DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Unleashing the Financial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Unleashing the Financial UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Unleashing the Financial Sector: Home Loan Deregulation and the Savings and Loan Crisis, 1966-1989 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Dustin Ryan Walker Committee in charge: Professor Mary Furner, Chair Professor Alice O’Connor Professor Nelson Lichtenstein Professor Stephen Weatherford June 2018 The dissertation of Dustin Ryan Walker is approved. _____________________________________________ Stephen Weatherford _____________________________________________ Nelson Lichtenstein _____________________________________________ Alice O’Connor _____________________________________________ Mary Furner, Committee Chair September 2017 Unleashing the Financial Sector: Home Loan Deregulation and the Savings and Loan Crisis, 1966-1989 Copyright © 2018 by Dustin Ryan Walker iii To JP: Sorry you missed this iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project, quite simply, could not have been completed without the mentorship and guidance of Mary O. Furner. Words cannot accurately convey the appreciation, the admiration, and the respect I have for you as a scholar and a human being. A simple thank you seems woefully inadequate as I gratefully acknowledge the overwhelming support and encouragement and insightful suggestions that you provided me as I analyzed and explained this vitally important, but previously misunderstood, episode in U.S. economic and political history. Nevertheless, I will still try, thank you Mary—for everything. Several grants and fellowships made this project financially feasible. Those funds provided me the opportunity to travel to five different states and the District of Columbia and collect tens of thousands of pages of archival materials. They included: the UC Santa Barbara Graduate Dean’s Dissertation Fellowship, Tobin Project Democracy and Market Fellowship, UC Santa Barbara Gradate Dean’s Advancement Fellowship, UC Regent’s Dissertation Fellowship, UC Santa Barbara Humanities and Social Science Research Grant, UC Santa Barbara Department of History Dissertation Fellowship, All-UC Group in Economic History Research Grant, UC Santa Barbara History Associates Fellowship, UC Santa Barbara History Associates Robert L. Kelley Fellowship, and the UCLA IRLE Collaborative Graduate Student Research Grant. Additionally, I am grateful to Nicole Pacino, Tara Tubb, Colleen Ho, and Rachel Winslow, who regularly provided constructive feedback on my grant and fellowship proposals. I’m grateful for your time and appreciative of the thoughtful historical observations and grammatical corrections. And to Colleen Ho, Shawn Mack, Lindsay and Josh Harris, and Helen-Jane and Russell Abrecht, thank you for opening your homes to me as I archived up and down the East Coast. I appreciate the kindness and generosity. I am also eternally grateful to the many archivists who eagerly and openly shared their institutional expertise and historical knowledge with me. Without Bill Davis and Rod Ross (Center for Legislative Archives at the National Archives), Keith Shuler (Jimmy Carter Presidential Library), Kelly Barton (Ronald Reagan Presidential Library), Robert Beasecker and Nancy Richard (Special Collections and University Archives at Grand Valley State University), Roy Hinojosa (Dolph Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin), and Nicholas Siekierski (Hoover Institution), this project stalled before it started. Additionally, thank you for the conversation and congeniality, it provided a welcome respite from the monotony of a seven-month archival bender. And to Bill Davis, in particular, a special thank you for the exhilarating trip into the stacks at the National Archives, I honestly felt like a kid on Christmas morning again. As I struggled, throughout every stage in this process, to conceptualize the project, identify the various factors that contributed to the savings and loan industry’s demise, and craft a nuanced narrative that accurately explained this complex moment in U.S. financial and political history, I relied upon so many individuals to offer me writing and research advice, identify previously unknown (to me) historical actors and historical context, suggest additional readings, provide economics tutorials, and pose potential narrative arcs and historiographical re-interpretations. So for all the time you spent reading and commenting on chapter drafts and/or brainstorming with me, I thank Mary Furner, Alice O'Connor, Steve Weatherford, Nelson Lichtenstein, Louis Hyman, Ken Hough, Kit Smemo, Samir Sonti, v Kashia Arnold, Serge Ferrari, Jesse Halvorsen, Cody Stephens, Caitlin Rathe, Tim Paulson, Anita Morgan, Scott Walker, Greg Storen, and Ryan Abman. And I would also like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Senate Historian Betty Coed, former Senate Historian Donald Ritchie, House of Representatives Historian Matthew Wasniewski and Associate Historian Kenneth Kato, and Center for Legislative Archives Historian Richard McCulley, who graciously spent countless hours with me sharing your unique perspectives and experiences as congressional insiders. The insights I gleaned from you proved invaluable to the completion of this work. Additionally, I presented aspects of my research at several conferences and workshops, including the Tobin Project’s Democracy and Market Workshop, the National Archives Brown Bag Lunch Series, the All-UC Group in Economic History student workshop and conference, the Center for the Study of Work, Labor, and Democracy at UC Santa Barbara, the UC Washington Center, the Histories of American Capitalism Conference at Cornell University, and the Third Biennial Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on Regulatory Governance at University College Dublin. These sessions with archivists, historians, political scientists, and economists, among others, forced me to not only re-evaluate the tone and accessibility of my narrative and argumentation, but also the inter-disciplinary potential of my research. I am beyond grateful for all of this input and advice. This project details the twenty-five-year transformation, decline, and death of the savings and loan industry. To both tell this story accurately and provide the necessary evidence to justify my claims, I incorporated copious amounts of U.S. financial and housing data into my analysis. I would have been unable to do so, however, without Louis Hyman and his History of Capitalism Summer Camp. Those two jam-packed weeks I spent at Cornell during the summer of 2013 provided me with the knowledge, tools, and training necessary to confidently identify, analyze, and explain the various and often competing micro- and macro- economic factors that influence economic growth and corporate decision-making. Just as important, I learned how to evaluate and understand financial statements, a skillset that proved invaluable as I detailed the slow demise of savings and loan institutions across the United States. So Louis, a hearty thank you! A special thank you to Jill Jensen, who not only helped make my transition into the graduate program at UC Santa Barbara seamless and exciting, but also provided me critical mentorship and guidance as I looked for teaching assistantships, completed course requirements, prepared for my qualifying exams, applied for grants and fellowships, and drafted this manuscript. Thanks for your willingness to openly share your experiences and insights with me, it made all the difference in the world. To Darcy Ritzau, thank you for ALL of the things. You are the backbone of UC Santa Barbara's Department of History. A smile and "hey hon," accompanied by your patience and compassion, always immediately eased the worst of anxieties. I am eternally grateful for the work you did on my behalf, specifically, and for the department in general. You're truly an angel. vi For helping me maintain my sanity and sense of humor as I completed this journey, I thank Ryan Abrecht, Nate Bullock, Chuck Yahara, Mehgan and Dave Tanner, Malek Guerbaoui, Colleen Ho, Shawn Mack, the Hough and Briggs-Campbell clans, Jeff and Sarah Dinkler, Elijah Bender, Nicole Pacino, Tara Tubb, Don Lubach, Rosella Faye, Chris Keggereis, Sarah Hanson-Keggereis, Sasha Coles, Laura Moore, Chris Nofziger, Brian Tyrrell, James and Rachel Winslow, Jason Ebin, Richard Espinoza, Dave Beltz, Brittney Walker, Noah Faulkner, Alex and Caden Whitehead, and Drew Storen. To the many individuals who helped ignite and flame my passions for historical inquiry, critical analysis, and intellectual debate, especially during my formative high school and undergraduate years, I thank Dee Tidball, Noel Schaak, Carl Louden, Kevin C. Robbins, Anita (Ashendel) Morgan, Kevin Cramer, Marianne Wokeck, Philip Scarpino, Fred Witzig, Nathan Ringham, Nate Bullock, Mark Lee, and Tim Moriarty. To my parents, Grandma Edie, and JP, thanks for the genes. Your constant love and support has been foundational as I pursued my dream over the last decade. And to Grandma Edie and Carl, thanks for all the laughs, stories, and card games. Vanessa and I cherish our time with you, whether it's in person, over the phone, or on Skype. As we age hopefully with the grace and excitement for life that you both have, Vanessa and I hope to emulate your sense of adventure and story-telling abilities. And last, but certainly not least, thank you to my amazing wife Vanessa. Pursuing a PhD can be a very alienating process personally as it requires a dedication and focus that many non- academics may not understand. But you openly embraced me and my
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lloyd Cutler
    White House Interview Program DATE: July 8, 1999 INTERVIEWEE: LLOYD CUTLER INTERVIEWER: Martha Kumar With Nancy Kassop MK: May we tape? LC: Yes, but I’d like to have one understanding. I have been misquoted on more than one occasion. I’ll be happy to talk to you about what I think about the transition but I don’t want my name attached to any of it. MK: Okay. So we’ll come back to you for any quotes. We’re going to look at both aspects: the transition itself and then the operations of the office. Working on the theory that one of the things that would be important for people is to understand how an effective operation works, what should they be aiming toward? For example, what is a smooth-running counsel’s office? What are the kinds of relationships that should be established and that sort of thing? So, in addition to looking at the transition, we’re just hoping they’re looking toward effective governance. In your time in Washington, observing many administrations from various distances, you have a good sense of transitions, what works and what doesn’t work. One of the things we want to do is isolate what are the elements of success—just take a number, six elements, five elements—that you think are common to successful transitions. What makes them work? LC: Well, the most important thing to grasp first is how much a White House itself, especially as it starts off after a change in the party occupying the White House, resembles a city hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Nixon - Papers Access Requests Compilation (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 28, folder “Nixon - Papers Access Requests Compilation (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 28 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 29, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: RON NESSEN FROM: PHILIP BUCHEN According to the attached comment by Jack Anderson, the Carter strategists are planning to call upon the President to release all of the tapes of his private conversations with Richard Nixon. As you probably know, the tapes and other Nixon material are subject to court injunction and neither the President nor anyone acting in his behalf can examine or disclose the tapes or other materials except for very limited purposes. In answering the challenge from Carter, that is not considered to be one of those purposes. Attachment _ Strategy -9- CARTER/MONDALE Carter Team Gearing to Make Watergate Big Issue Carter strategists are considering making Watergate a major campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing the Face of the Law: How Women's Advocacy Groups Put Women on the Federal Judicial Appointments Agenda
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2002 Changing the Face of the Law: How Women's Advocacy Groups Put Women on the Federal Judicial Appointments Agenda Mary Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Changing the Face of the Law: How Women's Advocacy Groups Put Women on the Federal Judicial Appointments Agenda Mary L. Clark* Given the significant involvement of women judges and members of women's advocacy groups in the Women, Justice, and Authority conference, I thought it fitting to pursue some legal history for this occasion on the impact of women's advocacy groups on women's judicial appointments, looking in particular at Article III judgeships. Like Linda Kerber, I focus here on the transformative moment of the 1970s, specifically the years of the Carter presidency, 1977-81, when women's advocacy groups first exercised significant influence over women's federal judicial appointments. Before Carter, only eight women had been named to Article III courts of general jurisdiction.1 During Carter's one term, forty women were appointed-a 500% increase. This article addresses how and why this occurred, and what lessons we can learn from it. Visiting Associate Professor, Washington College of Law, American University. 1. These first eight were: Name Court Appointing President Year Confirmed 1. Florence Ellinwood Allen 6"' Cir. Roosevelt 1934 2. Bumita Shelton Matthews D.D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Counsel to the President: a Guide to Its Records at the Jimmy Carter Library
    441 Freedom Parkway NE Atlanta, GA 30307 http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov Records of the White House Office of Counsel to the President: A Guide to Its Records at the Jimmy Carter Library Collection Summary Creator: Office of Counsel to the President Title: Records of the White House Office of Counsel to the President Dates: 1977-1981 Quantity: 400 linear feet (118 linear feet, 7 linear inches open for research), 462 containers Identification: Accession Number: 80-1 National Archives Identifier: 1083 Scope and Content: The files consist of correspondence, memoranda, notes, briefing papers, legal documents, and miscellaneous printed material. These materials relate to information regarding all official White House legal issues including domestic matters and foreign policy treaties. The files also consist of legal advice given to the president on personal and political situations. Creator Information: Office of Counsel to the President The purpose of the White House Office of Counsel to the President was to provide legal advice to the President and the White House staff. It also acted as liaison to the Department of Justice and to the legal counsels of various government agencies. It dealt with ethical matters, conflicts of interest, and security clearances concerning Presidential appointees and White House staff. It provided legal advice on the President's official and personal legal affairs, legislation, and Supreme Court cases. It also was involved in the coordination of appointments to the1 federal judiciary. The Counsel's Office staff is comprised of lawyers plus clerical and administrative personnel. Detailees, consultants, and interns increased the size of the office to varying levels throughout the administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Advisers' Testimony Before Congressional Committees
    Order Code RL31351 Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: An Overview Updated July 16, 2008 Harold C. Relyea Specialist in American National Government Government and Finance Division Todd B. Tatelman Legislative Attorney American Law Division Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: An Overview Summary Since the beginning of the federal government, Presidents have called upon executive branch officials to provide them with advice regarding matters of policy and administration. While Cabinet members were among the first to play such a role, the creation of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in 1939 and the various agencies located within that structure resulted in a large increase in the number and variety of presidential advisers. All senior staff members of the White House Office and the leaders of the various EOP agencies and instrumentalities could be said to serve as advisers to the President. Occasionally, these executive branch officials playing a presidential advisory role have been called upon to testify before congressional committees and subcommittees. Sometimes, such invited appearances have been prompted by allegations of personal misconduct on the part of the official, but they have also included instances when accountability for policymaking and administrative or managerial actions have instigated the request for testimony. Because such appearances before congressional committees or subcommittees seemingly could result in demands for advice proffered to the President, or the disclosure — inadvertent or otherwise — of such advice, there has been resistance, from time to time, by the Chief Executive to allowing such testimony. Congress has a constitutionally rooted right of access to the information it needs to perform its Article I legislative and oversight functions.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan*
    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan* The standard conception of executive branch legal review in the scholarship is a quasi-judicial Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) dispensing formal, written opinions binding on the executive branch. That structure of executive branch legalism did have a brief heyday. But it obscures core characteristics of contemporary practice. A different structure of executive branch legalism—informal, diffuse, and intermingled in its approach to lawyers, policymakers, and political leadership—has gained new prominence. This Article documents, analyzes, and assesses that transformation. Scholars have suggested that the failure of OLC to constrain presidential power in recent publicized episodes means that executive branch legalism should become more court-like. They have mourned what they perceive to be a disappearing external constraint on the presidency. Executive branch legalism has never been an exogenous or external check on presidential power, however. It is a tool of presidential administration itself. Exploring changes in the structure of executive branch legal review sheds light on the shifting needs of the * Assistant Professor, Harvard Law School. From 2009–2012, I served in the Justice Department as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and then as an Attorney Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel. The views expressed are my own and the discussion is based only on publicly available materials. For generous engagement with this project at various stages,
    [Show full text]
  • The White House Counsel's Office
    THE WHITE HOUSE TRANSITION PROJECT 1997-2021 Smoothing the Peaceful Transfer of Democratic Power REPORT 2021—28 THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL MaryAnne Borrelli, Connecticut College Karen Hult, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Nancy Kassop, State University of New York–New Paltz Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, Brookings Institution Smoothing the Peaceful Transfer of Democratic Power WHO WE ARE & WHAT WE DO The White House Transition Project. Begun in 1998, the White House Transition Project provides information about individual offices for staff coming into the White House to help streamline the process of transition from one administration to the next. A nonpartisan, nonprofit group, the WHTP brings together political science scholars who study the presidency and White House operations to write analytical pieces on relevant topics about presidential transitions, presidential appointments, and crisis management. Since its creation, it has participated in the 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, and now the 2021. WHTP coordinates with government agencies and other non-profit groups, e.g., the US National Archives or the Partnership for Public Service. It also consults with foreign governments and organizations interested in improving governmental transitions, worldwide. See the project at http://whitehousetransitionproject.org The White House Transition Project produces a number of materials, including: • WHITE HOUSE OFFICE ESSAYS: Based on interviews with key personnel who have borne these unique responsibilities, including former White House Chiefs of Staff; Staff Secretaries; Counsels; Press Secretaries, etc. , WHTP produces briefing books for each of the critical White House offices. These briefs compile the best practices suggested by those who have carried out the duties of these office. With the permission of the interviewees, interviews are available on the National Archives website page dedicated to this project: • *WHITE HOUSE ORGANIZATION CHARTS.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. In this study, beliefs and convictions are delineated by the extent to which the belief is also operationalized in policy; that is, a conviction is a belief that has been applied in a substantive manner. For example, as we will see in chapter 6 that deals with Reagan’s cognetic narrative, he had a belief that abortion was abhorrent and immoral, but he had a competing conviction that it was not a government’s role to impose limits on freedom of choice. In effect, his conviction about limited government overrode his belief about abortion from becoming a conviction. For members of the Religious Right, for whom prohibiting abortion was clearly a conviction, Reagan managed to assuage them with rhetoric, but the record shows that he did not act in a substantive manner. 2. Garry Wills, Head and Heart: American Christianities (New York: The Penguin Press, 2007). 3. Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), p. xi. 4. Terry Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso, 2007), p. xiv. 5. Ibid., p. 13. 6. Michael H. Hunt, The American Ascendancy: How the United States Gained and Wielded Global Dominance (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), p. 1. 7. An example of this is James T. Kloppenberg, Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011). An exception to this dilemma is John Patrick Diggins, Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2008). 8. James William Anderson, “The Methodology of Psychological Biography,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 11:3 (Winter 1981): p.
    [Show full text]
  • Carter's Groundbreaking Appointment of Women to the Federal Bench: His Other "Human Rights" Record Mary L
    Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 11 | Issue 3 Article 3 2011 Carter's Groundbreaking Appointment of Women to the Federal Bench: His Other "Human Rights" Record Mary L. Clark American University Washington College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/jgspl Part of the Courts Commons, and the Women Commons Recommended Citation Clark, Mary L. "Carter's Groundbreaking Appointment of Women to the Federal Bench: His Other "Human Rights" Record." American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. 11, no. 3 (2003): 1131-1163. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Clark: Carter's Groundbreaking Appointment of Women to the Federal Bench CLARK.DOC 11/24/2003 9:01 AM CARTER’S GROUNDBREAKING APPOINTMENT OF WOMEN TO THE FEDERAL BENCH: HIS OTHER “HUMAN RIGHTS” RECORD MARY L. CLARK∗ Introduction: Carter’s Pathbreaking Achievement ........................1132 I. Carter’s Judicial Appointment Reforms Were Critical to His Success in Naming Women to the Bench .................................1134 A. Carter’s Commitment to Judicial Reform as Governor of Georgia and 1976 Presidential Candidate.............................1134 B. Traditions Governing Federal Judicial Appointments Before Carter ..........................................................................1135 C. Carter Wrenches Court of Appeals Appointments Away From Senatorial Prerogative and Political Patronage ...........1136 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Lipshutz
    White House Interview Program DATE: September 1, 1999 INTERVIEWEE: ROBERT LIPSHUTZ INTERVIEWER: Martha Kumar with Terry Sullivan [Disc 1 of 1] RL: I live with one of my answers until—what’s his name who died, a Washington Post reporter? MK: Ann Devroy? RL: No. Joe Kraft. Do you remember that name? MK: Sure. RL: One of the answers you’ll see on here is when they asked me about Executive Privilege, what was I going to do about that and I said, “Frankly, I don’t know; I’ve been in private practice all these years, I’ve really got to study the subject.” And Joe Kraft, I’ll never forget, wrote a blistering article about how could the President pick somebody as Counsel who didn’t know the answer to such an important question. MK: It’s certainly better to not have an answer than to stick yourself with an answer that you can’t get out from under. RL: I think you find it interesting; a neophyte going in does in response for— TS: Now you’re giving us these. RL: Yes. Keep that. I had some copies made. TS: Thank you very much. MK: Thanks very much. RL: CBS sent me that years ago and I had some copies—I actually made the copies recently. I’ve had it all this time. MK: One of the documents that I came across, I think it was yesterday, was one by Jack Watson in early December of 1976, talking about White House staff. The general approach was in deciding who they were going to pick, and how they were going to treat the whole subject of White House staff: they wanted to de-imperialize the staff and, therefore, cut out the various perks and try to cut the numbers, according to the campaign pledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation, Cooperation and Delegation: Presidential Power in the Twenty-First Century
    CONSULTATION, COOPERATION AND DELEGATION: PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY By STEPHEN CHARLES BOYLE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 © 2007 Stephen Charles Boyle 2 For Helen I would not wish any companion in the world, but you. (The Tempest; Act III, Scene I) 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS So many people have been so generous with their time, their patience and their intellect as I have prepared this work that it is difficult to know where to start. But start I must, and it must be with Larry Dodd, who saw a potential in my project that I did not initially see myself and who allowed me to develop it for myself with careful and attentive encouragement throughout. Leann Brown has skillfully mentored me from my very first day at UF and I probably would not have completed the program had it not been for her encouragement and down to earth support. Beth Rosenson has also been a consistent and steadfast supporter, always quick to respond to my annoying questions with sound and sensible advice. Leslie Anderson joined the party late and, I think, with some trepidation on both our parts, but she has been so supportive and timely with her input as to make me feel as if I were the only person placing demands upon her time. David Colburn took on the simple nuisance of being the external committee member with good humor and good grace and I will be for ever grateful to him for that.
    [Show full text]
  • RLB Letterhead
    December 3, 2013 White Paper in Support of the FOIA request for the expedited release of the classified May 24, 1984 “OLC Olson FISA Memo” and the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 “OLC Goldsmith FISA Memo” that reveal whether President Obama knows about 1982-2013 E.O. 12333 “FISA exempt” NSA TSP content data mining This December 2, 2013 White Paper (WP) is in support of the December 3, 2013 FOIA request for the expedited release of the following Top Secret OLC Memos: 1. May 24, 1984 Top Secret classified Constitutionality of Certain National Security Agency Electronic Surveillance Activities Not Covered Under the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1979 of AAG of the OLC Theodore Olson, the “OLC Olson FISA Memo” 2. May 6, 2004 Top Secret reclassified Memorandum for the Attorney General: Review of the Legality of the (redacted b1,b3) Program, of AAG of the OLC Jack Goldsmith, the “OLC Goldsmith FISA Memo” The FOIA requester was the plaintiff in the FOIA actions Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007) and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, 439 Fed. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. den. 132 S. Ct. 1549 (2012). In Robert VII v DOJ, the plaintiff sought the release of the “FISC Robert” documents that were withheld pursuant to the March 1, 2004 DOJ FOIA decision to ratify the CIA’s decision to withhold those documents based on FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. In Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, the plaintiff sought a mosaic of documents that reveal whether AG Gonzales had in Robert VII v DOJ withheld material facts from EDNY Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court re NSA Directors implementation of the E.O.
    [Show full text]