Sd B4 Research- General 1 Of 2 Fdr- Entire Contents- Code- Law- Court Docs- Eos- Info- 1st Pgs For Ref

TITLE 49 , SUBTITLE II, CHAPTER 11 , SUBCHAPTER II, Sec. 1114.

Page 1 of 5

LIT legal information institute

us CODE COLLECTION

collection home TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE II > CHAPTER 11 > SUBCHAPTER II > Sec. 1114.

Prev I Next

Search this title:

Sec. 1114. - Disclosure, availability, and use of information (a) General. -

(1) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (f) of this section, a copy of a record, information, or investigation submitted or received by the National Transportation Safety Board, or a member or employee of the Board, shall be made available to the public on identifiable request and at reasonable cost. This subsection does not require the release of information described by section 552(b) of title 5 or protected from disclosure by another law of the United States.

Search Title 49

Notes Updates Parallel authorities (CFR) Topical references

(2) The Board shall deposit in the Treasury amounts received under paragraph (1) to be credited to the appropriation of the Board as offsetting collections. (b) Trade Secrets. -

(1) The Board may disclose information related to a trade secret referred to in section 1905 of title 18 only (A)

to another department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government when requested for official use; (B)

to a committee of Congress having jurisdiction over the subject matter to which the information is

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/! 114.html

5/24/2004

7

Ch. 33

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

28 §537

"(g) Effective date.—The provisions of this section shall be effective on, January 1,1989." . :

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States. "Sec. 3. Effective date. "This Act shall take effect on July 1,1989."

§ 535.

Investigation of crimes involving Government officers and employees; limitations ; (a) The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may investigate any-violation of title 18 involving Government officers and employees— (1) notwithstanding any other provision of law;

Rulemaking Relating to Authorization of Access to Federal Criminal Information Databases Section 40601(b) of Pub.L. 103-322 provided that: "The Attorney General may make rules to carry out the subsection added to section 534 of title 28, United States Code, by subsection (a) [subsec. (e) of this section], after consultation with the officials charged with managing the National Crime Information Center and the Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board."

and

Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988 Section 7332 of Pub.L. 100-690 provided that: "(a) Short Title.—This section [this note] may be cited as the 'Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988'. "(b) Definitions.—For purposes of this section, the term 'Uniform Crime Reports' means the reports authorized under section 534 of title 28, United States Code [this section], and administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation which compiles nationwide criminal statistics for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management and to assess the nature and type of crime in the United States, "(c) Establishment of system.— "(1) In general.—The Attorney General shall acquire, collect, classify, and preserve national data on Federal criminal offenses as part of the Uniform Crime Reports. "(2) Reporting by Federal agencies.—All departments and agencies within the Federal government (including the Department of Defense) which routinely investigate complaints of criminal activity, shall report details about crime within their respective jurisdiction to the Attorney General in a uniform manner and on a form prescribed by the Attorney General. The reporting required by this subsection shall be limited to the reporting of those crimes comprising the Uniform Crime Reports. "(3) Distribution of data.—The Attorney General shall distribute data received pursuant to paragraph (2), in the form of annual Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, to the President, Members of the Congress, State governments, and officials of localities and penal and other institutions participating in the Uniform Crime Reports program. "(d) Role of Federal Bureau of Investigation.—The Attorney General may designate the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the lead agency for purposes of performing the functions authorized by this section and may appoint or establish such advisory and oversight boards as may be necessary to assist the Bureau in ensuring uniformity, quality, and maximum use of the data collected. "(e) Inclusion of offenses involving illegal drugs.—The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to classify offenses involving illegal drugs and drug trafficking as a part I crime in the Uniform Crime Reports. "(f) Authorization of appropriations.—There are authorized to be appropriated $350,000 for fiscal year 1989 and such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section after fiscal year 1989.

(2) without limiting the authority to investigate any matter which is conferred on them or on a department or agency of the Government. (b) Any information, allegation, or complaint received in a department or agency of the executive branch of the Government relating to violations of title 18 involving Government officers and employees shall be expeditiously reported to the Attorney General by the head of the department or agency, unless— (1) the responsibility to perform an investigation with respect thereto is specifically assigned otherwise by another provision of law; or (2) as to any department or agency of the Government, the Attorney General directs otherwise with respect to a specified class of information, allegation, or complaint. (c) This section does not limit— (1) the authority of the military departments to investigate persons or offenses over which the armed forces have jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10); or (2) the primary authority of the Postmaster General to investigate postal offenses. (Added Pub.L. 89-554, § 4(c), Sept. 6,1966, 80 Stat. 616.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Transfer of Functions The office of Postmaster General of the Post Office Department was abolished and all functions, powers, and duties of the Postmaster General were transferred to the United States Postal Service by Pub.L. 91-375, § 4(a), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 773, set out as a note under section 201 of Title 39, Postal Service. § 536. Positions in excepted service All positions in the Federal Bureau of Investigation are excepted from the competitive service, and the incumbents of such positions occupy positions in the excepted service. (Added Pub.L. 89-554, § 4(c), Sept. 6,1966, 80 Stat. 617.) § 537.

Expenses of unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character Appropriations for the Federal Bureau of Investigation are available for expenses of unforeseen emergen-

Complete Annotation Materials, see Title 28 U.S.C.A. 739

FEDweek- Putting Federal Employees and Retirees First

Page 1 of 2

Hot Free Info: Political Activity Restrictions on Federal Employees

With the campaigning season just ahead, it's important for federal and postal employees to understand which activities are permissible and which are not. Under the 1939 Hatch Act, federal employees and certain state and local government employees face restrictions on their ability to participate in political activities. Although Congress amended the Hatch Act in 1993 to permit more political activity by federal government employees, many restrictions still apply. The Hatch Act is enforced by the Office of Special Counsel. That office issues advisories for employees who are uncertain whether their activities fall under the law's coverage. OSC's Hatch Act unit provides advisory opinions, enabling individuals to determine whether their contemplated political activities are permitted under the act. The Hatch Act unit refers cases to one of OSC's three Investigation and Prosecution Divisions for possible prosecution. Depending on the severity of the violation, OSC will either issue a warning letter to the employee, or prosecute a violation before the Merit Systems Protection Board Penalties for violations range up to and including firing. Inquiries about the Hatch Act may be made to: Hatch Act Unit, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 201, Washington, D.C. 20036-4505, Phone: (800) 854-2824; (202) 653-7143. Requests for Hatch Act advisory opinions (only) may be made by e-mail to: [email protected]. With the 1993 amendments, many federal employees are now permitted to take a more active part in political management or in political campaigns. However, certain federal agencies and categories of employees continue to be covered by the tighter restrictions on political activities predating that reform. These agencies and categories are: Administrative Law Judges; Central Imagery Office; Central Intelligence Agency; Contract Appeals Boards; Criminal Division (Department of Justice); Defense Intelligence Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Federal Elections Commission; Merit Systems Protection Board; National Security Agency; National Security Council; Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service); Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service); Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); Office of Special Counsel; Secret Service; and Senior Executive Service (certain career positions). Hatch Act restrictions do not apply to retirees. Employees Covered by the 1993 Amendments May: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections; register and vote as they choose; assist in voter registration drives; express opinions about candidates and issues; contribute money to political organizations; attend political fundraising functions; attend and be active at political rallies and meetings; join and be an active member of a political party or club; sign nominating petitions; campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, or municipal ordinances; campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections; make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections; distribute campaign literature in partisan elections; and hold office in political clubs or parties.

http://www.fedweek.com/printpage.asp?table=hotnews&date=3/31/04

4/6/2004

FOCUS - 6 of 75 DOCUMENTS IN RE: SEALED CASE No. 98-3069 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 331 U.S. App. D.C. 219; 148 F.3d 1073; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15132; 49 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 458 June 26,1998, Argued July 7,1998, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Bane Denied July 16, 1998, Reported at: 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 16305.

JUDGES: Before: WILLIAMS, GINSBURG, and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges. OPINION:

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 98ms00148). DISPOSITION: Affirmed. LexisNexis (TM) HEADNOTES - Core Concepts: COUNSEL: Stephen W. Preston, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellant, with whom Janet Reno, Attorney General, Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Michael S. Raab, and Maria Simon, Attorneys, were on the briefs. Kenneth W. Starr, Independent Counsel, argued the cause for appellee United States, with whom Michael L. Travers, Associate Independent Counsel, was on the brief. Arnold I. Burns and Warren L. Dennis were on the brief for amici curiae in support of the United States Secret Service. William P. Barr, Griffin B. Bell, and Jonathan Turley were on the brief for amici curiae former Attorneys General of the United States.

[*1074] PER CURIAM: During depositions conducted by the Office of the Independent Counsel as part of grand jury proceedings, officers of the United States Secret Service [**2] refused to answer certain questions on the ground that the information sought was protected from disclosure by a "protective function privilege." When the QIC filed a motion in federal district court to compel their testimony, the Secret Service, through the Attorney General, again asserted a protective function privilege, which by that time had been officially invoked by the Secretary of the Treasury, the cabinet officer who oversees the Secret Service. The district court refused to recognize the protective function privilege and granted the motion to compel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. We note at the outset, however, that the question before the court today is whether Secret Service officers can be compelled to testify before a federal grand jury. We express no opinion about the propriety of asserting a protective function privilege in other legal proceedings. I. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review As a general rule, in order to obtain appellate review of a district court's order to testify, a witness must first disobey the order and be held in contempt. See United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533, 29 L. Ed. 2d 85, 91 S. Ct. 1580 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 328, 84 L. Ed. 783, 60 S. Ct. 540 (1940). [**3] When someone other than the witness holds the

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary February 6, 2004

President George W Bush

Executive Order Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Establishment. There is established, within the Executive Office of the President for administrative purposes, a Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (Commission). Sec. 2. Mission, (a) The Commission is established for the purpose of advising the President in the discharge of his constitutional authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct foreign relations, protect national security, and command the Armed Forces of the United States, in order to ensure the most effective counter-proliferation capabilities of the United States and response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activity. The Commission shall assess whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support United States Government efforts to respond to, the development and transfer of knowledge, expertise, technologies, materials, and resources associated with the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century and their employment by foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks, or other entities or individuals). In doing so, the Commission shall examine the capabilities and challenges of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of such foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century. (b) With respect to that portion of its examination under paragraph 2(a) of this order that relates to Iraq, the Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community's intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and related means of delivery. (c) With respect to its examination under paragraph 2(a) of this order, the Commission shall: (i) specifically evaluate the challenges of obtaining information regarding the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century in closed societies; and (ii) compare the Intelligence Community's intelligence concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction programs and other related threats of the 21st Century in Libya prior to Libya's recent decision to open its programs to inter-national scrutiny and in Afghanistan prior to removal of the Taliban government with the current assessments of organizations examining those programs.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED Date: 03/14/95 Category:

6 - Public Affairs

OPR: OIT

Title: AR 6-2 AGENCY REVIEW OF MATERIAL INTENDED FOR NONOFFICIAL PUBLICATION CL BY:, CL REASON: Section 1.5, DECL ON: OADR, DRV FROM:

2. AGENCY REVIEW OF MATERIAL INTENDED FOR NONOFFICIAL PUBLICATION SYNOPSIS. This regulation sets forth policy and procedures that govern the submission and review of material intended for nonofficial publication by current and former Agency employees and others obligated to protect from unauthorized disclosure certain information they obtain as a result of their affiliation with CIA. It also reflects the responsibilities for prepublication review of the Publications Review Board ("PRB" or "Board") and other Agency components. a. AUTHORITY. The National Security Act of 1947, as amended; the CIA Act of 1949, as amended; and Executive Order 12333 require the Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. Executive Order 12356 requires protection of classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Employees and others who have been authorized access to information the public disclosure of which could harm the national security incur special obligations to protect such information. These obligations have been embodied in secrecy agreements. b, GENERAL (1) Based on the above obligations and responsibilities, this regulation requires all current and former Agency employees, and others obligated by contract, to submit for prior review by CIA all materials (defined in paragraph f(l) and (2) below) intended for nonofficial publication.* This regulation also establishes standards for review. (2) It is the Agency's policy to adopt and implement all lawful measures to protect from unauthorized disclosure information which, if disclosed, could damage the national security, and to ensure that individuals given access to such information understand and

UNCLASSIFIED

28 § 1745

PROCEDURE

1744 of this title are prima facie evidence of their contents and of the dates indicated on their face. (June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 948, § 1746; renumbered § 1745 and amended May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 92(d), (e), 63 Stat. 103; Oct. 3, 1964, Pub.L. 88-619, § 7(a), 78 Stat. 996; Nov. 29, 1999, Pub.L. 106-113, Div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [Title IV, § 4732(b)(16)], 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-585.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Effective and Applicability Provisions 1999 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 106-113 [§ 4732], effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see Pub.L. 106-113 [§ 4731], set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35. Change of Name Patent Office redesignated Patent and Trademark Office by section 3 of Pub.L. 93-596, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents. Prior Provisions A prior section 1745, Act June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 948, related to printed copies of patent specifications and drawings, prior to repeal by Act May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 92(d), 63 Stat. 103. § 1746.

Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certifi-

Parts

cate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be_ taken before a specified official other than a notary public). such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: (1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)". (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)". (Added Pub.L. 94-550,< l(a), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Prior Provisions A prior section 1746 was renumbered section 1745 of this title by Act May 24,1949.

CHAPTER 117—EVIDENCE; DEPOSITIONS Sec. 1781. Transmittal of letter rogatory or request. 1782. Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals. 1783. Subpoena of person in foreign country. 1784. Contempt. [1785. Repealed.] HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Deposition in Admiralty Cases Prior to the general unification of civil and admiralty procedure and the rescission of the Admiralty Rules on July 1, 1966, Revised Statutes, §§ 863 to 865, as amended, which related to depositions de bene esse, when and how taken, notice, mode of taking, and transmission to court, provided as follows: "Sec. 863. The testimony of any witness may be taken in any civil cause depending in a district court by deposition de bene esse, when the witness lives at a greater distance from the place of trial than one hundred miles, or is bound on a voyage to sea, or is about to go out of the United States, or out of the district in which the case is to be tried, and to a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of trial, before the time of trial, or when he is ancient and infirm. The deposition may be taken before any judge of

any court of the United States, or any clerk of a district court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a supreme or superior court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, judge of a county court or court of common pleas of any of the United States, or any notary public, not being of counsel or attorney to either of the parties, nor interested in the event of the cause. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such deposition, to the opposite party or his attorney of record, as either may be nearest, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition; and in all cases in rem, the person having the agency or possession of the property at the time of seizure shall be deemed the adverse party, until a claim shall have been put in; and whenever, by reason of the absence from the district and want of an attorney of record or other reason, the giving of the notice herein required shall be impracticable, it shall be lawful to take such depositions as there shall be urgent necessity for taking, upon such notice as any judge authorized to hold courts in such district shall think reasonable and direct. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose as provided by this section, in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in court. "Sec. 864. Every person deposing as provided in the preceding section [R.S. § 863] shall be cautioned and sworn to testify the whole truth, and carefully examined.

Complete Annotation Materials, see Title 28 U.S.C.A. 900

Page 1 of 1

TITLE 18 , PART I , CHAPTER 93 , Sec. 1913.

LIT legal information institute'

US CODE COLLECTION

collection home

Prev | Next

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 93 > Sec. 1913.

Search this title:

Sec. 1913. - Lobbying with appropriated moneys No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.

I

Search Title 18

]

Notes Updates Parallel authorities (CFR) Topical references

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, violates or attempts to violate this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and after notice and hearing by the superior officer vested with the power of removing him, shall be removed from office or employment Prev I Next

http://www4.law.cornell.edU/uscode/l 8/1913 .html

1/6/2004

Page 1 of3

TITLE 49 , SUBTITLE II, CHAPTER 11 , SUBCHAPTER IV , Sec. 1154.

LII legal information institute

US CODE COLLECTION

collection home TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE II > CHAPTER 11 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 1154.

Prev I Next

Search this title:

Sec. 1154. - Discovery and use of cockpit voice and other material (a) Transcripts and Recordings. -

Search Title 49

(1) Except as provided by this subsection, a party in a judicial proceeding may not use discovery to obtain -

Notes Updates Parallel authorities

LCFR)

(A)

Topical references

any part of a cockpit voice recorder transcript that the National Transportation Safety Board has not made available to the public under section 1114(c) of this title; and (B)

a cockpit voice recorder recording. (2) (A)

Except as provided in paragraph (4)(A) of this subsection, a court may allow discovery by a party of a cockpit voice recorder transcript if, after an in camera review of the transcript, the court decides that

(i)

the part of the transcript made available to the public under section lll_4(c) of this title does not provide the party with sufficient information for the party to receive a fair trial; and

discovery of additional parts of the transcript is

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/! 154.html

1/12/2004

1 of 99 DOCUMENTS FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 68, No. 174 Proposed Rules EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 5 CFR Part 300 RIN 3206-AK05 Employment (General) 68 FR 53054

DATE: Tuesday, September 9, 2003 ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed regulation regarding the detail of executive branch employees to the legislative branch. The purpose of the revision is to set forth guidelines for executive branch detailees to the legislative branch. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2003. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Ms. Leah M. Meisel, Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity Policy, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 6551, Washington, DC 20415-9700; email [email protected]; fax: (202) 606-2329. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael J. Mahoney by telephone on 202-606-0960, by FAX 202-606-2329, or by TDD on 202-418-3134, e-mail [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is issuing proposed regulations under 5 U.S.C. 1103, setting forth guidelines for executive branch detailees to the legislative branch. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to maintain the separation of powers under the Constitution and prevent conflicts of interest among the branches and individuals involved. Regulatory Flexibility Act

LEXSEE121F3D729 In re: Sealed Case

No. 96-3124

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

326 U.S. App. D.C. 276; 121 F.3d 729; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 36786 February 20,1997, Argued June 17,1997, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] Unsealed and Unredacted Opinion Issued August 29, 1997. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 95ms00192). DISPOSITION: Vacated and Remanded for further proceedings. LexisNexis (TM) HEADNOTES - Core Concepts: COUNSEL: For In re: SEALED CASE: W. Neil Eggleston, Mark I. Levy, Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD. WALD, Circuit Judge: This case involves an effort by the Office of the Independent Counsel ("QIC") to compel performance of a subpoena duces tecum issued by the grand jury investigating former Secretary of Agriculture Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy ("Espy") and served on the Counsel to the President ("White House Counsel"). The White House provided several folders of documents to the OIC in response to the subpoena but withheld 84 documents as privileged. After ordering that the withheld documents be produced for in camera review, the district court upheld the White House's claims of privilege in full. We now vacate the district court's opinion and remand for the court to conduct a more detailed review of the documents consistent with the principles [**2] set out in this opinion. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background

JUDGES: Before: WALD, GINSBURG and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. OPINIONBY: WALD OPINION: [*734]

Allegations that Espy may have improperly accepted gifts from individuals and organizations with business before the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") first surfaced publicly in March of 1994. These allegations led to the appointment of an Independent Counsel, on September 9, 1994, to investigate whether Espy had unlawfully accepted gifts and related matters and to prosecute any related violations of federal law that the Independent Counsel reasonably believed had occurred. See In re Alphonso (Mike) Espy, No. 94-2

Get a Document - by Citation - 326 U.S. App. D.C. 276

Page 1 of 38

Service: Get by LEXSEE® Citation: 121 f3d 729

•^Select for FOCUS™ or Delivery

n 326 U.S. App. D.C. 276; 121 F.3d 729, *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 36786, **

In re: Sealed Case No. 96-3124 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 326 U.S. App. D.C. 276; 121 F.3d 729; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 36786

February 20, 1997, Argued June 17, 1997, Decided SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:

[**1]

Unsealed and Unredacted Opinion Issued August 29, 1997. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 95ms00192). DISPOSITION: Vacated and Remanded for further proceedings. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant Office of Independent Counsel (QIC) sought review of a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied a motion to compel performance of a subpoena duces tecum issued by the grand jury investigating a former secretary of agriculture and served on the counsel to the President. OVERVIEW: The QIC argued that the district court failed to provide any account of its reasoning in denying the QIC's motion to enforce the subpoena. Appellee, the White House, argued that the withheld documents came under the presidential communications privilege because they were generated in response to the President's request for advice on whether to retain a cabinet officer, one of the President's core functions under the U.S. Const, art. II. On appeal, the court held that the presidential communications privilege extended to communications authored by, or solicited and received by, presidential advisers and that a specified demonstration of need had to be made even in regard to a grand jury subpoena. However, the court held that the QIC demonstrated sufficient need in order to overcome the presidential communications privilege in regard to evidence of statements made by the former secretary of agriculture or his counsel, and that the OIC should have been given an opportunity to make out a sufficient showing of need in regard to other evidence more generally. Accordingly, the court vacated the decision of the district court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. OUTCOME: The court vacated the decision of the district court, which denied a motion to compel performance of a subpoena duces tecum. The court held that the presidential communications privilege extended to communications by presidential advisers, but that

http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=a876469a8139fe86bOd5a8ff641dl216&docnum...

4/29/03

Mail :: INBOX: Senate subpoena case

Page 1 of 14

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout

Open Folder

9.28MB / 476.84MB (1.95%)

INBOX: Senate subpoena case (1 of 93)

6®

Move i copy [This message to

Delete I Reply I Reply to All I Forward I Redirect I Blacklist I Message Source I Resume I Save as I Print

Back to INBOX

Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:45:36 -0400 From: rde©9-11 commission.gov9 To: sdunne® 9-11 commission.gov^ Cc: [email protected] Subject: Senate subpoena case

Here's the case I referred to in my prior e-mail . . .

LEXSEE 366 F. Supp. 51 SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, suing in its own name and in the name of the United States, and Sam J. Ervin, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard M. NIXON, Individually and as President of the United States, Defendant Civ.

A. No. 1593-73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 366 F. Supp. 51; 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11462 October 17, 1973

JUDGES: [**1] Sirica, Chief Judge. OPINIONBY: SIRICA OPINION: [*53]

SIRICA, Chief Judge.

The Court presently has before it a motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, established by Senate Resolution 60, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (1973), and the seven United States Senators who compose the Select Committee. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is defendant. The action is styled "Complaint for declaratory judgment, mandatory injunction and mandamus." Facts concerning the origin of this action are not controverted. The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (Select Committee) became a duly authorized and constituted committee of the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, "empowered to investigate and study 'illegal, improper or

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/niessage.php?index=201

5/12/03