(You OK? Day 6)
July 3, 2025
Today we’re going to talk about the notation FD-217, which is scribbled in blue on a bunch of Carlos Marcello’s FBI documents. If you’ll recall on Day 2 of this series, we also saw that someone had written “FD-217” in lowercase cursive next to Marjorie Swann’s 10. In the past, we’ve noted that references to FD-217 are often written near the number in the upper-righthand corner, no matter the number or the person. For Carlos Marcello, it’s written near the number 7. Marina Oswald’s is written near an 8. Sam Giancana’s is written near his 4. Rolando Cubela y Secades (a Cuban revolutionary) has an FD-217 near a 3-1 and 9-1.
Here are two of Carlos Marcello’s FD-217s, which accompany 7s:
It’s important to note that Ron Tammen’s records don’t have an FD-217 written on them. However, because FD-217 appears to be so closely linked to the FBI’s numbering system, I think it’s worth delving into.
One thing that we know for sure about FD-217 is that it’s an FBI form, which is benignly titled “Notification of Bureau File Number.” If I can get my hands on a blank FD-217 form, I think we could learn, once and for all, what their numbering system was all about and why Ron was given a number 10.
Granted, I think I may have already figured out the system. I think that the numbers refer to the FBI’s special agents who served as liaisons with other federal agencies. Based on clues regarding which cases received 10s—for example, those involving presidential candidates, vice presidents, and foreign dignitaries—Ron Tammen’s, Marjorie Swann’s, Frank Sturgis’s, Santo Trafficante’s, Wayne B. Williams’ and everyone else’s 10s appear to pertain to the FBI’s liaison to the U.S. Secret Service. Wouldn’t it be great if we could have the FBI’s confirmation of that hypothesis?
To do that, I decided to submit a FOIA request for the blank FD-217 form. (This next part is a recap of my two FOIA submissions and appeal to the Department of Justice. If you already know this sad story from previous posts, feel free to jump to the DOJ’s response.)
On February 10, 2025, I submitted a simple and straightforward request: “I am seeking a sample copy of FBI form number FD-217.” On February 26, I received their first response, which said the following:
“Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the places reasonably expected to have records. However, we were unable to identify records subject to the FOIPA that are responsive to your request. Therefore, your request is being closed. If you have additional information pertaining to the subject of your request, please submit a new request providing the details, and we will conduct an additional search.”
That same day, I sent in my follow-up, which said: “I suggest you consult the FBI Form Book to locate the form. You can find a link to the description of the 2003-2004 version of the Form Book here: https://www.governmentattic.org/44docs/FBIforms_2003-4.pdf. I’m attaching one page of the Table of Contents, which lists it as being there.”
Here’s the TOC that I included. FD-217 is smack dab in the middle of the page.
On February 28, they wrote this:
“Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the places reasonably expected to have records. However, we were unable to identify records subject to the FOIPA that are responsive to your request. Therefore, your request is being closed.”
At this point, I was peeved. I submitted an appeal to the Department of Justice. In addition to providing them with the above details, I said this:
“I am appealing this request because their response that the FBI is unable to locate a blank copy of form FD-217 is not credible, particularly after I pointed them to the FBI Form Book and the relevant page in the Table of Contents. If it were classified information, that would be a different situation. However they’re claiming not to know where it is, which is clearly a false statement. Under FOIA law, there is no exemption for information that the FBI simply would prefer I not have access to. Therefore, I ask that you remand my request and order them to provide to me what I’m entitled to receive.”
DOJ response
Would you like to know the DOJ’s response? Here you go:
To paraphrase their response, they said: the FBI told us they couldn’t find the form, and by golly, we believe them. If you want to try forcing the issue, feel free to sue us, small person, because we know you have limited resources and you have to pick your battles, and we very much doubt that you’ll pick this one.
Mmmkay.
Here are the four take-homes I got from this little charade:
1) The FD-217 form is important.
2) We are on the right track.
3) There’s a course of action they neglected to mention that doesn’t involve hiring a lawyer or going through a complex mediation process.
4) I’m going to take it.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making these documents available.
