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
135839922
label
Chron File (10/15/1984-10/31/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839922
contentType
document
title
Chron File (10/15/1984-10/31/1984)
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
135839922
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
e68fbd760bd4b785
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 (10/15/1984-10/31/1984)
Box: 65
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/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 15, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS ORR
SUBJECT:
Judicial Salaries
You asked that I draft a memorandum for your signature,
raising the issue of judicial compensation along the lines
of the attached draft American Bar Association report. The
attached draft, tentatively addressed to the legislative
strategy group, responds to your request.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Judicial Salaries and Report
of the Quadrennial Commission
In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive,
Legislative, and Judicial Salaries ("the Commission").
2 U.S.C. § 351. The Commission, composed of three members
appointed by the President, two by the President of the
Senate, two by the Speaker of the House, and two by the
Chief Justice, prepares a report to the President every four
years on the appropriate levels of compensation for members
of Congress, high-level executive branch officials, and
members of the Federal judiciary. The next report is due by
January 1, 1985.
The President must recommend, in his next budget submission
after receipt of the report, rates of pay for the subject
offices. 2 U.S.C. §§ 356-358. The theory underlying
establishment of the Commission was to remove the setting of
pay for high-level officials from the vicissitudes of
politics, and, at least in part, to bring about a needed
increase in judicial salaries by linking them to
congressional and executive salaries.
In the past the Commission failed to achieve its objective.
Recommendations of the Commission are routinely rejected by
the President and Congress. One unfortunate consequence is
that judicial salaries continue to be so inadequate as to
present difficulties in attracting and, more significantly,
retaining men and women of high quality for the Federal
bench. The problem is significantly more pressing for the
judiciary than for the executive or legislative branches,
for the simple reason that a career on the bench is -- or
should be -- a life-long commitment. One can expect
talented men and women to make financial sacrifices for a
period of years to serve in the executive branch or
legislature, since they can always return to the more
lucrative private sector to pursue their chosen calling.
The same should not be true for judges. We expect our
appointees to the bench to serve the remainder of their
professional lives. The current disparity between salaries
- 2 -
paid to judges and what judges could command in the private
sector is straining that principle in most instances -- as
well it should.
The American Bar Association has been studying the problem,
and will recommend to the Commission that it propose not
only significant salary increases at all three levels of the
Federal judiciary but also that it propose legislation
providing for an annual increment to judicial salaries for
each year of additional service (up to some limit). This
would provide some incentive for judges to stay on the
bench, or at least mitigate the financial burden of doing
so. This is an important consideration from the perspective
of the Administration, since by the end of his second term
the President probably will have appointed about 50 percent
of the sitting Federal judges. If the philosophy of this
President in the legal area is to be reflected in court
decisions for the next generation, it is critical that those
appointees remain on the bench.
As noted, we will soon appoint a new Commission and by
January 1 receive the quadrennial report of the Commission.
I recommend that we begin considering a comprehensive
response to the Report, which will doubtless call for
substantial increases in judicial compensation and perhaps
other legislative reform as well. In my view the judicial
compensation problem is serious enough to merit our prompt
attention. If action is not taken, we will encounter
increased difficulty in attracting highly-qualified candidates
for judicial office who will reflect the President's philosophy
and who will remain on the bench for the remainder of their
professional lives.
To that end, I would suggest you consider convening a
Legislative Strategy Group meeting shortly after the
election to consider this subject.
FFF: JGR:aea 10/22/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 15, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 826
SUBJECT:
Ward Quaal and INS Problem
Ward Quaal, apparently a personal friend of the Reagans, has
written the President, you, and Craig Fuller concerning an
immigration problem confronting the executive assistant of
his attorney. The letters to the President and Fuller have
appropriately been referred to you, and Fuller has so
advised Quaal. Quaal is in town today and has been calling
concerning the status of his letters.
According to information provided by Quaal, the wife of the
executive assistant was originally advised that her appli-
cation for permanent resident status was approved. Subse-
quently she was told that she had to leave the country by
October 14, 1984, or face deportation, because she accepted
unauthorized employment prior to filing her application for
permanent resident status. There does in fact appear to be
an unexplained inconsistency between the two notices received
by the wife, although the second notice also appears fully
supported by the facts and law.
In any event, the White House should not intervene in this
quasi-judicial matter pending before the INS. I am reluctant
even to refer all of Quaal's correspondence to the INS,
since it is so laden with references to his personal associa-
tion with the President that the files would be tainted in
the view of even the most objective reviewer. I recommend
simply advising Quaal that White House policy precludes
intervention in pending INS adjudications. A draft letter
is attached for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24, 1984
Dear Mr. Quaal:
Thank you for your letter of October 1, 1984, concerning Mr.
Inder M. Kashyap and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service proceedings involving members of his family. Your
letters to the President and Craig Fuller of the same date
have also been referred to this office for consideration and
direct response.
I regret to advise you that established policy approved by
the President precludes White House intervention on behalf
of private parties in pending Immigration and Naturalization
Service cases. This policy is designed to preserve public
confidence in the impartial administration of our
immigration laws.
I am sorry we cannot be more responsive to your request for
assistance in this particular matter. I trust, however,
that you will understand the reasons for this policy and our
adherence to it.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Ward L. Quaal
401 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 3140
Chicago, Illinois 60611
FFF: JGR:aea 10/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
Job
SUBJECT:
Recess Appointments for Marine
Mammal Commission Nominees
Senator Packwood has asked that the President not recess
appoint two nominees, Karen Pryor and Robert Elsner, to the
Marine Mammal Commission. Susan Borchard of Presidential
Personnel has asked whether the statute governing the Marine
Mammal Commission prohibits recess appointments.
The question practically answers itself. A mere statute
cannot prohibit the President from exercising his constitu-
tional power to make recess appointments. In this case, it
is far from clear that Congress even presumed to act in such
an unconstitutional manner. Prior to 1982, appointments to
the Marine Mammal Commission did not require Senate confirma-
tion. Public Law 92-522, 86 Stat. 1043. The statute was
amended in 1982 to provide that "the Commission shall be
composed of three members who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Public Law 97-389, 96 Stat. 1951. Senator Packwood now
contends that the change evinces an intent to bar recess
appointments. But of course the very question of recess
appointments only arises with respect to offices requiring
Senate confirmation in the first place. To read a provision
requiring Senate confirmation as implying an intent to bar
recess appointments would mean all recess appointments were
prohibited.
Even if Packwood is correct that Congress intended to bar
recess appointments when it passed the 1982 amendments, such
action by Congress rather clearly contravenes the Constitution.
For it is the Constitution, and not any act of Congress,
that grants the President the power "to fill up all Vacancies
that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." Art. II,
$ 2, cl. 3. We have never conceded the constitutionality of
indirect restrictions on the President's recess appointment
power, such as the Pay Act or the effort to draw distinctions
between the authority of confirmed and recess-appointed
directors of the Legal Services Corporation. We should
certainly oppose Packwood's direct effort to prohibit recess
appointments.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR SUSAN BORCHARD
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Recess Appointments for Marine
Mammal Commission Nominees
You have inquired whether the statute governing the Marine
Mammal Commission prohibits recess appointments to the
Commission. The statute not only does not do so but could
not do so consistent with the Constitution. The statute in
question simply provides that members shall be appointed to
the Commission by the President, with the advice and consent
of the Senate. 16 U.S.C. S 1401 (b) (1). This hardly evinces
an intent to prohibit recess appointments, since the very
issue of recess appointments only arises with respect to
positions requiring Senate confirmation.
Even if Congress did intend to prohibit recess appointments
when it added the requirement of Senate confirmation in the
1982 amendment to the above-referenced statute, it cannot
constitutionally do so. The President's power to make
recess appointments is granted by the Constitution, Art. II,
$ 2, cl. 3, and cannot be taken away by a mere statute. I
have no doubt that the President is empowered to make recess
appointments to the Marine Mammal Commission.
CC: M. B. Oglesby, Jr.
Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
FFF: JGR:aea 10/16/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/SUbj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 0562
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 905 -- The National
Archives and Records Administration
Act of 1984 -- and Signing Statement
Richard Darman has asked for comments by 3:00 p.m. today on
the above-referenced enrolled bill. This is the bill that
would free the Archives from GSA. The Administration was
heavily involved in preparing the bill. According to OMB,
the bill simply severs the Archives from GSA, without any
increase in the authority of the Archivist.
All affected agencies, with the exception of the Justice
Department, recommend approval or have no objection to the
bill. The position of the Justice Department is amazing in
light of its previous position on the bill. You may recall
that our office objected at some length back in May to a
proposed letter of Administration support for this bill.
(See attached memorandum of May 16, 1984 from Fielding for
Darman.) The basis of our objection was the provision in
Section 102 (a) (2) of the bill, which we thought limited the
President's removal power. As noted in my memorandum for
you of May 16 (also attached), the Justice Department (per
Larry Sims of OLC) expressly declined to agree with our
views or support our position. Partly as a result of this,
our concerns were not heeded, and the Administration
supported the bill.
Now Justice recommends a veto for precisely the same reason
we originally objected to the bill. The bill specifies that
the President may remove the Archivist, but requires the
President to notify Congress of his reasons for doing SO.
The language of the bill is slightly different from that to
which we objected in May, but the basic problem is the same.
Justice saw no problem then (though I struggled mightily to
point it out to them), and we are really estopped from doing
anything about it now. As Stockman notes, the Administration
advised Congress that it had no objection to the provision
in May.
Justice also objects to a provision, Section 203 of the
bill, requiring the Archivist to ask the Attorney General to
initiate an action to recover records it believes have been
- 2 -
unlawfully removed, and to advise Congress of the request.
Justice contends that this infringes on the Attorney
General's authority to conduct litigation. I disagree. The
Attorney General can still decline to prosecute, or can
prosecute without receiving a request from the Archivist. I
would rather not have this provision in the bill, but cannot
argue for a veto because of it.
A draft signing statement has also been submitted for our
review. It notes at the outset that the bill would establish
the Archives as "an independent agency within the Executive
branch," but at several later points simply applauds "in-
dependence for the Archives." As you know there was (and
still is) a strong movement to grant the Archives real
independence, i.e., from the President. I would reiterate
"within the Executive branch" whenever the signing statement
praises "independence" for the Archives, to avoid any
possible misinterpretation.
The attached memorandum for Darman recommends this change.
It also notes that we share Justice's concerns -- concerns
we noted back in May -- but do not recommend a veto, because
of the Administration's previous representations to Congress.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAEHINGTON
October 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 905 -- The National
Archives and Records Administration
Act of 1984 and Signing Statement
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill and proposed signing statement. I share the concerns
that the Department of Justice now has with respect to
possible limitation on the President's removal power in
Section 102 (a) of the bill. Indeed, I raised those concerns
in my memorandum for you of May 16, 1984. In light of the
Administration's previous representations to Congress,
however, I do not recommend disapproval on this ground.
I do recommend several changes in the draft signing statement.
The statement should make absolutely clear that we support
independence for the Archives within the Executive branch.
There is a movement to make the Archives independent of the
President, a move fraught with constitutional difficulty.
As presently written the praise for "independence for the
Archives" in the signing statement is subject to misinterpre-
tation. I would add "within the Executive branch" at the
end of the third paragraph and after the final word of the
last sentence.
FFF:JGR:aea 10/17/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS OPR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 607 - Public Broadcasting
Amendments Act of 1984
Richard Darman has asked for comments by noon today on the
above-referenced enrolled bill. On August 29, the President
vetoed a predecessor bill, S. 2436, because the authorized
appropriations of $920 million were excessive. He indicated he
would accept a bill authorizing $694 million (the levels in the
so-called Oxley Amendment). This bill authorizes $775 million,
and both OMB and Commerce recommend disapproval.
Our office is of course not expert in setting budget levels, and
I do not recommend second-guessing OMB and Commerce. I would
note, however, that the instant bill shaves $145 million off the
original bill, leaving the spending only $81 million above the
President's request. In other words, Congress has met the
President considerably more than half way, and the President by
vetoing this bill again will antagonize a large and influential
group, to gain only $81 million - the equivalent of a few Air
Force coffee makers. The attached memorandum for your signature
notes no legal objection to the recommendation of disapproval, or
to the memorandum of disapproval. If you wish to weigh in on the
policy decision, I will be happy to provide a memorandum along
the lines of the discussion above.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 607 - Public Broadcasting
Amendments Act of 1984
Counsel's office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and has no legal objection to the recommendation of OMB
and Commerce that the President disapprove this bill. I also
have no legal objection to the draft memorandum of disapproval.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO JR THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 4025 - Transfer
of General Post Office Building to
Smithsonian Institution
Counsel's office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
bcc: Dianna Holland
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DJR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Remarks:
Reagan-Bush Rally, Kansas City, Missouri
Counsel's office has reviewed the above-referenced draft remarks
and has no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
bcc: Dianna Holland
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DDR
SUBJECT:
Request for Use of the Presidential Box
at the Kennedy Center for an Auction Item
to Benefit Community Service to the Mentally
Retarded/Emotionally Handicapped Young People
The Rock Creek Foundation, a local charitable organization
active in the mental health area, has written you to request
the use of the President's box as an item to be auctioned
off to raise funds. An auction of celebrity items to
benefit the Foundation will be held on December 1.
It is our established policy not to approve the use of
Presidential memorabilia as auction items, since the lending
of such items would constitute endorsement of the fundraising.
The White House adheres to a policy of generally not endorsing
particular fundraising efforts, because we receive so many
requests and cannot fairly approve some but not others. In
addition, the White House has no capability to supervise
fundraising by private entities, which would be necessary to
some extent were the White House to endorse the fundraising.
Finally, auctioning off Presidential memorabilia is basically
selling the prestige of the Office, and that is not for
sale, not for any price, not for any cause.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASH NETCO
October 18, 1984
Dear Ms. Falgitano:
Thank you for your letter of October 1, 1984. In that
letter you requested permission to use the Presidential box
at the Kennedy Center as an auction item to raise funds to
benefit The Rock Creek Foundation.
I must decline to grant your request. The White House
generally adheres to a policy of not lending items associated
with the President to be auctioned off to raise funds, no
matter how worthy the cause. As you might imagine, the
President receives countless requests for such items. He
cannot grant them all, and fairness dictates that he not
arbitrarily grant some while denying others. In addition,
the White House has no capability to supervise the activities
of private charitable organizations, which would be necessary
to some extent were the President to endorse particular
fundraising projects.
I trust you will understand the reasons for our response,
and that it in nc way constitutes an adverse reflection on
the fine work of The Rock Creek Foundation.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Ms. Kathleen Falgitano
The Rock Creek Foundation
8435 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
FFF:JGR:aea 10/18/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS ose
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 6248 --
Armed Criminal Act of 1984
Richard Darman has asked for comments by 5:00 p.m. today on
the above-referenced enrolled bill. As you are aware, the
provisions of this bill have already been enacted into law
as Chapter XVIII of Title II of H.J. Res. 648, the Continuing
Resolution, signed by the President on October 12, 1984
(Public Law 98-473). There is, accordingly, no legal
purpose to be served by signing this bill. Justice recommends
disapproval, contending that signing the bill would create
needless confusion. I suspect vetoing it will also create
needless confusion, and I do not think it matters much
whether the President signs or not. On balance, I suppose
the President should not act gratuitously, and therefore I
agree with the OMB and Justice recommendation of disapproval.
The proposed disapproval memorandum appropriately notes that
the President is declining to approve this bill solely
because it duplicates existing law and is unnecessary.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 6248 --
Armed Criminal Act of 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and has no legal objection to the Justice and OMB
recommendation that the President withhold his approval. I
also have no objection to the proposed memorandum of disapproval.
This situation is of course bizarre, and frankly it probably
makes no difference whether the President signs this bill or
not.
FFF: JGR:aea 10/18/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAEHINGTON
October 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS PR
SUBJECT:
Deed of Gift for Photographic Prints
Mike Evans has given the International Museum of Photography
at George Eastman House seven White House photographs of the
President. The Museum has asked the White House to execute
a boilerplate deed of gift conveying all right, title, and
interest in the photographs to the Museum.
The photographs in question have been released into the
public domain, and accordingly the Government has no right,
title, or interest in them. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 105,
the Government can have no copyright in the photographs.
The Museum is free to display the photographs, reproduce
them, and even sell the reproductions. Since the deed of
gift is unnecessary, I recommend that it not be executed.
Signing the deed may suggest to others that the White House
had an interest in the photographs, which it assigned to the
Museum. In fact, the Museum has no more and no less right
to use the photographs than anyone else. A letter to the
Museum incorporating the above is attached for your review
and signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAEHINGTON
October 22, 1984
Dear Mr. Mayer:
The White House Photography Office has asked us to review a
deed of gift submitted by the International Museum of
Photography at George Eastman House in connection with the
gift to the Museum of seven chromogenic prints of the
President by Michael Evans. I am returning the deed of gift
unsigned.
The photographs in question have all been released into the
public domain by the White House. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
§ 105, the Government can have no copyright interest in the
photographs. Accordingly, there is no right, title, or
interest to be conveyed. The Museum, like any other entity,
is free to use the photographs for any legitimate purpose.
There is no need for a deed of gift.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Robert A. Mayer
Director
International Museum of Photography
at George Eastman House
900 East Avenue
Rochester, New York 14607
CC: Michael Evans
Personal Photographer to the President
Billie Shaddix
Director, Photographic Services
FFF: JGR:aea 10/22/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS OSR
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request of Mark Allen
FBI/FOI/PA #211, 326 Regarding
House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA)
By two separate memoranda, both dated October 9, the FBI has
asked for our views on the release of documents originating
in the White House that are responsive to the above-referenced
FOIA request. The first item is a 1975 letter to President
Ford from a private citizen, explaining a theory about the
assassination of President Kennedy. I see no reason to
withhold the letter. The second item is a telegram dated
May 22, 1967 to the President from Marguerite Oswald, and a
note of the same date from a White House staffer simply
transmitting the telegram to the FBI. In her telegram Mrs.
Oswald complains about FBI surveillance in connection with a
visit to Dallas by Vice President Humphrey. I see no reason
to object to the release of this item. An appropriate
memorandum is attached for your review and signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL
CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
FOI/PA Request of Mark Allen
FBI/FOI/PA #211, 326 Regarding
House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA)
By separate memoranda dated October 9, 1984, you requested
our views on two items originating in the White House that
are responsive to the above-referenced FOIA request. The
items are a letter to President Ford from R.B. Cutler and a
telegram of May 22, 1967 to the President from Marguerite
Oswald, together with a transmittal note sending the telegram
from the White House to the Bureau. I have no objection to
the release of these items.
FFF: JGR:aea 10/19/84
CC: FFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAEHINGTON
October 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
OR
SUBJECT:
Civil Aeronautics Board Decisions
in Eastern Air Lines, Inc.; Universal
Airlines, Inc.; United Air Carriers,
Inc.; and United States-Venezuela
Allcargo Proceeding
This memorandum is addressed to Mr. Hauser because of the
involvement of Eastern Air Lines, Inc., in one of the
subject decisions.
Richard Darman's office has asked for comments by close of
business October 24 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 October 30, November 9,
October 28, and October 29 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 Trans-
portation have not identified any foreign relations or
national defense reasons for disapproval. Since these
orders involve domestic carriers, the proposed letter from
the President to the CAB Chairman prepared by OMB includes
the standard sentence designed to preserve availability of
judicial review.
The Eastern order would authorize that carrier to serve a
city in Colombia. The Universal order would authorize that
carrier to engage in charter transport of property and mail,
while the United order authorizes service to Hong Kong.
Finally, the Venezuela proceeding order authorizes Flying
Tiger to carry property and mail between Venezuela and the
United States, with backup authority to Southern Air Transport.
- 2 -
A memorandum for Darman is attached for your review and
signature. The memorandum notes that Mr. Fielding did not
participate in the review of this matter.
Attachment
October 23, 2984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
RICHARD H. HAUSEF
DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Civil Aeronautics Board Decisions
in Eastern Air Lines, Inc.; Universal
Airlines, Inc.; United Air Carriers,
Inc.; and United States-Venezuela
Allcaroc Proceedinc
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 OME.
Mr. Fielding did not participate in the review of this
matter.
RAH: JGR:aea 10/23/84
CC: RAHauser/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DSR
SUBJECT:
Correspondence Urging the President
to Sign S. 607
You were sent a copy of a letter to the President, urging
him to sign S. 607, the appropriations bill for the Corpor-
ation for Public Broadcasting. The letter was signed by 22
education and broadcasting figures. As you know, the
President vetoed S. 607. Under the circumstances, I see no
purpose to be served by your responding to the letter, which
is actually more a petition than a letter in any event.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS J2R
SUBJECT:
Indictment Announcement
Associate Deputy Attorney General Roger Clegg advises that
the Attorney General will announce today at 2:00 p.m., in
New York, the indictment of essentially the entire leadership
of the Colombo organized crime family. The 51-count indict-
ment charges extortion, mob-control of various unions,
embezzlement of union funds, heroin trafficking, multi-million
dollar thefts, gambling, loan-sharking, and a variety of
other illegal activities. The indictment covers all three
Colombo family "bosses" of the past ten years, as well as
four high-ranking "capos." Justice has sent over a copy of
the Attorney General's statement; the attached memorandum
gives Mike Baroody a "heads up."
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Indictment Announcement
Today at 2:00 p.m. the Attorney General will announce, in
New York, the indictment of the leadership of the Colombo
organized crime family. The 51-count indictment charges a
variety of offenses, including extortion, mob-control of
unions, embezzlement of union funds, heroin trafficking,
theft, gambling, and loan sharking. It covers the three
bosses of the family over the past ten years as well as
four high-ranking "capos."
Attached is a copy of the statement the Attorney General
will make; it should be held until 2:00 p.m.
Attachment
FFF: :JGR:aea 10/24/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24, 1984
Dear Mr. Masters:
Thank you for your recent letter to the President concerning
the decision to commute the sentence of Gilbert L. Dozier to
six years imprisonment. In light of your expressed concerns
about that decision, you may be interested in more information
about the facts of the case and the procedures that were
followed.
Gilbert L. Dozier was convicted in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in 1980 for
violations of Federal law involving extortion and bribery.
Dozier was convicted of soliciting money from individuals
and businesses that were, or might have been, affected by
actions of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture while he
was Commissioner of Agriculture. In 1982 Dozier was also
found to have committed additional criminal acts, including
obstruction of justice, and to have thereby violated the
conditions of a court ordered probationary term. On
June 24, 1982, he commenced service of an aggregate sentence
of from 58 months to 18 years imprisonment, followed by five
years probation, and was fined $25,000.
In January 1983, Dozier filed an application for Executive
clemency with the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the
Department of Justice. In accordance with standard proce-
dures, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, headed and staffed
by experienced career attorneys, obtained and evaluated
pertinent information, reports, and advice concerning
Dozier's application. The office recommended that Dozier's
sentence be reduced, and on March 20, 1984, the Department
of Justice advised the President to modify the sentence of
imprisonment and probation to six years imprisonment.
The Department of Justice recommendation was based on the
disparity between Dozier's original sentence and sentences
imposed in similar circumstances on like offenders for
- 2 -
similar offenses. The disparity became evident through an
evaluation of relevant data compiled by the Administrative
Office of United States Courts on sentences imposed in
Federal courts. Not only was Dozier's sentence comparatively
long, but the convictions for racketeering and extortion
that made up the pertinent statistics generally involved
behavior even more severe than the acts of extortion com-
mitted by Dozier. Generally, they included offenders with
serious prior criminal records whose offenses involved
violence. Sentencing statistics pertaining to defendants
convicted of bribery suggest an even greater disparity of
sentence. In addition, sentences imposed in comparable
cases in recent years upon a number of public officials in
in the Federal criminal justice system were reviewed, and
this review again demonstrated the disparity of Dozier's
sentence.
The recommendation of the Department of Justice was also
based on Dozier's cooperation with law enforcement author-
ities after his conviction. Such cooperation provided with
respect to ongoing law enforcement efforts is, as I am
certain you will understand, a very important consideration
in matters of this kind. Also taken into account were the
guidelines of the United States Parole Commission, the
length of incarceration to date, the fact that Dozier paid
his fine, and the minimal additional deterrent effect to be
achieved by completion of the original sentence.
The President accepted the advice of the Department of
Justice and on June 22, 1984 reduced Dozier's sentence to
six years. While the recommended sentence of six years
imprisonment will permit Dozier to become eligible for
parole consideration after two years imprisonment, any
actual release date will be determined by the United States
Parole Commission in its discretion and in accordance with
its applicable guidelines. Unless the Parole Commission
releases him sooner, Dozier will remain incarcerated until
the expiration of his six-year sentence, subject to
statutory release procedures (including good time)
applicable to all Federal prisoners.
It is important to recognize that the President has not
pardoned Dozier for the very serious criminal conduct that
resulted in his conviction and incarceration. The reduction
of sentence, approved for the reasons outlined above, in no
way minimizes the seriousness of the crimes committed by
Dozier.
- 3 -
We appreciate your taking the time to share your views on
this matter with us. I hope the foregoing responds to your
concerns.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Hauser
Deputy Counsel to the President
Mr. Burton J. Masters
6138 Del Canto
San Jose, CA 95119
RAH:JGR:aea 10/24/84
CC: FFielding/RAHauser/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
October 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
823R
SUBJECT:
Allegations of Misconduct by Justice
Prosecutors and IRS Officials
Bo Callaway has written Mr. Baker concerning United States
V. Kilpatrick, the somewhat celebrated tax fraud case in
Federal district court in Colorado. In an opinion issued
September 24, 1984, Judge Kane dismissed all twenty-seven
counts of the indictment in a scathing opinion charging the
Justice Department Tax Division prosecutors with misconduct
and unethical behavior. Judge Kane wrote that the prosecutors
abused the grand jury process, violated grand jury secrecy,
improperly used "letters of assurance" rather than the
statutory immunity process, mischaracterized evidence, and
mistreated witnesses. He relied heavily on a prior opinion
in the case by now-retired Judge Winner, which was even more
vituperative in its treatment of the Tax Division attorneys.
Judge Winner's opinion contains several remarkable allegations
of "discourtesy" directed at the judge by the prosecutors,
including shouting and obscenities, "glowering," and throwing
jackets on the floor. (You may recall that this case first
achieved notoriety after an ill-advised and improperly
cleared motion was filed by the prosecutors to prevent the
printing of Judge Winner's opinion.)
Callaway's letter assumes the accuracy of the two opinions,
and urges the President to call for a thorough investigation
of the charges against the prosecutors. The matter is
urgent because "60 Minutes" has been preparing a segment on
the case, which Callaway thinks will air either this Sunday
or next.
The Justice Department has issued a statement to "60 Minutes.' "
The statement notes that, in the view of the Department, the
opinions of Judges Winner and Kane are "extreme and unjustified.
(The Department has filed a protective notice of appeal, but
may decide to proceed by re-indictment instead.) The
statement also notes that the Office of Professional Respon-
sibility has reviewed the charges of prosecutorial misconduct,
and concluded that while there were instances in which the
attorneys failed to comply fully with certain rules of
criminal procedure, the failures did not prejudice the
defendants and did not warrant any disciplinary action.
- 2 -
There is no need for the President to call for an investi-
gation as suggested by Callaway; that investigation has
already taken place and has essentially "cleared" the Tax
Division attorneys. A reply advising Callaway of this is
attached.
Attachment
October it, 1984
Dear Mr. Callaway:
Your letter of October 10 to White House Chief of Staff
James A. Baker, III has been referred to me for consider-
ation and direct response. In that letter you reviewed the
Justice Department tax fraud prosecution United States V.
Kilpatrick, noting the charges of prosecutorial misconduct
featured in the two opinions in that case. You suggested
that the President call for a thorough investigation of
those charges, prior to the airing of a "60 Minutes" segment
on the case.
Such an investigation has already taken place. The Justice
Department watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Respon-
sibility, has conducted an extensive and independent investi-
gation. According to the Department of Justice, that Office
concluded that while there may have been instances in which
the prosecutors did not fully comply with rules of criminal
procedure, those instances did not prejudice the rights of
the defendants and did not warrant disciplinary action. The
Department considers the statements of Judges Winner and
Kane to be extreme and unjustified, and, on October 24,
filed a notice of appeal in the case. "60 Minutes" has been
apprised of the foregoing.
Thank you for sharing your concerns about this matter with
us.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Howard H. Callaway
State Chairman
Colorado Republicans
1275 Tremont Place
Denver, CO 80204
FFF: JGR:aea 10/26/84
bcc: FFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAEHINGTOR
October 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR LYNN PIROZZOLI
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DYR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Sample Executive Orders/Proclamations
As we discussed, I am sending over some sample executive
orders and proclamations that might be useful as you proceed
with your plans for a conservation award program. As I
mentioned when we talked, you should contact John Cooney of
the Office of Management and Budget General Counsel's office
concerning the clearance process for executive orders and
proclamations.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Attachments