Index
Agriculture Department, U.S., 26-27
Milk price support case (Nader v. Butz,398 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C. 1975)), 35, 55-68
Alaska, 1-2
American Bar Association, Litigation Section Seminar Program, 84
American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T), 73-77
see also Untted States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.,567 F.2d l2l
(D.C. Cir. t977)
Anderson, David, 39,57
Archives and Records Administration, National, 40
Arizona, 84-85
Army-McCarthy hearings, I 3-14
Atomic Energy Commissiorr, 44-45, 48, 49
Attorney General, U.S.
see under Justice Department, U.S.
Babcock, Barbara, 78
Bazelon, David L., 70
Bell, GriffiA 76-77
Bowen, Katherine Drinker, 8
Brucker (Secretary of the Army), 24
see also Harmonv. Brucker,355 U.S. 579 (1958)
Buchen, Mr, 75
Bulgaria 8l
Btfiteruzzi,Ronald, 20
Buzlrardt, Fred, 62
Cahill, Gordon, 30-31
California, 78-8 1, 84-85
Carnp Kilmer, New Jersey, 12-1,3
Camp Pickett, Yirginra, 23
Canada, I
Carter Administration” 7 6, 7 8
Central High School, 3-7
Church Commiffee, 73
City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F .2d 927 (D.C. Cfu. 1 989) (Endangered Species Act cxe), 83-89
Clark, Captain, 53
-41-
Clark, Justice, 25
Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), 59
Congress, U.S., 52-54
House Judiciary Committee, 66
Connally, John, 60, 67
Copyright laws:
Government documents, copyright of:
Clark, Captain, notebook of, 53 ‘
Morrison, Samuel Elliot, Naval historian, 46-47, 52
statute on, 44,46-47
Revisions of:
congressional testimony on, 52-54
Justice Departrnent interest in, 53
see also Public Affairs Assoctates, Inc. v. Rickover,369 U.S. lll (1962), on remand to
268 F.Supp . 444 (D.D.C. 1967)
Copyrights, Register of, 45
Corcoran, Howard F., 70
Covington and Burling, 34
Cox, Archibald, 45, 6l-62, 66-67
Cravath finn, 30-31
Dairy Producers Association, 60
Davis, Polk, 22
Defense Department, U.S., 45-46, 69
Denver, 38-39
Desert tortoise
see Endangered Species Act case (City of Las Vegas v. Lujan,891 F.2d 927 @.C. Cir.1989))
Dewey, Ballantine, 18
District of Columbia, 19, 23, 36-37, 80-8 1
Washington Monument, 23
Dobb, George Cochran, 29
Douglas, John, 34
Dulles Airport, 63
“Dumaine” interests, 28
Duquesne Power and Light, 48
Eisenhower, President, 33
Ellis Island, I
Endangered Species Act of 1973,P.L.93-205,87 Stat. 884, 83-89
Endangered Species Act case (City of Las Vegas v. Lujan,891 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir.l989)), 83-89
Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals, 84-85, 87-88
Background of case, 84-85
Scientific research program set up as settlement of case, 87-89
Settlement negotiations, 86-87
in U.S. District Court, 83-85, 88-89
-42-
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 85
Executive Branch, 73-74
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 38,41-43
Wiretaps, investigation of, 7 3 -77
Florida, 15
Foley Square, 22
Ford Adminishation, 7 5-7 6, 78
Foreignlntelligence SurveillanceAct of 1978 (FISA), P.L.95-511,92$tat.1783, 74 ‘:
Freedom of Information Act, P.L. 89-487, 80 Stat. 250, 69-73
“Exemption 5”, ’70
Pre-decisional versus decisional documents, 72
Friedman, Daniel, 28
Friendly, Judge, 30
Gasch, Oliver, 75
Gates, Miss, 5
Georgetown, 63-64
G.I. Bill of Rights (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, June 22, 1944, c. 268,58 Stat. 284),
15, 17
Ginsburg, Justice, 83
Goldbloom,Irwin:
Career plans, 7-8,21-23
financial security, concern for, 16, 78-79
job satisfaction, 35-37, 78-80
law, decides on, 12, 14-18
Early life:
current affairs, involvement in, 8-9
family history, l-3
father’s immigrant experience, 1-2
mother’s Parkinson’s disease, 2-3
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, influence of biography, 8
marriage, 16,22-23
rcadtng, 6-9
siblings, 2-3,9
Education:
Cental High School:
diversity of, 3-4
extacurricular activities, 4
influential teachers, 5
work during, 4-7
Latinstudies, 5-6
Madison Junior High School, 5-6
Syracuse Law School, 3,18-22
classmates, 18-20
-A3 –
G.I. Bill of Rights (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, June22, 1944, c.268,
58 Stat.284), 17
honors in:
class standing, 20,21
Honor Court, Chief Judge, 20
Law Review, 20,21
moot court, participation in, 21
Order of the Coif, 2I
living arrangements during, 20
professors, 21
Syracuse University, 3, 9-11
American Studies major, 8, 11
G.I. Bill of Rights (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, Jwte 22, 7944, c.268,
58 Stat.284), 15
influential professors, 6
refurn to after army service, 14-15
work during, 4-7,10
Legal czreer:
at Justice Department, U.S., Civil Division, General Litigation Section:
appellate section considered “elitest of the elite”, 5L
cases:
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiatton Board,421 U.S. 168
(1975), 69-73
argues appeal, 7l-72
Kingv. Unrted Stotes,29Z F.Supp. 767 (D. Colo. 1968), 37-39
assisted by David Anderson, 39
firstjurytrial,38
writes and argues summary judgment motion, 38-39
Marina Oswald case (Porter v. United States, 473 F.2d 1329 (Sth Cir. 1973)),
39-43
appeal argued before Fifth Circuit, 42-43
briefed for Fifth Circrit, 42
trial strategy, 4I-42
milk price support case (Nader v, Butz,398 F.Supp. 390 (D.D. C. 1975)),
35, 55-68
aff,rdavit, taking from former Secretary of Agriculture, 57,66-67
Anderson, David, assisted by, 57
depositions re political contributions and influence, 59-61
discovery disputes, 61
Kalmbach, Herbert, taking deposition of, 63
principal government lawyer in, 56
psychological effect of comrption involving milk, 67-68
-A4 –
Watergate Grand Jury, called before, 66-67
Watergate Special Prosecutor, relationship with, 6l-62
Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover,369 U.S. lll (1962), on remand to
268 F.Supp. 444 (D.D.C. 1967), 43-53
appeal filed, 51
assigned to case, 46
trial, 43-44,46-5A
(D.C. Ctr.1977), 73-77
argues appeal in U.S. Court of Appeals, 77
executive privilege issues, works with Counsel to the President on, 75
United States v. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Co.,276 F.2d 525
(2dCir.l960), 27-32
drafts complaint, 29,32
works on brief to challenge Court of Appeals jurisdiction, 31
changes in Department under different administrations, 33-35, 37
copyright law, 43-54
Deparhren[‘s “expert” in, 52-53
testifies before Congress on, 52-54
courhoom experience, 34-35
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 52-54, 69, 7 5 -7 6, 7 8, 9l
Honors Progtam, 22
ICC and agriculture cases, 27-32,35, 55-68
transferred from Antitrust Division, 26-28
joins, 2l-22,24
office space, 26-27
post-Kennedy assassination cases, 37 -43
Renegotiation Act work, 25-26, 35, 69-7 I
Special Litigation counsel, 62,69
Woodrow Wilson School, offered sabbatical, 46
work, pleasures of, 35-37,78-79
at Latham & Watkins: .
.
American Bar Association Litigation Section Seminar Program, speaker at, 84
cases:
Endangered Species Act case (City of Las Vegas v. Lujan,89l F.2d927
(D.C. Cir.1989)), 83-89
injunction sought to challenge designation, 83-84
settlement ideas and discussions, 86-87
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. [Jnited States,778 F.2d 810 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 83
uranium cartel litigation, 82-83
government contracts litigation, 83
-A5-
invited to join firm, 78
joins, 80
reasons for entering private practice, 78-80
Litigation Department, Office Chair of, 81
Legal philosophies:
“bet the company” cases, 9l-92
bureaucracy in government and private practice, 82
government work and private practice compared, 79-82
govemment work as “client work”, 81-82
Justice Department as training ground for private sector, 36-37
politics and administrative law, relationship between, 56
practice of law, excitement of, 90-92
private practice, challenges in, 82
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:
activism in, 89-90
changes in, 90
Legal theories:
“capable of repetition yet evading review”, dochine of, 58
“Dumaine” interests, 28
executiveprivilege, 75
pre-decisional versus decisional documents, 72
U.S. Army service, ll-I4
at Camp Kilmer:
Medical Records Office, assigned to, 12-13
Peress, Major, contactwith, 13-14
rotated to, 12
drafted, 1l
effect of, 12
in Korean War combat zone, I l-13
Grumman Aircrafi Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board,421 U.S. 168 (1975), 69-73
Appeal by government to U.S. Court of Appeals, 70-71
Appeal by Grumman to U.S. Court of Appeals, 70
Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court, 72-73
Board policy changes, 71
“Exemption 5” defense, 70
Freedom of Information Act requests for internal documents of Board, 69-70
Pre-decisional versus decisional documents, opinion based on, 72
Gulf 82
Hardin, Clifford, 55-57, 60, 66-67
Harmon v, Brucker,355 U.S. 579 (1958):
Argued in U.S. Supreme Court by Donald MacGuineas, 24
Army discharges, judicial review of, 24-25
Case not defended on the merits, 25
-A5 –
Harris, Stanley S., 85, 88-89
Harvard University, 46-47
Hills, Carla, 78-80
History of the Untted States Navy in World War II, 46-47
Hogan, Thomas F., 83
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 8
House Judiciary Committee, 66
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD), 78, 80
Hudson, New York, 3
Idaho, 1-2
Interior Department, U.S., 84, 86 |
Internal Revenue Service, U.S., 19
Interstate Commerce Act, February 4, 1887, c. 104,24 Stat.379, 29-30
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), 26-27, 28-30
Iran-Conta Special Prosecutor, 22
Jones, William B., 58-66
Justice Department, U.S., 19, 22-78, 8l
Antitrust Division, 26-28, 53
Attorney General’s Offrce, 29
Bell, Griffin, 76-77
Kennedy, Robert, 33
Levi, Ed, 74-75
Rogers, William, 22,33
Wiretaps, authonzes, 7 4
Civil Division, 33-34, 53, 9l
directors:
Douglas, John, 34
Orrick, William, 34
Federal Programs Branctq 25
General Litigation Section:
cases:
Grumman Atrcraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 421U.S. 168
(197s), 69-73
Harmonv. Brucker,355 U.S. 579 (1958),24’25
Kingv. United States,Z9? F.Supp. 767 (D. Colo. 1968), 37-39
Marina Oswald case (Porter v. United States, 473 F.2d 1329 (Sth Cir. 1973)),
39-43
milkprice support case Q{ader v. Butz,398 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C.1975)),
35, 55-68
Publtc Affairs Associates, Inc. y. Rickover,369 U.S. lll (1962), on remand to
268 F.Supp. 444 (D.D.C. 1967), 43-53
Untted States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 567 F.2d l2l
(D.C. Cir. 1977), 73-77
-A7 –
United States v. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Co.,276F.2d 525
(2d Cir. 1960), 27-32
Renegotiation Act, primary jurisdiction in, 25-26
section chiefs:
Leathers, Harland, 25
MacGuineas, Donald, 24-27
work of, 25-27
Copyright laws, Department’s testimony on revisions of, 52-54 ‘
Criminal Division, t3-34, 53
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 38,41-43
wiretaps, investigation of, 7 3 -7 7
Honors Program at, 22-23
Office of Legislative Affairs, 76
Solicitor General’s Offrce, 25, 28, 30
Cox, Archibald, 45, 61-62, 66-67
Invited to file amtcus brief in Public Affoirs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 45
see also under Goldbloom, Irwin, Legal career
Kalmbach, Herbert, 63
Kansas City, Kansas, 2
Kelly, Bill, 80
Kennedy, John F., 33,34
Kennedy, Robert, 33
King, John, 38-39
Kingv. UnitedStates,292 F.Supp. 767 (D. Colo. 1968), 37-39
Government argues Oswald abandoned the rifle, 39
Suit for compensation for Oswald’s rifle, 38-39
Korean War, 1 l-14, 19, 69
Las Vegas, 84
Latham & Watkins, 78-89
Growth in, 80-81
Location of offices, 80-81
Partners in Washington office, 80
Le Moyne College, 20
Leathers, Harland, 25
Lee, Rex, 75,77,78
Leventhal, Harold, 75, 77
Levi, Ed, 74-75
Lewis & Clark expedition, 53
Lithuania 1
Lodge, Henry Cabot, 22
London, 8l
Los Angeles, 19, 80-82
MacGuineas, Donald, 24-27
-A8 –
Marina oswald case (Porter v. United States,473 F.2d 1329 (5th cir. 1973) , 39-43
Milk price support case (Nader v. Butz,398 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C. 1975)), 35, 55-68
Milkprice support progruun, 55-68
Price support number, challenge to, 55
Watergate hearings, 66-67
see also Nader v. Butz,398 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C.1975) (milkprice support case)
Mojave Desert, 84-85
Montana, 1-2
Montreal, 1
Montreal World’s Fair, “Expo 67”, 38
Morrison, Samuel Elliot, 46-47,52
Moscow, 81
Moss, John, 73-75,77
Moss Committee, 73-77
Executive privilege issues, 75
Subpoenas AT&T, 73-74
see also United Stotes v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.,567 F.2d I21
(D.C. Cir. t977)
Nader, Ralph, 56-66
Nader v. Butz,398 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C. 1975) (milk price support case):
Affidavit, taking from former Secretary of Agriculture, 57,66-67
Background to, 55-56
Discovery disputes, 6l
Doctrine of “capable of repetition yet evading review”, 58
Judge Jones inJluenced by media reports, 6I,65
Media interest in, 60, 63-65
Mootress issues, 57-58
Price support decision, challenge to, 56
Price support number, propriety of, 56
Watergate, involvement with, 55, 59-67
dairy organizations contributing to the Committee to Reelect the President, 59
House Judiciary Committee considers milk price support issues in impeachment
question, 66
Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, 6l-62
and Secretary Hardin’s deposition, 66-67
White House involvement in, 59-67
White House tape of dairy farmer meeting, 6l-66
played at cocktail party, 63-66
National Labor Relations Board, 72
Nattonal L;abor Relations Boardv. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,421 U.S. 132 (1975), 72
Nature Conservancy, 87
Nebraska, University of, 57
Nevada, 84-86
-A9-
New Brunswick, New Jersey, 12
New Haven Railroad, 27-32
see also United States v. New Yorh New Haven, and Hartfurd Railroad Co.,276F.2d 525
(2dCir.l960)
New Orleans, 42
New York City, 1, 15, 18, 23,48
New York Public Service Commission, 30
Newport Beach, 63, 80
Nixon, Richard, 63, 65-66, 67
Order of the Coif, 2l
Oregon, 1
Orrick, William, 34
Oswald, Lee Harvey, 38-42
Oswald, Marina
see Porter, Marina Oswald, and see also Porter v. United States,473 F.2d L329
(5th Cir. 1973) (Marina Oswald case)
Parkinson’s Disease, 2-3
Peress, Major, 13-14
Pike Committee, 73
Pittsburgh, 48
Porter, Marina Oswald, 38-42
Porter v. United States,473 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1973) (Marina Oswald case), 39-43
Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals, 42
Claim for compensation for Warren Commission exhibits, 39-43
Condition of exhibits, 41,43
Date of the taking, 41,42
Experts, valuation by, 40-41
Trial in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 42
Trial by master in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 39-42
Princeton University, 46
Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Riclaver,369 U.S. lll (1962), on remand to 268 F.Supp. 444
(D.D.C. 1967), 43-53
Admiral Rickover’s speeches as government publications, 44-48
Appealed, 50
Copyright of government publications, 44-48
Govemment agencies added as defendants, 45-46
Justice Departrnent to share cost of defense with Rickover, 47
Note-taking during trial, 49-50,52
Prior breaches ofthe copyright statute:
Morrison, Samuel Elliot and the History of the United States Navy in World War II,
46-47
Rickover abandons copyright claim to most of speeches, 47-48
Statute goveming copyright of government publications, 44, 46-47
-A10 –
Transcript of trial, skirmishes over, 48-49,52
U.S. Supreme Court:
invites amicus brief from SolicitorGeneral, 45
remands case for tnal, 45
Public Affairs Press, 44-51
Puerto Rico, 35
Pulitzer Prize, 47
Ralston Purina Company, 57
Renegotiation Act, April 28, 1942, c. 247, 5 6 Stat. 245, 3 5, 69 -7 I
Conflict between Renegotiation Board and Defense Departrnent, 69
Primary jurisdiction of cases in U.S. Justice Department Civil Division, General Litigation
Section, 25-26
Rickover, Admiral, 43-53
see also Public Affairs Assoctates, Inc. v. Rickover,369 U.S. ltl (1962), on remand to
268 F.Supp . 444 (D.D.C. 1967)
Robinson, Spottswood W.,III, 77
Rockefeller Commission, 7 3
Rogers, William, 22,33
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 46
Russia, 1,38
Schiff, Peter, 30
Schnapper, Morris, 44-45
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 72,83
see also National Labor Relations Boardv. Sears, Roebuch & Co.,421 U.S. 132 (1975)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States,778 F.2d 810 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 83
Seattle, 48
Secret Service, U.S., 38
Silberman, Laurence H., 87
Smith, John Lewis, Ir., 43-53
Appreciationof, 5l-52
Solicitor General’s Office, 25, 28, 30, 45
St. Louis, 57
Steptoe & Johnson, 80
Supreme Court, U.S., 19, 31,32
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board,421 U.S. 168 (1975), 69-73
Harmonv. Brucker,355 U.S. 579 (1958), 24-25
Justices:
Clark, 25
Ginsburg, 83
National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,421 U.S. I32 (1975), 72
Public Affatrs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover,369 U.S. llt (1962), on remand to
268 F.Supp. 444 (D.D.C. 1967), 45-53
Syracuse, New York, 1-1 1, 15, 17-23, 36
-A11-
Syracuse Law Review, 20,21
Syracuse Law School, 3,17, 18-22,33
Syracuse University, 3, 6-ll, 14, 18-19
Taft-Hartley Act (Labor-Management Relations Act, June 23, 1947, c. 120,61 Stat. 136), 25
Texas, 38-43
Texas School Book Depository Building, 38-39
Tippit, Officer, 37
Treasury Department, U.S.: ::
Connally, John, 60,67
Secret Service, U.S., 38
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.,567 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1977), 73-77
Appealed by Moss Committee to U.S. Court of Appeals, 75
Background of case, 73-75
Change of adminisfoations, effect on case, 76
Injunction to assert executive privilege vis-a-vis the Moss Committee, 75
Panels in U.S. Court of Appeals, 75,77
Remanded for negotiation and settlement urged, 75-76
Returned to U.S. Courl of Appeals, 77
United States v. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Co.,276F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1960),
27-32
Appealed, 30
challenge to jurisdiction of Court of Appeals, 30-31
District Court ordered to enter new judgment, 3l-32
Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 29
“Dumaine interests”, 28
Share exchange deal and ICC issues, 28-29
Shareholder derivative suit with related issues, 29-30
denied certiorari by U.S. Supreme Cotxt, 32
Uranium cqrtel lifigation, 82-83
U.S. Army, ll-14,24-25
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 54
Friendly, Judge, 30
United States v. New Yorh New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Co.,276 F.2d 525
(2d Cir. 1960), 27-32
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit:
Marina Oswald case (Porter v. United States,473 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1973)), 39-43
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 89-90
Cases:
Endangered Species Act case (City of Las Vegas v. Lujan,89l F .2d 927
(D.C. Cir. 1989)), 83-89
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States,778 F.2d 810 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 83
UnitedStatesv.AmericanTelephone &TelegraphCo.,567F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir.1977),
73-77
-Al2-
Judges:
Bazelon, David L, 70
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 83
Leventhal, Harold, 7 5, 77
Robinson, Spottswood W’lll, 77
Silberman, Laurence H., 87
Wald, Patricia M., 76-77
Wright, J. Skelly, 7l-72
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 28
U.S. Court of Claims, 28
U.S. Courthouse, 39
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado:
King v. Untted States, 292 F.Supp.767 @. Colo. 1968), 37-39
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 39-40,55
Cases:
milkprice support case (Irlader v. Butz,398 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C. 1975)), 35, 55-68
Public Affatrs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover,369 U.S. lll (1962), on remand to
268 F.Supp.44{- (D.D.C. 1967), 43-53
Judges:
Corcoran, Howard F., 70
Gasch, Oliver, 75
Harris, Stanley S., 85, 88-89
Hogan, Thomas F., 83
Jones, William 8., 58-66
Smith, John Lewis, Jr., 43-53
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Califomia:
Orrick, William, 34
U.S. District Court for the Northem District of Texas, 39
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 22,29-30
U.S. Navy, 44-47
U.S. Tax Court, 25
Vancouver, I
Vietnam peace taIks, 22
Virginia 11
Vocational High School, 3
Wald, Patricia M, 76-77
Wall Stueet ftms, 22
Walsh, Lawrence, 22
Warren Commission:
Exhibits, 37-38,40
Report, 40
Washington (state), 1
-A1-3 –
Washington, D.C.
see District of Columbia
Washington Monument, 23
Washington Post, The, 60-61
Watergate case, 55, 59-67
Grand Jwy, 66-67
Post-Watergate investigations :
Church Committee, 73
Moss Committee; 73-77
Pike Committee, 73
Rockefeller Commiss ion, 7 3
Special Prosecutor, 6l-62, 63, 66-67
Watergate eru, 37
Westinghouse, 82
Whipple, Miss, 5
White House, 58-60, 75-77
White House Counsel, 62,75
White House tapes, 6l-66
Williams, Edward Bennett, 67
Winnipeg, I
Wiretaps:
Authorization by Justice Department, 74
Investigated by Moss Committee, 73-77
Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, 46
World War II, 3,6,46-47,69
Wright, J. Skelly, 7l-72
-A14 –