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.
The following two sections A & B show verbatim reproductions of the texts of the
29 November 1963 Hoover memo and the 22 November 1963 Kitchel memo. Any reader may obtain free copies of the originals
by requesting them with either a stamped self-addressed envelope (postage sufficient for carrying three pages) or a fax number
for anywhere in the USA Canada. Direct requests to: Stephen M. St. John, Post Office Box 449, New York, NY, 10185
or by phone or fax to 212 534 5024 or by e-mail to metatron.metatron@verizon.net. The original copies show time stamps, routing designations, declassification
stamps, signatures, handwritten initials and the like, whereas the verbatim reproductions that follow show only the
text. [Copies of the originals were attached to letter mailed to Chief Justice Rehnquist. Click here to view scanned copies of the originals.]
A ***Verbatim Reproduction of 29 November 1963
Hoover FBI Memo***
Date:
November 29, 1963
To:
Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
From:
John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: ASSASSINATION
OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY NOVEMBER 22, 1963
Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963,
advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided
anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that
the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.
Our sources and
informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community
is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba,
the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America.
These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.
An informant who has furnished reliable information in the
past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination
of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings,
regret the assassination.
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.
B ***Verbatim
Reproduction of 22 November 1963 Kitchel FBI Memo***
TO:
SAC, HOUSTON
DATE: 11-22-63
FROM: SA GRAHAM
W. KITCHEL
SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION
OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY
At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar,
Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.
BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks,
the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes
to Houston.
BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University
of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU
2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish
additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.
BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence
on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.
