.

>
> >
> > I have no problem with my research being "countered" with facts and legal
> > considerations, I do all my research equally to show "both sides".
> >
> > I hope this helps.......and if you want me to show you where the material
> > supports Lee is acting on his own, I can point you in those directions.
> > I lean towards Lee working in association, because my opinion of Lee is
> > not as high (although higher then most) as required......I still believe
> Lee
> > needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.
>
> I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed my
> arguments on this.
>

The CPUSA plays a major role.........it can't be eliminated.

> >
> > I no longer care if "Thpa2d" is ever produced.....so I might as well share
> > these opinions with those interested.
>
> Yes. Although maybe we can make Jeff Morely famous?

I'm not sure.......he's active in his own areas.

jko

[..]

From: johncwatters@aol.com (john watters)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 17:08:39 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com>...
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >......I still believe Lee needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.
>
> I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed my
> arguments on this.
>
I have ? Remind me (it's been a long time)

John.




> > I no longer care if "Thpa2d" is ever produced.....so I might as well share
> > these opinions with those interested.
>
> Yes. Although maybe we can make Jeff Morely famous?
>
>
> ::Clark::
>
[..]

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 18:21:03 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n9mboimdliba0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:416feb7d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Clark:
> >
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10mtuj3bssbir8a@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> >
> > > > > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be
> "the
> > > > > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for
> who
> > > > > Oswald was?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law. The
> point
> > > > being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from the
> USMC.
> > >
> > > Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers and he
> > > would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I suppose
> > > if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.
> >
> > Nobody there knew Lee for "2 years",
>
> Then Ayer's gave a false statement in order to get Lee his passport.

Correct.

>
>
> >however a statement from the USMC
> > would satisfy the requirement of the law. A no fee passport, arranged for
> by
> > the USMC would give indication of knowledge,
>
> of where he was headed?

Yes, however, the passport obtained also supplied the same info. It's was to
keep things just outside of military exposure as records were being processed.

>
> BTW, speaking of where he was headed on his passport, do you consider that
> Lee's early preparation could have also included Cuba as a destination? If
> so, does this get included in your Cuban trip plans?
>

Cuba is the first country listed:

Cuba
Dominican Republic
England
France
Switzerland
Germany
Finland
Russia

I considered Lee going to Cuba if the Soviets moved in quickly in 1959/60 after
Lee went to ASC.







> >
> > There is a great deal of legal actions going on concerning "Passports" and
> > "Communists"......there is a long legal history to this point and after.
> BUT Lee
> > is not following the law here, there are some things you are overlooking.
> >
>
> OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University was not
> in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then, second, what
> are the things I am overlooking?

First Lee does not want anyone to consider that he's a "Reservist" in any manner.
Second PLU is secondary to Turku Univesity (Finland) and ACS both listed
in connection to his passport. Lee makes the PLU request....not sure if all
the paperwork follows proceedure, without hopes of the Soviets allowing him
to attend. I don't think the KGB wanted him three. Lee is not in Europe to
study and obtain any formal education. He is not in the USSR to expand his
understanding and to become a better "Marxist".

Lee follows the restriction because he is not left wing.


> > >
> > > Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay "legal"
> > > all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.
> > >
> >
> > NO, Lee has to be fully aware from day one of all the considerations. If
> not
> > it supports that Lee was being "screwed" from the begining......
>
> Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?

NO it's all part of the cover continued to be built. He is only screwed if he
is "outside" of the game being played around him.

> Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?

The actions by the USN/USMC are consistance with creating the cover
and continuing to build it up.


>
> >that works
> > as grounds for Lee to want to kill JFK, by his own action, for his own
> reasons,
> > while taking out the former Sec of the Navy, JC......because he can't kill
> his
> > fathers lawyer, also the former Sec of Navy.
>
> Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
> He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25, 1963.

He could if he was acting on a rampage or totally on his own. But I don't
think so. If Korth was killed LHO would be a automatic prime suspect.

>
> > This is why WC supporters
> > should be concerned about all these elements of consideration. All of
> > these actions bring Lee down the path to Dallas, either in envolvement
> > or being the actual assassin working on his own.
>
> No takers yet.
>

This is material outside of their box.

>
> >
> > The DOD had a habit of screwing military personnel considered as a threat
> > or connected to communism (over 700 such cases) Lee COULD HAVE BEEN
> > ONE BEING SCREWED. That consideration can not be pushed aside for
> > any reason. Except for the simple fact, that Lee was not able to
> accomplish
> > this defection or the required "paperwork" on his own, it remains a
> consideration.
> > However, there is far greater support that Lee was acting during the
> defection
> > period in co-operation with the desires of the USG.......not being
> screwed.
> >
>
>
> I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
> And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent him -
> Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.
>

chances are Hoover was outside the loop and trying to catch up between
59-64.

> But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no longer
> under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?
>

The whole "seperation" is a sham. Lee would KNOW THAT.


> >
> > Lee's actions would not be "totally" suspect if his mother was a
> dependent, it
> > is if he is discharged because of a "hardship dependency" and Lee needs to
> > take care of his mother, beyond sending her money or taking care of her
> bills.
>
> Who is to suspect?
>

ANYONE WHO TAKES ANY INTEREST......to quote the investigation report
summary of evidence by Rankin which is slanted towards Lee acting on
his own and not with assistance from Soviets.......but ignores assistance
from USG:

" Under the circumstances, he undoubtedly obtained the discharge fraudulenty"

This supports my position 100%....to continue:

" If the Russians were in fact coaching him at this time, it would seem unlikely
that they would have advised him to obtain a discharge under these circumstances,"

This does not exclude recieving assistance from the USG. This consideration is
totally ignored, making the investigation as well as the report bias......

"merely in order to gain three months time which, after all, was not particulary
valuable to anyone."

This is false since not everyone is considered in the consideration of where
the value is. Skipping over to end with the following to the question on who:

"but was morally offensive and potentially very unpopular in that he deserted
his own mother when she was sick, unemployed and poverty-stricken"

If anyone considered Lee actions as a result of the PJM interview, with all
the facts.......the above is how they would view Oswald. LN's don't even
want you to consider the above.

> And, whoever this person(s) who suspects is, won't he conclude the same
> thing under either discharge? That Lee abandoned his needy mother for the
> USSR?
>

But Mother Russia would not want him......as shown by Rankin....he would have
no value to the Soviets.

>
> > Lee knows she does not need his support or really does not care about his
> mother
> > Everybody knows there is no "hardship".....
>
> If everyone knows this and the USMC doesn't want to appear suspicious, why
> not give him a dependency discharge?

Either discharge makes the USMC look good.....releasing Lee to take care of his
mother........but, they did not have the "evidence"......so it's suspect, if one looks
close.
>
>
>
> >all those that provided "support" by
> > affidavit or letters, would never learn of all the details.......and if
> they read the
> > newspaper about the "defection" or learned of it......it would seem odd,
> strange
> > and then forgotton.....THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, became known by the greed
> > of his mother. YOU CAN'T forget about her actions after the "defection".
>
> No. You can't.
> She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
> Big mistake.

Yes, as well as others.....some of which remained silent.


>
> I'm not saying the USG wanted to screw Oswald - only that it maintained
> plausible denial that Lee was under US control while in the USSR by
> recording a "hardship" discharge.

The whole point.....as far as the public was concerned he was recently
discharged. That's all that would be presented.

>
> It was Lee's mother that got him screwed by Hoover with the USMC.

The USMC was covered.....they had PD. The public never considered
the EOP as "The Beast" until after Watergate.


> > > I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
> > > discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If Lee
> > > ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
> > > discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11, 1959.
> > >
> >
> > You have Lee thinking things that mean nothing if he is "Active" on a new
> > assignment.
>
> I have him thinking about Patrice Lumumba University as if he is "Active".
> You have him avoiding the Kollective's political brainwashing sessions as if
> he is "Active"
> Do these things mean nothing if he is "Active"?

He is just maintaining his actions within the law......tricky situation staying in
the USSR. It would be ok......(without the actions of the assassination to
consider, say it never happened) for people or groups to "think" he got
training in the USSR......or was a "student" of Marxism while there.......but
he never actually did those things "expected" or just accepted.
>
>
> > If he was acting on his own, outside of the system all this
> > thinking is immaterial and not needed to consider.
> >
>
> Does not a "hardship" discharge support an LN argument that he was "acting
> on his own, outside of the system"?
>

Not as they show Lee.......it requires a much more detailed profile. One they
can't support.



> > > See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have hidden
> > > from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
> > > discharge.
> >
> > There is no need to hide anything from Lee......
>
> If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
> Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?

See above........

>
> Because, if the USMC doesn't want Lee telling others he has a "hardship"
> discharge, the simplest way to accomplish this would be to tell Lee he has a
> "dependency" discharge - As the records show he was shown on 9/11/59. He
> will now tell Priscilla Johnson he has a "dependency" discharge - which he
> did.

Consider how hard it is to create a "discharge" of a invididual not in the USMC.
The time spent in association with the USMC is only a cover.......for purposes
of training and select objectives requiring him to be "in service" as part of that
training. NOBODY wants "hardship" to be part of the equation.....but it is. Which
is why he would not tell her everything or even the truth.

>
> Lee will also believe he is "Active" and apply to Patrice Lumumba
> University - just as he applied to ASC. He will also avoid politcal meetings
> in the USSR.
>

He does not have to believe he is active USMCR.....he's not....he's a member
of the NSTC which used the USMCR, on assignment.....he is ACTIVE as a
NSTC member......no longer in training but "in the field". The use of the USMCR
by the NSTC was a project that the USMC did not like....but other branches were
being used in the same manner.

>
> >if you feel Lee is acting on his
> > own, you have to take a new approach to all the considerations mentioned.
> You
> > can't combine them.......they have to be considered seperate.
>
> I have Lee believing he is "Active" and, there not acting on his own, but
> subject to USG control.
>
> For lurkers, on September 11, 1959, Lee was given an "Active" discharge,
> meaning he was subject to recall to active duty. This places restrictions on
> his living overseas. It required he go overseas for "educational purposes"
> for him to legally obtain a passport. For this reason he applied to attend
> Switzerland's Albert Schweitzer College which accepted him. This got Lee to
> Europe and then to Russia. But, once in Russia, without attending school, he
> was guilty of violating the law against "Active" Reservists living overseas
> (where they are beyond recall during times of national emergency). To
> correct that, in applying for Soviet citizenship, Lee identified to
> Priscilla Johnson that the Russians were to help him attend a "Soviet
> education institute". This would make Lee's stay in the USSR legal (For
> CTer's, Lee needed to make this request only if he was planning on coming
> back.). He also told Priscilla he was an "Active" Reservist. Once he got
> inside the USSR he applied to Patrice Lumumba University and was "very
> disappointed" when he was turned down. Why? Because he was now in violation
> of laws applicable to "Active" Reservists requiring he be living in the USSR
> for educational purposes (Which he could legally do) and not for employment
> purposes.
> Did he know this?
> He sure did. He even wrote it down. His answers to the following written
> questions can be found in Warren Commission Exhibit 100 Volume 16 Pg
> 436-439:
>
> Question 3: "Did you break law by residing in or taking work in the USSR?"
>
> Answer: I did in that.
>
> Lee admitted above that he broke the law, as an "Active" Reservist, by
> residing in the USSR and taking work there.
>
> He even added to his knowledge of the law:
>
> Question 4. "Isn't all work in the USSR considered State work?"
>
> Answer: Yes of course and in that respect I also broke US Law in accepting
> work under a foreign state.
>
> Lee is referring to Title 37, section 908, which makes it illegal for
> members of a reserve component of the armed forces to take foreign civil
> employment. Since the USSR was a communist state, all employment there could
> be considered "civil".
>
> So we see two things. First, we see that Lee left a "door open" for himself
> to return to the US with a plan to legally stay in the USSR by attending
> school there. Second, we see he is familar with the laws pertaining to
> "Active" Reservists and that he had violated them.
>
> The problem though is that Lee was not "Active". The day after he left the
> USMC, on Sept 12, 1959, Lt. Ayers changed his discharge to "Inactive". He
> was no longer subject to recall to active duty. The above passport laws no
> longer applied to Oswald.
>
> IMO, based upon Lee's actions concerning the "Active Reserve" laws, Lee was
> unaware that, the day after he exited the USMC, his discharge status had
> been changed by Ayers to "Inactive".
>
> Lee was worried about nothing.

Lee was not worried.....you have him being worried. He follows the legal considerations
because he "supports them" as part of his being a member of the NSTC. It's always
better to obey the law, then to violate it, while under cover.

>
> Why then did Lt. Ayers change his discharge status from "Active" to
> "Inactive" without telling Lee?

You continue to have Lee ignorant of what does not matter.....it's paperwork
that was done. It does not matter if Lee is "Active" or "Inactive" on paper
.......neither are the truth. At this point his service obligation is met......under
the RFA of 1955.....he is now a trained field operative.

>
> Because if Lee ever revealed to the Russians that he was working for the
> USMC under threat of recall to Active Duty and Summary Court Martial if he
> didn't obey USMC orders, the USMC could plausibly deny the charge by
> producing Lee's discharge records showing he was "Inactive" and, thus, could
> not be recalled to Active Duty for Summary Court Martial and that,
> therefore, Lee was lying.

He can still be "courts-martialed"......if he was acting alone....but if he was
on detail....none of this actually matters.

>
> Things are actually more complex than this. There are still ways for Lee to
> be prosecuted. But Lee only needs to know one to be made to obey "orders"
> and the evidence above shows that he did know one - if not two (Title 37,
> section 908).

Lee is not prosecuted because it is known, by the powers to be that he is
acting "By direction". Lee would only be prosecuted if acting on his own.

>
> Finally, Lee knew he had violated US law and was subject to prosecution. Yet
> he returned anyway and yet was not prosecuted. IMO, he returned, knowing he
> broke the law for the same reason he was not prosecuted. He had obeyed
> orders.

You have a twisted way of getting to this point.....he obeyed orders. The papertrail
means nothing if he is acting on orders....."By direction".

>
> >
> > >
> > > He will not learn his actual status from the Naval District holding his
> > > file. That District will treat him as an "Active Reservist" or "Ready
> > > Reserve".
> > >
> > > Lee will never be the wiser.
> > >
> >
> > Only if he is being "screwed". They could legally show him AWOL, or as a
> deserter
> > obtainiing a fraudulant seperation.
>
> I mentioned above that there are other ways to prosecute Oswald. But is our
> 8th grade drop out an attorney?
> On his list of questions he wrote and answered for himself of his legal
> crimes, he never mentioned being guilty of the above. One could argue that
> he doesn't mention them because he doesn't know they were illegal.
>
> However, IMO, Lee is not concerned with how the USMC "could legally show him
> AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a fraudulant seperation" because it's not
> the USMC that he's worried about be being prosecuted by.
>
> It's the AG's Office.

THE AG WILL NEVER PROSECUTE HIM.

>
> The AG's Office can prosecute him for violating Federal passport laws
> regarding "Active" Reservists. However, the AG's Office cannot prosecute him
> even if it "could legally show him AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a
> fraudulant seperation." Heck! They can't even nail him for offering the
> Soviets radar secrets. Those are not Federal offenses. Those are military
> offenses. Different courts.
>
> Lee's exiting of the USMC reveals aid by the USMC (via Lt. Ayers) and USMC
> knowledge that Lee has applied for a passport to leave the country, using as
> a passport witness the very people he has told he's not going to leave the
> country, but care for his mother instead. At the time that Lt. Ayers
> appeared as Lee's passport witness, Ayers knew Lee's discharge reasons were
> fraudulent. So the USMC is in on it - And Ayers had to lie and say he knew
> Lee for two years in order to be in on it. So he's a participant to two
> frauds.
> No. Lee is not worried about the USMC prosecuting him. Such a prosecution
> would reveal Lt. Ayer's knowledge and participation.
> As far as Lee is concerned, his prosecution problems aren't with the USMC
> when he returns (And we know he's planning to return.). It's with the AG's
> Office. He knows he's violated Federal passport laws (Although he tried not
> to). Its why he demanded a guarantee of no prosecution to return.

LEE WOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED FOR PROSECUTION. The supporting
consideration is that he was NOT PROSECUTED when he should have been,
if acting on his own. By acting "By direction" which Lee was fully aware of, he
would have nothing to worry about while he was in the USSR as long as his
actions were within the boundries expected.....which they were.

>
> But, in his original plan, this wouldn't happen. He attends school in the
> USSR. He doesn't get a job. Now, when he returns, there's no prosecution by
> either the AG's Office or the USMC. He's within the Federal law with the AG
> and it was the USMC that helped him get to the USSR in the first place, so
> they're not going to prosecute him for going (And they didn't).

His actions as presented in the offical version are criminal in reality which
can not be shown......he is acting under orders.


>
> As far as the USMC is concerned, Lee's separation was not fraudulent. Lt.
> Ayers was in on it. They understood, aided, and abbeted.
>
> >

They had to be involved.

> > > > >
> > > > > JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are
> being
> > > > > handled in accordance with that belief.
> > > >
> > > > No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact.
> > >
> > > His application to Patrice Lumumba University is 100% consistent with
> > > "Active". And he has to know/believe it to have applied.
> >
> > Lee needs to continue the "cover" of educationial desires
>
> For the AG's Office - Yes.
> For anyone else? No.

Wrong....the cover needs to be maintained and expanded. You can't
leave "gaps" in development of background cover.

>
> >.....but he is no student.
>
> In enrollment only.
> He's not there to learn about "philosophy".

Or to expand any understanding of Marxism.


> > >
> >
> > I started this to show the conflicts of the discharge.....the return is
> just as
> > complex.
> >
>
> Yes. It's really hard not to show how the "return" doesn't fit in with the
> "discharge". I just did it above.

But not needed at this time.



> > >
> > > Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply pointing out that no matter
> > > how one slices the pie here, LHO believes he is "Active" while in the
> > > USSR. He is either on "Active Duty" or "Active Reserves" (And the latter
> > > can still place him in "Active Duty" by "Presidential detail").
> > >
> > > Believing himself to be "Active" - no matter how you slice it - requires
> > > Lee apply for attendance at AS College and, again, at Patrice Lumumba
> > > University in Moscow. You also have him avoiding the "brainwashing
> > > sessions" - which he would have to do if Lee was "Active", correct?
> >
> > No, Lee has no interest in learning and his role does not require him to
> be
> > but it is "better" if he does nothing.....which he did. The Soviets,
> followed
> > through because of the possibility of "exposure" to other students of Lee
> > actual "beliefs" and political background. The failure to allow Lee to go
> > to school illustrates additional restricted co-operation by the Soviets.
> >
>
> Yes. Something went wrong. The Sovierts should have granted his request to
> attend school or it "messes" with Lee's return.
> Any ideas on why they did this?
>

Lee was never intending to attend school........it all part of the cover, and the
rejection falls in line.


> > The above is a key consideration.........it also covers individuals in the
> NSTC,
> > National Security Training Corp of which I believe Lee is actual connected
> to.
>
> Yes. Your belief on that is quite facinating and not impossible. Is there
> any additional info you would like to share on that?
>
> > See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign government
> > treason and aiding the enemy.
> >
>
> Different thread?

yes

>
> Yes. We're just touching the tip of the iceberg.
> We could bore everyone here to death with the evidence support the sham to
> the point that they would prefer to read Dave Reitzes on Judyth.

It's difficult to present regardless.....to many directions not need directly.


> > > Plausible deniability. Even Lee doesn't know he's expendable.
> >
> > Lee knows he is expendable.....it's part of the risk accepted, before
> enlistment.
> >
>
> Okay. I even made a case for Lee being "expendable" to our own AG's Office.
> So, obviously, you're right.

most operative have a degree of expendability....it's not out of line to consider.

>

> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....
> > >
> > > Lee did not miss this.
> >
> > He can't which is why he is fully aware of his "status".
> >
>
> "Active"
>

Not in the sense you consider "Active" consider him a operative that
is "Active"......

> > >
> > > >however you did not miss
> > > > the "PD".
> > >
> > > Lee did.
> > >
> >
> > NO.....PD is a key factor....it works several ways.
> >
>
> Now you know I have ask now how "it works several ways"?
>

Everybody can deny everything.......




> >
> > JFK WAS ELECTED, Lee operation could be "canceled" at this time. JFK
> > would take office in January, Nixon was out the door. All intelligence
> operations
> > now have "new directions" if JFK wanted to change things. The
> Presidentail
> > Detail, has a new President.
>
>
> Point conceded.

This actually did not take place during the first stages of 59-60.....but it
relates to the return......which is another reason I didn't want to get there
yet.....I really should not have mentioned the election yet.


> >
> > Your overlooking several key facts......Look at the period and
> correspondence
> > by Lee during Jan/Feb......with the consideration that the operationial
> plug would
> > be pulled.
>
> I'll do this.
> Offhand, I can't recall any such correspondence. Isn't this when he left
> Moscow and "disappeared"?

It relates to JFK being elected.....I should not have put this in...you sort
of got me ahead of myself.....too much going on.

>

> >
> > The detail was allowed to continue, but with some changes. The agreement
> between
> > Ike and Niki, was different then the one between JFK and Niki. I made a
> post several
> > years ago about the 185 to 8 motive. This would also allow Lee to have
> motive to
> > remove JFK......this was about 2 years ago.
> >
>
> Google time...

If you find it....remember I consider it a prime motive for Lee to kill JFK.


> > > > He was "Active".
> > >
> > > I agree with this with the caveat that the USMC took action to hide that
> > > he was "Active" via altering his discharge status without Oswald's
> > > knowledge.
> > >
> >
> > WITH OSWALD'S KNOWLEDGE
> >
>
> I still don't understand why you think that.
>

Because he has to know.....you don't look at things as I do. Perhaps
you will have a better idea reading some of the above.

jko

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 22:26:11 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n8c7rdlr7f034@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > >

> >
> > To make things work......without question.....it's always best to use
> > routine proceedures without imput from higher up. That's why I think you
> > have the wrong Poindexter in mind.
> >
>
> I did have the wrong "Poindexter". However, I can't see how "routine
> procedures without input" can be used to explain Lee's discharge. A review
> board without input from higher up should note their information is
> incomplete and agree to convene again when it is. Somebody had to notice the
> "Pic" letter.

It could be noticed......but lower ranking individuals would not care. If higher
up were known to be involved and that the case was of "interest" it would have
been "remembered" and handled "properly".....if higher ups said forget about
the proper proceedures it would draw attention not desired.

>
> If "input from above" is not required, that's the same as saying that all
> hardship and dependency discharges are automatically approved on
> questionable or incomplete paperwork as SOP unless contrary input is
> received from above.

No they would be handled normally.....it's when influence by higher ranking
individuals stick their noses into things that things become noticed and
difficult to follow through on......towards the goal.



> >
> > It's actually too much to go into....but that's the date his downgraded
> > discharge became final
>
> Yes, By ruling. My goof. I thought you were referring to a standard Reserve
> expiration date.
>
> For lurkers, the USMC incorrectly downgraded Lee's discharge which he
> protested upon his return to the US. A review board heard his case and gave
> its ruling on July 25,1963 confirming the undesireable discharge.
>
> Lee was given an undesireable discharge for alledgedly revoking his American
> citzenship. Since Lee still had his American citizenship, obviously, the
> USMC had changed his discharge on false grounds. Technically, this is an
> open and shut case. Lee need only show he was an American citizen to prove
> the downgrade was wrong.
>
> I have not studied this but it would be interesting to see how the Review
> Board justified its decision. Let's get back to this sometime.
>

It basically added to his cover and background......but the Review board
never tried to justify it's error.....even Rankin thought this out of place.

>
> ......and the point that Lee could now be acting on
> > his own, in the direction of killing JFK, outside of anything that he
> > might have been connected to in the past. Perhaps in another thread, once
> > this one is done.

Even if he had been acting on his own from day one.....it would play into
motive and intent to kill JFK.......since they never used this consideration
against Oswald, it seems they wanted to avoid it.

>
> For lurkers, the LNers can argue that Oswald, being denied an honorary
> discharge, went gunning for JFK. I am prepared to argue against that.
>

Someday I'll take the LN position and we can go for it.

> >
> > First consideration is that it is not for Snyder.....I don't believe that
> > it was for Snyder. It's not that I lack "suspicion towards Snyder", I do,
> > just don't think he is fully responsible or part of the "plan".
> >
>
> W/o Snyder - how do you get Lee back from the USSR?

Anybody in his shoes could do it......it would be controled from
stateside.


> > >
> > > Lead and I shall follow.
> >
> > The discharge early out is just about over or it can be ended.
> >
>
> I'll post Greg's ASC work.
> Anything you want to add to the discharge discussion?

Let this end here.....and I'll address other questions in the other responses
til they end down.

>
> If not, shall we progress through September-October, 1959?
> We can start another thread.
>
> Or shall we go back in time and discuss his USMC admission/recruitment?
>
> Or Schrand? Or his SCM's?
>
> Your call. I'm sketchy on both.
>

I posted a thread concerning the assignment in Minsk....for next leg of the
discussion. That continues after Nov/Dec......allowing to go back if needed
to Sept/Oct.



> >
> > >



> > Jeff, if you are reading or trying to follow this....consider Cuba......as
> > a first priority to me.
>
> Beautiful city.
> Try and hit the "dry season". When it rains, it pours.
> Also, if you get the chance, tour Santiago. As a military historian you
> might find it interesting. For the wife, who's probably not interested in
> things military, take her to see the Bellamar Sea Caves.
> Oh! And let the Cubans know, in advance, what information you'd like to see.
> Don't book w/o an answer.
>

I have a contact that would assist.....the wife would be at my side.....she
does alot of the photography, planning and speaks Spanish....but it would
be limited to what we need to get done in the time allowed. Havana would
be our base.....although I would love to dive the BOP's.

jko
>
> ::Clark::
>
> >
> > jko
>
>
>

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 00:32:32 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"john watters" <johncwatters@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a8198ff5.0410191147.a7cd941@posting.google.com...
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > >......I still believe Lee needed assistance......which either came from
the USG or the CPUSA.
> >
> > I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed
my
> > arguments on this.
> >
> I have ? Remind me (it's been a long time)

All of Lee's actions are aimed to "smear" the CPUSA.
Too many diapers passed under your nose?

[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 03:52:27 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:41756e90@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > This means Lee is somehow already in a "pool" of candidates, and someone
> > involved with Nixon's "sharing of ideas" with Kruschev is going through
the
> > files of the available "pool" and stopped on Oswald's.
>
> Any number of actions including the two SCM's are such valid
considerations.
> For example the "interviews" upon entering the "Brig" and exiting the
"Brig"
> are documents destroyed. This is a prime location for the selection of
individuals
> wishing to make "changes" in their lives.
>

That would have been of high interest to the "selection" process. I admit I
had not thought of that.

> >
> > This suggests that we try and identify what "pool" of files Lee's name
was
> > in. It was JKO that made this identification - not me.
>
> I have several "pools" to look in......because I've looked for them.
>
> >
> > My assumption was that Lee's incoming mail and request to take a Russian
> > language course brought him to the attention of "higher ups".
> >
> > >
>
> This is another prime consideration, but one I feel is associated with the
> first stages of his enlistment.....and the orginal goals, dealing with his
> military service.

Yes. The enlistment papers support your premise. However, his mother made no
comment about this. If you're right (I have to admit I've been following
your lead on this area but found it promising), can you explain her silence?
She is the "first hand" witness to this but, according to her, it never
happened.

>
> > >
> > > Key documents and records connected to Lee's military service, 5
> > intelligence
> > > reports and two Courts-Martial records, were "destroyed", my FOIA
> > requests
> > > to the USN/USMC verify that fact.
> >
> > Can you tell us about the five intelligence reports?
>
> I have in the past.
>
> 1. Entry level investigation for his clearance to attend school.

For Lee's "security clearance"?
No reason to remove a "positive" report.
But a report with "conficts" would have to disappear

> 2. Investigation in relationship to his first SCM
> 3. Investigation in relationship to his second SCM
> 4. Investigation into death of Scharnd

I suspect all three of the above were destroyed at the same time - And by
the same person.

#4 I suspect is related to Lee's performance of duty outside of USMC.

What are your thoughts on the first two? Spending time in the brig is hardly
voluntary and evidence suggests Lee's guilt.

I don't know if the USMC's filing system is the same as the CIA's and State
Passport Office, but if it is, all three investigations could be legitimate
and by the "book" but still have to destroyed/withheld. This is because of
"master file" indexes which, at CIA and Passport Office both, requires files
be "signed out".
If the USMC uses this same system, a record would exist of who requested to
see the files and when. We would know, for example, who the mysterious
"person" was who selected Lee for the USSR. He would have checked out, and
signed for, all three files.
That master file index would have to be fed to the paper shredder.
This is also consistent with the destruction of his background security
clearance file.

The next file disappearance does not fit with this explanation.

> 5. ONI/FBI shared investigation after defection.

Hoover has his butt hanging out on this one. He started it. He pushed for
the "change of discharge" to "undesireable". He pulled strings to make it
happen. This would have been the record of said "strings".

If he could push for the USMC to change Lee's discharge status based on
false information and then have that illegal act upheld by the USMC under
appeal, he also had the power to keep this file from seeing the light of
day.

>
> >
>
> > > My basic view is that if Lee was acting alone.....as a true "Marxist
> > Marine" then
> > > he would have been arrested once he walked into the U.S. Embassy, and
> > > the "defection" started.
> >
> > Or arrested when he returned - As happened with Bruce Frederick Davis.
> > Our boy is a prime candidate for "hard labor".
>
> Ln's can't accept the letter of the law in this area. They can't have
this
> on the table.
>

And they will keep it off the table.
We'll never hear this issue raised by them.
Even though we put it out here in plain sight.

>
> >
> > > The grounds for doing so and the laws in support
> > > were there......but Lee was allowed to walked out of a "closed"
embassy.
> > > (it was only open half a day on Sat).
> > >
> >
> > Nor were any instructions sent by the Navy to the USEMB Naval attache'
in
> > Moscow to arrest Oswald if he should return. Considering the Navy had
been
> > informed of Lee's intent to deliver knowledge on US radar, this was an
> > extremely simple order to give.
>
> The efforts by ONI and the AUSNA are of great concern, in this area,
details
> were tightly controled I will make a seperate thread on this based on the
documents.
>

It will be a one sided presentation although I look forward to reading it. I
have nothing to offer. The Navy did nothing. That is al I needed to know.
That is the record and is sufficient by itself to have whoever at Navy who
received notice of Lee's intent to be drawn and quartered.

This is like a police station having a bank alarm go off and not answering
the call.
Ever.


> >
> > So "stupidity" has set in on the side of the USG. We have a traitor in
our
> > midst threatening to reveal US secrets. We don't know what he may have
> > learned to turn over. Snyder does not order his arrest. No orders to
Snyder
> > are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald. No orders to the US Naval
> > attache' are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald.
> >
> > Oswald is treated as if he never said anything about providing the USSR
with
> > US radar information at all.
> >
> > Since Lee would be returning, this required Lee to be of "low level"
rank
> > and, therefore, of "no importance". If he was "of importance" then those
out
> > of the loop will press for his prosecution. Further, if "of importance",
he
> > might actually relay info "of importance".
> >
> > So a private is sent.
> > But so was Bruce Frederick Davis - And he didn't get ignored.
>
> Rank has little to do with this......anybody in the right "position" could
be used.
> I've had alot of power as a PFC in VN. Almost total freedom, for two
years,
> to do my job as I saw fit.
>

I mean that rank implies importance. If Lee wasn't a private but instead a
four star general, his actions cannot go ignored when he returns. Further,
we wouldn't want a "four star general" in Russian hands.

> >
> > > Now to this actual thread........on the "early out". To obtain a 90
day
> > early out,
> > > the law and the military require "verification" of the grounds for
> > seperation.
> > > That "evidence" is evaluated and the discharge is granted or denied.
In
> > this
> > > case Lee acts early to start the process.....too early in my opinion
and
> > in
> > > two seperate directions, Dependency and Hardship.....which can be
> > combined.
> > > The "evidence" of either should have been in place (in the hands of
the
> > board)
> > > prior to the "First Endorsement" of the discharge. This was not the
case.
> > > The board is proceeding without the required documentation. Some of
which
> > > comes in well after the long process of "Endorsement" is underway.
Some
> > > never reaches.....ie verification by the Red Cross, the hands of the
> > endorsers.
> > >
> >
> > Bottom line, the USMC simply approved Lee's request without having the
> > supporting documents in the possession - and with the effect that Lee
was
> > exited from the USMC at the earliest possible legal date.
>
> Going over my documents......and what I feel should be released, there are
> considerations I did not mention earlier. The 17 August request was
offically
> approved by the CG, 3dMAW on 31 Aug 1959.

Forgive my ignorance. My military service is limited to Avalon-Hill.
Commanding General, 3rd Marine Air Wing?

> Well before all the evidence
> was available for reaching any approval of discharge. Two weeks, without
> evidence in support for dependency or hardship. Well before all the 6
endorsements
> were finished within the chain.
>

Doesn't "CG" encourage others to follow the same recommendation?
Who, of lesser rank, would go against this?

I know if I were a captain and saw this in the file, I'm stamping Lee
"approved" also.

> >
> >
> > > There are alot of little details, that support the above, when
combined
> > show
> > > that Lee could not have seperated "early" on his own, through normal
> > channels.
> > > He had to be "assisted" in seperating "early".
> >
> > Someone should have asked, "Where's the paperwork supporting this
request?"
>
> Improper lines of questioning were followed.......it's that simple. Most
of
> these conflicts would have surfaced early and without difficulty if the
proper
> cosiderations of investigation were made and followed through.
>

No time.
Lee is needed by a higher authority.

> >
> > > This supports that Lee is not
> > > as he is presented......ie the "Marxist Marine" and his trip to the
USSR
> > is
> > > supported by the USG.
> >
> > Agreed. The USG sponsored his trip to the USSR, Marxist or not.
>
> I doubt Lee was Marxist......or even leaning to the left, more in the
center
> with a right cold war lean.
>

We would both agree he is ANTI-COMMUNIST would we not?


>
> >
> > At the same year the National Security Training Corps was formed, the
> > National Security Council (NSC 5412/1 and NSC 5412/2) created the
Special
> > Group Committee composed of the NSC, the CIA, State, and the President -
in
> > order for them to all regularly meet and address joint issues.
>
> Actually the NSTC has earlier considerations. However major changes were
> made in the Reserve Forces Act of 1955.
>

It was expanded beyond "truck drivers"?

> >
> > If one looks at the names "National Security Council" and "National
Security
> > Training Corps", we wonder if there isn't a link between the Council and
the
> > Corps?
> >
>
> We knew from 50-54 that greater flexibility were needed concerning intell
> and military service...hence the RFA of 55.
>

For lurkers, JKO is referring to the Korean War.


> > In 1961, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Special Group could become
the
> > "Special Group Augmented" or SGA by adding RFK to the room. Both the
> > "Special Group" and SGA have been connected to "assassination
planning" -
> > usually involving Castro. The addition of RFK was to include him to
protect
> > the
> > President from the Special Group getting caught at these things.
Therefore,
> > by January, 1962, he was also on the Special Group's Counter Insurgency
> > Subcommittee, composed of General Taylor [Chairman], the Attorney
General,
> > Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Deputy Secretary
of
> > Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of Central Intelligence,
> > Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
> > Administrator, Agency for International Development. This allowed Taylor
to
> > bypass the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, and work
directly
> > with their deputies to carry out counter insurgency programs approved by
the
> > Special Group. RFK was present to police the programs to make sure any
> > possible failures did not trace back to JFK. The nature of this Group's
work
> > was such that neither the Secreatary of State nor the Secretary of
Defense
> > wished to be involved or connected either.
> >
> > By April, 1962 there is no record of any more Special Group meetings -
only
> > Special Group Augmented, meaning RFK had become permanently attached to
all
> > Special Group meetings. Thus, RFK was on hand to police any "anti-Castro
> > plots" devised by the SGA and, further, he sat on the Counter Insurgency
> > Subcommittee which would have carried them out (This Group was involved
with
> > illegal activities - but not assassination - Or else John McCone would
not
> > have been a member).
> >
> >
> > Lee returned to the US in 1962 with RFK policing JFK's
> > "assassination/counter insurgency" programs with the idea that JFK not
get
> > caught by any exposure of these Group's illegal activities. What RFK
needed
> > was "plausible denial".
> >
>
> RFK is a major consideration from 1954 on. Including his "Russian Journey
> in 1955.

I have him involved from April, 1962 and was not concerned about "earlier".
Tell us about RFK in 1955?

>
>
> >
> > > The USMCR
> > > was used, to "train Lee" and take advantage of various actions that
are a
> > > known part of his "service".
> >
> > Lee's enlistment papers show him enlisting in the USMCR and not the USMC
> > (James discovered this - not me). This is a major "tilt" in the
enlistment
> > process.
> >
>
> Several legal considerations dealing with the enlistment of minors (under
18).
>
> > The USMCR is the Reserves.
> > Lee must either be "recalled to Active Duty" to serve at Atsugi or he is
> > performing "Reserve training."
>
> His entire military assignement was "training".....however not as a radar
> operator......in my opinion Lee spent less then 30 days actually working
> his radar MOS during the entire period.
>

I have heard no mention of such a thing by those who served with him - but
then I don't recall them being asked this question either.

>
> >
> > Lee is "Active" - either "Active Reserve" or "Active Duty". According to
his
> > enlistment papers, he is "Active Reserve."
>
> Active Duty is active service regardless of reserve status....it's just
"Active Duty"
> weither its for a weekend, two weeks or period of extended
training....it's
> Active Duty.
>

For lurkers, anytime an Active Reservist shows up for "duty" (i.e. on
command), even reserve duty or training, that is Active Duty. Correct?


> >
> >
> > On leaving the USMC and satisfying USMCR time, he should be released as
> > "Inactive" - which he was on September 12.
>
> No, the Reserve service was a longer committment.

OK. Decided I'd better look this up since Lee recruitment shows USMCR. I
find he would have to be classed as:

USMCR (K): A designation given to those non-prior service personnel enlisted
in the Marine Corps Reserve.

Looking this up produced major confusion. It sounds like it's intended for
medical personnel. I found no term of enlistment.


>
> >
> > But on September 11, he was released as "Active" - meaning control over
the
> > individual has not been lost.
> >
> His PAPERWORK WENT TO THE ACTIVE SIDE.......in the in processing of
> his service record.

His paperwork was filed as per his September 11 discharge.

>
> > I "think" that JKO believes that Lt. Ayers corrected the "mistake" of
> > 9/11/59 on 9/12/59. If so, I disagree.
> >
>
> I think you are abid off on the aspects of status, service committments,
and
> witholding of information to Oswald. On Ayers, his actions I think have
you
> abit confussed. The paperwork should have gone to the "inactive" section
> for inprocessing but went to the "active" section that handled incoming
records.


Ahh! Yes. I "R" a bit confused. Since Lee wasn't drafted, after three years
active duty, he would receive a discharge into the "Inactive Reserves" for a
period of another three years.

Do I have it right?

Sending Lee's papers to "Active" suggests Lee's initial USMCR tour of duty
obligation was not yet up.
Unfortunately, I don't know the number of years one signs up for when one
enlists directly into the USMCR. If I had to guess, I would guess 6. If so,
that would place Lee in the "Active Reserves" until December, 1962 which, as
I recall, corresponds to the expiration date of his DD1173 Card., also
issued by Ayers
So I'm now either totally screwed up or I've just made a case for Lee's
recruiting papers to be accurate and that he actually did join the USMCR and
not the USMC and Ayers knows it, and processed him accordingly.

>
> Ayers turns the "dependency" into the "dependency discharge, by reason of
> hardship on the part of his mother". The early out would not be granted
just
> on "dependency". Neither the dependency or hardship have been established.
> I think the confussion came into play by moving on too fast towards
allowing
> him to return. Not all the details had been presented.
>
> > >
> > > I wanted this thread to focus only on the aspects of the seperation.
> > Clark wants
> > > to expand it into areas of "the defection"........but I feel that
confuses
> > some,
> > > as you indicate by this request.
> >
> > I also want to stay on the aspects of separation. I simply brought up
how
> > his separation effected his "defection". Was he "Active" or "Inactive"
in
> > the USSR? According to Lee, he's "Active". According to the USMC, he's
> > "InActive".
> >
>
> It is a AD mission, while he is on a Reserve assignment, Lee is not going
> to tell anybody his true "status".....especially PJM. Nobody is going to
> hide Oswald's true status from Oswald. He knows

How do you know he knows?
He wasn't there on Sept 12, 1959 when Ayers made the change.

>....he accepted the
> assignment and all the "effects" it would have on his life and how people
> would view his actions.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > To address some of the considerations mentioned by Clark. There has
to be
> > > a "project" that fits into the ongoing "history" of the time. It has
to
> > be associated
> > > with the Navy, requires information to be passed off to the Soviets
and of
> > prime
> > > consideration, it has to fit Oswald and his known actions. It is the
> > reason for the
> > > "early out". There are about 15 such projects, relating to National
> > Security
> > > intelligence operations going on in 1959. In my opinion Project TP is
the
> > best
> > > one to consider and I use that as the foundation of Lee's "defection".
> >
> > Gee! And I only found one.
> >
>
> TP had more factors in relationship to known history etc etc.
>
> > >
> > > The problem is that "ALL OF" the offical reports and investigations of
> > Lee's
> > > defection are not "included" in the WCR and Exhibits.
> >
> > Particularly his military records.
> >
> Many were destroyed or never turned over.
>
>
> > > The prime example of
> > > this is the investigation to "prosecute" Lee for various violations of
the
> > law,
> > > known to have occurred. This would be what I call the "AG's report"
by
> > direction
> > > of RFK.
> >
> > And undoubtedly performed by Nicholas Katzenbach if I am allowed to make
an
> > "educated guess".
>
> If not directly under his guidence or control.

Katzenbach's actions on 11/22/63 indicate he had access to Lee's AG file.


> >
> >
> > > There were a dozen other intelligence agencies looking into this
> > > "defection".....those reports are also "incomplete"......the prime
example
> > is
> > > the conflicts surrounding the CIA's handling of the case, which is why
so
> > many
> > > believe Lee was working for the CIA from 1959 on. They are wrong in
> > belief
> > > that Lee was in the CIA.
> >
> > Agreed also.
> > Technically, Lee comes under DOD, but, more realistically, he comes
under
> > another "group" altogether.
>
> Various agencies are used in various operations.....which makes full
knowledge
> difficult, I settle on the EOP, created by J.P. Kennedy during FDR's
presidency.
> Look at the two "Hoover Commissions" (President Hoover). Based on his
network
> established in the Court of St. James..........he used Joe jr, JFK and Kit
as his
> prime agents for projects "undercover". They were the only ones he could
trust.
> FDR used Joe jr.....far more then Papa Joe did.....this pissed off Papa
Joe. Ian
> Flemming was the MI operative to keep track of these three "kids". Nixon
later
> had his own EPO "Plumbers".....consider the EOP the "Beast". Read Lasky
> "It didn't start with Watergate" for a general view of "The Beast".
>

I believe I have the book...

> >
> >
> > >
> > > All of my research can be supported, either by the law or known cases
> > against
> > > "subversives" "spies" and "defectors". There is alot of details that
have
> > to be
> > > considered from approximately Feb-59 to Feb 1960, just concerning the
> > > seperation of Oswald from the USMC......which have never surfaced in
the
> > > past. These actions......having NOTHING to do with the assassination,
> > except
> > > as "background" that puts him on the path to Dallas.
> >
> > And I don't want to skip it.
> >
> > >
> > > Now, for the kicker.......I can use the material, to show that Lee was
> > part of
> > > the outline above.....or I can show Lee acting on his own, using the
same
> > > material. But it requires a "higher" opinion of Lee than most will
ever
> > accept.
> >
> > Lee would pretty much have to be a god to perform this alone.
>
> As I said, you would have to have a much higher opinion of Lee.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I have no problem with my research being "countered" with facts and
legal
> > > considerations, I do all my research equally to show "both sides".
> > >
> > > I hope this helps.......and if you want me to show you where the
material
> > > supports Lee is acting on his own, I can point you in those
directions.
> > > I lean towards Lee working in association, because my opinion of Lee
is
> > > not as high (although higher then most) as required......I still
believe
> > Lee
> > > needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.
> >
> > I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed
my
> > arguments on this.
> >
>
> The CPUSA plays a major role.........it can't be eliminated.
>

You're basing this in part on Gus Hall's route to Mexico, right?
If so, I think on this issue I hold the upper hand.

But we're not there yet. Lee's enlistment is still the issue.


::Clark::
[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 03:54:03 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:4175a27e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n8c7rdlr7f034@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > > >
>
> > >
> > > To make things work......without question.....it's always best to use
> > > routine proceedures without imput from higher up. That's why I think
you
> > > have the wrong Poindexter in mind.
> > >
> >
> > I did have the wrong "Poindexter". However, I can't see how "routine
> > procedures without input" can be used to explain Lee's discharge. A
review
> > board without input from higher up should note their information is
> > incomplete and agree to convene again when it is. Somebody had to notice
the
> > "Pic" letter.
>
> It could be noticed......but lower ranking individuals would not care.

But one did. He did not accept Lee's paperwork and requested new paperwork.
Also, the Pic letter was sent to USAF.

The lower ranks have requested what they either don't want or don't need
because they then never used it.
Are you suggesting this is SOP for the lower ranks?

> If higher
> up were known to be involved and that the case was of "interest" it would
have
> been "remembered" and handled "properly".....if higher ups said forget
about
> the proper proceedures it would draw attention not desired.
>

But proper procedure was followed "after the fact".
Lee has already been for discharge before requested papers arrive.
If proper procedure was followed the Review Board would not have acted
without the requested paperwork.
Either that, or the Review Board overruled the other officer's request and
decided Lee's original paperwork was sufficient.

> >
> > If "input from above" is not required, that's the same as saying that
all
> > hardship and dependency discharges are automatically approved on
> > questionable or incomplete paperwork as SOP unless contrary input is
> > received from above.
>
> No they would be handled normally.....it's when influence by higher
ranking
> individuals stick their noses into things that things become noticed and
> difficult to follow through on......towards the goal.
>

How could "no input" from above explain Lt. Ayers actions on 9/12/59?

[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 09:03:06 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:417591fb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n9mboimdliba0@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:416feb7d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > Clark:
> > >
> > > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:10mtuj3bssbir8a@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be
> > "the
> > > > > > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched
for
> > who
> > > > > > Oswald was?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law.
The
> > point
> > > > > being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from
the
> > USMC.
> > > >
> > > > Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers
and he
> > > > would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I
suppose
> > > > if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.
> > >
> > > Nobody there knew Lee for "2 years",
> >
> > Then Ayer's gave a false statement in order to get Lee his passport.
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> >
> > >however a statement from the USMC
> > > would satisfy the requirement of the law. A no fee passport, arranged
for
> > by
> > > the USMC would give indication of knowledge,
> >
> > of where he was headed?
>
> Yes, however, the passport obtained also supplied the same info. It's was
to
> keep things just outside of military exposure as records were being
processed.
>

Ayers saw the destinations listed on Lee's passport?

> >
> > BTW, speaking of where he was headed on his passport, do you consider
that
> > Lee's early preparation could have also included Cuba as a destination?
If
> > so, does this get included in your Cuban trip plans?
> >
>
> Cuba is the first country listed:
>
> Cuba
> Dominican Republic
> England
> France
> Switzerland
> Germany
> Finland
> Russia
>
> I considered Lee going to Cuba if the Soviets moved in quickly in 1959/60
after
> Lee went to ASC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > There is a great deal of legal actions going on concerning "Passports"
and
> > > "Communists"......there is a long legal history to this point and
after.
> > BUT Lee
> > > is not following the law here, there are some things you are
overlooking.
> > >
> >
> > OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University was
not
> > in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then, second,
what
> > are the things I am overlooking?
>
> First Lee does not want anyone to consider that he's a "Reservist" in any
manner.

His app to ASC and Torku is consistent with his being a Reservist. He
certainly didn't hide it from the US passport office.

> Second PLU is secondary to Turku Univesity (Finland) and ACS both listed
> in connection to his passport.

But it is made for the same reasons.

> Lee makes the PLU request....not sure if all
> the paperwork follows proceedure, without hopes of the Soviets allowing
him
> to attend.

How do we know he was "without hopes"?
He told Priscilla Johnson he wanted to attend a Soviet institute. And didn't
Marina say he was disappointed when turned down?

> I don't think the KGB wanted him three. Lee is not in Europe to
> study and obtain any formal education. He is not in the USSR to expand
his
> understanding and to become a better "Marxist".
>
> Lee follows the restriction because he is not left wing.
>

He's not a communist.
He can still be LW.

>
> > > >
> > > > Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay
"legal"
> > > > all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.
> > > >
> > >
> > > NO, Lee has to be fully aware from day one of all the considerations.
If
> > not
> > > it supports that Lee was being "screwed" from the begining......
> >
> > Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?
>
> NO it's all part of the cover continued to be built. He is only screwed
if he
> is "outside" of the game being played around him.

But Lee was ASSISTED in his appeal unless he used his godlike LN power to
write his appeal before he returned from the USSR.

And if it was all part of the cover being built then he simply wouldn't have
appealed the decision. The cover is in place. Why appeal it? And why appeal
it with a winning case? But he did - And with assistance. He made the
Review Board look like horses asses.

The evidence is that the USEB didn't just hand Lee his passport. They handed
him a book on US military legal codes as well.

Our boy went over hoping/expecting to come back with a "clean slate". State
will not prosecute because he was attending school and so he applies to
school. The Navy won't prosecute him because of Lt. Ayers and because he was
not placed under arrest at the USEMB. They sent him. He knows they want him
back. He retains his citizenship. He retains his passport. He retains his
honorable discharge. The "tourist" comes home as planned. Then he finds out
the USMC has illegally changed his discharge. How in the frick and frack did
that happen?!! Nobody told him that would happen! So he irately appeals.

Who in the USEMB would he have taken his beef to? The US Naval attache'? Who
would have a copy of US military legal codes to give him? The US Naval
Attache'? Who isn't on the WC's witness stand? The US Naval Attache'?

Lee was expecting that to be cleared up when he returned, just as he was
expecting the USG to pay his way home and allow Marina and daughter to
accompany him.

Lee is completely unaware of any "cover" being prepared for him. If he was
he would have skipped the appeal and not bothered demanding a guarantee of
no prosecution. After all, if they're going to create a "cover" for him, it
won't be of much use if he spends the next ten years behind bars.

Indeed! It's probably because his discharge status has been changed that has
caused Lee to demand a guarantee of "no prosecution" as a condition of
returning. If that's happened - what else has happened that's waiting for
him?


>
> > Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?
>
> The actions by the USN/USMC are consistance with creating the cover
> and continuing to build it up.

Then no one should have handed Lee a book of US legal codes in Moscow.
And while I realize I am writing in favor of your July 25,1963 theory, Lee's
change of discharge status never would have happened if not for his mother.
So, unless she's a party to it, his change of status was not part of
creating a cover. It can't be.

Of course, the July 25,1963 ruling COULD BE.


> >
> > >that works
> > > as grounds for Lee to want to kill JFK, by his own action, for his own
> > reasons,
> > > while taking out the former Sec of the Navy, JC......because he can't
kill
> > his
> > > fathers lawyer, also the former Sec of Navy.
> >
> > Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
> > He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25, 1963.
>
> He could if he was acting on a rampage or totally on his own. But I don't
> think so. If Korth was killed LHO would be a automatic prime suspect.
>

No more than he was an automatic prime suspect in the Walker shooting. Korth
was having his own problems after July 25, 1963. If Korth was murdered after
July 25, 1963, the automatic prime suspect would be LBJ.


> >
> > > This is why WC supporters
> > > should be concerned about all these elements of consideration. All of
> > > these actions bring Lee down the path to Dallas, either in envolvement
> > > or being the actual assassin working on his own.
> >
> > No takers yet.
> >
>
> This is material outside of their box.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The DOD had a habit of screwing military personnel considered as a
threat
> > > or connected to communism (over 700 such cases) Lee COULD HAVE BEEN
> > > ONE BEING SCREWED. That consideration can not be pushed aside for
> > > any reason. Except for the simple fact, that Lee was not able to
> > accomplish
> > > this defection or the required "paperwork" on his own, it remains a
> > consideration.
> > > However, there is far greater support that Lee was acting during the
> > defection
> > > period in co-operation with the desires of the USG.......not being
> > screwed.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
> > And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent
him -
> > Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.
> >
>
> chances are Hoover was outside the loop and trying to catch up between
> 59-64.

I would say he was definitely out of the loop.
But he wormed his way in.
He made Oswald, the "LW Marxist with the undesireable discharge" possible.

>
> > But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no longer
> > under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?
> >
>
> The whole "seperation" is a sham. Lee would KNOW THAT.
>

Why would he know that? If he joined the USMCR in 1956 for a "6" year term
of duty (A guess on my part but supported by the 3+3 years of service for
volunteers and by his DD1173 card), he knows he's in in the USMCR until
December, 1962.

>
> > >
> > > Lee's actions would not be "totally" suspect if his mother was a
> > dependent, it
> > > is if he is discharged because of a "hardship dependency" and Lee
needs to
> > > take care of his mother, beyond sending her money or taking care of
her
> > bills.
> >
> > Who is to suspect?
> >
>
> ANYONE WHO TAKES ANY INTEREST......to quote the investigation report
> summary of evidence by Rankin which is slanted towards Lee acting on
> his own and not with assistance from Soviets.......but ignores assistance
> from USG:
>
> " Under the circumstances, he undoubtedly obtained the discharge
fraudulenty"
>
> This supports my position 100%

It also supports mine 100%. He also obtained a "dependency" discharge
fraudulently.



>....to continue:
>
> " If the Russians were in fact coaching him at this time, it would seem
unlikely
> that they would have advised him to obtain a discharge under these
circumstances,"
>
> This does not exclude recieving assistance from the USG. This
consideration is
> totally ignored, making the investigation as well as the report bias......
>
> "merely in order to gain three months time which, after all, was not
particulary
> valuable to anyone."
>
> This is false since not everyone is considered in the consideration of
where
> the value is. Skipping over to end with the following to the question on
who:
>
> "but was morally offensive and potentially very unpopular in that he
deserted
> his own mother when she was sick, unemployed and poverty-stricken"
>
> If anyone considered Lee actions as a result of the PJM interview, with
all
> the facts.......the above is how they would view Oswald. LN's don't even
> want you to consider the above.

He would still be viewed the same with a "dependency" discharge - an
individual who fraudulently took advantage of his sick, unemployed, poverty
stricken mother to seek an early discharge to help her when, in fact, it was
to go to the USSR and abandon her.


>
> > And, whoever this person(s) who suspects is, won't he conclude the same
> > thing under either discharge? That Lee abandoned his needy mother for
the
> > USSR?
> >
>
> But Mother Russia would not want him......as shown by Rankin....he would
have
> no value to the Soviets.
>

Rankin showed that the Russians were not coaching Oswald in June, 1959. He
didn't show that the Russians wouldn't take him in October, 1959 if they
knew he had a "hardship" discharge instead of a 'dependency" discharge.


> >
> > > Lee knows she does not need his support or really does not care about
his
> > mother
> > > Everybody knows there is no "hardship".....
> >
> > If everyone knows this and the USMC doesn't want to appear suspicious,
why
> > not give him a dependency discharge?
>
> Either discharge makes the USMC look good.....releasing Lee to take care
of his
> mother........but, they did not have the "evidence"......so it's suspect,
if one looks
> close.

It becomes even more "suspect" when Ayers records it two different ways in
24 hours. There's something else you're not telling me. You want him to know
he has a "hardship" discharge. Why?


> >
> >
> >
> > >all those that provided "support" by
> > > affidavit or letters, would never learn of all the details.......and
if
> > they read the
> > > newspaper about the "defection" or learned of it......it would seem
odd,
> > strange
> > > and then forgotton.....THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, became known by the greed
> > > of his mother. YOU CAN'T forget about her actions after the
"defection".
> >
> > No. You can't.
> > She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
> > Big mistake.
>
> Yes, as well as others.....some of which remained silent.
>

Anyone you can name?

>
> >
> > I'm not saying the USG wanted to screw Oswald - only that it maintained
> > plausible denial that Lee was under US control while in the USSR by
> > recording a "hardship" discharge.
>
> The whole point.....as far as the public was concerned he was recently
> discharged. That's all that would be presented.
>

Public concern is only a concern if Lee stands before the Soviet cameras and
pulls a Francis Gary Powers and admits he's an "Active" military agent for
the US.


> >
> > It was Lee's mother that got him screwed by Hoover with the USMC.
>
> The USMC was covered.....they had PD. The public never considered
> the EOP as "The Beast" until after Watergate.
>

The "hardship" discharge is PD for the USMC. They can deny he's an "Active"
military agent and produce the discharge records showing him "Inactive" and
that Lee is lying.

>
> > > > I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
> > > > discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If
Lee
> > > > ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
> > > > discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11,
1959.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have Lee thinking things that mean nothing if he is "Active" on a
new
> > > assignment.
> >
> > I have him thinking about Patrice Lumumba University as if he is
"Active".
> > You have him avoiding the Kollective's political brainwashing sessions
as if
> > he is "Active"
> > Do these things mean nothing if he is "Active"?
>
> He is just maintaining his actions within the law......tricky situation
staying in
> the USSR.

And then come back.

We do agree that he was maintaining his actions within the (passport) law
for reservists?

> It would be ok......(without the actions of the assassination to
> consider, say it never happened) for people or groups to "think" he got
> training in the USSR......or was a "student" of Marxism while
there.......but
> he never actually did those things "expected" or just accepted.

But he tried.

> >
> >
> > > If he was acting on his own, outside of the system all this
> > > thinking is immaterial and not needed to consider.
> > >
> >
> > Does not a "hardship" discharge support an LN argument that he was
"acting
> > on his own, outside of the system"?
> >
>
> Not as they show Lee.......it requires a much more detailed profile. One
they
> can't support.
>

Do the passport laws prohibiting overseas employment also apply to Inactive
reservists?

>
>
> > > > See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have
hidden
> > > > from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
> > > > discharge.
> > >
> > > There is no need to hide anything from Lee......
> >
> > If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
> > Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?
>
> See above........
>

I looked above and can't find a difference between Lee telling her one or
the other.


> >
> > Because, if the USMC doesn't want Lee telling others he has a "hardship"
> > discharge, the simplest way to accomplish this would be to tell Lee he
has a
> > "dependency" discharge - As the records show he was shown on 9/11/59. He
> > will now tell Priscilla Johnson he has a "dependency" discharge - which
he
> > did.
>
> Consider how hard it is to create a "discharge" of a invididual not in the
USMC.
> The time spent in association with the USMC is only a cover.......for
purposes
> of training and select objectives requiring him to be "in service" as part
of that
> training. NOBODY wants "hardship" to be part of the equation.....but it
is. Which
> is why he would not tell her everything or even the truth.

We are coming closer together. If Lee is USMCR - and is obligated to 6 years
duty (a guess my part) then the USMC must discharge him back into the USMCR
to finish his remaining 3 years of "Active" USMCR duty. So Lee's discharge
files go to the USMCR Active Reserve. If not, if Lee had received a USMC
discharge, after three years of "active" duty, he would be discharged as
Inactive - which would be incorrect.

Lee now applies for his passport as an Active USMCR Reservist with three
years remaining. With this attached to his passport he seeks to attend a
Soviet institution.

Now where am I wrong?

Because, if I'm not wrong, you need to explain why Ayers changed his
discharge to Inactive on 9/12/59?

Because now it's wrong.




>
> >
> > Lee will also believe he is "Active" and apply to Patrice Lumumba
> > University - just as he applied to ASC. He will also avoid politcal
meetings
> > in the USSR.
> >
>
> He does not have to believe he is active USMCR.....he's not.

He's not if one who signs up for he USMCR is only obligated for three years.
Are they?

I'm betting a USMCR enlistee has the same total duty obligation as a
volunteer (3 years active, 3 years inactive = 6 years) or a draftee (2 years
active, 2 years active reserve, 2 years inactive reserve = 6 years) or 6
years. I'm betting this is right. I just don't know if the 6 years is 6
years of Active Reserve or three years Active Reserve plus 3 years Inactive
Reserve.

Do you know?

>...he's a member
> of the NSTC

He can be a member of both the NSTC and the USMCR. We know he signed up for
the latter, probably in order to receive training for the former.

>which used the USMCR, on assignment.....he is ACTIVE as a
> NSTC member

That depends. How long is one Active in the NSTC if training in the USMC
counts towards his NSTC duty time?

>......no longer in training but "in the field". The use of the USMCR
> by the NSTC was a project that the USMC did not like....but other branches
were
> being used in the same manner.
>
> >
> > >if you feel Lee is acting on his
> > > own, you have to take a new approach to all the considerations
mentioned.
> > You
> > > can't combine them.......they have to be considered seperate.
> >
> > I have Lee believing he is "Active" and, therefore not acting on his
own, but
> > subject to USG control.
> >
> > For lurkers, on September 11, 1959, Lee was given an "Active" discharge,
> > meaning he was subject to recall to active duty. This places
restrictions on
> > his living overseas. It required he go overseas for "educational
purposes"
> > for him to legally obtain a passport. For this reason he applied to
attend
> > Switzerland's Albert Schweitzer College which accepted him. This got
Lee to
> > Europe and then to Russia. But, once in Russia, without attending
school, he
> > was guilty of violating the law against "Active" Reservists living
overseas
> > (where they are beyond recall during times of national emergency). To
> > correct that, in applying for Soviet citizenship, Lee identified to
> > Priscilla Johnson that the Russians were to help him attend a "Soviet
> > education institute". This would make Lee's stay in the USSR legal (For
> > CTer's, Lee needed to make this request only if he was planning on
coming
> > back.). He also told Priscilla he was an "Active" Reservist. Once he got
> > inside the USSR he applied to Patrice Lumumba University and was "very
> > disappointed" when he was turned down. Why? Because he was now in
violation
> > of laws applicable to "Active" Reservists requiring he be living in the
USSR
> > for educational purposes (Which he could legally do) and not for
employment
> > purposes.
> > Did he know this?
> > He sure did. He even wrote it down. His answers to the following written
> > questions can be found in Warren Commission Exhibit 100 Volume 16 Pg
> > 436-439:
> >
> > Question 3: "Did you break law by residing in or taking work in the
USSR?"
> >
> > Answer: I did in that.
> >
> > Lee admitted above that he broke the law, as an "Active" Reservist, by
> > residing in the USSR and taking work there.
> >
> > He even added to his knowledge of the law:
> >
> > Question 4. "Isn't all work in the USSR considered State work?"
> >
> > Answer: Yes of course and in that respect I also broke US Law in
accepting
> > work under a foreign state.
> >
> > Lee is referring to Title 37, section 908, which makes it illegal for
> > members of a reserve component of the armed forces to take foreign civil
> > employment. Since the USSR was a communist state, all employment there
could
> > be considered "civil".
> >
> > So we see two things. First, we see that Lee left a "door open" for
himself
> > to return to the US with a plan to legally stay in the USSR by attending
> > school there. Second, we see he is familar with the laws pertaining to
> > "Active" Reservists and that he had violated them.
> >
> > The problem though is that Lee was not "Active". The day after he left
the
> > USMC, on Sept 12, 1959, Lt. Ayers changed his discharge to "Inactive".
He
> > was no longer subject to recall to active duty. The above passport laws
no
> > longer applied to Oswald.
> >
> > IMO, based upon Lee's actions concerning the "Active Reserve" laws, Lee
was
> > unaware that, the day after he exited the USMC, his discharge status had
> > been changed by Ayers to "Inactive".
> >
> > Lee was worried about nothing.
>
> Lee was not worried.....you have him being worried.

Trying to go to a Soviet sc