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 This would involve the court in nothing more than are included in the list of authorities, and the courts have these documents to the Senate. The court has said, that is an advisory opinion, we 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 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 . 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 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 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 The statute itself, and presumably Judge Hastings, conclusive ground to suppress that. That is identified as the source of this |