On JFK secrecy, Brett Kavanaugh sides with the CIA

 

kavanaugh trump

Brett Kavanaugh, the future of justice?

The D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Monday that the CIA does not have to pay my court costs incurred in the long-running FOIA lawsuit Morley v. CIA. The split decision was joined by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was nominated by President Trump later that day to serve on the the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh’s opinion disparaged my reporting and vouched for the very “reasonable” actions of the CIA.” ( The word appears 23 times in the decision; “reasonably,” and unreasonably,” another 23 times.) It is reasonable to conclude that Kavanaugh is deferential to the CIA.

About the information I obtained via litigation, the unsigned opinion said, “the public benefit was small.” The decision made no reference to extensive coverage of Morley v . CIA in the New York Times, Fox News, San Diego Union, St. Paul Pioneer Press, CBS News in Dallas, and the New Yorker, among many other news organizations. It is not surprising that the CIA denies any “public benefit” to a closer look at some of its shadier JFK secrets. But does the DC Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land, deny it too?

Judge Karen Henderson

Judge Karen Henderson, Kavanaugh critic

No. A strong dissent by Judge Karen Henderson takes a much more balanced and independent view of the case, in my view. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Henderson points out that the court had previously found that I had met the standard of “public benefit” established in case law.

In a 2013 decision the court stated.

Morley’s request had potential public value. He has proffered—and the CIA has not disputed— that Joannides served as the CIA case officer for a Cuban group, the DRE, with whose officers Oswald was in contact prior to the assassination. Travel records showing a very close match between Joannides’s and Oswald’s times in New Orleans might, for example, have (marginally) supported one of the hypotheses swirling around the assassination. In addition, this court has previously determined that Morley’s request sought information “central” to an intelligence committee’s inquiry into the performance of the CIA and other federal agencies in investigating the assassination. Under these circumstances, there was at least a modest probability that Morley’s request would generate information relevant to the assassination or later investigations.

Henderson concludes:

In sum, I believe the district court erred on two levels: it erred in evaluating each of the four factors individually and abused its discretion in weighing them against one another. Accordingly, this case does not call for “[d]eference piled on deference.” Maj. Op. 11. It calls for an adherence to Davy IV and our four earlier Morley opinions. Because I believe the district court ignored our mandate and misapplied our precedent, I would vacate the district court order a fifth time and remand with instructions to award Morley the attorney’s fees to which he is entitled.

Unfortunately, the majority, meaning Kavanaugh and Trump appointee Judge Gregory Katsas, disagreed. I have 45 days to appeal.

 

12 comments

  1. Darin says:

    Kavanaughs job is to protect the corporate-military-industrial-spy complex and he knows it.

  2. RonnieWayne says:

    Thanks once again Jeff for fighting the good fight along with Mr. Lesear. It reminds me of JFK himself, you are doing what he asked when he said “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” You and those who help you are True Patriots. It also reminds me of JFK, Robert Frost, Miles to go before I sleep… through the dark woods…
    I can’t believe, well, yes I can, that the current president nominated Kavanaugh to the supreme court. If he can’t get this right We the People don’t need him there.

  3. Patrick Morley says:

    Isn’t Kavanaugh supposed to have a thing about government agency “over reach” and defers to the law as it is written? Isn’t the CIA one such agency? And isn’t he supposed to be such a great judge because he doesn’t waiver and is the paramount of consistency?

  4. William Davy says:

    I see Judge Henderson rightly cited my case as precedent (I believe she wrote the majority opinion) that as long as you have “substantially prevailed ” in your original case you are entitled to attorneys fees. We won that case 2-1. It might have been Cavanaugh that was the lone dissenter, but I think it was another Bush appointee. Been too many years.

  5. Benjamin Cole says:

    Egads. I had no opinion on Kavanaugh. But now….

  6. Bogman says:

    Gee, I wonder if the court realizes just how long and at a higher level the CIA has been dissembling with regards to the DRE. After more than 5 decades, there are hiding something incredibly embarrassing.

  7. […] JFK Facts reports Kavanaugh sided with the CIA—included on the list of suspects accused of murdering the president—making sure you never find out what the government is keeping secret about the assassination.  […]

  8. […] JFK Facts reports Kavanaugh sided with the CIA—included on the list of suspects accused of murdering the president—making sure you never find out what the government is keeping secret about the assassination.  […]

  9. John says:

    Sorry to hear about the result of the case, Jeff. Like everyone else said thank you for the great work you are doing for everyone in our country. You are a hero to me and lots of other people. I can’t believe this ruling. It’s ludicrous.

  10. […] JFK Facts reports Kavanaugh sided with the CIA—included on the list of suspects accused of murdering the president—making sure you never find out what the government is keeping secret about the assassination.  […]

  11. […] JFK Facts reports Kavanaugh sided with the CIA—included on the list of suspects accused of murdering the president—making sure you never find out what the government is keeping secret about the assassination.  […]

  12. […] Kavanaugh has also demonstrated a corrupt complacency about mass, warrantless surveillance and a completely mistaken, unlimited-state-favoring notion of the meaning of “reasonable” and “unreasonable” in the context of the Fourth Amendment. On the other hand Kavanaugh appears to be OK with the government keeping secrets from the people, and without defensible grounds– in this case backing the continued CIA withholding of documents related to the assassination of JFK…. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.