vol. 38, no. 8

Impeachment Issue

interference in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg;

PRESIDENT RICHARD M. NIXON

Volume XXXVIII

ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union today

(October 4) called for the impeachment of

Richard M. Nixon.

The organization, pursuant to a vote by

its Board of Directors last Sunday, called

for the President's impeachment on six

grounds ``affecting civil liberties,''

including specific, proved violations of the

rights of political dissent; usurpation of

Congressional warmaking powers;

establishment of a personal secret police

which committed crimes; attempted

distortion of the system of justice; and

perversion of other federal agencies. Full

text of the ACLU's resolution follows:

RESOLUTION ON

IMPEACHMENT OF

BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OF THE AMERICAN

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

: San Francisco, October 1973

calls for impeachment _

HOWARD JEWEL announces unprecedented ACLU position on

impeachment at press conference: "The ACLU believes he should be

accomodated in his request."

No. 8

now constitute grounds for the

impeachment of the President, recent

polls show that a majority of Americans

believe a) that the President is involved in

Watergate and b) that he should not be

impeached. The public seems to feel that

impeachment is such a drastic measure

that ad hoc measures such as the

appointment of a special prosecutor and

investigation by a select Senate committee

are preferable. The President, against

these ad hoc measures, has properly raised

such defenses as executive privilege,

separation of powers, and inherent

powers of the presidency.

As it now stands, a plethora of `novel -

constitutional-law questions have started

on their tortuous way to the United States _

Supreme Court while public confidence in

government slowly erodes.

An important motivation behind

ACLU's_ resolution calling for

SEPTEMBER 30, 1973

WHEREAS, there is now substantial

public evidence of President. Nixon's

participation in high crimes and

misdemeanors; and, :

WHEREAS, these acts have violated

the civil liberties of the people of the

United States and the rule of law;

THEREFORE, the American Civil

Liberties Union calls upon the House of

Representatives of the Congress of the

United States to initiate impeachment

proceedings against Richard M. Nixon.

Impeachment should be predicated on

the following grounds affecting civil

liberties :

He and his closest aides have organized

and conducted a deliberate assault on civil

liberties by authorizing massive invasions

of the First Amendment rights of citizens

of the United States. On July 25, 1970,

he personally approved the Huston Plan

for domestic political surveillance and

espionage by such methods as burglary,

wiretapping and eavesdropping, mail

covers, and military spying on civilians.

These methods of political surveillance

were employed against dissenters, political

opponents, mews reporters, and

government employees. He and his aides

employed governmental powers to harrass

and punish critics of his administration

regarded by them as ``enemies.'' He and

his aides interfered with a free press

through the use of wiretaps, FBI

investigations, and threats of criminal

prosecutions. He secretly recorded

conversations in his own office without

advising the participants. He and his aides

interfered with the rights of peaceable

assembly and protest, as in the arrest of

thousands of persons on May Day 1971

and on many other occasions.

He has .ursurped the war-making

powers of Congress, as in the bombing of

neutral Cambodia, and he deliberately

concealed the bombing from Congress and

the people of the United States; and he has

announced he would do so again under

similar curcumstances.

He established within the White House

a personal secret police (``the Plumbers'')

operating outside the restraints of the law,

which engaged in criminal acts including

burglaries, warrantless wiretaps,

espionage and perjury.

He and a principal aide offered a high

federal post to the presiding judge during

the Ellsberg trial and for a prolonged

period he withheld from the Court

knowledge of the burglary of the office of

Dr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist. He and his

aides interfered with and distorted the

administration of justice through such acts _

as the effort to limit the scope of the FBI

investigation of the Watergate break-in.

He and his aides caused the politically

motivated and unjustified prosecutions of

dissenters.and corrupted the constitutional

function of grand juries to make them

instruments of political surveillance and

harrassment.

He has perverted and attempted to

pervert the operation of various federal

agencies, including the Department of

Justice, the National Security Council,

the Secret Service, the State Department,

the Defense Department, and the Central

Intelligence Agency by engaging them in

political surveillance and in the

falsification of information made available

to Congress and the American people.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD JEWEL

Northern California Delegate to

National ACLU Board and Vice-

Chairman of ACLU-NC

While the ACLU does not contend that

the revelations of Watergate (unlike the

established violations of civil liberties)

impeachment is the belief that this precise

constitutional formula provides a

relatively quick, just, and efficient

solution for airing the truth and resolving

the doubts of Watergate. Procedural and

separation of powers problems are solved

by the Constitution itself.

The House presents a resolution of

impeachment which forms the basis of the

charges which the Senate hears. The

President is free to present any evidence

he cares to. He can call witnesses, give his

own testimony, cross-examine witnesses,

etc., or he is free to present no evidence

whatever. The Senate then votes, with a

two-thirds vote required for conviction. If

convicted the only penalty is removal from

office and inability to hold further public

office. (The impeachment process has

been used 59 times in our history and has

resulted in only four convictions by the

Senate. About one half of those impeached

by the House resigned before any further

proceedings were had.)

The President in his brief filed in the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

argues, in effect, that he should be

impeached since this is the only

Constitutional remedy. Without agreeing

in his reasoning, the ACLU believes that

he should be accomodated in his request.

Washington Director is optimistic about impeachment

Charles Morgan, Jr. is a remarkable man and as one

ACLU staffer put it, `"I'm sure glad he's on our side and

not against us."' Morgan is the Director of the National

ACLU office in Washington, D.C., where he is in charge

of the ACLU pursuit of civil liberties in Congress and the

Federal Government. Obviously, that is no small job.

Morgan began working for ACLU in Birmingham,

Alabama in the early "60's where he was a leading figure

in the civil rights movement. He then became Director of

the ACLU Southern Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia

where he continued that work. He has been the attorney

on many of the ACLU's most famous cases in the past ten

year's and today he is still in the forefront of ACLU

activity. With the campaign for impeachment on, he

again is providing strong leadership. __

Ever since the Watergate related scandals began,

Morgan has been watchdogging the events for the sake of

civil liberties. He sought a new trial for the original

Watergate defendants, he criticized the lack of cross-

examination in the Senate hearings, he protested Judge (c)

Sirica's sentencing procedures, he defended Agnew

against leaks about his case to the press and he is

representing some of the people who Nixon had wiretaps -

placed on.

Just after the National ACLU Board passed the

impeachment resolution this month, Morgan was in San

`Francisco where he met with ACLU-NC staff, Board

members and Chapter representatives. During that

meeting, he explained why it is necessay to impeach

Richard Nixon.

He began by pointing out that the strategy and

direction of ACLU is and must continue changing

because the ``loss of the Supreme Court was the loss of

the major instrument available to the ACLU.' Today, he

says we face a judiciary that is less and less willing to

effect social change. ``It is the juries that are `opposing the

government and it is they that we must rely on in the

future. We have to move toward more jury trials.''

In 1964, 90 percent of the ACLU's cases were amicus

curiae and now 90 percent of them are direct

representations of clients. He said that we can no longer

be satisfied to simply file a piece of paper in which we

argue a lofty, ``pure'' civil liberties point and then walk

CHARLES MORGAN, Director of National ACLU's

Legislative Office, explains his views on impeachment at

meeting in San Francisco.

2 Oct.

-aclu NEWS

IMPEACHMENT

History and interpretations of impeachment

_ By Mike Callahan

""Impeachment'' is a largely misunderstood word in

our society and it is crucial that everyone who supports

impeachment proceedings against the President become

fully acquainted with the legal and historical background

of the process. We must all become experts on

impeachment.

Since the Civil War, impeachment has generally been.

considered a rather repugnant process. In the hundred

years since the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, that

affair has come to represent an unseemly event in our

history. Even through John F. Kennedy's Profiles in

Courage, the hero of that affair was Senator Ross who cast

the deciding vote against conviction. His action has been

interpreted as a brave stand against irrationality.

However, if we were Blacks in the 1860's we probably

would have condemned Senator Ross but Blacks have not _

been writing our history for the past hundred years.

More recently our attitudes concerning impeachment

have been shaped by the fact that the only serious calls for

impeachment have been lodged against Chief Justice Earl

Warren and Associate Justice William O. Douglas.

Obviously, the ACLU has been opposed to such calls for

impeachment and libertarian writers have generally

disparaged the process. Nevertheless, few people

understand the true nature of impeachment as a concept

separate from any specific political coritext.

The Constitutional language on impeachment is found

in Article III, Section 4. It reads:

`The President, Vice President and all civil

officers of the United States, shall be removed from

office by impeachment for and conviction of treason,

bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.''

Under Article I, Section 2, ``The House of

Representatives shall have the sole power of

impeachment.'' Article I, Section 3 states `The Senate

_ shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.''

PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE A KING

When the Constitutional Framers discussed the

impeachment clauses, they were looking at the model of

impeachment they knew from England. In _ that

monarchy, the king was above the law since all legislative

power emanated from him and therefore, impeachment

was effective only against the king's ministers.

Impeachments were brought by the House of Commons

and tried by the House of Lords. With the ascendance of

power of the House of Commons, impeachments had

_ become far more frequent but the Lords resisted a number

of convictions.

As a result, the lower house came to rely heavily on

Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws to achieve

removal of certain of the king's ministers. In other words, '

the House of Commons got around the impediment of a

trial by simply passing legislation which automatically

made the actions of any particular minister illegal and

therefore punishable. Naturally, great abuses arose to the

point that removal from office became purely a political

matter.

John Madison's notes from the discussion at the

Constitutional Convention indicate that the Framers were

aware of the problems presented by impeachment in

England and sought to avoid similar pitfalls here. He

. noted that Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws were

abolished because they provided no due process or fairness

whatsoever. He also said that it was clear that the Framers

specifically rejected the notion that the President be

exempt from removal from office since the sentiment was

clear that the President should in no way have protection

like that of a king.

Impeachment was considered to be the primary check

on the President's abuse of power. Also, Madison

stressed that the Framers took pains to remove the

impeachment process from the criminal justice system

and emphasized that the only punishment for

impeachment should be removal from office. In England,

the punishment was often death.

From the first days of the Republic there have been

conflicting interpretations of the scope- of the

impeachment power. Those who have argued for a broad

interpretation of the power contend that the phrase ""high

crimes and misdemeanors'' was not limited to indictable

or otherwise punishable offenses. For example Madison

felt that a President might be impeached and convicted for

incapacity, negligence, misuse-of his office or `"perfidy''.

If the President consistently removed meritorious persons

from office, that might lead to impeachment and removal,

according to Madison.

`Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 65 that the

standards for impeachment should ``never be tied down

by . . . strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense

by the prosecutors or in the construction of it by the

judges ...""

Some early political figures stretched this point of view

to what they considered its logical conclusion. They

contended that the impeachment power could be used to

~~ remove a federal officer for whatever reasons were ceo

sufficient to the House and the Senate.

This extreme point of view was reiterated by -

Republican minority leader Gerald C. Ford in his speech

of April 15, 1970 when he introduced a resolution to

impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

Ford said: ``What ...

whatever a majority of the House of Representatives

~ considers it to be at a given moment in history;

conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-

thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious

to require removal of the accused from office.''

59 IMPEACHMENTS, 4 CONVICTIONS

On the other side of the issue are those who insist that

' impeachment proceedings require the commission of a

criminal act by a public official. This point of view was

urged by the defense lawyers for President Andrew

Johnson, when he was impeached in 1868. Former

Surpeme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis said in defense of

Johnson: `"`my first position is, that when the

Constitution speaks of `treason, bribery or other high

crimes and misdemeanors', it refers to and includes only

high, criminal acts against the United States, made so by

some law of the United States. existing when the acts

complained of were done, and I say this is plainly to be

inferred from each and every provision of the Constitution

on the subject of impeachment.''

The history of the impeachment power has not resolved

the issue of whether criminal behavior is required. Since

1789, 59 impeachment resolutions have been introduced

into the House of Representative. All but three of the

_ federal officers considered for Pe were federal

judges.

The basis of the charges in 39 at the cases were bribery

and financial irregularity. The other 20 charges have been -

based on: violation of Congressional enactment, treason,

drunkenness, arbitrary rulings by a judge, misuse of

contempt power, and abusive conduct in court.

In 23 of the cases where charges were filed, the judge

or officer resigned before the charges were heard. In 25 of

the cases, the House did not pass Articles of

- Impeachment. That leaves 11 people who have been

impeached by the House. One of these resigned before

being tried in the Senate and 6 were found not guilty in

the Senate. That leaves four judges who have been

convicted by the Senate: two for financial irregularities,

one for treason and one for drunkenness.

The only public officers held for impeachment trial by

the Senate other than judges were Senator William

Blount in 1796, President Andrew Johnson in 1868, and

Secretary of War William W. Belknap in 1876. Blount

was impeached for plotting with England to invade

Spanish Florida. However the Senate concluded that

Senators could not be impeached, although they could be

expelled for improper actions. Belknap, who was involved

in the Whiskey. Ring scandals of the Grant

Administration, was impeached for bribery but he

resigned before the charges could be heard by the Senate.

_And President Johnson was impeached for violating the

Tenure of Office Act by trying to discharge his Secretary

of War, Edwin Stanton. (c)

IMPEACHMENT POWER STILL IN CONFUSION

Three of the judges impeached and removed did not

commit indictable offenses. One was removed for

drunkenness on the bench and two others engaged in such

questionable financial transactions that they were

removed from office. Judge Robert W. Archibald was

impeached and removed in 1913 because he ``accepted

loans'' from lawyers and clients and secured valuable

favors from railroad companies while their cases were:

before him. Federal Judge Halsted L. Ritter was

impeached and removed from office in 1936 for

continuing to collect fees from his old law firm which

represented a client in a case pending before him. Edward

Corwin commented about these cases:

"It is probable that in both these instances the

final result was influenced by the consideration that

judges of the United States hold office during `good

is an impeachable offense? The

only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is

behavior' and that the impeachment process is the

only method indicated by the Constitution for

determining whether a judge's behavior has been

`good'. In other words, as to judges of the United

States at least, lack of "good behavior' and `high

crimes and misdemeanors' are overlapping df not

precisely coincidental concepts."'

If neither the words of the Constitution nor the history

of the impeachment power resolve the problem of the

standards to be imposed, what considerations should

apply in deciding whether to impeach the President?

Two recent books on impeachment (Raoul Berger -

Impeachment: The Constitutional Problem; Irving

Brant - Impeachment: Trial and Errors) attempt to

decipher the dilemma. Although these two studies offer

some valuable insights, they both again suffer from the

political context in which they were written and that -

context was not the Watergate scandal. Berger's concern

arises out of the continuation of the war in Vietnam and

asks the question whether the Congress may properly

impeach a President for abuse of war powers. Brant's

book is largely a defense of Justice Douglas against

impeachment.

Nevertheless, the two authors offer some helpful

insights which can be applied to the present situation.

They both agree that impeachment should be a limited

process. They believe that the impeachment power was

not intended as a political weapon. As Berger states,

"`The Records of the Constitutional Convention make

quite plain that the Framers, far from proposing to confer

illimitable power to impeach and convict, intend to confer .

a limited power.'

Secondly, the two agree that impeachment should not

be considered unless the President committed either an

indictable crime or a ""great offense.'' It must involve

actions which are totally inconsistent with the

responsibilities and duties of the office held. Finally, they

argue that impeachment is a last resort which should not -

be used as a substitute for other methods of investigating

and exposing charges of Presidential misconduct.

PRESIDENT CLAIMS IMPEACHMENT

IS ONLY REMEDY

The President's lawyers have taken a somewhat

contrary view. They argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit that impeachment is

the sole remedy against a President for any breach of his -

Constitutional responsibilities. In their efforts to deny

investigative authority to Special Prosecutor Archibald

Cox and the Senate Select Committee, the President's

lawyers argued that ``there was no sentiment whatever in

the Constitutional Convention for providing restraints

other than impeachment against a President ... the

Framers deliberately chose one particular means of

guarding against abuse of the powers they entrusted to

him.

`"`He is immune - unless and until he has been

impeached - from the sanctions of the criminal law,

impeachment is the device that ensures that he is not

above justice, and trial of impeachments is left to the

Senate and not to the courts.'

Of course, it is not known whether the President had

already contemplated the abolishment of the Special

Prosecutor's Office when his lawyers were arguing that

impeachment is the sole method of investigating his

`misconduct. Nevertheless, the President's subsequent

actions have certainly pushed the nation into this

either/or proposition. '

Today, despite all the Se acd the historical

precedents, no one is really sure what constitutes an

impeachable offense but it is the view of the National

ACLU Board of Directors and the ACLU-NC Board that

the public record shows that Nixon has committed acts

which push the question to the extreme. One is left with

the query - "`If these acts don't constitute impeachable

offenses, what actions do?'' The president himself has

done what he can to push Americans to this dilemma.

_Only by concluding that the impeachment process has

absolutely no place in the American system of

government can we avoid the position that the

impeachment process must now be invoked.

ACLU is sponsoring an ``Impeachment Poster Contest"'

for any artists who wish to participate. Style and form are.

unlimited and the entries will be judged by Bay Area art

professionals. The posters will be printed and distributed

by the ACLU Impeachment Campaign and the winner

will recieve a one-year free membership to ACLU.

(Oye IS eS RR

~~ Ss

Ss tS

VUE to ae

CoN lial l2t: (oh adele pole

Andhowit can be done.

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Richard Nixon has not left us in doubt. His firing of

Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox clearly indicates that

he means to function above the law. If he is allowed to

continue, then the destruction of the Bill of Rights could

follow. If, after all the Watergate revelations, we allow him

to continue, we are accomplices to that destruction.

Consider what has already happened: - ~

e On July 23, 1970, the President personally approved

the "Huston plan" for political surveillance by `such

methods as burglary, wiretapping, eavesdropping, mail

covers and spying on students by the CIA and other

agencies. These methods were employed against

dissenters, political opponents," news reporters, and

government employees.

e In 1971, the President established within the White

House a personal secret police (the `"plumbers"),

operating outside the restraints of law, and engaging in

burglary, illegal wiretaps, espionage and perjury.

e While Daniel Ellsberg was facing trial, his psychiatric

records were burglarized by White House aides and, at

the direction of the President, a White House aide

discussed the directorship of the FBI with the judge

presiding over Ellsberg's trial.

e Private detectives were hired by White House aides

to spy on the sex life, drinking habits and family

problems of political opponents.

cent Supporters of possible presidential opponents of

President Nixon were marked as "enemies" on a

special list, and targeted for harassment by the Internal

Revenue Service.

cent During three days in May 1971, over 13,000 people

were illegally arrested in Washington, D.C. The dragnet

arrests, unprecedented in American history, were

declared unconstitutional by the courts. To justify the

arrests, a White House spokesman, William Rehnquist,

invented the doctrine of "qualified martial law."

e In 1973, the President bombed Cambodia, a neutral

country, without the authorization of Congress. We

learned later that he had been bombing Cambodia for

three years and had deliberately concealed the

bombing from Congress and from the people, thereby

usurping the war-making powers of Congress. When

the deception was revealed, the President said he

would do the same thing under similar circumstances.

cent The President has transformed grand juries into

instruments of political surveillance and harassment,

and caused politically motivated indictments to issue.

cent The President has attacked the freedom of the press,

and subjected news reporters to illegal wiretaps and

harassing FBI investigations. -

The doctrine of "inherent" power

Richard Nixon is not the first president to violate

constitutional rights and he will not be the last. But no

president has ever before systematically claimed that

the Bill of Rights,. which limits other government

officials, does not limit the President or his agents.

When he wiretapped in violation of the Constitution,

he claimed an "inherent" power to do so.

When he secretly bombed Cambodia, he claimed an

"inherent" power to do so.

When he directed the dragnet arrests of thousands of

demonstrators in Washington, he claimed an "inherent"

power to do so.

lf the President is permitted to use the doctrine of

"inherent" power to override the Bill of Rights anytime

he pleases, civil liberties can be cancelled at whim.

The President of the United States should symbolize

our system of individual rights ur.der law. He sets the

precedent for future presidents. As U.S. Supreme Court

Justice Louis Brandeis said in a 1928 wiretapping

case:

e American Civil Liberties Union.

Hi = 593 Markei Street, San Francisco, 94105

a. Enclosed is my contribution of $ -___

to help the Impeachment Campaign.

{] | am willing to wire or write my Represen-

give 5

(| am willing to participate in the Impeach-

Brent Campaign. Please contact me.

Bo | want to join ACLU. Credit my contribution

i iowards membership:

(] $15 Individual [] $25 Joint [] More

a Name

Address

Mc Site Zip

BB arerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Richard De Lancie,

Chairman; Jay A. Miller, Executive Director.

In a government of laws, existence of the government

will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupu-

lously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent

teacher. For good or for ill, itteaches the whole people

by its example. Crime is contagious. If the govern-

ment becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for

law; it invites every man to become a law unto

himself it invites anarchy. To declare that in the

administration of ... law the end justifies the means

... would bring terrible retribution.

To preserve and protect our system of individual

rights under law, to restore the integrity of the Bill of

Rights for us and our children, and to make the lesson

clear to all future presidents in whose hands we place

our lives, Richard Nixon must stand trial before the

Senate. If he does not stand trial, what he has done will

be done by others.

How to impeach President Nixon

In order to stand trial before the Senate, where a two-

thirds vote is necessary for conviction, the President

must first be accused by a majority of the House of

Representatives. This accusation by the House is

called impeachment. Impeachment itself does not

result in the removal of the President. Like an

indictment, it merely begins a trial. Impeachment is

what the House of Representatives does; the actual trial

is held by the Senate. We believe such a trial must take

place, however unpleasant.

The country can withstand the resignation of the Vice

President.

The country can withstand the impeachment of the

President.

The country cannot withstand a system of presiden-

tial power unlimited by the Bill of Rights.

If you believe that President Nixon should be brought

to trial before the Senate for his violations of civil

liberties, join the campaign for impeachment. Make

your voice count in defense of the Bill of Rights.

"Wire or write" your Representative in Congress in

support of impeachment. And, if you are not yet a

member of ACLU, please use the coupon to join. We

need your help in this extraordinary campaign for im-

peachment and in the day-in day-out defense of the Bill of

Rights.

4 Oct.

aclu NEWS

Impeachment is only a preliminary

How does impeachment work and what does the ACLU

impeachment resolution mean? ~

Since the ACLU resolution was announced, some

criticism has been voiced that ACLU is abandoning its

traditional stance that ``all persons are innocent until

proven guilty.'' This is not the case and such comments

indicate a misconception about the impeachment process.

The ACLU resolution states that ``substantial public

evidence'' exists and therefore the ACLU requests the

"*House of Representatives...to initiate impeachment...''

Neither the Constitution nor history define what

should be the standard of evidence relied upon in

impeachment.

In criminal proceedings, "`probable cause'' to believe a

crime has been committed is usually the standard used to

issue an indictment and ``proof beyond a reasonable

doubt'' is necessary for a conviction. In civil and

administrative proceedings, the standard used to make a

decision is usually a ``preponderance of evidence.''

While the Founding Fathers took pains to keep the

impeachment process distinct and separate from both

criminal and civil proceedings, they provided absolutely

no alternative standard of evidence to be used in

impeachment however.

The ACLU's characterization, ``substantial public

evidence,'' is as valid as anybody's interpretation. In this

area where there are no standards and only sketchy

precedents to be relied upon, the degree of certainty of

guilt required to impeach the President is largely an

unanswerable question and completely dependant upon

the evidence the House is willing to consider.

ACLU does not presume Nixon's guilt in the sense

that they are saying he should be removed from office.

Had that been the ACLU's intention, the resolution

would have called for Nixon's conviction by the Senate.

In other words, the ACLU would have determined that

Nixon is quilty and must be removed. The Board did not

go that far. =e

Instead, ACLU merely asks the House "`. . . to initiate

impeachment.'' This is to say only that the House should

look into charging the President and that he should be

tried by the Senate. ACLU asks the House to provide the

Morgan believes it can be done cowina i.

away ""because we've done our duty.'' ``Once we decide

a case is a civil liberties case, we have to go into it using

all legal defenses even if some of them aren't civil liberties

issues. The point is, we have to protect people to the best

of our ability,'' he argued.

Also, in the past, he explained that ACLU's approach

to legislative matters has been an ``amicus'' approach.

`"We've been happy to just present some testimony and

then leave.'' Today, however he says testimony is the

least effective part of our legislative program - ``the only

real way to effect Congress is to be motivated, tough and

practical.''

A recent survey of ACLU membership of 300,000 |

shows that the average age is 34; that people between 21

and 30 comprise the largest segment of members;

doctors are our largest occupational classification; the

average membership is $25; and, 45 percent of our

members have at least 3 years of college education. ``This

is a pretty powerful group of people and the time has come

when we must call on all our resources in the fight for

civil liberties,'' Morgan concludes.

What has all this to do with impeachment? Well,

President with the due process which is described in the

Constitution, the impeachment process.

What does impeachment mean then?

Impeachment is merely the charging of a public official.

A simple majority of the voting members of the House of

Representatives is required to pass what are called

Articles of Impeachment. These Articles then constitute

the charges on which the official is prosecuted and to

which a defense must be presented. They are.essentially a

list of the evidence that tends to indicate that the official

did something improper.

Thus far, House Speaker Carl Albert has assigned the

several impeachment resolutions introduced by

Representatives to the House Judiciary Committee.

Albert has the discretion to establish a special select

committee to rule on the resolutions if he wishes.

Whichever committee ends up examining the resolutions

it will be up to that committee to determine to what

extent hearings will be held or investigations made. The

next step would be to pass the Articles of Impeachment

_ out to the House floor for consideration by the entire

House. If passed by the House, the Articles then go to the

Senate.

Trial in the Senate is presided over by the Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court. The Senators in effect sit as a jury.

The President can be represented by Counsel, may

present evidence in his defense, may cross-examine

witnesses and even testify in his own behalf. This is the

due process of impeachment. There is no issue of

executive privilege or separation of powers. the

Constitution is clear that these considerations are set

aside in an impeachment.

Following the trial, the Senate votes and may remove

the President from office by a two-thirds majority of those

members voting. If this occurs, the President is removed

from office and barred from seeking any other public

office. Of course, the President may render these

proceedings moot at any time by resigning his office. If

convicted, succession to the Presidency is carried out

according to the procedure provided by the Twenty-fifth

Amendment to the Constitution.

6ecent

Morgan `says it's time to get ``motivated tough and

practical'' and the impeachment campaign is part of the

reason. The alternative, he believes, is an end to our

constitutional form of government. ``While we have all

sat back wringing our hands, Nixon has methodically

corrupted every institution he has come in contact

- with,'' Morgan explained. ``The Supreme Court has lost

its integrity due to Nixon's appointments and it took him

to introduce corruption into the FBI, the CIA, the Justice

Department and the electoral process. It's time we say to

the folks, become involved.''

Morgan believes chances for impeachment are not all

that remote. He pointed out that the latest Gallup poll

showed that 32 percent of the people believed Nixon

should be impeached and if he did not give up the tapes,

the figure rose to over 50 percent. ``And the people have

gotten that far without any leadership at all,'' he

exclaimed, "*they just have good common sense.''

He said the choice is easy, ``if we don't resist the

corruption ourselves then we will have a body politic that

is totally corrupt and the only way to separate ourselves

from that corruption is to oppose it. To do nothing is to

IMPEACHMENT

What You Can Do

Before the impeachment campaign can succeed, our

own members must become informed about the issues

and committed to the cause. It won't happen unless each

of us does our part.

What you can do:

e Become an expert on the impeachment process. Read

the articles in this issue of the ACLU News and read the

newspapers. Know the issues thoroughly.

- @ Concentrate your efforts on your own Representative.

Do not assume that because they are Democrats, or

liberals, or say they support impeachment that they are.

Tell them that you will do everything possible to make

impeachment an issue in their upcoming elections unless

_they move and that they must separate themselves from

the corruption.

e Write letters to your Representatives and Senators

and get your friends to write also. Sendcopies of your

letters and any responses you get to the ACLU office, 593

Market Street, Suite 227, San Francisco, Ca. 94105.

e Visit your Representative's local district office and

talk with him or her about impeachment.

e Visit your local newspaper editors and ask them to

take a stand in favor of impeachment. Also, write letters-

to-the-editor expressing your views.

e Arrange for speaking engagements with other groups

and organizations.

' @ Complete and return your impeachment petition as

soon as possible and request more.

e Host coffees or `"Workshops'' on impeachment;

organize your own neighbors to work on, your

Representative. : :

e Take advantage of free radio and TV spots offered by

many stations for announcements and statements.

e Arrange a meeting of your ACLU chapter to talk

with your Congressional Representative when he or she is

in the district next.

e Respond to the Emergency Fund Appeal which you

received last week so we may purchase more newspaper

ads and cover the costs of mailings and petitions.

We can succeed if we are determined and if each of us _

does our job. To do other wise is to forsake our

democratic institutions. These actions are the highest

form of patriotism.

m Page 1

participate in a personal `cover-up.'

This is the message each ACLU member and every

American citizen must confront every Congressman or

woman with, he believes. In Washington, he said, the

greatest rationalizations come from the liberal legislators.

They say the proof is not in, or they say it can't be done,

or they say the time isn't right. Morgan emphasized that

the people have to say to them that ``all politicians are

alike unless you separate yourself from the corruption and

support the impeachment of Nixon.'' What is at stake, he

points out, is the integrity of political life in America and

the rights of all the people - ``AIl considerations other

than those must be set aside.''

`*Throughout my battles for what I have thought to be

right, I have always faced insurmountable opposition, but

I've always won. I believe we can win this one too if we

just determine to do what is right and then do it one step

after another. I expect we will win this one way or

another. I have a lot of faith in the folks,'' he concluded.

That's part of the reason ACLU is most fortunate to

have Charles Morgan working for its goals and why there

is hope despite the bleak outlook.

Northern California U.S. Congressional Delegation

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Philip Burton (D) - San Francisco

Don Clausen (R) - Santa Rosa

Ronald Dellums (D) - Oakland

Don Edwards (D) - San Jose

Harold Johnson (D) - Roseville

Robert Leggett (D) - Vallejo

Paul McCloskey (R) - Palo -Alto

John McFall (D) - Manteca

William Mailliard (R) - San Francisco

Robert Mathias (R) - Merced

John Moss (D) - Sacramento

Leo Ryan (D) - San Mateo

B. F. Sisk (D) - Fresno

Fortney H. Stark (D) - Oakland

Burt Talcott (R) - Salinas

Jerome Waldie (D) - Martinez

ADDRESS:

The Honorable

House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

SENATE

Alan Cranston (D)

John Tunney (D)

ADDRESS

The Honorable

Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Also, Peter Rodino, Jr. (D-New Jersey)

is the Chairman of the House Judiciary

Committee. Representatives Don Edwards

Californians on the Judiciary Committee.

Carl Albert is the Speaker of the House

of Representatives.

and Jerome Waldie are the Northern

aclu NEWS

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March - April, July - August,

and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

Mike Callahan , Edttor and Public Information Director

Jay Miller, Executive Director

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-433-2750

Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

of Northern California, Inc.

cordially invites you to

THE FIRST ANNUAL

Bill of Rights Day Celebration

on the 182nd Anniversary of the

Bill of Rights

Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California will a

celebrate Bill of Rights Day at the Geary Theater, 415

Geary Street, in San Francisco. The first annual `Ear!

Warren Civil Liberties Award' will be presented to

Anthony Amsterdam.

= Tony is a member of the Board of Directors of the

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

and is largely responsible for the successful

preparation of the anti-death penalty cases in both the

California Supreme Court and the United States

Supreme Court. He is being honored, however, for a

long list of achievements in his brilliant career in the

defense of civil liberties. :

The ``Stars'' of the evening will be the national

leaders in the field of Civil Liberties who will be

present on the stage and in the audience, as well as the

entertainers who will contribute their talent and time,

and you. :

The admission charge will be $2.50 - one of the great

bargains of our Day!

s

For the event the Foundation will be publishing a

commemorative program, each page of which will

contain phrases from the Bill of Rights. Each page of

the program will represent a $1,000.00 . tax-deductible

contribution to the ACLU Foundation of Northern

California. There are four sponsoring categories:

- $1,000 (one listing of an individual or organization per

page) ; $500 (2 listings per page) ; $250 (four listings) ;

$100 (10 listings). These funds will go toward the

support and expansion of the Foundation's legal

program in Northern California.

If you would like to be fisted, or know of any

individual or organization that might wish to be listed,

please contact Carmen Parker at (415) 781-2597. Please

join us on December 16... and join those other men

and women who make possible the continued defense

of our precious heritage, the Bill of Rights to the

Constitution of the United States.

[2 ee ee ee ee ee

| wish my name to be listed as a:

|_| $1,000 sponsor ll wish fe-allehd the Bill of Rights Day Celebration-ana first annuel |

I 00 =e 0nse | | presentation of the Ear Warren Civil Liberties Award at the Geary Theater |

| $250 sponsor | | in San Francisco on Dec. 16th at 7:30 p.m. |

l

| LJ S100) ARoOSer | | Please send me___tickets at $2.50 each. Enclosed is my check for i

| | | :

i | | NAME 2

| ADDRESS CITY | | | ADDRESS CITY

| STATE ZIP | . STATE ZIP i

i oe || PHONE |

| oe |

| [ _|Enclosed is my check. | |Please send me a pledge reminder.

tributi to the ACLU F dati f North Calif i t

i Asa courtesy, two tickets will be reserved for you at the Geary Theater. [ | ee as : eee CEES a eens ae aX I

L

Oct.

6 aclu NEWS (c)

`LEGAL

_U.S.Supreme Court to hear 3 NC cases

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear

three ACLU-NC cases in its Fall term this year. This

means that the Northern California Affiliate leads all

other ACLU affiliates in cases before the nation's highest

court. .

The first case, to be argued by Staff Counsel Joseph

Remcho and General Counsel Paul Halvonik, is an equal

protection challenge to California's election laws.

Actually there are two cases, Hall] v. Brown and Storer v.

Brown which are on behalf of Gus Hall, the Communist

Party Candidate for President, and Thomas Storer, an

independent candidate for Congress. Both candidates

were excluded from California's ballot in 1972 because

they were unable to satisfy the special requirements for

qualification of independent candidates.

Regular party candidates must collect only 40 petition

signatures to run for office but others must collect 5 per

cent of the registered voters in a three week priod and

only after the regular party candidates have completed

their petitions. a .

Halvonik will argue that these requirements are

unconstitutional since they deny equal protection of the

laws both to the potential' candidates and to all those

citizens who find the regular Democratic and Republican

candidates unsatisfactory. Also, Remcho will argue that

Parole `due process' sought

in State Supreme Court

these additional requirements imposed by the state are

unconstitutional since the only qualifications mentioned

in the Constitution are those of age, residency, and

citizenship. Oral argument will be presented before the

Court on November 5.

The second case was accepted by the Court just this

month. In response to appeals from ACLU-NC and the

California Bankers Association the Court has decided to

rule on Stark v. Schultz, the ``Bank Secrecy Case.'' No

date has been set for the argument yet but when it is,

Legal Director Charles Marson will represent ACLU.

This suit is a challenge to the constitutionality of a

1970 congressional act which required banks to report.

and record all financial transactions of their customers for

the federal government, ACLU has argued that the act

constitutes a massive violation of privacy rights and that

the routine colle tion of financial records of millions of

people with the aim of catching a few criminals amounts

to unprecedented, illegal search and seizure.

Last October, a Federal District Court in San Francisco

invalidated the portions of the act requiring disclosure of

domestic transactions but left other portions regulating

foreign transactions intact. The ACLU appeal seeks to

have the entire act declared unconstitutional.

The Bank Secrecy Case was filed on behalf of

Representative Fortney. H. Stark (D.-Alameda County)

who sold several banks which he owned when he was

elected to Congress.

Finally, the Supreme Court notified ACLU-NC last

Spring that it would hear a case Hernandez v. Veterans

Administration which seeks to gain GI and Veteran

benefits for conscientious objectors who nevertheless

served two years of alternative duty. Argument will be set

for the case sometime this Fall and will be presented by

Volunterer Attorney Jack Petranker.

At present, CO's are automatically denied post-

service benefits even if they put in their time in a work

assignment benefitting the welfare of the nation. ACLU

believes that these men are precluded from receiving

these benefits, and therefore penalized, for what they

believe. This violates their First Amendment rights as

well as their rights to equal protection of the laws since

they are treated differently than those draftees who

entered the Armed Forces.

If the Court agrees that this presents an

unconstitutional situation, veteran's benefits could be

provided to thousands of CO's across the nation.

ACLU challanges conditions on

Irishman's probation sentence

ACLU-NC Prison Project Director

Peter Sheehan and Board member Alice

Daniel filed an amicus curiae brief this

month which asks the California Supreme

Court to extend ``due_ process''

protections to prison inmates at parole

_ release hearings. The case, In re Sturm, is

a petition for a writ of habeus corpus in

which the petitioner claims that he was

denied parole for reasons unknown to him -

because he was not provided a statement of

reasons and the evidence relied upon by

the California Adult Authority.

Although one of the purposes of parole

is to reward good behavior by prison

inmates with early release, the actual

`parole process in many ways frustrates

that purpose. Each year, inmates appear

before two members of the Adult

Authority for interviewing and

evaluation. Normally, these two panel

members will hear twenty-five cases in a

day with each interview lasting an average

of ten minutes. It is customary for one

member of the panel to conduct the

interview while the other reads the file of

the next scheduled case. Therefore, the

question of whether an inmate will receive

`parole is considered for about ten minutes

per year by one member of the Adult

Authority.

The written record which results from

this brief encounter consists of the

minutes taken by a prison staff person at

the hearing and these go into the inmate's

file on a form called the ``Evaluation at

Time of Adult Authority Hearing."

Also, the final determination of the panel

66

is entered on a ``vote sheet.''

RECORD IS `SCANT AND ILLEGIBLE'

Neither of these documents states the

reasons for the panel's grant or denial of

parole. A study of the Department of

Corrections found that the record of these

hearings which goes into the file "`is scant

and somewhat illegible.'' If parole is

granted this usually does not bother

anybody but if it is denied, the inmate

usually wants to know at least why it was

denied and what he should do in the next

year to improve his chances for parole.

When he attempts to get answers to these

questions, there are rarely any available -

only the ""scant and somewhat illegible'

forms. There is virtually no mechanism by

which the inmate, the prison staff or even

other members of the Adult Authority

can discover whether a flagrant abuse of

discretion has taken place in any particular

case.

`UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION' .

The ACLU brief quotes Professor K.

Davis Comments from the Administrative

Law Treatise on the dangers of such a

parole review procedure: ``If a Board

member is in such a hurry to get to his golf

game that he votes in sixteen cases

without looking inside the files, no one

can ever know the difference, even though

the personal liberty of sixteen men is at

stake. How can a Board member have less

- incentive to avoid prejudice or undue

haste than by a system in which his

decision can never be reviewed? .

Should any men, even good men; be

necessarily trusted with such uncontrolled

discretionary power?''

Sheehan and Daniel argue that the need

for fairness in parole hearings dictates that

"due process guarantees'? must be

assured since such a substantial right is at

stake - individual liberty. They note that

while the Adult Authority is not required

to grant parole to every inmate who thinks

he deserves it, the Authority is at least

required to consider the merits of the

inmates' case in a non-arbitrary manner.

`NOT KNOWING IS ANNOYING'

Therefore, the ACLU brief urges the

_ Court to order the Adult Authority to _

. provide a statement of reasons and the

evidence relied upon to the inmate on the

grounds that the constitutional guarantees

of due process,

Indeterminate Sentencing Law and the

parole system, and the basic goals of

rehabilitation and uniformity of treatment

all require it.

A statement of reasons could at least

assure the inmate that the panel's decision

was based on proper rules and evidence and

that it was not arbitrary. Also, if the

improper criteria were relied upon or the

decision was not reasonable given the

evidence, the inmate would then have a

written document which he could use as

Last February, Charles Malone was

convicted in San Francisco on a plea of

guilty for the illegal exportation of

firearms to Irish Republican Army groups

in Ireland. The plea was accepted by U.S.

District Judge Samuel Conti and he then

ordered a rather unusual sentence for

Malone. :

Conti ordered Malone `to pay a fire of

~ $1,000 and placed him on probation for a

period of two years. As a condition on that

probation however, Conti barred Malone

from participation in any American Irish

Republic movement; belonging to any

Irish organizations, cultural or otherwise;

or any Irish Catholic organizations or

groups. Also, Malone was ordered not to

visit any Irish pubs and not to accept any

employment that associates him with any

Irish organizations or movement.

Prison Project Director Peter Sheehan

filed a motion in Malone's case this month

to vacate the conditions of his probation

which restrict his Irish associations.

Sheehan argues that the sentence violates

the defendant's rights under the First,

Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S.

Constitiution and represents an `abuse. of

the Court's discretion.

In an affidavit filed with the motion,

Malone states that he would like to join

and participate in several Irish groups and

he explains the purpose of each. Among

`the groups mentioned are the Gallic

Athletic Association, the United Irish

Cultural and Caeli Society, the Irish

Center of San Francisco, and the Irish

American Action Association. Also, he

points out that the Eighth Annual FEIS

Erin Celebration will be' held in San

Francisco which will involve Irish

dancing, music and voice contests in

which his six children will participate.

Sheehan argues that a grant of probation

may not be made contingent on the

relinquishmentof First Amendment rights.

He notes that the conditions ``prohibit

association with a large number of groups

which are not even remotely related to the

activity for which the defendant was

convicted and the degree of the activity

prohibited - extending to mere

membership - is grossly overbroad.''

Sheehan also pointed out that the

probation conditions on Malone are an.

unconstitutional prior restraint on free

speech and that they are unconstitu-

tionally vague.

In his conclusion, Sheehan finds two

extremely disturbing aspects to this case.

`*The first is the almost total disregard of

basic First Amendment Principles and the

second is the apparent belief that it is

permissible to infer from the unlawful

actions of a few members of the Irish

community that virtually all Irish .

organizations are either engaged in

criminal activity or would in some way

influence the defendant to.engage in such

activity. Such reasoning, when employed

against one particular ethnic group, as

here, is a tragic return to the rationale of

_the infamous `Japanese concentration

_camp' cases of World War II."'

the purpose of the

evidence in an appeal and which a court

could examine.

If the statement of reasons and evidence

are fair, then the inmate will still benefit

because he will know what he must do in.

the coming year to improve his record and

therefore his chances for parole. This is

incentive the Indeterminate Sentencing

Law was supposed to provide but surveys

of prisoners in California show that over

50 percent of them said that ``not

knowing what must be done to obtain

parole'' is the most annoying thing about

incarceration.

Finally, Sheehan and Daniel argue that

in certain situations where for example an

inmate cannot represent himself because

of sickness or language barriers, or when

~

certain factors should be considered which

are not in the record such as the inmate's

family situation, or when complex factual

matters are in dispute in the case, ``due

process requires that the right to counsel

be provided.''

and

Oct. -

aclu NEWS

ACLU suit

challenges

Napa transfers

In many ways, people who have never

been convicted of any crime but are in

state mental institutions are worse off than

persons who have been convicted and are

in state prisons. Part of the reason for this

is that it is assumed that hospitals help.

people and have their best interests at

stake. Unfortunately, often factors

contrary to the rights and welfare of

mental patients are the primary criteria in

determining how they should be treated.

Usually, economics is one of the chief

factors considered and the fight over state

budgets and related support for .state

mental hospitals has gone on in California

for many yars.

The ACLU Foundation filed a class

`action suit in Sacramento County Superior

Court this month on behalf of six named

patients and all others similarly situated at

Napa State Hospital to prevent their being

transferred to Patton State Hospital, a

maximum security mental institution in

San Bernardino County. Attorneys on the

case are ACLU-NC Staff Counsel Joseph

Remcho and volunteer Attorney Norman

Kulla.-

The state wants to transfer about 200

patients from Napa to Patton whom the

state has classified as ``Penal Code''

patients on the grounds that it

will be easier to provide greater security at

Patton. ``Penal Code'' patients are

defined as persons found not guilty by

reason of insanity,. persons found |

incompetent to stand trial, persons first

identified asmentally disabled while in a

local jail and mentally disordered sex

offenders.

The ACLU brief argues that the

transfer of these patientswill interrut their

treatment and will lower the standard of

care provided and therefore the potential

for recovery. Also, visits from friends,

clergy and family will become extremely

difficult and chances for recovery will be

diminished since the influence of civil

patients and the rehabilitative atmosphere

of Napa will be deprived them.

Section 7300 of the Welfare and

Institutions Code specifically states that

transfers of mental patients may only take

place if they benefit the patient and that

transfer to a nearby institution is

preferred. Sectin 7301 permits transfers to

a higher security facility if a patient needs

security which is better pe oudes at the

new hospital.

Civil liberties films

Three Paul Strand films which may be of interest to

civil libertarians will be shown on weekends beginning

at the M. H. de Young Memorial

Museum in the Golden Gate Park, San Francisco.

``Manhattan'' was first released in 1921 under the

title ``New York the Magnificent.'? `"The Wave'' was

produced on behalf of the Mexican government in 1934. .

This film depicts the class struggle that was won and

fought on a small scale in the little fishing valloze of

November 24,

Alverado on theGulf of Veracruz.

``Native Land'? is Strand's first feature length

documentary based on testimony before the Senate Civil

Liberties Committee in 1938. One sequence shows an-

assault on a Michigan farmer who dared raise his voice in

a Grange meeting, another recreates the murder by

vigilantes of two Arkansas sharecroppers and yet another

the torture of three Florida men by Ku Klux Klansmen.

The incidents are narrated by Paul Robeson who also

*"American Day.''

sings the stirring chant

The three films will be shown at 1 p.m. and again at 3

p.m. each Saturday and Sunday between November 24 9.

and December 23. Admission is 50 cents.

Legal Dept. stronger by three

`Three new people are devoting their

time to the ACLU Foundation as of -last

month providing added strength to the

legal program.

Richard Schwartz is an attorney who

will be working full time for the

Foundation focusing primarily on the

legal rights of mental patients. He brings a

grant from a private foundation with him

. to support his legal efforts for ACLU.

RICHARD SCHWARTZ

Richard received his J.D. at California

Western Law School and an LL.M. in

criminal justice at New York University.

He received his undergraduate education

SHAWN MOORE

at Ohio State. Since coming to San

' Francisco, he has been doing a great deal

of research in conjunction with' his

ongoing work in involuntary commit-

ment.

Shawn Moore is a third year law student

at Stanford University Law School who

will be working at ACLU this year on an

intern program arranged and supervised

by Tony Amsterdam. He has been

researching prison rights, obscenity law

and restrictions on political activity

through the Hatch Act. Shawn has

prepared a number of memoranda which

aid the attorneys in preparation of law

suits.

Susan Sawyer is a third year law student

at Boalt Hall who has provided research

and writing assistance to Staff Counsel

Joseph Remcho on a variety of cases.

Susan has actually been doing work for

SUSAN SAWYER

ACLU for several months now through an -

arrangement through which she can get

credit for her time. Her most recent

projects include extensive research on a

`military court martial case involving jury

selections and influence of the

Commander and she is recruiting other -

Boalt students to screen incoming mail for

civil liberties cases and general research.

Remcho and Kulla argue that thee two

provisions make it clear that individual

determinations Must be made by the

`Department of Health for the adviseability

of transferring each patient. ``Wholesale

transfer of entire classifications of patients

totally ignores the, mandate that the

Department see to the best interests of

each individual patient.''

The ACLU brief contends tht the

patients have . right to a hearing to assure

due process and that they have been

denied equal protection of the laws since

there has been no shwing by the state that

``Penal Code'' patients require more

security than civilly committed patients.

Although some of the civil patients may

""`present an imminent threat of

substantial physical harm to others,'' they

will not be considered for transfer while

patients who have simply been found

incompetent to stand trial are to be

automatically transferred. Citing Supreme

Court Justice Blackmun, the ACLU

concludes that `"`the mere fact of a

criminal charge or conviction is not a

proper basis upon which to build other

unnecessary, unprofitable and essentially

unfair distinctions among the mentally

i

ACLU seeks new counsel

The ACLU-NC Board of Directors has

authorized the hiring of a full-time

attorney to live in Sacramento. Staff

Counsel Joseph Remcho who has been

half-time in Sacramento will then stay at

the San Francisco office full-time.

The new position will really involve two

jobs as can be seen by the title, Legislative

Representative and. Staff Counsel. The

primary job will be legislative advocacy

which means reading approximately 5000

bills and identifying those with civil

liberties implications. The representative

will then work for the passage of bills and

amendments which support civil liberties

and oppose those which do not. The

advocate will work closely with the

representative of ACLU of Southern

California, Coleman A. Blease, who has

more than twelve years of experience in

the position.

In addition. to lobbying, the attorney

will also carry a small litigation load

during the legislative session and more

when the legislature is not in session

(about threee months per year). Much of

this will involve challenging enacted bills

opposed by ACLU in the courts as well as

routine civil liberties cases in the

Northeastern part of the state.

Applicants for this position should have

two or three years of criminal trial

experience and a strong interest in and

committment to civil liberties. The slary

will range between $10,000 and $15,000

depending on experience. Interested

attorneys should send their resumes to

Joseph Remcho at the ACLU-NC office,

593 Market Street, Suite 227, San

Francisco, Ca. 94105.

94105 -

Managing Editor:

Francisco, CA 94105

Editor:

7. Owner:

Francisco, CA 94105.

8. Stockholders: None

1. Title of Publication: ACLU News

2. Date of Filing: September 26, 1973

3. Frequency of issue: 9 times yearly

4, Location of known Office of Publication: 593

Market Street, Suite 227, San Francisco, CA

5. Location of the Headquarters or General

Business Offices of the Publishers: 593 Market

`Street, Sute 227, San Francisco CA 94105.

6. Names and Address of Publisher, Editor and

Publisher: American Civil Liberties Union of

Northern California, 593 Market Street, San

Michael Callahan, 593 Market Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105

Managing Editor: None

American Civil

Northern California, Inc. 593 Market Street, San

Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and other

Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 per cent or

A. Total No. Copies Printed (net press run)

B. Paid Circulation

1. Sales through Dealers and Carriers, Street

Vendors and Counter Sales none none

.

Statement of Ownership and Management

More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or

- other Securities: None

10. The purpose, function and non-profit status

of this organization and the exempt status for

Federal Income Tax purposes:

ae not changed during preceding 12 months.

. Extent and Nature of Circulation:.

Average Actual No.

No Coples copies of

each issue issue pub-

during lished

preceding nearest to

12months . filing date

16,500 " 18,000 .

2. Mail Subscriptions 16,000 16,786

C. Total Paid Circulation ZS 16,000 16,7

D. Free Distribution by Mail, Carrier or Other : ues

Means :

1 sone Complimentary and Free Copies 300 412

. . 0x00B0 2. Copies Distributed to New Agents but NotSold 59

Liberties Union of E. Total Distribution 16,350 17,240

es Use, Left Over, Unaccounted, Spoiled

After Printing

G. Total ees 70

18,000

| certify that the statements made by me are

complete and correct.

_(s) Michael Callahan

Oct.

3 aclu NEWS ;

Gkied

The Chapter has become involved in

organizing an effort to insure sufficient

citizen supervision of a proposed computer

system to be installed in Alameda County.

The Chapter believes that CORPUS, as

the computer system is called, is being

established with total disregard for privacy

rights. The system will link all law

-enforcement and court agencies and

officers in the county and also plug into

the statewide criminal information

system. There are no provisions giving a

citizen the right to see their records and

the computer is programmed to never

forget. There is no way to erase out of date

arrest and warrant records.

The CORPUS system will be

supervised by a policy committee which

will be responsible to the County Board of

Supervisors. The current plan calls for

fifteen members who will be drawn from

county law enforcement agencies and five

- who will be private citizens.

With the help of Supervisor Tom Bates

and Lance Hoffman, a Professor of

Computer Sciences at UC Berkeley, the

Chapter is committed to achieving at least

50 percent representation on the policy

committee for private citizens.

The Chapter held a press conference on

Thursday, October 25 to explain the issue

to the public and to gather support before

the Board of Supervisors meeting on

Tuesday, October 30.

Stockton

The Chapter is representing a couple in

Stockton who are seeking damage claims

against the city.and county after they were

the victims of a nighttime raid by sheriff

and police officers two months ago. Ten

plainclothes officers entered the couple's

home at about 11:30 one night with guns

drawn and demanded to know where the

couple's son was. The police said the son

was wanted for drug trafficking and

murder.

When asked if they had a warrant, the

officers said they did not need one and

then proceeded to search the house. The

couple said the police refused to identify

themselves and while pointing their guns

at them, went from room to room

"*knocking over furniture and showing

utter oni for the sanctity of the

claimant's home or their mental health,''

according to the complaint filed by the

Chapter.

The complaint also pointed out that the

couple's son had not lived there for almost

11 years and he was not wanted in

connection with any homicide. The

Chapter is also asking the U.S. Justice

Department to investigate the incident.

San Francisco

- **Grand Juries and Personal Liberties''

will be the topic of the Chapter's annual

meeting to be held at the Firemans Fund

Building at 3333 California Street at 4:00

p.m., Sunday, November 18. Speakers in

the program will include ACLU-NC

General Counsel Paul Halvonik; Sanford

V. Rosen, Legal Director of the Mexican-

American Legal Defense and Education

Fund; and Edison Uno, a member of the

San Francisco County Grand `Jury.

Halvonik and Rosen are currently

collaborating on a book on grand juries.

Also, the meeting will include the

annual election of members of the Chapter

Board of Directors. All members of the

Chapter may submit nominations until

November 8th by letter directed to the

chapter at 593 Market Street, Suite 227,

San Francisco, 94105. Any nomination

must include the consent of the nominee

to serve and include a 50 word biography

prepared by the nominee.

All ACLU members, friends and

interested persons are urged to attend the

meeting.

Mt. Diablo

The Chapter Board has voted to place

the approval of an Ombudsman in Contra

Costa County as its top priority this Fall.

25,000 petition signatures are needed by

December to place this matter on the

ballot. Chapter members who have

received petitions are asked to complete

and return them promptly: Those who

wish to circulate petitions should contact

Al Schiff at 935-3935.

Louise Clark, Chairperson of the

Chapter's Jail Study Committee, has been

contacted by Contra Costa County's state

senator for statements and support

opposing the jail complex proposed by the

County Sheriff.

The next meeting of the Chapter Board

will be on Wednesday, November 7, 8

p.m., at 1040 Upper Happy Valley Road

in Lafayette.

Santa Cruz

The October 30 meeting of the Chapter

will feature the slide documentary of the

`Stanford Jail Experiment.'' The meeting

will be held at the Cabrillo College Forum -

Building, Room 450 at 7:30 p.m.

The Chapter is also co-sponsoring a day

long symposium on criminal justice on

November 3. A keynote speaker will be

followed by a panel which will discuss the

proposed County law-enforcement

complex. Workshops in the afternoon will

focus on many aspects of incarceration

and diversionary programs. The

experience and knowledge of a variety of

resource people from the greater bay area (c)

wil be utilized. The symposium also will

take place at Cabrillo College from 10 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

Both events are open to the public and

free of charge. For further information,

contact Jane Fessenden, 134 Miles Street,

Santa Cruz (408) 423-5357.

Marin

Chapter Legal Director. Fred Hurvich

has been busy the last couple of months.

He appeared before the San Rafael City

Council to voice opposition to a proposed

ordinance which would outlaw communal

living in areas zoned for single-family"

units. The ordinance is largely aimed at

followers of the Sikh religion who have an

ashram, or commune, in the city.

Hurvich told the Council that courts

throughout the country have rejected

similar ordinances as unconstitutional. As

a result of opposition to the ordinance, the

Council decided to postpone a vote on it

for more study.

Also, Hurvich won a case in Marin

County Superior Court which challenged

the order of a Municipal Court judge that

a jury trial may not be granted in a

misdemeanor traffic trial. The judge said

that the jury could be denied because the

defendant would not go to jail even if he

was convicted. The Superior Court

ordered the Municipal Court to provide a

jury trial in the matter this month.

Berkeley-

Albany

Sandra Bond, a private investigator for

San Franciscan Hal Lipset, who was for a

time an investigator for the Senate

Watergate Committee, will discuss the

secrets of her profession at the Chapter

membership meeting on Tuesday,

October 30, at 8 p.m. at All Soul's

Church, Spruce and Cedar in Berkeley.

Ms. Bond will speak on ``Liberty or

Security: the Watergate Iceberg.'' She

will give members and friends of ACLU

some specific insights into what lies

beneath and around the public Watergate

investigation.

Everyone is invited to come and vote for

new Chapter Board members as well as

hear Sandra Bond.

Two films will be presented by the

Chapter as a fundraising function on

Tuesday, November 13 at two showings,

7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The films will be

shown in Dwinelle Hall on the UC

Berkeley Caen

The films, "" Tupamaros"' and "*When

th People Awake'' are about the reform

struggles of the people of South America.

`""Tupamaros'' deals with the urban

political movement in Uruguay and

`When the People Awake'' examines the

situation in Chile. The admission charge

for the films will be $1.50 for students and

$2.00 for general admission. All are

invited to attend.

`Sonoma

The Chapter Criminal Justice

Committee held a major planning session

this month at which five subcommittees

were established to step up the campaign

to reform specific problem areas in the

County criminal justice system.

Committee chairman Mel Hildreth said

- that the group's major emphasis will be on

the county jail and commented that ``this

probably is the most comprehensive effort

ever made in this county to look at the jail

and seek constructive solutions."'

The Chapter's annual dinner meeting

will be held Tuesday, November 13 and

the guest speaker will be ACLU-NC

_ Executive Director Jay Miller who will

discuss ``Why- Nixon Must Be

Impeached.'' The dinner meeting will be

held at the Los Robles Lodge in Santa

Rosa, at 6:30 p.m. and the charge will be

$5.00 per person. All chapel members

are urged to attend.

Also, there will be another meeting of

the Chapter Criminal Justice Committee .

on Saturday, November 17 beginning at

80x00B030 a.m.

Please send me___.

NAME

copies of the Street Musicians LP at $4.00

each. Enclosed is my check for

is a great holiday gift idea

For those hard to please relatives and friends, the Street Musicians album

offers a unique surprise. We can mail the records directly to you, or we can mail

them to the people you want to give to with gift cards enclosed, or we can send

you the records and easy-to-use mail packages for you to use.

ADDRESS

STATE

ZIP _

Send LP's and jackets to me directly.

ce the LP's with a gift card to the enclosed list.

Send the LP's directly to `me.

Please allow 6 weeks for delivery.

The San Francisco Street Musicians |

Long Playing Stereo Record Album

Send $3.50

(plus 50cent mailing and handling)

to:

ACLU-NC Record Sales

593 Market Street,

San Francisco, Ca.

94105