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
135839816
label
Chron File (09/15/1983-09/19/1983)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839816
contentType
document
title
Chron File (09/15/1983-09/19/1983)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Chronological Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839816
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
1b7396d6fd0be690
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: Chron File (09/15/1983-09/19/1983)
Box: 61
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 ROBERTS, JOHN G.: FILES
Withdrawer
IGP
8/4/2005
File Folder
CHRON FILE (09/15/1983 CON'T- 09/19/1983)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
30IGP
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1
MEMO
ROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER
1 9/15/1983
B6
579
RE DIEGO ASENCIO
2 MEMO
ROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER
1 9/15/1983 B6
581
RE DIEGO ASENCIO
3 MEMO
APPOINTMENT PROCESS PERSONAL
2
ND
B6
582
INTERVIEW RECORD
4 MEMO
ROBERTS TO FRED FIELDING
1 9/16/1983 B6
1256
[RELEASED IN WHOLE- 02/03/06 - MJD]
5
LETTER
FROM ROBERTS RE ARTICLE "TAXES
1 9/19/1983
B6
586
BANKROLL THOUSANS OF EUROPEAN
TRIPS" Relead m put 4/21/06
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
September 15, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Alan I. Marshall
Alan I. Marshall was convicted in federal district court on
December 18, 1981, of mail fraud and wire fraud in
connection with an arson incident. Marshall was apparently
granted a new trial on several counts, but his conviction on
other counts was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. Marshall
plans to appeal to the Supremes. He has sent you, along
with 14 other people, a copy of a six-page letter he wrote
to the Justice Department Public Integrity Division. The
letter raises a broad range of allegations against the U.S.
Attorneys Office, the FBI, the trial judge, and the
appellate judges. You should not respond. Since Marshall
has sent the letter to Justice directly, no referral is
necessary.
Attachment
ID #
171436 CU
JR
WHITE HOUSE
HU010
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
alan I Marshall
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Violation of we Constitutional Rights
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
WHOLL
ORIGINATOR DD 83,09,14
/ /
Referral Note:
WAT 18
DD 83,09,14
S 83,09,24
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
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
171436 cu
Dear Sir:
Enclose please find a letter charging the Cleveland F.B.I. and
U.S. Attorney and Court with violating my Constitution rights.
I realize from talking to a few Congressman and Senators that
they can't get involved in courts cases. I am not asking or due I
expect any special consideration all I ask is for your office to
follow through so as my charges are not buried under the carpet.
This can be done by asking the U.S. Attorney Public Integrity Division
what steps their taking to check into these allegation.
Thank you,
Alan I. Marahall
1-800-227-1617 Ext 494
spale to your secretary 2nd Ind
and is retter and you would presided ;-
There your
The
P.O. Box 203
Grove City, Ohio 43123
August 26, 1983'
Public Integrity Division
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Sir or Madam:
My name is Alan I. Marshall. I am a resident of the city
of Williamsville, New York but for the past three years I have
worked in Columbus, Ohio.
On October 2, 1981, I was indicted by a federal grand jury
impaneled by the United States District Court for the Northern
district of Ohio in Cleveland, Ohio.
I was indicted on two counts of mail fraud, three counts of
wire fraud and one count under the Travel Act. In the
indictment, the government claimed that I rented a warehouse in
Cleveland, Ohio to store my delivery trucks and meat, fish and
poultry products. They claim I removed the meat, fish and
poultry products from this warehouse, and hired someone to set
fire to the warehouse at which time the trucks were damaged. I
submitted fire, damage and theft insurance claims to insurance
companies which the government claims were false. I was
charged with telephone and mail fraud since I used these means
to file the insurance claims.
Before my trial my lawyer, Tony Miranda, filed a Request
for Discovery asking that he be informed if any witness
testifying against me was promised or granted immunity. In
particular, he asked whether Charles Pruner, a former employee
of mine, was granted immunity. The government said immunity
had been granted to no one. Charles Pruner testified against
me and was the government's star witness.
On December 18, 1981 I was convicted on both mail fraud
counts and on all three wire fraud counts. The Travel Act
count was dismissed.
By February 24, 1982, it had come to my attention that Mr.
Miranda, my attorney, was not an experienced criminal lawyer.
He had not practiced in federal court nor did he know the rules
of procedure. I had, unfortunately, been told that he was
experienced.
Shortly after that I hired new lawyers to handle my case.
It was their opinion that I had ineffective counsel. After
Page 2
Public Integrity Div.
August 26, 1983
reviewing the grand jury testimony of Charles Pruner, the
government's main witness, my new lawyers told me that Charles
Pruner had been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange
for his testimony against me. My trial lawyer, Mr. Miranda,
had not been told that fact by the government.
As a result, another Motion for a New Trial was filed which
said that because the government had not told my trial lawyer
about the immunity agreement between them and Charles Pruner my
due process rights had been violated.
The trial judge, Judge Krupansky reversed my conviction on
three counts but let the other two counts stand. He said that
conviction on those two counts was not based on Charles
Pruner's testimony but on other independent evidence.
I appealed that ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals and was recently notified that my convictions on the
two counts were affirmed. I plan to appeal this ruling to the
U.S. Supreme Court very soon. (However, I am all most positive
that, according to the Cleveland court officials, that it will
not be here, but by appealing to the Supreme Court, I am
ruffling more feathers and I am blowing any chance of shock
probation or an early parole.)
The following are the facts as best as I can remember and
document them:
Throughout the investigation, trial and appeal process, the
FBI has harassed and intimidated my wife (who I am legally
separated from) and my two children who reside in Williamsville
New York. They have called my wife a liar and upset my
children with intimidating phone calls and visits to their home.
The FBI and the U.S. Attorney knowlingly withheld evidence
from my trial attorney that would have helped in my defense.
For example, they withheld the fact that their main witness,
Charles Pruner had been granted immunity from prosecution. In
addition they assisted him in getting probation for
embezzlement in New Jersey. To this date his felony conviction
has never, to my knowledge, showed up on any criminal
conviction records. They also buried numerous bad check
charges. It is my understanding that there is still a warrant
for his arrest for one. This is inaddition to a bail jumping
charge. Both the U.S. Attorney and the FBI agents knew tht Mr.
Pruner and Mr. Cummings (a supporting witness) were, in fact,
the ones who stole my product and tried to destroy my
equipment. They were able to get Mr. Pruner released from jail
in Florida to testify against me. None of this was told to me
during my trial. I learned this on my own.
Page 3
Public Integrity Division
August 26, 1983
Further, the FBI and U.S. Atorney denied that they had any
written statements from Charles Pruner their main witness. I
have learned enough about the FBI from my own contacts that
they write everything down. Despite this, my trial attorney
and I were told no written or taped statements was taken from
Charles Pruner, the government's star witness prior to his
appearance before the grand jury. This was nothing but a lie
and I believe that if I had such statements it would have been
my defense during the trial. Mr. Arbezniak, the U.S. Attorney,
made a statement to a court official that there were, in fact,
three statements made by Mr. Pruner and if subpoenaed the court
official would testify to that.
I believe my trial, motion hearing and sentencing
transcripts were "doctored" to leave out events which were
embarassing, unprofessional and in some cases grounds for
appeal. For example, during my trial, my lawyer would receive
large numbers of transcripts of goverment witnesses on the day
of their testimony. The U.S. Attorney did this purposely so my
lawyer wouldn't have time to review them. My lawyer asked the
court for time prior to cross examining these witnesses to read
these transcripts and Judge Krupansky denied his request. This
was done on the record but when I got the transcript to appeal,
this event was not recorded.
Secondly, at my sentencing on July 30, 1982, Judge
Krupansky stormed out of the court room because the U.S.
Attorney had not made a decision as to whether he would
re-prosecute me for counts I, II and III which the court had
reversed. At no time during the sentencing did Judge Krupansky
inform me of my right to appeal. Yet when I got the transcript
of the proceeding a statement by the judge advising me of my
appeal rights was there. This was added after the fact.
In another instance, I informed the court I no longer had
the funds and asked for a court appointed lawyer. It was
denied. This request never appeared on the transcript. I
believe that if some high authority could impound the original
trial transcript without warning, my charges would be proven
correct.
Shortly after the three counts were reversed and dismissed,
I was informed that the State of Ohio wished to pursue
prosecution of me for the same crime but on the state level.
Prior to this time, the state had done nothing to initiate
prosecution. Gary Arbezniak, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted
me, used to work for the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor.
Strangely, right after I had three federal counts reversed and
dismissed, and had refused to accept a deal from the U.S.
Attorney to drop my Appeal to the Sixth Circuit in exchange for
them not re-prosecuting me on the three counts.
Page 4
Public Integrity Division
August 26, 1983
Prior to dismissal by the U.S. Attorney, the Cuyahoga County
Prosecutor, Mr. Arbeznich initiated prosecution. After making
several trips to state court, a negotiated plea was arranged
where I was allowed to plead no contest but would be allowed to
withdraw it if I was successful in the federal appeal. This
deal made the federal people furious. There is no question in
my mind that Mr. Arbezniak, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted
me, was behind the county Prosecutor taking me to trial. Mr.
Arbezniak has been angry ever since he got caught withholding
evidence (immunity agreement with Pruner). He was even more
angry when his superiors declined to re-prosecute me on the
counts which were reversed.
The FBI, or Mr. Arbezniak or both tried to set me up for
making telephone threats to Mr. Arbezniak and his wife. They
claimed that on October 8, 1982, someone called Mr. Arbezniak's
home and threatened him and his wife if he did not drop my
case. I did not, nor did I have reason to make such a call as
I recently had three of the five counts reversed and
dismissed. They were dismissed on September 6, 1982 and the
alleged phone call occurred on October 8, 1982. In response to
this my new lawyers arranged for a polygraph examination which
I took voluntarily. The results of the polygraph were that I
did not make a threatening phone call and I did not have
anybody do it. I presented a copy of this examination when I
went for an interview with the U.S. Attorney William Petro in
Cleveland and the Cleveland FBI. I cooperated fully even
though I suspected that the federal people cooked the whole
thing up themselves. During their investigation, agents from
the Buffalo FBI threatened me, intimidated me and told me "they
would get me one way or the other". Immediately after my last
appeal brief was filed, the FBI said another phone call had
been made threatening Mr. Arbezniak. This one was, alledgedly
to have occurred on March 9, 1983. This time they subpoeaned
me in front of a grand jury along with several members of my
family, some friends and some of my former employees. They
took voice prints of me and several of these witnesses. This
was, of course, all done during Passover, the most significant
Jewish religious week. As I am Jewish, as are all of my family
and closest friends, there is no doubt in my mind that this was
done purposely and maliciously by the Cleveland U.S. Attorney's
office. When we objected to coming in on Passover, we were
told "be there or we will send a marshall for you".
Again I believe this second alleged phone call was cooked
up by the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's office as a means of
harassing, threatening and causing me financial and emotional
hardships. I believe if these calls were made, they were made
by someone within or affiliated with the FBI or the U.S.
Attorney's office. The substance of the threats themselves
Page 5
Public Integrity Division
August 26, 1982
suggested that only someone who was informed about my case
could have made these calls. Also on at least two occasions
someone has called my toll-free business number and left
messages that I should contact my brother Gary at a particular
number. I do have a brother named Gary but in checking the
number the caller left, I found it belongs to Gary Arbezniak
the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted me and who I was accused of
threatening. Again, I am convinced that these unethical
tactics are being used by the Department of Justice to get me
into trouble and to hurt me during my appeals.
The judge who tried my case and who sentenced me was
appointed to the Sixth Circuit shortly after I was sentenced.
While I had some doubts about the Sixth Circuit's ability to be
fair with me on my appeal, I gave them the benefit of the
doubt. After reading their opinion which affirmed my
conviction on counts IV and V, I am convinced that they were
simply trying to protect their new associate, Judge Krupansky,
and that they gave no real consideration to my case.
In short, the Sixth circuit merely tried to cover-up for
the errors of both Judge Krupansky, who now sits with them, and
the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Arbezniak who use to work with Judge
Krupansky. I also understand that most of the cases which
Judge Krupansky presided over which have been appealed have
been ruled on by the same panel. In sum, my appeal to the
Sixth Circuit was a fraud and a sham since the court ignored
its own prior rulings in similar cases to uphold Judge
Krupansky, their new colleague. Even though during oral
argument the U.S. Attorney confessed error as to all five
counts as a result of the non-disclosure of the immunity
agreement between Pruner and the government and that the due
process violation applied to all five counts, the Sixth Circuit
still upheld Krupansky. They are taking it into their power to
ignore the federal rules that have been laid down by congress.
I hereby formally charge the U.S. Attorney with misconduct
because of suppression of evidence, presenting false evidence,
encouraging perjured testimony and blackmail.
I am charging William J. Keller, FBI agent in charge, with
obstruction of justice, withholding of 302 that would have
helped in my case, threatening harm to my family and having
knowledge of perjured testimony and encouraging it.
I charge the Sixth Circuit of willfully and intentionally
disregarding the facts and federal rules to cover for a fellow
colleague.
Cleveland's Federal Bankruptcy court is under investigation
Page 6
Public Integrity Division
August 26, 1983
now and I hope that one of the people that receive a copy of
this letter will check into my charges and investigate the
Federal Court as well. I feel that my charges can be proven
correct.
The United States Constitution guarantees our right to a
fair trial with no politics involved. I feel, however, that my
constitutional rights have been violated and I have not been
afforded a fair trial.
Enclosed you will find research I have done concerning
misconduct in the Northern District of Ohio court over the past
three years.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. If you
need any further imformation or would like to talk to me about
this, I can be reached at 1-800-227-1617, Ext. 494. I
sincerely hope you will be able to help me.
Very truly yours,
Alan d Machill
Alan I. Marshall
cc: Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan
Anti-Defamation League
American Bar Association
Con. Jack Kemp
Am. Civil Liberties Union
Sen. Strom Thurmond
Con. Peter Rodino
Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato
Con. Henry J. Nowak
Con. John J. Lafalce
Wm. Webster. FBI
Wm. French Smith, Atty. Gen.
Public Integrity, Div., FBI
Robert Carter, Attorney
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
IGP 8/4/2005
File Folder
FOIA
CHRON FILE (09/15/1983 CON'T - 09/19/1983)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
30IGP
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO
Document Description
pages
tions
1 MEMO
1 9/15/1983 B6
579
ROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER RE
DIEGO ASENCIO
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.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
IGP 8/4/2005
File Folder
FOIA
CHRON FILE (09/15/1983 CON'T - - 09/19/1983)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
30IGP
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
2 MEMO
1 9/15/1983 B6
581
ROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER RE
DIEGO ASENCIO
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
September 15, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
822
SUBJECT:
Remarks: Luncheon with Members
of the Republican National Committee
(9/14 - 4:30 draft)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the
above-referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by
noon today. The brief remarks review the progress of the
economic recovery and the revitalization of our defenses. I
have no objection.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 15, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Remarks: Luncheon with Members
of the Republican National Committee
(9/14 - 4:30 draft)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
On page 4, line 17, "Nambia" should be "Namibia."
CC: Richard G. Darman
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Richard G. DARMAN
Name of Correspondent:
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Remarks Luncheon with Members
of the Republican National Committee
9/14 - 4:30 draft)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR
83,09,14
/ /
Referral Note:
WATI8
r
83,09,14
5 83,09,14
Referral Note:
NOON
/ /
/
/
-
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
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
9/14/83
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
TOMORROW NOON, 9/15
SUBJECT:
REMARKS: LUNCHEON WITH MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE (9/14 - 4:30 draft)
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HERRINGTON
MEESE
HICKEY
BAKER
JENKINS
DEAVER
McMANUS
STOCKMAN
MURPHY
CLARK
ROGERS
DARMAN
P
SS
ROLLINS
DUBERSTEIN
"
SPEAKES
FELDSTEIN
SVAHN
FIELDING
VERSTANDIG
FULLER
WHITTLESEY
ELLIOTT
GERGEN
HENKEL
FISCHER
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits directly to Ben Elliott, Room 100,
with an information copy to my office by noon tomorrow,
Thursday, September 15th.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
(Robinson/BE)
September 14, 1983
4:30 p.m.
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: LUNCHEON WITH MEMBERS OF THE
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1983
Good afternoon and welcome. It's good to have you all here,
and it's a real pleasure for me to see SO many good friends and
fellow warriors from the political trenches. Before I say
anything else, let me express my heartfelt thanks for all the
time and labor each of you has given to the cause that unites us.
When all is said and done, it's not gloss and glitter, but hard
work and determination from our army of supporters that makes
victory possible. And it will again in 1984.
I was thinking on the way over about an old story you may
have heard -- it illustrates tife way those of us in the Grand Old
Party differ from the Democrats. It seems a little boy had a
litter of newborn puppies to sell. He and a friend took the
puppies to a Democratic convention in town, and before long a
delegate asked, "Are those Democratic pups, son?"
"Yes, sir," the little boy said.
"Well, then," the man said, "I'll take one."
A week later the little boy and his friend took the
remaining puppies across town to where some Republicans were
meeting. After some time a Republican asked, "Son, what kind of
puppies are those?"
And the little boy answered, "Republican puppies, sir."
Well, at this point the little boy's friend piped up. "But
I thought last week you said they were Democratic puppies."
Page 2
"Last week they were," the little boy answered. "But now
they've opened their eyes."
You know, when we took office, we inherited the terrible
handiwork of a Democratic Congress and administration that had
kept their eyes tightly shut to reality. Uncontrolled taxing and
spending had created raging inflation and soaring interest rates.
The month George Bush and I were inaugurated, inflation was well
into double digits and the prime interest rate reached a level
not seen since the Civil War.
It didn't matter if you were white, black, an American of
Hispanic descent, or whatever. If you had scrimped and saved to
send your children to college, 12½ percent inflation was closing
the doors of opportunity.
If you had struggled for years to buy your own home,
12½ percent inflation was closing the doors of opportunity.
And for working men and women everywhere who needed loans to
start their own businesses, 21 1/2 percent prime interest rates were
slamming shut the doors of opportunity.
In 1980, America's economic growth had come to a dead halt.
Those who could find work only if the economy provided new
jobs -- teenagers, blacks, Hispanics, and hundreds of thousands
of women -- found nothing.
The Democrats have been talking a lot about fairness lately,
but let me just remind you: The people who saddled this Nation
with the worst record in modern history of runaway spending,
double-digit inflation, sky-high interest rates, and unfair
Page 3
taxation are the last people who should be giving sermonettes
about fairness and compassion.
The American people were fed up and they cleaned house --
the White House. Our Administration moved in, and, with
Republicans in control of the Senate, we rolled up our sleeves
and went to work to make a new beginning.
We reduced the growth of spending, pruned needless
regulations, reduced personal income tax rates, allowing all
Americans to keep a bigger share of their own earnings, and
passed an historic reform called tax indexing. Never again can
Government use inflation to profit at the people's expense.
Today, less than 2 years since we set our policies in place,
our Nation has one big program to help every American man, woman
and child. It's called economic recovery.
The prime rate is almost half what it was when we took
office. Inflation has plummeted by two-thirds to under
2.4 percent for the past year -- the lowest rate in more than a
decade-and-a-half. Factory orders, retail sales, and housing
starts are up; the stock market has come back to life; and the
American worker's real wages are rising for the first time in
3 years. Unemployment is still too high, but it's dropping fast,
and since December more than 2 million Americans have found jobs.
Now, our friends the Democrats have been trying to cut up
and belittle this recovery from every angle. But I'll let you in
on a little secret about their argument: No matter how they
slice it, it's still baloney.
raye 4
Just as we're turning the economy around, we're
strengthening our armed forces and bringing a new sense of
purpose and direction to American foreign policy.
In the military, the number of combat-ready units has gone
up a third since 1980. The deployable battle force in the Navy
has risen from 470 ships when we took office to 506 today -- well
on it's way to our goal of 600. The percentage of new recruits
with high school diplomas has risen throughout our armed forces,
and since 1980, the re-enlistment rate has gone up by more than a
quarter. That means we're attracting better recruits and keeping
them longer, because we're giving them better pay, better
equipment, and the respect they deserve.
In foreign policy, we've let the world know once again that
America stands for the political, religious, and eccnomic freedom
of mankind. We're working tirelessly for a just peace in the
Middle East; we're laboring for human rights in southern Africa,
condemning apartheid and calling for the liberation of Nambia;
and we're giving firm support to democratic leadership in Central
America, providing three out of every four dollars of our aid to
the region in the form of economic and humanitarian assistance.
In our search for peace, we have more major negotiations underway
with the Soviets than any other administration in history. And
for the first time, the Soviets are talking about more than
nuclear arms ceilings -- they're talking about actual nuclear
arms reductions.
You may remember the verse in the Bible that says, "Your old
men will dream dreams; your young men will see visions." Well, I
Page 5
deeply believe that this is just such a time of reawakening in
America, a time when our country is healing the wounds of the
past and beginning to look with courage and confidence to the
future. Yes, we are making a new beginning.
The dream you and I share for our Nation is a great dream,
perhaps the greatest dream in all history. It's a dream of a
broad and open land that offers opportunity to all. It's a dream
of a great country that represents a force for peace and good
will among nations.
All of us are laboring in the name of that dream. Yes, we
will suffer setbacks. And, yes, others in the world will do all
they can to place obstacles in our path. But if we have the
courage to do all that we can to make that dream come true, then
we will achieve great good in this world and do our duty to our
fellow men, to our beloved country, and to our God.
Thank you, God bless you, and now I know you have some
questions.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
APPOINTMENT PROCESS PERSONAL INTERVIEW RECORD
Several meetings in late June;
DATE OF INTERVIEW: Numerous telephone conversations thereafter
CANDIDATE: Clarence J. Brown
POSITION:
Deputy Secretary of Commerce
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
INTERVIEWER: John G. Roberts
COMMENTS:
The President has announced his intention to nominate
Clarence J. Brown to be the Deputy Secretary of Commerce.
The Office of Deputy Secretary of Commerce was established
by § 2 (b) (1) of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979, 5 U.S.C.
App. II, see Executive Order 12175 (December 7, 1979). That
Reorganization Plan, like all others, contained an
unconstitutional legislative veto provision, see 5 U.S.C.
$ 906. It can be argued that the authority to create the
Office of Deputy Secretary of Commerce was not severable
from the unconstitutional legislative veto, and that
accordingly there was no power to create the office. The
government-wide rámifications of acceptance of such an
argument are, of course, staggering, but I must report that
the Federal District Court in Mississippi has in fact
accepted such an argument in the context of a suit
challenging the authority of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which was established through a
Reorganization Plan. I recommend that we proceed on the
assumption that the Office of Deputy Secretary of Commerce
does exist, but I wanted to alert you to the possible
legislative veto problems.
b6
2
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
ble
I have no objection to Brown's nomination going
forward.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Medal of Honor
Scheduling walked this in to me a short time ago, asking if
a response from our office would be appropriate in light of
the legal requirements surrounding any award of the Medal of
Honor. We can easily respond, and probably should rather
than have Scheduling discussing the law in this area. I've
looked into it briefly and will be happy to draft the
response, but wanted to send it to you for appropriate
staffing.
Attachment
Inc
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Letter to James Baker Regarding SKYSTAR
J.M. Haffert, National Secretary of the Roman Catholic lay
organization known as the Blue Army, has written both the
President and James A. Baker III concerning a pending CAB
matter. Haffert's organization has applied before the CAB
for a certificate under § 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1371, permitting it to offer
service for pilgrimages to Lourdes, Fatima, and other
religiously significant sites. The corporation formed to
provide such air service, Skystar International, Inc., has
also requested an exemption under § 416, 49 U.S.C. § 1386,
pending review of the § 401 application, or a determination
that its activities do not constitute common carriage. The
letters to Mr. Baker and the President request their
assistance in obtaining favorable treatment.
I am advised by OMB that this matter was just recently sent
to an administrative law judge by the CAB. The letter to
Mr. Baker should accordingly be handled pursuant to § 4 of
Executive Order 11920. The letter to the President is
technically not covered by this provision, since he is not
an [i] ndividual within the Executive Office of the
President," but I recommend treating it in a similar fashion
as a policy matter. A memorandum transmitting both letters
to the Transportation General Counsel, and a reply letter to
Haffert advising him of this fact, are attached.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES H. BURNLEY IV
GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Letter to James Baker Regarding SKYSTAR
The attached correspondence concerning a pending Civil
Aeronautics Board matter was sent to James A. Baker III.
Pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920, I am
referring the correspondence to you for whatever review and
action may be appropriate.
Attachment
FFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
SEP 1 9 1983
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
Dear Mr. Haffert:
This is written in response to your letters of September 8
to the President and to James A. Baker III. Those letters
concerned the applications of Skystar International, Inc.,
currently pending before the Civil Aeronautics Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920,
individuals within the Executive Office of the President
must decline to discuss with an interested private party
matters relating to the disposition of a case subject to
Presidential review under the Federal Aviation Act. The
executive order requires that written communications to
White House staff members concerning such matters be
referred to an appropriate agency outside the Executive
Office of the President. Asla matter of policy, a similar
procedure is followed with respect to letters to the
President on such matters.
Accordingly, I have referred your correspondence to the
Department of Transportation.
Sincerely,
Orig. a by TFF
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. J.M. Haffert
National Secretary
Our Lady Queen of the World, Inc.
Post Office Box 189
Washington, NJ 07882
FFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83
bcc: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
SEP 1 9 1983
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES H. BURNLEY IV
GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Letter to James Baker Regarding SKYSTAR
The attached correspondence concerning a pending Civil
Aeronautics Board matter was sent to James A. Baker III.
Pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920, I am
referring the correspondence to you for whatever review and
action may be appropriate.
Attachment
FFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83
CC: FFFielding
I
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
Dear Mr. Haffert:
This is written in response to your letters of September 8
to the President and to James A. Baker III. Those letters
concerned the applications of Skystar International, Inc.,
currently pending before the Civil Aeronautics Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920,
individuals within the Executive Office of the President
must decline to discuss with an interested private party
matters relating to the disposition of a case subject to
Presidential review under the Federal Aviation Act. The
executive order requires that written communications to
White House staff members concerning such matters be
referred to an appropriate agency outside the Executive
Office of the President. Asia matter of policy, a similar
procedure is followed with respect to letters to the
President on such matters.
Accordingly, I have referred your correspondence to the
Department of Transportation.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. J.M. Haffert
National Secretary
Our Lady Queen of the World, Inc.
Post Office Box 189
Washington, NJ 07882
FFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83
bcc: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from C.D. Brennan
Objecting to a Holiday in Honor
of Martin L. King, Jr.
On August 15, former FBI Assistant Director, Charles D.
Brennan wrote the President to express opposition to a
national holiday to honor Martin L. King, Jr. Brennan
enclosed a summary paper reviewing King's expression of
Marxist sentiments, his association with Communist Party
figures, and the shadier aspects of his private life.
Brennan concedes that the FBI's activities with respect to
Dr. King did not represent its finest hour, but argues that
the evidence that was gathered concerning Dr. King's
character should not be ignored on that account.
I recommend sending a noncommittal letter thanking Brennan
for his views, and referring the package to OPD, which will
presumably be reviewing the policy questions of whether to
support a King holiday.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JACK SVAHN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from C.D. Brennan
Objecting to a Holiday in Honor
of Martin L. King, Jr.
The attached correspondence is submitted for whatever
consideration may be appropriate in connection with the
policy decision on whether to support a national holiday to
honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Attachment
FFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
Dear Mr. Brennan:
Thank you for your letter of August 15 to the President. In
that letter and the accompanying summary memorandum, you
detailed the grounds for your opoposition to a national
holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I have routed your letter to the appropriate office in the
White House, which will give your views every appropriate
consideration. Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Charles D. Brennan
487 N. Owen Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22304
FFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83
bcc: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Civil Aeronautics Board Decisions in
Powell Air Ltd. and Aviacion Y Comercio, S.A.
Richard Darman's office has asked for comments by close of
business Monday, September 19 on the above-referenced CAB
decisions, which were submitted for Presidential review as
required by § 801 (a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1461 (a). Under this section, the
President may disapprove, solely on the basis of foreign
relations or national defense considerations, CAB actions
involving either foreign air carriers or domestic carriers
involved in foreign air transportation. If the President
wishes to disapprove such CAB actions, he must do so within
sixty days of submission (in these cases, by September 26
and 23, respectively).
The orders here have been reviewed by the appropriate
departments and agencies, following the procedures estab-
lished by Executive Order No. 11920 (1976). OMB recommends
that the President not disapprove, and reports that the NSC
and the Departments of State, Defense, Justice and Transporta-
tion have not identified any foreign relations or national
defense reasons for disapproval. Since these orders involve
foreign carriers, the proposed letter from the President to
the CAB Chairman prepared by OMB does not include the
standard sentence designed to preserve availability of
judicial review.
The Powell Air order authorizes charter service between
Canada and the U.S.; the Aviacion Y Comercio order
authorizes charter service between Spain and the U.S.
A memorandum for Darman is attached for your review and
signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Civil Aeronautics Board Decisions in
Powell Air Ltd. and Aviacion Y Comercio, S.A.
Our office has reviewed the above-referenced CAB decisions
and related materials and has no legal objection to the
procedure that was followed with respect to Presidential
review of such decisions under 49 U.S.C. § 1461 (a).
We also have no legal objection to OMB's recommendation that
the President not disapprove these orders or to the substance
of the letter from the President to the CAB Chairman prepared
by OMB.
FFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Levitas Note Concerning His Power
Sharing Letter
Congressman Levitas has written a curt note to you inquiring
why it has taken so long to respond to his July 19 letter
suggesting the convocation of a Conference on Power Sharing
to assess the aftermath of INS V. Chadha. You will recall
that we referred the letter to Justice on August 4, and
Justice responded on August 23 with a draft reply for the
Deputy Attorney General's signature. On August 24, I sent
a memorandum to you, along with a draft memorandum to
Schmults, agreeing with the bulk of the draft response but
suggesting deletion of the paragraph on the Administrative
Conference. You signed and sent that memorandum on
September 8.
I called Deputy Assistant Attorney General Marshall Cain,
and confirmed that the Schmults reply with the
Administrative Conference paragraph deleted should be sent
posthaste. Cain stated this would be done. I have prepared
a draft reply to Levitas' note. I have also prepared a
memorandum to Schmults to ensure that Justice does not tarry
further.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Levitas Note Concerning His Power
Sharing Letter
As you will see from the attached, Congressman Levitas is
anxiously awaiting our reply. Pursuant to a discussion
between John Roberts of my staff and Marshall Cain of your
Office of Legislative Affairs, it is my understanding that
your draft reply - minus the Administrative Conference
paragraph - will be sent without further delay.
Attachments
FFF: JGR:aea 9/19/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Statement of Dan K. Webb Regarding
Vote Fraud - September 19, 1983
United States Attorney Dan Webb, of the Northern District of
Illinois, proposes to deliver the attached testimony at a
hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Senate Judiciary Committee on September 19. Webb's
testimony begins with an overview of his office's
involvement in vote fraud investigation, and a review of the
applicable federal statutes. Webb then proceeds to discuss
his office's investigation of the November 1982 election,
principally in the Chicago area. The proposed testimony
discusses particular instances of vote fraud, with a
detailed discussion of the difficulties presented by
registration of aliens. Webb concludes by noting that there
were fewer instances of vote fraud in the February and April
Chicago mayoral elections, and attributes this, at least in
part, to his office's activities with respect to the
November 1982 election. Webb reaffirms his office's
commitment to investigate and prosecute cases of vote fraud
in the Northern District of Illinois. I see no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Dan K. Webb Regarding
Vote Fraud - September 19, 1983
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
ID #
CU:
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
8R
o # OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
1. INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: ( Marshall Can
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Statement of Dan K. webb
se vots Fraud september 19 + 1983
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response:
Code
YY/MM/DD
CULTON
ORIGINATOR 83,09,15
t
Referral Note:
CUAT18
D 8309115
$ 83,09,19
Referral Note:
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
Is /
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
STATEMENT OF DAN K. WEBB
DRAFT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AT
A HEARING BY THE UNITED STATES
SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE
ON THE CONSTITUTION, SEPTEMBER 19, 1983
Office's History Regarding Vote Fraud
The Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
has had a long history of active investigation of vote fraud. Since the early 1970's,
our office has been one of the few, if not the only, United States Attorney's Office in
the country to actively monitor voting practices on election days. On election days,
our office, in conjunction with the United States Marshal's Service, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
implement a field effort which entails sending Assistant United States Attorneys and
Deputy United States Marshals to various polling places throughout the City of
Chicago in order to detect and prevent vote fraud. Numerous teams of Assistant
United States Attorneys, accompanied by Deputy United States Marshals and equipped
with radios, tour Chicago and other areas in this district and respond to and
investigate allegations of vote fraud. They target key wards and precincts based on
evidence of fraud in past elections and on other information. FBI agents and INS
investigators are available to respond to specific problems related to their area of
expertise. Federal agents also are available to act upon serious complaints made
prior to election day. Additionally, Assistant United States Attorneys and federal
personnel in the United States Attorney's Office answer complaints made by
telephone.
Our election day efforts include cooperation with local law enforcement
officials such as the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, the Illinois Attorney
General's Office, the Chicago Police- Department, the Chicago Board of Election
Commissioners, as well as local watchdog groups.
Our ability to actively monitor elections is facilitated by Illinois law, which
permits law enforcement personnel, including my Assistants, to enter polling places
and closely observe voting activities. The primary purpose of our monitoring efforts
on election days has been to deter vote fraud, but an additional purpose has been to
uncover and preserve any evidence that could be used in a vote fraud prosecution.
Federal Statutes
There are several federal statutes which condemn vote fraud and which we rely
on in our prosecutions. When a federal candidate is on the ballot, specific federal
statutes become applicable. These statutes prohibit voting more than once, supplying
false information to vote, voting in the name of another person, and paying people to
vote. 42 U.S.C. SS 1973i(c),(e). Further, the civil rights statutes (18 U.S.C. SS
241,242) prohibit conspiracies and substantive conduct directed at depriving the
public-at-large of their constitutional right to the fair and impartial administration of
federal elections. Also, voter intimidation directed at influencing the results of a
federal contest is outlawed by statute. 18 U.S.C. S 594. When a federal candidate is
not on the ballot, the federal civil rights statutes prohibit the deprivation of voters'
federal constitutional right to vote in a local election in accordance with the one-
person-one-vote principle. Serious vote fraud committed with the assistance of
election judges violates these civil rights statutes. Finally, the mail fraud statute (18
U.S.C. S 1341) has been used to prosecute vote fraud that is perpetrated through the
use of the mails. This statute has been applied most often to fraudulent schemes
involving absentee ballots.
Investigation of November 1982 Election
Our office, together with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, have undertaken an intense and wide-ranging
investigation of alleged vote fraud in the November 1982 general election. Offices at
2
stake in this election in Illinois included representatives in Congress and Governor.
Because this investigation is quite active right now and is subject to grand jury
scrutiny, I am unable to discuss the investigation in detail. I will, however, describe
it in broad outline. This investigation started the way many investigations start:
citizens with knowledge of crimes came forward and told us about them.
Additionally, the media and certain candidates' organizations made us aware of
allegations of vote fraud. Our investigation this year, however, has included a unique
and very important new facet-namely, the use of a computer. In order to provide
the data base for the computer analysis, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents had to
review virtually all of the 1,000,000 ballot applications submitted in the city of
Chicago in the November election. One of the most important results of this
investigation is that the FBI has developed an effective computerized method of
investigation that has proved very helpful in detecting vote fraud and that can be
used in all future elections. This technique includes cross-matching the names of
persons who voted with the names of persons who have died and compiling a list of
names where more than one vote was cast in the same name.
Kind of Vote Fraud Found
Based on indictments and convictions that we have obtained concerning the
November 1982 general election, we have uncovered certain species of vote fraud. All
of these crimes occurred in Chicago in areas that were dominated by one political
party. In each instance of fraud there was one prerequisite, and that was that the
leader of the dominant political party at the precinct level (the precinct captain)
controlled the actions of the officials administering the élection at the polling place
(the election judges).
3
With the election judges in his control, the precinct captain perpetrated the
most common type of vote fraud, which consisted of forging on ballot applications the
names of persons who did not come in to vote and then voting ballots in their names.
Either the precinct captain himself, one of his workers, or an election judge would do
the forging. For example, in an extreme case a large number of ballot applications
were forged and then an equal number of ballots were taken to a back room, voted,
and then placed in the ballot box.
Another type of fraud consisted of a precinct worker getting into line and posing
as a legitimate voter and then voting in the name of this person.
Another type of vote fraud consisted of false registration. Here, a precinct
captain caused another person who did not live in his precinct to register to vote in
his precinct in order to increase the number of votes that the precinct captain
controlled.
Another instance of fraud that we uncovered concerned elderly and disabled
voters. Such voters will need assistance to vote. We found examples of election
judges who voted ballots on behalf of these people without the authorization or
understanding of the elderly voters.
We also uncovered instances of precinct captains and precinct workers paying
people to vote.
Another instance of fraud that we found involved absentee ballots. Under this
scheme, false information was submitted in order to obtain blank absentee ballots,
which were then voted by the precinct captain.
Perhaps the most flagrant example of vote fraud that we have prosecuted
occurred in the 30th Precinct of the 27th Ward. In this precinct, in November, a
precinct captain and his son in effect ran their own election at the end of the day.
Instead of properly tabulating the vote, the election judges stood aside and watched
4
the precinct captain's son take one straight Democratic ballot and run it though the
tabulating machine 203 times.
Election Canvasses
The principal vote fraud problem that we have uncovered is the forging of ballot
applications and the fraudulent voting of ballots in the forged names by precinct
captains and persons working for the precinct captains. To accomplish this illicit
process, the precinct captain needs a pool of registered voters whose names he can
forge. Persons who have died or who have moved are prime candidates for this pool.
It is therefore imperative to assure an honest election that these names be removed
from the voting rolls prior to each election.
In Chicago, these names are supposed to be removed in periodic canvasses. We
have found that all too often these canvasses have not been performed. Again, the
canvasses are supposed to be conducted by the election judges. The judges, however,
are often controlled by the local precinct captains, who do not want good canvasses
and who prevent the canvasses from being property performed. These faulty
canvasses contribute significantly to vote fraud.
Alien Problem
Another serious problem that we uncovered involves illegal aliens and other non-
citizens who illegally register to vote and vote in various elections.
We have found that many illegal aliens register to vote for the purpose of
acquiring voter registration cards, which they then use to commit additional crimes.
We have found instances of illegal aliens using an illegally obtained voter registration
card to fraudulently obtain passports, public aid, and food stamps. We also found that
on one occasion a non-citizen used an illegally obtained voter registration card in
order to get security clearance to work for a contractor selling weapons parts to the
United States Department of Defense.
5
Furthermore, our investigation shows that some of these aliens actually cast
illegal votes in various elections. We have found instances in which some persons
have actively sought the registration of illegal aliens for the very purpose of
influencing the outcome of an election. If these people do not vote, their illegal
registrations can still lead to a dishonest election because they constitute additional
names added to the pool that can be fraudulently voted.
We have obtained the convictions of seven aliens charged with offenses related
to their illegal registration and voting, including passport fraud and fraud against the
government. Also, our office and INS have referred to the State's Attorney's Office
twenty-nine cases resulting in indictments.
We would note, however, that where an alien, who is lawfully in the United
States, has been convicted of casting an illegal vote in an election, his deportation is
not necessarily required under 8 U.S.C. S 1251(a)(4), since that provision only requires
deportation for crimes of "moral turpitude" resulting in a prison sentence.
The illegal alien registration problem stems in part from the ease with which
persons may register to vote in Illinois. Persons who want to register to vote should
be required to furnish identification. I understand that legislation has been passed by
the General Assembly and is awaiting approval by Governor that would alleviate this
problem by requiring identification when a person registers to vote.
Circumstances Conducing to Vote Fraud
In analyzing the results of our investigation, we can point to certain
circumstances that are conducive to vote fraud. The first prerequisite is that one
party dominate the precinct, and that there not be any hotly-contested races in that
precinct. If there is a hotly-contested local race, or if both major political parties
are viable in that particular precinct, there will be enough persons watching the
activity in the polling place to prevent most kinds of vote fraud. If the people in the
6
polling place-judges and watchers-observe each other and have an adversary
relationship, an honest election is the likely result.
Vote fraud cannot occur if election judges do their job. Therefore, a
precondition to a dishonest election is that the judges, either because of their
economic situation or personality, must be of a type to be dominated by a precinct
captain.
We have also found that a significant amount of fraud occurs in those areas
where it is hard for a precinct captain to make his quota by legitimate means. For
example, if the voter pool consists of a substantial number of transients or otherwise
unreliable people, a precinct captain will have a hard time getting out the vote
legitimately, and he may have to resort to illegal methods.
Results and Reasons for Our Investigation
Our investigation of the November 1982 election has resulted so far in the
indictment, conviction, and penitentiary sentence for a precinct captain, the
indictment of three other precinct captains, and the indictment and conviction of
other precinct workers and election judges. In addition to the seven convictions of
aliens, we have obtained vote fraud convictions of five persons, and vote fraud
indictments against fourteen others. Our investigation is continuing, and we expect
additional results in the near future.
Numerous FBI agents, INS agents, and attorneys in my office are assigned to the
investigation of vote fraud. I have assigned these resources to this investigation for
several reasons. I believe that the right to vote is one of the most precious that we
Americans possess. It must be protected. Because of the level of fraud we detected
in the November election, I believe the problem is a serious one. The February and
April mayoral elections, according to our indicators, were not tainted with the kind of
fraudulent conduct we detected in the November election. We hope that this
7
improvement was due not only to the hotly contested nature of the mayoral elections,
but also in part to our intensive investigation begun in January of this year.
I believe that if the U.S. Attorney's Office can do its part to achieve fair
elections, we will be performing an important service to this district and to this
country. I therefore reaffirm my commitment to continue our efforts on behalf of
honest elections.
8
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
THRU:
RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Department of Justice Proposed Report
on S. 645, the "Courts Improvement Act
of 1983" Establishing the Intercircuit
Tribunal
In late August, the Department of Justice attempted to
obtain OMB clearance of its latest version of a report on
S. 645. The proposed Justice report expressed support for
the creation of a temporary Intercircuit Tribunal, and
attempted to condition that support on simultaneous pursuit
of more basic reforms of the federal judicial system. We
advised OMB on August 29 (copy of memorandum attached) that
we continued to oppose any support for the Intercircuit
Tribunal. Michael Uhlmann did the same, and accordingly OMB
advised Justice that its proposed report could not be
cleared. Justice has now responded that its draft report
reflects an agreement worked out between Justice and the
White House. As "evidence" of the agreement, Justice
submitted a May 27 memorandum for Mr. Meese from the
Attorney General.
That memorandum simply sets forth the Justice position. It
hardly reflects an agreement of any kind. I have raised the
matter with Uhlmann, who strongly rejected the suggestion
that an agreement to support the Intercircuit Tribunal in
any form had been reached. Unless you have a different
understanding of where this dispute stands, I will advise
OMB that we adhere to our opposition to the Intercircuit
Tribunal and are aware of no agreement to support it.
Attachment
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Brandon Blum
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Department of Justice proposed report on
5.645, the "Cousts Improvement act of 1983"
establishing the Intercircuit Tribunal
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CNHOLL
ORIGINATOR 83/09/15
/
/
Referral Note:
WATI8
A 83/09/15
/ /
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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
/
ROUTE SLIP
Richard Hauser
Take necessary action
TO
Approval or signature
Mike Uhlmann
Comment
Prepare reply
Discuss with me
For your information
See remarks below
BBh
FROM Branden Blum (x3802)
DATE 9/13/83
REMARKS
DOJ proposed report on S. 645, the
"Courts Improvement Act of 1983"
Per our discussions, I have advised Justice
that the Administration does not support
Title VI of the bill, which would establish
the Intercircuit Tribunal. Accordingly, the
Justice report should be changed.
Justice has advised me that it feels there
is White House support for the Intercircuit
Tribunal (see attached memo) and that the
Justice report is consistent with the
Administration's position.
I do not know whether the attached memo
reflects an agreement reached between the
White House and Justice on this issue.
Please advise.
CC: K. Wilson
OMB FORM 4
Rev Aug 70
Offire of the Attorney General
Washington, B.C. 20530
May 27, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE III
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH WAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT:
Proposed Intercircuit Tribunal
As you and I discussed at the end of last week's Cabinet Council
on Legal Policy meeting, everyone agrees that the federal
judicial system, and particularly the Supreme Court, is suffering
from serious caseload problems. The Chief Justice's proposal for
an intercircuit tribunal has strong and persuasive support. The
best position for the Administration to take on this question is,
in my judgment, to support a limited version of the intercircuit
tribunal (for example, a panel that would exist for an
experimental period of three, rather than five, years) but as
part of a larger program of judicial reform. Under this approach
Congress would also address the workload problems of the lower
courts, such as eliminating diversity jurisdiction, abolishing
the Supreme Court's mandatory appellate jurisdiction (which
accounts for one-fourth of the cases the Court hears annually),
limiting federal habeas corpus review of final state court
convictions, and creating the additional district and circuit
court judgeships the Administration has requested. Any other
position would both be incomplete and would put us at odds with
many of those who share our views about judicial restraint.
See p. 8 of justice Rept.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
H. LAWRENCE GARRETT, III
HAS
SUBJECT:
Ethics Training Exhibit
Other than the Standards of Conduct section of the White
House Office Staff Manual, we have no "ethics related
training material."
Accordingly, I recommend no further action be taken in
regard to the attached memorandum and return it for whatever
disposition you may deem appropriate.
Attachment
ID # 167218 CU
WHITE HOUSE
PEDOI
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
LG
Name of Correspondent: David H. Mastin
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Ethics Training Exhibit
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOIL
ORIGINATOR 83,09,07 PY /
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT 02
A 83,09,07 PY
/
/
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
United States of America
Office of
Office of Personnel Management
Government Ethics
Washington, D.C. 20415
1672/8Cu
SEP I 1983
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ethics Training Exhibit
FROM:
Director David H. Martin David Hartert
TO:
Designated Agency Ethics Officials
and Inspectors General
This year, as part of our agency relations program, we are placing additional
emphasis on ethics training for government employees. As part of this effort a "training
exhibit" will be available at the October 4, 1983 OGE Annual Conference in the lobby
outside the Department of Labor auditorium. This exhibit will contain copies of various
ethics (standards of conduct) training materials developed and used by individual
departments and agencies consisting of books, pamphlets, films and video tapes. We
encourage conference attendees to initiate more training and to take the opportunity to
examine these materials to determine if they could be used as is or with some
modification in their agency.
To make this exhibit a success, would you please send us a copy of any ethics related
training material your department, agency or field offices may have developed. We would
like to keep the material sent to us; however, if some material can be only loaned -as may
be the case for films or video tapes - we will return the material after the conference.
Also, include with each item a short description of its content and the name, address and
telephone number, or a contact, to obtain additional copies. This data will be used to
compile a bibliography of the exhibited material and will be available at the conference.
Please direct the material or any questions you have on this matter to Robert Flynn
or James Parle of my staff. They can be reached on 632-7642.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
22
SUBJECT:
Proposed White House Conference
on Small Business
Richard Darman has asked for our views by Wednesday,
September 21, on a proposal by the SBA to have a White House
Conference on Small Business, May 9-11, 1984, to coincide
with Small Business Week. The SBA thinks such a Conference
would help highlight small business' role in the recovery,
and asks for (1) a Presidential directive to SBA to hold
such a conference, (2) appointment of a Commission on Small
Business, (3) a Presidential address at the Conference, and
(4) participation by White House Staff and the Cabinet at
the Conference.
I have no objection to a conference or Presidential address
if those more familiar with policy in this area deem such
events useful. The idea of yet another Commission is,
however, a bit much, particularly since I am aware of no
real "crisis" in the area of small businesses. There are
already a plethora of advisory committees active in the
area, and we really do not need more.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed White House Conference
on Small Business
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposals contained in the
September 13 memorandum from Frank S. Swain to Craig L.
Fuller. We have no objection to a White House Conference on
Small Business, or to the President, White House staff, and
Cabinet members addressing such a Conference, should those
more directly involved in forming Administration policy in
this area consider such events helpful. We are reluctant to
establish yet another Presidential commission, however,
particularly since there does not appear to be any crisis in
the area for a commission to address. It is not immediately
apparent what a Commission ON Small Business would do that
is not already being done by other departments, agencies and
commissions, and I strongly recommend against creating
Presidential advisory committees in the absence of a real
need to do so.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/19/83
CC:
FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
September 19, 1983
Bb
Dear
The enclosed story, picked up by several papers, has
attracted considerable interest back here. Interest is
particularly keen among members of the other party on the
Hill and at places such as GAO. Please give me a call next
time you are in town to discuss your availability for
hearings and interviews with investigators.
Warmest personal regards.
Sincerely,
John
John G. Roberts
Enclosure
P.S. There is even talk of
B6
a subpoena for
AM-TRAVEL SKED 9-11
TAXES BANKROLL HOUSANDS OF EUROPEAN TRIPS
BY GREGORY GORDON
WASHINGTON (DPI) -- AN OUTSPOKEN U.S. AMRASSADOR. ESTIMATING
TRAVEL COSTS EXCEEDED $1 MILLION FOR 658 OFFICIAL VISITORS TO LAST
SPRING'S PARIS AIR SHOW, QUESTIONS THE NFED FOR THE THOUSANDS OF " a
GOVERNMENT TRIPS TO EUROPE.
"I DOUBT IF ANYONE IN WASHINGTON IS AWARF OF THE FILL SCOPF OF THE
PROBLEM, ITS OVERALL COST TO THE U.S. TAXPAVER. ne THE NEGATIVE
EFFECTS IT CAN HAVE" IN CRIPPLING EMBASSY OPERATIONS. FVAN GALRRAITH.
THE AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE, SAID RECENTLY IN AN ANGRY. INTERNAL CARLE
TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
A STUDY OF GOVERNMENT TRAVEL BY UNITED PRFSS INTERNATIONAL AND THE
BETTER GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION, A CIVIC WATCHDOG GROUP. SHOWS MOPF
THAN 25,000 OFFICIAL U.S. VISITORS STOPPED AT ENRASSIES IN PAPIS.
ROME, BONN AND LONDON IN 1982.
EMBASSY SPOKESMEN SAID 8,000 TO 9,000 U.S. OFFICIAL 5 VISITED PARIS
AND 10,000 STOPPED IN LONDON, SOME EN ROUTE TO DESTINATIONS SUCH AS
AFRICA. BONN REPORTED 6,000 TO 8,000 OFFICIAL VISITORS. ROMF 1.00A
INDEED, TRAVEL COSTS OF FEDERAL AGENCY OFFICIALS. CONGRESSMEN.
THEIR AIDES AND SPOUSES NOW CAN BE PROJECTED TO PUN FACTIV INTO THE
TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SOME EXPENDITURES HIDDEN TN OBSCURE --
EVEN CLASSIFIED -- BUDGET ACCOUNTS. MANY TRIPS AMOUNT TN LAVISH,
TAXPAYER-PAID VACATIONS, AND LAX CONTROLS FATI TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY
OR REDUNDANT EXCURSIONS AND TO GUARD AGAINST ARUSFS
WHILE STRESSING THE NEED FOR SOME FOREIGN VISITS RV TOP GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES, ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ACKNOWLEDGE AVERSEAS TRAVFI
IS A VEXING PROBLEM. DESPITE PRESIDENT REAGAN'S AUSTERITV NDIVF, SOME
RANKING STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BELIEVE TRAVFI ARROAD MAG
INCREASED.
ONE OFFICIAL SAID EMBASSIES TRYING TO MAINTAIN RIT7Y VISITOR
SERVICES "MAY BE REACHING THE BREAKING POINT
IN HIS JULY CABLE, OBTAINED BY THE RGA. ART REATTH COMPLAINED HIS
EMBASSY MAS 50 BURDENED WITH HOSTING THE AIR SHOW CONTINGENT --
INCLUDING MILITARY ESCORT OFFICERS FOR CONGRESSMEN -- ITC NORMAI
OPERATIONS "GROUND TO A HALT. SOURCES SAID THE FNRASSY HAD TO
SOLICIT EMERGENCY FUNDS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT
GALBRAITH ARGUED HIS EMBASSY NO LONGER CAN CAPF WITH DENANDS FOR
SCHEDULING, CHAUFFEUR AND TOUR GUIDE SERVICES. AND OTHER "FRING" --
SUCH AS PERSONNEL TO MEET RANKING OFFICIALS AT THE AIRPORT. OFTEN AT
R COST OF $50 FOR A CHAUFFEUR'S OVERTIME INSTEAD OF A $2A CAR RIDE
cont'd.
"
UR THE U.S. REPRESENTATIVES SURPASSED $1 MILLIAN
PLEADING FOR STATE DEPARTMENT SUPPORT, HF SATD. at FIND THAT FVFRY
TIME I RAISE A QUESTION ABOUT A PROPOSED VISIT, I HAVE A MAJOR FIGHT
ON MY HANDS -- EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE VISIT 15
SUPERFLUOUS. GALBRAITH DID NOT RETURN REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS FROM HPT AND THE
BGA IN RECENT WEEKS.
IN A REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT TRAVEL RECORDS AND INTERVIEWS WITH
DOZENS OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS, UPI AND THE BGA FOUND EVIDENCE TPAVFI
ABROAD IS OUT OF CONTROL:
--DESPITE PRESIDENTIAL EDICTS TO REDUCE TRAVEL. NO ONE MONITORS
FOREIGN TRIPS OR THEIR COST. MANY OFFICIALS ARRIVE AT II a ENRASSIES
WITHOUT NOTICE. SAYS JAMES BARRY OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, "THERE'S ALWAYS A GOOD EXCUSE TO GA SOMEWHERE
--TRAVEL ABUSERS RUN THE GAMUT FROM STATE DEPARTMENT FORFIGN
SERVICE OFFICERS TO CABINET OFFICIALS.
KONG
RIDES
FOI
--CONGRESS MATCH, A NONPROFIT GROUP, REPORTED LAST MONTH THAT
SENATORS AND HOUSE MEMBERS TOOK 991 TRIPS TO 114 COUNTRIES FROM 1981
TO 1983, MORE THAN HALF TO FRANCE, ITALY, ENGLAND. GERMANY AND
GREECE. STRIFE-TORN COUNTRIES SEEN TO GET FFW II G VISITORS TN 1982.
20 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS VISITED SUNNY BARRADOS. RUT JUST 13 TRAVFLED
TO PROBLEM-PLAGUED EL SALVADOR.
--CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS USDALLY FLY MILITARY AIRCRAFT. AND
SOMETIMES EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS DO LIKENISE. FVFN WHEN
COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS ARE CHEAPER AND CONVENIENT CONGRESSIONAL GROUPS
ARE ACCOMPANIED BY MILITARY ESCORT OFFICERS. REMFD WITH TRAVFLING
COMMISSARIES OF SNACKS AND STASHES OF MONFY TA COVER EXPENSES SUCH AS
FOOD, LODGING AND TRANSPORTATION. ESCORT OFFICERS 8150 SERVE AS
BELLHOPS, DOORMEN AND, AS ONE CONGRESSIONAL AIDF PHT IT. "INFORMAI
SOCIAL SECRETARIES.
--ALTHOUGH MOST FEDERAL OFFICIALS STICK TO RUSTNESSLIKE AGENDAS.
- EMBASSY PERSONNEL ARE DISMAYED TO MATCH CONGRESSMEN ARANDON THF RUSY
SCHEDULES THEY ARRANGED. A FORMER FOREIGN SERVICE AFFICER WHO SERVED
IN SOUTH AMERICA SAID MOST OFFICIAL DELEGATIONS TO RRA711 SCHEDULE
MEETINGS IN THE INTERIOR CAPITAL OF BRAZILIA RIIT OUTCKLY HFAD FOR THE
BEACHES AND "MORE EXCITING NIGHTLIFE" OF PTN DF JANFIRO THE OFFICER
SAID ONE GROUP ABRUPTLY CANCELED ALTERNATIVE FIIFI MFFTINGS WITH
BRAZILIAN OFFICIALS AND HEADED FOR IPANEMA REACH
UPI 03-12-83 @2:45 PED
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DSR
SUBJECT:
Statement of Jonathan Rose Regarding
S. 1080 - The Regulatory Reform Act
on September 21, 1983
OMB has asked for our views on the attached testimony, which
Assistant Attorney General Rose proposes to deliver before
the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of
the Senate Judiciary Committee. The testimony reviews
Department of Justice opposition to section 5 of S. 1080,
the so-called "Bumpers Amendment." This proposal, which has
significant conservative support, seeks to restrain agency
action by authorizing more searching judicial review. In
particular, section 5 would (1) require courts to determine
if an agency were acting within its jurisdiction by
reference to the enabling act, (2) generally eliminate the
presumption that agency action is lawful, and (3) require
agency factual determinations to have substantial support
rather than simply satisfy the "arbitrary and capricious"
test.
The testimony correctly points out that the well-intentioned
bill would simply shift power from the agencies to the
judiciary. The testimony also notes that giving the courts
added review power could jeopardize deregulatory efforts as
well as more traditional regulation. I have no objection.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Jonathan Rose Regarding
S. 1080 - The Regulatory Reform Act
on September 21, 1983
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/19/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DR
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Wally Charleston
Concerning Corruption in Water District
Wally Charleston of Mammoth Lakes, California, an
"investigative news reporter" and supporter of the
President, wrote the President to protest the lack of a
response by the FBI to his charges of corruption in his
water district. Charleston states that "the word is" there
will be no investigation because of "strong political
connections.' He asks the President to find out why the FBI
is not moving forward. The original of this letter was
routed to Karna Small, presumably because of Charleston's
status as a reporter. I have determined that she has not
responded, and have advised her that our office will handle
the matter. I have prepared a reply to Charleston noting
that we have referred his letter to the Justice Department.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
Dear Mr. Charleston:
Thank you for your letter of July 22 to the President. In
that letter you raised concerns about corruption in your
water district, and outlined the steps you had taken to
bring the matter to the attention of appropriate
authorities, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I am certain you will understand that it would be
inappropriate for the White House to interfere with the
FBI's handling of a particular matter such as this. We
have, however, referred your correspondence to the
Department of Justice for whatever review and action by that
department may be appropriate.
Thank you for your kind expressions of support for the
President.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Wally Charleston
Post Office Box 884
Mammoth Lakes, California 93546
FFF: JGR:aea 9/19/83
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj./Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Wally Charleston
Concerning Corruption in Water District
The attached correspondence, with a copy of my reply, is
submitted for whatever action you consider appropriate.
Attachments
FFF: JGR:aea 9/19/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron