Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file includes case on Eldridge Cleaver.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24823941
label
Justice - General (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24823941
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Justice - General (4)
description
This file includes case on Eldridge Cleaver.
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Presidential Clemency Board. (09/16/1974 - 09/15/1975)
Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. (07/09/1953 - )
Executive orders
Foreign aid
Law enforcement
Law and legislation
Gun control
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Capital punishment
Legislation
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24823941
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f66825f50d50d8c6
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 23, folder "Justice - General (4)" of the Philip
Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 23 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Crime: Recent Editorials
37
And the President rightly talks of the need to "foster a law-
abiding spirit among ordinary citizens." But a greater respect
for the law can neither be achieved by a lock-up philosophy that
proscribes judicial flexibility, nor by courts that treat casually
the most serious non-violent crimes. Respect for the law can
only be won on a basis of general public recognition that justice
in this country is evenly dispensed, regardless of the wrong-
doer's station in life. (4/30/75)
The Cleveland Plain Dealer said President Ford, in a tough
speech on crime, said what most Americans wanted to hear. He
left no doubt that the law should punish severely those criminals
who cause substantial injury to others or who create substantial
danger to the public. Without mentioning Watergate by name, he
acknowledged that crime in high places also has made law enforce-
ment more difficult. His critics, while agreeing with that, can
point out that Mr. Ford's hasty pardon of former President Nixon
unfortunately had the effect of establishing a separate code for
the "establishment." In its way, it was illustrative of the very
leniency which the President scored in his speech.
But in calling for better guarantees for the safety of
citizens, for insuring the domestic tranquility and respect for
law, the President was on solid and popular ground. (4/27/75)
The Des Moines Register said mandatory imprisonment policy
would prohibit judges from granting probation and would require
a huge expenditure for maximum security prisons to house swelling
numbers. The existing prison system has failed dismally to
prevent recidivism. The President has no basis for believing
that his program would accomplish anything except the waste of
hundreds of millions of dollars on custodial facilities and guards.
In calling for mandatory imprisonment, President Ford is
ignoring the advice of such tough law-and-order types as Chief
Justice Warren Burger, who has stated that mandatory sentences
for crimes do not best serve the ends of the criminal justice
system.
The President said he wants to put gun-users in prison, but
nowhere in his address about crime did he suggest the need for
government action to curb access to guns. This omission, to-
gether with his appeal to the emotions for mandatory imprisonment,
suggests that the President may be more interested in playing
politics with the crime issue than in dealing realistically with
the needs of the criminal justice system. (5/2/75)
BERALO FORD LIBRARY
COMMISSION ON CIA ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
Washington, DC 20500
Nelson A. Rockefeller,
David W. Belin,
Chairman
Executive Director
John T. Connor
C. Douglas Dillon
Erwin N. Griswold
May 6, 1975
Lane Kirkland
Lyman L. Lemnitzer
Ronald Reagan
Edgar F. Shannon, Jr.
Mr. Richard B. Cheney
Deputy Assistant to
the President
The White House
Dear Dick:
Thanks for the copy of the President's Yale Law School speech.
You asked for my views and suggestions, and I said I would
give you whatever favorable and unfavorable comments I have
on any presidential speeches or policy discussions that you
might send to me for my review.
A. Favorable Comments
1. The issue is one of major national concern. There-
fore, I think it is appropriate for the President
to discuss it at Yale, and I think it would be most
appropriate to discuss it elsewhere, also.
2. The treatment of the issue was excellent. I very
much like the concept of concentrating on domestic
tranquility instead of law and order because of the bad
connotations law and order have given to many people in
the country.
3. I like his sensitive treatment which occurs through-
out the speech. The emphasis on victims of crime--
and the fact that the majority of the victims are the
poor, the old, the young, the disadvantaged minorities,
and the people who live in the most crowded parts of our
cities, the most defenseless. I like the emphasis on
incarceration of convicted felons in prison, but humane
FORD
treatment at the same time in prison.
4. I like the emphasis on the importance of leaders oin
LIBRARY
all levels of government and business and labor setting
good examples--the sensitivity to the fact that when
people in high places break the law, it has an adverse
fall-out effect over the entire population.
-2-
5. I like the emphasis on facts, particularly the non-
emotional statements concerning repeat offenders and
the very sobering statistics on the number of criminals
who receive no prison terms whatsoever.
6. I like the philosophic quotations from people such
as Madison and Burke.
7. I like the emphasis on the philosophic differences
between a democratic society and a totalitarian
state, and the pinpointing on how much more difficult
it is to resolve problems of this kind in a free society
where we must have sensitivity for the needs for freedom
and constitutional rights.
8. I like the down-to-earth sense of humor in the
opening portion of the speech.
9. I like the emphasis on the public policy considera-
tions of making punishment more certain for convicted
criminals of violent crimes, and the emphasis for funds
for not only judges and prosecutors but also public
defenders.
10. I like the suggestions for Federal financial and
technical assistance to the states, which after all
have the primary responsibility in law enforcement.
B. Unfavorable Comments
1. I have very few adverse comments because on the whole
I think the speech is excellent. My first adverse
comment relates to the need for fuller development of
specific proposals to help meet the problems of crime.
I think the speech did an excellent job in pinpointing
major problems. The solution aspect of the speech needs
more specific development. I would be happy to exchange
views in this area, if you think it would be helpful.
2. There could be added to the speech a brief comment
concerning some of the causes of crime, particularly
with first offenders. For instance, broken homes, un-
employment, inadequate and overcrowded housing, and of
course the lack of certainty of punishment (which was
discussed in the speech). Over the past several years
FORD
the issue has been debated with two opposite points ON
view: "Law and Order" and "Root Cause". I think Presi-
dent Ford did an excellent job in moving "law and order"
LIBRARY
to "domestic tranquility". However, I think he could do
an even better job in preempting part of the area of
-3-
"root cause" without taking away from his overall dis-
cussion of the problem. This is part of what I believe
to be the ultimate success in politics--the preemption
of the middle of the road. This preemption can be very
much enhanced by bringing together valid key conclusions
from competing points of view. Therefore, I suggest a
brief reference to the relationship between crime and
such social dislocations as unemployment, inadequate
housing and broken homes.
C. Overall Evaluation
The speech was on the whole excellent. I would give it
a grade of A-. (And I can assure you that if I thought the
speech deserved a B or a C, I would have rated it accordingly.)
Best regards.
Sincerely,
David W. Belin
speal
P.S. If you think I am afraid to give a president or a
member of his staff a grade lower than A-, or even
a B, I call to your attention the fact that last August
and September I wrote the President and told him that I
thought his "Whip Inflation Now" program would be a failure
because his economic advisors did not understand the major
economic issues confronting the world in the last quarter
of this century. I also told Bill Seidman that I thought
the economic summit would be a failure, and after the econo-
mic summit I so indicated this in very specific terms to Bill
Seidman and also to Don Rumsfeld. In other words, I am not
afraid to say a thing is bad when I believe it is bad--even
if it involves the President of the United States or a member
of his staff. However, in the case of the Yale speech, I
think it was first rate, and I think the basic concept is a
very important one to emphasize, as I have outlined in my
evaluation. In the case of the number one issue in the country
--the economy-- I think the President is still getting inadequate
economic and political advice.
&
FORD
DWB
CERALD
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Justice
WASHINGTON
May 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Mr. Antonin Scalia
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Justice
Attached are:
1.
Copy of a letter to the President dated April 10, 1975,
from Senator John Sparkman and a copy of the
President's reply to this letter dated April 25.
2. Copy of second letter from Senator Sparkman dated
May 1, to which no reply has been prepared.
3. Copy of a letter of April 16 to the President from
Senator John C. Stennis to which a reply similar to the
President's letter to Senator Sparkman has been prepared.
4. Copy of a letter to the President from Senator James Abourezk
dated May 2, 1975, to which no reply has been prepared.
T.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Attachments
FORD is 038410 LIBRAR
MIKE MANAGELS, MONT.
CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J.
CHURCH, IDAHO
JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.
STUART SYMINGTON, MO.
HUGH SCOTT. PA,
CLAIBORNE PELL R.I.
JAMES B. PEARSON, KANS.
CALE W. MC GEE, WYO.
CHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.
GEORGE MC GOVERN, S. DAX.
ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, MICH.
United States Senate
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN.
HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., TENN.
DICK CLARK. IOWA
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DEL.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
PAT M. HOLT, CHIEF OF STAFF
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
ARTHUR M. KUHL, CHIEF CLERK
April 10, 1975
Dear Mr. President:
As you know, there is much public interest about whether
there are any secret understandings by the United States rela-
tive to the 1973 Vietnam Cease-fire Agreement.
In explaining the agreement at a press conference on
January 24, 1973, Dr. Kissinger said: "There are no secret
understandings. However, on Wednesday the White House issued
NE
a statement saying that there were "confidential exchanges
between the Nixon Administration and President Thieu" at the
time of the Paris agreement relative to both how the United
States would react to a major violation of the agreement and
about future economic and military assistance.
On a number of occasions members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations have questioned Executive Branch witnesses
about the agreement and related matters. For example, Secretary
of State Rogers told the Committee on February 21, 1973, that
the agreement would not "impose any further obligations on the
United States On May 8, Secretary of Defense Richardson,
when questioned about whether there were any commitments "if
the cease-fire accord in Vietnam should collapse," replied:
"No."
In order to insure that there is no misunderstanding about
any U. S. undertakings relative to the agreement, I believe that
all of the pertinent documents should be made available to the
Committee on Foreign Relations which has the responsibility for
legislative oversight in matters relating to international
agreements. I would appreciate your furnishing the Committee
with the text of all understandings, undertakings or similar
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
-2-
statements made by President Nixon, Dr. Kissinger, or other
U. S. officials relative to the cease-fire agreement or
subsequent conferences concerning that agreement.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this im-
portant matter.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
John John Sparkman Spaceream
Chairman
The President
The White House
FORD & LIBRARY QERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 25, 1975
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of April 10. I welcome your desire
to clear up any misunderstanding about "secret undertakings"
by the United States relative to the 1973 Vietnam accords.
In light of current events in Indochina, it is worth recalling
that it was the openly stated policy of the United States
Government to maintain the necessary conditions for the
viability of the Agreement. President Nixon and members
of his Administration stated publicly and repeatedly that the
United States intended to continue its aid relationship with
the Republic of Vietnam and react vigorously to massive
violations. I have reviewed the record of the private diplo-
matic communications, which naturally contained statements
reflecting the sanie policy. Since the same policy and inten-
tions contained in these exchanges were declared publicly,
there was no secret from the Congress or the American
people.
Furthermore, neither this Administration nor the previous
one has ever invoked any private assurances or commit-
ments as arguments for Congressional action. Requests
for security assistance and opposition to the 1973 prohibi-
tion of the use of military force were always argued on the
merits of policy. This was done in the belief that it was in
our national interest to-maintain the conditions essential to
observance of the Vietnam Agreement. Our policy was
determined by this view of our interests, not by "secret
agreements" or assurances given in any secret document.
Obviously, our ability to maintain this policy was subject
to our own Constitutional process.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
Any documents which could be construed as containing or
constituting a government-to-government undertaking have
been provided to the Congress.
I do not believe, therefore, that there is any basis for mis-
understanding about American obligations or actions relative
to the Paris Agreement; nor is this question relevant to the
important policy questions we face now concerning our aid
to Vietnam and, indeed, our foreign policy in the future.
Inasmuch as confidentiality is an essential aspect of diplo-
matic intercourse, the diplomatic exchanges between the
United States and the Republic of Vietnam should remain
confidential within the Executive Branch. I believe our
urgent task now is to face the future and leave the divisive
debates over Vietnam behind us.
Sincerely,
Herd
Ford
The Honorable John Sparkman
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
LIBRARY GERALD = FORD
JOHN SPARKMAN, 6LA,, CHAIRMAN
M.M.E MANSFILLD, MONT.
CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J.
FRANK CHURCH, IDAHO
JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.
STUAINT SYMINGTON, MO.
HUGH SCOTT, PA,
CLAIRORNE PELL, R.I.
JAMES B. PEARSON, KANS.
GALE W. MC GFE, WYO.
CHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.
GEORGE MC GOVERN, S. DAK,
ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, MICH.
United States Senate
HUREAT 14. HUMPHREY, MINN.
HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., TENN.
DICK CLARK, IOWA
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DEL
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
PAT M. HOLT, CHIEF OF STAFF
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
ARTHUR M. KUHL CHIEF CLERK
May 1, 1975
Dear Mr. President:
I appreciate your letter of April 25 concerning the
request of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the texts
of any United States understandings or undertakings relative
to the 1973 Paris Cease-fire Agreement.
As you know, a former member of the South Vietnamese
Government has released the texts of what are alleged to be
letters from President Nixon to President Thieu containing
assurances relative to "continued" United States aid to South
Vietnam and of "swift and severe retaliatory action" in the
event of North Vietnam's failure to abide by the agreement.
In this connection, also, I note that Ambassador Graham Martin
was quoted in this morning's Washington Post as saying, as he
arrived aboard an evacuation ship, that: "If we had kept our
commitments we wouldn't have had to evacuate."
I urge that you reconsider your decision to deny the
Committee's request. Although I agree with your statement
that we should "leave the divisive debates on Vietnam behind
us," I do not view the Committee's request for these documents
as a part of a "debate" but only a legitimate exercise of the
Committee's responsibility for legislative oversight of inter-
national agreements.
In view of the release of the alleged letters from
President Nixon and the fact that the South Vietnamese Govern-
ment has fallen, it seems to me that the issue of confidentiality
is not a proper justification for denying the Committee access
to the pertinent documents. The public interest would be
served by a full disclosure of pertinent communications
FORD is LIBRARY
-2-
relative to United States undertakings or commitments sur-
rounding the cease-fire agreement and I hope that upon re-
consideration you will furnish these documents to the Committee.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
John Sparkman Spasiveron
Chairman
The President
The White House
FORD is LIBRARY 038A70
JOWN c. STENNIS. MISS., CHAIRMAN
MO.
STROM THURMOND, S.C.
WASH
TOHN TOWL R. TEX.
N.V.
BARRY GOLDWATER. ARIZ.
N.H.
WILLIAM L. SCOTT. VA.
RYPO
JR.,
VA.
ROBERT TAFT, JR., OHIO
DEWAY BANILETT OKLA
United States Senale
COMMITT ON ARMED SERVICES
DRASWELL. 18. CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
April 16, 1975
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
The Senate Armed Services Committee has been holding
hearings on your urgent request for $722 million of additional military
assistance to South Vietnam. A relevant issue which has arisen in
connection with this request is the nature and extent of any prior U.S.
obligations, commitments, or understandings which may have been
given to South Vietnam and North Vietnam.
On April 15, 1975, Secretary Schlesinger testified that there
exist official, private documents which bear on the U.S. commitment to
South Vietnam. Secretary Schlesinger indicated that the Defense Depart-
ment did not have these documents and in any event would be unable to
provide them to the Committee in the absence of Presidential approval.
The Committee respectfully requests that all documentation
which has not been formally presented to the Congress and bears on the
nature and extent of the U.S. commitment to South Vietnam be provided
to the Committee. This request covers all written materials regarding
communications between the United States Government and the govern-
ments of South Vietnam and North Vietnam, and/or their respective
representatives, including but not limited to the communications themselves
and any memoranda of conversations or cable traffic reflecting conversa-
tions, that passed between the parties involved relating to the 1972/1973
Paris Peace negotiations and Agreements, and their subsequent
implementation.
Due to the severe time constraints associated with this request
for military assistance to South Vietnam these documents should be
provided promptly.
Sincerely
GERAL FORD TIBRARA
John C. Stennis
JAMES o. EASTLAND. MISS., CHAIRMAN
JCAN ILELLAN, ARK.
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR.
THILIP MICH.
HIPAM L. FONG, HAWAII
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.
HUGH SCOTT, PA.
BIRCH BAYH, IND.
STROM THURMOND, S.C.
QUENTIN N. BURGICK, N. DAK.
CHARLES MC c. MATHIAS, JR., MD.
ROUERT C. BY4D, W. VA.
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, VA,
United States Senate
JOHN V. TUNNEY, CALIF.
JAMES ABOUREZK, S. DAK.
PETER M. STOCKETT
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CHICF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
May 2, 1975
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
For some time the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers has been
examining executive-legislative relations in foreign affairs with
me
special emphasis on executive agreements and commitments. The
Subcommittee held extensive hearings on the subject in April and
May of 1972. Despite congressional attempts to define the powers,
duties and prerogatives of the two branches of the government in
this area of foreign policy, the problem of executive agreements
vis-a-vis the treaty power of the Senate has remained a matter of
increasing concern.
Various legislative proposals are now pending which would prescribe
a congressional role in the making of international agreements, other
than treaties, that commit our national resources. The Subcommittee
presently has before it two such bills requiring congressional over-
sight of these agreements. S. 632 introduced on February 7, 1975,
by Senator Bentsen and S. 1251 introduced on March 20, 1975, by
Senator Glenn. The separation of powers questions involved in
such legislative proposals are vitally important; therefore, we
have scheduled hearings on May 13, 14, and 75, 1975.
Obviously, the letters made public on April 30, 1975, in Washington
by Nguyen Tien Hung, former Minister of Planning for South Vietnam,
are of compelling relevance to these hearings and consideration of
the above-referenced legislation.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that you furnish to the
Separation of Powers Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, copies of the letters of November 14, 1972, and January 5,
17, and 20, 1973, sent by President Richard M. Nixon to President
Nguyen Van Thieu, in which President Nixon makes commitments regard-
ing American assistance to South Vietnam in the post-settlement
period.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
May 2, 1975
Page Two
I also request that you send the Subcommittee copies of the letters
of November 11 and December 20, 1972, from President Thieu to
President Nixon regarding American assistance to South Vietnam
in the post-settlement period. I also ask that you transmit to
the Subcommittee copies of any other material or information
related to this correspondence and its substance which is in your
possession. Please let me hear from you regarding these requests
I
by close of business on May 7, 1975. Your cooperation will be
appreciated in view of the time constraints under which we are
operating.
Sincerely,
Powers
FORD : LIBRARY 038830
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 9, 1975
Justice
Dear Mr. Garner:
This is to acknowledge your letter of April 18 to Attorney
General Levi setting forth your dissatisfaction with certain
operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
I have requested a review of the allegations set forth in
your letter and appreciate your concern in writing.
Sincerely,
Philip it! Buchen W. Buelen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Bill Garner
Route 4, Box 354
Scottsboro, Alabama 35768
FORDO is 038870 LIBRARY
May 9, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM LYNN
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
TVA Allegations
Attached are copies of a recent letter to the Attorney
General and my letter of acknowledgment. Kindly
take any action you determine appropriate.
Thank you.
KAL:dlm
THE WHITE HOUSE
John Keeneye C.
WASHINGTON
Quotice) One Tice)
May 5, 1975
Bill James
MEMORANDUM FOR: KEN LAZARUS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN T.W.B.
Kindly review the attached memo from
John C. Keeney at Justice and let me
have your comments and suggestions.
Also, please prepare a proposed
acknowledgement to Mr. Garner's
letter from me.
Attachment
BERAUD rund LIBRANES
ASSISTANT ATTOMNEY GENERAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Department of Justice
Mashington 20530
**
May 1 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
John C. Keeney
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Attached is a letter dated April 18, 1975, which was
addressed to the Attorney General by one Bill Garner of
Scottsboro, Alabama. Mr. Garner requests that the Attorney
General conduct a full-scale investigation of the Office of
Management and Budget in connection with its relation to
the Tennessee Valley Authority. Since the letter is concerned
with Administration policy rather than violations of law,
it is referred to your office for whatever action you deem
appropriate. We have not acknowledged Mr. Garner's letter.
Attachment
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
which
DEPUTY
ATTORMEY
18, 1975
DEPUTY
Honorable Edward H. Levi
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Constitution Avenue between 9th and 10th Streets
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Ar. Levi:
As you may know, due to their lack of reliability, there has been an
enormous slump in the demand for nuclear power plants. In order to keep the
nuclear industry alive, the Tennessee Valley Authority continues to construct
and plan nuclear power plants that it does not need.
The TVA is attempting to operate three nuclear units at Brown's Ferry,
Alabama; is constructing two nuclear units at Bellefonte, Alabama; two units
at Sequoyah, Tennessee and two more at Watts Bar, Tennessee. It has an appli-
cation pending to construct four more nuclear units near Nashville, Tennessee.
Last week, over the protest of TVA Director Bill Jenkins, the other two
directors of the TVA announced plans to construct two more nuclear plants in
Tennessee and two nuclear plants in Mississippi. Director Jenkins pointed out
that these plants were not needed, and also stated that he learned for the first
time on April 11th, that the TVA planned to ask that its borrowing power be
increased from five billion dollars to twenty billion dollars.
As to the need for TVA to produce more power, from 1970 through 1972 the
peak load on the system decreased. Though the amount of electricity sold in
1973 increased slightly, 1974 sales decreased from 1973.
Why does TVA continue to build nuclear plants when it is obvious that they
are not needed on the TVA system? Why does TVA wish its debt limt increased
when it does not have a legitimate need to borrow more money? I am sure that
you are aware of the fact that Gerald Ford, like his predecessor, Richard Nixon,
is totally committed to help the nuclear industry stay in business. Chairman
Aubrey J. Magner of the Tennessee Valley Authority is a political appointee of
Richard Nixon and a political protege of Senator Howard Baker, another advocate
of nuclear power at any cost.
A Birmingham newspaper has uncovered the fact that negotiations over increasing
IVA's bonding authority have been going on between TVA and the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget for six to eight months. Congressman Robert Jones of Alabama
has apparently been leading the clandestine movement.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-2-
When Gerald Ford assumed Office as President of the United States, he
pledged an open administration and promised the American people that his
presidency would not operate in secret. The facts given above make it clear
that the Office of Management and Budget, which is apart of the Executive
Office of the President, is operating in secret behind the backs of the people
of the Ternessee Valley including one of the three Directors of the Tennessee
Valley Authority itself. Consequently, I request that you conduct a full scale
investi ation of the activities of the Office of Management and Budget in
connection with the above.
Sincerely yours,
Bill Lermi
Bill Garner
Route 4, Box 354
Scottsboro, Alabama 35768
CC:
Senator Jennings Randolph, Chairman
Senate Public Works Committee
Senator Mark O. Hatfield
Public works Subcommittee of Senate Appropriations Committee
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
tice
THE WHITE HOUSE
LEAN
WASHINGTON
May 13, 1975
Dear Mr. Spott:
By this letter, I acknowledge your most recent
communication.
Your application for a Law Enforcement
Assistance (LEAA) grant should be sent to the
person whose name and address is set forth
below:
Mr. H. Paul Haynes
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of National Priority Programs
LEAA
633 Indiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20531
Sincerely,
Thily W Bucken
Counsel to the President
Mr. Joseph E. Spott
Director
Joseph E. Spott University
50 Muth Drive
Orinda, California 94563
FORD i LIBRAN GERALD
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 14, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL SKIDMORE
THROUGH:
PHIL BUCHEN T.W.B.
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
Q
SUBJECT:
LEAA Authorization Bill
As a follow-up to our telephone conversation earlier today, set
forth below are the comments of Counsel's office relative to
Justice's draft bill, cited as the "Crime Control Act of 1976".
(1) On page 2 of the draft bill , Section 5 should be corrected
to reflect the decision that the Attorney General is to appoint
the Director of the Institute as called for on page 2 of the
section-by-section analysis.
(2) On page 3 of the draft bill consideration should be given to
modifying Section 5 (3) to indicate that Section 402(b)(9) of the
LEAA statute should authorize discretionary grants for
11
special projects pertaining to the civil justice system
in its impact on the criminal justice system,
" (new
material underlined).
(3) On page 4 of the draft bill consideration should be given to
amending Section 7(3) so as to earmark either a percentage
(perhaps 10 percent) or an absolute dollar figure from the
total appropriation authorization for the purposes of Section 4,
i.e. grants to high crime areas. Moreover, the second
paragraph of the Speaker's letter could be modified to highlight
this change.
I have communicated these suggestions to Dick Parsons who
FORD
has indicated that he will keep me advised of any developments
in this regard.
LIBRARY
CC: Dick Parsons
Tyler,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jane Dannenhauer
FROM:
Phil Buchen P.W.B.
It would be appreciated if you could
arrange for a White House pass for
Judge Harold Russell Tyler, Jr.
In his capacity as Deputy Attorney General,
Judge Tyler will be coming to meetings at
the White House, and it would be most
helpful if a pass could be issued for him.
Thanks very much.
in
FORD
GERALD
Administration, Agencies: Comment
C-4
COMMENT
Argument For Lawlessness
(Editorial, Excerpted from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
The Justice Department, in a letter reminiscent of the
lawless attitude of the Nixon Administration, has taken the
incredible position that federal agents under so-called "care-
fully controlled" circumstances have a right to break into private
homes and offices without warrants to search for evidence of
foreign espionage or intelligence. But the Supreme Court has
only by implication -- not directly -- upheld warrant-
less wire taps in cases involving foreign espionage.
And, even if such wire taps had been upheld, the Justice
Department is indulging in an astonishing leap in logic
to infer from this that the government has the power with-
out search warrants to break into private premises. For the
U.S. Government to behave in this manner, trumping up national
security reasons for its acts, would make the Fourth Amend-
ment a virtual nullity. (5/22/75)
Another Over-Extension Of Power
(Editorial, Excerpted from the Charlotte Observer)
Quietly, the Ford Administration has affirmed its
support for one of those over-extensions of presidential
power that characterized the Watergate era. In a letter
to a federal judge, the Justice Department has supported
the President's "right" to break into private homes and
rummage through the papers of American citizens any time
he believes foreign espionage or intelligence information
might be found there.
The question is not whether such searches should be
conducted. If there is evidence of espionage, of course
they should.
The question is whether a President should be the sole
judge of the propriety of such searches. The Justice Depart-
ment -- which is, after all, part of the executive branch --
says yes. We think that is a dangerous contention. The
misuse of power by the Nixon Administration shows the danger
of leaving such decisions to a president's whim. If a
president has good reasons for such searches, he should have
no qualms about presenting them to a federal judge and
obtaining a search warrant. (5/22/75)
FORD & QERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
A
upipt
WASHINGTON
May 22, 1975
Dear Mr. Curry:
Your letter of May 7 addressed jointly to the
President and me has been received.
Because the appeal you refer to appears to
involve a procedural issue and not the merits
of the case, it seems inappropriate for the
Justice Department to take seriously your
request for the filing of Amicus Curiae Briefs
on the merits. Also, I do not believe that
you can read into the President's comments on
"Plea Bargaining" in his address to the Yale
School of Law support for the point of view
expressed by the writer of the article in
83 Harvard Law Review 1387.
Sincerely yours,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. George L. Curry
181 Poplar Avenue
Hayward, California 94541
is
FORD LI
GERALD
Justice
tose
THE WHITE HOUSE
Federal
WASHINGTON
Elections
May 24, 1975
Commission)
MEMORANDUM FOR PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
DON RUMSF ELD
Don't forget to sort out that matter between Tom
Curtis of the Election Commission and the role
of the Department of Justice in defending them.
I don't know what the answer is, but I think it
is important that there be communication between
Curtis and Levi.
THE
LIBRARY
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DON RUMSFELD
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Justice Department's Position
in Defense of New Campaign
Financing Law and Powers of
Federal Election Commission
From information I have obtained from the Justice Depart-
ment, it appears that the newspaper accounts are erroneous
as to any decision by the Justice Department not to defend
portions of the above law and the powers granted by the
law to the Federal Election Commission.
The Attorney General merely asked for draft briefs on
both sides of the issue which he will take up with us
before any decision is made.
I have tried to reach Tom Curtis at the number you gave
me but, as yet, there is no answer.
FORD is 078339 LIBRARY
Meeting
Tuesday 5/27/75
5/27/75
2:15 p.m.
9:20 You and Mr. Lazarus are invited to the meeting
with the President this afternoon (Tuesday 5/27)
at 2:15 p.m. in the Cabinet Room on the
LEAA authorisation.
Those invited:
Attorney General
Friedersdorf
Hartmann
Goldwin
Marsh
Lazarus
Lynn
Parsons
Cannon
The Attorney General may not be able to attend;
if he can't, Richard Velde of LEAA will come.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: TED MARRS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN P.W.B.
In connection with the matter covered by the attached
file, I suggest you send a reply which follows the
Scalia draft but omits the two large paragraphs on
pages 3 and 4.
FORD it LIBRARY GERALO
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
TED MARRS
Would you please provide guidance as to
whether to use the attached draft or not.
FORD & LIBRARY DERALD
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Department of Justice
Mashington, D.C. 20530
MAY 1 2 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE THEODORE C. MARRS,
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
Re: Correspondence from the Reverend Arthur J.
Maren of the Church of Scientology.
This is in further response to your memorandum to the At-
torney General dated February 21, 1975, on the above subject.
(This matter was discussed by telephone on March 7th between
you and Robert Saloschin of this Office.)
Attached is a draft reply to the Rev. Maren's letter.
Personally, I would send no reply at all, unless a routine
acknowledgment of receipt of the Petition remains to be
dispatched. The Maren letter neither requests a reply nor
asks any questions which must be answered. I see nothing to
be gained by prolonging a time-consuming exchange of corres-
pondence which obviously can lead to no amicable conclusion.
As you know, persons associated with this group have launched
several broad Freedom of Information requests and lawsuits,
against various government agencies, which will assure that
justice is done. These are already taking a large amount of
our time; we need not donate more.
If you use the attached draft, you may wish to omit the
two large paragraphs on pages 3 and 4, which express the fore-
going sentiment as politely as the nature of the sentiment
allows.
We are returning the folder of materials on the Church
of Scientology which you sent us with your February 21, 1975
memorandum.
Antonin Scalia
Assistant Attorney General
FORD is 27% LIBRARY
Attachment
Office of Legal Counsel
As a general proposition, religious organizations
are entitled under most laws to the same rights as other
organizations. This is true, for example, under the
Freedom of Information Act, and it means that a request
from a religious organization is generally entitled to
the same treatment, and is subject to the same exemptions
from compulsory disclosure, as would be true in the case
of other persons making the same request. Thus, a request
from a religious organization for investigatory law en-
forcement records would presumably be treated in the same
way as if the organization were of a non-religious character.
It is also worth noting that the Freedom of Information
Act pertains to access to government records, not to the
correction of such records. The Privacy Act of 1974 con-
tains some provisions pertaining to the correction of
records, but administration of that Act will have to await
its effective date, which is late in September 1975; in
the interim it is expected that the Office of Management
and Budget will develop guidelines for such administration.
- 2 -
FORD is LIBRARY OERALD
Pending such guidelines, however, it is probably safe to
say that the Privacy Act's concern is with records per-
taining to individuals rather than to organizations.
I might only add that government agencies, as a
practical matter, are human institutions, and they
therefore cannot absolutely guarantee that they will be
free from error, either in their records or in their
actions, even assuming that what constitutes error in
particular matters is always clear. These agencies'
public service functions are important to our society,
and often require that an agency proceed as best it can
on the information it is able to obtain with the time and
resources available. The rights and interests of private
persons and of society as a whole depend on the ongoing
performance of these functions; at the same time our
system provides various remedies and safeguards to redress
possible mistakes in agency activities. For example,
I understand that your organization has freely availed
itself of recourse to the courts, and your claims will
presumably be fully considered in these cases under the
law.
- 3 -
FORD in LIBRARY
It is probably fair to say that our laws provide
more fully for judicial review (and for Freedom of In-
formation rights of access) than those of any other
nation. Persons and organizations who enjoy such rights
hopefully may give some consideration to the fact that
courts and government agencies are struggling under in-
creasing burdens, and that other citizens also have
claims upon their attention.
Sincerely,
- 4 -
FORD & GERALD LIBRA
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 29, 1975
Dear Mr. Temple:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter
of April 30, 1975, to the President concerning
allegations of criminal conduct within the
Federal Bureau of Prisons system.
I have forwarded your letter to the
Department of Justice for further review.
Sincerely,
Counsel to the President
Mr. J. Patrick Temple
P. O. Box 1000
McNeil Island 17366-149
Steilacoom, Washington
98388
FORD LIBRARY GERALD
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE
ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
6/5
Phil - - F41
George
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
MR. Buchen
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
June 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PETER J. WALLISON
FROM:
GEORGE B. TRUBOW
six
SUBJECT:
Controversy Over Department
of Justice Policy On Law Enforcement
Information and Communications
The June 4, New York Times story on the FBI's plan to
establish the Federal government as a provider of commu-
nications services to State and local criminal justice agencies
is the latest in a series of events stretching back to the 1967
recommendations of the President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Attachment A,
an extract from an Office of Telecommunications Policy
memorandum, summarizes key events leading up to the
publication on May 20, 1975, by the Department of Justice,
of regulations (included as attachment B) that surface three
separable but related issues:
(1)
LEAA criminal justice information system
privacy regulations;
(2) Whether computerized State and local criminal
justice information systems must be "dedicated"
to law enforcement (and not shared with other
State or local information systems); and
(3) Whether the FBI's National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) should take control of an interstate
information system containing personal criminal
histories. ("Message switching")
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
- 3 -
This is a cost factor (why buy separate computer facilities
for the CJS when one is enough to handle the business? ) as
well as one of control (who is in charge of the information
system? ). It can be argued that this question ought not be
resolved unilaterally by DOJ without more consultation
with State and local government, which is where the
decision has far-reaching impact.
(3) NCIC Message-Switching
The regulations, in sections 20-31, et. seq., undertake
to lay the foundation for establishing NCIC message switching,
and accordingly go further than the authority contemplated in
the 1973 amendment to the Crime Control Act.
As I indicated earlier the FBI's message switching implementation
plan is being circulated separately from the regulations and
itself raises important issues that include but also go beyond
the issues raised in the regulations. These are:
(a) Whether it is appropriate for the Federal
government to become the sole provider of
interstate communication services to State
and local criminal justice agencies. Even
leaving aside the likely impact of such a step
on the relationships between Federal and
State law enforcement agencies, there
seems little apparent justification for it,
given the existence already of a functioning,
State-controlled law enforcement communi-
cations network (NLETS) and an otherwise
strong Administration preference for
fostering capacity building and independent
initiative at the State level. LEAA has,
for several years, provided substantial
funds for upgrading NLETS capabilities.
(b) Whether further expansion of the FBI's
Computerized Criminal History (CCH)
program can be justified in the light of
countervailing concerns about its cost-
FORD i LIBRARY BERALD
effectiveness and personal privacy
implications (see the enclosed GAO
report, "Development of a Nationwide
- 4 -
Criminal Data Exchange System--Need to
Determine Cost and Improve Reporting"),
and indeed, whether in view of such
considerations there is any warrant for
continuing the program under Federal
auspices and control. One alternative,
for example, would be to reconstitute
the program as a State-maintained computerized
index ("pointer system") to State-maintained
criminal history records, with the FBI
participating as one user among many
rather than, as now, being also a central
repository for State records.
(c)
Whether in resolving points (a) and (b) the
Justice Department should be allowed to
ignore the protests and recommendations
of other agencies it has promised but
frequently failed to consult in the past,
including the Office of Management and
Budget, the Office of Telecommunications
Policy, and the Domestic Council Privacy
Committee.
Copies of pertinent correspondence between the Department and
spokesmen for the Privacy Committee and the Office of Telecommu-
nications Policy (attachment E) give you a feel for the positions
and attitudes of the various parties involved. Unfortunately,
however, I cannot provide you with a copy of the several reports
and issue papers mentioned in the Times article because the
the Department, despite repeated promises to do so, has so
far refused to make them available.
I have not recommended firm policy positions at this time; the
memorandum is intended to provide background for the Vice
President to deal broadly with questions about the matter. These
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
-5 -
are issues of domestic policy, however, in which I believe the
Vice President should take a leadership role. The way in which
the Department of Justice has proceeded in this case, (apart
from the substantive issues of privacy, Federal-state relations,
etc.) needs careful attention.
cc: (w/o attachments)
Richard Parsons
Susan Schiffer
Lynn May
FORD it LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 5, 1975
To:
Attorney General Levi
From: Phil Buchen P.W.B.
Attached is the memorandum from
Brent Scowcroft on the subject we
talked about the other day.
GERALD
FORD LIBRAR
atty Gensal
Monday 6/9/75
3:25 The Attorney General said in case you're reading the
transcript of his TV appearance yesterday -- and in order
to protect his name -- he has already found mistakes in it.
In his discussion of crime, he is quoted as saying
"I am not as optimistic"
and what he really said is
"I am always optimistic"
He doesn't know where else he has been misquoted but
wanted to: be sure you knew of that one right away before
people started sticking knives.
LISEARY BERALD : FORD
June 9, 1975
To: Mr. Hills
From: Eva
The Attorney General's secretary
checked with him and he knows
nothing about the meeting tomorrow
with the Vice President and the
Murphy Commission and the fact
that he should have a statement
on Executive Privilege.
Is quite concerned.
I told her we would check with you
again and be back in touch.
FORD i LIBRARY 07V839
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE
ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
6/1
Phil - FYI
fee spec.
pg Pg.#2.
- George 2. FORD
LIBRARY
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
June 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PETER J. WALLISON
FROM:
GEORGE B. TRUBOW
SUBJECT:
Meeting with Tyler re:
FBI/NCIC Message Switch
Yesterday, representatives of the Office of Telecommunications
Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, and I met
with Deputy Attorney General Tyler to raise once again
the extremely important policy issues precipitated by the
proposed plan for FBI/NCIC message switching discussed in
my memorandum to you of June 5. Dick Parsons arranged the
meeting; Lynn May attended, as did staff from Tyler's office.
The Deputy Attorney General indicated that he has so far
been unable to understand the substance of concern about
the potential impact of a national criminal justice infor-
mation and communication system controlled by FBI/NCIC,
including its potential effect on Federal-state relations.
The representatives of OTP, OMB and I again reminded him
that in December of last year, then Deputy Attorney General
Silberman agreed to have some preliminary issue papers
prepared before proceding any further toward the establish-
ment of FBI/NCIC message switching capability but that this
had not been done.
The principal result of yesterday's meeting was that OTP,
OMB and I agreed to prepare, with Lynn May coordinating,
an issue paper which will be the subject of a further
meeting with the Deputy Attorney General in about two
weeks. Mr. Tyler indicated that the Department of Justice
will not proceed with the implementation of any message-
switching plan until the questions raised in the issue
paper have been confronted and resolved. (Unfortunately,
the Department of Justice regulations that lay a foundation
for FBI authority to operate a message switch go into effect
June 19.)
GERALD LIBRATY
- 2 -
I emphasized the point at the meeting that there is potential
for embarassment to the Administration if the Department
continues to deal with this matter in the way it has been
handled in the past. I believe that you should be aware
of continuing developments, since the implications regarding
Federal-state relations and domestic policy formulation go
far beyond issues of exchange of criminal history infor-
mation that may be within the competence of the Department
of Justice.
CC: Mr. Richard Parsons
Mr. Lynn May
GBT : sgd
FORD & LIBRA GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
John C. Keeney, Esquire
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
The enclosed tie was sent to the President as a gift by the
manufacturer. A copy of the accompanying letter from
Mr. Samuel Singer, dated May 28, 1975, is enclosed.
Mr. Barry Roth of my staff spoke with Mr. Singer concerning
his use of the Seal of the President. Mr. Singer, prior to
using the Seal, indicated that he had contacted the Secret
Service in Boston to inquire whether there were any restrictions
on use of the Seal and was advised that there were none.
Inasmuch as this appears to be a use of the Seal that is
inconsistent with 18 U,S.C. 713 and E.O. 11649, I bring this
matter to your attention for such action as you may deem
appropriate. If my office can be of any additional assistance
to you in this regard, please contact Mr. Roth.
T.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Enclosures
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
SHORE & SINGER INC.
MANUFACTURERS OF DISTINCTIVE NECKWEAR
...
(617) 542-0998
EIGHT YSIX ESSEX STREET
(617) 542-0927
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 0217
100 KINGSTON ST.
BOSTON, MA. 02111
May 28, 1975
President Gerald Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear President Ford:
As part of a series of Bi-Centennial neckwear, we
are making the enclosed necktie.
I thought you might enjoy wearing this tie.
Best wishes.
Very truly yours,
Samul I. Singer
SHORE & SINGER, INC.
SS:HH
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
Justice
WASHINGTON
Eldridge
June 18, 1975
Clower
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN T.W.B
Following my memorandum to you of June 10 on the subject
of Mr. Cleaver, I attach a copy of a memo sent to me from
Deputy Attorney General Tyler. I hesitate to have you
pass this information on to Mr. Carl F. Salans (Attorney)
because if he follows the suggestion I had proposed for
inclusion in your letter, a direct contact with the State
of California authorities by an emissary of Mr. Cleaver
will turn up this information as well as any other that
may not have been available to the Justice Department.
Attachment
many
pass on I to will Salanco. Barrit
not
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
CONFIDENTIAL
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Brent Scowcroft
FROM:
Phil Buchen P.W.B.
Returned with this memorandum is the original you sent of a
letter written to you on May 5 from Carl F. Salans about
Eldridge Cleaver.
After consulting with Deputy Attorney General Tyler, my
suggestion is that you reply to Mr. Salans substantially as
follows:
"The suggestion you have made presents a very
interesting prospect and one that should be explored.
However, except for Federal jurisdiction arising out
of flight from the applicable jurisdiction to escape
prosecution, the primary jurisdiction would be with
the state of California. Under these circumstances,
it would be better for someone representing Mr. Cleaver
to contact the prosecutor's office in California where
the charges are pending to see whether that office would
agree to meet Mr. Cleaver's desire that he not be
incarcerated pending trial. Through the same method
it could be determined whether there are any other state
charges that might be brought against Mr. Cleaver should
he return. Another issue that would probably have to be
resolved is the matter of reimbursing the bonding company,
if there was one, for any forfeiture which may have
occurred.
Only after satisfactory arrangements have been made with
the state authorities would we be able to consider the
Federal aspects of the matter. 11
colled marking
Archivist's memo of March
per E.O. 12356, Sec.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
By
KR
8/3/88
GONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
claims
May 23, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE EDWARD H. LEVI
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Eldridge Cleaver
Attached is a copy of a letter dated May 5,
1975, to General Brent Scowcroft from an
Attorney in Paris. I would appreciate your
advice on how to respond to Attorney Carl F.
Salans.
T.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Attachment
\
Determined to be an
Cancelled Archivist's per memo E.O. of March 16,
NARS date 8/3/88
By
ke
FORD :- GERALD LIBRARY
CONFIDENTIAL
SAMUEL PISAR
20, PLACE DE LA MADELEINE
PARIS 8 FRANCE
TEL 742 23 31
TELEX 28385 CABLE PARLAW
SAMUEL PISAR
WASHINGTON D.C.
LAFOREST E. PHILLIPS, JR.
CARL F. SALANS
1100 CONNECTICUT AVENUE
MARIE-CLAIRE LACHAUD
TEL. 293.1903
ELIANE HEILBRONN
ROBERT W. HAMILTON
May 5, 1975
JEFFREY M HERTZFELD
LONDON
GERARD DELILE
ELISEO GARLATTI
STONE HOUSE
MARC GIRAUD
128 BISHOPSGATE
JEAN-CHARLES BANCAL
TEL. 247
IWAO SHIMIZU
DANIEL PAYAN
Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft
Deputy Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
The National Security Council
The White House
Washington, D.C.
U.S.A.
Re: Eldridge Cleaver
Dear Brent:
It was good to talk to you last Wednesday during my visit in
Washington, although I felt terribly guilty intruding into
your time at such a crisis point in Vietnam. As agreed, I am
writing this letter to give you the essential points regarding
Eldridge Cleaver's desire to return to the United States.
Mr. Cleaver came to see me several weeks ago with the follow-
ing story. He had been indicted in 1968 by a California grand
jury for assault against police officers with intent to commit
murder arising out of an incident that occurred on April 6,
1968. At the time, he was on parole from a prior imprisonment.
Pending trial for this new charge, he had been released from
jail on a writ of habeus corpus; but when an appeals court re-
versed this decision and ordered him to surrender to prison of-
ficials, he jumped bail and left the United States.
Since that time, he has been living in Cuba, Algeria, and now
France. He has also travelled to the Soviet Union, China, North
Korea and North Vietnam, among other places, during his seven. FORD
years absence from the States.
Mr. Cleaver says, in effect, that he has been all around th
LIBRARY
radical world and has become disenchanted with it. He has re
jected the Marxist-Leninist world view which he formerly advo-
cated. He no longer wants to tear down the American system; he
wants to come home and live with it. Nor does he any longer
want to separate black people from the system. While other po-
litical radicals are seeking to destroy our system, says Cleaver,
most of them have not been exposed to the radical undemocratic
Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft
May 5, 1975
Page Two
systems they seek to emulate as he has. He has seen them, and
they are not so great after all. He has come to realize the
importance of democratic institutions and processes in the life
of a nation. He is optimistic about the United States, and
while he still advocates change, he no longer advocates politi-
cal violence.
Mr. Cleaver has already been speaking out publicly along these
lines and if he is able to return to the United States, he will
continue to do SO.
As regards his return, he says he is willing to stand trial in
California for the charges pending against him. His only real
condition is that he does not want to be thrown in jail pending
the trial and its conclusion. He would also like to determine
whether there are any other Federal or State charges that may
be brought against him should he return.
The idea which I had was that it might not be bad for the United
States, particularly in the current rather depressed state of
affairs, for Cleaver to "come back into the fold" saying that
he has been everywhere else and has concluded that the United
States is still the land of opportunity. This might be particu-
larly fitting in the bicentennial year. It also coincides with
President Ford's effort to turn the American people away from
recriminations and despair about the past to the hope and oppor-
tunities which America offers for the future.
I have discussed this with Elliot Richardson who reacted favor-
ably and encouraged me to talk with you and with authorities in
the State of California and in the Justice Department. At this
stage, I have done nothing more than to make the preliminary
contact with you; and as I understood it, you would prefer to
make some discreet soundings of your own prior to my doing any-
thing further.
I am convinced that if the proper circumstances can be created
for Cleaver's return to the United States, the fact of his vol-
untary return and the public statements he would make as to why
he was returning could, coming from him, have a significant im-
pact in bolstering confidence in the United States not only among"s
Americans but abroad as well.
As for my own role, while I am not a criminal lawyer, it occur-
LIBRARY
red to me that it might be better for me to represent Mr. Cleaver in
LAW OFFICES
SAMUEL PISAR
Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft
May 5, 1975
Page Three
this matter rather than having the usual radical representa-
tion. I would gladly play such a role -- without publicity --
if there is any public interest in the course of action I am
suggesting in this letter.
I will await word from you regarding your preliminary sound-
ings and, if they are positive, perhaps you could suggest what
next steps should be taken. The American Embassy in Paris knows
how to contact me so that if you wishto use that channel of
communication, please do SO. I would only suggest that in that
case, you slug your messages "eyes only" for Galen Stone, who
is the DCM, or Bill Connett, Chief of the Consular section, in
order to preserve the confidentiality of the exchanges because
I don't believe publicity will be helpful.
With many thanks for your assistance and best personal regards
to you.
Sincerely yours,
CAUL
CFS:tj
Carl F. Salans
FORD as LIBRARY
Justice
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE
ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
6/18
Phil- -
FYI as per
telecom. -
George
GERATO R. FORD
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
June 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LYNN MAY
STAFF ASSISTANT
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
FROM:
GEORGE B. TRUBOW
KA
SUBJECT:
DOJ Proposed Regulations
This brief memorandum presents what I consider to be
the three main issues that must be resolved before any
plan for a national criminal justice information system
can be considered or even proposed. The issues are:
1. The need for a CCH message-switching system
measured against its cost.
2. The configuration and management of any
such system in terms of Federal-State
relations.
3. How to provide for privacy and security
in system design and operation.
None of these preliminary issues is addressed in the
DOJ plan currently circulating, even though resolution
of these questions will help define the configuration
of such a system. However, the DOJ regs, effective
June 19, 1975, lay the foundation for the Department
to implement its plan if it so chooses. The regs also
make a decision on the question of "dedicated systems,
a debate that has been raging for some time.
The focus in this memorandum is on the message switching
plan and the dedication issue. The privacy guidelines
in the regs (subparts A and B) are not discussed since
I believe they will suffice as an interim measure until
the passage of criminal justice information legislation
SERALD LIBRARY
- 2 -
1.
Cost-effectiveness of a CCH system.
a. Need. A recent GAO report, though based
upon limited data, indicated very little
use of CCH data by law enforcement agencies.
Such a finding is not surprising, since
police departments ought not to base arrest
decisions on someone's prior record; the
current NCIC wanted persons and stolen
property data are probably sufficient for
law enforcement purposes. If this is in
fact so, then the questions are:
i.
Who needs CCH information for what
purposes?
ii.
What will be the system requirements
from the standpoint of courts and
corrections?
iii. Is there need for a real-time system?
b. Cost. A further question that needs to be
answered is what are the comparative costs
to meet the identified needs as between
various options:
i.
Upgrading NLETS;
ii.
Upgrading NCIC;
iii. Establishing a new or separate system.
NOTE: If the Department desires a message-switching
capability for its regional offices, something it does
not now have and that would become possible through
implementing its proposed plan, the capability should
be established on FBI need, and not by piggybacking on
CCH exchange capability.
2. Configuration and Management
a. Federal State Relations. If at least
70% of CCH information is from State
and local government, that argues
&
FORD
persuasively, and perhaps conclusivel
that a national information system
AGERALD
should be subject to the policy control
LIBRARY
- 3 -
of State and local government. Thus,
whether or not the index or pointer
or switch were physically within the
facilities of a Federal, State, or
independently established agency,
policy and operation oversight should
be under State-local control. The
nature, composition, and authority of
such an appropriate supervisory board
must be carefully considered. Both
NLETS and NCIC have advisory/supervisory
boards comprised largely of system
operators as distinguished from persons
in policy-making roles.
b. Dedication. The dedication requirement
should not be mandated. There is no
privacy/security benefit from a dedicated
system that could not be achieved from
a properly designed, shared system.
Dedication cannot be justified on privacy
grounds. Therefore, it ought to be within
the discretion of State and local authorities
whether they dedicate their own systems. The
Feds should not mandate it.
3. Privacy/Security in System Design and Operation
a. The Administration has expressed policy
(witness FEDNET) against a central national
data bank. Thus, any system design, whether
operated by the Feds, States, or an independent
entity, should not, in effect, establish a
national data bank.
b. Any system should be subject to independent
audit "and monitoring. System managers should
not have audit control.
CORD
OSHALD
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE
ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
6/18
Phil-
1
FYI as per
telecom, -
Garge
FORD LIBRARY GERALD
DOMESTIC COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20504
June 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LYNN MAY
STAFF ASSISTANT
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
FROM:
GEORGE B. TRUBOW
X
SUBJECT:
DOJ Proposed Regulations
This brief memorandum presents what I consider to be
the three main issues that must be resolved before any
plan for a national criminal justice information system
can be considered or even proposed. The issues are:
1. The need for a CCH message-switching system
measured against its cost.
2. The configuration and management of any
such system in terms of Federal-State
relations.
3. How to provide for privacy and security
in system design and operation.
None of these preliminary issues is addressed in the
DOJ plan currently circulating, even though resolution
of these questions will help define the configuration
of such a system. However, the DOJ regs, effective
June 19, 1975, lay the foundation for the Department
to implement its plan if it so chooses. The regs also
make a decision on the question of "dedicated systems,"
a debate that has been raging for some time.
The focus in this memorandum is on the message switching
plan and the dedication issue. The privacy guidelines
in the regs (subparts A and B) are not discussed since
I believe they will suffice as an interim measure until
GRD
the passage of criminal justice information legislation.
LIBRARY
- 2 -
1.
Cost-effectiveness of a CCH system.
a. Need. A recent GAO report, though based
upon limited data, indicated very little
use of CCH data by law enforcement agencies.
Such a finding is not surprising, since
police departments ought not to base arrest
decisions on someone's prior record; the
current NCIC wanted persons and stolen
property data are probably sufficient for
law enforcement purposes. If this is in
fact so, then the questions are:
i.
Who needs CCH information for what
purposes?
ii.
What will be the system requirements
from the standpoint of courts and
corrections?
iii. Is there need for a real-time system?
b. Cost. A further question that needs to be
answered is what are the comparative costs
to meet the identified needs as between
various options:
i.
Upgrading NLETS;
ii.
Upgrading NCIC;
iii. Establishing a new or separate system.
NOTE: If the Department desires a message-switching
capability for its regional offices, something it does
not now have and that would become possible through
implementing its proposed plan, the capability should
be established on FBI need, and not by piggybacking on
CCH exchange capability.
2. Configuration and Management
a. Federal State Relations. If at least
70% of CCH information is from State
and local government, that argues
persuasively, and perhaps conclusively,
that a national information system
BERALD FORD LIBRAN,
should be subject to the policy control
- 3 -
of State and local government. Thus,
whether or not the index or pointer
or switch were physically within the
facilities of a Federal, State, or
independently established agency,
policy and operation oversight should
be under State-local control. The
nature, composition, and authority of
such an appropriate supervisory board
must be carefully considered. Both
NLETS and NCIC have advisory/supervisory
boards comprised largely of system
operators as distinguished from persons
in policy-making roles.
b. Dedication. The dedication requirement
should not be mandated. There is no
privacy/security benefit from a dedicated
system that could not be achieved from
a properly designed, shared system.
Dedication cannot be justified on privacy
grounds. Therefore, it ought to be within
the discretion of State and local authorities
whether they dedicate their own systems. The
Feds should not mandate it.
3. Privacy/Security in System Design and Operation
a. The Administration has expressed policy
(witness FEDNET) against a central national
data bank. Thus, any system design, whether
operated by the Feds, States, or an independent
entity, should not, in effect, establish a
national data bank.
b. Any system should be subject to independent
audit and monitoring. System managers should
not have audit control.
BERALE FORD LISEARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
JUNA
WASHINGTON
June 24, 1975
Dear Mr. Anthony:
Thank you for your telegram concerning the Office of National
Priority Programs in the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (LEAA). We have checked with the LEAA
which assures us that the program continues to have a top
priority, and that while organizational changes cannot be
ruled out, the substance of this program is considered
important and will continue.
Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
Thily W.Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Mark Anthony
3808 Riverside Drive
Burbank, California 91505
TURD LIBRARY
2
3
465
S
The White House
1
Washington
2
3
WHA#11(1245) (2-022194E171)PB 06/20/75, 1245
4
ICS IPMRNCZ CSP
5
1975 JUN 20 PM 1 57
6
2138486646 TORN BURBANK CA 76406-20 1245P EST
7
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
8
9
WHITE HOUSE BC 20500
10
ATTENTION PHILLIP BUCHEN COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
11
12
IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LAW
13
14
ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION IS REORGANIZING, AND, EITHER
15
ABOLISHING OR ALTERING THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL PRIORITY PROGRAMS.
16
THIS IS A TREMENDOUS ERROR. I WORKED WITH THAT OFFICE TO MAKE
17
13
SEVERAL CITIZENS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS WHICH ARE SUPERB.
19
THESE PROGRAMS HOUSE YOUR PRIORITIES, AND CANNOT BE MOVED TO THE
20
21
BASEMENT OF THE BUREAUCRACY
22
MARK ANTHONY 3898 RIVERSIDE DR BURBANK CA 915#5
23
24 NNNN
25
26
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY