Tuesday, August 22, 2006

JFK's assassination: Zionist state's nuclear weapons

Letter To Chief Justice Rehnquist
From Stephen M. St. John
2-10-5

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543

January 31, 2005

Dear Chief Justice Rehnquist,

I write to you as a concerned citizen of the United States who is a Federal employee under oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am asking you to focus on a very grave matter fraught with serious implications touching on the conduct of former President George Herbert Walker Bush. Primary documentary evidence, as set forth below and in attachments to this letter, shows that George H. W. Bush was in Dallas, Texas on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that on the next day he served as a conduit of disinformation so as to promote a misleading public perception of the person accused of the crime, Lee Harvey Oswald.

My doubts about former President Bush emanate from careful consideration of two memos of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one written by the Director John Edgar Hoover and dated 29 November 1963, and the other by Special Agent Graham W. Kitchel and dated 22 November 1963, the very day of the JFK assassination. (I became aware of the Hoover memo in 1990 and obtained a copy of it directly from FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC on a visit there in June of 1991. This Hoover memo was published the same year in Mark Lane's Plausible Denial and a year later in Robert Morrow's Firsthand Knowledge. I became aware of the Kitchel memo in 2003 and that same year obtained a copy of it by mail from the National Archives. The Kitchel memo is not as well known to researchers as the Hoover memo and as far as I know it has never been published.)

As I will explain below, the Hoover and Kitchel memos help interpret each other. Perhaps by coincidence only and certainly unbeknownst to me at the time, the Kitchel memo was declassified on 15 October 1993, exactly two days after I had hand-delivered complaints of judicial misconduct (93-8533 and 93-8534), which are relevant to the topic of this letter, to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, according to provisions set forth in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C.372(c)). Whatever the case, the Kitchel memo establishes George H. W. Bush's whereabouts in Dallas the day Kennedy died and the next day, 23 November 1963, the day before the assassination of the accused, Lee Harvey Oswald.

After perusal of the Kitchel memo (see attached) obvious questions arise, which I believe explain why this memo remained hidden from certain investigators for three decades and from me for four decades. Why did George H. W. Bush wait until after JFK was pronounced dead to inform on a Houston resident who allegedly was making threats against the president? Why did Bush wait a day, until after JFK had visited Houston on 21 November, to pass this information to the FBI? Why did Bush withhold potentially useful information known to him for weeks before JFK's trip to Texas and then reveal it to the FBI when it was too late to act upon? Why did Bush fail to give a timely warning? Will George H. W. Bush take the answers to these questions to the grave? I hope not!

Bearing in mind that the Kitchel memo reveals Bush's need for confidentiality with respect to his untimely reporting of hearsay from a "source unknown" as well as his advice to the FBI to contact his colleagues at the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters for further information, I have concluded that Bush was establishing in his telephone contact with Kitchel a pretext for being in Dallas on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1963 so as to disguise a purpose entirely different than simply giving what we now know with benefit of hindsight to be useless information. That entirely different purpose is revealed in the Hoover memo (see attached).

Written on 29 November 1963, one week after the JFK assassination and on the very day of the establishment of the Warren Commission by executive order, the Hoover memo ostensibly concerns itself with the reaction of the Cuban community in south Florida to the events of the previous week in Dallas. Implicit in Hoover's words is the understanding that Oswald's pro-Castro public persona could potentially cause dangerous international ramifications with Cuba or Cuba's sponsor, the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

But let us delve into the matter of Oswald's pro-Castro public persona, which had the potential of not only setting off a nuclear war of mutually assured destruction, but also, as an inviting alternative according to the logic that prevailed at the time, of letting one man, taken from prison and from judgment, die so that others may live. This pro-Castro public persona of Oswald was established at a press conference inside the Dallas Police Headquarters on the night of 22 November when Jack Ruby, who later shot and killed Oswald on 24 November, corrected Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade's assertion that Oswald was with the anti-Castro "Free Cuba" movement by telling him before assembled reporters from around the world that Oswald was with the pro-Castro "Fair Play for Cuba" movement, which Wade instantly accepted as though in deference to a higher authority. (Ruby's correction of Wade's statement was recorded by news organizations and Ruby later recollected the event under direct questioning by Chief Justice Earl Warren on 7 June 1964 during a deposition taken in Dallas as per The Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 5, page 189.) Thus this supposed "two bit gangster and minor trafficker in women and narcotics" established Oswald's pro-Castro public persona as accepted fact even though official investigations were barely under way that night and the mandate of the Warren Commission was still six days into the future. Such is the provenance of Oswald's pro-Castro public persona.

Later, in 1968, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison established that Oswald worked with anti-Castro groups within the intelligence community in New Orleans where he was "sheep-dipped" to take on the guise of a pro-Castro agitator. Hence the false and misleading characterization of Oswald as pro-Castro, which was all too readily made available to the news media soon after his arrest. Oswald insisted all along that he was a "patsy"; i.e., a person who is easily manipulated or victimized. Oswald said "I never killed anybody" but never exercised his basic civil right to defend himself against false accusations in a court of law.

And so the day before Jack Ruby killed Oswald, when the airwaves were pulsing with Jack Ruby's pro-Castro spin on Oswald, United States Government officials had already essentially ratified Oswald's pro-Castro public persona by monitoring the Cuban exile community in south Florida for possible untoward reactions in the aftermath of the JFK assassination and reporting back their somewhat reassuring findings, which are memorialized in Hoover's memo, which concludes: "The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau."

George H. W. Bush, not by his phone in his Houston office on 23 November 1963, was nevertheless readily available by phone or by personal visit because he had told Graham Kitchel that he would be staying at the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel on 22 and 23 November.

As the Hoover memo demonstrates, not only did the FBI know how to contact George H. W. Bush on the road, but the exchange of information between Mr. W. T. Forsyth and George H. W. Bush certainly had nothing to do with the ostensible reason for Bush's contact with the FBI the previous day; namely, a college student in Houston who according to sources unknown was shooting off his mouth about JFK in the weeks prior to JFK's visit to Texas. This exchange of information was all about everybody getting the story straight. Hoover, it seems, wanted everybody reading in unison from the same page; namely, the pro-Castro portrayal of Oswald as spun by Jack Ruby. But did Hoover treat George H. W. Bush as a person with a need to know, or was it the other way around?

Chief Justice Rehnquist, at the start of this letter I asked you to focus on a very grave matter touching on the conduct of former president George H. W. Bush. I thank you for having read thus far. But now I would like to ask you to use your power as the highest judicial officer in these United States to investigate this matter with a view toward the administration of justice, the confirmation of historical truth, and the exercise of accountability on the part of a public servant.

To conclude, I also wish to go briefly into two areas of the JFK assassination which are not common knowledge but are nevertheless necessary to consider in order to reach sound conclusions.

In this day and age when weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are a big concern, a reopening of the JFK assassination investigation would be quite apt for the times. Let me explain. Elected in 1960, by 1961 JFK was locked in a bitter behind-the -scenes struggle with the Zionist state's Prime Minister David Ben Gurion over the Zionist state's nuclear weapons program that had been started at Dimona in the Negev in 1956. This fact was brought to light more than three decades later, in 1991, with the publication of Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option, in chapter eight, "A Presidential Struggle." JFK wanted to end the Zionist state's nuclear weapons program because he foresaw that such a program would only result in a regional arms race for countervailing weapons of mass destruction. This very wise policy ended with his assassination, which enabled the Zionists to prevail in their determination to maintain the threat of nuclear weapons capability.

However, the cui bono test has never been applied to the Zionist state in any official investigation of the JFK assassination. But a highly intelligent and patriotically motivated researcher by the name of Michael Collins Piper has applied the cui bono? test to the Zionist state and the international web of conspiracy which he describes in detail in his book, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, is indeed quite startling. Michael Collins Piper has shined a light in some rather dark places. In the name of peace and justice, I implore you, Chief Justice Rehnquist, to look at his work which I believe you will find compelling, for it may well be that deeply rooted treason and corruption have prevented a truly just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a region from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers free from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. (Piper's Final Judgment may be obtained at 888 699 6397.)

Finally, I note that the Talmudic law of the moser, or the law of the Jewish informer, is essentially a covenant prohibiting a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew, which is diametrically opposed to the adversarial process of our own legal system and therefore conducive toward obstruction of justice. Furthermore, among employees at all levels in our intelligence and law enforcement communities, the law of the moser constitutes an impediment to frank and uninhibited exchanges of information in the discharge of their duties and therefore poses a threat to our national security. I cannot overemphasize the great importance of this very real issue of the law of the moser, or law of the Jewish informer, the history of which you can read online at www.JewishEncyclopedia.com.

In my complaint of judicial misconduct docketed under Miscellaneous Number 01-0030 on 1 June 2001 by the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, I cite a living rabbi's more recent (1997) published article promulgating the law of the moser or law of the Jewish informer. Again, this is a very real issue, not unlike the Mafioso code of omerta. The Warren Commission was oblivious to it. So was the 9/11 Commission. We continue to ignore this issue at our national peril. Let us address in a forthright manner this issue of the Talmudic law of the moser or law of the Jewish informer and its legal, national security and foreign policy implications.

Very truly yours,

Stephen M. St. John

Copy to: Associate Justice John Paul Stevens
Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Associate Justice David Hackett Souter
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Michael Collins Piper
Et al.