J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation – A Good Man Is Hard to Find

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File

How do we know that the words ‘see index’ on Ron Tammen’s FBI records mean that he was on the FBI’s Security Index?

Do you know what we’ve been needing on this website? We’ve been needing someone to present a well-reasoned argument about why the words “see index” on someone’s FBI documents tell us that they were on the Security Index. Oh sure, sure, I’ve been making the claim for a while now, but my evidence has been mostly anecdotal. I haven’t provided a debate-worthy case to back up that claim, and let’s just say that my theory, which I revealed back in July 2024, hasn’t exactly caught on with the public at large. In fact, I think you and I are the only non-FBI-types who currently buy into it, and I’d really love to drive those numbers up.

And so…that’s what we’re going to do today, with your help. Through your always insightful questions and my attempts at providing cogent answers, backed by documentary evidence, we’re going to demonstrate why the words “see index” were, without a doubt, FBI code for the Security Index, and why it continues to be a very big deal that Ronald Tammen has those words on page one of his FBI missing person documents.

Ron Tammen’s “see index,” written in the left margin of page one of his missing person records; click on image for a closer view

Ready? Set? Let’s go!

Why so vague? If they’re talking about the Security Index, why didn’t they just say so, removing any doubt?

The Security Index was so secret that agents weren’t supposed to mention it on their reports at all. In fact, Section 87 of the Manual of Rules and Regulations expressly states that “Matters pertaining to the security index are strictly confidential and are not to be mentioned or alluded to in investigative reports.”

The FBI had dozens of indexes. But there was one top dog among them, the granddaddy of all granddaddies, and FBI special agents were well aware which one occupied that role. My contention is that the words “see index,” written sideways in the left margin of someone’s FBI record, was a workaround for agents wishing to point their colleagues to the fact that this wasn’t just any old interstate gambler, kidnapper, fraudster or, in Ron Tammen’s case—especially in Ron’s case—missing person. They’re on the Security Index! It’s kind of brilliant, really. From their sheer innocuousness, those two words could convey to agents that a person was considered a threat to public safety or national security while, at the same time, escaping the attention of people who weren’t supposed to know about the Security Index and who might be on it.

The thing that’s most maddening to me about the FBI’s “see index” cryptic coding scheme is that sometimes those words are difficult to make out. They’re often written incredibly light or they’re smudged, as if someone purposely tried to erase them. For example, Ron Tammen’s “see index” is smudged. Could that mean that an FBI rep was trying to hide the fact that he was on the index or is it just the normal wear and tear of FBI records originating from the 1950s? I will say this: from what I can tell, I don’t believe the FBI erased “see index” if someone was removed from the Security Index. Some people were added to the Security Index and then removed and then added again throughout their closely surveilled adult lives. It would be a pain to keep up with the writing and the erasing and the rewriting of the words “see index” on certain documents in their file. I think once those two words were added to a document in their file, they stayed.

What’s the surest piece of evidence that someone was on the Security Index?

The surest piece of evidence would be their Security Index card, which was a 5” X 8” index card containing some bare-bones info like the person’s name and aliases, current address and place of employment, along with one or more abbreviations summing up why they made it to the Security Index—ESP for spy, COM for communist, etc. More detailed information and a photo would be attached to the back of the card. The Security Index cards were stored in a tightly monitored location at the FBI, away from the rest of the FBI records, including the FBI General Index, which was everyone’s first stop when looking someone up. This is likely why agents felt the need to provide a clue pointing other agents to the Security Index. I’ve only seen a few actual Security Index cards, and, from what I can tell, they’re not included with someone’s records in a typical FOIA request. That would be too helpful.

The next surest piece of evidence is their FD-122 form. That form had to be filled out by the nominating field office (aka the Office of Origin), and then sent to FBI Headquarters as well as the Department of Justice for approval. If you find someone’s FD-122 form online or through a FOIA request, that person was very likely on the Security Index. If you find a note on the FD-122 saying something like “approved” or “SI card added,” then you have confirmation that they were indeed on it. If you find several FD-122s making changes to the information on the original form, a new name or address perhaps, then you’ve hit pay dirt. They were longtime Security Indexers. Nice going, you!

Unfortunately, sometimes someone’s FD-122 isn’t available online or the FBI and DOJ have declined to release it through FOIA. That’s where the “see index” notation could come in handy. My theory is that, if I can show as many examples as possible in which a person with an FD-122 also has a “see index” written on one of their FBI records, then I believe we’re showing causality. We’re showing that the FD-122 was submitted and approved, and consequently, someone wrote “see index” on one or more of their records. And if I can show that, then I believe it’s reasonable to conclude that, even if the FD-122 isn’t available, as in Ron Tammen’s case, the words “see index” is our indicator that he was indeed on the Security Index.

Here are some people who had one or more FD-122s as well as a “see index” notation in their FBI records. Some are difficult to see, but look for the ‘s’ in see and/or the ‘x’ in index, and then zoom in.

Leonard Bernstein

Judith Coplon

Harry Hay

Meir D. Kahane

John Howard Lawson

Paul Robeson

Mario Savio

Morton Sobell

Haskell (Pete) Wexler

Haskell Wexler’s “see index,” which is very lightly written in all caps in the left margin (near bottom); click on image for a closer view

Malcom X

Malcolm X’s FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Malcolm X’s “see index” in the left margin; click on image for a closer view

Better yet, here are people who have “see index” written directly on their FD-122s, which are the grandest FD-122s of all:

Bella Abzug

Eldridge Cleaver

Abbie Hoffman

Stanley David Levison

Stanley Levison’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Elijah Poole/Elijah Mohammed

Elijah Mohammed’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

Jessica Lucy Treuhaft

David Ritz Van Ronk

David Van Ronk’s “see index” written in the left margin of his FD-122; click on image for a closer view

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that, as impressive as that list may be, it’s not very many people. The Security Index was said to contain as many as 10,000-25,000 names at various times of its existence. I blame the small number that I’ve been able to come up with on the fact that the FBI hasn’t uploaded all those people’s records online. In fact, they’re only letting us see a smattering of them. Also, I’m not convinced they’re releasing all of the records for the people whom they have released. Have you seen what they’ve released on Charles Manson, for example? His case file is laughably small. And thirdly, the words “see index” usually turn up on only one or two pages of a person’s entire file….if they appear at all. The presence of a “see index” is incredibly random. So I guess what I’m saying is that this is a grueling needle-in-a-haystack type of ordeal. Every “see index” that pops up on my screen makes me a happy girl. If I can find that person’s corresponding FD-122, I go wild.

If, however, you feel you need more evidence, don’t despair. There are other ways to find out if “see index” applies only to people who were on the Security Index. Luckily, I’ve found several more forms, a few of which have been useful.

What other forms?

To save a little time, I’ll be using the abbreviation “SI” when I refer to the Security Index as an adjective (e.g., SI subject, SI card, etc.).

FD-128

The FD-128 was a form that was used when an SI subject moved, and the Office of Origin needed to be transferred to the new location. Although this form was most definitely used for all SI subjects who moved, I’m not 100% sure if it was also used for people who were merely the subject of a security investigation, even those not on the Security Index. For this reason, I’m not claiming that the subject of the FD-128 was definitely on the Security Index. At least not for now. I may change my mind by the end of this post though. You’ll see why.

FD-154

This form seems to have been used mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, but I think it was replaced at some point. Its title was “Verification of Information on Security Index Cards,” and it provided the most up-to-date information about the SI subject. Although they’re relatively rare, I found several FD-154s for two people with “see index” notations. In addition, Morton Sobell’s FD-154, highlighted above, provides proof that he had an FD-122.

FD-305

Next to the FD-122, this is my favorite indicator that a person was on the Security Index. It was an overview of the person’s SI status, reflecting any changes that needed to be made regarding their case that weren’t already covered in the FD-122. Come to think of it, maybe it was the form that replaced the FD-154? Not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

According to the book “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” the FD-305 “reflects ‘current data concerning subject’s continued status as a Security Index subject.’” In short, it wouldn’t make sense for an agent to use the FD-305 form unless the person he’s reporting on was on the Security Index. That’s especially important to know in the case of science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, whom we’ll be discussing a little later.

Mario Savio’s FD-305; click on image for a closer view

FD-400

One of the, um, perks of being on the Security Index was having the FBI check on your whereabouts regularly—every six months if you were a Priority I case—and sending in a report on what you’ve been up to. But what if you’d turned over a new leaf or just mellowed out as you got older and the FBI’s designated informants didn’t have a lot to say about you? In those situations, the special agent opted for the FD-400, which was a form used when there wasn’t much to report. That’s literally what the form said: “This letter is submitted in lieu of a report inasmuch as no pertinent data has been developed since date of referenced communication.” The FD-400 was always accompanied by the FD-305, again, confirming that you indeed were on the Security Index. However, if they continued submitting yawners like the FD-400s, you probably would be a candidate for removal from the Security Index.

FD-376

In my previous post, we talked about the FD-376, which served as an FBI cover letter of sorts when transferring a report to the Secret Service. As we discussed, all activities of SI subjects were reported to the Secret Service, so the FD-376 was used frequently for those folks. But, as with the FD-128, I’m not 100% sure that it was used exclusively for SI subjects. In the book “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” it was described as an “FBI form for recording information concerning a person allegedly potentially dangerous to the President.” I mean, there’s no question that it was a bad thing to have your name at the top of an FD-376. But at this point, I don’t believe that it’s a sure sign that you were on the Security Index, so probably not the best indicator.

FD-366

Likewise, the FD-366 was used to provide a change of address to the Secret Service for people on the Security Index, though it may have been used for others being investigated as well. So, again, it’s not a sure bet that someone was on the Security Index.

For the above reasons, my current go-to indicators that a person was on the Security Index are the FD-122, FD-154, FD-305, and FD-400.

Unfortunately, the additional forms don’t add many new people to our list—only Ray Bradbury to date—but they provide further confirmation that the rest of the group with the notation “see index” was without a doubt on the Security Index.

Here’s the tally so far. Note that I’m not saying that these are all that exist. They’re just all that I’ve found so far. I’ll continue to keep my eyes open for more. Feel free to keep your eyes open too, and if you find any, please let me know.

Name	See index	FD-122	FD-154	FD-305	FD-400
Bella Abzug	X	X		X
Leonard Bernstein	X	X
Ray Bradbury	X			X
Eldridge Cleaver	X	X		X
Judith Coplon	X	X	X	X
Harry Hay	X	X		X
Abbie Hoffman	X	X		X
Meir D. Kahane	X	X		X
John Howard Lawson	X	X		X	X
Stanley David Levison	X	X		X
Elijah Mohammed	X	X		X
Paul Robeson	X	X		X
Mario Savio	X	X		X
Morton Sobell	X	X	X
Jessica Lucy Treuhaft	X	X		X	X
David Ritz Van Ronk	X	X		X
Haskell (Pete) Wexler	X	X		X
Malcom X	X	X		X

Is that everything? You’re not holding anything back, are you?

Well…there’s one more form that, per the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations, was to be submitted only if a person was on the Security Index or the Reserve Index. We won’t be talking about that form today, but we will very soon. Stay tuned, because I’ll be presenting evidence that I believe could upend the current thinking concerning the actions taken by the FBI with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald’s case file—before, that is, he became a patsy for JFK’s assassination.

What’s the Reserve Index?

If the Security Index was the FBI’s General Index on steroids, then I think you could say that the Reserve Index was the Security Index on melatonin. It was composed of presumed communists mostly, or people who were communist adjacent, or maybe people who once knew someone who toyed with being a communist but life got in the way and they drifted apart. It was a lot iffier than the Security Index.

The Reserve Index comprised two sections: Section A and Section B. Section A consisted mostly of people who were smart. According to “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” the list included “teachers, journalists, lawyers, physicians, and others whom the FBI considered well placed to work against the national interest.” You know…the pillars of society. Section B consisted of whomever was left. In the event of a national emergency, the plan was to round up all of the Security Index folks, and then, time- and weather-permitting, I suppose, to go after the people on Section A of the Reserve Index.

How do you know “see index” doesn’t refer to the Reserve Index?

The word “reserve” says it all. The people on the Reserve Index weren’t of primary concern to the FBI. They were people who, in a sense, were on the FBI’s back burner. In fact, they didn’t even keep the Reserve Index cards at FBI Headquarters—only field offices, and, more particularly, the Offices of Origin. It’d be weird to write “see index” on an FBI report kept at Headquarters if the index they were referring to was being maintained in Kansas City or Cleveland or Phoenix or…you get my drift.

It’s also important to point out that form FD-122 did not apply to Reserve Index candidates. They had their own dedicated form—the FD-122a. That’s why we can say with 100% assurance that an FD-122 signifies the Security Index and only the Security Index. In that same vein, while form FD-128 (the form where they transferred the Office of Origin) was used for Security Index subjects, form FD-128a was for Reserve Index subjects.

And that right there is why I’m still on the fence over whether FD-128 could have been used for people who weren’t on the Security Index. According to “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been In the FBI Files,” the FD-128 form was an “FBI form authorizing a change in ‘Office of Origin’ for a case.” That sounds like it could be used in any case, but why would you need the FD-128a form if FD-128 could be used for everyone? Perhaps this is evidence that the FD-128 was used only for people on the Security Index. If so, this, too, has implications in Lee Harvey Oswald’s case. I’ll tell you why in my next post.

So what was up with Ray Bradbury?

For those of you who don’t know, Ray Bradbury was a hugely successful author and screen writer. His most famous work was the classic novel Fahrenheit 451. Fahrenheit 451 is frequently on banned book lists, which is so rich because it’s a work of science fiction about censorship and the importance of books in encouraging freedom of thought. I’ve never read it, but I’ll be hunkering down with it as soon as I’m done writing this post. I encourage you to do the same. (I mean, c’mon! It’s freezing outside…perfect hunkering-down weather!) George Orwell and Margaret Atwood have been quoted profusely on social media for their prescience in, well, how things have been going of late. I’d like to see a little more Ray Bradbury added to the mix.

OK, so where was I? Oh, right. So Ray Bradbury is a bit of an enigma when it comes to his FBI file. It consists of exactly one “part” in the FBI Vault, which is 40 pages. The FBI would like us all to believe that that’s the sum total of Bradbury’s file, but I would differ with them on that point.

On two of Bradbury’s 40 pages are the words “see index” written sideways in the left margin.

This time, dated 6/8/59:

Ray Bradbury’s “see index” in the margin of this FBI report; click on image for a closer view

And this time, dated : 3/7/68

Ray Bradbury’s “see index,” lightly written in the margin of this FBI report; click on image for a closer view

If you’ve been paying even the slightest bit of attention to this post, you know that I think that this is a telltale sign that Ray Bradbury was on the Security Index. My problem is that I can’t find Bradbury’s FD-122. Also, on the page dated 6/8/59, the second paragraph under the “Administrative” heading says this: “No evidences [sic] have been developed which indicate he was ever a member of the CP [Communist Party]. He is not on the Security Index or the RCI, Los Angeles Division and no recommendation is being made to so include his name in the absence of information reflecting CP membership.”

Well! First, RCI stands for Reserve-Communist Index, which was a forerunner to the Reserve Index. But, more importantly, they came right out and said that he wasn’t on the Security Index. Even if that were a true statement (and my evidence tells me that it is not) that doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his way there sometime later.

Here’s my evidence.

Ray Bradbury’s FD-305; click on image for a closer view

Ray Bradbury had an FD-305. Unfortunately, the FBI didn’t date their FD-305s—they just accompanied various other reports, including the FD-400. We don’t know for sure if it was from 1959, 1968, or any other year, though I’m pretty sure that it accompanied the June 1959 report, since it immediately followed that report in his file and the print date on the form was 10-14-58.

But as I’ve said above, the whole purpose of an FD-305 was to provide up-to-date info concerning someone’s ongoing status on the Security Index. Granted, in the top box, the agent is asked if the person is on the Security Index, but that’s a formality in my view—a way for an agent to make sure he’s using the correct form. Every other question that follows the top box has to do with their being on the Security Index, including:

[ ] The data appearing on the Security Index card are current.

[ ] Changes on the Security Index card are necessary and Form FD-122 has been submitted to the Bureau.

[ ] A suitable photograph is [ ] is not [ ] available.

Also, farther down there’s:

[ ] This case no longer meets the Security Index criteria and a letter has been directed to the Bureau recommending cancellation of the Security Index card.

[ ] This case has been re-evaluated in the light of the Security Index criteria and it continues to fall within such criteria because (state reason).

Did you notice in the latter grouping how they didn’t have a third option that the case doesn’t meet Security Index criteria? It’s either that it “no longer meets” the criteria or that it “continues to fall within such criteria”?

What’s more, the only boxes checked by the FBI’s LA field office were the ones saying that a suitable photograph was available. Guess where I believe that photograph was going? I believe it was going to be attached to the back of Ray Bradbury’s Security Index card.

Another indication that Ray Bradbury was on the Security Index is an in-depth biographical write-up that was forwarded to a separate agency on both June 8, 1959, and August 25, 1968, when the FBI was investigating if he might be contemplating a trip to Cuba. You can tell these records were destined for another agency by this disclaimer:

“This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of any kind. It is a loan to your agency, as it is the property of the FBI, and it and/or its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.”

Although the August 1968 write-up is fully redacted, both write-ups resemble the write-ups that were accompanied by the same FD-376s used for notifying the Secret Service, especially in Security Index cases. But because the FBI doesn’t include the cover letters in Bradbury’s file, we don’t get to know who their intended audience was.

Here’s the issue about Ray Bradbury and other people who had a voice that commanded public attention and respect: I think the FBI was especially secretive about their being on the Security Index. The FBI usually wanted to interview Security Index subjects in person to assess where their allegiances lay, but they seemed more cautious with writers, directors, producers, and the like. Here’s a note on the 8/15/68 report from the LA field office to FBI Headquarters which preceded the biographical write-up that was transferred to an unidentified agency:

“Information and sources, who are familiar with Cuban activities, were unable to furnish any information which would indicate travel to Cuba or any affiliation between Bradbury and REDACTED.

There is no current information that would reflect foreign travel by Bradbury.

To ascertain the affiliation between Bradbury and REDACTED, it is felt that it would require an interview of Bradbury.

It is felt, however, that due to Bradbury’s background as a known liberal writer, vocal in anti-United States war policies, an interview with Bradbury would be deemed unadvisable, UACB [Unless Advised to the Contrary by the Bureau].

Are you actually saying they lied on their June 1959 report?

I’m saying that someone wrote “see index” in the margin of a report that stated that Bradbury wasn’t on the Security Index. As for who did the writing or when, I can’t be sure. Maybe it was written by someone from FBI Headquarters upon receipt of the report. Maybe it was a little ruse the LA field office had cooked up with their colleagues at FBI Headquarters where they’d type in that Bradbury is definitely NOT on the Security Index (*wink wink*), but then they wrote “see index” by hand to let them know that he actually is. After all, they weren’t even supposed to mention the Security Index by name in their investigative reports. They were breaking protocol left and right.

And make no mistake: there was no reason for the special agent in LA to have reached for the FD-305 form if Ray Bradbury wasn’t on the Security Index. The FBI had a plethora of forms. If all the agent wanted to do was communicate that they had a suitable photo of Bradbury or that the names of the informants needed to be kept confidential, the FD-305 was not the form to use. He could have added that info to the bottom of his report. Nope, the photos that are referred to on FD-305 forms are destined for one location and one location only: the backs of Security Index cards.

Is there someone knowledgeable you can ask?

I’ve run my FBI records by a lot of knowledgeable people. I’m sure they noticed Ron’s “see index” long before I did, not to mention all of his other special markings. No one volunteered the info. Recently, I reached out to someone who I felt knew something and had less to lose than someone who was drawing an FBI pension. Unfortunately, that person didn’t respond to me.

It’s possible that I may be able to track someone down who’d be willing to tell me if FD-128 and FD-376 were only for Security Index subjects and those sorts of details. I’ll look into that. But, I’ll be honest—in my experience, retired FBI agents don’t give up much intel.

That said, if you happen to be a current or former FBI agent and would like to weigh in anonymously, please reach out through the “contact” webform at the top of the page or email me at rontammenproject[at]gmail[dot]com. I promise to protect your identity into perpetuity.

Also, as always, I try to be as accurate as possible with my reporting. If you’re an expert on FBI forms and I got anything wrong, please let me know.

As for the rest of my readers…what do you think? Are you convinced?

*********************

Special thanks to The Black Vault, Mary Ferrell Foundation, National Archives and Records Administration, Internet Archive, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for making these records available.

FBI Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File

Some surprising new evidence that the Secret Service was notified about Ron’s case

Hey, happy new year. Hope you’re doing OK. I’m going to keep this brief, but I feel the need to tell you about something that I stumbled upon today while doing research into something else. There I was, slogging through section 87 of part II of the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations (years 1960-1968), focusing on the procedures and paperwork involved with the FBI’s Security Index, when I learned about a new form that agents were required to fill out.

The form actually came out in 1965 as part of a presidential protection agreement between the FBI and Secret Service after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. What I was surprised to learn was that 1) “reports are to be disseminated henceforth to Secret Service in all security index cases,” and 2) they were to “utilize form FD-376, which is designed to serve as a letter of transmittal for both local dissemination and dissemination at the SOG” [Seat of Government].

Here’s the passage in question with my highlights:

“Interesting!” thought I, and I immediately pulled out my trusty laptop and began Googling “FD-376 AND FBI.”

What popped up surprised me, because I’d seen it before. Do you remember when I told you about the time that there was a bomb threat against Frank Sinatra at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida? Well, that was one of the documents that popped up in my search today, courtesy of The Black Vault website, along with several related records. Two of the records have 10s on them, just like Ron’s 10s.

Here’s a link to the documents I found on The Black Vault.

What follows behind the two “10s” is what surprised me. There in all its splendiferous glory was an FD-376 stipulating why the FBI was forwarding this information to the Secret Service. They chose option #6: “Individuals involved in illegal bombing or illegal bomb-making,” which was the logical choice for the occasion.

Here’s the FD-376:

Credit: The Black Vault; click on image for a closer view

As you’ll recall, my theory has been that the 10s on Ron’s missing person records mean that the FBI’s liaison to the Secret Service had received a copy of those records, which would indicate that the Secret Service did as well. So the fact that the Fontainebleau Hotel bomb threat also carried 10s along with the FD-376 seems consistent with my theory.

But hold on: If reports for anyone on the Security Index were automatically forwarded to the Secret Service, then it seems like less of a big deal. Also, not every Security Index case was given a 10 on their records. Some got 8’s, some got 4’s, some got 2’s, and so on. Some may not have been given a number at all—I don’t know. I haven’t looked into that yet.

But the 10s do seem like much bigger cases, right? The assassinations, both actual and attempted, the serial killers, the bomb threats, etc.—they seem especially well-suited for the Secret Service.

Based on this new information, I’d like to revise my hypothesis:

First, if Ron was indeed on the Security Index (and I am 100% sure that he was), I think we can all acknowledge that Ron’s records had been sent to the Secret Service, along with every other Security Index occupant. So, that’s at least something.

Second, do you think the FBI’s liaison to the Secret Service is going to want to know about every Tom, Dick, and Harry that the FBI was keeping tabs on, a list of people numbering in the tens of thousands? I don’t.

But what if the FBI liaison was only notified of the truly big stuff…the reports that dealt with the most relevant topics at hand? You know, the assassins, the serial killers, the bombers, and, yes, Ronald Tammen.

That’s a theory I’d be able to buy into.

In the near future, I’ll be posting detailed evidence that supports my theory that the two-word phrase on Ron’s and other people’s FBI docs—“see index”— is indeed code-speak for the Security Index. Hopefully, it’ll be a more riveting read than Section 87 of the FBI’s Manual of Rules and Regulations, which lulled me into a two-hour nap this afternoon. Stay tuned!

Questions? Concerns?

FBI Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File

A French terrorist who was investigated for being in Dallas on November 22, 1963, has a bunch of 10s on his FBI docs, just like Ron’s

As you probably know, I’ve been spending untold hours comparing the stamps and scribbles on the FBI’s JFK, MLK, and RFK records with the markings on Ron’s FBI missing person records. My aim is to see if I can find any similarities among them and hopefully some accompanying clues regarding how Ron spent his adult years, post-disappearance.

Last night, I decided to look up someone who some JFK researchers have theorized was the shooter on the grassy knoll on November 22, 1963. I wanted to see if the FBI had a file on him and, if so, what kinds of marks they’d made all over his records. I could only remember that he was French and that he was supposedly an assassin. I looked up his name online and plugged it into the Mary Farrell Foundation search bar to see what his FBI records looked like.

That man’s name is Jean Rene Souetre.

And wow. There’s quite a lot of info on this person.

Here are a few specifics, which I obtained with special thanks to the exhaustive research conducted by J. Gary Shaw and a couple other sources:

He was born on October 15, 1930, and he died June 18, 2001.

He’d been a captain in the French Army, serving in Algeria from 1955 to 1959.

Soon thereafter, he deserted the French Army and joined an extreme-right-wing group called OAS (Secret Army Organization), which was vehemently opposed to President Charles de Gaulle’s signing of the Evian Accord, thus granting independence to Algeria.

He was reportedly heavily involved in OAS’s assassination attempt on de Gaulle at Petit-Clamart on August 22, 1962.

He ostensibly was thought to have two aliases—Michel Roux and Michel Mertz—though, as it turns out, those names belonged to other individuals.

During the time period of March 4 – March 13, 1964, Monsieur Souetre was on the FBI’s radar in a big way.

The excitement started when the legal attache (Legat) in Paris had contacted the FBI’s New York field office seeking information on Souetre, in addition to his (mistaken) aliases of Roux and Mertz. The Legat had received word that Souetre had been in Fort Worth and Dallas on November 22, 1963, and, 18 hours later, had been expelled from the United States to either Canada or Mexico. Their concern stemmed from the fact that de Gaulle was planning a trip to Mexico in the spring, and they wanted to know why Souetre was expelled and where he was going when he left the United States.

The FBI first tracked down a dentist in Houston named Lawrence Alderson who’d met Souetre when he was in the Army stationed in France in 1953. Since that time, Alderson had traded Christmas cards with Souetre every year, but he hadn’t heard from him for over a year. So no leads there.

It was when the FBI caught up with a man named Leon Gachman, of Fort Worth, that they were able to clear up the confusion. Michel Roux, who was, presumably, a very nice, very non-violent person, was working in a hotel in Paris when Leon was visiting the City of Lights in October 1963. When Michel told Leon of his dreams to open a hotel or restaurant in the United States, Leon magnanimously invited Michel to look him up if and when he came to America. One month later, on November 20, 1963, Michel did just that, and he telephoned Gachman from Houston. Roux arrived in Fort Worth on November 21, and attended classes with Gachman’s son at Texas Christian University on November 22. They’d learned of Kennedy’s assassination when they were eating in a café. Michel went back to Houston, and then, shortly thereafter, to Mexico City to find work until he could secure a visa to live in the United States. That must not have panned out, however, because he soon moved back to Paris to be with his family.

I could be wrong, but based on the documents that have been released, it doesn’t appear that Souetre was in the United States during Kennedy’s assassination. Not only did we learn that, but we also deduced that Lawrence Alderson , D.D.S., could have probably been a little more selective in the choosing of his friends. Also, I mean no disrespect to poor Michel Roux, but wow. His timing for taking a risky leap at career advancement was…not awesome. But it doesn’t matter. None of it matters where we’re concerned. What does matter is that the FBI had thought that French terrorist and assassination plotter Jean Souetre had been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, when they were doing their investigative work in March 1964. The scribbles in the righthand corners on those documents? From the heart.

They gave him 10’s.

Just like Ron’s.

As a reminder, I think that the records with 10s signify that the FBI’s liaison to the Secret Service was cc’d on that document, which likely means that the Secret Service was notified as well. Sometimes there were other numbers, such as 9 and 7. But if there was only one number, it was always number 10.

Who but the Secret Service would want to be alerted if a would-be presidential assassin had been in a country on the Friday that the country’s president had been assassinated?

I can’t think of anyone else.

Here are Souetre’s 10’s:

For comparison, here are Ron’s.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making these documents available.

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File

Happy Fourth of July 🇺🇸

(You OK? Day 7)

July 4, 2025

It’s the fourth of July, and we’ve reached the end of our week-long journey. So what have we learned? We learned that I consistently wait until around 9 or 9:30 at night to get these bad boys out. We learned that I can’t help but get all wordy even when I say I’m going to keep things brief. On a personal level, I’ve learned that I should probably hold off on making promises that require a week-long effort, especially if it involves sitting in my sweats and writing a blog post on a morning when I really should be sleeping in or having breakfast in bed. (Happy birthday to me!) And, oh yes. We learned that Ron Tammen’s FBI documents have proven themselves to be seismic in their significance.

Today I’m going to present several additional documents I’ve recently found to be interesting. Each will be accompanied by a few sentences of background info, which is more in line with how I wanted these posts to be when I started this series last Saturday. We won’t be coming to any big conclusions right now. Observations, maybe; conclusions, hardly. Here we go!

1. Hey look! It’s L’Allier

In my April 19, 2025, post, we learned all about Rolland L’Allier, the FBI’s French-speaking legal attaché in the 1950s who headed up the Domestic Intelligence Division’s Liaison Section in 1960-62. I raised the question of whether he may have scribbled on the first page of Ron’s FBI records based on his distinctive abbreviated L’_A. Here’s his full signature, written in regular pencil, on one of Carlos Marcello’s records.

Click on image for a closer view; L’Alllier’s signature is on the bottom left, as well as the bottom right.

2. Hey look! It’s that Ci notation from a while ago

When we first began discussing the numbers in the upper-righthand corner, I pointed out a notation on a visa application for Marina Oswald. The document originated with the State Department, but this was the FBI’s copy, because it has marks all over it that are distinctively FBI. In the box midway down, on the righthand side, the words “VISA SECURITY CASE” are typed, and above that are the letters Ci and the numbers 8-1. Recently, I found a couple more Ci’s, which are written in blue pencil on Carlos Marcello’s records. It might be a person, but I’m thinking it may also stand for Counterintelligence, which was part of the Domestic Intelligence Division.

Marina Oswald’s Ci

Carlos Marcello’s Ci’s

3. Someone has circled Carlos Marcello’s ST- and REC- numbers on a couple of his documents; also, the word “classifying” is written nearby in blue and underlined in green

I’m thinking that these two docs tell us that the FBI indeed views the ST- and REC- numbers as a unit or complementary pair, just like we’d surmised. For the most part, they belong together. Have I seen an REC- number by itself? I have. Have I seen two different REC-numbers on one record? Not gonna lie, I’ve seen that too. But I’ve never, ever seen an ST- number without an accompanying REC- number. Also, the fact that someone wrote “classifying” nearby indicates that the pair of circled ST- and REC- numbers has something to do with how the FBI’s Classifying Unit, which is in the Records Division, categorized the case.

4. Like Ron, Carlos Marcello had a sealed enclosure too, but the word “Sealed” is handwritten.

I don’t see many FBI records with the word “Sealed” on them, which tells me that they’re especially secret. Here’s one for Carlos Marcello.

5. So far, I’ve found only two people who have the same “SEALED ENCL” stamp as Ron Tammen.

I believe that the sealing of an enclosure was considered a big deal for the FBI, and for someone to have the foresight to use the “SEALED ENCL” stamp means that it wasn’t just an afterthought. I think they meant to seal those contents from the get-go. Here are two people on which the FBI used the same stamp as Ron’s. One you met on Day 2 of this series. The other one was famously kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army on February 4, 1974.

Ron Tammen

Wayne B. Williams

Patty Hearst

OK, I think that covers it for today. Have a happy Fourth, everyone. Get your rest, stay hydrated, and let’s keep fighting the good fight for democracy.

Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making these documents available.

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File

LOOKS LIKE!

(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:

Click on image for a closer view; note that the FD-217 is super light

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:

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.

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File, Uncategorized

DEMOCRACY!

(You OK? Day 5)

July 2, 2025

We’re going to spend the next three days examining several of the FBI’s recently released records on Carlos Marcello, the one-time Godfather of the New Orleans Mafia, and all-around horrible person. In the book Fatal Hour, G. Robert Blakey, who headed the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and coauthor Richard N. Billings allege that organized crime members were responsible for JFK’s assassination, with Carlos Marcello at the helm. Serendipitously, on November 22, 1963, Marcello had been sitting in a New Orleans courtroom on the final day of his trial for fraud against the government. At 3:20 p.m. Central Time, 102 minutes after Walter Cronkite had announced on national television that President Kennedy had died, the jury returned their verdict of not guilty.

Carlos Marcello as a younger man (public domain). To view a photo of him when he was running the New Orleans Mafia, go here.

To be sure, the FBI viewed Marcello as, um, colorful. That’s why it’s so fitting that his recently released records look the way they do.

Today’s short post showcases several of the Marcello records. What’s fun about them is that they’re copies of original documents as opposed to copies of copies. This means that we get to see what the scribbles and stamps we’ve become familiar with on Ron Tammen’s records actually looked like in real life. In addition to scrawled names in graphite gray, some scribbles were written in red pencil and others were written in blue. The stamps were in different-colored inks as well, such as teal and magenta.

An editing pencil of yore

Not only do the colors make it easier to spot a given scribble in question, but I think they may provide clues into which division made them.

And so, without further ado, I give you several of Carlos Marcello’s FBI docs.

Do any scribbles and stamps jump out at you as looking familiar? And did you notice that MSL makes an appearance on one of them? What other thoughts do you have?

See you tomorrow.

Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making these documents available.

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File

WHAT!

(You OK? Day 4)

July 1, 2025

This next update will probably be discouraging for you, but that happens in research too. Plus we’re ramping up to more…um…colorful revelations later this week, so we’re bound to have at least one slow day, right? Welcome to your slow day.

Do you remember MSL, the person who (ostensibly) wrote “Removed from Ident files” on Ron’s missing person documents on June 4 and 5, 1973? For years, I’ve tried to identify who that person was. If they’re still alive (which is growing less likely), imagine the intel that person could share about why they removed his documents from the Ident files, as well as, gosh, just what was up with the mysterious Missing Person File Room? Unfortunately, to this day, the name of the person with the initials MSL remains unknown.

With that said, I may have found a few clues regarding their career trajectory at the FBI.

MSL shows up in two ways on Ron’s documents. The first was in 1967, when Ron’s father wrote to J. Edgar Hoover to ask him if the soldier pictured in his newspaper could be Ron. It was MSL who, with assistance from someone with the initials mjb, wrote J. Edgar Hoover’s response to Mr. Tammen on October 11, 1967.

This aligns well with an MSL whose initials are typed at the bottom of Teletypes that are sent from FBI Headquarters to designated field offices and attaches in the early 1960s. For this reason, I think that MSL worked in the FBI’s Communications Section from at least August 1961 up through at least October 1967.

MSL’s initials are written in the top center of page 1; click on image for a closer view

MSL’s initials are typed in the last line of page 2; click on image for a closer view

The next time we bump into MSL is in June 1973, when Ron’s documents are removed from the Ident files. I think MSL was fairly high up the chain of the Identification Division by this time, because, on a document dated May 22, 1973, they initialed the line next to Fletcher Thompson’s name. Thompson was the head of the Identification Division.

Our final encounter with MSL is on March 3, 1975. They’ve added their initials to an addendum of a memo with the important subject head of SENSTUDY 75. SENSTUDY 75 was the FBI’s nickname for the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. You and I know it better as the Church Committee, named for its chair, Senator Frank Church. MSL initialed the document behind the initials JH, or John Hotis, of the FBI’s Legal Counsel Division. John B. Hotis was a highly regarded official who’d held a number of supervisory roles for the FBI. He worked as a special assistant to William Webster when he was director of the FBI, and, in 1987, when Webster moved over to the CIA to direct that agency, he took Hotis with him.

I’m thinking that MSL must have been a pretty big deal by 1975 to be working for John Hotis.

As it turns out, that’s also the year that I think MSL may have retired or found a job outside of the FBI. Or, just my luck, if MSL was a woman, she may have gotten married in April, May, or June and changed her name. Whatever happened to MSL, I think it happened sometime after they initialed the SENSTUDY 75 memo and before the July 1 edition of the FBI telephone directory was printed. They’re not in it.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking: how do we know that the MSL who worked for John Hotis in 1975 is the same MSL who worked for Fletcher Thompson in 1973 or the MSL who worked for the Communications Section from at least August 1961 through October 1967, and possibly later.

All I have to go by is MSL’s initials and how they wrote them. For Ron’s documents, MSL is written in all caps, but for the others, everything is in lowercase. What makes me think it’s the same person is the “m.” Whether it’s lowercase or capitalized, that “m” always has a little flourish in the front.

********************************

1962: Communications Section

********************************

1973: Identification Division

********************************

1975: Legal Counsel Division

It has crossed my mind that MSL might have been a special agent versus an administrative staff member. If so, they should be included in the FBI’s “Dead List,” which is a compilation by the Records/Information Dissemination Section of deceased FBI officials as well as random famous people and criminals. Unfortunately, there are no individuals with the initials MSL in the 2022 version, which I believe is the latest online version, and the most comprehensive listing available.

I know, I know…I could be wrong. We could have three different people with the initials MSL for all I know. However, in all my searching, I’ve yet to find anyone—anyone—with those initials. I’m no math whiz, but wouldn’t that increase the chances that it’s the same person?

Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making these documents available.

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation, Ron's Missing Person File

IS!

(You OK? Day 3)

June 30, 2025

Hello! Today’s post has to do with a three-letter notation in the top righthand corner of ten of Ron’s FBI documents. In past posts, we’ve learned that Hank Greenspun, former publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, has the same notation on two of his FBI records from July 1973. We’ve also discussed that Hank Greenspun has Watergate ties, since the same people linked to the Watergate burglary had planned to break into Hank’s office in Las Vegas in early 1972. Their plan ostensibly fell through.

The notation we’re discussing today is “Hac,” which is written with an always slanty, sometimes loopy, sometimes angular, “H,” and my news is as follows: I’ve found another person who has those three letters on her FBI records. What’s more, you already know her. That person is…

Marjorie Swann!

That’s right, the pacifist bookkeeper from Connecticut whom the FBI labeled as “subversive” has an unquestionable, undeniable “Hac” written in the top righthand corner of one of the FBI records in her file. She isn’t named specifically on the document, but the New England Committee for Non-Violent Action (NECNVA) is. According to an October 1975 document from the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Marjorie Swann had co-founded the organization. Plus, I’ll say it again: the record is in her file.

Marjorie’s Hac resembles Ron’s and Hank’s Hacs so much, that I could swear they’re written by the same person.

Here’s Marjorie’s Hac:

Here’s one of Hank Greenspun’s Hacs, which resembles Marjorie’s:

Here’s one of Ron’s Hacs, which resembles Hank Greenspun’s Hac, which resembles Marjorie’s:

But that’s not all. In a former post, I’d speculated that one of the top contenders for the person whom I believe was the author of Ron’s Hac was Russell H. Horner, of the FBI’s Intelligence Division. In 1974, which I believe was the year of his retirement, Horner was chief of the Special Records and Related Research Unit. That may sound deadly dull to you, but it’s not. He oversaw some of the most sensitive records the FBI had to offer, including those having to do with the FBI’s highly controversial electronic surveillance program as well as their highly confidential Administrative Index, successor to the Security Index. To have “R.H. Horner’s” scribble on your document in the 1970s meant…wow. I imagine it was super significant.

Well, guess what? Russell Horner was following Marjorie Swann and her NECNVA closely. You can see his slanty, loopy signature in the upper righthand margin of the following document as proof:

Here it is blown up:

What does all of this mean? We still don’t know. And I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong. But if Russell H. Horner had written “Hac” on one or more of Ron’s ten pages, then all bets are off regarding what the FBI knew about Ron, not to mention how they obtained that knowledge.

Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making these documents available.

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation

THIS!

(You OK? Day 2)

June 29, 2025

Welcome back! Today’s entry concerns two individuals who also were assigned the elusive number 10 at the top righthand corner of some of their FBI records.

Wayne Bertram Williams/The Atlanta Child Murders

Wayne Bertram Williams is an African American man who, in 1981, became the primary person of interest for murders that were taking place in Atlanta beginning in 1979. These murders were referred to as the Atlanta Child Murders.

According to the FBI, a law enforcement task force had been conducting a late-night stakeout at one of the bridges traversing the river where several bodies had been found, when they heard a loud splash. The driver who sped across the bridge shortly after the splash, at around 2:52 a.m., was Williams. In 1982, he was tried and convicted for the killing of two young African American men, Nathaniel Cater (whose body was found a couple days after Williams’ encounter with police and was the likely source of the splash) and Jimmy Ray Payne. Law enforcement also linked Williams to 20 of 29 kidnapping-murders of primarily male African American children, teens, and young adults that had occurred between 1979 and 1981. They did so by comparing fibers and hair from Williams’ home and car with those found on the victims. Williams was never tried for the murders of the other victims, however.

Here are several of the reports that were written up before Williams became a suspect:

So, here we are with another convicted murderer, likely a serial killer, who shares the number 10 with Ron Tammen. As we discussed in an earlier post, the Sharon Tate murders by Charles Manson’s followers also appear to have warranted a number 10, though it’s harder to tell for those documents.

Marjorie Swann

Our second example is Marjorie Swann, who was a bookkeeper and pacifist whom the FBI labeled as a subversive. Marjorie belonged to an organization known as the New England Committee for Non-Violent Action, or NECNVA. There were other CNVAs around the country as well, but Marjorie belonged to the chapter in Voluntown, Connecticut. They did what your typical peace-loving org does: convene and plan, hand out fliers, write letters, stage protests, things like that, though, judging by the below document, it appears she was engaged in riskier activities too at times.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that being a convicted murderer and alleged serial killer is way different than belonging to a group that speaks openly about their opposition to the Vietnam War. And you’d be right. However, remember what our current hypothesis is: that the 10 indicates that the FBI’s liaison to the U.S. Secret Service received a copy of the memo.

Nevertheless, it does lead me to ask: does our hypothesis still hold for these two people?

Although the Secret Service isn’t the agency whose primary responsibility is investigating murderers and alleged serial killers—that job belongs to the FBI—I’m sure they would want to be kept in the loop about their actions. For example, there might be a chance that an alleged serial killer could present a danger to the people who the Secret Service does normally protect. So I think our hypothesis still holds for Wayne Williams.

But what about Marjorie Swann? I was wondering if I should abandon my hypothesis, since I thought the Secret Service would have less of an interest in her, though I thought it was possible that her Paris meeting had raised red flags with them. As it turns out, it appears they were interested in antiwar activists in general.

In a memo written by J. Edgar Hoover on September 26, 1969, he alerts a whole slew of federal officials and agencies about “Student Agitational and Antiwar Activity in the United States.” The U.S Secret Service is one of the agencies listed in his “To” column, and indeed, the New England Committee for Nonviolent Action is listed as planning a demonstration in Groton, CT, when the Secretary of Defense was visiting. So I think our theory still holds for Majorie and the NECNVA too.

By the way, did you notice the “fd-217” scribble next to Marjorie’s 10? We’ll be discussing more on that topic later this week.

OK! That’s all for today. I’ll see you tomorrow.

Thanks to the FBI Vault and the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available.

FBI Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Records, J. Edgar Hoover/FBI Investigation

You OK? Same. Let’s just focus on Ron Tammen for a while

Hey everyone. I feel like I’ve been needing to post something lately, but I haven’t exactly been in the mood. First, I’ve never done very well in extreme heat. And second…well, for as long as I’ve known me, I’ve been a big believer in things like democracy and science and the Golden Rule. For some reason, those seemingly unifying bedrock principles are now being thought of as quaint vestiges of a past civilization by some people, a fraction of whom I used to know and even hang with on occasion.

So, I’m sad. No, like…really sad. Like, waking up in the morning and realizing that I’ve been crying in my sleep sad, which has happened to me twice in the past week. As you can imagine, it’s challenging for a blogger to write a post that’s all zippy and upbeat when they’ve been living under a dome of 90-degree gloom for day upon day, and, deep down, they don’t envision the dome lifting anytime soon—at least not for the next 3 ½ years.

Still, I’ve made a few interesting discoveries lately that apply to Ron Tammen’s FBI documents, and, although you’ve proven to be patient, dear reader, I realize that 3 ½ years would be too long for anyone to have to wait for an update. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I’m a practitioner of the Golden Rule, and I wouldn’t want to be treated that way.

Here’s what I’m planning to do: starting now, and for the next six days, I’ll be posting some of my most recent discoveries for you. Sometimes I may just post a document and provide two or three sentences for background, while other times, I may wax a little poetic about it. (It’ll be more of the former and less of the latter.) The final post of this series will be on the fourth of July, the birthday of America’s independence from a monarchy (249 years of age!), the birthday of the Freedom of Information Act (59 years of age!), and, OK, the birthday of yours truly (internally, I’m a 5-year-old “fearless” and “adventurous” “kid at heart,” according to a quiz on BuzzFeed!).

So grab an American flag and your trusty ol’ cowbell and let’s do this, people. Let’s shake off some of these doldrums we’ve been feeling and take a gander at some FBI docs. Because, the last time I checked, this is what democracy still looks like.

June 28, 2025

Here’s another 10 that I found

To pick up from the last time we discussed 10s in the upper righthand corner of FBI records, I currently believe they were written in that location to indicate that the FBI’s liaison to the Secret Service should receive a copy. Some 10s have hyphens followed by the numbers 1 or 2, while others don’t. I think a 10-1 and a 10 mean essentially the same thing: that the liaison should receive one copy of the memo. A 10-2 would indicate that the liaison should receive two copies.

For today’s release, here’s a document that has a 10-1 in the upper righthand corner, similar to the 10s that are in the upper righthand corner of Ron’s documents.

Included on the memo are the names of three people you probably recognize by now: Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis, three of the five Watergate burglars. On April 15, 1977, this memo was written to inform the recipient that the pardon attorney had requested an Application for Pardon for the three men. As it turns out, only Eugenio Martinez would be pardoned. All three men were denied pardons by President Carter, but Martinez was later pardoned by President Reagan.

As you may recall, so far, I’ve found three other documents for Frank Sturgis (aka Frank Fiorini) with 10s on them. Here’s number four. In some circles, Sturgis is also suspected of playing a possible role in the assassination of JFK.

l-r: Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, and Bernard Barker

OK! See how this is going to work? Short and sweet, but hopefully intriguing and/or enlightening.

See you tomorrow. Note that there’s no definite time when I’ll be posting. It’ll be a surprise. Also, if you should notice anything on the documents that I’ve missed or neglected to mention, please don’t hesitate to speak up.

Thanks to the Mary Ferrell Foundation for making this document available.