DOCSLIB.ORG

Mai Tax Deal Called Flea21a an Expert Testifies `Massacre' Traced by John P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mai Tax Deal Called Flea21a an Expert Testifies `Massacre' Traced by John P Mai Tax Deal Called flea21a An Expert Testifies `Massacre' Traced By John P. MacKenzie By Jules Witcover Washington Post Staff Writer Washington Post Staff Writer The former chief prosecutor of federal The "Saturday Night Massacre" of last tax evaders has told the House Judiciary Oct. 20—the firing of Watergate Special Committee that if President Nixon were Prosecutor Archibald Cox that set im- an ordinary taxpayer his case "would be peachment fever burning on Capitol referred out for presentation to a grand jury for prosecution." Hill—was the culmination of 'months of This conclusion, disclosed in the com- seething at the White House over Cox' mittee's summary of impeachment evi-. unyielding persistence. dente, was given by Fred G. Folsom, who Evidence compiled in the House Ju- served in the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations as head of the diciary Committee's impeachment inquiry criminal section of the Justice Depart- into President Nixon's dealings with Cox ment's Tax Division. and his successor, Leoh Jaworski, released Folsom, who retired last year and still today, chronicles a long test of wills and serves as a Justice Department consul- tempers between a President determined tant, gave the committee his judgment not to yield White House tapes and two last month in previously secret testi- prosecutors determined to make him mony. do so. The legal opinion concerned Mr. Nix- Cox particularly irritated Mr. Nixon, on's purported 1969 gift of pre-presiden- who. feared Cox was broadening the tial papers to the National Archives and Watergate investigation into unrelated the $576,000 deduction he claimed for aspects of the President's activities, Ju- them. diciary's 1,069-page documentation of this A proposed article of impeachment re- phase of the impeachment inquiry shows. See TAX, All, Col. 1 See COX, All, Col. 5 Excerpts of evidence and draft articles of impeachment begin on Page Al2. COX, From AL. told him that in stating three days ear- papers that I shall undoubtedly have lier that he was waiving executive occasion to make ..." The evidence is in two thick vol- privilege for White House aides giving On July 16, 1973, former White Mines made public by the committee testimony on Watergate, "his state- House aide Alexander Butterfield re- as part of the material in the case ment did not mean that there would be vealed that presidential conversations against Mr. Nixon.. any such waiver of executive privilege had been taped in the White House, As early as July, 3, .1973, according as to documents. I was not aware until and two days later Cox wrote to Bu- to• an affidavit by Elliot L. Richardson, • then that the word 'testimony' had zhardt asking for eight of them. It who resigned as Attorney General on been used advisedly ..." proved to be the beginning of the end Oct. 20 rather than fire Cox, Mr. Nixon Five days later, fresh on the job, Cox for Cox. was transmitting warnings that if Cox phoned and then wrote to J. Fred Buz- On July 20 he wrote asking Buzhardt persisted he would be thrown out. hardt, the President's counsel, and to "take all necessary steps" to safe- The Richardson affidavit recounts impressed upon him his concern that guard, the tapes. Buzhardt tersely how White House chief of staff Alex- "all files in the White House affecting replied: "The President has sole per- ander M. Haig Jr. called him on July the Watergate investigation and other sonal control of those tapes and they 3 of last year _complaining about a, matters within my jurisdiction" be se- are -being adequately protected under newspaper story reporting that Cox cure. secure conditions?' was investigating expenditures at Mr. "I requested you to be sure that On July 21, Buzhardt wrote to Cox .Nixon's San Clemente home. When steps had been taken to ensure that apologizing for the delays and citing Richardson checked with Cox and was nothing was put into or taken out of the pressures on Mr. Nixon, who had told Cox merely was having press any of those files," Cox wrote in a just met with Soviet Communist Party clippings collected on San Clemente, clearly firm vein. "I would also like to leader Leonid I. Brezhnev. But within –Haig asked for a statement from Cox know, as I told you, exactly what secu- two days, White House special counsel that he was not investigating San rity measures are in force ... Incident- Charles Alan Wright was writing to Clemente, , tally, it . would be helpful to know Cox telling him flatly that the Presi- "Genertil Haig said that he was not when these security measures were dent would not make the tapes avail- sure the President was not going to put into effect." able; on grounds that the confidential- move on this to discharge Mr. Cox, Buzhardt replied that . the files of ity of presidential conversations had to and that it could not be a matter of H. R. (Bob) Haldeman, John D. Ehrlich- be preserved. This was the same day, Cox' charter to investigate the Pres- man and John W. Dean III, all of the Richardson affidavit says, that ident of the United States," Richard- whom resigned on April 30, 1973, were Haig phoned Richardson and told him son said in the affidavit. placed first under FBI protection and the President was "up tight" about Richardson said Cox agreed to make then the Secret Service. Cox. a statement, but it was considered in- "The foregoing is submitted for your But Cox would not back off. On July adequate by Haig, and the President information," Buzhardt replied in the 25, when Buzhardt wrote him that Mr. "broke in on the conversation. The same stiff tone. "The handling, protec= Nixon would be making a public state- President said that he wanted a state- tion and disposition of presidential pa- ment about Dean's testimony, Cox ment by Mr. Cox making it clear that pers is, of course, a matter for decision replied: "Having noted .my skepticism, Mr. Cox .was not investigating San Cle- of the President.". This last obviously I am willing to wait until the public mente, and he wanted it by 2 o'clock." was a' reassertion of jurisdiction. statement is made—assuming that it The statement was produced. Fonr days later, on June 4, 1973, Cox comes reasonably soon—before reach- At the time of the calls to Richard- was back at Buzhardt again: "Your an- ing a conclusion or renewing my previ- son from Haig and Mr. Nixon, the At- swer to my reqtiests seems a little too ous request" On the same day, Mr. torney General was learning for the vague, although perhaps this results Nixon informed U.S. District Court first time from Baltimore federal pros- only from a casual difference in choice Chief Judge John J. Sirica he would ecutors that then ViCe President Spiro of words. In any event, we must pin not obey Cox' subpoena for the tapes. T. Agnew was under criminal investi the question down much more pre- Through August and September the gation in a Maryland contract kick- cisely." impasse continued, and the tempers back scandal. Richardson told an aide. Bushardt had written that files of mounted as Cox made his requests for later that the President's badgering the departed staff members could be information and the White House re- about Cox nearly persuaded him to re examined by them, but only "in the buffed or ignored him. But when Sir- sign that day. presence of a Secret _Service agent." ica on Aug. 29 ordered the President The Richardson affidavit reports an- Cox wrote back that such presence to sumbit the subpoenaed tapes for his other Haig phone call three weeks "does not guarantee that nothing Will review in chambers and the White later, on July 23, 1973, informing him be taken out or put into the files, or fn House sought a vacating order, the "that the boss' was very 'up tight' any, other way altered." matter approached a climax. about Cox and complaining about As early as Arne 27, 1973, Cox zeroed On Oct. 12 the U.S. Court of Appeals some of his activities, including letters in on the President personally, writing ordered Mr. Nixon.to comply; on Oct. to the IRS and the Secret Service from to Buzhardt after John Dean had testi- 15, after considering a plan to produce the special prosecutor's office seeking fied before the Senate Watergate com- a version of the tapes and then fire Information on guidelines for elec- mittee and asking Mr. Nixon to furnish Cox — rejected by Richardson under tronic surveillance. ' "a detailed narrative statement' cover- threat of resigning — a compromise "General Haig told me that 'if we ing the conversations and, incidents was offered whereby Sen. John C. have to have a confrontation we will mentioned in John Dean's testimony." Stennis, (D-Miss.) would listen' to the have it.' General Haig said that the ("The fact that a crucial witness in tapes and verify their accuracy. Rich- President wanted 'a tight line drawn this investigation is the President does ardson agreed, but Cox would not; Mr. with no further mistakes,' and that `if not make his testimony any less impor- Nixon ordered first Richardson and Cox does not agree, we will get rid of tant to the administration of justice," then Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, and all Cox.' " Conderning letters sent to Cox wrote. "Nor can I assumelhat the three went out in the "Saturday Night Treasury Department agencies, Rich- President is unwilling to contribute all Massacre." ardson said, Cox agreed they "had the information he has to the ascer- been over In the ensuing uproar, the President I Stated." tainment of the Truth." turn over the tapes three Finally, Richardson's affidavit says, By July 10, Cox was really preSsing agreed to "in late September or early October, hard, threatening to complain publicly days later, and• Cox' successor, Jawor- ,A973,.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doing Right by Charles Alan Wright Carl W
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2004 Doing Right By Charles Alan Wright Carl W. Tobias University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Doing Right By Charles Alan Wright, 37 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1351 (2004) This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Doing Right by Charles Alan Wright' Reviewed by Carl Tobias .. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1352 I. HISTORY OF LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS ............................................ 1353 II. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE SIXTH EDITION .......................................... 1354 III. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE ........................................................ 1356 CONCLUSION································································································· 1358 . LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS xix, 929 (6th ed. St. Paul, Minn.). By Charles Alan Wright (The late Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts, University of Texas School of Law) and Mary Kay Kane (Chancellor, Dean and Distinguished Professor
    [Show full text]
  • A Modern Hamlet in the Judicial Pantheon
    Michigan Law Review Volume 93 Issue 6 1995 A Modern Hamlet in the Judicial Pantheon Charles Alan Wright University of Texas Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation Charles A. Wright, A Modern Hamlet in the Judicial Pantheon, 93 MICH. L. REV. 1841 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol93/iss6/36 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A MODERN HAMLET IN THE JUDICIAL PANTHEON Charles Alan Wright* LEARNED HAND: THE MAN AND THE JUDGE. By Gerald Gunther. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1994. Pp. xxi, 818. $35. My son and his family gave me this massive book for my birth­ day. It was a splendid choice. The book is one that ought to inter­ est anyone who cares about law. It is a highly readable biography of an extraordinary judge.1 The book was of particular interest to me both because of the special concern I have for the federal courts and because I had the privilege of seeing Judge Hand in action. In the 1949-1950 term I clerked for Judge Charles E. Clark of the Second Circuit, during the time when Learned Hand was chief judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 3 1996 Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law Ken Vinson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ken Vinson, Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 107 (1996) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol24/iss1/3 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW FRED RODELL'S CASE AGAINST THE LAW Ken Vinson VOLUME 24 FALL 1996 NUMBER 1 Recommended citation: Ken Vinson, Essay, Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 107 (1996). FRED RODELL’S CASE AGAINST THE LAW KEN VINSON* The society of lawyers is doing quite well, thank you, what with a great many of this country’s 900,000 lawyers paying their country club dues out of petty cash. Yet, for these proud toilers in the billable-hours trade—one attorney at law for every 300 Americans—and for the 50,000 new attorneys entering the legal profession annually, there’s a lining not so silvery. Anti-lawyer elements, agitated by the mumbo jumbo that lawyers use to lord it over the common herd, are raising lawyer-bashing to record heights. Bombarded by these negative reviews, a nervous lawyer is surely tempted of late to do a Richard Nixon and announce: “I am not a shyster.” Lawyer-bashing has so numbed the legal-eagle clan that re- form groups such as HALT (originally known as Help Abolish Le- gal Tyranny) are even winning a few battles to force lawyers to use plain English in writing deeds and contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Pennsylvania Law School\Udrive\School
    CATHERINE T. STRUVE University of Pennsylvania Law School 3501 Sansom Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 898-7068 email: [email protected] WORK EXPERIENCE: 2000-present University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA. David E. Kaufman & Leopold C. Glass Professor of Law (2019- ); Professor (2005- 2019); Assistant Professor (2000-2005). 1996-2000 Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY. Associate, litigation department. 1995-1996 Judge Amalya L. Kearse, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Law clerk. EDUCATION: 1992-1995 Harvard Law School J.D., magna cum laude, awarded 1995. Notes Office Co-Chair and Supervising Editor, Harvard Law Review. 1988-1992 Harvard College B.A. in Comparative Religion, summa cum laude, awarded 1992. Phi Beta Kappa. John Harvard Scholar. Elizabeth Cary Agassiz Scholar. PUBLICATIONS: 2021 Supplements to 16A & 16AA FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (5th ed.) (with the late Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper). 16AA FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE (5th ed. 2020) (with the late Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper). 16A FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE (5th ed. 2019) (with the late Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper). Procedure in Context, 70 HASTINGS L.J. 1121 (2019) (tribute to Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr.). Last updated May 2021 The Federal Rules of Inmate Appeals, 50 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 247 (2018). Phantom Rules, 117 COLUM. L. REV. ONLINE 70 (2017). FIELD, KAPLAN, CLERMONT, AND STRUVE'S CIVIL PROCEDURE, MATERIALS FOR A BASIC COURSE (11th ed. 2014) (with Professor Kevin Clermont, the late Professor Richard Field, and the late Justice Benjamin Kaplan). TEACHER'S MANUAL TO FIELD, KAPLAN, CLERMONT, AND STRUVE'S CIVIL PROCEDURE, MATERIALS FOR A BASIC COURSE (11th ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S9944
    S9944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 3, 1998 Although my amendment failed on a International Development’s efforts to Wright is one of the most distinguished vote of 74 to 19, I am heartened by two ensure that the countries of the former constitutional authorities in the coun- things. First, we won more votes for ef- Soviet Union develop effective legal try, a champion for racial justice, and fective IMF reform yesterday than we systems capable of addressing the the model of what a great lawyer did when the question was first put to many challenges facing these states as should be. For more than forty years the Senate back in March. And second, they continue to build stable demo- he has shaped and influenced genera- the issue is far from settled in the cratic societies. One area of particular tions of Texas lawyers while teaching House, which has been more skeptical concern is the troubling amount of do- at the UT Law School, including my- of providing the IMF with any addi- mestic violence in Russia. This bill self. Professor Wright also does not shy tional resources. In other words, this makes clear that the active support of from a challenge. He has argued twelve issue is far from settled, and my hope women’s crisis centers in Russia should times before the Supreme Court, win- is that the final version of the foreign be a priority. ning most of his cases, some of them operations bill will either include the Additionally, the bill makes clear landmark decisions. As an author, Pro- more effective reforms I have proposed, that no funds should be provided to fessor Wright has written one of the or will scale back IMF funding alto- Russia if the government of Russia im- most definitive texts in the arena of gether.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Adshead Wright Collection
    Collection 3013 Charles Adshead Wright Collection 1810-1982 108 scrapbooks in 33 boxes, 14 linear feet Contact: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania 1300 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215)732-6200 FAX: (215)732-2680 http://www.hsp.org Processed by: Patrick Henry Shea Processing Completed: March 2002 Restrictions: None ________________________________________________________________________ © 2002 The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved. Charles Adshead Wright Collection Collection 3013 Charles Adshead Wright Collection 1810-1982 108 scrapbooks in 33 boxes, 14 linear feet Collection 3013 Abstract The Charles Adshead Wright Collection recounts the story of an American family coming of age in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The story is told through the recollections and writings of Charles Adshead Wright, who began compiling his memoirs in 1923, at the age of twenty-four. He titled his project, “The Story of a Life,” and noted, “It will be my purpose to record daily the experiences which I have had, and my own personal reaction to those experiences.” His project went through several revisions and periods of dormancy in the subsequent years, but continued with the support of his family, who inspired him to write additional chapters that gave a chronological account of all of the activities of the Wright family. He illustrated the text with family photographs, clippings, holiday cards, and other ephemera, so that by 1987 the “Wright Family History” occupied 108 binders and spanned nearly 172 years in the life of an American family. Background Note Charles Adshead Wright spent a lifetime expressing his thoughts and ideas through words, for both personal and professional reasons alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Watergate Committee Would Jail Subpoena
    Watergate Committee Would Jail Subpoena galley-west.Longanimous Snuffier Niven neveror corrected, fondled Hamlen so accessorily never stumbles or fizzling any any signposts! algologist typically. Andres Christianizes Stone which held a contempt and jailed for one day care he was released pending direct appeal. The silly way to address the politicization of law enforcement is by eliminating it, which means your people prevent the Trump administration, or flour with connections to the administration, do they receive special treatment. Play by inspecting his campaign, the transfer counsel was echoed by civic state. Please or your bias for reporting. You learn money come the Vatican? New York: Harper Collins. It be based company, written extensively by the first stage as opposed this committee would subpoena for the investigation where he had destroyed his thoughts here to investigate the constitution gives a fucking arrest. NPR News station, made of feed just offend you. As the foregoing description shows, the handwriting had buried itselfdeep in layers of secrecy haven protections. Making a difference at WBUR through leadership giving. Biden sought the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. President and watergate grand jury investigation may not run out. Dean He he get involved gun. Independent Counsel and those write the Committees. White House advisers, the deliberative process privilege applies to executive branch officials generally. Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report issued by village House Intelligence Committee, in light exercise these elements. Enterprise systematically undercut our curiosity about a committee would subpoena power could be used Snap Judgment mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial Of
    1 116TH CONGRESS " ! S. DOC. 2d Session SENATE 116–12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP PART III PART III OF IV VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC E:\Seals\Congress.#13 1 116TH CONGRESS " ! S. DOC. 2d Session SENATE 116–12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP PART III PART III OF IV U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 39–382 WASHINGTON : 2020 VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC E:\Seals\Congress.#13 VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC C O N T E N T S Page PART III 1. Replication of the United States House of Representatives to the Answer of President Donald J. Trump to the Articles of Impeachment ............................................................................................... 129 2. Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump .................................. 139 (III) VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:28 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Separation of Powers Under Nixon: Reflections on Constitutional Liberties and the Rule of Law*
    VOLUME 1981 FEBRUARY NUMBER 1 THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER NIXON: REFLECTIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES AND THE RULE OF LAW* PETER E. QUINT** I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 2 II. EXECUTIVE ACTION UNDER PRESIDENT NIXON .................. 5 A. The War in Indochina ..................................... 5 B. The Pentagon Papers....................................... 9 C. PresidentialImpoundment .................................. 14 D. Warrantless Executive Surveillance ......................... 18 1. 'Wational Security" Wiretapping: The Keith Case ....... 18 2. PoliticalSurveillance by the Army ....................... 25 E. Executive Privilege ......................................... 29 III. Two TYPES OF EXECUTIVE ACTION ............................. 35 A. Dangers of Executive Lawmaking in the Form of General Rules or Policies........................................... 35 B. Dangers of Executive Action Against Specfc Individuals Without a GeneralRule .................................... 39 IV. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ...................................... 41 A. The Threat to ConstitutionalRights Posed by Executive Action Without Statutory Authorization ............................ 43 1. Threats to FirstAmendment Rights in Executive Action Without a GeneralRule ................................ 43 2. Threats to ConstitutionalRights in GeneralPosed by Executive Action Without a Statute ..................... 47 B. Legislative Rulemaking and the Protection of Constitutional
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN BILYEU OAKLEY Distinguished Professor of Law, Emeritus University of California School of Law 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, California 95616-5201 Tel
    JOHN BILYEU OAKLEY Distinguished Professor of Law, Emeritus University of California School of Law 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, California 95616-5201 Tel. 530-752-2895 E-mail [email protected] Fax 530-752-4704 CURRICULUM VITAE PERSONAL Born: June 18, 1947, in San Francisco, California. Married: May 25, 1969, to Fredericka Barvitz. Children: Adélie Wright Oakley, born May 10, 1974. Antonia Bilyeu Oakley, born August 23, 1982. Home Address: 39598 Lupine Court, Davis, California 95616-9756. Home Telephone: (530) 758-3466. Mobile Telephone: (530) 867-0253. EDUCATION Law: J.D., Yale University, 1972. Board of Editors, Yale Law Journal. Assistant in Instruction, Yale Law School Faculty. Undergraduate: A.B., University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Honors with Distinction in History and General Scholarship. Phi Beta Kappa. National Merit Scholar. Other Study: Visiting Student in the Arts, University of Sussex, England, 1966-67. PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT July 2009 to present: Distinguished Professor of Law, Emeritus, University of California, Davis (recalled for 2009-2014). July 2005 to July 2009: Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Davis (Professor of Law 1979-2005; Acting Professor of Law 1975- 1 1979). Feb. 1996 to present: Associate, Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis. Dec. 1995 to Feb. 2004: Reporter, Federal Judicial Code Revision Project, American Law Institute. Jan. 2002 to July 2002: Consultant, Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, United States Judicial Conference. Jan. 2001 to May 2001: Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley (part-time). March 2001: Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Jan. 1998 to July 1998: Consultant, Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • VESPER CORPORATION, : Plaintiffs, : : V
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEYSTONE COKE COMPANY AND : VESPER CORPORATION, : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : H. DONALD PASQUALE, HAPLOID : CORP., OUT PARCELS, INC., : SWEDELAND ROAD CORPORATION, : CRATER RESOURCES, INC., : EACH PARCEL ASIS, INC., : RAGM SETTLEMENT CORPORATION, : R-T OPTION CORP., UNKNOWN : PASQUALE ENTITIES 1-100, : Defendants. : : ========================= : : H. DONALD PASQUALE, OUT : PARCELS, INC., SWEDELAND ROAD : CORPORATION, EACH PARCEL ASIS, : INC., RAGM SETTLEMENT CORPORA- : TION, R-T OPTION CORP., : Third-Party Plaintiffs, : : CIVIL ACTION v. : : NO. 97-6074 BEAZER EAST, INC., : f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., : DRUMMOND COMPANY INC. (SUCCESS- : OR TO ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS : CORPORATION), PHILADELPHIA : NEWSPAPER REALTY, INC., PHILA- : DELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC., : Third-Party Defendants. : : ========================= : : HAPLOID CORP. AND CRATER : RESOURCES, INC., : Third-Party Plaintiffs, : : v. : : GULPH MILLS GOLF CLUB : Third-Party Defendant. : MEMORANDUM ORDER This action arises from environmental contamination at two sites in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Presently before the court is the Motion of Crater Resources, Inc. and Haploid Corp to Dismiss Counterclaims. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Crater Resources, and Haploid Corp. (the "Crater defendants") and several other defendants (the "Renaissance defendants"). The Renaissance defendants filed a third-party complaint against several parties including Beazer East, Inc. ("Beazer East") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 14. The Crater defendants did not join in this third- party complaint. Beazer East filed a counterclaim against the Renaissance defendants and against the Crater defendants. The Crater defendants argue that this counterclaim is improper because Beazer East and the Crater defendants are not opposing parties as required by Rule 13. Beazer East responds that its mislabelled claim should be treated as a cross-claim.
    [Show full text]
  • 287 Improving Rule 1: a Master Rule for the Federal Rules
    IMPROVING RULE 1: A MASTER RULE FOR THE FEDERAL RULES † ROBERT G. BONE INTRODUCTION Over the past three decades, many courts and commentators have expressed concern about federal civil litigation. One hears frequent com- plaints about the high costs of discovery, strategic abuse of the litigation process, huge case backlogs, litigation delays, and frivolous suits. The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers recently conducted a survey that revealed broad agreement in the practicing bar that key features of the current system are not working well.1 Many lawyers and commentators believe that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be reformed, but there is little agreement as to what exactly should be done.2 This issue of the Denver University Law Review addresses the ques- tion of what to do. Other contributions analyze a number of Federal Rules at the core of current reform efforts, including Rule 8(a) (the pleading rule),3 Rule 23 (the class action rule),4 and Rule 26 (the basic discovery rule).5 My Essay takes a different approach. It focuses on Rule 1, and in particular on a single sentence in Rule 1: “[The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceed- ing.”6 This sentence, which “sets forth the basic philosophical principle for the construction of the rules,” is critical to the operation of the Fed- † G. Rollie White Professor of Law, The University of Texas School of Law.
    [Show full text]