Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4520619
label
Justice - Defense of Government Employees
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520619
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Justice - Defense of Government Employees
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Central Intelligence Agency. (12/04/1981 - )
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Class actions (Civil procedure)
Law and legislation
Employees
Civil service
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520619
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-11-01
month
11
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a057b4f5e305b708
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 22, folder "Justice - Defense of Government
Employees" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 22 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 11, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE:
FROM:
Phil Buchen T.WB.
Talked to Larry Silberman who said that he did not believe
a memorandum would be ready for our consideration covering
general policy on representation of government employees or
former employees in suits brought by them. That it would not
be ready in time to talk to Larry Higby.
He suggested I advise Larry Higby that because of a possible
conflict of interest, the Justice Department is declining to
represent him in the case of Halperin V. Kissinger. I so
advised Higby and suggested that if he wanted any further
information, he should have his attorney call Larry Silberman.
Higby said he had been advised when talking to Justice originally
that this was a possibility but now he questions what the status
is of the information he provided to Justice. Then I suggested
he express his concern to his own attorney.
"""
>
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 5, 1974
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
DONALD RUMSFELD/
SUBJECT:
Court Pleadings Received from Herod McLeod,
Plaintiff per se, Naming Donald Rumsfeld
Attached as Tab A are purported pleadings I have received in the
mail from a Herod E. McLeod. I have no knowledge who he is or
what matter he is referring to in the pleadings. Obviously, from
these documents one can not even be certain that a court action is
pending. However, this should be checked out since it has to do
with my government tenure. If my representation is necessary, I
presume it will be handled by the Office of Legal Counsel in the
Justice Department. Therefore, I would appreciate your taking
the necessary steps to have this matter forwarded to the Justice
Department.
I call your attention to the fact that in all of the documents I am
referred to as Rumfeld or Rumfield, instead of Rumsfeld. You
will also notice that this matter is supposedly set for hearing on
Friday, November 15th at 9:00a. m.
I would appreciate your keeping me advised of what happens in this
matter.
FORD
Attachments 11/8/74
TAB
B
COVERING LETTER
INTRODUCTION
MOTIONS
ARTHUR H. SILLS, ET AL - CIVIL 698-69
ATLANTIC CITY PRESS, ET AL - CIVIL 198-73
ARTHUR H. PONZIO AND JERRY FISHER - CIVIL 264-73
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RE: HEROD E. McLEOD - PLAINTIFF PROSE
:
1815 HUMMOCK AVENUE
:
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401
:
:
VS.
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
THE ABOVE ET AL
:
1. HONORABLE DONALD H. RUMFELD
: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
: NOTICE OF MOTION FOR NEW
WASHINGTON, D.C.
: TRIAL
: IN EQUITY - MATTER OF RIGHT
2. RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON, EX-PRESIDENT
: IN THE ABOVE AND SUBSEQUENT
RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON, INDIVIDUAL
: DEFENDANTS
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA
:
:
Defendants.
:
TO: ALL COUNSEL
TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, Herod E. McLeod, Prose, City of
Atlantic City, above address, will make application before this Court at
400 Market Street, Camden, New Jersey, returnable the 3rd Friday on the 15th
day of November, 1974, at 9:00 A.M. prevailing time, for an Order granting
a new trial in the above and subsequently to set aside judgment in the above
and grant a new trial as contained in Statements of Facts in the
Motion Rule 60 (b) (f).
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the time and place aforesaid, the under-
signed will also make application for such relief as the Court may deem just.
BY: PLAINTIFF HEROD E. McLEOD, IN THE ABOVE PROSE
DATED: October 24, 1974
SERVED THIS DATE H. 1974
OCTOBER 12, 1974
THE INTRODUCTION FOR NEW TRIAL
1
HEROD E. McLEOD, PLAINTIFF, PROSE
VS.
ATLANTIC CITY PRESS, ET AL HON. CHAIM SANDLER, ONE NEW YORK
AVENUE, ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY
2
Collusion between defense - Kirkman, Etc., and prosecution -
Legal Services - firing of Leonard N. Wallach, Director, Legal
Services, by Aaron J. Krauss, etc., the failure of Judge Rimm
to notify defense counsel; the holding of hearings in the
Appellant Division of Superior Court, Part B, Judge Collester
sitting beneath, without notice, without counsel, while Plaintiff
was in the intensive care room of the VA Hospital in Philadelphia,
and the "Improper Actions by Judge Jacobs, Small Claims Court;
the collusive obstruction of justice by the State of New Jersey,
McLeod vs. Sills, etc; the massive violations of the Constitution
by Former President Nixon, unindicted; co-conspirator, Agnew,
convicted; John Mitchell's interferences with the First District,
The Court of Claims; the Clerks Office of the United States
Supreme Court; sickness unto death, all makes it necessary for a
3
new trial.
STAY OF JUDGMENT
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
RULE 60 (B) -62- (f)
4
"In any State in which a judgment is a lien upon the property
of a judgment debtor, in which judgment debtor is entitled to a
FORD
stay of execution, eight (8) days notice, in Small Claims Court
LIBRARY
#130 not given in the District Court, must take such a notice as
it would be, or had the action been maintained by the State Court.
5
Judge Cohen should have granted stay inasmuch as the County
II
Court had been moved to do so (four days after judgment, June 14,
1968 pending removal from State Court to Federal Court).
6
New trials, under Rule 59 may be had in actions tried or not
by jury. Courts may open judgments if one has been entered, take
additional findings and enter new judgrents. Motion made four
days after June 14, 1968.
PAGE TWO - THE INTRODUCTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
SEIZURE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
1
The seizure of property without due process, in the Ellsburg
Case, is the same as that of the Atlantic City Press. On two
or more occasions, in which paid for in advance, political ad-
vertisement, but did not publish ads in either case: McLeod's
in the 1966 Federal Elections as candidate for the County
Committee, the 13th Precinct of the Third Ward, Atlantic City.
2
See Shirley VS. Cooper, Mercer County Legal Services. In
such cases, the United States Supreme Court struck down such in
Florida and Pennsylvania. Seizure of McLeod's bank account
violated the Fourth Amendment. Ridgway of Record.
3
JOHN MITCHELL & GREY
Every case Former Attorney General Mitchell and Grey of the
FBI has been thrown out of Court. But their infiltration into
the judicial proceedings, in the First District, The Court of
Claims and the Clerks Office of the United States Supreme Court
still makes it impossible for justice to be obtained in this and
similar cases, involving the twenty-five million poor, blacks,
Chicanos, women and children in the low-income bracket.
4
Violations in derogation to the Constitution, where a judgment
is sustained against a citizen, is reviewable in a new trial and
in the case of client-lawyer relationships, there can be no
defense, but such was claimed in Watergate "COVERUP".
5
"Ongoing criminal conspiracies, obstruction of justice,
misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasances in office are
too obvious for recitation, witnessed by the convictions
from Watergate to the City of Atlantic City."
6
At the present time, there are more than 30 policemen and
more to come, in McLeod VS. City of Atlantic City, involved in
FORD II LIBRARY
"kickback" take, rape, extortion, no show, fraud, misrepresenta-
tion. The Nixon pervasive criminal syndrome invades the very
marrow and bone of the administration of justice. My motion to
impeach, jail later was denied. See 73-8127 73-8128 filed
August 14, 1974 VS. OEO MIS 264-73 28 USC 1331-1334, 1341
2201-2202 (1970) Pinderton. U.S. VS. Pinderton.
HEROD E. McLEOD
"THOUGH THE HEAVENS FALL, JUSTICE MUST BE DONE"
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08108
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
RE: McLEOD, HEROD E.
1815 HUMMOCK AVENUE
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401
CIVIL ACTION: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, MERIT, MATTER
OF RIGHT"
MOORE: 6 A Rule 60 (B)
VS.
2
ATLANTIC CITY PRESS, ET AL (A newspaper in interstate com-
merce, Ohio & Atlantic Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401),
Honorable Chaim Sandler, One South New York Avenue, Atlantic City,
New Jersey 08401.
3
OTHER DEFENDANTS: Originally Richard Milhouse Nixon, former
President of the United States, Richard Milhouse Nixon, individ-
ually, San Clemente, Cal., Donald Rumfield, former Director of the
Office of Economic Opportunity, created by an act of Congress, as
amended 1970, 2708 U.S.C. Section 2790 42 U.S.C. under Section 221,
for legal representation of the poor, Blacks, Chicanos, women and
children; Rumfield now in Executive Office.
4
CIVIL ACTIONS NOS. 371;375; 370-73 by consolidated actions
of American Federation of Government Employees VS. OEO, Affirmed:
Judge John J. Jones, 11 April, 1963.
5
OTHER DEFENDANTS: Atlantic-Cape Legal Services, Inc., 1421
Atlantic Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey; Rabbi Aaron Krauss,
407 Lancaster Avenue, Margate City, Margate, New Jersey; John
Mitchell, Former Attorney General of the United States, D.C., now
on trial before Judge Sirica, D.C.
6
CHARGE: Obstruction of justice, ongoing conspiracy to
obstruct justice; U.S.A. VS. Pinkerton, common law.
7
In Motions: On Merit, Matter of Right
LIBRARY
1. To set aside judgment of Dismissal;
II
2. Amendment of judgment to reopen case;
3. To reserve defendants. Par. 2, ltr. dated 4/19/74 Budiniak
Moore - 6 A Rule 60 (B)
Autrorizes six reasons: 60 F. (1) ; 60 A (2); 60 A (3)
Page 2
Reopen Case VS. Press, Et Al
Appellant so moves.
1. Motion made in reasonable time.
2. Not more than one year after judgment.
3. Or ordered, or proceedings where taken or entered.
59.04 (7) 59/12 (1) Supra
60.22 - 60-27
Supra
60.28 (2)
Infra.
59/09 (1) - ( 3)
59/12 (1) 2d.
60/28
BRIEFS IN SUPPORT
1. 59/09 Henderson V. Moore (1809) 5 Branch 11, 3;
2.
Indianpolis, St. Louis RR Co., VS. Horst (1876)
93 U.S. 291,23;
3.
McDonald V. Plessy (1915)
288 U.S. 264,35 St. Ct. 78359
4.
McQeon VS. Central Stamping Co.
CCA 3rd. ( 1920) 264 F. 385;
5.
Maryland Casualty Co. VS. Dawson, CCA (5th)
91970 430 F.2d. 420,14 FR, authorizes further
proceedings to be taken.
Rehearing as a matter of right. Constitutionally under
common affords equity. Gives Plaintiffs right to jury
trial; right to examine witness, and to cross examine
witnesses, avail himself of new evidence not available
to him heretofore; produce exhibits, lacking in the
first place (suppressed) without harsh affects to
defendants. Amalgamatious to Rule 59
REHEARING: Power of Court to grant new trial is hearing in equity
has a venerable common law and equitable origin 59/05 - 59/07
The exercise of such power could not exist, without power
somewhere to grant new trials. 59/05. See Bright V. Eynon
(K B 1757) 1 Burr, 390, 393, 97. A general judgment, or verdict
can only be set aside by a new trial, especially in an "ongoing
conspiracy with accumulation of deprivations are tantamount to
assault and battery causing irreparable harm to life, property
and even death.
Page 3
Reopen Case VS. Atlantic City Press et al
ACCUMULATIVE NATURE OF ACUTE CIRCUMSTANCES
IN VIOLATION OF THE 1964-1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT
1
On December 7, 1966 "A day of infamy" suit was filed in the
Small Claims Court, Judge Herbert Jacobs sitting beneath, al-
leging that the guaranteed constitutional rights of Herod E.
McLeod and his good, late wife, Maud W. McLeod, a teacher of some
42 years, that their voting rights had been abridged". SC 130
2
The then, and now defendant Atlantic City Press never printed
the names of the candidates, for county committeeman and county
committeewoman, according to the election laws, Title 19 of New
Jersey. As a result, the check was stopped, but the Press won
a perjuried judgment of $100.00 by suppressing the evidence,
which has been made available to me, through federal intervention
Thanks to Watergate and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the
Chief Judge, and the Special Watergate Prosecutor.
3
In the 1972 presidential campaign, the same Atlantic City
Press cashed by checks but never ran the ads. Counsel, Chaim
says: "We have McLeod's money, and we will return it, if he
asked for it." I am suing, did sue, but was denied, due to the
accumulated obstructions of Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, and the
Republican and Democratic organizations, the State of New Jersey,
"Where organized crime can get most anything it wants."
4
FREE TRADE IN IDEAS: JUSTICE HOLMES
"First Amendment: Justice Holmes said:" The ultimate
good desired, is better reached by free trade in
ideas, uninhibited and wide open debate". That was
the basis for the Peter Zinger decision.
5
Because of the conspiracies to obstruct justice, by the Press,
OEO, Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell and the State of New Jersey, the
perjuried judgments stands, in that: the first, fourth, fifth,
sixth, seventh and fourteenth amendments have been violated.
6
Unless a new trial is granted, "The attainment of justice
is nil", and can only be sat aside by a new trial. I so move.
See Bright V. Eynon KB, 1757 1. Burr 390.397.
BY:
HEROD E. McLEOD, PROSE
PLAINTIFF
GAMDEN
FM
OCT2674
E20
N
j
Hon Donald XOEO
Executive Office-- -
WHITE HOUSE Director
RECEPTION & SECURITY
Washington, D.C
OCT 31 1974
Processed by,
TAB
A
COVERING LETTER
INTRODUCTION
MOTIONS
ARTHUR H. SILLS, ET AL - CIVIL 698-69
ATLANTIC CITY PRESS, ET AL - CIVIL 198-73
ARTHUR H. PONZIO AND JERRY FISHER - CIVIL 264-73
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RE: HEROD E. McLEOD - PLAINTIFF PROSE
:
1815 HUMMOCK AVENUE
:
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401
:
:
VS.
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
THE ABOVE ET AL
:
1. HONORABLE DONALD H. RUMFELD
: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
: NOTICE OF MOTION FOR NEW
WASHINGTON, D.C.
: TRIAL
: IN EQUITY - MATTER OF RIGHT
2. RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON, EX-PRESIDENT
:
IN THE ABOVE AND SUBSEQUENT
RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON, INDIVIDUAL
: DEFENDANTS
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA
:
:
Defendants.
:
TO: ALL COUNSEL
TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, Herod E. McLeod, Prose, City of
Atlantic City, above address, will make application before this Court at
400 Market Street, Camden, New Jersey, returnable the 3rd Friday on the 15th
day of November, 1974, at 9:00 A.M. prevailing time, for an Order granting
a new trial in the above and subsequently to set aside judgment in the above
and grant a new trial as contained in Statements of Facts in the
Motion Rule 60 (b) (f).
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the time and place aforesaid, the under-
signed will also make application for such relief as the Court may deem just.
BY:
HEROD E. McLEOD, PROSE
PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE
DATED: October 24, 1974
SERVED THIS DATE 26. 1974
OCTOBER 12, 1974
THE INTRODUCTION FOR NEW TRIAL
1
HEROD E. McLEOD, PLAINTIFF, PROSE
VS.
ATLANTIC CITY PRESS, ET AL HON. CHAIM SANDLER, ONE NEW YORK
AVENUE, ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY
2
Collusion between defense - Kirkman, Etc., and prosecution -
Legal Services - firing of Leonard N. Wallach, Director, Legal
Services, by Aaron J. Krauss, etc., the failure of Judge Rimm
to notify defense counsel; the holding of hearings in the
Appellant Division of Superior Court, Part B, Judge Collester
sitting beneath, without notice, without counsel, while Plaintiff
was in the intensive care room of the VA Hospital in Philadelphia,
and the "Improper Actions by Judge Jacobs, Small Claims Court;
the collusive obstruction of justice by the State of New Jersey,
McLeod vs. Sills, etc; the massive violations of the Constitution
by Former President Nixon, unindicted; co-conspirator, Agnew,
convicted; John Mitchell's interferences with the First District,
The Court of Claims; the Clerks Office of the United States
Supreme Court; sickness unto death, all makes it necessary for a
3
new trial.
STAY OF JUDGMENT
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
RULE 60 (B) -62- (f)
4
"In any State in which a judgment is a lien upon the property
of a judgment debtor, in which judgment debtor is entitled to a
stay of execution, eight (8) days notice, in Small Claims Court
#130 not given in the District Court, must take such a notice as
it would be, or had the action been maintained by the State Court,
5
Judge Cohen should have granted stay inasmuch as the County
II
Court had been moved to do so (four days after judgment, June 14,
1968 pending removal from State Court to Federal Court).
6
New trials, under Rule 59 may be had in actions tried or not
by jury. Courts may open judgments if one has been entered, take
additional findings and enter nev judgrents. Motion made four
days after June 14, 1968.
PAGE TWO - THE INTRODUCTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
SEIZURE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
1
The seizure of property without due process, in the Ellsburg
Case, is the same as that of the Atlantic City Press. On two
or more occasions, in which paid for in advance, political ad-
vertisement, but did not publish ads in either case: McLeod's
in the 1966 Federal Elections as candidate for the County
Committee, the 13th Precinct of the Third Ward, Atlantic City.
2
See Shirley VS. Cooper, Mercer County Legal Services. In
such cases, the United States Supreme Court struck down such in
Florida and Pennsylvania. Seizure of McLeod's bank account
violated the Fourth Amendment. Ridgway of Record.
3
JOHN MITCHELL & GREY
Every case Former Attorney General Mitchell and Grey of the
FBI has been thrown out of Court. But their infiltration into
the judicial proceedings, in the First District, The Court of
Claims and the Clerks Office of the United States Supreme Court
still makes it impossible for justice to be obtained in this and
similar cases, involving the twenty-five million poor, blacks,
Chicanos, women and children in the low-income bracket.
4
Violations in derogation to the Constitution, where a judgment
is sustained against a citizen, is reviewable in a new trial and
in the case of client-lawyer relationships, there can be no
defense, but such was claimed in Watergate "COVERUP".
5
"Ongoing criminal conspiracies, obstruction of justice,
misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasances in office are
too obvious for recitation, witnessed by the convictions
from Watergate to the City of Atlantic City."
6
At the present time, there are more than 30 policemen and
more to come, in McLeod VS. City of Atlantic City, involved in
"kickback" take, rape, extortion, no show, fraud, misrepresenta-
II
tion. The Nixon pervasive criminal syndrome invades the very
marrow and bone of the administration of justice. My motion to
impeach, jail later was denied. See 73-8127 73-8128 filed
August 14, 1974 VS. OEO MIS 264-73 28 USC 1331-1334, 1341
2201-2202 (1970) Pinderton. U.S. VS. Pincerton.
ANNUSIT
HEROD E. McLEOD
"THOUGH THE HEAVENS FALL, JUSTICE MUST BE DONE"
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08108
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
RE: McLEOD, HEROD E.
1815 HUMMOCK AVENUE
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401
CIVIL ACTION: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, MERIT, MATTER
OF RIGHT"
MOORE: 6 A Rule 60 (B)
VS.
2
ATLANTIC CITY PRESS, ET AL (A newspaper in interstate com-
merce, Ohio & Atlantic Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401),
Honorable Chaim Sandler, One South New York Avenue, Atlantic City,
New Jersey 08401.
3
OTHER DEFENDANTS: Originally Richard Milhouse Nixon, former
President of the United States, Richard Milhouse Nixon, individ-
ually, San Clemente, Cal., Donald Rumfield, former Director of the
Office of Economic Opportunity, created by an act of Congress, as
amended 1970, 2708 U.S.C. Section 2790 42 U.S.C. under Section 221
for legal representation of the poor, Blacks, Chicanos, women and
children; Rumfield now in Executive Office.
4
CIVIL ACTIONS NOS. 371;375; 370-73 by consolidated actions
of American Federation of Government Employees VS. OEO, Affirmed:
Judge John J. Jones, 11 April, 1963.
5
OTHER DEFENDANTS: Atlantic-Cape Legal Services, Inc., 1421
Atlantic Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey; Rabbi Aaron Krauss,
407 Lancaster Avenue, Margate City, Margate, New Jersey; John
Mitchell, Former Attorney General of the United States, D.C., now
on trial before Judge Sirica, D.C.
6
CHARGE: Obstruction of justice, ongoing conspiracy to
obstruct justice; U.S.A. VS. Pinkerton, common law.
7
In Motions: On Merit, Matter of Right
1. To set aside judgment of Dismissal;
II
2. Amendment of judgment to reopen case;
3. To reserve defendants. Par. 2, ltr. dated 4/19/74 Budiniak
Moore - 6 A Rule 60 (B)
Autrorizes six reasons: 60 F. (1) ; 60 A (2); 60 A (3)
Page 2
Reopen Case VS. Press, Et Al
Appellant so moves.
1. Motion made in reasonable time.
2. Not more than one year after judgment.
3. Or ordered, or proceedings where taken or entered.
59.04 (7) 59/12 (1) Supra
60.22 - 60-27
Supra
60.28 ( 2)
Infra.
59/09 ( 1) - ( 3)
59/12 1) 2d.
60/28
BRIEFS IN SUPPORT
1. 59/09 Henderson V. Moore (1809) 5 Branch 11, 3;
2.
Indianpolis, St. Louis RR Co., VS. Horst (1876)
93 U.S. 291,23;
3.
McDonald V. Plessy (1915)
288 U.S. 264,35 St. Ct. 78359
4.
McQeon VS. Central Stamping Co.
CCA 3rd. ( 1920) 264 F. 385;
5.
Maryland Casualty Co. VS. Dawson, CCA (5th)
91970 430 F. 2d. 420,14 FR, authorizes further
proceedings to be taken.
Rehearing as a matter of right. Constitutionally under
common affords equity. Gives Plaintiffs right to jury
trial; right to examine witness, and to cross examine
witnesses, avail himself of new evidence not available
to him heretofore; produce exhibits, lacking in the
first place (suppressed) without harsh affects to
defendants. Amalgamatious to Rule 59
REHEARING: Power of Court to grant new trial is hearing in equity
has a venerable common law and equitable origin 59/05 - 59/07
The exercise of such power could not exist, without power
somewhere to grant new trials. 59/05. See Bright V. Eynon
(K B 1757) 1 Burr, 390, 393, 97. A general judgment, or verdict
can only be set aside by a new trial, especially in an "ongoing
conspiracy with accumulation of deprivations are tantamount to
assault and battery causing irreparable harm to life, property
and even death.
Page 2
Reopen Case VS. Press, Et Al
Appellant so moves.
1. Motion made in reasonable time.
2. Not more than one year after judgment.
3. Or ordered, or proceedings where taken or entered.
59.04 (7) 59/12 (1) Supra
60.22 - 60-27
Supra
60.28 ( 2)
Infra.
59/09 ( 1) - ( 3)
59/12 ( 1) 2d.
60/28
BRIEFS IN. SUPPORT
1. 59/09 Henderson V. Moore (1809) 5 Branch 11, 3;
2.
Indianpolis, St. Louis RR Co., VS. Horst (1876)
93 U.S. 291,23;
3.
McDonald V. Plessy (1915)
288 U.S. 264,35 St. Ct. 78359
4.
McQeon VS. Central Stamping Co.
CCA 3rd. ( 1920) 264 F. 385;
5.
Maryland Casualty Co. VS. Dawson, CCA (5th)
91970 430 F. 2d. 420,14 FR, authorizes further
proceedings to be taken.
Rehearing as a matter of right. Constitutionally under
common affords equity. Gives Plaintiffs right to jury
trial; right to examine witness, and to cross examine
witnesses, avail himself of new evidence not available
to him heretofore; produce exhibits, lacking in the
first place (suppressed) without harsh affects to
defendants. Amalgamatious to Rule 59
REHEARING: Power of Court to grant new trial is hearing in equity
has a venerable common law and equitable origin 59/05 - 59/07
The exercise of such power could not exist, without power
somewhere to grant new trials. 59/05. See Bright V. Eynon
(K B 1757) 1 Burr, 390, 393, 97. A general judgment, or verdict
can only be set aside by a new trial, especially in an "ongoing
conspiracy with accumulation of deprivations are tantamount to
assault and battery causing irreparable harm to life, property
and even death.
LIBRARY
Page 3
Reopen Case VS. Atlantic City Press et al
ACCUMULATIVE NATURE OF ACUTE CIRCUMSTANCES
IN VIOLATION OF THE 1964-1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT
1
On December 7, 1966 "A day of infamy" suit was filed in the
Small Claims Court, Judge Herbert Jacobs sitting beneath, al-
leging that the guaranteed constitutional rights of Herod E.
McLeod and his good, late wife, Maud W. McLeod, a teacher of some
42 years, that their voting rights had been abridged". SC 130
2
The then, and now defendant Atlantic City Press never printed
the names of the candidates, for county committeeman and county
committeewoman, according to the election laws, Title 19 of New
Jersey. As a result, the check was stopped, but the Press won
a perjuried judgment of $100.00 by suppressing the evidence,
which has been made available to me, through federal intervention
Thanks to Watergate and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the
Chief Judge, and the Special Watergate Prosecutor.
3
In the 1972 presidential campaign, the same Atlantic City
Press cashed by checks but never ran the ads. Counsel, Chaim
says: "We have McLeod's money, and we will return it, if he
asked for it." I am suing, did sue, but was denied, due to the
accumulated obstructions of Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, and the
Republican and Democratic organizations, the State of New Jersey,
"Where organized crime can get most anything it wants."
4
FREE TRADE IN IDEAS: JUSTICE HOLMES
"First Amendment: Justice Holmes said:" The ultimate
good desired, is better reached by free trade in
ideas, uninhibited and wide open debate". That was
the basis for the Peter Zinger decision.
5
Because of the conspiracies to obstruct justice, by the Press,
OEO, Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell and the State of New Jersey, the
perjuried judgments stands, in that: the first, fourth, fifth,
sixth, seventh and fourteenth amendments have been violated.
6
Unless a new trial is granted, "The attainment of justice
is nil", and can only be sat aside by a new trial. I so move.
See Bright V. Eynon KB, 1757 1. Burr 390.397.
BY:
HEROD E. McLEOD, PROSE
PLAINTIFF
November 15, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Lowits
FROM:
Phil Buchen
SUBJECT:
Court Pleadings Received from
Herod E. McLeod, Plaintiff per so,
Naming Donald Rumsfeld
To provide you with record of delivery of
McLeod's pleadings to the Department of Justice by me
on November 8, 1974.
Attachment
PWBuchen:ed
FORD in LIBRARY BERALD
-2-
by the Department of Justice. Mr. Henkel does not have sufficient
confidence in the local counsel to rely on him exclusively for his
defense; but his own lawyer wants the local counsel to remain in the
case for the usual reasons favoring someone familiar with the local
jurisdiction. I further understand that past participation by Mr.
Henkel's private counsel through his preparations for depositions
and various legal memoranda has effectively displaced time and
services that otherwise would have had to be provided by the local
counsel at direct expense to the Department of Justice. The trial
of this case is scheduled to begin on April 21, and Mr. Henkel's
own counsel will need to participate extensively in his defense.
For these reasons, I request that the Department of Justice assume
the expense of Mr. Henkel's private counsel in furtherance of its
obligation to provide representation for Mr. Henkel.
I appreciate that the original decision to defray expenses for only one
local counsel for these defendants was motivated primarily by budgetary
concerns and that those concerns are no less acute now. I believe it
essential, however, for the morale of all Government officials that
they have full confidence that they will be adequately represented at
Government expense in connection with any litigation arising out of the
performance of their official duties. Please feel free to contact me
or Dudley Chapman of my staff if you need any further particulars.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
Instial
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 3, 1975
Dear Mr. Silberman:
I received on January 31, 1975, the attached Notice of
Deposition in the case of Lowenstein V. Rooney, et al.,
E.D.N.Y., Civil Action No. 74c 593. No subpoena has
been received for this purpose, nor has any other contact
been made by Mr. Dean or his attorneys requesting an
opportunity to review his files.
This is to request that the Department of Justice handle
this matter on my behalf. To assist the attorney
responsible for this matter, I have enclosed a memorandum
prepared by a member of my staff regarding similar
requests that have been made in other civil cases. I would
appreciate an opportunity to review, prior to filing with the
court, any materials that your office intends to use in this
matter. Should you have any questions or require further
assistance in this matter, please contact Mr. William
Casselman of my staff.
Sincerely,
They Philip W. Buchen Buchen
Counsel to the President
Honorable Laurence H. Silberman
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
cc: Hon. Henry S. Ruth
Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Esq.
Friday 1/31/75
11:05 Checked with Barry on this (had sent him a copy);
he is getting the stuff ready to send to Justice --
with a carbon copy to Miller.
Barry Marmy grevised letter
a
for me to and
Justice
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP BUCHEN
FROM:
BARRY ROTH
BR
SUBJECT:
Notice of Deposition --
Lowenstein, et al , V. Rooney, et al.,
E.D.N.Y., Civil Action No. 74c 593
On January 31, 1975, you received a Notice of Deposition to
appear on February 20, 1975, with all of Mr. John Dean's
"government and personal books, files, records and documents
previously in Mr. Dean's possession in his office in the Executive
Office Building" at the time of his resignation. The apparent
purpose of this deposition is to allow Mr. Dean full access to
his files in connection with the above-captioned case. No subpoena
has been received for this purpose, nor has any other contact
been made by Mr. Dean or his attorneys requesting an opportunity
to review his files. The materials in question are now located
in the vault in Room 84 of the Old Executive Office Building and
are contained in some six safes and 16 boxes.
As long as the orders entered by Judge Richey in Nixon V.
Sampson, et al., D.D.C., Civil Action No. 74-1518, remain in
effect, this situation would be controlled by the Order dated
November 7, 1974, which provided in part that:
11
any person, either now or previously a
member of the White House staff, or any
defendant in the Watergate criminal trial, now
pending before the Honorable Judge John J.
Sirica, or the Special Prosecutor, shall be
afforded access, solely for purposes relating
to criminal investigations or prosecutions,
11
(emphasis added)
This limitation of access by former members of Mr. Nixon's staff
to their papers did not affect the provisions of the Order, dated
- 2 -
October 22, 1974, which stated that "
the injunction shall
not serve as a bar to the production of said materials pursuant
to a validly-issued subpoena, discovery demand or court order
in any civil or criminal case, either outstanding or while this
injunction is extant;
11
Although some question may exist
as to how these two provisions interrelate, Counsel for
Mr. Nixon have sought in each instance to quash all attempts
for discovery of the Presidential materials. To date, no
production of Nixon Presidential materials has been made by
this office in response to a civil subpoena.
In Dellums, et al., V. Powell, et al., D.D.C., Civil Action
No. 2271-71, two unsuccessful attempts were made by plaintiffs
to have John Dean review his files prior to testifying in that
civil matter. This office initially denied an oral request from
the plaintiffs' attorney to permit such a review on the basis of
the above-quoted provision of Judge Richey's Order of November 7.
The plaintiffs then sought to subpoena all of Mr. Dean's files
relating to the May Day demonstrations, but the attorneys for
former President Nixon moved the Court to quash this subpoena,
and no materials were provided to the plaintiffs.
Since filing suit on December 20, 1974, to enjoin enforcement
of the "Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation
Act, 11 P.L. 93-526, Mr. Miller has consistently denied all
requests for access by former members of Mr. Nixon's staff.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
ALLARD K. LOWENSTEIN,
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil Action
No. 74 C 593
- against -
:
JOHN J. ROONEY, et al.
:
Defendants.
:
X
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
Please take notice that at 10:00 A. M., on the 20th day of February,
1975, at 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W., Suite 720, Washington, D.C.
Mr. John W. Dean III, a defendant in the above-entitled action will take
the deposition of Mr. Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to the President of the
United States, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before
Stewart, Poe and Oglesby, Notaries Public, or some other person authorized
to administer an oath.
Mr. Buchen is hereby notified to appear for this deposition and to
bring with him all of Mr. Dean's government and personal books, files,
records and documents previously in Mr. Dean's possession in his office
in the Executive Office Building and removed from Mr. Dean's possession
on April 30, 1973, the day of his resignation as Counsel to the President
of the United States.
Chayet and Sonnenreich, P.C.
600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Suite 720
Washington, D.C. 20037
By: Michael Michael R. Rynnewich Sounenreich
Anthony J. Roccograndi Brogrand
Continued
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition was sent by certified
mail to Mr. Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to the President, The White
House, Washington, D.C. 20500, this 29th day of January, 1975.
A copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition was mailed, postage
prepaid, this 29th day of January, 1975, to the following counsel of record:
Leon Friedman, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Hofstra Law School
Hempstead, New York 11550
Melvin Wulf, Esq.
American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
Attorneys for Plaintiff
22 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
Douglas J. Kramer, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Eastern District of New York
Attorney for Defendants
Kelley, Barth and Alexander
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Joseph P. Hoey, Esq.
Brady, Tarpey, Downey, Hoey, P.C.
Attorney for Defendant Rooney
84 William Street
New York, New York 10038
Sidney Dickstein, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Colson
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart,
Proenzo & Richman, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendants Ehrlichman
12th Floor - Concord Building
Miami, Florida 33120
Frank H. Stickler, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant Halderman
815 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
M. Philip Kane, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Higby
1100 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Gadsby & Hannah, Esqs.
Attorney for Defendant Caulfield
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Anthony
1
cy has to
gone to
Barry
FORD is LIBRARY 928800
Justice
representation
foremployer
February 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Rumsfeld
FROM:
Phil Buchen
SUBJECT:
Legal representation of Mr. Nixon
in civil suit of Halperin v. Kissinger, et al.
Matter of representation of Mr. Nixon by Department of
Justice has been under discussion between L. Silberman and
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon. Therefore, Ron Ziegler
ought to stay out of the matter.
Only issue is whether Department of Justice will find itself
unable to represent Mr. Nixon because of a possible conflict of
interest, inasmuch as the conduct of certain parties in the
handling of information concerning the wiretaps which involved
Halperin is under investigation and Mr. Nixon (although he is not
subject to prosecution) may have been involved in this conduct.
Efforts are under way to obtain an extension of time for answering
in the suit, and I will be kept advised and will advise you.
CC: John Marsh
PWBuchen:ed
FORD & LIBRARY OFRALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM
FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
DONALD RUMSFELD
Henry Kissinger indicated that Ziegler had
indicated to him that there is some concern
that the Department of Justice will not defend
Nixon in the wire tap cases. I think it is
the Halprin Civil Suit. Could you talk to
me about this please.
FORD is LIBRARY 07VU30
nepor
February 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Rumsfeld
FROM:
Phil Buchen
SUBJECT:
Legal representation of Mr. Nixon
in civil suit of Halperin V. Kissinger, et al.
Matter of representation of Mr. Nixon by Department of
Justice has been under discussion between L. Silberman and
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon. Therefore, Ron Ziegler
ought to stay out of the matter.
Only issue is whether Department of Justice will find itself
unable to represent Mr. Nixon because of a possible conflict of
interest, inasmuch as the conduct of certain parties in the
handling of information concerning the wiretaps which involved
Halperin is under investigation and Mr. Nixon (although he is not
subject to prosecution) may have been involved in this conduct.
Efforts are under way to obtain an extension of time for answering
in the suit, and I will be kept advised and will advise you.
ce: John Marsh
PWBuchen:ed
ADDRESS GERALD E FORD
February 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Rumsfeld
FROM:
Phil Buchen
SUBJECT:
Legal representation of Mr. Nixon
in civil suit of Halperin v. Kissinger, et al.
Matter of representation of Mr. Nixon by Department of
Justice has been under discussion between L. Silberman and
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon. Therefore, Ron Ziegler
ought to stay out of the matter.
Only issue is whether Department of Justice will find itself
unable to represent Mr. Nixon because of a possible conflict of
interest, inasmuch as the conduct of certain parties in the
handling of information concerning the wiretaps which involved
Halperin is under investigation and Mr. Nixon (although he is not
subject to prosecution) may have been involved in this conduct.
Efforts are under way to obtain an extension of time for answering
in the suit, and I will be kept advised and will advise you.
ce: John Marsh
PWBuchen:ed
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
February 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Rumsfeld
FROM:
Phil Buchen
SUBJECT:
Legal representation of Mr. Nixon
in civil suit of Halperin V. Kissinger, et al.
Matter of representation of Mr. Nixon by Department of
Justice has been under discussion between L. Silberman and
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon. Therefore, Ron Ziegler
ought to stay out of the matter.
Only issue is whether Department of Justice will find itself
unable to represent Mr. Nixon because of a possible conflict of
Interest, Inasmuch as the conduct of certain parties in the
handling of information concerning the wiretaps which involved
Halperin is under investigation and Mr. Nixon (although he is not
subject to presecution) may have been involved in this conduct.
Efforts are under way to obtain an extension of time for answering
in the suit, and I will be kept advised and will advise you.
ce: John Marsh
R. FORD E
PWBuchen:ed
GERALD
February 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Rumsfeld
FROM:
Phil Buchen
SUBJECT:
Legal representation of Mr. Nixon
in civil suit of Halperin V. Kissinger, et al.
Matter of representation of Mr. Nixon by Department of
Justice has been under discussion between L. Silberman and
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon. Therefore, Ron Ziegler
ought to stay out of the matter.
Only issue is whether Department of Justice will find itself
unable to represent Mr. Nixon because of a possible conflict of
interest, Inasmuch as the conduct of certain parties in the
handling of information concerning the wiretaps which involved
Halperin is under investigation and Mr. Nixon (although be is not
subject to prosecution) may have been involved in this conduct.
Efforts are under way to obtain an extension of time for answering
in the suit, and I will be kept advised and will advise you.
cel John Marsh
PWBuchen:ed
BERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
February 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Rumsfeld
FROM:
Phil Buchen
SUBJECT:
Legal representation of Mr. Nixon
in civil suit of Halperin V. Kissinger, et al.
Matter of representation of Mr. Nixon by Department of
Justice has been under discussion between L. Silberman and
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon. Therefore, Ron Ziegler
ought to stay out of the matter.
Only issue is whether Department of Justice will find itself
unable to represent Mr. Nixon because of a possible conflict of
Interest, Inasmuch as the conduct of certain parties in the
handling of information concerning the wiretaps which involved
Halperin is under investigation and Mr. Nixon (although he is not
subject to prosecution) may have been involved in this conduct.
Efforts are under way to obtain an extension of time for answering
in the suit, and I will be kept advised and will advise you.
CCI John Marsh
PWBuchen:ed
GERALD ? FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Ron Zialer-
-
HAlp- Line top (it
File
mater Nilla raid DoJ 30
sand not handler
RN case-
Jain Buchen--
1
Halperin conflict Kissing ot undio were hondled
Miller
-worked to get out ou (Milleonflic 30-day extension also GERAUS R. FORD LIBRARY
justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
(handlung)
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
RON NESSEN
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Drinan, et al. V. Ford, et al.
The above-captioned suit has been brought against the President,
Secretaries Schlesinger, McLucas (Air Force) and Kissinger,
Ambassador to Cambodia John Gunther Dean and William Colby,
in an attempt to enjoin the carrying on by the United States of
"military and paramilitary activities in, over, off the shores
of and respecting Cambodia and from furnishing advice, support,
training and intelligénce to the military forces of the Lon Nol
regime " Congressional plaintiffs in this case are Robert
Drinan, Michael Harrington, John Moakley, Bella Abzug,
Herman Badillo, George Brown, Yvonne Burke, Bob Carr,
Ronald Dellums, Don Edwards, Donald Fraser, Ken Hechler,
Henry Helstoski, George Miller, Richard Ottinger, Frederick
Richmond, Benjamin Rosenthal, Edward Roybal, John Seiberling,
Fortney Stark, and Henry Waxman.
I have already referred this matter to the Department of Justice
for handling and I suggest that as in the case of all matters in
litigation, that any specific press inquiries be referred to the
Department of Justice for appropriate comment. However, you
may wish to make just a generalized statement that the President
will fully carry out his constitutional responsibilities to insure
that the law is faithfully executed.
cc: Jack Marsh
Brent Scowcroft
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Justice
February 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
RON NESSEN
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Drinan, et al. V. Ford, et al.
The above-captioned suit has been brought against the President,
Secretaries Schlesinger, McLucas (Air Force) and Kissinger,
Ambassador to Cambodia John Gunther Dean and William Colby,
in an attempt to enjoin the carrying on by the United States of
"military and paramilitary activities in, over, off the shores
of and respecting Cambodia and from furnishing advice, support,
training and intelligence to the military forces of the Lon Nol
regime....' " Congressional plaintiffs in this case are Robert
Drinan, Michael Harrington, John Moakley, Bella Abzug,
Herman Badillo, George Brown, Yvonne Burke, Bob Carr,
Ronald Dellums, Don Edwards, Donald Fraser, Ken Hechler,
Henry Helstoski, George Miller, Richard Ottinger, Frederick
Richmond, Benjamin Rosenthal, Edward Roybal, John Seiberling,
Fortney Stark, and Henry Waxman.
I have already referred this matter to the Department of Justice
for handling and I suggest that as in the case of all matters in
litigation, that any specific press inquiries be referred to the
Department of Justice for appropriate comment. However, you
may wish to make just a generalized statement that the President
will fully carry out his constitutional responsibilities to insure
that the law is faithfully executed.
CC: Jack Marsh
Brent Scowcroft
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Tuesday 2/11/75
Barry said he brought this over about 8:00 a.m. this morning
and came back about 5:00 p.m. wondering if it had been signed.
have
been
P
FORD :- 078870 LIBRARY
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1975
Dear Mr. Silberman:
I have today received the attached subpoena duces tecum in the
case of Apton, et al. V. Wilson, et al., D.D.C. Civil Action
No. 956-71.
This is to request that the Department of Justice handle this
matter on my behalf. In order to familiarize the attorney
responsible for this case, with the handling of previous civil
requests for "Presidential materials of the Nixon Administration, 11
he should contact Mr. William Casselman of my staff. I would
appreciate an opportunity to review, prior to filing with the
Court, any materials that your office intends to use in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Philip Philip Buchen Buchen
Counsel to the President
Honorable Laurence H. Silberman
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
CC: Hon. Henry S. Ruth
LIGRARY GERALD 4. FORD
Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Esq.
Justice representation Dept...
Friday 3/28/75
11:00
Bill Casselman will send you a memo concerning the
significance ot the civil complaint captioned
Kennedy v. Jones, et al., which you inquired about.
(Copy of letter to Larry Silberman attached)
FORD is LIBRARY 078830
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 27, 1975
Dear Mr. Silberman:
The attached civil complaint, captioned Kennedy V. Jones, et al.,
U.S.D.C., District of Columbia, Civil Action File No. 74-194,
was received by my office on March 26, 1975.
This is to request that the Department of Justice handle this matter
on behalf of Mr. Jones, who is an employee of the White House.
If additional information or assistance is required, please contact
William E. Casselman II of this office. I would appreciate very
much your sending this office copies of any materials that you file
with the court in this matter.
Sincerely,
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Laurence H. Silberman
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Enclosure
JUSTICE DEPT.
(Defense of Govt. employees)
File in
Federal
6/23/75 Memorandum and Order -- Ralph Nader V. Wm. J. Baroody advisory Cented
(Civil Action No. 74-1675) -- re Federal Advisory Cmte. Act
6/24/75 Memorandum transmitting above document; file being closed.
6/30/75 Memo for Hartmann, Marsh and Rumsfeld re the ruling by
Judge Gesell -- and thoughts concerning the Transition Team
meetings -- in case the Press makes inquiries.
7/1/75 - Memo from Hartmann re Mr. B's 6/30 memo; suggests transferring
the locale to the Residence for social gatherings of old friends
rather than a meeting.
6/27/75 - Letter to Jeffrey Axelrad, Dept. of Justice, congratulating
him on the results of the defense of Bill Baroody in the Ralph Nader
action.
GERALD " FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM WILDEROTTER
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.W.B.
Attached is a copy of a letter from
Bill Colby to Attorney General Levi
which bears on the topic you and I
have been discussing.
If you have any suggestions, please
let me have them.
Attachment
FORD LIBRARY
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
6 SEP 1975
Honorable Edward H. Levi
Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Mr. Levi:
A number of civil actions have been filed in various Federal courts
naming CIA employees and former employees as defendants. In these cases
plaintiffs claim damages arising out of actions allegedly taken by the individual
defendants in the course of their official duties. Recently the Department has
refused requests by some former employees for representation in civil actions
on the grounds that on-going investigations of certain CIA activities by the
Criminal Division create a potential conflict of interest.
This refusal to represent former employees is particularly disturbing
in the Rhode Island case -- Rodney Driver, et al. V. Richard Helms, et
al. (U,S.D.C.D.R.I. Civil No. 750224) The problem here is that there
are 14 former Agency employees and four current Agency employees listed as
defendants being sued in their official and personal capacities. Specifically,
the former employees have been served with summonses which require an
answer to be filed within 20 days. This time for an answer would be proper
if they were sued only in their personal capacities. However, there would
be a 60-day period for an answer if they were sued in their official capacities.
These former employees have requested representation in their personal
and official capacities and have been refused by the Department of Justice
due to a pending investigation of the CIA mail intercept program. If they
do not engage private counsel, the court may enter default judgments against
them in their personal capacities. At this stage in the proceedings, there
appear to be valid defenses available to them such as the jurisdiction of the
Rhode Island Court. If the former employees are required to engage private
counsel for these procedural actions, they will have assumed an unwarranted
expense.
REVOLUTION
FORD
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
1776-1976
I am distressed by the difficult position of our employees and former
employees because of the Department's refusal to give them any representation
or counsel in civil matters arising out of their official duties until the
ultimate resolution of the investigations by your Criminal Division. These
individuals enjoy not only a presumption of innocence, but a presumption
that whatever acts they performed were in the normal course of their
duties and under proper orders from their superiors. The Department's
position places an unwarranted financial burden on a great number of
Government employees and former employees, most of whom cannot afford to
retain private counsel. To me it seems unconscionable for the Government
to permit a civil action to proceed to the point where a judgment may be
obtained against a Government employee or former employee simply because
it has not completed its own criminal investigation. In view of the
statutory responsibilities which you have under 28 U.S.C. 516, I would
appreciate your answers to the following questions:
1. If the Department of Justice cannot provide counsel to
employees or former employees, will you retain private counsel
to defend them?
2. Until the Department of Justice (Criminal Division)
recommends the indictment of the employee or former employee being
sued, may the Department of Justice (Civil Division) defend that
individual?
3. If the Department of Justice refuses to defend Govern-
ment employees or former Government employees, can you delegate
to me the authority to hire private counsel for them?
4. Are you aware of any statute which precludes my using
appropriated funds to retain private counsel for present or
former Government employees?
The attorneys in the Civil Division have advised my attorneys that
these problems will continue as long as the Department is investigating
CIA activities which might be related to civil suits filed against
present or former employees.
I would appreciate your earliest response to this problem since
the time for some of these answers expires on 20 September.
Sincerely,
W.E. Colby
Director
FORD LIBRARY
CC: Mr. Buchen