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.
Source Description
This file includes case on Eldridge Cleaver.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24823942
label
Justice - General (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24823942
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Justice - General (5)
description
This file includes case on Eldridge Cleaver.
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. (09/16/1974 - 09/15/1975)
Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. (07/09/1953 - )
Legislation
Executive orders
Capital punishment
Law enforcement
Foreign aid
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Gun control
Law and legislation
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24823942
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
20d80b5ad3c5ff1a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 23, folder "Justice - General (5)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Digitized from Box 23 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 1, 1975
Dear Congressman Clancy:
This letter follows my letter to you of May 20
concerning my referral of your inquiry to the
Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of
Justice.
I understand now that the Office of Legal Counsel
has taken no action because Mr. Russell E. Train
wrote you on May 12 concerning the matter on which
you had asked for information.
I trust that Mr. Train's letter has served your
purpose. However, if there is any further assis-
tance which I may provide, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Philip
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Donald D. Clancy
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
BERRLD FORD LIBRARY
Justice
Federal
Court
July 1, 1975
System)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
RODERICK HILLS
CAL COLLIER
JIM CANNON
Attached is an interesting memorandum which I find quite helpful.
It was prepared by Ken Lazarus. Our present thought is to give
consideration to a number of matters affecting the federal court
FR
system and to discuss with you a set of priorities. Potential
subjects include:
HILLS
KEN LAZARUS
(1) Possible reductions in the use of three-judge courts;
SUBJECT:
(2) The expanded use of Magistrates;
(3) Limitations on diversity jurisdiction!
(4) "Pooling" of judicial resources;
(5) Cooperative rederal/state initiatives;
The
(6) Additional judgeships;
on
the
referenced
subject
(7) Judicial salaries and benefits;
time
for
(8) The respective roles of the Judiciary and the dditional
will
be
Congress in the rule-making process; to
the
reschedultr
(9) The possible introduction of "judicial impact state-
ments;"
Thank you
(10) Greater administrative efficiency.
Obviously, you may be well started on some of these matters and
we may have little to add, others may be the subject of an inter-
agency effort to which we will have little to add, and others may
not be worth doing. I would, however, appreciate a chance to
discuss it with you at your convenience to determine aimintelligent
approach.
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
7/14/75
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
I sent a
copy to ISen
FORD : 0ERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jim Lynn
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Bob Hartmann
Phil Buchen
FROM:
Jim Cannon
The attached is self-explanatory.
I would appreciate your observations, comments and recom-
mendations by 5:00 p.m., Monday, July 7.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
DRAFT
WASHINGTON
July 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Jim Cannon
SUBJECT:
"Saturday Night Specials"
Two issues have developed in the course of our efforts to
draft legislation implementing the portion of your Crime
Message recommending the prohibition of the manufacture and
sale of "Saturday Night Specials.'
I.
"Saturday Night Specials" -- Definition
As you know, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits, among
other things, the importation of handguns not suitable for
sporting purposes (i.e., so-called "Saturday Night Specials")
Under the regulations implementing the statutory prohibition,
"Saturday Night Specials" are defined on the basis of conceal-
ability, quality and safety. Cost is not a factor. Thus,
the prohibition applies not only to cheap (i.e., inexpensive),
poorly constructed handguns, but to certain expensive,
highly concealable handguns as well.
With only minor exceptions, the draft bill which the Depart-
ment of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-
arms have forwarded for clearance adopts the definition
developed under the 1968 Act.
As you will recall, during the Congressional leadership
meeting prior to the transmittal of your Crime Message, a
brief discussion was had on this issue. At that time,
Senator Hruska spoke very strongly of his concern that cost
be a central element in your definition of "Saturday Night
Special."
The issue raised for your consideration is whether the
definition of "Saturday Night Special" should be modified
in order to introduce the element of cost.
The arguments pro and con may be summarized as follows:
PRO:
FORD
-- Unless the definition incorporates the element
price, it is unlikely that Senator Hruska will
introduce the bill.
GE
ELBRARY
2
An adjustment in definition can still be consistent
with your announced intention to eliminate commerce
in cheap, easily concealable handguns.
--
The chance for success of the entire gun control
package would likely be enhanced by this change.
--
Very expensive, albeit easily concealable, handguns
are not generally the type of weapons involved in
street crime.
CON:
--
Such a change would, no doubt, be interpreted by
the press and political opponents as a retreat
from current law, since current law prohibits the
importation of some small yet expensive handguns.
The establishment of a maximum cost test would
create a major loophole in the law which would
allow persons to import, manufacture and/or sell
highly concealable, poor quality and/or unsafe
weapons at high prices. Moreover, a cost test
would appear to discriminate against the poor.
---
Aside from the aesthetic interests of gun buffs,
small yet expensive weapons have no valid sporting
purpose.
--
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports
that a meaningful cost test would be difficult to
administer.
OPTIONS:
1.
Redraft the definition to include the element of
cost.
[Recommendations]
*
2.
Go with the Justice/ATF draft.
[Recommendations]
FORD
DECISION:
GERALD
LIBRARY
Option 1
Option 2
*
If you decide to go with the current draft, you may wish to
bring Senator Hruska in for a meeting prior to sending the
legislation to the Congress.
3
II. "Saturday Night Specials" Buy-Back
It has been suggested that your bill authorize Treasury
to purchase all "Saturday Night Specials" held by manu-
facturers or dealers on the effective date of the legis-
lation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
estimates that there are approximately 100,000 "Saturday
Night Specials" in the pipeline at any given moment, with
an average value of $25.00 per weapon. Thus, a program to
purchase manufacturer and dealer inventories could cost the
Federal government $2.5 million.
The arguments pro and con may be summarized as follows:
PRO:
This proposal is entirely consistent with the
thrust of your Crime Message to remove "Saturday
Night Specials" from circulation.
--
Compensating manufacturers and dealers for
inventories rendered useless by a new law is
certainly equitable and, arguably, required by
law.
Absent such a program, the Administration could
be accused of contributing to massive dumping of
"Saturday Night Specials" by manufacturers or
dealers attempting to clear their shelves at the
last minute.
--
The program is relatively inexpensive.
CON:
--
Technically, this is a new spending program.
--
Adoption of this program could create pressure to
extend the buy-back feature to persons other than
dealers and manufacturers owning "Saturday Night
Specials" (at a cost of anywhere from $25 million
to $250 million).
Compared with the 10 to 15 million "Saturday Night
Specials" already in circulation, an additional
100,000 is but a drop in the bucket.
GERAAL FORD VIBRARY
4
OPTIONS:
1.
Endorse the buy-back program.
[Recommendations]
2.
Do not endorse the buy-back program.
[Recommendations]
DECISION:
Option 1
Option 2
FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 7, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
PWB.
THROUGH:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
SUBJECT:
"Saturday Night Specials"
This is to suggest that the draft memorandum to the President
on the referenced subject include at the bottom of page 2 prior
to the caption "Discussion", the following paragraph:
"Note: ATF and Justice are currently drafting
language changes in the bill and/or section-by-
section analysis to authorize the transfer of a
small number of highly concealable yet expensive
weapons between licensed collectors only. This
approach would suffer none of the infirmities
noted above and may be acceptable to Senator
Hruska. The results of this effort and Senator
Hruska's reaction to it will be available at
our meeting on the subject."
ATF and Justice will have this draft language available tomorrow,
and I shall discuss the matter with Senator Hruska tomorrow
afternoon. Therefore, it might be best to schedule a meeting on
the subject on Wednesday.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jim Lynn
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Bob Hartmann
Phil Buchen
FROM:
Jim Cannon
The attached is self-explanatory.
I would appreciate your observations, comments and recom-
mendations by 5:00 p.m., Monday, July 7.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
DRAFT
WASHINGTON
July 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Jim Cannon
SUBJECT:
"Saturday Night Specials"
Two issues have developed in the course of our efforts to
draft legislation implementing the portion of your Crime
Message recommending the prohibition of the manufacture and
sale of "Saturday Night Specials.
"
I.
"Saturday Night Specials" -- Definition
As you know, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits, among
other things, the importation of handguns not suitable for
sporting purposes (i.e., so-called "Saturday Night Specials").
Under the regulations implementing the statutory prohibition,
"Saturday Night Specials" are defined on the basis of conceal-
ability, quality and safety. Cost is not a factor. Thus,
the prohibition applies not only to cheap (i.e., inexpensive),
poorly constructed handguns, but to certain expensive,
highly concealable handguns as well.
With only minor exceptions, the draft bill which the Depart-
ment of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-
arms have forwarded for clearance adopts the definition
developed under the 1968 Act.
As you will recall, during the Congressional leadership
meeting prior to the transmittal of your Crime Message, a
brief discussion was had on this issue. At that time,
Senator Hruska spoke very strongly of his concern that cost
be a central element in your definition of "Saturday Night
Special."
The issue raised for your consideration is whether the
definition of "Saturday Night Special" should be modified
in order to introduce the element of cost.
The arguments pro and con may be summarized as follows:
PRO:
-- Unless the definition incorporates the element of
price, it is unlikely that Senator Hrusk
will
introduce the bill.
GERALD
KIBRARY
2
An adjustment in definition can still be consistent
with your announced intention to eliminate commerce
in cheap, easily concealable handguns.
The chance for success of the entire gun control
package would likely be enhanced by this change.
Very expensive, albeit easily concealable, handguns
are not generally the type of weapons involved in
street crime.
CON:
Such a change would, no doubt, be interpreted by
the press and political opponents as a retreat
from current law, since current law prohibits the
importation of some small yet expensive handguns.
The establishment of a maximum cost test would
create a major loophole in the law which would
allow persons to import, manufacture and/or sell
highly concealable, poor quality and/or unsafe
weapons at high prices. Moreover, a cost test
would appear to discriminate against the poor.
Aside from the aesthetic interests of gun buffs,
small yet expensive weapons have no valid sporting
purpose.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports
that a meaningful cost test would be difficult to
administer.
OPTIONS:
1.
Redraft the definition to include the element of
cost.
[Recommendations]
*
2.
Go with the Justice/ATF draft.
[Recommendations]
DECISION:
Option 1
Option 2
BERALD FORD LIBRAHI
*
If you decide to go with the current draft, you may wish to
bring Senator Hruska in for a meeting prior to sending the
legislation to the Congress.
3
II.
"Saturday Night Specials" Buy-Back
It has been suggested that your bill authorize Treasury
to purchase all "Saturday Night Specials" held by manu-
facturers or dealers on the effective date of the legis-
lation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
estimates that there are approximately 100,000 "Saturday
Night Specials" in the pipeline at any given moment, with
an average value of $25.00 per weapon. Thus, a program to
purchase manufacturer and dealer inventories could cost the
Federal government $2.5 million.
The arguments pro and con may be summarized as follows:
PRO:
This proposal is entirely consistent with the
thrust of your Crime Message to remove "Saturday
Night Specials" from circulation.
Compensating manufacturers and dealers for
inventories rendered useless by a new law is
certainly equitable and, arguably, required by
law.
Absent such a program, the Administration could
be accused of contributing to massive dumping of
"Saturday Night Specials" by manufacturers or
dealers attempting to clear their shelves at the
last minute.
--
The program is relatively inexpensive.
CON:
Technically, this is a new spending program.
--
Adoption of this program could create pressure to
extend the buy-back feature to persons other than
dealers and manufacturers owning "Saturday Night
Specials" (at a cost of anywhere from $25 million
to $250 million).
Compared with the 10 to 15 million "Saturday Night
Specials" already in circulation, an additional
100,000 is but a drop in the bucket.
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
4
OPTIONS:
1.
Endorse the buy-back program.
[Recommendations]
2.
Do not endorse the buy-back program.
[Recommendations]
DECISION:
Option 1
Option 2
FORD LIBRARY
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 8, 1975
TO:
DONALD RUMSFELD
JAMES CONNOR
JERRY JONES
RICHARD PARSONS
JAMES CANNON
JAMES LYNN
ALAN GREENSPAN
RICHARD CHENEY
JAMES CAVANAUGH
PHILIP BUCHEN
FROM:
ROBERT GOLDWIN Mrs
Attached are two more items on the Crime Message. The
one from the Economist is a mixed review, but the one
by Max Lerner is of exceptional importance, in my opinion,
because of his strong liberal leanings and influence among
liberals.
I draw two lessons:
1. We can influence liberals as well as conservatives with
soundly argued middle-of-the-road programs.
2. We must follow-up on the Crime Message by urging state
and local authorities to take the actions advocated in the Yale
Law School speech and the Crime Message.
Attachments
SERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE ECONOMIST JUNE 28, 1975
59
THE WORLD
American Survey
Ford plays the crime buster
Washington, DC.
The conventional wisdom is that any Nixon-in order not to offend the
CHICAGO SUN TIMES
Fri., July 4, 1975
P. 26
MIL
FORD AIMS AT CRIME
Max Lerner
SAN FRANCISCO - President Ford's new
anticrime program, developed with the help:
at Educard IT Leui bis nonmorticom offer
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
The Honorable Richard L. Thornburgh
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
The enclosed matches were recently brought to the attention of
this office by a member of the White House staff. Inasmuch
as this appears to be a use of the Seal of the President that
is inconsistent with 18 U.S.C. 713 and E.O. 11649, I bring
this matter to your attention for such action as you may deem
appropriate. This office has not given permission for this
use of the Seal.
Please contact Barry Roth of my staff if you require additional
information in this regard.
T.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Enclosures
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
20 NOTONIHSYA
FIFTEENTH ST. AND N. Y. AVE.
Peoples
Drug Stores
SECURITY THE
K TATE
Store of the
Presidents
-
D.D. BEAN a SONS CO. JAFFREY. N.H.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Justice
WASHINGTON
July 21, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Justice
The attached correspondence from Mr. James Martin Dixon
dated July 5, 1975, concerning the alleged suppression of FBI
reports is forwarded to you for appropriate consideration. It
has not been acknowledged by this office.
P.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
FORD LIBRARY
Mr. Hugh E. Kline
July 5, 1975
Clerk of Court
P. 0. Box C
United States Court of Appeals
Waupun, Wisc.
for the District of Columbia Circuit
53963
Washington, D. C. 20001
In Re: James Martin Dixon V. Jean Coates, et al
No. 75-8039
Dear Mr. Kline:
On May 12, 1975, I mailed (4) motions for permission to
appeal to this Court, and the following week your deputy clerk,
Mr. Daniel M. Cathey, filed the motion under the above number.
If you are not going to give the motions to Chief Judge
David L. Bazelon for review, I would appreciate your telling me
so that I may seek other legal remedies.
Frankly, your withholding the motions this long from Chief
Judge Bazelon shows that you were instructed to do so by Attorney
General Edward H. Levi or one of his assistants.
I have no bones to pick with you, Mr. Kline, or to pick with
Mr. Lovi. But by this time, I know Mr. Levi or one of his top
assistants has found out that Mr. J. Stanley Pottinger, the
Director of the Civil Rights Division and his top assistant, have
been suppressing FBI reports and U.S. Attorney's reports that the
FBI Agent, Tom Michalski, and I prepared and sent to the Depart-
ment of Justice over 2 years ago!
Not only is the game up for Mr. J. Stanley Pottinger and his
top assistant, the four defendants in the Supreme Court of the
United States, and other corrupted federal officials, but also the
game is up for the Department of Justice!
The Department of Justice knows that I was extradited illegally,
kidnapped, and incarcerated illegally - because it had the reports
a year in advance! For years and years, I have given the Depart-
ment of Justice reports, and it has not done a goddamn thing!
Therefore, I am personally going to Bee that the Department
of Justice has the biggest scandal since reconstruction days - if
it does not come out from under the rug by July 15, 1975!
Very truly yours,
James
James Martin Dixon
cc: Mr. Philip Buchen
White House Counsel
The White House
is
FORD
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Edward H. Levi
GERALD
Attorney General
LIBRARY
Department of Justice
Constitution Ave. & 10th St. NW
Washington, D. C. 20530
July 25, 1975
Justri
Dear Congressman Broomfield:
This is in further reply to your letter of May 21, 1975,
signed jointly with eight other members of Congress con-
cerning the Justice Department's role in connection with
Bradley V. Hilliken. Your letter noted that at that time
no reply had been received to your earlier letter of
April 10, 1975, to the Attorney General.
We have since obtained a copy of the Attorney General's
reply to you of June 5, 1975, and have obtained further
oral reports from the Department of Justice on the
progress of that litigation.
The President's views in general about the deficiencies
of forced busing as a remedy to overcome unconstitutional
discrimination in educational opportunities are well-known,
and we will continue to follow developments in this case
with interest. However, whenever it comes to issues pre-
sented by a particular case in litigation, questions of
whether and how they should be addressed are properly
within the judgment of the Attorney General, in whom the
President has great confidence. Your views as expressed
both to the Attorney General and the President are
nevertheless helpful and are welcomed.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable William 8. Broomfield
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
PWB:ki
FORD is 07V830 LIBRARY
ITEM WITHDRAWAL SHEET
WITHDRAWAL ID 01243
Collection/Series/Folder ID
: 001900267
Reason for Withdrawal
:
DR, Donor restriction
Type of Material
:
COR, Correspondence
Creator's Name
:
Buchen, Philip
Receiver's Name
:
Geerdes, Franklin
Description
:
Matter concerning Thomas Moore.
Creation Date
: 07/29/1975
Date Withdrawn
: 06/23/1988
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM: ROGER SEMERAD
For your information
FORGA is LIBRARY STREET
(The attached is being
referred to the Dept. of
Labor for draft reply)
SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON
III WEST JACKSON. BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
CALIFORNIA OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.OFFICE
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST
AREA CODE 312 431-9000
1819 H STREET,N.W.
LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90067
CABLE ADDRESS: INTERLEX
WASHINGTON, D.C.20006
AREA CODE 213 277-7200
AREA CODE 202 872-1300
August 4, 1975
1-8)
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Mr. President:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit has recently rendered a decision (in McDaniel vs.
The University of Chicago and Argonne [National Laboratory],
512 F.2d 583) which could grievously affect all govern-
mental agencies which enter into contracts which might be
even arguably construction contracts subject to the Davis-
Bacon Act. 40 U.S.C. $276a, et seq. These effects will
be (a) the disruption of the orderly processes long estab-
lished for the government's administration of its contracts,
and (b) the substantial increase in the cost of construc-
tion and other services, to the government.
The Seventh Circuit, overruling the District Court
decision of Judge Philip Tone, held that an employee of
The University of Chicago, at its Argonne National Labora-
tory facility, could bring an action in his own name, for
claimed underpaid "prevailing" wages, despite the fact
that the Davis-Bacon Act, consistent with a clearly mani-
fest congressional purpose, forecloses that privilege.
This circumvention of the government's control over the
enforcement and implementation of its contracts could re-
sult in sheer chaos.
We represent The University of Chicago and have filed
a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Despite the singular
importance of the issue involved, the Supreme Court's case
burden may result in its inadequate appreciation of the
vital concern that governmental contracting agencies have
in the ultimate disposition of the case.
GERALD LIBRARY A. FORD
SEYFARTH. SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON
Page Two
The President
August 4, 1975
Thus, I am taking this unusual step of undertaking to
advise all governmental agencies (which themselves may not
be fully aware of the decision's potential impact) , through
the Office of the Chief Executive, of their interest in
this matter and to afford them an opportunity to express
their views in respect of the pending Petition. Should any
such agencies wish to give their support to that Petition,
we would be happy to afford them the benefit of our exper-
ience.
Respectfully yours,
SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON
By
WYSTR Wilfred F. Rice, Jr.
Partner
WFR:ms
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES SCHLESINGER
BRENT SCOWCROFT
JIM CONNOR
RODERICK HILLS
JIM WILDEROTTER
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.W.B.
Recently I sent you pages 11-18 of an address
prepared by Attorney General Levi to be delivered
before the American Bar Association on August 13.
This is the portion of the address which deals
with warrantless electronic surveillance, but I
neglected to designate the source of the material
I sent you. So that you may have the complete
address, I am attaching a copy of the full text.
Attachment
State in LISRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 14, 1975
Dear Senator Byrd:
This is in further response to your letter of July 25 on
behalf of Mrs. Eva Scott concerning the efforts of the
Commission on the Observance of International Women's
Year for support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
I have requested the views of the Department of Justice
concerning such activities, and I will contact you again
once we are advised in this regard.
Your inquiry is appreciated.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
M.
Hills
Roderick M. Hills
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
FORD i LIBRARY CERALD
Justice
August 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
LEON ULMAN
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
The attached correspondence from Congressman
Whitehurst requesting reconsidsration of the
classification of Mr. Charles Turrisi, a
member of the Federal Council on Aging, as a
"reemployed annuitant" under the Civil Service
laws, has been acknowledged by this office.
Although, I do not believe that the letter
from Chairman Brademas justifies any change
from your previous opinion on this question,
we would appreciate your responding directly
to Congressman Whitehurst on this matter.
Your assistance is appreciated.
Barry N. Roth
Assistant Counsel
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
August 20, 1975
Dear Mr. Whitehurst:
This is in response to your letter of August 14,
1975, in which you request my reconsideration of
the classification of Mr. Charles Turrisi, a
member of the Federal Council on Aging, as a
"reemployed annuitant" under the Civil Service
laws. This request is based upon a letter from
Congressman Brademas, Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Select Education, that the
Subcommittee did not intend, when it created the
Council, to discriminate against former Federal
employees by forcing them to bear the costs of
participation in the Federal Council's activities.
I have referred your letter to the Office of Legal
Counsel at the Department of Justice for appropriate
consideration and response directly to you on this
matter.
Your inquiry is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable G. William Whitehurst
House of Representatives
Washington, D. c. 20500
bcc: Max Friedersdorf
Leon Ulman, OLC
PWB/
FORD is LIBRARY 076830
Barry Roth/ 8/20/75
OFFICE OF
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
August 21, 1975
To - Philip W. Buchen
due
From - Michael M. Uhlmann
I thought you ought to know about this,
especially as Mr. Smith's letter gives every
indication that they intend to make some cheap
political hay out of it.
#
AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
1776-1976
PHILIP A. HART
COMMITTEES:
MICHIGAN
COMMERCE
JUDICIARY
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
AUG 20. 8'37'Ail'75
Justice
August 18, 1975
JUSTICE knoy
file
Honorable Edward H. Levi
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
In accordance with the Clemency Program established by the President
last September, you directed the U.S. Attorneys of the various
states to review all outstanding selective service cases and to
dismiss those lacking prosecutive merit. The January 1975 list
furnished to Senator Kennedy contained the names of those individuals
who the Justice Department would continue to prosecute. Those
individuals whose names appeared on the October list but not on
the January list would not be prosecuted and their cases would be
dismissed.
While this procedure has been of tremendous value to those whose
cases were dismissed, it appears that the standards for determining
"prosecutive merit" and the quality of the review undertaken by the
various U.S. Attorneys varied widely. It has come to my attention
that of the 60 selective service cases pending in the Western
District of Michigan, no cases were dismissed, although one was
rendered moot because the individual involved died. Compared with
a. dismissal of 31 of the 44 cases (70%) pending in the Western
District of Wisconsin, or 50 of the 81 cases (62%) in Colorado,
one is struck that the quality of the cases involved cannot explain
such vast discrepancies. Even within the State of Michigan, the
Eastern District saw fit to dismiss some 32% of the pending cases,
reducing the original 260 individuals to 178.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to me by William G. Smith of the
California law firm Smith, Kogan, Honig and Smith which provides the
information for this inquiry. That letter includes the tables from
which the statistics cited above were taken. Your prompt inquiry
into the discrepancies raised by this information, both in Michigan
and elsewhere, would be most appreciated as would any remedies you
BERALD FORD LIBRART
may be able to suggest. Mr. Smith recommends the appointment of
an independent prosecutor to review the case load in Michigan's
Western District, and your comments on this would be.most helpful
25-012
With best wishes,
? IN
Sincerely,
8
20 1975
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Enclosure
MITH KOGAN HONIG & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW
August 13, 1975
Carol K. Smith, Michael L. Kogan, Barbara Honig, William G. Smith
Senator Phillip A. Hart
United States Senate
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hart:
Our office has received a grant from the National Council of
Churches to represent all Selective Service registrants charged
with violations of the Selective Service Act during the Vietnam
conflict. The American Civil Liberties Union in New York City
has received a similar grant, and we have divided our reponsibilities
by agreeing that our office would handle cases arising west of
the Mississippi and the A.C.L.U. would take those cases arising
east of the Mississippi. I know that you have taken an active
interest in Amnesty legislation currently pending before Congress,
and I thought that you might be interested in some of the informa-
tion we have developed in the course of our work. Also, as the
Senator from Michigan, I thought you would be particularly in-
terested in information we have developed concerning Selective
Service cases pending in the Federal Courts in your State.
As part of our project, we have received copies of materials
supplied to Senator Kennedy in October, 1974 and January, 1975
by the Department of Justice. By way of background information,
the Department of Justice supplied to Senator Kennedy a list of
all Selective Service registrants in the United States who were
charged with violations of the Selective Service law in October,
1974. After the list was supplied, the Attorney General directed
each U.S. Attorney in the United States to review his outstanding
Selective Service case load and to dismiss any case lacking prose-
cutive merit. The review directed by the Attorney General was to
be completed in January, 1975, so that a revised list of Selective
Service registrants under indictment could be supplied to Senator
Kennedy. Following the review directed by the Attorney General,
a new list of Selective Service registrants charged with violations
of the law was supplied to Senator Kennedy on January 24, 1975.
It was specified that the list was complete and that it contained
the names of all Selective Service registrants eligible for Clemency
under the President's Clemency program, other than late or non-
registrants. Furthermore, it was specifically agreed by Attorney
General Levi that any individual not named on the list could not
be prosecuted and that any outstanding indictment, etc. relating
to any individual whose name was inadvertantly left off of the list
would be dismissed.
As a result of the assurances received from Attorney General,Levi
GERALD
LIBRARY
2 Sunset Boulevard, Metamorphosis Building, Los Angeles, California 90026, Telephone (213) 413-4430
Page 2
August 13, 1975
To: Senator Phillip A. Hart
to the effect that the January, 1975 list was complete and final
and that each U.S. Attorney had reviewed his outstanding Selective
Service case load to dismiss those cases lacking prosecutive merit,
our office undertook a project to test the validity of the
assurances and to determine the degree of compliance by each
U.S. Attorney with the instructions received from the Attorney
General. This project involved a comparison of the list of
Selective Service registrants charged with a violation of the
law in October, 1974 with the list of such persons supplied to
Senator Kennedy in January, 1975. Presumably, those individuals
whose cases were dismissed for lack of prosecutive merit would
be included on the October list, but not on the January list.
Since each list identified the Federal District Court in which
the person was pending charges for a violation of the Selective
Service law, it was a simple matter to determine which U.S. Attorneys
had in fact followed the instructions of the Attorney General to
dismiss cases lacking prosecutive merit, and which had not. The
results of our survey were quite startling. I have attached a copy
of a table summarizing our survey, indicating the percentage of
cases dismissed by each U.S. Attorney in the United States following
their review of cases for prosecutive merit.
Of particular importance to you, as Senator from Michigan, is the
fact that the U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan demonstrated
the least degree of compliance with the instructions from Attorney
General Levi, in comparison with all other U.S. Attorneys in the
United States. According to our count, there were 60 Selective
Service cases pending in Grand Rapids, Michigan as of October, 1974
and 59 pending as of January 24, 1975. The difference of one case
is explained by the fact that one defendant charged with a violation
of the Selective Service law died; apparently, death is the only
factor considered by the U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids in determining
whether to dismiss an indictment. Since the January list was com-
piled, it is possible that other cases have been dismissed, but
the record of the U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids is dismal by any
standard. We should also point out that the list supplied to Senator
Kennedy in October, 1974 did not purport to be completely accurate
and the statistical table we have attached reflects some inaccuracies
in the October list. Nevertheless, some interesting comparisons can
be made.
For example, you will note that the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco,
California saw fit to dismiss approximately 92% of his outstanding
Selective Service case load between October, 1974 and January, 1975,
while the U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids was determining that all of
his case load retained prosecutive merit. Thus, in October 1974,
there were 434 Selective Service cases pending in San Francisco and
60 pending in Grand Rapids. By January, 1975, there were only 38
Selective Service cases pending in San Francisco, but 59 remaining
in Grand Rapids. It would be appreciated if your office could make
Page 3
August 13, 1975
To: Senator Phillip A. Hart
appropriate inquiries with the Attorney General of the United
States to determine why so few cases were dismissed in Grand
Rapids in comparison with San Francisco. It seems inconceivable
to me that the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco could determine
that 434 cases in his District lacked prosecutive merit while
the U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids was making a determination that
all 59 of his cases should be retained. Obviously, an entirely
different standard was used in San Francisco as compared with
Grand Rapids, and the fugitive Selective Service registrants
from Michigan who are now living in Canada, Sweden or underground
in the United States have a right to know why such different
standards have been applied to their cases.
We have heard consistent rumors that various right-wing groups
in the Grand Rapids area have a degree of influence in the
Grand Rapids office of the U.S. Attorney which is unhealthy in
a democratic society. Although we have been unable to verify
these rumors, the attached statistical table suggests that the
Department of Justice should appoint an independent prosecutor
to examine the Selective Service case load in Grand Rapids, since
the incumbent United States Attorney in that City seems unable
to perform that task in a fair and impartial manner. We are
sending a copy of this letter to the local newspaper in Grand
Rapids in the event that they wish to assign an enterprising
young reporter to this story to determine why the U.S. Attorney
in their city has acted so improperly.
Dakota Thank you for your attention to this matter.
William Very -Truly- Yours C Eventy
William G. Smith
Attorney at Law
WS:ws
encls.
cc's:
Werner Veit, Editor, Grand Rapids Press
John P. Milanowski, United States Attorney, Grand Rapids, Mich.
FORD & LIBRARY
PERCENTAGE OF CASES DISMISSED BY U.S. ATTORNEYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF INSTRUC
TIONS FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI TO DISMISS ALL SELECTIVE SERVICE CASES LACK
ING PROSECUTIVE MERIT (ARRANGED ACCORDING TO DEGREE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI, WITH THOSE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATING
GREATEST DEGREE OF BAD FAITH IN FOLLOWING INSTRUC-
TIONS LISTED FIRST)
NAME OF DISTRICT
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
PERCENTAGE
CASES
CASES RE-
OF CASES
DISMISSED
MAINING AS
DISMISSED
OF 1/24/75
1.
W. Dist. Mich. (Grand
-0-
59
0%
Rapids)
2. District of Columbia
-0-
38
0%
3. W. Dist. of Oklahoma
-0-
16
0%
(Oklahoma City)
4. W. Dist. of Virginia
-0-
16
0%
(Roanoke)
-
5. W. Dist. of Louisiana
-0-
12
0%
(Shreveport)
6. New Mexico
-0-
11
0%
7. N. Dist. of Mississ-
-0-
10
0%
ippi (Oxford)
8. South Dakota
-0-
10
0%
9. E. Dist. of Texas
-0-
10
0%
(Tyler-Beaumont)
10. W. Dist. of Tenn.
-0-
9
0%
(Memphis)
11. E. Dist. of Louisiana
-0-
8
0%
(New Orleans)
12. N. Dist. of Oklahoma
-0-
8
0%
(Tulsa)
13. Mid. Dist. of Tenn.
-0-
8
0%
(Nashville)
14. Delaware
-0-
7
15. So. Dist. of West
FORD is DENALD LIBRARY
0%
-0-
7
0%
Virginia (Charleston)
16. No. Dist. of West
-0-
6
0%
Virginia (Wheeling)
NAME OF DISTRICT
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
PERCEI
CASES
CASES RE-
OF CA:
DISMISSED
MAINING AS
DISMI
OF 1/24/75
17, So. Dist. of Alabama
-0-
5
0%
(Mobile)
18. So. Dist. of Mississ-
-0-
5
0%
ippi (Jackson)
19. Wyoming
-0-
5
0%
20. W. Dist. of Arkansas
-0-
4
0%
(Fort Smith)
21. Mid. Dist. of Alabama
-0-
2
0%
(Montgomery)
22. E. Dist. of Oklahoma
-0-
1
0%
(Muskogee)
23. Guam
-0-
1
0%
-
24. So. Dist. of Ohio
(Columbus, Cinc. & Dayton)
3
91
3%
25. Mid. Dist. of Pennsylvania
(Scranton, Harris. & Lewisburg) 1
38
3%
26. Hawaii
1
35
3%
27. E. Dist. of Washington
1
29
3%
(Spokane & Yakima)
28. W. Dist. of Pennsylvania
3
69
4%
(Pittsburg)
29. Nebraska
2
43
4%
1
27
4%
30. Montana
31. Utah
1
25
4%
32. Mid. Dist. No. Carolina
2
37
5%
(Greensboro)
33. Nevada
2
23
8%
is
tukd
34. No. Dist. of Georgia
8
69
(Atlanta)
GERALD
LIBRARY
10%
35. No. Dist. of Indiana
6
54
10%
(Fort Wayne, Hammond & So. Bend)
36. Maryland
7
59
11%
NAME OF DISTRICT
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
PERCEN
CASES
CASES RE-
OF CAS
DISMISSED
MAINING AS
DISMIS
OF 1/24/75
37, Idaho
3
21
12%
2
15
12%
38. Kansas
39, W. Dist. of Texas
4
27
13%
(San Antonio & El Paso)
40." No. Dist. of Iowa
3
20
13%
(Sioux City & Waterloo)
41. Mid. Dist. of Georgia
2
13
13%
(Macon)
42, New Hampshire
3
19
14%
43. W. Dist. of Kentucky
3
18
14%
(Louisville)
44. E. Dist. of No. Carolina
2
12
14%
(Raleigh)
15. Vermont
1
6
14%
15%
16. W. Dist. of New York
29
170
(Buffalo & Rochester)
17. No. Dist. of Ohio
35
176
17%
(Cleveland & Toledo)
8. E. Dist. of Illinois
4
19
17%
(E. St. Louis & Danville)
13
60
18%
19. Arizona
50. No. Dist. of Florida
4
18
18%
(Pensacola & Tallahassee)
14
18%
1. E. Dist. of Kentucky
3
(Lexington)
51
19%
2. 5 Minnesota
12
3. Central Dist. of Calif.
110
441
20%
(Los Angeles)
54. So. Dist. of New York
74 (see footnote) 288
20%
(New York City)
11
45
5. No. Dist. of New York
FORD is DERALD LIBRARY
20%
(Syracuse & Albany)
164
21%
6. So. Dist. of Florida
44
(Miami)
NAME OF DISTRICT
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
PERCENTI
CASES
CASES RE-
OF CASES
DISMISSED
MAINING AS
DISMISSI
OF 1/24/75
57. Alaska
3
11
21%
58. W. Dist. of No. Carolina
3
11
21%
(Ashville & Charlotte)
59. No. Dist. of Texas
6
21
22%
(Dallas-Ft. Worth & Lubbock)
60. So. Dist. of Indiana
12
41
23%
(Indianapolis)
61. North Dakota
3
10
23%
62. No. Dist. of Illinois
61
194
24%
(Chicago)
63. Rhode Island
23
68
25%
64. Connecticut
59
157
27%
65. Mid. Dist. of Florida
27
73
27%
(Jacksonville, Tamp. & Orlando)
66. South Carolina
5
13
28%
67. Massachusetts
78
190
29%
68. E. Dist. of Pennsylvania
42
101
29%
(Philadelphia)
69. W. Dist. of Washington
21
51
29%
(Seattle & Tacoma)
70. E. Dist. of California
50
116
30%
(Sacramento & Fresno)
71. New Jersey
33
73
31%
72.
E. Dist. of Michigan
82
178
:
FORD
32%
(Detroit & Bay City)
GERALD
73. No. Dist. of Alabama
6
13
LIBRARY
32%
(Birmingham)
74, So. Dist. of Iowa
9
18
33%
(Des Moines)
75. E. Dist. of Arkansas
4
8
33%
(Little Rock)
76, So. Dist. of Georgia
2
4
33%
(Augusta & Savannah)
NAME OF DISTRICT
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
PERCENT
CASES
CASES RE-
OF CASE
DISMISSED
MAINING AS
DISMISS
OF 1/24/75
77. So. Dist. of Illinois
19
34
36%
(Springfield & Peoria)
78. So. Dist. of Texas
31
51
37%
(Houston, Laredo & Brownsville)
79: Maine
13
21
38%
80. So. Dist. of California
39
61
39%
(San Diego)
81, E. Dist. of Missouri
27
42
39%
(St. Louis)
82. Oregon
43
64
40%
83. W. "Dist. of Missouri
20
28
42%
(Kansas City)
84. E. Dist. of Virginia
41
53
44%
(Alexandria, Rich. & Norfolk)
85. E. Dist. of New York
227 (see footnote)
226
50%
(Brooklyn)
86. Canal Zone
1
1
50%
87 E. Dist: of Wisconsin
29
22
57%
(Milwaukee)
88, Puerto Rico
44
30
60%
89 Colorado
50
31
62%
90. E. Dist. of Tennessee
4
2
66%
(Knoxville & Chattanooga)
91. 31 W. Dist. of Wisconsin
31
13
70%
(Madison)
92. No. Dist. of California
434
38
92%
(San Francisco)
93. Mid. Dist. of Louisiana
1
0
100%
(Baton Rouge)
Notes: A total of approximately 30% of all cases on the October, 1974 list
were dismissed or otherwise disposed of before the January, 1975 list
was compiled. In the above table, the Median percentage is 17% and
the mode is 0%. For New York City, the dismissal ràte includes cases
the U.S. Attorney was forced to dismiss because he left many names of
the January list by mistake. The data for some of the larger distric
such as Brooklyn is very incomplete, and the dismissal rates are prob
The Virgin Islands had dismissallo
Justice Dept.
Thusday 9/4/75
1:20 At Mr. Buchen's request, call Bill Baroody's office
to tell him that Mr. Buchen has talked with the
Attorney General and Charlie Morin can call the
Attorney General now.
LIBRARY GERALD R.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 29, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
WILLIAM J. BAROODY, JR.
Per our conversation last evening, I would appreciate
it if you would call the Attorney General on Monday or
Tuesday to alert him to the fact that Charlie Morin
will be calling on behalf of Frank Fitzsimmons to
seek an appointment. Morin represents Fitzsimmons
and indicates that he is quite upset with press allegations
that he is linked to the mafia and he wants to meet with
the Attorney General to offer full cooperation in any
investigation that he may wish to conduct.
Morin is awaiting a call back as to whether we have
contacted the Attorney General before he places his
call.
LIBRARY GERALD : FRO
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Department of Justice
Dept.
Mashington 20530
September 25. 1975
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Buchen:
The attached letters have been sent to
Peoples Drug Stores and D. D. Bean and Company
asking them to cease and desist from the manu-
facture, sale, or distribution of matchbooks of
the type referred to this Division by your
memorandum of July 15, 1975.
Sincerely,
RICHARD L. THORNBURGH
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures
FORD i LIBRARY BERALD
RLT:CWB:RGA:Cap
Mr. James M. Schwarz
House Counsel
Peoples Drug Stores
6315 Bren Mar Drive
Alexandria, Virginia 22312
Dear Mr. Schwarz:
It has come to my attention that the
Peoples Drug Store at Fifteenth and New York
Avenue, Washington, D.C. distributes match-
books which display a reproduction of the
Presidential seal along with the words "Store
of the Presidents."
I must advise that the reproduction of
the Presidential seal without authority consti-
tutes a violation of federal law, specifically,
18 U.S.C. 713(b) and regulations promulgated
thereunder, specifically, Executive Order 11649,
37 F.R. 3625, February 18, 1972.
Peoples Drug Stores distribution of
matchbooks which display a reproduction of the
Presidential seal appears to violate 18 U.S.C.
sections 713(b) and 2, which call for both civil
and/or criminal sanctions. Peoples Drug Stores
is hereby requested to cease and desist from
further distribution of any article which uses
the reproduction of the Presidential seal, in-
cluding the distribution of any matchbooks pres-
ently in stock or on order.
CC: Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
FORD it LIBRA 87VH
- 2 -
If I have a letter from you indicat as
the voluntary cessation of such activity, no
further action will be taken by this office.
I trust that I will hear from you by return
mail.
Sincerely,
RICHARD L. THORNBURM
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
By:
Chief, General Crimes Section
CARL W. BELOMER
FORD is LIBRARY 0ERALD
Goodall Charles
4:45 p.m.
Tuesday, September 30, 1975
Charlie Goodell is scheduled to meet with the Criminal
Division of Justice on this matter today and as soon
as we hear from Justice we will report back to you.
Dudley
FORD : 03RALD LIBRARY
9/29 checking any Jotice
Pending with Wulley
I
Exemption from
goreign agents
Registration for Goodell
THE WHITE HOUSE
Justice
WASHINGTON
(see
August 25, 1975
Conflict of
Internet)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DUDLEY CHAPMAN
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN P.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Charles Goodell
Attached is a copy of a memorandum from Charles E. Goodell
to me of July 14, which I had referred to Nino Scalia on
July 17. On August 22, I had a call from Charles Goodell
saying that the corporation of which he is Chairman was
intending to register under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and to do so on August 27th. He also said under those
circumstances, he would immediately like an appropriate
document signed in behalf of the President to exempt
Charles Goodell from the penalty provisions of the Act. On
the same day, I got the attached memorandum from Leon Ullman
of the Office of Legal Counsel, which does not seem to be wholly
consistent with Goodell's request, but maybe the simplest thing
to do is to have you prepare an exemption from me to sign in
behalf of the President. If you see any objections to this
manner of proceeding, please let me know.
Attachments
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Department of Justice
Justice
Mashington, D.C. 20530
AUG 22 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP W. BUCHEN
Counsel to the President
Re: Status of Charles E. Goodell under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act
This responds to your memorandum of July 17, 1975,
concerning the possible applicability of the Foreign Agents
Registration Act to Chairman Goodell of the Presidential
Clemency Board. In view of the responsibility of the
Criminal Division for Foreign Agents Registration matters,
we referred your memorandum, upon receipt, to that Division
for initial consideration. The Criminal Division has ad-
vised us as follows:
The threshold question of whether Mr. Goodell has
an obligation to register under the Act cannot be resolved
at this time because the corporation whose activities are
at issue here and of which Mr. Goodell serves as Chairman
of the Board has not as of yet provided the Criminal
Division with certain information it has requested in order
to make a determination. Even if it is determined that the
corporation has an obligation to register, it does not
necessarily follow that Mr. Goodell would have to register.
The determination of Mr. Goodell's obligation to register
would depend upon the activities he engages in on behalf
of the corporation's foreign principals. A determination
in this regard must also await the submission of the re-
quested information by the corporation. If it is determined
that Mr. Goodell is required to register, then a copy of
a certification that his employment as a "special Govern-
ment employee" is in the national interest must be filed
along with his registration statement.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
In view of the absence of complete information at
this time, we have discussed with the Criminal Division
the question of the proper timing for Mr. Goodell to
obtain certification in the event it is later determined
that he must register. The Criminal Division advises us
that a certification made either prior or subsequent to
that determination would be satisfactory, and would be SO
even if made after Mr. Goodell leaves government service
upon the dissolution of the Presidential Clemency Board.
Accordingly, there is the option of either now providing
Mr. Goodell with a certification to be used in the event
it is subsequently determined that he has an obligation to
register or awaiting that determination and providing
Mr. Goodell with a certification if it becomes necessary
that he have one.
The certification provision, which is contained in
18 U.S.C. 219, requires that the "head of the employing
agency" certify that the particular employment is required
in the national interest. In the context of the conflict
of interest laws the President has delegated his authority
to make similar determinations under sections 205 and 208 (b)
of title 18, United States Code, to the Counsel to the
President. See 3 CFR 100.735-32. Any certification which
may be required under 18 U.S.C. 219 in connection with
Mr. Goodell's employment should be made by the President
or his authorized delegate.
femalman
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
CC: Kevin T. Maroney
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
- 2 -
FORD is LIBRARY 9ERALD
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: ANTONIN SCALIA
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Would you please review and advise me on the issues in the attached
memo. Therein, Chairman Goodell of the Presidential Clemency
Board discloses that he may possibly be subject to the Foreign
Agents Registration Act which prohibits his employment as Chairman
of the Presidential Clemency Board unless he is provided with a
certification that his employment as a "special Government
employee" is in the national interest.
Thank you.
T.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
FORDO is 018830 LIDRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO: PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
JAY T. FRENCH
AM
In Ken's absence, I reviewed and discussed with
Dudley the attached memo from Chairman Goodell.
Dudley and I recommend that you sign the attached
memo to Nino Scalia.
LIS8481 GERALD R. FORD
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
July 14, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Philip W. Buchen
Cherles E. Hoodell
FROM:
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
SUBJECT:
My Status under Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938.
Recently, it has been brought to my attention that a
corporation of which I am Chairman of the Board may be
engaged in activities which require its registration
pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938,
as amended, 22 U.S.C. $611. et seq. The activities involve
representation of foreign clients primarily in France
and Germany. The corporation was requested in mid-June
to provide the Department of Justice with a description
of its activities on behalf of one of its foreign clients.
As Chairman of the Board of the corporation and as a
member of the law firm which represents it, I myself would
automatically be required to register if the corporation
must register.
There is a general statutory prohibition on officers and
employees of the U.S. Government acting as agents of foreign
principals. However, "special Government employees,' as
this term is defined in 18 U.S.C. $202, are not subject
to this prohibition if the head of the employing agency
certifies that employment of the "special Government employee"
is required in the national interest,
The above cited prohibition is contained in 18 U.S.C. $219.
It reads as follows:
"Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United
States in the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch of the Government or in any agency of the
United Sates, including the District of Columbia,
is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required
to register under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938, as amended, shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two
years, or both.
OERALD FORD LIBRAN,
-2-
"Nothing in this section shall apply to the
employment of any agent of a foreign principal
as a special Government employee in any case
in which the head of the employing agency
certifies that such employment is required in
the national interest. A copy of any certification
under this paragraph shall be forwarded by the
head of such agency to the Attorney General who
shall cause the same to be filed with the regis-
tration statement and other documents filed by
such agent, and made available for public
inspection in accordance with Section 6 of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as
amended." (emphasis added)
My understanding of the procedures under the Registration
Act is that the date of a determination of a requirement
to register does not serve as the date that the party became
obligated to register. That obligation arises when a party
in part acts as an agent. In other words, a November 1975
registration may be based on a relationship that began
back in January 1975. Thus, if it evolves that the corpor-
ation must register, any. conflict with the statute and
my present position already exists, and has existed, irre-
spective of the fact that the Justice Department will not
make a decision until later.
Quite obviously, none of my responsibilities under the
clemency program would involve any conflict of interest
as contemplated, I believe, by the requirements of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act. It may well be that no
registration will even be indicated. Nonetheless, I don't
want to expose the President to any allegation that there
has been a technical violation of law within his Admiministration
Nor do. I wish to violate the law, technically or otherwise.
I have had my staff review 18 U.S.C. #219, but as you know
this is not our specialty. I would appreciate your confirming
my understanding of the way to proceed. If you agree, it
would appear necessary that the President, as the "head"
of this agency, make a determination that my position as
Chairman is "in the national interest" and has been since
the date of my swearing in.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES GOODELL
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Conflict of Interest Inquiry
I am advised that the Department of Justice has responded
directly to your inquiry of June 20, regarding your status as
a government employee.
This is to confirm the fact that, at the time of your original
appointment to the Presidential Clemency Board, it was not
contemplated that your service would involve a period in
excess of 130 days during the following 365 days.
This completes our review of this matter.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
Kl
SUBJECT:
Charles Goodell/
Conflict of Interest Question
As you will recall, Charles Goodell recently requested your
advice as to whether he is a "regular officer or employee" or
a "special government employee" for purposes of Federal
conflict of interest provisions, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 202, et. seq.
(incoming at Tab A). The latter designation is necessary if
Mr. Goodell is to continue in the practice of law to the extent
the U. S. is a party in any judicial or administrative proceeding
in which he is involved.
I asked the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice to respond directly
to this inquiry (Tab B). The question of whether one is a
"special" as opposed to a "regular" government employee turns
on a good-faith estimate of the anticipated duration of service
at the time of appointment -- an estimate in excess of 130 days
confers the status of "regular" employee.
It is clear that Mr. Goodell's original appointment did not
anticipate service in excess of 130 days. The fact that an
original estimate turns out to be inaccurate is inapposite to the
designation. The attached memo from you to Mr. Goodell (Tab C)
would complete action on this matter.
FORD is LIBRARY
PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
June 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Philip W. Buchen
Charles E. Joodell
FROM: Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
RE: Conflict-of-Interest Provisions as They Relate to My Status
as a Government Employee.
A problem has arisen concerning my status as a member of the
Presidential Clemency Board. I have not yet been properly desig-
nated as either a "regular officer or employee" of the U.S. Government
or as a "special Government employee" for purposes of the conflict-
of-interest laws. This designation is important because it affects
my continuing private legal practice. I would appreciate your attention
to this matter so my present status can be cleared up.
In September I asked the Justice Department to advise me concerning
the conflict of interest laws which relate to my status as Chairman
of the Presidential Clemency Board. The relevant statutes are 18 U.S.C,
202-209, with special emphasis on Section 205. Recently, I also
asked my legal staff to look into the matter, and they have provided
me with the following information.
In brief, all officers and employees of the U.S. in the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch are subject to the conflict of interest
provisions contained in 18 U.S.C., 205 (see Tab B). This section
provides that a "regular officer or employee" of the U.S. Government,
i.e., one appointed or employed to serve, with or without compensation,
for more than 130 days in any period of 365 days, may not, except in
the discharge of his official duties, represent anyone else before
a court or government agency in a matter in which the U.S. is a party
or has an interest. However, a "special Government employee," i.e.,
one who is appointed or employed, with or without compensation, for
not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three
hundred and sixty-five consecutive days, does not have the same restraints
imposed upon him as a regular officer or employee. A special Government
employee is only precluded from representing anyone else before a
court or government agency in a matter in which the U.S. is a party
or has an interest if he has at any time participated personally and
substantially for the Government in the same matter.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
For purposes of properly categorizing an employee of the U.S. Government
as either a "regular officer or employee" or as a "special Government
employee," I want to bring to your attention the following information
contained in Chapter 735, Appendix C, of the Federal Personnel Manual.
This information specifically relates to sections 202, 203, 205, 207,
208, and 209 of Title 18, United States Code. It reads as follows:
Each agency should observe the following rules in obtaining
and utilizing the services of a consultant, adviser, or other
temporary or intermittent employee:
(a) At the time of his original appointment and the time
of each appointment thereafter, the agency should make its
best estimate of the number of days during the following 365
days on which it will require the service of the appointee.
A part of a day should be counted as a full day for the purposes
of this estimate, and a Saturday, Sunday or holiday on which
duty is to be performed should be counted equally with a
regular work day.
(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, an appointment should
not extend for more than 365 days. When an appointment extends
beyond that period, an estimate as required by paragraph (a)
should be made at the inception of the appointment and a new
estimate at the expiration of each 364 days thereafter.
(c) If an agency estimates, pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b), that an appointee will serve more than 130 days during
the ensuing 365 days, the appointee should not be carried on
the rolls as a special government employee and the agency
should instruct him that he is regarded as subject to the
prohibitions of sections 203 and 205 to the same extent as
if he were to serve as a full-time employee. If it is estimated
that he will serve no more than 130 days during the following
365 days, he should be carried on the rolls of the agency as
a special Government employee and instructed that he is regarded
as subject only to the restrictions of sections 203 and 205
described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. Even if it becomes
apparent, prior to the end of a period of 365 days for which
an agency has made an estimate. on an appointee, that he has not
been accurately classified, he should nevertheiess continue
to be considered a special Government employee or not, as the
case may be, for the remainder of the 365-day period. (emphasis
added)
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
-3-
In view of the above cited provisions, it would appear that whether
an individual working for the U.S. Government is a "regular officer
or employee" or a "special Government employee" depends on the nature
of the individual's original appointment. When I was appointed
Chairman of the Clemency Board, the Board was only empowered to consider
requests for executive clemency from individuals who submitted their
applications no later than January 31, 1975. When the Clemency Board
was initially established, it was anticipated that as Chairman I
would meet with the rest of the Board members three times a week,
twice each month. The Board was expected to process all clemency appli-
cations no later than March 15, 1975, and submit its final recommen-
dations to the President no later than December 31, 1975, at which
time it was to cease existing. After March 15, 1975, it was antici-
pated that I would need to meet with other Board members and members
of my staff only on an occasional basis, if at all.
Since at the time of my original appointment it was expected that the
Clemency Board would finish most of its work by March 15, 1975, I
believe that it is accurate to state that there was no expectation
I would serve on the Clemency Board for more than 130 working days.
In view of the circumstances existing at the time the Clemency Board
was created, I believe that I properly should have been designated
as a "special Government employee.' To date, however, I have not
been designated either as a "special Government employee" or a "regular
Government employee." I would appreciate it if you could confirm that
my status as of September 15, 1974, was that of a "special Government
employee," thereby resolving any questions that might arise under
the conflict statutes.
This becomes a matter of some urgency, because we are trying to close
our financial account by the end of the fiscal year. I believe the
matter could be decided after July 1 and I be paid the next fiscal
year, but I am far from a budgetary expert and am repeating only what
I have been told. At any rate, I stopped putting in payroll vouchers
March 2, at which point I had accumulated 80 days with the Clemency
Board. Through June 30, my total days on the Clemency Board will be
about 150. Obviously, with the Clemency Board going full time through
the summer, it will be considerably higher than that by September.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter and an opportunity
to discuss it with you if you feel it is necessary.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Department of Justice
as. 20573.
June 27, 1975
Lawrence M. Baskir, Esq.
General Counsel
Presidential Clemency Board
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Baskir:
This responds to your letter of June 26, relating to
the conflict-of-interest Iaws as they involve the status of
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman of the Presidential Clemency
Board, as a Government employee. For reasons to be dis-
cussed, we conclude that it was proper to designate Mr.
Goodell as a special Government employee as that term is
defined by 18 U.S.C. 202,
That section provides that the term "special Government
employee" means "an officer or employee of the executive
branch
who is retained, designated, appointed, or em-
ployed to perform, with or without compensation, for not to
exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three
hundred and sixty-five consecutive days, temporary duties
either on a full-time or intermittent basis
11
Congress
intended that a special Government employee in general would
be subject to less restrictive conflict-of-interest prohibi-
tions than are regular employees. This intention is reflected
by the specific differences in treatment for each type of
employee under 18 U.S.C. 203, 205 and 209.
Beginning with the effective date of the conflict-of-
interest statute in January 1963, the Department of Justice
has taken the position that if, at the threshold of employ-
ment, an agency estimates in good faith that the employee
will serve no more than 130 days during the following 365
days, he should be carried on the rolls of the agency as a
special Government employee. Similarly, it has been she
GERALD LIBRARY
Department's view that il it becomes apparent prior to the
end of the period, the estimate turns out to be inaccurate,
the employee may nevertheless continue to be considered as
a special Government employee for the remainder of the 365-
day period. That interpretation is expressly embodied by
the Civil Service Commission in its Federal Personnel Manual,
p. 735-C-1, of November 9, 1965, as revised July 1969.
From the memorandum of June 20, 1975, from Mr. Goodell
to Mr. Buchen, attached to your inquiry, it appears that when
he was appointed to the Clemency Board on September 16, 1974,
the Board was empowered to consider requests for executive
clemency only from individuals who submitted their applica-
tions no later than January 31, 1975. It was anticipated
that Mr. Goodell would meet with his fellow Board members
not more than three times a week, twice each month. It was
also expected that the Board would complete its processing
of all clemency applications no later than March 15, 1975.
After that date, it was anticipated that Mr. Goodell would
meet with Board members and members of his staff only on an
occasional basis, if at all. Under Executive Order 11803
creating the Board, its final recommendation to the President
must be submitted no later than December 31, 1976.
On the basis of the above facts, there is no doubt that
if Chairman Goodell had been designated as a special Govern-
ment employee on September 16, 1974, this would have been a
good-faith estimate and entitled Chairman Goodell to that
same status even though later events indicated that this was
an erroneous estimate. Mr. Goodell, however, was not designated
either as a "special Government employee" or as a regular
Government employee. We assume this was an inadvertence.
In our opinion, the basic 130-day test can be applied in the
light of what a good-faith estimate would have been, even
though it was not reduced to writing when Mr. Goodell was
appointed. We conclude that Mr. Goodell's status as of the
date of his appointment was that of a special Government
employee.
Sincerely,
Jemblmes
is
FORD
Acting Attorney
LIBRARY
Office of Legal Counsel