Exhibit 1 - John Nields, Jr., Esq. - Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CRIMINAL NO. 78-00179

MARK FELT EDWARD S. MI LLER

DEFENDANTS

WASHINGTON D. C. SEPTEMBER 18, 1980

THE ABOVt-ENTITLED MATTER CONTINUED ON FOR TRIAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM B. BRYANT, UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT CHIEF JUDGE.

APPEARANCES:

(AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED.)

VOLUME: IV PAGES: 655-

PHYLLIS MERANA OFFICIAL REPORTER U. S. COURTHOUSE WASHINGTON, D. C.

OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT MR. NIELDS: MAY IT PLEA’SE THE COURT DISTINGUISHED

DEFENSE COUNSELMEMBERS OF THE JURY:

I’M JOHN NIELDS. I’M A SPECIAL COUNSEL WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND TOGETHER: WITH 1HESE MEN HERE, MR. DAN FRIEDMAN AND MR. FRANK MARTIN, AND THE HELP OF THESE LADIES, I WILL PROSECUTE THIS CASE ON BEHALF

OF THE UNITED STATEOF AMERICA.

‘

THIS 1 A-SIMPL

E AND A VERY IMPORTANT CASE. IT

10 IS A CASE ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY

11 TO BE SECURE IN THEIR HOMES AND THEIR PERSONAL PAPERS

12 FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES CONDUCTED BY AGENTS

13 OF OUR POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT IS A SPECIAL

14 AND A PRECIOUS RIGHT GUARANTEED TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS

15 COUNTRY BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE

16 BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF

17 AMERICA.

18 BUT IN LATE 1972 AND IN EARLY 1973 TEAMS OF

19 AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED A

C • ‘..

SERIES OF SEARCHES IN SECRET INTO THE HOMES OF CITIZENS

21 OF THIS COUNTRY; CITIZENS WHO HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH NO CRIMES, AND CITIZENS WHO WERE SUSPECTED, IN MANY CASES, OF HAVING

DONE NOTHING WRONG. THEIR HOMES WERE CHOSEN TO BE SEARCHED

24 SOLELY BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO BE THE MOTHER, THE FATHER,

z THE BROTHER, THE SISTER, THE FRIEND OR THE ACQUAINTANCE

OF A WEATHERMAN FUGITIVE.

c 13

c·

THE SEARCHES WEE DONE IN NEW YORK CITY AND.INNEARBY UNION, NEW JERSEY.

THEY WERE VERY CAREFULLY PLANNED AND WELL ORGANIZED.

EACH AGENT WHO PARTICIPATED HAD AN ASSIGNED TASK, AND EACH ONE WAS IN RADIO COMMUNICATION WITH THE OTHERS.

ONE GROUP OF AGENTS WAS ASSIGNED THE TASK OF

FOLLOWING THE PEOPLE AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES TO A SAFE DISTANCE. A SECOND GROUP WAS SSIGNED THE TASK OF WAITING OUTSIDE THE HOME AND WATCHING FOR UNEXPECTED VISITORS. AND THE THIRD

GROUP OF AGENTS WENT IN.

THEY WENT IN DRESSED NOT AS AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. THEY WENT IN DRESSED IN OLD CLOTHES OR DISGUISED AS TELEPHONE REPAIRMEN.

THEY ENTERED THESE .HOMES USING KEYS WHICH THEY

HAD OBTAINED FROM LANDLORDS OR SIMILAR KINDS OF PEOPLE IN RETURN FOR CASH.

IN OTHER CASES THEY WENT IN BY PICKING LOCKS. THEY WENT IN CARRYING TWO THINGS. THEY CARRIED A WALKIE TALKIE SO THEY COULD RECEIVE WARNINGS AND SO THEY WOULDN’T BE CAUGHT INSIDE. AND THEY CARRIED A DOCUMENT CAMERA, WHICH I WILL DESCRIBE TO YOU A LITTLE FURTHER LATER ON.

ONCE THEY WERE INSIDE, THEY SHUT THE DOOR BEHIND

THEM, AND THEY SEARCHED AND THEY SEARCHED THOROUGHLY.

THEY SEARCHED EVERY ROOM OF THE PERSON’S HOME. THEY SEARCHED

4 669

INSIDE DESKS. THEY SEARCHED INSIDE BUREAUS. THEY SEARCHED

2 INSIDE CLOSETS. THEY SEARCHED INSlDE THE PEOPLE’S CLOTHES.

3 THEY SEARCHED INSIDE THEIR BED CLOTHES. THEY SEARCHED THE

INSIDES OF LETTERS. THEY SEARCHED THE INSIDES OF BOOKS.

5 THEY WERE LOOKING FOR CLUES OF THE WHEREABOUTS

6 OF CERTAIN WEATHERMAN FUGITIVES. AND WHEN THEY FOUND ANYTHING

7 THAT COULD BE OF ANY CONCEIVABLE INTEREST TO THEM, THEY

8 TOOK IT INTO THEIR DOCUMENT CAMERA, AND THEY PHOTOGRAPHED

9 IT.

10 NOW, THE DOCUMENT CAMERA CAME IN AN ATTACHE CASE

11 THAT LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE THIS (INDICATING). VERY INNOCENT

12 LOOKING, BUT WHEN YOU OPENED IT UP, IT UNFOLDED. A METAL

13 STAND COULD BE PUT TOGETHER. THE CAMERA COULD BE INSTALLED.

14 IT HAD SPECIAL LIGHTS SO THAT PICTURES COULD BE TAKEN IN

15 THE DAR . THE CAMERA SHOT DOWN INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE

(··

16 ATTACHE CASE, AND THE DOCUMENT WAS PLACED UNDERNEATH

17 SO THE PICTURE COULD BE TAKEN OF IT.

18 USING THIS DOCUMENT CAMERA, THEY PHOTOGRAPHED

19 ADDRESS BOOKS, LOVE LETTERS, PARTS OF PERSONAL DIARIES,

20 PAPERS CONTAINING STATEMENTS OF PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY,

21 VALENTINE CARDS AND A LETTER FROM A MOTHER TO HER DAUGHTER.

22 WHEN THEY WERE FINISHED, THEY PUT EVERYTHING BACK

23 EXACTLY AS THEY HAD FOUND IT SO THAT NOBODY COULD TELL THAT

24 THEY’D BEEN THERE. THEY CLOSED UP THEIR DOCUMENT CAMERA,

AND THEY LEFT.

G-4

5 670

THOSE SEARCHES WERE CONDUCTED WITHOUT WARRANTS —

2 WITHOUT SANCTION OF THE LAW.

3 WHILE THEY WERE INSIDE THOSE APARTMENTS1 THE

( 4 AGENTS WHO CONDUCTED THE SEARCHES WERE PROTECTED BY NOTHING

5 EXCEPT SECRECY.

6 THE SEARCHES, FOR THE MOST PART, WERE CONDUCTED

7 BY YOUNG STREET AGENTS, BUT IT WAS NOT THE YOUNG STREET

8 AGENTS WHO MADE THE DECISION WHOSE HOMES SHOULD BE SEARCHED.

9 THAT DECISION WAMADE-

IN OFFICES IN F.B.I. HEADQUARTERS

10 HERE IN WASHINGTON, D. C. BY HIGH OFFICIALS OF THE F.B.I.

11 THAT DECISION WAS MADE BY MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER, THE TWO

12 DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE.

C: 13 DECISIONS WERE MADE OVER THE TELEPHONE —

14 VERY BRIEF CONVERSATIONS AND THEY WERE RECORDED IN MEMORANDA,

15 WHI CH WILL BE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE1 AND WHICH YOU’LL BE

16 ABLE TO SEE –MEMORANDA FROM MR. MILLER TO MR. FELT WITH

li MR. MILLER’S INITIALS ON IT AND MR. FELT’S INITIALS ON IT.

18 THESE MEMORANDA WERE NOT PLACED IN REGULAR F.B.I.

19 FILES. THEY WERE STAMPED “DO NOT FILE”, AND THEY WERE NEVER

W PLACED IN REGULAR F.B.I, FILES.

21 IF THEY HAD BEEN PLACED IN REGULAR F.B.I. FILES

n AND YOU HAD READ THEM, YOU STILL WOULDN’T HAVE KNOWN THAT

THEY’D AUTHORIZED A SEARCH1 BECAUSE THEY DON’T SAY THAT THEY’RE

24 AUTHORIZING A SEARCH. THE MEMORANDA SAY: TODAY I AUTHORIZED AGENT SO AND SO IN NEW YORK OR AGENT SO AND SO IN NEW JERSEY

C-5

. 6

671

TO CONTACT AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE AT THE HOME OF THE PERSON

2 WHOSE HOME IS BEING SEARCHED.

3 MR. FELT AT THAT TIME WAS THE ACTING ASSOCIATE

( 4 DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I. NUMBER TWO IN COMMAND. MR. MILLER

5 WAS THE HEAD OF ONE OF THE F.B.I.’S LARGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT

6 DIVISIONS, THE DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE DIVISION.

7 MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER STAND CHARGED BEFORE

8 YOU WITH THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS

9 OF CITIZENS OF TME UNITED STATES

CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE

10 THE RIGHTS WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE

11 BILL OF RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

12 UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE BILl OF RIGHTS

( · 13 OF OUR CONSTITUTION, IT WILL BE YOUR SOLEMN DUTY AT THE END

14 OF THIS CASE TO DECIDE WHETHER MR. MI LLER AND MR. FELT

15 ARE GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN

16 BROUGHT AGAINST THEM.

17 WHAT I’M GOING TO DO NOW IS TELL YOU A LITTLE

18 BIT ABOUT THE PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT EXPECTS TO OFFER

19 AT THIS TRIAL. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE

m THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY TOLD YOU. WHILE I DO THAT, I WI LL

21 SAY VARIOUS THINGS. NOTHING THAT I SAY IS EVIDENCE OF

22 ANYTHING. THE EVIDENCE COMES EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE

WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY FROM THAT WITNESS STAND AND THE DOCUMEN S

24 WHICH THE COURT RECEIVES INTO EVIDENCE.

Z ONCE AGAIN,THE COURT — THE JUDGE — IS THE JUDGE

C-6

7 672

OF THE LAW. YOU ARE THE JUDGES — THE EXCLUSIVE JUDGES I

( 4

(‘ 13

OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS. COUNSEL ARE JUDGES OF NOTHING.

NOW, UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, BEFORE THE PROSECUTION CAN

ASK THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY, WE MUST ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT TO YOUR SATISFACTI ON BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT MEANS WE MUST ESTABLISH CERTAIN THINGS.

FIRST, WE MUST ESTABLISH TO YOUR SATISFACTION THAT

THE DEFENDANTS AUT RIZED THE SEARCHES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT. WE WILL.

SECOND, WE’RE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PEOPLE

WHOSE HOMES WERE SEARCHED WERE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE WILL. INDEED, SOME OF THEM WILL APPEAR

IN COURT AND TESTIFY FROM THAT WITNESS STAND.

THIRD, WE ARE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SEARCHE WERE DONE FOR AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT PURPOSE AND NOT FOR

A PURELY PERSONAL PURPOSE.

THE BILLS OF RIGHTS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF

–

( .. l

19 WITH PURELY PERSONAL CONDUCT, EVEN IF IT’S DONE BY SOMEONE

20 WHO HAPPENS TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

21 THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONCERNS ITSELF ONLY WITH THE

22 USE OF OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POWER.

23 WE WILL ESTABLISH THAT THESE SEARCHES WERE DONE

24 WITH THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING AND APPREHENDING CERTAIN

2S WEATHERMAN FUGITIVES.

C-7

8 673

WE WI LL ESTABLISH THAT THE F.B.I. VI EWED THE

2 WEATHERMAN AS A LOOSE-KNIT POLITIAL ORGANIZATION. THEY

3 CALLED THEM MARXIST-LENINIST — MARXIST-LENINIST COMMUNISTS.

4 THE WEATHERMEN WERE VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO THE WAR

5 I N VIETNAM. I NDEED, THEY EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO MEET WITH

6 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NORTH VIETNAMESE AND THE VI ETCONG.

7 THEY WERE VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO THE EXISTING GOVERNME T

8 IN THIS COUNTRY. T EY WANTED A TOTAL CHANGE IN THE SOCIAL

9 ORDER. THEY WERE REVOLUTIONARIES. BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER

10 ONE WHIT WHAT ANYBODY THINKS OF THE GOALS AND THE POLITICS

11 AND THE PURPOSES OF THE WEATHERMEN BECAUSE THE WEATHERMEN

12 VIOLATE’D OUR LAWS. THEY HAD COMMITTED CRIMES. THEY COMMITTED

.’\

( ‘

(.. ·· ‘

13 THE CRIMES OF RIOTING. THEY HAD SET OFF BOMBS. THEY COMMITTE

14 THE CRIMES OF FORGERY, FRAUD AND OTHER CRIMES.

15 THE F.B.I. HAD THE DUTY, THE RIGHT AND THE

16 RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE THE WEATHERMEN, TO ATTEMPT

17 TO LOCATE THE WEATHERMAN FUGITIVES, AND TO ATTEMPT TO BRING

18 THEM TO TRIAL FOR THE CRIMES WITH WHICH THEY VE BEEN CHARGED.

19 SO LONG AS AND ONLY SO LONG AS THE F.B.I. ITSELF DID NOT .

W VI OLATE ANY LAWS IN SEEKING TO ACHIEVE THEIR LEGITIMATE PURPOS S.

n AND THAT BRINGS ME TO THE LAST THING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO PROVE. WE’RE REQUIRED TO fROVE THAT THE DEFENDANTS WILLFULLY AUTHORIZED SEARCHES WHICH

24 VIOLATED THE CI VIL RIGHTS — THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE HOMES WERE BEING SEARCHED.

C-8

9 674

THE COURT WILL GIVE YOJ INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT THE CONSTITUT ON·

2 AL LAW WAS AND WHAT THE RULES OF LAW WERE AT THE TIME.

3 I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. SUFFICE IT TO SAY, WE WILL

c 4 PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANTS AUTHORIZED SEARCHES WHICH CLEARLY

5 VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY

6 AND WE WILL PROVE MORE.

WE WILL PROVE THAT THEY AND ALL OF THE OTHER AGENTS

8 THAT PARTICIPATED ITHESE SEARCHES KNEW FULL WELL THAT THESE

9 · SEARCHES WERE ILL GAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

)0 BEFORE I GET INTO THAT I WANT TO TELL YOU A LITTLE

11 BIT ABOUT HOW THIS BUSINESS OF DOING SECRET SEARCHES WITHOUT

12 WARRANTS, USING DOCUMENT CAMERAS .AND SO ON CAME INTO BEING.

c 13 IT DIDN’T JUST SRPING UP OUT OF NO PLACE IN LATE 1972.

c··)

14 IN MAY, 1972 MAY 1ST, 1972, THE HEAD OF THE

15 F.B.I. WAS A MAN NAMED J. EDGAR HOOVER. J. EDGAR HOOVER

16 HAD BEEN THE HEAD– THE DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I. FOR ALMOST

17 FIFTY YEARS. AND YOU MAY FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT IS

18 INTRODUCED IN THIS CASE THAT J. EDGAR HOOVER HAD RULED THE

19 F.B.I. WITH AN IRON HAND.

20 ON MAY 2ND, 1972, J. EDGAR HOOVER DIED. A FEW

21 DAYS LATER, HIS TRUSTED ASSISTANT, CLYDE TOLSON, WHO WAS

22 NUMBER TWO IN THE F.B.I. AT THE TIME, RESIGNED. THAT LEFT

23 MARK FELT, THE DEFENDANT, AS THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIAL

24 OF THE F.B.I. MR. FELT WAS NOT MADE THE DIRECTOR OF THE

25 F.B.I. INSTEAD, MR. HOOVER WAS REPLACED BY A MAN CALLED

C-9

0/;;J

PATRICK GRAY.

2 L. PATRICK GRAY WAS AN OUTSIDER. HE’D NEVER BEEN

3 IN THE F.B.I. HE WAS A NAVAL OFFICER BY BACKGROUND. HE

4 WAS MADE ACTING DIRECTOR. HE REMAINED ACTING DIRECTOR

5 FOR ABOUT ELEVEN MONTHS, AND THEN HE RESIGNED. HE NEVER

6 DID BECOME DIRECTOR.

7 AGAIN, IN MAY OF 1972, MR. MILLER WAS THE HEAD

8 OF THE DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE DIVISION. THE DOMESTIC INTELLIGE CE

9 DIVISION WAS DIVIDEtt UP INTO VARIOUS SECTIONS, AND EACH SECTIO

10 HAD A CHIEF. ONE OF THE CHIEF’S NAMES WAS ROBERT SHACKELFORD.

11 ROBERT SHACKELFORD WAS CHIEF OF THE SECTION WHICH HANDLED

12 THE WEATHERMEN INVESTIGATION.

13 SHORTLY AFTER MR. GRAY BECAME ACTING DIRECTOR,

14 HE WAS SCHEDULED TO COME OYER AND MEET MR. MILLER AND

15 ALL OF THE CHIEFS OF THE SECTIONS IN THE DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE

16 DIVISION AND GET BRIEFED AND FIND OUT WHAT THE DIVISION

17 DID.

18 BEFORE HE CAME OVER, ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE

19 DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE DIVISION HAD A MEETING. THEY TALKED

W ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO SAY TO MR. GRAY, WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO ASK HIM, AND WHAT THEY WERE GOING TALK ABOUT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DISCUSSED AT THIS MEETIN WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY CALLED INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING

M TECHNIQUES.

ONE INTELLIGENCE-GATHERI NG TECHNIQUE — ONE THING

C-10

676

1 THEY CALLED AN INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING TECHNI QUE WAS THIS

2 BUSINESS OF BREAKING INTO PEOPLE’S HOMES AND TAKING DOCUMENT

3 CAMERAS WITH THEM AND COPYING DOCUMENTS THAT THEY FOUND INSIDE

( . 4 AND DOING IT IN SECRET AND DOING IT WITHOUT WARRANTS.

5 AND THIS TECHNIQUE HAD A NAME THAT THEY USED.

6 THEY CALLED THEM BLACK BAG JOBS OR JUST BAG JOBS.

7 AND AS THEY SAT THERE IN MAY OF 1972, THEY WERE

8 AWARE THAT UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF 1966, THE F.B.I. HAD DONE

‘

9 THESE BLACK BAG JOSS ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS. AND THEY

JO WERE AWARE THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF 1966, J. EDGAR HOOVER HAD

11 ORDERED THAT NO MORE BLACK BAG JOBS COULD BE DONE.

12 THEY WERE ALSO AWARE THAT THESE BLACK BAG JOBS

(-. ‘ .

13 HAD BEEN DONE IN SECRET. THEY WERE AWARE THAT THE PUBLIC

14 HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THAT THEY WERE BEI NG DONE.

15 HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THAT THEY WERE BEING DONE.

THE COURTS

16 THE F.B.I. DIDN’T GET OUTSIDE AUTHORIZATION OUTSIDE

li THE F.B.I. FOR ANY OF THESE BLACK BAG JOBS, AND ALL OF THE

18 DOCUMENTS THAT RELATED TO THESE BLACK BAG WERE KEPT OUT OF

19 REGULAR F.B.I. FILES, AtD THEY WERE MARKED “DO NOT FILE” THEY WERE ALSO AWARE THAT THESE BLACK BAG JOBS

21 HAD NOT BEEN DONE UNDER ANY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE LEGAL.

G·’- 22

IN FACT, WHEN J. EDGAR HOOVER ORDERED THAT NO MORE BE DONE,

I HE DID SO OVER THE OBJECTION OF SOME OF HIS SUBORDINATES

24 WHO WANTED TO KEEP ON DOING THEM, BUT EVEN HIS SUBORDINATES

25 WHO WANTED TO KEEP ON DOING THEM TOLD J. EDGAR HOOVER THAT

C-11

(

( . \

(…

12 677

1 BLACK BAG JOBS WERE CLEARLY I LLEGAL. THEY JUST WANTED

2 TO DO THEM, BECAUSE THEY LIKED GETTING THE INFORMATION.

3 AND YOU AY FIND THAT I N MAY OF 1972 AS THESE PEOPLE

4 SAT AROUND THE TABLE — MR. MILLER AND THE SECTION

5 CHIEFS I N THE DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE DI VISION — THAT

6 THEY STILL WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DO BLACK BAG JOBS, AND THEY

7 DIDN’T LI KE THE RESTRAINTS THAT MR. HOOVER HAD PLACED THEM

8 UNDER.

9 lN FAT,-YOU MAY FIND THAT MR. MILLER AND THE

10 PEOPLE DOING THE WEATHERMEN INVESTIGATION ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS

11 EARLIER HAD TRIED VERY HARD TO GET THE RULE CHANGED SO THAT

12 THEY COULD USE BLACK BAG JOBS TO TRY AND CATCH THE WEATHERMAN

13 FUGITIVES. THEY FAILED.

14 SO IN MAY OF 1972, THE RULE STILL WAS NO BLACK

15 BAG JOBS.

16 AT THIS MEETING MR. MI LLER SAID, “DON’T ANYBODY

17 ELSE TALK TO MR. GRAY ABOUT INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES. LET

18 .ME DO IT.II

19 SO THEY HAD THE MEETING. THEY HAD THE BRIEFING

20 WITH MR. GRAY. MR. GRAY LEFT, AND MR. MILLER WALKED HIM

21 ACROSS THE STREET. THEY LI VED IN DIFFERENT BUILDINGS.

22 THEIR OFFICES WERE IN DIFFERENT BUILDINGS.

23 THEY WALKED ACROSS THE STREET, AND ALL OF THE

24 OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN AT THE MEETING RAN UP TO AN

25 OFFICE AND LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW SO THEY COULD SEE WHAT WAS

C-12

13 678

HAPPENINGAND THEY SAW MR. MILLER AND MR. GRAY WALK

2 ACROSS THE STREET AND THEY SAW THEM STANDING ON THE

3 STREET CORNER IN FRONT OF T E DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUILDING

ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, AND THEY SAW THEM TALKING TOGETHER.

A FEW MINUTES LATER, MR. MILLER RETURNED. HE WAS

6 VERY ENTHUSIASTIC. HE SAID “MR. GRAY IS RECEPTIVE”

7 HE DIDN’T SAY HE DECIDED — HE SAID HE WAS RECEPTIVE TO

8 REMOVING SOME OF THESE RESTRAINTS ON THE INTELLIGENCE

9 TECHNI QUES.

10 NOW, I’M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT ANOTHER INTELLIGENC

11 TECHNIQUE FOR A MINUTE BEFORE I RETURN TO THE STORY. AND

12 THAT’S THE TECHNIQUE CALLED “ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE”.

13 NOW, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE COULD BE EITHER A

14 WIRETAP OR A MICROPHONE. A WIRETAP WOULD BE SOMETHING

15 THAT IS JUST HOOKED INTO A TELEPHONE LINE. YOU COULD OVERHEAR

16 PEOPLE’S TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.

17 A MICROPHONE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT

18 WOULD BE OFTEN PLACED INSIDE SOMEONE’S HOME TO PICK

19 UP CONVERSATIONS IN THEIR HOME.

NOW, UNLIKE BLACK BAG JOBS, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE WAS BEING DONE IN MAY AND JUNE OF 1972 BY THE F.B.I. IT

22 WAS BEING DONE AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE WEATHERMEN. UNLIKE

23 THE BLACK BAG JOBS, THE F.B.I DID GET OUTSIDE AUTHORIZATION

24 FOR ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE. THEY WROTE DETAILED MEMORANDA AND SENT THEM TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

C-13

14 679

(

t: l

1 THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IF HE FOUND

2 THAT IT WAS A NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER AND IT WAS A GOOD

3 REASON TO DO IT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD AUTHORIZE AND

4 APPROVE THESE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES.

5 UNLIKE BLACK BAG JOBS, ELECONTRIC SURVEILLANCES

6 THE FACT THAT NATIONAL SECURITY ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES

7 WERE BEING APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’OF.THE UtITED

8 STATES HAD BEEN MADE PUBLIC, WAS KNOWN TO THE COURTS, WAS

9 KNOWN TO CONGRESS, AND THE RECORDS RELATING TO THEM WERE

10 KEPT IN REGULAR F.B.I. FILES. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT CLEAR

11 THAT THESE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES WERE LEGAL, BECAUSE THE

12 SUPREME COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT LISTENING —

13 ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES WHERE YOU LISTEN TO PEOPLE’S

14 CONVERSATIONS WAS A KIND OF A SEARCH, AND THESE WERE SEARCHES,

15 REMEMBER — THESE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES WERE NOT BEING

16 OONE WITH WARRANTS. THEY WERE BEING DONE ON THE AUTHORIZATION

17 OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.

18 THE SUPREME COURT HAD NEVER DECIDED WHETHER THEY

19 WERE LEGAL OR NOT.

20 WELL, ON JUNE 19TH OF 1972, THE SUPREME COURT

n DECIDED A CASE CALLED THE KEITH CASE. AND IN THE KEITH CASE, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THIS PRACTICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL APPROVING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

24 NLESS — AND MAYBE UNLESS — IT WAS DONE ON A FOREIGN POWER R SOMEONE WORKING FOR A FOREIGN POWER. BUT IF IT WAS DONE

C-14

680

TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STAETS, WHO WAS A DOMESTIC

2 SUBVERSIVE, NO MATTER HOW SUBVERSIVE THE PERSON MIGHT

3 BE AND NO MATTER HOW DANGEROUS THE PERSON MIGrlT BE, AND

( 4 EVEN IF THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES

5 PERSONALLY APPROVED IT, THE SUPREME COURT SAID, “UNCONSTITUION-

6 AL.11 ONLY A NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE — A JUDGE LIKE JUDGE BRYANT –

7 ONLY A MAN LIKE THAT IS NEUTRAL ENOUGH TO DECIDE WHOSE

8 CONVERSATIONS SHOULD BE SURREPTITIOUSLY INTERCEPTED.

‘

9 THE DAY THAT DECISION WAS DECIDED, THE ATTORNEY

10 GENERAL WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE COMPLIED WITH IT. AND

11 HE TOLD THE F.B.I., tt SHUT OFF ALL OF YOUR TAPS ON THE

12 WEATHERMEN.” AND THE F.B.I. DID. MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER

c · 13 WERE WELL AWARE OF THE DECISION, OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

14 ORDER AND OF THE FACT THAT THESE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES

15 ON THE WEATHERMEN HAD BEEN TERMINATED.

16 ONE OF THE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES THAT WAS

17 TERMINATED WAS ON A WOMAN IN- NEW YORK WHOSE NAME WAS JENNIFER

18 DOHRN. AND I’LL BE MENTIONING HER LATER.

19 PICKING UP THE STORY OF BLACK BAG JOBS, A FEW MONTHS LATER APPARENTLY MR. MILLER STILL WANTED TO BE ABLE

21 TO USE BLACK BAG JOBS IN THE WEATHERMEN INVESTIGATION.

(·.·

22 A FEW MONTHS LATER YOU MAY FI ND IT WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF

1972 — HE W NT TO MR. SHACKELFORWHO WAS THE HEAD OF THE

SECTION WORKING ON THE WEATHERMEN INVESTIGATION, AND HE TOLD

25 HIM, “THE POLICY HAS BEEN CHANGED. THE RESTRAINTS HAVE BEEN

C-15

16 I

LIFTED. WE CAN USE BLACK BAG JOBS ITHE WEATHERMAN INVESTIGATION. THEY WILL BE DONE WITH TELEPHONE CALLS

681

FROM THE FIELD OFFICES, WHICH WILL COME TO ME AND ME ALONE, AND I WILL OBTAIN MR. FELT’S APPROVAL, AND THAT WAY WE WILL AUTHORIZE BLACK BAG JOBS.”

A LITTLE WHILE LATER, IN FACT, THEY EVEN HAD

A SCHOOL OF THE WEATHERMAN AGENTS AT WHICH THEY WERE TAUGHT HOW TO GIVE _A LECTURE ON HOW TO DO BLACK BAG JOBS.

9 NOW,

‘

ONSIDE

R FOR A MOMENT,LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,

10 WHAT HAD HAPPENED. MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER WEREN’T

11 JUDGES. THEY WEREN’T NEUTRAL MAGISTRATES. THEY WEREN’T

(

(··

12 EVEN THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES. THEY

13 WERE INVESTIGATORS. THEY’D BEEN I NVESTIGATORS ALL THEIR

14 LIVES — ALL THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIVES.

15 THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN

16 INVESTIGATING THE WEATHERMEN FOR MANY YEARS. INDEED,

17 MR. MILLER HAD BEEN IN CHICAGO WHEN THE WEATHERMEN STAGED

18 THEIR FIRST VIOLENT DEMONSTRATION. IT WAS CALLED “THE DAYS

19 OF RAGE” IN THE FALL OF 1969. THE WEATHERMEN WERE CHARGED

20 WITH CRIMES AS A RESULT OF THAT DEMONSTRATION.

21 THEY BECAME FUGITIVES, AND THEY’D BEEN HIDING

22 FROM THE F.B.I. –VERY SUCCESSFULLY HIDING FROM THE F.B.I.

23 FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS, AND IN THE MEANTIME THEY’D BEEN

2 TAUNTING THE F-B- I. THEY’D BEEN SETTING OFF BOMBS IN

25 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. THEY SET OFF A BOMB IN A BATHROOM

C-16

OF THE CAPITOL. THEY SET OFF A BOMB IN A BATHROOM

2 AT THE PENTAGON. THEY’D BEEN TAUNTING THE F.B.I.

3 YOU MAY FIND THAT BY THAT TIME THE F.B.I. WAS

VIRTUALLY AT WAR WITH THE WEATHERMEN. AS A RESULT OF THIS

DECISION THAT I’VE JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT, THERE WAS NO ONE

6 NO MAGISTRATE, OR NO CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE UNITED

STATES STANDING IN BETWEEN MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER AND

THE INSIDE OF THE HOMES OF THE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES

OF THE WEATHERMAN GlTIVES.

SO IT SHOULDN’T COME AS ANY SURPRISE WHAT HAPPENED.

11 THE FIRST THING THAT MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER DID WAS THEY

12 AUTHORIZED A SEARCH INTO THE HOME OF JENNIFER DOHRN.

NOW, JENNIFER DOHRN WAS A WEATHERMAN. JENNIFER

14 DOHRN WAS THE SISTER OF BERNADINE DOHRN, WHO WAS ONE OF

15 THE LEADING WEATHER FUGITIVES, AND THE F.B.I. HAD SOME REASON

TO THINK THAT BERNADINE DOHRN AND JENNlFER DOHRN HAD BEEN

IN TOUCH WITH EACH OTHER. BUT JENNIFER DOHRN HAD BEEN CHARGED

WITH NO CRIME AND JENNIFER DOHRN WAS THE SAME PERSON WHOM

THEY USED TO HAVE A WIRETAP ON, WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ORDERED SHUT OFF AS A RESULT OF A DECISION OF THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AS THE RESULT OF A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES, THE F.B.I. WASN’T EVEN ALLOWED TO

PUT A WIRETAP ON JENNIFER DOHRN AT THE SPECIFIC APPROVAL

25 OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.

683

BUT IN DECEMBER OF 1972, MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER AUTHO IZED A SEARCH DONE AT HER HOME. THREE SEARCHeS WERE

DONE. HER HOME WAS THOROUGHLY SEARCHED. THEY EVEN SEARCHED

(

UNDER THE MATTRESS IN HER BED. THEY COPIED LOVE LETTERS.

THEY COPI ED A LETTER FROM HER MOTHER. THEY TOOK ABOUT THIRTY PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY FOUND NOTHING WHICH HELPED THEM LOCATE BERNADINE DOHRN.

THESE SEARCHES WERE AUTHORIZED OVER THE TELEPHONE

BY MR. MILLER, nRALIZI ONE OF THOSE MEMORANDA THAT I TOLD YOU ABOUT. IT SAl D1 “DO NOT F1 LE.” IT WAS KEPT OUT OF THE REGULAR BUREAU FILING SYSTEM. IT SAID SIMPLY,

“TODAY I AUTHORIZED SOMEONE IN NEW YORK TO CONTACT AN

(

ANONYMOUS SOURCE AT THE HOME OF JENNIFER OOHRN.”

THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENED WAS THEY AUTHORIZED THE SEARCH OF THE HOME OF A WOMAN NAMED FRANCES SCHREIBERG. FRANCES SCHREIBERG WASN’T A WEATHERMAN. FRANCIS SCHREIBERG WAS A LAWYER. SHE WORKED WITH THE LEGAL AID SOCI ETY.

THE F.B.I. VIEWED HER AS A NEW LEFT ATTORNEY. THEY CALLED HER A NEW LEFT ATTORNEY. AND SHE HAD LET JENNIFER DOHRN LIVE AT HER APARTMENT AT SOME EARLIER TIME. AND SHE HAD

REPRESENTED CERTAIN WEATHERMEN AS AN ATTORNEY.

( THEY AUTHORIZED A SEARCH OF HR HOME. THE AGENTS IN NEW YORK SEARCHED HER HOE TWICE. THEY SEARCHED IT

THOROUGHLY. THEY GOT IN WITH A KEY THAT THEY HAD OBTAINED

IN RETURN FOR CASH FROM A LANDLORD OR A JANITOR OR A BUILDING

PERSON,

THEY FOUND IN A VERY PRIVATE PLACE IN THE

&84

BACK OF A FILING CABINET I N A FOLDER MARKED “PRIVATE11

( HER PERSONAL DIARY. THEY COPIED THREE PAGES OUT OF IT. THERE WERE SOME NUMBERS ON IT IN A FUNNY ORDER.

6 THEY THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE CODE. THEY SENT IT INTO THE F.B.1. LABORATORY FOR CRYPTANALYSIS. IT TURNED OUT

8 TO BE SOME PAGES — SOME NOTATIONS OUT OF SOMETHING

CALLED THE “I CH.it’IG”I CHINESE PHILOSOPHY.

10 THAT SEARCH WAS MEJ1)RIALlZED IN A MEMORANDUM

11 FROM MR. MILLER TO MR. FELT MARKED “DO NOT FILE”, KEPT

12 OUT OF THE F.B. I. FILING SYSTEM, 1NHICH SAID, “TODAY

13 I AUTHORIZED AN AGENT IN NEW YORK TO CONTACT AN ANONYMOUS

14 SOURCE AT THE HOME OF FRANCES SCHRE1 BERG. ••

15 THE NEXT THING THEY DID WAS TO AUTHORIZE THE

16 SEARCH OF THE HOME OF MR. AND MRS. BENJAMIN COHEN.

17 MR. AND MRS. BENJAMIN COHEN WERE A 65-YEAR-OLD COUPLE,

18 WHO HAD NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES

19 SO FAR AS THE F.B.I. KNEW. THEY HAPPENED TO HAVE A

W DAUGHTER WHO HAD BECOME A WEATHERMAN. THEIR HOME WAS

SEARCHED THREE TIMES. THE F.B.I. DIDN’T FIND MUCH IN

THERE ANY TIME THEY SEARCHED,BUT THEY DID FIND A VALENT INE CARD WHICH CAME TO THE FUGITIVE — PURPORTED TO COME

24 TO THE FUGITIVE FROM A GIRLFRIEND OF HERS. AND THEY

COPIED IT. THEY PHOTOGRAPHED IT,AND THEY SENT IT TO F.B.I.

HEADQUARTERS FOR ANALYSIS. THEY FOUND NOTHING WHICH

2 HELPED THEM LOCATE ANY FUGITIVES.·

685

3 THAT SEARCH WAS MC}()RIAllZED IN A l”‘1EMORANDUM

(

4 FROM MR. MILLER TO MR. FELT, WHICH SAID, “DO NOT FILE”,

5 AND KEPT OUT OF THE F.B.I. REGULAR FILI NG SYSTEM. IT

6 SAID, “TODAY I AUTHORIZED A SPECIAL AGENT I N NEW JERSEY

7 TO CONTACT AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE AT THE HOME OF M . AND

8 MRS. BENJAMI N COHEN.”

9 THE N Xi.THING THEY DID WAS THEY AUTHORIZED

10 THE SEARCH OF THE HOME OF A MAN NAMED MURRAY BOOKCHIN.

11 MURRAY BOOKCHIN IS A COLLEGE PROFESSOR. HE LIVED IN

12 NEW YORK AT THE TIME. THE F.B.I. VI EWED HIM AS AN ANARCHIST.

TO GET INTO MR. BOOKCHIN’S HOME, THEY HAD

TO PICK THE LOCK. IN FACT, THEY HAD TO PICK TWO LOCKS. WHEN THEY GOT INSIDE, THEY FOUND A LOT OF BOOKS AND

A LOT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WRITINGS OF MR. BOOKCHIN. THEY TOOK 90 PHOTOGRAPHS OF VARIOUS PIECES OF PAPER

THAT THEY FOUND IN HIS HOME.

WHEN THEY GOT BACK TO THEIR F.B.I . OFFICE, THEY HAD THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEVELOPED,AND THEY SENT MANY OF THEM AROUND TO VARIOUS OFFICES AROUND THE COUNTRY FOR LEADS. THEY FOUND NOTHING WHICH HELPED THEM LOCATE ANY WEATHER FUGITI VE.

THE SEARCH WAS BASED SOLELY ON INFORMATION,

WHICH WAS ONE YEAR OLD, WHICH HAD COME FROM AN INFORMANT

21 636

THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS UNRELIABLTHAT A W ATHERMAN FUGITIVE

2 HAD ONCE BEEN I N MR. BOOKCHIN’S HOUSE A YEAR EARLIER.

l··· .

3 IN THE END THE F.B.’!. CONCLUDED THAT MR. BOOKCHIN HAD

4 NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY WEATHERMEN.

5 FINALLY MR. FELT AND MR. MILLER AUTHORIZED

6 A SEARCH OF THE HOME OF A MAN NAMED LEON RD MACHTI NGER.

i LEONARD MACHTINGER WAS A LAWYER WHO WORKED IN NEW YORK.

8 HE HAD NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN HIS LIFE SO FAR

9 AS THE F.B.I. K_NEW EXCEPT HE HAPPENED TO HAVE A BROTHER

l0 WHOSE NAME WAS HOWARD MACHT1 NGER WHO WAS ONLY .A..WEAT.HERMAN

11 FUGITIVE. AND THE F.B.I. HAD SOUND REASON TO THINK

12 THAT MAYBE LEONARD AND HOWARD HAD BEEN IN TOUCH WITH

13 EACH OTHER, AND MAYBE LEONARD WAS HELPING HIM.

14 SO THEY SEARCHED THE HOME OF LEONARD MACHTINGER.

15 THEY USED A KEY THAT THEY OBTAINED FROM A LANDLORD IN

16 RETURN FOR CASH. THEY GOT INTO HIS HOUSE, AND THEY

17 SEARCHED IT THOROUGHLY. 1N A CLOSET THEY FOUND A BOX,

18 AND INSIDE THE BOX WAS SOME WRITING IN HEBREW. THEY

19 COULON 1 T UNDERSTAND IT AND THEY SENT IT TO THE F.S.I.

W LABORATORY FOR TRANSLATION.

21 IT TURNED OUT MR. MACHTINGER WAS TAKING HEBREW

22 LESSONS. HE WAS TRANSLATING A POEM IN HEBREW.. THEY FOUND NOTHING IN MR. MACHTINGER’S HOME WHICH HELPED

24 THEM LOCATE A WEATHERMAN FUGITIVE.

THE SEARCH OF MR. MACHTINGER’S HOME WAS MEMORIALIZ D

AT F.B.I. HEADQUARTERS IN A MEMORANDUM FROM MR. MILLER

TO MR. FELT THAT SAlDJ

“DO NOT F1 LE.11 1T WAS NEVER

PUT IN REGULAR BUREAU FILES. AtD ALL IT SAID WAS, “TODAY

( l· AUTHORIZED AGENT SO ANO SO TO CONTACT AN ANONYMOUS

s SOURCE AT THE HOME OF LEONARD MACHTINGER.11

EACH ONE OF THESE SEAKCHES WAS DONE WITHOUT

A WARRANT. EACH ONE WAS DONE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF

THE PERSON WHO LIVED IN THE APARTMENT. EACH ONE WAS

DONE WITHOUT ANY E ERGENCY THAT COULD POSSIBLY JUSTIFY

ANY EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT OF GETTING A WARRANT.

THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE SEARCHES AND MR. FELT

12 AND MR. MILLER KNEW FULL.WELL THAT THESE S ARCHES VIOLATED

( 13 THE CONSTITUTION. THEY KNEW WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

14 SAID, AND THEY KNEW WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE

15 FOURTH AMENDMENT WERE.

EVERY AGENT IN THE ENTIRE F.B.I. WAS ISSUED

WHAT IS CALLED A F.B.I. AGENT’S HANDBOOK. AND THAT

HANDBOOK HAS A LITTLE SECTION ON SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

19 AND IT QUOTES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: THE RIGHT OF THE

PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN” THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES_, PAPERS

AND EFFECTS_, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES,

c·

SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED_, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSU ,

23 EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE CAUSEJ SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION

24 AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHEDJ AND THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED.

IT’S RIGHT IN THE F.B.I. HANDBOOK.

688

2 AND ALSO RIGHT IN THE F.B.I. HANDBOOK, IT

3 I TELLS YOU THE WAYS THAT YOU CAN DO A LEGAL SEA CH OF

A HOME. ONE, IT SAYS, GET A WARRAT. TWO, GET CONSENT OF THE OCCUPANT. THREE, YOU CAN DO IT IF YOU1 RARRESTING SOMEBODY INSIDE AND YOU’RE DOI NG IT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ARREST. THAT’S ALL.

ALSO IN THE SAME SECTION OF THE F.B.I. AGENT’S

HANDBOOK, IT SET-FORTH A STATUTE, WHICH WAS PASSED

BY CONGRESS, WHICH SAYSj “IT’S A CKIME TO SEARCH A RESIDENCE –A HOME– WITHOUT A WARRANT, EXCEPT ON CONSENT OF THE OCCUPANT OR IN CONNECTION WITH AN ARREST.”

THE ONLY THING — WE SUBMIT THE ONLY THI NG WHICH PROTECTED MR. MILLER AND MR. FELT AND THOSE AGENTS WAS SECRECY. AND THEY DEALT WITH SECRECY VERY THOROUGHLY.

YOU MAY FIND BY THE END OF THIS TRIAL THAT

THE F.B.I. MADE A RECORD ON PAPER OF VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THEY EVER DID. YOU’VE NEYER SEEN SO MUCH PAPER IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. BUT THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER

IN THE ENTIRE F.B.I. NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, HEADQUARTERS – NOT ONE SI NGLE PIECE OF PAPER WHICH SAYS THAT ANY OF

THESE SEARCHES WERE DONE.

NOW, THE F.B.I. DID HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF

WHERE THESE PHOTOGARPHS CAME FROM. THY HAD SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME PAPERS THEY GOT FROM LEONARD MACHTINGER, AND

THEY HAD SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF PAPERS THEY GdT FROM JENNIFER

2 DOHRN, AND THEY HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF PAPERS THEY GOT FROM

3 SOME OF THESE OTHEK PEOPLE. AND THeY HAD TO KEEP THEM

( 4 STRAIGHT. SO THEY DlD MAKE A MEMORANDUM AFTER THEY

5 DID THE SEARCH, BUT THEY DIDN’T PUT lT IN F.B.I. FILES.

6 1 MEAN, THEY MADE A MEMORANDUM IN NEW YORK, NOT JUST

7 THE MEMORANDUMS THAT WE’VE ALR ADY TALKED ABOUT. THEY

8 MADE A MEMORANDUM I N NEW YORK. THEY DIDN’T PUT IT I N

9 REGULAR F.B.I. Fl ES. THEY PUT IT IN A SAFE IN A SECRETARY’S

10 OFFICE OUTSIDE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE OF

11 THE NEW YORK OFFICE. BUT IT DIDN’T SAY THAT A SEARCH

12 HAD BEEN DONE. IT SAlD, “TODAY WE CONTACTED A HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE AT THE HOME OF” — AND IT WOULD

SAY “JENIFER DOHRN, LEONARD MACHTI NGER” AND SO ON.

15 A HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE.

16 THEN THEY WOULD ASSIGA NUMBER TO THAT SOURCE,

17 A SYMBOL NUMBER, THEY CALLED IT, AND WHEN THEY SENT

18 THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AROUND THE COUIHRY1 OR THEY. SENT THEM

19 UP TO F.B.I. HEADQUARTERS, THEY WOULD WRITE IN THEIR

20 REPORTS, “HERE1 S A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE OBTAINED FROM

21 A HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SYMBOL

22 NUMBER,” WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE APARTMENT OF THE PERSON

23 WHOSE HOME THEY SEARCHED.

U NOW, THIS BUSI NESS OF SECRECY CONTINUED ON AFTER THE LAST SEARCH HAD BEEN DONE.

WE WILL OFFER EVIDENCE AGAI NST MR. MILLER

2 THAT IN MAY OF 1973, AFTER THE LAST SEARCH HAD BEEN

3 DONE, A REPORT CALLED THE “HUSTON REPORT”, A TOP SECRET

4 REPORT, WAS LEAKED TO THE NEWSPAPEKS –WAS PRI NTED

S IN THE NEwSPAPERS. AND THAT REPORT DEALT WITH SURREPTITIOUS

6 ENTRY DONE BY THE F.B.I.

-‘ MR. MILLER SAW THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES DEALING

8 WITH THAT REPORT. SHORTLY AFTER THE REPORT HiT THE

9 NEWSPAPERS, A MAN- AMED ARCHIBALD COX, WHO THEN HAD

10 THE TITLE OF WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, SENT A LETTER

11 TO THE PERSON WHO WAS THEN DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I., A

12 MAN NAMED WILLIAM RUCKLESHAUS, AND THE LETTER ASKED ·

13 PERMISSION TO SEE A LOT OF DOCUMENTS, BUT INCLUDED WERE

14 ALL I NTERNAL AUTHORIZATION MEMORANDA DEALING WITH SURREPTITI US

15 ENTRY.

16 NOW, MR. MILLER SAW THAT LETTER. IT WAS GIVEN

1i TO HIS DIVISION FOR REPLY. REMEMBER MR. COX IS ASKING

18 TO SEE ALL INTERNAL AUTHORIZATION MEMORANDA DEALING

19 WITH SURREPTITIOUS ENTRY.

WELL, A REPLY WAS PREPARED BY SOMEBODY IN

c··

21 MR. MILLER’S DIVISION. IT SAID, “WE HAVE DONE AN EXHAUSTIVE

22 SEARCH OF ALL OF OUR FILES,” AND IT SUGGESTED THAT THEY

23 HAVE A MEETING — PERSONAL MEETING INSTEAD OF SENDING

24 ANY FILES TO MR. COX. AND THERE WAS A MEETING. MR.

MILLER CHAIRED IT. MR. COX WAS AT THE MEETING.

1 DID MR. COX GET THE INTERNAL AUTHORIZATION

2 MEMORANDA DEALING WITH SURREPTITIOuS ENTRIES DONE ON

3 THE WEATHERMAN FUGITI VES? NO, HDID NOT. HE WAS TOLD

4 THERE WERE NO RECORDS ON SURREPTITIOUS ENTRY.

5 WAS MR. COX TOLD ABOUT THOSE SURREPTITIOUS

6 ENTRIES ON THE FRIEND5 AND RELATIVES OF THE WEATHERMAN

i FUGITIVES? NO, HE WAS NOT. HE WAS TOLD THAT SURREPTITIOUS

8 ENTRY HAD BEEN USED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE F.B.I.

9 IN TOP SECRET FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ESPIONAGE MATTERS,

)0 BUT HE WAS NOT TOLD ABOUT THESE SURREPTITIOUS ENTRI ES

11 THAT MR. MILLER HAD AUTHORIZED ONLY A FEW MONTHS EARLIER.

12 WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER — WITHIN ABOUT

13 FIVE DAYS AFTER THIS MEETI NG WITH MR. COX, MR. KELLY

14 CLARANCE KELLY, WHO IS NOW THE NEW DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I.,

15 ASKED HIS SUBORDI NATES WHAT HE SHOULD SAY IF THE NEWSPAPER-

16 MEN — IF THE PRESS ASKED HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT SURREPTITIOUS

17 ENTRY DONE BY THE F.B.I. MR. MILLER’S DIVISION PREPARED

18 ABOUT THREE PAGES OF ADVICE FOR MR. KELLY AB6UT WHAT

19 HE SHOULD SAY TO THE NEWSPAPERMEN IF THEY ASKED HIM

20 ABOUT SURREPTITIOUS ENTRY. AND THE ADVICE THEY GAVE

21 HIM WAS, “DON’T SAY ANYTHING. JUST DON’T SAY ANYTHING.”

22 THAT WAS WRITTEN BY MR. MILLER’S TRUSTED ASSISTANT,

23 THOMAS J. SMITH, AND AT THE END OF THAT MEMORANDUM,

24 MR. MILLER WROTE, “I AGREE COMPLETELY. AVOID IT. E.M.”

25 EDWARD MrLLER.

THAT MEMORANDUM EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS THAT THEY

&92

2 , DIDN’T WANT MR. KELLY SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT SURREPTITIOUS

3 ENTRY. IT SAID, “SU.RREPTITIOUS ENTRY INVOLVES OPERATING

‘

( 4 i,.

OUTSIDE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.

IT’S A BREACH OF

5 THE NATIONAL TKUST. AND IF YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT,

6 I THERE IS GOI NG TO BE AN INVESTIGATION, AND SOMEBODY MAY

7 I GET ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED.”

‘I

8 AT THE BEGINNING OF MY STATEMENT, I TOLD YOU WHAT

9 THIS CASE WAS ABOUJ. THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE RIGHT

10 OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR HOMES.

11 I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU WHAT THIS CASE IS

12 NOT. I’M ONLY GOING TO TELL YOU ONCE. I ASK YOU TO

13 LISTEN. THIS CASE IS NOT A CASE OF THE F.B.I. AGAI NST

(

14 THE WEATHERMEN. IF IT WERE A CASE OF THE F.B.I. AGAINST

15 THE WEATHERMEN, WE COULD ALL GO HOME IN FI VE MI NUTES,

16 BECAUSE THERE WOULDN’T BE ANYBODY I N THIS COURTROOM

1i ARGUING IN FAVOR OF BOMBINGS OR RIOTING.

18 NO. THIS CASE IS ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS

19 AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAVE CRIMINALLY VIOLATED THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

THERE’S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT

22 THE “WE.ATHERMEN. THERE’S GOING TO BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE

(

23 ABOUT THE WEATHERMEN. THE NEED TO INVESTIGATE THE WEATHERME

24 IS GOING TO LITERALLY SHRIEK AT YOU FROM THE DOCUMENTS

25 AND THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU’LL HEAR IN THIS COURTROOM.

I • FROM TIME TO TIME YOU’LL HAR THE SOUNDS OF

I’

2 THE WEATHERI’\EN’S BOMBS RINGING IN YOUR cARS.E ASK

YOU TO LI STEN TO THE SOUND OF THE CONSTITUTI ON OF THE

UNITED STATES. IT DOESN’T MAKE QUITE AS MUCH NOISE

1\ AS A WEATHERMAN BOMB. IT DOESN’T SHRI EK AT YOU.

I As

6 IT DOESN’T EVEN WHISPER. IT JUST SITS THERE, IT

AT THERE FOR ALMOST TWO HUNDRED YEARS-THROUGH THICK

AND THIN, THROUGH WARS AND DEPRESSIONS, GOOD TIMES AND BAD TIMES.

TH:SILL OF RIGHTS DOESN’T INSPIRE TEAMS OF F.B.I. AGENTS TO GO RUN OUT AND INVESTIGATE QUITE THE

WAY A WEATHERMAN BOMB DOES, BUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS REPRESENTS THE DEEPEST AND HIGHEST ASPIRATIONS OF THE AMERICAN

PEOPLE.

IF WE FAI L TO PERSUADE YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE. I .

DOUBT AT THE END OF THIS TRIAL THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE CRIMI NALLY VIOLATED THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF

THE UNITED STATES, YOU SHOULD ACQUIT AND YOU’SHOULD

ACQUIT IN A FLASH• BUT IF WE HAVE CONVINCED YOU BEYOND A REAS’ON- ABLE DOUBT THAT THEY’RE GUILTY, WE WILL ASK YOU NOT

TO HESITATE,NOT FOR A MOMENT,TO CONVICT FOR ANY REASON. I

IF YOU FIND THAT WE’VE ESTABLISHED THE I

DEFENDANTS’ GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WE WILL I

ASK YOU TO VIEW THE SEARCHES OF THE HOMES OF JENNIFER I

DOHRN, BENJAMIN COHEN, FRANCES SCHREIBERG, MURRAY BOOKCHlN I

II AND LEONARD MACHTI NGER AS VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF

ALL THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY VIOLATIONS WHI CH CANNOT

AND WILL I-JOT BE TOLtRATED 1 tWT SO LONG AS WE HAVE A

BI LL OF RIGHTS AND IOT SO LONG AS WE HAVE COURTS OF LAW IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTION RANKS SUPREME.

IN THAT CASE WE WILL ASK YOU BY YOUR VERDICTS TO SAY NO NO TO BAG JOBS, NO TO ANONYMOUS SOURCES, NOT HERE, NOT IN AMERICA, NOT IN THE FI NEST COUNTRY

I N THE WORLD.

THANK YOU. I’LL TALK TO YOU AGAIN AT THE END OF THE CASE.

OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FELT

MR. GETTINGS: THI S CASE ALSO REPRESENTS,

‘I

MEMBERS OF THE JURY, THE FIRST OPPORTUNI TY FOR TWELVE I

AMERICAN CITIZENS TO SECOND-GUESS THE ACTIONS OF SOMEBODY I

THAT DID WHAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD TO DO EIGHT YEARS AGO. l

IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO SIT AT HIS ,.

DESK. IT’S AN OPPORTUN1TY FOR YOU TO BE ON THE SAME I

WATCH HE WAS ON AIJD PUT YOURSELF IN HIS PLACE AND SECOND- 1

GUESS HIM, AND \vHEN THE BOMBS ARE GOING OFF SAY1 “1

WOULDN’T HAVE DONE IT THAT WAY, SO YOU’RE A CRIMINAL.” · 1

THAT’S WHAT THIS CASE IS. SECOND-GUESSING. MEMBERS OF THE JURY, 1 SPEAK TO YOU ON BEHALF

OF MY CLIENT, MR. MARK FELT.

I WI SH I COULD TELL YOU NOW THAT I’M GOING

Exhibit 1 – John Nields, Jr., Esq.

Share Our Story, Choose Your Platform!