1

said including but limited to, and upon reflection it would

2

seem to me any orders, we don't know what is in the file,

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

but if Judge Hastings entered orders in that connection we
would seek them also.

They, it seems to me, would fall within

applications and orders, because I assume, for example, he

would have entered an order extending the wiretap because
they got a 30-day extension.

The test for that is good cause, and we submit that
the good cause exists by virtue of the following. It is
clear that the House of Representatives is conducting and
has been conducting an ongoing investigation of Judge
Hastings' conduct concerning whether or not articles of
impeachment should lie.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has
advised the court that the committee has received
information suggesting that Judge Hastings may have made an

unauthorized disclosure of Title III wiretap material and

the letter lays out to some extent the nature of the
information which has come to the attention of the
committee.

We believe that that in itself constitutes just cause. The committee has an obligation to investigate Judge Hastings' conduct, these are serious allegations, indeed the 25 seriousness of the allegation is to some extent underscored

60

1

2

3

5

by reference to certain materials which Judge Hastings
through counsel has filed with this court this morning, and

that is the fact that it is serious enough that the matter
is now under consideration by the Eleventh Circuit

investigating committee which has been composed by Judge

6

7

9

Roney and two other judges to investigate these very same
allegations.

Now, we certainly take the position that these two
investigations are not mutually exclusive, they can go on
side by side here. We have different agendas, different
11 issues, different ways of going about doing our business,

10

23

13

12

but certainly it underscores the seriousness of the

14

15

allegation.

We also would point out in support of our position that we have shown good cause, is that the Department of

16 Justice which is thoroughly familiar with these materials,

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

probably more familiar than anyone else, has supported our
position that we ought to receive the relevant materials
contained within the papers that pertain to this wiretap.

So, we believe that we have shown good cause by any
relevant test that we're aware of which would justify the
court in making these materials available.

THE COURT: Well, now, before you proceed, you say you want something else. You've prepared an order stating specifically what you want. I haven't entered that order.

Correct.

Now, is it your position today you want

to amend that draft in any way?

MR. BARON;

Well, the way we drafted the order

again, if Your Honor will remember, we're doing this

somewhat in the dark since we don't know what is there.

We did it on the basis that the documents which

relate to the possible improper disclosure by Judge Hastings
of information generated by the electronic surveillance, the
documents shall include but are not limited to.

One more specific I think that we would put in are

any orders entered by Judge Hastings in connection with that
surveillance.

We tried to make it sort of a catch-all as to the
limited area we're interested in and then those specifics

that we believed existed.

THE COURT: Well, I suspect this is written -- when
you write all documents, that is probably broad enough.
MR. BARON: Frankly, again, we're groping in the
dark. We really don't know what is there.

With regard to the transcripts, they raise a

slightly different issue.

Pirst and foremost, it seems to me the whole

question of whether or not we're entitled to the transcripts
raises the question of Judge Hastings' standing to contest

62

1

our right to the transcript.

Judge Hastings clearly is not

2

an aggrieved party, and that is a term under the statute.

5

6

7

9

10

Under that section the statute requires that he has to be a party to the intercepted communication, and that is clearly not the case here, or he has to be a person against

whom the interception was directed, and it is clear also that he was not a person against whom the interception was directed.

So, we submit respectfully that Judge Hastings has

no standing to come before this court to contest our right to obtain these documents -- these transcripts. He is

simply not an aggrieved party.

If we look at the statutory language, it is quite clear. There are two types of aggrieved parties. Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

Hastings simply is neither one of them.

In his opposition he also cites would give the citation to the court, United States versus

Cruz, it is a case I came across after we had submitted our

list, U.S. v. Cruz, that's C-r-u-z, 594 F.2d 268.

THE COURT: Just a minute, please.

MR. BARON: U.S. v. Cruz, C-r-u-z, 594 F.2d 268,

First Circuit, 1979.

In addition, we cited to a proposed amendment that

was offered by Senator Phillip Hart back in 1968 to Title

1

2

III. It's Amendment Number 758. He would have added to the
statute the following language, "Or a person against whom

the communication or evidence derived therefrom is sought to

be used, so that he would have expanded the concept of who

could be an aggrieved party, it would be someone whose
conversation was picked up or someone against whan it was
directed, or a third category, someone against whom you
proposed to use the communication.

That amendment was rejected. That is specifically

the category that Judge Hastings arguably might fall in and

that was specifically rejected by the Congress.

If I may, I don't know how readily accessible the
Congressional Record is to the court. I would offer to the

court that amendment.

THE COURT: Do you have a copy for Mr. Anderson?
MR. BARON: I believe we do have an extra copy in

our materials.

THE COURT: Well, I would like to have a copy of
that, but I would like Mr. Anderson to have a copy of it.
MR. BARON: I am quite certain we have it, we just

have to dig it out.

The language would have expanded it to cover, as I

have indicated, and that was rejected.

If I may offer it to the court.

THE COURT: Yes.

64