2

opinion

3

5

7

10

11

12

13

2;

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Now, I take it both the Justice Department's

position that they would support a court request

or Mr. Baron's disclosure that the agents had declined to
talk absent that indicates that they cannot seriously be
predicating this on Section 2517 (1) as investigative officer
to investigative officer in connection with the performance
of their duty. If they are doing that, the only way to test
that issue is by a subpoena.

This would involve the court in nothing more than
rendering an advisory opinion in the grand jury cases that

are included in the list of authorities, and the courts have
declined to do that, where the Justice Department said, gee,
would you give us some advice as to whether we can give

these documents to the Senate.

The court has said, that is an advisory opinion, we
haven't done that since the opinion of the Justices for
President Washington, and so in that sense I don't think
this can be a claim that Congress authorized this under
2517 (1).

I think the NBC versus Department of Justice and 21 Oakland versus Detroit pretty clearly established that any disclosure under 2517 (3) can only be in testimonial

24

25

proceedings under oath, not for investigative use.

I emphasize it, and I will return to the point, but for the present moment the committee is seeking to ask this

91

1

court to stretch an act of Congress a bit beyond what I

2

3

think it may bear but it certainly is pushing it.

In the second instance, and this is a far more fundamental point, this is not a judicial exclusionary rule

16

8

9

10

improperly obtained and evidence derived therefrom," which

in this case would include the grand jury material, I
submit, shall not be used before," and they go on to a

11 listing that includes legislative committees,

127

13

14

157

16

Congress has prohibited a legislative committee

from receiving tainted information.

This committee wants this information but it does not want to afford an opportunity to find out whether it is tainted, and in that sense it is going against the will, the 17 declared will, of Congress acting under its legislative powers and the necessary and proper clause instructing this court, thou shall not release.

18

19

The Supreme Court in Gelber made it imminently clear that the function of that exclusionary rule is not to deter, merely to deter official misconduct in intercepting communications, it is to protect the integrity of the courts and the integrity of the privacy interests Congress legislatively declared.

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

Now, under 2515 I simply submit, unless -- this

court should not have to confront what is in effect a
conflict of powers between the assignment of the sole power
of impeachment to the House of Representatives and the
assignment of the legislative power to the Congress of the
United States as it bears upon the duty of this court to
adhere to that statute, it should not get into a conflict
between whether the House's power overrides a legislative
command absent pretty clear evidence that the House says,
yes, this is what we are investigating.

.

97

10

11

12 am sure the committee's library is vastly superior to mine 13 on impeachment matters, but I have been unable to find an

14

15

6

impeachment resolution or inquiry which has simply adopted
the sweep of. Judge Alcee L. Hastings shall be impeached for
high crimes and misdemeanors, period, full stop, end of
inquiry.

That is a frightening notion if the House

16

17

18

19

any member of the House with respect to any judge sitting on the bench could say, you know, we want to do an

inquiry from the beginning of time to the date of these here

1 resolution was directed at what he thought to be a

2

particularly seriously complaint from the Judicial

3

Conference of the United States. The matters into which the
committee now requests information are not pertinent in any
way to that particular request.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Beyond that. Your Honor, especially given the sweeping construction Your Honor has given the speech and debate clause, it seems to me Mr. Baron cannot argue that notice to Mr. Bonehill and to Mayor Clark at a minimum is not necessary to enable them to appear in these proceedings and seek to suppress.

If you give this information to the committee, the speech and debate clause would preclude the court from 14 pulling it back. You are either going to determine whether this information was properly intercepted and is subject to suppression in this court before disclosure is made or the issue is gone.

བྱ ཡཱ བི ཋ ཋ

21

22

23

Mr. Baron did not allude to when he thought it was that Mr. Bonehill could come in and assert the interest or Mayor Clark could come in and assert the interest, if he first obtained the information and could put it behind the shield of the speech and debate clause.

I think they're entitled to notice now. Once this 24 information is gone, it is gone, and I think they are 25 indispensible parties and must receive notice here.

98

4 identified as the object of an intercept. He is clearly an

11

aggrieved party.

It is my understanding that Mr. Bonehill is an attorney. It has been in the press often enough and I happen to know and would represent he is an attorney.

It is also my understanding that he represented

Kevin Gordon. It is my understanding the intercepted

conversation or the conversation between Mr. Gordon and Mr.

12 Bonehill is a conversation in which Mr. Gordon was seeking legal advice.

13

34

14

The statute, the Privacy Act, explicitly preserves

the privilege. The interception of a conversation shall not
destroy its privileged character.

The statute itself, and presumably Judge Hastings,
although I haven't seen an order, imposed a minimization
requirement. It seems to me very clear that there may be a
real problem here if a call through an intercept on Mr.
Gordon's phone intercepted a communication with his standing
attorney in which the topic of conversation was a request
for legal advice. Mr. Bonehill may have a very valid and

conclusive ground to suppress that.

That is identified as the source of this