Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "135839816",
    "label": "Chron File (09/15/1983-09/19/1983)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839816"
}

{
    "id": "135839816",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839816",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Chron File (09/15/1983-09/19/1983)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839816",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Chronological Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-061-009-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-061-009-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-061-009-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839816",
    "naId": 135839816,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-061-009-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "1b7396d6fd0be690",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: Chron File (09/15/1983-09/19/1983)\nBox: 61\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name ROBERTS, JOHN G.: FILES\nWithdrawer\nIGP\n8/4/2005\nFile Folder\nCHRON FILE (09/15/1983 CON'T- 09/19/1983)\nFOIA\nF05-139/01\nBox Number\nCOOK\n30IGP\nDOC Doc Type\nDocument Description\nNo of Doc Date Restrictions\nNO\nPages\n1\nMEMO\nROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER\n1 9/15/1983\nB6\n579\nRE DIEGO ASENCIO\n2 MEMO\nROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER\n1 9/15/1983 B6\n581\nRE DIEGO ASENCIO\n3 MEMO\nAPPOINTMENT PROCESS PERSONAL\n2\nND\nB6\n582\nINTERVIEW RECORD\n4 MEMO\nROBERTS TO FRED FIELDING\n1 9/16/1983 B6\n1256\n[RELEASED IN WHOLE- 02/03/06 - MJD]\n5\nLETTER\nFROM ROBERTS RE ARTICLE \"TAXES\n1 9/19/1983\nB6\n586\nBANKROLL THOUSANS OF EUROPEAN\nTRIPS\" Relead m put 4/21/06\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified Information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose Information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 15, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nAlan I. Marshall\nAlan I. Marshall was convicted in federal district court on\nDecember 18, 1981, of mail fraud and wire fraud in\nconnection with an arson incident. Marshall was apparently\ngranted a new trial on several counts, but his conviction on\nother counts was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. Marshall\nplans to appeal to the Supremes. He has sent you, along\nwith 14 other people, a copy of a six-page letter he wrote\nto the Justice Department Public Integrity Division. The\nletter raises a broad range of allegations against the U.S.\nAttorneys Office, the FBI, the trial judge, and the\nappellate judges. You should not respond. Since Marshall\nhas sent the letter to Justice directly, no referral is\nnecessary.\nAttachment\nID #\n171436 CU\nJR\nWHITE HOUSE\nHU010\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nalan I Marshall\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nViolation of we Constitutional Rights\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nWHOLL\nORIGINATOR DD 83,09,14\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nWAT 18\nDD 83,09,14\nS 83,09,24\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\n1. Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA - Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR. Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - - Draft Response\nS - For Signature\nF - . Furnish Fact Sheet\nX - Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\n171436 cu\nDear Sir:\nEnclose please find a letter charging the Cleveland F.B.I. and\nU.S. Attorney and Court with violating my Constitution rights.\nI realize from talking to a few Congressman and Senators that\nthey can't get involved in courts cases. I am not asking or due I\nexpect any special consideration all I ask is for your office to\nfollow through so as my charges are not buried under the carpet.\nThis can be done by asking the U.S. Attorney Public Integrity Division\nwhat steps their taking to check into these allegation.\nThank you,\nAlan I. Marahall\n1-800-227-1617 Ext 494\nspale to your secretary 2nd Ind\nand is retter and you would presided ;-\nThere your\nThe\nP.O. Box 203\nGrove City, Ohio 43123\nAugust 26, 1983'\nPublic Integrity Division\nDepartment of Justice\n10th & Constitution Ave. N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nDear Sir or Madam:\nMy name is Alan I. Marshall. I am a resident of the city\nof Williamsville, New York but for the past three years I have\nworked in Columbus, Ohio.\nOn October 2, 1981, I was indicted by a federal grand jury\nimpaneled by the United States District Court for the Northern\ndistrict of Ohio in Cleveland, Ohio.\nI was indicted on two counts of mail fraud, three counts of\nwire fraud and one count under the Travel Act. In the\nindictment, the government claimed that I rented a warehouse in\nCleveland, Ohio to store my delivery trucks and meat, fish and\npoultry products. They claim I removed the meat, fish and\npoultry products from this warehouse, and hired someone to set\nfire to the warehouse at which time the trucks were damaged. I\nsubmitted fire, damage and theft insurance claims to insurance\ncompanies which the government claims were false. I was\ncharged with telephone and mail fraud since I used these means\nto file the insurance claims.\nBefore my trial my lawyer, Tony Miranda, filed a Request\nfor Discovery asking that he be informed if any witness\ntestifying against me was promised or granted immunity. In\nparticular, he asked whether Charles Pruner, a former employee\nof mine, was granted immunity. The government said immunity\nhad been granted to no one. Charles Pruner testified against\nme and was the government's star witness.\nOn December 18, 1981 I was convicted on both mail fraud\ncounts and on all three wire fraud counts. The Travel Act\ncount was dismissed.\nBy February 24, 1982, it had come to my attention that Mr.\nMiranda, my attorney, was not an experienced criminal lawyer.\nHe had not practiced in federal court nor did he know the rules\nof procedure. I had, unfortunately, been told that he was\nexperienced.\nShortly after that I hired new lawyers to handle my case.\nIt was their opinion that I had ineffective counsel. After\nPage 2\nPublic Integrity Div.\nAugust 26, 1983\nreviewing the grand jury testimony of Charles Pruner, the\ngovernment's main witness, my new lawyers told me that Charles\nPruner had been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange\nfor his testimony against me. My trial lawyer, Mr. Miranda,\nhad not been told that fact by the government.\nAs a result, another Motion for a New Trial was filed which\nsaid that because the government had not told my trial lawyer\nabout the immunity agreement between them and Charles Pruner my\ndue process rights had been violated.\nThe trial judge, Judge Krupansky reversed my conviction on\nthree counts but let the other two counts stand. He said that\nconviction on those two counts was not based on Charles\nPruner's testimony but on other independent evidence.\nI appealed that ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of\nAppeals and was recently notified that my convictions on the\ntwo counts were affirmed. I plan to appeal this ruling to the\nU.S. Supreme Court very soon. (However, I am all most positive\nthat, according to the Cleveland court officials, that it will\nnot be here, but by appealing to the Supreme Court, I am\nruffling more feathers and I am blowing any chance of shock\nprobation or an early parole.)\nThe following are the facts as best as I can remember and\ndocument them:\nThroughout the investigation, trial and appeal process, the\nFBI has harassed and intimidated my wife (who I am legally\nseparated from) and my two children who reside in Williamsville\nNew York. They have called my wife a liar and upset my\nchildren with intimidating phone calls and visits to their home.\nThe FBI and the U.S. Attorney knowlingly withheld evidence\nfrom my trial attorney that would have helped in my defense.\nFor example, they withheld the fact that their main witness,\nCharles Pruner had been granted immunity from prosecution. In\naddition they assisted him in getting probation for\nembezzlement in New Jersey. To this date his felony conviction\nhas never, to my knowledge, showed up on any criminal\nconviction records. They also buried numerous bad check\ncharges. It is my understanding that there is still a warrant\nfor his arrest for one. This is inaddition to a bail jumping\ncharge. Both the U.S. Attorney and the FBI agents knew tht Mr.\nPruner and Mr. Cummings (a supporting witness) were, in fact,\nthe ones who stole my product and tried to destroy my\nequipment. They were able to get Mr. Pruner released from jail\nin Florida to testify against me. None of this was told to me\nduring my trial. I learned this on my own.\nPage 3\nPublic Integrity Division\nAugust 26, 1983\nFurther, the FBI and U.S. Atorney denied that they had any\nwritten statements from Charles Pruner their main witness. I\nhave learned enough about the FBI from my own contacts that\nthey write everything down. Despite this, my trial attorney\nand I were told no written or taped statements was taken from\nCharles Pruner, the government's star witness prior to his\nappearance before the grand jury. This was nothing but a lie\nand I believe that if I had such statements it would have been\nmy defense during the trial. Mr. Arbezniak, the U.S. Attorney,\nmade a statement to a court official that there were, in fact,\nthree statements made by Mr. Pruner and if subpoenaed the court\nofficial would testify to that.\nI believe my trial, motion hearing and sentencing\ntranscripts were \"doctored\" to leave out events which were\nembarassing, unprofessional and in some cases grounds for\nappeal. For example, during my trial, my lawyer would receive\nlarge numbers of transcripts of goverment witnesses on the day\nof their testimony. The U.S. Attorney did this purposely so my\nlawyer wouldn't have time to review them. My lawyer asked the\ncourt for time prior to cross examining these witnesses to read\nthese transcripts and Judge Krupansky denied his request. This\nwas done on the record but when I got the transcript to appeal,\nthis event was not recorded.\nSecondly, at my sentencing on July 30, 1982, Judge\nKrupansky stormed out of the court room because the U.S.\nAttorney had not made a decision as to whether he would\nre-prosecute me for counts I, II and III which the court had\nreversed. At no time during the sentencing did Judge Krupansky\ninform me of my right to appeal. Yet when I got the transcript\nof the proceeding a statement by the judge advising me of my\nappeal rights was there. This was added after the fact.\nIn another instance, I informed the court I no longer had\nthe funds and asked for a court appointed lawyer. It was\ndenied. This request never appeared on the transcript. I\nbelieve that if some high authority could impound the original\ntrial transcript without warning, my charges would be proven\ncorrect.\nShortly after the three counts were reversed and dismissed,\nI was informed that the State of Ohio wished to pursue\nprosecution of me for the same crime but on the state level.\nPrior to this time, the state had done nothing to initiate\nprosecution. Gary Arbezniak, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted\nme, used to work for the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor.\nStrangely, right after I had three federal counts reversed and\ndismissed, and had refused to accept a deal from the U.S.\nAttorney to drop my Appeal to the Sixth Circuit in exchange for\nthem not re-prosecuting me on the three counts.\nPage 4\nPublic Integrity Division\nAugust 26, 1983\nPrior to dismissal by the U.S. Attorney, the Cuyahoga County\nProsecutor, Mr. Arbeznich initiated prosecution. After making\nseveral trips to state court, a negotiated plea was arranged\nwhere I was allowed to plead no contest but would be allowed to\nwithdraw it if I was successful in the federal appeal. This\ndeal made the federal people furious. There is no question in\nmy mind that Mr. Arbezniak, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted\nme, was behind the county Prosecutor taking me to trial. Mr.\nArbezniak has been angry ever since he got caught withholding\nevidence (immunity agreement with Pruner). He was even more\nangry when his superiors declined to re-prosecute me on the\ncounts which were reversed.\nThe FBI, or Mr. Arbezniak or both tried to set me up for\nmaking telephone threats to Mr. Arbezniak and his wife. They\nclaimed that on October 8, 1982, someone called Mr. Arbezniak's\nhome and threatened him and his wife if he did not drop my\ncase. I did not, nor did I have reason to make such a call as\nI recently had three of the five counts reversed and\ndismissed. They were dismissed on September 6, 1982 and the\nalleged phone call occurred on October 8, 1982. In response to\nthis my new lawyers arranged for a polygraph examination which\nI took voluntarily. The results of the polygraph were that I\ndid not make a threatening phone call and I did not have\nanybody do it. I presented a copy of this examination when I\nwent for an interview with the U.S. Attorney William Petro in\nCleveland and the Cleveland FBI. I cooperated fully even\nthough I suspected that the federal people cooked the whole\nthing up themselves. During their investigation, agents from\nthe Buffalo FBI threatened me, intimidated me and told me \"they\nwould get me one way or the other\". Immediately after my last\nappeal brief was filed, the FBI said another phone call had\nbeen made threatening Mr. Arbezniak. This one was, alledgedly\nto have occurred on March 9, 1983. This time they subpoeaned\nme in front of a grand jury along with several members of my\nfamily, some friends and some of my former employees. They\ntook voice prints of me and several of these witnesses. This\nwas, of course, all done during Passover, the most significant\nJewish religious week. As I am Jewish, as are all of my family\nand closest friends, there is no doubt in my mind that this was\ndone purposely and maliciously by the Cleveland U.S. Attorney's\noffice. When we objected to coming in on Passover, we were\ntold \"be there or we will send a marshall for you\".\nAgain I believe this second alleged phone call was cooked\nup by the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's office as a means of\nharassing, threatening and causing me financial and emotional\nhardships. I believe if these calls were made, they were made\nby someone within or affiliated with the FBI or the U.S.\nAttorney's office. The substance of the threats themselves\nPage 5\nPublic Integrity Division\nAugust 26, 1982\nsuggested that only someone who was informed about my case\ncould have made these calls. Also on at least two occasions\nsomeone has called my toll-free business number and left\nmessages that I should contact my brother Gary at a particular\nnumber. I do have a brother named Gary but in checking the\nnumber the caller left, I found it belongs to Gary Arbezniak\nthe U.S. Attorney who prosecuted me and who I was accused of\nthreatening. Again, I am convinced that these unethical\ntactics are being used by the Department of Justice to get me\ninto trouble and to hurt me during my appeals.\nThe judge who tried my case and who sentenced me was\nappointed to the Sixth Circuit shortly after I was sentenced.\nWhile I had some doubts about the Sixth Circuit's ability to be\nfair with me on my appeal, I gave them the benefit of the\ndoubt. After reading their opinion which affirmed my\nconviction on counts IV and V, I am convinced that they were\nsimply trying to protect their new associate, Judge Krupansky,\nand that they gave no real consideration to my case.\nIn short, the Sixth circuit merely tried to cover-up for\nthe errors of both Judge Krupansky, who now sits with them, and\nthe U.S. Attorney, Mr. Arbezniak who use to work with Judge\nKrupansky. I also understand that most of the cases which\nJudge Krupansky presided over which have been appealed have\nbeen ruled on by the same panel. In sum, my appeal to the\nSixth Circuit was a fraud and a sham since the court ignored\nits own prior rulings in similar cases to uphold Judge\nKrupansky, their new colleague. Even though during oral\nargument the U.S. Attorney confessed error as to all five\ncounts as a result of the non-disclosure of the immunity\nagreement between Pruner and the government and that the due\nprocess violation applied to all five counts, the Sixth Circuit\nstill upheld Krupansky. They are taking it into their power to\nignore the federal rules that have been laid down by congress.\nI hereby formally charge the U.S. Attorney with misconduct\nbecause of suppression of evidence, presenting false evidence,\nencouraging perjured testimony and blackmail.\nI am charging William J. Keller, FBI agent in charge, with\nobstruction of justice, withholding of 302 that would have\nhelped in my case, threatening harm to my family and having\nknowledge of perjured testimony and encouraging it.\nI charge the Sixth Circuit of willfully and intentionally\ndisregarding the facts and federal rules to cover for a fellow\ncolleague.\nCleveland's Federal Bankruptcy court is under investigation\nPage 6\nPublic Integrity Division\nAugust 26, 1983\nnow and I hope that one of the people that receive a copy of\nthis letter will check into my charges and investigate the\nFederal Court as well. I feel that my charges can be proven\ncorrect.\nThe United States Constitution guarantees our right to a\nfair trial with no politics involved. I feel, however, that my\nconstitutional rights have been violated and I have not been\nafforded a fair trial.\nEnclosed you will find research I have done concerning\nmisconduct in the Northern District of Ohio court over the past\nthree years.\nThank you for taking the time to read my letter. If you\nneed any further imformation or would like to talk to me about\nthis, I can be reached at 1-800-227-1617, Ext. 494. I\nsincerely hope you will be able to help me.\nVery truly yours,\nAlan d Machill\nAlan I. Marshall\ncc: Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan\nAnti-Defamation League\nAmerican Bar Association\nCon. Jack Kemp\nAm. Civil Liberties Union\nSen. Strom Thurmond\nCon. Peter Rodino\nSen. Alfonse M. D'Amato\nCon. Henry J. Nowak\nCon. John J. Lafalce\nWm. Webster. FBI\nWm. French Smith, Atty. Gen.\nPublic Integrity, Div., FBI\nRobert Carter, Attorney\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nIGP 8/4/2005\nFile Folder\nFOIA\nCHRON FILE (09/15/1983 CON'T - 09/19/1983)\nF05-139/01\nCOOK\nBox Number\n30IGP\nDOC Document Type\nNo of Doc Date Restric-\nNO\nDocument Description\npages\ntions\n1 MEMO\n1 9/15/1983 B6\n579\nROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER RE\nDIEGO ASENCIO\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nIGP 8/4/2005\nFile Folder\nFOIA\nCHRON FILE (09/15/1983 CON'T - - 09/19/1983)\nF05-139/01\nCOOK\nBox Number\n30IGP\nDOC Document Type\nNo of Doc Date Restric-\nNO Document Description\npages\ntions\n2 MEMO\n1 9/15/1983 B6\n581\nROBERTS TO FIELDING THRU HAUSER RE\nDIEGO ASENCIO\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 15, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\n822\nSUBJECT:\nRemarks: Luncheon with Members\nof the Republican National Committee\n(9/14 - 4:30 draft)\nRichard Darman has asked that comments on the\nabove-referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by\nnoon today. The brief remarks review the progress of the\neconomic recovery and the revitalization of our defenses. I\nhave no objection.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 15, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT\nPRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nRemarks: Luncheon with Members\nof the Republican National Committee\n(9/14 - 4:30 draft)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks\nand finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.\nOn page 4, line 17, \"Nambia\" should be \"Namibia.\"\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nRichard G. DARMAN\nName of Correspondent:\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nRemarks Luncheon with Members\nof the Republican National Committee\n9/14 - 4:30 draft)\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR\n83,09,14\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nWATI8\nr\n83,09,14\n5 83,09,14\nReferral Note:\nNOON\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC - Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF . Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE:\n9/14/83\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:\nTOMORROW NOON, 9/15\nSUBJECT:\nREMARKS: LUNCHEON WITH MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN\nNATIONAL COMMITTEE (9/14 - 4:30 draft)\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nHERRINGTON\nMEESE\nHICKEY\nBAKER\nJENKINS\nDEAVER\nMcMANUS\nSTOCKMAN\nMURPHY\nCLARK\nROGERS\nDARMAN\nP\nSS\nROLLINS\nDUBERSTEIN\n\"\nSPEAKES\nFELDSTEIN\nSVAHN\nFIELDING\nVERSTANDIG\nFULLER\nWHITTLESEY\nELLIOTT\nGERGEN\nHENKEL\nFISCHER\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any edits directly to Ben Elliott, Room 100,\nwith an information copy to my office by noon tomorrow,\nThursday, September 15th.\nThank you.\nRESPONSE:\nRichard G. Darman\nAssistant to the President\nExt. 2702\n(Robinson/BE)\nSeptember 14, 1983\n4:30 p.m.\nPRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: LUNCHEON WITH MEMBERS OF THE\nREPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE\nFRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1983\nGood afternoon and welcome. It's good to have you all here,\nand it's a real pleasure for me to see SO many good friends and\nfellow warriors from the political trenches. Before I say\nanything else, let me express my heartfelt thanks for all the\ntime and labor each of you has given to the cause that unites us.\nWhen all is said and done, it's not gloss and glitter, but hard\nwork and determination from our army of supporters that makes\nvictory possible. And it will again in 1984.\nI was thinking on the way over about an old story you may\nhave heard -- it illustrates tife way those of us in the Grand Old\nParty differ from the Democrats. It seems a little boy had a\nlitter of newborn puppies to sell. He and a friend took the\npuppies to a Democratic convention in town, and before long a\ndelegate asked, \"Are those Democratic pups, son?\"\n\"Yes, sir,\" the little boy said.\n\"Well, then,\" the man said, \"I'll take one.\"\nA week later the little boy and his friend took the\nremaining puppies across town to where some Republicans were\nmeeting. After some time a Republican asked, \"Son, what kind of\npuppies are those?\"\nAnd the little boy answered, \"Republican puppies, sir.\"\nWell, at this point the little boy's friend piped up. \"But\nI thought last week you said they were Democratic puppies.\"\nPage 2\n\"Last week they were,\" the little boy answered. \"But now\nthey've opened their eyes.\"\nYou know, when we took office, we inherited the terrible\nhandiwork of a Democratic Congress and administration that had\nkept their eyes tightly shut to reality. Uncontrolled taxing and\nspending had created raging inflation and soaring interest rates.\nThe month George Bush and I were inaugurated, inflation was well\ninto double digits and the prime interest rate reached a level\nnot seen since the Civil War.\nIt didn't matter if you were white, black, an American of\nHispanic descent, or whatever. If you had scrimped and saved to\nsend your children to college, 12½ percent inflation was closing\nthe doors of opportunity.\nIf you had struggled for years to buy your own home,\n12½ percent inflation was closing the doors of opportunity.\nAnd for working men and women everywhere who needed loans to\nstart their own businesses, 21 1/2 percent prime interest rates were\nslamming shut the doors of opportunity.\nIn 1980, America's economic growth had come to a dead halt.\nThose who could find work only if the economy provided new\njobs -- teenagers, blacks, Hispanics, and hundreds of thousands\nof women -- found nothing.\nThe Democrats have been talking a lot about fairness lately,\nbut let me just remind you: The people who saddled this Nation\nwith the worst record in modern history of runaway spending,\ndouble-digit inflation, sky-high interest rates, and unfair\nPage 3\ntaxation are the last people who should be giving sermonettes\nabout fairness and compassion.\nThe American people were fed up and they cleaned house --\nthe White House. Our Administration moved in, and, with\nRepublicans in control of the Senate, we rolled up our sleeves\nand went to work to make a new beginning.\nWe reduced the growth of spending, pruned needless\nregulations, reduced personal income tax rates, allowing all\nAmericans to keep a bigger share of their own earnings, and\npassed an historic reform called tax indexing. Never again can\nGovernment use inflation to profit at the people's expense.\nToday, less than 2 years since we set our policies in place,\nour Nation has one big program to help every American man, woman\nand child. It's called economic recovery.\nThe prime rate is almost half what it was when we took\noffice. Inflation has plummeted by two-thirds to under\n2.4 percent for the past year -- the lowest rate in more than a\ndecade-and-a-half. Factory orders, retail sales, and housing\nstarts are up; the stock market has come back to life; and the\nAmerican worker's real wages are rising for the first time in\n3 years. Unemployment is still too high, but it's dropping fast,\nand since December more than 2 million Americans have found jobs.\nNow, our friends the Democrats have been trying to cut up\nand belittle this recovery from every angle. But I'll let you in\non a little secret about their argument: No matter how they\nslice it, it's still baloney.\nraye 4\nJust as we're turning the economy around, we're\nstrengthening our armed forces and bringing a new sense of\npurpose and direction to American foreign policy.\nIn the military, the number of combat-ready units has gone\nup a third since 1980. The deployable battle force in the Navy\nhas risen from 470 ships when we took office to 506 today -- well\non it's way to our goal of 600. The percentage of new recruits\nwith high school diplomas has risen throughout our armed forces,\nand since 1980, the re-enlistment rate has gone up by more than a\nquarter. That means we're attracting better recruits and keeping\nthem longer, because we're giving them better pay, better\nequipment, and the respect they deserve.\nIn foreign policy, we've let the world know once again that\nAmerica stands for the political, religious, and eccnomic freedom\nof mankind. We're working tirelessly for a just peace in the\nMiddle East; we're laboring for human rights in southern Africa,\ncondemning apartheid and calling for the liberation of Nambia;\nand we're giving firm support to democratic leadership in Central\nAmerica, providing three out of every four dollars of our aid to\nthe region in the form of economic and humanitarian assistance.\nIn our search for peace, we have more major negotiations underway\nwith the Soviets than any other administration in history. And\nfor the first time, the Soviets are talking about more than\nnuclear arms ceilings -- they're talking about actual nuclear\narms reductions.\nYou may remember the verse in the Bible that says, \"Your old\nmen will dream dreams; your young men will see visions.\" Well, I\nPage 5\ndeeply believe that this is just such a time of reawakening in\nAmerica, a time when our country is healing the wounds of the\npast and beginning to look with courage and confidence to the\nfuture. Yes, we are making a new beginning.\nThe dream you and I share for our Nation is a great dream,\nperhaps the greatest dream in all history. It's a dream of a\nbroad and open land that offers opportunity to all. It's a dream\nof a great country that represents a force for peace and good\nwill among nations.\nAll of us are laboring in the name of that dream. Yes, we\nwill suffer setbacks. And, yes, others in the world will do all\nthey can to place obstacles in our path. But if we have the\ncourage to do all that we can to make that dream come true, then\nwe will achieve great good in this world and do our duty to our\nfellow men, to our beloved country, and to our God.\nThank you, God bless you, and now I know you have some\nquestions.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAPPOINTMENT PROCESS PERSONAL INTERVIEW RECORD\nSeveral meetings in late June;\nDATE OF INTERVIEW: Numerous telephone conversations thereafter\nCANDIDATE: Clarence J. Brown\nPOSITION:\nDeputy Secretary of Commerce\nCOPY Reagan Presidential Record\nINTERVIEWER: John G. Roberts\nCOMMENTS:\nThe President has announced his intention to nominate\nClarence J. Brown to be the Deputy Secretary of Commerce.\nThe Office of Deputy Secretary of Commerce was established\nby § 2 (b) (1) of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979, 5 U.S.C.\nApp. II, see Executive Order 12175 (December 7, 1979). That\nReorganization Plan, like all others, contained an\nunconstitutional legislative veto provision, see 5 U.S.C.\n$ 906. It can be argued that the authority to create the\nOffice of Deputy Secretary of Commerce was not severable\nfrom the unconstitutional legislative veto, and that\naccordingly there was no power to create the office. The\ngovernment-wide rámifications of acceptance of such an\nargument are, of course, staggering, but I must report that\nthe Federal District Court in Mississippi has in fact\naccepted such an argument in the context of a suit\nchallenging the authority of the Equal Employment\nOpportunity Commission, which was established through a\nReorganization Plan. I recommend that we proceed on the\nassumption that the Office of Deputy Secretary of Commerce\ndoes exist, but I wanted to alert you to the possible\nlegislative veto problems.\nb6\n2\nCOPY - Reagan Presidential Record\nble\nI have no objection to Brown's nomination going\nforward.\nAttachments\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nMedal of Honor\nScheduling walked this in to me a short time ago, asking if\na response from our office would be appropriate in light of\nthe legal requirements surrounding any award of the Medal of\nHonor. We can easily respond, and probably should rather\nthan have Scheduling discussing the law in this area. I've\nlooked into it briefly and will be happy to draft the\nresponse, but wanted to send it to you for appropriate\nstaffing.\nAttachment\nInc\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nLetter to James Baker Regarding SKYSTAR\nJ.M. Haffert, National Secretary of the Roman Catholic lay\norganization known as the Blue Army, has written both the\nPresident and James A. Baker III concerning a pending CAB\nmatter. Haffert's organization has applied before the CAB\nfor a certificate under § 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of\n1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1371, permitting it to offer\nservice for pilgrimages to Lourdes, Fatima, and other\nreligiously significant sites. The corporation formed to\nprovide such air service, Skystar International, Inc., has\nalso requested an exemption under § 416, 49 U.S.C. § 1386,\npending review of the § 401 application, or a determination\nthat its activities do not constitute common carriage. The\nletters to Mr. Baker and the President request their\nassistance in obtaining favorable treatment.\nI am advised by OMB that this matter was just recently sent\nto an administrative law judge by the CAB. The letter to\nMr. Baker should accordingly be handled pursuant to § 4 of\nExecutive Order 11920. The letter to the President is\ntechnically not covered by this provision, since he is not\nan [i] ndividual within the Executive Office of the\nPresident,\" but I recommend treating it in a similar fashion\nas a policy matter. A memorandum transmitting both letters\nto the Transportation General Counsel, and a reply letter to\nHaffert advising him of this fact, are attached.\nAttachments\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES H. BURNLEY IV\nGENERAL COUNSEL\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nLetter to James Baker Regarding SKYSTAR\nThe attached correspondence concerning a pending Civil\nAeronautics Board matter was sent to James A. Baker III.\nPursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920, I am\nreferring the correspondence to you for whatever review and\naction may be appropriate.\nAttachment\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nSEP 1 9 1983\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nDear Mr. Haffert:\nThis is written in response to your letters of September 8\nto the President and to James A. Baker III. Those letters\nconcerned the applications of Skystar International, Inc.,\ncurrently pending before the Civil Aeronautics Board.\nPursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920,\nindividuals within the Executive Office of the President\nmust decline to discuss with an interested private party\nmatters relating to the disposition of a case subject to\nPresidential review under the Federal Aviation Act. The\nexecutive order requires that written communications to\nWhite House staff members concerning such matters be\nreferred to an appropriate agency outside the Executive\nOffice of the President. Asla matter of policy, a similar\nprocedure is followed with respect to letters to the\nPresident on such matters.\nAccordingly, I have referred your correspondence to the\nDepartment of Transportation.\nSincerely,\nOrig. a by TFF\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nMr. J.M. Haffert\nNational Secretary\nOur Lady Queen of the World, Inc.\nPost Office Box 189\nWashington, NJ 07882\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83\nbcc: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nSEP 1 9 1983\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES H. BURNLEY IV\nGENERAL COUNSEL\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nLetter to James Baker Regarding SKYSTAR\nThe attached correspondence concerning a pending Civil\nAeronautics Board matter was sent to James A. Baker III.\nPursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920, I am\nreferring the correspondence to you for whatever review and\naction may be appropriate.\nAttachment\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83\nCC: FFFielding\nI\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nDear Mr. Haffert:\nThis is written in response to your letters of September 8\nto the President and to James A. Baker III. Those letters\nconcerned the applications of Skystar International, Inc.,\ncurrently pending before the Civil Aeronautics Board.\nPursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 11920,\nindividuals within the Executive Office of the President\nmust decline to discuss with an interested private party\nmatters relating to the disposition of a case subject to\nPresidential review under the Federal Aviation Act. The\nexecutive order requires that written communications to\nWhite House staff members concerning such matters be\nreferred to an appropriate agency outside the Executive\nOffice of the President. Asia matter of policy, a similar\nprocedure is followed with respect to letters to the\nPresident on such matters.\nAccordingly, I have referred your correspondence to the\nDepartment of Transportation.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nMr. J.M. Haffert\nNational Secretary\nOur Lady Queen of the World, Inc.\nPost Office Box 189\nWashington, NJ 07882\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83\nbcc: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nCorrespondence from C.D. Brennan\nObjecting to a Holiday in Honor\nof Martin L. King, Jr.\nOn August 15, former FBI Assistant Director, Charles D.\nBrennan wrote the President to express opposition to a\nnational holiday to honor Martin L. King, Jr. Brennan\nenclosed a summary paper reviewing King's expression of\nMarxist sentiments, his association with Communist Party\nfigures, and the shadier aspects of his private life.\nBrennan concedes that the FBI's activities with respect to\nDr. King did not represent its finest hour, but argues that\nthe evidence that was gathered concerning Dr. King's\ncharacter should not be ignored on that account.\nI recommend sending a noncommittal letter thanking Brennan\nfor his views, and referring the package to OPD, which will\npresumably be reviewing the policy questions of whether to\nsupport a King holiday.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR JACK SVAHN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nCorrespondence from C.D. Brennan\nObjecting to a Holiday in Honor\nof Martin L. King, Jr.\nThe attached correspondence is submitted for whatever\nconsideration may be appropriate in connection with the\npolicy decision on whether to support a national holiday to\nhonor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.\nAttachment\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nDear Mr. Brennan:\nThank you for your letter of August 15 to the President. In\nthat letter and the accompanying summary memorandum, you\ndetailed the grounds for your opoposition to a national\nholiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.\nI have routed your letter to the appropriate office in the\nWhite House, which will give your views every appropriate\nconsideration. Thank you for writing.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Charles D. Brennan\n487 N. Owen Street\nAlexandria, Virginia 22304\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83\nbcc: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nCivil Aeronautics Board Decisions in\nPowell Air Ltd. and Aviacion Y Comercio, S.A.\nRichard Darman's office has asked for comments by close of\nbusiness Monday, September 19 on the above-referenced CAB\ndecisions, which were submitted for Presidential review as\nrequired by § 801 (a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as\namended, 49 U.S.C. § 1461 (a). Under this section, the\nPresident may disapprove, solely on the basis of foreign\nrelations or national defense considerations, CAB actions\ninvolving either foreign air carriers or domestic carriers\ninvolved in foreign air transportation. If the President\nwishes to disapprove such CAB actions, he must do so within\nsixty days of submission (in these cases, by September 26\nand 23, respectively).\nThe orders here have been reviewed by the appropriate\ndepartments and agencies, following the procedures estab-\nlished by Executive Order No. 11920 (1976). OMB recommends\nthat the President not disapprove, and reports that the NSC\nand the Departments of State, Defense, Justice and Transporta-\ntion have not identified any foreign relations or national\ndefense reasons for disapproval. Since these orders involve\nforeign carriers, the proposed letter from the President to\nthe CAB Chairman prepared by OMB does not include the\nstandard sentence designed to preserve availability of\njudicial review.\nThe Powell Air order authorizes charter service between\nCanada and the U.S.; the Aviacion Y Comercio order\nauthorizes charter service between Spain and the U.S.\nA memorandum for Darman is attached for your review and\nsignature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nCivil Aeronautics Board Decisions in\nPowell Air Ltd. and Aviacion Y Comercio, S.A.\nOur office has reviewed the above-referenced CAB decisions\nand related materials and has no legal objection to the\nprocedure that was followed with respect to Presidential\nreview of such decisions under 49 U.S.C. § 1461 (a).\nWe also have no legal objection to OMB's recommendation that\nthe President not disapprove these orders or to the substance\nof the letter from the President to the CAB Chairman prepared\nby OMB.\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/16/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nLevitas Note Concerning His Power\nSharing Letter\nCongressman Levitas has written a curt note to you inquiring\nwhy it has taken so long to respond to his July 19 letter\nsuggesting the convocation of a Conference on Power Sharing\nto assess the aftermath of INS V. Chadha. You will recall\nthat we referred the letter to Justice on August 4, and\nJustice responded on August 23 with a draft reply for the\nDeputy Attorney General's signature. On August 24, I sent\na memorandum to you, along with a draft memorandum to\nSchmults, agreeing with the bulk of the draft response but\nsuggesting deletion of the paragraph on the Administrative\nConference. You signed and sent that memorandum on\nSeptember 8.\nI called Deputy Assistant Attorney General Marshall Cain,\nand confirmed that the Schmults reply with the\nAdministrative Conference paragraph deleted should be sent\nposthaste. Cain stated this would be done. I have prepared\na draft reply to Levitas' note. I have also prepared a\nmemorandum to Schmults to ensure that Justice does not tarry\nfurther.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS\nDEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nLevitas Note Concerning His Power\nSharing Letter\nAs you will see from the attached, Congressman Levitas is\nanxiously awaiting our reply. Pursuant to a discussion\nbetween John Roberts of my staff and Marshall Cain of your\nOffice of Legislative Affairs, it is my understanding that\nyour draft reply - minus the Administrative Conference\nparagraph - will be sent without further delay.\nAttachments\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/19/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Dan K. Webb Regarding\nVote Fraud - September 19, 1983\nUnited States Attorney Dan Webb, of the Northern District of\nIllinois, proposes to deliver the attached testimony at a\nhearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the\nSenate Judiciary Committee on September 19. Webb's\ntestimony begins with an overview of his office's\ninvolvement in vote fraud investigation, and a review of the\napplicable federal statutes. Webb then proceeds to discuss\nhis office's investigation of the November 1982 election,\nprincipally in the Chicago area. The proposed testimony\ndiscusses particular instances of vote fraud, with a\ndetailed discussion of the difficulties presented by\nregistration of aliens. Webb concludes by noting that there\nwere fewer instances of vote fraud in the February and April\nChicago mayoral elections, and attributes this, at least in\npart, to his office's activities with respect to the\nNovember 1982 election. Webb reaffirms his office's\ncommitment to investigate and prosecute cases of vote fraud\nin the Northern District of Illinois. I see no objections.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Dan K. Webb Regarding\nVote Fraud - September 19, 1983\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed\ntestimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nFFF:JGR:aea 9/16/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nID #\nCU:\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n8R\no # OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\n1. INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: ( Marshall Can\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Statement of Dan K. webb\nse vots Fraud september 19 + 1983\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency (Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse:\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCULTON\nORIGINATOR 83,09,15\nt\nReferral Note:\nCUAT18\nD 8309115\n$ 83,09,19\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\nIs /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR . Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF . Furnish Fact Sheet\nX . Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nSTATEMENT OF DAN K. WEBB\nDRAFT\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE\nNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AT\nA HEARING BY THE UNITED STATES\nSENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE\nON THE CONSTITUTION, SEPTEMBER 19, 1983\nOffice's History Regarding Vote Fraud\nThe Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois\nhas had a long history of active investigation of vote fraud. Since the early 1970's,\nour office has been one of the few, if not the only, United States Attorney's Office in\nthe country to actively monitor voting practices on election days. On election days,\nour office, in conjunction with the United States Marshal's Service, the Immigration\nand Naturalization Service (INS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),\nimplement a field effort which entails sending Assistant United States Attorneys and\nDeputy United States Marshals to various polling places throughout the City of\nChicago in order to detect and prevent vote fraud. Numerous teams of Assistant\nUnited States Attorneys, accompanied by Deputy United States Marshals and equipped\nwith radios, tour Chicago and other areas in this district and respond to and\ninvestigate allegations of vote fraud. They target key wards and precincts based on\nevidence of fraud in past elections and on other information. FBI agents and INS\ninvestigators are available to respond to specific problems related to their area of\nexpertise. Federal agents also are available to act upon serious complaints made\nprior to election day. Additionally, Assistant United States Attorneys and federal\npersonnel in the United States Attorney's Office answer complaints made by\ntelephone.\nOur election day efforts include cooperation with local law enforcement\nofficials such as the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, the Illinois Attorney\nGeneral's Office, the Chicago Police- Department, the Chicago Board of Election\nCommissioners, as well as local watchdog groups.\nOur ability to actively monitor elections is facilitated by Illinois law, which\npermits law enforcement personnel, including my Assistants, to enter polling places\nand closely observe voting activities. The primary purpose of our monitoring efforts\non election days has been to deter vote fraud, but an additional purpose has been to\nuncover and preserve any evidence that could be used in a vote fraud prosecution.\nFederal Statutes\nThere are several federal statutes which condemn vote fraud and which we rely\non in our prosecutions. When a federal candidate is on the ballot, specific federal\nstatutes become applicable. These statutes prohibit voting more than once, supplying\nfalse information to vote, voting in the name of another person, and paying people to\nvote. 42 U.S.C. SS 1973i(c),(e). Further, the civil rights statutes (18 U.S.C. SS\n241,242) prohibit conspiracies and substantive conduct directed at depriving the\npublic-at-large of their constitutional right to the fair and impartial administration of\nfederal elections. Also, voter intimidation directed at influencing the results of a\nfederal contest is outlawed by statute. 18 U.S.C. S 594. When a federal candidate is\nnot on the ballot, the federal civil rights statutes prohibit the deprivation of voters'\nfederal constitutional right to vote in a local election in accordance with the one-\nperson-one-vote principle. Serious vote fraud committed with the assistance of\nelection judges violates these civil rights statutes. Finally, the mail fraud statute (18\nU.S.C. S 1341) has been used to prosecute vote fraud that is perpetrated through the\nuse of the mails. This statute has been applied most often to fraudulent schemes\ninvolving absentee ballots.\nInvestigation of November 1982 Election\nOur office, together with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the\nImmigration and Naturalization Service, have undertaken an intense and wide-ranging\ninvestigation of alleged vote fraud in the November 1982 general election. Offices at\n2\nstake in this election in Illinois included representatives in Congress and Governor.\nBecause this investigation is quite active right now and is subject to grand jury\nscrutiny, I am unable to discuss the investigation in detail. I will, however, describe\nit in broad outline. This investigation started the way many investigations start:\ncitizens with knowledge of crimes came forward and told us about them.\nAdditionally, the media and certain candidates' organizations made us aware of\nallegations of vote fraud. Our investigation this year, however, has included a unique\nand very important new facet-namely, the use of a computer. In order to provide\nthe data base for the computer analysis, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents had to\nreview virtually all of the 1,000,000 ballot applications submitted in the city of\nChicago in the November election. One of the most important results of this\ninvestigation is that the FBI has developed an effective computerized method of\ninvestigation that has proved very helpful in detecting vote fraud and that can be\nused in all future elections. This technique includes cross-matching the names of\npersons who voted with the names of persons who have died and compiling a list of\nnames where more than one vote was cast in the same name.\nKind of Vote Fraud Found\nBased on indictments and convictions that we have obtained concerning the\nNovember 1982 general election, we have uncovered certain species of vote fraud. All\nof these crimes occurred in Chicago in areas that were dominated by one political\nparty. In each instance of fraud there was one prerequisite, and that was that the\nleader of the dominant political party at the precinct level (the precinct captain)\ncontrolled the actions of the officials administering the élection at the polling place\n(the election judges).\n3\nWith the election judges in his control, the precinct captain perpetrated the\nmost common type of vote fraud, which consisted of forging on ballot applications the\nnames of persons who did not come in to vote and then voting ballots in their names.\nEither the precinct captain himself, one of his workers, or an election judge would do\nthe forging. For example, in an extreme case a large number of ballot applications\nwere forged and then an equal number of ballots were taken to a back room, voted,\nand then placed in the ballot box.\nAnother type of fraud consisted of a precinct worker getting into line and posing\nas a legitimate voter and then voting in the name of this person.\nAnother type of vote fraud consisted of false registration. Here, a precinct\ncaptain caused another person who did not live in his precinct to register to vote in\nhis precinct in order to increase the number of votes that the precinct captain\ncontrolled.\nAnother instance of fraud that we uncovered concerned elderly and disabled\nvoters. Such voters will need assistance to vote. We found examples of election\njudges who voted ballots on behalf of these people without the authorization or\nunderstanding of the elderly voters.\nWe also uncovered instances of precinct captains and precinct workers paying\npeople to vote.\nAnother instance of fraud that we found involved absentee ballots. Under this\nscheme, false information was submitted in order to obtain blank absentee ballots,\nwhich were then voted by the precinct captain.\nPerhaps the most flagrant example of vote fraud that we have prosecuted\noccurred in the 30th Precinct of the 27th Ward. In this precinct, in November, a\nprecinct captain and his son in effect ran their own election at the end of the day.\nInstead of properly tabulating the vote, the election judges stood aside and watched\n4\nthe precinct captain's son take one straight Democratic ballot and run it though the\ntabulating machine 203 times.\nElection Canvasses\nThe principal vote fraud problem that we have uncovered is the forging of ballot\napplications and the fraudulent voting of ballots in the forged names by precinct\ncaptains and persons working for the precinct captains. To accomplish this illicit\nprocess, the precinct captain needs a pool of registered voters whose names he can\nforge. Persons who have died or who have moved are prime candidates for this pool.\nIt is therefore imperative to assure an honest election that these names be removed\nfrom the voting rolls prior to each election.\nIn Chicago, these names are supposed to be removed in periodic canvasses. We\nhave found that all too often these canvasses have not been performed. Again, the\ncanvasses are supposed to be conducted by the election judges. The judges, however,\nare often controlled by the local precinct captains, who do not want good canvasses\nand who prevent the canvasses from being property performed. These faulty\ncanvasses contribute significantly to vote fraud.\nAlien Problem\nAnother serious problem that we uncovered involves illegal aliens and other non-\ncitizens who illegally register to vote and vote in various elections.\nWe have found that many illegal aliens register to vote for the purpose of\nacquiring voter registration cards, which they then use to commit additional crimes.\nWe have found instances of illegal aliens using an illegally obtained voter registration\ncard to fraudulently obtain passports, public aid, and food stamps. We also found that\non one occasion a non-citizen used an illegally obtained voter registration card in\norder to get security clearance to work for a contractor selling weapons parts to the\nUnited States Department of Defense.\n5\nFurthermore, our investigation shows that some of these aliens actually cast\nillegal votes in various elections. We have found instances in which some persons\nhave actively sought the registration of illegal aliens for the very purpose of\ninfluencing the outcome of an election. If these people do not vote, their illegal\nregistrations can still lead to a dishonest election because they constitute additional\nnames added to the pool that can be fraudulently voted.\nWe have obtained the convictions of seven aliens charged with offenses related\nto their illegal registration and voting, including passport fraud and fraud against the\ngovernment. Also, our office and INS have referred to the State's Attorney's Office\ntwenty-nine cases resulting in indictments.\nWe would note, however, that where an alien, who is lawfully in the United\nStates, has been convicted of casting an illegal vote in an election, his deportation is\nnot necessarily required under 8 U.S.C. S 1251(a)(4), since that provision only requires\ndeportation for crimes of \"moral turpitude\" resulting in a prison sentence.\nThe illegal alien registration problem stems in part from the ease with which\npersons may register to vote in Illinois. Persons who want to register to vote should\nbe required to furnish identification. I understand that legislation has been passed by\nthe General Assembly and is awaiting approval by Governor that would alleviate this\nproblem by requiring identification when a person registers to vote.\nCircumstances Conducing to Vote Fraud\nIn analyzing the results of our investigation, we can point to certain\ncircumstances that are conducive to vote fraud. The first prerequisite is that one\nparty dominate the precinct, and that there not be any hotly-contested races in that\nprecinct. If there is a hotly-contested local race, or if both major political parties\nare viable in that particular precinct, there will be enough persons watching the\nactivity in the polling place to prevent most kinds of vote fraud. If the people in the\n6\npolling place-judges and watchers-observe each other and have an adversary\nrelationship, an honest election is the likely result.\nVote fraud cannot occur if election judges do their job. Therefore, a\nprecondition to a dishonest election is that the judges, either because of their\neconomic situation or personality, must be of a type to be dominated by a precinct\ncaptain.\nWe have also found that a significant amount of fraud occurs in those areas\nwhere it is hard for a precinct captain to make his quota by legitimate means. For\nexample, if the voter pool consists of a substantial number of transients or otherwise\nunreliable people, a precinct captain will have a hard time getting out the vote\nlegitimately, and he may have to resort to illegal methods.\nResults and Reasons for Our Investigation\nOur investigation of the November 1982 election has resulted so far in the\nindictment, conviction, and penitentiary sentence for a precinct captain, the\nindictment of three other precinct captains, and the indictment and conviction of\nother precinct workers and election judges. In addition to the seven convictions of\naliens, we have obtained vote fraud convictions of five persons, and vote fraud\nindictments against fourteen others. Our investigation is continuing, and we expect\nadditional results in the near future.\nNumerous FBI agents, INS agents, and attorneys in my office are assigned to the\ninvestigation of vote fraud. I have assigned these resources to this investigation for\nseveral reasons. I believe that the right to vote is one of the most precious that we\nAmericans possess. It must be protected. Because of the level of fraud we detected\nin the November election, I believe the problem is a serious one. The February and\nApril mayoral elections, according to our indicators, were not tainted with the kind of\nfraudulent conduct we detected in the November election. We hope that this\n7\nimprovement was due not only to the hotly contested nature of the mayoral elections,\nbut also in part to our intensive investigation begun in January of this year.\nI believe that if the U.S. Attorney's Office can do its part to achieve fair\nelections, we will be performing an important service to this district and to this\ncountry. I therefore reaffirm my commitment to continue our efforts on behalf of\nhonest elections.\n8\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nTHRU:\nRICHARD A. HAUSER\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nDepartment of Justice Proposed Report\non S. 645, the \"Courts Improvement Act\nof 1983\" Establishing the Intercircuit\nTribunal\nIn late August, the Department of Justice attempted to\nobtain OMB clearance of its latest version of a report on\nS. 645. The proposed Justice report expressed support for\nthe creation of a temporary Intercircuit Tribunal, and\nattempted to condition that support on simultaneous pursuit\nof more basic reforms of the federal judicial system. We\nadvised OMB on August 29 (copy of memorandum attached) that\nwe continued to oppose any support for the Intercircuit\nTribunal. Michael Uhlmann did the same, and accordingly OMB\nadvised Justice that its proposed report could not be\ncleared. Justice has now responded that its draft report\nreflects an agreement worked out between Justice and the\nWhite House. As \"evidence\" of the agreement, Justice\nsubmitted a May 27 memorandum for Mr. Meese from the\nAttorney General.\nThat memorandum simply sets forth the Justice position. It\nhardly reflects an agreement of any kind. I have raised the\nmatter with Uhlmann, who strongly rejected the suggestion\nthat an agreement to support the Intercircuit Tribunal in\nany form had been reached. Unless you have a different\nunderstanding of where this dispute stands, I will advise\nOMB that we adhere to our opposition to the Intercircuit\nTribunal and are aware of no agreement to support it.\nAttachment\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: Brandon Blum\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Department of Justice proposed report on\n5.645, the \"Cousts Improvement act of 1983\"\nestablishing the Intercircuit Tribunal\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCNHOLL\nORIGINATOR 83/09/15\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nWATI8\nA 83/09/15\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA - Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR. Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD . Draft Response\nS. For Signature\nF - - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\n/\nROUTE SLIP\nRichard Hauser\nTake necessary action\nTO\nApproval or signature\nMike Uhlmann\nComment\nPrepare reply\nDiscuss with me\nFor your information\nSee remarks below\nBBh\nFROM Branden Blum (x3802)\nDATE 9/13/83\nREMARKS\nDOJ proposed report on S. 645, the\n\"Courts Improvement Act of 1983\"\nPer our discussions, I have advised Justice\nthat the Administration does not support\nTitle VI of the bill, which would establish\nthe Intercircuit Tribunal. Accordingly, the\nJustice report should be changed.\nJustice has advised me that it feels there\nis White House support for the Intercircuit\nTribunal (see attached memo) and that the\nJustice report is consistent with the\nAdministration's position.\nI do not know whether the attached memo\nreflects an agreement reached between the\nWhite House and Justice on this issue.\nPlease advise.\nCC: K. Wilson\nOMB FORM 4\nRev Aug 70\nOffire of the Attorney General\nWashington, B.C. 20530\nMay 27, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE III\nCOUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nWILLIAM FRENCH SMITH WAS\nATTORNEY GENERAL\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Intercircuit Tribunal\nAs you and I discussed at the end of last week's Cabinet Council\non Legal Policy meeting, everyone agrees that the federal\njudicial system, and particularly the Supreme Court, is suffering\nfrom serious caseload problems. The Chief Justice's proposal for\nan intercircuit tribunal has strong and persuasive support. The\nbest position for the Administration to take on this question is,\nin my judgment, to support a limited version of the intercircuit\ntribunal (for example, a panel that would exist for an\nexperimental period of three, rather than five, years) but as\npart of a larger program of judicial reform. Under this approach\nCongress would also address the workload problems of the lower\ncourts, such as eliminating diversity jurisdiction, abolishing\nthe Supreme Court's mandatory appellate jurisdiction (which\naccounts for one-fourth of the cases the Court hears annually),\nlimiting federal habeas corpus review of final state court\nconvictions, and creating the additional district and circuit\ncourt judgeships the Administration has requested. Any other\nposition would both be incomplete and would put us at odds with\nmany of those who share our views about judicial restraint.\nSee p. 8 of justice Rept.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND\nFROM:\nH. LAWRENCE GARRETT, III\nHAS\nSUBJECT:\nEthics Training Exhibit\nOther than the Standards of Conduct section of the White\nHouse Office Staff Manual, we have no \"ethics related\ntraining material.\"\nAccordingly, I recommend no further action be taken in\nregard to the attached memorandum and return it for whatever\ndisposition you may deem appropriate.\nAttachment\nID # 167218 CU\nWHITE HOUSE\nPEDOI\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI - INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nLG\nName of Correspondent: David H. Mastin\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nEthics Training Exhibit\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOIL\nORIGINATOR 83,09,07 PY /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 02\nA 83,09,07 PY\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC . Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\n-\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nUnited States of America\nOffice of\nOffice of Personnel Management\nGovernment Ethics\nWashington, D.C. 20415\n1672/8Cu\nSEP I 1983\nMEMORANDUM\nSUBJECT: Ethics Training Exhibit\nFROM:\nDirector David H. Martin David Hartert\nTO:\nDesignated Agency Ethics Officials\nand Inspectors General\nThis year, as part of our agency relations program, we are placing additional\nemphasis on ethics training for government employees. As part of this effort a \"training\nexhibit\" will be available at the October 4, 1983 OGE Annual Conference in the lobby\noutside the Department of Labor auditorium. This exhibit will contain copies of various\nethics (standards of conduct) training materials developed and used by individual\ndepartments and agencies consisting of books, pamphlets, films and video tapes. We\nencourage conference attendees to initiate more training and to take the opportunity to\nexamine these materials to determine if they could be used as is or with some\nmodification in their agency.\nTo make this exhibit a success, would you please send us a copy of any ethics related\ntraining material your department, agency or field offices may have developed. We would\nlike to keep the material sent to us; however, if some material can be only loaned -as may\nbe the case for films or video tapes - we will return the material after the conference.\nAlso, include with each item a short description of its content and the name, address and\ntelephone number, or a contact, to obtain additional copies. This data will be used to\ncompile a bibliography of the exhibited material and will be available at the conference.\nPlease direct the material or any questions you have on this matter to Robert Flynn\nor James Parle of my staff. They can be reached on 632-7642.\nThank you for your help in this matter.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\n22\nSUBJECT:\nProposed White House Conference\non Small Business\nRichard Darman has asked for our views by Wednesday,\nSeptember 21, on a proposal by the SBA to have a White House\nConference on Small Business, May 9-11, 1984, to coincide\nwith Small Business Week. The SBA thinks such a Conference\nwould help highlight small business' role in the recovery,\nand asks for (1) a Presidential directive to SBA to hold\nsuch a conference, (2) appointment of a Commission on Small\nBusiness, (3) a Presidential address at the Conference, and\n(4) participation by White House Staff and the Cabinet at\nthe Conference.\nI have no objection to a conference or Presidential address\nif those more familiar with policy in this area deem such\nevents useful. The idea of yet another Commission is,\nhowever, a bit much, particularly since I am aware of no\nreal \"crisis\" in the area of small businesses. There are\nalready a plethora of advisory committees active in the\narea, and we really do not need more.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nProposed White House Conference\non Small Business\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the proposals contained in the\nSeptember 13 memorandum from Frank S. Swain to Craig L.\nFuller. We have no objection to a White House Conference on\nSmall Business, or to the President, White House staff, and\nCabinet members addressing such a Conference, should those\nmore directly involved in forming Administration policy in\nthis area consider such events helpful. We are reluctant to\nestablish yet another Presidential commission, however,\nparticularly since there does not appear to be any crisis in\nthe area for a commission to address. It is not immediately\napparent what a Commission ON Small Business would do that\nis not already being done by other departments, agencies and\ncommissions, and I strongly recommend against creating\nPresidential advisory committees in the absence of a real\nneed to do so.\nFFF:JGR:aea 9/19/83\nCC:\nFFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nSeptember 19, 1983\nBb\nDear\nThe enclosed story, picked up by several papers, has\nattracted considerable interest back here. Interest is\nparticularly keen among members of the other party on the\nHill and at places such as GAO. Please give me a call next\ntime you are in town to discuss your availability for\nhearings and interviews with investigators.\nWarmest personal regards.\nSincerely,\nJohn\nJohn G. Roberts\nEnclosure\nP.S. There is even talk of\nB6\na subpoena for\nAM-TRAVEL SKED 9-11\nTAXES BANKROLL HOUSANDS OF EUROPEAN TRIPS\nBY GREGORY GORDON\nWASHINGTON (DPI) -- AN OUTSPOKEN U.S. AMRASSADOR. ESTIMATING\nTRAVEL COSTS EXCEEDED $1 MILLION FOR 658 OFFICIAL VISITORS TO LAST\nSPRING'S PARIS AIR SHOW, QUESTIONS THE NFED FOR THE THOUSANDS OF \" a\nGOVERNMENT TRIPS TO EUROPE.\n\"I DOUBT IF ANYONE IN WASHINGTON IS AWARF OF THE FILL SCOPF OF THE\nPROBLEM, ITS OVERALL COST TO THE U.S. TAXPAVER. ne THE NEGATIVE\nEFFECTS IT CAN HAVE\" IN CRIPPLING EMBASSY OPERATIONS. FVAN GALRRAITH.\nTHE AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE, SAID RECENTLY IN AN ANGRY. INTERNAL CARLE\nTO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.\nA STUDY OF GOVERNMENT TRAVEL BY UNITED PRFSS INTERNATIONAL AND THE\nBETTER GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION, A CIVIC WATCHDOG GROUP. SHOWS MOPF\nTHAN 25,000 OFFICIAL U.S. VISITORS STOPPED AT ENRASSIES IN PAPIS.\nROME, BONN AND LONDON IN 1982.\nEMBASSY SPOKESMEN SAID 8,000 TO 9,000 U.S. OFFICIAL 5 VISITED PARIS\nAND 10,000 STOPPED IN LONDON, SOME EN ROUTE TO DESTINATIONS SUCH AS\nAFRICA. BONN REPORTED 6,000 TO 8,000 OFFICIAL VISITORS. ROMF 1.00A\nINDEED, TRAVEL COSTS OF FEDERAL AGENCY OFFICIALS. CONGRESSMEN.\nTHEIR AIDES AND SPOUSES NOW CAN BE PROJECTED TO PUN FACTIV INTO THE\nTENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SOME EXPENDITURES HIDDEN TN OBSCURE --\nEVEN CLASSIFIED -- BUDGET ACCOUNTS. MANY TRIPS AMOUNT TN LAVISH,\nTAXPAYER-PAID VACATIONS, AND LAX CONTROLS FATI TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY\nOR REDUNDANT EXCURSIONS AND TO GUARD AGAINST ARUSFS\nWHILE STRESSING THE NEED FOR SOME FOREIGN VISITS RV TOP GOVERNMENT\nREPRESENTATIVES, ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ACKNOWLEDGE AVERSEAS TRAVFI\nIS A VEXING PROBLEM. DESPITE PRESIDENT REAGAN'S AUSTERITV NDIVF, SOME\nRANKING STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BELIEVE TRAVFI ARROAD MAG\nINCREASED.\nONE OFFICIAL SAID EMBASSIES TRYING TO MAINTAIN RIT7Y VISITOR\nSERVICES \"MAY BE REACHING THE BREAKING POINT\nIN HIS JULY CABLE, OBTAINED BY THE RGA. ART REATTH COMPLAINED HIS\nEMBASSY MAS 50 BURDENED WITH HOSTING THE AIR SHOW CONTINGENT --\nINCLUDING MILITARY ESCORT OFFICERS FOR CONGRESSMEN -- ITC NORMAI\nOPERATIONS \"GROUND TO A HALT. SOURCES SAID THE FNRASSY HAD TO\nSOLICIT EMERGENCY FUNDS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT\nGALBRAITH ARGUED HIS EMBASSY NO LONGER CAN CAPF WITH DENANDS FOR\nSCHEDULING, CHAUFFEUR AND TOUR GUIDE SERVICES. AND OTHER \"FRING\" --\nSUCH AS PERSONNEL TO MEET RANKING OFFICIALS AT THE AIRPORT. OFTEN AT\nR COST OF $50 FOR A CHAUFFEUR'S OVERTIME INSTEAD OF A $2A CAR RIDE\ncont'd.\n\"\nUR THE U.S. REPRESENTATIVES SURPASSED $1 MILLIAN\nPLEADING FOR STATE DEPARTMENT SUPPORT, HF SATD. at FIND THAT FVFRY\nTIME I RAISE A QUESTION ABOUT A PROPOSED VISIT, I HAVE A MAJOR FIGHT\nON MY HANDS -- EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE VISIT 15\nSUPERFLUOUS. GALBRAITH DID NOT RETURN REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS FROM HPT AND THE\nBGA IN RECENT WEEKS.\nIN A REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT TRAVEL RECORDS AND INTERVIEWS WITH\nDOZENS OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS, UPI AND THE BGA FOUND EVIDENCE TPAVFI\nABROAD IS OUT OF CONTROL:\n--DESPITE PRESIDENTIAL EDICTS TO REDUCE TRAVEL. NO ONE MONITORS\nFOREIGN TRIPS OR THEIR COST. MANY OFFICIALS ARRIVE AT II a ENRASSIES\nWITHOUT NOTICE. SAYS JAMES BARRY OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND\nBUDGET, \"THERE'S ALWAYS A GOOD EXCUSE TO GA SOMEWHERE\n--TRAVEL ABUSERS RUN THE GAMUT FROM STATE DEPARTMENT FORFIGN\nSERVICE OFFICERS TO CABINET OFFICIALS.\nKONG\nRIDES\nFOI\n--CONGRESS MATCH, A NONPROFIT GROUP, REPORTED LAST MONTH THAT\nSENATORS AND HOUSE MEMBERS TOOK 991 TRIPS TO 114 COUNTRIES FROM 1981\nTO 1983, MORE THAN HALF TO FRANCE, ITALY, ENGLAND. GERMANY AND\nGREECE. STRIFE-TORN COUNTRIES SEEN TO GET FFW II G VISITORS TN 1982.\n20 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS VISITED SUNNY BARRADOS. RUT JUST 13 TRAVFLED\nTO PROBLEM-PLAGUED EL SALVADOR.\n--CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS USDALLY FLY MILITARY AIRCRAFT. AND\nSOMETIMES EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS DO LIKENISE. FVFN WHEN\nCOMMERCIAL FLIGHTS ARE CHEAPER AND CONVENIENT CONGRESSIONAL GROUPS\nARE ACCOMPANIED BY MILITARY ESCORT OFFICERS. REMFD WITH TRAVFLING\nCOMMISSARIES OF SNACKS AND STASHES OF MONFY TA COVER EXPENSES SUCH AS\nFOOD, LODGING AND TRANSPORTATION. ESCORT OFFICERS 8150 SERVE AS\nBELLHOPS, DOORMEN AND, AS ONE CONGRESSIONAL AIDF PHT IT. \"INFORMAI\nSOCIAL SECRETARIES.\n--ALTHOUGH MOST FEDERAL OFFICIALS STICK TO RUSTNESSLIKE AGENDAS.\n- EMBASSY PERSONNEL ARE DISMAYED TO MATCH CONGRESSMEN ARANDON THF RUSY\nSCHEDULES THEY ARRANGED. A FORMER FOREIGN SERVICE AFFICER WHO SERVED\nIN SOUTH AMERICA SAID MOST OFFICIAL DELEGATIONS TO RRA711 SCHEDULE\nMEETINGS IN THE INTERIOR CAPITAL OF BRAZILIA RIIT OUTCKLY HFAD FOR THE\nBEACHES AND \"MORE EXCITING NIGHTLIFE\" OF PTN DF JANFIRO THE OFFICER\nSAID ONE GROUP ABRUPTLY CANCELED ALTERNATIVE FIIFI MFFTINGS WITH\nBRAZILIAN OFFICIALS AND HEADED FOR IPANEMA REACH\nUPI 03-12-83 @2:45 PED\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nDSR\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Jonathan Rose Regarding\nS. 1080 - The Regulatory Reform Act\non September 21, 1983\nOMB has asked for our views on the attached testimony, which\nAssistant Attorney General Rose proposes to deliver before\nthe Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of\nthe Senate Judiciary Committee. The testimony reviews\nDepartment of Justice opposition to section 5 of S. 1080,\nthe so-called \"Bumpers Amendment.\" This proposal, which has\nsignificant conservative support, seeks to restrain agency\naction by authorizing more searching judicial review. In\nparticular, section 5 would (1) require courts to determine\nif an agency were acting within its jurisdiction by\nreference to the enabling act, (2) generally eliminate the\npresumption that agency action is lawful, and (3) require\nagency factual determinations to have substantial support\nrather than simply satisfy the \"arbitrary and capricious\"\ntest.\nThe testimony correctly points out that the well-intentioned\nbill would simply shift power from the agencies to the\njudiciary. The testimony also notes that giving the courts\nadded review power could jeopardize deregulatory efforts as\nwell as more traditional regulation. I have no objection.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Jonathan Rose Regarding\nS. 1080 - The Regulatory Reform Act\non September 21, 1983\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed\ntestimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nFFF:JGR:aea 9/19/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS DR\nSUBJECT:\nCorrespondence from Wally Charleston\nConcerning Corruption in Water District\nWally Charleston of Mammoth Lakes, California, an\n\"investigative news reporter\" and supporter of the\nPresident, wrote the President to protest the lack of a\nresponse by the FBI to his charges of corruption in his\nwater district. Charleston states that \"the word is\" there\nwill be no investigation because of \"strong political\nconnections.' He asks the President to find out why the FBI\nis not moving forward. The original of this letter was\nrouted to Karna Small, presumably because of Charleston's\nstatus as a reporter. I have determined that she has not\nresponded, and have advised her that our office will handle\nthe matter. I have prepared a reply to Charleston noting\nthat we have referred his letter to the Justice Department.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nDear Mr. Charleston:\nThank you for your letter of July 22 to the President. In\nthat letter you raised concerns about corruption in your\nwater district, and outlined the steps you had taken to\nbring the matter to the attention of appropriate\nauthorities, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.\nI am certain you will understand that it would be\ninappropriate for the White House to interfere with the\nFBI's handling of a particular matter such as this. We\nhave, however, referred your correspondence to the\nDepartment of Justice for whatever review and action by that\ndepartment may be appropriate.\nThank you for your kind expressions of support for the\nPresident.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Wally Charleston\nPost Office Box 884\nMammoth Lakes, California 93546\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/19/83\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj./Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS\nDEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nCorrespondence from Wally Charleston\nConcerning Corruption in Water District\nThe attached correspondence, with a copy of my reply, is\nsubmitted for whatever action you consider appropriate.\nAttachments\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/19/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron"
}