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
118568488
label
JGR/FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) (6 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568488
contentType
document
title
JGR/FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) (6 of 6)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568488
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2167e8c028143a4c
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/FOIA
(Freedom of Information Act) (6 of 6)
Box: 26
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
SMF 8/30/2005
File Folder
JGR/FOIA (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT) (6 OF 6)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
26
COOK
SF-7
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1 MEMO
HALL TO FIELDING (PARTIAL)
1 9/21/1984 B6
876
263257
2 MEMO
ROBERTS TO L. JEFFREY ROSS
1 5/22/1985 B6
877
(PARTIAL)
284562
3 MEMO
ROSS TO FIELDING (PARTIAL)
1 4/2/1985 B6
879
309384
in
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose Internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL
CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 8262 TO THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request of Gordon Cavanaugh
FBI FOI/PA #238, 859-001
By memorandum dated September 21, 1984, you asked for our
views on the release of two documents with information
originating in the White House in response to the above-
referenced FOIA request. Our office has no objection to the
release of these documents.
Attachment
ID #
CU
FE010-01
Dg 0 OUTGOING
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
H . INTERNAL
JR- due
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
w the ->
Name of Correspondent:
James K. Hall
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: FOI/PA Request of Mordon Caranaugh
FBI FOI/PA #238, 859-001
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CULtolland
ORIGINATOR KIG 84/109125
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT18
R 08/109,26
5 84,10,06
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
i * Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
263257CK
STATE
U.S. Department of Justice
8
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington. D.C. 20535
21 SEP 1984
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
To:
Mr. Fred Fielding
General Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20500
gkth.
Chief
Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts
Section
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Subject: FOI/PA REQUEST OF
FBI FOI/PA
The responsive files of the FBI contain two
documents with information originating with the White House.
I am referring the enclosed documents to you for any comments
or recommendations you may have as to the sensitivity of this
material.
A copy of the requester's initial letter is
enclosed. Should you have any questions please contact
Francine M. Greeson on 324-5548.
Enclosures (3)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS one
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request of Mark Allen
FBI/FOI/PA #211, 326 Regarding
House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA)
By two separate memoranda, both dated October 9, the FBI has
asked for our views on the release of documents originating
in the White House that are responsive to the above-referenced
FOIA request. The first item is a 1975 letter to President
Ford from a private citizen, explaining a theory about the
assassination of President Kennedy. I see no reason to
withhold the letter. The second item is a telegram dated
May 22, 1967 to the President from Marguerite Oswald, and a
note of the same date from a White House staffer simply
transmitting the telegram to the FBI. In her telegram Mrs.
Oswald complains about FBI surveillance in connection with a
visit to Dallas by Vice President Humphrey. I see no reason
to object to the release of this item. An appropriate
memorandum is attached for your review and signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL
CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request of Mark Allen
FBI/FOI/PA #211, 326 Regarding
House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA)
By separate memoranda dated October 9, 1984, you requested
our views on two items originating in the White House that
are responsive to the above-referenced FOIA request. The
items are a letter to President Ford from R.B. Cutler and a
telegram of May 22, 1967 to the President from Marguerite
Oswald, together with a transmittal note sending the telegram
from the White House to the Bureau. I have no objection to
the release of these items.
FFF:JGR:aea 10/19/84
CC: FFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL
CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request of Mark Allen
FBI/FOI/PA #211, 326 Regarding
House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA)
By separate memoranda dated October 9, 1984, you requested
our views on two items originating in the White House that
are responsive to the above-referenced FOIA request. The
items are a letter to President Ford from R.B. Cutler and a
telegram of May 22, 1967 to the President from Marguerite
Oswald, together with a transmittal note sending the telegram
from the White House to the Bureau. I have no objection to
the release of these items.
FFF: JGR:aea 10/19/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #. 265835 CU
JV
WHITE HOUSE
FE01001
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: James K. Hall
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: FOI/PA Request of mark allen
FBI/ KOIL PA II 211, 326 re: House
select Committee in Marossinations
(HSCA)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Cultalland
ORIGINATOR 84,10,11 WS
/
/
WAT18
Referral Note:
I 84,10,12
84,10,22
Referral Note:
WS
/
/
/
WAS
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A * Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R . Direct Reply w/Copy
B. - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
THE GENERATION AFTER
COMMITTED TO THE LESSONS OF THE HOLOCAUST
BOX 364 BAYCHESTER STATION
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10469
February 8, 1985
REGISTERED MAIL
Fred F. Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President
Office of the Counsel to the President
The White House, 2/WW
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Hon. Faith R. Whittlesey
Assistant to the President for Public Liaison
The White House, 2/WW
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Freedom of Information Act Officer
Executive Office of the President
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20506
Gentlemen and Ambassador Whittlesey:
On January 4, 1985, this organization forwarded a
Freedom of Information Act request (copy enclosed) to the
last address listed above. That request was received at
the White House on January 7, 1985 (see enclosed copy of
U.S. Postal Service return receipt).
Our FOIA request was precipitated by a report
carried in the November 10, 1983 issue of Draugas, a
Lithuanian-language newspaper published in Chicago, that
Mr. Linas J. Kojelis (Associate Director for Public
Liaison, Executive Office of the President) had met
privately with various parties who actively oppose the
efforts of the Office of Special Investigations, U.S.
Fred F. Fielding, Esq.
-2-
February 8, 1985
Hon. Faith R. Whittlesey
Freedom of Information Act Officer
Department of Justice (Criminal Division), to investigate
and prosecute suspected Nazi war criminals living in the
United States. We enthusiastically support OSI and applaud
its many successes in these important cases.
As you know, the Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. § 552, provides that the determination of whether to
comply with an FOIA request must be made within ten working
days after the receipt of the request, and that the
requesting party must be notified of that determination
"immediately." 5 U.S.C. $ 552 (a) (6).
Obviously, the statutorily-prescribed deadline for
responding to our request passed some weeks ago. I trust
that the failure to respond is attributable to an
administrative oversight, and that we will receive the
courtesy of a response forthwith, as required by law. If
necessary, however, The Generation After is prepared to
authorize our counsel to pursue such avenues of relief as
may be available.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Sincerely,
John John Ranz Rany
Secretary
Enclosures
cc: Hon. William French Smith
Attorney General of the United States
SENDER: Complete Items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
PS Form 3811, July 1982
Add your address in the "RETURN TO"
space on reverse.
(CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES)
1. The following service is requested (check one).
Show to whom and date delivered
60,
Show to whom, date, and address of delivery
4d
2.
RESTRICTED DELIVERY
$
(The restricted delivery fee is charged in addition
to the return receipt fee.)
TOTAL s
Freedom of Information At Officer
3. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO:
Executive Office of the president
Old Executive Office Building
washington, D.C. 20506
4. TYPE OF SERVICE:
ARTICLE NUMBER
REGISTERED
INSURED
R.004
-
CERTIFIED
COD
EXPRESS MAIL
067918
(Always obtain signature of addresses or agent)
I have received the article described above.
SIGNATURE
Addressee
Authorized agent
5. DATE OF DELIVERY Onfice (may ORFIELD be POSTMARK on reverse side)
6. ADDRESSEE'S ADDRESS (Only
RETURN RECEIPT
HITAL MAILSE MAIL SE
7. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE:
THE
1985 EMPLOYEE'S
INITIALS
uses
# GPO: 1962-379-
THE GENERATION AFTER
COMMITTED TO THE LESSONS OF THE HOLOCAUST
BOX 364 BAYCHESTER STATION
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10469
VIA REGISTERED MAIL
January 4, 1985
Freedom of Information Act Officer
Executive Office of the President
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20506
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is a request made under the Freedom of
Information Act as amended (5 U.S.C. S 552). As you know,
5 U.S.C. § 552(e) expressly designates the Executive Office
of the President an "agency" subject to the disclosure
requirements of the Act.
I write to request access to certain documents
received by Mr. Linas J. Kojelis (Associate Director for
Public Liaison, Executive Office of the President) or by
any member of his staff. Specifically, I request access to
all such documents received after 1980 from members of the
public and/or from private (i.e., non-governmental)
organizations which documents refer or relate to any of the
following matters:
(1) the Office of Special Investigations
("OSI"), Criminal Division, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Freedom of Information
-2-
January 4, 1985
Act Officer
(2) efforts by the U.S. Department of
Justice, or by any of its divisions,
sections, offices, agents, officers, or
employees to investigate or take legal
action against suspected Nazi war
criminals, suspected Nazi persecutors,
suspected Nazi collaborators, or any
individual suspected of ordering,
inciting, assisting, or otherwise
participating in the persecution of any
person in Europe during all or part of
the period 1933 to 1945.
As used above, the term "documents" refers to any
and all kinds of written or graphic matter, of any kind or
description, however created, including, but not limited
to: letters, papers, books, correspondence, periodicals,
memoranda, notes, bulletins, circulars, reports,
announcements, advertisements, petitions, transcripts,
litigation papers, promotional literature, and affidavits.
Under present regulations and case law pertaining
to the Freedom of Information Act, I believe that these
documents are available to me and to other members of the
public. They are not exempted from required disclosure
under present interpretations of the Act, and it is
believed that the Justice Department would concur that the
information must be released under terms of the Freedom of
Information Act. Your agency is believed to have custody
of these documents, but if it does not I would request
prompt notice of their current location.
Freedom of Information
-3-
January 4, 1985
Act Officer
If any portion of this request is deemed denied, I
request a detailed statement of the reasons for the
withholding and an index or similar statement of the nature
of the documents withheld. To expedite this request, I
would be willing to discuss specific instances of deletion
or other exemption claims in advance of a final decision by
the agency. In the event of deletions, I request that a
reason be stated for each partial denial of access.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, I promise
to pay reasonable charges to cover expenses incurred in
searching for and copying these documents, upon
presentation of an invoice along with the finished
documents. (If search and duplication fees exceed $50,
please write to me at the address above for agreement to
such charges.) However, I ask that you waive any fees,
pursuant to authorization in the Act for reduction or
waiver of fees where "furnishing the information can be
considered as primarily benefiting the public." I believe
that this request plainly fits within that category.
If you have any questions regarding this request,
please write to me at the address above.
I would appreciate your handling this request as
Freedom of Information
-4-
January 4, 1985
Act Officer
expeditiously as possible, and I look forward to hearing
from you within ten days, as the law requires.
Sincerely,
John Ram
John Ranz
Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR PATRICIA L. MANN
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
FOIA Request from Margaret R. Polito
You have asked for our views on the possible release of a
White House document responsive to the FOIA request of
Margaret R. Polito. I have reviewed the document and have
no objection to its disclosure in response to the FOIA
request. I assume that the classified paragraph will be
expurgated as indicated.
ID #.
CU
Ag
WHITE HOUSE
FEO10-01
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
Confidential attachment
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Patriciah mann
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Polits FOIA Request from margaret R.
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
WHolland
ORIGINATOR aa 8501111
/
/
Referral Note:
WAT18
R
$ 85,01,21
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I * Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply W/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code
=
"A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
DEPARTMENT
COMMERCE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
284562 CU
CONFIDENTIAL
JAN 10 1985
Mr. Fred Fielding
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding:
The enclosed document (s) was/were identified by the
International Trade Administration in responding to a
Freedom of Information request from Margaret R. Polito.
You are requested to review this/these document (s) for
possible declassification and/or release. Indicate any
FOI exemptions you believe applicable to the document (s).
Please return the document (s) and your recommendations so
we may complete our reply to the requester. A copy of the
requester's letter and our initial reply is enclosed for
your convenience. If you have any questions concerning this
referral, you may reach me on 377-3031.
Sincerely,
atrical Mann
Patricia L. Mann
Freedom of Information Officer
International Trade Administration
3 Enclosures
FOI 1984-189
CONFIDENTIAL K23 8/3/05
(This document is automically declassified when
classified enclosure is removed.)
sn. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FORM ITA-2040
(3-84)
TRADE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 22, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR L. JEFFREY ROSS
CHIEF, FOI/PRIVACY ACT UNIT
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
ASSOCIATE JOHN G. ROBERTS COUNSEL JOR TO
THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Privacy Act Request --
bb
You referred records responsive to the above-referenced
Privacy Act request which originated in this office to us
"for direct reply to the requester.' As a matter of policy
the White House does not respond directly to such requests,
other than to advise requesters that the White House is not
subject to FOIA, see Kissinger V. Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156 (1980). The proce-
dure WE have been following is for the agency to recommend
to us a proposed course of action with respect to the
responsive White House document, and to inquire if we have
any objections to that course of action. All contact with
the requester is handled by the agency. This procedure is
followed, for example, by the FBI, which receives a large
number of Privacy Act requests covering White House documents.
With respect to this particular request, we have no
objection to your releasing the memorandum from Mr. Fielding
to Deputy Attorney General Dinkins dated August 7, 1984, or
copies of the materials
sent to Mr.
36
Fielding.
309384
ID #
CU
Ag
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
gr
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: L. Jeffrey Ross
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: FIIA request - Frank Farkas / CRM- 11677-P
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Catter
ORIGINATOR 85,04,05
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 19
K 085104108
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A- - Appropriate Action
1. Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A. Answered
C. Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R. Direct Reply w/Copy
B. * Non-Special Referral
S - Suspended
D - Draft Response
S. For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X. Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Memorandum
309384 cu
Subject
Date
2
Privacy Act Request
b6
APR 1985
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
To
From
Fred F. Fielding
L. Jeffrey Ross, Chief
Counsel to the President
FOI/Privacy Act Unit
The White House Office
Office of Enforcement Operations
We are processing a Privacy Act request from the person named
above. In searching our system CRM-001, we have located the attached
records which originated in your office. We are referring these records
to you for direct reply to the requester. Also attached is a copy of the
request letter for your assistance. The requester has been advised of
this referral.
Correspondence to us concerning this matter should be addressed
to: L. Jeffrey Ross, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit,
Office of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division, Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530. Attention: Peggy A. Hill, 724-7215.
THE WHITE HOUSE
FOIA
WASHINGTON
file
May 29, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
RICHARD A. HAUSER
SHERRIE M. COOKSEY
H. LAWRENCE GARRETT III
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DEBRA OWEN
HUGH HEWITT
DBW
FROM:
DAVID B. WALLER
SUBJECT:
Rushforth VS. Council of Economic Advisers
Attached is a copy of the May 24, 1985 opinion of the District
of Columbia Circuit unanimously affirming the district court's
ruling that the Council of Economic Advisers is not an "agency"
subject to the Freedom of Information and Government in the
Sunshine Acts.
The Court held that notwithstanding references in the legisla-
tive history of the FOIA to the CEA as a covered "agency," the
controlling test for coverage of an Executive Office unit is
that set forth in the Conference Report, viz. whether the
unit's "sole function is to advise and assist the President."
Soucie V. David, 448 F. 2d 1067, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
Unless an Executive Office unit has some "independent authority
or power," such as funding projects or issuing regulations, it
will not be deemed a FOIA "agency." Slip op. at 11. Applying
this test, the Court held that notwithstanding the "agency"
status of other Executive Office units, the CEA is not an
"agency" because it has no function beyond advising and
assisting the President. Id.
With respect to the Sunshine Act, the Court held that since
there is no legal requirement that the Council operate collegi-
ally, the unrebutted declaration of former Council Chairman
Martin Feldstein that the Council does not operate collegially
is dispositive. Thus, the Council is not an "agency" subject
to either the FOIA or the Sunshine Act.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication
in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested
to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be
made before the bound volumes go to press.
United States Court of Apprals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 84-5428
BRENT N. RUSHFORTH, APPELLANT
V.
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(Civil Action No. 83-02632)
Argued February 7, 1985
Decided May 24, 1985
Nicholas C. Yost, for appellant.
Andrea Newmark, Attorney, Department of Justice,
with whom Richard K. Willard, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, Joseph E. diGenova,
United States Attorney and Leonard Schaitman, Attor-
pellees. ney, Department of Justice were on the brief, for ap-
Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. The
court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out of time.
2
Before: WRIGHT, BORK and STARR, Circuit Judges.
After the
filed, Mr. R
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STARR.
request. He
STARR, Circuit Judge: This action was brought under
eight categor
the Freedom of Informat 01 Act, 5 U.S.C. $ 552 (1982),
ten working
and the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b
plaint" in th
(1982), seeking relief from the failure of the Council of
ing, appellar
Economic Advisers ("CEA" or "Council") to comply with
with respect
those two statutes. The District Court dismissed the Free-
from CEA at
dom of Information Act ("FOIA") claim, but also opined
within ten II
that summary judgment for CEA would be warranted in
FOIA reques
administratif
any event. In addition, the trial court granted summary
that its reco:
judgment in favor of the CEA on the Government in the
Sunshine Act ("Sunshine Act") claim. We affirm.
while turning
lant,² the CE
I
Defendant
plaint or, alt
Brent Rushforth, a Washington, D.C. attorney, sub-
trict Court in
mitted an FOIA request to CEA for copies of the Coun-
dum opinion
cil's regulations implementing both FOIA and the Sun-
ing summary
shine Act. In its response to Mr. Rushforth's inquiry,
ment in the S
the CEA advanced the position that the Council is not an
claim, the CO
"agency" for purposes of FOIA and is thus not required
In the court
to comply with the Act. Appellant thereupon brought suit
instance requ
in the United States District Court for the District of
the court la
Columbia, seeking "declaratory, mandatory, and injunctive
to adopt an
relief from CEA's total failure to comply with either the
court went 01
Government in the Sunshine Act
or with [FOIA]."
standing in 1
Complaint at 1, reprinted in Joint Appendix at 6, 6.
be entitled to
Specifically, appellant asked the District Court to declare
cil is not an
CEA in violation of both statutes, to require CEA to
adopt regulations implementing both Acts, to enjoin future
1 An FOIA
violations of either Act, and to "issue such other and
may be treate
further relief as may be appropriate." Complaint at 7-8,
552 (a) (6) (C)
Joint Appendix at 12-13. Appellant moved for summary
2 Several of
judgment; CEA moved for dismissal or, alternatively, for
of appellant's
summary judgment.
public by the
to appellant's
3
After the cross-motions for summary judgment were
filed, Mr. Rushforth submitted to CEA a second FOIA
request. He requested all documents falling into any of
eight categories. When no response was received within
ten working days,¹ appellant filed a "Supplemental Com-
plaint" in the already pending litigation. In that plead-
ing, appellant averred that he had requested information
with respect to studies, reports, and other documents
from CEA and had received no response from the Council
within ten working days. He also attached a copy of the
FOIA request. When CEA eventually did respond through
administrative channels, the Council again maintained
that its records were not agency records subject to FOIA;
while turning over voluntarily certain materials to appel-
lant,² the CEA withheld some of the requested documents.
Defendants moved to dismiss the supplemental com-
plaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Dis-
trict Court in due course entered an order and memoran-
dum opinion dismissing appellant's FOIA claim and grant-
ing summary judgment in favor of CEA on the Govern-
ment in the Sunshine Act claim. With regard to the FOIA
claim, the court held, first, that plaintiff lacked standing.
In the court's view, Mr. Rushforth had not in the first
instance requested a disclosure of existing documents, and
the court lacked authority under FOIA to order the CEA
to adopt and then release implementing regulations. The
court went on to hold, moreover, that even if plaintiff had
standing in light of his second FOIA request, CEA would
be entitled to summary judgment inasmuch as the Coun-
cil is not an "agency" within the meaning of FOIA. As
1 An FOIA request not answered within 10 working days
may be treated as denied. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (a) (6) (A) (i),
552 (a) (6) (C).
2 Several of the requested documents had, independently
of appellant's FOIA request and this litigation, been made
public by the Council and had already been made available
to appellant's counsel.
4
to the Sunshine Act claim, the court held that the Act did
his positi
not apply to CEA inasmuch as the Council is not a
cifically -
collegial body.³ This appeal followed.
FOIA. I
was being
II
The Rep.
The first issue before us is whether the CEA is an
ment in :
"agency" within the meaning of FOIA. The operative
this amer
statutory provision sets forth the following definition of
Council è
that term: "For purposes of this section, the term agency
93d Cong
includes any executive department, military depart-
lant argu
ment, Government corporation, Government controlled cor-
ments co
poration, 01 other establishment in the executive branch
FOIA.
of the Government (including the Executive Office of the
But the
President), or any independent regulatory agency." 5
U.S.C. § 552 (e). Plaintiff's argument is simple and
quent Co:
straightforward: since the CEA is an establishment in
port's ot!
'[t]he ce
the Executive Office of the President, it is subject to
FOIA. But the issue is not SO easily resolved. As the
Report g.
of the te
Supreme Court has made clear, 'Executive Office' does
ferees in
not include the Office of the President
Γ, and] 'the
F.2d 106
President's immediate personal staff or units in the Execu-
tive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the
terpreted
staff or u
President' are not included within the term 'agency' under
is to adv
the FOIA." Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Free-
1380, 93d
dom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156 (1980) (quoting
No. 1200
H.R. Rep. No. 1380, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1974)
language
While not all units within the Executive Office of the
precise is
President are subject to FOIA, appellant seeks to buttress
Office of
to follow
3 Mr. Rushforth clearly had standing as to the Sunshine
Act action. See 5 U.S.C. § 552b (g) ("Any person may bring
4 The H
a proceeding in the United States District Court for the
has been t
District of Columbia to require an agency to promulgate such
considered
regulations within the time period specified herein."). With
Code, but
regard to the FOIA action, it is undisputed that appellant, in
informati
his second request, did ask for existing documents. Standing
93d Cong.
does, of course, lie as a general matter where a request is
ment corp
submitted under FOIA for existing documents, as opposed to
other esta
a request that the agency create materials which did not
the U.S. I
previously exist.
5
his position by repairing to the legislative history, spe-
cifically the House Report on the 1974 amendments to
FOIA. That Report states that the definition of "agency"
was being expanded from that which previously obtained.⁴
The Report further states that "[t]he term 'establish-
ment in the Executive Office of the President,' as used in
this amendment, means such functional entities as
the
Council of Economic Advisers
H.R. Rep. No. 876,
93d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1974). It is thus clear, as appel-
lant argues, that the House version of the 1974 amend-
ments contemplated that the CEA would be subject to
FOIA.
But the House report does not stand alone. The subse-
quent Conference Report directly undercuts the House Re-
port's otherwise clear expression; while observing that
[t]he conference substitute follows the House bill," the
Report goes on to say: "[W]ith respect to the meaning
of the term 'Executive Office of the President' the con-
ferees intend the result reached in Soucie v. David, 448
F.2d 1067 (C.A.D.C. 1971). The term is not to be in-
terpreted as including the President's immediate personal
staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function
is to advise and assist the President." H.R. Rep. No.
1380, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 14-15 (1974) ; see also S. Rep.
No. 1200, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1974) (identical
language). Thus, the Conference Report speaks to the
precise issue of the meaning of the phrase "Executive
Office of the President" and specifically states an intent
to follow the result in Soucie, namely determining whether
4 The House Report states that "the definition of 'agency'
has been expanded to include those entities which may not be
considered agencies under section 551 (1) of title 5, U.S.
Code, but which perform governmental functions and control
information of interest to the public." H.R. REP. No. 876,
93d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1974). Now included were "Govern-
ment corporations, Government controlled corporations [and]
other establishments within the executive branch, such as
the U.S. Postal Service." Id.
6
the sole function of the entity within the Executive Office
court obs
is to advise and assist the President. Where, as here, the
evaluate
specific mention of the CEA in the House Report was
cies. The
dropped and a specific, judicially formulated test was
to advise
adopted by the Conference Committee for determining the
as an inc
FOIA status of such entities, the House Report is entitled
staff and
to little weight in this respect. Manifestly, the Con-
istence of
ference elected to embrace a test to be substituted for a
suant to
listing of the entities to be included; the outcome of the
functions
case before us should, accordingly, turn on an examina-
awarding
tion of Soucie and the sole-function test enunciated in that
formation
case.
correlatin
In Soucie, the issue was whether the Office of Science
taken by
Those fur
and Technology ("OST"), an entity in the Executive
In a wor
Office of the President, was an agency within the mean-
deemed to
ing of FOIA. Concluding that OST was indeed a FOIA-
cuss infr
covered agency, the Soucie court began by observing
the point
OST's genesis as the creature of an Executive Branch
Soucie; b
reorganization plan. That plan transferred the functions
Soucie is
of the National Science Foundation ("NSF" or "the
the Coune
Foundation") to the OST, an "administrative unit out-
side the White House, but in the Executive Office of the
The se
President on roughly the same basis as
the Council
support is
of Economic Advisers
"
Soucie, supra, 448 F.2d at
ronmenta
1074. However, while this reorganization resulted in an
There, th
administrative unit located, hierarchically, in the same
was held
position as CEA, there is no indication that the functional
purposes.
roles of CEA and OST were the same; and, critically, it
are, for
was the functional role of the agency on which Soucie
U.S.C. 1
turned.
appellant
sion must
In Soucie, the court concluded that "[b]y virtue of its
while the
independent function of evaluating federal programs, the
OST must be regarded as an agency subject to the APA
by the tw
and the Freedom of Information Act." Id. at 1075. The
Legal For
tions had
court reached this conclusion only after expressly taking
into account the fact that OST had assumed the func-
CEQ coor
tions of the National Science Foundation; moreover, the
grams, iss
7
court observed that OST was specifically authorized to
evaluate the scientific research programs of federal agen-
cies. The court stated: "If the OST's sole function were
to advise and assist the President, that might be taken
as an indication that the OST is part of the President's
staff and not a separate agency." It was, rather, the ex-
istence of the NSF functions, now vested in OST pur-
suant to the reorganization, that turned the tide. Those
functions included the initiation and support of research,
awarding scholarships, fostering the interchange of in-
formation and evaluating the status of the sciences in
correlating the research and education programs under-
taken by the Foundation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1482 (1982).
Those functions clearly go beyond advice and assistance.
In a word, OST could take direct action and thus was
deemed to be an administrative agency. As we will dis-
cuss infra, the activities of the CEA and OST differ to
the point that the status of CEA is not controlled by
Soucie; but at the same time, the test formulated by
Soucie is plainly the standard to be applied to determine
the Council's status.
The second case from which appellant seeks to draw
support is Pacific Legal Foundation v. Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality, 636 F.2d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
There, the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ")
was held to be an agency for FOIA and Sunshine Act
purposes. Since the statutes organizing CEA and CEQ
are, for all practical purposes, identical, compare 15
U.S.C. § 1023 (1982) with 42 U.S.C. § 4342-45 (1982),
appellant argues that Pacific Legal Foundation's conclu-
sion must carry over and apply to the CEA. However,
while the statutes are the same, the functions performed
by the two entities differ markedly. The court in Pacific
Legal Foundation specifically observed that CEQ's func-
tions had been expanded by several executive orders, that
CEQ coordinated federal environmental regulatory pro-
grams, issued guidelines for preparing environmental im-
8
pact statements, and promulgated regulations for imple-
clusion that i
menting the procedural provisions of the National Envi-
President. E:
ronmental Policy Act, Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852
duties is direc
(1970). Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 636 F.2d at
to the Presid
1262. Furthermore, in that litigation the CEQ actually
admitted that it was an agency; it contended more nar-
6 § 1023. Co
rowly that it was not an agency at those times when it
(a) Creat
was advising the President and that the Sunshine Act
chairman
did not apply to its advisory function. This court re-
There 1.
jeeted the CEQ's proffered on again-off again definition
dent a Co
the "Cour
and held that '[o]nce an entity is found to be an
members
agency, this determination will not vary according to its
and with
specific function in each individual case.' Id. at 1264
of whom
(quoting Ryan v. Dept. of Justice, 617 F.2d 781, 788
ing, exper
D.C. Cir. 1980) )
fied to an
appraise
Pacific Legal Foundation's conclusion-that CEQ is an
the light
agency-simply does not, on analysis, carry over to the
title, and
case at hand. The expanded duties of the CEQ clearly
policy to
took that body out of the realm of entities the sole func-
chasing p
President
tion of which is to advise and assist the President. CEA's
Council a:
duties, in contrast, have not similarly been expanded.
act as cha
CEA simply has no independent authority such as that
(b) Emp
enjoyed either by CEQ or OST.°
personnel
Our task, then, is to apply Soucie's sole-function test to
The Co
the role of CEA. Doing so leads ineluctably to the con-
pensation
be necess
Noting the near identity of the statutes creating CEQ
this chap
and CEA, appellant mounts a policy argument that the
is author
President should not be allowed to take an entity out of, or
such othe
an entity in, FOIA agency status by the mere expedient
carrying
Payliting or eliminating duties. This argument is unavailing.
their con
intent would appear to have been to require entities
subchapt
authority and the ability to act, but not those whose
(c) Duti
sale function was to render advice and assistance to the
It shal
President, to be subject to FOIA. If the President adds duties
an entity which bring it outside the sole-function test,
(1)
Congress would want the entity to be covered. There is no
arat
reason why any other entity with a similarly worded organic
(2)
statute should be dragged along with it.
conc
9
clusion that its sole function is to advise and assist the
President. Each one of the CEA's enumerated statutory
duties is directed at providing such advice and assistance
to the President.⁶ While appellant emphasizes that in
6 $ 1023. Council of Economic Advisers
(a) Creation; composition; qualifications: selection of
chairman and vice chairman
There is created in the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent a Council of Economic Advisers (hereinafter called
the "Council"). The Council shall be composed of three
members who shall be appointed by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and each
of whom shall be a person who, as a result of his train-
ing, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally quali-
fied to analyze and interpret economic developments, to
appraise programs and activities of the Government in
the light of the policy declared in section 1021 of this
title, and to formulate and recommend national economic
policy to promote full employment. production, and pur-
chasing power under free competitive enterprise. The
President shall designate one of the members of the
Council as chairman and one as vice chairman, who shall
act as chairman in the absence of the chairman.
(b) Employment of specialists, experts, and other
personnel
The Council is authorized to employ, and fix the com-
pensation of, such specialists and other experts as may
be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under
this chapter, without regard to the civil-service laws, and
is authorized, subject to the civil-service laws, to employ
such other officers and employees as may be necessary for
carrying out its functions under this chapter, and fix
their compensation in accordance with chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5.
(c) Duties
It shall be the duty and function of the Council-
(1) to assist and advise the President in the prep-
aration of the Economic Report;
(2) to gather timely and authoritative information
concerning economic developments and economic
10
each instance the language "to the President" appears as
utory polity and
part of a conjunction, that fact does not affect the conclu-
in that regard.
sion fairly to be drawn. For example, the CEA is directed
appraise 13 dire
to appraise federal programs relative to a particular stat-
make recommen
under the statut
trends, both current and prospective, to analyze and
interpret such information in the light of the policy
appraisal. as OS
declared in section 1021 of this title for the purpose
crocedures based
of determining whether such developments and
We can disce:
trends are interfering, or are likely to interfere,
with the achievement of such policy, and to compile
that CEA has
and submit to the President studies relating to such
assisting the F
developments and trends;
brought firward
(3) to appraise the various programs and activities
exists. The vari
of the Federal Government in the light of the policy
by appellant, do
declared in section 1021 of this title for the purpose
or power. in
of determining the extent to which they are con-
tributing, and the extent to which they are not
contributing, to the achievement of such policy, and
local go
to make recommendations to the President with re-
visable,
establis)
spect thereto:
(4) to develop and recommend to the President na-
21 the
tional economic policies to foster and promote free
unlize i
competitive enterprise including small and larger
cluding
business, to avoid economic fluctuations or to di-
agencies
minish the effects thereof, and to maintain full
order t.
employment, production, and purchasing power;
avoided
(5) to make and furnish such studies, reports there-
In its work
on, and recommendations with respect to matters
and Balance
of Federal economic policy and legislation as the
seq. (1982)
President may request.
and totain
independent
(d) Annual report
studies esse:
The Council shall make an annual report to the Presi-
(f) Approp
dent in December of each year.
To enable
(e) Consultation with other groups and agencies; utili-
and duties I
zation of Governmental services and private research
appropriate
agencies
In exercising its powers, functions and duties under
15 U.S.C. 600 1023
this chapter—
7 Appellant ar
(1) the Council may constitute such advisory com-
are appointed W
mittees and may consult with such representatives of
are required to
industry, agriculture, labor, consumers, State and
portant weight.
11
utory policy and make recommendations to the President
in that regard. 15 U.S.C. § 1023 (c) (3). The duty to
appraise is directly connected to the Council's duty to
make recommendations. CEA has no regulatory power
under the statute. It cannot fund projects based on the
appraisal, as OST might, nor can it issue regulations for
procedures based on the appraisals, as CEQ might.
We can discern no basis in the statute for concluding
that CEA has any function save that of advising and
assisting the President. Nor has any evidence been
brought forward to show that some other function in fact
exists. The various acts of CEA members, as enumerated
by appellant, do not evidence any independent authority
or power; 7 in consequence, we agree with Judge Ober-
local government, and other groups, as it deems ad-
visable, and shall consult with the board or boards
established under section 1022f of this title;
(2) the Council shall, to the fullest extent possible,
utilize the services, facilities, and information (in-
cluding statistical information) of other Government
agencies as well as of private research agencies, in
order that duplication of effort and expense may be
avoided.
In its work under this chapter and the Full Employment
and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 [15 U.S.C. §§ 3101 et
seq. (1982) ] the Council is authorized and directed to seek
and obtain the cooperation of the various executive and
independent agencies in the development of specialized
studies essential to its responsibilities.
(f) Appropriations
To enable the Council to exercise its powers, functions,
and duties under this chapter, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary.
15 U.S.C. $ 1023 (1982).
7 Appellant argues that the fact that the members of CEA
are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate and
are required to testify before the Congress should carry im-
portant weight. Neither the nature of the appointment nor
12
dorfer's conclusion that CEA should not be considered an
three men
agency for purposes of the FOIA.
later bein
structure
III
roughly C
Inasmuch as the Council of Economic Advisers is not
statute al
an agency for FOIA purposes, it follows of necessity that
and does
the CEA is, under the terms of the Sunshine Act, not
subject to that statute either. The reason is that the
The CE
Sunshine Act expressly incorporates the FOIA definition
of the Co
of agency. See 5 U.S.C. § 552b (a) (1) ("the term 'agency'
organizati
means any agency as defined in section 552 (e)
").
Stat. 644
Furthermore, even if CEA were an agency within the
negated a
meaning of FOIA, the Council would still not fall within
by the sta
the 1953
the scope of the Sunshine Act. The pertinent definition,
set forth in section 552b, continues as follows: An agency
agement
President
for purposes of section 552b is one "headed by a collegial
the Count
body composed of two 01' more individual members, a ma-
that the
jority of whom are appointed to such positions by the
Council in
President with the advice and consent of the Senate
Id. The District Court held that CEA is not a collegial
legial. W
body. If that conclusion is correct, CEA is not subject to
entity cot
tivities of
the Act.
does not
First, the District Court determined, based on the dec-
the agenc
laration of then-CEA Chairman Martin Feldstein, that
the CEA does not in fact operate collegially. That dec-
While
-
laration is unrebutted; hence, to the extent that the ques-
may not
tion is one of fact, the Feldstein declaration would be
ing notice
fully adequate to support the court's grant of summary
in the sta
judgment in favor of the Council. However, if the CEA
a requirer
is legally constituted as a collegial body, its actual mode
that the (
of operation might weigh less heavily in our analysis.
we conclu
to the Sur
By its terms, the organic statute creating the CEA ap-
pears to envision a collegial group. After all, the statute
Appella
creates a "Council" of advisers. The Council consists of
trary to
ment rest
the accompanying duty to testify before Congress, however,
creating
speaks to the function of the CEA; it is, at bottom, its function
that determines an entity's status for FOIA purposes.
8 See sur
13
three members confirmed by the Senate, with one member
later being designated by the President as chairman. This
structure might reasonably be construed to suggest
roughly co-equal status among the three members. The
statute also speaks of various activities of the "Council"
and does little or nothing to separate out the chairman.8
The CEA was reorganized in 1953, and administration
of the Council was centralized in the chairman. See Re-
organization Plan No. 9 of 1953, 18 Fed. Reg. 4543, 67
Stat. 644 (1953). However, it is not clear that the plan
negated any collegiality that might otherwise be reflected
by the statute. The increased responsibility enunciated in
the 1953 Reorganization Plan spoke primarily to man-
agement of the Council's staff. The duty to report to the
President was also vested in the chairman, rather than
the Council. Appellant argues from all this that the fact
that the chairman is to report on the activities of the
Council indicates that the entity's action is joint and col-
legial. We are unpersuaded. Any head of a multi-member
entity could, of course, be instructed to report on the ac-
tivities of his or her agency. Such an instruction simply
does not translate into a requirement that he 01' she run
the agency collegially.
While there is language in the statute (that may or
may not be weakened by the Reorganization Plan) evok-
ing notions of collegiality, we can discern no requirement
in the statute that the CEA must be SO run. Absent such
a requirement, and given the unrefuted factual averment
that the Council is not and has not been run collegially,
we conclude that the CEA is not a collegial group subject
to the Sunshine Act.
Appellant argues that this conclusion would be con-
trary to Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, but his argu-
ment rests, at bottom, on the near identity of the statutes
creating CEA and CEQ. Since the two entities have in
8 See supra note 6.
14
time evolved differently in their functions and would ap-
pear in actual practice to operate quite differently, see
Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 636 F.2d at 1265-66
(indicating that at least some CEQ business requires an
affirmative vote of two members), the status of those two
entities under the Sunshine Act simply need not be the
same.
IV
The judgment of the District Court as to both the
FOIA and Sunshine Act claims is, for the foregoing
reasons,
Affirmed.
dame -
I
" of first
decision in
FOIA file
THE DAILY WASHINGTON
Law Reporter 16
AM
51
Established 1874
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
D.C. Court of Appeals
D.C. Superior Court
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE
PERJURY
Council of Economic Advisers is not an "agency"
Under circumstances which do not rule out inno-
Court refers to U.S. Attorney 4 cases in which
for purposes of Freedom of Information Act and
cent explanation, evidence based on fingerprint is
there was apparent perjury or fabrication of
Government in the Sunshine Act.
held not to support burglary conviction.
evidence.
RUSHFORTH V. COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC
RHYNE V. UNITED STATES, D.C.App. No.
NELLUM V. NELLUM, Sup.Ct., D.C., No.
ADVISERS, ET AL., U.S.App.D.C. No.
83-462, May 20, 1985. Reversed per Newman, J.
D-3951-81, SMITH V. SMITH, No. D-2774-80,
84-5428, May 24, 1985. Affirmed per Starr, J.
(Mack, J. concurs; Nebeker, J. concurs in result).
GADDY V. GADDY, No. D-2809-73, McFAD-
(Wright and Bork, JJ. concur). Nicholas C. Yost
Martha J. Tomich, Appellate Law Fellow, ap-
DEN V. McFADDEN, No. D-3394-79, May 30,
for appellant. Andrea Newmark with Richard K.
pointed by this court, with Steven H. Goldblatt,
1985. Opinion per Schwelb, J. Edward W.
Willard, Joseph E. diGenova and Leonard
Susan L. Siegal, Appellate Law Fellow, Susan
Abramowitz for Judith R. Nellum. Elizabeth
Schaitman for appellees. Trial Court-Ober-
McGoldrick and John Meagher, Law Students,
Guhring for Albert L. Nellum. Donald T. Cheath-
dorfer, J.
for appellant. Kenneth J. Melilli with Joseph E.
am for Theresa O. Smith. Robert E. Smith,
STARR, J.: This action was brought under the
diGenova, Michael W. Farrell and Ronald Dixon
Defendant., Pro Se. Stephen M. Nassau for
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. $552
for appellee. Trial Court-Goodrich, J.
Doris M. Gaddy. Mabel D. Haden for Roy J. Gad-
(1982), and the Government in the Sunshine Act,
dy. Jeffrey Ford for Diane M. McFadden. Angela
NEWMAN, J.: Rhyne asserts that his convic-
Plater for Maxcell McFadden.
5 U.S.C. $552b (1982), seeking relief from the
tions for burglary and grand larceny must be
failure of the Council of Economic Advisers
reversed because of evidentiary insufficiency
SCHWELB, J.: Lying under oath is not un-
("CEA" or "Council") to comply with those two
and prosecutorial misconduct. Since we agree
common in domestic relations cases in our Court.
statutes. The District Court dismissed the
with his first contention, we need not reach his
Referring to child custody litigation in par-
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") claim,
second one. We reverse, concluding that viewing
ticular, Chief Judge Hood remarked in Coles V.
but also opined that summary judgment for CEA
the evidence in its light most favorable to the
Coles, 204 A.2d 330, 331-332 (D.C. 1964) that
would be warranted in any event. In addition,
government, including all reasonable inferences,
the trial court granted summary judgment in
out of a maze of conflicting testimony, usually
Miller v. United States, 479 A.2d 862, 864 (D.C.
favor of the CEA on the Government in the Sun-
including a 'tolerable amount of perjury,' the
1984), it is insufficient to sustain the convictions.
shine Act ("Sunshine Act") claim. We affirm.
judge must make a decision which will in-
During June 1981, the victims (the Matthews)
evitably affect materially the future life of an
The first issue before us is whether the CEA is
hired Rhyne to do certain home repair work.
innocent child.
an "agency" within the meaning of FOIA. The
Some of this work required Rhyne to enter the
operative statutory provision sets forth the
house, but it did not require that he enter the liv-
Financial disputes between former marital part-
following definition of that term: "For purposes
ing room (the room from which the proceeds of
ners over child support and alimony often bring
of this section, the term agency
includes
the larceny were taken). During the course of his
out a similar disregard for the truth.
any
executive department, military department,
employment, Rhyne occasionally entered the
In the Family Motions Branch, this Court has
house to eat, drink and to use the bathroom or
encountered an extremely troubling scenario
Government corporation, Government control-
led corporation, or other establishment in the ex-
telephone. None of these purposes required that
several times each week. The following state of
he enter the living room. In connection with the
facts is illustrative. A wife files the requisite
ecutive branch of the Government (including the
work, Rhyne occasionally used Matthews' ladder
financial statement. In it, she recites that her
Executive Office of the President), or any in-
which was stored outside the house and which
monthly net income is $1,500, her monthly ex-
dependent regulatory agency." 5 U.S.C. $552(e).
Plaintiff's argument is simple and straightfor-
was long enough to reach the second floor of the
penses $2,500. She is sworn, and testifies that
house where there were windows which were
the financial statement is accurate. The Court in-
ward: since the CEA is an establishment in the
generally unlocked. A back door key was kept
quires 1 if the listed expenses are actual or pro-
Executive Office of the President, it is subject to
outside the house in a location of which Rhyne
jected, and she replies that they indeed repre-
FOIA. But the issue is not SO easily resolved. As
the Supreme Court has made clear, " 'Executive
became aware. Rhyne never completed the work
sent an average of what she has been spending.
Office' does not include the Office of the Presi-
and abandoned the job in mid-July.
The Court asks how long she has been losing
about $1,000 each month, and she testifies that
dent
[, and] 'the President's immediate per-
Bristol, the housekeeper, testified that on July
sonal staff or units in the Executive Office whose
23, 1981, the day on which she left for vacation,
this has been going on for two years. The Court
turns to the back of her financial statement and,
sole function is to advise and assist the Presi-
she dusted the furniture, including the stereo
equipment in the living room. A crime scene
noting liabilities totalling only $500, asks the
dent' are not included within the term 'agency'
wife how she has managed to confine her debts
under the FOIA." Kissinger v. Reporters Com-
search officer testified that thorough dusting of
to that amount when she should logically have
mittee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136,
a smooth surface would obliterate or smudge a
fingerprint thereon.
acquired a deficit of $24,000 in the past two
156 (1980) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1380, 93d
Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1974)).
On or about August 4, the Matthews' resi-
(Cont'd. on p. 1425 Perjury)
dence was burglarized, and stereo equipment
1. For reasons as to which the Court will not speculate, oppos-
The subsequent Conference Report
with an approximate value of $250 was stolen. A
ing counsel seldom cross-examine in this fashion.
directly undercuts the House Report's otherwise
crime scene search officer (Wilson) dusted for
clear expression; while observing that "[t]he con-
fingerprints. Nine latent lifts were recovered
TABLE OF CASES
ference substitute follows the House bill," the
from the turntable dust cover which the burglar
Report goes on to say: "[W]ith respect to the
would have touched in taking the stereo equip-
U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
meaning of the term 'Executive Office of the
ment; one of the prints was of Rhyne's thumb.
Rushforth V. Council of Economic
President' the conferees intend the result reach-
Wilson testified that Rhyne's print was
Advisers, et al
1421
ed in Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (C.A.D.C.
recovered from the side of the dust cover,
1971). The term is not to be interpreted as in-
although the document containing the latent lift
D.C. Court of Appeals
cluding the President's immediate personal staff
indicates that it was taken from the top of the
Rhyne V. United States
1421
or units in the Executive Office whose sole func-
outside surface of the cover. Wilson testified
D.C. Superior Court
tion is to advise and assist the President." H.R.
that prints would remain on surface for an in-
Nellum V. Nellum; Smith V. Smith; Gaddy V.
(Cont'd. on p. 1424 Advisers)
(Cont'd. on p. 1424 Evidence)
Gaddy and McFadden V. McFadden
1421
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
24 HR. SERVICE
understanding than is given in the court's opin-
Position Vacancy Announcement
ion of why the precedents on which it relies are
RAISED LETTER PRINTING
distinguishable here and thus deemed not per-
Family Division
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Announcements
suasive or binding. I conclude, as does the ma-
jority, that the evidence is insufficient in these
Hours of Duty: 8:30-5:00 p.m.
Business Cards
unique circumstances. See Jackson v. Virginia,
Announcement No.: 06-85-111
Letterheads
443 U.S. 307 (1979).
Resumes
The government's burden, when it relies on
POSITION TITLE, SERIES, GRADE & SALARY
fingerprint evidence, is to negate at least the
Chief Deputy Clerk
EXPRESS PRESS, INC.
most reasonable explanations of that evidence
CS-945-15
which are consistent with innocence, and to show
$51,060-$63,800
AMA Bldg
Cnr Vermont & L Sts
that the fingerprints were made during the com-
(1 Vacancy)
(next to Nautilus)
mission of the crime. In re M.M.J., 341 A.2d 421
AREA OF CONSIDERATION
898-1812
(D.C. 1975). In M.M.J., the print was found on a
Court-wide & Outside
transom over an inside door, an area generally
inaccessible to the public and to the appellant in
DUTIES IN BRIEF:
Responsible for over all planning, direction and management of
EVIDENCE
that case; the government introduced evidence
the Family Division.
tending to show lack of access in fact by ap-
(Cont'd. from p. 1421)
pellant. Id. at 423. In Hawkins v. United States,
Develops and implements policies and programs designed to
329 A.2d 781 (D.C. 1974), Hawkins' fingerprints
enhance the accomplishment of the mission assigned to the
determinate period of time if not removed, and
Family Division. Responsible for the development, evaluation
thus, he could not determine when Rhyne's print
were found on the front of a ransacked dresser,
and research of special projects assigned to the Family Division
was made on the dust cover.
located in the robbery victim's bedroom.
by the Clerk of the Court.
Rhyne contends that these facts are basically
Although Hawkins may have visited her home on
indistinguishable from those found insufficient
one occasion, two months before the robbery,
Confers with and recommends to management proposed rules
and legislation affecting family law procedures, and related mat-
to sustain convictions in Townsley v. United
the victim's testimony precluded any reasonable
ters.
States, 236 A.2d 63 (D.C. 1967), and Hiet v.
possibility that he would have touched the
Serves as principal legal liaison on all Court Family Division mat-
United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 365 F.2d
dresser where the print was found. Id. at 782.
504 (1966). On the other hand, the government
Finally, in Patten v. United States, 284 A.2d 182
ters.
contends these facts more closely approximate
(D.C. 1968), Patten's fingerprints were on a
QUALIFICATIONS:
those found sufficient to sustain the convictions
paper bag which contained burglary tools and
Candidates must have a law degree from an accredited college
or university and preferably membership in the District of Co-
in such cases as In re M.M.J., 341 A.2d 421 (D.C.
which was found beside a broken skylight over a
lumbia Bar, plus five (5) years of legal and administrative ex-
1975); Hawkins v. United States, 329 A.2d 781
store, in an area generally inaccessible to ap-
perience. Experience must include supervisory skills of a signifi-
(D.C. 1974), and Patten v. United States, 248
pellant or to any member of the public. Id. at
cant nature, which demonstrates that the candidate was involv-
A.2d 182 (D.C. 1968).
183.
ed at a high level with the managerial structure.
While we recognize that the analysis of
Here, Rhyne did have access, with permission,
evidence found to be legally sufficient or insuffi-
to the room where the stereo equipment was
HOW TO APPLY:
COURT EMPLOYEES may apply using the D.C. Court Promo-
cient to sustain convictions in prior cases may
kept, if not to the specific area of the equipment.
tional Application. Copies of the application may be obtained in
often be helpful in deciding a pending case, we
The evidence presented does not rule out an in-
the Personnel Office Room 319, Building "A" between the
also recognize that adjudication of this type of
nocent, although unauthorized, touching of the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
issue cannot be done by looking for the proper
dustcover-particularly since we cannot be cer-
pigeonhole. Rather, the evidence in each case
tain where the dustcover, which appears to have
COURT APPLICANT MUST HAVE BEEN IN HIS/HER PRESENT
POSITION FOR SIX (6) MONTHS BEFORE HIS/HER APPLICA-
must be weighed for sufficiency. Here, there was
been totally removable, may have been in rela-
TION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNI-
no testimony or other evidence that the entry
tion to the stolen items at the time of the
TY.
was not forced. Without such testimony, or other
burglary in an active household in which the
OUTSIDE CANDIDATES-Submit a Court Employment Applica-
evidence (as distinguished from the lack thereof)
stereo equipment was regularly used.
tion to the Personnel Office, Superior Court of the District of Co-
from which the jury could reasonably conclude
I also respectfully disagree with the statement
lumbia, 515 5th Street, N.W., Room 319, Washington, D.C.
that the entry was not forced, we do not believe
in the court's opinion that because there was no
20001 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
that a reasonable jury, acting reasonably, could
testimony or other evidence that the entry was
through Friday. Applications may be obtained in the Personnel
find appellant's fingerprint to be sufficiently in-
not forced, there was no evidence from which the
Office.
criminating to find him guilty.
jury could reasonably conclude that the entry
Candidates who applied under announcement #08-84-120-0
Reversed and remanded with instructions
was not forced. I believe a legitimate inference
need not reapply, unless they want to update their application.
that entry into the house was not forced may be
to enter a judgment of acquittal.
drawn from the owner's and the maid's
"An Equal Opportunity Employer-All Qualified Candidates will
testimony regarding the circumstances of the
Receive Consideration Without Regard to Race, Color, Religion,
NEBEKER, J., concurring in the result: I
discovery of the theft: the house was left SO un-
National Origin, Age, Sex, or Physical Handicap."
believe that the government is entitled to a fuller
disturbed that the family did not realize a
burglary had taken place until they noticed the
There May Be A Better Way To Resolve Your
stereo was missing. Here, the inference is
bolstered by the fact that nothing in the house
Dispute Than Filing Suit In Court
other than the stereo equipment was removed in
the August burglary. The circumstances tend to
rule out a burglar who needed to enter by force,
If you are involved in a Small Claims case or dispute
not knowing another way in, and not knowing
the location of a targeted valuable and relatively
If you are involved in a dispute over the non-payment of a debt,
portable item.
damaged merchandise, a minor automobile accident, damage to personal
belongings, or any other Civil dispute involving $2,000 or less, you may
ADVISERS
not have to take Court action to get relief. Come to the D.C. Superior
(Cont'd. from p. 1421)
Court's new Intake Center in Room C-500 of the D.C. Courthouse, 500
Rep. No. 1380, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 14-15 (1974);
see also S. Rep. No. 1200, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 15
Indiana Avenue, N.W., weekdays from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Trained
(1974) (identical language). Thus, the Conference
staff will help you set up a mediation session at no cost to you or the
Report speaks to the precise issue of the mean-
other party.
ing of the phrase "Executive Office of the Presi-
dent" and specifically states an intent to follow
If you are involved in other types of disputes
the result in Soucie, namely determining
whether the sole function of the entity within the
If you are involved in any other type of dispute, the Intake Center can
Executive Office is to advise and assist the Presi-
dent. Where, as here, the specific mention of the
also be of assistance. Staff will help you determine whether there is an
CEA in the House Report was dropped and a
alternative to litigation that will work for you and, if so, will refer you to
specific, judicially formulated test was adopted
by the Conference Committee for determining
the program best able to help.
the FOIA status of such entities, the House
Report is entitled to little weight in this respect.
Manifestly, the Conference elected to embrace a
ministration of the Council was centralized in the
band's statements are often even more acute.2
test to be substituted for a listing of the entities
chairman. See Reorganization Plan No. 9 of
Domestic relations cases are not the only ones
to be included; the outcome of the case before us
1953, 18 Fed.Reg. 4543, 67 Stat. 644 (1953).
in which people lie. Criminal defendants do SO
should, accordingly, turn on an examination of
However, it is not clear that the plan negated
with remarkable frequency, especially in drug
Soucie and the sole-function test enunciated in
any collegiality that might otherwise be
cases,³ and there are unfortunately occasions
that case.
reflected by the statute. The increased respon-
when policemen have embellished the truth, or
sibility enunciated in the 1953 Reorganization
worse. The nature and frequency of perjury and
Our task then, is to apply Soucie's sole-
Plan spoke primarily to management of the
like conduct which the Court has encountered in
function test to the role of CEA. Doing SO leads
Council's staff. The duty to report to the Presi-
its current assignment to Family Motions is
ineluctably to the conclusion that its sole func-
dent was also vested in the chairman, rather
more extreme than in other assignments and
tion is to advise and assist the President. Each
than the Council. Appellant argues from all this
altogether intolerable. Not every disingenuous
one of the CEA's enumerated statutory duties is
that the fact that the chairman is to report on the
financial statement can be referred for possible
directed at providing such advice and assistance
activities of the Council indicates that the
prosecution, but the Court has concluded that
to the President. While appellant emphasizes
entity's action is joint and collegial. We are
four recent cases which appear to it to be
that in each instance the language "to the Presi-
unpersuaded. Any head of a multi-member enti-
especially flagrant should be brought to the at-
dent" appears as part of a conjunction, that fact
ty could, of course, be instructed to report on the
tention of the United States Attorney for any ac-
does not affect the conclusion fairly to be drawn.
activities of his or her agency. Such an instruc-
tion that he may deem advisable.
For example, the CEA is directed to appraise
tion simply does not translate into a requirement
that he or she run the agency collegially.
II
federal programs relative to a particular
While there is language in the statute (that
A. Nellum V. Nellum
statutory policy and make recommendations to
the President in that regard. 15 U.S.C.
may or may not be weakened by the Reorganiza-
On March 6, 1984, following a two-day trial,
$1023(c)(3). The duty to appraise is directly con-
tion Plan) evoking notions of collegiality, we can
Honorable Eugene N. Hamilton of this Court
nected to the Council's duty to make recommen-
discern no requirement in the statute that the
issued a comprehensive decision in this case in
dations. CEA has no regulatory power under the
CEA must be SO run. Absent such a requirement,
which he ordered the distribution of marital
statute. It cannot fund projects based on the ap-
and given the unrefuted factual averment that
property, awarded the wife child support, but
praisal, as OST might, nor can it issue regula-
the Council is not and has not been run collegia-
denied alimony and counsel fees. On May 8,
tions for procedures based on the appraisals, as
ly, we conclude that the CEA is not a collegial
1985, the matter came before the undersigned
CEQ might.
group subject to the Sunshine Act.
on the wife's motion for relief from judgment.
We can discern no basis in the statute for con-
The wife alleged that the husband had secured
cluding that CEA has any function save that of
The judgment of the District Court as to both
an unfair decision by grossly misrepresenting his
advising and assisting the President. Nor has
the FOIA and Sunshine Act claims is, for the
financial situation under oath. This Court found
any evidence been brought forward to show that
foregoing reasons,
that this is exactly what occurred.
some other function in fact exists. The various
Affirmed.
The husband is the president of a consulting
acts of CEA members, as enumerated by ap-
business named A.L. Nellum & Associates Inc.
pellant, do not evidence any independent
PERJURY
(hereinafter ALNAI) and owns most or all of
authority or power; in consequence, we agree
ALNAI's stock. 5 His most recent financial state-
with Judge Oberdorfer's conclusion that CEA
(Cont'd. from p. 1421)
ment, filed in connection with certain post-trial
should not be considered an agency for purposes
years. The wife now remembers that her father
motions, reflected that his take home pay for the
of the FOIA.
lent her an additional $200, but she is otherwise
period from January 13, 1984 to November 14,
III
unable to come up with an explanation for the
1984 was $52,389.50. His bank statements for
discrepancy. Her case would surely collapse at
the same period, however, disclosed that he had
Inasmuch as the Council of Economic Advisers
this point, but the inconsistencies in the hus-
made deposits of $82,950.51. Proceeding to m-
is not an agency for FOIA purposes, it follows of
vestigate this apparent discrepancy, the wife's
necessity that the CEA is, under the terms of the
DON'T JUST TALK
counsel elicited testimony from ALNAI's ac-
Sunshine Act, not subject to that statute either.
countant to the effect that the husband had ob-
The reason is that the Sunshine Act expressly in-
ABOUT DAMAGE.
tained from the corporaton during the years
corporates the FOIA definition of agency. See 5
1982, 1983 and 1984, in addition to his salary
U.S.C. 5552b(a)(1) ("the term 'agency' means
and certain travel advances, a total of $113,000
any agency as defined in section 552(e)
in purported loans.
Furthermore, even if CEA were an agency
These loans were of a remarkably curious
within the meaning of FOIA, the Council would
character. The husband testified, in response to
still not fall within the scope of the Sunshine Act.
questioning from counsel and the Court, that the
The pertinent definition, set forth in section
transactions were negotiated between himself
552b, continues as follows: An agency for pur-
and ALNAI, and he acknowledged that he also
poses of section 552b is one "headed by a col-
represented the company in these negotiations.⁶
legial body composed of two or more individual
The terms of the purported loans were extraor-
members, a majority of whom are appointed to
such positions by the President with the advice
dinarily favorable to the husband. He executed
and consent of the Senate
Id. The District
no promissory note, pledged no collateral, and
Court held that CEA is not a collegial body. If
was not required to repay ALNAI at any
that conclusion is correct, CEA is not subject to
2. Counsel for one wife advised the Court that judges in effect
the Act.
First, the District Court determined, based on
SHOW IT!
compel litigants to overstate expenses in this way because they
will not award enough support unless a sufficient loss is shown.
the declaration of then-CEA Chairman Martin
The Court observed that even if judges were as lacking in
In the courtroom. a picture may be
fairness as counsel claimed, this would hardly warrant the sub-
Feldstein, that the CEA does not in fact operate
mission of false documents under oath.
collegially. That declaration is unrebutted;
worth much more than a thousand
3. The Court routinely asks drug defendants at sentencing,
hence, to the extent that the question is one of
words.
after first warning them not to lie to the Court, when they last
fact, the Feldstein declaration would be fully
Photographs can show the scene of
used unlawful drugs. With disheartening frequency, they say
adequate to support the court's grant of sum-
they have not used drugs since their arrest. The Court then sug-
mary judgment in favor of the Council.
an event and the materials involved
gests deferring the sentencing to allow them to go to the Pretrial
Services Agency for a drug test, and ask the defendant what the
However, if the CEA is legally constituted as a
as well as the extent of damage. de-
test will show. After considerable hemming and hawing, the
collegial body, its actual mode of operation might
formation and other factors.
defendants usually acknowledge smoking a few "joints," often
weigh less heavily in our analysis.
laced with some "lovely" (PCP), a few days earlier. The Court
By its terms, the organic statute creating the
Call Shinder & Associates to witness
considers their original lack of candor when imposing sentence.
CEA appears to envision a collegial group. After
the real difference photographs can
4. Fortunately, the Court has not encountered anything like
all, the statute creates a "Council" of advisers.
the case in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in which the police, hunting
The Council consists of three members confirm-
make. PHONE 573-2222.
what they called "niggers" to stop for traffic offenses in order to
pad their arrest statistics, shot a young black man dead and then
ed by the Senate, with one member later being
placed a large pocket knife in his hand in order to make it appear
designated by the President as chairman. This
Shinder
that he was armed. See Bell V. City of Milwaukee, 746 '.2d 1205
structure might reasonably be construed to sug-
(7th Cir. 1984).
gest roughly co-equal status among the three
Associates
5. At the time of trial, Judge Hamilton found that the husband
members. The statute also speaks of various ac-
owned 87% of the stock.
tivities of the "Council" and does little or
3550 Marvin Street
6. Judge Hamilton found that the wife had at one time been an
nothing to separate out the chairman.
officer of the company but resigned because she was not given in-
The CEA was reorganized in 1953, and ad-
Annandale, Virginia 22003
formation about the business or brought into the decision making
and did not wish to be a rubber stamp.
ID # 357847
cu
JV
WHITE HOUSE
F4010-01
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
RAH
Name of Correspondent:
Thomas Houser
MI Mall Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
FOIA request for himult
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
Watall
ORIGINATOR 85,10124
/
Referral Note:
cut 04
R& 85110125
G 585,11,05
Referral Note
/
i
/
/
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
***
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES
DISPOSITION CODES
A Appropriate Action
I n into Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B B Non-Special Referral
$ Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code * "A"
Completion Date : Date of Outgoing
Comments: Susan nellor
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates 10 Central Reference (Room 75, DEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files,
Refer questions about the correspo idence tracking system to Central Reference. ext. 2590.
5/81
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR SUSAN NELLOR
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 022 TO THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
FOIA Referral
This is in response to your memorandum of October 23 to
Counsel to the President Fred F, Fielding, concerning the
FOIA request of Thomas C. Hauser. Your memorandum referred
White House correspondence responsive to the request to this
office for direct reply to the requester.
The White House Office is not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act. For this and other reasons, we do not
respond directly to those filing FOIA requests, other than
to advise them of the inapplicability of the Act to certain
offices in the White House. The usual procedure 10 the case
of White House documents found at other agencies that are
responsive to FOIA requests filed at those agencies IS for
those agencies to refer the documents to us Tafter processing
for possible exemption), to determine if we have any objection
to the agency releasing them to the requester.
In this case, we have no objection to your releasing the
White House document.