himself and to the public at large

disclosure should not be

made to the Committee. The requests of the Committee and of Judge Hastings raise separate and independent issues. Each must be considered on its own merits. There is absolutely no basis, and Judge Hastings cites no authority, for conditioning the Committee's right of access on reciprocal access by Judge Hastings or the public.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives respectfully requests that the Orders of August 5, 1987, and September 21, 1987 be affirmed in all respects, and that no further stays be granted.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellee was sent to the following individuals in the manner indicated below, this 22nd day of October, 1987.

STATEMENTS REGARDING PREFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENTS

The court has already determined that the oral argument should be heard and has established an expedited briefing

schedule.

I.

THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST DID NOT DEMON-
STRATE A NEED SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
COURT'S ORDER AUTHORIZING DISCLOSURE OF
THE RECORDS OF GRAND JURY 81-1. ...

12

12

13

A. THE RULE OF SECRECY MUST BE APPLIED
TO MINIMIZE THE INCENTIVES AND OP-
PORTUNITIES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
TO MISUSE THE GRAND JURY'S POWERS
ΤΟ INVESTIGATE AN ARTICLE III
JUDGE'S CONDUCT IN OFFICE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COMPILING A RECORD THAT
MAY STIMULATE OR SUPPORT AN IM-
PEACHMENT INQUIRY IF THE EXECUTIVE
IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AN INDICTMENT
OR A CONVICTION IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO PROTECT
THE INDENDENCE OF THE COURTS AND
MAINTAIN THE PROPER SEPARATION
AMONG THE EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGISLATIVE POWERS.
... 13

Page