Return to Main Page
This is the story of my attempt to acquire the film donated to the Assassination Records Review Board by Ms. Janet Veazey, ultimately successful, and the still unresolved claim of copyright by Gaylord Communications. This article will use copies of correspondence between myself and the Review Board, and between myself and the National Archives, and commentary received via internet email when I was threatened with being blacklisted by the Review Board. This article will, hopefully, fully explain how and why Mr. Thomas Samoluk, of the Review Board staff acted the way he did, why I did what I did, and why some people think this whole affair was about "a measly $8 bucks".
To begin, I was informed (via email by my good friend Dennis Karius) about a "new" JFK film being discovered, the night of the first Dan Rather CBS news coverage of this film. Frankly, I was stunned that I was hearing this from Mr. Karius. This once again says something about the other JFK newsletters and journals and the Assassination Records Review Board's inability or unwillingness to inform the research community about what is going on.
The film in question is the footage shot by KTVT cameraman Roy Cooper on November 22, 1963. It was not broadcast at the time, and in fact was literally rescued from oblivion by Cooper, who retrieved it from a wastebasket. The film's existence was largely unknown until this past spring.
I was ready to drive down to D.C. that day, knowing that I would not arrive until early the next morning, to make any inquiries about this films availability. However, I knew that the ARRB was going to have an open meeting on June 4th which was within a week of this new film's discovery and apparent donation to the Archives. I did not foresee a problem in getting a copy. Mr. Dan Rather made it sound like it was already in the Archives and ready for researchers to easily obtain a copy. I wrote to the Review Board on May 29 via a fax. That fax asked a series of questions. Those questions were:
Mr. Samoluk wrote me a letter dated May 30, 1996 in which he answered some of my questions. With regard to question 1, he wrote, "First, there has not been a news release on the film the Review Board acquired because it has not been made a part of the JFK Collection yet. The Deed of Gift from the donor is still being processed."
This is misleading, though probably technically true. However, Mr. Samoluk said nothing about the deal made with CBS not to give out copies of the film until after Mr. Rather was on the air.
Mr. Samoluk further revealed, "CBS and the Dallas Morning News were aware of the film before the Review Board..." He did not explain how that was. I understand that Ms. Veazey saw an article of Chairman Tunheim's visit to Dallas as reported in the Dallas Morning News May 3, 1996 and that led her to come forward. Who did she come forward to? How CBS and the Dallas Morning News became aware of the film prior to the Board should be explained. "CBS personnel and a Dallas Morning News reporter had it in hand before Review Board staff," wrote Samoluk.
Again, how did this happen? Was this the actual film or a videotape copy of the film? Did they, meaning CBS and the Dallas Morning News, have the actual film and from this make videotape copies? Is this how CBS acquired a video copy of the film first?
Again, from the May 30 response from Samoluk, "CBS and the Dallas Morning News cooperation with the Board did not interfere with our efforts to acquire the film. The film is being donated to the Collection and will be housed at the National Archives. Copies of the film should be available to the public from the National Archives within several weeks. CBS is not making any claims relative to the film and the donor has put no restrictions on the donation of the film. Richard Trask is not an employee of the Review Board. His status was incorrectly reported in an Associated Press story."
Well, there were several problems with the above. CBS was not making any claims to the film but something else was. On June 4th I attended the open meeting of the ARRB in Washington D.C. held at the ARRB's offices. Prior to going to this open meeting I went to the National Archives and tried to see if the film was available. The answers were a combination of, "Huh?", "New film?", "Oh, wait, we have a paper to give out on that but I don't know where it is.", then "Let me refer you to the 4th floor", upon going to the 4th floor, the Motion Picture and Sound Branch, you get,"Try calling the JFK people, on the 2nd floor", where you hear "Mr. Tilley is not in", returning to the 4th floor I pointed out that they referred me to you, they said, "Oh." Finally, someone knew what the hell I was talking about. This person is someone I have come to know though not by name, he has consistently been polite and helpful, which makes him a damn rare breed at the Archives. He told me that despite what people saw on Mr. Rather's broadcast the film is not in the Archives, many scenes of Mr. Rather's newscast had been "faked" and the Archives is still awaiting the actual film to be donated. There were also donor deed of gift paperwork to go through, the Archives would have to examine the film, there may be some preservation methods it may have to go through, and then they would probably have to go to an outside company to make copies of the film.
I then went to the open meeting. The only other researchers there were John Judge and Jim Lesar. This was a short meeting to discuss new guidelines the Board was adopting for itself. These new procedures have gone totally unreported. I became too engrossed with this new film. This was the first open meeting of the Board in seven months. The new guidelines adopted at this open meeting will have to wait for another article.
Chairman Tunheim thanked the staff for their work in the acquisition of this new film. There was a Board meeting scheduled for June 25 and 26, that was to be closed. Mr. Jim Lesar arrived late and I gave him my copy of the procedures. I had to write to the Board later to get a copy and it was sent.
The following dates were given for ARRB meetings:
Chairman Tunheim also mentioned the COPA conference and that the Board has made appearances and held open meetings around the time of the COPA conference. He said he would try to do so again. The whole meeting lasted about 15 minutes.
Afterwards, I asked about the film. I was told that copies were distributed to various news media representatives at the Board's offices. This was at 7:00 p. m. on May 28 or 29. Judge and Lesar were given copies of the film. I was angry that I was not informed of this. John Judge does not even have the capabilities to make copies of the film. He told me so. Neither Judge nor Lesar has distributed the film to anyone that I know of. They were probably afraid to; more on this later.
On June 6th I wrote to the Board. I wanted to know in writing if they indeed did give out copies of the film and why I was not notified of this. I also wrote, "If you have any copies left, and I think you do, I would like one. Unlike Mr. Lesar or Mr. Judge I am not paid to show up at your proceedings, nor do I live in Washington, D.C. I have to put some effort into being present at your activities. Unlike Mr. Judge or Mr. Lesar my articles about the Board are available for free to the whole world. No one need join any special group or subscribe to anything to read them. Therefore, I feel I should be treated with as much respect, if not more, than them. I feel you owe me a copy of this new JFK film. At the very least I should have been given the same opportunity to acquire it as Mr. Lesar and Mr. Judge did."
I received a reply dated June 7, 1996 from Mr. Samoluk. "...one copy of the new JFK film was provided to each media outlet that requested one at a cost of $8.00 per videotape. Copies were made available (in great haste and on short notice) because two media outlets, The Dallas Morning News and CBS, already had copies and overwhelming interest in the film developed during the course of the day. There was no proactive notification of the availability of the film to anyone, not even the media. We simply advised representatives of the media, when they called inquiring about getting a copy of the film, that copies would be available at 7:00 p.m."
Now we are starting to get a clue to the deal CBS news made or somehow forced upon the Board. Danny virtually assured a media blackout on screening the film or broadcasting it, thus his "exclusive", by getting the ARRB to release the film only after Danny was on the air showing the film.
Why in the hell the ARRB can take on the CIA and the FBI and other intelligence agencies, forcing the release of documents, but has to kiss the almighty ass of Mr. Dan Rather is almost as big a mystery as who killed President Kennedy.
Samoluk wrote, "...the Review Board has no copies left for distribution." If nothing else remember that line.
He wrote that the public will be able to obtain a copy of the film at the Archives once it is in the JFK Collection. It will probably be in the Archives in a few weeks. He mentioned that it aired on C-SPAN at least three times. All these referrals to lesser quality copies with moron narrations is quite unbecoming a Board whose mandate is to acquire the original or closest to the original assassination record as possible and make that record freely and openly available to the American public.
Who decided who the "media outlets" or "members of the media" were? Why Mr. Samoluk, of course --- using apparently discretionary powers, and totally ignoring the ARRB's own definitions of "media".
On July 2nd I emailed the ARRB after receiving an email news advisory from the ARRB. I sent a reply asking if the new film is in the Archives yet. Mr. Samoluk replied the next day, "The film has been transferred to the National Archives". This isn't really responsive as the Archives is not acknowledging that and has no immediate plans to make it available to the public.
On July 15th I try again. I emailed Samoluk informing him that I have spoken on the phone with the National Archives people who said they still do not have the film. I am well aware that I am getting the classic "run around" here. There are two conferences coming up now, one in Fredonia, New York July 19-21st for Dr. Jerry Rose's "Fourth Decade", then one in Liverpool, England the following weekend, both of which I was invited to speak at about the ARRB. I would like to have had a copy of the film and be able to freely distribute it, especially in England. This would have been great international publicity for the Board. There was huge media interest in this English conference and to have had that film would have been a great thing. The Archives said there was some question of ownership? Ownership? I thought it was donated, without restriction, Samoluk said CBS was not making a claim on it so who is claiming ownership?
Now I am angry. CBS was given an "exclusive", C-SPAN, which never bothered with the ARRB before has aired it with a complete idiot narrating it. Samoluk has been telling me for weeks the Archives has it and it will soon be available. The Archives say no it doesn't have it.
Samoluk responded in an email July 16 that 1.) he did not know of any problem with the film, 2.) the original they acquired has been delivered to the Archives, 3.) he has called the Archives to inquire about the status of the film and 4.) in response to my ill-informed last sentence that included an erroneous reference to "those select few you informed about it (the film) in Washington who were actually given copies of it" he attached the following relevant excerpts from the June 7th letter which he sent on this very topic which I apparently failed to understand or simply choose to ignore, 'one copy of the new JFK film was provided to each media outlet that requested one at a cost of $8.00 per videotape. Copies were made available (in great haste and on short notice) because two media outlets, The Dallas Morning News and CBS, already had copies and overwhelming interest in the film developed during the course of the day. There was no proactive notification of the availability of the film to anyone, not even the media. We simply advised representatives of the media, when they called inquiring about getting a copy of the film, that copies would be available at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Lesar and Mr. Judge were allowed to purchase copies of the videotape because their organizations publish journals and thus they were considered members of the media for our purposes. In addition, they were not contacted by us regarding the film. Both of them initiated contact with us."
Oh, so people had to initiate contact with the Board, without any information from anyone anywhere that anything like videotape copies of the film being given out that day was going on, get to the Board's offices at 7:00 p.m. that day, then if Mr. Samoluk considered you a representative of the media, pay $8 dollars, then you get a copy of the film. Otherwise you get the classic "run around" from the ARRB and the National Archives, are told to settle for a broadcast version from C-SPAN, are insulted and lied to, and you don't get a copy of the film. Oh, well thanks for explaining that.
On July 16 I write back to the ARRB, "Why is this becoming a nightmare trying to get this film? I know for a fact that it has already been transferred to videotape. You yourself readily admitted that as you acknowledged you gave out copies. So why are either you or the National Archives dragging your feet on really releasing it to the public?
"I am not ill-informed as you put it. I am the acknowledged expert on you guys. I have attended more of your open meetings, public hearings, and presentations than anyone else. I have written more about you than anyone else. This has happened because I keep myself informed about you and your activities and do not rely on anyone but myself for information on ARRB activities. I was invited to speak about you in England.
"You made a deal with CBS news. You had to have made several videotapes of the film in order to give them out at 7:00 PM the day Dan Rather "broke" this story as an exclusive. And isn't 7:00 P.M. well beyond normal business hours for the Board?
"A National Archives II employee told me in person that much if not all of Mr. Rather's news story was faked. His words, not mine. I am not making this up. This gentleman usually works in the registration researcher area. I was referred to him by a staffer when I was on the 4th floor of Archives II. I can find out his name if you want to check with him.
"That you have given the film to a select few is factual, nothing "ill-informed" about it. Messrs. Marwell, Gunn, Lesar and Judge have all said the same. How the media representatives knew you were giving out the film on video when you did not issue a press release of any kind is acknowledgement that you were going to give out copies to a select few, those being people who called you that day via telephone and found this out.
"To my knowledge neither Mr. Judge nor Mr. Lesar has made copies of the film and distributed it to anyone in the research community.
"Also, your letter to me is further acknowledgement that you selected who was a media person and who was not. You classified Judge and Lesar as media representatives for your purposes because they publish journals.
"Well, let me remind you of something. Mr. Herb Borock wrote to you on July 25, 1995 concerning the then proposed guidelines for how the ARRB would operate under the Freedom of Information Act. He wrote that Section 1410.35 (b) (1) "the definition Representative of the News Media appears to define the term "News Media Entities" to include only those publishers who sell their product to the general public, and to exclude those publishers of periodicals who distribute their product for free to some or all [of] its recipients. He wanted you to amend the example of publishers of periodicals to read, "examples of news media entities include... publishers of periodicals... who make their products available for free and/or for purchase or subscription by the general public.
"He further wrote that the then definition of "Representatives of the News Media", "appears to limit the term 'news media entities' to entities that publish or broadcast news to the public". He asked that you, "please expand the definition to include newer forms of disseminating news to the public such as cablecasting and the Internet."
"In your final rule making you honored his requests. You defined "Representatives of the news media" as "any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public, and may include cablecasting or computer on-line dissemination if offered as a service that is organized and operated to disseminate news to the public."
"You cited examples of news media entities to include...publishers of periodicals who make their products available for free and or for purchase or subscription to the general public."
"I certainly fit the above criteria as a "news media entity." I gather news on the Board's activities and disseminate it on-line, for free, and I write about you in The Assassination Chronicles, a periodical that is published and offered to subscribers. Both of these come out with more frequency the Mr. Judge's or Mr. Lesar's publications.
"You made no effort to tell the entire research community that you were giving out copies of the film on videotape, no effort by fax when you have a large fax list, no effort by e-mail when you have a long e-mail list, no effort even to these media people (meaning those that showed up at the Board's offices at 7:00 p.m. May 28, 1996) as you issued no press release.
"You have yet to issue a press release on this film. The National Archives has yet to issue a press release on the film either.
"This has resulted in some anxiety and resentment in the research community. I am not speaking only for myself. The deal with CBS has raised questions. Richard Trask presenting himself as employed by the Board; his commentary; CBS being allowed by you to air the film; then C-SPAN being able to view the film and broadcast it, either in selected clips or in its entirety has irritated people especially when the public cannot yet get a copy.
"The research community went through this before when the LBJ library tapes were released. The press got them first, the day of their release and the public had to wait.
"I am not interested in going back and forth with you for eternity on this. All I want to know is when will the film be released to the public? If there is a problem what is it? Why does the National Archives act like they either never heard of it, or don't have it in the JFK Records Collection but maybe the 4th Floor Motion Picture Branch has it but they haven't told Steve Tilley. I was actually told that on the phone. It has already been transferred to video, so what's the problem? The National Archives has told me that someone might claim a copyright to the film. Who the hell is this? You told me there wasn't going to be any. Are there still "Donor Deed of Gift" regulations to be worked out? The National Archives has also told me that if I wanted a copy of the film they would have to go to an outside company to do this, or I would. They seemed to suggest to me that I could not come in with a VCR and a blank tape and walk out with a copy. Why?
"These are easily solvable problems and they will be repeated when you find other films. The general public should be given the same rights of access to the information as the press."
Now there is nothing insulting or inflammatory about that July 16, 1996 letter. It is written honestly and accurately and asks questions that should be answered honestly and accurately.
On July 18 I left Albany, New York to attend the Fredonia conference, which was from the 19th-21st of July, then I had a short stay in New York City, then I flew on to England.
Guess what happens while I'm away? Yep, you guessed it, Mr. Samoluk mails me a copy of the film. It came with a letter dated July 22 and I can't tell exactly when it arrived. It is postmarked July 22 in Washington and they spent three dollars mailing it. Samoluk writes, "Despite the fact that the vast majority of your July 16, 1996 letter is irrelevant and contains erroneous statements that have been answered in the past, the Review Board does not consider you a representative of the media, and is under no obligation to provide you with a copy of the film donated by Janet Veazey, as a courtesy, I am doing so to avoid any further time being spent on this matter. The cost is $8.00. Please make your check payable to the Assassination Records Review Board."
Included with this letter and the video was a form that said, "I received a copy of a videotape and a copy of a letter from Jerry Mills of the law firm Baker & Botts to Jeremy Gunn, dated May 28, 1996." There was a space to sign a name. This form had no letterhead and nothing to identify it with either Baker and Botts or the ARRB. Also included was the referred to letter from Baker & Botts, a Dallas, Texas, law firm representing Gaylord Communications. That letter said, "We represent Gaylord Broadcasting company L.P. ("Gaylord") in intellectual property matters. It has come to Gaylord's attention that you have in your possession certain recently uncovered film footage from the day of the Kennedy assassination. This footage was taken on behalf of KTVT by an employee of KTVT, which is owned by Gaylord, and all copyrights in the footage are therefore owned by Gaylord. [emphasis added.]
"Under the Copyright Act, as the owners of all copyrights in the footage, Gaylord is the exclusive owner of the right to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, and create derivative works based on the footage. 17 U.S. C. x106. Violation of any of these rights constitutes copyright infringement for which Gaylord is entitled to an injunction, damages and profits, as well as all attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing an action for copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. x 502, 504-5. As we discussed, Gaylord considers this to be an unpublished work, the terms of copyright protection for which expires in 2063.
"As I am sure you are aware, this footage is very valuable to Gaylord, which is intent upon protecting its rights to the fullest extent. Accordingly, Gaylord demands that you immediately cease from reproducing, publicly displaying or creating derivative works based on the footage, or from providing copies of this footage to third parties."
Now read my July 16, 1996 letter again. Do you really find any erroneous statements in it? Of course not, because there aren't any, nor is any part of it irrelevant.
This letter from Baker and Botts is most likely why Mr. Lesar has to my knowledge not made any copies of the film and distributed it to anyone in the research community. After all Mr. Lesar is a lawyer.
Something that needs to be pointed out is that this "Dallas TV station was an independent TV station in 1963 and not affiliated with CBS at the time and only very recently became affiliated with CBS, this year in fact.
On July 25 I received a letter from the National Archives, again I'm still in England when it arrives. "This is in response to your inquiry regarding the footage the U.S. Assassination Review Board (why can't these people get the name right?) acquired in May 1996. While the National Archives and Records Administration has physical custody, it does not have legal custody. (emphasis added) Until such time as the National Archives has legal custody of the footage, it will not be able to make the footage available in any form. Please contact us in 4-6 weeks on this matter again; we may have legal custody of the film by then.
Did Mr. Samoluk purposefully send me a copy of the film knowing when I would be away? Probably. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he was trying to be "courteous" in sending me the film on video but he could have done so from the beginning. Why did the magic word "England" get him to finally offer me the film?
Remember when he said, "..the Review Board has no copies left for distribution." Then where did this come from?
I did not return from England until August 6th. At this time the ARRB was having another open meeting, this time on how they were reviewing the CIA's "segregated collection" of documents. In person comments from the public were invited as well as written statements. Chairman Tunheim graciously offering to keep the record open until September 15th. However, the transcript of the meeting was not mailed to me until September 23. I know of no one who got this transcript prior to September 20th. Thus this "keeping the record open" is a charade. Why they were having such a meeting I cannot fathom. There must have been some problem with the CIA that they were willing to listen to. What that was I have no idea. They know we want this collection open, so what's going on? They know that this stuff was released by the CIA to deliberately avoid all of it being placed in the National Archive's JFK database. All of these documents have the same RIF number. I have raised this issue repeatedly, hell, even Tilley raised it at, I believe, the October 23, open meeting to the Board.
On August 14, about a week after my return, I write to the Board asking for a copy of the transcript of the August 6 open meeting. I also asked for copies of all correspondence the Board will receive in regards to this open meeting. I also asked exactly where and when will the LA hearing occur. Lastly, I asked what is the Board's position with Gaylord Communications claim of ownership and copyright? Is it the ARRB's position that Gaylord Communications indeed owns the rights to the film? Are they (the ARRB) contesting their (Gaylord's) claim? I feel that they should.
Here's where the bullshit starts. Mr. Samoluk, with amazing speed, faxes back to me the same day, "you will receive no additional communication or information until the Review Board receives a check for $8.00 as payment for the videotape that you received." He referred me to the letter the ARRB sent with the videotape.
Well, Mr. Samoluk, it's the letter from Baker and Botts that I want to ask about, especially this form with the space for a signature.
I replied back, again still August 14, "I will not give you $8 dollars for the videotape until I get an answer as to who owns the film. I want to know if my giving you $8 dollars for the videotape means I am bound in any way by Gaylord Communications claim of ownership and copyright."
Samoluk responded with really insulting bullshit.
"Your payment for the cost to the Review Board of making a copy of the videotape has nothing to do with ownership of the film and does not bind you to do anything. The film that was donated by Mrs. Veazey via a Deed of Gift belongs to the National Archives.
"Let me be clear. The Board was under no obligation to send you the copy of the film (the last copy we had, for the record). It was only done because I did not want to waste any more time on this matter when there are so many other things that the Board have to accomplish in a limited amount of time. Furthermore, because you had expressed an urgency having to do with a pending trip to England and it was clear that the National Archives was not going to be able to process your request in time to meet your needs, as a courtesy, the videotape was sent to you. You did not acknowledge receipt of the film, never mind thank us for extending the courtesy. Based on your past behavior, I must say that I expected neither acknowledgment nor thanks.
"It is very simple, pay your bill, if you want any information from the Board."
I responded in a letter dated September 9, though written earlier. I also wrote to others about this matter.
"Okay, now that I am getting some straight answers from you I have several things to say. First of all, the videotape came to my home when I was away. There was a conference in Fredonia, N.Y. sponsored by Dr. Jerry Rose and his publication "The Fourth Decade" at which I spoke on the ARRB. I was then in New York City for a short time, then flew to England to speak about the ARRB again. I was not aware that you had sent the video until after I returned on August 6. I was basically away for three weeks and am backlogged with regular mail and email. So I am not ignoring the fact that you sent me this tape. After all you could have sent it to me when I first asked for it, or you could have reserved a copy for me when you were giving them out to Mr. Judge and Lesar and the other media representatives.
"The letter you sent accompanying the video was boorish in tone, so no 'Thank You' will be forthcoming. As for my behavior, you have got to be kidding. I was trying to acquire the film. Your behavior is what is questionable. I am the only one not paid to pay attention to you and I am doing a hell of a better job telling folks about your activities than anyone else. My work on the ARRB is internationally recognized and appreciated. I did not appreciate your conduct in not informing people that you were giving out copies of the film. Mr. Lesar, who you seem to have more respect for and who you deemed a media person in his AARC Quarterly wrote, "CBS, which had obtained an exclusive by way of a deal with the Review Board, played highlights from the film on two successive Evening News broadcasts. CBS got its exclusive because KTVT is now a CBS affiliate and it threatened to litigate its rights to the film if it was not allowed to air it first. The Review Board agreed to wait until CBS aired its Evening news program at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard Time before distributing copies of it a half hour later to members of the media."1 ( AARC QUARTERLY Spring/Summer 1996 page 2 This was enclosed. )
"Lesar says you made a deal with CBS, John Judge said the same to me in person and on the phone, now that is both of the JFK research people there but when I say you made a deal with CBS my letter is, "irrelevant and contains erroneous statements". You did make a deal and it is something that concerns the research community. The research community is watching this closely because they are concerned about how you will handle other pieces of photographic evidence that you may acquire and what you will do when some person or institution or corporation tries to claim the copyright. This is exactly what appears to have happened.
"The question still remains as to who owns the film. If KTVT and/or Gaylord Communications doesn't why did you give CBS the exclusive? Were you concerned about them suing so that Dan Rather could have the exclusive? If Gaylord Communications doesn't own the film why are you giving out a copy of a letter from Baker and Botts, attorneys representing Gaylord Communications? This letter looks a lot like a cease and desist order with a threat of possible court action being taken. If Gaylord Communications does not own the film why is there a sticker on the videotape you sent me stating, "Gaylord Broadcasting Company, L/P/ has asserted a copyright claim in the enclosed material"? If Gaylord Communications does not own the film why is the National Archives still awaiting legal custody? They have the film but who has the legal rights to it?
"You need to state who owns the film. You need to state if you are contesting Gaylord's claim of copyright. You cannot refer people to the National Archives. They will not even acknowledge that they have the film unless really pressed. The National Archives wrote me a letter dated July 25 saying they have the film but are awaiting until such time as they have legal custody. So who owns the film?
"I will be glad to pay the $8 dollars for the tape, However, when I got the tape and the manner in which I got it cannot be called "a courtesy", highly insulting, yes, "courtesy" no. The fact that it was sent after a letter from you dated June 7 stating "the Review Board had no copies left for distribution" smacks of dishonesty. The fact that people had to contact the Review Board to find out what was going on hearkens back to my article "The ARRB in New Orleans" which appeared in "Fair Play" wherein I told people to "bug them every other day on the phone, or fax when you know they are up to something." But you didn't like that word "bug" did you? But that's what people have to do isn't it? The letter from you requesting a signature that came with the tape and with a copy of the Baker and Botts letter gave me the impression that I am signing some kind of contract with Baker and Botts, agreeing that Gaylord Communications has ownership and the copyright to the film. This form had nothing identifying it with either the ARRB or Baker and Botts. If this was so I was going to refuse to pay for the tape. According to the second fax you sent to me dated August 14 this is not so. Then why did you send it in the first place?
"Your second fax to me making it sound like I am late paying a bill is ridiculous. Your threat to blacklist me from ARRB notices and information is petty and puerile.
"Copies of all correspondence on this matter will be shared with my Congressman, Senators, President Clinton, the Congressional Committee that has oversight of the ARRB, as well as the research community. We'll see who is misbehaving.
Sincerely,
Joseph Backes
cc.
President William Jefferson Clinton
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Senator Alphonse D' Amato
Congressman Michael McNulty
Congressman William F. Clinger,
Chairman Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Congressman William H Zeliff,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
National Security Subcommittee"
On September 19, 1996 I received a short letter from Mr. Samoluk. The letter acknowledged receipt for the payment for the videotape copy of the Veazey film, and completely ignored everything else in my September 9th letter. The last sentence was the standard, "Thank you for the continuing interest in the work of the Review Board that you and many other members of the public have expressed."
On September 25, 1996 I received two letters. One from Senator Alphonse D'Amato dated September 24, 1996 and signed by the Senator, which read, "Dear Mr. Backes, You will be glad to know that I am working on your recent request. I have contacted appropriate officials on your behalf and will be back in touch as soon as I receive a reply. I appreciate this chance to try to help."
Another letter from my Congressman Michael McNulty, dated September 19 and signed by him which read, "I am in receipt of your communication regarding your experience with the Assassination Records Review Board. In an effort to be of assistance, I have been in touch with the ARRB. As soon as I receive any information, I will notify you promptly."
Well, I look forward to their next letters to me. In the meantime the Board seems to be back to behaving itself.
I have also received on September 25, 1996 the transcript of the August 6th open meeting. The good news is that they seem to have hired a new transcribing service, Miller Reporting Co., Inc. The bad news is they are just as bad as Ann Riley and Associates. They spelled Lyndon Johnson, former President of the United States, as "Linden Johnson". For god's sake, isn't the concept of proofreading taught to court reporters and transcribers anymore? This August 6th open meeting will be the subject of another article.
Now on to the email I got. Before sending my letter of September 9th to the ARRB I sent an email to the ARRB's email list explaining my situation and soliciting comments. To my great astonishment, I came under attack --- from one researcher in particular. It seems this person believed that I was trying to make an issue over the eight dollars Samoluk demanded for my copy of the film. As I believe I have demonstrated in this article, that just isn't true. Most of the negative comments were along this line --- that I was picking a fight over eight dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth. This issue was and remains unresolved copyright claims.
What needs to be acknowledged is that Janet Veazey, a member of the public, came forward on her own, without expecting any rewards. She donated a film of events relating to the assassination of President Kennedy to the American people, and gave it free of any restrictions. That is historic.
As this is written, rumors about this donated film --- the so-called "Cooper film" --- abound. It seems this film could be up to five and a half hours long and include portions in color and/or with sound. I call upon Corey Cooper to donate this longer version of the film to the ARRB.
The trouble I went through to get a copy of the shorter version should never be repeated. Media people should not have more rights than the public. Gaylord Communications' claim of copyright is an outrage. That the Assassination Records Review Board has not and is not openly refuting that is another outrage. Other discoveries like the Cooper film may occur before the Board folds its tent, so letting Gaylord Communications step in with a dubious copyright claim could, perhaps, set a dangerous precedent.
This Review Board must be more active in seeking out films and other photographic evidence relating to the Assassination of President Kennedy. They should use their subpoena powers now before time runs out as it will if the owners want a court fight. The subpoena powers should be used now on corporations and govenrment agencies. Dallas should be the exclusive target of the Review Board for the remainder of their time. If the Democrats retake Congress, which hopefully will happen, the Board should ask for at least another year of life, or two, or three, or more, as there is far too much work to do.
Return to Main Page
* * *