19. On October 30, the three-judge District Court, without a hearing, denied the said motion and ordered that the illegally seized documents be turned over to the Subcommittee and that plaintiffs and their counsel "cooperate therewith". 20. Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court was filed-and on application for emergency relief that Court made its order dated November 10, 1967, which stayed the October 30 order conditioned upon plaintiffs' filing with the District Court within five days, objections to the validity of the subpoenas. 21. Following the November 10 order of the Supreme Court, plaintiffs filed their objections to the validity of the subpoenas. Thereafter they filed their motion for an evidentiary hearing and offer of proof. At the same time the United States filed a motion to intervene, to which was attached an affidavit by Senator McClellan and certain exhibits. The Government's motion to intervene was granted. On December 1 the United States filed an opposition to the motion for an evidentiary hearing. 22. A hearing which was in part evidentiary, was held on December 5. The parties filed two stipulations of fact, designated "Stipulation of Facts" and "Further Stipulation of Facts". These stipulations are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. 23. Under date of December 13, the District Court made its final order which, without explanation or assignment of any reasons, ordered that the objections of the plaintiffs to the subpoenas be overruled, thereby reaffirming and making final its October 30 order denying plaintiffs' motion for the restraining order. 24. A notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, was filed from said order, and an application was thereupon made to that Court for emergency relief. On January 29, 1968, the Supreme Court made its order, as follows: "The motion for relief presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, is granted and the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky of December 13, 1967, is stayed to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in the custody of the Commonwealth's Attorney of Pike County, Kentucky, pending the perfection and disposition of the appeal by this Court. "This stay is conditioned upon the filing of the record, the jurisdictional statement and the docketing of the case within fourteen days from this date and should such appeal be docketed within that time, the Solicitor General is requested to respond to such jurisdictional statement within fourteen days thereafter. In the event the appeal is so docketed, this stay is to remain in effect pending this Court's ruling on the jurisdictional aspect of the case. Should the Court summarily affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal, this stay shall automatically expire. In the event the Court notes probable jurisdiction or postpones consideration of the jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits, this stay is to remain in effect pending the issuance of the judgment of this Court. "Issuance of this stay in no way represents an adjudication that this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal from the order of the United States District Court hereby stayed." 25. A jurisdictional statement was filed with the Supreme Court pursuant to the foregoing order. However, in view particularly of the cautionary note in the last paragraph of the Supreme Court's order of January 29, 1968, a protective appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was filed on February 9, 1968. 26. On March 18, 1968, the Supreme rendered a per curiam opinion, as follows: "The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The stay heretofore granted is continued for 30 days in order to afford the appellants an opportunity to apply to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a stay. If such timely application is made, the stay entered by this Court shall remain in effect until the Court of Appeals acts on that application." 27. By joint motion to the said United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. all parties agreed that the said stay would remain in effect until the determination thereby of the said appeal. 28. On July 29, 1968, the said Court of Appeals reversed the Three-Judge Court on the ground that “[T]he right of the Court to retain possession of the seized documents, which include no contraband, has expired." 398 F. 2d 817, 818. 29. On November 8, 1968, in the United States Marshal's office in the Federal Building at Pikesville, Kentucky, at approximately 3:30 p.m. the illegally seized materials taken from the individual plaintiffs and Mulloy were returned to them pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Court of Appeals. 30. As the individual plaintiffs left the Post Office, Joe Mullins, deputy United States Marshal, served them with new subpoenas issued by defendant McClellan and an attached schedule ordering them to appear before the Subcommittee at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, January 14, 1969. See a copy of one of the subpoenas and schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C. 31. The information sought therein, with minor exceptions, is identical to the information sought in the forthwith subpoenas previously issued by defendant McClellan that were composed on the basis of information obtained by agents of the Subcommittee through inspection of documents known by said agents to have been illegally seized by state and local officials. The new subpoenas call for the production of documents, materials and information broadly relating to the membership and activities of the plaintiffs. In addition, the subpoenas seek information pertaining to the membership and activities of the following civil rights and related organizations, all of which utilized First Amendment freedoms to attain their objectives: (a) United Planning Organization, an umbrella anti-poverty agency for Washington, D.C., that serves as the primary funding agency for all community action projects in Washington, D.C.; (b) Appalachian Volunteers, an Office of Economic Opportunity project located in the States of Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia and staffed by VISTA volunteers working among the poor in the Appalachian Mountains; (c) Vietnam Summer was an unincorporated association maintaining an office for business purposes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its purpose was to organize the millions of Americans troubled by the War in Vietnam. At the end of the 1967 summer, Vietnam Summer ceased to function; (d) National Conference for New Politics was an unincorporated association maintaining an office for business purposes in the City and State of New York. Its primary function was to further and advance the growth of a new politics of ordinary people who want to control democratically the decisions that effect their own lives. National Conference for New Politics ceased to function in the fall of 1967. 32. The appearance of the individual plaintiffs before the Subcommittee pursuant to said subpoenas, originally scheduled for January 14, 1969, was subsequently adjourned by defendant McClellan, first to February 25, 1969, and then to March 4, 1969. 33. On or about February 17, 1969, the Senate of the United States adopted S. Res. 26 authorizing the Committee on Government Operations to investigate the efficiency and economy of the Government. A copy of said resolution is attached herewith as Exhibit D. 34. The said subpoenas duces tecum were issued as a result of the unlawful conspiracy between defendants, or some of them, and the Pike County authorities involved. With full knowledge of the clear unconstitutionality of the searches and seizures of August 11, 1967, the defendants and said officials unlawfully conspired together to prevent both the individual and organizational plaintiffs from recovering the material in question for the purpose of (a) intimidating, deterring and stigmatizing them, their members, friends and supporters, (b) preventing them from pursuing their political, poverty, peace and/or civil rights activities in eastern Kentucky and elsewhere and (c) furthering its prejudgment of the causes of the civil disturbances in the black ghettoes of the United States which it was purportedly investigating. The said subpoenas duces tecum were fraudulently, illegally and unlawfully structured in that (a) they were designed to and had the effect of projecting to the public at large in general and the Congress of the United States in particular the stereotype of political, peace, poverty and civil rights organizations as being subversive. (b) they constituted a fishing expedition designed to harass, impede, intimidate and deter political, peace, poverty and civil rights, the activities of plaintiffs, their members, supporters and friends and all other individuals and organizations included therein, (c) they constituted a writ of general assistance, (d) they continued and broadened a pattern and practice of congressional criminality in investigations of political, peace, poverty, civil rights and other organizations, (e) they were part and parcel of an unlawful conspiracy between the subcommittee and the Internal Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee to harass, impede, deter and intimidate all of the organizations involved in said subpoenas duces tecum and the individuals associated in any way therewith, (f) they refer to organizations not in existence on January 1, 1964, the date of origin set forth therein. 35. The issuance and service of the said subpoenas duces tecum were designed by the Subcommittee and the defendants, or some of them, to have and did indeed have the effect of deterring, impeding, intimidating and harassing the plaintiffs as well as all of the organizations mentioned therein and others and chilling their exercise of their fundamental rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, the issuance and service of the said subpoenas were designed to have and did have the effect of denying to the affected organizations access to their files and records for the purposes of preventing or impeding their fulfilling their stated objectives, inter alia, of racial equality and freedom, the termination of American military involvement in South Viet Nam, and the organizing of poor people in the Appalachian Mountain region and elsewhere in the United States. In addition, the issuance and service of the said subpoenas were designed to have and will have the effect, unless restrained by this Court, of exposing the identities of the contributors to and the friends, members, sympathizers and supporters of the plaintiff organizations and others to intimidation, economic retaliation, terrorism and harassment, all to the end and purpose of destroying the organizations in question or their activties. 36. Plaintiffs assert that the subpoenas, the subject matter of this action, constitute a continuation of the harassment of them, solely for the reasons aforesaid, and are designed solely for the purpose of preventing plaintiffs from carrying out their activities as aforesaid and are designed further to deter other persons in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and elsewhere from engaging in like activities. 37. Plaintiffs assert that the subpoenas duces tecum are invalid for the reasons hereinafter set forth: (a). The subpoenas on their face are so broad, sweeping, and lacking in particularity as to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure and thereby violate plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The subpoenas as served are in language as broad as the traditional Writs of Assistance. (b). The subpoenas seek documents and records dealing directly with rights of the plaintiffs to freedom of expression and political association and freedom to hold opinions, and the privacy thereof, and thereby violate plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (c). The subpoenas are based upon knowledge wrongfully gained from an inspection of documents illegally and unlawfully seized by government officials and are therefore invalid. Agents and employees of the Senate Subcommittee have entered into a conspiracy with representatives of Pike County, Kentucky, wherein, notwithstanding knowledge on the part of all such conspirators that the seizure of documents were covertly and surreptitiously made available to the Senate Subcommittee and said conspiracy and the fruits thereof are the basis for the subpoenas since served upon plaintiffs. (d). The records and documents referred to in the subpoenas are not relevant or material to the subject matter of any alleged inquiry by the Senate Subcommittee and the investigation sought to be made in respect to those records is beyond the scope of the said inquiry. (e). The resolution of the United States Senate purporting to authorize the inquiry currently under way by the Senate Subcommittee does not encompass the subject matter touched upon by the subpoenas served upon the plaintiffs nor the inquiry sought to be made with respect to those documents, nor does the said resolution authorize or empower the Senate Subcommittee to receive and act upon documents unlawfully seized by state officials and improperly turned over to staff of the Subcommittee. (f). The resolution of the United States Senate, if it is taken as purporting to authorize the instant inquiry by the Senate Subcommittee, does not author 71-846-7614 ize inquiry into opinions, affiliations, associations, membership, or political activities generally, all being matters protected by the First Amendment, and if the said resolution were to be interpreted as encompassing such matters the same would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment in that the same would purport to authorize an unlimited and compulsory examination of witnesses in the protected areas of speech, press, association, and assembly, in violation of both the procedural requirements of due process of the Fifth Amendment and the substantive requirements of the First Amendment. (g). The actions of the Subcommittee in the issuance of these subpoenas violate the fundamental guarantees of freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, thought, and belief, the right of citizens to petition their government for redress of grievances, and the right of citizens to be secure in their houses, person, and papers from unreasonable searches and seizure. The subpoenas of the Senate Subcommittee are overbroad and violate the due process rights of the plaintiffs. Their overbroad sweep inhibits and deters the exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association, in violation of the First Amendment. The dragnet sweep of the investigation and subpoenas and their overbreadth create a chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights by the people of the United States. (h). The delegation of authority by the Subcommittee is so vague, ambiguous and uncertain that it cannot support or authorize any investigation of that Subcommittee which may affect or deter citizens of the United States in their exercise of their rights of freedom of speech, press, assembly or association, or may threaten the security of their persons, papers, or property. (i). The conduct of the Senate Subcommittee from the inception of its socalled investigation has demonstrated that it is not conducting a bona fide investigation but in fact is using the instrumentality of an investigation to harass those whose views are at variance with the views of the Senate Subcommittee. The said conduct is particularly revealed in the instant case in that the action of the Senate Subcommittee has amounted to an effort to use its powers to continue a repressive prosecution by State's Attorney, Ratliff, the unlawful use of documents illegally seized by State's Attorney Ratliff, and the service of subpoenas flagrantly unconstitutional and overbroad. By its conduct aforesaid the Senate Cubcommittee has made clear that it is attempting to deter persons who may disagree with it from exercising their rights under the Constitution of the United States to urge a different point of view from that asserted by the Subcommittee and to use its powers to carry out a repressive prosecution found by this court to have been unconstitutional. By reason of the conduct of the Subcommittee aforesaid it may not have the aid of this court or of the subpoena process in implementing such a program. 38. By reason of the foregoing plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of $50,000 each. 39. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court (1) issue a declaratory judgment declaring that the subpoenas duces tecum issued by defendants and served upon the plaintiffs Alan and Margaret McSurely are unconstitutional and void, and that said plaintiffs are under no compulsion to comply therewith; (2) issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, attorneys and all others acting in concert with them from instituting or seeking to institute civil or criminal proceedings against the individual plaintiffs based upon the aforesaid unlawful subpoenas; (3) award damages against defendants in the sum of $50,000.00 to each of the plaintiffs herein, and (4) issue such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate or necessary. Respectfully submitted, PHILIP J. HIRSCHKOP. MORTON STAVIS. RITA MURPHY. DENNIS J. ROBERTS. HARRIETT VAN TASSEL. WILLIAM J. BENDER. Law Center for Constitutional Rights. Exhibit 3 COMPLAINT IN JORDAN V. LATTA (APRIL 1975) In the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Civil Action No. C75-166) COMPLAINT JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction is premised upon 28 U.S.C. 1346; 28 U.S.C. 1343; 28 U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1361 and Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201; Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, William S. Jordan, is a resident of Paulding County, Ohio residing at R.R. 1, Box 13, Cecil, Ohio within the Fifth (5th) Congressional District and is a citizen of the United States. 3. Defendant Delbert Latta is the U.S. Congressman for the Fifth (5th) Congressional District and is a resident of Wood County, Ohio and is a citizen of the United States. 4. Defendant Larry Paul and Defendant George Blue work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department of Justice, and work in the Toledo, Ohio office. 5. Defendant United States of America (USA) is the government of the United States of America. FACTS 6. Plaintiff is an International Brotherhood of Teamsters member employed by Central Transport as a truck driver operating from the company premises located at R.R. 6, Defiance, Ohio. 7. As a result of a labor dispute between Central Transport and Plaintiff concerning wages, hours and working conditions, a grievance was filed by Plaintiff with Central Transport on or about March 15, 1975. 8. On or about April 4, 1975 Plaintiff telephoned Defendant Latta at his home in Bowling Green, Ohio to discuss the grievance and attending problems evolving from the grievance with Central Transport. The conversation lasted approximately fifteen (15) minutes. Plaintiff called Defendant Latta to seek his assistance and intervention in the dispute between Plaintiff and Central Transport. 9. On or about April 6, 1975 Plaintiff brought certain documents to Defendant Latta's home as requested by Defendant Latta in their prior telephone conversation of April 4, 1975. 10. On or about April 8, 1975 Plaintiff telephoned Defendant Latta at his home to inform him of the continuing escalation and problems surrounding the grievance and again asked Defendant Latta for assistance in his capacity as a U.S. Congressman. Defendant Latta initially could not recall who the Plaintiff was and then indicated to him that he had prepared a letter to Plaintiff outlining what Plaintiff could do. 11. On or about April 11, 1975 Plaintiff telephoned Defendant Latta at his home inquiring about the letter that Defendant Latta said he had prepared and Plaintiff again asked Defendant Latta for assistance. Defendant Latta indicated he could not help the Plaintiff, but that he had prepared a letter regarding the problem. After Defendant Latta indicated he could not help, Plaintiff stated to Defendant Latta that he would remember how to vote the next time and Defendant Latta said that is fine; you vote any way you want. The conversation terminated at that time. 12. On or about April 14, 1975 Defendant Larry Paul and Defendant George Blue called the Plaintiff and informed him that they wanted to speak to him. Defendants Larry Paul and George Blue met Plaintiff at the driveway of his residence on April 14, 1975 at which time they informed Plaintiff that Defendant Latta filed a complaint with the FBI against Plaintiff because Plaintiff had allegedly put undue pressure on Defendant Latta. Defendants Larry Paul and |