Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 23, 2018 9:15:53 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2663713.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/LEE-HARVEY-OSWALD.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was a “lone nut” when he killed John F. Kennedy (JFK). Being called a lone nut would lead one to believe he was a person who lived a solitary lifestyle and kept to himself. And yet, he was married with two children! How does this happen? Are you still a lone nut with a wife and two children? Wouldn’t the more correct term be “Head of the Household nut?” I would think so.
Anyway, there are so many ways to show LHO was more than a lone nut and this is but one of them. Frances G. Knight was the head of the Passport Office of the State Department. She would give testimony that would show LHO was no lone nut and that others were keeping an eye on him. Let’s look at some of her testimony.
****************************************
Mr. COLEMAN. What is your present position?
Miss KNIGHT. I am Director of the Passport Office in the Department of State.
Mr. COLEMAN. How long have you occupied that position?
Miss KNIGHT. Since May 1, 1955.
Mr. COLEMAN. Do you have any independent recollection of having ever looked at any files dealing with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the time of the assassination?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
This would not be correct however as the Commission then introduced CE-989 for her review. This document is from 12/28/61 and was sent by Miss Knight in regards to LHO’s current citizenship status. They then questioned her about this document.
Here is the document in question.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0278b.jpg
Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to mark as Commission Exhibit No. 989 a memorandum from Frances G. Knight to Mr. William O. Boswell which bears the date of December 26, 1961, and is found among the State Department file No. XI document No. 12 and ask you whether you have seen the original of that document? (Commission Exhibit No. 989 was received in evidence.)
Miss KNIGHT. Sir, you want to know whether I personally saw this before it went out?
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.
Miss KNIGHT. This is a little difficult to answer. There are a great many communications that go out over my name particularly a memo of this sort, which would be prepared in the Passport Office, and I would--I might sign it or if I were not in the office at the time my deputy might sign it for me.
But these communications usually go out over my name.
Mr. COLEMAN. Well, Miss Knight, does that document----
Miss KNIGHT. This one looks as though it was initialed by me because it has the type of a "K" that I make.
So we see by her admission of initialing this document she had to have seen it before it went out. True, it had been over two years before, but one would think when she was called to appear before the WC she would have done some research into anything she might have done pertaining to LHO. Right? I would think so, so why was she caught off guard with this? She would stick with the story of simply not remembering it prior to the assassination.
Mr. COLEMAN. You have no independent recollection of ever having seen that document prior to the assassination?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
They would then question her about her role in the citizenship status of LHO.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever participate or make any decision as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald lost his citizenship?
Miss KNIGHT. No.
Mr. COLEMAN. In 1959?
Miss KNIGHT. No.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever make any personal decision or participate in any decision as to whether he should be reissued a passport in July 1961?
Miss KNIGHT. No.
Mr. COLEMAN. I, therefore, take it you personally had nothing or you can't recall anything that you had to do with Lee Harvey Oswald up to the time of the assassination?
Miss KNIGHT. No; I had nothing to do with the papers that were involved at that time.
So this seems pretty cut and dried, right? And yet, the decision regarding LHO’s citizenship status came from her department, but she kept on making it sound like she would NOT be involved in this decision.
Mr. COLEMAN. But the decision that he had not renounced his citizenship was made in your department?
Miss KNIGHT. It was made in the Passport Office by the citizenship lawyers. The two persons who were primarily involved were members of the staff, of long-standing service and with a great deal of experience in citizenship law and in expatriation.
Mr. COLEMAN. Could you state the names, their names for the record?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes; Miss Bernice Waterman, and Mr. John T. White. Both of those employees have now retired from the Passport Office.
Mr. COLEMAN. You said both were lawyers?
Miss KNIGHT. Miss Waterman was not a lawyer but she worked directly under Mr. John T. White who was a lawyer in charge of the Foreign Operations Division.
Well, I for one find this odd as she was the HEAD of the department and I would think her signature would be needed at the very least. IF she was smart she would read anything before she signed it too. We have seen once where she initialed a document and forgot about it already, but let’s move along for now.
Mr. COLEMAN. Well, since the assassination of President Kennedy, have you had occasion to review the passport file.
Miss KNIGHT. Well, the first time that I actually had an opportunity to look through the passport file was last Saturday.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you get a chance to read each document in the file?
Miss KNIGHT. I read through the file; yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have occasion to form any judgment whether based upon the information that was in the file you would have reached the same decision as Waterman and White did with respect to Oswald?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes; I certainly did. From that standpoint, I did go through, the papers carefully. I am convinced that insofar as any expatriative act is concerned that we made the only decision that we could. The same decision was reached by the consul who interviewed Mr. Oswald in Moscow, at the Embassy, and I think, with all the facts on record, we had to come to the conclusion that Oswald did not perform any expatriative act.
So let me get this straight. Going to our country’s main enemy and saying you want to renounce your American citizenship and declaring you will give away TOP SECRET information to the said enemy country is NOT worthy of expatriation? What in the world would be then?
She would make some comments based on her recent reviewing of the LHO file.
Mr. COLEMAN. And by "file"' you mean the passport file?
Miss KNIGHT. The passport file of Lee. Harvey Oswald, I would say the handling of the case would break down into three separate actions: One, the adjudication of his citizenship; two, the documentation of his repatriation loan, and, three, the issuance of a passport to Oswald on June 25, 1963.
As I understand it, the Commission has been furnished with detailed information covering all these actions, and in addition we have supplied replies which were prepared in the Passport Office by our staff to the specific questions that were posed by the Commission.
My comments on the citizenship and expatriation phase of the Oswald case are these: Insofar as the Oswald citizenship status is concerned, it is my firm belief that Lee Harvey Oswald, despite his statement to the U.S. consul in Moscow, that he wished to divest himself of U.S. citizenship, did not do so.
At no time did he sign the required documents which were available to him for that purpose. Oswald was a 20-year-old ex- Marine, and the U.S. consul made it quite clear in his despatches to the Department, that Oswald was arrogant aggressive, and angry and unstable.
Just a quick note here. She says at no time did LHO, despite his statement, rescind his U.S. citizenship, but just a little while earlier she said they could have TAKEN IT AWAY for his acts. Isn’t that more the point here? Why didn’t they? For if they did, LHO could NOT have come back to the States (legally anyway) and be in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on 11/22/63.
I had not had the opportunity to read the file until last Saturday, because it was taken out of the Passport Office on November 23, 1963. However, I do not recall----
Mr. DULLES. By whom?
Miss KNIGHT. It was asked for and sent to the Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Mr. Abba Schwartz. I want to make a correction, on that date. It was on November 22 that the file was taken out of the Passport Office. Late at night, I believe.
Does anyone else find this odd? The LHO file was removed “late at night” on 11/22/63 after it was aked for. She uses the term “sent”, but who would have been there LATE AT NIGHT to “send it?” She then says this.
I do not recall that the file, the passport folder, contained any information that would tag Oswald as a U.S. Communist or a Communist sympathizer prior to his visit to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, and there is no record that he engaged in any public denunciation of the United States.
During the time Oswald's citizenship status was in question, that is from the time he had advised the U.S. consul in Moscow that he wished to renounce citizenship, to the time it was determined he had not committed an act, a period of almost 2 years, his file was flagged and according to our records: a lookout card was ordered for the lookout file.
On March 28, 1960, the Passport Office advised the U.S. Embassy in Moscow that "An appropriate notice has been placed in the look-out card section of the Passport Office in the event that Mr. Oswald should apply for documentation at a post outside the Soviet Union."
So despite claiming he was going to give away TOP SECRET information on our U-2 spy plane they did NOTHING in regards to his citizenship for TWO YEARS? Who determined that he did “not commit an act” anyway? The Russians are NOT known for telling us much, so it had to be an intelligence group that was determining this. Which one? Given this one nugget, how could anyone consider LHO to be a “lone nut” upon his return to the US?
I would think after someone defects to our country’s arch enemy and claims they will give away top secret information they could NEVER be a lone nut!
This document is CE 963. Conveniently for the conspirators this look-out card would be missing when LHO did apply to leave the U.S.S.R.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0186a.jpg
Mr. DULLES. Is it conceivable that the lookout card could have been removed in 1961 when his passport was extended to return to the United States? Under your procedure would that have been done?
Miss KNIGHT. Under our procedure when he was issued the passport that card would have been removed; yes. So that in 1961 there would not have been a card in the file.
Why was this look-out card removed? If you click the link I gave you and read the short memo you will NOT see anything regarding removing the card in 1961. Who made the decision to do this? She explains this for us.
Mr. COLEMAN. Even though the passport was issued specifically saying it was only good for return to the United States and only good for 1 month.
Miss KNIGHT. That is right. The passport was limited and could not be used beyond the time it was limited for.
Mr. DULLES. Would that have caused the card to be removed?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Issuance of that passport, even a limited passport would have resulted in the card being withdrawn?
Miss KNIGHT. The card would have been withdrawn at the time that his citizenship was adjudicated, and when it was found that he had not expatriated himself. The card which was put in the file related only to his citizenship status.
This still doesn’t explain why LHO was given a passport so easily when he defected to our arch enemy, now does it? Also, note how active Allen Dulles is in this part of the questioning. Was he covering for his former agency (CIA)?
She would give a very long answer as to why LHO was granted this passport to leave the U.S.S.R., but here is the main point.
Miss KNIGHT. Well, that would be possible, I think; yes.
The experienced citizenship attorneys in the Passport Office, as well as the U.S. consul in Moscow determined individually that Oswald had not expatriated himself. His passport was renewed in May 1962, and limited for return to the United States.
In the adjudication of his citizenship, we can only deal with the facts on record. The fact is that Oswald did not avail himself of the prescribed procedure to renounce his U.S. nationality.
But, as she said before, his citizenship could have been TAKEN AWAY from him and it was NOT. Why? Who determined what he did was NOT worthy of losing his US citizenship? What did you have to do to have your citizenship taken away?
She claimed he never took action to formalize his loss of citizenship or took citizenship of the U.S.S.R., but if one goes and does a simple search they can find the grounds for losing their citizenship. I will only list the ones that LHO did, and put a link if you want to read more.
Quote on
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
- taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
Administrative Standard of Evidence
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.
travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481
Quote off
Doesn’t the official story say that LHO formally renounced his U.S. citizenship before members of the U.S. Embassy? Doesn’t it also say he made a formal declaration of allegiance to the Soviet Union? Wasn’t he over 18? I think so, and yet, Ms. Knight says they saw NO reason to take his citizenship away. Why?
To me there is ONLY one reason, he was working for the country’s intelligence and this is why he was NOT punished with the loss of his U.S. citizenship. There is NO other explanation.
The WC would claim LHO was a Communist when there is NO record or evidence of this in their 26 volumes of evidence. Here we see another example in CE 951.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0167a.jpg
Mr. COLEMAN. Would you look at category K, and I would like to ask you whether the information which was in the file on Mr. Oswald, including the FBI reports, which were in the file of June 1963, should have caused Oswald to be put in category K?
Miss KNIGHT. No; I don't think so.
Mr. DULLES. Could you read category K?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes; certainly. "K" is "Known or suspected Communist or subversive". And "does not include those falling within categories O and P".
So LHO was NOT listed as a Communist in this document. These documents are prepared for the FBI too. LHO was believed NOT to be a Communist by the FBI.
Representative FORD. May I ask a question first, what is the criteria for the determination as to whether or not a person is a Communist?
Miss KNIGHT. Well, the criteria are based on the information that we get from the investigative agencies regarding his activities and membership in the Communist Party.
You WC defenders still NOT convinced? Read this then.
Senator COOPER. Yes. Now, Representative Ford and Mr. Dulles have gone into this, as well as counsel, but I would like to pursue it just a little bit.
Section 51.135, entitled "Denial of passports to members of Communist organizations," states, "A passport shall not be issued to, or renewed for, any individual who the issuing officer knows or has reason to believe is a member of a Communist organization registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, as amended."
Was there any evidence in the files of Lee Harvey Oswald which could give to the issuing officer either the knowledge that he was a member of a Communist organization or such evidence as would lead the issuing officer to believe that he was?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
Senator COOPER. Why do you say that?
Miss KNIGHT. Because, there was nothing in the passport file or in the reports that we received from investigative agencies that would indicate that he had any Communist leanings or any Communist affiliations prior to his sojourn in the Soviet Union.
Senator COOPER. There wasn't anything in his file from the reports of the State Department concerning his defection to Russia and his return which indicated that he was a member of the Communist Party?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
Senator COOPER. Or a Communist organization?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
Try as they might, they could NOT make LHO a Communist, but they would keep on calling him one!
Senator COOPER. The point I am making is, am I correct or are you correct, when you say at the time Oswald's passport was either issued or renewed to make the trip to Mexico City, that there was no evidence in his files of any kind which would indicate that he was a member of a Communist organization?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; there was nothing in the file.
Strike Three! You’re out. Now for the really good part. Why was the FBI reviewing his file regularly when he was just a “lone nut?”
Representative FORD. That may be true, and I might agree with you, but we can only deal with the specific case, and it concerns me that this information which was made available, somehow didn't get some attention in the Passport Division.
Miss KNIGHT. I think my answer to that is that there was attention given to it but there was no action that could be taken on it.
The fact that we gave attention to it is beside the point.
If we had had a lookout card in the file, and under different circumstances, there may have been some reason for seeking further information. I do know that the FBI was reviewing his file at regular intervals, and I think the file shows that.
To get the full import of our action one would have to read the security files and the records of certain individuals to whom we have been forced to give passports, and put them beside the Oswald file. The comparison would be very interesting.
So the FBI was reviewing his file at “regular intervals” and the file itself “shows this”, huh? IF we add in the FBI case officers LHO did have (i.e. Hosty, et. al.) and this fact, how in the world can anyone call LHO a “lone nut?” Aren’t lone nuts below the radar? I would think so.
Obviously, he was anything but as some agency, or agencies, looked after him quite well until 11/22/63.
We again see evidence that calls into doubt the claims of the WC, therefore, their conclusion is sunk again.
i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2663713.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/LEE-HARVEY-OSWALD.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was a “lone nut” when he killed John F. Kennedy (JFK). Being called a lone nut would lead one to believe he was a person who lived a solitary lifestyle and kept to himself. And yet, he was married with two children! How does this happen? Are you still a lone nut with a wife and two children? Wouldn’t the more correct term be “Head of the Household nut?” I would think so.
Anyway, there are so many ways to show LHO was more than a lone nut and this is but one of them. Frances G. Knight was the head of the Passport Office of the State Department. She would give testimony that would show LHO was no lone nut and that others were keeping an eye on him. Let’s look at some of her testimony.
****************************************
Mr. COLEMAN. What is your present position?
Miss KNIGHT. I am Director of the Passport Office in the Department of State.
Mr. COLEMAN. How long have you occupied that position?
Miss KNIGHT. Since May 1, 1955.
Mr. COLEMAN. Do you have any independent recollection of having ever looked at any files dealing with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the time of the assassination?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
This would not be correct however as the Commission then introduced CE-989 for her review. This document is from 12/28/61 and was sent by Miss Knight in regards to LHO’s current citizenship status. They then questioned her about this document.
Here is the document in question.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0278b.jpg
Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to mark as Commission Exhibit No. 989 a memorandum from Frances G. Knight to Mr. William O. Boswell which bears the date of December 26, 1961, and is found among the State Department file No. XI document No. 12 and ask you whether you have seen the original of that document? (Commission Exhibit No. 989 was received in evidence.)
Miss KNIGHT. Sir, you want to know whether I personally saw this before it went out?
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.
Miss KNIGHT. This is a little difficult to answer. There are a great many communications that go out over my name particularly a memo of this sort, which would be prepared in the Passport Office, and I would--I might sign it or if I were not in the office at the time my deputy might sign it for me.
But these communications usually go out over my name.
Mr. COLEMAN. Well, Miss Knight, does that document----
Miss KNIGHT. This one looks as though it was initialed by me because it has the type of a "K" that I make.
So we see by her admission of initialing this document she had to have seen it before it went out. True, it had been over two years before, but one would think when she was called to appear before the WC she would have done some research into anything she might have done pertaining to LHO. Right? I would think so, so why was she caught off guard with this? She would stick with the story of simply not remembering it prior to the assassination.
Mr. COLEMAN. You have no independent recollection of ever having seen that document prior to the assassination?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
They would then question her about her role in the citizenship status of LHO.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever participate or make any decision as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald lost his citizenship?
Miss KNIGHT. No.
Mr. COLEMAN. In 1959?
Miss KNIGHT. No.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever make any personal decision or participate in any decision as to whether he should be reissued a passport in July 1961?
Miss KNIGHT. No.
Mr. COLEMAN. I, therefore, take it you personally had nothing or you can't recall anything that you had to do with Lee Harvey Oswald up to the time of the assassination?
Miss KNIGHT. No; I had nothing to do with the papers that were involved at that time.
So this seems pretty cut and dried, right? And yet, the decision regarding LHO’s citizenship status came from her department, but she kept on making it sound like she would NOT be involved in this decision.
Mr. COLEMAN. But the decision that he had not renounced his citizenship was made in your department?
Miss KNIGHT. It was made in the Passport Office by the citizenship lawyers. The two persons who were primarily involved were members of the staff, of long-standing service and with a great deal of experience in citizenship law and in expatriation.
Mr. COLEMAN. Could you state the names, their names for the record?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes; Miss Bernice Waterman, and Mr. John T. White. Both of those employees have now retired from the Passport Office.
Mr. COLEMAN. You said both were lawyers?
Miss KNIGHT. Miss Waterman was not a lawyer but she worked directly under Mr. John T. White who was a lawyer in charge of the Foreign Operations Division.
Well, I for one find this odd as she was the HEAD of the department and I would think her signature would be needed at the very least. IF she was smart she would read anything before she signed it too. We have seen once where she initialed a document and forgot about it already, but let’s move along for now.
Mr. COLEMAN. Well, since the assassination of President Kennedy, have you had occasion to review the passport file.
Miss KNIGHT. Well, the first time that I actually had an opportunity to look through the passport file was last Saturday.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you get a chance to read each document in the file?
Miss KNIGHT. I read through the file; yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have occasion to form any judgment whether based upon the information that was in the file you would have reached the same decision as Waterman and White did with respect to Oswald?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes; I certainly did. From that standpoint, I did go through, the papers carefully. I am convinced that insofar as any expatriative act is concerned that we made the only decision that we could. The same decision was reached by the consul who interviewed Mr. Oswald in Moscow, at the Embassy, and I think, with all the facts on record, we had to come to the conclusion that Oswald did not perform any expatriative act.
So let me get this straight. Going to our country’s main enemy and saying you want to renounce your American citizenship and declaring you will give away TOP SECRET information to the said enemy country is NOT worthy of expatriation? What in the world would be then?
She would make some comments based on her recent reviewing of the LHO file.
Mr. COLEMAN. And by "file"' you mean the passport file?
Miss KNIGHT. The passport file of Lee. Harvey Oswald, I would say the handling of the case would break down into three separate actions: One, the adjudication of his citizenship; two, the documentation of his repatriation loan, and, three, the issuance of a passport to Oswald on June 25, 1963.
As I understand it, the Commission has been furnished with detailed information covering all these actions, and in addition we have supplied replies which were prepared in the Passport Office by our staff to the specific questions that were posed by the Commission.
My comments on the citizenship and expatriation phase of the Oswald case are these: Insofar as the Oswald citizenship status is concerned, it is my firm belief that Lee Harvey Oswald, despite his statement to the U.S. consul in Moscow, that he wished to divest himself of U.S. citizenship, did not do so.
At no time did he sign the required documents which were available to him for that purpose. Oswald was a 20-year-old ex- Marine, and the U.S. consul made it quite clear in his despatches to the Department, that Oswald was arrogant aggressive, and angry and unstable.
Just a quick note here. She says at no time did LHO, despite his statement, rescind his U.S. citizenship, but just a little while earlier she said they could have TAKEN IT AWAY for his acts. Isn’t that more the point here? Why didn’t they? For if they did, LHO could NOT have come back to the States (legally anyway) and be in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on 11/22/63.
I had not had the opportunity to read the file until last Saturday, because it was taken out of the Passport Office on November 23, 1963. However, I do not recall----
Mr. DULLES. By whom?
Miss KNIGHT. It was asked for and sent to the Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Mr. Abba Schwartz. I want to make a correction, on that date. It was on November 22 that the file was taken out of the Passport Office. Late at night, I believe.
Does anyone else find this odd? The LHO file was removed “late at night” on 11/22/63 after it was aked for. She uses the term “sent”, but who would have been there LATE AT NIGHT to “send it?” She then says this.
I do not recall that the file, the passport folder, contained any information that would tag Oswald as a U.S. Communist or a Communist sympathizer prior to his visit to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, and there is no record that he engaged in any public denunciation of the United States.
During the time Oswald's citizenship status was in question, that is from the time he had advised the U.S. consul in Moscow that he wished to renounce citizenship, to the time it was determined he had not committed an act, a period of almost 2 years, his file was flagged and according to our records: a lookout card was ordered for the lookout file.
On March 28, 1960, the Passport Office advised the U.S. Embassy in Moscow that "An appropriate notice has been placed in the look-out card section of the Passport Office in the event that Mr. Oswald should apply for documentation at a post outside the Soviet Union."
So despite claiming he was going to give away TOP SECRET information on our U-2 spy plane they did NOTHING in regards to his citizenship for TWO YEARS? Who determined that he did “not commit an act” anyway? The Russians are NOT known for telling us much, so it had to be an intelligence group that was determining this. Which one? Given this one nugget, how could anyone consider LHO to be a “lone nut” upon his return to the US?
I would think after someone defects to our country’s arch enemy and claims they will give away top secret information they could NEVER be a lone nut!
This document is CE 963. Conveniently for the conspirators this look-out card would be missing when LHO did apply to leave the U.S.S.R.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0186a.jpg
Mr. DULLES. Is it conceivable that the lookout card could have been removed in 1961 when his passport was extended to return to the United States? Under your procedure would that have been done?
Miss KNIGHT. Under our procedure when he was issued the passport that card would have been removed; yes. So that in 1961 there would not have been a card in the file.
Why was this look-out card removed? If you click the link I gave you and read the short memo you will NOT see anything regarding removing the card in 1961. Who made the decision to do this? She explains this for us.
Mr. COLEMAN. Even though the passport was issued specifically saying it was only good for return to the United States and only good for 1 month.
Miss KNIGHT. That is right. The passport was limited and could not be used beyond the time it was limited for.
Mr. DULLES. Would that have caused the card to be removed?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Issuance of that passport, even a limited passport would have resulted in the card being withdrawn?
Miss KNIGHT. The card would have been withdrawn at the time that his citizenship was adjudicated, and when it was found that he had not expatriated himself. The card which was put in the file related only to his citizenship status.
This still doesn’t explain why LHO was given a passport so easily when he defected to our arch enemy, now does it? Also, note how active Allen Dulles is in this part of the questioning. Was he covering for his former agency (CIA)?
She would give a very long answer as to why LHO was granted this passport to leave the U.S.S.R., but here is the main point.
Miss KNIGHT. Well, that would be possible, I think; yes.
The experienced citizenship attorneys in the Passport Office, as well as the U.S. consul in Moscow determined individually that Oswald had not expatriated himself. His passport was renewed in May 1962, and limited for return to the United States.
In the adjudication of his citizenship, we can only deal with the facts on record. The fact is that Oswald did not avail himself of the prescribed procedure to renounce his U.S. nationality.
But, as she said before, his citizenship could have been TAKEN AWAY from him and it was NOT. Why? Who determined what he did was NOT worthy of losing his US citizenship? What did you have to do to have your citizenship taken away?
She claimed he never took action to formalize his loss of citizenship or took citizenship of the U.S.S.R., but if one goes and does a simple search they can find the grounds for losing their citizenship. I will only list the ones that LHO did, and put a link if you want to read more.
Quote on
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
- taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
Administrative Standard of Evidence
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.
travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481
Quote off
Doesn’t the official story say that LHO formally renounced his U.S. citizenship before members of the U.S. Embassy? Doesn’t it also say he made a formal declaration of allegiance to the Soviet Union? Wasn’t he over 18? I think so, and yet, Ms. Knight says they saw NO reason to take his citizenship away. Why?
To me there is ONLY one reason, he was working for the country’s intelligence and this is why he was NOT punished with the loss of his U.S. citizenship. There is NO other explanation.
The WC would claim LHO was a Communist when there is NO record or evidence of this in their 26 volumes of evidence. Here we see another example in CE 951.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0167a.jpg
Mr. COLEMAN. Would you look at category K, and I would like to ask you whether the information which was in the file on Mr. Oswald, including the FBI reports, which were in the file of June 1963, should have caused Oswald to be put in category K?
Miss KNIGHT. No; I don't think so.
Mr. DULLES. Could you read category K?
Miss KNIGHT. Yes; certainly. "K" is "Known or suspected Communist or subversive". And "does not include those falling within categories O and P".
So LHO was NOT listed as a Communist in this document. These documents are prepared for the FBI too. LHO was believed NOT to be a Communist by the FBI.
Representative FORD. May I ask a question first, what is the criteria for the determination as to whether or not a person is a Communist?
Miss KNIGHT. Well, the criteria are based on the information that we get from the investigative agencies regarding his activities and membership in the Communist Party.
You WC defenders still NOT convinced? Read this then.
Senator COOPER. Yes. Now, Representative Ford and Mr. Dulles have gone into this, as well as counsel, but I would like to pursue it just a little bit.
Section 51.135, entitled "Denial of passports to members of Communist organizations," states, "A passport shall not be issued to, or renewed for, any individual who the issuing officer knows or has reason to believe is a member of a Communist organization registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, as amended."
Was there any evidence in the files of Lee Harvey Oswald which could give to the issuing officer either the knowledge that he was a member of a Communist organization or such evidence as would lead the issuing officer to believe that he was?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
Senator COOPER. Why do you say that?
Miss KNIGHT. Because, there was nothing in the passport file or in the reports that we received from investigative agencies that would indicate that he had any Communist leanings or any Communist affiliations prior to his sojourn in the Soviet Union.
Senator COOPER. There wasn't anything in his file from the reports of the State Department concerning his defection to Russia and his return which indicated that he was a member of the Communist Party?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
Senator COOPER. Or a Communist organization?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.
Try as they might, they could NOT make LHO a Communist, but they would keep on calling him one!
Senator COOPER. The point I am making is, am I correct or are you correct, when you say at the time Oswald's passport was either issued or renewed to make the trip to Mexico City, that there was no evidence in his files of any kind which would indicate that he was a member of a Communist organization?
Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; there was nothing in the file.
Strike Three! You’re out. Now for the really good part. Why was the FBI reviewing his file regularly when he was just a “lone nut?”
Representative FORD. That may be true, and I might agree with you, but we can only deal with the specific case, and it concerns me that this information which was made available, somehow didn't get some attention in the Passport Division.
Miss KNIGHT. I think my answer to that is that there was attention given to it but there was no action that could be taken on it.
The fact that we gave attention to it is beside the point.
If we had had a lookout card in the file, and under different circumstances, there may have been some reason for seeking further information. I do know that the FBI was reviewing his file at regular intervals, and I think the file shows that.
To get the full import of our action one would have to read the security files and the records of certain individuals to whom we have been forced to give passports, and put them beside the Oswald file. The comparison would be very interesting.
So the FBI was reviewing his file at “regular intervals” and the file itself “shows this”, huh? IF we add in the FBI case officers LHO did have (i.e. Hosty, et. al.) and this fact, how in the world can anyone call LHO a “lone nut?” Aren’t lone nuts below the radar? I would think so.
Obviously, he was anything but as some agency, or agencies, looked after him quite well until 11/22/63.
We again see evidence that calls into doubt the claims of the WC, therefore, their conclusion is sunk again.