[Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States 1982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

•	s!»t'
■T*	4-.	*
. -.........*- 	Directed a task force study to examine alternatives related to the placement of responsibility for long-term alien detention.
» Developed the necessary materials to combine the activities of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judgeship programs into a new office, the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
►	Developed a process, for use during the summer of 1982’s internal budget hearings on the Fiscal Year 1984 budget, which allowed the Department’s policy level to review internal budget requests from a federal criminal justice system perspective. The process culminated in a joint federal criminal justice system budget hearing attended by the heads of seven major criminal justice agencies, the first such federal criminal justice system budget hearing in Department of Justice history. Participants focused on how the investigative, prosecutorial and incarceration/correction parts of the system would affect each other given their proposed programs and budgets for Fiscal Year 1984.
Evaluation Staff
The Evaluation Staff is responsible for the conduct of three primary activities within JMD. First, at the request of the senior Department officials, the staff conducts such formal program evaluations as may be required8by the Department leadership, Congress, or the Office of Management and Budget8of programs within the Department; second, at the request of any of the Department’s operating components, the staff provides management assistance in the resolution of issues presented by the component organization; third, the staff reviews and ensures appropriate coordination within the Department regarding all formal departmental or component reorganizations.
Among the staff’s accomplishments in Fiscal Year 1982 were:
•	A study of the impact of the recently created Civil Rights Units within U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country.
•	A review of the administrative services provided to the offices, boards and divisions in the Department.
•	An analysis of the provision of court security by the U.S. Marshals Service to the federal judiciary.
•	A study of the impact and utility of the conduct of preclearance by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
•	A study of the impact and utility of the National Institute of Corrections in the provision of its many services.
•	A review of the administrative support configuration for the Attorney General’s Cuban Status Review Panels.
•	An analysis of the asset seizure and forfeiture activities in the Department of Justice.
Finance Staff
The Finance Staff develops and directs Departmentwide financial management policies, programs, procedures, and systems concerning financial accounting, planning, analysis and reporting. The Finance Staff also provides technical leadership and support to new departmental financial accounting and information systems. It also directs the Department’s day-to-day financial management operations, including control of the accounting for appropriations and expenditures, voucher examinations and audits, and promulgation of policies for travel and other necessary regulations. The staff establishes the accounting principles and standards of the Department, approves the Department’s financial management systems and coordinates the review of operations of these systems.
The Finance Staff is responsible for the Department’s Financial Management Information System, which provides Department management with an on-line financial data base for developing, retrieving and analyzing key decisions made throughout the budget planning-formulation-execution cycle. The Finance Staff develops, maintains, and operates the accounting system for the offices, boards and divisions and the U.S. Marshals Service.
The Finance Staff develops, maintains, and operates the Central Payroll Accounting System, which performs employment compensation functions for all employees of the Department except those employed in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Finance Staff also maintains and operates the automated JUNIPER System and related training, security, and equal employment opportunity
22
subsystems to support the personnel management operations of the Department.
Achievements of the Finance Staff during Fiscal Year 1982 include:
• Implementation of the reorganization which transferred into the Finance Staff those major financial management systems previously operated elsewhere within JMD.
•	Establishment of numerous additional automated “edits” in the various financial systems maintained by the staff to continue and improve the integrity of the data base used in making payments and preparing financial or management reports.
•	Conversion of four financial management .systems maintained by the Staff to process under the Multiple Virtual Storage operating system. This system first became available at the Justice Data Center during Fiscal Year 1982 and will permit the invoking of additional security features to protect both the data files and application programs.
•	Establishment of inquiry capability to the Justice Online Information System for field sites of the Bureau of Prisons and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This system provides personnel record data, restricting the data available to only that authorized for each user.
•	Expansion of the usage of the Financial Management Information System to include all offices, boards, divisions and the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Marshals Service also began to utilize the budgeting module.
•	Development of a new Financial Management Information System payment module to improve internal control and allow for the scheduling of vendor payments based on the optimum pay date for the government.
•	Development of a new Financial Management Information System invoice manager module to monitor the payment of vendor invoices in accordance with the Prompt Pay Act.
•	Conducting of a post-implementation review of the Bureau of Prisons accounting system and Department accounting controls over property.
•	Improvements in travel, property accounting and payroll controls.
•	Approval by the General Accounting Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration and Immigration and Naturalization Service accounting system designs.
•	Redesigning of the accounting and financial control system for the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR).
• Development of regulations to implement Treasury’s cash management policies. An extensive effort was made to reduce excessive travel advances outstanding and the method of monitoring and collecting travel advances on a timely basis was greatly improved.
Office of Personnel and Administration
The Office of Personnel and Administration and its staff elements are responsible for planning and coordinating Department-wide programs in assigned administrative management areas and for developing and implementing policies and programs which fully support the various missions of the Department. The organization also provides direct support to the offices, boards, and divisions, and serves as the focal point for liaison with other federal agencies with broad, cross-government policy responsibility, such as the Office of Personnel Management, the General Services Administration, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Management and Budget, on matters concerning the interpretation or application of Department or government-wide policies in the substantive areas of the Office of Personnel and Administration’s activity. Finally, the Office of Personnel and Administration reviews programs of Department organizations for overall effectiveness and for compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements.
The Office of Personnel and Administration consists of three separate staff organizations and four small units attached to the immediate office. The staffs include the Personnel Staff, the Administrative Services Staff, and the Procurement and Contracts Staff. The material which follows identifies each organization’s substantive functional areas and provides information on their achievements during Fiscal Year 1982.
Personnel Staff
The Personnel Staff plans and directs the Departmentwide personnel management and training programs, develops and implements personnel policies and programs which support the missions of the Department and ensure a productive and effective work force, and provides operating personnel and training support to the offices, boards, and divisions of the Department.
The Staff’s major activities in Fiscal Year 1982 are discussed below:
•	Reduction-in-force activity in the Department was high, with nearly 600 employees receiving specific reductionin-force notices as a result of the reorganization of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the elimination of
23
programs in organizations funded by the Justice System Improvement Act, and the elimination of funding in the Offices of the U.S. Trustees. The reductions-in-force generated increases in congressional correspondence, union activity, and requests for advice and training for the affected employees. Considerable effort was also devoted to preparations for furloughs or the possibility of furloughs during the year as continuing resolutions expired. The furloughing of employees due to lapsed appropriations and funding shortfalls was prevented only by the eleventh-hour enactment of additional continuing resolutions or supplemental appropriations.
•	A Priority Placement and Referral System designed to assist those employees being separated as a result of reduction-in-force was developed and implemented. The Priority Placement and Referral System replaced the Department’s Reemployment Priority List Program and expanded it by: 1) extending coverage to employees in the competitive service occupying surplus positions, i.e., positions targeted for abolishment within 90 days; 2) permitting registrants (at GS-6 and above) to be considered for priority placement on a nationwide basis instead of limiting consideration to the local commuting area as was formerly the case; and 3) prohibiting the filling of vacancies through reassignments between bureaus, transfers from other agencies, promotions (other than “career ladder” promotions), or hiring from outside sources as long as fully qualified registrants are available for placement. Since its inception, more than 40 percent of the registrants in the Priority Placement and Referral System have been placed in other positions within the Department.
•	The Department completed its fifth year as a leader in the Presidential Management Intern Program. Since 1978, 50 interns have been selected by the Department, 31 of whom have completed their two-year training program and have been converted to career positions. Seven interns completed one year of the two-year program, and recently four new interns were selected from leading graduate schools throughout the nation for a variety of challenging assignments throughout the Department.
•	The Department’s Senior Executive Service performance appraisal system completed its third full cycle with notable improvements being made in the administration of the system. In addition to the award of forty bonuses, six Department executives were awarded Presidential ranks—two Distinguished Executive and four Meritorious Executive—which carry stipends of $20,000 and $10,000 respectively.
•	The first merit pay payout under the Justice Merit Pay System (JUMPS) was made in October 1981 to 2,676
supervisors and management officials in grades GS-13, 14, and 15 throughout the Department, exclusive of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has its own merit pay system. Pool funding was severely curtailed owing to a Comptroller General decision which reduced the within-grade increase and quality step increase contributions by one-half and one-quarter, respectively, of what the Office of Personnel Management originally projected. Because of these reduced levels, the Director, Office of Personnel Management, determined to grant all merit pay covered employees the full 4.8 percent comparability increase, which further reduced pool funding. Accordingly, individual merit increases for better-performing employees were significantly lower than anticipated.
•	The Employee Assistance Program provided counseling and referral assistance to employees experiencing difficulties with alcohol, drug, or emotional problems. Training of supervisors and managers continued to assure appropriate responses to employees with problems which have an adverse impact on their work.
•	The Staff’s Career Management Group continued to direct its goal toward expanding existing training programs and adding new ones in an effort to be more responsive to the training needs of Department employees. As a result, 1,476 employees from the offices, boards, divisions and bureaus received training through 75 training programs offered by the Department Training Center. Eight new training programs were added to the schedule over the 14 programs added in Fiscal Year 1981. Once again, a Department-wide Training Needs Survey was conducted (May-June 1982) to identify organizational training needs and projected participation in training programs conducted and coordinated by the Career Management Group. Over 3,200 individual training requests were projected through this survey.
•	The Labor Management Relations Group prepared legal memoranda necessary to support requests to appeal some of the decisions made by the Federal Labor Relations Authority and assisted attorneys assigned to prepare the Department’s position in these matters. These issues included the negotiability of substantive appeal rights for probationary employees and whether an arbitrator, in ruling on an adverse action under 5 U.S. Code 7121(e), is bound by the same procedures which the Merit Systems Protection Board must follow in analogous cases.
In addition to processing and providing litigation support in these cases, the Labor Management Relations Group responded to union appeals to the Federal Labor Relations
24
Authority in five negotiability cases, filed (or responded to union) exceptions to adverse arbitrators’ awards with the Federal Labor Relations authority in 12 cases, filed exceptions to adverse Administrative Law Judge decisions in two unfair labor practice cases before the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and drafted or filed appeals in four Merit Systems Protection Board cases.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Department received a number of important decisions from third parties, including two Merit Systems Protection Board decisions which adopted the Department’s position regarding indefinite suspensions in cases where employees had been indicted for criminal activities. It also received decisions in four negotiability cases in which the Department’s assertion of nonnegotiability was upheld on approximately half of the proposals at issue and four arbitration awards.
Finally, the Labor Management Relations Group drafted and issued a new Department Order, DO J 1771. IB, amending the Department’s agency grievance procedure to conform to the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and corollary changes in applicable Office of Personnel Management regulations.
Administrative Services Staff
The Administrative Services Staff provides direct support to the offices, boards and divisions in the area of facilities, mail, and materiel management. The staff is further responsible within these areas for departmental policy and program development, implementation and guidance.
Major achievements in Fiscal Year 1982 included:
Property Management. In conjunction with implementation of the Department’s new Property Management System, 278 inventories were completed and reconciled covering accountable personal property in the offices, boards and divisions and the U.S. Marshals Service. As a result of these inventories, 29 Boards of Survey were convened and completed, with the Boards independently reviewing circumstances surrounding the loss of accountable personal property and developing appropriate recommendations concerning records adjustment, security, and personal actions. These were the first Boards of Survey conducted by the Department in accordance with the Justice Property Management Regulations.
An annual property management training course, designed to stress federal regulations and departmental polices, was developed for presentation to property custodians of the offices, boards and divisions. In addition, the Department’s property management regulations were subjected to a thorough review and updating, with revisions or additions being made to seven separate regulations.
Property management reviews, designed to examine both accomplishments and deficiencies in the various bureau
operations, were conducted in five of the Department’s seven bureaus, with the two remaining reviews to be conducted soon after the end of the fiscal year. Also, a comprehensive joint study was made by the Department and the General Services Administration of the Department’s motor vehicle practices. This was conducted on a Department wide basis and included general acquisition, utilization and disposal procedures; the use of more fuelefficient vehicles; sharing of seized vehicles; vehicle replacement policies; and the use of vehicles between home and work. The study included visits to all bureau headquarters and selected field locations.
Mail Service. By a redesign of the internal mail delivery system, plans were developed and implemented for an automated mail delivery (Mailmobile) system to dispatch and deliver mail to organizations throughout the Main Justice building. Substantial personnel resources dedicated to the prior system became available for reassignment or reprogramming to other critical program areas that were understaffed in the offices and legal divisions.
An audit was conducted of the Fiscal Year 1980 Official Mail Report for OJARS which revealed an overbilling of approximately $558,973 by the U.S. Postal Service. Working in conjunction with OJARS, the Mail Service revised the Fiscal Year 1980 Official Mail Report for submission to the U.S. Postal Service. The U.S. Postal Service agreed to revise the OJARS billing to reflect the proper payment amount and OJARS received a refund in the amount of $195,247.
A security survey of the central mail facility was completed and recommendations were developed relevant to the need for letter and package screening equipment to detect hazardous devices concealed in incoming mail. This equipment was obtained and soon was being used to screen approximately 15,000 pieces of U.S. Postal Service mail daily and some 3,000 pieces from various sources for delivery to components of the Department. This equipment enhanced the security of Department personnel without the need for additional employees.
A thorough review was conducted of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Fiscal Year 1978 Official Mail Report documentation. During the conduct of the review, a serious Immigration and Naturalization Service reporting error was identified which resulted in a significant Fiscal Year 1978 postage cost overpayment to the U.S. Postal Service. Documentation detailing the reporting error was submitted to the U.S. Postal Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service received a refund in the amount of $228,096.
Plans were developed to contract out all bulk mail and special messenger services currently provided by the central mail facility, which would allow the realignment of staff
25
resources to ensure optimum staffing at all internal mail service operations locations. The overall effect was to substantially reduce operating costs and system support personnel.
Facilities Management. Negotiations were conducted with the General Services Administration for the Department to assume maintenance and operational responsibilities of the Main Justice and J. Edgar Hoover buildings. The negotiations prepared the way for a transfer of these functions to the Department in Fiscal Year 1983.
An exemption from legislation was obtained which would have required the Department to pay for the excess federal real property that was intended for use as correctional facilities. The legislation allowed state and local authorities to obtain this property at no cost but excluded the federal government from doing so.
The Department’s goal of consolidating most legal divisions into one, but not more than two, locations was given renewed impetus. Negotiations continued with General Services Administration on obtaining office space which would satisfy this objective and, otherwise, still be in an acceptable location.
Procurement and Contracts Staff
The Procurement and Contracts Staff is responsible for developing and directing Departmentwide policies, programs, procedures, and systems in the area of procurement and contracts, and for providing direct support to the offices, boards and divisions in these areas.
In Fiscal Year 1982, the procurement and contract function was elevated to a staff level within the Office of Personnel and Administration, and a Contract Administration Service was created which was assigned all contract action responsibilities after initial contract award. Overall, the staff awarded more than $38 million in new contracts, modifications, and small purchases during the fiscal year. Other significant accomplishments follow:
•	A fully automated procurement data system was developed which includes data on both contracts and small purchase actions. It also has the ability to track documents and provide status reports, workload/productivity reports, automated bidder’s mailing lists and other procurement-related statistical/management data reports.
•	The staff designed and developed a viable Departmentwide Advance Procurement Planning System. It provides the essential interface with the departmental budget process to enable contractual performance in accordance with program deadlines.
•	A standardized contract filing system for all contracts
and modifications was developed which facilitates locating procurement documentation through standardizing the order in which documents are placed in the file. The use of such a system greatly reduces the failure of contracting officers to include all relevant and required documentation.
•	A fully automated Contract Clause Manual was developed which contains both general and specific provisions, plus selected contract provisions applicable to formally advertised and negotiated contracts.
Other Organizations
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization continued its function of providing assistance to small businesses and businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Expenditures during the year with both small business firms and socially and economically disadvantaged firms were more than expenditures for Fiscal Year 1981. The Department also hosted a small business fair which was attended by over 200 small business firms from the local area. Officials of the firms advised members of the procurement staffs of the capabilities of their firms and at the same time learned how their firms might become eligible for contracts awarded by the Department.
The Attorney General’s Contract Review Committee is supported by a staff of analysts furnished by JMD. The Committee has the responsibility of reviewing all departmental contracts for legal sufficiency prior to award, except those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that are over $50,000 for noncompetitive contracts and over $100,000 for competitive contracts. Through a detailed and systematic review process the Contract Review Committee and staff reviewed and approved as legally sufficient over 150 contract awards valued at over $135 million during Fiscal Year 1982.
Office of Information Technology
The Office of Information Technology administers the departmental information and telecommunications systems policy and programs, provides information systems support to the legal divisions of the Department, and manages the large-scale, sophisticated data center in support of the offices, boards, divisions and bureaus of the Department.
The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Information Technology is responsible for providing general supervision and direction of the day-to-day conduct of all functions and programs performed by the following five staffs: the Computer Technology and Telecommunications Staff; the Information Systems Staff; the Library Staff; the Litigation Systems Staff; and, the Systems Policy Staff.
26
Computer Technology and Telecommunications Staff
The mission of the Computer Technology and Telecommunications Staff is to provide for common-user ADP and telecommunications facilities and services in support of departmental program objectives. This is accomplished through the following three services.
The Agency Assistance Service (AAS) serves as the staff’s principal point of contact in providing assistance to potential and present departmental users of information and telecommunications services both within and outside of the Department. AAS reviews and evaluates requests for ADP and data communications services, coordinating JMD’s resources needed to fulfill the requirements in compliance with the appropriate federal and departmental policies and regulations. AAS formulates the scope of effort and negotiates reimbursement agreements with the users. AAS provides interpretations and acts as a central clearinghouse for ADP and communications procurement policies promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration and the Department; and reviews and recommends approval or disapproval of requests for equipment, commercially available software and hardware timesharing, maintenance, teleprocessing and communications-related procurement actions submitted by components of the Department.
The Justice Computer Service (JCS) operates the Department’s centralized ADP facility, services Department of Justice components, ensures the processing of all submitted user jobs, maintains a high level of availability and reliability for interactive programming, on-line and batch systems, and provides application setup and job monitoring support for the Department’s payroll and personnel applications and numerous other production jobs. The JCS evaluates, selects, implements and maintains all system support, utility, data base management systems (DBMS) and teleprocessing monitor software required to make effective use of the equipment. Additionally, JCS assists users in solving software problems, provides the physical planning for all equipment additions and/or changes, and monitors contractual performance of vendor equipment. Some applications and systems software is designed and programmed by the JCS. JCS publishes, maintains and distributes technical information to users through technical training programs for departmental ADP staffs. JCS provides mail distribution services and facilities management which encompasses office and computer center physical and environmental design, as well as installation, maintenance and security for the Office of Information Technology.
The Justice Telecommunications Service provides professional and technical support to organizational elements of the Department on matters concerning the application for, and the cost-effective acquisition of, telecommunications equipment and services; provides for the administrative management of Departmentwide operational telecommunications systems; and, represents the Department on various interagency telecommunications committees.
Telecommunications Networking Study. The Computer Technology and Telecommunications Staff started a study to document the Department’s data communications requirements for existing, planned, and projected systems and programs through Fiscal Year 1992. The documented requirements were converted to machine-readable media for computer analysis and modeling to identify a networking concept to satisfy the requirements. The concept will identify a system, or systems, to provide improved efficiencies and economies over the multiple networks currently being utilized. The study is to be completed early in Fiscal Year 1983 and significant economies should be realized through implementation of a common user network, replacing the overlapping and redundant data communications presently being utilized by Department of Justice organizational components.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Staff was involved in the following significant activities:
•	Selected and installed a security package to protect organization data.
•	Acquired and installed 48 3652-disk storage modules, which have increased disk storage capacity at the data center by over 35 billion characters. This equipment uses 50 percent less electricity and air conditioning. Savings of floor space, a critical resource, is also 50 percent.
•	Acquired and installed two STC printers which operate at 3,000 lines per minute, replacing a group of printers that operated at 1,000 and 2,000 lines per minute, providing a 50 percent savings in floor space.
•	Replaced a 370/155 computer with an IBM 4341 computer, which will result in a savings of over $300,000 during the next five years.
•	Replaced an Amdahl V/6 with an Amdahl V/7-II, which allows all disk drives within the data center to be cabled to the V/7-II. This provides greater flexibility and a 17 percent increase in processing power, resulting in an annual savings of almost $114,000.
•	Installed 53 Justice Telecommunications System (JUST) replacement terminals in the Executive Office and selected field offices of the U.S. Attorneys, Marshals Service, Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. National
27
Central Bureau, INTERPOL, resulting in an annual savings of $3,000 and a time savings of about 10 hours a day for all 53 locations. Provided JUST access to U.S. Attorneys and Immigration and Naturalization Service offices in Anchorage, Alaska, and access to the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) via interface with JUST.
•	Installed Automatic Route Selection from the Department of Justice Centrex II System, causing all long distance calls placed on commercial lines to be automatically attempted via the Federal Telecommunications System prior to being completed.
•	Initiated actions to produce and publish a guide to acquaint Department managers and others with the various services offered by the Office of Information Technology, as well as to facilitate access to those services.
•	Assisted the Drug Enforcement Administration in upgrading its computer configuration at the El Paso Intelligence Center to handle increased workload caused by a congressional amendment to Posse Comitatus, which permits the military to provide information to the Drug Enforcement Administration on drug-related matters.
Information Systems Staff
The Information Systems Staff provides services in support of: automated information processing systems; office automation activities; publication services; JURIS, the Department’s automated legal research system; and litigation support activities in conjunction with the Litigation Systems Staff. These services, Department wide in scope, are provided on a reimbursable basis and include: software development; printing and publications; forms management; management of micrographics, reprographics, word processing equipment and terminals; and maintenance of the JURIS software and data base. In addition to providing these services, the staff reviews the administration of applicable Department wide policies.
The most significant system developed and maintained by the Legal Systems Development Group is the Justice Retrieval and Inquiry System (JURIS), which provides online, interactive access through remote terminals to a vast body of federal and case law, federal statutory and regulatory materials, and attorney work products as an aid to legal research. There are presently 400 terminals accessing a 7.3 billion character, general legal data base which includes the full text of 280,000 federal decisions, the West Digest of 185,000 federal and 475,000 state decisions, the full text of the U.S. Code and Public Laws, and numerous other files. There are over 5,000 user identification cards issued to attorneys in 310 organizations.
JURIS continues to serve as the ‘search and retrieval’ and data base maintenance software for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration National Criminal Justice Reference Service, which has over 20,000 subscribers. In addition, JURIS plays a large role as an automated litigation support tool.
Responsibilities within the Information Systems Staff are fulfilled by the following four functional services:
The Data Base Support Service provides computer-assisted legal research services in support of the JURIS data base and software, as well as development and maintenance of data bases for litigation support, and helps departmental organizations select and acquire data base management systems.
The Office Automation Service provides services related to the office environment. The services include the acquisition and management of reprographics, micrographics devices, word processors, facsimile, desktop computers, stand-alone minicomputer and microcomputer systems, visual communications and teleconferencing.
The Publications Service provides direct printing, duplicating, copying and distribution services, as well as departmental management of all contracts between the Department and the Government Printing Office for the procurement of printing and selected services.
The Systems Development Service provides systems analyses, systems design, programming, and implementation services in support of automated information processing systems to the litigating divisions, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and other offices, boards, and divisions and bureaus of the Department.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Staff was involved in the following significant activities:
•	Implemented a Reprographics Management Program which places, removes, and reconfigures copiers and duplicators throughout the Department, nationwide. This program has resulted in an approximate annual savings of $72,000.
•	Developed a case tracking system for bankruptcy, using the INQUIRE data base management system, for the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees.
•	Replaced 50 Department of Justice-owned 202S modems with 212A compatible modems. This action saves the Department approximately $30,000 per year.
•	Installed, tested, and implemented an automated correspondence control and tracking system for the Department of Justice Executive Secretariat.
•	Assisted the Civil Division in a reconfiguration of its word processing equipment and competitive procurement of a legal office automation project.
•	Designed and developed the Criminal Division’s Fraud
28
and Corruption Tracking System in accordance with the President’s emphasis on elimination of federal waste, fraud, and abuse.
•	Designed and implemented the Docket and Reporting Collection System.
•	Added the full text of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Decisions and the Board of Contract Appeals file to JURIS.
•	Developed and made available several special files under JURIS for the Department of the Interior, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
•	Reviewed all publications qualifying as periodicals or pamphlets, and subsequently implemented DO J Order 2510.11, which provided Departmentwide control of periodicals and pamphlets.
•	Initiated videotaping of depositions to support legal divisions’ litigation.
Library Staff
The Library Services Staff supports the legal research and information needs of the Department of Justice attorneys and staff. The combined library network now totals 300,000 volumes, primarily in the areas of law, legislation and political science. Business and economics, medicine, international relations and public administration represent areas of additional interest. Special collections include: rare and older legal materials, departmental publications (as well as materials about the Department), and legislative histories. A growing microform collection of over 70,000 volumes is maintained. Legal research assistance is provided through traditional manual resources as well as on-line legal and bibliographic data base searching. Records Management Services is responsible for the maintenance and disposition of departmental records, including systematic reviews and specialized recordkeeping requirements under specific legislation.
The Library Services Staff recorded the following programmatic achievements during the year:
• Consultation Services: 1) Provided professional guidance to the Civil Rights Division in establishment of a branch Civil Rights Library in the HOLC building, including a basic legal research and specialized research collection and the design and layout of the facility and equipment; and 2) Extended special assistance to the Criminal Division in handling the Cuban Review Panel Records, including specifications for automated management.
• Public Services awareness: 1) Created an Asbestos Seminar data base directory for the Civil Division;
2) Established a program of Library Services briefings, tours and legislative research classes; 3) Established specialized data base demonstrations; 4) Staff partic-pated as witnesses in trial practice seminars.
• Consolidation of libraries: To improve the efficiency of information delivery*- and permit cost-effective operations, the Civil Rights and Criminal Division libraries were administratively consolidated under the Library Staff.
Litigation Systems Staff
The Litigation Systems Staff coordinates, plans, develops, implements and reviews the administration of designated information systems for the use of the Department of Justice and, as appropriate, the federal government as a whole. The staff is divided into the following three service areas:
Legal Information Services oversees and coordinates implementation of a departmental Case Management System. This system provides for the aggregation, analysis and reporting of data developed by the litigating divisions and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices for such purposes as may be required by Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and departmental management. Legal Information Services coordinates with other federal agencies to provide timely information about civil litigation pending in the courts in which the federal government is either a party or has a significant interest.
Legal Research and Training Service develops a practice-oriented educational program for Department personnel who must employ automated information processing technologies in the performance of their litigation-related duties. This service includes JURIS training and user assistance for Department and other federal government personnel, as appropriate. The service directs, through consultation with and representation of the federal legal-users community, the effort to provide Computer-Assisted Legal Research (CALR). This activity includes: evaluation and analysis of legal data bases and recommendations for additions, deletions, and other modifications. This applies, in particular, to the Department’s JURIS system. Legal Research and Training Service coordinates with other Office of Information Technology staffs the technical requirements in providing CALR, and, through consultation with the litigating components, the establishment of priorities for data base administration in the areas of automated legal research and litigation support.
Litigation Assistance Support Service provides computer-assisted litigation support, on a reimbursable basis, to the litigating divisions, the U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and external federal agencies involved in litigation activities. These services include creation and maintenance of
29
parochial data bases to support specialized activities; design, development and implementation of specialized information retrieval capabilities; and the design, development and implementation of case management systems as needed to meet automated information processing requirements of these organizations.
Litigation Systems Staff accomplishments during fiscal 1982 included:
•	Inaugurated an automated legal research pilot project whereby users of a custom JURIS Mod II terminal have the capabilities of accessing not only the JURIS data base but also the LEXIS and WESTLAW data bases.
•	Conducted a pilot project for Tax Division of their Summons Enforcement Decisions List (SUMENF). The SUMENF is a JURIS special file used for legal research by the Tax Division and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices handling summons enforcement cases. The data base contains all known summons enforcement and summons-related cases classified by official and unofficial citations, data and court. The cases are also issue-coded by one or more of 104 issues or classifications.
•	Provided JURIS training during the past fiscal year to approximately 1,000 persons, including attorneys, law clerks, paralegals, and others throughout the federal government legal community.
•	Applied data processing techniques to organize and . present information from 30,000 drug prescriptions generated by a “drug mill” operation where there was no medical basis for the controlled drugs prescribed. Computers were used to organize, sort, and run totals for the prescriptions by targets, i.e., doctors and pharmacies, as well as by date and type of drug prescribed. Patterns and relationships, not easily detectable through manual manipulation of data, were identified. Additionally, the validity of prescription form addresses was checked by a computer comparison of a valid address data base.
•	Assisted Civil Division attorneys in their defense of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supplemental environmental impact statement case by the creation of a special automated litigation JURIS system file. This special file contained approximately 10,000 pages of material consisting of all the prior trial transcripts and sworn testimony from affidavits and depositions. The file was searchable on a full text basis and provided Department attorneys with the ability to retrieve any witness’ prior testimony on any subject.
Systems Policy Staff
The Systems Policy Staff provides concentration of specialized areas of information systems activities in one staff, composed of the following three groups:
The Information Management Group is divided into four functional responsibilities. The Information Processing Standards Branch develops and maintains an information processing standards program. The Information Resources Branch develops and maintains a departmental data resources directory. The Records Creations Branch maintains a departmental records creation program. An Office of Information Technology Library is maintained for use by the Office of Information Technology and departmental staffs.
The Systems Assessment Group administers ADP audit policy and procedure initiatives, performs quality and policy reviews of ADP systems and functions, and reviews information resource management activities. SAG conducts preoperational system development life-cycle reviews and assessments.
The Systems Planning and Review Group (SPRG) is responsible for the development of departmental policy relative to the planning, acquisition and operation of information and communications systems; formulating and maintaining annual and long-range information and communications systems plans in support of departmental policies and objectives; monitoring departmental information and communications systems to ensure conformance with established policies, plans and guidelines; validating continued need; and determining if less costly or more effective alternatives exist. SPRG also coordinates most systems-related responses to inquiries from Congress, the General Services Administration, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Management and Budget.
SPRG has undertaken to establish a comprehensive management program for the planning, development, acquisition and operation of automated information systems. This Departmentwide oversight program is documented in the Automated Information Systems Policies Order, DOJ 2830.1c.
A major portion of SPRG resources is concentrated in support of the budget formulation process. SPRG reviews all organizational requests for proposed expenditures on ADP/telecommunications equipment, software and services. The related Fiscal Year 1984 submissions of departmental organizations were reviewed and formal analyses and recommendations were prepared for several of the systems, with the emphasis on planning analyses.
SPRG functions include the public-use reports clearance program, including the preparation and submission of the
30
Department’s Information Collection Budget request to the Office of Management and Budget, and the Interagency Reporting Requirements clearance program. Additionally, SPRG is responsible for the review of all research and development activities throughout the Department, and for the monitoring of a contractor-conducted automated data processing risk analysis study as required by Transmittal Memorandum No. 1 to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-71. The risk analysis study has now been transferred to the Security Staff of JMD.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Systems Policy Staff achieved the following:
•	Developed the Automated Information Systems Policies Order (DOJ 2830.1c).
•	Published the Research and Development Order (DOJ 2300.4) and developed procedures for implementation.
•	Prepared a 125-page budgetary submission on Fiscal Year 1983 ADP and Telecommunications exhibits as required by Section 43 of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-ll.
•	Developed a formal paper for submission to the Office of Management and Budget in conjunction with P.L. 96-511, describing the Department’s four federal information centers.
•	Conducted a risk analysis of the Department of Justice computer center using contractor resources.
•	Prepared the Department’s Fiscal Year 1982 Information Collection Budget request and decreased the •Department’s burden levied on the public by 17 percent, exceeding the Office of Management and Budget’s requirement for reduction by two percent for the fiscal year.
•	Maintained the Public Use reports Program by analyzing and clearing 127 requests for new reports, revised reports or extensions for reports from various components of the Department.
•	Developed, in cooperation with the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, a detailed plan for the nationwide implementation of PROMIS, the Prosecutor’s Management Information System.
•	Participated in the conduct of mandatory reviews of the Department’s public “information center.”
31
Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review
Mary C. Lawton
Counsel for Intelligence Policy
The Attorney General has significant responsibilities for the lawful conduct of U.S. foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities intended to acquire timely, accurate information necessary to understand and counter the activities and capabilities of foreign powers, organizations, persons, and their agents, including international terrorists. Many of these responsibilities are described in Executive Order 12333, “United States Intelligence Activities,” and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The Attorney General’s responsibilities include providing guidance to the agencies comprising the U.S. Intelligence Community on questions of law and procedure as well as exercising specific approval authorities vested in the Attorney General by statute and Executive order.
The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), under the direction of the Counsel for Intelligence Policy, is the principal source of assistance to the Attorney General in the execution of these responsibilities. This Office also represents the Department and serves as legal counsel to other parts of the government in matters relating to the conduct of U.S. intelligence activities. These functions are carried out in several ways.
OIPR advises the Attorney General and organizational units of the Department, as well as intelligence and other Executive Branch agencies, on questions relating to the interpretation and application of statutes, Executive Orders, regulations, and procedures relating to U.S. intelligence activities. OIPR staff attorneys conduct necessary legal research, consult with intelligence agency counsel and the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel where appropriate, and prepare legal memoranda and opinions for the Attorney General, the Counsel for Intelligence Policy, the intelligence agencies, and other elements of the federal government.
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Office provided legal and policy advice on various intelligence-related matters to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General, the National Security Council, the Department of State, various elements of the White House, the Deparment of Commerce, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Intelligence Community Staff, the Department of the
Treasury, various components in the Department of Justice, and the staffs of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Intelligence And Counterintelligence Procedures
Representing the Attorney General in fulfilling responsibilities assigned under Executive Order 12333, OIPR attorneys play a significant role in reviewing and assisting in the promulgation of procedures for the conduct of intelligence and counterintelligence activities in the United States and abroad. These procedures must be balanced so that they permit all necessary and lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities but also protect individual rights and privacy. During the past year, through continuous consultation with intelligence agency counsel, National Security Council staff, and other appropriate individuals in the Legislative and Executive Branches, OIPR attorneys have been participating in the drafting, analysis, and explanation to Congress of several sets of procedures required under Executive Order 12333 to regulate the intelligence activities of the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Departments of Defense and the Treasury.
OIPR is also participating in a comprehensive revision of the Attorney General’s Federal Bureau of Investigation Foreign Intelligence Collection and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigation Guidelines, first promulgated in 1976. These revised procedures and guidelines ultimately require approval by the Attorney General and incorporate new authorities provided by Executive Order 12333. They also attempt to clarify ambiguities identified in the previous procedures and guidelines during the past several years. The Office is also participating in revision of Attorney General guidelines governing the conduct of domestic security investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
OIPR represented the Attorney General and the Department in the development of Executive Order 12356, which establishes standards for the classification of national security information, and the Information Security Oversight Office directive that implements that order. In addition, the Office is coordinating the development of internal
32
orders implementing these standards for the Department’s operations.
The Office also represents the Attorney General and the Department of Justice on the National Foreign Intelligence Council, the Interagency Coordinating Committee for United States-Soviet Affairs, the Director of Central Intelligence Committee on Exchanges, the National Security Council Ad Hoc Technology Transfer Group, the Technology Transfer Intelligence Committee, the Economic Defense Advisory Committee Working Group II, interagency groups concerning counterintelligence, countermeasures and strategic technology, and various subcommittees of these and other groups.
Legislation
OIPR plays a substantial role in the development of legislative initiatives concerning the conduct of U.S. intelligence activities. During Fiscal Year 1982, the Office performed interpretative, coordinating, drafting, and analytic functions for the Administration and the Department concerning various legislative proposals affecting intelligence activities. These efforts culminated in the enactment of new legislative penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of undercover intelligence agents’ identities. The Office participated in the development of the Department’s proposals for amendments to the Freedom of Information Act and for laws governing access to tax information for counterintelligence purposes. The Office also provided comments, on an ad hoc basis, on various other bills under consideration in the Congress.
In the area of intelligence operations the Office’s responsibilities primarily involve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Requests of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence agencies that the Attorney General authorize the filing of applications to conduct intelligence-related electronic surveillance and other intelligence and counterintelligence activities are reviewed by OIPR attorneys. Based on their findings of legal sufficiency and consistency with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other applicable directives, applications for electronic surveillance are drafted and recommendations are made to the Attorney General to approve or disapprove these requests. In certain types of intelligence activities, the Attorney General has delegated approval authority to OIPR, and in those cases authorizations are made by OIPR.
Electronic Surveillance
Applications for electronic surveillance that are authorized by the Attorney General are presented to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by OIPR attorneys, who appear as legal counsel for the applicant intelligence
agencies. When required, legal memoranda, motions, and other legal papers are also prepared and filed with the Court. During Fiscal Year 1982, OIPR played an increasing role in the prosecution of cases involving foreign counterintelligence issues. Office attorneys assisted in the litigation of several espionage cases, filing motions and legal memoranda on a variety of issues. These efforts had their most significant success to date when, in the first decision to address the question, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
OIPR also prepared the Attorney General’s annual and semiannual reports to the Congress on electronic surveillance conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Supplementary briefings on electronic surveillances and other intelligence activities of interest to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are also provided as required. From time to time, the Counsel for Intelligence Policy and Deputy Counsels have testified before the two Intelligence Committees to explain the Department’s views on intelligence policy and to discuss certain intelligence matters.
A substantial number of Federal Bureau of Investigation requests to conduct undercover activities in counterintelligence cases were reviewed and recommendations for Attorney General approval of these operations were developed by OIPR in appropriate cases. In addition, a substantial number of other counterintelligence operational activities were also considered by the Office and appropriate recommendations were made to the Attorney General for his approval of these activities.
Oversight Functions
The Office monitors certain intelligence and counterintelligence investigations and other activities by Executive Branch agencies to ensure conformity with the procedures and guidelines, statutes, and Executive Orders regulating such activities. During the past year, as part of its oversight functions, OIPR attorneys conducted field evaluations of how the procedures governing electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence and counter intelligence cases were being implemented. These reviews involved trips to field facilities of intelligence agencies, interviews of operational personnel, and review of surveillance logs.
Finally, the Office reviewed a small number of full domestic security investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the requisite standards set forth in the Attorney General’s guidelines for these investigations and recommended to the Deputy Attorney General that he approve or disapprove their continuation.
33
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
34
COMMISSIONER
WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE San Francisco
NATIONAL APPEALS BOARD ■
VICE-CHAIRMAN
SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE
Dallas
. ■ ......—■ COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL
OFFICE
Kansas City
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Atlanta
NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Philadelphia
United States
Parole Commission
Benjamin F. Baer Chairman
The United States Parole Commission was established in May 1976 by the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act. Prior to that time, the agency was known as the United States Board of Parole, which had been created by Congress in 1930.
The Commission is an independent agency in the Department of Justice. Its primary function is to administer a parole system for federal prisoners and develop federal parole policy, as required. The federal parole policy is made explicit by the parole decision guidelines developed by the Parole Commission.
The Commission is authorized to:
•	Grant or deny parole to any eligible federal prisoner.
•	Impose reasonable conditions on the release from custody of any prisoner on discretionary parole or mandatory release by operation of “good-time” laws.
•	Revoke parole or mandatory release.
•	Discharge offenders from supervision and terminate the sentence prior to the expiration of the supervision period.
In addition to the above parole authority, the Commission is also authorized, under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, to determine if certain prohibitions on holding office in a labor union or an employer group may be withdrawn for offenders who apply for exemption.
The Commission consists of nine Commissioners appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. They serve six-year terms and may hold office for no more than 12 years. The Commissioners are a policymaking body and meet at least quarterly for such purpose.
The Chairman and three Commissioners are stationed in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The other five act as Regional Commissioners for the regional offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Atlanta, Georgia; Kansas City, Missouri; Dallas, Texas; and San Francisco, California. The three commissioners in Chevy Chase, Maryland, make up a National Appeals Board.
Hearing examiners in the regional offices and at Headquarters conduct parole hearings with eligible
prisoners. They travel to each institution on a bimonthly schedule. The examiners function as two-person panels to conduct hearings and make recommendations to the Regional Commissioner relative to parole or parole revocation.
Assisting the Commission are officials and staffs of the Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Probation Officers attached to each federal district court, and staff of the U.S. Marshals Service. The Bureau of Prisons staffs prepare institutional reports for the Commission, make the arrangements for hearings and carry out the release procedures to implement an order to parole. Probation Officers act, according to statute, as parole officers for the Commission. In such capacity they make preparole investigations and reports and provide community supervision over prisoners released to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The U.S. Marshals Service has the responsibility for executing parole and mandatory release violation warrants and for transporting inmates.
The Probation Officers report apparent violations of conditions of release. If an apparent violation occurs, the Commission may issue a warrant for the retaking of the alleged parole violator. The Probation Officers also make recommendations to the Commission regarding early termination of the supervision period for certain releases.
U.S. Parole Commission procedures seek to eliminate unnecessary uncertainty for incarcerated offenders regarding the date of their eventual release. By informing prisoners at the outset of confinement of their probable release date, the Commission hopes to defuse a substantial source of institutional tension and enable both prisoners and staff to better organize institutional programs and release plans.
Under Commission regulations, all federal prisoners serving a maximum term exceeding one year are afforded parole hearings within 120 days of confinement at a federal institution except those prisoners with a minimum term of parole ineligibility of 10 years or more. These prisoners must serve their minimum term before receiving an initial hearing.
At the initial hearing, the Commission’s examiner panels discuss with the prisoner his offense, criminal and social history, institutional plans and programs. Following the interview, the panel may recommend, after consulting the
35
Commission’s paroling policy guidelines, either: 1) a presumptive date of release (which may be either a parole date or the prisoner’s mandatory release date on good time reductions) or 2) a 10-year reconsideration hearing. If the panel’s recommendation is approved by the Regional Commissioner, the panel’s proposed decision becomes effective; otherwise the Regional Commissioner may refer the case to the National Commissioners for reconsideration.
If denied parole, the prisoner may appeal to the Regional Commissioner on both substantive and procedural grounds. If he remains dissatisfied, he may appeal to the Commission’s National Appeals Board. In certain cases the Commissioners, after a hearing by an examiner panel, assume “original jurisdiction” over a case and make the parole decision by the concurrence of three votes. Appeals of these types of actions may be made to the full Commission.
Following the initial hearing, the prisoner is scheduled for interim hearings every 18 or 24 months (depending on the length of the maximum term imposed). At this hearing, the Commission considers only those developments in the prisoner’s case from the date of his last proceeding, along with his release plans. After this review the Commission may order no change in the previous decision or it may advance the presumptive date based on superior program achievement or other clearly exceptional circumstances, or retard the date because of disciplinary infractions.
If a prisoner has committed serious disciplinary violations, the Commissioner may conduct the interim proceeding as a “rescission” hearing to determine whether the presumptive release date should be forfeited or substantially retarded.
The Commission also conducts revocation hearings to determine whether a releasee has violated the terms of his community supervision and, if so, whether he should be reincarcerated. The Parole Commission and Reorganization Act of 1976 establishes definite time limits of 60 or 90 days for conducting these hearings, depending on whether the hearing is scheduled at the locale of the violation (or arrest) or at a federal institution.
At local revocation hearings the alleged violator is
accorded the unqualified right to retained or appointed counsel, right to present witnesses and documentary evidence, and right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. In institutional revocation hearings, the same procedural rights are applicable, with the exception of the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Finally, the Commission is required to formally review cases of released prisoners to determine the appropriateness of terminating the sentence earlier than the maximum term imposed by the court. Two years after release on parole, and at least annually thereafter, the Commission must review the status of the parolee and determine the need for continued supervision. If continuation on parole beyond five years is contemplated a hearing must be conducted at that time and annually thereafter if requested by the parolee.
Accomplishments
During Fiscal Year 1982 the Commission:
•	Conducted 14,000 parole consideration and revocation hearings.
•	Completed implementation of a simpler and more reliable version of the Salient Factor Score, a statistical device used by the Parole Commission to assess risk of recidivism. Evidence for the accuracy of the Salient Factor Score is presented in a report available from the Commission’s Office of Research.
•	Initiated a project in cooperation with the Federal Prison System to create a computerized record of all parole considerations using the SENTRY system developed by the Federal Prison System. It was expected to be operational in late Fiscal Year 1983 or early Fiscal Year 1984.
•	Conducted a three-day national training session for staff. This was the first time in over two years that staff from all five regions were able to meet and discuss mutual problems.
•	Added new Executive Director position to aid in the completion of administrative tasks at Commission Headquarters.
36
Office of
the Pardon Attorney
David C. Stephenson
Acting Pardon Attorney
The President exercises the pardon power in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution based on formal application and the recommendation of the Attorney General, now generally the Associate Attorney General by assignment.
The Pardon Attorney, in consultation with the Associate Attorney General, receives and reviews all petitions for Executive clemency, initiates the necessary investigations and prepares the recommendation of the Associate Attorney General to the President in connection with the consideration of all forms of Executive clemency, including pardon, commutation (reduction) of sentence, remission of fine and reprieve.
The granting of a pardon generally is considered only after the completion of sentence and a five to seven-year waiting period, depending on the seriousness of the offense. The ground on which a pardon is usually granted is in large measure the demonstrated good conduct of a petitioner for a significant period of time after conviction and completion of sentence. All relevant factors, including the petitioner’s prior and subsequent arrest record and his reputation in the community, are carefully reviewed to determine whether the petitioner has become and is likely to continue to be a responsible, productive and law-abiding citizen. In addition to the petitioner’s conduct in his postconviction life, the recentness and seriousness of the offense also are considered.
Although a pardon does not expunge the record of conviction, it serves as a symbol of forgiveness and is useful in removing the stigma incident to conviction, restoring basic civil rights and facilitating restoration of professional or other licenses that may have been lost by reason of the conviction. Unless given for that specific reason, a pardon does not connote innocence.
Commutation or reduction in the term of a prison sentence is a restricted form of pardon. Executive clemency in the form of a commutation is rarely granted and the President intervenes to reduce an inmate’s sentence to time already served, to a shorter term or simply to accelerate his eligibility for parole consideration, only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Remission of fine and reprieve are less common forms of clemency. A remission of fine usually is granted when further collection efforts by the government would impose
an undue financial hardship upon a petitioner. Of course, applicants for remission also must demonstrate satisfactory postconviction conduct.
A reprieve temporarily suspends the effect of a sentence. Traditionally, reprieves have been used to delay the execution of a death sentence.
It may be said generally that the President’s pardoning authority is absolute and extends to all offenses against the United States, excepting only in impeachment cases. He has no authority to pardon state offenses. The decision to grant or deny a pardon is wholly discretionary with the President. The exercise of his authority may not be limited by legislative restrictions and is not subject to review by the courts. There is no appeal from a clemency decision. Although not required to do so, the President has directed the promulgation of rules governing the consideration of petitions for Executive clemency. While they are published in 28 Code of Federal Regulations 1.1 et seq., they are regarded as internal advisory guidelines for officials concerned with the consideration of clemency petitions and create no enforceable rights in clemency applicants.
Executive Clemency Statistics
In Fiscal Year 1982, 283 pardon petitions and 179 commutation petitions were received. The President granted 83 pardons and commuted the sentences of three persons. Of 1,141 clemency petitions available for consideration during the fiscal year, 547 were denied or administratively closed. During the year the Pardon Attorney received a total of 14,606 pieces of correspondence and mailed out 16,575 items, including responses to 315 congressional inquiries, as well as 947 White House and special referrals.
The following table presents statistics for Fiscal Years 1978 through 1982.
Fiscal Year 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982	Received 641 710 523 548 462	Granted		Denied 836 448 500 260 547	Pending 508 617 474 679 508
		Pardons 162 143 155 76 83	Commutations 3 10 11 7 3		
37
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
38
DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
RECORDS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
INSPECTION DIVISION
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INVESTIGATIONS
LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION
INTELLIGENCE DIVISION
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION
TRAINING DIVISION
LABORATORY DIVISION
Federal Bureau of Investigation
William H. Webster
Director
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of over 200 categories of federal statutes, is solely responsible for all foreign counterintelligence investigations within the United States, collects evidence in other cases in which the United States is an interested party, and performs other duties imposed by law or Presidential directive.
Top priority has been assigned to the four areas that affect society the most—organized crime (including drug trafficking), foreign counterintelligence, white-collar crime and terrorism. Facts developed through FBI investigations are presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official who determines whether prosecution or other further action is warranted.
On January 28, 1982, the Attorney General assigned concurrent jurisdiction for enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, Title 21, U.S. Code, to the FBI. Oversight of narcotics violations countermeasures was made the responsibility of the Director, FBI, with the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reporting to the Attorney General through the FBI Director.
Investigative Efforts
Organized Crime
The goal of the Organized Crime Program during Fiscal Year 1982 was to identify the incidence of organized criminal activity, and through sustained effective investigation, to penetrate, expose and develop significant cases against high-level organized crime subjects for prosecution by the Department of Justice. The areas of investigative priority within this program have been identified as labor racketeering, organized crime-related corruption, illegal infiltration of legitimate business by the organized criminal element, loansharking, illegal gambling, arson for profit, gangland slayings, adult and child pornography, prostitution and narcotics matters.
The Attorney General’s delegation to the FBI of concurrent jurisdiction with DEA in investigations of drug violations placed the FBI in a position to utilize more effectively its, as well as DEA’s, resources to concentrate on a multi-jurisdictional approach against drug violators and their financial assets. As of September 30, 1982, the number of cases being managed under the FBI’s Narcotics Program
was 826. Of that number, 237 were investigations being conducted jointly with the DEA.
From January 1982, through September 30, 1982, the FBI had a total of 28 narcotics Title III electronic surveillance installations, eleven of which were extended, for a total of 39 applications. Of this total, 20 applications were joint FBI/DEA investigations. FBI investigations concentrated upon the major narcotics-trafficking organizations, outlaw motorcycle gangs, high-level smugglers, distributors, manufacturers, financiers, and corrupt public and law enforcement officials.
During Fiscal Year 1982, FBI investigative efforts against organized crime resulted in 763 convictions, up considerably from Fiscal Year 1981, including a significant number of organized crime members and associates. Additionally, organized crime investigations resulted in $6,791,900 in fines; $112,499,655 in recoveries; and $16,074,744 in potential economic loss prevented.
Intelligence information concerning organized criminal activity disseminated to state and local law enforcement agencies by the FBI on a regular basis resulted in 194 convictions and $470,835 in fines.
The following are examples of accomplishments of particular significance:
On October 19, 1981, Thomas J. Sinito, a suspected member of organized crime in Cleveland and a close associate of Cleveland organized crime figure James Licavoli, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 18 years’ custody and a $20,000 fine. Also convicted and sentenced to three years’ custody was Charles Sinito, Jr., his cousin. Both convictions were the result of an FBI investigation of violations related to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Extortionate Credit Transactions (ECT) statutes that involved the laundering of loanshark payments made by victims and passed through checking accounts to various businesses established by the Sinitos.
On October 30, 1981, Francis Joseph Sheeran, president of Teamsters Local 326, Wilmington, Delaware, was convicted in U.S. District Court, Wilmington, of 11 counts of RICO and conspiracy charges. Sheeran had been charged with specific acts of racketeering, including two murders, four attempted murders, two arsons, and embezzlement of union funds.
39
On November 5, 1981, William Johnson, Jr., and Charles Mitchell Adams were sentenced in U.S. District Court, Baltimore, Maryland, for numerous violations of the ECT statute and conspiracy. Johnson was sentenced to a term of 14 years, Adams to seven. Numerous victims involved in their loansharking operations had been severely beaten and threatened at gunpoint by Johnson.
On November 17, 1981, Russell Bufalino, an organized crime leader in northeast Pennsylvania, was sentenced in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, to 10 years’ custody and $10,000 in fines for violation of federal civil rights and obstruction of justice. This conviction stemmed from Bufalino’s attempt to have a government witness, previously testifying in a case resulting in Bufalino’s conviction for ECT violations, killed while Bufalino was incarcerated.
On November 23, 1981, Rich Kuhn, a former Boston College basketball player, James Burke, a high-level associate of a New York organized crime group, and Paul Mazzei and Rocco Perla, who were associated with organized crime in the Pittsburgh area, were convicted of RICO violations, conspiracy, and sports bribery. These convictions were the result of an FBI investigation code-named “BIXBE” and involved the fixing of Boston College basketball games during the 1978-79 college season.
On December 18, 1981, four members of the Tampa, Florida, chapter of the Outlaws motorcycle gang were convicted in U.S. District Court, Tampa, for violation of federal statutes related to the White Slave Traffic Act, interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, prostitution and conspiracy.
On January 11, 1982, Chicago organized crime subject Frank Renella pled guilty in U.S. District Court, Chicago, to ECT, extortion, and bail jumping violations. Renella and his organized crime associates were involved in extortion of local businessmen in the Chicago area for protection of their businesses.
On February 26, 1982, at Cleveland, Ohio, Joseph Elias Nader and John R. Stewart were convicted in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on six counts of arson and aggravated arson. These convictions were the result of a joint FBI/Cleveland Police Department investigation conducted during 1979-80. This investigation established the subjects as being involved in an arson-for-profit scheme involving over 40 arsons. As a result of the FBI/Cleveland Police Arson Task Force, statistics document a 48 percent decrease in arson-related inner-city fires.
On April 6, 1982, Frank Lee Usher, a Detroit, Michigan, narcotics trafficker who headed a major heroin operation and was believed responsible for at least 25 drug-related murders, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 13 years for violation of the continuing criminal enterprise statute.
This sentence was to run consecutive to a January 28, 1982, FBI conviction for firearms violations. Usher was also fined $100,000 and two of his associates were sentenced.
On April 14, 1982, Carlos Marcello, organized crime leader in Louisiana and convicted in the FBI “BRILAB” undercover investigation, was sentenced for his conviction on charges of conspiracy to bribe a public official, corruptly endeavoring to influence an officer of a court of the United States, and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering. Marcello received two consecutive five-year sentences and one concurrent five-year sentence with fines totaling $25,000 and costs of prosecution. In addition, Los Angeles organized crime figure Sam Sciortino was sentenced to serve five years’ custody, fined $5,000 and ordered to pay costs of prosecution. Phillip Rizzuto, Kansas City organized crime member, was sentenced to three years’ custody on one count and three years’ concurrent custody on a second count, fined $5,000 and ordered to pay the costs of prosecution.
In the Eastern District of New York, on April 16, 1982, Vincent DiNapoli pled guilty to one RICO count. DiNapoli, a union official, was investigated by the New York FBI Office in an undercover operation code-named “LILREX.” “LILREX” investigated rampant labor racketeering within the construction industry in the greater New York City area. On September 14, 1982, Michael LaRosa, an organized crime figure, was sentenced for his role in arranging illegal labor payoffs. With the exception of Theodore Maritas, all individuals originally indicted as a result of this investigation were convicted and sentenced. Maritas has disappeared and is believed dead.
On April 19, 1982, the Albany Division executed search warrants on Spectra Photos of North Syracuse, New York. This search was the result of a Group II undercover operation investigating alleged criminal activities of Spectra, a film-processing company. This investigation established that large quantities of film portraying child pornography, bestiality and sadomasochism were processed by that company. Computer records of names and addresses of over 20,000 Spectra customers were seized during this search. While this search was being conducted by the Albany Division, 11 other field divisions were simultaneously conducting searches and interviews of subjects.
On May 3, 1982, Chris Petti, Gerardo Sico, Thomas Palma, Vincent Montalto, and Dominick Bartolotta were convicted in U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, for violation of 18 U.S. Code 1955, on illegal gambling business charges. This matter, code named “PET-CON,” was conducted by the San Diego, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Philadelphia Divisions. It targeted a national booking syndicate, controlled and financed by organized crime, with a weekly handle in excess of $500,000.
40
On May 7, 1982, as a result of a Philadelphia Division investigation, a U.S. District Court jury convicted six organized crime members and associates for racketeering and conspiracy. The investigation, code-named “GANG PLANK,” involved gambling and loansharking operations controlled by organized crime elements in Philadelphia.
On June 4,1982, the Miami Division, based on informant information and in conjunction with DEA, executed search warrants on two residences being utilized as laboratories in a massive quaalude manufacturing and distribution operation. Three million methaqualone tablets, plus powder ingredients for twenty million additional tablets, were seized. Street value of the seized powder and pills was in excess of $100 million. In addition, 10 subjects were arrested. This seizure has been characterized by the news media as the largest quaalude pill and factory seizure in U.S. history.
On June 11, 1982, the Outlaws motorcycle gang’s southeastern region president, Wilson Tony Harrell, and three other members were found guilty of various narcotics charges in U.S. District Court, Tampa, Florida. This resulted from an investigation conducted by the FBI’s Tampa Division. Five other subjects had been convicted previously in this matter.
On June 17,1982, Patrick Dixon, Richard Frost, Phillip Gilistone and Mitchell Lieberman were convicted as a result of a joint FBI/DEA investigation conducted in Philadelphia entitled “LIMESTONE.” On June 30, 1982, Philadelphia organized crime member Raymond Martorano was sentenced to five years incarceration on each of two counts of narcotics charges arising out of the “LIMESTONE” investigation. The sentences were to be served consecutively.
On June 30, 1982, 10 Chicago police officer defendants of the William Haas investigation were convicted on charges of aiding and abetting a continuing criminal enterprise and on conspiracy, Hobbs Act and RICO counts. This matter arose from an investigation by the Chicago FBI into illegal narcotics activities of the officers. This case was designated by the Chicago Crime Commission as one of the outstanding Chicago area law enforcement investigations during the year.
On July 1, 1982, a federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, returned indictments against subjects Wayne “Babe” Donoway, Anthony Genovese and Bernard Webster for violation of the sports bribery and fraud by wire statutes. The Newark Division conducted the investigation, which focused on race fixing at the Meadowlands Harness Track in New Jersey. Bernard Webster was one of the nation’s leading harness drivers.
On July 6, 1982, a Cleveland federal grand jury returned a 74-count indictment in the “BUSMARK” investigation against several defendants, including Angelo Lonardo, Cleveland organized crime acting boss, and Joseph Charles
Gallo, an organized crime figure. The charges included such violations as continuing criminal enterprise, distribution of narcotics, use of a communications facility, interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, and RICO, with predicate offenses that included four murders and two threats to murder. Over $800,000 worth of valuables purchased by one of the defendants with narcotics funds were forfeited, along with his residence, a rental property and two businesses. Lonardo’s residence and 1980 Cadillac also were forfeited.
On July 8, 1982, James T. Licavoli, a leader of organized crime in Cleveland, and five other high-ranking members of the Cleveland organized crime organization were convicted of RICO violations, with predicate offenses of murder and conspiracy to murder. On July 30, these kingpins of the organized crime hierarchy were sentenced to substantial prison terms.
On July 15, 1982, Timothy Michael McNamara and Phillip Herbert Garrett were sentenced in Washington to a minimum of 20 months and a maximum of 45 years in the custody of the Attorney General for transportation of minors. These convictions were the result of a Washington FBI field office undercover operation targeting White Slave Traffic Act violations as related to interstate transportation of minors associated with homosexual prostitution. In this particular matter, subjects arranged for transportation and prostituting of 12-year-old juveniles from Baltimore to Washington.
On July 19, 1982, organized crime members Thomas DeBrizzi and Albert T. Testa were sentenced in Bridgeport, Connecticut, for obstruction of justice. These convictions arose out of their attempts with Frank Piccolo (deceased), former organized crime leader, to obstruct a grand jury investigating organized crime control of a high-stakes craps game in Bridgeport. Five other subjects of this investigation subsequently entered guilty pleas.
On August 4, 1982, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Texas indicted John Russell Webster, Jr., and 33 others on various narcotics charges. This joint FBI/DEA investigation established that Webster headed a cocaine-trafficking operation capable of financing and distributing 10 kilos of cocaine per month throughout Texas and parts of Louisiana. When search warrants were executed, three pounds of high-quality cocaine were confiscated, as well as large sums of cash, jewelry and 12 vehicles.
Philadelphia organized crime leader Nicodemo D. Scarfo was arrested August 16, 1982, by Newark FBI agents in Atlantic City for violating his bail. Scarfo was originally indicted on January 20, 1981. Scarfo’s bail, pending appeal, prohibited him from associating with persons who had organized crime connections; however, FBI investigation showed him to have violated that restriction. On August 17,
41
1982, Scarfo was remanded to the custody of the Attorney General to commence his sentence as a result of his prior conviction.
On August 18, 1982, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of California returned an indictment charging Christopher Lee Cooper with manufacture of illegal drugs and conspiracy to manufacture. This major organized crime investigation of the FBI Sacramento Division centered on the criminal activities of the Sacramento and Vallejo chapters of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang, particularly the gang’s control of the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. A task force effort with DEA, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and several state and local law enforcement agencies, it had previously led to five indictments.
On August 27, 1982, organized crime figures Benjamin Ruggerio, Nicholas Santora and Antonio Tomasulo were found guilty of RICO and narcotics violations as a result of an FBI investigation code-named “GENUS” which centered on the activities of the Bonanno organized crime group in New York, Florida, and Wisconsin. Members of this group had threatened to kill an undercover FBI agent in this investigation. The undercover agent was operating covertly for a period of six years and had penetrated organized crime at the highest level.
On September 8, 1982, Al Daidone, vice president of a local of the Bartenders Union in Atlantic City, was arrested by the Philadelphia FBI for extortion. By way of background, John McCullough was murdered gangland style on December 16, 1980. McCullough was a powerful labor and political figure in Philadelphia and had been under intensive investigation. The Philadelphia Division of the FBI and the Philadelphia Police Department conducted a joint investigation which resulted in the conviction of two subjects, one being William E. Moran, the hit man. Moran decided to cooperate with the FBI and the Police Department and further investigation resulted in the arrest of Daidone as an alleged participant in the planning of the murder.
On September 8 and 9, 1982, a parole revocation hearing was held for John Franzese, a Colombo organized crime group leader. The basis for the hearing was Franzese’s association with organized crime figures Robert Cordice and Carmine Lombardozzi. Franzese’s parole was revoked and he was sentenced to seven years.
On September 23, 1982, four former Dade County, Florida, homicide officers were convicted on RICO, civil rights, tax and,drugs violations. Six present or former Dade County officers had been convicted or entered guilty pleas in this investigation at the time this was written. Guilty pleas had also been accepted from 12 other subjects, not police officers, who were charged with various narcotics viola
tions. This investigation, code-named “SIDELIGHT,” involved Dade County police officers who were extorting area drug dealers for protection from arrest.
Also in September, the Kansas City Organized Crime Strike Force, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Denver, Colorado, filed separate informations against Clarence Smaldone, Eugene Smaldone and Paul Villano in Denver, charging each with ECT, firearms, and tax violations. All entered guilty pleas on October 4,1982, as part of a plea bargaining agreement. This case involved an investigation concerning organized crime in the Denver area. Clarence Smaldone was an organized crime leader who was assisted by his brother, Eugene, and his nephew, Villano.
White-Collar Crime
White-collar crime consists of illegal acts that use deceit and concealment rather than the application or threat of physical force or violence to obtain money, property, or service; to avoid the payment or loss of money; or to secure a business or personal advantage. Perpetrators of white-collar crimes are often regarded as responsible pillars of their communities and occupy positions in government, industry, professions, and civic organizations. By using their positions, cunning and guile, white-collar criminals undermine professional and governmental integrity in which the citizens have placed their trust. They are responsible for the loss of billions of dollars annually from the nation’s economy.
Offenses constituting the primary jurisdictional areas investigated by the FBI in the category of white-collar crime are corrupt acts involving public officials, fraudulent interstate and international schemes, bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury, frauds perpetrated against federal agencies, racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations and interstate transportation of stolen or counterfeit securities.
During Fiscal Year 1982, approximately 20 percent of the FBI’s investigative manpower was devoted to the conduct of white-collar crime investigations—an effort that resulted in 3,934 convictions. Additionally, more than $249.4 million in ill-gotten gains were recovered, fines of $7.8 million were levied, and potential economic losses exceeding $2.5 billion were prevented.
Agent vigilance and expertise concerning white-collar crime investigations were enhanced through specialized training programs and seminars. Agents also continued to assist and instruct a concerned citizenry regarding schemes and tactics used by white-collar criminals.
For administrative purposes and because of the similarity of criminal activity, the White-Collar Crimes Program (WCCP) has been divided into subprograms which address the following crime problems: governmental fraud, public corruption, and financial crimes.
42
Many investigations of economic crimes are extremely time-consuming and complex due to the extensive number of victims, complex audit trails, and extensive mobility of perpetrators who frequently move throughout the United States and foreign countries in furtherance of their business deals. One ongoing investigation involving an advance fee scheme with 150 potential victims and total fees of $600,000 resulted in 14 indictments. An insurance fraud investigation involving a doctor and an attorney resulted in 13 convictions and $74,000 in fines and restitutions. In yet another example, an investigation of a commodity futures trading fraud that cost over 750 victim investors more than $100 million in losses resulted in the primary subject receiving a 12-year jail sentence.
Governmental Fraud
Governmental fraud addresses criminal allegations of fraud and bribery within the programs and functions of the federal government. The majority of these investigations involve the 13 departments and 57 agencies of the Executive Branch of government, which annually disburse billions of dollars. The basic violations can be divided into two categories—those committed by individuals or entities responsible for operating government programs and those committed by individuals and entities who receive funds when, in fact, they are not qualified to do so or misuse the funds received.
The primary statutes used in prosecuting these offenses are: the fraud statute, 18 U.S. Code 1001, which prohibits the submission of false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to the U.S. government; and the bribery statute, 18 U.S. Code 201, which prohibits the offering or solicitation of anything of value to influence the official actions of a federal employee.
Invariably, these investigations are extremely complex and involve extensive reviews of books and records in gathering sufficient evidence to prove the violations. In major cases of this type, significant media and public interest is present because of the general public’s concern over the government’s ability to properly manage itself.
Because these types of criminal activities undermine public confidence in government institutions and waste millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money, they are given the very highest priority and presently require over 20 percent of the manpower resources devoted to the WCCP.
Since these matters involve the programs and functions of other governmental entities, an extensive liaison program is required to ensure that information developed is disseminated to the Office of the Inspector General or the equivalent at the department or agency administering the abused program or function. Also, when the FBI’s investigations highlight deficiencies within a program or func
tion of another agency, this information is passed along in the expectation that appropriate changes—personnel action, program changes and/or debarment proceedings to ensure that similar abuses do not occur in the future—will be made. Dissemination of investigative results is also made to the Civil Division of the Department of Justice for consideration of civil remedies.
With the establishment of the 15 statutory Inspectors General, additional resources have been added to the war against fraud, waste and abuse in government programs and operations. The FBI, in order to efficiently utilize available resources in such a way as to maximize impact, had entered into 12 memorandums of understanding with 14 of the Inspectors General by the close of Fiscal Year 1982 and similar memorandums were expected to be signed and in effect by the close of calendar year 1982. These agreements clearly delineate areas of responsibility to eliminate possible duplication of effort.
The following examples are provided to illustrate the variety and magnitude of the investigations in the areas of government fraud:
The New York Division of the FBI, with the cooperation of the Department of Education and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, investigated a sophisticated scheme in which the federal government, banks and merchants were defrauded by a group of illegal aliens purporting to be college students. The “students,” mostly Nigerian nationals, exploited student loan programs by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. Thereafter, they systematically used the proceeds of their student loans to develop credit histories and obtain charge cards which were used to obtain expensive merchandise and cash advances with no intention of making repayment. Of the 52 individuals identified in this case so far, 31 have been charged with defrauding the U.S. government, forgery, and/or immigration violations.
MEDFRAUD, a Los Angeles FBI undercover investigation, resulted in 42 convictions, including doctors and laboratory owners, and revealed widespread kickbacks and overbillings in the Medicare and Medicaid programs of California. FBI undercover agents testified before a congressional committee seeking ways to legislate safeguards into the various federally funded health care programs.
Public Corruption
Abuse of office by elected and/or appointed public officials in violation of federal criminal statutes and attempts by individuals to cause public officials to abuse their offices in violation of federal criminal statutes are the bases of FBI public corruption investigative action. The FBI undertakes public corruption investigations only when information or allegations indicate that violations of federal criminal statutes within the FBI’s jurisdiction may have occurred.
43
Among the federal criminal statutes most often encountered in public corruption cases are RICO, the Travel Act, and statutes covering mail fraud, conspiracy, extortion, bribery and false statements to a federal grand jury.
While FBI investigations involve officials at all levels of government, investigative priority and emphasis are provided to those matters involving federal officials, the best known of which was ABSCAM.
Under that code name, the FBI began an undercover operation intended to recover stolen art, counterfeit, and stolen stocks, bonds, and other redeemable securities within the New York area. Shortly after inception, compelling evidence of bribery and conflict of interest violations by a number of federal, state, and local officials was uncovered. Among the results of this investigation were the convictions of one U.S. Senator and six Congressmen. In addition, three city councilmen, one federal law enforcement official, a state regulatory official and others associated with those officials were convicted.
Corruption was also found to exist in each of Oklahoma’s 77 counties during a recent investigation involving public officials. More than 184 officials had entered pleas of guilty, been convicted, or entered into plea agreements as a result of this investigation when this report was submitted.
The FBI’s responsibility for developing sufficient evidence to prove or disprove allegations of criminal wrongdoing is particularly critical in public corruption cases because of the sensitivity of the investigations and the visibility of the potential subjects. As an example, during the Fiscal Year 1982, a former congressional page alleged that he had engaged in homosexual affairs with several Members of Congress. The FBI’s probe into those allegations developed no evidence to substantiate those charges and the former page ultimately admitted that he had concocted the story.
Financial Crimes
Criminal violations categorized as financial crimes generally involve schemes to defraud individuals and institutions by manipulating events, documents, and/or large sums of cash. Although variations of these schemes are endless, the most prevalent include embezzlements, advance-fee swindles, franchise swindles, pyramid schemes, land frauds, check kiting, and stock manipulations. Besides RICO, federal statutes frequently utilized in these types of investigations prohibit bank fraud and embezzlement, fraud by wire, interstate transportation of stolen property, conspiracy, and bankruptcy.
Investigative and prospective guidelines have been coordinated with U.S. Attorneys throughout the United States to apply existing resources commensurate with regional needs. Emphasis is directed toward dishonest bank officials
and cases of high-dollar loss. Whenever possible, less significant violations are referred to local authorities.
In the area of bank fraud and embezzlement, 1,714 individuals were convicted during Fiscal Year 1982 with a total for all financial crimes equaling 3,122. Noteworthy investigations conducted during Fiscal Year 1982 resulted in the arrest and indictment of three independent international swindlers who had operated offshore shell banks with impunity for 10 years. An industrial espionage attempt involving a $375,000 government contract was thwarted without impairing the competitive bidding process when subjects selling company secrets for $150,000 were arrested and later entered guilty pleas.
The increased use of Attorney General-authorized body recorders by undercover FBI agents and by cooperating witnesses has been very successful in establishing intent to defraud in investment schemes and similar cases. One undercover operation involving two agents accounted for the removal of over $1 billion worth of counterfeit bonds, stocks, precious metal certificates, certificates of deposit and letters of credit from circulation in the United States.
Foreign Counterintelligence
In 1982, the Foreign Counterintelligence (FCI) Program continued efforts to counter and neutralize the threat posed by intelligence services hostile to the United States national security interests. As a result of an FBI surveillance of a clandestine meeting between a high-level Soviet military intelligence officer in the United States and an American citizen in which classified material was passed to the Soviet, the Department of State declared the Soviet persona non grata, resulting in his departure from the United States.
Also during the year, the FBI arrested Otto Attila Gilbert, a Hungarian intelligence operative, who had attempted to buy classified information from a U.S. Army warrant officer. This investigation, operated jointly by the FBI and Army intelligence for over two years, was concluded successfully when Gilbert pled guilty to espionage charges and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
To support and enhance FCI investigations, analytical and research entities were expanded and improved in the past year. The FBI is responsive to standing intelligence requirements of the Intelligence Community and disseminates foreign intelligence on a timely basis. An important aid to the FBI’s investigative and analytical capability has been the continued development of the computerized Intelligence Information System.
The FCI program has also benefited by the implementation of a new investigative priority system which facilitates the identification of hostile intelligence activity posing potential danger to U.S. national security. This process enhanced the FBI’s countermeasures against this activity.
44
The FBI has played a significant role in limiting hostile acquisition of sensitive technology. An important part of this responsibility is the Development of Counterintelligence Awareness Program, which seeks to inform private companies handling classified contracts of the hostile intelligence threat.
Terrorism
The Terrorism Section of the Criminal Investigative Division has the dual responsibilities of preventing terrorist acts through intelligence-type investigations and responding through criminal investigations when terrorist acts are committed. In Fiscal Year 1982, accomplishments in checking the activities of the major terrorist groups included:
Three members of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) were arrested for attempting to bomb the Air Canada cargo entry area at Los Angeles International Airport. The trio was observed by an FBI surveillance team as they attempted to place the bomb. A fourth suspect fled to Paris, where he was arrested by the French authorities, but his extradition could not be arranged.
A member of the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG) was arrested for the assassination of the Turkish consul, Kernel Arikan, in Los Angeles. The brother of the accused assassin, also a member of the JCAG, was arrested and convicted for fire bombing Arikan’s home in 1980.
Six Croatian terrorists were convicted on violations of the RICO statutes. They were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 20 to 40 years.
Activities of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the United States were also curtailed. As the result of an FBI undercover operation, four individuals were arrested in New York and three in Northern Ireland and a large quantity of weapons, ammunition, and electronic detonating equipment was seized.
In an unrelated operation, two members of the Irish National Liberation Army were arrested for trying to purchase automatic weapons from an undercover FBI agent.
Edwin Wilson, a former Central Intelligence Agency agent, was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on numerous federal charges relating to his involvement in supplying military equipment and expertise to the Libyan government. Additionally, he and two other individuals were indicted by a Houston federal grand jury for smuggling military-type plastic explosives to Libya.
An operative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the United States was arrested for illegally purchasing firearms. A diplomat from South Yemen was later asked to leave the United States when it was revealed that he
had lent his diplomatic credentials to facilitate the arms purchase.
A second PLO operative was arrested when it was revealed that he had a large amount of explosives hidden in a rented storage area in Alexandria, Virginia.
Four Puerto Rican terrorists were arrested when they failed to cooperate with a federal grand jury in New York.
Sixteen members of the Conseil National Liberation Haiti (CNLH), were apprehended by the U.S. Coast Guard six miles off the coast of Florida. These individuals, involved in a plot to overthrow the government of Haiti, were arrested by the FBI for violations of the Neutrality Act. After further investigation, three other individuals, including the leader of the CNLH, were arrested.
In another attempt to invade Haiti, the leader and seven members of a group called the Parti Populaire National Haiti were arrested by the FBI. They were all later convicted of violations of the Neutrality Act.
Civil Rights Violations
The Civil Rights Program of the FBI investigates matters that involve actual or attempted abridgements of rights provided to citizens and inhabitants of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the country. The primary objective of this program is to enhance and protect those rights through expeditious investigation of matters within FBI jurisdiction. Both civil and criminal matters are investigated in close coordination with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
During Fiscal Year 1982, 12 misdemeanor convictions and 19 felony convictions were obtained in civil rights cases investigated by the FBI.
A federal grand jury was empaneled during March 1982, at Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to hear evidence concerning the deaths of five demonstrators during a “Death to the Klan” rally which occurred at Greensboro, North Carolina, on November 3, 1979.
In South Bend, Indiana, Joseph Paul Franklin was indicted by a federal grand jury in June 1982, on charges of shooting Vernon Jordan, executive director of the National Urban League, in violation of Jordan’s civil rights. In August, the trial jury returned a not-guilty verdict.
The former superintendent of a Virginia city prison farm and three prison guards were indicted for the egregious mistreatment and beatings of inmates confined in the city prison farm. All subjects pleaded guilty and received probated sentences and monetary fines.
In September 1982, a Del Rio, Texas, police officer was found guilty of violating the civil rights of a Mexican woman after killing her and leaving her nude body in a remote county area. In North Carolina, a migrant farm worker crew leader and three assistant crew leaders were
45
convicted during January 1982, of holding migrant farm workers in a state of involuntary servitude and slavery and with causing the death of a migrant worker. All received lengthy prison terms, with one being a life sentence for causing the death of the migrant worker.
During September 1982, a federal grand jury in Los Angeles returned a 52-count indictment charging violations of the involuntary servitude and slavery statutes against 10 subjects. They were charged with illegally importing Indonesian citizens, who were then sold to wealthy individuals in the Los Angeles, California, area as indentured servants.
General Property Crimes
Property crime continued to account for 90 percent of all reported crime in the United States, with an increase of 61 percent between the years of 1972 and 1981. The FBI Property Crime Program includes armed robbery and burglary of jewelry, precious metals, artworks, and other valuable property and thefts of automobiles, trucks, aircraft and heavy construction equipment by individuals and organized criminal groups. These crimes often include acts of violence in either the commission of the crime or the subsequent trafficking in stolen property. In addition, the proceeds from stolen property are often utilized to finance large narcotics purchases, or, as in the case of stolen aircraft, to provide a means of transporting narcotics.
Federal involvement in the investigation of this type of criminal activity continues to be essential. The mobility of both property and individuals across state boundaries presents jurisdictional, investigative and prosecutive problems which may be impossible for local authorities to overcome.
In addition to use of the traditional reactive investigative approach, use of the undercover technique has proven to be extremely effective in combating property crime. Agents posing as thieves and fences have penetrated numerous theft rings and obtained direct evidence which has resulted in successful prosecutions of those directly involved in the criminal activity as well as high-level individuals who have previously isolated themselves from prosecution.
Property crime undercover operations have successfully penetrated organized crime-related automobile theft and “chop shop” operations throughout the country, and have identified individuals, including Mexican officials, responsible for the theft and exportation of vehicles and heavy equipment to Mexico and South America. Other operations have resulted in the identification and prosecution of major fences and thieves responsible for residential and commercial burglaries of jewelry, art, and other valuable property. Groups engaged in cargo thefts of precious metals and other goods shipped interstate have been successfully addressed. Undercover operations in particular have demonstrated the
pernicious impact of organized crime and narcotics traffickers on property crimes, and commonly expose corrupt law enforcement and public officials. Current operations continue targeting these property crime areas as well as thefts of oil field equipment, computer equipment and technology.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the general property crimes effort resulted in the conviction of 1,283 persons, 1,090 arrests and 186 subjects located. In this period, stolen property in the amount of $151,583,971 was recovered, $1,911,791 in fines was assessed and $184,064,786 in potential economic loss was prevented. One indication of the magnitude of the property crime problem is that during 1982, motor vehicle thefts reported to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center continued in excess of 80,000 vehicles per month, with a monthly loss value exceeding $310 million.
General Government Crimes Program
The objective of this program is the identification, investigation, and prosecution of criminals and criminal groups whose activities are directed against property owned by the federal government and/or individuals who are located on property where the government has investigative jurisdiction. These crimes involve theft of government weapons or explosives, high-value property, and acts of violence; i.e., homicide, assault, and robbery occurring on government reservations, in Indian country, and in federal penitentiaries. This includes approximately 430 major Department of Defense installations and 160 Indian reservations.
During Fiscal Year 1982, 1,628 complaints, informations, and indictments were obtained, 1,055 persons were convicted, 680 persons were arrested and/or located, and recoveries amounted to $3,829,488.
The nation’s Indian reservations are extremely vulnerable to violent crime, such as a recent case where a female postal employee was delivering mail on the Salt River Reservation, Phoenix, Arizona. While the postal employee was stopped, delivering some mail, four Indians forced their way into her car, beat her to the floor of the car, and sped away. Two days later, the victim’s body was discovered in a garbage dump. An autopsy revealed that she had been stabbed, her throat had been cut, attempts had been made to smother her, and she had been beaten. FBI investigation resulted in the apprehension of four Indians, two of whom were women.
Crimes on government reservations frequently involve undercover operations, such as a case involving a seven-month-long operation conducted by the FBI at the Department of Defense regional supply depot in Memphis, Tennessee. This operation resulted in the indictment and con
46
viction of 19 government employees for theft of more than $113,000 in clothing, food, and equipment from the depot site. This operation was initiated after information was received that government employees were illegally selling government property to truck drivers servicing the depot. An undercover FBI agent, posing as a truck driver, subsequently purchased stolen property on 43 occasions.
Personal Crimes
Among the investigative areas where the FBI directly supports the Attorney General’s violent crime initiative is the Personal Crimes Program. The program addresses violations of federal criminal statutes that involve the common characteristics of threatened or actual personal injury or loss of life. These crimes, which include bank robberies, extortions, kidnappings and aircraft hijackings, among others, directly involve the FBI at the “street” level in the effort to reduce the incidence of violent crime. Personal crimes frequently have considerable impact on the communities and individuals affected because of their potential for violence, the high public profile of their victims, the opportunity for substantial monetary and property losses, and the dangerous nature of the criminals committing these acts.
FBI investigative activity in the Personal Crimes Program during Fiscal Year 1982 resulted in 1,596 complaints filed, 2,122 true bills of indictment, 1,477 arrests and 2,119 convictions in federal courts. Ninety-seven percent of the program convictions were for felony offenses. FBI investigative efforts also led to the release or rescue of 130 persons being held hostage or abducted during the commission of Personal Crimes Program offenses.
More than $14.5 million worth of stolen and/or illegally possessed property was recovered during FBI investigations. Fines levied in federal courts against convicted subjects totaled $304,302. Additionally, FBI investigation contributed to the conviction of 409 subjects in local courts for personal crimes.
Overall, during Fiscal Year 1982, the FBI allocated approximately nine percent of its investigative resources to the Personal Crimes Program. Program investigations, in return, yielded 22 percent of the FBI’s total convictions reported during the year.
Bank Robberies and Related Crimes
Federal bank robbery statute violations include robberies, burglaries, and larcenies committed against federally insured banks, savings and loan associations and credit unions. Bank robberies and related crimes continued to occur at a high rate during Fiscal Year 1982 and are projected to reach, or exceed, levels experienced in Fiscal Year 1981, when a record 7,642 violations were reported. Firearms or other weapons were used or threatened in approximately 79
percent of the bank robbery offenses. Narcotics users were found to be involved in approximately 46 percent of the cases reported during Fiscal Year 1982 that have been solved. Violence resulted in 153 injuries and 34 deaths in the 6,961 bank robbery statute violations reported during the first 11 months of Fiscal Year 1982. Additionally, 119 persons were taken hostage.
Major bank robbery investigations conducted by the FBI during Fiscal Year 1982 included the armed robbery of a Brinks armored truck transporting bank funds and subsequent murders of one Brinks guard and two police officers by individuals formerly associated with the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army organizations.
In another case, a lone gunman entered a branch office of the Bank of America in Davis, California, announced a robbery and fired one shot into a bank wall. The robber then held 70 bank employees and customers hostage inside the bank for more than six hours. While negotiations between the FBI and robber continued, 66 of the hostages were released or were able to escape with FBI and local police assistance. Eventually the gunman surrendered to FBI agents and the remaining hostages were rescued.
Convictions in federal courts for bank robberies and related crimes totaled 1,832 in Fiscal Year 1982. Additionally, FBI investigation assisted state and local authorities in obtaining 338 convictions in local courts for bank robberies.
Investigations of extortionate demands against financial institutions are conducted by the FBI under provisions of the Hobbs Act. There were 24 federal convictions for these kidnap/extortion style offenses during the year.
Kidnaping
The FBI’s primary objective in kidnaping situations is always the swift and safe release of the victim. After all efforts have been expended to ensure this goal, the identification, arrest and prosecution of the persons responsible are aggressively pursued. Kidnaping investigations often require extensive and extended resource commitments, a need the FBI recognizes and meets. Since kidnapings also involve the violation of various local statutes, kidnapers can find themselves charged in either or both the federal and local courts on the basis of FBI investigation.
Joint investigation by the FBI and Atlanta Police Department into the mysterious disappearances and murders of 29 children and young adults over a 22-month period resulted in February 1982 in the conviction of Wayne B. Williams in a state court for two of the murders. Williams was identified as a suspect during an FBI-organized surveillance of bridges in the Metropolitan Atlanta area. FBI investigation had been initiated in November 1980, when the Attorney General authorized a preliminary kidnaping investigation into the disappearance of children in Atlanta.
47
During Fiscal Year 1982, the FBI obtained 62 convictions in federal courts for kidnaping violations. Additionally, FBI investigative assistance made possible another 47 convictions in local courts on kidnaping charges.
Extortion
Demands for money or other items of value under threat of physical injury, death or property damage are investigated by the FBI under provisions of the federal extortion statute. Convictions for violations of this statute numbered 53 in Fiscal Year 1982. Extortionate demands against commercial institutions engaged in interstate commerce are investigated by the FBI under provisions of the Hobbs Act. There were 28 convictions for these crimes during the year.
Assaulting or Killing Federal Officers or Other Government Officials
Investigative responsibility for assaults against and murders of certain federal law enforcement officers, Members of Congress, the Vice President and the President, among others, is delegated to the FBI.
Five individuals, including a convicted narcotics dealer and a convicted contract killer, were indicted and arrested in April 1982 for their involvement in the May 1979 slaying of U.S. District Court Judge John H. Wood in San Antonio, Texas. These indictments and arrests were the results of an extensive three-year investigation by the FBI into Judge Wood’s murder. One subject had entered a plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit murder in this case at the time this was written. This investigation was one of the costliest in FBI history, with more than $4.8 million spent on labor costs alone.
Investigations under these and various related statutes resulted in 69 convictions in federal courts.
Aircraft Hijackings and Other Crimes Aboard an Aircraft
Successful resolution of aircraft hijacking incidents, which involve the holding of numerous passengers and crew members hostage, requires close coordination and teamwork among the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration, airport authorities, the airline industry, and local law enforcement. Nine attempted and actual aircraft hijackings occurred in Fiscal Year 1982. The FBI, in addition to investigating acts of air piracy, also has investigative responsibility for other crimes committed aboard an aircraft, such as furnishing false information, interfering with flight crew members, carrying weapons aboard an aircraft, murder, rape, and assault.
Crime aboard aircraft investigations by the FBI led to 42 convictions in Fiscal Year 1982.
Fugitive Matters
During Fiscal Year 1982, 1,169 unlawful flight fugitives sought by the FBI were arrested or located. FBI resources in this area are directed toward the apprehension of individuals wanted for violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery or aggravated assault; for crimes resulting in the loss or destruction of property valued in excess of $25,000; and for crimes involving substantial narcotics trafficking. An integral part of the FBI’s efforts to effect the timely apprehension of wanted persons is the “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” Program. Three “Top Ten” fugitives were apprehended during the year.
The FBI and DEA are currently pursuing various avenues of cooperation in enforcement efforts against major drug offenders and traffickers. It has been determined that the FBI can be of significant assistance to DEA by assuming a portion of its fugitive workload. Since September 1981, and during Fiscal Year 1982, DEA has referred 439 fugitive cases to the FBI for investigation. The subjects of these cases are Class I and Class II violators for whom federal warrants are outstanding.
Since August 1981, and during the fiscal year, the Department of Justice referred 258 Selective Service Act cases to the FBI for investigation. The subjects of these cases were individuals suspected of willfully failing to register for the draft. Each case was coordinated closely with the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s office. Although the subjects of these cases were not fugitives, enforcement of the statute was administered within the Fugitive Program.
Applicant Investigations for Other Agencies
Pursuant to various statutes, Executive orders, departmental orders and agreements established with the Attorney General’s approval, the FBI continued to conduct personnel background investigations concerning individuals chosen for important and sensitive positions in the federal government. These inquiries are instituted upon written requests from such government entities as the White House, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, the Office of Personnel Management, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and certain congressional committees. During 1982, 4,047 individuals were investigated by the FBI under this program.
Cooperative Services
Training Division
The FBI makes a variety of training programs available to FBI personnel and other law enforcement representatives from local, state, and federal agencies. These include pro
48
grams conducted at the FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia; field police training programs offered throughout the United States; and the Hazardous Devices Course held at the Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama.
Of the Academy’s programs, two of the most important are New Agents’ Training and In-Service Training, designed for FBI field agents. Another major program is the FBI National Academy, which trains mid-level and senior police administrators. Since its inception in 1935, 16,390 local, state, and federal officers have been graduated from the National Academy. Other major programs include the National Executive Institute for police executives of major departments, the Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminars for police executives of medium-sized agencies, the Senior Executive Program for FBI executives, and the Executive Development Institute for FBI mid-level managers.
At the FBI Academy, training was provided to 10,587 criminal justice personnel during the past year. This included 4,173 FBI agents, 998 FBI support employees, and 5,416 police officers. A total of 359 schools, symposia, and in-service classes, not including New Agents’ Classes, were offered.
The most comprehensive course offered at the Academy is the 15-week training program for newly appointed agents. A total of 201 new agents graduated to field investigative assignments during Fiscal Year 1982.
In addition, during the fiscal year 3,823 veteran field agents attended 161 in-service schools. These in-service programs include training in such subject areas as white-collar crime, computer crime, corruption, organized crime, foreign counter intelligence, management aptitude, and management development. Forty-four in-service training programs were attended by 998 FBI support personnel.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the FBI National Academy, which provides 11 weeks of advanced instruction to career members of the law enforcement profession, held four sessions and graduated 999 officers. The University of Virginia accredits both the National Academy’s undergraduate and graduate courses.
Other specialized schools and courses that were held at the Academy dealt with a broad range of police-related topics, such as police personnel administration, management planning and budgets, management for law enforcement, leadership, police labor relations and collective bargaining, stress management in law enforcement, effective communications, hostage negotiation, international terrorism, interpersonal violence, death investigations, and firearms and related subjects.
In addition to classroom training, the Academy staff provided comprehensive research on such subjects as the use of hypnosis as an investigative aid and “The Criminal Per
sonality.” Members of the Behavioral Sciences staff furnished 210 personality profiles of criminals involved in serious personal crimes. Research information was also provided on factors that influence law enforcement officers’ continuing education, nationwide police training needs, hostage negotiation, and crisis management. Training and operational support for the Bureau’s aviation program were provided by the FBI Academy staff.
Among the many conferences, symposia, and seminars offered to local and state police, as well as to members of other criminal justice agencies, during Fiscal Year 1982 were:
•	FBI-National Institute of Justice jointly hosted two seminars in a series entitled “Focus on Management of Violent Crime” (101 attendees);
•	American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Symposium, held in the Forensic Science Research and Training Center and attended by 193 crime laboratory directors;
•	Bomb Squad Commanders Seminar (55 attendees);
•	Drug Enforcement Administration Executive Level Management Seminar (22 attendees);
•	Arson Crime Scene School (24 attendees);
•	Investigative Techniques of Computer Related Crimes, a four week computer fraud program (32 attendees); and
•	Public Corruption Seminar (43 attendees).
Specially trained FBI agent-instructors are assigned in the 59 field offices and serve as the driving force behind the FBI’s field training program. During Fiscal Year 1982, they provided 66,244 hours of instruction while participating in 5,390 law enforcement schools, attended by 167,898 criminal justice personnel.
Instructors from FBI Headquarters, in support of the field program, conducted 399 specialized schools in a wide variety of subjects, such as financial investigative techniques, criminal psychology, crisis intervention and hostage negotiation, executive development, forensic science, identification matters, and uniform crime reporting.
An interagency agreement was reached in March 1981 between the Department of Justice and the Army transferring administration and sponsorship of the Hazardous Devices Course at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, to the FBI. This program, which provides for the training of local, state, and federal public safety officers from throughout the United States in explosives and related matters, is administered by the Bomb Data Center of the Training Division. During Fiscal Year 1982, a total of 253 public safety officers received the training. One hundred and fifty students graduated from the three-week basic class
49
and 103 from the one-week refresher class. Eight refresher classes and 11 basic classes were conducted. Upon successful completion of the basic course, the attendee is certified as a bomb technician.
Laboratory Division
On November 24, 1932, the FBI laboratory was established with one agent, a microscope, and some ultraviolet light equipment. In the ensuing 50 years, it has grown into one of the largest, most comprehensive crime laboratories in the world, supplied with state of the art instrumentation and equipment.
Since its inception, the Laboratory has been dedicated to the maximum utilization of physical evidence in support of the nation’s criminal justice system.
The Laboratory is divided into three major sections: Document, Scientific Analysis and Special Projects. These sections are further divided into smaller units, each of which performs highly specialized examinations.
The work of the Document Section deals with the examination of physical evidence involving handwriting and handprinting, ink and paper, obliteration and alteration of documents, and evidence involving shoe prints and tire treads. This section also translates and interprets a wide variety of written and oral foreign language material, examines evidence in gambling cases, conducts cryptanalytic examinations of secret/enciphered communications and manages the FBI Polygraph Program.
The Scientific Analysis Section is composed of eight units which handle a variety of examinations in areas such as chemistry, toxicology, elemental analysis, explosives, firearms, tool marks, paints, plastics, polymers, hairs, fibers, mineralogy, metallurgy, blood and many others. The Scientific Analysis Section also includes the Forensic Science Research and Training Center, which is located at the FBI Academy.
Assistance to investigators by the Special Projects Section includes design and fabrication of specialized investigative devices, crime scene surveys, composite drawings of unknown subjects from witnesses’ descriptions and surveillance photography support in antiterrorism, criminal and security matters. Assistance to the prosecutor includes a wide variety of visual aids, such as charts and models, to be used as demonstrative evidence in court.
The Special Projects Section also designs and fabricates commemorative plaques and medals, and environmental graphics and public displays relative to the FBI’s mission. This section is also responsible for all photographic processing for the Department of Justice in Washington, as well as all FBI offices nationwide. Throughout Fiscal Year 1982, over two million prints, slides and other photographic items were processed.
FBI Laboratory services are available to all federal agencies in civil as well as criminal matters and to all duly constituted state and local law enforcement agencies in criminal matters. Expert court testimony in support of Laboratory examinations is provided, when necessary, free of charge.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Laboratory Division performed 795,124 scientific examinations on more than 155,000 specimens of evidence. Approximately 33 percent of all requests for examinations received were submitted from state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies. Of the 67 percent remaining, requests from FBI offices accounted for 64 percent while other federal agencies were responsible for the remaining three percent. Additionally, Laboratory examiners responded to 1,034 testimony commitments throughout the fiscal year, spending over 2,200 workdays in travel and testimony.
During 1982, examinations were performed in connection with several cases which achieved national prominence. Among the most noteworthy of these were two cases for state and local agencies. One involved the slayings of young blacks in Atlanta; the other the $1,598,000 holdup of the Brink’s armored car in Nanuet, New York.
In the Atlanta case, 45 separate submissions containing over 200 specimens were forwarded to the Laboratory for examination and a hair and fibers expert was actively involved in all aspects of the case, including onsite examinations of evidence. This case was successfully prosecuted largely on the basis of the hair and fibers examinations which linked the victims to the defendant, Wayne Williams, and his environment. Demonstrative evidence, charts and three-dimensional models of the suspect’s home and the bridge over the Chattahoochee River, produced in the Special Projects Section, enabled the jury to understand the evidence.
In the Brink’s case, at the time this report was written, there had been 103 submissions of evidence containing over 3,000 evidence specimens. Examinations involved virtually every area of the Laboratory, including microscopic analysis (hairs and fibers); glass; instrumental analysis (gunshot residue, paint); chemical analysis (drugs, blood); explosives; number restoration; shoe print; serology (blood); cryptanalysis and document. This was one of the first cases in which the Laboratory’s new examination to determine the sex of the bleeder from a dried bloodstain was successfully utilized.
The Forensic Science Research and Training Center, dedicated in June 1981, provides specialized forensic science training to federal, state and local crime laboratory personnel. Research projects under way at the facility, utilizing a permanent staff of scientists, are intended to advance and enhance the forensic sciences in support of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities. A visiting scientist
50
program and a student intern program were instituted as an economical, yet effective, means to carry out needed research.
The specialized training courses, unavailable elsewhere in the United States, include several which are crucial to the investigation of crimes of violence, such as basic serology, introduction to hairs and fibers, laboratory examinations in arson matters, and biochemical methods of bloodstain analysis. Other forensic support courses, such as collection and preservation of physical evidence and bombing crime scene, are offered to local investigators. With the new facility and present course schedule, the potential capacity for training will approach 1,800 students per year.
During Fiscal Year 1982, 1,624 students received training in specialized courses, seminars and symposia, and 1,000 National Academy attendees received training in selected forensic science classes.
The research program will have these objectives: 1) to develop new and reliable scientific methods which can be applied in forensic science, 2) to study technical problems confronting forensic scientists and develop methods to overcome these problems, and 3) to evaluate current technology and ascertain its application to forensic science.
The results of research projects are made available to all laboratories through publication in scientific journals or in the Crime Laboratory Digest, a bimonthly publication of the FBI Laboratory directed to the nation’s crime laboratories. The Research Unit is currently pioneering the application of ion chromatography in several areas of forensic science. Some of the most promising applications include analysis of explosives, bombing scene residue, and toxicological screening for common ionic poisons such as cyanide.
Several new, highly technical scientific techniques have been incorporated into the FBI Laboratory’s examination procedures. These procedures have improved existing techniques through savings in time, examination costs, and effectiveness.
Related activity included a seminar, held at the Training Center from March 30 through April 1, 1982, for representatives from academia representing ongoing forensic programs in major universities and officers of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. This seminar provided the first opportunity for this group to discuss problems of mutual interest and to tentatively map strategy for meeting the future needs of the forensic science community. From May 17 to 21, 1982, a meeting of the Operations and Research Committee was held. This committee was formed to assist the FBI in the effective utilization of the Training Center, to assure awareness of the needs of the forensic science community, and to assist the FBI in responding to these needs. It is made up of representatives from the
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the National Association of Medical Examiners, the University of Virginia and the FBI.
Identification Division
The Identification Division suspended services to banking institutions and state and local employment and licensing authorities during Fiscal Year 1982. The purpose of the suspension was to reduce the amount of work the Division would receive so that the Division could reduce excessive work backlogs, shorten internal processing time, and thereby improve service to criminal justice users. The suspension allowed the Division to halve both its fingerprint-card backlog (was 385,974 cards, but by the end of Fiscal Year 1982 was 177,904) and average workprocessing time (was 25 !4 workdays, but by the end of Fiscal Year 1982 was 10 l/i). The end results were timelier responses to criminal justice requests and a greatly improved workload picture. The suspended services were restored on October 1, 1982, with a user fee system.
Computer equipment was acquired and computer programs written for this completely new automated accounting and billing system. In order to reduce the burden of handling the large number of transactions anticipated (about 5,600 per workday), centralized submission and billing arrangements were made with 15 states and the District of Columbia. Similar arrangements were made to have the American Bankers Association act as the channeling and billing agent for submissions from the banking institutions, the stock exchanges for submissions from the securities industry, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for submissions from the commodity futures industry. These channeling agents will process 88 percent of all nonfederal applicant submissions.
The money obtained from processing these fingerprint cards is used to hire the extra people needed to handle the increased workload, in keeping with the Administration’s policy regarding the furnishing of such governmental services. It also permits the Division to keep its responses to the criminal justice community timely and exert additional efforts toward further improvement of its processing time.
Even with the suspension of services in effect during Fiscal Year 1982, the Identification Division received 5,769,847 fingerprint cards for processing, an average of 22,987 fingerprint cards per workday. The Division was in possession of over 176 million fingerprint cards at the end of the fiscal year.
The Division gave significant assistance to other departments and agencies of the federal government during Fiscal Year 1982. There were 292,913 fingerprint-card searches conducted for the Office of Personnel
51
Management concerning persons seeking employment with the federal government. The military services and the Coast Guard submitted a total of 514,430 fingerprint cards for persons entering those services.
However, the most significant and important change involving the Division’s assistance was an agreement streamlining procedures for processing fingerprint cards in cases adjudicated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This agreement, which became effective in February 1982, enabled the Division to return fingerprint check responses in orphan cases, and all positive responses in other cases, directly to the Immigration and Naturalization Service offices of origin. That eliminated prolonged processing delays, particulary in orphan cases, which require special handling because the child’s health or life is in danger or because of other urgent circumstances.
The new agreement will also allow the Division to discontinue the filing of approximately 600,000 fingerprint cards in its Civil File annually. Since these cards were hardly ever used after being classified and filed, considerable savings in manpower and storage space are being realized.
The Identification Division posts wanted notices against the fingerprint-card records of persons being sought as fugitives. The Division was able to provide information concerning the possible whereabouts of 17,283 fugitives when new fingerprint-card submissions were matched with records containing wanted notices. Also, during January 1982, automation of the FBI’s Fugitive Index, maintained by the Criminal Investigative Division, was completed. This automation permits the Identification Division to more expeditiously place wanted notices against the fingerprint records of violent criminals and other persons sought by the FBI as fugitives.
The Division’s latent fingerprint specialists examined evidence in 20,279 cases, including 392 cases for other federal agencies and 8,891 for state and local governmental agencies. These cases required millions of fingerprint comparisons and resulted in the identification of 3,731 suspects and 219 deceased persons.
The previously mentioned Brink’s case resulted in the specialists being called upon to process 14 dwellings and 10 vehicles for latent crime scene fingerprints. This produced more than 8,450 latent prints of value, which were being compared with the inked impressions of over 340 individuals at the time this report was submitted. Approximately 35 percent of the Division’s latent fingerprint specialists were assigned to work on this one case, with over seven million comparisons being made through the end of Fiscal Year 1982. It was estimated that approximately seven to eight million comparisons remained to be made at that time. More than 50 individuals have been identified. There were 372 court appearances by these specialists, which
resulted in 2,858 years in prison terms, 24 life terms, and 10 death sentences. Fines totaling $539,062 were also imposed.
A specially trained group of the latent fingerprint specialists, the FBI Disaster Squad, assisted in the identification of the victims of the crash of an Air National Guard aircraft near Greenwood, Illinois, on March 19, 1982, and the crash of a Pan American Airlines airplane in Kenner, Louisiana, on July 9, 1982. The remains of 181 bodies were recovered from the crash scenes, and 73 were identified by fingerprints or footprints.
Significant progress continues toward the automation of the Division’s work functions. During Fiscal Year 1982, seven additional units of the Division’s 23-unit criminal fingerprint search file were computerized, bringing the total number of automated searching units to 11. More than 15.5 million criminal fingerprint cards have been computerized to date. Also, in Fiscal Year 1982, 782,OCX) first-time offender records were added to the Division’s automated arrest record file.That file now numbers over 6.5 million arrest records, and is growing at approximately 3,100 new records per workday.
Administrative and Support Services
Administrative Services Division
Organization of the FBI
Operations of the FBI’s 59 field divisions and 13 foreign liaison posts are coordinated and supervised from FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The FBI field divisions and 417 resident agencies (suboffices) are located throughout the United States and in Puerto Rico and Guam.
The 13 foreign liaison posts make feasible the timely exchange of information. They also provide assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies, particularly with regard to investigations that cross international boundaries. In addition, they serve as an effective adjunct to the FBI in carrying out its domestic investigative responsibilities, especially in the areas of terrorism, organized crimes and fugitive investigations.
Personnel
At the close of Fiscal Year 1982, there were 19,119 persons on the FBI payroll, including 7,885 agents and 11,234 clerical, stenographic and technical personnel.
The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity has an active recruitment program for minorities and women in an effort to make FBI ranks more representative of the American People.
Minority employment statistics in Fiscal Year 1982 indicate the success of FBI efforts to recruit both minorities and women into its agent ranks. At the close of the fiscal
52
year, the FBI had on duty 408 women agents and 629 agents who are members of minority groups. Due to budget restraints, the FBI employed only 350 new agents during Fiscal Year 1982; however, of this number, 21.7 percent were women and 21.4 percent were minorities.
During Fiscal Year 1982, an aggresive program was initiated to obtain seized and excess property from other government agencies for use by the FBI. Property acquired in this manner included laboratory and office equipment and motor vehicles valued in excess of $9 million.
Records Management Division
The Records Management Division performs the recordkeeping functions of the FBI’s central records system in support of the investigative and administrative responsibilities of the FBI. During Fiscal Year 1982, over three million pieces of correspondence were routed and dispatched; 675,849 pieces of mail were processed for file; and 81,242 cases in the criminal, security, and applicant categories were opened, bringing FBI records holdings to over six million files.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Division’s Document Classification and Review Section processed some 1.8 million name check requests from some 76 federal agencies, congressional committees, local and state agencies within the criminal justice system, and certain foreign police and intelligence agencies. In addition, nearly 2.2 million pages of FBI documents were reviewed for discovery purposes in connection with civil lawsuits. Also completed during this period by various other components within the Section were national security classification reviews and determinations involving more than 2.3 million pages of FBI material.
In February 1981, as the result of a civil suit, the National Archives and Records Service began an extensive review of FBI Headquarters, field and legal attache files in response to a U.S. District Court order to devise an acceptable plan for the retention of FBI records holdings. A National Archives and Records Service appraisal team, accompanied by senior Records Management Division analysts, visited eight field offices and the FBI Academy. This review of records required the direct participation of 588 FBI employees. A detailed National Archives and Records Service retention plan and corresponding FBI disposition schedule were submitted to the court in November 1981.
Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act
The Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) Section of the Records Management Division received 12,102 new requests and reopened 1,298 matters in Fiscal Year 1982. Of the new requests, 12.8 percent originated with incarcerated persons; 6.1 percent came from the news media;
2.5 percent were from scholars and historians; 3.8 percent were received from current employees of the FBI, and 74.8 percent came from the general public, including organizations. Fiscal year requests received were in addition to the 4,075 requests already on hand or being processed at the end of Fiscal Year 1981. In addition, 1,000 administrative appeals were received and there were 253 lawsuits involving the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts pending at the close of the fiscal year. There are currently 726,450 pages of public interest material available for review without charge in the FBI’s public reading room.
An average of 240 people were assigned to the FOIPA Section at FBI Headquarters during Fiscal Year 1982 and an equivalent of 100 additional persons in other FBI Headquarters Divisions/Sections also worked full time in support of the FOIPA Program.
An on-line computer program for the FOIPA Section was initiated during the past year. This program combines the benefits of a case-tracking system providing data on the status and development of each FOIPA request received and processed with a work measurement system that is now providing more detailed information on the Section’s overall workload and productivity. In addition, the Section has continued to replace its first-line agent supervisory staff with support personnel. The agent complement in the Section was reduced by 31 percent during the fiscal year.
Technical Services Division
The Technical Services Division is responsible for the management of the FBI Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunications Services, the FM Radio Communications System, and the technical equipment necessary to the FBI’s investigative mission.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the FBI’s Technical Services Division continued making significant progress in improving its efficiency and effectiveness in the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of investigative information. One of the major steps taken in this regard was the implementation of a computer performance monitoring function which detects bottlenecks in computer resource utilization and also recommends corrective action. Another major effort was the formation of an internal audit staff to conduct intensive top-to-bottom internal control reviews and audits. This staff, headed by a certified public accountant, also worked on the development of comprehensive financial analysis for use in complex financial-based investigations.
In conjunction with the formulation of the Fiscal Year 1984 Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunications budget, a cost-benefits methodology was developed and implemented with the help of the Office of Management and Budget. This was expected to assist greatly in the
53
analysis of Fiscal Year 1984 and future budgets.
The National Crime Information Center processed daily transactions averaging 351,028 in Fiscal Year 1982, compared to daily transactions averaging 327,822 for Fiscal Year 1981. The National Crime Information Center also expanded the Interstate Identification Index (III) pilot project from the State of Florida to include five other states. The III is a system employing a national index of state-held criminal history records. This successful testing resulted in 17 states indicating an interest in participating in the next phase, scheduled to commence in January 1983.
On-line information processing support was provided to field offices to assist in the investigation of major cases, including the Brink’s robbery and murder of three individuals on October 20, 1981, for which members of domestic terrorist groups were arrested, failure of the Penn Square Bank in Oklahoma City, and organized arson activity throughout the United States by one group. At the end of Fiscal Year 1982, on-line access was being provided to 20 field locations in support of 29 major investigative matters.
In view of the FBI’s cooperative effort with DEA, the Organized Crime Information System was enhanced to accommodate narcotics investigations.
The Field Office Information Management System currently supports two field divisions and eight resident agencies. The integration of automated support to the field will be implemented through six Regional Computer Support Centers, the first of which is being installed at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.
In addition to providing all 59 field divisions with technical support and sophisticated equipment, the Technical Services Division also assisted the following agencies with equipment support and advice on the procurement of equipment:
•	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
•	Drug Enforcement Administration
•	U.S. Customs Service
•	Federal Aviation Administration
A contract was awarded for a total voice privacy radio system for the Los Angeles field office. This was expected to be the prototype for all remaining field offices.
The FBI’s Aircraft Operations flew 21,000 hours at a cost of $1.8 million. These flights contributed to 405 arrests and over $100 million in recoveries and savings.
An electronically enhanced copy of the cockpit recording of Air Florida’s Flight 90, which crashed in January 1982, significantly improved the voice intelligibility. The FBI was also able to resolve a critical word spoken by the aircraft’s captain, which helped resolve the reason for the crash.
Inspection Division
The Inspection Division is composed of three offices: the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Office of Inspections, and the Office of Program Evaluations and Audits.
The primary functions of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) are to supervise or investigate all allegations of criminality and serious misconduct on the part of FBI employees and monitor disciplinary action taken concerning all employees of the FBI. In addition, OPR maintains close liaison with OPR in the Department of Justice, and coordinates FBI submissions to the Intelligence Oversight Board at the White House. During Fiscal Year 1982, OPR coordinated or personally investigated 305 separate inquiries of FBI employees.
The Office of Inspections is responsible for conducting in-depth examinations of the FBI’s investigative and administrative operations to determine whether: 1) there is compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies; 2) resources are managed and used in an effective, efficient and economical manner; and 3) desired results and objectives are being achieved. These examinations are conducted for all FBI field offices, legal attaches and Headquarters divisions approximately once every two years. The work product of the Office of Inspections provides input for management’s short-range planning and decisionmaking, and serves as a viable administrative tool in the evaluation of FBI field managers.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Office of Inspections conducted a total of 39 inspections of FBI field offices, Headquarters divisions and legal attaches. Examinations were conducted by the Office of Inspections regarding eight Equal Employment Opportunity complaints and three administrative inquiries.
The Office of Program Evaluations and Audits is composed of a Program Evaluations Unit and an Audit Unit. The Program Evaluations Unit conducts periodic evaluations of FBI investigative programs and administrative activities as well as studies and policy analysis. The purpose of these functions is to determine whether existing policies, procedures and operations meet present and anticipated requirements. In addition, FBI operations are reviewed for economy, efficiency and effectiveness. During Fiscal Year 1982, six evaluations of FBI programs were completed; these evaluations resulted in numerous recommendations for improving the operational and management effectiveness. All FBI major programs are scheduled for evaluation on a five-year cycle.
The Audit Unit is responsible for financial audits of the FBI. In addition, it has responsibility for compliance with Office of Management and Budget circular A-123 on Internal Control and for compliance with the provisions of P.L. 97-255, the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of
54
1982. The Audit Unit also has responsibility for liaison with the General Accounting Office and other government auditors.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Audit Unit conducted financial and compliance audits at 40 FBI field offices and did five audits of FBI Headquarters funds. Three Headquarters accounting systems audits were initiated during Fiscal Year 1982 and audits of seven undercover operations, as required by Congress, were performed.
A vulnerability assessment program was established by the Audit Unit, as prescribed by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, for all FBI divisions to evaluate their respective internal controls and procedures, and FBI managers were trained in methodology of conducting prescribed assessments. Since the reorganization of the financial audit function from the Internal Inspection Program to Program Analysis and Evaluations early in Fiscal Year 1982, the Audit Unit has achieved a more uniform and comprehensive approach to auditing the FBI financial operations.
Legal Counsel Division
The Legal Counsel, along with his staff of agent attorneys, provides legal advice to the Director and other FBI officials, serving as a consultant on sensitive policy as well as on sensitive administrative and investigative issues. In addition to evaluative and analytical services, the Legal Counsel and his staff assist in the defense of civil suits and administrative claims filed against named FBI personnel defendants (past and present), as well as the defense of all FBI records at issue in litigation brought about pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. The demands made for civil discovery in litigation are handled by the Civil Discovery Review Units recently relocated from Records Management Division to the Legal Counsel Division. The Legal Counsel staff also represents the FBI at administrative proceedings before the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The goals of the litigation program are to ensure that the FBI’s posture in all litigation is consistent and proper and that the interests of the FBI and its employees are fully represented.
Legal research on a wide variety of issues concerning administrative and sensitive investigative matters is conducted to prevent problems and ensure legality in the conduct of investigative activities, including highly sensitive investigative techniques, such as undercover operations. Guidance is also offered to field investigative and supervisory personnel to ensure compliance with the various guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
A comprehensive legal training program for FBI investigative personnel and other law enforcement officers is
maintained and administered by Legal Counsel staff attorneys. Comprehensive instruction is given in constitutional, criminal, and procedural law.
Office of Congressional and Public Affairs
The Office of Congressional and Public Affairs is an adjunct of the Director’s Office which coordinates news media requests and related public information matters, and provides the public with a factual accounting of FBI programs, operations, and services.
This Office also maintains liaison with Capitol Hill concerning legislative and oversight matters pertaining to the FBI and analyzes proposed or enacted legislation affecting FBI operations.
Uniform Crime Reporting Program
The Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which was transferred to the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs in October 1981, provides periodic assessments of crime in the nation as measured by offenses coming to the attention of the law enforcement community. A cooperative effort of over 15,000 state and local law enforcement agencies, the Program collects, processes, and disseminates data concerning crime, arrests, property stolen and recovered, and law enforcement employee counts, as well as other criminal justice information. Such data assist law enforcement administrators in discharging their responsibilities. Statistical information on crime published under the Program is also widely used by public administrators, legislators, criminal justice researchers and planners, law enforcement officers and the general public.
The national Uniform Crime Reporting Program receives guidance in policy matters from the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs’ Association. Training courses conducted by the Uniform Crime Reporting staff provide participating law enforcement agencies throughout the United States with assistance in adhering to Program procedures.
Ancillary programs include data presentations detailing information on law enforcement officers feloniously killed, bombing matters, assaults on federal officers, and parental kidnaping.
Tours
A visit to FBI Headquarters continued to rank high on Washington, D.C., visitors’ priority lists. During Fiscal Year 1982, more than 520,000 persons toured the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building, viewing displays and learning about the Bureau’s investigative jurisdiction, service function, and history. Tours are offered daily between 9:00 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., except weekends and holidays.
55
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
DIVISION
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONAL SUPPORT DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
OFFICE OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT • FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
SECTION • RECORDS MANAGEMENT SECTION • INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS SECTION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
• ACCOUNTING SECTION • BUDGET B MANPOWER MANAGEMENT SECTION • GENERAL SERVICES SECTION • PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SECTION_____________
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STAFF
OFFICE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • FORENSIC SCIENCES SECTION • SCIENCE & ENGINEERING SECTION
OFFICE OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS • SYSTEMS PLANNING & CONTROL
STAFF • OPERATIONS ft SUPPORT SECTION • SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS SECTION
INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT SECTION
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE
_____
DANGEROUS DRUGS INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS STAFF
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE • OPERATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
SECTION
• STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE SECTION
• EPIC
ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
OPERATIONS DIVISION ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONS DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONS
CANNABIS INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL fr PUBLIC AFFAIRS • CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS SECTION • PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECTION
MANAGEMENT STAFF
OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL • DIVERSION OPERATIONS SECTION • DRUG CONTROL SECTION • REGULATORY SUPPORT SECTION
OFFICE OF TRAINING • TRAINING PLANNING & EVALUATION STAFF • DOMESTIC TRAINING SECTION • INTERNATIONAL TRAINING SECTION
COCAINE INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
HEROIN INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
OFFICE OF PLANNING ______& EVALUATION_ • PLANNING B MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SECTION • POLICY & PROGRAM EVALUATION SECTION
PLANNING & INSPECTION
DIVISION
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANNING & INSPECTION
offTcFof
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OFFICE OF SECURITY PROGRAMS
OFFICE OF INSPECTIONS • AUDIT SECTION • INSPECTIONS SECTION
DIVISIONAL FIELD OFFICES
Atlanta	New Orleans
Boston	New York
Chicago	Philadelphia
Dallas	Phoenix
Denver	San Diego
Detroit	San Francisco
Houston	Seattle
Los Angeles	St. Louis
Miami	Washington, D.C.
Newark
____________TOTAL: 19________
56
HHMMHNBBMHMHHHHMIHHMHHMHBHMIllMBIMHn
Drug Enforcement Administration
Francis M. Mullen, Jr.
Acting Administrator
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforces the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States.
DEA’s primary responsibilities include:
•	Investigation of major violators who operate at interstate and international levels;
•	Regulation of laws governing the manufacture, distribution and dispensing of lawful controlled substances;
•	Management of a national narcotics intelligence system;
•	Coordination with federal, state and local law enforcement authorities and cooperation with counterpart agencies abroad;
•	Training, scientific research, and information exchange in support of drug traffic prevention and control.
By order of the Attorney General on January 28, 1982, DEA operates under the general supervision of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which shares with DEA concurrent jurisdiction for investigations of violations of the Controlled Substances Act. To ensure maximum effectiveness in coordinating the efforts of the two agencies, DEA in Fiscal Year 1982 instituted a broad range of management modifications patterned on the structure of the FBI. In place of the five former regional offices, a more centralized domestic structure was established to facilitate direct reporting while strengthening the unity, coherence and impact of long-term strategy. Concurrently, at DEA headquarters, enforcement operations were reorganized to assist the interaction of intelligence and investigative units under categories of specific drugs, a more detailed description of which may be found in the section that follows.
Enforcement Operations (Domestic)
The major objectives of the domestic drug enforcement operations for Fiscal Year 1982 were as follows:
• To maintain overall enforcement pressure on the major heroin trafficking organizations and hold the average purity of heroin available at the retail level to below four percent.
•	To maintain investigative emphasis in the dangerous drug area, contain in particular the increased level of traffic in clandestinely manufactured phencyclidine hydrocloride (PCP), methaqualone and LSD, and reduce the retail availability of the substances as measured by reported drug injuries and deaths.
•	To increase the federal government’s role against violent crime by supporting, within resource availability, local drug enforcement and intelligence operations wherein violent crimes surface as collateral violations to ongoing drug investigations.
•	To increase investigative pressure in coordination with the FBI on the cocaine, marijuana and counterfeit methaqualone traffic entering the Continental United States from South America via the Southeastern states, particularly Florida; to prevent any significant increase in drug availability, associated violent crime or economic impact resulting from massive illicit money flow.
•	To implement a Caribbean enforcement/intelligence program involving coordinated interdiction, investigation and eradication initiatives. This strategy is designed to supply intelligence and equipment support to Caribbean enforcement operations and enhance DEA enforcement effectiveness through increased use of sophisticated and innovative investigative approaches and methods of operation.
•	To utilize, to the maximum extent possible, assistance from the U.S. military forces to provide intelligence related to the transportation of illicit drugs.
To utilize the resources and expertise of the FBI in concert with DEA to achieve maximum effectiveness in the containment and reduction of drug trafficking affecting the United States.
•	To immobilize, in coordination with the FBI, major traffickers and their organizations by seizing drug-related assets in increasing quantities for eventual forfeiture to the U.S. government.
•	To assist state and local police agencies in the identification and location of domestic marijuana growing sites and encourage actions by state and local authorities to eradicate such sites.
Enforcement Operational Methods
Management of DEA and FBI drug investigative activities was closely coordinated to ensure that all resources and capabilities were utilized to the fullest extent in* drug enforcement activities. Cooperative investigations involving both DEA and FBI personnel were stressed.
The major thrust of the Domestic Enforcement Program was the elimination or immobilization of the highest
57
DEA Personnel by Organization
91% of the Special Agents and Compliance Investigators are assigned to field elements.
DEA Personnel by Category
Source: Summary of Ceilings and On-Board Report, 8/31/82
Category	Special Agents	Compliance Investigators	Chemists	Intelligence Specialists	Professional/ Administrative	Technical/ Clerical	TOTAL
Authorized Positions	1895	193	140	171	382	1169	3950
On-Board Strength	1845	181	139	163	375	979	3682
echelons of the drug traffic in the priority drugs of abuse, based on the experience that the greatest impact on traffic can be achieved at these levels and that this represents the most cost-effective employment of resources. Heroin remained the foremost priority, although the massive infusion of cocaine and marijuana entering the Southeastern sector of the United States was also addressed as a major enforcement concern.
DEA’s investigative activities fall into two major categories based on the source of the investigation: 1) DEA-initiated investigations and 2) referral investigations stemming from information provided by other federal law enforcement agencies such as the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. With respect to referral investigations, while DEA has the principal responsibility in drug offense cases, as a practical matter, DEA exercises only limited control over drug priorities in this area. These cases emanate predominantly from border seizures, and the standards established for prosecution by different U.S. Attorneys vary considerably.
In selected priority trafficking situations that are interoffice and international in nature, Mobile Task Force organizational, operational and management procedures were used in the application of investigative resources. The Mobile Task Force approach stresses economy of force, mobility, speed, and flexibility in responding to high-level drug trafficking organizations.
Mobile Task Forces fall into two primary categories: 1) Central Tactical Units (CENTACs) directed by headquarters staff, which stress conspiracy investigations where multioffice coordination is necessary, and 2) Mobile Task Forces which are deployed to a location to confront a conspiracy, a substantive case, or an interdiction effort, and are managed by a designated field office. CENTAC units are organized to respond to existing high-level conspiracies—they are not assembled and tasked with searching for a target of opportunity.
DEA continued to focus on financial investigations involving international money flows and drug traffickers’ assets. These investigations, involving close cooperation between DEA, the U.S. Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and FBI were aimed generally at important and isolated violators who direct, control, and profit significantly from drug traffic. Assets emanating from investments of these profits are vulnerable to forfeiture.
Heroin Retail Purity
Heroin Retail Price
58
Chemists 3%
Special Agents 48%
Technical/
Clerical 30%
Professional/
Administrative* 10% /
Intelligence n
Specialists 4%
Compliance Investigators 5%
Price, Dollars Per Pure Milligram
FY74 FY75	FY76 FY77	FY78 FY79	FY80	FY81
2.80 -i
2.40-
2.00-
1.60-
1.20-
.80-
.40-
Domestic Offices
59%
Other Field
Personnel 3%
Labs 5%
Foreign
Offices 7%
Headquarters 26%
FY74 FY75	FY76	FY77 FY78 FY79	FY80	FY81
Percent Purity
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
Also high on the list of priorities was the immobilization of domestic clandestine laboratory operations and the maintenance of the precursor control program. The rescheduling of PCP, the scheduling of phenyl-2-propanone (P-2-P), and the controls placed on piperidine resulted in more effective control of the illicit manufacture of PCP, methamphetamines, and amphetamines.
Full cooperation between DEA, U.S. Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard in border interdiction activities was maintained. DEA continued to support the border interdiction function through: 1) immediate referral of smuggling information, 2) cooperative investigations where appropriate, and 3) coordination of defendant debriefing techniques in cases not acceptable for federal prosecution.
A major problem of domestically grown marijuana confronted many Western, Midwestern, and Southern states. DEA provided limited assistance within resources to state and local agencies in the form of air surveillance, training and intelligence necessary to identify the remotely located marijuana growing sites. Essentially, the state and local agencies are implementing the domestic marijuana eradication program, with DEA providing leadership, limited resources, and some investigative and intelligence assistance to meet special requirements.
DEA completed restructuring of its headquarters enforcement operational elements. Under the new organizational structure, four major drug enforcement investigations sections—Heroin, Dangerous Drugs, Cocaine, and Cannabis—were established. Each investigative section (desk) has the responsibility for direction and coordination of worldwide investigations for that drug category. The new structure replaced the former geographical organizational mode—domestic and foreign—and was expected to result in significantly improved control and coordination of major investigations from foreign drug sources to the distributor organizations in major U.S. cities.
In 1981, due to combined federal efforts, domestic and foreign, the average retail purity of heroin available at the street level in the United States was 3.9 per cent. In the first quarter of 1982, the heroin retail purity level increased to about 4.5 percent, indicating some increase in availability.
DEA-initiated arrests in 1982 totaled 6,949, declining slightly from 1981 levels. However, the proportion of arrests in Class I and II cases, 67 percent of all DEA-initiated arrests, was maintained at a high level.
Efforts to reduce the availability of clandestinely manufactured dangerous drugs also increased. In Fiscal Year 1982, 47 clandestine PCP laboratories were seized, compared with 36 the year before, 52 in 1980 and 47 in 1979. The precursor chemical, piperidine, was subjected to
control on November 10, 1978, when Title III of P.L. 96-633 was enacted. In 1980, 250 clandestine laboratories of all types were seized. In 1981, there were 177 laboratories seized. In the first eight months of 1982, 201 clandestine laboratories of all types were seized. Because of legislative initiatives, voluntary cooperation by the chemical industry, and investigative operations the availability of PCP, methamphetamine and amphetamine were reduced to lower levels during 1981 and 1982.
Intelligence and statistical data continued to show marked increases in the availability of cocaine, marijuana, and counterfeit methaqualone entering the continental United States from South America via air and sea into the Southeastern states, particularly Florida. DEA increased significantly its enforcement efforts in the South Florida areas by establishing a special task force, on a priority basis, to combat this massive economic and social threat. The overall federal effort of the special task force to reduce the availability of these drugs was spearheaded by highly successful cooperative investigations by DEA, the Coast Guard, Customs Service, FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. A major thrust of these operations was, and was expected to continue to be, the maritime traffic between the Guajira Peninsula of Colombia and the southeastern part of the United States.
During 1981, DEA seized drug-related cash and property valued at $161 million from violators; seizures rose to $190.7 million of drug-related assets in Fiscal Year 1982. One of DEA’s objectives is to seize and ultimately cause forfeiture to the government of ever increasing amounts of drug trafficking assets—without any de-emphasis of Class I and II level investigations. In furtherance of this objective, DEA established a special Financial Investigations Training School in May 1979, and by March 1982, almost all field special agents had completed such training.
In 1982, CENTAC operations were expected to match or exceed the accomplishments of 1981: 110 indictments of which 66 were Class I and II violators. The violators characteristically include some of the most important individuals in the organization encompassed by the conspiracy. In many instances such violators, having successfully isolated themselves from activities which generate prosecutable, substantive evidence, are nevertheless often reached through a CENTAC investigation. In most cases, evidence developed in the course of routine investigative activities by field offices is expanded significantly by the use of the CENTAC approach.
With respect to operational support, computerized Enforcement Management Information Systems (EMIS) are under development and will be operational in 1982-1983. EMIS will enable DEA to determine by computer the
59
number of active cases, their status, and associated investigative costs. Such information will be merged with the Geographic Drug Enforcement Program (G-DEP) System to aid management resource and policy decisionmaking. Additionally, the manpower utilization system will provide managers with data on how agent manpower is being expended. A confidential source system will provide data on the number of informants, their utilization, and associated payments.
DEA/FBI joint drug investigations increased significantly in 1982. As of the end of the fiscal year, there were 250 joint drug investigations in progress. Three months later, the total was 301.
Foreign Cooperative Investigations
Major objectives of the Foreign Cooperative Program for Fiscal Year 1982 were:
•	.To encourage, advise, and assist host countries in the development and implementation of effective measures to control licit drug crops, reduce illicit cultivation and conversion, and interdict in-country staging areas and trafficking routes for movement of drugs.
•	To encourage and assist host countries to establish and support effective drug enforcement and intelligence agencies, and to promote intergovernmental enforcement cooperation and intelligence exchange.
•	To promote, advise, and assist source countries in the planning and implementation of effective programs for eradication of illicit opium, coca, and marijuana crops, and to encourage vigorous control of illicit cultivation.
•	To encourage development of essential chemicals programs to identify laboratory operations and restrict trafficking in essential chemicals destined for illicit use.
•	To identify and coordinate diplomatic efforts to eliminate diversion of controlled substances from international commerce and to assist foreign governments in the design of effective regulatory programs.
•	To support host country development of drug enforcement institutions through DEA training of foreign police officials.
•	To promote the adoption of crop substitution and alternate income-producing programs.
•	To initiate over 690 new cooperative investigations of international traffickers in conjunction with foreign police officials.
•	To increase efforts to collect money-flow documentation in support of joint prosecutive efforts.
•	To interface South American operational efforts with domestic DEA operations and ongoing U.S. Coast
Guard and U.S. Customs Service efforts directed toward drug interdiction at sea.
•	To achieve over 1,300 arrests of international traffickers, thereby immobilizing major trafficking organizations.
•	To encourage foreign government officials to apprehend and extradite fugitives to appropriate prosecutorial jurisdictions.
•	To provide increased liaison with foreign-based U.S. military elements in order to promote effective information exchange and drug enforcement assistance.
•	To collect strategic intelligence on major drug trafficking routes and groups; opium poppy, cannabis and coca growing areas; clandestine laboratory locations; and drug trafficking staging areas.
•	To facilitate the rapid exchange of tactical and strategic intelligence between DEA’s foreign and domestic offices, and among the numerous host countries that experience illegal drug consumption, production, or trafficking problems.
•	To encourage foreign police officials to seize drug-related assets, when appropriate legal authority exists, to further immobilize trafficking organizations by removing drug trafficking profits.
The purpose and principal thrust of the Foreign Cooperative Program is to both motivate and assist foreign source, transit, and companion victim countries in the development of drug law enforcement and ancillary programs to reduce the supply of illicit drugs produced, processed, and prepared for ultimate delivery to the United States. The primary strategy is to interdict the flow of narcotics and dangerous drugs as close to the foreign source as possible, with the aim of disrupting the international flow of drugs.
DEA foreign activities focus on the provision of expert advice and authorized investigative, intelligence, and training assistance in those foreign areas deemed most critical to the reduction of drugs destined for the United States. A natural extension of these programs is DEA encouragement and assistance in the implementation of substantive intergovernmental enforcement cooperation and intelligence exchanges.
The diversion of legitimately produced controlled substances from international channels has become a significant problem directly affecting the United States. DEA has responded to the problem by establishing international diversion programs in Bonn, Germany, and Mexico City. Through this program, foreign countries whose drug control measures appear inadequate assume a more active role in curbing the diversion of legally produced substances.
60
Criminal drug information collection and exchange directly support intelligence production and prosecution of defendants in the United States and the host countries. These efforts include:
•	Development of sources of information knowledgeable of illicit cultivation, production, and transportation activities.
•	Undercover penetration of trafficking organizations in support of host country operations.
•	Surveillance assistance and development of evidence against major traffickers of drugs destined for the United States.
•	Providing host countries with information for effective enforcement programs.
•	Participation with foreign officers in pursuing investigative leads.
•	Coordination of matters regarding extraditions, expulsions, joint prosecutions, and requests for judicial assistance.
•	Acquisition and transmittal to the United States of drug samples supplied by foreign government officers for laboratory analyses to determine the origin of drugs destined for the United States.
Traditional drug intelligence activities conducted overseas concurrently with the foregoing involve the identification and dissemination of information collection requirements, collection against these requirements by special agents, initiation of Special Field Intelligence Programs, analytical research processing, and the production and dissemination of tactical/operational and strategic foreign intelligence.
Special Field Intelligence Program operations are designed for and aimed at fulfilling a wide variety of intelligence requirements in the areas of production, smuggling, and trafficking of narcotic raw materials including coca, opium poppy, and cannabis. The intelligence gathered is used by DEA and other senior U.S. government officials, in coordination with host governments, for developing integrated federal and international strategies against narcotics.
Liaison, which is central to the DEA foreign mission, includes visits, briefings, exchanges, and contacts with foreign law enforcement officials to encourage cooperation and development of effective host country drug enforcement capability and commitment.
DEA conducts a variety of international training programs which are funded by the Bureau of International Narcotic Matters of the Department of State. These include five-week advanced international drug enforcement schools, two-week in-country training schools, two-to four-week executive observation programs, instructor training
programs, intelligence collection and analysis schools, and three-week forensic chemist seminars.
Foreign language training provided by the Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute ensures that DEA employees are equipped for their assignments in foreign countries.
Accomplishments by the Foreign Cooperative Program are delineated as follows:
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Foreign Cooperative Investigations Program achieved 1,003 cooperative arrests of international drug traffickers, seized 3,384 pounds of heroin and 7,143 pounds of cocaine, conducted 26 Special Field Intelligence Programs, and trained 1,206 foreign government officials in drug enforcement methods.
Mexico and Central America
•	The government of Mexico is continuing to effectively implement its opium poppy eradication campaign and DEA is providing intelligence assistance as required.
•	Continued cooperation with the Office of the Attorney General of Mexico has resulted in several major ongoing drug investigations.
•	Special Field Intelligence Programs are continuing at a level of approximately five per year and are producing significant intelligence.
•	Honduran law enforcement officials are coordinating closely with DEA in the development of information regarding vessel traffic in the Caribbean.
•	DEA agents in the Guatemala District Office are initiating a program for identification of suspect vessels and aircraft utilizing facilities in Belize to transit drugs to the United States.
•	The overall effectiveness of drug control programs in Nicaragua and El Salvador has been restricted because of the political instability of the area.
South America
•	In Colombia, DEA has established an office at Barranquilla to provide increased enforcement and intelligence support to Colombian authorities.
•	The Colombian National Police Force Narcotics Unit is now fully operational and working in close cooperation with DEA.
•	Considerable dialogue between the United States and Colombian governments has occurred in regard to a herbicide marijuana eradication program and it is felt that planning of such a program will be initiated in the near future.
•	An essential chemicals control program, which has been in operation in Brazil for some time, has been expanded to Colombia. This program is a priority pursuit for
61
DEA because the potential impact on coca laboratories can be significant.
•	The government of Colombia prohibited the importation of methaqualone and notified the appropriate international drug control officials.
•	Peru’s enactment of legislation making all coca cultivation, above licit market requirements, illegal is beginning to have a major impact on illicit coca production and in the next five to ten years the overall impact on the world cocaine supply should be significant.
•	DEA has received Department of State approval to open an office at Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, with the objective of intensifying intelligence and enforcement capabilities against Caribbean vessel and aircraft drug traffic.
Europe, the Middle East
and Southwest Asia
•	DEA intelligence probes in Pakistan, Turkey, France and Italy have pinpointed illicit opiate laboratory locations and identified the laboratory owner/operators. In some cases these probes have resulted in seizures of the laboratories and arrests of the defendants.
•	DEA-initiated investigations have identified a number of organizations transporting Southwest Asian heroin and morphine base to Europe and North America. In several instances arrests and seizures have been made which have seriously disrupted the capabilities of those organizations.
•	In Pakistan, DEA continues to support the Pakistani Narcotics Control Board (PNCB) development into a central narcotics coordinating and investigating body.
•	DEA is proceeding to open offices in key Southwest Asian heroin transiting countries (Yugoslavia and Cyprus) and to augment the personnel in its office in Pakistan.
•	In Turkey, tentative agreements have been reached which involve the Turkish National Police and the Jandarma in drug control programs.
•	Efforts to improve and expand liaison with East European countries continue.
•	Financial investigations, which target major international trafficking groups, are continuing with increased success.
•	Asa direct result of diplomatic initiatives undertaken by DEA with the assistance of the Department of State, several foreign countries have made significant advances toward curbing the diversion of legally-produced substances. In 1981, the Federal Republic of Germany, a major source and transit country of methaqualone,
imposed stringent import and export control measures. During this period, Hungary, another leading source country, voluntarily curtailed the production and exportation of methaqualone. More recently, Austria, a third producing country, curtailed methaqualone production and is taking steps to place methaqualone under control. These actions have significantly reduced the availability of legitimately-produced methaqualone for illicit purposes.
•	The narcotic laws recently enacted in the Federal Republic of Germany appear to be effective in reducing the availability of methaqualone for illicit purposes. For example, the free trade zone of Hamburg, the primary shipping/transit point for illicit methaqulaone, has been greatly reduced and diversion activity has declined significantly. Furthermore, law enforcement authorities in South America report that there is a scarcity of methaqualone powder for clandestine tableting operations.
•	DEA continues to work closely with foreign counterparts in countries which appear to have inadequate drug control measures. In addition, high-level diplomatic missions have been initiated to encourage countries to adopt effective drug laws. Recent meetings with Swiss officials included discussions on German drug traffickers who are storing shipments of diverted methaqualone in Swiss warehouses because German laws have become more stringent.
Far East
•	The Golden Triangle, with its complex problems, due to insurgency, lack of central government control, and the unstable political situation, presents major difficulties; however some advances have been made in this area. A much stronger commitment by some governments has resulted in increased enforcement activity. Nevertheless, Southeast Asian heroin continues to be readily available in world markets.
•	Host government law enforcement authorities are cooperating in investigative and intelligence sharing programs which have led to interdiction and controlled convoy investigations not previously thought possible.
•	The targeting of major international trafficking groups for concentrated financial investigations is continuing with increased success.
•	As a demonstration of the Thailand government’s resolve against drug trafficking, a combined effort of the Thai Border Patrol Police and the Thai Air Force raided the Ban Hin Tec stronghold of the Shan United Army (SUA). The SUA is reputed to control upward of
62
75 percent of the opiate market at the Thai/Burma border.
•	DEA-initiated Operation SAMURAI was targeted at the flow of drugs through international airports destined for the United States. Arrests and drug seizures have been achieved in Japan, Manila, and Jakarta as a result of this program.
•	An agreement was signed between Malaysia and Singapore allowing pursuit of major drug traffickers across common borders by the police force of either government.
•	The government of Thailand revised its laws to make possession of chemicals used in the refinement of heroin a felony offense in the three northern provinces that border Burma.
Caribbean
•	Concentrated cooperative efforts involving the U.S., Colombian and Caribbean governments have resulted in increased enforcement efforts.
•	Tiburon III (DEA Mobile Task Force) commenced October 15, 1981, utilizing the techniques developed over the years to maximize effectiveness and to enforce a selective blockade of the Caribbean. The Coast Guard committed up to eight cutters to the operation and they constitute the principal enforcement capability.
The results of Operation Tiburon III are as follows:
Seizures:
•	U.S. Joint Task Force-70 vessels
•	Colombian Coast Guard-21 vessels
Drug Removals:
•	U.S. Joint Task Force direct seizures-1,018,994 pounds of marijuana
•	Colombian Coast Guard direct seizures-4,728,587 pounds of marijuana
•	U.S. Joint Task Force removals (drugs jettisoned and/or sunk with vessel)-178,150 pounds of marijuana
Total estimated removals to date:
•	All sources-5,747,581 pounds of marijuana
Arrests
•	All participants-409 violators
The above statistics compare very favorably with the results of Operations Tiburon I and II, conducted in the fall and winter of 1980 and 1981. However, those operations were pursued for 30 to 45-day periods at a much lower level of intelligence collection activity and interdiction resources.
Federal/State and
Local Task Forces
The national problem addressed by this program is the pervasive drug abuse and associated violent crime being experienced in varying degrees by essentially all state and local jurisdictions. Certain drug abuse and drug trafficking situations lend themselves to the establishment of formal task force operations. In terms of the major problem that effective federal/state and local drug enforcement must overcome, the following issues appear central:
•	State and local police agencies in many states have not been able to achieve levels of investigative expertise essential for disruption or elimination of organized drug traffickers in their geographic locations.
•	The limited state and local resources and the competing demands of other crime prevention and police duties are the most relevant reasons for their inability to locally control illicit drugs.
•	Interagency relationships (federal, state, county, municipal) conducive to mutual drug enforcement operational support and the exchange of information are generally deficient. However, interagency operations have demonstrated marked improvement in recent years.
DEA Domestic Arrests
Major violators in the Class I and II category are heads of criminal organizations, laboratory operators, heads of structured illicit drug distribution organizations* or major non-drug conspirators. Enforcement efforts are directed primarily toward these violators to achieve the greatest impact.
Total DEA domestic arrests increased 15.5% from FY 1980 to FY 1981, reaching the highest point in five years. There were 7,809 DEA Federal arrests, of which 23% were Class I and II violators. Federal referral arrests, primarily from the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, increased as a result of increased border interdiction efforts.
63
DEA Federal
Arrests
8,000-
7,000-
6,000-
5,000-
4,000-
3,000-
2,000-
1,000-
FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81
1 DEA Task Force
Federal Referrals
State & Local
Cooperation
Geographic Drug Enforcement Program (G-DEP)
G-DEP is an investigative activity classification system utilized by DEA to assure that enforcement efforts are directed toward the highest national drug priorities. Cases are classified by type of drug, the geographic area involved, the source of the case and the level of the violator.
DEA Domestic Arrests by Class of Case
Major Objectives:
•	To achieve measurable progress in orienting task force enforcement efforts toward all levels of the illicit drug traffic as determined by the social and economic harm, including violent crime, being experienced in the respective jurisdictions.
•	To achieve, within the framework of the drug priorities and resources, a measurable upgrading of the level of the violators being targeted in task force investigations.
•	To provide operational and tactical intelligence to the task force participants as well as other federal drug enforcement programs.
•	To develop an effective cadre of state and local police officers, thoroughly trained and experienced in proven drug enforcement investigative techniques, and rotate such a force for maximum effectiveness.
•	To provide investigative cases with an identified potential for major case development by the federal drug enforcement program.
•	To encourage state and local agencies to assume an increased portion of the costs of federal/state and local task force costs.
The DEA/state and local task force program unites DEA agents and state and local police officers into cohesive drug enforcement units in selected areas of the country to provide increased attention to drug enforcement, interdepartmental and interagency cooperation, continuous intelligence exchange, and mitigation of violent crime. As a result of the expanded DEA/FBI coordination of drug enforcement efforts, FBI resources will be available to state and local task forces to fulfill special enforcement and intelligence requirements.
DEA/state and local drug enforcement is an essential part of the national drug strategy for the following reasons:
•	State and local police, because of their large aggregate numbers, can add significantly to the number of personnel in the field involved in an integrated, multilateral effort against illicit drug traffic and violent crime.
•	State and local police are dispersed throughout the nation and therefore can provide full geographic drug enforcement coverage.
•	State and local enforcement efforts can disrupt the retail illicit drug market, maintain pressure on drug dealers, and increase the cost of their illicit drug operations, thereby discouraging experimental drug users from progressing to chronic abuse.
•	State/local drug enforcement and federal enforcement both develop investigatory leads, informants, and intelligence which are of mutual benefit, thus strengthening the efforts of both programs.
In 1982, 18 DEA federal/state and local task forces were fully operational: New York, Long Island, Buffalo, Rochester, Newark, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Orlando, Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, St. Louis, Lubbock, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and Guam.
The DEA/state and local task force program has proven itself an effective complement to the federal drug enforcement by increasing the effectiveness of state and local drug enforcement activities aimed toward disruption of all levels of illicit drug trafficking. As part of a comprehensive national and international drug effort by federal elements and their state, local, and foreign counterparts, the task force program plays a critical role by attacking the mid-level violator, the link between supplier and consumer. With disruption or removal of this link, the cycle of drug production and consumption—supply and demand— would be significantly impeded. In addition, the task force program provides DEA access to the lower levels of the trafficking spectrum, where investigations of new or
64
Arrests
14, ODO-
13, 000-
12,000-
11,000-
10,000-
9,000-
8,000-
7,000-
6,000-
5,000-
4,000-
3,000-
2,000-
1,000-
FY77	FY78	FY79 FY80	FY81
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
25.9%
13.0%
28.1%
29.9%
12.3%
35.8%
35.2%
35.1%
13.4%
32.1%
33.1%
25.7%
11.3%
12.9%
33.4%
33.3%
31.0%
22.0%
18.6%
18.2%
unknown trafficking organizations are generally initiated, without a major investment of federal resources.
The task forces continued to elevate the level of cases in which they were involved, directing available resources to bear on drug law enforcement and violent crime with a smaller federal force. In 1982, 43 percent of task force investigative workhours were targeted at heroin traffickers, an area where efforts against the mid-level violator are especially critical. The overall task force conviction rate for 1982 was 97 percent in federal courts and 98 percent in state courts. The task force program resulted in 2,542 arrests. It is significant to note that, while DEA has committed only 10 percent of its total investigative work hours to task forces, these resources have consistently achieved over 2,000 arrests per year. Approximately 34 percent of task force arrests were to be in the Class I and II case categories; 61 percent of task force investigative work hours were devoted to Class I and II investigations. Progress to date in 1982 has demonstrated that task force productivity and performance is equal to, or improved over, 1981.
Intelligence
Intelligence activities, which are crucial to DEA’s operations, are carried out by three components: headquarters, field offices (domestic and foreign), and the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). The headquarters element, which performs a variety of operational and strategic functions, was reorganized in May 1982 along drug-specific lines. The reorganization was designed to make the intelligence function more consistent with and responsive to enforcement elements within DEA. One significant aspect of the reorganization was the incorporation of the Financial Investigations Unit into the Operational Intelligence Section, thereby concentrating the full spectrum of financial intelligence support activities into one office. In addition to the Financial Unit, the section includes an Organized Crime Unit.
The Operational Intelligence Section provides support to investigations of major drug trafficking syndicates. The increase in operational support to field elements which began last fiscal year continued in Fiscal Year 1982. Recognizing that information management is the key to timely and efficient enforcement support, the Operational Intelligence Section developed a unique and well-received research product, the Intelligence File Review. This product was designed primarily to identify substantive and overt acts for the development of enforcement operations and prosecutory strategies. Not only have Intelligence File Reviews been useful in establishing conspiracy investigations and documenting links between organizations previously thought to operate independently, but they have been used in grand juries and have assisted enforcement
program managers in generating Mobile Task Forces. In conjunction with this, operational elements have intensified efforts aimed at the dissemination of intelligence to other federal agencies which may be of interest to them.
Other notable accomplishments of the Operational Intelligence Section include a wide variety of enhanced and innovative applications of the PATHFINDER ADP system. Until recently, most DEA intelligence research was performed manually. Over the past year, however, there has been increased emphasis on exploitation of PATHFINDER system capabilities to support the often complex and timeconsuming operational research support requirements of investigative efforts. Many of these investigations involve multilayered, poly-drug organizations, operating both domestically and abroad. In some cases, violent crime considerations or organized crime elements are also involved. Working together with DEA computer programmers, the Operational Intelligence Section designed and implemented a wide variety of program files (such as event, toll, aircraft and vessel) to exploit PATHFINDER’S capabilities to provide DEA, state and local enforcement elements across the country with the analyses, products and information support services they require.
One specific area in which DEA operational intelligence elements have pioneered computer-based research is in relation to financial investigations. From modest beginnings two years ago, DEA operational and support personnel over the past year have placed increased reliance on PATHFINDER program files specifically designed to identify and document the assets of drug traffickers and the proceeds of narcotics trafficking for eventual seizure. Future directions in this area—currently under development—include implementation of a program in PATHFINDER to input strategic financial intelligence, thus providing DEA program managers with analyses and reports on trends and indicators in this multifaceted area of criminal activity. Along with the increased capabilities of the PATHFINDER system, terminals are now located in New York, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles and Mexico City, as well as DEA headquarters, thus giving field offices access to data bases heretofore available only at headquarters.
There have been a number of other notable accomplishments of the Operational Intelligence Program. As a result of DEA efforts to effect the seizure and eventual forfeiture of narcotics-related assets, for the first eight months of Fiscal Year 1982 $118 million in drug-related assets was seized and $87 million was forfeited to the Treasury. It was estimated that total Fiscal Year 1982 seizures would be approximately $200 million. Efforts to identify organized crime involvement in drug trafficking have been expanded and DEA/FBI cooperation regarding
65
organized crime intelligence has increased. Increased emphasis has also been placed on documenting terrorist involvement in drug trafficking. In this regard, a much closer relationship has been developed with the appropriate intelligence community agencies.
The headquarters Strategic Intelligence Section provides assessments, estimates and warnings on drug availability trends. This section continued to publish the Monthly Digest of Intelligence, The Quarterly Intelligence Trends, and the annual Narcotics Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The fourth NIE was recently published and publication of the fifth, covering 1981, was being coordinated with members of the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumer Committee (NNICC), with publication expected in January 1983. During Fiscal Year 1982, the NIE methodology was revised in an effort to increase the accuracy of future estimates; further refinement is in process. The NNICC is chaired by DEA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for Intelligence. The committee is made up of representatives of the DEA, the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Defense, U.S. Customs Service, FBI, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Internal Revenue Service, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, and the White House. Representatives of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency participate as observers. The committee members share data and intelligence and arrive at the most comprehensive estimate available on the supply of drugs to the illicit U.S. market, as well as the money flows associated with this traffic. This data is published in the NIE. The committee also coordinates and publishes intelligence collection requirements, which form the basis for intelligence collection efforts.
Utilizing a variety of research methodologies, including programs developed for implementation in PATHFINDER, the Strategic Intelligence Section has compiled a comprehensive data base on a wide range of topics associated with drug production, smuggling and trafficking. For example, intelligence developed through the Special Field Intelligence Program assisted DEA in the development of timely and accurate information on Mexican, Southwest Asian and Southeast Asian opium and opiate production, smuggling and trafficking trends. Likewise, Special Field Intelligence Programs and such activities as the Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor programs have provided an early warning of fluctuations in drug availability, such as the recent increase in the availability of Southeast Asian heroin on the West Coast. Accomplishments in other areas—specifically coca and cannabis—include production of materials for joint U.S. government agency photographic surveys of cultivation areas throughout South America. In the area of intelligence
research on dangerous drugs, a significant trend toward illicit distribution and sale of synthetic narcotics as substitutes for heroin in major metropolitan areas has recently been identified. While currently an emerging phenomenon, this could pose a variety of new problems to domestic enforcement elements in the future.
Intelligence units assigned to major field offices also continue to fulfill a significant role in DEA operations. To ensure that uniform support and services are provided to all domestic field elements, domestic field intelligence resources were reorganized during Fiscal Year 1982 and centralized at a higher organizational level. Domestically, these personnel provide support to enforcement operations and conduct independent intelligence probes. Their immediate responsibility is to collect and analyze intelligence related to drug trafficking organizations operating within their geographic area of responsibility. When investigations cross jurisdictional boundaries, responsibilities are coordinated between the various offices. The Miami Intelligence Group was among the most active domestic intelligence units during Fiscal Year 1982, both in regard to the collection and analysis of intelligence relating to drug trafficking in the South Florida area and in supporting the many special operations conducted in that area. These operations were supported not only by intelligence personnel assigned to Miami but by personnel assigned to headquarters and other field offices as well.
The function of DEA analytical personnel stationed outside the United States is to collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence. Activities of these personnel continued to add significantly to the strength of the total DEA intelligence program. Collection of intelligence on foreign cultivation and trafficking of drugs was increased in conjunction with efforts to increase the accuracy of drug supply estimates.
The EPIC also provides a unique form of continuous intelligence support to consumers at the federal level and to state and local governments. EPIC is a cooperative effort staffed by DEA personnel and personnel from eight other federal agencies (Immigration and Naturalization Service, Coast Guard, Customs Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Federal Aviation Administration, FBI, Marshals Service, and the Internal Revenue Service). EPIC’s primary responsibilities are the exchange of timesensitive information dealing principally with drug movement and intelligence support to the programs of participating agencies, such as the smuggling of aliens and weapons. During Fiscal Year 1982, EPIC handled 189,692 inquiries and provided intelligence which was instrumental in seizures totaling over 3,104,370 pounds of marijuana, 3,459 pounds of cocaine, 336 grams of heroin, 25 kilograms of hashish oil, 11,100 pounds of hashish, 3,091,209 dosage
66
units of quaaludes, 92,000 dosage units of barbiturates, 146 aircraft, 156 vessels, and $289,600. To complement this operational support, EPIC has an ongoing sophisticated analysis capability, enhanced by multiagency automated data systems, to monitor and assess the international movement of drugs. The analysis unit prepares a weekly report and a variety of special reports which receive wide distribution.
During the year the role of EPIC grew and, partly as a result of the amended Posse Comitatus Act, EPIC became the focal point for a much expanded multiagency approach to the drug problem. Interdiction efforts on the high seas, along our borders, and at points of entry were expanded. This is an area in which the resources of other agencies can do much to complement and support the activities of DEA. Information from other agencies is provided to the EPIC, where it is cross-checked with interagency data bases for further information before being returned to the initiating agency or being forwarded to another agency for appropriate action. The analyzed data assists in providing justification for searching, and frequently seizing, drugladen vessels, aircraft and automobiles, as well as detaining individuals suspected of drug trafficking. Other agencies involved in these efforts have been effective both as law enforcement forces and as highly visible deterrents to drug smugglers. These efforts are in addition to the principal missions of the agencies involved. Intelligence has shown repeatedly that a strong enforcement presence can significantly reduce or alter drug trafficking. To assist with the expanded role of EPIC and the corresponding workload increase, EPIC staffing levels were increased during Fiscal Year 1982. An additional computer was obtained to allow the expansion of the EPIC data base and increase EPIC’s capability to provide real-time responses to requests for information from user agencies.
Diversion Control
The Office of Diversion Control enforces provisions of the Controlled Substances Act which pertain to the manufacture and distribution of controlled substances for medical and research purposes. The office is responsible for the detection and prevention of diversion from legitimate channels. It conducts periodic investigations of drug manufacturers and wholesalers; identifies drug shipments in foreign countries which are destined for illegal smuggling operations; conducts special investigations of targeted registrants who are high-level violators; monitors all imports and exports of controlled substances; annually registers all handlers of controlled substances; establishes manufacturing quotas for all Schedule I and II substances, and conducts pre-registration investigations prior to approval of applications.
During Fiscal Year 1982, DEA initiated 108 targeted investigations of registrant violators operating at the I and II levels. Investigative activity resulted in 133 arrests and asset removals valued at $2 million. Also initiated during 1982 were 557 scheduled investigations of registered drug wholesalers and manufacturers.
DEA’s special diversion programs operated effectively and had a positive impact on the overall diversion problem. This is especially apparent with regard to methaqualone, a dangerous substance which is one of the most popular drugs of abuse. On the domestic scene, DEA investigators made substantial progress in the investigation and indictment of stress clinic operators who use sophisticated diversion techniques to divert methaqualone. Eleven individuals in the New York area were indicted and charged with multiple drug violations including continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy. These individuals had designed stress clinic operations in Boston, New York, New Jersey, Chicago and Los Angeles. Also indicted were stress clinic operators in Miami. These operators were also charged with continuing criminal enterprise.
Concomitantly, the Office of Diversion Control took action to reduce the procurement quota related to the legitimate distribution of methaqualone, thereby further limiting its availability. The methaqualone procurement quota was reduced from 5,360 kilograms to 2,941 kilograms, a reduction of 45 percent.
On the international scene, DEA continued to reduce the diversion of legitimately manufactured controlled substances from international commerce. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on diplomatic initiatives, through which DEA has been able to effectively eliminate European producers, such as Hungary, Austria, and the Federal Republic of Germany, as sources of diverted methaqualone. The actions of these countries were in response to this agency’s demonstration that the methaqualone which they produced was being encountered in large amounts in the illicit market. The effectiveness of these actions is underscored by the fact that the methaqualone seizures in 1982 were less than one-third of that seized in the comparable period of 1981. The combined efforts of enforcement, diplomatic initiatives, and administrative controls have reduced the amount of methaqualone available for illicit trafficking. Total Drug Abuse Warning Network emergency room mentions for methaqualone dropped 32 percent during the period from July 1981 to May 1982.
The People’s Republic of China remains the main source country for methaqualone found in illicit channels of distribution. Efforts by DEA and the Department of State to meet and discuss this diversion problem with People’s Republic of China officials will continue to be vigorously
67
pursued. In addition, through the efforts of Diversion Investigators stationed overseas, DEA has identified and documented the widespread diversion of other controlled substances from international commerce. Significant quantities of amphetamine, methamphetamine, diazepam, secobarbital, and other drugs of abuse are being diverted from international commerce in a manner similar to methaqualone diversion. The scope and extent of this diversion problem was documented during a recent fact-finding assignment in Western Europe conducted by the Office of Diversion Control. The information collected from this special assignment and the liaison established with foreign drug control authorities during this visit provided DEA a sound basis for attacking the problem of pharmaceutical diversion.
Another important aspect of the U.S. drug control strategy involves activities in conjunction with the international drug control bodies. The passage of the Psychotropic Substances Act and the United States ratification of the U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances has increased international activities involving nonnarcotic psychotropic drugs. In 1982 the Office of Diversion Control participated in the deliberations of the WHO Expert Committee involved in recommending drugs for international scheduling. The office presented trafficking data to the committee considering control of the benzodiazepine (Valium, Librium, et al.) drugs. This committee recommended international control of 26 of these substances under the Psychotropic Convention.
Ratification of the treaty imposed new requirements for estimates of medical needs for psychotropic substances, added additional reports for the International Narcotics Control Board, and greatly increased the requirements for cooperative work with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State in the area of international drug scheduling.
Training
DEA provides entry-level and advanced training for DEA employees and multilevel training in drug law enforcement skills to other federal, state, local and foreign officials.
DEA’s internal training is designed to develop and maintain a sophisticated and professional work force which will possess the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively carry out DEA’s mission. In addition to providing entrylevel training for DEA special agents and intelligence analysts, DEA in Fiscal Year 1982 provided specialized and advanced skills training to core discipline employees in such training programs as: intelligence collection, intelligence analysis, conspiracy, asset removal and reverse undercover investigations, clandestine laboratories, individualized in
service training and testing, marine law enforcement, specialized diversion investigations, and regional in-service training. The need to shift training resources to the FBI cross training program resulted in a quantitative reduction in DEA in-service training. There were 2,840 instances of training for DEA core discipline employees in Fiscal Year 1982.
DEA’s training programs for state, local and other federal employees are designed to expand significantly and economically the quantity of qualified personnel available nationwide at all levels of government to engage in the national effort against drug trafficking. DEA in Fiscal Year 1982 provided training in advanced and specialized drug law enforcement investigative techniques and methodologies in Glynco, Georgia, and other locations in the United States in such training programs as: the Drug Enforcement Officers Academy, advanced drug law enforcement schools, supervisory drug enforcement officer schools, forensic chemist seminars, and many specialized seminars designed to meet the needs of a specific area, such as anti-smuggling seminars in the Southeastern United States and clandestine laboratory seminars in the West Coast and Mid-Atlantic states. In addition, DEA developed and presented a new 10-hour program for state and local officials attending the FBI National Academy. The continuing resolution situation and funding uncertainties during the first half of Fiscal Year 1982, as well as the priority given to FBI cross training, resulted in a quantitative reduction in state and local training. In Fiscal Year 1982, 4,238 state, local and other federal employees (excluding FBI special agents) received DEA training.
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Attorney General issued “Implementation Directives for Concurrent Drug Investigative Jurisdiction Between the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Pursuant to these directives, DEA, in consultation with the FBI, developed and implemented a multilevel cross training program. Drug enforcement orientation training provided to new FBI agents was increased to 20 hours. FBI agents in the field received a 21-hour drug enforcement orientation program; 6,954 special agents were trained by DEA in this program. DEA also developed and implemented an in-depth narcotics specialization training program for selected FBI special agents; 287 were trained in this program.
DEA’s training of foreign officials is funded by the Department of State as a component of the International Narcotics Control effort. DEA international training is designed to increase the effectiveness of foreign drug enforcement personnel, foster the opening of channels of communication, and enhance cooperation among foreign countries in order to reduce the flow of illicit drugs entering the United States. In Fiscal Year 1982, DEA conducted
68
international training programs varying from basic drug enforcement and drug intelligence analysis to drug enforcement unit management and drug enforcement training development. International training was conducted in Glynco, Georgia, and through the use of Mobile Training Teams at many locations throughout the world. A total of 1,244 foreign officials were trained by DEA.
In Fiscal Year 1982, DEA participated in the development of training programs to be conducted jointly by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury for state and local officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. DEA and Training Center staff developed and conducted a joint training program in which DEA agents were trained in marine law enforcement principles and techniques. The DEA international training program saw a shift in emphasis away from basic drug enforcement to more specialized and advanced training. Relocation to the Training Center allowed DEA to take advantage of other federal agency expertise in domestic as well as international programs. In conjunction with FBI experts, DEA developed and implemented an advanced program in the second phase of its financial investigations training. This new asset removal program combines advanced financial investigations and reverse undercover training. A total of 181 DEA agents were trained in this program.
Planning and Inspection
Pursuant to the DEA reorganization, the Office of Planning and Evaluation and the Office of Internal Security were combined to form the Planning and Inspection Division. The Division consists of the Office of Inspections, Office of Professional Responsibility, Office of Security Programs, and the Office of Planning and Evaluation.
The Planning and Inspection Division serves as the principal adviser to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator on all matters pertaining to planning, evaluation, organizational control, management systems, and security. It also participates in all agency strategy and policy formulation activities.
The Office of Inspections directs inspections of headquarters and field entities to determine their effectiveness, efficiency, economy of operation, and compliance with statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures. Its activities include security inspections of DEA field offices, auditing of all DEA entities having procurement, financial approval, or disbursement responsibilities, and following through on the implementation of recommendations to improve programs and operations. This office has assumed the functions of the former Field Evaluation Division and the unannounced inspection program of the former Office of Internal Security. An important new undertaking of the office is the
implementation of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, prescribing policies and procedures for establishing internal controls against waste, fraud, and abuse; the Audit Section is currently directing a task force study of seized assets. The Inspection Section has streamlined the field evaluation function to allow for more frequent inspections and better responsiveness to recommendations.
The Office of Professional Responsibility coordinates the establishment of employee standards of conduct and directs investigations of allegations of misconduct and criminal violations by DEA employees. In addition, this office reviews disciplinary action recommended by field officials; directs special project investigations regarding national security, corruption, threats against agency personnel, and other matters; and directs a program to indentify fraudulent use of agency resources. As a result of the reorganization, this office has assumed oversight responsibility for matters formerly handled by DEA’s field offices of internal security. This change has resulted in a reduction of 46 positions assigned to this function.
The Office of Security Programs is responsible for the formulation of policies and directives that provide a deterrent and response to security breaches. Its activities include coordination of personnel security investigations, maintenance of physical security standards in DEA facilities, establishment of procedures for classification and storage of national security materials, evaluation of communications and data processing security, and coordination of agency countermeasure initiatives and emergency preparedness plans.
The Office of Planning and Evaluation is responsible for the coordination of the basic strategy and policy for overall DEA programs and national drug enforcement policy. Its activities include providing standards for program planning, conducting regularly scheduled program evaluations, determining the effectiveness of organizational structure, and assisting headquarters and field elements in the design and improvement in management systems, work methods, and procedures. As a result of the DEA reorganization, this office has assumed the responsibility for conducting in-depth evaluation studies of DEA programs across organizational lines, as well as for coordinating annual accountability assessments of program and organizational performance. As part of its policy formulation function, this office participated in the creation of the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy’s Working Group on Drug Supply Reduction and provided input to the 1982 Federal Strategy.
Legal Functions
The Office of Chief Counsel consists of 15 attorneys who
69
are assigned the responsibilities in four specialized units: 1) The Forfeiture/Asset Removal Unit; 2) The Compliance/Diversion Unit; 3) The Criminal Law Enforcement Unit; and 4) The Civil/Administration Unit. The attorneys are in frequent contact with both headquarters and field personnel, rendering assistance in enforcement, civil and administrative matters. They are also in frequent contact with various Assistant U.S. Attorneys to assist in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation as necessary. On occasion they have served as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys in litigation involving DEA.
The Office of Chief Counsel provides legal assistance to the Administrator in carrying out DEA’s regulatory responsibilities under the Controlled Substances Act. Attorneys of the Office of Chief Counsel prepared 57 orders to show cause why action should not be taken by DEA to revoke, deny or suspend a registration to engage in controlled substances activities. Twenty-two of these matters were docketed with the DEA Administrative Law Judge for hearings. Thirty-one of these matters were disposed of without full evidentiary hearings. Five hearings were held, occupying eight hearing days. Final decisions are reserved for the Administrator.
Attorneys from the Office of Chief Counsel represented the agency at 12 personnel-related proceedings, occupying 24 hearing days, and reviewed approximately 100 personnel related disciplinary investigations. Approximately 25 significant procurement contracts were reviewed and 150 civil lawsuits involving DEA or its personnel were processed and researched.
During the fiscal year, attorneys reviewed approximately 1,954 matters concerning seized vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and other assets for the legal sufficiency of their seizure. Over $16 million in conveyances and assets were ultimately forfeited to the United States, and over 600 rulings on petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture were made.
The Model Drug Paraphernalia Act, drafted by the Office of Chief Counsel in 1980, has been adopted by at least 35 states and the District of Columbia and upheld virtually everywhere it has been tested. In 1981, the office drafted a Model Forfeiture of Drug Profits Act which has been adopted by 10 states and is under consideration in several others.
The office also prepared the Model Imitation Controlled Substances Act, which addresses the problem of trafficking in noncontrolled substances designed to look like and marketed the same as illicit controlled substances.
Approximately 400 hours of instruction were provided by attorneys at DEA training schools for DEA and FBI special agents, in-service trainees, and state and local officials. In addition, the Office of the Chief Counsel produced two
legal comments and a comprehensive review of the law of arrest to assist agent personnel.
Operational Support
The Operational Support Division consists of five separate organizational elements—the Equal Employment Opportunity Staff, the Office of Administration, the Office of Information Systems, the Office of Records Management, and the Office of Science and Technology. The Assistant Administrator for Operational Support serves as the principal adviser to the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator for overall financial management, personnel management, computer support, scientific and technological support, and general administrative matters.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Staff formulates EEO policy and plans of action. This staff also administers the processing of complaints of discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and handicap, and provides training and technical guidance in support of a DEA-wide system of complaint counseling. This staff prepares and evaluates the DEA Affirmative Action Program and provides guidance and technical assistance to field offices in the development of Equal Employment Opportunity action plans to include special emphasis programs, such as the Hispanic, Black Affairs, and Federal Women’s programs.
The Office of Administration conducts the principal business and administrative functions of DEA by directing the planning, development, evaluation and management control of DEA’s budget, funds, accounting systems, manpower allocations, personnel operations, facilities and equipment, procurement, employee health and safety programs, and other support systems.
The Office of Information Systems manages the development of DEA’s automatic data processing (ADP) master plan, including assessment of ADP resource requirements and evaluation of current, mid-range and long-range ADP technology and methodology. Furthermore, this office directs all activities and facilities within DEA associated with information systems: automated (ADP), semi-automated (micro-fiche), teleprocessing, telecommunications, facsimile and secure telephone systems, including the design, development, programming and maintenance of all such systems. During this past year, continued expansion of the DEA Automated Teleprocessing System extended this system to several offices in foreign countries. Those offices will now have added investigative resources available in the development of investigative leads. Enhancements to other DEA systems have provided added support to the EPIC and to the Intelligence and Diversion Control Programs.
70
The Office of Records Management manages DEA’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Act programs, including preparation of documents required for litigation; operates a library of publications related to a legal, scientific, and drug law enforcement of controlled substances; maintains a central repository of enforcement investigative records with a capability for source data retrieval; and manages the disposition of records that document agency decision actions.
The Office of Science and Technology is responsible for the overall engineering, scientific and forensic science support for DEA. The forensic laboratory system provides technical, forensic chemical and other scientific services, including evidence examinations, expert testimony, criminalistics support and other related areas of support to
DEA’s investigative and enforcement operations. In March 1982, the laboratory system began the analysis of drug evidence for the FBI. An estimated 750 evidence submissions were analyzed in Fiscal Year 1982. The laboratory system is also providing field assistance for clandestine laboratory investigations to the FBI. The Office of Science and Technology also directs and coordinates operations concerning research and engineering to create new or substantially improved equipment, materials, instrumentation devices, systems, mathematical models, processes, techniques or procedures which will directly contribute to drug law enforcement. Efforts in the past year have included development of covert tracking systems, video surveillance kits, and concealed transmitters for surveillance.
71
OFFICE OF LEGISLATION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
OFFICE OF LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES
OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
SPECIAL ASSISTANTS ANDSENIOR COUNSEL LITIGATION AND APPELLATE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR GENERAL AND INTERNATIONAL ______LITIGATION___
INTERNAL SECURITY SECTION
GENERAL LITIGATION AND LEGAL ADVICE SECTION
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL
FRAUD SECTION
PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ENFORCEMENT
ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING SECTION
NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS DRUG SECTION _______________,
APPELLATE SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ENFORCEMENT
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS
72
Criminal Division
D. Lowell Jensen
Assistant Attorney General
The mission of the Criminal Division is to serve the public interest through development and enforcement of federal criminal statutes in a vigorous, fair, and effective manner.
Except for those assigned to the Antitrust, Civil Rights, Land and Natural Resources, or Tax Divisions, all federal criminal laws are under the Criminal Division’s general supervision. The Division also supervises certain civil litigation arising under the federal liquor, narcotics, counterfeiting, gambling, firearms, customs, agriculture, and immigration laws.
In addition, the Division is responsible for civil litigation arising from petitions for writs of habeas corpus by members of the Armed Forces, actions brought by or on behalf of federal prisoners, alleged investigative misconduct, and legal actions related to national security issues.
An Assistant Attorney General, assisted by four Deputies, directs the Division’s activities through seven line sections and seven staff offices. The Assistant Attorney General also provides top level representation of the Division to the Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget and the White House, maintains liaison with the 94 U.S. Attorneys and the federal investigative agencies, and establishes federal criminal law enforcement policies and facilitates their implementation.
The Assistant Attorney General also provides Department leadership to the Executive Working Group for Federal-State-Local Prosecutorial Relations. The group was established in 1980 to provide the first formal liaison between the Department, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Attorneys General to improve relations among federal, state and local prosecutors.
Highlights
Prosecutions in organized crime, narcotics, public corruption, white-collar crimes, and the national security highlight the accomplishments of the Division in Fiscal Year 1982.
Seven bosses of organized crime syndicates in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Florida, Cleveland, Milwaukee and Kansas City were convicted or indicted, as well as two former syndicate bosses. At one time, virtually the entire hierarchy of the Cleveland organized crime syndicate was behind bars. In addition, six underbosses also were indicted
or convicted. One of the indicted bosses was murdered as a result of gangland warfare before completion of his trial.
Attorneys of the Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section were directly involved in the forfeiture of real and personal property amounting to $34.8 million of defendants convicted of drug dealing, with litigation pending concerning $29.1 million under restraining orders.
Two leaders of a major marijuana ring that imported more than one million pounds of marijuana in less than a year received no-parole terms of 60 years and $220,000 fines; 10 defendants in all were convicted in the ring with more than $7 million in assets forfeited. In the Northern District of Texas, Rex Cauble, financier of a marijuana ring, was convicted of various charges and ordered to forfeit assets worth $25 million, a record criminal forfeiture verdict.
A long investigation of ballot fraud that permeated the entire structure of a South Carolina county was concluded with close cooperation of federal, state and local enforcement agencies, and the conviction of 36 defendants.
White-collar crimes and fraud included convictions concerning an energy fraud involving miscertification of crude oil as stripper oil, resulting in more than $2 billion in overcharges, payment of $3,750,000 by a corporation for false statements concerning student loan default claims, a $120 million investor loss in a tax shelter fraud, and more than a half dozen major corporations pleading guilty to making false statements to the Export-Import Bank concerning financing of aircraft and other goods.
Life sentences were given to a Polish national convicted of espionage in obtaining classified military documents relating to aircraft and weapons, and to a former U.S. Army warrant officer who transmitted highly classified communications information to Soviet agents. In addition, a Hungarian native was given 15 years for espionage. The leader and five others of an armed gang were convicted of attempting an invasion of Haiti. Eight defendants were convicted of illegal shipments of military equipment to the Soviet Union, Soviet Bloc nations and to Libya and Iran.
The wide variety of criminal prosecutions included the referral to the Department of 289 cases for failure to register under the Selective Service Act. Eleven indictments were brought and convictions were obtained in the only two cases that went to trial during the year.
Other accomplishments included the conviction of
73
escaped spy Christopher Boyce for bank robbery, the indictment of five defendants implicated in the murder of federal Judge John H. Wood, Jr., the successful defense of the right of the government to detain indefinitely excludable Cuban aliens with criminal backgrounds who came to the United States in the 1980 flotilla, and the conviction of the American subsidiary of a Japanese trading company and three of its officers for false statements as to the value of imported steel.
Effective criminal prosecutions were aided by utilization of the witness protection program. During the year a total of 372 requests for witness protection were received with a total of 300 being approved, of which 102 were prisoner relocations and 198 were regular relocations.
Negotiations were entered into with Italy, Switzerland, France, Sweden and Jamaica concerning extradition treaties. Fifty-one fugitives were returned to the United States and 42 foreign fugitives were returned to their homelands to face charges through efforts of the Office of International Affairs. The office also participated in the approval of the Swiss government in freezing $20 million belonging to narcotic traffickers for possible forfeiture in bank accounts in Switzerland.
During the year passage of amendments to the tax law facilitated disclosure of tax information to federal law enforcement agencies for use in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section
This Section develops and coordinates nationwide enforcement programs to suppress the illicit activities of organized criminal groups. Historically, these activities have included narcotics dealing, loansharking, and the illegal infiltration of legitimate business, labor unions, law enforcement groups and government.
Functions of the Section include: 1) coordinating the efforts of federal investigative agencies and U.S. Attorneys against organized crime; 2) selection of cases developed in all sections of the Criminal Division which are appropriate for prosecution under Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and maintaining civil responsibility over penalties, forfeitures and civil injunction actions arising out of that Act; 3) working in conjunction with the National Organized Crime Planning Council to concentrate enforcement efforts; and 4) overseeing enforcement of federal criminal statutes in the area of labor-management relations, internal labor union operations—including the operations and investments of employee benefit plans—and various vice-related crimes.
The year saw the closing of the Phoenix Field Office and the opening of a Field Office in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
The press to indict and convict leaders of criminal organizations continued: seven such leaders were indicted or convicted.
Members and Leaders of
of Criminal Organizations
Frank L. “Bobo” Marapese was indicted on hijacking charges. Marapese, the third highest leader in the New England mob, was also indicted for fraudulent submission of a mortgage loan application.
Daniel Bifield, leader of the Connecticut chapter of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang and a suspected mob hit man whom media sources had characterized as the most dangerous man in the state, was sentenced to 20 years in jail following his capture in Colorado after a jailbreak. He had been convicted of loansharking.
Francis “Fat Franny” Curcio, clearly the last mob leader left in Southern Connecticut, was indicted for loansharking along with his brother and three others.Thomas DeBrizzi was sentenced to one and one-half years for obstruction of justice. Debrizzi is the heir-apparent to the late mob boss Frank Piccolo should Curcio be jailed.
Independent mob faction leader Gerard T. Ouimette was indicted for assault on an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Vincent DiNapoli, a major contractor and an important member of the Luchese syndicate, was convicted on racketeering charges and later sentenced to five years in prison. Michael LaRosa, an underboss of the same syndicate, pled guilty in the same case, as did Genovese syndicate member Frank D’Ambrosio.
Gambino syndicate capo Carmine Lombardozzi was sentenced to serve six months in jail for tax evasion. Meanwhile, Buffalo syndicate capo Joseph A. Todoro, Jr., was indicted for allegedly understating his income on tax returns by $70,000.
Buffalo syndicate lieutenant Pasquale Politano was sentenced to a 10-year prison term after pleading guilty to negotiating the sale of 48 pounds of heroin.
In Milwaukee, mob boss Frank P. Balistrieri, underboss Steven DiSalvo and two of Balistrieri’s sons were indicted. One indictment charged the Balistrieris, Michael Sabella, a capo in the Bonanno syndicate, and Benjamin “Lefty” Ruggiero, a member of that syndicate, with extortionate control of the vending machine business in that city. Three other indictments charged these and other defendants with gambling, fraud and additional extortion violations.
Chicago syndicate lieutenant Joseph “Joey” Lombardo was indicted for extortion, along with top Teamsters consultant Allen M. Dorfman. Dorfman was later murdered.
74
Cleveland syndicate street boss Thomas J. Sinito was sentenced to 18 years in prison on loansharking and racketeering charges. James T. Licavoli, boss of the Cleveland syndicate, John Calandra and Anthony Liberatire, capos in that syndicate, and four associates were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 14 to 17 years on racketeering charges arising out of a mob bombing of rackets rival Daniel Green in a 1977 gang war. They had been convicted on July 8, the same day that indictments for drug offenses were returned against syndicate underboss Angelo “Big Ange” Lonardo, street bosses Joseph Gallo and Thomas J. Sinito, Carmen “Mr. C.” Zagaria, the syndicate drug manager, former Irish mob member Kevin McTaggart and hit men Harmut “The Surgeon” Graewe and Frederick “Fritz” Graewe.
In Kansas City, Missouri, syndicate boss Nick Civella, his heir-apparent, Carl DeLuna, and several others were indicted on illegal gambling, tax and theft charges stemming from the alleged skimming of receipts for Las Vegas’ Tropicana casino. Civella was imprisoned and subsequently died after being paroled because of medical problems.
New Orleans syndicate boss Carlos Marcello and Los Angeles underboss Samuel Sciortino were convicted of an attempt to bribe the federal judge sitting in Sciortino’s extortion prosecution. Marcello was sentenced to serve 10 years in addition to the seven he had received earlier. Sciortino had five years added to the four previously received.
Frank “Big Condi” Cocchiaro, a capo in the DeCavalcante syndicate, was convicted in Miami for his part in a bankruptcy fraud. He was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison.
Gambino syndicate member Robert DiBarnardo was sentenced to five years on pornography charges in Miami.
In San Antonio, Texas, Joseph Paul Marcello, Jr., was indicted for perjury in his denial before a grand jury of knowledge about the murder of U.S. District Judge John H. Wood, Jr. Marcello is the underboss of the New Orleans “family.”
Bruno syndicate boss Nicodeno Scarfo was placed in custody after revocation of his bail pending appeal of a firearms conviction. Investigation had shown continued association with convicted felons in violation of the terms of the bond.
Bruno syndicate member Raymond “Long John” Martorano, convicted of trafficking in precurser chemicals of methamphetamine, was sentenced to 10 years. And a Bruno capo, Joseph Ciancaglini, and members Harry Riccobene and Pasquale Spirito were convicted of racketeering. The indictment had originally included syndicate boss Phillip Testa and capo Frank Narducci, both of whom were murdered before the verdict. The group was
charged as an enterprise through which loansharking, gambling and fraudulent schemes were carried out. Ciancaglini was sentenced to 10 years, Riccobene to nine and Spirito to eight.
A Miami jury convicted Chicago syndicate capo Alfred Pilotto, the number three man in that syndicate, of racketeering conspiracy growing out of his job as president of Laborers Local 5 in Chicago.
Drug-Related Cases
Arnold W. Ellis, a ranking officer in the Massachusetts State Police, was indicted on drug charges with 13 others who had aided in the importation of multi-ton lots of marijuana from Florida into Gloucester Harbor. The indictment charged movement of 35 tons by two New England drug rings.
DeCavalcante syndicate member Louis Ippolito was sentenced to five years for importation of tons of marijuana from Colombia between 1975 and 1979.
The Syracuse Field Office initiated forfeiture proceedings against 275 acres of improved property in Oneida County, New York, owned by drug dealer Brad Roydehouse and valued at over $750,000.
Tito Edmund Carinci, a proven associate of Chicago mob figure Marshal Caifano, was sentenced to 20 years for heroin dealing in Cleveland.
The case against Cleveland underboss Angelo Lonardo, mentioned earlier, involved the alleged takeover of drug operations in Cleveland through a series of at least five murders and, in addition, alleged threats to investigating federal agents and their families. Drugs were said to be imported by the group from Florida, Georgia and Michigan, earning multi-million dollar amounts. Forfeiture was sought for over $1 million in jewelry alone.
Frank Lee Usher, Detroit’s premier heroin dealer, was sentenced to 18 years, 13 of that without possibility of parole, on drug and firearms charges.
Kansas City’s Carl V. Civella, brother of syndicate boss Nick Civella, was sentenced to three years for dealing in cocaine.
Gioacchino “Jack” Gagliano was ordered jailed for contempt for failure to give testimony before a grand jury. Gagliano, a recent Sicilian immigrant, had been sentenced to eight years a year earlier for importation of 22 pounds of Sicilian heroin. His service of that sentence was stopped until he testified before the grand jury or until its term expired.
Salvatore Solena was indicted in Newark, New Jersey, on currency and tax charges. Solena, at the time of his indictment, was on trial in absentia in Sicily for drug trafficking and currency smuggling. The U.S. indictment charged an attempt to hide $375,000. Following his release
75
on bail, he was rearrested on drug charges by New Jersey authorities.
In Philadelphia, Sicilian Mafia member Vito Buzzetta was convicted of trafficking in 80 percent pure heroin in Windgap, Pennsylvania.
The Martorano prosecution in Philadelphia previously noted dealt with precursor chemicals sufficient to manufacture one ton of amphetamines worth $20 million at wholesale.
Two indictments were returned in Fresno, California, charging 25 key members of the Nuestra syndicate gang with racketeering centered on heroin dealing, murders and robberies.
Labor Racketeering Cases
Two captains of a Teamster local were convicted of shaking down moving picture companies filming in the New England area.
The conviction of Vincent DiNapoli, mentioned above, involved DiNapoli’s role as a major power broker in New York construction, using his union contacts to dictate who would get what jobs and at what price. Codefendant Theodore Meritas, president of the New York District Council of Carpenters, was a fugitive in the case and was presumed dead.
Daniel Cunningham, president of the Allied International Union of Security Guards and Special Police, president of the Federation of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers and a trustee of the Allied Health and Welfare Fund, was convicted in Brooklyn, New York of labor racketeering, labor bribery, embezzlement of union funds and obstruction of justice. The security guards are employed by nuclear power plants and legalized gambling casinos, among others.
Ronald Fino, business manager of Laborers Local 210, Buffalo, New York, was indicted for false statements to the federal government and banks, mail fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice for his part in setting up a phony minority contracting firm to funnel payments for labor peace to him from contractors participating in a federally funded subway project in that city.
John T. Duff, international vice president of the Allied and Distillery Workers International Union and secretarytreasurer of Local 3 of that union, was sentenced in Chicago to serve six months for embezzlement of union funds used for political donations. Duff was sentenced in a separate case to serve two years for embezzlement from Detroit’s Local 42.
Detroit trucker Silverio Vitello, his wife and his trucking company, S and Vee Cartage Co., Inc., were convicted of understating the number of Teamster members employed so as to reduce his payments to pension and welfare funds.
This was the first conviction of an employer under Title 29, Section 1027. Vitello’s firm was engaged in trucking steel to Detroit’s auto industry. Vitello and his wife received identical two-year prison terms and all defendants were fined a total of $46,000.
Another steel hauler, Joseph D. Cusmano of J&J Cartage Co., was sentenced to three years for extorting the Teamsters health, welfare and pension fund payments from his own drivers.
Teamsters in Los Angeles saw the former secretarytreasurer of Local 389, Sten Thordarson, and the former secretary-treasurer of Local 186, Martin Fry, convicted of burning the trucks of Redman Moving and Storage Co. in an organizing attempt.
Business agent Pierce Jones, Jr., and shop steward Milton Hill of Atlanta Teamsters Local 728 were indicted for alleged violations of the explosives laws in a dynamiting during an attempt to organize a refuse removal firm.
Business manager Joseph LaMarina and secretarytreasurer James Conover of Local 4073, International Brotherhood of Law Enforcement Security Officers, were convicted in Newark, New Jersey, of embezzling $12,000 in union funds. Evidence at trial showed the union was part of a plot to infiltrate the security forces of Atlantic City casinos on behalf of the Bruno syndicate. Each was jailed for three years.
Delaware Teamster leader Francis Sheeran was convicted of racketeering in a labor leasing scheme carried out with Eugene Boffa. Sheeran, in return for bribes which he split with mob figures Anthony “Tony Pro” Provenzano and Russell Bufalino, allowed Boffa to circumvent the Teamsters contract and supply truck drivers to Fortune 500 companies at far below union scale. Sheeran was sentenced to 18 years, Boffa to 20.
Raymond T. Lane, a former secretary-treasurer of Hotel and Restaurant Workers Local 28 in Alameda, California, was charged with obstruction of justice in connection with his alleged tampering with witnesses in a hearing to revoke his probation entered following his 1979 conviction for trust fund embezzlement.
The previously mentioned conviction of Laborers Union official Alfred Pilotto centered around his reception of payoffs from an insurance executive relative to Laborers Union insurance business.
Cases Involving
Corrupt Public Officials
Joseph DeLuca, former assistant area director of U.S. Customs of Kennedy International Airport in New York, pled guilty to conflict of interest charges for maintaining a hidden interest in an air freight container station bonded by Customs. He had expedited his own license while in office.
76
James A. Traficant, Jr., sheriff of Mahoning County (Youngstown), Ohio, was indicted for racketeering in a scheme which allegedely involved $163,000 in bribes paid by syndicate operatives to ensure that their operations were unmolested.
Cases Involving
Legitimate Business
Nicholas Mainiero, manager of the Bridgeport, Connecticut, airport, was convicted of perjury for stating that he never laundered funds for Bridgeport’s late mob boss, Frank Piccolo. Over $100,000 was involved.
Rackets lawyer Patrick R. Faltico was sentenced to five years for his part in a massive food stamp fraud in Kansas City.
Kansas City “soldier” Authur Eugene Shepherd pled guilty to fraud on the government. He had been one of several mob personalities allegedly at work in a local Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) project in which he never really worked, doing errands for the mob and acting as a strikebreaker while on the government payroll. He was also convicted of explosives violations in an attempt to infiltrate a local night club.
Dennis Greenman pled guilty to fraud charges in Tampa, Florida. Through quick action, half of the $80 million obtained in the securities scheme run through Barclay Financial Corp., Greenman’s employer, was recovered.
Six individuals were indicted in Miami for allegedly defrauding a bank through the overfunding of a condominium project, the “Outrigger.” Mob member Anthony Acceturo had been a subcontractor on the project.
Paul Bendetti and Dennis Mastro of Phoenix, Arizona, and Peter DeLamos were convicted in Newark, New Jersey, on charges of paying skim of $100 a day from the Jolly Trolly casino in Las Vegas to Genovese syndicate figures Ruggiero Boiardo and John Russo to obtain loans and other benefits for the casino. Russo died before he could be indicted. Boiardo, 91, was declared unable to stand trial because of his age. The convicted defendants were sentenced to three years in prison.
Peter J. Serubo and W. Thomas Plachter, Jr., were convicted of tax evasion in their operation of Philadelphia’s Plachter-Serubo Cadillac Co., which paid several mobsters for “no show” jobs so they could claim a legitimate source of income.
Also in Philadelphia, Charles D. Cascio was sentenced to 30 months for his looting of Video Systems Corp, and his defrauding of the Continental Bank. The two schemes netted a total of $515,676.
Miscellaneous Enforcement Actions
Raymond Laffey, a former police officer, and 12 others were named in five indictments returned against an organized auto theft and hijacking ring in New England operated with syndicate blessing. Laffey was sentenced to five years.
Kenneth Guarino, a major New England pornographer, was indicted for tax evasion.
Robert S. “Bobby” Martin, a legal Las Vegas bookmaker and regarded as the nation’s top odds-maker, was sentenced to 18 months for running an illegal gambling business on the side which grossed $1.6 million per week.
Anthony Grosso, Pittsburgh’s premier numbers banker, was indicted for false statements to Customs in an alleged attempt to smuggle $15,000 back into this country.
Major syndicate figure James Burke and others were convicted of fixing the point spread on college basketball games in 1978 and 1979. Burke received a 20-year prison term.
Tracy Coy Poe and Leroy Dale Hines, Oklahoma’s largest bookmakers, were indicted for allegedly illegal wagering which extended into Las Vegas and Palm Springs, California.
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
The Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section oversees the federal prosecutive effort directed at high-level offenders and members of criminal organizations involved in the manufacture, importation, transshipment or distribution of illicit narcotics and other dangerous drugs.
The Section attorneys prosecute multidistrict and international drug cases with the objective of immobilizing entire organizations by prosecuting their organizers and causing them to forfeit the assets realized from their illegal activities. In Fiscal Year 1982, Section prosecutors were directly involved in the forfeiture of real and personal property amounting to $34.8 million. Pending litigation in forfeiture proceedings accounted for another $29,104,000 worth of currency and property under court restraining orders.
The prosecution objectives of the Section include prosecuting the members of international drug smuggling cartels, utilizing the substantive and conspiracy statutes of the United States relating to drug law violations. In addition, enhanced penalties statutes are utilized, such as the Continuing Criminal Enterprise, 21 U.S. Code 848, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, 18 U.S. Code 1962.
These statutes provide additional penalties for significant violations and both statutes have forfeiture provisions allowing the government to seize the assets realized as a result of the illegal trafficking.
77
In addition, Section attorneys utilize various statutes of the United States pertaining to financial violations of law, including the failure to report large currency transactions as provided by law and tax evasion pursuant to Titles 26 and 31 of the U.S. Code. These statutes are directed at violators who did not report the income they received from their illegal activities or who try to “launder” or legitimize their illegal profits through regular business channels.
As the year closed, the Section was staffing task forces, Operation Greenback I and II, that investigated financial violations in Miami, Florida, and Chicago, Illinois. In addition, Section attorneys were participating in the operation of the south Florida task force to litigate asset forfeiture cases and in the Tax Enforcement Narcotics Unit’s prosecution effort to prosecute tax evasion cases against significant narcotic violators. In one case evidence showed that an organization had imported over 300,000 pounds of marijuana. The lead defendant was given a sentence of 40 years. These investigations were multi-agency cases which brought to bear the total resources of the government to investigate and prosecute the violators.
The Section prosecuted a number of major cases in Fiscal Year 1982. In Operation Sunburn, prosecuted with the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Florida, 10 defendants were convicted and over $7 million in assets were forfeited. The two lead defendants received no-parole terms of 60 years and $220,000 fines. The evidence showed an organization which imported over one million pounds of marijuana in less than a year.
In United States v. Cauble, mentioned previously, which was prosecuted with the Northern District of Texas, Rex Cauble, financier of a major marijuana organization, was convicted of racketeering and bank fraud counts. Criminal forfeiture was ordered on assets worth approximately $25 million, the largest criminal forfeiture verdict in U.S. history.
In United States v. Garrett, et al., which Section attorneys prosecuted in the Northern District of Florida, six defendants were convicted and $300,000 worth of criminal forfeiture was ordered. The evidence showed that this organization had imported over 300,000 pounds of marijuana. The lead defendant was given a no-parole sentence of 40 years.
Public Integrity Section
The Public Integrity Section oversees federal enforcement policy in three major areas: crimes by federal personnel, state and local corruption, and corruption of the franchise. It prosecutes selected cases against federal, state, and local officials and is available as a source of advice and expertise to law enforcement officials and prosecutors at all levels of government. In addition, the Section serves as a center for
planning, coordination and implementation of nationwide programs focused against public corruption.
In fulfilling these roles, the functions of the Public Integrity Section include: overseeing the enforcement of all federal criminal statutes governing the conduct of officers and officials of the federal government; developing new investigative and prosecutorial techniques against public corruption, and training others in their use; coordinating the nationwide enforcement of election fraud statutes; using its enforcement jurisdiction over state and local corruption to target problem areas; investigating and prosecuting all matters involving crimes by federal judges; handling public corruption cases when the local U.S. Attorney’s office has recused itself; providing U.S. Attorneys’ offices with specialized expertise and litigative support, especially in large, complex or multiregional corruption cases; and participating in the development of more effective laws dealing with public integrity.
Highlights in the area of crimes by federal employees included successful prosecutions of bribery and fraud in granting visas to foreigners attempting to enter the United States and the development of a systematic approach to handling the numerous referrals on alleged payroll fraud by government workers.
Election fraud continued to be a major priority of the Section in 1982, with successful projects in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Missouri. In South Carolina, a major project aimed at systemic corruption permeating the entire political structure of Dillon County was completed with 36 convictions, demonstrating the usefulness of the election fraud statutes in addressing problems of serious local corruption. These cases provided an example of the effectiveness of a cooperative venture, with the Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch, the Economic Crime Specialist in Columbia, South Carolina, the U.S. Attorney’s office, and state law enforcement personnel working closely together on the project.
Intensive, long-term projects targeting state and local corruption continued to be a Section priority in 1982. During the year, the Section continued its investigation in Kentucky of a number of separate allegations of systemic state corruption, including a multimillion dollar insurance fraud scheme by state officials and allegations of fraud and kickbacks in the awarding of state leases and land purchases, together with a number of other areas of alleged corruption in state government. In 1982, among other indictments and convictions, the Section obtained the conviction of a powerful political figure in Kentucky, the former state chairman of the Democratic Party.
Also during the year, the Section’s Chicago investigation, active since 1977, examined the activities of high-level state officials in prior administrations, particularly their efforts
78
to raise the funds necessary to retire the former governor’s campaign deficit.
The Public Integrity Section’s responsibility for overseeing and participating in active litigation requires close and continuous cooperation with many of the U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and with the Public Corruption units of the FBI. The development of Offices of Inspectors General within the federal agencies provided the Section with new opportunities for interagency coordination of investigations. The Section has devoted a great deal of time to the development of close working relationships with the Inspectors General, setting up, for example, an informal group of representatives from the Inspectors General offices and prosecutors from the Section who meet periodically to discuss problems of mutual concern.
Because of financial overtones to many crimes committed by public officials, the Section also maintains frequent liaison with the investigative offices of the Internal Revenue Service. Finally, the Section offers advice and prosecutive support to state and local law enforcement officials in appropriate cases.
The Section’s emphasis on crimes committed by federal officials continued, with two special projects, each marked by several successful prosecutions. The Immigration Project focused on bribery and fraud by immigration officials in the granting of entry visas, and a payroll fraud project addressed the continuing problem of fraud against the government by federal employees through payroll, overtime, and leave-time fraud.
Fraud Section
The Fraud Section leads, directs and coordinates the federal effort against white-collar crime through litigation and the identification and selection of target areas for allocation of law enforcement resources. The primary focus has been frauds involving federal government programs and procurement, energy frauds, consumer and institutional victimization, and multidistrict and transnational trade.
In excercising its leadership role, the Fraud Section’s activities can be divided into three major categories: 1) investigating and prosecuting complex, sensitive, or multidistrict cases involving major white-collar crimes either as developed by the Section or as requested by U.S. Attorneys’ offices; 2) providing training to federal, state and local investigators and prosecutors; and 3) developing and implementing national white-collar crime enforcement Policies. An integral part of the Section in performing these activities is the Economic Crime Enforcement Program.
Major cases involving fraud against the government included conviction of a large space shuttle launch contractor for false statements to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Section also obtained
conviction of Bell & Howell for false statements on its collection efforts prior to submitting claims under the Federally Insured Student Loan program. The court ordered $3.75 million in restitution.
Other cases of fraud against the government included convictions involving complex and unique misapplication of Small Business Administration loan proceeds, a series of joint Housing and Urban Development/Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Development/Health and Human Services, and Medicare major fraud convictions at the request of the U.S. Attorney in Puerto Rico in a concerted effort to reestablish the federal law enforcement presence in that district, and affirmative joint agency task forces in the areas of food stamps and illegal student loans to aliens.
The emphasis on elimination of fraud in government programs, coupled with an increase in defense spending, an area vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, led to the creation of a Defense Procurement Fraud Unit to aggressively investigate and prosecute fraud in the defense procurement and contracting areas. The Defense Procurement Fraud Unit is led by the Fraud Section. Each of the defense services’ investigative agencies and the new Inspector General at the Department of Defense pledged active support and will provide additional investigative manpower on a case-by-case basis as the cases relate to each service branch. The Department of Defense also contributed attorneys to assist the Department of Justice prosecutors from the Criminal and Civil Divisions.
When the Attorney General requested the Criminal Division to take on a special effort to reduce fraud and abuse in the food stamp program, the Fraud Section combined the investigative resources of the Agriculture Inspector General and the Postal Inspection Service with the Secret Service, the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices in 12 selected target cities to address the unique problems of each area. They also generally included the local prosecutors and relevant city, county or state food stamp program officials. As indictments were returned, defects in the administration of the programs that allowed the fraud or abuse to occur were also being surfaced and changed to prevent future losses to the government.
The Section is also extensively committed in other government fraud special projects, including alien student loans, Small Business Administration Loans and government funded health care and construction projects in Puerto Rico.
Another government fraud emphasis has been to address the constant problems in government’s continuing to do business with contractors charged or convicted of defrauding the government. Fraud Section testimony on the governmentwide lack of adequate suspension and
79
debarment procedures initiated the establishment of an interagency task force to study the problem; final guidelines were issued at the end of the year. The Section continued to work with the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency on further initiatives in this area.
The Section also was active in investigating energy frauds involving miscertification of crude oil as stripper oil that resulted in $2 to $4 billion in overcharges, fraud in the sale of oil and gas leases and in the sale of crude oil, and several false certifications of fuel oil as upper-tier crude oil.
Consumer and institutional victimization included the largest fraudulent tax shelter case, with a $120 million loss to the government. The Section also investigated an $11 million multidistrict bankruptcy bust-out scheme, the circumvention of banking regulations by bank officers in Central Illinois to divert $500,000 in phony loan proceeds to themselves, and several business opportunity schemes, including a conviction in one involving a $25 million loss to the public.
Among transnational trade frauds were the unlawful concealment of commissions to do business with McDonnell Douglas and convictions for filing false statements by the Boeing Company with the Export-Import Bank in connection with the financing of sales to airline companies in Spain, Lebanon, Honduras and the Dominican.Republic. Several Raytheon employees were indicted for receiving commercial bribes of over $1 million from a freight forwarder. In connection with these and other investigations, there were several “firsts” in extensive evidence gathering in foreign countries and the successful access to bank records in the Cayman Islands.
During Fiscal Year 1981, Fraud Section attorneys were active in providing training to federal, state and local investigators and prosecutors in a number of different forums, including:
•	The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
•	Economic Crime Enforcement Conferences.
•	FBI Academy.
•	Regional Procurement Fraud Training for Inspectors General
•	White-Collar Crime Mini-Course.
•	Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute.
•	Various national and regional Inspector General sessions.
•	Various state and local training sessions.
More than 1,600 investigators and prosecutors received instruction as a result of this training effort. Topics included investigative techniques and strategy, trial preparation and trial advocacy.
The Section’s Economic Crime Enforcement Program was a joint U.S. Attorney/Criminal Division concept with
the mission of establishing Economic Crime Enforcement Units in the U.S. Attorneys’ offices in the 10 standard federal regions to maximize program efficiency and provide broad geographic coverage in serving the field and regional offices of the Inspectors General. The program attorneys’ primary responsibility was to identify serious problems in the government fraud area, assemble the audit and investigative resources required for each task, generate a greater number of high quality cases for prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys or the Fraud Section and to recommend suggestions for changes in the administration or regulation of a program to prevent future fraud.
The Section, working with the Office of Policy and Management Analysis, assisted in the design of the Fraud and Corruption Tracing (FACT) System and began managing the system on October 1, 1982. The FACT System collects important information on governmental fraud and corruption referrals by Inspectors General to the Department. It is designed to implement the Department’s Policy Statement on its relationship with the Inspectors General and promises to be a valuable tool for enhancing the government’s efforts to combat fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption.
Internal Security Section
The Internal Security Section is responsible for the enforcement of criminal statutes affecting national security and foreign relations. The Section also administers and enforces the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, and related statutes.
Functions of the Internal Security Section include: 1) supervising the investigation and prosecution of offenses involving espionage, sabotage, treason, and violations of the Atomic Energy Act, the neutrality statutes, the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and the Export Administration Act; 2) providing policy guidance and litigative support to U.S. Attorneys, intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies involved in cases related to internal security or foreign relations; 3) administering and enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act through civil and criminal prosecutions, as well as supervising investigations and conducting inspections pursuant to the Registration Act; 4) providing specialized legal support to U.S. Attorneys in areas of policy interpretation, legal research, and the drafting of indictments, pleadings and other legal papers; 5) serving as the focal point for interagency coordination in cases such as espionage, neutrality, and arms export control violations; 6) developing, analyzing, and evaluating proposed legislation relative to the internal security field; and 7)
80
providing personnel, including the executive secretary, for the Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security (ICIS).
In addition, personnel of the Section serve on several other interagency committees dealing with such matters as the national and international coordination of the enforcement of export control laws.
Among significant cases during the past year were:
•	William Holden Bell, an engineer employed by Hughes Aircraft Company, was sentenced to eight years and fined $10,000, and his codefendant, Marian Zacharski, was sentenced to life imprisonment, for conspiring to commit espionage and for espionage for transmitting classified documents relating to military aircraft and weapons to the Polish Intelligence Service. Bell had pleaded guilty and testified as a government witness at Zacharski’s trial.
•	Joseph G. Helmich was sentenced to life on his plea of guilty to espionage. He was charged with transmitting classified information relating to communications equipment to Soviet agents while he was a warrant officer in the U.S. Army stationed in Paris and at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in 1963-1964.
•	Otto Gilbert, a native of Hungary who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, was arrested in Augusta, Georgia, for espionage on behalf of the Hungarian Intelligence Service, for whom he received classified documents relating to the national defense from Janos Szmolka, a U.S. Army warrant officer who was cooperating with the FBI and Army Intelligence. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Gilbert cooperated in the subsequent investigation. He was sentenced on August 23, 1982, to 15 years’ imprisonment.
•	The Coast Guard intercepted a vessel on the high seas with 25 persons on board. Armed with firearms and explosives, they were en route to invade Haiti. Bernard Sansaricq, the leader, and five others pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S. Code 960 and on August 30 were sentenced to three years probation. A sixth defendant, who pleaded guilty to a violation of 22 U.S. Code 2778, was sentenced to two years probation.
Export Violations
The increased emphasis being given to the investigation and prosecution of violations of the export control laws was reflected in the large number of successful prosecutions supervised during the fiscal year. In one case in Los Angeles, three persons were convicted of attempting to export a large quantity of aerospace research testing equipment to Switzerland, where it was to be diverted to another country, in violation of the Export Administration
Act. They were sentenced to fines and terms of imprisonment and probation. In another case, two individuals and two companies were charged in a 30-count indictment with the unlicensed export of strategic electronic equipment to Soviet Bloc countries in violation of the Export Administration Act.
The Tencom Corporation, its president, vice president, and a colonel in the Libyan Air Force were charged with violations of the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act, and related statutes as a result of 60 shipments of C-130 aircraft parts and Chinook helicopter parts to Libya.
Hitachi, Ltd., several of its employees, and employees of Mitsubishi Electronic Corporation, were indicted for conspiracy to transport stolen International Business Machines computer technology to Japan.
Two defendants, Charlotte Aircraft Corporation and its president, Herman O. Brown, pleaded guilty to violations of the Arms Export Control Act as a result of their exporting of inertial navigation equipment to Italy, where it was installed in C-130 aircraft of the Libyan Air Force.
Seven defendants in Dallas, Texas, were charged with conspiring to acquire 15 military helicopters and export them to a foreign country in violation of the Arms Export Control Act; six of the defendants entered guilty pleas and were sentenced to imprisonment.
Anatoli T. Maluta, after a trial on stipulated facts, was found guilty in Los Angeles of violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act resulting from the unlicensed export of military and strategic commodities to the Soviet Union and other countries. He and a codefendant were sentenced to imprisonment and fines.
Foreign Agent Matters
In a case involving the Irish Northern Aid Committee, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the findings of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. The most significant of the court’s findings was that the Committee acted as the agent of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and must register as its agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. The court also held that the committee must disclose its relationship to The Irish People, a weekly newspaper.
The court also found that the requirements of the Act dealing with “political propaganda” had been continuously ignored by the Committee, and that it had repeatedly violated the financial reporting provisions of the Act. The opinion of the court of appeals rejected the Committee’s position that the Act’s definition of “agent of a foreign principal” should be narrowly construed.
81
In another case which involves The Irish People, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded the decision of the district court which had granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Registration during Fiscal Year 1982 under the Foreign Agents Registration Act increased by 135, bringing the total to 3,412 as of September 30,• 1982, of which 716 were active.
Liaison
This Section is the focal point of much of the liaison activities involving other federal departments and agencies, and, in particular, federal investigative agencies and intelligence agencies, which deal with cases and matters concerning the nation’s security and foreign relations, such as the Interagency Working Group on Export Control Enforcement and the Port Security Committee.
Personnel of the Internal Security Section also represent the Department on four of the five subordinate groups of the ICIS. The Section provides the executive secretary of the ICIS, which is directed by its charter to effect the coordination of all phases of the internal security field—except those specifically assigned to the Interdepartmental Intelligence Conference. It takes action necessary to ensure the highest practicable state of internal security, including planning and preparing for adequate internal security in the event of a war-related emergency. ICIS is composed of representatives of the Departments of Justice, State, Defense and the Treasury. The Department of Justice representative also serves as the Committee’s chairman and is appointed to that position by the President.
General Litigation and Legal Advice Section
The General Litigation and Legal Advice Section has broad criminal jurisdiction which encompasses approximately 75 percent of all federal criminal statutes. It also has a wide variety of civil responsibilities.
The section’s jurisdiction is divisible into six major areas:
•	Crimes against government operations. These include attacks on designated federal officials—including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress—candidates for federal office, foreign officials, and official guests of the United States; violations of the Selective Service Act; counterfeiting; obstruction of justice; perjury; escape; prison offenses; and customs violations;
•	Crimes against the public, such as aircraft and maritime piracy, kidnaping, extortion, bombing, bank robbery, illegal electronic surveillance, copyright infringements, obscenity, and firearms violations;
•	Immigration and Naturalization matters (e.g., defense of civil suits challenging Immigration and Naturalization Service procedures or practices, defense of appeals taken from deportation proceedings, initiation of denaturalization proceedings, and prosecution of alien smuggling violations);
•	Regulatory enforcement, including protection of safety, health and consumer interests in mining and other occupations, nuclear materials handling, marketing of agriculture products, and disposition of hazardous and toxic wastes;
•	Special civil matters, such as defense of civil actions to obtain information on or to interfere with criminal justice and national security operations, and enforcement of forfeitures and civil penalties imposed pursuant to violations of Criminal Division statutes; and,
•	Prison/parole matters (e.g., defense of suits challenging legality of federal sentences, probation and parole actions, conditions of confinement, prisoner transfer within the United States and from foreign custody to the United States, and treatment of mentally incompetent prisoners).
The combating of terrorism through exhaustive investigation and vigorous prosecution of persons responsible for terrorist acts is a primary Section enforcement initiative. Central coordination of the prosecutive response to terrorism is essential because of the critical importance of the enforcement effort to the nation, the interdistrict nature of many terrorist acts, the sensitivity of the investigations and problems of statutory applicability. The Section’s participation commences at the outset of major investigations with the provision of assistance to investigative agencies concerning investigative techniques such as the use of grand juries and court-authorized electronic surveillance.
Section attorneys were directly involved at the request of U.S. Customs in its major investigation involving the illegal importation of steel into the United States.
The Section has assumed responsibility for the reimplemented Selective Service Act. Prosecutive policies have been developed, memoranda concerning prosecution procedures and essential elements of a nonregistration prosecution have been prepared, and 289 violations were referred to the FBI. During Fiscal Year 1982, 11 nonregistration indictments were returned.
The first two trials resulted in guilty verdicts. As of September 30, 1982, there were nine pending nonregistration indictments.
The Section developed and coordinated policy for the prosecution of striking air traffic controllers. That effort
82
resulted in five felony convictions and the conviction of 127 defendants for contempt (many pled guilty to contempt in exchange for a dismissal of the felony charge).
The Section successfully defended the government against a challenge to its handling of the provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act which governs the allocation of immigrant preference visas among applicants from any one country.
Other accomplishments during the year included:
•	The conviction in the Northern District of California of VSL Corporation and its chief financial officer for aiding and abetting the entering of steel into the United States by means of false statements as to value;
•	The conviction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of the owner of a national trucking firm and three former American Airlines executives in a kickback scheme whereby the trucking firm made payoffs to the executives in exchange for freight business from American Airlines;
•	The conviction in the District of Puerto Rico of a leader of “Omega 7,” an anti-Castro terrorist group, for making a false statement in an application for a U.S. passport;
•	The indictment in the District of Puerto Rico of a major suspected terrorist for bank robbery;
•	The successful defense of the Bureau of Prisons for not segregating from adult prisoners a youth whose parole under the Federal Youth Corrections Act was revoked when he was convicted and sentenced as an adult in state court;
•	The successful defense of the right of the government to indefinitely detain excludable Cuban aliens with criminal backgrounds who came to the United States during the 1980 Cuban flotilla and who have been convicted of no criminal offense in the United States;
•	The conviction of escaped spy Christopher Boyce and another person in the District of Idaho for bank robbery, harboring and conspiracy;
•	The indictment of Jimmy Chagra, Elizabeth Chagra, Joseph Chagra, Charles Harrelson and Joann Harrelson in the Western District of Texas for the murder of Federal District Court Judge John H. Wood, Jr., and the conviction of Joann Harrelson in the state’s Northern District for purchasing a gun under a false name;
•	The successful defense of a lawsuit to enjoin a grand jury investigation of the Church of Scientology and its members in the Clearwater, Florida, area for mail fraud;
•	The conviction in the District of Nebraska of Pamida, Inc., and one of its vice presidents for wiretapping;
•	The conviction in the Northern District of California of
Mitsui and Co. (USA), an American subsidiary of Mitsui (Japan), a Japanese trading company, and three of its corporate officials for entering steel into the United States by means of false statements as to value. The company was fined $210,000 and agreed to pay $11 million in civil penalties;
•	The indictment of Edwin Wilson and two others in the Southern District of Texas for exporting 40,000 pounds of plastic explosives to Libya;
•	Convincing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case affecting scores of Iranian students that it should adopt a narrow interpretation of the scope of judicial review to exclude from direct appeals review of deportation decisions by Immigration and Naturalization Service District Directors;
•	The indictment of seven individuals for foreign student visa fraud in a continuing investigation into the fraudulent recruitment of foreign students from several countries, including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran;
•	The indictment of 16 distributors of obscene material depicting children engaging in sexual activity and conviction of 10 distributors of such material;
•	The preparing and filing of 175 briefs and 180 motions and other pleadings on immigration and nationality in the court of appeals; and
•	The arguing of 46 immigration and nationality cases in the courts of appeals, as well as the filing of 84 district court pleadings and appearances in 27 district court proceedings.
Appellate Section
The mission of the Appellate Section is to secure favorable rulings in criminal cases being heard on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court and the 12 U.S. courts of appeals.
Its functions include: preparing briefs in opposition to petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court; securing favorable precedents by making appropriate recommendations to the Solicitor General for or against the review of adverse decisions in the U.S. district courts or U.S. courts of appeals; briefing and arguing significant criminal appellate cases before the federal courts of appeals; reviewing appellate briefs prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorneys; and providing general assistance to U.S. Attorneys and the Assistant Attorneys General on appellate matters, legislative research, and other special projects.
The Appellate Section’s Supreme Court activity during Fiscal Year 1982 included 17 briefs on the merits and 11 government petitions for certiorari. The Section also drafted responses to a total of 344 petitions for certiorari.
Non-Supreme Court workload handled by the Section during the year included 840 recommendations regarding
83
adverse decisions, and approximately 200 briefs, petitions and other pleadings in the courts of appeals.
Appellate Section attorneys maintain close liaison with all litigation entities of the Department. Of particular significance is the Section’s relationship to the Office of the Solicitor General, which has responsibility for all arguments on behalf of the government before the Supreme Court.
Office of International Affairs
The Office of International Affairs supports the Division in the formulation and execution of international criminal justice enforcement policies.
Its functions include: 1) participating in the negotiation of international agreements and treaties on subjects relating to criminal law enforcement, such as treaties on extradition, mutual assistance in criminal matters, and the transfer of prisoners; 2) representing the Division in Executive Branch policy planning sessions when issues of international criminal justice are under consideration; 3) executing and overseeing extradition, judicial assistance and prisoner transfer arrangements; 4) preparing requests for international extradition and obtaining evidence from foreign countries; 5) processing and litigating or supervising the litigation of extradition matters forwarded by the Department of State before federal courts; 6) providing advice to U.S. Attorneys and state attorneys general and district attorneys on preparing extradition requests and on international foreign practice and procedure; 7) coordinating and reviewing all requests to and from foreign governments and courts to obtain evidence in connection with criminal matters being investigated or prosecuted in the United States and foreign countries; 8) drafting legislation relating to its functions; and 9) developing Division policy on those aspects of federal criminal law enforcement that require extraterritorial involvement.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Office participated in negotiations on extradition treaties with Italy, Switzerland, France, Sweden and Jamacia; treaties on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with Italy, Federal Republic of Germany, France and Jamaica and treaties on prisoner transfer arrangements with Thailand and the Council of Europe.
The Office participated in the return to the United States of 51 fugitives and caused the removal of 42 foreign fugitives. It directly represented foreign governments in court in 11 extradition proceedings and arranged for the return to their native country of 65 foreign nationals serving sentences in the United States and the return to this country
of 55 U.S. citizens imprisoned in foreign countries. It also processed approximately 300 requests to and from the United States with respect to obtaining evidence in U.S. and foreign criminal investigations and prosecutions.
The functions of the Office require continuing contact with the Department of State and other agencies of the federal government having international functions, all of the federal investigative agencies, INTERPOL, and departmental units involved in international prosecutions, as well as direct contacts with foreign ministries of justice and foreign affairs, and foreign embassies in Washington, D.C.
The Office of International Affairs has written new extradition legislation which will assist the United States in combating crime and international terrorism by expediting the removal of foreign fugitives from the United States. The comprehensive legislation passed the Senate and was pending before the House when the fiscal year ended.
Twenty million dollars belonging to narcotic traffickers was frozen for possible forfeiture in bank accounts in banks within Switzerland by the Swiss government as the result of information provided by the Office.
A manual for preparation of extradition requests to foreign countries was completed and distributed to federal and state prosecutors.
Office of Enforcement Operations
The Office of Enforcement Operations oversees, within the constraints of law and Department policy, the effective use of the most sophisticated investigative tools at the Department’s disposal—including electronic surveillance, hypnosis in the interrogation of witnesses and witness relocation.
The Office supervises all aspects of the Witness Security Program for the Criminal Division and responds to congressional, White House, press, and public inquiries regarding the Witness Security Program. It also receives and adjudicates all requests for use of the Division’s confidential funds, and all applications for electronic surveillance under Chapter 119 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. It oversees all electronic and consensual monitoring efforts being pursued within the federal justice system, and prepares special analyses and evaluation reports relating to such activities.
The Office continuously monitors each of those programs, and serves as liaison to investigative agencies, prosecutors, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and others involved in the implementation of these investigative tools.
84
The following statistics illustrate some of the Office’s activities during the year:
Electronic Surveillance
Consensual Uses of Electronic Devices
Total Approved	11,522
Total Denied	6
Total Handled	11,528
Title III	
Total Approved	226
Total Denied	1
Total Withdrawn	21
Total Handled	248
Loan of Electronic Surveillance Equipment	
Total Approved	1
Total Denied	0
Total Handled	1
Witness Security Program			
	U.S. Attys./ Strike Forces	State/Local	Total
Requests on Hand from Prior FY	32	0	32
Requests Received During Year	326	14	340
Total Requests Handled	358	14	37i
Requests Approved			
Regular Relocation	193	5	198
Prisoner Relocation	98	4	102
Requests Denied	6	3	9
Requests Withdrawn	38	1	39
Requests Pending	23	1	24
Office of Legislation
This Office contributes to the Division’s policy formulation through the systematic review, analysis, implementation and evaluation of criminal justice legislation and other congressional actions.
In most areas of congressional activity, there are many organizations, both public and private, engaged in assisting the Congress through the drafting and analysis of legislative proposals. Criminal legislation, however, is not the beneficiary of such widespread public interest. As a result, the Criminal Division devotes resources to the development and support of measures to revise and improve the federal criminal justice system.
Functions of the Office of Legislation include: developing, in cooperation with other components of the Department, such as the Associate Attorney General’s office, and with other federal justice agencies legislative proposals, legal memoranda, and statements to be given before Congress by officials of the Department; drafting responses to inquiries from congressional committees and government agencies concerning proposed legislation; preparing legal memoranda relating to the implementation of recently enacted statutes and requesting and coordinating the preparation of substantive opinions and recommendations on legislation from the Division’s sections and offices for presentation to the Congress.
A principal accomplishment during Fiscal Year 1982 included drafting and securing passage of a comprehensive series of amendments to the tax disclosure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to facilitate appropriate disclosures of tax information to federal law enforcement agencies for use in the investigation and prosecution of non-tax crime.
In keeping with the Administration’s program to combat narcotics, violent crime, and the influx of illegal aliens, the Office also played a major role in developing amendments to Title 10, U.S. Code, which allow increased military support for civilian law enforcement efforts, particularly in connection with detection of ships and aircraft that smuggle narcotics, contraband, and illegal aliens into the United States.
Moreover, the Office successfully led the Department’s efforts to obtain passage of two measures recommended by the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime, namely making it a federal offense to kill or assault a Cabinet officer, high-level White House official, or Supreme Court Justice, and effecting a change in the explosives statute to facilitate the prosecution of gasoline-caused arson fires.
In other areas, the Office had the lead responsibility for the Department’s extensive work on bail reform and criminal forfeitures, which passed the Senate and were pending in the House at the end of the year. Principal
85
Hypnosis Total Approved Total Denied	48 0
Total Received	48
responsibility was also assumed by the Office in developing legislation to modify the present scope of the insanity defense and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The Office played a key role in developing, in conjunction with the Office of Legal Policy, the Administration’s two principal criminal justice reform measures, S. 2572, the Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvements Act of 1982, passed by the Senate, and S. 2903, the Criminal Justice Reform Act, still pending at the end of the year. The Office also contributed to the Department’s legislative program in the areas of capital punishment and protection for victims of crime.
Office of Legal Support Services
The Office of Legal Support Services provides a wide range of litigative assistance and prosecutive support to various components of the Division, the U.S. Attorneys and other federal prosecutors.
The Office’s functions include processing all requests for authorizations to compel testimony in federal prosecutions and congressional inquiries (immunities), as well as making the final recommendations to the Assistant Attorney General on granting or denying such requests; adjudicating all public requests for access to Criminal Division records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act; processing all requests to the Internal Revenue Service for access to income tax returns and related information; processing all requests to subpoena members of the news media for testimony in criminal procedures; processing all requests for closures of judicial proceedings; preparing a history of all legislation enacted by the Congress that affects the responsibility of the Criminal Division; compiling, indexing and maintaining a file of all Division legal briefs and memoranda that involve policy matters or extensive legal research; and coordinating, with other Division components, the preparation of the Criminal Division’s contribution to the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual and other Department reports.
Other functions include processing requests for electronic surveillance checks directed to the several federal investigative agencies made in criminal prosecutions pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 3504; responding to citizen inquiries on criminal law matters; preparing grand jury letters authorizing Division attorneys to conduct and attend grand jury sessions; responding to requests for authorizations of Department personnel to testify at federal, state and local civil and criminal proceedings; coordinating the collection of criminal fines and bond forfeiture judgments by the U.S. Attorneys; processing requests from the U.S. Attorneys for access to information filed with the Secretary of the Treasury under the Currency
and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act; and collecting and preparing a monthly report of significant criminal cases and matters of the Division components and the U.S. Attorneys, as well as collecting briefing matters and reports of significant criminal matters for the Attorney General.
In Fiscal Year 1982, 1,836 requests for immunity involving a total of 3,610 witnesses were processed, and of these, 1,394 requests involving 2,233 witnesses were for Criminal Division supervised offenses; 8,472 pieces of citizen correspondence were processed of which 2,318 were White House referrals and 665 were referrals from congressional sources; 488 requests for Internal Revenue Service taxpayers’ returns and information involving 1,242 taxpayers were processed until September 3, 1982, when this function was decentralized pursuant to an Act of Congress; and 69 requests for electronic surveillance checks pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 3504 were handled. In addition, the office received 696 requests for information under the Privacy Act and 402 requests for Freedom of Information (FOI) material.
Moreover, the FOI Multinational Task Force, organized to handle the massive FOI request from a national newspaper investigating corporate foreign payments, furnished during Fiscal Year 1982 the schedules of investigatory files pertaining to 26 corporations. In accordance with terms of a stipulation filed in litigation involving the FOI request, access was requested during the fiscal year to five of the schedules and 16 of the requests for previously supplied schedules were processed to completion. In addition, during the fiscal year, three companies—McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Control Data Corporation, and Lockheed Corporation—that had furnished records to grand juries investigating questionable foreign payments sought and obtained court orders requiring the Criminal Division to return their records notwithstanding the pendency of the FOI request for access to these materials. Records were returned pursuant to these court orders.
The Collection Unit continued to oversee the collection of criminal fines and appearance bond forfeiture judgments. Through August 31, 1982, the unit oversaw the collection of $29 million in fines and forfeitures. For the first time, the Collection Unit has begun to monitor specific collection cases in the various U.S. Attorneys offices throughout the country. Further, the unit has become directly involved in assisting U.S. Attorneys with a number of cases requiring extensive discovery proceedings.
The wide range of responsibilities assigned to the Office entails close liaison with all of the federal investigative agencies, the U.S. Attorneys, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the administrative staff of the Division and the Department.
86
Office of Special Investigations
In 1978, Congress enacted P.L. 95-549, which renders deportable any alien in the United States who took part in persecution in collaboration with the Nazi regimes of Europe from 1933 to 1945. The Office of Special Investigations (OSI) was established in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in May 1979, charged with the sole mission of investigating and prosecuting Nazi war criminals living in this country. The legal framework within which the office operates is the Immigration and Nationality Act, which sets forth specific provisions for dealing with persons involved in war crimes.
The office has a staff of 49, including 21 attorneys, five paralegals, six historians, three investigators (two of whom are on cost-reimbursable details from other organizations) and 14 additional support staff.
Contacts with major organizations of Holocaust survivors on a worldwide basis continued to be expanded and solidified during Fiscal Year 1982 and additional significant archival resources were explored and researched in Europe by OSI historians. The Director of OSI traveled to Moscow and other European cities during the fiscal year to strengthen and enhance the cooperation and exchange of information with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries. During this trip new and important channels of communication were opened with Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic.
During the year six new denaturalization cases were filed and four denaturalization cases were tried and won. In addition, three denaturalization decisions in favor of the government were affirmed by courts of appeals. In one case the subject surrendered his citizenship and consented to a court decree ending the case in the government’s favor; in another denaturalization case, the court granted summary judgment in the government’s favor.
Of the cases litigated, the denaturalization of Valerian Trifa, Archbishop of the Romanian Church, is of particular significance. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denaturalization and OSI proceeded quickly with deportation action, which ended during the first week of Fiscal Year 1983 (October 7, 1982) with the issuance of a deportation order by settlement with a waiver of all appeal rights. This was the first time since 1953 that a deportation order has been entered against a person in the United States based on fascist or Nazi persecution.
A management initiative of particular importance in the continuing development of new cases was the reinforcement of the “team project” approach to the identification, examination and investigation of those sources most likely to produce prosecutable subjects.
Investigative teams continued to be sent at an accelerated pace to Europe, particularly to the Soviet Union, to obtain videotaped depositions. Significant progress continued in maintaining and enhancing the cooperation and exchange of information during the fiscal year between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and OSI, which is crucial to the mission of this office since much of the evidence, be it documentary or live testimony, used in many of the cases filed emanates from the Soviet Union.
Office of Policy and Management Analysis
The Office of Policy and Management Analysis completed its third year of operation during Fiscal Year 1982. It performs analysis and recommends positions on policy issues of concern to top-level decision makers in the Division and the Department. It also assists Division managers in implementing new enforcement programs and managing the Division’s resources.
The Office has seven major functions: developing recommendations on issues affecting the role, functions, and mission of the Division; advising the Assistant Attorney General on the establishment of priorities and objectives for the Division and for federal law enforcement generally; developing plans for enforcement programs in conjunction with the Division’s litigating sections; conducting evaluations of existing law enforcement programs and policies; advising the Assistant Attorney General on issues of budget policy and resource allocation; developing improvements in the Division’s management systems and practices; and assisting the exchange of information and the coordination of policies, programs, and research with other public agencies and private institutions in the field of law enforcement.
The Office uses an interdisciplinary approach to decisionmaking and problem-solving. Its professional staff includes an attorney, program analysts, and management analysts with expertise in public and business administration, economics, organizational behavior, program evaluation, development of automated information systems, financial analysis, and operations research.
Examples of projects in which the Office has played a major role include the development of national priorities for the investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime; the analysis of proposed actions to strengthen federal drug enforcement; the implementation of a case management information system for the Division’s litigating sections; the creation of a Division-wide management review process; the design of an evaluation system for the organized crime strike force program; and the development of guidance
87
memoranda for Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee strategies against narcotics, organized crime, violent crime, corruption, and fraud.
During the year, the Office worked closely with the Fraud Section to design and develop the FACT System. The FACT System will enable the Department of Justice to monitor the progress of cases referred to it by the Inspectors General involving fraud against the government, public corruption, and theft of government property. In addition to managing the development of the computer system, the Office currently is coordinating the implementation of the FACT System in the Offices of the Inspectors General, the offices of U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI.
The Office worked with the Office of the Assistant Attorney General to prepare a position paper on the management of drug-related forfeitures. The Office was also working with Justice Management Division and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys on a Department study of law enforcement-related asset seizures and forfeitures.
The Office provided staff support for the Attorney General’s Committee on DEA/FBI Coordination by analyzing resource and administrative issues and assessing the impact of alternatives on enforcement operations.
Working with the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, the Office developed a case-weighting system. That section currently was conducting a pilot test, and the Office was to assist the section in evaluating and refining the system as the pilot test proceeded.
Office of Administration
The Office of Administration provides a wide range of administrative services to the various sections, offices and field operations of the Criminal Division. The following operational units perform the delivery of those services: 1) the Personnel Unit, 2) the Fiscal Unit, 3) the Mail, File and Records Unit, 4) the Procurement, Security, Safety and Space Unit, and 5) the Statistical Unit.
The services provided by the Office of Administration include: formulation and implementation of policies and plans relative to the administrative management and organization of the Division; preparation of annual and supplemental budget estimates; fiscal management, including the planning, management and control of the funds of the Division; delivery, maintenance, storage and use of federal records and official correspondence;
personnel processing functions, including hiring and termination actions, check distribution, promotion, training and counseling; management of the collection and dissemination of caseload and workload statistics; maintenance and procurement requests for workspace, telephone changes, office renovations and equipment repair; administration of travel vouchers, advances and reimbursements, duty station transfers, parking permits, identification cards and printing requisitions; distribution and maintenance of Division handbooks and manuals; protection of classified and sensitive materials and processing personnel security clearance requests; inspection of the Division’s workspace to assure compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards; establishment, implementation and expansion of word processing services; operation of automated data processing systems; and administration of the full range of other administrative services as may be required, such as personnel performance rating systems, employee exit interviews and merit pay systems.
The variety of administrative support services handled by the Office of Administration requires close liaison with all of the Division’s components, the Justice Management Division, the General Services Administration (GSA) and outside contractor personnel associated with the Criminal Division.
Accomplishments by the office during the year included:
•	Processing the detail of Division attorneys to south Florida, in support of the Vice President’s Task Force on Crime in South Florida.
•	Revision of the Division’s decision unit structure to facilitate budget submission and resource management.
•	Assumption of staff support and travel funding to the Cuban Status Review Panels at the Atlanta Penitentiary and on-site inspections of that Facility.
•	Relocation or acquisition of space for eight Organized Crime Strike Force offices.
•	Administration of the closeout of the GSA Task Force and processing the return of detailed personnel to the Division.
•	Management of automated data processing support to a major organized crime investigation.
•	Initiation of the assumption of operational control over the Division’s automated Case Management Information System.
88
Executive Office for
United States Attorneys
William P. Tyson
Director
Under the supervision of the Associate Attorney General, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys provides general executive assistance and supervision to the 94 Offices of the U.S. Attorneys and coordinates and directs the relationships of other organizational units of the Department with these offices.
Equal Employment Opportunity Office
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Executive Office assumed the responsibility for managing its own discrimination complaint processing program. This new responsibility created a full-service Equal Employment Opportunity Office within the Executive Office servicing the 94 Offices of the U.S. Attorneys.
In February 1982, the Director, William P. Tyson, was one of two top level managers honored by the Department for the accomplishments of the Executive Office in equal employment opportunity.
Office of Legal Education
The Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute and the Legal Education Institute offered 70 courses and seminars to attorneys in the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch, including the Department of Justice, in Fiscal Year 1982.
The Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute curriculum included a number of seminars and changes in basic courses to reflect recommendations of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime and the priorities of the Attorney General. For example, in the basic three-week course in Criminal Trial Advocacy, the section on sentencing was expanded to include sessions on sentencing advocacy and a new session was included on agent-attorney relations, which featured the active participation of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration, along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Also, in the basic Criminal Trial course a completely new mock trial case was added, as had been done the year before. The new case, which deals with taxes on income from drug-related activity, also ties into the priorities of the Department in seeking the fruits of drug-related illegal activity.
In furtherance of the priorities of the Administration, the Institute offered a large session on major drug traffickers, the audience for which included state and local prosecutors and agents as well as federal attorneys and agents. This session was opened by the Vice President of the United States. Another example of a course directed toward a more specialized need was the Asbestos Litigation Seminar, which was offered in anticipation of the extraordinarily large number of cases filed against the federal government. In addition to the Major Drug Traffickers Conference, a number of other specialized seminars and, to a limited extent, the basic trial and appellate courses were offered to a large number of state and local prosecutors this year.
A special session on Introduction to Federal Practice was given for new Assistant U.S. Attorneys who had come into the Department from state prosecutorial backgrounds. A special version of the Federal Practice session was offered to new U.S. Attorneys. In addition to five courses in criminal trial advocacy, five in civil trial advocacy, and four in appellate advocacy, the Institute offered 13 specialized seminars during Fiscal Year 1982.
The Legal Education Institute curriculum was expanded considerably, partially in response to the survey and planning work during the prior year. A number of courses have become a basic part of the curriculum, such as the advocacy skills course, which teaches direct, cross and expert witness examination, defensive litigation, Freedom of Information Act for attorneys and access professionals, federal employment law, and others. Many were offered in the federal regions for the first time. In addition, a number of new courses were added to the curriculum, such as contract disputes, ethics considerations for the government attorney, and the federal regulatory process.
There were also a number of joint seminars carried out with the Advocacy Institute, for audiences that included both agency attorneys and Department of Justice attorneys, such as those on Federal Tort Claims Act litigation, debt collections, and others.
During this year, the Legal Education Institute became fully staffed at the professional level and acquired new quarters, taking over former Civil Aeronautics Board hearing rooms as seminar rooms specifically for agency attorneys.
89
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
90
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE
Director
LEGAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE
Director
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGAL EDUCATION
Senior Staff Assistant for Attorney Hiring
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Assistant Director
DEBT COLLECTION Assistant Director
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Executive Assistant
Department Speedy Trial Coordinator
LEGAL SERVICES
Assistant Director
FIELD ACTIVITIES Assistant Director
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT (PROMIS Manager)
MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS Assistant Director
Office of Management Information Systems and Support
The Office of Management Information Systems and Support (OMISS) was created in June 1982 by the consolidation within the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys of the Prosecutors Management Information System (PROMIS) staff with that of Management Services and Information Systems (MSIS). This was done in an effort to prevent duplication of effort and promote more efficient use of Executive Office resources.
The mission of OMISS is twofold. The office provides U.S. Attorneys’ offices with the information and automated information systems necessary to promote Department of Justice objectives and to ensure efficient management of resources. At the same time, the office provides the Department of Justice the information concerning U.S. Attorneys’ workload activities necessary for the sound management of field operations.
The objectives encompassed by these missions are fulfilled by maintaining the Docket and Reporting System, which collects information about U.S. Attorneys’ activities, providing U.S. Attorneys’ offices with automated word processing equipment, and overseeing the use of computerized legal research (JURIS) and litigation support, as well as providing advice and counsel about how to most effectively use such management tools.
Field Activities
The Field Activities Section conducts on site reviews of the U.S. Attorneys’ offices, directed toward improvement in the legal administration of the 94 offices. The program is directed toward assisting U.S. Attorneys and the Executive Office in recognizing improvements that can be made in the utilization of professional personnel, case management systems, coordination of the Attorney General’s priority programs, and other management-related functions, to reduce the cost of the operation of the U.S. Attorneys’ offices and, at the same time, increase the efficiency of their operations.
The section sponsors periodic seminars relating to important civil litigation and other top-priority legal programs of the Department.
In the audit cycle ending September 30, 1982, 93 percent of the U.S. Attorneys’ offices had been reviewed. The section consists of a small staff, located in Washington, which is supplemented by volunteer services of senior Assistant U.S. Attorneys and supervising Assistant U.S. Attorneys. The staff in Washington coordinates the field visits of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys to the districts reviewed, processes reports of the reviewers, and takes
necessary followup action to correct conditions reported. This has proved to be a very cost-effective program and does not require a large permanent staff of professional and clerical employees located in Washington.
Debt Collection Section
During the year, the Executive Office proposed and the Deputy Attorney General approved the creation of the Debt Collection Section. The Debt Collection Section provides executive direction and oversight to U.S. Attorneys in the conduct of their debt collection activities. The section develops and implements improved debt collection procedures, supervises and provides for the training of debt collection personnel, performs onsite reviews and evaluates the performance of debt collection personnel and units, develops and institutes improved debt collection reporting procedures, monitors and evaluates periodic and special debt collection reports, coordinates the procurement of word processing equipment and computer based word processing systems for debt collection units and makes recommendations concerning the allocation of permanent and temporary debt collection personnel among the U.S. Attorneys’ offices.
The section also represents the Director of the Executive Office and the interests of the U.S. Attorneys on the Department’s Debt Collection Committee and serves as liaison between the U.S. Attorneys’ client agencies and other elements of the Department on debt collection matters.
Legal Services
The Executive Office provides legal opinions, interpretations, and advice to U.S. Attorneys on concerns such as legislation, regulations, and departmental guidelines. It also drafts, reviews, and comments on legislative proposals and regulations and is responsible for maintaining effective liaison and guidance in intergovernmental legal affairs and responding to inquiries from Members of Congress and private citizens relating to the activities of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices.
During the year, activities of the section included successfully spearheading the passage of legislation that established pretrial services agencies in all 94 federal judicial districts; processing of and responses to more than 1,000 Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests, including one which related to more than 400 major corporations and encompassed over five million documents; participating in committees preparing revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure; providing assistance to the Department study team on forfeiture matters; publishing of the United States Attorneys’ Bulletin which increased in volume and scope to assist U.S. Attorneys in
91
keeping up with administrative and legal changes; expansion of the United States Attorneys’ Manual, which is the comprehensive collection of departmental policy guidance, by inclusion of new and modified sections on standards of conduct, criminal case procedures, and civil litigation; and active participation in administrative and litigative actions involving employee rights, equal employment opportunity, adverse actions, and allegations of misconduct.
Attorney General’s Advisory
Committee of U.S. Attorneys
The Advisory Committee, established in 1973 and formalized in 1976 by order of the Attorney General, makes recommendations with respect to establishing and modifying policies and procedures of the Department; improving management, particularly with respect to the relationships between the Department and the U.S. Attorneys; operating the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committees and otherwise cooperating with state attorneys general and other state and local officials for the purpose of improving the quality of justice in the United States; promoting greater consistency in the application of legal standards throughout the nation and at the various levels of government; and aiding the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General in formulating new programs.
The Committee is made up of 15 representative U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General. It has standing subcommittees that work to improve Department of Justice action in particular areas where a potential for improvement has been noted. The present standing subcommittees are Tax, Correctional Institutions, Debt Collection, Investigative Agencies, Legislation and Court Rules, and Executive Working Group Representation. Temporary subcommittees are established periodically for limited purposes such as management standards, office manuals, expediting of tax case review, declination guidelines, border problems, and Indian affairs.
The Committee meets bimonthly and is available to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorneys General in charge of the various divisions of the Department. Matters of mutual concern relating to the operations of U.S. Attorneys are reviewed. Headquarters officials of all investigative agencies, such as the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Inspectors General, are also invited periodically to discuss areas of mutual concern with the Committee.
Canal Zone Office Closed
The U.S. Attorney’s office in the Canal Zone was closed permanently March 31, 1982, in compliance with provisions of the Panama Canal Zone Treaty.
White-Collar Crime
U.S. Attorneys across the country continue their efforts to crack down on fraud against the United States and its citizens. Two of the top priorities of the Reagan Administration are 1) the investigation and prosecution of fraud against and abuse of government programs, and 2) fostering a spirit of increased cooperation among all levels of federal, state, and local law enforcement.
With these objectives in mind, a two-pronged investigative effort was launched in Las Vegas, Nevada. The investigation targeted the illegal acquisition and use of food stamps, and the identification and prosecution of recipient fraud cases. Both aspects of the investigation involved cooperative commitment of law enforcement, investigative, and prosecutorial resources of local, state, and federal authorities.
With regard to the recipient fraud aspect, 44 complaints were filed charging all of the defendants with fraud against the Food Stamp Program. In addition, approximately 60 more cases continued to be under investigation. With regard to the food stamp trafficking aspect of the investigation, the federal grand jury returned 45 indictments against 58 defendants. Those indictments involved the exchange of $68,350 worth of food stamps for $21,589 in cash and such merchandise as automobiles, television sets, stereos and radios, tools, jewelry, clothing, gasoline, automobile tires and parts, weapons, a chain saw, marijuana, and a parrot.
In addition, 10 people were arrested and charged by way of criminal complaint, which involved a total of $58,400 worth of food stamps exchanged for $3,900 cash and miscellaneous merchandise and services.
Former North Carolina AFL-CIO President Wilbur Hobby was found guilty in federal court of fraud and conspiracy involving a job-training program he ran for the underprivileged. Hobby was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $40,000. He also received three suspended two-year prison terms and three probation periods of five years each, to run concurrently. Mort Levi, who directed the program and was also found guilty of various violations, was sentenced to 18 months in prison, two years suspended, and five years probation.
In Connecticut, Donald C. Riedel, a former professor of epidemiology and public health at Yale, pled guilty to embezzling federal funds. The plea capped a two-year investigation by agents and auditors of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services,
92
aided by Postal Inspectors, into misuse of funds appropriated for the million dollar Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan Utilization Study (FEHBPUS), for which Riedel was a principal investigator. The investigation disclosed that Riedel diverted FEHBPUS money to other projects and submitted false invoices to the contractor to obtain payment of the funds. Riedel, who was sentenced to three years probation, fined $10,000, and ordered to perform community service as a condition of probation, resigned his tenured position at the University of Washington after the conviction. The Department of Health and Human Services was proceeding civilly against the contractor, Health Services Foundation, the research arm of Blue Cross, to recover approximately $210,000.
In the Northern District of California, Gary D. Ruster was convicted in a scheme to defraud the Social Security system. The defendant obtained over $140,000 in Social Security Income (SSI) benefits under at least seven different aliases. In each instance, he had established the disability to be legal blindness, employing birth certificates, Social Security cards, post office boxes, and medical reports under the aliases. The Social Security Administration termed this the largest instance of fraud by a recipient of SSI benefits in the history of the program. Ruster was given 15 years in prison and fined $60,000. The office was also proceeding civilly against the defendant.
Kenneth Alvin Larson, an officer and vice president of the United Bank of Absarokee in Montana, was convicted on two counts for embezzling and converting to his own use $12,300. He was placed on probation for three years on each count, to run concurrently, and was to make restitution of the $12,300.
In Central California, boxing promoter Harold J. Smith, aka Ross Fields, was convicted of 29 counts of conspiracy, aiding and abetting the embezzlement of bank funds, and transporting the stolen funds in interstate commerce. The case involved the embezzlement of more than $21.3 million from the Wells Fargo Bank, reputedly the largest bank embezzlement scheme in U.S. history. Smith was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
After a three-week trial in the Eastern District of Missouri, Joseph Autenrieth, a fundamentalist minister, was convicted of 14 counts of mail fraud. Autenrieth was convicted of selling approximately $600,000 worth of fraudulent bonds to numerous investors in many states. The alleged purpose of the bond sale was to build a geriatric center where the investors would be allowed to live. The defendant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and five years’ probation.
Charles Anthony Cantino, aka Vincent Charles Teresa, was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment following his conviction on six counts of mail fraud in the Western
District of Washington. Cantino, a participant in the Federal Witness Protection Program for approximately ten years, and the author of three books including “My Life in the Mafia,” was convicted, along with four others, of scheming to defraud Travelers Insurance Company of approximately $250,000 following the staged burglary of a dental office. Cantino was sentenced to an additional five years for his part in a conspiracy to import cocaine from Bolivia. The two sentences were to run consecutively.
In Eastern Louisiana, underworld figure Carlos Marcello and Charles Roemer, the former chief of administration for the State of Louisiana, were convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering violations for their participation in a scheme to obtain state insurance contracts through systematic bribery of state officials. The case involved an extensive undercover operation and electronic surveillance. Marcello was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and Roemer to three years.
Three New Mexico businessmen who organized a loankickback and tax-evasion scheme were prosecuted as a result of a joint investigation between the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI and the Albuquerque Police Department. Ben Bronstein, an influential banker and Albuquerque businessman who was formerly chairman of the board of the Clovis National Bank, conspired with bank president Hank Harenberg and another director, restaurateur Nick Kapnison, to extract substantial loan procurement fees from business borrowers who were in desperate need of loans. The loans were processed through Clovis National, which was controlled by the three defendants. A Small Business Administration chartered Small Business Investment Corporation (SBIC), controlled by the defendants, was used as a conduit to steer the borrower victims into the kickback scheme when they approached Bronstein and Kapnison for legitimate SBIC loans. Kapnison and Bronstein were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and Harenberg was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. Periods of probation were also imposed, together with substantial fines.
William Ranney and his two codefendants were convicted of defrauding 130 investors of over $1.1 million in the sale of heating oil contracts in Massachusetts. Under the contracts, which cost between $6,450 and $7,400 each, Global Oil or U.S. Petroleum Corporation purported to hold 42,000 gallons of heating oil for the purchaser, to be resold for profit at a later date. The company said it would use the fee to pay delivery, storage, and insurance costs. Actually, the company never had any oil and never paid any such costs. Ranney received a four-year sentence and a $19,000 fine.
In a three-year period, 34 greater Cincinnati real estate brokers, their “fronts,” and others were convicted of mul
93
tiple counts of making false statements to federal agencies and equity skimming. A former local real estate “broker of the year” and a former president of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Greater Cincinnati were among those found guilty. An intense investigation of the real estate industry revealed that false employment and asset verifications were frequently submitted to the Veterans Administration and that fraudulent representations were made to the Department of Housing and Urban Development that properties upon which the brokers submitted bids were being purchased as owner-occupant properties when, in fact, the brokers were buying the properties for investments. Some of the brokers acquired Department of Housing and Urban Development properties through veteran “fronts,” obtained a Veterans Administration loan guaranty, and never made a mortgage loan payment. Tenants were hastily secured and rents were pocketed. Upon Veterans Administration instituted foreclosure, some brokers using other “fronts” again purchased the same property and continued to practice their multiple frauds upon the government.
Peter Parker, a prominent Baltimore lawyer, was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment after having pled guilty to a charge of tax perjury. According to the evidence developed by the government, over a four-year period Parker had an aggregate taxable income of approximately $185,000 on which he evaded the payment of federal income taxes. Parker disguised his receipt of this income by manipulation of his books and records.
In South Florida, Adil Shahryar was convicted of attempting to place explosives on a vessel within U.S. jurisdiction, use of explosives to commit a felony, making false statements to the Bureau of Census, knowingly making a firearm that is an explosive, and wire fraud. Shahryar was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment. The scheme involved an insurance fraud wherein the defendant obtained credit from a bank in London to purchase a quantity of video cassettes for shipment out of the Port of Miami. Instead of purchasing and shipping the video cassettes, the defendant filled the container with worthless paper and an explosive device. The defendant intended to explode the container and claim the insurance money.
Official Corruption
George Collates, senior administrative assistant to the Executive Director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act extortion in the District of Massachusetts. He allegedly offered to orchestrate payoffs of various public officials in connection with the efforts of a Cape Cod concrete company seeking to build a plant -in Boston. The president of the concrete company, which encountered repeated difficulties with the
City of Boston officials over construction of the plant, came to the FBI and offered to cooperate in an undercover operation involving consensually monitored electronic surveillance. Collates was sentenced to a three-year prison term by the district judge, who observed at the sentencing hearing that, while the defendant had no criminal record, the facts did not “mark the work of a beginner.”
Dan Scarborough, former president pro tern of the Florida Senate, Harold Haimowitz, a wealthy and politically powerful Jacksonville attorney, and George Onett, a wealthy attorney and state capitol liquor lobbyist, were convicted in the Middle District of Florida of multiple counts of mail fraud, Hobbs Act extortion and perjury. The underlying scheme involved the efforts of the defendants to obtain a liquor license for the owner of a Jacksonville restaurant/night club by concealing from beverage authorities, who investigated the license application, the owner’s prior felony convictions and his ownership interest in the restaurant. With the owner’s cooperation, a $7,500 cash payment to the senator was videotaped at the restaurant. Several other video and audio tapes were recorded in which the senator agreed to use his influence over beverage officials in order to obtain approval of the license. Scarborough, Haimowitz, and Onett were sentenced to two years’, three years’, and six months’ imprisonment, respectively, and an aggregate fine of $57,000.
Three individuals, including the supervisor of the purchasing department at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Naval Shipyard, and two salesmen who dealt with the shipyard, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and of giving and receiving unlawful gratuities to shipyard employees. The evidence disclosed at trial showed a widespread pattern of gratuities being given to shipyard employees by contractors who stood to profit from their dealings with the government.
In Northern Indiana, Jesse Coopwood, a building administrator for the Lake County, Indiana, Planning Commission, was indicted on five counts of Hobbs Act violations. The indictment alleged that he had extorted money, goods and services from various building contractors in exchange for granting appropriate building permits. Coopwood was convicted on four of the five counts contained in the indictment.
Tennessee House Majority Leader Sam Thomas Burnett was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of willfully and knowingly filing false and fraudulent information to the Farmers Home Administration for purposes of receiving approximately $900,000 in low-interest disaster loans. Under a plea agreement, Burnett pleaded guilty to two unrelated charges of willfully failing to file income tax returns for the years 1979 and 1980.
94
Burnett was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment on the first count, and five months and 29 days on the second count, to run consecutively.
Former Essex County Assistant District Attorney Charles C. O’Donnell and New Hampshire car dealer Raymond T. White were convicted in the District of Massachusetts of Travel Act violations in connection with their attempt to pay a $50,000 bribe to the chairman of the Danvers, Massachusetts, board of selectmen to obtain the Danvers cable television license for one of O’Donnell’s private clients. John Webb, chairman of the board of selectmen, immediately reported to the FBI the initial bribe overture White made to him and assisted the Bureau in further investigation by conducting consensually monitored conversations with White and O’Donnell.
In the Northern District of California, a jury returned a guilty verdict against Paul F. Kendrick, president of a San Francisco stock brokerage firm, Paul F. Kendrick, Inc., for two counts of securities fraud and perjury. The evidence showed that Kendrick had made unauthorized withdrawals of funds from customer stock trading accounts for his own personal use. After the Securities and Exchange Commission began an investigation of his business, the defendant committed perjury under oath at a Securities and Exchange Commission investigatory proceeding. This was the first case to result in a conviction under the new jurisdictional statute which allows prosecution of a licensed broker-dealer without proof of interstate communication or a use of the mails.
In Eastern Virginia, General Research Corporation, a subsidiary of Flow General, Inc., pled guilty to conspiracy and conflict of interest charges. The guilty pleas related to the corporation’s obtaining inside information from two Army employees regarding a computer contract for which the Army was soliciting proposals from private industry. The corporation then hired the employees and with the benefit of their inside information, was awarded a $2.6 million defense contract. The corporation was sentenced to pay a fine of $30,000.
Tom Chavana, a lieutenant in the Bexar County sheriff’s office in San Antonio, Texas, pled guilty to one count of a four-count indictment charging him with conspiracy and violations of the Hobbs Act. The indictment alleged that Chavana, along with other deputy sheriffs of the Bexar County sheriff’s office and a public official, extorted money from various owners of massage parlors. The money, once received, was split between Chavana and other deputy sheriffs. The FBI investigation is still underway.
In Connecticut, Benito Gallucci, former director of the Rehabilitation Assistance Program of the City of Bridgeport, and Constantine Francischiello and Robert Johnston, employees of the program, were sentenced on
their guilty pleas to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) charges. The defendants were charged with demanding kickbacks from homeowners seeking aid to rehabilitate their low and moderate income homes. One of their victims was the father of an FBI secretary, who reported their activities. Gallucci was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and Johnston and Francischiello each to two years.
Organized Crime
During the year the Organized Crime Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York mounted an intensive attack on the domination by organized crime of the wholesale fish industry in New York, which is concentrated in the Fulton Fish Market. That effort resulted in racketeering convictions of Carmine and Peter Romano, who controlled the United Seafood Workers Union and the Fulton Fish Market for the Genovese crime “family.” In all, the investigation resulted in approximately 30 convictions, including racketeering, conspiracy, receipt of illegal labor payments, tax evasion, misuse of pension trust funds, perjury, and obstruction of justice.
James A. Michaels III was indicted along with other individuals for conspiring to bomb Paul Leisure, an organized crime “enforcer,” in retaliation for the murder of Michaels’ grandfather, James A. Michaels, Sr., a principal figure in organized crime in St. Louis for many years. Leisure lost both of his legs in the blast. This was the first organized crime bombing indictment in the Eastern District of Missouri after more than 10 unsolved bombings.
In the Middle District of Florida, five members of the “Outlaw” motorcycle club were convicted in a bench trial of conspiracy to use Western Union facilities to distribute the proceeds of an interstate prostitution ring. The prosecution was part of a continuing effort against the fastgrowing and organized criminal activity of this Floridabased “bike gang.” Prostitution is a major source of income for this criminal group, and regular use of force to coerce women to participate was demonstrated during the trial.
Controlled Substances
Sihadej Chindawongse of Chicago, vice consul of the Consulate of Thailand, Alexander Steubing of Fairfax, Virginia, and Boripat Siripan of Los Angeles, California, and Bangkok, Thailand, were convicted in the District of Maryland of conspiracy to distribute heroin. Chindawongse and Steubing were also convicted of the two substantive counts with which they were charged with distribution of heroin and possession with intent to distribute. The case was initiated in Baltimore, Maryland, April, 1982, with the arrest of Steubing and a companion, Boonyarit Voravithaya, and the recovery of a pound of pure heroin.
95
Voravithaya subsequently cooperated with the government, exposing an international smuggling and distribution operation of stunning proportions with diplomatic outlets in Europe, Australia, and the United States for heroin originating in Thailand. Eight and one-half pounds of pure heroin were seized in connection with this investigation, and a diary seized from Chindawongse at the time of his arrest revealed that he alone had distributed 45 pounds of heroin in the United States, in slightly less than 16 months. Chindawongse was sentenced to 30 years in prison and fined $75,000. Steubing and Siripan were sentenced to 25 and 15 years’ imprisonment, respectively, and Siripan was fined $15,000.
In the Western District of New York, Antonio Galeotti, an Italian national who was extradited from Italy, was convicted on his guilty plea to conspiracy to import heroin and was sentenced to three and one-half years’ imprisonment. Galeotti was one of 14 indicted for conspiracy to import and distribute more than 300 pounds of pure white heroin. Galeotti was the seventh conspirator convicted.
In Guam, Junji Yamamoto, a Japanese national, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import and distribute heroin. The defendant was the leader of a conspiracy importation ring with connections in Bangkok, Korea, Japan, and Hawaii. Over the course of two years, he imported an estimated 10 pounds of heroin, using Japanese nationals posing as tourists. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s investigation revealed that Yamamoto had direct ties to the Japanese underground, the “Yakuza.” Yamamoto received seven years’ imprisonment.
The lead figure in an international cocaine operation received 25 years’ imprisonment after conviction by a jury on charges of conspiracy, interstate travel to distribute cocaine, and possession of cocaine. Mariano Bustamante-Cuadros, a Colombian national, traveled from Florida to Cincinnati and met with undercover Drug Enforcement Administration agents to sell three kilos of nearly pure cocaine. This was to be the first trip in setting up what was intended to be an ongoing supply line of high-quality Colombian cocaine for wholesaling to Cincinnati, Ohio, distributors.
In March 1982, New Mexico state police apprehended Kenneth Habel and Susan Schwartz in possession of approximately 80 pounds of high-grade cocaine. Subsequent investigation revealed that Habel and Schwartz were part of an organization transporting large quantities of cocaine on a regular basis from Florida to the San Francisco Bay area using specially modified vehicles. Habel pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and received a 10-year sentence. Susan Schwartz was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
In Northern Florida, “Operation Sunburn,” a four-year narcotics investigation involving the Department of Justice and the State of Florida, targeted the largest marijuana importation and distribution ring ever prosecuted. The evidence established over $200 million in sales from the distribution of over 600,000 pounds of marijuana. Three interlocutory appeals resulted in the disqualification of attorneys for the defendants based on the trial court’s finding that they could well have been indicted as coconspirators and on other grounds. A fourth interlocutory appeal unsuccessfully challenged the trial court’s refusal to release a defendant/attorney on bond pending trial. Four defendants pled guilty; all remaining defendants were convicted. Sentences for convicted defendants ranged from 35 to 60 years with no parole for two defendants. Forfeitures were estimated to range from $5 million to $10 million.
Eighteen drug smugglers were arrested and over eight tons of marijuana was seized as it was being unloaded at the Sehoy Plantation airstrip near the town of Hurtsboro, Alabama, in one of the largest drug busts in the state’s history. The value of the seized contraband was conservatively estimated at over $5 million. Key members of the conspiracy had earlier negotiated with undercover narcotics agents to secure access to the airstrip. Undercover agents infiltrated the organization and actually assisted in the landing of the aircraft. Sixteen defendants pleaded guilty to various narcotics charges and received sentences ranging up to 13 years, with no defendant receiving less than six years. A total of $275,000 in fines was imposed. In addition, over $25,000 in cash, a DC-4 aircraft, two trucks, a motor home, and seven automobiles were seized.
Gary Black was a sitting circuit court trial judge in Missouri at the time of his indictment on charges of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methaqualone, commonly known as quaaludes. After a week-long jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to a maximum nine years’ imprisonment. He was the first sitting circuit court judge ever convicted of any federal crime in the Eastern District of Missouri.
Fifteen defendants were indicted for conspiracy to import and possess, and the importation and possession of, 21 tons of hashish. The hashish, which had been produced in Lebanon, was seized from the motor vessel Olaug off the coast of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. It was the largest seizure of hashish ever. Six crewmen and two New Jersey businessmen were initially convicted of participation in the conspiracy. Nine of the defendants were arrested and subsequently pled guilty in May 1982. One other was arrested later.
John E. Littman, a New Bern, North Carolina, physician, was sentenced to a term of five years’
96
imprisonment and fined $10,000 for illegal dispensation of Dilaudid, a Schedule II controlled substance which is often used in lieu of heroin by many addicts. His codefendant, Ozie Trevor Faison, Jr., owner of a New Bern pharmacy, was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. During the investigation of the case, Littman and his girlfriend sold approximately 300 Dilaudid tablets to an undercover agent.
In Middle Tennessee, George Brooks and Johnnie Mack Morgan were convicted on drug charges involving 38 bottles of Talwin and seven bottles of Dilaudid, containing 100 tablets each. The drugs seized had a street value of between $25,000 and $50,000. Morgan was shipping the drugs to Brooks from Detroit to Nashville, via Republic Airlines package service. The Republic Airlines passenger service agent opened the suitcase, found the drugs, and called the Drug Enforcement Administration. When Brooks picked up the drugs at the airport, he was arrested. Morgan was later arrested in Detroit. Brooks and Morgan were sentenced to two and five years’ imprisonment, respectively.
Other Major Criminal
John W. Hinckley, Jr., was charged in the District of Columbia, with 13 counts growing out of his armed assault on President Reagan and three others on March 30, 1981. After extensive pretrial litigation, including an interlocutory appeal by the government of suppression rulings made by the trial court, the case was tried in April, May, and June of 1982. Hinckley raised the defense of insanity, and the vast majority of the evidence in the case focused on the question of his mental condition at the time of the offenses. Hinckley’s defense consisted of the testimony of several lay persons as well as three psychiatrists and a psychologist. In response, the government countered with the testimony of several lay witnesses who had observed Hinckley on March 30, 1981, before and after the crime, and also presented the testimony of a medical doctor who examined Hinckley on March 30 as well as two forensic psychiatrists who had conducted extensive examinations on Hinckley in the summer of 1981. The trial court placed the burden of proving Hinckley’s sanity upon the government. Although this ruling conformed with federal law, it conflicted with a District of Columbia statute which placed the burden on the defense on the question of insanity. On June 21, 1982, after four days’ deliberations, the jury found Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity on all counts. Under applicable District of Columbia law, Hinckley was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital, not to be released except by order of the court upon a showing that he is no longer mentally ill or dangerous to himself or others.
Eleven defendants were convicted for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit $10 Federal Reserve Notes. The defendants also were charged with substantive
violations of the counterfeiting statutes. The evidence disclosed that the bogus bills were being printed using the printing facilities of Goodwill Industries in Manchester, New Hampshire, where one of the defendants was working as part of a training program following his release from jail on an earlier unrelated charge. The defendants received sentences ranging from three years’ imprisonment to probation.
In the Southern District of Georgia, a defendant entered a plea of guilty to conspiring to commit espionage. The plea was the culmination of a five-year double agent investigation conducted by the Army and FBI. The double agent, an American soldier of Hungarian origin, had been approached by Hungarian intelligence on a visit to Hungary in 1978. The Army utilized this individual in military intelligence to collect information and to feed information to Hungarian intelligence, leading to the defendant’s arrival in the United States to pick up secret documents. The defendant’s meeting with the double agent was taped and photographed, and classified documents were passed. The defendant agreed to cooperate fully with the United States and other allied governments in exchange for a 15-year sentence. The defendant is a naturalized U.S. citizen with dual Hungarian citizenship.
In Northern Florida, the Rev. John Dawson and his wife, Vera Dawson, were tried, convicted, and sentenced to 12- and four-year prison terms, respectively, for violations of the federal obscenity laws dealing with the sexual exploitation of children. The Dawsons were international wholesale and retail distributors of booklets containing photographs of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct with other minors and with adults. Over 300 exhibits were admitted at the trial, which featured the testimony of the National Coordinator for Child Pornography Investigations for the Postal Inspection Service, a professor of psychology from the University of Utah and author of the “Minority Report to the U.S. Senate for the President’s Commission on Obscenity,” and a pediatric endocrinologist and clinical professor at the University of Florida Medical School. This case was the first in the nation resulting in a conviction for conspiracy to violate 18 U.S. Code 2252, and the third in the country to go to trial under the federal child pornography statute.
In August 1980, at the San Francisco International Airport, George Bosque, a Brinks security guard, stole $1,850,000 in U.S. currency which was being shipped from banks in Honolulu, Hawaii, to the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. After picking up the shipment of currency at the airline cargo area, Bosque, through subterfuge, enticed his fellow guard out of the armored truck, fled, and remained a fugitive until apprehended by the FBI in November 1981. When apprehended he claimed to have
97
squandered all of the money, having led a sybaritic lifestyle characterized by drugs, homosexuality, limousines, luxury apartments and lavish entertainment. He also claimed to have lost a good deal of the money in an investment in a pornographic film. Bosque pled guilty to bank larceny and interstate theft charges but not guilty to an assault charge. That issue was tried by a jury, which, following a two-day trial, returned a verdict finding him guilty. Bosque was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 10 and 15 years.
LeRonald Loper was tried and convicted of armed bank robbery in the Western District of Arkansas and received a total sentence of 30 years—the longest sentence returned in recent years in this district. The defendant robbed three banks in Western Arkansas and was engaged in criminal conduct in other states.
Violent Crime
In Northern Mississippi, a sniper on a federal parkway was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment plus 21 years for the first degree murder of a nine-year-old boy and assault with intent to murder his 11-year-old sister. The defendant, who had been paroled against the advice of psychiatrists following two rape convictions, shot the children from ambush while they were traveling with their parents on the parkway to visit their grandparents during the Christmas holidays.
Melvin Lee Davis and Robert Lee Johnson were convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia of conspiring to intimidate and injure federal officials, including Norman A. Carlson, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, several Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and a U.S. District Judge. Johnson and Davis shot into the homes of Director Carlson and his assistant, James Meko, and also sent threatening letters to Carlson, to Senator Strom Thurmond, and to Assistant U.S. Attorneys in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Johnson was also convicted of conspiring with Davis to murder Carlson and the other federal officials. Both men were convicted of obstruction of justice and sending threats through the mails. Johnson, a parolee, received sentences aggregating 26 years. Davis, also a convicted felon and parole violator, was sentenced to 16 years.
In Guam, in three companion cases, Joseph L. Charfauros, Adde Albert Cruz, and David Q. Atalig entered a plea of guilty to two counts of murder in the first degree. Additionally, defendants Cruz and Charfauros entered pleas of guilty to two counts of kidnaping and two counts of robbery. These cases were based on the kidnaping, robbery and murder of two Navy enlisted men who were taken by the three defendants to a secluded oceanfront area and robbed and killed by strangulation.
The murders occurred on military land. Each defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Richard Lee Savina was convicted of making and possessing an incendiary device and attempting to damage or destroy a building in interstate commerce. Savina was a selfdescribed Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan who had a longstanding ambition to bomb a facility of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). His organization was infiltrated by a local police officer. When Savina hatched a plan to bomb the home of a local leader of the NAACP, the local police called in Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents, and evidence developed in the ensuing joint state/federal investigation provided the basis for Savina’s conviction. Savina was sentenced to 15 years.
Major Civil
In the Western District of Texas, 146 lawsuits in defaulted student loans and educational assistance overpayment cases were filed. The news media followed up on this mass filing of cases with a trip to the clerk’s office, where they obtained the names of the defendants, addresses, amount of claim, and in some instances where the defendants were employed, and published this information. Within an hour of the time this information was released, the U.S. Attorney’s office was receiving calls from some of the defendants, who had been called by the reporters for a statement, wanting to know how they could arrange to clear their debt. A few debtors paid in full and others provided financial information and executed agreed judgments providing for payment of the debt through monthly installments. Additionally, after the newspaper articles appeared, the U.S. Attorney’s office was swamped with calls from the debtors whose names had appeared, as well as calls from other debtors who wanted to arrange to pay their claims in order to avoid having their names appearing in the newspaper.
In Maryland, after a lengthy investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s office entered into a consent judgment with Blake Construction Company, Inc., a large District of Columbia construction concern, under the terms of which the company agreed not to front-end load government contracts in the future, to make its books of account on government contracts available for review for a period of five years and to pay $500,000 to the government. The civil complaint filed against Blake, which built the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover Building, as well as many other public and private buildings in the District of Columbia metropolitan area, claimed that the company had falsely represented its early construction costs on the Walter Reed Army Hospital to the government, thereby getting a disproportionate amount of the fixed-fee price out of the $110 million project
98
up front. This money was then invested, and Blake, according to the complaint, realized a substantial return on the investment. While not admitting that it had front-end loaded this contract, Blake agreed not to do so in a permanent injunction. The investigation revealed that front-end loading is a prevalent practice on fixed-fee government contracts.
In Southern New York, the government alleged that Volkswagen had entered its 1971-74 model automobiles into the United States by means of false documents which understated their dutiable value. The settlement in this civil penalty case required Volkswagen to pay $25 million to the government, representing $5 million in lost customs duties, $5 million in interest, and a $15 million statutory penalty. This is the largest sum ever obtained by the U.S. Customs Service for a fraud violation—more than three times the amount of the highest previous recovery. The settlement also provided that Volkswagen withdraw, with prejudice, administrative protests and related claims filed in the Court of International Trade seeking the refund of several million dollars in U.S. customs duties, thus saving the government the expense and risk of complex and potentially protracted litigation. This case was described by the Commissioner of the Customs as “the greatest penalty case in the history of the U.S. Customs Service.”
In the Eastern District of Virginia, where the vast majority of all defense procurements are made, a major defense contractor had a multimillion dollar defense contract taken away from it and was denied another large contract. A joint Army-FBI investigation turned up substantial allegations that two Army employees had given the company confidential bidding information about the proposed project while still employees of the United States and then had gone to work for the company after it was the successful bidder. The District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, held, in a published opinion, that the Army was justified in depriving the company of its contracts on the basis of a letter by the Assistant U.S. Attorney investigating the allegations, reporting that he had found substantial evidence of misconduct. The case established that the government no longer need wait until after a contractor is convicted of a crime to prevent it from profiting from illegally-obtained government bidding information.
In South Carolina, Hans Peter Albrecht, a Swiss sea captain, failed to appear on the third day of his trial on charges of smuggling 43,000 pounds of marijuana. Albrecht was convicted and sentenced in absentia. Judgment for $500,000 was entered against his surety, a bondswoman for numerous drug smuggling defendants. The bondswoman was ordered to appear before a U.S. Magistrate to testify regarding her assets, and was subsequently convicted of perjury for false testimony before the magistrate. Upon her
failure to satisfy the government’s judgment, a federal receiver was appointed to take charge of her assets, estimated at $1 million. The assets, including her substantial real estate holdings, were being sold to satisfy the judgment. In the meantime, the bondswoman pled guilty to conspiracy to import one million dosage units of methaqualone, known as quaaludes. She is now serving concurrent terms of two and five years at Lexington federal prison.
The case of Sylvio Grasso v. Gruden, et al., was a Bivens-type action filed against a number of law enforcement officials including four Drug Enforcement Administration agents. The plaintiff claimed he was framed by the agents, thus rendering summary judgment inappropriate and necessitating a jury trial. The plaintiff was a reputed drug dealer who had been prosecuted several times but whose case was based on a well orchestrated alibi involving members of the drug world. He was represented by New York counsel and the case posed a serious threat to law enforcement morale in Connecticut, given the personal nature of the defendants’ liability. After a six-week trial, the jury found for the defendants. The court of appeals ultimately affirmed the judgment of the district court.
In Foster v. Tourtellotte, a patient at a Veterans Administration Hospital in Central California, sued to compel Veterans Administration physicians to terminate his treatment with life support systems. The defendants’ physicians were named in their official as well as individual capacities, and in addition to the aforementioned relief, damages were sought under the Bivens case by asserting constitutional violations committed by the doctors in refusing to terminate plaintiff’s life. During the course of the case, plaintiff lapsed into an irreversible coma, and the court ordered the termination of the life support systems. Subsequent to plaintiff’s death, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Central District of California was successful in achieving a dismissal of the damage claims against the individual defendant doctors. The court held that the physicians were justified, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, in refusing to terminate the plaintiff’s life support systems without an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
In the Northern District of Mississippi, the United States was successful in defending a wrongful death action brought by a widow for the death of her husband under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976. The deceased, who had a history of medical problems, died of a heart attack approximately 10 minutes after receiving the swine flu vaccination. The court in its opinion of June 23, 1982, stated the plaintiff had failed to establish that the decedent’s myocardial infarction and resulting death were proximately caused by the vaccination.
99
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES TRUSTEES
100
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SECTION
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SECTION
UNITED STATES TRUSTEES Alexandria Birmingham
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Denver Los Angeles Minneapolis
Newark
New York
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR LEGAL SERVICES
ATTORNEY - ADVISORS
Executive Office For
United States Trustees
Quinlan J. Shea, Jr.
Director and Counsel
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549), which became effective on October 1, 1979, was the first substantial revision of bankruptcy law since 1938. Title I of the Reform Act enacts Title II of the U.S. Code and is called the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”). One of the goals of the Code is to remove the bankruptcy judge from the administration of bankruptcy cases, leaving the judge with a purely adjudicative role.
In an effort to determine the best method of achieving this objective, Congress created the U.S. Trustee program on an experimental basis to supervise the adminstration of bankruptcy cases in 18 specifically - designated federal judicial districts. This program was scheduled to operate until April 1984, when it would terminate unless Congress decided to continue the pilot program, modify it, or expand it to all judicial districts, with or without modifications. The Department of Justice established 10 main field offices and three sub-offices to cover the 18 districts, as well as an Executive Office for U.S. Trustees in Washington, each main field office being headed by a U.S. Trustee appointed by the Attorney General.
At the end of Fiscal Year 1982, there were 101 full-time positions in the U.S. Trustee field offices. The office locations and the judicial districts involved are as follows:
1.	Boston, with a sub-office in Portland, Maine: Districts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
2.	New York City: Southern District of New York.
3.	Newark, New Jersey: Districts of Delaware and New Jersey.
4.	Alexandria, Virginia, with a sub-office in Norfolk: Eastern District of Virginia and District of Columbia.
5.	Birmingham, Alabama: Northern District of Alabama. 6. Dallas: Northern District of Texas.
7.	Chicago: Northern District of Illinois.
8.	Minneapolis: Districts of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota.
9.	Los Angeles: Central District of California.
10.	Denver, with a sub-office in Wichita: Districts of Colorado and Kansas.
The 10 pilot districts were selected because of their geographic, demographic and economic diversity, as well as
the fact that 28 percent of the bankruptcy cases filed in 1978 arose in these districts.
The Executive Office in Washington, D.C., has a complement of 10 full-time persons who provide policy direction, coordination, counsel and administrative support services for the U.S. Trustee Offices. The Legal Services Staff of the Executive Office provides support to the U.S. Trustees in the form of legal research, opinions and recommendations, and develops and coordinates litigation policy. The Management and Administration Staff provides direct support services to the U.S. Trustee Offices in the areas of management assistance, budget, automated information systems, and program evaluation; it also coordinates the provision of personnel, space, property and facilities support with the Justice Management Division.
Duties and Responsibilities
of the U.S. Trustees
Within their respective jurisdictions, the U.S. Trustees are responsible for the supervision of three different kinds of bankruptcy cases under the Bankruptcy Code:
Chapter 7 (“Liquidation”). In this kind of case the assets of a debtor are liquidated, beyond certain statutory exemptions. Unless there are unusual circumstances, the debtor then obtains a discharge from debt and a financial “fresh start.” The U.S. Trustee appoints interim trustees and successor trustees, serves as trustee where no private trustee is available to serve, maintains and supervises a panel of private trustees eligible for appointment, may examine debtors and may object to discharge, may be heard on awards of compensation to attorneys, auctioneers, appraisers and accountants to ensure that compensation is fair, and reviews final reports of trustees regarding the estates they have administered.
Chapter 11 (“Reorganization”). These cases combine features of Chapters X, XI and XII of the former Bankruptcy Act, and allow for the total restructuring of both the debt and equity of affected debtors. Chapter 11 provides an opportunity for the debtor to operate while attempting to develop a reorganization plan with affected creditors. If the creditors accept this plan (and the court confirms it), the chapter provides a framework for the plan to be implemented. Although a debtor may be liquidated under a plan in Chapter 11, the principal purpose of the chapter is rehabilitation. The U.S. Trustee appoints committees of creditors and, where necessary, of equity security holders, may move for and may be directed to appoint a trustee or examiner, schedules and presides at meetings where creditors examine the debtor, supervises the administration of cases and trustees, monitors awards of compensation, as in Chapter 7 cases, and may examine the debtor and comment upon proposed disclosure statements.
101
Chapter 13 (“Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income”). In this kind of case an individual with a regular source of income, such as wages or commissions, or a small business in which the debtor is self-employed, can discharge debts by arranging for payments over a period of time (usually three years, but not more than five). The consent of unsecured creditors is not required to approve the debtor’s plan. Chapter 13 is available only to individuals with non-contingent, liquidated, unsecured indebtedness of less than $100,000 and non-contingent, liquidated, secured indebtedness of less than $350,000. It replaces Chapter XIII of the former Bankruptcy Act, which limited its relief to wage earners. The U.S. Trustee appoints a standing trustee or serves as trustee, supervises the administration of cases and the work of the standing trustee, and may examine the debtor.
In each of the 18 pilot districts, the U.S. Trustee is responsible for fair and efficient bankruptcy administration, which directly affects not only the amount of recovery for creditors, but equitable treatment for the debtor as well. Under the supervision of the Attorney General, the experimental U.S. Trustee pilot program has a significant responsibility for the vitality and effectiveness of this country’s bankruptcy system.
Significant Activities in Fiscal Year 1982
Because of the large volume of consumer and business bankruptcy filings throughout the nation, the Fiscal Year 1982 caseloads in the pilot U.S. Trustee districts remained at the high levels of Fiscal Year 1981. There were approximately 103,000 new filings in U.S. Trustee districts in Fiscal Year 1982, as compared with slightly more than 95,000 the year before. The filings represent an increase of over eight percent from the prior fiscal year. The volume of Chapter 11 cases, which involve the most complex legal and financial issues and are the most demanding in terms of staff resources, nearly doubled to 4,700 cases in Fiscal Year 1982.
Unfavorable economic conditions and other factors caused many large companies with millions, and in some cases, billions of dollars of assets and liabilities to file for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Those filing in U.S. Trustee districts included Braniff Airways, Inc.; Sambo’s Restaurants, Inc.; Wickes Corporation; Saxon Industries, Inc.; A.M. International, Inc.; O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc.; and Johns-Manville Corporation. As part of their supervisory role, U.S. Trustee staffs worked diligently to form committees that were representative of various classes of creditors and equity security holders. In several instances, U.S. Trustees recommended the appointment of private trustees and examiners where it was felt the circumstances warranted such assistance.
Although the U.S. Trustees experienced substantial increases in workloads, the funding level at the beginning of the fiscal year was well below that which had been anticipated. This situation forced the Executive Office to cut the program’s total staff (including temporaries and student aides) by 40 persons, or by over 25 percent, in the early spring of 1982. In addition, a freeze was imposed on equipment and supply purchases, training, the use of overtime, and travel among the U.S. Trustee districts. Reductions in hearing room space were effected through the cancellation of leases and the substitution of part-time space for full-time facilities.
During 1982, the U.S. Trustees continued to concentrate their efforts on the most important business cases, while adopting better procedural systems for monitoring the routine, consumer Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases that were being administered by private trustees. Systems were devised to audit the case work of the panel trustees without becoming closely involved in administering cases that had little or no chance of generating assets. This reduced the time needed for paper processing, files maintenance and recording of case information. Reliance was placed on a system of quality control over the work of the private trustees, and those whose performance was inadequate were replaced.
The Executive Office continued several initiatives aimed at improving overall program management. The design of an automated management information system to assist the U.S. Trustees in supervising the administration of cases was completed, and the system was field tested on an experimental basis. Based on the success of this experiment, the largest office, Los Angeles, began entering Chapter 11 case data in September of 1982. It is intended that several other offices will implement similar case tracking systems in the near future.
During the year, the Executive Office and the Alexandria U.S. Trustee Office also worked to develop a prototype shared-computer system with the local Bankruptcy Court. This is based on the concept that both the U.S. Trustee and the clerk’s office can utilize the same data base to manage their operations, track cases and generate documents and forms. The shared system is an example of the manner in which the two organizations are collaborating to reduce the paperwork and increase efficiency in the administration of bankruptcy cases.
An administrative manual for U.S. Trustee offices was issued during the year. This provides guidance for personnel actions, procurement, training and travel, and will simplify paper flow between the U.S. Trustees and the Executive Office.
Guidelines for supervision of the operations of Chapter 13 standing trustees were issued during 1982. These
102
guidelines cover such subjects as bonding, maintenance of books and records, audits, bank accounts, expenses and budgets. Work was begun on systems for periodic on-site reviews of the operations of the larger standing trustees and for limited audit reviews of the operations of smaller trustees by the U.S. Trustee and staff.
The first audit program of Chapter 13 trustees was completed by a nationally known accounting firm. Almost all trustees were audited for the Fiscal Years 1980 and 1981. Auditing objectives and standards were applied on a consistent basis throughout the country and many valuable recommendations for improving the standing trustee opera
tions were made and implemented.
In January 1982, a contract was awarded to a nationally recognized research firm to evaluate the U.S. Trustee pilot program. The evaluators conducted site visits to various pilot and non-pilot districts to collect information on how bankruptcy cases are being administered. The data analysis plan was completed and a final report was expected in early 1983. The report would contain a comparison of how the system was functioning in both pilot and non-pilot districts, as well as recommendations on alternative methods of structuring the U.S. Trustee system.
103
FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM
104
CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS
GENERAL COUNSEL AND REVIEW
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
I----- r
FEDERAL PRISON I INDUSTRIES, INC. [ BOARD OF DIRECTORS!
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICES
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
DIRECTOR (AND COMMISSIONER, FPI, INC.)
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
MEDICAL AND SERVICES
Bureau of Prisons
Norman A. Carlson
Director
The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for carrying out the judgments of the federal courts and provides offenders confined in its 43 facilities with opportunities for selfimprovement through education, vocational training, counseling and a variety of other programs. Highlights for Fiscal Year 1982 included:
•	A substantial rise in the inmate population for the second consecutive year.
•	Opening of a new Metropolitan Correctional Center at Tucson.
•	Expanded training programs for state and local correctional personnel.
•	Establishment of separate institutions for offenders committed under the Youth Corrections Act.
•	The establishment of a program of modernization and expansion for Federal Prison Industries.
•	Facilitating the transfer of federal surplus property to the states for use as correctional facilities.
•	Accreditation of five more institutions, assuring high standards of professionalism in operations and programs.
Rise in Population
For the second straight year, the Federal Prison System inmate population rose sharply during 1982. The number incarcerated at the end of the fiscal year was 28,133, or 17 percent above the rated capacity, compared to 26,195 at the end of Fiscal Year 1981.
Changes in prosecution policies by the Department of Justice and longer sentences by the courts accounted for the increase. A Bureau study showed the average federal sentence rose from 43.1 months in 1978 to 55.3 months in 1981. The result was an average monthly increase of 270 offenders in the sentenced federal prison population during 1982. These population increases were only partially offset by the decline of unsentenced Cuban and Haitian immigration detainees in Bureau of Prisons custody.
Because of population pressures, the Attorney General announced in February that the U.S. Penitentiary at Atlanta, previously marked for closing, would remain open.
Due to overcrowding in local jails, which normally house federal offenders awaiting trial, the Bureau was forced to establish another detention unit in a correctional institution designed to house sentenced offenders, this one at the
Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut. The Bureau now has eight such units. Moreover, the new federal institution at Tucson and the existing Federal Correctional Institution at Miami were designated as Metropolitan Correctional Centers, designed to hold unsentenced offenders.
To Control Crime
In October 1981, the Attorney General outlined three priority projects for the Bureau as part of the President’s program to control crime. These were to create and carry out training programs for state and local correctional personnel; the establishment of a clearinghouse to facilitate transfer of surplus federal property to the states; and to house state offenders who could not be adequately accommodated in state institutions.
The training mandate was carried out jointly by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the National Institute of Corrections, which is attached administratively to the Bureau. Together, they trained over 8,000 state and local personnel during the year.
The Institute opened its National Academy of Corrections at Boulder, Colorado, October 1, 1981, and has trained 2,100 state and local correctional officials in 35 subject areas. In addition it funded training for more than 2,000 state and local personnel, carried out by other agencies.
Working with the Institute, the Bureau established a number of special courses for state and local officials. In addition, the Bureau set aside 10 percent of its space in ongoing courses at its three staff training centers at Glynco, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; and Oxford, Wisconsin. These courses included advanced correctional supervision, unit management, investigative supervisor training, correctional management, and introduction to correctional techniques.
Each of the Bureau’s 43 institutions opened its locally conducted courses to the correctional and law enforcement agencies in its area. Nearly 4,600 staff members from state and local agencies received nearly 70,000 hours of training during Fiscal Year 1982 in Bureau of Prisons courses.
Assistance to the States
To facilitate the transfer of surplus federal properties to states and localities for correctional use, a clearinghouse
105
was established in 1981 in the Bureau of Prisons. To carry out its mission, the clearinghouse:
•	Maintains a listing of federal surplus property which it distributes to interested parties;
•	Provides the names and addresses of General Services Administration officials. The General Services Administration is the federal agency that processes all applications and bids for surplus federal property;
•	Assists the state or local government in the application process, by monitoring actions by the General Services Administration and facilitating the process where possible.
To date, the clearinghouse has had over 200 inquiries. Federal properties have already been turned over to New York, Indiana, Nevada, and New Jersey for correctional uses. Other transfers are pending in New York, Florida, Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico.
Also to help the states, the Attorney General placed new emphasis on federal prisons housing state inmates at the request of state authorities. Consequently the number of state prisoners in federal custody rose to 1,100, an increase of 300, during the year. The relatively small numbers do not accurately reflect the program’s importance because these prisoners cannot be adequately housed in state facilities. They include dangerous offenders, those with severe mental illnesses, and inmates who have become government informants or witnesses.
Youth Corrections Act
A June 11, 1981, decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Watts v. Hadden requires the Bureau to separate offenders convicted and sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act from adult offenders. The ruling upheld similar decisions by several lower federal courts, and a plan drawn up by the Bureau to implement the decision was approved during Fiscal Year 1982 by federal courts in Michigan, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kentucky.
The Federal Correctional Institutions at Englewood, Colorado; Morgantown, West Virginia; and Petersburg, Virginia, have been designated for Youth Corrections Act offenders.
Cuban and Haitian Detainees
The Bureau continued its cooperation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service during 1982 by providing detention space and other assistance for Cuban and Haitian refugees. The Bureau assigned staff to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Krome Center at Miami to assist in improving security and to establish work, education and recreation programs for the detainees.
The Bureau also received 357 Cuban detainees from Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas, when that institution was closed.
Most of the Cuban detainees were housed at the U.S. Penitentiary at Atlanta. This consolidation made it easier for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Public Health Service and voluntary services to coordinate the release of those approved by the Attorney General’s Status Review Panel. By the end of 1982, the Cuban detainee population had declined to 1,187 from 1,687 a year earlier, and all the Haitian detainees had been released.
Professional Standards
To assure that correctional programs and operations are carried out in a humane and professional fashion, five more Federal Prison Sysem institutions were accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections during 1982. This brings to 17 the total number of federal institutions accredited. The goal is for all of them to be accredited by 1984.
Work and Training
The Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR), a self-sustaining government corporation, approved a $4.8 million program of equipment modernization during 1982. It also approved the first phase of an estimated $8.8 million program of physical plant modernization and expansion.
In its effort to develop new products and services to keep offenders constructively employed and to prepare them for jobs upon release, UNICOR entered the Army helmet business. The U.S. Army accepted the first batch of helmets manufactured from a new substance, Kevlar, at the Federal Correctional Institution at Bastrop, Texas. UNICOR, the first of five competing corporations to meet Army standards, began manufacture at the rate of 1,200 a month.
During 1982, Industries had 71 industrial operations in 39 locations. Inmates earn up to $1.05 an hour producing goods and services solely for U.S. government agencies. In keeping with the rise in inmate population, inmate employment in industries rose to 6,500 from 6,300 the year before.
Sales in 1982 exceeded $145 million, compared to $128 million for the previous year. Inmate wages rose to $9 million from $7.7 million, and payment to non-industry inmates for institution work performance amounted to $4 million, up from $3.4 million in 1981. The corporation also funded $3 million for vocational training programs for federal offenders, including apprenticeship training.
The Bureau’s occupational training program includes on-the-job training, vocational education and approved apprenticeship programs. Participation in adult basic education programs was made mandatory for inmates below the sixth grade level, and inmates who wish to get an
106
Industries job or other paid work above the lowest entrylevel grade of compensation must be at the sixth grade level or above.
The Bureau had 276 apprenticeship programs in 34 institutions in 76 different trade classifications registered by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training. This compares to 268 programs in 1981. The Bureau’s goal is to have apprenticeship programs in all of its institutions.
Equal Employment Opportunity
Since 1971, over 27 percent of all new Bureau of Prisons employees have come from minority groups. The level of minority employees was 24.5 percent at the end of Fiscal Year 1982, compared to 22.5 percent the previous year and six percent in 1971. Minorities accounted for 31.3 percent of all correctional officers, compared to 29 percent in 1981 and eight percent in 1971.
Women represented 19.5 percent of all Bureau employees, compared to 18 percent last year and 9.8 percent in 1971. Female correctional officers are employed in all institutions, with the exception of maximum security penitentiaries.
Automated Information
SENTRY is an automated information system which provides a common data base of operational information for the Federal Prison System. The entire federal inmate population is contained in the SENTRY system and each institution has at least a single terminal to record all admissions and releases. That means the Bureau now has an online computerized system containing information about all inmates in federal institutions that can be readily retrieved and updated.
The Bureau loaded its legal reference system and electronic mail onto SENTRY during the year, and expanded its property management and sentencing computation systems.
Female Offenders
During 1982, the Bureau designated the Federal Correctional Institution at Morgantown, West Virginia, to house women sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, bringing the total number of institutions serving female offenders to five.
In addition to regular programming efforts, the Bureau continued to improve programs for female inmates as recommended by the Task Force on Female Offenders, established in 1979.
The Federal Correctional Institution at Lexington, Kentucky, serves as a female medical referral center and operates a 28-bed psychiatric unit for offenders with acute mental health problems.
With the help of the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training and its Women’s Bureau, accredited apprenticeship programs for women continue to prepare them for such nontraditional jobs as auto mechanics, electricians, plumbers, painters, and bricklayers. The five institutions housing female offenders now offer 62 apprenticeship programs in over 39 different trades, the majority of which are traditionally male occupations.
Drug abuse programs exist in all five institutions for women, and counseling and therapy are provided. All institutions have visiting programs, and allow time for incarcerated women to spend with their children. Family counseling programs also help inmates deal with the effect of separation on both the mother and child. Structured learning programs are available for the children, and the Bureau helps mothers with social agencies that can provide their children with any assistance for which they are eligible.
The Bureau maintains an office in Washington to monitor programs for women and help ensure that their needs are met.
Resources
Operational funds for the year totaled $366,830,000 and there were 9,889 authorized positions. An additional $58.4 million was made available for new construction and renovation and $11.2 million for the National Institute of Corrections.
Anticipated appropriations for 1983 are $387 million for operations, $6.7 million for renovations and $11.1 million for the National Institute of Corrections. Authorized positions for 1983 will be 10,024.
Organization and Administration
The Federal Prison System is a career service and a majority of new employees enter on duty as correctional officers. Administration is carried out by four divisions located in Washington and five regional offices. The four divisions, each headed by an Assistant Director, are Correctional Programs, Planning and Development, Medical and Services, and Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR).
The five regions have headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia; Burlingame, California; Dallas, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Each is headed by a Regional Director.
Future Plans
A new Metropolitan Correctional Center housing 200 inmates in Tucson, Arizona, was opened in April and a new minimum security camp for 114 inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut, was completed in June and will begin to accept inmates early in Fiscal Year 1983.
107
Funds for construction of a new 400-bed Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix, Arizona, costing $23.9 million, and a 1,000-bed alien detention center costing $17 million were approved near the end of the fiscal year.
Plans for Fiscal Year 1983 call for completing new housing units at the Federal Correctional Institutions at Sandstone, Minnesota (95 beds), and Seagoville, Texas (98 beds), and the Federal Prison Camp at Boron, California (98 beds). Additionally, funds have been requested for construction of another 1,000-bed alien detention center.
National Institute of Corrections
During Fiscal Year 1982, the National Institute of Corrections awarded 214 grants and contracts totaling $10,508,187 to assist state and local corrections. The Institute is legislatively mandated to provide training, technical assistance, and information services, and to undertake research, evaluation, and policy formulation activities.
The Institute opened the National Academy of Corrections in Boulder, Colorado, October 1, 1981. During the Academy’s first year of operation, approximately 2,100 state and local correctional practitioners were trained in 35 different subject areas. Of this number, 250 individuals were provided specialized training by the Federal Prison System in cooperation with the Institute and the Academy. In addition, over 2,000 state and local practitioners were trained in programs that were funded by the Institute but co-managed with state and local correctional agencies.
The Institute provided technical assistance in response to 1,028 requests from state and local correctional agencies
during the year, most frequently in the areas of planning, administration and management, operational issues, staff training, probation, and parole. The Institute’s Information Center responded to more than 4,000 information inquiries on correctional subjects.
Perhaps the most pressing problem facing corrections is overcrowding in the nation’s jails and prisons. In addition to assisting various states and localities through technical assistance in this area, the Institute launched a major overcrowding initiative, cosponsored by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, in Fiscal Year 1982. The program is a unique, three-year effort to enable the states of Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and South Carolina to devise strategies to address the specific overcrowding problems in each state.
Other new initiatives begun during the year include:
•	A model prison architectural program, undertaken in response to the recommendations of the Attorney General’s 1981 Task Force on Violent Crime, to assist states that are constructing new prison facilities.
•	An initial effort to work with 11 states that have a supervisory state agency overseeing local probation. These 11 state supervisory agencies represent 600 county probation offices, which collectively supervise more than two-thirds of all adults on probation in the United States.
Major ongoing programs in 1982 included the implementation of prison classification systems, development and implementation of state jail standards, implementation of probation classification and management systems, development of state resources to assist local jails, and assistance to localities planning new jail facilities.
108

United States
Marshals Service
William E. Hall, Director
The U.S. Marshals Service is the nation’s senior federal law enforcement agency, created by the Judiciary Act under President George Washington in 1789. Its Marshals and Deputies serve as both officers of the federal courts and law enforcement agents of the Attorney General. This dual responsibility has resulted in a multifaceted mission:
•	Security or security assistance in the areas of federal property, buildings and personnel, including federal judges, jurors, other trial participants and court facilities; other security missions as required;
•	Support to the federal judicial system through service of civil and criminal process; execution of warrants, including those for most federal fugitives; retention in custody and transport of federal prisoners, custody and control of seized property;
•	Law enforcement activities at the request of other federal agencies or as required by the Attorney General.
The service has grown in size from the 13 original U.S. Marshals to 93, with a supporting staff of approximately 2,000 Deputy U.S. Marshals and administrative personnel throughout the United States and Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Court Security Division
The responsibility of ensuring the safety of members of the federal judiciary and other trial participants is the primary mission of the Marshals Service. Court Security Field Inspectors provide technical advice and guidance to the federal judiciary and U.S. Marshals in all matters of security relative to high-risk trials and threats of bodily harm.
In Fiscal Year 1982, 117 death threats were directed at federal judges, a 15 percent increase over the preceding year. Personal protection of judicial officials and families resulted in an intensified effort to provide security 24 hours a day, utilizing sophisticated electronic security equipment.
Court Security Inspectors, having received advanced training in state of the art electronic security systems, were able to provide unprecedented security in the FALN, Hell’s Angels, Croatian, and John Hinkley trials. Inspectors provided security at 40 judicial conferences throughout the country and gave technical assistance to various state and
local law enforcement agencies, the most notable of which was the Wayne Williams multi-murder trial in Atlanta.
In the first six months of 1982, a valid threat to Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor resulted in two specific protective operations. Court Security Inspectors protected the Chief Justice of the United States in situations where publicity generated concern for his safety, as well as during a period when a foreign assassination squad was allegedly attempting to kill government officials.
Through close liaison with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, intelligence was revealed that thwarted a conspiracy to free dangerous prisoners and to murder witnesses in court environments.
During both Fiscal Year 1981 and Fiscal Year 1982, the Marshals Service participated in the Attorney General’s Task Force on Court Security. The Task Force report, issued in March 1982, was approved by both the Attorney General and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Of the report’s 12 specific recommendations concerning a comprehensive and effective security system for the federal judiciary, half had been implemented by the end of the fiscal year and implementation of the others was progressing ahead of schedule.
Enforcement Operations Division
A major emphasis was placed during the year on the apprehension of fugitives with histories of violence, organized crime or narcotics connections. In Fiscal Year 1982, 9,445 fugitive warrants were received and 13,700 were cleared by the Marshals Service, reducing the case backlog of 9,281 by 46 percent.
An informant fund implemented this year provided payment to 56 confidential informants that yielded 54 arrests of fugitive felons.
The Fugitive Investigative Strike Team (FIST) concept developed within the fiscal year is a task force designed to concentrate on major crime areas to apprehend a large number of fugitives in a short time period at a minimum of cost. FIST operations this fiscal year in Miami (76 arrests), Los Angeles (102 arrests) and New York (303 arrests) illustrated the effect this type of operation can have.
A complete intelligence guide on motorcycle gangs was published by the Marshals Service for use by law enforce-
109
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
no
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
COURT SECURITY DIVISION
TRAINING DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT
INFORMATION SYSTEMSAND SERVICES DIVISION
SPACE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION
PROCUREMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DISTRICT OFFICES (95)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
■
PRISONER TRANSPORT DIVISION
WITNESS SECURITY DIVISION
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
OFFICE OF FIELD MANAGEMENT SERVICES
OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT
PRISONER SUPPORT DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
ment agencies and many seminars on the subject were conducted for local law enforcement agencies around the country.
An extensive investigation leading to the arrest of international fugitive Edwin P. Wilson was conducted by Marshals Service investigators.
The Marshals Service successfully completed 74 international extraditions in Fiscal Year 1982. INTERPOL, U.S. National Central Bureau, continued to refer important foreign fugitive cases to the Marshals Service for investigation. There was an increase of 30 percent in the foreign fugitive caseload over Fiscal Year 1981.
Prisoner Support Division
The Prisoner Support Division is responsible for obtaining detention space for unsentenced federal prisoners through the negotiation and administration of detention contracts with state and local governments. The level of compliance with national detention standards, as well as the validation of the quality of inmate services provided for in the detention contract, are verified by periodic jail inspections by district personnel.
The Division also carries out the Marshals Service’s responsibility to contract for jail space to be used jointly with the Bureau of Prisons and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. During Fiscal Year 1982, the Service continued to negotiate special contracts with private organizations, such as the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities, to provide safe, minimum security detention and adequate child care for illegal alien material witnesses and their dependents. This contracting initiative has also helped to increase somewhat the availability of jail space for regular federal prisoners.
During 1982, the U.S. Marshals Service received approximately 105,000 federal prisoners into custody and committed 77,900 individuals (74 percent) for secure detention. Sixty-six percent of those committed were housed in 675 contract facilities at an annual cost of $26 million. Due to the continued loss of contract jail space, the number of unsentenced prisoners housed in federal institutions increased again by one-third from the prior year.
Inmate population ceilings and court mandates for physical plant improvements continued to foster a shortage of nonfederal detention spaces in 1982, particularly in metropolitan areas. The number of contract jails under court order for substandard conditions continued to increase, as did the number of facilities which imposed severe prisoner ceilings or totally excluded federal prisoners.
As part of a new departmental initiative to reverse the trend of declining jail space in metropolitan areas, the Marshals Service implemented the Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP), which is designed to provide funds for jail
renovation in areas where detention space is inadequate or nonexistent. The primary goal of CAP is to obtain longterm guaranteed housing for federal prisoners. The CAP initiative consisted of eight pilot projects in eight metropolitan areas, using funds made available in 1982. The service also implemented a Federal Excess Property Program in 33 districts to provide equipment and supplies to contract facilities. Both of these new programs proved to be effective in improving the federal government’s working relationship with state and local governments and in obtaining guaranteed housing for federal prisoners. The service also continued to provide limited technical assistance, through its jail inspection activity, to contract facilities.
During 1982, the automated Jail Contracting Management Information System was designed and implemented to enhance contract administration and financial management, as well as to provide essential information on jail conditions, detention restrictions, inspection activity, prisoner population data, and data on court orders dealing with substandard conditions of confinement.
Prisoner Transportation Division
This Division operates the Service’s National Prisoner Transportation System, which was responsible for scheduling and transporting more than 47,000 federal prisoners, including a small number of prisoners required by state and local courts and a limited number of Immigration and Naturalization Service detainees, during Fiscal Year 1982. This represents an increase of 18 percent over prisoners transported in Fiscal Year 1981, but because of increased operating efficiency and closer coordination with the litigative divisions and U.S. Attorneys, this significant increase in workload has been accomplished with a reduction in expenditures of eight percent when compared with Fiscal Year 1981.
Implementation of centralized ticketing in the procurement of commercial air services through a General Services Administration-sponsored commercial travel agency greatly reduced commercial air usage (down from 4.7 percent of all prisoners transported in Fiscal Year 1981 to 2.6 percent of all prisoners transported in Fiscal Year 1982—a reduction of 44.7 percent) and resulted in significant savings in the cost of those commercial air flights which were utilized. Notably, all annual program costs of the centralized ticketing program were met by the direct savings realized during the first month following program implementation.
Utilization of the SENTRY computer system ensured greater availability of prisoner locator information. It also provided greater security, in that certain criminal history data not previously available to the Service was readily available. Prisoner safety was enhanced because of the Ser
111
vice’s increased ability to identify and segregate prisoners who pose a threat to each other.
Witness Security Division
The Witness Security Division is responsible for protection of federal and state witnesses whose lives have been threatened because of their willingness to cooperate with the government. Physical relocation, change of identity, employment assistance and a variety of services are provided to those individuals entering the program to assist them in establishing a self-sufficient and secure life.
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Marshals Service received 325 new witnesses and provided protection and/or funding for 2,434 principal witnesses and their families. Protected witnesses testified for the government prosecutors in such well known trials as the Hell’s Angels II, Iranian terrorists (Tabatabai), BRILAB and Nation of Islam. Additionally, Specially trained Witness Security Inspectors continued to provide round-the-clock protection outside the federal court building for John Hinkley during his trial and until his commitment. Because these cases received substantial publicity, unique security measures were required.
In an effort to provide program participants with better employment assistance, the Marshals Service contracted in 1982 with a team of vocational psychologists, each of whom had extensive experience in counseling individuals who have had to make difficult relocations and have had difficulty finding employment. Their guidance assisted the Service in locating suitable employment for witnesses, as well as in working with those participants who, because of their previous incarceration or criminal background, had unique adjustment problems.
The Marshals Service entered into an agreement with the U.S. Parole Commission whereby all witness security program participants on federal parole will be supervised in a secure manner, just as program participants on federal probation are.
Special Operations Group
The Marshals Service maintains an elite, para-military law enforcement force, known as the Special Operations Group, to provide a federal law enforcement response to emergency situations of national significance, and to provide law enforcement assistance to other federal and state agencies designated by the Attorney General.
Special Operations Group members are volunteers who have shown they can meet the Service’s rigorous standards of physical and mental ability and strength of character. These full-time Deputy U.S. Marshals are on call 24 hours a day and can be assembled anywhere in the United States—fully equipped and self-supporting—within a matter of hours.
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Special Operations Group was assigned such missions as: providing security assistance and perimeter control at refugee holding camps, executing sensitive court orders, providing tactical training assistance to local and state law enforcement agencies, providing security assistance to the Department of Defense during the arrival of the Trident nuclear submarine at Bangor, Washington, and completing a law enforcement tactical intelligence and operational assessment at the Kwajalein Missile Range, Marshall Islands, for the National Security Council.
The Special Operations Group also updated its training, equipment and operational capabilities, with emphasis on riot control and civil disorder, counter-terrorist tactics, hostage situations, confrontation management, and small unit tactics. Additionally, it maintains continuous liaison with tactical units assigned to other agencies, including classified military units.
Since the Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of military forces for the enforcement of local laws, this small, specially trained group provides a means of handling emergency situations of national interest when adequate resources are not available on the local level.
Information Systems Division
During Fiscal Year 1982 the Division completed a Servicewide Long Range ADP Plan. Department approval was obtained to conduct a pilot implementation, and the Service awarded a contract to design the pilot applications systems. Initial implementation of a pilot system is scheduled for the third quarter of Fiscal Year 1983.
The Service implemented a Contract Jails System, which tracks required contract actions and provides cost projections for the Support of Prisoners appropriation.
The Witness Security system was upgraded with the addition of an ad hoc query capability which allows users to format reports on demand.
The Service implemented the Department’s Financial Management System in its Headquarters. All Headquarters obligations are entered into the obligation module, and the budget module is used to control district work plans and Headquarters reserve accounts, thus providing stricter financial control and more timely financial reporting.
Personnel Management Division
In response to Office of Personnel Management concerns about the journeyman grade level of Deputy U.S. Marshal positions, the Division initiated and completed an extensive study of the Deputy U.S. Marshal occupation which resulted in the submission of new, draft Deputy Marshal qualification and classification standards to the Office of Personnel Management for its review and concurrence.
112
An important rating element of the Marshals Service’s new law enforcement merit promotion plan was implemented with the administration of a job-related written promotion examination to several hundred Marshal candidates at 180 test sites nationwide and overseas. The results of the examination were to be used, in conjunction with other rating elements, to rank candidates for key management positions in the Service.
A disciplinary action data base, containing information on 1,400 service disciplinary cases for the years 1973 to 1982, was established, enabling the Division to analyze and eliminate systematic and trainable causes of recurring types of disciplinary infractions.
An additional functional responsibility was assigned to the Division in February 1982 when it assumed responsibility for the Service’s career development and external training functions. In order to analyze external training expenditures, initial arrangements were made with the Psychology Department of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute to develop a training needs assessment model incorporating a costbenefit analysis for training expenditures.
Training Academy
The U.S. Marshals Service Training Academy, located at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, trained 420 U.S. Marshals Service operational and administrative staff. This number represents approximately 21 percent of the authorized strength of the Service of 2,005 personnel.
U.S. Marshals Service orientation was provided to newly appointed Marshals. Additionally, training was provided to Chief Deputy U.S. Marshals, journeyman-level Deputy U.S. Marshals, and newly appointed or candidate Deputy U.S. Marshals. Specialized training was provided to 24 newly appointed Witness Security Inspectors. The Dignitary Protection mission of the Service was supported by conducting three Protective Services Schools for 68 Deputy U.S. Marshals. Fiscal Year 1982 was the first year that GS-9 Deputy U.S. Marshals were eligible to receive this training. Eighty-three employees were trained at three administrative and financial management seminars.
The Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal testing and evaluation procedures and training aids were refined, analyzed, and implemented. The classes conducted for the Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshals allowed the Academy staff to achieve its goal of providing all supervisors with 80 hours of training. The Academy on numerous occasions during the fiscal year provided logistical and staff support to the Enforcement Operations Division, Witness Security Division, and other Headquarters elements.
Training was provided to various police departments and other law enforcement authorities on arrest techniques and
prisoner restraints, as well as other law enforcement topics. Numerous seminars on Dangerous Motorcycle Gangs were sponsored throughout the country in conjunction with U.S. Marshals Service district offices. Sixteen of the seminars were attended by 1,738 state and local law enforcement authorities in cities such as Portland, Oregon; Denver, Colorado; Bangor, Maine; and Salt Lake City, Utah.
The Academy developed and presented a Court Security Seminar that was attended by 19 court/law enforcement officials from throughout the United States. This pilot project was presented by the U.S. Marshals Service in conjunction with the National Sheriffs’ Association.
Training personnel were called upon to perform operational assignments, such as foreign dignitary protection and high-threat trial witness security, and to develop operational procedures and guidelines for the 94 district offices.
Space, Transportation and Communications Division
During Fiscal Year 1982 the Space Management Branch analyzed project proposals, prepared design drawings, and monitored construction progress on 139 projects. Of the 50 major construction projects, 14 were completed. The remaining 89 projects consisted of office improvements. The Space Management Branch developed detention area construction standards and prioritized installation based on known security deficiencies and available expansion space.
At Service Headquarters, construction was completed and security improvements were made to the protected witness file room and automatic data processing area.
The Space Management Staff continued to monitor space utilization of 1,187,356 square feet of space nationwide, and made office space payments to the General Service Administration totaling $8,943,067.
During this fiscal year, an assessment of the increased enforcement responsibilities of the Service led to a reevaluation of motor vehicle requirements and capabilities. This resulted in the replacement of some 214 high-mileage standard sedans with mid-size sedans manufactured with full law enforcement equipment packages. Initial field user evaluation of this change was extremely favorable. While efficiencies in the movement of federal prisoners continued to result in lower fuel consumption and mileage for this activity, this was basically offset by increased motor vehicle activity in the enforcement program area. The net result was that total miles driven and fuel consumed by the Service stayed relatively stable from Fiscal Year 1981 to Fiscal Year 1982. The Service continued to allocate and monitor mileage ceilings to the 94 districts.
Replacement of Justice Telecommunications System (JUST) teletypewriters, nationwide, by RCA-50 Model
113
Visual Display Terminal (VDT) systems was 70 percent complete at the end of the fiscal year. Although the initial cost to operate the new RCA equipment is approximately the same as the old Models ASR 33/35 teletypes, the cost to operate the JUST system was expected to decrease significantly with a greater increase in service. Studies were conducted to determine accessibility to state data bases by field offices through the JUST system in lieu of using state terminals. A final determination on this inquiry capability with state law enforcement agencies for warrant operations and other functions via the JUST system had not been made.
Message traffic transmitted by the Service Communications Center increased by approximately 7,000 messages from figures projected earlier in the year, to an estimated 377,000 messages.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Service made further progress in implementing Phase II of the Long Range Radio Communications Plan. Procurement of replacement base
station radio equipment and hand-held radios was approximately 25 percent completed.
Office of Management Analysis
The Office of Management Analysis, now a component of the Office of the Director, is responsible for coordinating the New Marshals Orientation Programs and the Regional Mini-Conferences. In Fiscal Year 1982, five orientation programs for new Marshals were conducted at Glynco and three regional mini-conferences were held in Colorado, Arkansas, and Maine. The Office had primary responsibility for coordinating all activities of the 1982 National Conference of U.S. Marshals.
The Office also drafted the Marshals Service response to the General Accounting Office Report, “U.S. Marshals’ Dilemma: Serving Two Branches of Government” (April 19, 1982).
114
Justice System
Improvement Act Agencies
The Justice System Improvement Act (JSIA) was enacted on December 27, 1979, to reauthorize and restructure the Department of Justice’s program to improve the administration of state and local criminal justice. The Act created four agencies: the Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics (OJARS), the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The Juvenile Justice Amendments of 1980, enacted on
December 8, 1980, reauthorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and established it as a separate agency within the JSIA structure. Each of these agencies operates under the general authority of the Attorney General. OJARS, NIJ, and BJS are authorized through Fiscal Year 1983. OJJDP is authorized through Fiscal Year 1984. LEAA was terminated on April 15, 1982.
115
Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics
Robert F. Diegelman Acting Director
The Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics (OJARS) coordinates the activities of, and provides staff support to, all the agencies authorized under the Justice System Improvement Act (JSIA) of 1979.
During Fiscal Year 1982, OJARS implemented the phaseout plan for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). The plan brought to an end the state and local assistance programs of LEAA and transferred to OJARS the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program, the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime program, and several other criminal justice improvement efforts that continue.
Throughout the year, OJARS continued its cooperative campaign with the National Advertising Council to help prevent crime in America. Through a coalition of federal agencies and national nonprofit organizations, citizens were urged to initiate new crime prevention programs or enhance existing ones, emphasizing that crime can be prevented through citizen action. To assure the continuing success of the campaign—which has received some $100 million in donated public service advertising space and time—OJARS entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Crime Prevention Council to manage the campaign through Fiscal Year 1984.
OJARS developed a reauthorization proposal for the JSIA, and it was presented to the Congress in June 1982. The proposed legislation would continue the programs of the National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics and would create a small Office of Justice Research and Statistics headed by an Assistant Attorney General and responsible for supporting and coordinating the activities of the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Significant 1982 accomplishments also included the resolution of all but 15 docketed civil rights compliance cases, the final close-out of 215 block and 650 categorical grants, and the review of some 350 final grant audits by the Audit Review Committee.
Office of General Counsel
The Office of General Counsel provides legal advice to the JSIA agencies and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The office represents these agencies in administrative hearings, including, in the recent
past, grant denial hearings, Merit System Protection Board hearings, civil rights compliance appeals, and grievance arbitrations. The office is also substantially involved in litigation affecting the agencies. Over the past year, litigation included suits challenging the reduction-in-force conducted in the agencies and several appeals of benefit denials under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act.
The office advises on legal questions arising under grants, contracts, and the myriad statutes and regulations governing the expenditure of federal funds. The office also is responsible for drafting agency regulations and reviewing audit findings. It played an important role in the phase-out of LEAA and its programs during the past two years.
During the past year, the office published “Legal Interpretations of the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act,” an index to the legal opinions, claim determinations, and court decisions made under the Act since its inception in 1976. The office also assisted in promulgating the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s “valid court order” regulations, which described the circumstances under which judges could incarcerate juvenile status offenders for violations of court orders.
Office of the Comptroller
The Office of the Comptroller is the principal advisor to the Director of OJARS on resource management, information systems, and internal controls. It is also responsible for planning, developing, and improving financial management programs; for upgrading federal and state financial and grants management systems; and for providing policy guidance, control, and support services for the JSIA agencies in accounting, budgeting, grant management, procurement, claims collection and settlement, and internal and external administrative automated data processing. This includes hardware and system development, financial management, budgeting, accounting, management information and other administrative information systems.
The office also administers the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program and helped terminate the LEAA grant program. It provides technical assistance and training to the other JSIA offices, to the Criminal Justice Councils, and to other grantees in the area of financial management. It also
116
coordinates the JSIA agencies’ compliance with financial and grants management regulations and directives.
Office of Operations Support
The Office of Operations Support is responsible for directing and coordinating all activities concerning the internal and organizational support of the JSIA agencies.
The Personnel Division provides employee services to all components of the agencies. This includes the recruitment, selection, and placement of all employees. It also represents management in all labor-relations matters. A major activity during the year was administering a reduction-in-force as a result of the termination of LEAA on April 15. Personnel strength declined from 317 at the end of Fiscal Year 1981 to 281 positions at the end of Fiscal Year 1982.
The Administrative Services Division is responsible for the management and provision of security, furnishings, telephone systems, equipment, maintenance, office space, mail services, safety, and health programs. In addition, it assists grantees in obtaining federal excess personal property. During Fiscal Year 1982, grantees obtained property originally costing $360,523 at a cost of $96,295.
The Management Support Division is responsible for JSIA directives, records management, correspondence, files and forms management, management analysis services, graphic support, and printing and publications support services.
Office of Planning and Management
The Office of Planning and Management provides general policy direction and support for OJARS planning, management, and evaluation activities. It facilitates the coordination of these activities with the other JSIA agencies by developing information on management and program topics of mutual interest. The office is the principal advisor to the Director of OJARS on issues that cut across the JSIA agencies. The office also is responsible for coordinating the phase-out of the LEAA program and managing the small number of criminal justice improvement programs that continue.
During Fiscal Year 1982 the office was involved in the following significant activities:
•	Prepared the LEAA Phase-Out Plan and chaired the Phase-out Task Force, which monitors the phase-out of the program and conducts contingency planning for anticipated personnel and budget reductions.
•	Managed the National Citizen’s Crime Prevention Campaign.
•	Managed the OJARS Victim Assistance Program.
•	Participated in and provided support for the Intelligence Systems Policy Review Board.
•	Revised OJARS audit resolution policy and procedures and coordinated activities of the OJARS Audit Review Committee.
•	Monitored grants to the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Governors Association, and the National Association of Criminal Justice Planners.
•	Managed a number of ongoing programs, including the Law Enforcement Accreditation program, the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime program, the Prison Industries Enhancement program, the “Sting” Anti-Fencing program, and the Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program.
•	Participated in the Interagency Coordinating Council for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Office of Civil Rights Compliance
The Office of Civil Rights Compliance monitors compliance with the civil rights responsibilities of the recipients of criminal justice system financial assistance under the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. This includes enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 815 (c) of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, and the Department of Justice regulations promulgated for the implementation of these statutes (28 CFR Part 42). Although no post-award compliance reviews were negotiated and executed that were the result of previously conducted compliance reviews.
Three notices of noncompliance were issued warning of possible fund suspensions if compliance was not secured. Fund suspension was imposed in two cases, but funding continued after resolutions of the noncompliance.
During the year 55 complaint investigations were completed. A total of 3.75 work years was contributed by professionals in this effort. As a result, the inventory of cases decreased from 58 at the beginning of the year to 15 at the end of the year. Although 157 allegations of civil rights noncompliance were received during the year, only 12 were docketed for investigation, primarily because of the lack of LEAA or other JSIA funding to the cited respondents.
Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program
The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976 authorizes the Department of Justice to pay a benefit of $50,000 to the eligible survivors of state and local public safety officers who die as the result of a personal injury
117
sustained in the line of duty.
Public safety officer is defined as “a person serving a public agency at the state and local level in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer or as a firefighter.” Among those for whom coverage is intended are persons involved in crime and juvenile delinquency control or reduction, or the enforcement of the criminal laws, including police, corrections, probation, parole, and judicial officers. Paid and volunteer fire fighters are also covered.
The Act applies to death occurring from injuries sustained on or after September 29, 1976.
During Fiscal Year 1982, there were 302 claims filed under the Act. During the same time, 216 claims were determined to be eligible and 81 ineligible. This resulted in benefit payments of $10.8 million.
By the end of Fiscal Year 1982, 1,840 claims had been adjudicated under the Act. Line of duty death data is extracted from these claims and stored in an automated data base, which was created to assist research efforts into the cause and prevention of such deaths. Data is now available from local, state and federal public safety agencies upon request from universities, public safety associations, unions and others interested in preventing line of duty deaths.
118
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Benjamin H. Renshaw III
Acting Director
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the national repository for statistical information on crime and the operation of criminal justice systems at all levels of government. It is a source of financial and technical support to state statistical and operating agencies in all the states and territories. It also develops national information policy on such issues as data privacy, confidentiality and security, and the interstate exhange of criminal records.
Data Analysis and Dissemination
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has developed a responsive data analysis and dissemination capability and regularly reports criminal justice data to the public. About 35 analytic surveys were disseminated during 1982. The program is conducted primarily by an in-house staff, employing the agency’s on-line computing and graphics capability. The initial analysis of the National Crime Survey and several correctional surveys are done at the U.S. Bureau of the Census under an interagency agreement.
National Report on Crime and Justice
The primary focus of the Bureau’s analysis program during Fiscal Year 1982 was the preparation of the “National Report on Crime and Justice.” Designated as a priority program by the Attorney General, the report was a comprehensive presentation of statistical information concerning crime and the administration of justice. It drew data from other federal, state, and local agencies as well as a variety of other research and reference materials.
The National Report provides a hitherto unavailable treatment, in a style appropriate for a general public audience, of complicated issues associated with the criminal event, offenders and victims, and the institutional response to crime.
The Bulletin Series
The Bureau’s bulletins present data generated in the various major statistical series. They are published on a regular basis and are prepared in a nontechnical format suitable for a broad audience. Each addresses a topic concerning crime or the administration of justice. During 1982, 12 bulletins were published.
Technical Reports and the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics
During the year, the Bureau initiated a Technical Report series which presents the findings of statistical series and technical research and addresses issues of statistical methodology. The first was published in July 1982, and presented National Crime Survey data for 1980.
It also published the ninth edition of the “Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics.” This document presents criminal justice statistical data from more than 100 sources in an easy-to-use single volume.
The National Criminal
Justice Data Archive
The Bureau of Justice Statistics sponsors the National Criminal Justice Data Archive at the Inter-university Consortium of Political and Social Science at the University of Michigan. It provides assistance to data users whose needs are not satisfied by published statistics. All Bureau data tapes, as well as other high-quality data, are stored at the Archive and are disseminated via magnetic tapes compatible with the computing facility of the user. In addition, the Archive has continued its dissemination of microfilmed National Crime Survey data for users who lack access to computing facilities.
Methodological Evaluation
During the year, the Bureau engaged in major methodological projects concerning the nation’s two most important statistical series on crime, the National Crime Survey and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.
The potential modifications to the National Crime Survey that were investigated include incorporating data on crimes not presently covered, developing techniques to improve victims’ recall and reporting of crime incidents, collecting additional information on crime incidents and on the activities and characteristics of crime victims and nonvictims, improving the sampling efficiency of the survey, changing data collection procedures, and developing techniques for investigating crime problems in small geographic areas.
During the year, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Federal Bureau of Investigation completed preparations for a major national assessment of the Uniform Crime
119
Reporting Program to be sponsored jointly by the two agencies. The project will convene a consortium of organizations to analyze the Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the current and potential use of its data, and to make recommendations for improving the Program.
Adjudication Statistics
The Adjudication Program is designed to provide the Bureau and interested researchers with national statistics on felony prosecution, public defense, trial court processing, and appellate review.
During the year, the Bureau continued its support of the National Court Statistics Project conducted by the National Center for States Courts, which published data about state court caseload statistics in three documents, “State Court Model Statistical Dictionary,” “State Court Model Annual Report,” and “State Court Organization, 1980.”
A new effort begun during the year focuses on defense of indigents. The Bureau supported a national survey of indigent defense systems that was designed to collect statewide data on existing systems, the costs associated with each system, their methods of organization and legal characteristics, and related demographic and economic variables.
The Bureau also sponsored a project through the National Center for State Courts that will document, analyze, and forecast appellate court caseload trends.
National Crime Survey
The Bureau’s most important statistical series is the National Crime Survey, the nation’s only systematic measurement of crime rates using national household surveys similar to those through which basic labor force statistics are gathered.
The data for the National Crime Survey are collected for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In 60,000 households, persons 12 years of age and older are asked if they were crime victims during the preceding six months. The survey measures the amount of rape, robbery, assault, personal larceny, household burglary and larceny, and motor vehicle theft experienced by the U.S. population. It also provides detailed information about the characteristics of the victims, the victim-offender relationships, and the criminal incident, including the extent of any loss or injury and whether or not the offense was reported to law enforcement officials.
In September 1982, the Bureau released for the second year the findings of an indicator developed from National Crime Survey data on the prevalence of crime. It measured the proportion of American households touched by crime and revealed that victimization by crime is one of the most common negative incidents that a family can suffer. During
1981 almost 25 million households, nearly a third of the households in the nation, were victimized by crime. A similar proportion of households has been victimized by crime in each of the six years (1976 through 1981) for which the measure has been calculated.
Information from the National Crime Survey continues to influence criminal justice legislation at the federal, state, and local levels in such matters as crime against the elderly, rape, stranger-to-stranger street crime, and programs to compensate victims. The survey is the only source of information about the detailed characteristics of the victims of crime throughout the nation. It gives legislators and the public knowledge of which groups in the population are disproportionately victimized and of the impact of such criminal victimization on their lives.
Federal Statistics
The Bureau has placed a major emphasis on developing its newly established program on federal statistics. A major study was undertaken to analyze the potential for linking federal criminal justice data collected by the various components of the federal justice system. A bulletin describing the flow of federal cases and defendants through the criminal justice system was published, and the first comprehensive compendium of federal justice data was prepared.
The Bureau completed a major study of computer crime, and reports were issued addressing its legal and security aspects.
Privacy, Confidentiality, and Information Policy
The Bureau continued activities to ensure the confidentiality of statistical data and the privacy and security of criminal history information. Formal interagency negotiations were conducted and a study of the impact of confidentiality legislation on research activity was completed.
Work was done to explore the information policy implications of current criminal justice strategies, such as the violent offender and career criminal programs. Documents also were prepared addressing issues related to the use of criminal justice data by private employers.
The Bureau also issued the fourth in its series of Privacy and Security Legislative Compendiums. These list and analyze state legislation relating to criminal justice information policy and systems.
Correctional Statistics Program
The Correction Statistics Program provides systematic data on correctional populations and agency workloads. The program consists of five activities: National Probation Reports, surveys and censuses of local jails, National
120
Prisoner Statistics, surveys and censuses of state and federal prisons, Uniform Parole Reports, and special reports on selected correctional topics.
National Probation Reports
This series has focused on annual statistics on the number of persons under a sentence of probation. The bulletin, “Probation and Parole 1981,” indicates that at the end of 1981 almost one of every 136 adults was serving a sentence of probation in the community.
The second major element of the Correctional Statistics Program is the regular reporting of information describing the characteristics of the inmates and facilities of the nation’s jails.
National Prisoner Statistics
The oldest of all the correctional series, dating back to 1926, is the National Prisoner Statistics. It provides quarterly and annual counts of prisoners in state and federal institutions. Recent emphasis has been on gathering data on the characteristics of those entering and leaving prison, including demographic data, sentencing information, and time served. National Prisoner Statistics also reports separately on those state prisoners sentenced to and awaiting execution. Four statistical reports were generated under this program during the year.
The Uniform Parole Reports, which began annual reporting in 1976, provide information about the populations and characteristics of those persons conditionally released from prison to supervision in the community. The program also reports on the performance of selected parolee groups which are tracked for up to three years while under supervision. The major publication this past year, “Probation and Parole 1981,” reported state-by-state counts of parolees at the end of 1980 and 1981, as well as entries and exits from parole during 1981.
The Special Reports component of the Correctional Statistics Program published two surveys during the year, “Veterans in Prison” and a description of inmate and facility characteristics entitled “Prisons and Prisoners.”
State Statistical and Systems Programs
Congress has directed the Bureau to “give primary emphasis to problems of state and local justice systems” and “utilize to the maximum extent feasible state government organizations and facilities responsible for the collection and analysis of criminal justice data and statistics.” The Bureau has responded by expanding the analytic capabilities of the states, encouraging cooperation
among them in addressing common problems, and enhancing their ability to provide the Bureau with data for national compilations.
Through the Bureau’s support, statistical analysis centers for criminal justice data have been established in approximately 40 states. They provide statistical information services and policy guidance to the governors, Executive Branch agencies, legislators, state and local criminal justice agencies, the judiciary, the press, and the public. In addition, they play a vital role in collecting and submitting data to the Bureau. In many states the statistical analysis center has been made a part of the state government by legislation or Executive order.
During the year, grants were awarded to establish new statistical analysis centers in three states, and the continuing operation of seven others was supported by grants and cooperative agreements. In addition, the Bureau entered into cooperative agreements with 27 state statistical analysis centers for the performance of specific tasks in accordance with programs developed by the Bureau. These included establishing and maintaining clearinghouses for criminal justice statistical information, the study and analysis of specific issues in criminal justice, and the development of analytic methodology and techniques.
The Bureau also supports the development and operation of State Uniform Crime Reporting systems in more than 40 states to facilitate the submission and improve the validity and reliability of arrest and clearance data submitted by local police agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During the past year, grants were awarded to two states for completing such systems. In addition, awards were made to 12 states to assist them in continuing the effective operation of systems which already were in operation but which were in danger of deteriorating or being abandoned because of the lack of adequate state funding.
State Assistance for National Corrections Reporting is a new program in which 22 states began participating during the past year. This program is designed to enhance the reporting for national programs. Two national workshops on prison population forecasting were conducted and a prototype Probation Information System and a Corrections Resource Management Information System were implemented in two states for test and evaluation.
Five Year Program Plan
During the year, the Bureau updated and published the “Bureau of Justice Statistics Five Year Program Plan—1982-86.” It describes the overall goals and objectives to be achieved by the Bureau during the period and outlines general programs and projects to be undertaken.
121
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Charles A. Lauer
Acting Administrator
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is responsible for assistance to states and local communities to enhance juvenile justice and reduce delinquency. It also is responsible for coordinating and providing policy direction to all federal juvenile delinquency-related programs to assure effectiveness and avoid duplication. The Office administers a special emphasis prevention and treatment program through which it develops and adds emphasis to initiatives of critical importance and demonstrates successful programs. The National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reviews federal policies on juvenile justice and advises the Administrator. Within the Office is the National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which conducts research, evaluates programs, provides specialized training, and disseminates information of value to concerned agencies.
Concentration of Federal Effort
The interdepartmental Coordinating Council on Juvenile Delinquency Prevention continued efforts to coordinate federal programs and activities related to the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency. The Council’s major focus was to exchange information about activities, initiate cooperatively supported programs, and to plan future Council activities. The resulting plan was based upon input from Council members and the public; the latter have been received at two public hearings.
Formula Grants
During Fiscal Year 1982, 45 states and six territories (Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Trust Territories, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Northern Marianas) received formula grant awards totaling $42,655,000. State and territorial allocations were based on the population of juveniles (under 18 years of age). The minimum allocation to each state was $225,000 and to each territory, $56,250.
The deinstitutionalization of status offenders and the separation of juveniles from adult offenders in jails and correctional facilities has been a major emphasis of the state programs, with a goal of the complete removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups by December 1985. Participating states and territories were also encouraged to invest up to 30 percent of the formula funds in special
efforts to deal with serious violent juvenile offenders. Forty-eight states and territories have met special requirements of the enabling Act by demonstrating substantial or full compliance with the deinstitutionalization of status offenders; 25 states have complied with the requirements for the separation of adults and juveniles in adult jails and lockups. Most of the remainder are making creditable progress.
Through an interagency agreement with ACTION, the Foster Grandparent Program is furnishing volunteer staff to youth-serving agencies, thus providing links to formula grant-funded programs in Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, and Washington.
Technical Assistance
More than 440 instances of technical assistance and more than 2,300 man hours were provided to state and local agencies during Fiscal Year 1982 by the Office. Assistance was in a number of areas, but emphasis was upon alternatives to the juvenile justice system, removing juveniles from adult jails, serious and violent juvenile crime, the Foster Grandparent Program, restitution, and delinquency prevention.
The Office concluded an agreement with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia for seminars addressed to law enforcement administrators on current issues in juvenile justice and on the presentation of modern police management strategies to improve police juvenile services.
Special Emphasis
These seven major demonstration programs were continued in Fiscal Year 1982.
Restitution by Juvenile Offenders allows adjudicated delinquents to render monetary, victim service, or community service restitution.
Project New Pride provides comprehensive communitybased treatment for serious offenders. It reduces recidivism, increases school and social achievements, and provides employment opportunities.
The Alternative Education Program reduces drop-out, truancy, and suspension rates through the modification of ineffective and adverse school policies and curricula and the
122
provision of special educational options for youths whose needs are not being met in traditional classrooms.
The removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups Program assists communities in accomplishing the requirements of the Act.
The Youth Advocacy Program changes social and educational policies detrimental to the needs and best interests of youth.
Delinquency Prevention Through Capacity Building increases the capacity of public and private groups to prevent delinquency through the use of alternatives to the juvenile justice system and an improved administration of juvenile justice.
The Violent Juvenile Offender Program is a major research and development effort with two subprograms. Phase I tests a specific intervention approach for the treatment and reintegration of adjudicated violent juvenile offenders. The new Phase II will test the capability of indigenous organizations to reduce violent and serious juvenile crime.
Capacity Building grants are individually evaluated, but the other programs will have program-wide independent evaluations. The preliminary evaluation report for the restitution projects during the first two years, 1979-1981, has shown the following major accomplishments:
•	Of the 15,427 closed restitution cases, 83 percent of the involved juveniles did not have further contact with the juvenile court prior to case closure.
•	Program costs average approximately $1,000 per youth, whereas incarceration costs range from $24,000 to $34,000 per year.
•	About 17,300 youths participated during the first two years, paying $1,532,966 in monetary restitution, working 259,092 hours of community service, and performing more than 4,060 hours of direct victim services. More than 18,390 victims and $9.5 million were involved in the offenses committed by these youths.
National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Specialized Training and Information Dissemination
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Institute supported 23 training projects carried out by specialized public and private organizations and institutions concerned with improving juvenile justice. Approximately 2,000 juvenile court judges and other court-related management personnel, as well as professionals, educators, administrators of juvenile correctional institutions and community-based alternative programs, law enforcement personnel, and people associated with employment and family counseling programs participated in the training.
More than $2 million was awarded to eight information dissemination projects. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service responded to approximately 2,900 written and oral information requests from researchers, judges, legislators, and others involved in the criminal justice field. While the focus is on improving the operations of the juvenile justice system through the provision of training and information dissemination, emphasis was also placed on training and informing juvenile justice professionals in the habitual serious and violent juvenile offender problem.
Research and Evaluation
Recent data and analyses by the Institute indicate that relatively few juvenile offenders continue criminal behavior as adults. However, research has also confirmed that a small number of these youths do become habitual offenders—career criminals—who are responsible for the majority of serious and violent crimes through late teenage years and early adulthood. This knowledge dictated a policy of focusing a large share of Office and Institute resources on finding effective ways of dealing with the population. New prevention and intervention programs for these youths are now being developed and tested. To date, evaluation indicates that restitution, continuous case management, a system of graduated sanctions from secure custody to intensive supervision in the community, and reintegration are promising program strategies.
123
National Institute of Justice
James K. Stewart Acting Director
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsors research to learn more about crime, its causes, and how criminal justice agencies can better control it.
Among the highlights of NIJ research during 1982:
•	Results from career criminal research provided an improved means for identifying the relatively small numbers of offenders who commit an exceedingly large number of violent offenses. The research yielded a profile of the types and volume of crime committed by these most criminally active offenders and a scale of offender characteristics that could—when refined—help determine which defendants should receive longer sentences.
•	Researchers probed the nature and patterns of specific violent crime such as robbery and homicide, the relationship of weapons and violent crime, and programs targeting on serious offenders.
•	Studies examining issues addressed by the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime gathered new information on victims’ services, the role of victims in the criminal justice system, victim compensation, and crime prevention in the schools.
•	Training for law enforcement officials presented approaches for realigning police operations while reserving resources for the most serious crimes. The workshops emphasized alternative approaches to the efficient delivery of police services that would permit increased efforts to combat violent crimes.
Career Criminals
The career criminal is a research priority for NIJ. Studies have revealed the nature and patterns of criminal activity by repeat offenders as well as such issues as arrest, prosecution, and sanctioning. The research is aimed at improved knowledge about repeat offenders and criminal justice policies to control habitual criminals.
During 1982, the Institute concluded a six-year project on career criminals. The most recent studies in this long-term effort confirmed earlier research that a relatively small percentage of felons commit a disproportionately large number of serious crimes. The final research phase also yielded a profile of the serious repeat criminal based on offender characteristics. Alternative sanctioning policies and their impact also were analyzed in the final phase. The research produced a scale of offender characteristics that
could eventually be used to identify the highly active offender.
The serious repeat offender also was the subject of other NIJ research. A panel of experts convened by Harvard University in 1982 focused on the dangerous defendant and problems involving detection and prosecution. More aggresive police investigations, improved access to juvenile records, and better recordkeeping practices were among the recommendations of the panel to identify high-risk defendants early in their criminal careers.
During the year, a new research phase was launched concerning the career criminal. It will focus on those serious offenders who do not stop committing crime as they age but continue well into middle age.
Violent Crime
A study of homicide last year documented the substantial increase in that offense during the 10-year period from 1968 through 1978 and revealed the increasing proportion of homicides committed by strangers as compared to those murders where victim and offender are family members or acquaintances. The study also found a high degree of city-to-city variation in the rates and patterns of the crime.
A study on robbery detailed the patterns and trends in this most frequent violent crime. Reported robbery rates tripled between 1965 and 1975. The rates leveled off from 1976 through 1978, but soared to a new high in 1980. Questions concerning robbery will be addressed in new research proposed by NIJ.
Research on weapons and violent crime reported about 100 million to 140 million guns in private ownership in 1978, an increase of 40 million over 1968. Most of the increase was accounted for by the growth in the number of U.S. households and by increased purchases by sport shooters, hunters, and police. No definitive evidence was found to link the fear of crime generally or the fear of violence (selfdefense) to the increase in gun ownership. Nor was there reliable evidence that private weapons are an important cause of, or deterrent to, violent crime.
A project under development in 1982 responds to a recommendation of the Attorney General’s Violent Crime Task Force. Three reports on school crime will provide practical help to school boards and administrators, municipal officials, and law enforcement and courts personnel. A policy brief will explore the problem of school
124
crime and outline key features and potential benefits of a local agenda for action.
In addition to studies on specific types of violent crime, the overall trends in both violent and property crime were examined in another NIJ study published in 1982. The research reported there was a four-fold increase in crime, but only a two-fold increase in crime fighting resources.
Drugs and Crime
Research also is beginning to increase the understanding of the relationship between drugs and crime. Research on the career offender, for example, illustrates the clear association between severe addiction and high levels of criminality and the corresponding decreases in crime associated with reduced drug abuse. Analyses of a sample of Baltimore addicts showed similar results. Daily heroin users committed violent crimes at a rate 21 times higher than when they were relatively drug-free.
A research effort by the Interdisciplinary Research Center for the Study of the Relations of Drugs and Alcohol to Crime is studying a sample of hard-core addicts and alcoholics in East Harlem, New York, examining their criminal behavior and probing their motives and perceptions of how opiates contributed to their criminal activity. Another study group for the project is a sample of youth in “Yule City,” a northeastern metropolitan area representative of urban America. The interviews and data obtained on these youths, who are in the formative years for drug and delinquency involvement, are expected to afford a clearer picture of when these behavior patterns emerge and how they interact.
Victim Research
The plight of the victim was underscored by the Attorney General’s Violent Crime Task Force, which made several recommendations dealing with victim rights.
A new study of crime victim compensation produced a handbook that details advantages and disadvantages of different types of programs, the costs of various approaches, and the sources of funding—particularly the experience to date in using fines and penalties as a source of revenue.
Additional research examined the experiences of 274 New York City crime victims and found the majority were plagued by psychological problems and that most of the victims turned to friends or relatives for help rather than seeking the services of victim agencies.
Because many of the New York victims were unaware of state assistance, NIJ sponsored a study to analyze six programs that offer a direct line of contact between victims and agencies that can help them.
Several studies published during 1982 examined problems in the interconnected work of police and prosecutors in processing criminal cases.
Another study addressed problems of case processing focused on the quality of arrests and associated conviction rates. It found that officers with high conviction rates paid more attention to locating and dealing with witnesses. They used a two-pronged interviewing approach—a factual line of inquiry and an indirect psychological style—to questioning witnesses. They also persisted in the details of processing evidence, locating witnesses, and the like in followup investigations.
Managing Resources
NIJ studies examining current police practices have suggested alternatives for police service delivery. For example, studies of citizen crime reporting patterns and police response time have suggested improved systems for managing calls for service. By 1982 experimental programs involving these alternative approaches had been sufficiently tested and refined in several sites, enabling NIJ to implement a field test of a system for classifying and responding to citizen calls for service. Through screening procedures, the system uses less costly responses—telephone reporting, delayed response by an officer—to handle nonemergencies, thus freeing resources for critical calls and other police department priorities.
Research also has addressed the difficult problem of domestic violence and other nonstranger violence cases, and a training workshop for criminal justice officials was held in 1982 on effective ways to cope with these cases. Research now in progress is looking at the issue of how victims respond—from resistance to submission—to violent assaults.
Another study is following up on an important issue raised by the Violent Crime Task Force. Researchers are surveying victims and criminal justice professionals to determine the extent to which the full impact of the crime on the victim is considered in decisions made by the criminal justice system. The aim is to identify what approaches would be most useful in ensuring consideration of the degree of harm suffered by the victim.
Crime prevention and concrete approaches for reducing the risk of victimization has been an ongoing NIJ concern for some time. An NIJ study on citizen crime prevention efforts published in 1982 included a survey of the specific anticrime measures taken by a sample of Chicago citizens.
Building Stronger Cases
Research by NIJ and the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that half of all felony arrests fail to result in conviction. To learn why this is so, recent NIJ research has focused on the chain of events that follow an arrest.
125
Research into Practice
Results from individual studies and the practices of innovative programs are synthesized and presented in a variety of formats for practitioners. One of these is an NIJ Program Model. Each report assesses the experiences of operating programs and offers practical guidance for the adoption of the approach by other agencies. “Measuring the Costs of Police Services,” a program model published in 1982, describes cost analysis techniques for estimating police department expenditures and as tools for realigning departmental policies. Other program models published in 1982 included “The Use of Mediation and Arbitration in Small Claims Disputes,” “Police Citation in Lieu of Arrest,” and “Correctional Resources: Economic Analysis Techniques.”
Where research results suggest new approaches a concept is shaped into a workable program and tested in actual operational settings. A field test on Differential Police Response was launched in 1982. At the same time, evaluations were nearing completion on these field tests: Commercial Security, Structured Plea Negotiation, and Multi jurisdictional Sentencing Guidelines.
The Institute also sponsors the development and testing of performance standards for products needed by criminal justice agencies. Among the better known products of this program is the lightweight body armor, the Kevlar protective vests, developed and tested under NIJ auspices. The bullet-resistant vests have been credited with saving more than 400 police lives. Among the items being tested during 1982 were handcuffs, crash helmets, transceivers, and drug test kits.
126
Board of Immigration Appeals
David L. Milhollan Chairman
The Attorney General is charged by law with the administration and enforcement of all laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens. Certain aspects of his power and authority for the administration of such laws have been delegated to the Board of Immigration Appeals (8 CFR 3.1), a quasi-judicial body operating under the supervision and control of the Associate Attorney General. It is independent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the agency charged with enforcement of the immigration laws. The Board is composed of a Chairman and four Members. Supporting the Chairman is an Executive Assistant/Chief Attorney Examiner, who has authority to act as an alternate Member, and an Administrative Officer. Of the total Board staff of 41, there are 16 Attorney Advisors who assist in the preparation of Board decisions and 18 clerical and administrative personnel.
As the highest administrative tribunal charged with interpreting and applying the provisions of the immigration laws, the Board’s primary missions are to establish guidelines for the exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion and to carry out the congressional mandate that immigration laws receive uniform application throughout the United States. The Board accomplishes this in part by analyzing, refining and clarifying policy and procedure in its decisions and, in part, by reconciling inconsistent orders issued by different officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The Board has jurisdiction to hear appeals from specified decisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in which the government, through the Service, is one party and the other party is either an alien, a citizen or a business firm. Pursuant to a Department of Justice Order (No. 45-54, April 23, 1954), which has been endorsed by the courts, the Board is called upon to exercise its independent judgment in hearing appeals for the Attorney General.
Cases reaching the Board consist of appeals from decisions rendered by immigration judges and district directors involving formal orders of deportation, discretionary relief from deportation, exclusion proceedings, claims of persecution, stays of deportation,
bond and detention, petitions for preference immigration status for alien relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, and administrative fines imposed upon carriers because of violation of the immigration laws.
Appeals are decided by the Board in written opinions. Unless modified or overruled by the Attorney General, Board decisions are binding on all officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Decisions relating to final administrative orders of deportation, which constitute the majority of the Board’s caseload, may be reviewed in the U.S. courts of appeals. Other Board decisions may be reviewed in the federal district courts.
The most important of the Board’s decisions—those which address issues of first impression or which resolve unsettled areas of law—are published as precedent decisions. These decisions, in addition to being binding on the Immigration and Naturalization Service, are looked to for guidance by the Department of State, the Public Health Service, and the Department of Labor in order to coordinate their operations with those of the Service.
During Fiscal Year 1982 the Board disposed of 4,034 cases involving 4,529 aliens. This represented an increase of more than 745 cases resolved in Fiscal Year 1982 over Fiscal Year 1981. Thirty-five of these cases were designated as precedent decisions for publication. In this period no Board decision was reviewed by the Attorney General on certification.
Aside from its primary responsibilities of interpreting the immigration laws and ensuring that they are uniformly applied, the Board is also responsible in large part for reviewing the qualifications and professional conduct of attorneys and representatives who practice before the Service and the Board. In this regard, the Board is responsible for “recognizing” various qualifying nonprofit social agencies, which, in turn, may seek to have the Board “accredit” their representatives for practice before the Service and the Board. During Fiscal Year 1982, the Board issued 27 decisions involving “recognition” questions and 69 decisions concerning applications for accreditation of representatives. The Board, with the approval of the Attorney General, is also responsible for suspending or
127
128
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
______■------ SUPPORT
STAFF
— CHAIRMAN
BOARD MEMBERS
ATTORNEY STAFF
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CHIEF ATTORNEY EXAMINER (Alternate Board Member)
barring from practice before the Service and the Board any representatives or attorney, if the public interest so requires.
Following are a representative selection of Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions issued in Fiscal Year 1982 involving various areas over which the Board exercises appellate jurisdiction.
Cuban Boatlift
The effects of the Cuban boatlift continued to require the Board’s attention in a significant number of cases involving the imposition of administrative fines on boat owners who had transported Cubans to U.S. shores. For example, in Matter of M/V “Runaway”,' the Board upheld the fine imposed on the owner and the captain of a vessel, concluding that “reasonable diligence” within the meaning of the remission provisions of Section 273 (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), was not established where the owner claimed to rely on President Carter’s “open hearts and open arms” speech or upon the owner’s belief that visa requirements were waived by the Refugee Act of 1980. In Matter of M/V “Solemn Judge”, 2 the Board concluded that “affirmative misconduct” which might estop the government from imposing fines was not demonstrated by President Carter’s Presidential Determination No. 80-16 or his “open hearts and open arms” speech, by the absence of a warning from the Coast Guard or the Customs Service, or by the fact that the Customs Service issued the carrier a clearance for travel to Cuba. The owner’s defense of duress was rejected for the reason that his objective at the outset in bringing aliens to the United States was contrary to law. The owners’ appeals were sustained by the Board in Matter of M/V “Snail’s Pace”,3 and Matter of M/V “Coral Springs”/ In the former case, the owner’s vessel had been chartered pursuant to a “bareboat” charter, and in the latter case the captain’s conduct in transporting aliens to the United States exceeded the scope of his employment (fishing).
The Cuban boatlift also led to numerous exclusion proceedings. In the course of those proceedings, there arose the issue of whether an offense committed by a youth in a foreign country should be considered a crime or an act of juvenile delinquency. The proposition that juvenile delinquency is not a crime and, hence, not an excludable or deportable offense had long been settled. The criteria for determining whether a foreign transgression was a crime or an act of juvenile delinquency was, however, less clear. In companion cases, the Board concluded that foreign youthful offenders should be held to the same standard of conduct as juveniles whose cases are adjudicated under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA). The Board noted that the FJDA assures juvenile delinquency treatment to youths whose offenses were committed while under the
age of 16 years, regardless of the nature of the offense or the potential punishment. On the other hand, the case of a juvenile who committed his offense while between 16 and 18 years of age may, under certain circumstances, be transferred for criminal prosecution. Thus, in Matter of Ramirez-Rivero,5 the Board held that the applicant’s breaking and entering and theft offenses, committed when he was 13 years of age, could not as a matter of law be deemed criminal by U.S. standards, even though treated as a crime in Cuba. However, in Matter of De La Nues,6 the applicant had committed his foreign offenses at 16 and 17 years of age. The Board determined that he was not entitled as a matter of law to treatment as a juvenile delinquent under the FJDA, inasmuch as he would have been subject to possible criminal prosecution by virtue of the maximum punishment imposable for equivalent U.S. crimes. Accordingly, he was required to establish that he was in fact dealt with as a juvenile delinquent in Cuba under a system of treatment comparable to the FJDA. The Board found the applicant had failed to sustain that burden.
In the area of deportability, the Board held in Matter of Ruis,1 that Section 241(a) (2) of the Act relates to any entry made by an alien who fails to submit for inspection and such entry without inspection is not cured by the alien’s subsequent departure and reentry following inspection. The Board found that the immigration judge improperly terminated deportation proceedings against a lawful permanent resident who entered the United States without inspection and subsequently departed and returned with his Alien Registration Receipt card.
The Board adjudicates many issues involving motions to reopen. In Matter of Reyes,8 a respondent had been found deportable in 1970 and had gone into hiding. In 1979, she filed a motion to reopen to apply for suspension of deportation, claiming extreme hardship would be suffered by her lawful permanent resident parents, who had recently entered the United States. Her claim was rejected by the Board. On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Board found that, even accepting all of respondent’s claims to be true, the motion to reopen should be denied for purely discretionary reasons in view of the alien’s continuous flouting of this country’s immigration laws.
The Board considered the recent 1981 Amendments to the Act in a visa petition case involving an adoption. In Matter ofDrigo,9 the beneficiary’s adoption occurred after his 14th birthday but before his 16th birthday. At the time the petititon was filed, Section 101(b) (1) (E) of the Act required that an adoption take place before the child’s 14th birthday. Subsequent to the district director’s decision, the law was changed, raising the age limitation to 16 years. The Board, however, dismissed the appeal from the denial of the
129
visa petition, noting that a beneficiary must be fully qualified at the time a preference visa petition is filed; otherwise, the beneficiary would be given a priority date to which he was not entitled at the time of filing. Such result would be unfair to those who properly waited until they were eligible before filing their petitions.
In Matter of Hall,™ a member of a large, international religious organization who received room, board, living expenses, and pocket money in return for his activities on behalf of the church, claimed that the Section 245 (c)(2) unauthorized employment bar to adjustment of status did not apply to him. The Board determined that his activities did constitute unauthorized employment within the contemplation of the statute, finding that the alien was not an unpaid volunteer; that Congress in enacting Section 245 (c)(2) did not intend solely to protect American labor but also sought to discourage nonimmigrants from working and acquiring the means to support a prolonged unlawful stay in this country; and that in any event, the alien’s fund-raising activities involving the sale of jewelry and toys did have an adverse impact on the American labor market. The Board concluded that the respondent’s fundraising duties were clearly secular in nature and could not logically be distinguished from pursuits falling within the bar.
Persecution Claims
Persecution claims and relief under the Refugee Act of 1980“ and its implementing regulations have continued to affect the number and nature of cases before the Board. These amended provisions established certain statutory grounds of ineligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation under Sections 208 and 243 (h) of the Act. The aliens affected include those who have been “firmly resettled” in another country and those who constitute a danger to the community of the United States.
In Matter of Portales, et al.,12 an exclusion case involving participants in the massive exodus from Cuba in the Spring of 1980, the Board held that Cuban applicants who were granted refugee status by Peru and permitted to live and work in that country without restriction were “firmly resettled” and not entitled to classification as refugees in the United States. The Board concluded that the living conditions and inability to obtain employment experienced by the applicants was the result of Peru’s economy and not the conscious restriction of benefits by the authorities of that country. The Board further concluded that the two-year limitation on the validity of the refugee documents issued the applicants was not significant in view of similar restrictions placed on the status of refugees in the United States.
In Matter of Frentescu, 13 the Board held that a crime involving moral turpitude was not the statutory equivalent of a “particulary serious crime” under Section 243 (h) (2) (B) of the Act. An alien who has been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” and constitutes a danger to the community of the United States is not eligible for asylum or withholding of deportation. The applicant’s conviction for burglary was not considered to be such a crime. The Board noted that the determination of whether a crime is “particularly serious” will require consideration of such factors as the nature of the conviction, the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction, the sentence imposed, and, most importantly, whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the alien poses a danger to the community.
In Matter of Salim,14 the Board found that the applicant had established his claim that he would be persecuted if returned to Afghanistan and that he was statutorily eligible for both asylum and withholding of deportation. The applicant was granted temporary withholding to Afghanistan pursuant to the mandatory language of Section 243 (h) of the Act. Noting that asylum under Section 208 (a) of the Act, unlike Section 243 (h) withholding, is a discretionary form of relief, the Board denied the applicant’s request for asylum in the exercise of discretion based upon his entry into the United States with a fraudulently purchased passport. It was held that the applicant’s fraudulent avoidance of the orderly refugee procedures established by this country was an extremely adverse factor which was not overcome by countervailing equities.
During Fiscal Year 1982 the Board received a significant number of Haitian exclusion cases involving requests for asylum and withholding of deportation. In Matter of Exilus,™ the Board held that the immigration judge’s refusal to permit an asylum applicant to submit interrogatories to the Department of State concerning its advisory opinion in her case did not constitute a denial of due process. The Board determined that the significant impact of such submission upon the efficient functioning of the government far outweighed the minimal benefit to the asylum applicant. The Board further held that due process does not require the simultaneous translation of an entire administrative hearing.
In Matter of Exame,16 the Board remanded the record for further consideration of the applicant’s asylum request where the immigration judge had categorically rejected all evidence relating to the general conditions in Haiti. The Board held that such evidence, while seldom sufficient in itself to establish the alien’s persecution claim, was
130
nonetheless admissible so long as it is relevant, material, and noncumulative. The immigration judge’s rejection of the applicant’s background evidence improperly precluded the applicant from making a full and fair presentation of his persecution claim.
CITATIONS
(1)	Interim Decision 2883 (BIA 1981).
(2)	Interim Decision 2894 (BIA 1982).
(3)	Interim Decision 2904 (BIA 1982).
(4)	Interim Decision 2903 (BIA 1982).
(5)	Interim Decision 2884 (BIA 1981).
(6)	Interim Decision 2885 (BIA 1981).
(7)	Interim Decision 2923 (BIA 1982).
(8)	Interim Decision 2907 (BIA 1982).
(9)	Interim Decision 2901 (BIA 1982).
(10)	Interim Decision 2897 (BIA 1982).
(11)	Pub. L. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (March 17, 1980).
(12)	Interim Decision 2905 (BIA 1982).
(13)	Interim Decision 2906 (BIA 1982).
(14)	Interim Decision 2922 (BIA 1982).
(15)	Interim Decision 2914 (BIA 1982).
(16)	Interim Decision 2920 (BIA 1982).
131
ANTITRUST DIVISION
132
CHICAGO OFFICE
CONSUMER AFFAIRS SECTION
TRANSPORTATION SECTION
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
EVALUATION SECTION
DALLAS OFFICE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
SPECIAL ASSISTANTS
NEW YORK OFFICE
OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING
APPELLATE SECTION
CLEVELAND OFFICE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION
TRIAL SECTION
GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPERATIONS OFFICE
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION
SPECIAL TRIAL SECTION
PHILADELPHIA OFFICE
SPECIAL REGULATED INDUSTRIES SECTION
ENERGY SECTION
ECONOMIC POLICY OFFICE
ATLANTA OFFICE
FOREIGN COMMERCE SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Antitrust Division
William F. Baxter
Assistant Attorney General
“Competition” is the fundamental economic policy of the United States. Competitive markets serve consumers by fostering innovation and efficient resource allocation, thereby assuring maximum productivity at the lowest possible cost.
The mission of the Antitrust Division is to promote and maintain competition in the American economy, a task which it accomplishes in four basic ways. First, as a law enforcement agency, it brings criminal and civil antitrust cases, primarily under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, to prosecute violations of the law in particular markets. Second, it appears at proceedings of federal (and occasionally state) regulatory agencies where important questions of antitrust law or competition policy are at stake. Third, Division representatives participate in Administration policy groups and testify before congressional committees as advocates of competition-oriented solutions to national problems. Finally, Division personnel speak as proponents of competition before professional associations, business groups, and other organizations.
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Division emphasized detection, investigation, and criminal prosecution of price fixing, focusing particularly on bid rigging in the public highway and airport construction industries. New liaison arrangements were also established with a number of federal agencies to help identify possible bid rigging conspiracies.
In other action, the Division undertook programs to assure that private sector productivity was not inhibited by excessively burdensome government regulation. A major accomplishment was the June 1982 publication of a revised version of the Division’s 1968 merger guidelines. The new guidelines reflect changes that have occurred in economic analysis and judicial precedents applicable to corporate mergers and acquisitions. The Division also continued its project to eliminate anticompetitive or unnecessary decrees from past antitrust cases, as well as its program to identify opportunities for Division intervention in private antitrust suits litigated on faulty theories of illegality. Further, a new project to formulate a guide for “vertical” business practices was initiated. The guide will explain the Division’s enforcement policy concerning relationships among business firms at different levels of the market distribution system.
With a staffing level of 829 full-time employees (down from 933 in Fiscal Year 1981), the Division filed a record 112 antitrust cases during Fiscal Year 1982, an increase of 16 over the previous year. It opened 301 formal investigations of possible violations of the antitrust laws, was involved in 341 new cases or matters arising under various consumer protection statutes, and spent more than 3,100 attorney days in court on antitrust and consumer protection matters. The Division’s Appellate Section filed briefs in 21 antitrust cases where the Division was a party, and in 39 administrative law cases in the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court where the United States or one of its agencies was a party. The Division also appeared in 19 federal regulatory agency proceedings by filing briefs, participating at hearings, or presenting oral arguments.
The Antitrust Division devoted substantial resources to competition advocacy in the legislative area during the past year. The Assistant Attorney General, or his representative, made 32 appearances before congressional committees on matters relating to antitrust law and policy. The Division answered 128 requests from the Office of Management and Budget and from Congress for comments on proposed legislation. The Division also continued to provide information on a wide variety of matters to Congress and to the public. It responded to 315 mail inquiries from the legislative branch, 347 inquiries referred to it by the White House, and several thousand inquiries received directly from the public. Three hundred and sixty-three requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act were processed.
Competition advocacy by the Division in Fiscal Year 1982 also occurred in a wide variety of other forums. Division personnel participated in more than 20 interagency and international committees dealing with a wide range of subjects, such as telecommunications, patent policy, uranium enrichment, transnational enterprises, ocean shipping, and agricultural crop marketing. As required by various statutes, the Division provided advice to other federal agencies on the competitive implications of more than 850 proposed transactions, including mergers and acquisitions of financial institutions, seabed mining leases, dispositions of surplus government property, and Outer Continental Shelf lease sales. Finally, the Division prepared statutory reports to the President and to Congress on such subjects as the activities of the International Energy
133
Agency, the state of competition in the coal industry, and identical bidding in public procurement.
Price Fixing and Other Restraints of Trade
The Antitrust Division places special emphasis on criminal enforcement of the Sherman Act as a major deterrent to cartel behavior. Protecting a deregulated and revitalized economy from price fixing and kindred activities is crucial, and criminal prosecution leading to actual incarceration is the single most effective deterrent to concerted anticompetitive conduct. Ninety-four criminal cases were filed during Fiscal Year 1982 (compared with 71 in Fiscal Year 1981); more criminal cases were filed this year than in any year since passage of the Sherman Act in 1890. The year also saw a continuation of the trend to substantial jail sentences. The 5,940 days of incarceration imposed during the year constitute the second highest total in history. Fines and recoveries totaled more than $40.8 million, the largest amount on record.
Enforcement actions against horizontal price fixing and other restraints of trade in a wide variety of product areas were successfully completed. Examples include gasoline, dairy and grocery products, art materials, liquor, and greaseproof paper. Cases filed in Fiscal Year 1982 and pending at the close of the year challenged anticompetitive practices affecting the sale of such products as wholesale pastry and seafood.
The Division also continued its scrutiny of anticompetitive conduct in the service industries. It filed civil antitrust cases involving iron ore transportation, commercial banking, and literary agent services. Injunctive decrees were entered in other cases to eliminate anticompetitive constraints on the delivery of repossession, escrow, attorney, engineering, nursing, and other services.
The Division’s enforcement program against price fixing in the public highway and airport construction industries continued to generate dramatic results. During the year, the Division initiated 88 prosecutions involving 92 corporations and 89 individuals in connection with conspiracies to rig bids on public highway and airport construction projects in 12 states. Seventy of the cases had been resolved in the government’s favor by the end of the fiscal year. Fines totaling nearly $20 million were assessed and substantial jail sentences imposed. The Division’s investigation was continuing, with grand juries under way in 14 states at year’s end.
The Division’s bid rigging effort received significant assistance from various state antitrust offices and especially from the Deparment of Transportation. In August 1982, the Departments of Justice and Transportation jointly
established an Interdepartmental Bid Rigging Investigations Coordinating Committee, which is intended to promote examination of Department of Transporation files concerning federally funded road, bridge, and airport construction contracts in 11 additional states where expenditures have been high and where conditions ripe for bid rigging exist.
The Division’s experience in the road building and airport cases suggests that bid rigging is fairly common, particularly with respect to federally-funded construction contracts. Therefore, in December 1981, the Division commenced a liaison program with four other federal agencies designed to develop antitrust awareness among agency personnel and to identify investigatory targets suspected of bid rigging in government procurement. The agencies involved are the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
In June 1982, the Division issued a primer designed for procurement specialists, auditors, and investigative personnel. The primer outlines the purposes of the antitrust laws, briefly describes conduct that violates the law and the penalties that may be imposed, and focuses specifically on how to detect price fixing and bid rigging. Steps that individual agency employees can take to seek out actual evidence of collusion are suggested, along with ways that agency procurement systems can be administered to stimulate competition and inhibit anticompetitive behavior. Finally, methods that can be implemented on an agencywide basis to sensitize procurement officers and auditing employees about antitrust are recommended.
In Fiscal Year 1983, the Division expected to expand its liaison efforts to cover other federal agencies, and other divisions within the Department of Justice as well. The Division’s field offices had also begun to establish ongoing contacts with the field offices of federal agencies whose programs are susceptible to bid rigging.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Division continued to deemphasize cases attacking vertical distributional practices (involving different levels of a marketing system), except where such arrangements might harm consumers. In March 1982, the Division voluntarily dismissed a pending case against Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (MBNA). The complaint, which had been filed in August 1979, charged the company with selling Mercedes-Benz automobiles to car dealers on the condition that the dealers agree to purchase replacement parts solely from MBNA. Upon close analysis, the Division determined that the “tying” arrangements involved in the suit posed no real threat of competitive injury. Rather, they merely allowed MBNA to capture, in a particular way, the value of customer preferences for Mercedes-Benz autos.
134
The Division’s project to formulate a guide for vertical business practices also reflects the conviction that many vertical arrangements generate desirable savings in product or service distribution costs, or otherwise facilitate efficient product promotion, sale and service. The vertical practices guide will be designed to encourage the courts, the antitrust bar, and the business community to join the Division in rethinking the problem of vertical practices, and in putting the law concerning such arrangements on a sounder footing.
The Division’s program to assess private antitrust suits as possible candidates for intervention focuses on both vertical and horizontal activities that can pose competitive problems. The Division’s appearance as an amicus curiae in selected private suits is intended 1) to promote sound economic analysis in the application of the antitrust laws, 2) in appropriate “rule of reason” cases, to urge an approach permitting summary dismissal of claims where the business practices at issue entail no realistic prospect of actual competitive harm, and 3) to encourage courts to simplify and expedite antitrust trials where legitimate competitive issues are truly at stake.
Preservation of
Competitive Market Structure
Another of the Division’s major enforcement programs focuses on market structure, and on anticompetitive practices that may lead to or stem from undue concentrations of market power. Under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Division challenges mergers that threaten to reduce existing or potential competition. It also invokes Section 2 of the Sherman Act to seek injunctive and structural relief from the adverse effects of monopolistic acts or practices.
Effective merger enforcement requires that information about proposed acquisitions be readily available before they are consummated. Otherwise, the Division will be unable to challenge mergers in court until after the assets of the merging firms have been mingled. Under the premerger notification provisions of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, the Antitrust Division (and the Federal Trade Commission) obtain information on all significant mergers. During Fiscal Year 1982, 1,204 premerger notification reports were reviewed. After preliminary analysis, 56 expanded investigations were conducted. The Division also reviewed over 1,800 other mergers and acquisitions undertaken by banks and other financial institutions (up from about 1,000 in Fiscal Year 1981.)
The Division filed eight merger cases in Fiscal Year 1982, all of them alleging the elimination of existing horizontal competition. A consent decree was entered in one case and a decision was rendered against the government in a second. The other six were pending at year’s end. Seven merger
cases filed in earlier years, involving such markets as mortgage insurance, plumbing fixtures, hospital management services, and thermoplastics, were resolved in the government’s favor.
A landmark accomplishment in the merger area was the publication of revised merger guidelines. The original guidelines, issued in 1968, were designed to articulate the Division’s enforcement intentions with respect to proposed merger transactions. Subsequent changes in economic analysis and judicial precedent, however, had gradually rendered parts of the guidelines obsolete. As a result, competitively unobjectionable mergers were deterred. The new June 1982 Guidelines corrected those deficiencies by providing an accurate description of the analysis the Division now undertakes in assessing the likely competitive effects of a merger or acquisition.
Both of the Division’s major monopolization cases were resolved during the year. In January 1982, the Division and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) filed pleadings to dismiss the government’s suit against AT&T and simultaneously to modify the 1956 decree that had been entered in United States v. Western Electric Co. After lengthy public comment proceedings and a stipulation by the parties altering certain features of their original proposal, the court entered the decree modification on August 24, 1982.
The modification, which completely superseded the 1956 decree, required AT&T to divest within 18 months the assets used for local exchange telephone services. The resulting local Bell operating companies would be completely independent from AT&T and would be barred from discriminating against AT&T’s competitors with respect to the procurement of products and services, the interconnection and use of local telephone equipment and service, and the planning of new facilities and services. AT&T, which was expected to emerge as one of several competitive providers of interconnection services between local exchanges, was prohibited for seven years from engaging in electronic publishing over its transmission facilities (except for electronic directory services and time and weather information).
The Division also stipulated in January to the dismissal of its suit against the International Business Machines Corporation. The action was taken after careful consideration of the government’s likelihood of success and the potential benefits to be gained, weighed against the costs of continuing the case, showed that dismissal was warranted.
Other Antitrust Activity
A major ongoing Division project is to assess all the antitrust decrees obtained by the Division since passage of the Sherman Act in 1890. The principal purpose of the
135
review Is to locate, and modify or terminate as appropriate, decrees that may have anticompetitive or other undesirable effects, Bight judgments were modified or terminated during Fiscal Year 1982 and, at year’s end, nearly a hundred more were under consideration for possible action, This effort springs from the Division’s belief that deregulation of markets controlled by outdated antitrust decrees is just as urgent as deregulation of industries sheltered by anticompetitive statutory schemes,
Termination of undesirable decrees will also enable the Division to concentrate its decree enforcement resources more effectively upon enforcing orders that truly promote competition, A new computerized system for monitoring judgment compliance has been implemented, and, during Fiscal Year 1983, the Division intended to systematically identify procompetitive decrees that require investigatory attention to assure that their terms are being obeyed.
In the legislative arena, the Antitrust Division participated substantially in the Administration’s effort to secure passage of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, P,L, 97=261, The Act significantly deregulated the intercity bus industry and provided new and improved opportunities for competition, Among the bill’s key provisions were relaxed requirements for introduction of service on new Interstate and intrastate routes, and improved ability for carriers to exit from unprofitable routes, The authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate rates was also substantially reduced, providing carriers with greater pricing flexibility. Further, the Interstate Commerce Commission rate regulation authority was to be eliminated altogether within three years, except for its authority to investigate and remedy discriminatory or predatory pricing. Also, effective January 1, 1983, and January 1, 1984, respectively, antitrust immunity for carrier agreements setting singledine and jointdine rates would terminate. The Motor Carrier Rate=making Study Commission was directed to report to the President and the Congress by January 1, 1984, concerning the need for continued immunity of collective rate=making activity.
The Division also participated in the debate over legislative proposals to establish rights of contribution and claims reduction for defendants in antitrust actions. Under current antitrust doctrine, all defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages arising from an unlawful conspiracy to which they were a party, and no defendant may recover any part of a judgment against it from other liable defendants. Consequently, plaintiffs’ decisions regarding whom to sue or against whom to collect an antitrust judgment can lead to the imposition of substantially disproportionate burdens upon equally culpable defendants. Also, where partial settlements occur, the exposure of the remaining defendants can become so
great that even those with meritorious defenses will avoid taking their cases to trial. The Division supports contribution and claims-reduction legislation that would assure congruence between a defendant’s ultimate financial liability and its actual responsibility for the plaintiff’s injury, provided that plaintiffs’ ability to secure full compensation for antitrust damages is not substantially impaired. Such legislation was introduced and considered in the 97th Congress, but no bill had passed by the end of the fiscal year,
At the Supreme Court, although no government antitrust cases were decided during the last term, the Antitrust Division did actively participate as an amicus in eight private cases, four of which were decided on the merits. The Court’s decisions in those four cases should assist antitrust enforcement.
Union Labor Life Insurance Co. v. Pireno' involved the scope of the antitrust exemption for the “business of insurance” contained in the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Division filed an amicus brief successfully arguing that the Act did not protect an agreement between an insurance company and a peer review committee of chiropractors where the agreement allegedly restrained competition in the market for chiropractic services. In American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.,2 the Supreme Court agreed with the Division’s position that a nonprofit membership corporation is civilly liable under the antitrust laws for any antitrust violations committed by its agents acting with apparent authority, while in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.2 the Court accepted the Division’s contention that a finding of contributory infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act requires proof of guilty knowledge. Finally, in Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society,* the Court accepted the Division’s amicus position, and held violative of the Sherman Act an agreement among doctors fixing the maximum fees charged to policyholders of certain insurance plans. The Court’s opinion, however, classified all horizontal agreements to set maximum price as per se unlawful, a rule that may suppress procompetitive arrangements in some circumstances.
In the courts of appeal, several government antitrust cases were decided in the Division’s favor during the year. The Division won a signal victory in In re International Business Machines Corporation ,’ where the court held the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act inapplicable to a stipulation dismissing an antitrust case. In United States v. Bearden J the Division successfully appealed from a district court order dismissing numerous indictments (including two Indictments in Division cases) for failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act. The court of appeals agreed with the Division’s contention that there were no substantial
136
failures to comply with the Act, and that, in any event, many of the objections had not been made within the statutory time allowed.
The Division also filed a total of five amicus briefs in court of appeals cases. For example, in Shop and Save Food Markets, Inc. v. Pneumo Corp, J the Division supported the defendant’s argument that an alleged exaction of penalty rent from the plaintiff was not an illegal tying arrangement. After considering its earlier decision to the contrary, the court granted a petition for rehearing and filed an opinion agreeing with the Division’s analysis. In Pachal v. Kansas City Star,1 the Division urged reversal of a district court decision holding that vertical integration into distribution by a monopoly newspaper violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. And in Stanley McDonald v. Johnson & Johnson ,’ the Division advocated dismissal of a Sherman Act claim alleging that the defendant had purchased an invention solely to prevent its introduction into the market. The Division’s brief argued that dismissal was appropriate unless there was evidence of a violation under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, because otherwise litigation of such claims would deter desirable technology transfers.
Regulated Industries
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Antitrust Division pursued competitive goals in regulated industries through both direct antitrust enforcement and advocacy of regulatory reform. It urged elimination of unnecessary or counterproductive governmental interference with free market forces and, where legitimate regulatory objectives were at stake, sought adoption of the least anticompetitive means of market intervention.
In the transportation sector of the economy, the Division participated actively in many proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Federal Maritime Commission. In the Civil Aeronautics Board’s Competitive Marketing Investigation, the Division urged deregulation of the travel agent industry, and in proceedings before both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board, argued that competitive factors should be recognized in the allocation of airport takeoff and landing slots after the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike. In the Union Pacific-Missouri Pacific-Western Pacific Merger proceeding at the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Division identified competitive problems with certain routes involved in the proposed merger and successfully argued for the imposition of conditions on the activities of the merged railroads.
The Division also brought a criminal case against five railroads for conspiring to exclude competition In the transportation of iron ore from Lake Erie to inland steel mills. Four of the defendants pleaded nolo contendere during the year; trial of the fifth was scheduled for October 1982. During an investigation of possible violations in the ocean shipping trade between the United States and Australia and New Zealand, the Division litigated several court challenges to the Division’s investigative authority. And in a private antitrust case involving ocean shipping, the Division assisted the Federal Maritime Commission in preparing an amicus brief to clarify the scope of antitrust immunity for shipping conference activities.
Eight sets of comments were filed during the year at the Federal Communications Commission. The Division supported removal of most entry and operational restrictions imposed on subscription television services competing with other pay television systems. The Division also commented in detail on a Commission staff report dealing with cable television ownership policies and, in another broadcasting matter, filed remarks to support lessened restrictions on transfers of broadcast licenses and construction permits.
Direct antitrust enforcement in the broadcast sector was pursued as well. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia awarded the Division partial summary judgment in its Sherman Act suit challenging the advertising restraints imposed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Television Code. Thereafter, NAB entered into a proposed consent decree eliminating all of the provisions challenged by the Division.
With respect to common carrier telecommunications issues, the Division argued before the Federal Communications Commission In favor of permitting domestic satellite licensees to sell satellite communication transponder service on an unregulated basis, and also supported eliminating tariff and construction approval regulations applicable to international record carriers. In another matter, the Division supported direct assignment pricing for access by interstate telecommunications carriers to local telephone exchanges. Specifically, the Division argued that a flat monthly rate assessed to the customer would appropriately reflect the cost of access.
The Division continued to oppose permanent entry by the U.S. Postal Service into the market for sale of electronic mail services. Since private vendors were willing and able to provide such service, the Division contended, there were no grounds to conclude that a government entity should offer electronic mail service or that service by firms need be regulated. The Division challenged the legality of the Electronic Computer-Originated Mail (ECOM) Service offered by the Postal Service both at the Postal Rate
137
Commission and in the courts. The Postal Rate Commission suspended the ECOM proceedings, but the courts, construing provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act, refused on procedural grounds to forbid the implementation of ECOM.
Mergers ana other affiliations of firms supplying financial services, particularly banks and savings and loan associations, increased dramatically during the year. In three instances the Division challenged such activities in court. A consent decree requiring divestiture was pending at year’s end in one case involving firms that compete in offering private mortgage guarantee insurance. In a second suit, the Division sought unsuccessfully to enjoin the merger of two commercial banks in Wise County, Virginia. Finally, the Division filed suit against two banks in Michigan as well as their common majority stockholder, alleging that the stockholder, as chairman and president of one bank, had secretly acquired control and become chairman of the second bank for the purpose of eliminating competition.
The Federal Reserve Board proposed, and the Division commented upon, guidelines for screening proposed bank mergers to determine whether potential competition problems are present. The Division recommended enlarging the pool of potential entrants to be considered and urged the Board to focus on the acquired institution’s market share rather than upon its market rank. In a specific merger, that of Bank America Corporation and discount securities broker Charles Schwab Company, the Division filed comments concluding both that the merger was permissible under the Bank Holding Company Act, and that the Glass-Steagull Act (which requires separation of banking services and certain securities activities) did not bar the merger.
The Federal Home Loan Bank Board also proposed merger screening criteria, both for direct competition mergers and, after the Division’s first set of comments, for potential competition mergers as well. While encouraging merger screening, the Division concluded that the proposed guidelines did not comport with Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The Division also commented on several other Federal Home Loan Bank Board proposals, recommending that the Board adopt a more liberal interstate branching policy, and also suggesting that, because of risk to thrift associations, the Board should move cautiously in expanding the powers of service corporations owned by one or more savings and loan associations.
The Division continued to support deregulatory initiatives at the banking agencies. One set of comments urged deregulation of interest rates and other restrictive terms and conditions on deposits at federally chartered credit unions, while another set supported the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s proposal to simplify procedures for approval of bank branch applications.
Concern for deregulation was also advocated by the Division before agencies supervising other types of financial markets. The Division recommended elimination of duplicative “large trader” reports at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. A “shelf registration” proposal before the Securities and Exchange Commission, designed to permit registration of stocks and bonds under a single registration statement and prospectus effective for two years, received strong support. In a separate proceeding, the Division urged that the Securities and Exchange Commission not require brokers in the over-the-counter market to advertise their customers orders to the other market makers and exchanges before filling the orders themselves.
Energy Matters
Division efforts to promote competition in energy markets continued in Fiscal Year 1982. Under Section 252 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the Division monitored industry participation in approximately 30 International Energy Agency meetings held in the United States and overseas. The Division prepared two reports for Congress and the President on oil company activities under the International Energy Program, represented the Department in the Interdepartmental Group on International Energy Policy chaired by the Department of State and submitted comments to the Department of Energy on studies analyzing the economic impact of energy supply disruptions.
In the electric power area, the Division participated in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Central Power and Light proceeding, in which the Commission considered what type of electrical interconnection should be established between Texas and the rest of the nation. In November 1981, the Commission accepted a settlement, concurred in by the Department, which would substantially enhance competition by requiring construction of direct current interconnections by Texas utilities.
The Department submitted its fourth report on Competition in the Coal Industry to Congress in May 1982. The report considered the effects of vertical integration by electric utilities into coal, and concluded that although such vertical integration can have anticompetitive consequences, available evidence provides no basis for imposing a flat ban on the issuance of federal coal leases to electric utilities.
Evaluation of proposed mergers represented a significant share of the Division’s resources devoted to energy matters during the year. The most significant matters involved acquisitions by large, vertically integrated petroleum companies in several fossil fuel markets (including oil, gas and coal), as well as the acquisition of refinery facilities.
138
The Division continued its role in reviewing the antitrust implications of the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program administered by the Department of the Interior. Pursuant to its statutory duties under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, the Division analyzed numerous Outer Continental Shelf lease sales and lease assignments during Fiscal Year 1982. Additionally, the Division submitted formal comments on the Department of the Interior’s proposed five-year leasing program, a project designed to accelerate the leasing of all remaining drilling sites, and on the Department of the Interior’s Annual Report to Congress concerning the state of competition in Outer Continental Shelf leasing.
Similarly, under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, the Division conducted numerous antitrust reviews concerning the issuance of new contracts for exploration, development, or production of petroleum in California. The Division also submitted formal comments on a proposal to develop a naval oil shale reserve in Colorado. And, after Congress authorized the Department of the Interior to commence development of the Alaskan Petroleum Reserve, the Division conducted an antitrust review of the first lease sale held for that area.
The Division filed briefs and participated in oral argument as a respondent in an appeal of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s opinion in Alabama Power Company. There, the Commission had accepted the Division’s position that granting an unconditioned license would be anticompetitive in light of the petitioning company’s monopoly power over energy generation and transmission. The division also rendered antitrust advice to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in connection with several applications for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
In another area, the Division submitted comments on proposals by the Environmental Protection Agency for phasing out leaded gasoline. The lead phase-down rules subsequently proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency reflected an increased awareness of competitive issues.
During the year, the Division intensified its efforts to investigate charges of price fixing in various wholesale and retail energy markets, initiating two grand jury investigations into allegations of price fixing among gasoline distributors and retailers.
Foreign Commerce
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Antitrust Division continued to monitor import and export trade for cartel or other restrictive business practices that can have an adverse impact on prices or supplies of important consumer goods.
Several investigations of such activity were initiated or continued.
The Division also participated in a number of proceedings before international trade regulatory agencies, filing comments in antidumping and “unfair” import competition matters. It continued its work as the Attorney General’s representative to the Cabinet Council on Commerce and Trade and to the Trade Policy Committee and its numerous subcommittees. The Cabinet Council on Commerce and Trade is composed of Cabinet Officers who are particularly concerned with domestic and international economic policy, while the Trade Policy Committee is an interagency group that develops trade policy and advises the President on the resolution of particular trade cases. Division representatives also attended meetings of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (chaired by the Department of the Treasury) and the Foreign Government Investment Working Group of the Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs.
The Division participated actively in the work of the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development’s Committee of Experts on Restrictive Business Practices. That committee continued its examination of international antitrust investigative methods, relationships between antitrust and the professions, and merger control policies in member countries. In the United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Division took a leading role in implementing a set of voluntary principles and rules for the control of restrictive business practices. The rules, which were adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1980, provide guidance for U.S. enterprises doing business in developing countries, and create a mandate for continuing the United Nations’ expert and technical assistance work in the antitrust field. The Antitrust Division heads the U.S. delegation to the Intergovernmental Group on Restrictive Business Practices mandated by the code. The Division was also a member of the U.S. delegation seeking to negotiate a Code of Conduct for the International Transfer of Technology.
The Division continued to participate in bilateral discussions and negotiations with other countries concerning antitrust enforcement. In June 1982, the United States and Australia signed an agreement to promote cooperation between the two countries on antitrust matters. The agreement provides 1) that Australia will not automatically block compliance by Australian companies with subpeonas from U.S. antitrust agencies and private litigants, and 2) that the Department of Justice will appear in private antitrust suits brought in U.S. courts against Australian companies, if the Australian government so requests. The Division also received delegations of antitrust
139
and other legal officials from several foreign nations interested in American antitrust law, enforcement policies, and programs.
Finally, the Division participated in the United States-Egypt and United States-Panama Bilateral Investment Treaty negotiations. Both treaties, if ratified by Congress, would establish rights protecting citizens from each party nation who invest outside their own country, and would provide a mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes.
Consumer Affairs
The Division (through its Consumer Affairs Section) is responsible for Federal Trade Commission civil penalty and forfeiture cases, and for litigation arising under 1) the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 2) the Consumer Product Safety Act (and other statutes administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission), and 3) various provisions of the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The Division also enforces federal injunctive, civil penalty, and criminal provisions that prohibit automobile odometer tampering and require accurate mileage disclosure. During Fiscal Year 1982, the Division engaged in approximately 260 new enforcement or defensive cases involving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), five new Consumer Product Safety Commission matters, and 37 new case referrals from the Federal Trade Commission.
The Division continued its enforcement of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, completing criminal actions involving the insanitary storage of foods, the misbranding of food through the failure to properly reprocess food items, and the submission of falsified studies and records to the Food and Drug Administration. The Division also instituted civil penalty cases for violations of the Radiation Control Act, and seizure actions against numerous products, including counterfeit drugs, bogus orange juice, starch blockers, and various illegal medical devices.
Decisions favorable to the FDA were rendered in suits seeking to have nitrites declared color additives, to overturn an extension of the provisional listing requirements for certain color additives, and to prevent the use of lethal drug injections for capital punishment. Also upheld was the FDA’s decision not to exempt from federal preemption a state law regulating hearing aids. The Division was also involved in the defense of the FDA in cases involving such matters as the “Reyes syndrome” warning on aspirin, FDA regulation of corn containing aflotoxin, and FDA’s review programs for over-the-counter drugs.
In its enforcement of statutes administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Division successfully concluded a criminal contempt action for violations of appellate court orders prohibiting the
shipment of TRIS-treated children’s garments. In another matter, a substantial civil penalty was assessed for the manufacture and sale of carpet not meeting carpet flammability standards. The Division also instituted two actions on behalf of the Consumer Product Safety Commission seeking civil penalties for statutory violations involving defective automatic baseball pitching machines, and successfully defended the Commission’s publication of a rule proposing to ban the sale of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation.
The Division instituted and continued a number of actions under the Federal Trade Commission Act in which civil penalties and injunctive relief were sought for violations of 1) Commission cease and desist orders, 2) trade regulation rules, and 3) statutory provisions prohibiting anticompetitive conduct, unfair or deceptive marketing practices, and unfair or deceptive marketing practices, and unfair debt collection techniques. The cases involved such matters as illegal marketing methods in the sale of health products, magazine subscription, and mail order items; unlawful debt collection practices; and the failure to abide by a Commission divestiture order. Actions against two major car rental firms for violations of the Commission’s Holder-in-Due-Course Rule were also successfully concluded.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Division continued enforcement of the federal statutes prohibiting odometer fraud; 31 new matters were received for further investigation and prosecution. In cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a number of U.S. Attorneys and state officials, the Division conducted a series -of grand jury investigations into alleged odometer rollbacks.
In all, the Division’s Consumer Affairs Section maintained an average total caseload of over 500 cases during Fiscal Year 1982, and obtained judgments for fines, penalties, and forfeitures of approximately $1 million.
Business Reviews and Other
Advice to the Private Sector
Although the Department is not authorized to issue advisory opinions to private parties, in certain circumstances the Division analyzes proposed business plans at the written request of interested parties and states its present enforcement intention. Such statements are issued under regulations providing that the request and response will be released to the public at the time a business review letter is announced. These letters, and the supporting information supplied by the requesting parties, are available for public inspection in the Legal Procedure Unit of the
140
Antitrust Division, Room 7416, Department of Justice, 10th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530. Supporting data is withheld from public inspection only if the requesting party shows good cause for doing so.
The Division responded to 23 business review requests during Fiscal Year 1982. Among the proposals that received favorable review were a travel agent cooperative, an automated bank teller machine network, a hospital supplies purchasing group, an automotive parts mailing service, and several data exchange and processing plans. Also favorably treated were two proposed mergers and several transactions involving interlocking directors.
The Division was unable to provide a favorable business review in several instances. For example, it expressed objection to a planned association of food wholesalers whose bylaws could restrict competition in the extension of credit to retail customers. The proposed acquisition of Pabst Brewing Company by the G. Heileman Brewing Company, and the sale of the “Jack Frost” trademark by one sugar company to another, also received negative reviews.
Also, as noted earlier, a revised version of the Divison’s merger guidelines was issued in June 1982 to articulate more accurately present enforcement policies respecting corporate mergers and acquisitions.
Federal/State Regulations
Under the Crime Control Act of 1976, Congress appropriated $4 million in Fiscal Year 1980 for federal grants-in-aid to encourage state antitrust enforcement. Although the Antitrust Division completed awarding grants in Fiscal Year 1980, the dispensing of funds continued in 1982. Since 1977, a total of $25 million had been awarded under the Act to 45 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, with grants to individual states ranging in size from $50,000 to $195,000. Results include doubling the volume of state antitrust cases and investigations, and statutory improvements in state antitrust laws.
The Division further assists state antitrust enforcement by making investigative material available to state attorneys general. During Fiscal Year 1982, the Division responded to 29 requests for such material under Title III of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. As the year ended, there was a split among the federal courts of appeals on the issue of state access to material generated during the Division’s grand jury proceedings. Two circuits had accepted the Division’s argument that although a state attorney general has no absolute right to grand jury materials, access should normally be granted, once all criminal proceedings are complete, without requiring a demonstration of particularized need. Two other circuits, however, had held that such a
demonstration is required for disclosure, and the issue was pending before the Supreme Court for resolution.
Managment Initiatives
During Fiscal Year 1982, in accordance with the Administration’s goal of streamlining the federal government and making it function more efficiently, the Division initiated or expanded several significant management improvements. Three organizational alterations were implemented. First, the Economic Policy Office was elevated in stature, so that its director would report directly to the Assistant Attorney General. This change was made in recognition of the increasing importance of economic policy analysis in antitrust enforcement. Second, the Division’s Los Angeles Field Office was closed and its responsibilities were consolidated with the work of two other offices, permitting a more efficient use of Division resources. Finally, the Judgment Enforcement Section was abolished, and responsibility for enforcing antitrust decrees was reassigned to the specific litigating sections and field offices with expertise in the industry or regional market affected by each decree. This change was designed both to strengthen antitrust judgment enforcement and to utilize Division resources more effectively.
The Economic Policy Office undertook two initiatives. First, the office designed and offered to the Division’s attorneys several courses in antitrust economics. More than 200 attorneys attended these classes, which were designed to enhance understanding of the economic principles underlying effective antitrust enforcement. Second, the office published the first five of its “Economic Policy Office Discussion Papers.” The papers, which are disseminated for comment to Division staff and other interested individuals, institutions, and government agencies, report on current research being conducted by Division economists. The topics under study relate to the Division’s law enforcement and regulatory reform programs.
Managerial processes at the Division were improved during the year by implementation of an integrated office information system linking all of the Division’s offices, both in Washington and in the field. This system, when fully operational, would permit the results of data and word processing performed in one office to be electronically transmitted to any other Division office, thus providing faster and more efficient information distribution. In addition, more sophisticated economic and financial analysis and modeling techniques were made available to Division economists and financial analysts through the Division’s automated information systems. The use of these more advanced analytical tools permit Division
141
professionals to marshal and consider a wider range of information in developing recommendations for antitrust enforcement.
CITATIONS
(1)U.S_________________ 102 S. Ct. 3002 (1982).
(2)U.S_________________ 102 S. Ct. 1935 (1982).
142
(3)U.S______________________ 102 S. Ct. 2182 (1982).
(4)U.S______________________ 102 S. Ct. 2466 (1982).
(5)	687 F. 2d 591, (2d Cir., 1982).
(6)	659 F. 2d 590, (5th Cir., 1981).
(7)	683 F. 2d 27, (2d Cir. 1982)
(8)	No. 81-1963 (8th Cir.).
(9)	No. 82-1594-MN (8th Cir.).
Civil Division
J. Paul McGrath
Assistant Attorney General
The Civil Division has three basic functions: it defends the President’s policies and programs when they are challenged in court; brings suits to collect money owed to the United States and to recover sums lost to the government through waste, fraud and corruption; and defends the government and its officers and employees in lawsuits seeking damages from the U.S. Treasury.
The Division continues to be tested by the complex and resource-intensive litigation it must defend and institute. Many of its cases have significant domestic and foreign policy implications. Its monetary litigation involves many billions of dollars which it may either recover for the government when successful in its affirmative suits or save the government from having to pay out when it succeeds in its defensive role. The Division has given increasing attention to cooperating more closely with its client agencies throughout the government in order to meet its challenges and maintain its successful litigation record. In addition, the Division is implementing automation procedures and management techniques which make it possible to handle effectively a diverse caseload that has ballooned in the past two years with a relatively constant level of full-time employees.
Collection of Debts and Fines
In his listing of priorities for the Civil Division, the Attorney General called for concerted emphasis on collection of debts and fines owed the government.
As of September 30, 1981, there was an outstanding balance due the government of $1.1 billion in criminal and civil judgments and civil prejudgment claims. A large portion of the caseload of this debt resulted from defaulted loans referred to the Department for collection by such agencies as the Veterans Administration and the Department of Education. The balance came from litigative action (fines, penalties, judgments and court costs). The Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division has led the Department’s effort in coordinating debt collection by implementing a Departmentwide program which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
Although not directly involved in debt collection, it should be noted that the Division has successfully defended the government in claims amounting to billions of dollars based on allegations that the government or its employees
are responsible for negligent or wrongful acts which result in damage or injury.
Administration Programs
The Attorney General’s priorities also included defense and enforcement of Administration programs such as law enforcement, deregulation and the reduced federal role in government.
The Division’s successful defense of the Administration is reflected in its handling of the substantial litigation remaining from the 1981 strike of air traffic controllers and in its defense of the Administration’s stance in the lingering disputes over the detention of American hostages by Iran.
Division attorneys defended successfully against three actions alleging improper patronage dismissals by the Reagan Administration and against challenges to the Administration’s policy of lowering the cost of government by reducing the number of federal employees. Significant successes also were achieved in energy litigation and employment cases.
Fraud
The Attorney General’s priorities also call for greater emphasis on prosecution of white-collar crime and public corruption, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.
Division attorneys personally handle most of the civil fraud cases which are instituted after reviewing investigative reports received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Offices of Inspectors General in various departments. Division staff also work closely with the Criminal Division, the U.S. Attorneys and client agencies in the effort to curtail white-collar crime through the Economic Crime Units and intensive educational programs.
In the past year, the Division continued to emphasize the recovery of money lost by the United States as a result of fraud, corruption or other misconduct, including supervising actions to recover “bait money” the ABSCAM participants pocketed.
Client Agency Relations
Recognizing the importance of productive working relationships with its many client agencies, another of the Attorney General’s priorities, the Civil Division continued its effort to initiate and participate in meetings, seminars, discussions and conferences with them. The Division
143
CIVIL DIVISION
144
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY ACT
UNIT
APPELLATE STAFF
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
TORTS BRANCH
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH
continued to contribute substantial support to the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute. Through provision of panel members, group leaders and lecturers, and through presentation of the Institute’s course in Civil Litigation, Civil Division attorneys had much to do with the continuing success of that program. Division attorneys have provided assistance to Department of Health and Human Services attorneys, instructed at the Energy Litigation Institute, participated in panels on Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act issues, assisted general counsels to the Inspectors General in drafting guidelines for subpoena issues, and given numerous presentations regarding the personal liability of government executives. These client agency activities, among others, have had the net result of fostering positive and effective professional relations with the respective agencies.
Management Effectiveness
Improved management effectiveness using current work force, particularly through enhancement of capital equipment infrastructures, was urged by the Attorney General in his listing of major objectives.
In the Commercial Litigation Branch, the development of an expanded group of attorneys with specific expertise in the conduct of civil lawsuits involving areas such as fraud and official corruption enabled the branch to adapt to the increasing complexity of such cases and to provide more detailed advice to agencies and U.S. Attorneys seeking legal assistance and counsel. In the Torts Branch, use of the team case approach proved beneficial for some cases. The Appellate Staff sharply reduced the attorney time spent on routine appeal and certiorari memoranda, freeing Appellate attorneys to focus on more important ones.
In the management improvement area, the Division’s Executive Office:
•	Acquired and installed an IBM System/38 computer to replace two smaller computers. The upgrading of computer hardware and improved staff expertise have brought the Division to the forefront of developing computer technology, providing Division attorneys greater litigative and management support than had been available.
•	Converted the appellate manual case docket to an automated case tracking system, completing the automation of the Division’s caseload except for customs matters.
•	Initiated an automated litigation support system which enabled the Division to apply microform technologies and computer processing to the handling of millions of documents for four major areas of litigation: asbestos, radiation, Agent Orange and student loans.
•	Procured and installed technologically current video screen word processing equipment, resulting in increased attorney productivity, reduced overtime expenditures and improved secretarial staff support.
•	Designed and developed a pilot project for integrating the Division’s word processing and data processing systems and the Department’s automated legal research, litigation support and telecommunications systems. The project was to test an integrated system which could be expanded to the entire Division in Fiscal Year 1983.
•	Involved line supervisors in the management and control of funds of items such as travel, overtime, training and reprographics, resulting in savings and cost avoidance in these areas.
•	Began the assessment of the Division’s internal control systems for administrative and program operations to determine their vulnerability to fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement.
•	Reduced, through improved operational efficiency, the staff of the Executive Office by eight positions to provide paralegal positions for the litigative branches.
Commercial Litigation Branch
The Commercial Litigation Branch litigates claims for the recovery of monies fraudulently secured or improperly diverted from the government, defends international trade policy, defends and asserts the government’s contract and intellectual property rights and the government’s financial and commercial interest under foreign treaties, and collects monies owed the government as a result of contract claims, defaulted loans, or the failure to satisfy judgments or compromise settlements.
During the year this branch continued to emphasize the recovery of money lost by the United States as a result of fraud, corruption or other misconduct. Although some fraud cases are assigned to the U.S. Attorneys, most are personally handled by branch attorneys. Significant accomplishments in fraud cases included the following:
•	Recovered over $15 million in judgments and settlements, including $8.9 million in civil and tax claims in litigation involving the sale of rocket launchers to the Navy during the first half of the Vietnam War; $2.3 million from a manufacturer of transistors and microcircuits which were falsely certified as meeting military specifications; and $4.8 million in student loan claims.
•	In a matter originally involving allegations of embezzlement by a former foreign government official, obtained the partial liquidation of the Cambodian
145
Exchange Support Fund and recovered $2.4 million as the United States’ share.
•	Recovered government losses attributed to corrupt practices overseas, and to judgments or settlements concerning the General Services Administration scandals and frauds involving Small Business Investment Corporations.
At year’s end, the branch was litigating the first suits brought under the anti-fraud provisions of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. It was also supervising various suits to recover “bait money” paid to ABSCAM participants and was litigating cases worth $20 million in Department of Agriculture subsidies and fees and millions more involving loans to small or economically impacted businesses.
The Commercial Litigation Branch defended the United States against substantial claims brought in the Court of Claims. The Supreme Court’s unanimous reversal of a Court of Claims decision saved the government approximately $20 million in wages of federal employees being transferred from one federal pay system to another. Potential government liability amounting to $12 million was eliminated by upholding in Court the Department of the Treasury’s position that the “Gold Clause” in various predepression government securities does not require payment equal to the value of the gold contained in 1918 coins. The branch successfully defended the government in $3 million of claims relating to the occupation of the hamlet of Wounded Knee.
Branch attorneys’ work in intellectual property cases continued during the year. In a patent infringement suit concerning the worldwide Omega Navigation System, the Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s petition for certiorari, saving the government almost $27 million. In a multimillion dollar patent infringement suit relating to the Army’s Dragon Missile System (an infrared guided portable antitank missile), the Court found that the government had patent rights sufficient to allow it to purchase the system without payment of royalties. In another, the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit upheld the government’s claim to ownership of a basic patent on ink jet printing technology.
Branch attorneys defend the government in commercial cases arising out of its grant, loan and contract programs. Based on client agency referrals, they also initiate litigation to protect the interests of the United States in significant bankruptcy matters, subsidy or insurance undertakings by the government, foreclosures, reparations claims and veteran’s claims. The Branch was defending at year’s end a proposed class action in which the plaintiffs claimed that the armed services wrongfully terminated proficiency pay to which service members were entitled. Potential damages if liability were established was estimated at $700 million.
Branch attorneys successfully resisted a bankruptcy trustee’s claim for $5 million in payments made by Pacific Far East Lines on mortgages held by the Maritime Administration. In a $1 million suit against a major bank seeking to compel specific performance of terms of three trust indentures and for money damages sustained as a result of the bank’s alleged mismanagement of the trust, a settlement was reached whereby the bank contributed $636,000 to a fund from which bondholders could be compensated.
Other litigation resulted in conveyance of a fuel storage terminal to the United States which defendant valued at $6 million, and successful defense of the Government National Mortgage Association’s (GNMA) participation in a $15 million mortgage-backed securities program.
Commercial Litigation Branch attorneys are responsible for enforcing and initiating collections procedures of all judgments resulting from litigation Division-wide. This includes the collection efforts of over 50,000 Department of Education defaulted student loans referred to the U.S. Attorneys’ offices by the end of the fiscal year and over 90,000 Veterans Administration educational benefit claims, 30,000 of which were returned to the Veterans Administration. Because of its massive nature and the increasing congressional and Office of Management and Budget interest in debt collection, the branch coordinated referrals with the respective agencies and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices to improve the collection program.
Branch attorneys recovered $125,000 which unjustly enriched an affiliate of a bank at the expense of the Small Business Administration; obtained damages totaling over $423,000 in a suit for violations of federal, state and common law conveyance statutes and the corporate trust fund doctrine; and recovered a $38 million judgment claim against debtors who had substantial oil and cattle holdings. They defended government’s right to use collateral estoppel in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court to establish previously proven fraud, thereby exempting from discharge, without any litigation costs or risk, judgment debts created by the fraudulent activities of debtors.
In the areas of international trade and foreign litigation, branch attorneys were directly responsible for obtaining settlement agreements which recovered $77 million from a major electronics corporation, and over $1 million in tax refund and admiralty dispute cases.
The Commercial Litigation Branch’s efforts to improve management effectiveness during the year included a computerized attorney timekeeping system and the upgrading of word processing equipment. Using an improved screening process to evaluate potential fraud cases, many such cases were closed administratively because civil action was not warranted, or, because of the relatively
146
small amount of money involved, they were delegated to the U.S. Attorneys’ offices.
The development of an expanded group of attorneys with specific expertise in the conduct of civil lawsuits involving areas such as fraud and official corruption has enabled the branch to adapt to the increasing complexity of such cases and to provide more detailed advice to agencies and U.S. Attorneys seeking legal assistance and counsel. In addition, the branch’s training program for Assistant U.S. Attorneys and client agency staffs, preparation of monographs as aids to U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and other non-case related activities which foster better client relationships have continued successfully.
Federal Programs Branch
The Federal Programs Branch defends challenges to federal civil programs, policies and initiatives and initiates litigation to remedy statutory and regulatory violations. It also litigates on behalf of the United States and its 98-plus Departments and agencies, Members of Congress, Cabinet members and other federal executives acting in their official capacities.
During the year, the Federal Programs Branch successfully handled an increasing variety of litigation of national and international importance. An example was the litigation emanating from the illegal Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike. In March 1981, branch attorneys began coordination with U.S. Attorneys’ offices throughout the country in preparation for a threatened nationwide air traffic controller strike, providing draft pleadings for temporary and permanent injunctive relief. After the stike began on August 3, 1981, branch attorneys handled the lead action against PATCO in the District of Columbia and, working closely with U.S. Attorneys, authorized within 48 hours the filing of over 100 separate local injunctive actions in 85 judicial districts. Branch attorneys successfully handled a number of defensive suits brought by PATCO members or their allies seeking reinstatement of the fired controllers, and in March 1982 successfully represented the Federal Aviation Administration at a two-week administrative hearing ordered by the court of appeals to determine the Federal Aviation Administration’s authority to decertify PATCO.
In coordination with the Department of Labor, branch attorneys were responsible for the rejection of a complaint filed against the United States with the International Labor Organization(ILO) in Geneva concerning the firing of the striking controllers.
The branch upheld the President’s agreement for the release by Iran of the American hostages and secured the
dismissal of five suits by former hostages or their families seeking damages for their detention.
Branch attorneys extended litigation activities to the new area of international arbitration, providing litigation support to the Department of State in a major arbitration before the Iran-United States Trade Claims Tribunal at the Hague.
The Federal Programs Branch successfully handled a wide range of cases in the area of energy litigation. Branch attorneys upheld the validity of several “global” consent orders negotiated by the Department of Energy with the nation’s major crude oil and petroleum producers by successfully defending an action challenging President Reagan’s Executive Order lifting price and allocation controls on crude oil and the validity of the Department of Energy regulations for the allocation of crude oil entitlements to users and producers of crude oil substitutes. The branch was also successful in sustaining the validity of the Department of Energy’s efforts in carrying out its responsibilities under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which requires the development and implementation of a 10-year plan for energy conservation in federal buildings.
Branch attorneys participated in two cases challenging the authority of the Department of Transportation to issue routing regulations for the transportation of radioactive materials.
During the year, the Federal Programs Branch handled a number of cases involving health and social programs. One significant case challenged the legality of the manner in which the Community Services Administration distributed its remaining funds just before the agency terminated its operations. The millions saved from dismissal of the case were ultimately used to defray the Community Services Administration’s shutdown costs. The branch was defending, at year’s end, a suit challenging a new amendment to the Food Stamp Act which disqualifies families from eligibility if a member of that household is on strike. Another successful defense involving Social Security reimbursement claims from 10 states saved the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars when the district court upheld the government’s position that because of appropriations provisions such claims could not be paid with current funds unless within one year of the date of expenditure.
The branch was successful in handling a number of cases defending the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In a case in which low-income minorities argued that HUD and the local housing authority operated the city’s public housing program in a racially discriminatory manner, the court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not provide a private right of action against HUD and that Title VI of that Act is governed by an
147
intent standard. In other actions in the housing area, the branch won a suit brought by victims of the eruption of Mount Saint Helens who claimed that HUD breached its duty to confirm the accuracy of property reports filed under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and another which challenged HUD’s approval of Indianapolis’ Community Development Block Grant applications for 1975-1979.
The Federal Programs Branch has been active in the employment area, as indicated by efforts to develop a plan for implementation of the consent decree which requires federal agencies conversion from the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE) to a new hiring examination or system.
Other substantive employment cases dealt with challenges to legislation which barred participation in the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program by individuals advocating overthrow of the federal government and challenges to Air Force regulations requiring discharge of members of the service for committing homosexual acts.
Federal Programs Branch attorneys initiated a number of cases benefiting the government and consumers. In several energy price overcharge cases, branch attorneys were successful in winning judgments totaling $44 million. In another overcharge case, the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court award to the United States of approximately $8 million, plus interest.
The branch designated several attorneys to act as coordinators for the new Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides that parties who prevail against the government in certain cases are entitled to attorneys’ fees. The branch coordinators, working together with other Division representatives, were involved in the formulation of the government’s positions on issues arising under the Act. In addition, they provided advice and guidance to other agencies and U.S. Attorneys’ offices to ensure that the positions taken by the government are coordinated and consistent throughout the country.
In the area of client relations, the branch continued to initiate and participate in meetings and conferences with client agencies and provide counsel in interpreting legislation. Unit personnel served as panel participants at the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute, on the civil litigation panel at the Joint Justice Intelligence Community Conference and on information and privacy issues.
Federal Programs Branch attorneys advised the Department of Health and Human Services that it was misinterpreting the Black Lung Benefits Act so that claimants were receiving duplicate benefits to which they were not entitled. It is estimated that millions of dollars in overpayments were avoided because of the branch’s
intervention. Such activities foster positive and effective professional relationships with client agencies.
Torts Branch
The federal government is the defendant in many suits for money damages based on allegations that the United States or its employees are responsible for negligent or wrongful acts which result in damage or injury to private individuals. Conversely, acts by private individuals often result in injury or damage to government property. The Torts Branch defends the former claims through a combination of litigative and administrative processing and prosecutes the latter to ensure that the government’s right to compensation for damage is protected.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Torts Branch handled an ever widening range of litigation. In addition to the traditional problems in tort law, such as personal injury, medical malpractice and aircraft accidents, its docket included a massive body of litigation derived from asbestos, radiation and Agent Orange exposure and the rapidly expanding areas of regulatory torts. The branch also maintains an extensive admiralty and maritime practice.
Litigation arising from the Swine Flu Immunization Program requires the full time of more than seven Torts Branch attorneys. Although over half the suits originally brought had been resolved by year’s end, the remainder represented potential awards of over $1 billion. The branch continued to handle many medical malpractice suits and successfully defended the United States in a significant number of such cases. More than $12 billion in damages was being sought from the government in medical malpractice litigation.
There was a substantial increase in complex litigation arising out of alleged injury-producing events:
•	Asbestos litigation involving more than 1,000 cases around the country (and more than 10 times that number of underlying claims) arising from alleged injuries from exposure to asbestos dust. Claims amounted to over $15 billion.
•	Radiation litigation in which plaintiffs alleged negligent exposure to radiation generated by government testing programs. The 1,500 claims in these cases were seeking over $2 billion.
•	Agent Orange litigation, which involves personal injury claims of over $40 billion by a class of more than two million Vietnam veterans exposed to chemical herbicides during that war.
•	Titan II Missile leak litigation in which plaintiffs contended that exposure to toxic fumes from the missile site caused personal injury and sought $25 million in
148
damages. During the year the branch successfully defended 6 of the 36 pending cases.
•	Multimillion dollar litigation arising out of the Three Mile Island radiation leak.
Defending the United States in regulatory tort suits has become a significant part of Torts Branch’s litigation. In these cases, plaintiffs seek compensation for injuries stemming from federal regulatory agencies’ alleged failure to carry out properly their inspection, examination, and enforcement responsibilities.
In recent years, suits have been based on such diverse regulatory functions as mine safety, food and drug laws and consumer protection activities. Branch attorneys defeated claims during Fiscal Year 1982 for $40 million in damages for alleged negligence in federal management of a multistate PCB contamination incident. The Torts Branch also filed a number of affirmative suits seeking recovery of millions of dollars for damage to government property.
Torts branch attorneys represent the United States in cases relating to aviation accidents. Of particular importance is the litigation arising out of the 1975 crash of an Air Force aircraft near Saigon, South Vietnam, while participating in “Operation Babylift” during the closing days of the Vietnam war. Through the litigative efforts and tactics of Torts Branch attorneys, two major court of appeals reversals were obtained, the government won a highly significant defense verdict, and a number of settlements extremely favorable to the United States were achieved. In addition, significant rulings and decisions in aviation cases on issues of pilot and air traffic controller responsibility and certification of aircraft were obtained by Torts Branch attorneys, resulting in savings to the government of over $8 million.
The branch has the responsibility for maritime litigation, including the defense of a number of seaman personal injury suits, and of the Coast Guard in suits involving aids to navigation. Branch attorneys continued to handle the bankruptcy of Pacific Far East Lines, the largest steamship operator in the country, and were becoming increasingly involved in litigation to recover oil spill cleanup costs.
The Torts Branch has become increasingly responsible for “Bivens” type litigation, in which a government employee is sued for some action performed while serving in his or her official position. In particular, this case type includes suits against former President Nixon and others arising out of the “Watergate” affair and the defense of Federal Bureau of Investigation officials and agents in suits resulting from alleged illegal wiretaps and mail openings.
Management Improvements
Through reorganization, improved case management techniques and the growing use of computer support, the branch has been able to meet the challenge of large-scale lawsuits through more efficient use of litigation resources.
New case management techniques have resulted in a more efficient handling of the Branch’s workload. Implementation of the team case approach for certain cases, for instance, provides team attorneys with the ability to assist or substitute for the assigned trial attorney in any aspect of the case when there is a schedule conflict or workload increase. The team case technique also provides a training system for attorneys who are not experienced in the handling of certain cases. The branch has developed a case standardization system, an automated calendaring report system, and a settlement review committee whose purpose it is to obtain quality information and collegial input before any initial decisions or compromise memoranda are prepared. This branch also holds moot court prior to important cases for the purpose of refining and improving the attorneys’ case strategy.
One unit within the Torts Branch is the site for a pilot project to test the feasibility of the Division-wide integration of automated systems: word processing, management information and litigation support, and legal research. When implemented, this system will bring the Division to the highest level of automated technology available in a legal environment.
The Torts Branch recognizes the importance of regular communication with its client agencies to ensure productive working relationships, uniformity of litigation direction, professional exchange, and education in recent court decisions important to the unit and respective agencies. The branch has thus initiated a number of meetings, lectures, symposia, seminars and other forms of interactions with its client agencies covering a wide range of tort-related issues. In addition to sponsoring such meetings, branch attorneys serve on interagency study groups, meet regularly with U.S. Attorneys and participate in agency-sponsored conferences. Torts Branch attorneys have traveled extensively in support of the Office of Personnel Management’s Executive Development Program and have given as many as 40 presentations regarding the personal liability of government executives, an issue of vital concern to agencies and individuals.
A means of further improving the quality of expert assistance is a program whereby client agencies detail members to the Torts Branch, where they receive intense exposure to the litigative process. The quality of expert assistance that the client is able to give the branch attorneys is enhanced by this firsthand knowledge of the litigator’s role.
149
Appellate Staff
The mission of the Appellate Staff is to protect the interests of the United States by successfully defending appeals which seek reversal of lower court and agency decisions favorable to the government, securing the reversal of decisions against the government, and preparing documents for filing on civil matters in the Supreme Court. During the past year, the Appellate Staff handled an expanded variety of litigation of national significance.
Beginning in December 1979, a number of lawsuits challenged the conduct and results of the 1980 Decennial Census. The first such suit, filed by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), challenged the Census Bureau’s failure to design the census to exclude illegal aliens from the official count. Other suits filed in five states alleged miscounts or undercounts and the confidentiality of Census Bureau records. Had these suits been successful, the integrity of the 1980 Decennial Census would have been seriously undermined. However, the cases were resolved on appeal in the government’s favor, thereby sparing the Census Bureau and the nation the difficulties that would have been encountered in the absence of valid census figures for apportioning Representatives and redrawing congressional and state legislative districts. Although litigation remained at year’s end in the district courts, the government’s record of complete success thus far augured well for a favorable outcome of all the census challenges.
In late 1979, the Washington Post filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of State for records that would indicate whether two Iranian nationals were U.S. citizens. The Department declined the Post’s request, relying on Exemption 6 to the Freedom of Information Act, which provides that the Act’s disclosure requirements do not apply to “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The Post sued, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ultimately ordered disclosure, holding that only information consisting of “intimate details” or of a “highly personal” nature could qualify as “similar files” under Exemption 6 and that citizenship information did not meet that standard. On May 17, 1982, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the court of appeals’ decision and adopted the government’s argument that “similar files” refers to “any information which applies to a particular individual.” The Court’s decision will allow agencies far greater latitude in determining what kind of documents are eligible for withholding under Exemption 6, while simultaneously affording greater protection to individuals.
In 1971, Congress passed a statute prohibiting discrimination against U.S. citizens in employment at
American overseas military bases unless such discrimination is permitted by treaty. The District of Columbia Circuit held that the statute did not extend to executive agreements, but only to treaties ratified by the Senate. The effect of the District of Columbia Circuit decision was to set aside a number of executive agreements under which the government had agreed to give local citizens preference in employment at its foreign bases. The Supreme Court, unanimously reversing the District of Columbia Circuit, accepted the Appellate Staff’s argument that the term “treaty” should be construed in its international law sense. This decision will permit the government to remain in compliance with numerous executive agreements, thus preserving good relations with the host countries.
The Supreme Court reversed a three-judge district court decision and upheld the provisions of the Military Selective Service Act which authorized the registration of males and not females for the military draft. As a result of this decision, the draft registration program continued as scheduled without any further cloud on its constitutionality. Another case before the Supreme Court concerned a challenge to the constitutionality of the Mine Safety Act, passed in the wake of recent mining disasters, which provides in part for warrantless, unannounced inspections of mines by mine safety inspectors. Numerous mine owners challenged the statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, claiming a warrant was required. The district court had held the statute unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed and accepted the Appellate attorneys’ argument that the Act validly permitted unannounced warrantless inspections.
In one of the first challenges to a major Reagan Administration decision, the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the power of the Executive departments and agencies to freeze retroactively federal hiring by revoking the appointments of all except those employees who had actually begun to perform their duties.
The Fifth Circuit held that a federal employee does not have an implied cause of action for personal damages against his or her superiors resulting from an adverse personnel action. In issuing the first definitive ruling in this rapidly expanding area of the law, the court agreed with the Appellate attorneys’ position that the role of government as an employer is fundamentally different from its role as sovereign over private citizens generally. The court also accepted the argument that the government’s special interest in the conduct of its internal affairs, along with Congress’ careful development over the years of comprehensive civil service review procedures and remedies, constitute special factors counseling hesitation in implying a constitutional damages remedy.
The Appellate Staff was very heavily involved during the year in litigation arising out of the air traffic controllers’
150
strike of August 1981. In the leading case, Appellate Staff attorneys persuaded the District of Columbia Circuit to uphold the decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority revoking the status of PATCO as the exclusive bargaining agent on behalf of Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic controllers. The court agreed with the government’s position that the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s decision was not tainted by ex parte contacts with the decision makers. In another case, Appellate Staff attorneys appeared as amicus and persuaded the Second Circuit that the power of the courts to enjoin federal strikes was not repealed by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This decision, coupled with a similar decision entered by the Seventh Circuit, should firmly establish the continuing right of the United States to proceed directly to district court, rather than seek relief only through the Federal Labor Relations Authority, in the event of strikes by federal employees.
While in the Army in 1953, an individual who later contracted cancer was present at an atomospheric nuclear weapons test in Nevada. He and his wife sued his former military and civilian superiors, claiming that they deliberately and unconstitutionally exposed him to excessive radiation and were responsible for his current cancer condition. The district court dismissed the suit. On appeal, however, a panel of the Third Circuit ruled that individual constitutional damages suits within the military were permissible. On the Appellate Staff’s petition, the Third Circuit subsequently agreed to rehear the case en banc, and held that the serviceman had no cause of action. The court accepted the government’s argument that the need to insulate military decisionmaking and command authority from the inhibitions created by individual torts suits, along with the availability of comprehensive veterans’ benefits to compensate injured soldiers, constituted a “special factor” precluding constitutional actions for damages. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for certiorari. This decision should go a long way toward establishing as the law of the land the freedom of military (and civilian) officers from suits for damages by fellow service personnel for service-connected injuries.
During the past year the Appellate Staff continued to seek methods for handling its increasing workload with its authorized personnel. In addition to implementation of computerized docket and attorney/paralegal timekeeping systems, the most important management improvement was reduction of the attorney time spent on appeal and certiorari memoranda in routine cases.
The Appellate Staff prepares memoranda to the Solicitor General recommending for or against appeal to the courts of appeals and for or against seeking certiorari in the Supreme Court in every Civil Division case decided against
the government. Under the procedure implemented during the fiscal year, extensive individualized memoranda were replaced by form memoranda for cases involving less than $500,000 where neither the client agency nor the trial attorney recommended for appeal or certiorari and where no significant legal issues were raised. By reducing the burden of processing these non-controversial cases, Appellate Staff attorneys and support staff were able to concentrate their efforts on the more important cases. The appeal and certiorari memoranda procedures were even more streamlined with respect to Social Security benefits cases. As recently as 1980, the Appellate Staff processed 1,500 such appeals. Under the new procedure the Appellate Staff no longer prepared even form appeal memoranda to the Solicitor General in these cases unless the Department of Health and Human Services or the trial attorney recommended that an appeal be taken. This change, in addition to conserving attorney time, greatly reduced the flow of documents processed by the support staff.
Management and Administration
The management and administration of the Civil Division, its litigation and its resources, are achieved through an Executive Staff consisting of the Assistant Attorney General and four Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. This Executive Staff is supported by secretarial, professional and support personnel organized into three offices: Executive Office, Communications Unit and Freedom of Information Unit. A Deputy Assistant Attorney General is responsible for supervising and directing each of the three litigating branches (Commercial Litigation, Torts and Federal Programs) and a fourth Deputy Assistant Attorney General is responsible for managing the activities of the three support offices as well as the Appellate Staff. This Deputy also coordinates the Department wide debt collection program activities.
Litigative and management accomplishments of the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General are reflected in the individual branch reports. However, management accomplishments affecting the entire Division are summarized as follows:
The Assistant Attorney General and four Deputies formulate and implement litigation and management policy, participate in highly critical litigation and settlement negotiations, coordinate relationships with client agencies, oversee research on sensitive projects involving legal issues and policy, actively participate in the initiation and recommendation of legislation affecting the Division’s litigation, and most importantly, they coordinate the Department wide debt collection activities. The Assistant Attorney General and one of the Deputies, for instance,
151
coordinated the development and implementation of an improved Departmentwide debt collection program, which was approved by the Office of Management and Budget, involving over $1 billion in money owed the government, largely from defaulted loans referred to the Department for collection by the Veterans Administration and the Department of Education. The emphasis on debt collection was reflected in extensive interaction with U.S. Attorneys’ offices to determine which debts were realistically collectible and to improve methods of training collections personnel. A review of effective collection methods in various U.S. Attorneys’ offices resulted in implementation of successful methods throughout the Department.
The Executive Office controls and oversees selected management operations of the Division and provides administrative support to the litigating branches. It provides planning and analytical advice and assistance to the Assistant Attorney General, the Deputies and the branch managers in the development of management initiatives and systems; provides leadership in implementing and carrying out management initiatives and programs; and develops, enhances and maintains the Division’s manual and automated information and litigation support, budgeting, fiscal management, personnel and administrative support systems.
The Executive Office’s achievements, some of which were listed earlier in this article, also included:
•	Expanding personnel management and operations support services through improved recruiting mechanisms, performance appraisal systems, employee development programs, advance procurement planning, furniture and office equipment distribution and inventory control systems, and enhancing internal mailmessenger and file room services.
•	Successfully graduating the first class of 10 Senior Executive Service (SES) candidates and selecting the second class of four candidates to participate in the Division’s innovative SES Candidate Development Program.
•	Conducting studies designed to provide a comparison of Division management operations with those of comparable law firms in the private sector, resulting in identification of the need for office automation and refining case tracking and other management information systems.
The Communications Unit coordinates preparation of the Division’s response to congressional, public and Executive Branch inquiries. It is responsible for receiving, reviewing and forwarding legislation, legislation-related and case-related congressional inquiries to the appropriate branch for comment; providing liaison between the branches and the Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs; and ensuring appropriate handling of Division responses. In addition, this unit prepares most of the responses to citizen inquiries and non-case-related congressional inquiries and coordinates preparation of responses to the Executive Branch agencies. During the year Communications Unit accomplishments included the following:
•	Developed a time-saving automated selective retrieval system whereby information concerning prior and pending legislation is obtained through word processing work stations.
•	Established a response program for non-case-related congressional inquiries and the automated preparation of responses to multiple congressional inquiries on particular case or subject matters, substantially reducing the need for original responses to congressional inquiries.
•	Developed an automated response tracking system, decreasing the number of outstanding inquiries by 80 percent and improving response time for direct inquiries from the Congress, the public, the White House and other government agencies.
The Freedom of Information Unit dockets, reviews and processes all Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests, prepares annual reports, and serves as a liaison with other Divisions and agencies. Since the timeconsuming function of file review represents a large portion of the workload, the unit is composed of paralegals, who can most cost-effectively perform these duties, supervised by an attorney. During the past year this unit substantially reduced the number of outstanding requests carried over from one year to the next. Intensified efforts to work with Division file room personnel to locate and retrieve relevant case files and increased initial contact with requesters decreased the average processing time for all but the most complex requests.
152
Civil Rights Division
Wm. Bradford Reynolds Assistant Attorney General
The Civil Rights Division was established in 1957 following enactment of the first civil rights statute since Reconstruction. The Division is staffed by 172 attorneys and 214 support personnel organized into seven major enforcement sections and one office.
The Division enforces the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1970, 1975, and 1982; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; and civil rights provisions in numerous other statutes. These laws prohibit discrimination in education, employment, credit, housing, public accomodations and facilities, voting and certain federally funded and conducted programs. The Division also now enforces the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980, which authorizes the Attorney General to sue to redress systemic deprivations of constitutional and federal statutory rights of persons confined in state and locally operated institutions.
In addition, the Division prosecutes actions under several criminal civil rights statutes, coordinates the civil rights enforcement efforts of the federal agencies whose programs are covered by Title VI of the 1964 Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and various program-specific civil rights statutes and assists federal agencies in identifying and eliminating sexually discriminatory provisions in their policies and programs.
Six of the sections have jurisdiction over particular subject areas and the related statutes. The seventh handles legal counseling and appellate matters. Complex, massive or sensitive cases which cannot be undertaken by the sections are handled by Special Counsel for Litigation.
During the fiscal year, the Division initiated or participated in 65 civil suits, brought 56 criminal actions against 98 defendants, and reviewed over 2,800 submissions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, more than in any previous year of the Act’s existence. At the end of the year, the Division had approximately 3,407 cases and matters under its supervision.
Division actions were taken during the year in support of the Attorney General’s priorities in the areas of reducing violent crime, strengthening existing programs through management improvements, participating where appropriate in cooperative actions with U.S. Attorneys and their local Law Enforcement Coordination Committees
(LECC) and continuing to give prior notice to state governors and attorneys general before commencing any litigation against entities of state government.
In the area of reducing violent crime, the Criminal Section of the Division placed a greater emphasis on the prosecution of matters involving racial violence, especially on increased Ku Klux Klan activities across the country. During the year, eight new cases against 14 defendants were filed in federal courts.
Actions to strengthen existing programs through management improvements included a reorganization of the Division and the creation of a third Deputy Assistant Attorney General, which will provide more efficient review and control of the litigating and legislative activities of the Division, together with the development of new initiatives in policy matters. Existing programs were also strengthened through the Division’s examination and subsequent modification of its policy in the area of employment regarding quotas as opposed to relief for victims through back pay and priority job offers and enhanced recruitment. Similar policy reviews were undertaken and policy modifications made in the areas of busing to provide racial balance in schools, services provided to the institutionalized handicapped, and compliance with federal civil rights regulations by institutions receiving federal funds.
The Division continued its policy of providing notice to states before it commenced litigation. This practice was extensively used in resolving conditions found in state facilities during investigations under the Institutionalized Persons Act. Notice to state officials before the commencement of litigation also assisted in the resolution of issues in the areas of public facilities and busing.
Management improvements of the Division, in addition to its reorganization, included continuing computerization of litigation and matters material and document tracking. Significant among the increased computerized usages was the establishing of a Management Information System (MIS) by the Coordination and Review Section which provides document tracking and matters status information. Division effectiveness was also enhanced by the Voting Section’s increased transferral of Section 5 paper files to microfiche, and the establishment of a new litigation team to specialize in the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1982.
153
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
VOTING SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL LITIGATIVE ENFORCEMENT
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION
CRIMINAL SECTION
COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL POLICY AND COORDINATION
SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION
GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION
APPELLATE SECTION
154
Appellate Section
The Appellate Section is primarily responsible for all Division Cases in the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals, for legislative matters, and for providing legal counsel on civil rights issues to federal agencies and other divisions within the Department. The Section’s litigation includes participation as a party and as amicus curiae.
During the year, the Supreme Court decided 18 Division cases on the merits. In 10 of these, the decisions were in accord with the Division’s position; in one, the decision was in partial accord. Courts of appeals decided 43 Division cases; 37 of these decisions on the merits substantially supported the Division’s position.
Significant Supreme Court decisions were obtained in cases involving education, housing, employment, voting, and equal protection of the law. The Court upheld the right of teachers to be free from gender-based discrimination in federally funded education programs,1 the right of testers to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act,2 the right of employees of a subsidiary of a Japanese corporation to be free from employment discrimination based on race, sex or national origin,3 the right of voters in Mississippi to have state courts comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,4 and the right of undocumented aliens to the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment5.
Appellate level findings concerning discrimination in education and housing, and the rights of institutionalized persons and undocumented aliens were among the important decisions rendered by federal circuit courts of appeals. In a significant decision, on the issue of sex discrimination in education, the Third Circuit held that a college with students receiving alternate disbursement Pell Grants was required to file with the Department of Education a certificate of compliance with the nondiscrimination requirement in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.6 In other important circuit court cases, the Division successfully defended a school desegregation plan involving the City of St. Louis,7 a criminal conviction arising from the robbery and torture of undocumented aliens,8 a finding of unlawful discrimination in housing by the City of Parma, Ohio,9 and findings promoting the rights of institutionalized persons.10
During the year, the Division provided legal counsel to federal agencies and other divisions within the Department on pending cases, and provided advice respecting the promulgation and revision of federal regulations which affect the civil rights of minorities and women. Additionally, the Division commented on numerous legislative proposals, including the subsequently enacted Voting Rights Act Amendments, in support of which the Division testified, and
prepared, pursuant to requests by congressional committees, extensive factual material relating to the Division’s enforcement of the Act.
The passage of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 resulted in the creation of a separate Section 2 Unit within the Division’s Voting Section. The Unit has the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting Section 2 violations.
Coordination and Review Section
The Coordination and Review Section directs a comprehensive coordination program, under the authority of Executive order 12250 (November 20, 1980), ensuring that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (handicap), and similarly worded federal statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or religion in federally assisted programs are consistently and effectively enforced. This objective is primarily achieved through administrative oversight and evaluation of Executive agencies identified as administering programs subject to the Executive order, and government-wide coordination of related legal, regulatory and policy issues.
Additionally, the section has the responsibility for the review of all civil rights related regulations proposed by federal agencies. During 1982, the section reviewed, for substantive legal and policy considerations, and approved for publication in the Federal Register, agency regulations for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Science Foundation, and the Deparments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Interior, and Transportation. The section also reviewed and provided comments on an additional 14 proposed agency regulations, including proposals from the Department of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the General Services Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Veterans Administration and the Department of Agriculture. In addition to those already reviewed, the section is reviewing over 50 existing agency regulations against listings of “generic” civil rights regulatory issues and specific issues related to each individual statute.
Issues relating to Executive Order 12250 are frequently the subject of litigation, and the Coordination and Review Section provides legal and policy guidance for litigation activities within the Department of Justice and other Executive agencies. Providing of this support assures consistency and uniformity in the federal government’s legal positions, whether developed through coordination of
155
the government’s administrative enforcement efforts or through litigation. During Fiscal Year 1982, the section particpated in the drafting of over forty amicus and appellate briefs, petitions for writs of certiorari, affidavits and other pleadings. Issues addressed included the obligation of the federal government and recipients of federal financial assistance to accommodate handicapped persons in their programs, the extent to which educational grants and loan programs impose federal civil rights obligations on the programs of educational institutions, and the obligation of Executive agencies to issue regulations regarding discrimination based on handicap in federally conducted programs.
Other litigative issues addressed by the section during the year included employment coverage under Title IX and Section 504, Indian housing policy, the federal government’s obligation to provide interpreters for the deaf, Title IX coverage of codes of personal appearance, applicability of civil rights statutes to block grants, the withholding of life-saving treatment from handicapped newborn children, and the redefining of “federal financial assistance” and “program or activity.”
In its role as the coordinator for federal agencies, the section developed proposed coordination regulations which specify the enforcement obligations of such agencies. These proposed regulations provide procedural guidance for federal enforcement of nondiscrimination laws in federally assisted programs and substantive guidance (in several initial subparts) for Section 504 (both federally assisted and federally conducted programs).
As required by the Executive order, the section developed an implementation plan for its coordination and review functions. The plan outlined the section’s short-range and long-range goals, priorities and plans. Guidelines for the developing of similar federal agencies’ plans were issued. Twenty-four agency implementation plans were received, reviewed, and approved. These set forth agency goals and priorities with respect to major functions of an operational civil rights program (e.g., pre-award and post-award reviews, complaint investigations, regulatory and policy developments, etc.) and detailed specific activities to be undertaken in support of these functions. To aid in the assuring of the economical operation of agencies’ civil rights programs, the section reviewed the final budget submissions from 25 agencies for their compliance with the policies of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123.
During the year, the section conducted over 20 training sessions for other federal agencies, and a government-wide survey was initiated to determine the most cost-effective methods to meet the civil rights training needs of federal agencies.
The section’s enforcement oversight activities included: receipt of over 30 formal complaints about the civil rights programs of agencies which were received, referred to appropriate agencies, and monitored at the agency level by the section; development of a comprehensive model delegation agreement to allocate more cost-effectively the civil rights enforcement efforts of agencies; assisting in the development of a joint Department of Justice/Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation that establishes uniform procedures for handling employment discrimination complaints filed against recipients of federal financial assistance; and the development of more than 150 legal and policy interpretations concerning Executive Order 12250.
During the year, the section began improving the management of its program through the development of an Automated Management Information System (MIS). The computerized system is used to track all incoming and outgoing correspondence, serves as a “tickler” to remind staff of due dates and notes reasons for delays. The coding method used to identify documents also provides the framework for an improved central filing system for the section. During 1983, it was anticipated that the system would become a part of the Division’s automated timekeeping system, associating staff time with the activities of the sections and assisting management in better utilization of staff.
Criminal Section
The Criminal Section enforces statutes designed to preserve personal liberties. Two of these laws, passed during Reconstruction, prohibit persons from acting under color of law or in conspiracy with others to interfere with an individual’s federally protected rights. Other statutes enforced prohibit the holding of individuals in peonage or involuntary servitude. The section is also responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the 1968 Civil Rights Act which prohibits the use of force or threats of force to injure or intimidate any person involved in the exercise of certain federal rights and activities.
During the year, the section reviewed 10,327 complaints alleging criminal interference with civil rights; more than 3,400 of these complaints were investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The results of 81 investigations were presented to federal grand juries; 50 indictments were returned and six informations were filed charging a total of 98 defendants, including 60 law enforcement officers.
Forty-three cases were tried, resulting in 27 convictions and 32 acquittals. Mistrials were declared in three cases because the juries were unable to render verdicts. In addition, 25 defendants pled guilty to violations of criminal
156
civil rights statutes and charges were dismissed against six other persons.
Significant cases include the successful prosecution, on civil rights conspiracy charges, of a Hildalgo, Texas, police officer who arranged for the kidnapping of a U.S. citizen into Mexico, where the citizen was wanted on murder charges. The victim spent four months in jail before securing his release.11 In Tyler, Texas, two former police officers and a civilian pled guilty to conspiracy charges resulting from attempts to secure state convictions based on fabricated evidence and false testimony;12 a third officer was acquitted. Two McAllen, Texas, police officers pled guilty to charges of brutality; one of the incidents was on videotape.13 A prison official at the East Carroll Parish Prison Farm in Louisiana was charged with civil rights violations stemming from an incident where two inmates died after being locked up for 15 hours in a 32” x 70” x 78” metal “hot box.”14
Several federal law enforcement officers have also been charged with civil rights violations. One case, involving allegations that two border patrol agents sexually abused two female Mexican aliens, was successfully prosecuted, with the agents receiving sentences of five and three years, respectively.15 In Hawaii, an Internal Revenue Service agent tendered a plea of guilty to surreptitiously entering the residence of a citizen who was under investigation for possible tax violations and then removing and copying certain personal papers without a warrant or other legal authority.16 A Honolulu police officer, also charged in this matter, is awaiting trial.
Due to increased Ku Klux Klan activity around the country, greater emphasis was placed on the prosecution of matters involving racial violence. During the year, eight cases against 14 defendants were filed in federal courts. Successful prosecutions include the conviction of a defendant in Memphis, Tennessee, for the harassment of a black family which had purchased a home in a predominantly white neighborhood. Their car and home were repeatedly vandalized and finally firebombed.17 In South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, a juvenile was convicted for a rock-throwing and cross-burning incident directed against a black family.18 An indictment charging four defendants with the firebombing of a black family’s home in Muncie, Indiana, was awaiting trial when this report was submitted.19
The section continued its effort to deter the victimization of migrant workers and other minorities in violation of the involuntary servitude and peonage statutes. Two separate migrant cases were successfully prosecuted in North Carolina. One case involved a victim who collapsed and died after being forced to pick potatoes when he was too ill to work.20 In the second case, a farm labor contractor and
his two sons pled guilty to charges of misrepresenting the terms and conditions of employment to several migrant workers and then holding them in a condition of involuntary servitude by force and threats of force.21 Ten defendants were indicted in Los Angeles, California, on charges of conspiracy to smuggle Indonesian laborers into the United States, via fraudulently obtained nonimmigrant visas, and to sell these aliens into a condition of involuntary servitude.22
Federal Enforcement Section
The Federal Enforcement Section focuses its litigation and investigations in three primary areas: 1) enforcement of provisions of federal law that prohibit discriminatory employment practices by state and local governments and require equal employment opportunity by federal contractors and subcontractors; 2) enforcement of provisions of law that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities, other than housing and education, receiving federal financial assistance and; 3) the defense of, and intervention in, lawsuits related to these areas.
This fiscal year saw the implementation of the departmental change in policy with respect to relief in employment discrimination cases. The new policy places emphasis on enhanced recruitment, including recruitment goals where appropriate, nondiscriminatory selection and appointment, and relief for victims of discriminatory practices, including back pay and priority job offers. Additionally, the new policy eschews the reliance upon quotas, ratios, or other numerical formulas which require or encourage preferences based upon race, sex or national origin for persons who are not direct victims of prior discriminatory employment practices.
During the year, the section filed six new systemic suits against state and local government employers, alleging a pattern and practice of discriminatory employment practices in violation of the federal equal employment opportunity law, and obtained 16 consent decrees in these and previously filed cases. One of the new suits was against a community college and embodied the first allegation of a pattern of discrimination on the basis of sex in promotion, pay and assignment against such an institution.23 Consent decrees were obtained embodying the new departmental policy. The consent decree, involving Fairfax County, Virginia, provided $2,750,(XX) in back pay and other relief to 686 black and female applicants who had been denied job opportunities under the earlier employment practices of the defendant. The back pay awards, which were paid during the summer of 1982, constituted the largest amount of back pay ever obtained by the Department in a suit against a state or local government employer.24 Other major consent decrees were obtained with the Nassau County, New York,
157
Police Department, one of the largest municipal police departments in the country,25 three state police agencies,26 and two large suburban school systems.27 All of the decrees provided for enhanced recruitment, removal of artificial barriers and nondiscriminatory selection, and two of them (Nassau and Virginia) provided for substantial back pay and priority job offers for persons identified by the government as victims of discriminatory practices. One trial in a pattern or practice suit lasted for more than eight weeks. An adverse decision was rendered in that case but no decision on appeal had been made at the time this was written.28
Other litigative enforcement actions of the section during the year included the obtaining of relief, after trial, on two actions to enforce consent decrees. Relief was obtained in a third case by consent after filing of another such motion.29 In addition, a motion for relief was filed during the year in a separate case that has not yet been decided,30 while actions in five other previously filed suits resulted in further relief.
The program to enforce Executive Order 11246 was marked by two favorable trial decisions, one an affirmative suit31 and one a defensive suit.32 In another defensive suit, the section prosecuted and argued an appeal from a district court decision, holding unlawful the decision of the Secretary of Labor debarring a bank from further contractual relationship with the federal government.33
General Litigation Section
The General Litigation Section was established in April 1979 through a merger of the Education and Housing and Credit Sections. The section enforces the federal laws designed to ensure nondiscrimination in public elementary and secondary schools and colleges; the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which outlaws discrimination in residential housing; and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which forbids discrimination in all aspects of credit transactions.
Education
During the year, the education activities of the section focused on pending school cases. Extensive efforts to work with local elementary and secondary school officials to formulate effective desegregation plans and modifications of existing plans led to the successful resolution of issues in several long-standing cases.
The court of appeals approved a stipulated desegregation plan for Port Arthur, Texas,34 and consent decrees modifying existing orders were entered in cases involving Gadsden County, Florida,35 Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisana,36 Scott County, Mississippi,37 Omaha, Nebraska,38 and Kansas City, Kansas.39 In another suit the parties negotiated a consent decree after the court found that the Ector County, Texas, school system was
unconstitutionally segregated.40 Also, the district court made minor changes suggested by the Division and adopted a new desegretation plan for middle schools proposed by the school board in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.41
Similarly, discussions among the parties, including the Department of Justice, resulted in a consent decree between the private plaintiffs and the school board which establishes a procedure for educational experts to make recommendations and for a committee of parents and citizens to propose changes that would further school desegregation in Mobile, Alabama.42 In a Texas case, the district court entered orders desegregating the secondary school grades in South Park Independent School District.43 The section successfully defended a district court order requiring the Phoenix Union High School District to make certain records available to the Department of Education so that it could complete a Title VI investigation concerning student assignment practices.44
In an ancillary matter, the appellate court denied a petition for mandamus which sought relief from a district judge’s order requiring the parties to keep settlement discussions confidential in the East Baton Rouge Parish litigation.45
The section’s higher education cases resulted in consent decrees being entered in Louisiana and Alaska and with respect to six junior colleges in Mississippi. A trial on the merits was commenced in a Massachusetts suit. In the Louisiana litigation, a consent decree was negotiated to desegregate two state-run colleges, one white and one black, in the Shreveport area.46 The Alaska suit, which alleged sex discrimination in the administration of intercollegiate athletic programs at the University of Alaska, was settled through the entry of a decree requiring implementation of a comprehensive program to ensure equal opportunity for men and women athletes.47 A trial on the merits was started in the government’s suit challenging admissions practices at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy which allegedly discriminate against women.48 Individual decrees were entered providing for desegregation of six junior colleges in Mississippi.49
Defensive litigation handled by the section included a Trenton, New Jersey, suit in which the court denied the request of a teachers’ organization to temporarily enjoin implementation of a desegregation plan agreed to by the Department of Education and the Trenton School Board,50 and a suit that successfully challenged the Department of Education’s authority to investigate sex discrimination in the athletic program at the University of Richmond.51
Housing
During the year, two new housing cases were filed by the section and three previously filed suits were successfully
158
resolved. The new suits alleged that the owners and managers of apartment complexes, involving several thousand apartment units in the Boston52 and Detroit53 metropolitan areas, discriminated against blacks in violation of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act). One of the new cases was settled through the entry of a consent decree54 and settlement decrees were obtained in two other housing cases55 which had been initiated in earlier fiscal years.
The section also secured a favorable decision and remedial order in a Michigan case where the court ruled that Birmingham, a city in the Detroit area, had violated the Fair Housing Act by blocking the construction of low-income family and elderly housing because of racially motivated citizen opposition to it.56 In other cases challenging the action of municipal governments, the parties have taken steps to implement a favorable order the section had obtained earlier to ensure equal housing opportunities in Parma, Ohio, a city outside Cleveland,57 and the court determined that Glastonbury, a Hartford, Connecticut, suburb, did not unlawfully discriminate in withdrawing from a federal program that would increase housing opportunities for minorities.58 No appeal was taken in the Connecticut case, but an appeal was filed from an adverse decision in a Colorado suit where the Department had alleged that apartment owners had discriminated on the basis of national origin.59 The appeal is pending.
In addition to initiating suits during the fiscal year, the section participated as an amicus curiae by filing a brief in a Massachusetts case supporting a fair housing group’s effort to defeat a defendant’s counterclaims which sought to impose liability for “fraud” and “misrepresentation” based on the group’s lawful testing activities.60
Credit
During the fiscal year, the section negotiated a settlement in a red-lining suit brought under both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and, for the first time, conducted a trial on the merits in an Equal Credit Opportunity Act case. One Equal Credit Opportunity Act suit, alleging that a nationwide small loan company engaged in marital status and sex discrimination, was prepared in 1982 but was not filed until shortly after the fiscal year ended.61
The comprehensive consent decree obtained in the section’s red-lining case includes injunctive and affirmative relief designed to ensure that persons living on Indian reservations in Arizona would not be denied mortgage loans because the property interest involved reservation land. The relief was also aimed at ensuring that the credit worthiness of Indians applying for non-housing loans would be fairly evaluated.62 The decree further provides for proper notice
of adverse action to rejected applicants and specific relief for named individuals. The trial on the merits was conducted in a suit involving allegations that a company discriminated on the basis of race, national origin, age and marital status.63
In Fiscal Year 1982 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, without opinion, a district court ruling that the Attorney General lacks authority to obtain damages for victims in Equal Credit Opportunity Act suits.64
Special Litigation Section
The Special Litigation Section is responsible for the protection of rights secured under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public facilities on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin, and the enforcement, among others, of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S. Code 794 et seq., the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S. Code 1997, the Education of Handicapped Act, 20 U.S. Code 1401, et seq., and the Revenue Sharing Act, 31 U.S. Code 1227, etseq., where these statutes protect the rights of institutionalized and other handicapped persons.
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42, U.S. Code 1997, was signed into law in May 1980. The Act gives the U.S. Attorney General authority to initiate action on behalf of civilly and criminally institutionalized persons where “egregious or flagrant” conditions are believed to exist that deprive those persons of their federally protected and constitutional rights. This statute clarifies the governments’s right to sue to vindicate the righ’ts of institutionalized persons.
The section also coordinates the U.S. Attorneys’ enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodations.
This year the section took action in 34 cases, including intervention in one case under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S. Code 1997,65 and the entry as amicus and as intervenor in two new cases.66
The section continued to seek an expansion of its litigating role in new areas of law pertaining to the rights of the handicapped. After 25 days of compliance hearings in New York State Association for Retarded Citizens & Parsi v. Carey, the court issued an opinion citing, among other things, inadequate sanitation, insufficient clothing, and lack of treatment programs and finding the defendants in non-compliance with major portions of the 1975 consent judgment.67 The defendants’ motion to eliminate the 1975 consent directive that required the transfer of most of the class members to small community-based facilities was also denied in this case. In another case, Evans v. Barry, the section, after major areas of non-compliance with a 1978
159
consent decree were evidenced, filed a motion for contempt and for the appointment of a special master to ensure the full implementation of the consent decree regarding hazardous environmental conditions and lack of treatment programs.68
The section intervened under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and conducted extensive discovery against Louisiana’s only forensic hospital,69 and gathered evidence against six nursing home facilities in Connecticut.70 The section’s involvement as a friend of the court in the nursing home case was initiated after objections to its proposed discovery were filed by several of the nursing homes where members of the plaintiff class in CARC v. Thorne, a case against the Mansfield Training School, had been placed.71
A suit filed by the section against the Baylor University Medical Center sought to compel Baylor to allow the Department of Health and Human Services access to its premises to conduct an investigation in response to a complaint of discrimination against the handicapped as mandated by that Department’s responsibilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.72 The section filed a brief as amicus curiae in an action involving the Education of the Handicapped Act. The section argued for the assignment of surrogate parents for persons in need of special education and for persons with state agencies as their statutory parents.73
The section has been very successful in its litigative efforts against state prison and jail systems where conditions of confinement such as overcrowding, unsafe and unsanitary facilities, lack of adequate medical care, environmental inadequacies and physical abuse were at issue. In Canterino and U.S. v. Wilson, the first suit in which the section addressed the issue of equal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment for female offenders, the court ordered defendants to revise their policies on institutional privileges to ensure female inmates the same privileges routinely accorded male inmates in Kentucky’s male prisons.74 A comprehensive order in a case against the Indiana Reformatory, a maximum security correctional facility that houses 1,972 adult male felons, found violations of the Eighth Amendment in the areas of overcrowding, unsafe and unsanitary environmental conditions and inadequate staff supervision, as well as violations of Indiana law.75
The court, in a suit involving the Jefferson County jail, entered an order holding the sheriff of the Jefferson County jail, the Alabama commissioner of corrections and the temporary receiver of the Alabama prison system in civil contempt for failing to comply with those sections of a 1978 consent decree relating to overcrowding.76 In DeVonisn v. Garza, the San Antonio jail conditions case, in its litigating amicus role the section assisted the court as parties in
reviewing defendants’ plans to come into compliance with a consent decree. The section presented evidence at hearings on defendants’ medical care plan, new jail plans, and jail population reduction proposals.
In an action in the prison facilities area, the section obtained an order that Mississippi state officials increase staff to upgrade medical, psychiatric, and classification services as a condition to the approval of a 300-inmate increase in the approximately 4,200 inmate population at Parchman Prison.77 Acting on defendants’ motion in Battle & U.S. v. Anderson for a temporary stay and modification of the court’s order which required single-cell space requirements of not less than 60 square feet, the court advised defendants that double celling would be permitted in 310 designated cells in four of Oklahoma’s newer institutions.78 Parties in a Florida statewide prison case agreed to consent decrees on the issues of medical care and food services.79 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the position argued by the Assistant Attorney General and affirmed the lower court’s findings of system-wide unconstitutionality in most of the relief.
In Ruiz and United States v. Estelle, the Texas prisons case, negotiations have culminated in agreements between parties concerning the use of inmate guards, security staffing, administrative segregation and access to courts.
An order in a juvenile right-to-treatment suit against two facilities in Puerto Rico, the first such action in Fiscal Year 1981 in which the section intervened under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, enjoined defendants from, among other things, confining mentally handicapped or physically ill inmates in isolation cells and from subjecting juveniles to physical abuse or corporal punishment. While the order failed to find a federal constitutional right to treatment for juveniles housed in the two facilities, it did find that defendants had failed to promulgate specific written disciplinary rules and that they had failed to adopt an adequate system to detect abuse.
The section, under the mandate of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, initiated 19 investigations, one of which resulted in intervention in a case against a forensic hospital in Louisiana.82 Ten investigations were in the prisons and jails area, five concerned mental health care facilities and three dealt with mental retardation institutions. One investigation concerned the adequacy of treatment provided to juveniles. Five investigations were closed pursuant to the Act.
Voting Section
This section enforces voting laws, including 42 U.S. Code Sections 1971 and 1974 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1970, 1975, and 1982. These statutes are designed to ensure that all qualified citizens have the
160
opportunity to register and vote without discrimination on account of race, color, membership in a language minority group, or age. The section also enforces the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, requires that covered jurisdictions submit all changes in voting practices or procedures to either the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for judicial review or to the Attorney General for administrative review. Changes not submitted and those that are not successfully precleared are not legally enforceable. The determination of the Attorney General, which must be made within 60 days of receipt of a complete submission, concerns whether changes have the purpose or effect of discriminating on account of race, color, or language minority group.
During the year, over 2,800 submissions involving more than 13,300 voting-related changes were submitted to the Attorney General under Section 5. As had been anticipated, a major effort was necessary to analyze closely redistricting plans that were enacted to bring district boundary lines into conformity, based upon 1980 census data, with the one person, one vote requirements. Of more than 1,290 changes involving redistricting received since 1980 census data became available to jurisdictions, 614 changes were submitted this year, including 67 redistricting plans from 20 states that made changes in state house, state senate and congressional districts. Objections were interposed to 30 submissions involving 40 redistricting plans during the year (some submissions contained redistricting plans for more than one legislative body), including 15 objections to 24 statewide redistricting plans. Among the affected states were Alabama (state house and senate plans), Arizona (state house and senate plans), Georgia (state house and senate and congressional plans), Louisiana (state house plan), Mississippi (congressional plan), New York (state assembly and senate and congressional plans), North Carolina (state house and senate and congressional plans), South Carolina (state house plan), Texas (state house and senate and congressional plans), and Virginia (state house plan).
In all, objections were entered to 41 submissions during the year. In addition to objections to redistricting plans, these included objections to procedures for conducting a reidentification of voters that would have disadvantaged blacks in Sumter and Wilcox Counties, Alabama; an objection to restrictions proposed on neighborhood voter registration drives in DeKalb County, Georgia; an objection to a previously unsubmitted 1968 constitutional amendment in North Carolina that would have had the effect of preventing the state from drawing legislative districts which fairly represented concentrations of black population; and an objection to the use of numbered positions and a majority vote requirement in a Brazoria County, Texas,
independent school district, where Mexican-Americans and blacks together constitute 25 percent of the population.
Redistricting plans also were the focus of a major portion of the section’s litigation during the year. The section participated in 13 new cases, six of which involved the question of whether statewide redistricting plans denied or abridged the right of minorities to vote in California, Georgia, Mississippi, New York and Texas,83 one which attacked the redistricting plan for the City Council of Chicago on grounds that it would fragment concentrations of Hispanic population and avoid retaining districts where blacks had become a majority of the population,84 and one where a court drew a new redistricting plan for Conecuh County, Alabama, after a Section 5 objection was made to the county’s attempt to change from single-member to multi-member districts.85 The remaining five cases included actions by Colleton and Sumter Counties, South Carolina, to obtain judicial Section 5 preclearance for their use of at-large elections for county council members;86 an action to enforce an objection to the use of a majority vote requirement in a Mississippi municipal school district;87 and suits by two counties, Elmore County, Idaho, and Campbell County, Wyoming, seeking to terminate their coverage under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act.88
In other court decisions the use of at-large elections for the commissioners in the City of Mobile and for members of the Mobile School Board was found to dilute the voting rights of blacks in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act89 (a provision that was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1980 to require proof of intentional discrimination when an earlier decision in these cases was on appeal) and the application of Section 5 to changes made by political bodies but ordered in effect by state and federal judges was reaffirmed in separate decisions by a federal district court,90 a federal court of appeals91 and the Supreme Court.92
Other provisions of the Voting Rights Act authorize the Attorney General to assign observers to monitor elections to ensure that the right to vote and to have the vote properly counted is not denied during the election process. Under these provisions, 799 observers were assigned to cover five elections in three states, including 461 observers who served during the September 7, 1982, Alabama primary election, the largest number of observers ever assigned to cover a single election in the State of Alabama. In addition, 139 persons were listed (registered) by federal examiners who were appointed to two counties in Georgia where local registrars had failed to respond to repeated requests from blacks for the appointment of deputy registrars and for more reasonable hours for voter registration. This was the first time since 1975 that federal examiners had been
161
appointed to register voters under Section 7 of the Voting Rights Act.
On June 29, 1982, President Reagan signed P.L. 97-205, a compromise bill which the Administration endorsed, extending and amending the Voting Rights Act. Among other things, the 1982 Amendments to the Act revised Section 2 to reinstitute the elements of proof that existed for vote dilution cases prior to the Supreme Court’s 1980 decison in the Mobile case, and revised the standards that a jurisdiction must meet after August 5, 1984, to terminate (“bail out”from) its coverage under the Act’s special provisions. A major effort of the section during the first three quarters of the year was the compiling of data on all aspects of the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act since January 1, 1975, for use in the Adminsitration’s study of issues relating to the extension of the Act and for use in responding to requests from Members of Congress and others with respect to extension issues. On March 1, 1982, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds testified in this connection before the Senate Judiciary Comittee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. Special procedures that were instituted also allowed the section to make timely responses during the year to more than 845 comments deceived from citizens and governmental officials regarding the extension of the Act.
To better develop future participation in vote dilution cases, in September 1982 a special team of attorneys was created within the section for this litigative effort. At the same time, the staff of the section’s litigation force was expanded to strengthen the vigorous overall litigation program of enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Accompanying these organizational steps was a clarification of the responsibilities of the senior attorneys in the section to better coordinate the section’s enforcement of the Act’s prohibition on the use by jurisdictions of voting changes that had not met the preclearance requirements of Section 5. Throughout the year the section was able to continue its effective review of the extraordinary number of Section 5 changes that were received by augmenting its review and records staff with persons detailed from other offices in the Department of Justice and with persons from outside the Department who were obtained through the section’s aggressive participation in internship programs. In addition, the efficiencies previously achieved by transferring paper files to microfiche for incoming submissions under Section 5 were expanded by the transfer, begun in the last quarter of this year, of all past Section 5 submission files to microfiche.
Contact was maintained during the year with the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program, the Federal Election Commission’s National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to coor
dinate with and assist the personnel in those agencies who have responsibilty for implementing programs relating to statutes enforced by the section.
Management Improvements
The most significant management improvement measure undertaken during Fiscal Year 1982 was the reorganization of the Civil Rights Division. The increased emphasis placed on civil rights law enforcement combined with budgetary constraints required closer executive supervision of litigative and regulatory reform activities. Simultaneously, previously implemented policies were reviewed and, where appropriate, reformulated or new initiatives undertaken to ensure the accomplishment of the Division’s mission. The creation of a third Deputy Assistant Attorney General position and the assignment of sections to specific Deputy Assistant Attorneys General clarified executive and policy supervision and achieved better utilization management of issues and resources within the Division.
The Division refined its office automation and computerized information systems, resulting in more timely management information and maximum utilization of resources. Programs designed to provide on-line interactive access from all management offices to a centralized data base were improved significantly. They included the docket control system, attorney workload analysis and future requirements predictions, attorney time reporting system, organizational and personnel data, and preprogrammed reports.
Internal relations and communications were improved through a management retreat meeting which identified the objectives of each section and prescribed corrective steps for dealing with problem areas of a litigative nature and in the administrative support services.
Section-level managerial improvements included the continued refinement of the following: the Criminal Section’s routine issuing of non-prosecutorial notices to victims and subjects; the establishment within the Voting Section of a unit to handle the litigative implementation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1982; and the expanded use of machine-generated letters by all sections for large-volume responses to citizen correspondence.
CITATIONS
(1)	North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 50 U.S.L.W. 4501 (U.S. May 17, 1982).
(2)	Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 50 U.S.L.W. 4232 (U.S. February 24, 1982).
(3)	Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avigliano, 50 U.S.L.W. 4643 (U.S. June 15, 1982).
(4)	Hathorn v. Lovorn, 50 U.S.L.W. 4664 (U.S. June 15, 1982).
(5)	Plyler v. Doe, 50 U.S.L.W. 4650 (U.S. June 15, 1982).
(6)	Grove City College v. Bell, Nos. 80-2383 & 80-2385 (3d Cir. August 12, 1982).
162
(7)	Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, 677 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1982), cert, denied, No. 81-2022 (October 4, 1982).
(8)	United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1982).
(9)	United States v. City of Parma, 661 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 3838 (U.S. April 20, 1982).
(10)	Halderman v. Pennhurst, 673 F.2d 647 (3d Cir. 1982).
(11)	United States v. Contreras, No. B-81-854 (S.D. Tex.).
(12)	United States v. Matthews, No. TY-81-44-CR (E.D. Tex.).
(13)	United States v. Ramos, No. 81-775 (S.D. Tex.); United States v. Ybanez, No. 81-776 (S.D. Tex.).
(14)	United States v. Fortenberry, No. 82-3001701 (W.D. La.).
(15)	United States v. Davila, et al., No. EP-82-CR-4 (W.D. Tex.).
(16)	United States v. Halloran, et al., No. 82-01141 (D. Hawaii).
(17)	United States v. Wages, No. 82-20050-H (W.D. Tenn.).
(18)	United States v. John Doe, Jr. No. CR 81-00156 (M.D. Pa.).
(19)	United States v. Redwine, et al., No. IP 82-85-CR (S.D. Ind.).
(20)	United States v. Warren, et al., No. 81-11-CR-B (E.D. N.C.).
(21)	United States v. Gadsden, et al., No. CR A-81-142-03-G (M.D. N.C.).
(22)	United States v. Mussry, et al., No. CR 82-802 (C.D. Cal.).
(23)	United States v. Burlington Co. College, Civ. No. 82-3255, (D. N.J.),
filed Sept. 29, 1982.
(24)	United States v. County of Fairfax, Civ. No. 78-862-A, (E.D. Va.), consent decree entered April 29, 1982.
(25)	United States v. Nassau County (police dept.), Civ. No. 77-C-1881, (E.D. N.Y.), consent decree entered on April 21, 1982.
(26)	United States v. Vermont, Civ. No. 81-380, (D. Vt.), complaint filed and consent decree entered Dec. 12, 1981; United States v. Virginia, Civ. No. 76-0623-R, (E.D. Va.), consent decree entered July 14, 1982; United States v. Massachussetts, Civ. No. 82-2716-S, (D. Mass.), complaint filed and consent order entered Sept. 16, 1982.
(27)	United States v. Clayton County, Civ. No. 82-945-A, (N.D. Ga.), complaint filed and consent decree entered May 6, 1982; United States v. Gwinnett County, Civ. No. C.82-1029-A, (N.D. Ga.), complaint filed and consent decree entered May 19, 1982.
(28)	Bazemore & United States v. Friday, Civ. No. 2879, (E.D. N.C.), trial Dec. 7, 1981-Feb. 19, 1982; adverse decision entered on August 20, 1982.
(29)	United States v. New Jersey, Civ. No. 77-2054, (D. N.J.). See decision re Newark, 530 F. Supp. 528 (Nov. 13, 1981), and decision re Jersey City entered Sept. 22, 1982. See also order re Jersey City entered July 27, 1982.
(30)	United States v. Milwaukee, Civ. No. 74-C-480, motion for supplemental relief filed Sept. 3, 1982.
(31)	United States v. New Orleans Public Services, Inc., Civ. No. 73-1297E, (E.D. La.), dec. ordering relief entered Sept. 10, 1982, No. 195 Daily Labor Rept., Oct. 7, 1982, p. D-l.
(32)	Employers Ins. of Wausau, v. Brown, No. 80-C-279, (W.D. Wis.), decisio© entered Sept. 22, 1982.
(33)	First Ala. Bank of Montgomery v. Donovan, Civ. No. 80-P-17075, (N.D. Ala.), 11th Cir. No.81-7677, oral argument heard Aug. 18, 1982.
(34)	United States v. Texas Education Agency (Port Arthur Independent School District), 5th Cir. No. 81-2257, decided March 1, 1982.
(35)	United States and Love v. Gadsden County, Florida, C. A. No. TCA 1616 (M.D. Fla.), consent decree entered Fegruary 9, 1982.
(36)	Boyd and United States v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board, C.A. No. 3164 (N.D. La.), consent decree entered May 17, 1982.
(37)	United States v. State of Miss. (Scott county), C.A. No. 4706 (S.D. Miss.), consent decree entered April 12, 1982.
(38)	United States v. School District of Omaha, C.A. No. 73-0-320, stipulated order entered March 29, 1982.
(39)	United States v. United School District No. 500, C.A. No. KC-3738,
stipulated order entered February 16, 1982.
(40)	United States v. Ector County Independent School District, C.A. No. Mo-70-CA-64 (W.D. Tex.), decision filed May 28, 1982; stipulated plan approved August 2, 1982.
(41)	Davis and United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board C.A. No. 1662-A (M.D. La.), order entered April 30, 1982.
(42)	Davis and United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, C.A. No. 3OO3-63-H (S.D. Ala.), consent decree entered March 3, 1982.
(43)	United States v. Texas Education Agency (South Park ISD), C.A. No. B-6819-CA (Order dated December 10, 1982, E.D. Texas).
(44)	United States v. Phoenix Union High School District, 681 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1982).
(45)	Baier v. Parker, 5th Cir. No. 81-3622, petition denied September 7, 1982.
(46)	United States v. State of Louisiana, C.A. No. 80-3300 (E.D. La.), consent decree entered September 3, 1982.
(47)	Pavey and United States v. University of Alaska, C.A. No. A79-019 (D. Alaska), consent decree entered October 14, 1981.
(48)	United States v. Massachusetts Maritime Academy, C.A. No. 76-1696-Z (D. Mass.), complaint filed April 30, 1976.
(49)	Ayers and United States v. Winter, C.A. No. 169-40-89 (N.D. Miss.) Orders were entered approving consent decrees for the following colleges on the following dates: Jones County Junior College, September 14, 1982; Southwest Mississippi Junior College, September 14, 1982; Holmes Junior College, September 14, 1982; Pearl River Junior College, September 14, 1982; East Mississippi Junior College, September 14, 1982, and Northwest Mississippi Junior College, September 8, 1982.
(50)	Trenton Education Association v. Bell, C.A. No. 82-2445, complaint filed July 29, 1982.
(51)	University of Richmond v. Bell, 543 F. Supp. 321 (E.D. Va. 1982).
(52)	United States v. Commonwealth Avenue Associates, C.A. No. 82-302-MA (D. Mass.), complaint filed February 4, 1982.
(53)	United States v. Hartman and Tyner, C.A. No. 82-71068 (E.D. Mich.), complaint filed March 25, 1982.
(54)	United States v. Commonwealth Avenue Associates, supra.
(55)	United States v. Great Western Bank and Trust, C.A. No. 80-1026 PHX-CLH (D. Ariz.), consent decree entered January 19, 1982.
(This suit also involved allegations of Equal Credit Opportunity Act violations.) United States v. Housing Authority of Texarkana, Arkansas C.A. No. 804064 (W.D. Ark.), consent decree entered March 18, 1982.
(56)	United States v. City of Birmingham, Michigan, 538 F. Supp. 819 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
(57)	United States v. City of Parma, 504 F. Supp. 913 (N.D. Ohio 1980), aff’d, 661 F.2d (6th Cir. 1981, cert, denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 3836, April 19, 1982.
(58)	United States v. Zinsser and Town of Manchester, Connecticut, C.A. No. H-79-229 (D. Conn.), judgment entered October 15, 1981.
(59)	United States v. Gilsan, C.A. No. 78-A-1195 (D. Colo.), decided May 5, 1981, August 21, 1981. The last notice of appeal in this case was filed October 19, 1981, 10th Cir. No. 81-1746.
(60)	Education Instruction v. Copley Management and Development Corp., C.A. No. 81-0532. Amicus curiae brief filed April 16, 1982.
(61)	United States v. AVCO Financial Services, Inc., (D. Md.), complaint filed October 14, 1982.
(62)	United States v. Great Western Bank and Trust, C.A. No. 80-1026-PHX-CLH (D. Ariz,), consent decree entered January 19, 1982.
(63)	United States v. American Future Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 78-1517 (E.D. Pa.), complaint filed May 8, 1978.
(64)	United States v. Beneficial Corporation, 673 F.2d 1302 (3rd Cir. 1981).
(65)	Davis and United States v. Henderson, C.A. 77-423 (M.D. La. 1982).
163
(66)	Connecticut Association of Retarded Citizens v. Geri Care, C.A. 4-81-494 (D. Conn. 1981); Canterino and United States v. Wilson, 528 F. Supp. 62 (W.D. Ky. 1982).
(67)	New York State Association for Retarded Citizens and Parisi v. Carey, C.A. 72-356; 72-357 (E.D. N.Y. 1982).
(68)	Evans and United States v. Barry, 459 F. Supp. 483 (D. D.C. 1978).
(69)	Davis and United States v. Henderson, C.A. 77-423 (M.D. La. 1982).
(70)	Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens v. Geri Care, supra.
(71)	Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens v. Thorne, C.A. H-78-653 (D. Conn. 1980).
(72)	United States v. Baylor University Medical Center, C.A. 3-82-0453-D.
(73)	Tina A. v. Shedd, C.A. H-80-462 (D. Conn. 1982).
(74)	Canterino and United States v. Wilson, 528 F. Supp. 62 (W.D. Ky. 1982).
(75)	French v. Owens, C.A. IP-75-677-C (D. Ind. 1982).
(76)	Thomas v. Gloor, C.A. 77-H-0683S (M.D. Ala. 1981).
(77)	Gates and United States v. Collier, C.A. 73-1790 (N.D. Miss. 1982).
(78)	Battle and United States v. Anderson, C.A. 72-95-CIV (E.D. Okla. 1981).
(79)	Costello v. Wainwright, C.A. 72-94-C1V-JS; 72-1009-C1V-JS (M.D. Fla. 1981).
(80)	Ruiz and United States v. Estelle, C.A. H-78-987 (S.D. Tex. 1982).
(81)	Santana and United States v. Collazo, 533 F. Supp. 966 (D. P.R. 1982).
(82)	Davis and United States v. Henderson, supra.
(83)	Senate of the State of California v. Smith, C.A. No. 81-2767 (D. D.C.); Busbee v. Smith, C.A. No. 82-0665 (D. D.C.); State of Mississippi v. United States, C.A. No. 82-0956 (D. D.C.); State of Mississippi v. United States, C.A. No. 82-2673 (D. D.C.); Flateau v. Anderson, No. 82 Civ. 0876 (S.D. N.Y.); Terrazas v. Clements, C.A. No. 3-81-1946-R (N.D. Tex.).
(84)	Ketchum and United States v. Byrn, C.A. Nos. 82 C 4085, 82 C 4431, 82 C 4820 (N.D. III.).
(85)	Fluker v. Conecuh County, C.A. No. 82-0519-H-S (S.D. Ala.).
(86)	Colleton County v. United States, C.A. No. 81-2664 (D. D.C.); County Council of Sumter County v. United States, C.A. No. 82-0912 (D. D.C.).
(87)	United States v. Louisville Municipal Separate School District, C.A. No. EC 81-318-LS-P (N.D. Miss.).
(88)	State of Idaho and Elmore County v. United States, C.A. No. 82-1778 (D. D.C.); Campbell County, Wyoming v. United States, C.A. No. 82-1862 (D. D.C.).
(89)	Bolden and United States v. City of Mobile, C.A. No. 75-297P (S.D. Ala., April 15, 1982); Brown and United States v. Mobile County School Board, C.A. No. 75-298P (S.D. Ala, April 15, 1982).
(90)	Edge v. Sumter County School District, C.A. No. 80-20 Amer. (M.D. Ga., Dec. 21, 1981).
(91)	Hughley v. Adams, No. 81-7068 (11th Cir., Feb. 1, 1982).
(92)	Hawthorn v. Love, No. 81-151 (June 5, 1982).
164
Tax Division
Glenn L. Archer, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
The Tax Division is responsible for representing the United States and its officers in civil and criminal litigation arising under the internal revenue laws (other than proceedings in the U.S. Tax Court). While the Division’s primary client is the Internal Revenue Service, it also represents other federal departments and agencies on state and local tax matters. On September 30, 1982, the Division was staffed by 270 attorneys and 264 support personnel.
The Tax Division’s primary missions are to assist the Internal Revenue Service in collecting the federal revenue, to prosecute criminal tax offenses, and to establish uniform legal principles of taxation that serve as nationwide guidelines. To accomplish these objectives, its litigating policies are coordinated with the administrative policies of the Internal Revenue Service and the tax legislative concerns of the Department of the Treasury.
The Tax Division conducts all civil tax appeals and handles or supervises criminal tax appeals in the federal courts of appeals. It also participates in and supports the work of the Solicitor General in civil and criminal tax cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In criminal tax matters, the Division controls and supervises the institution of criminal proceedings, and collaborates with the U.S. Attorneys in the conduct of such proceedings at both the trial and appellate levels. Criminal prosecutions involve attempts to evade taxes, willful failure to file returns or to pay taxes, filing false returns and other deceptive documents, and making false statements to revenue officials.
The Division also is responsible for handling all tax cases in the federal district courts, the U.S. Claims Court, and state courts. Such cases include a broad range of civil tax controversies, including:
•	Refund suits brought by taxpayers to recover taxes alleged to have been erroneously assessed or collected.
•	Suits brought by the United States to collect unpaid assessments, to foreclose federal tax liens or to determine the priority of such liens, to obtain judgments against delinquent taxpayers, to enforce Internal Revenue Service administrative summonses, and to establish tax claims in bankruptcy, receivership, and probate proceedings.
•	Proceedings involving mandamus, injunctions, and other writs arising in connection with internal revenue
matters, including injunction suits against tax return preparers and abusive tax shelter promoters pursuant to Sections 7407 and 7408 of the Internal Revenue Code.
•	Suits against Internal Revenue Service employees for damages claimed because of alleged injuries caused by them in the performance of their official duties.
•	Suits against the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or other officials to test the validity of federal tax regulations or rulings, including declaratory judgment actions pursuant to Section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code, challenging initial denial or revocation of an organization’s tax-exempt status or other classification under the Code.
•	Proceedings against the Tax Division and the Internal Revenue Service for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act or for damages on account of the alleged improper disclosure of information under the Privacy Act.
•	Intergovernmental immunity suits in which the United States resists attempts to apply a state or local tax to activities or properties of the United States.
•	Suits brought by taxpayers pursuant to Section 7429 of the Internal Revenue Code for a judicial determination as to the reasonableness of the use of jeopardy/termination assessment procedures and the appropriateness of the amount so assessed.
•	Suits brought by individuals to foreclose mortgages or to quiet title to property in which the United States is named as a party defendant because of the existence of a federal tax lien on the property.
In addition to its litigating responsibilities, the Tax Division actively informs Congress on the impact of existing and proposed legislation affecting tax litigation and substantive tax law. Division attorneys are also kept informed of legislative developments that will affect their work.
In accordance with the Attorney General’s commitment to improving litigating skills in the Department, the Tax Division regularly conducts training programs for its attorneys. The programs include lectures and workshops devoted to the handling of all phases of criminal and civil litigation, with special emphasis on problems unique to tax litigation and the development of advocacy skills. Guest lecturers from both within and outside the government participate in the programs.
165
• Dallas Field Office
166
SzS
DC O LU 5 LU §
DC O
— hj oc > co o cj S
LU >
DC O gg Z uj
S a <
F 2 S i— i— -i cj z — LU LU 2 C/3 CJ CJ —
■nJ
S z z
DC O £5
—I M C/3 — LU LU > 00 g CJ ==-
|s« g°£
2 2? *1 UJ
22 S
GO CD GO -< >■ UJ
>- 2 t cc ? ° uj fZ a <
2	,
cc 2 uj o I- to 2^5 S S2 2 to h- g —j
< I z <
S| < E5
2 gl s
< CD I C/3 CD
I- | GO
C/3 >-	< >-
“ UJ UJ
•* O J = O
t &l=
< I Q <
z o cn
> Q
£ =
“= S>
1X1 5s h-uj O Q. LU
co
<1
CD I-
UJ c/3
§5 GO
C/3 <
I— db z
o co 5
—I
2
II
GO g
C/3 CD to
uj
Q <
5 z
1
2 £
rF uj
5
Appellate Cases
In carrying out its appellate responsibilities, the Tax Division in Fiscal Year 1982 handled 352 appeals from Tax Court decisions and 435 appeals in civil cases for the federal district courts. The Division also had four appeals from state courts and 178 appeals in criminal tax cases. In connection with tax litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys in the Division’s Appellate Section prepare petitions for certiorari and memoranda in opposition to taxpayers’ petitions, as well as briefs and memoranda of law on the merits, under the supervision of the Office of the Solicitor General. During the year, 143 petitions for certiorari were pending or received, 131 of which were taxpayer petitions. The Supreme Court acted on 120 petitions for certiorari in tax cases; 106 taxpayer petitions were denied and five were granted, while seven government petitions were granted and two were denied.
Supreme Court Cases
The Supreme Court decided five federal tax cases on the merits in its 1981-82 term, three of them in favor of the government.
The Court held that a disclaimer of a remainder interest in a trust, made 33 years after the trust was created and 24 years after the remainderman/disclaimant reached 21, had not been made within a reasonable time after the disclaimant learned of the transfer to him, and gave rise to a taxable gift—notwithstanding the fact that the trust’s life beneficiary was still living, so the remainder had not yet become fully “vested.”1 The Court determined that imposition of social security taxes was constitutional as applied to an employer who was a member of the Old Order Amish—a group which objects on religious grounds to payment of such taxes and to the receipt of public insurance benefits—and who employed other members of that sect on his farm and in his cabinetry shop.2 The Court also held in the government’s favor in a case presenting the question of the income tax consequences to a donor of appreciated property who makes a gift of such property on the condition that any gift tax thereon shall be paid by the donee. The Court ruled that to the extent the gift tax exceeded the donor’s basis in the property the donor realized taxable capital gains income.3
In an intergovernmental immunity case of considerable revenue importance, the Court, agreeing with the State of New Mexico, held that private contractors managing government-owned nuclear weapons facilities under Department of Energy cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts were not “agents” of the government, and thus were not immune from state gross receipts and use taxes. The Court found the asserted agency relationship to be too tenuous to confer
immunity on the contractors.4 And the Court held for the taxpayer in a decision invalidating a Treasury Regulation defining a “brother-sister controlled group” of corporations, finding the Regulation at odds with the legislative purpose of the controlled group statutory scheme enacted by Congress.5
The Appellate Section participated in several other Supreme Court cases. In a well-known case involving the Freedom of Information Act, Susan Long attempted to obtain data relating to the Internal Revenue Service’s taxpayer compliance measurement program, which is the basis upon which tax returns are selected for audit. Reversing a decision of the Ninth Circuit that had allowed Mrs. Long access to the data, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of legislation enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1981 which provided that such material is nondisclosable.6 In a bankruptcy case, the government’s co-creditor of a bankrupt corporation filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Second Circuit’s decision that had denied it (and the government) recovery. The government successfully urged the Supreme Court to adopt the position of its co-creditor.7 The Appellate Section also prepared one Supreme Court brief as amicus curiae in an intergovernmental immunity case in which the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, sought to impose special assessments for improvements upon the Federal Reserve Bank at St. Louis. The Eighth Circuit found the Bank to be immune from the assessment as a federal instrumentality; the government filed a brief supporting this result, and the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.8
Appellate Decisions
As in prior years, the Appellate Section handled a large variety of significant cases. The Fifth Circuit, ruling in the government’s favor, held that individuals who purchased interests in a limited partnership near the end of the partnership’s tax year could not deduct partnership losses incurred prior to the time they became partners.9 In an important tax shelter case, the First Circuit reversed the Tax Court and held in the Commissioner’s favor in a case in which the court refused to accept nominal nonrecourse partnership debt as true partnership debt for purposes of a leveraged oil and gas drilling shelter operation. The “loan” was to be repaid only if oil and gas were found, which rendered it too speculative to be included in the partners’ basis for their partnership interests.10 The Fourth Circuit remanded a widely publicized case to the Tax Court for a factual determination whether the taxpayers’ divorces, even if valid under local law, were shams for tax purposes. Taxpayers in that case had obtained “quickie” foreign divorces at year-end in order to file returns as unmarried single taxpayers (thereby avoiding the “marriage penalty”
167
inherent in the tax rate structure where both spouses have approximately equal incomes and file joint returns) and then promptly remarried early in the following year.11
The Third Circuit reversed the district court and ruled in favor of the government in a case presenting the question whether Temple University, which had become a “state-related” university in 1965, qualified as a “political subdivision” of the state so as to make interest it paid on its bank borrowings tax-exempt to the lender. The appellate court held that notwithstanding Temple’s ties to the State of Pennsylvania, it retained too much of the character of a private institution, and did not exercise enough of Pennsylvania’s sovereign powers, to be considered a “political subdivision.”12
Taxpayers frequently litigate the deductibility of expenses incurred in traveling to and from their jobs. The Second Circuit, in a somewhat unusual case, held that a New York City policeman could not deduct the additional commuting costs he incurred driving his car to work, rather than taking public transportation. He lived in an area where he would have had to travel through New Jersey if he used the bus. He was required to carry his service revolver at all times, but could not do so in New Jersey without a special permit. The Court found his added costs of driving to be personal rather than business expenses.13
The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, held in favor of the Commissioner in a case involving the recurring problem of taxpayers who incur traveling expenses as a result of maintaining their family home at a distance from their area of employment. The taxpayer lived in McLean, Virginia, but most of his income-producing activities were in Philadelphia. The Commissioner had treated Philadelphia as his “tax home;” the Fourth Circuit, reversing a panel decision in the taxpayer’s favor, affirmed the Tax Court’s decision that the taxpayer’s expenses incurred in traveling between Virginia and Philadelphia were personal, and therefore not deductible.14
In another en banc decision, the Fourth Circuit ruled against the government and held that a bank’s expenditures relating to the establishment of new branch, offices, including feasibility studies, fees to the Comptroller of the Currency and related expenses, as well as in-house salaries of its staff handling future branch planning, were currently deductible business expenses.15 In another case dealing with the deduction versus capitalization question, the Seventh Circuit, reversing the Tax Court, held in the government’s favor in a case where the taxpayer, a publisher, had claimed a current expense deduction for amounts paid a third party for the preparation of a dictionary of natural science. The Tax Court had characterized these payments as having been made for “services,” and from this concluded that they were deductible. The court of appeals, however, saw the
expenditures as relating to the cost of a specific asset, the manuscript of the dictionary, and held that they were required to be capitalized.16
In a significant Freedom of Information Act case, the District of Columbia Circuit held that prosecution memoranda prepared by attorneys in the Criminal Section of the Tax Division were “predecisional” in nature, as well as the attorneys’ “work product,” and therefore were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.17
In a case that seemed likely to have considerable impact on the tax-protest movement, the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s request for extraordinary costs imposed on a tax protester who had continued to litigate frivolous claims. The court awarded $1,350 in costs, covering salaries of the government attorneys involved with the case, as well as office overhead expenses.18
In the summons enforcement area, the Tenth Circuit, reversing the district court, rendered an important decision for the government by ordering enforcement of a “John Doe” summons, which required Brigham Young University to provide the names and addresses of all donors of property in kind to the University during the years 1977 and 1978. This holding was based on the government’s showing that audits of more than 160 taxpayers who had claimed deductions for such gifts indicated that the donors had significantly overvalued the gifts, primarily art works and silver mining claims, on their tax returns.19 Based upon a similar type of showing in two other significant cases, the Sixth and Second Circuits authorized the service of “John Doe” summonses upon a barter exchange20 and a tax shelter promoter21 seeking the names and addresses of participants in the exchange and shelter programs. The Fifth Circuit, disagreeing with the opinion of another federal court of appeals,22 affirmed the district court’s order enforcing a summons for the production of “tax pool analysis” memoranda in which the taxpayer or its accountant identifies potential tax problems or liabilities for the years under suit.23
In the area of intergovernmental immunity, the Fourth Circuit held that Arlington County, Virginia, could not, after 1979, impose its ad valorem property tax on an apartment building owned by the East German government and used by that government to house its diplomats. The case was remanded for further proceedings with respect to the property’s tax exemption for years prior to 1979.24
In a complex case concerning the taxation of a life insurance company, the Fifth Circuit, reversing the district court, held for the government. The insurance company’s reserve maintained with respect to disabled insureds under life insurance policies providing for premium waivers during disability was determined not to qualify as a
168
statutory “life insurance reserve.” (This additional reserve was established to cover the increased risk of death of disabled individuals, and was set at a flat rate of $750 for each $1,000 of coverage.)25 There were several other cases involving this issue pending at year’s end, with tax liabilities approaching $15 million.
Finally, in the frequently litigated area of tax accounting, the Second Circuit held in the government’s favor and ruled that RCA was required to account for its television and appliance service contract revenues upon receipt, rather than including in income only those portions of the revenues that it estimated were earned during the tax year based on actual service work performed. The case involved nearly $6 million in tax for the years 1958 and 1959.26
Criminal Tax Cases
The Tax Division’s responsibility for the review and case supervision of all criminal tax prosecutions is designed to ensure a consistent and uniform national prosecution policy in federal tax matters.
Under the Division’s streamlined case review procedure, all criminal tax cases received from the Internal Revenue Service are screened and divided into categories of complex and noncomplex cases. Noncomplex cases meeting basic criteria are authorized for prosecution and forwarded to U.S. Attorneys within 10 days, and are reviewed by the appropriate U.S. Attorney within three months of receipt. Should the U.S. Attorney determine that prosecution is not warranted, the case is returned to the Tax Division in order that the Assistant Attorney General may either decline prosecution or elect to send Division attorneys to prosecute the case. During Fiscal Year 1982, 208 noncomplex cases were transmitted to U.S. Attorneys under this new procedure. Complex cases and cases with sensitive issues continued to receive full review by the Division.
When prosecution is authorized by the Tax Division, the file containing the prosecution memoranda and Internal Revenue Service reports and exhibits is forwarded to the appropriate U.S. Attorney, with the request that an indictment be sought or that an information be filed. The Tax Division sets forth in its letter of transmittal the charges that are to be brought and any special instructions applying to the case. Regular follow-up reporting is required to keep the Department abreast of the prosecution through indictment, plea or trial, and final disposition.
U.S. Attorneys and the various strike forces continued to request the assistance of Tax Division attorneys in grand jury investigations, trial preparation, and in the actual conduct of criminal trials. In addition, specialists from the Division often directly handled investigations and cases of national importance, including cases involving narcotics traffickers and organized crime, which are generally of
great complexity and have ramifications beyond the borders of a federal judicial district or state.
For Fiscal Year 1982, the Tax Division received 1,602 new criminal tax cases. Division attorneys prepared 989 criminal prosecution memoranda, involving 1,432 potential defendants. Prosecution was declined as to 194 potential defendants. Indictments or informations were filed against 1,844 defendants. The total docket of pending criminal tax cases as of the close of the fiscal year, including those in the hands of U.S. Attorneys and those in the courts of appeals, was 2,012. The Tax Division handled 178 criminal tax appeals this year; 70 trials, 14 grand jury investigations, and 42 grand jury presentments were assigned to Division attorneys.
Convictions were obtained in over 96 percent of all criminal tax cases prosecuted. Of 1,690 businesses or persons prosecuted for federal tax violations, a total of 1,624 defendants were convicted. Most were found guilty on pleas of guilty or nolo contendere (accepted over the Department’s continued objection to nolo pleas). A total of 398 criminal tax cases were tried, and the conviction rate after trials was 83.7 percent. Trial attorneys from the Tax Division prosecuted 79 cases, obtaining convictions in 75 of them.
All applications for immunity from prosecution in connection with criminal tax cases are extensively reviewed by Tax Division attorneys before they are forwarded to the Assistant Attorney General for final action. At the beginning of Fiscal Year 1982, 22 immunity applications were pending; during the year, 219 were received by the Tax Division from U.S. Attorneys and the various divisions of the Department of Justice. A total of 183 immunity applications were approved, 54 were denied or withdrawn, and four were pending at the end of the year.
The Tax Division also coordinates closely with the Criminal Division in special enforcement cases, including criminal tax cases involving organized crime figures and activities. The Criminal Division consults with the Tax Division on the tax aspects of matters developed through Criminal Division investigations, and the Tax Division is engaged in a joint effort with the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section to halt the use of fraudulent tax shelters. In addition, a special group in the Tax Division’s Criminal Section, known as the Tax Enforcement Narcotics Unit, handles appropriate matters referred for grand jury investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. The special unit was formed as a part of a program designed and implemented in collaboration with the Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section to handle potential criminal tax cases involving high-level narcotics traffickers. Experienced tax prosecutors in the Tax Division are also assigned to maintain liaison with each of the Criminal
169
Division’s Strike Forces in major cities throughout the country. These procedures enable the Tax Division to supervise criminal tax matters arising in racketeering cases and to apply to these cases the same standards that exist in all other criminal tax cases. During Fiscal Year 1982, the Division received 643 special enforcement cases (an increase of 63 percent over Fiscal Year 1981), 202 of which involved narcotics traffickers.
In Fiscal Year 1982, criminal tax convictions took place in almost every state and included defendants from a full range of occupational groupings and social positions. However, the trial and grand jury emphasis of Division attorneys was particularly focused in the past year on tax protest leaders, fraudulent tax shelter promoters and high-level narcotics traffickers.
Civil Tax Cases
Civil cases in Fiscal Year 1982 accounted for approximately 90 percent of the Division’s caseload. During the year, 5,572 civil tax suits and tax-related actions, involving more than $1,174 billion, were instituted. Taxpayers instituted 4,919 suits involving over $1 billion in tax liabilities and tort claims; 2,282 of those were bankruptcy suits. The government filed 653 suits involving approximately $16.3 million.
Trial Court Proceedings
In Fiscal Year 1982, Tax Division attorneys tried 304 cases in lower courts: 279 in federal district and state courts, and 25 in the Court of Claims. Division attorneys, in active preparation for trial, also took part in 2,335 discovery actions and 1,491 pretrial appearances and proceedings.
Civil cases decided at the trial level this year involved a wide variety of issues and transactions. The government prevailed in 1,114 of the 1,456 tax cases decided by the trial courts.
Trial Court Cases
The Division’s Civil Trial Sections (Northern, Southern, Central, Western and Court of Claims) represent the government in refund suits brought by taxpayers to recover taxes alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed and collected. Except for the Court of Claims Section, they also represent the government in all other types of civil tax-related suits in federal and state courts.
The focus of much of the Tax Division’s litigation during Fiscal Year 1982 was on various forms of taxpayer noncompliance. Several civil cases successfully litigated by the Division involved substantive tax issues related to tax ,shelters. For example, in a test case involving the current deductibility of housing project start-up fees for more than 1,000 limited partners in subsidized-housing partnerships, a
major tax-shelter feature of which is the acceleration of deductions into the first year, the Court of Claims found most of the claimed expenses to be capital in nature and required them to be amortized over varying periods of time.27 A Florida jury held for the government on all issues in a Simmental cattle shelter case, concerning the deductibility of management fees, the fair market value of a cattle herd, and other claimed deductions.28 And, in the first “silver straddle” tax case to be decided (although hundreds more were pending in the Tax Court), a Nevada jury upheld the government’s disallowance of losses claimed in certain options and commodity transactions because they were not entered into for profit.29
In Fiscal Year 1982, the civil injunction against income tax return preparers prescribed by Section 7407 of the Internal Revenue Code was sought by the government in more cases than ever before. In some of the most significant: A permanent injunction was obtained against the promotion of an anticipatory assignment-of-income scheme known as the “foreign tax haven double trust”;30 a preliminary injunction was entered barring the sale and promotion of “freedom filer kits,” as well as the preparation of related federal tax returns in which wages, salaries and business income were not reported as adjusted gross income;31 suit was filed against a major national accounting firm seeking to permanently enjoin it from using an allegedly false and deceptive scheme for claiming unwarranted investment tax credits;32 and the government instituted an action to enjoin the sale and promotion of the so-called “equity trust,” another assignment-of-income device, against a number of return preparers and those in concert with them.33 In addition, the Division continued to seek injunctive and other extraordinary relief under Section 7402, the “all-writs” provision of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, the charter of a so-called “posse comitatus” organized by the tax protestors to harass members of the Internal Revenue Service was declared null and void, as were purported “common law liens” filed by the group against real property owned by certain Internal Revenue Service employees.34
Summons enforcement litigation comprises an important part of the Division’s caseload. Among the most significant district court decisions in Fiscal Year 1982 in this area were those ordering enforcement of “John Doe” summonses served upon barter exchanges or tax shelters to obtain members’ names and transaction records for the years under investigation.35
Pursuant to Section 7429 of the Internal Revenue Code, taxpayers may petition for judicial review of jeopardy or termination assessments made against them, and the district court’s determination regarding the reasonableness of the assessment and the appropriateness of the amount assessed
170
are nonreviewable (although the merits of the tax dispute may later be litigated). The Tax Division litigates a significant number of these cases, usually involving substantial amounts of money, each year. Among the most important Section 7429 decisions in Fiscal Year 1982 were those in the Southern District of Florida holding that no action for review of such an assessment may be maintained by a nonresident alien.36 Jeopardy and termination assessments totaling $1.3 million against the reputed owners of the largest, most sophisticated commercialized prostitution businesses in the Washington, D.C., area were upheld,37 as were a termination assessment of approximately $6 million against the owner of a diamondsales investment business which was allegedly a “Ponzi” scheme38 and a jeopardy assessment of $13.3 million against an alleged marijuana trafficker.39
The government prevailed in a wide variety of tax refund actions involving significant issues or claims in Fiscal Year 1982. A taxpayer’s claims for refund of $10 million in tax plus interest were rejected by the Court of Claims because of the taxpayer’s failure to prove any reasonable useful life for railroad grading and tunnel bores.40 And the Court of Claims concluded, in an analysis at odds with a decision of the Seventh Circuit,41 that oil and gas royalty owners were not entitled to a percentage depletion deduction in 1976 for oil and gas lease bonuses received in that year, in the absence of actual production during the taxable year.42 A Court of Claims trial judge, rejecting the rationale of the Tax Court and several federal courts of appeals in similar cases, accepted the government’s argument that interest-free loans made by a corporation to its sole shareholder produced taxable income to the shareholder equal to the market value of the free use of the funds;43 and another trial judge sustained the wagering excise tax imposed by Section 4401 of the Internal Revenue Code on the “banker” of a numbers gambling operation, determining that the government’s assessment was supported by a showing of plaintiff’s involvement in the illegal activity and that computation of the assessment, based upon extrapolation of the average daily wagers, was proper.44
The U.S. District Court for Maine decided that a corporate taxpayer which had donated a tract of unimproved timberland, including a waterfall, to the state was not entitled to a $1 million deduction for a charitable contribution, based upon the purported value of the property as a hydroelectric power site, in the absence of any reasonable possibility that the property could and would have been used as such a power site. It held that the taxpayer failed to carry its burden of proving that the land was worth more than the timberland value, and limited the deduction to $26,240.45
The government prevailed in a refund suit brought by Houston, Texas, firemen who contended that the nine percent contributions they were required to make to their qualified pension plans should not be includable as income because they were subject to a substantial risk of subsequent forfeiture. The district court observed that the firemen received various economic benefits under their plans in exchange for the contributions, and dismissed the suit.46
Refund Actions
Several significant tax refund actions filed or tried in Fiscal Year 1982 were awaiting decision or pending at various stages of litigation. The government was successful in defeating, on jurisdictional grounds, most challenges to the constitutionality of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980.47 A similar suit brought by several domestic oil producers and the States of Texas and Louisiana had been fully briefed and argued on the merits, however, and was awaiting decision.48 A tax-exempt foundation sought the refund of more than $1.3 million in connection with the financing of the activities of the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California.49 And two major suits, involving millions of dollars in taxes, involved a determination of the proper amount to be allocated to player contracts out of the total acquisition price for a professional baseball team.50
Tax-related litigation under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act continued to proliferate during the year. Both Acts are often utilized in attempts to obtain government files as a substitute for discovery in pending civil or criminal cases. In one pending Freedom of Information Act suit, despite other unsuccessful or pending suits to obtain the same information, the plaintiff sought access to thousands of pages of documents generated in the course of a civil investigation and a Tax Court proceeding regarding its tax-exempt status.51 The government continued to successfully defend those cases where a Freedom of Information Act plaintiff sought access to material generated in a criminal case, such as prosecution memoranda prepared by lawyers in the Department of Justice.52
A number of Freedom of Information Act cases involve an important question, where tax returns and return information are sought, concerning the applicability of the prohibitions against disclosure contained in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. The District Court for the District of Columbia denied a Freedom of Information Act plaintiff’s access to a summary of taxpayers’ names and addresses compiled by the government from information returns filed by the taxpayers.53 In a Privacy Act case involving the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to
171
monitor tax protester activities and trends, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment in the government’s favor and remanded for a determination as to whether government surveillance and the maintenance of files were connected to an investigation of past, present or future violations of the internal revenue laws.54
Actions for damages stemming from the alleged unauthorized disclosure of tax return information are increasing, and many seem to be brought in an effort to thwart ongoing Internal Revenue Service investigations and intimidate the officials conducting them. For example, two related cases seeking damages in excess of $26 million were brought by the subjects of an Internal Revenue Service investigation against 42 defendants, including Internal Revenue Service employees, Department of Justice attorneys, a variety of agencies and a federal judge.55
Intergovernmental immunity tax cases decided at the trial level in Fiscal Year 1982 typically involved questions with a substantial revenue impact. For example, a district court declared unconstitutional the State of Tennessee’s attempt to tax the United States production of enriched uranium by taxing the government’s contractor, which had the only uranium enrichment plant in the state.56 The savings to the United States was estimated at $2.5 million per year.
And the District of Columbia unsuccessfully attempted to collect taxes of almost $750,000 on sales of educational, historical and general merchandise by the United States Capitol Historical Society. It was determined that the Society was a federal instrumentality and thus entitled under the Supremacy Clause to immunity from local taxation.57
Review Section
The Tax Division’s Review Section appraises settlement offers in light of litigating potential and policy considerations, giving particular attention to settlements that are significant in terms of the legal issues or amount of money involved. The Section takes final action on those settlements within its redelegated authority, and advises the Assistant Attorney General or his delegate on settlements which require final action at a higher level within the Division or Department. It is active in resolving disputes between the litigating sections and the Internal Revenue Service, so that the Division’s and the client agency’s positions are in conformity. During Fiscal Year 1982, the Review Section completed action on 448 settlement offers, of which 386 were approved and 62 were rejected or returned to the trial actions for further development.
The total of 386 approved settlements included 181 administrative settlements, concessions and dismissals. Of the 72 settlements approved under the authority of the
Deputy Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General, 43 involved refunds or concessions in excess of $200,000, which, pursuant to Section 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code, were transmitted to the Joint Committee on Taxation of the Congress.
The Review Section also monitors and prepares reports concerning pending or proposed legislation in which the Tax Division has an interest or on which the Division has been asked to comment. During Fiscal Year 1982, attorneys in the Review Section, working closely with other representatives of the Division, as well as officials of the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, participated in the formulation of legislative proposals which were included in the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). Particular emphasis was given to the summons enforcement, attorneys’ fees and penalty provisions of that Act. Review Section attorneys also worked on proposed employment tax legislation and legislation to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Review Section was responsible for implementing the Equal Access to Justice Act (P.L. 96-481) within the Tax Division and coordinated with the Internal Revenue Service on a variety of issues involving the Act. In addition, it prepared comments on the Preliminary Draft of Proposed New Bankruptcy Rules. Finally, the Review Section participated in the work of the Department’s Equal Access to Justice Act Task Force and the intradepartmental committees which advise the Department’s representatives on the Advisory Committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States on Civil and Criminal Rules.
Accomplishments and Initiatives
The Tax Division’s most notable achievements in Fiscal Year 1982 may appear to lie in its courtroom successes. The government prevailed in three of five cases in the Supreme Court, 429 of 505 cases decided by courts of appeals, a success rate of 85 percent, and 1,114 of 1,456 trial decisions, a success rate of almost 77 percent. And 1,624 defendants were convicted in criminal tax cases, a success rate of over 96 percent. The figures and percentages do not depart radically from those of other recent years. Each courtroom victory represents a saving of federal revenue, but the inititatives and accomplishments of the Tax Division are measured by more than its success rate in tax litigation. During Fiscal Year 1982, the various trial sections developed or refined more sophisticated techniques for handling their substantial caseloads in the most cost-effective manner, but with the goal of assuring the most effective representation of the government before the courts. These efforts included the following:
172
•	Development of a case review procedure at the initial pleadings stage of a case, whereby the Division trial attorney submits a detailed case analysis form to a case reviewer, containing a review of the issues, an evaluation of the merits of the government’s position, the prospect of settlement and a discovery and trial plan.
•	Promotion of the tax docket system in major cities with heavy civil tax caseloads. Under this system, with the cooperation of the district courts, all pending civil tax suits are specially placed on the courts’ dockets during a period preset once or twice a year for status and pretrial conferences, motion arguments or trial. This system results in the saving of time and travel funds, and assists the courts in tracking all pending tax cases.
•	Refinement of the Division’s training program for its attorneys, including the informal “post mortem” program whereby attorneys, upon return to the office from the trial of a case, share their trial experiences with their colleagues, receive critiques and offer insights into the local rules and practices of the various courts.
•	Publication of the Division’s Manual for Collection of Tax Judgments. The Manual, which was prepared in keeping with the Department’s commitment to diligently pursue debt collection, is a succinct, comprehensive guide for trial attorneys in the “how-to’s” of enforcing money judgments, and should serve the Division well in its important debt collection function.
In addition, the Tax Division devoted substantial efforts to the overall enhancement of its litigative case management system during Fiscal Year 1982. Its Management Information Policy Staff concentrated on promoting several long-range objectives considered essential for increasing support capabilities. Among its most important achievements were development of a series of programs and procedures designed to collect all essential case information on computer before assignment to a trial section, assuring the prompt, automatic dissemination of accurate data; creation of a line attorney’s instruction manual for reporting data, and a report research guidebook to facilitate case review; and development of recommendations for more sophisticated case information and tracking techniques among the Division, the various U.S. Attorneys’ offices and the Internal Revenue Service.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Tax Division placed even more emphasis on improved coordination and communication with the Internal Revenue Service. In the area of criminal tax, the Division, together with Internal Revenue Service officials embarked upon a new program for the development of guidelines in several critical areas
related to tax administration and litigation, including the review and processing of criminal tax cases, administrative immunity, procedures against abusive tax shelters, and undercover operations. And intraagency and interagency committees continue to be important to develop and coordinate litigating positions and policies with respect to new revenue laws or problem areas in the field of tax litigation. A Division committee was established to work with the Internal Revenue Service in developing the notice procedures for taxpayers in third-party recordkeeper summons matters mandated by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Another important Tax Equity and Responsibility Act provision, the civil injunction against the promoters and sellers of abusive tax shelters, has been the subject of special committee work in the Division since the date of its enactment. The civil injunction is a relatively new tool in the fields of tax administration and enforcement, and Division representatives have been working with divisions within the Department, as well as with other agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission, in an effort to develop a strong civil injunction program.
All of these efforts have contributed to the Division’s high success rate in litigated cases, as reflected in the statistics recited above. That the government’s position is upheld in such a large share of tax cases is indicative of the Division’s efforts in training its attorneys, both in substantive tax matters and the art of advocacy, and providing a forum for the effective sharing of ideas and skills. This is especially so in view of the large volume of cases handled by Division attorneys.
The charts that follow depict the work of the Tax Division over the last five years, and compare this year’s work production and results with those of prior years. The volume of case receipts continues to increase steadily, from 17,322 new cases in Fiscal Year 1978 to 22,163 during Fiscal Year 1982. The variety and complexity of the Division’s work has also increased, reflecting a dramatic increase in bankruptcies and changes in revenue and bankruptcy laws, the spread of taxpayer noncompliance and the shift of government focus to meet that challenge, and the increased effort to combat organized crime and narcotics trafficking.
The following tables compare this year’s work production and results with recent years:
(In Percent)
Government wins	 Criminal convictions		1978 87 94.8	1979 82 94.9	1980 88 95	1981 86 95	1982 85 96.1
173
Comparison of Work Received and Closed
	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982
Received: Civil cases (including appeals)	 Criminal Cases (including appeals)			 4,691 	 2,939	4,874 2,945	4,928 2,523	5,239 2,093	6,018 2,001
Total cases			 7,630	7,819	7,451	7,332	8,019
Liens	 Miscellaneous			 6,016 	 3,676	5,855 3,715	6,430 3,752	7,468 4,734	9,293 5,389
Total miscellaneous			 9,692	9,570	10,182	12,202	14,682
Total			 17,322	17,389	17,633	19,534	22,701
Closed: Civil Cases	 Criminal cases			 4,283 	 2,529	4,421 2,364	4,515 2,761	4,585 2,151	5,398 2,115
Total Cases			 6,812	6,785	7,176	6,736	7,513
Liens	 Miscellaneous			 6,016 	 2,749	5,855 3,691	6,430 3,446	7,468 4,212	9,293 5,479
Total miscellaneous			 8,756	9,546	9,876	11,680	14,772
Total			 15,557	16,331	17,152	18,416	22,285
Comparative Workload Summary
	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982
Pending, beginning of fiscal year			 10,705	12,450	13,208	13,689	16,212
Received			 17,322	17,289	17,633	19,534	22,163
Closed			 15,577	16,631	17,152	18,416	21,608
Pending, close of fiscal year			 12,450	13,208	13,689	14,807	16,767
Work Production
	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982
Pleadings prepared		6,205	5,473	5,524	5,835	6,287
Discovery action		2,567	2,377	2,587	2,405	2,335
Pretrials		927	809	742	622	662
Trials and appearances		1,152	1,144	1,151	1,097	1,186
Appellate arguments		340	328	519	403	357
Legal Briefs and Memoranda Prepared		8,744	7,587	8,429	7,728	7,138
CITATIONS
(1)	George F. Jewett, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 50 U.S. Law Week 4215 (Feb. 23, 1982).
(2)	United States v. Edwin D. Lee, 50 U.S. Law Week 4201 (Feb. 23, 1982).
(3)	Victor P. Diedrich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 50 U.S. Law Week 4647 (June 15, 1982).
(4)	United States v. New Mexico, 50 U.S. Law Week 432 (March 24, 1982).
(5)	United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 50 U.S. Law Week 4137 (Jan. 13, 1982).
(6)	Bureau of Economic Analysis v. Long, 50 U.S. Law Week 3300 (Oct. 19, 1981).
(7)	Central Trust Co., Rochester, N. Y. v. Official Creditors’ Committee of Geiger Enterprises, Inc., 50 U.S. Law Week 3537 (Jan. 11, 1982).
(8)	Metrocentre Improvement Dist. No. 1, Little Rock, Arkansas, v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 50 U.S. Law Week 3715 (March 8, 1982).
(9)	E.G. Williams, et al. v. United States, 680 F. 2d 382 (5th Cir. 1982).
(10)	Brountas v. Commissioner, Docket Nos. 81-1840 and 81-1877 (1st Cir. Sept. 30, 1982).
(11)	Boyter v. Commissioner, 668 F. 2d 1382 (4th Cir. 1982).
(12)	Philadelphia National Bank v. United States, 666 F. 2d 834 (3rd Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 50 U.S. Law Week 3962 (June 7, 1982).
(13)	McCabe v. Commissioner, 49 A.F.T.R. 2d 82-1192 (2d Cir. 1982), cert, denied, 51 U.S. Law Week 3287 (Oct. 12, 1982).
(14)	Daly v. Commissioner, 662 F. 2d 253 (4th Cir. 1981).
(15)NCNB Corp. v. United States, 50 A.F.T.R. 2d 82-5281 (4th Cir. 1982).
(16)	Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Commissioner, 50 A.F.T.R. 2d 82-5547 (7th Cir. 1982).
(17)	Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Department of Justice, 3 Prentice-Hall Government Disclosure Service, 182-355 (D.C. Cir. March 2, 1982), aff’d, by unpublished opinion, 2 GDS ^82,009 (D.D.C. 1981).
174
(18)	Leitch v. Commissioner, Docket No. 81-7816 (9th Cir. April 13, 1982). (19) United States v. Brigham Young University, 679 F. 2d 1345 (10th Cir. 1982).
(20)	United States v. Columbus Trade Exchange, Inc., Docket No. 80-3584 (6th Cir. 1982).
(21)	In re Tax Liabilities of John Does Participating in Dairy Cattle Programs of Agricultural Asset Management Co., Inc., Docket No. 82-6112 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 1982).
(22)	United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 677 F 2d 211 (2d Cir. 1982).
(23)	United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F. 2d 530 (5th Cir. 1982).
(24)	United States v. County of Arlington, Va., 669 F. 2d 925 (4th Cir. 1982), cert, denied, 51 U.S. Law Week 3251 (Oct. 4, 1982).
(25)	Group Life and Health Ins. Co. v. United States, 660 F. 2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 50 U.S. Law Week 3998 (June 21, 1982).
(26)	RCA Corp. v. United States, 48 A.F.T.R. 2d 81-6164 (2d Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 50 U.S. Law Week 3998 (June 21, 1982).
(27)	Blitzer v. United States, 684 F. 2d 874 (Ct. Cl. 1982).
(28)	Swan v. United States, Civil No. 81-78-ORL-CIV-EK (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 1982).
(29)	Corrao v. United States, Civil No. 80-86-HEC (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 1982).
(30)	United States v. Gerald J. Landsberger, 82-1 U.S.T.C. 59171 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 1981), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 82-2 U.S.T.C. 59497 (8th Cir. July 29, 1982).
(31)	United States v. Eugene May, Civil No. 82-72802 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 1982).
(32)	United States v. Ernst & Whinney, et al., Civil No. C-82-501A (N.D. Ga.).
(33)	United States v. John T. O’Keefe, et al., Civil No. 82-876 (D. Ore.). (34) United States v. Douglas M. Hart, et al., Civil No. A3-82-87 (D. N.D. Aug. 17, 1982).
(35)	E.g., United States v. Island Trade Exchange, Inc. 535 F. Supp. 993 (E.D. N.Y. 1982); In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of John Does, Members of Exchange Enterprises and West Texas Trade Exchange, Inc., Civil No. 3-81-O65OG (N.D. Tex. March 9, 1982); In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of John Does (United States v. Agricultural Asset Management Co.) (N.D. N.Y. April 19, 1982), aff’d, Docket No. 82-6112 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 1982).
(36)	E.g., Sulmovil, S.A. and Max Gottlieb v. United States, No. 81-2271-CIV-EDB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 1981); Luis Fernando Vasquez v.
United States, No. 81-2277-CIV-JWD (Feb. 1, 1982).
(37)	William J. & Julia Hohman v. United States, Civil Nos. 0766 and 0767 (D.D.C. April 8, 1982).
(38)	Jon Con Vasilacopulos v. United States, Civil No. C-81-0121J (D. Utah June 30, 1982).
(39)	Robert Govern v. United States, 82-2 U.S.T.C. 59491 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 1982).
(40)	Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United States, 684 F. 2d 866 (Ct. CL 1982).
(41)	Engle v. Commissioner, F. 2d(7th Cir. May 7, 1982).
(42)	Farmar v. United States; Sugg v. United States, 82-2 U.S.T.C. 59599 (Ct. Cl. Sept. 22, 1982).
(43)	Hardee v. United States, 82-2 U.S.T.C. 59459 (Ct. CI. Tr. Div. July 6, 1982).
(44)	Frank Moten v. United States, No 206-77 (Ct. Cl. Tr. Div. Sept. 20, 1982).
(45)	Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. v. United States, 82-2 U.S.T.C. 59519 (D. Me. July 22, 1982).
(46)	Mayo v. United States, Civil No. H-79-1022 (S.D. Tex. May 21, 1982).
(47)	E.g., Gilstrap v. United States, No. CA-1-81-109 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 1982); Hollis v. United States, No. 82-53-E (W.D. Okla. June 2, 1982).
(48)	Independent Petroleum Association of America v. United States, Civil No. C-8O-O3O2 (D. Wyo.).
(49)	Harold Williams, et al. v. United States, Civil No. 82-0401-LEW (C.D. Calif.).
(50)	Selig v. United States, Civil No. 81-C-334 (E.D. Wise.); Daniel R. and Patricia McCarthy v. United States, Civil No. C-78-1480 (N.D. Ohio).
(51)	Church of Scientology of California v. Internal Revenue Service, Civil No. 80-3239 (D.D.C.).
(52)	Levine v. Department of Justice, No. 81-1680-CIV-EPS (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 1982).
(53)	Ryan v. BATF, Civil No. 82-0292 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 1982).
(54)	Clarkson v. Internal Revenue Service, 678 F. 2d 1368 (11th Cir. 1982).
(55)	Young v. Burks, Civil No. 82-72008 (E.D. Mich.);
Young v. Boyle, Civil No. 82-72653 (E.D. Mich.).
(56)	United States v. State of Tennessee, et al., Civil No. 3-81-458 (D.
Tenn. Dec. 31, 1981).
(57)	United States v. District of Columbia, Civil No. 82-0923 (D.D.C. Sept.
10, 1982).
175
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION
176
INDIAN RESOURCES SECTION
GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
SPECIAL
1 ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
APPELLATE SECTION
INDIAN CLAIMS SECTION
POLICY, LEGISLATION AND SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION
LAND ACQUISITION SECTION
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE SECTION
WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES SECTION
Land and Natural Resources Division
Carol E. Dinkins
Assistant Attorney General
The Land and Natural Resources Division represents the United States, its agencies and officials in litigation relating to public lands and the environment. Accordingly, the Division’s docket reflects a wide variety of issues, ranging from public lands ownership and management to environmental protection; from Indian and native claims to wildlife protection and conservation. Virtually all of the litigation conducted by the Division is handled at the request of one or more client agencies. The Division’s primary clients include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Transportation as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Although the Division’s responsibilities are varied and the scope of its mission is broad, the central goal for the Division is to provide first rate legal representation for its clients in the most efficient manner possible. Because many of this Administration’s key policies and programs in the environmental and natural resources area have been subjected to legal challenge, the activities of the Division can most accurately be considered as the final step in implementing the desired policy changes. Consequently, an important element in the Division’s work program is the establishment and maintenance of a close working relationship with its client agencies.
The Division has continued to adopt a more aggressive litigating posture in providing representation for these clients. Increased emphasis has been placed upon raising questions of justiciability, such as standing, ripeness, mootness, and political question in litigation. Claims against the United States for attorney fees and costs are carefully scrutinized and, where appropriate, challenged in court. In fact, in certain situations, the Division has submitted claims for fees and costs on behalf of the United States.
In addition to fostering a stronger working relationship with the client agencies in Washington, the Division has established an outreach program at the state and regional levels. Central to this effort is improving coordination between the Division and the offices of the U.S. Attorneys. Additionally, initial steps were taken in 1982 to meet and begin working more directly with federal and state program officers at the regional, state, and local levels so that their
needs and concerns could be reflected in Division activities. Finally, in keeping with this Administration’s efforts to restore the proper role of state government in the federal system, the Division has developed strong contacts with state and local elected officials and has sought to solicit their views on important policy issues, resolve, where possible, disputes between the state and federal governments, and to notify and keep them advised on any activity undertaken by the Division which affects state programs and operations.
A substantial effort was initiated during 1982 to improve the internal operations of the Land and Natural Resources Division. A high priority was placed upon reducing the number of active cases on the Division’s docket. Workload statistics, compiled at the end of the year, reflected that substantial progress had been made along these lines and this effort would carry forward into the new fiscal year. In addition, the Division improved its internal reporting and timekeeping procedures and more effective use of automatic data processing resources was achieved.
At the end of Fiscal Year 1982, the Division had 309 employees: 164 attorneys and 145 support staff.
Appellate Section
The Appellate Section coordinates and handles all appellate work for the Land and Natural Resources Division. In addition to supervising appeals from district courts, the section works closely with the Solicitor General’s Office in reviewing and preparing cases for review by the Supreme Court. The section is responsible for preparing briefs and other substantive papers and presenting oral arguments before state and federal appellate courts and supervises the preparation of numerous Division documents, including briefs on the merits, petitions for certiorari, briefs in opposition, jurisdictional statements, and miscellaneous memoranda for cases before the Supreme Court.
As a result, the section’s work encompasses the entire spectrum of Division activities. For example, the section assumed lead responsibility in successfully defending the bidding system employed by the Secretary of the Interior in sales of Outer Continental Shelf leases. In Watt v. Energy
177
Action Educational Foundation, various private plaintiffs and two California governmental entities brought an action against the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior to compel the use of certain bidding systems which did not use a cash bonus as a bidding variable. These alternative bidding systems were provided for in the 1978 Amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.1 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the Secretary of Energy had an affirmative duty to promulgate regulations to permit the use of those systems and that the Secretary of the Interior had a duty to use them, at least on an experimental basis, in actual sales.
The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the District of Columbia Court and ruled that the Act places no affirmative duty upon the Secretary of the Interior to use any particular bidding system. While the standing of several private plaintiffs had been challenged by the government, the Court refused to consider the question inasmuch as the governmental plaintiffs were properly before the Court.2
In a case involving the Department of Defense, the question related to the degree of discretion afforded a district court in formulating a remedy for a violation of an environmental statute. In Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, plaintiff sought to enjoin Navy practice bombing and shelling Vieques Island pending receipt of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit covering the shells and ammunition used in practice. The First Circuit Court of Appeals directed the District Court in Puerto Rico to enjoin the practice and held that the court could not, in its discretion, allow the operations to continue until the permit was secured. The Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit’s holding and held that the Clean Water Act does not completely foreclose the district court’s discretion, and that while the court could order an immediate cessation of the violation, such order was not mandatory.3
The Section was responsible for representing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in People Against Nuclear Energy v. NRC, a case expected to be pivotal in defining the scope and nature of the National Environmental Policy Act.4 This controversy centered around procedures which the NRC would follow in restarting the nuclear power facility at Three Mile Island Unit #1, the undamaged reactor which was shut down when the now famous incident occurred at Unit #2. On petition for review before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the .plaintiffs successfully argued that the restart could not be allowed until the Commission prepared an environmental assessment of the impact of such an action and, as part of this assessment, the Commission was compelled to consider the impact that a restart would have on the psychological health of the community.5 A petition for certiorari was
filed with the Supreme Court, requesting review of this far-reaching decision.
The Appellate Section successfully quashed an attempt to enjoin initial site preparation activities for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin site preparation until the final environmental impact statement had been completed and an National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit had been obtained. An injunction was issued by the district court and an expedited appeal was taken to the Eleventh Circuit. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. Zeller, the Circuit Court vacated the injunction and validated an agreement between the Department of Energy and EPA which allowed this work to begin during the pendency of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit and the final environmental impact statement.
The Appellate Section played a pivotal role in one of the most significant enforcement actions of 1982. Under a consent decree previously reached with the State of Pennsylvania, the state agreed to establish a vehicle inspection and maintenance program, provided by the Clean Air Act by 1975. The original consent decree had been modified to extend program implementation time to 1978 but Pennsylvania’s efforts to gain yet another extension were unsuccessful. Pennsylvania sought to have the court modify the terms of the consent decree by alleging an abuse discretion on the part of the district court and thus escape the sanctions associated with noncompliance. In United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Commonwealth’s argument and held that the court was well within its discretion in rejecting Pennsylvania’s application.7 The Supreme Court declined to review the holding of the Third Circuit.
General Litigation Section
The General Litigation Section has the broadest and most varied responsibilities of any of the litigating sections of the Division. The section represents a number of client agencies in matters relating to energy, water resources, public lands and the development of public resources. In many instances, the issues raised in litigation involve balancing the competing needs of environmental protection and natural resource development.
Many of the section’s most important cases arise under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Act directs federal officials to consider environmental impacts associated with major federal actions by requiring the preparation of environmental impact statements. Most of the National Environmental Policy Act litigation handled by the section involves claims that the environmental
178
assessment prepared was insufficient in some respect or failed to consider some important environmental factor.
During 1982, the section was involved in several actions which will have long-term impacts in terms of how the Act will be applied. Perhaps the most significant decision rendered this year was Catholic Action v. Weinberger, a case which was argued before the Supreme Court and involved the joint efforts of the General Litigation Section and Appellate Section.8 In Catholic Action, plaintiffs sought to compel the Navy to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement for a weapons storage facility in Hawaii which may have contained nuclear weapons. The Navy resisted the challenge, claiming that such information was classified and that the National Environmental Policy Act did not require disclosure.
The Ninth Circuit had ruled that the Navy would be required to prepare a “hypothetical” environmental impact statement in order to comply. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed and held that the government’s need to preserve military secrets overrode other considerations.9 While Department of Defense regulations may still require the preparation of an environmenal impact statement the Court held that the Department was not required to release any such report or even confirm the existence of the project.
Coastal Zone Management Act
Other broad-ranging environmental protection statutes have been the subject of litigation during the year. Given this Administration’s emphasis on the development of energy resources from the Outer Continental Shelf, the obligations of the federal government under the Coastal Zone Management Act10 to confer and coordinate activities with state government have been the subject of several major lawsuits.
One of the most far reaching holdings decided under this Act was reached this year by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California v. Watt.11 Plaintiffs sought to block a proposed lease sale off of the northern California coast by alleging, among other claims, that the Secretary of the Interior had failed to obtain a determination that the proposed sale was “consistent” with the California coastal zone management plan. The Department of the Interior took the position that a consistency determination is not required at such an early stage of the process inasmuch as the hydrocarbon potential of the tracts is unknown and, indeed, the tracts have not been leased. Because of the speculative nature of development at this stage of the process, the United States took the position that there was no direct impact on the coastal area and, thus, the consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act were not applicable.
The district court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor on this question and dismissed the rest of the claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this portion of the district court’s opinion in a unanimous decision that was reached on August 12, 1982. California petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc on issues which were resolved in favor of the federal government in both the district and circuit courts.
Apart from the consistency question under the Coastal Zone Management Act, accelerated Outer Continental Shelf leasing and development raised other issues relating to the respective rights of the state and federal governments. An ongoing question related to the division of revenues generated by leasing and development.
The States of Texas and Louisiana sued the Secretary of the Interior to resolve a dispute over proper division of revenues received by the United States from oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.12 Section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 197813 provides that the states share in the revenues of leases located within three miles of the states’ offshore boundary. The states, in separate actions filed in U.S. District Court in Texas and Louisiana, sought not less than 50 percent of all revenues received. The United States interpreted the statute as providing that states share in revenues only when there is a common pool underlying both state and federal lands and drainage is likely to occur. At the close of Fiscal Year 1982, over one billion dollars were involved in the dispute with Louisiana and over one-half billion dollars in Texas.
The United States filed motions for partial summary judgment in both actions seeking a ruling that drainage of common pools was the only basis on which the states were entitled to receive a share of the revenues. The court in the Texas case granted the motion in part, holding that drainage was the appropriate measure but permitting Texas a trial on its claim that it was entitled to an additional share on the basis that its activities on its own offshore lands enhanced the value of the Outer Continental Shelf leases. Trial on that issue and the division of revenues held in escrow was to be held in November 1982. No action had been taken by the court on the motion for summary judgment in the Louisiana case at the time this report was submitted.
Surface Mining
The section plays an important role in defending the policies and programs of the various federal agencies. In virtually all situations where substantial changes to established regulatory programs are proposed, the changes are challenged in litigation. This year the section became involved in litigation resulting from changes in the program which regulates surface mining and reclamation.
179
Under the terms of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Congress provided for both federal and state regulation of surface mining activities.14 Initially, the federal government, acting through the Office of Surface Mining in the Department of the Interior, promulgated regulations to govern surface mining activities. The regulations were to be operative regulations until each state had developed its own program. Once a state had developed its program and had received approval of the program by the Office of Surface Mining, further surface mining activities in that state would be regulated by the state and not the federal government.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Office of Surface Mining approved state programs in nine states. Each decision to approve a state plan was challenged in litigation. These suits, which were in their early stages at the end of the year, promised to be extremely complex. In the suit challenging approval of the Illinois state program, 57 separate regulations were challenged. In most instances, it was expected that the disputes would be resolved on the basis of briefing and the administrative record.
In Arlington Alliance, Ltd. v. United States, plaintifflessor claimed that the General Services Administration’s failure to increase rent under standard escalation clauses in two leases between the United States and plaintiff resulted in termination of those leases.15 Therefore, plaintiff claimed it was entitled to fair market value for the government’s occupancy. A three-judge panel of the Court of Claims ruled that the government’s position was correct: that the leases did not terminate. Instead, the lessor must pursue administrative remedies because the leases contain standard disputes clauses and the escalation clauses provide an adequate remedy. The full court denied plaintiff’s motion for rehearing en banc. At stake in this litigation was increased rental of $8 million per year for 10 years, that is, $80 million. Also, because the interpretation of and the General Services Administration’s standard administration of standard clauses were at stake, countless additional rental was of concern. The Division identified at least 521 other leases where increased rental of a similar magnitude was possible.
Environmental Enforcement Section
The Environmental Enforcement Section supervises the prosecution of civil and criminal cases that arise under statutes which are designed to protect air and water quality, control the presence of highly toxic substances in the environment and control the disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes. In this area, enforcement actions are filed at the request of EPA after attempts to resolve the problem in the normal permitting or regulatory process are unsuccessful.
Because enforcement litigation represents the final step in EPA’s compliance and enforcement processes, close and ef
fective coordination between EPA and the Division is critical. During 1982, significant progress was made toward strengthening and improving the relationship between the two agencies. Senior officials from the Division and the EPA met and drafted a comprehensive document setting forth the respective duties and responsibilities of each department in the enforcement process. This agreement, the first of its kind, provided a blueprint for case development and referral.
Hazardous Wastes
During 1982, the EPA and the Land and Natural Resources Division assigned a high priority to enforcement activities in the hazardous waste and toxic chemicals areas. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act16 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund)17 provide the primary enforcement mechanisms to deal with both active hazardous waste generators and disposal sites and inactive or abandoned waste disposal facilities.
The enforcement strategies adopted in the hazardous waste area are to first obtain the needed remedy in as short a time as possible and, because federal cleanup and stabilization funds are limited, to obtain from responsible parties the greatest degree of cleanup possible. Where solvent parties have been identified, primary emphasis is placed on obtaining cleanup actions or funds from those sources. During the year, the Division successfully settled 11 cases, resulting in more than $100 million in cleanup efforts.
One of the most highly publicized hazardous wastes cases yet encountered was successfully settled this year. United States v. Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation (Hyde Park) involved an inactive hazardous waste site in the Niagara frontier area in upstate New York.18 After two and one half years of litigation, the defendants agreed to clean up, stabilize, and monitor the disposal site at an estimated cost of tens of millions of dollars. In United States v. Wade, the government obtained $1.7 million in cleanup from 32 settling generators.19
Because these cases often involve a number of generators and the full extent of the hazard posed by the site is not always clearly understood at the outset, several innovative techniques have been employed to obtain cleanup funds. In United States v. South Carolina Recycling Disposal, Inc., the problems posed by drums of wastes on the surface was known but the extent of groundwater contamination had not been accurately assessed.20 Nonetheless, 13 different waste generators agreed to provide $1.9 million for partial surface cleanup in a settlement which preserved the government’s right to proceed against them and any other responsible party for groundwater and other contamination at the site. Five other generators who refused to enter into
180
the surface settlement were named as defendants and the suit against those generators was pending at year’s end. United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp, involved an inactive site where the hazardous waste generated by over 250 separate companies presented an extremely hazardous situation.21 Settlement was reached with over 100 generators and provided $2.4 million in initial cleanup and stabilization funds.
Judicial decisions supported the government’s approach to hazardous waste litigation. In United States v. Charles Price, the Third Circuit considered the relief available under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which authorizes actions where there is an endangerment to health or the environment. The court ruled that the provision confers upon the courts authority to grant affirmative equitable relief to the extent necessary to eliminate any risks posed by toxic wastes.22 In United States v. Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation,23 the court ruled that both Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Section 7003 and the enforcement provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act have broad applicability.
Criminal Enforcement
During 1982, the EPA and the Land and Natural Resources Division have placed increased emphasis on more effectively using the criminal enforcement provisions of environmental statutes. The Division detailed one of its attorneys to EPA for more than a year to help develop an Office of Criminal Enforcement in that agency. An environmental Crimes Unit was established in the Environmental Enforcement Section, composed of experienced prosecutors whose function was to assist U.S. Attorneys in criminal prosecutions in this area and to directly handle complex investigations.
Steps were taken to increase available manpower for criminal investigations. The EPA hired 21 trained criminal investigators to ensure that criminal referrals to the Department of Justice were properly prepared. Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation committed resources to investigate up to 30 cases per year involving illegal transportation and disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes.
This added emphasis on criminal prosecution translated into an increased number of criminal convictions. A large manufacturer pled guilty to a four-count indictment stemming from an incident in which hexane, an industrial solvent, was released into the sewer system of a city.24 Significant damage occurred when the hexane exploded; the company received the maximum amount of fines available under the statute. In other actions, the owners and operators of a landfill were convicted of illegally
discharging leachate without the necessary permits.25 The convictions resulted in eight concurrent one-year jail terms and fines amounting to $200,000. A guilty plea was also obtained from the president of a paper company for dumping untreated wastes into a river, attempting to conceal his involvement in the dumping and making a misrepresentation to the district court.26 The individual was sentenced to 90 days in jail and was fined $2,500.
Under the Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act of 1981, the section negotiated consent decrees authorizing diversion of capital to modernization and extensions of time for pollution control projects.27 The negotiations involved six companies.
In addition to these new enforcement initiatives, the section’s docket reflected a substantial amount of work in the traditional areas of environmental enforcement. During 1982, the section obtained consent judgments in 34 separate Clean Air Act cases and 24 cases brought under the Clean Water Act.
Environmental Defense Section
The primary function of the Environmental Defense Section is to defend the United States, its agencies and officers in cases arising under the various environmental protection statutes. The Section’s caseload is composed of litigation in which regulations, permits, or other actions or determinations by EPA and other agencies have been challenged by industry or environmental organizations. Like the Environmental Enforcement Section, the Environmental Defense Section covers a wide range of statutes designed to enhance air and water quality, control the disposal of hazardous wastes and protect biologically sensitive areas.
The section assigns a high priority to defending actions which are brought to challenge important Administration initiatives in the regulatory area. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gorsuch, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals sustained a challenge to EPA regulations implementing a “bubble concept” under the Clean Air Act.28 The bubble concept would have permitted states to forego preconstruction review of modifications to existing industrial plants where there was no increase in total emissions from the plant. The EPA asked the full court to rehear the case.
In other instances, litigants mount legal challenges apparently aimed at redefining or modifying the scope of existing statutes and programs. An example of this type of litigation is National Wildlife Federation v. Gorsuch, a case which was decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.29 The Clean Water Act established two programs for dealing with water pollution. For “point”
181
sources of pollution (e.g., discharges from pipes, sewers, ditches, etc.), the Act establishes the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, which requires various sources to obtain a permit before discharging any pollutant into the waters of the United States. For “non-point” sources (e.g., agricultural and construction activities), the Act requires states to develop a comprehensive program to attain and maintain water quality standards adopted by the states.
Plaintiff argued that dams and other retention structures should be treated as point sources under the Act and be subjected to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit program. EPA had historically treated such structures as “non-point” sources. In a decision rendered in January, the district court agreed with plaintiff’s interpretation of the Act. This decision would require EPA to issue permits to over two million dams, an effort which would constitute a 27-fold increase in the number of such permits issued. The matter was before the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of the fiscal year. Meanwhile, the section was able to obtain a contrary ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in South Carolina Wildlife Federation v. Alexander.30
One of the Division’s top priorities has been to take a more aggressive posture in cases where plaintiffs are seeking attorney fee awards from the federal government. Not only is the cost to the government substantial, but unwarranted fee awards encourage the filing of unnecessary lawsuits. The most significant case in this area was the decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in Sierra Club n. Gorsuch.3' The court held that two environmental organizations were entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees for litigation under the Clean Air Act even though they lost on every issue in the case. The Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Northern Plains Resource Council v. EPA.32 The Supreme Court granted the United States’ petition for a writ of certiorari in Sierra Club v. Gorsuch in order to review the decision of the District Of Columbia Circuit.33
The section’s reorganization of its wetlands case management during 1979-80 has resulted in a gradual reduction in the backlog of existing wetlands enforcement cases. This has been achieved, in part, by encouraging U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to focus more of their attention on these cases and by lending litigation support to those offices with particularly severe backlogs.
The section’s effort to concentrate its attention on large wetlands enforcement cases in which restoration of disturbed areas is an appropriate remedy yielded substantial dividends during the year. Most notable was the settlement achieved in United States v. J. Tollie Murff.3* The consent
decree entered in that case required a large-scale farming operator to restore approximately 8,000 acres of wetlands in the Florida Gulf Coast panhandle. The restoration agreement was the largest ever obtained in a suit of this kind.
Wildlife and Marine Resources Section
The Wildlife and Marine Resources Section is responsible for civil and criminal litigation arising under statutes which call for federal management of living resources, or which regulate private conduct in that regard. Thus, for example, the section handles prosecution of illegal taking, trade or importation of endangered species. The section is also charged with defending cases where client agency action affecting endangered species is challenged by environmental groups, industry or development interests. In addition to the Endangered Species Act,35 the section’s work focuses on the Fishery Conservation and Management Act,36 the Marine Mammal Protection Act,37 and the Lacey Act.38
One of the more significant decisions in Fiscal Year 1982 was Cabinet Mountains Wilderness/Scotchman’s Peak Grizzly Bears, et al. v. Peterson.39 This involved defense of the Forest Service’s issuance of a special use permit allowing a mining company to conduct preliminary exploratory drilling in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area in Montana. This area is one of the few remaining habitats of the endangered grizzly bear. Several environmental groups had challenged the permit, arguing that the Forest Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The court concluded that the Forest Service’s decision to prepare an environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact statement was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also rejected the environmentalists’ argument that the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act entitled them to a de novo review of the agency decision. The court reasoned that the appropriate standard was the arbitrary and capricious standard and, under scope of review, found no Endangered Species Act violations.
The section has made an effort to concentrate its prosecutorial efforts on broad-scale, illegal wildlife traffic. Thus, for example, in Fiscal Year 1982, the section pursued an extensive investigation of trade in untagged fur pelts in Tennessee and North Carolina, in violation of those states’ laws and the new Lacey Act Amendment.40 In the first felony conviction after trial under that Amendment, the jury convicted a dealer of such furs.41 Further indictments were obtained, and guilty pleas accepted, in the continuing prosecution of other participants in the conspiracy.
182
Another significant prosecution commenced was United States v. Guidry, et al.42 This case came out of a Fish and Wildlife Service-EPA investigation of the use of the pesticide Azodrin. Louisiana rice farmers were using this pesticide on their fields to kill migratory birds. Such use of a pesticide is prohibited by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.43 The government accepted guilty pleas from a farm supply dealership and its owner, who were selling Azodrin with the knowledge that the buyers were using it to poison birds.
The section this year stepped up its activity in foreign fishing vessel forfeiture actions under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act.44 These cases typically involve underreporting of foreign fleets’ harvest in the U.S. fisheries zone. Usually they are settled, in light of the owners’ risk of losing a factory ship worth several million dollars and the United States’ risk of proving cheating by technical and complex analysis of the amount of fish actually caught. In one notable recent case, United States v. MYS Prokofyeva,45 the government negotiated a $323,000 payment by the Soviet government to settle a claim that its vessel grossly understated its catch off Alaska in a 1980 fishing voyage.
Indian Resources Section
The United States, by law and treaty, has assumed certain duties with respect to the protection and assertion of the rights of American Indians. The Indian Resources Section is charged with the responsibility of handling litigation arising from this trust relationship.
From the standpoint of litigation, the questions involving Indian water rights generate most of the section’s activity. While the section is responsible for protecting the claims of the Indian tribes in such litigation, it rarely directly represents tribes or individual interests. Instead, the section represents the United States in its capacity as trustee for the tribes and affected individuals. Claims on behalf of the United States in this trustee capacity are submitted as part of the total claim in a water rights adjudication.
Perhaps the most notable example of this sort of litigation was United States v. Truckee Carson Irrigation District.*6 In this case, the United States asserted substantial water rights on behalf of the Pyramid Lake Tribe in Nevada. This litigation involved eight rivers which flow out of Lake Tahoe and serve both agricultural lands and municipalities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the claims presented by the United States and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review this holding.
Other significant water rights cases involving Indian claims outstanding at the end of the fiscal year in the Western United States included:
•	Wyoming - trial on Indian claims to rights in the Big Horn River system was concluded during Fiscal Year 1982
•	Montana - litigation involving seven reservations, with suits pending in both state and federal court
•	South Dakota - action was brought by the state to adjudicate rights along the Missouri River system
•	California - litigation involving the quantification of water rights for five Mission Indian bands
•	Arizona - several actions were pending, including disputes as to rights in the Colorado, Gila and Little Colorado River systems
•	Washington - several actions involving rights along the Yakima River and a small watershed on the Colville reservation
A persistent problem in the area of federal water rights litigation relates to the choice of forum and disclaimers of jurisdiction. This problem was to be addressed by the Supreme Court, as certiorari was granted in State of Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe*1 and State of Montana v. Northern Cheyenne Tribe.*6 The issues presented in these cases were 1) whether the disclaimers of state jurisdiction over Indian Lands contained in Arizona’s and Montana’s enabling acts and constitutions prevented state courts from adjudicating Indian reserved water rights; and 2) whether considerations of “wise judicial administration” required dismissal of a federal action brought to quantify rights if a subsequent state general stream adjudication was filed.
Another area of continued activity relates to Indian fishing rights. At year’s end, the section was litigating a case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where the question presented was whether a treaty tribal right to fish carries with it a right to environmental protection of the fishery.49 In a similar case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of a federal district court which required the Bureau of Reclamation to release postirrigation resevoir water to protect salmon nests in the Yakima Tribe’s fishery in Washington State.50
Indian Claims Section
The Indian Claims Section is assigned the responsibility of defending the United States against legal, equitable, and moral claims asserted by the various Indian Tribes. Such claims may be presented under two jurisdictional acts. The Indian Claims Commission Act51 established the Indian Claims Commission to consider claims against the United States that arose between 1776 and August 13, 1946. That Commission was terminated on September 30, 1978, and all remaining cases have been referred to the U.S. Court of
183
Claims for final resolution. A separate act allows other Indian claims to be heard by the Court of Claims but carries with it no separate waiver of sovereign immunity.52 Such waiver must be found in other statutes which give rise to the particular claim for damages.
During 1982, top priority was given to closing out the remaining docket under both Acts. Since 1946, 629 cases had been filed under the Indian Claims Commission Act. At the close of 1982, this number had been reduced to 44 outstanding cases. Similarly, actions under 28 U.S. Code 1505 were reduced to a total of 34 outstanding cases.
For 1983, the Indian Claims Section was directed to reduce the number of outstanding claims to the point where the few remaining cases could be absorbed into one of the other litigating sections. However, a case pending before the Supreme Court at years end could jeopardize this plan. In United States v. Helen Mitchell, et al., respondents asserted that under 28 U.S. Code 1505 the trust relationship of the United States to Indian tribes compelled a finding of an implied waiver of sovereign immunity whenever a statute is violated and resultant damages are alleged.53 If the court agreed with the respondents, the disposition of the 34 remaining Section 1505 cases would be delayed and the workload of the section could be increased, with additional tribal claims being filed in the future.
Land Acquisition Section
The Land and Natural Resources Division, through its Land Acquisition Section, is responsible for initiating and prosecuting condemnation proceedings in U.S. district courts for the acquisition of land for public use. Condemnation proceedings are instituted pursuant to the sovereign power of eminent domain, as codified in the General Condemnation Act,54 the Declaration of Taking Act,55 and other statutes authorizing condemnation in certain circumstances.
During 1982, special emphasis was placed upon clearing up the backlog of cases currently before the section. At the close of 1979, the section had over 21,000 separate actions pending. At the close of 1982, this figure had been brought down to little more than 14,000, a reduction of over 30 percent. This effort was to be continued over the next several years, with the ultimate goal of being able to handle acquisition cases on a one-year turnaround by 1987.
Perhaps the most significant single action concluded during 1982 was the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area Project.56 The project involved 22,425 acres in the State of Washington and the landowner’s testimony suggested that the property be valued at approximately $46 million. The case was settled for $28 million and, as part of the settlement, the landowner agreed to donate an additional
980 acres of land which had not originally been included in the condemnation action.
Substantial progress was made during 1982 in concluding two extremely extensive acquisition projects. The Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Project in southern California involved the fee acquisition of approximately 5,000 tracts of land.57 Three thousand three hundred of these tracts were acquired by direct purchase and the remaining 1,700 were put into condemnation. Of these, 137 surface and mineral tracts remained outstanding. Similar progress was made in concluding acquisition of the Big Cypress National Park in Florida.58 Initiated in 1976, the project encompasses 570,000 acres divided into 13,719 separate tracts. Eleven thousand five hundred twenty-four of these tracts had been closed and the remaining open tracts were either awaiting trial or were in the process of being closed at year’s end.
Considerable effort continued to be directed toward acquiring 49,000 acres of redwood timberland in California for the Redwood National Park Expansion Project.59 The government deposited $320 million in these cases and landowners’ claims were expected to range from $800 million to $1 billion. Because of the complexity of these cases, five staff attorneys and two support personnel from the Land Acquisition Section were exclusively assigned to this project. Trial on the inventory was expected to begin in April 1983, trial on the value in the fall of 1983.
In 1982, landowners first submitted claims for litigation expenses and attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.60 In 11 cases, the Land Acquisition Section was able to defeat these claims on the theory that the Act does not apply to condemnation proceedings. Several of these cases were appealed by the landowners.
Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation Section
The Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation Section is charged with a broad range of responsibilities. The section handles all matters relating to proposed legislation and legislative inquiries and coordinates Division activities with the Office of Legislative Affairs. In addition, all requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act61 and Privacy Act62 are processed through the section. The section provides analytical support to the Assistant Attorney General in matters relating to policy development and implementation, prepares testimony for the Assistant Attorney General, and conducts research on matters which are not necessarily the subject of current litigation. Finally, the section maintains a limited docket of cases which require sensitive handling or, by their nature, do not fall within the
184
normal scope of responsibility of the other litigating sections.
One of the most ambitious projects handled by the section during 1982 was the preparation of a report relating to legal remedies and recoveries for personal injuries, property, and environmental damage resulting from exposure to hazardous wastes. Entitled Injuries and Damages from Hazardous Wastes—Analysis and Improvement of Legal Remedies, the report was prepared for Congress by the Study Group established pursuant to Section 301(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.63 The study Group consisted of 12 attorneys designated in accordance with the requirements of the statute and coordination and analytical and administrative support was provided by the section. The 800-page report was delivered to the Congress on September 30, 1982.
The section was handling a lawsuit as the year closed which could have a long-term impact on how the United States’ responsibilities towards the Indian tribes are defined. In Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Supron Energy Corp., the tribe asserted that the United States owed a fiduciary obligation to Indian tribes to manage their natural gas resources and maximize their royalty income. The district court ruled, inter alia, that the Secretary of the Interior “obligated himself” to perform as the tribe’s fiduciary.64 The United States appealed the ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and argued that any fiduciary obligation of the United States must be unambiguously expressed in a statute, treaty or Executive order. Several similar cases that were currently pending before district courts in the Tenth Circuit would be controlled by the outcome of this case.
In other litigation, the section defended the Director of the Bureau of Land Management in several cases arising under the Wild, Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act,65 including one involving claims for damages caused by wild horses on non-federal property.66 The district court held that plaintiffs had no constitutional claim for damages although the Bureau of Land Management had been ordered to reduce the wild horse herd. Finally, the section obtained a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court’s holding in Hanson v. Baldridge,61 which dismissed a challenge to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s prohibited species regulations promulgated under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act.68
While these special projects and cases are significant, they are but a small part of the section’s day-to-day responsibilities. During 1982, the Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation Section:
•	prepared bill reports and analyses on 325 separate pieces of legislation
•	prepared 16 statements for the Assistant Attorney General to be delivered as testimony before the Congress
•	responded to 43 Freedom of Information Act requests, 29 Privacy Act requests, and 397 citizen inquiries
• handled 82 requests for information from the Congress.
Administrative Section
The Administrative Section experienced increased activity in 1982 in providing financial management services, advanced office equipment, and computerized litigation and general legal research support.
Enactment of the Super fund legislation resulted in the establishment of a special accounting system to monitor expenses associated with the litigation of each Superfund case, such as reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.
The largest program increase was in providing computer systems support for general legal research and case-specific litigation support. Automated system development was initiated for six important Division projects. The Redwoods National Park litigation, one of the largest cases in the Division, was to be supported using a computer index to the many thousands of case documents. This system was also designed to track and access the document responses to individual interrogatories filed over the four years that this legislation had been in progress. The full text of the legislative histories of both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act were being placed in computer files so that they could be searched by attorneys and paralegals using the JURIS system on Department computers. This was expected to be an important research tool to be used frequently by the Land and Natural Resources Division, EPA and U.S. Attorneys in litigating air and water cases. Some 500,000 pages of appellate briefs, many rapidly deteriorating, were being microfilmed and indexed to protect this historical record and allow more effective access to it.
An additional significant undertaking in the systems area was modification to the Lands Docket Tracking System, the major case tracking and case management information system in the Division. Improvements were begun to provide quicker and more extensive access to the information in the system as well as provide more accurate information.
Plans were formulated in 1982 for the establishment of a new training program in computer use in legal offices and for undertaking comprehensive studies of many
185
management practices and systems within the Division. The training program, to be offered several times a year, was designed to provide lawyers who litigate cases with background information on the capabilities and present uses of computers in legal applications. The studies to be undertaken would examine aspects of the current operations of managing personnel, budget, caseload, and attorney time.
FISCAL YEAR 1982
Workload Statistics
Land Acquisition:
Tracts Start.............................................. 16,646
New Tracts Opened.......................................... 1,308
Tracts Closed.............................................. 4,234
Tracts End................................................ 13,720
Environmental Defense:
Matters Start............................................ 1,437
New Matters Opened........................................... 268
Matters Closed............................................... 264
Matters End ............................................... 1,441
Environmental Enforcement:
Matters Start................................................ 822
New Matters Opened........................................... 112
Matters Closed............................................... 229
Matters End ................................................. 705
Indian Resources:
Matters Start................................................ 500
New Matters Opened............................................ 34
Matters Closed................................................ 50
Matters End ................................................. 484
Indian Claims:
Matters Start................................................. 91
New Matters Opened............................................. 5
Matters Closed................................................ 17
Matters End .................................................. 79
General Litigation:
Tracts Start............................................... 3,621
New Tracts Opened.......................................... 1,557
Tracts Closed................................................ 903
Tracts End................................................. 4,275
Appellate:
Matters Start................................................ 731
New Matters Opened........................................... 465
Matters Closed............................................... 359
Matters End ................................................. 857
Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation:
Matters Start................................................ 203
New Matters Opened........................................... 924
Matters Closed........................................... 1,030
Matters End .................................................. 97
Wildlife and Marine Resources:
Matters Start............................................... 951*
New Matters Opened.......................................... 374*
Matters Closed.......................................... 925
Matters End ............................................ 400*
Division Totals:
Matters Start............................................. 25,002
New Matters Opened......................................... 5,047
Matters Closed............................................. 8,011
Matters End .............................................. 22,038
♦Wildlife and Marine Resources Section’s workload numbers for Fiscal Year 1982 were adjusted to reflect the statistics generated by the Division’s Land Docket Tracking System.
CITATIONS
(1)	43 U.S.C. 1331 etseq.
(2)	454 U.S. 151 (1981)
(3)	50 U.S.L.W. 4434 (1982)
(4)	42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
(5)	No. 81-1131 (D.C. Cir.)
(6)	No. 82-8570 (11th Cir.)
(7)	674 F.2d 976 (1982)
(8)	U.S 102 S. Ct. 197,L.Ed---------------------------(1981)
(9)	Id. at 203
(10)	16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.
(11)	683 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1982)
(12)	State of Louisiana v. Andrus, No. 79-2965 (E.D. La.) State of Texas v.
Andrus, No. 79-476 (E.D. Tex.)
(13)	43 U.S.C. 1337(g) (1981 Supp.)
(14)	30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
(15)	No. 122-81L (Ct.Cl.)
(16)	42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
(17)	42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
(18)	No. 79-989C (W.D. N.Y.)
(19)	No. 79-1426 (E.D. Pa.)
(20)	No. 81-1274-6 (D. S.C.)
(21)	No. 82-840 (S.D. Ohio)
(22)	No. 82-5030 (3rd Cir.)
(23)	No. 80-469 (D. Minn.)
(24)	United States v. Ralston Purina, Crim. No. 81-00126-01 (W.D. Ky.)
(25)	United States v. Paul Lanigon, No. 82-1315 (3rd Cir.)
(26)	United States v. Corning Fibers, Inc. et al., No. 81-55-l(D. Vt.)
(27)	42 U.S.C. 7413(e)
(28)F.2d, 17 ERC 1825 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
(29)	530 F. Supp. 1291 (D. D.C. 1982), appeal pending Nos. 82-1335, etal., (D.C. Cir.)
(30)	No. 76-2467 (D. S.C.)
(31)	672 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
(32)	670 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1982)
(33)	No. 82-242, 1982 Term
(34)	No. 80-0223 (N.D. Fla.)
(35)	16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.
(36)	16 U.S.C. 1801 etseq.
(37)	16 U.S.C. 1361 etseq.
(38)	16 U.S.C. 3371 etseq.
(39)	685 F.2d 678 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
(40)	Pub. L. 97-79, 95 Stat. 1073
186
(41)	United States v. Bryant, No. 2-82-49 (E.D. Tenn.)
(42)	No. 82-2 (W.D. La.)
(43)	7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
(44)	16 U.S.C. 1860
(45)	No. A80-186 (D. Alas.)
(46)	Nos. 81-2245 and 81-2276 (Sup. Ct.)
(47)	No. 81-2147 (Sup. Ct.)
(48)	No. 81-2188 (Sup. Ct.)
(49)	United States v. Washington, No. 81-3111 (9th Cir.)
(50)	Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation, Nos. 80-3505, et al. (9th Cir.)
(51)	25 U.S.C. 70 et seq.
(52)	28 U.S.C. 1505
(53)	No. 81-1748 (Sup. Ct.)
(54)	40 U.S.C. 257
(55)	40 U.S.C. 258a
(56)	United States v. 22,425 Acres of Land, et al., No. C-82-350 (E.D. Wash. 1982)
(57)	P.L. 94-367, 90 Stat. 993
(58)	16 U.S.C. 6988 et seq.
(59)	P.L. 90-545, 82 Stat. 931
(60 16 U.S.C. 79a et seq.
(61)	5 U.S.C. 552
(62)	5 U.S.C. 552a
(63)	42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
(64)	479 F. Supp. 536, 547 (D. N.M. 1979)
(65)	16 U.S.C. 1331 etseq.
(66)	Mountain State Legal Foundation v. Andrus, No. 82-1485 (10th Cir.)
(67)	No. 81-3121 (9th Cir.)
(68)	16 U.S.C. 1801 etseq.
187
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
188
INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING DIVISION
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER MANAGEMENT
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR
ADP PLANNING STAFF
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
ADIT PROGRAM
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OPERATIONS SUPPORT
ASSOCIATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PLANNING Er EVALUATION
DATA SYSTEMS DIVISION
OVERSEAS OFFICES
REGIONAL OFFICES
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
REFUGEES & PAROLE _____STAFF
ADJUDICATIONS DIVISION
OUTREACH PROGRAM
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER EXAMINATIONS
INSPECTIONS DIVISION
NATURALIZATION DIVISION
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ______AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER
ANTI SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES STAFF
INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
DETENTION & DEPORTATION DIVISION
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ENFORCEMENT
BORDER PATROL DIVISION
INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Alan C. Nelson Commissioner
The Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth this Nation’s policy regarding who shall be admitted, for how long, and under what circumstances. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of the Department of Justice is the federal agency principally responsible for the implementation of immigration law.
The Service administers responsibilities through a broad network of regional and district offices located around the country and in some foreign nations. These offices function in four primary areas:
•	Enforcement, which conducts activities to ensure that persons not qualified for admission are not allowed to enter the country and that those who do enter illegally are apprehended and deported;
•	Examinations, which conducts activities relative to admission of people into the United States;
•	Operations support, which provides the support services necessary to the conduct of the Service’s basic missions.
•	Management, which provides administrative support and assistance to the other service components.
Enforcement
The Enforcement Branch of the INS is responsible for the Border Patrol program, which seeks to block admission of illegal aliens into the country at U.S. borders; the Investigations program, which is concerned with apprehending and removing illegal aliens already in the country; the Office of Anti-Smuggling Activity, which is concerned with apprehension of smugglers of illegal aliens in order to deter illegal entries; the Detention and Deportation program, which effects the removal of illegal aliens apprehended by the enforcement branch, and manages detention of excludable and deportable aliens; and the Intelligence program, which develops strategic and tactical information related to enforcement issues, policy and projects.
Border Patrol
The Border Patrol, as the mobile, uniformed, enforcement arm of the INS, is charged with the responsibility for detecting and preventing the illegal entry and smuggling of aliens into the United States. Its objectives are to:
•	Cause persons seeking admission to the United States to present themselves to designated ports for inspection;
•	Discourage illegal entries by locating illegal aliens in the border area before they can secure employment or realize profit or advantage from their illegal action;
•	Prevent the penetration of illegal aliens into the interior of the United States, where their removal would be more expensive and time-consuming;
•	Maintain an enforcement capability in interior locations where there is substantial illegal alien activity.
Patrol agents perform their duties along, and in the vicinity of, 6,000 miles of international boundary and the gulf coast, utilizing motor vehicles, boats, aircraft, horses, and foot patrol. Border Patrol agents are assisted by a broad array of sophisticated technology, including seismic and magnetic sensors, infrared detection devices and low light level television.
Preliminary figures indicated that in Fiscal Year 1982, the Border Patrol apprehended 818,000 deportable aliens. The majority of these apprehensions were made by the Patrol’s linewatch operations. Linewatch operations involve patrols along the U.S. border, and constitute the first line of defense against aliens attempting surreptitious entry into the United States.
In addition, the Border Patrol conducts highway traffic inspection on roads leading from the border, checks of rail yards and other transportation centers, city patrol, boat patrol, and farm and ranch checks.
During Fiscal Year 1982 the Border Patrol implemented a number of operational improvements, including an expansion of its helicopter program, the consolidation of two northern border sectors, and an improved vehicle management program. A program of task force operations was established so that agents could temporarily be shifted to locations experiencing seasonal and other short-term buildups of illegal alien activity. Record daily apprehension figures were achieved in El Paso during August. Problems with the Mexican economy caused a sharp rise in apprehensions across most of the southern border.
Investigations
The Investigations program investigates persons who violate or attempt to violate the immigration and nationality
189
laws. Investigators gather evidence against aliens who have entered the United States illegally, aliens who have violated the terms of their entries, or aliens and citizens who have committed other crimes against the United States that are within the investigative jurisdiction of the Service.
There are two major functions performed by the Investigations program. First, area control operations focus on finding illegal aliens at places of employment. Under its area control operations during Fiscal Year 1982, Investigations located and arrested approximately 120,000 of such illegal aliens. The jobs they were filling were in demand by both U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted aliens. To highlight the significance of the area control concept, a special, week-long task force operation called Project Jobs was conducted in April 1982. More than 5,400 illegal aliens were arrested, which freed over 5,000 jobs for deserving persons.
The second major purpose of the Investigations program is to investigate aliens and citizens who have committed crimes to aid themselves and others to unlawfully obtain immigration benefits. Investigations developed a case management system that puts the focus of its investigative casework on conspiracies and large-scale violators.
During Fiscal Year 1982, Investigations advanced the multiagency concept of investigative cooperation. In both the area control and casework investigative areas, the program made significant progress in cooperative efforts with the Departments of Labor, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Social Security Administration. The multiagency approach has been successful in locating and prosecuting violators and decreasing many of the “pull” factors of illegal immigration.
Anti-Smuggling
Formed in 1978 in response to the rapidly increasing influx of illegal aliens and the greater sophistication of those persons who illegally transport aliens into the United States for pay, the Office of Anti-Smuggling Activities focuses on the indentification, infiltration and destruction of organized and developed alien smuggling conspiracies. The INS has devised a classification system to assist Anti-Smuggling Officers in categorizing smugglers as major violators, lower-level violators, or nonprofessional smugglers of household employees and relatives.
Nearly 300 Anti-Smuggling Officers are deployed nationwide to combat the alien smuggling problem. Over the past three years, the program has been responsible for apprehending nearly 43,000 smugglers, resulting in nearly 15,000 authorized for prosecution. In 1982, over 82 percent
of prosecuted smuggling-related cases resulted in convictions. In addition, under a recently enacted law permitting the seizure and forfeiture by federal authorities of conveyances used in the smuggling of aliens, AntiSmuggling Officers seized nearly 10,000 conveyances valued at over $29 million.
To increase its effectiveness in infiltrating and smashing alien smuggling conspiracies the Anti-Smuggling Activities program works closely with the U.S. Attorneys and with officials of the Republic of Mexico and Canada. The Mexican government has instituted assignment of special units at interior road checkpoints in Mexico, resulting in the apprehension of a number of Central American aliens before they reach the U.S. border.
Detention and Deportation
Detention and Deportation programs are essential to an adequate enforcement program since they directly support the apprehending arms of the Service. In 1982, the Service maintained five Service Processing Centers and a temporary detention facility in Fort Allen, Puerto Rico. The Attorney General has emphasized the need for a uniform nationwide policy for apprehension and subsequent detention, and in April 1982, revised detention policy guidelines for exclusion cases were issued. The INS has continued to implement the detention standards for Service Processing Centers which were developed in 1981.
In 1982, U.S. District Judge Eugene Spellman ordered INS to begin a parole program for those Haitians who were in detention as of the date of the order, and who had arrived in the Southern District of Florida on or after May 20, 1981. The Office of Refugee Resettlement worked with voluntary agencies to identify individual sponsors for the Haitians. As of October 1982, all but 47 of the 1,770 class members had been paroled by INS.
At the end of the Fiscal Year, over 1,200 inadmissable Cubans continued to be detained at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta and other Bureau of Prisons facilities. The Cubans remaining in Atlanta were those who had not been approved for release after an initial review by Status Review Panels composed of Department of Justice personnel.
During 1982, Detention and Deportation worked closely with Operations Support to develop and implement a Deportable Alien Control System (DACS). Conversion to DACS was completed in San Diego, the pilot site. A Haitian Exclusion Support System was also developed which allows the Service to monitor the Haitian parolees. In conjunction with this system, a secure identification card was issued to all Haitians in the Spellman class.
190
Intelligence
The Intelligence program provides for intelligence liaison coordination and exchange of information with other government agencies on immigration matters related to national security, and intelligence support to assist in the prosecution of major counterfeiters, alien smugglers, and other violators of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
INS continued to participate with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies in the 24-hour-a-day operation of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), which maintains INS data bases on alien smuggling, false claims to U.S. citizenship, and reports of arrival of private aircraft from overseas. During Fiscal Year 1982, new inputs of these data totaled 179,897 records. INS personnel at EPIC responded to 38,143 inquiries from operational units in the field during the year.
Examinations
The examinations program is composed of the following elements:
•	Inspections of persons arriving at American sea, land, and air ports of entry to determine their admissibility to the United States;
•	Adjudication of applications and petitions for benefits provided by law;
•	Examination of applicants for naturalization;
•	Supervision of refugee and parole programs; and
•	Outreach to the community
Each of these primary activities is conducted and coordinated by an organizational element of INS.
Inspections
This basic activity of the Immigration Service primarily involves the determination, at ports of entry, of an individual’s admissibility into the United States.
During Fiscal Year 1982, approximately 310 million persons were inspected by immigration officers. While handling this massive volume of applicants for admission to the United States, INS achieved several objectives, including overtime cost reduction.
Program priorities for Fiscal Year 1982 included the continued concentration of resources at high-volume ports, expansion of inspection sites in foreign countries (“preclearance”), improved inspectional guidelines for officers, and reduction in overtime expenditures. Achievements in these areas were marked by:
•	Completion of ASIST (Accelerated Specialized
Inspectional System Test) in Miami and Los Angeles. This innovative inspection procedure provides for the combined staffing of primary inspection by crossdesignated INS and U.S. Customs Service Inspectors.
•	Completion of the Department of Justice Preclearance Study, a DOJ study of INS plans to expand preclearance inspection sites in foreign countries, which should facilitate international travel.
•	Completion of an entirely revamped handbook for immigration officers; and,
•	A reduction in overtime costs of $2 million.
Interagency and interdepartment liaison during Fiscal Year 1982 reflected different program priorities but centered primarily on the established goal of facilitating international travel. Other major changes, such as the proposed centralization of administrative fines and abolishment of the U.S. citizen identification card, are designed to facilitate the flow of paperwork while reducing program costs.
Adjudications
The mission of the Adjudications Division is to provide for the timely adjudication of applications and petitions for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. During Fiscal Year 1982, over 2 million applications and petitions were received, an increase of 6 percent over 1981 receipts. Applications processed in Fiscal Year 1982 were approximately 1,966,000, an increase of 4 per cent over Fiscal Year 1981.
Adjudications management initiatives in Fiscal Year 1982 included a streamlined procedure called Up-Front Adjudication (UFA). Under UFA, certain categories of cases are adjudicated immediately upon receipt. By the end of Fiscal Year 1982, INS was completing over 40 percent of its nationwide adjudications workload under UFA procedures.
This activity has found that significant cost reductions are possible when work is done at sites away from the district offices. During 1982, INS expanded the regional adjudications center in Saint Albans, Vermont, and SanYsidro, California, and created new regional centers at Lincoln, Nebraska, and Dallas, Texas. Initial productivity improvements achieved by the centers has been impressive.
Naturalization and Citizenship
The Naturalization and Citizenship Program, through its officer staff, reviews all naturalization applicants and their qualifications for citizenship in compliance with Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended,
191
and makes appropriate recommendations to the final authority, the federal and state courts having naturalization jurisdiction. The Naturalization Division is also responsible for adjudicating claims to U.S. citizenship through derivation and/or birth in a foreign country, as well as determining issues of expatriation and loss of U.S. citizenship.
In Fiscal Year 1982, enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1981, and their rapid implementation by the Service, resulted in a 15 percent increase in productivity through the elimination of the longstanding requirement that each naturalization applicant provide the naturalization court with two U.S. citizen character witnesses.
Other major improvements included reducing the use of low volume state courts for naturalization casework and continuing development work toward implementation of the Naturalization and Citizenship Casework Support System.
In Fiscal Year 1982, the Service completed approximately 275,000 naturalization applications and 40,000 citizenship applications, resulting in the naturalization of approximately 177,000 new citizens and the issuance of 29,000 certificates of citizenship, respectively.
Refugee and Parole
The Office of Refugee and Parole has responsibility for the implementation of Service refugee and asylum programs, the oversight of INS overseas office activity, and the review of requests to exercise the Attorney General’s parole authority.
During Fiscal Year 1982, approximately 98,500 refugees were admitted to the United States from Indochina, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.
In addition to the processing of refugees, the overseas offices adjudicate applications and petitions, conduct investigations dealing with suspected fraud in immigration matters, and provide liaison with other agencies, foreign and American, public and private.
The Attorney General has broad authority to grant parole in cases determined to involve humanitarian factors or for emergency reasons in the public interest, but this authority is to be used in a fairly restrictive fashion. The Service’s responsibilities include ensuring that the Attorney General receives proper support in the exercise of his parole authority. During Fiscal Year 1982, there were approximately 37,000 requests for asylum in the United States.
Outreach Program
The Outreach Program functions under Examinations and provides liaison, training and technical assistance and specialized information to voluntary and community agencies (VOLAGS) involved in immigration counseling and refugee resettlement.
The Outreach Program expanded its efforts to coordinate such agencies assisting the Service in the processing' of refugee adjustment applications. In Fiscal Year 1982, such mass adjustments were performed in California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and other states with large concentrations of refugees. These cooperative efforts enabled the Service to overcome huge processing tasks at a decided cost savings.
Operations Support
The mission of the Office of Operations Support is to provide technical support to INS in the achievement of goals and strategies set forth in the Service’s long range plans.
During 1982 Operations Support consisted of three major program areas: Data Systems, ADIT (Alien Documentation Information Telecommunications) Program and Communications.
Data Systems is an area of increased activity as the Service moves toward a more fully computerized system of tracking records. The Service’s Long Range ADP plan was completed and phased in during this period. During the transitional phase, existing operational systems will continue while the new data system is being developed. One major area of activity in this growing area is the coordination leading to information exchange with the Department of State, the U.S. Customs Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other government entities.
The ADIT branch prepares identification cards for immigrant aliens and nonresident border crossers. The automated support segment of ADIT is being integrated with the Service’s Master Index System, which contains information on permanent resident aliens in the United States. Remote terminals are being installed at major ports. Field office terminals are currently able to access Master Index and ADIT data for support of both enforcement and Service functions.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the Immigration Card Facility operating under the ADIT program produced and issued secure Alien Registration Receipt Cards and Nonresident Alien Border Crossing Cards. Total numbers of cards
192
issued to date are more than 2.8 million of the former and 428,000 of the latter.
Communications and Electronics
This division covers five program areas: radio communications, intrusion detection and security systems, telephone information processing systems, telecommunications and word processing. Installation of the new INS Integrated Network Communications (INSINC) capability began in the fourth quarter. Completion in Fiscal Year 1983 would provide 89 INS field offices, including all Border Patrol sectors, with access to the central files in Washington, D.C. Four hundred and fifty mobile and portable radios were placed in the Border Patrol, Detention and Deportation and Investigations programs, and an additional 118 mobile and portable radios were acquired in support of the Border task force. Contracts were awarded for two Intrusion Detection Systems and two Radio Communications Systems. A substantial quantity of night vision devices were acquired to enhance the Border Patrol night-watch capability.
Management
The Office of Management provides administrative management support services necessary to the conduct of the Service’s basic missions.
During Fiscal Year 1982, several major projects were undertaken to improve the delivery of services, reduce costs and attain operating efficiencies. For example, the procurement and contracting functions were reviewed, resulting in an overall revision of current procedures and practices being scheduled for Fiscal Year 1983. Interim revisions resulted in increased responsiveness to program needs during the third and fourth quarters of Fiscal Year 1982, while reducing both administrative costs and unnecessary delays in processing.
An automated motor vehicle fleet management system
was initiated which will not only improve accountability and control over fleet resources, but also provide valuable information for determining the appropriate size and vehicle mix of the fleet for geographical and topographical purposes.
In the area of facilities, construction was begun on the expanded Services Processing Center in Chula Vista, California, and design contracts were awarded to provide new facilities at Eagle Pass and El Cajon. Also, major renovations were begun at three Service locations, plans were made for the installation of solar energy systems at six INS facilities, and numerous office relocations were coordinated with the General Services Administration.
Approximately 300 new Border Patrol Agents were hired and trained during the year, and the selection process was streamlined in the area of interviews and suitability determinations. In the area of Equal Employment Opportunity, INS realized an increase of 121 women (11.1 percent) and 111 minorities (6.2 percent) in key occupations (Border Patrol, Criminal Investigator, Immigration Inspector/Examiners, and Analyst). Overall increases of minorities and women in all INS occupations were 367 (1.6 percent) and 366 (1.5 percent) respectively.
during Fiscal Year 1982, the Information Services Division completed several major studies in an effort to improve program support to INS operational organizations, other government agencies, and the public by increasing productivity and yet reducing federal expenditures. An extensive evaluation of the future location of the present decentralized system of INS A-files was completed with the assistance of the National Archives and Records Service. A task force was sent to several field offices to determine the extent of the existing records backlogs and the temporary resource augmentations needed to eliminate such backlogs during Fiscal Year 1983.
A Servicewide telephone support improvement program was initiated, including improvements in the quality and effectiveness of the “ASK IMMIGRATION” tape libraries.
193
COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE
194
Boston New York Philadelphia Atlanta Chicago
Dallas
Kansas City
Denver
San Francisco
Seattle
DIRECTOR
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FIELD COORDINATION
SPECIAL ASSISTANTS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION
Community Relations Service
Gilbert G. Pompa Director
The mandate of the Community Relations Service (CRS) is set forth in Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin. ...”
However, the agency’s jurisdiction is not restricted to conflict arising under a particular statute. CRS has an express responsibility to help communities resolve racial-ethnic problems without regard to which statutes or constitutional provisions may or may not apply. It does this through the practical application of conciliation-mediation techniques to problems as an interested third party.
The agency’s conciliators and mediators respond to communities’ needs from their bases in 10 regional offices around the country. They are alerted to problems through a variety of means: by public officials or leaders of community groups seeking help, by other interested persons, or through such means as news media reports. Incidents within CRS’s jurisdiction are carefully assessed to determine the nature of the issues, whether the dispute appears amenable to the agency’s conflict resolution process, objectives to be pursued, and the resources required.
CRS has complete discretion in providing this day-to-day assistance to communities, subject to the supervision of the Attorney General. This role imposes upon the agency a number of responsibilities. First, it must maintain a conciliation-mediation service of superior competence to provide aid when and where needed, within the scope of the authority granted. The agency must also maintain the capability to deal with a wide range of racial/ethnic problems. In addition, in order to work effectively with citizens and public officials in communities the agency must be able to understand conditions and factors affecting race relations locally.
During Fiscal Year 1982, CRS reorganized its management structure, eliminating the Office of the Deputy Director and converting operational chiefs to Associate Directors. The primary purpose was to eliminate layering, and thus to create a more streamlined and efficient working unit. The reorganization provided a clearer delineation of responsibilities, also giving the Director more uniform control of agency functions.
Associate Director
for Administration
The Office of the Associate Director for Administration is responsible for all personnel, property, administrative, and fiscal management services. The office has primary responsibility for the budget process. It works closely with the Justice Management Division in the provision of administrative support services to CRS.
Associate Director for
Technical Assistance
The Office of the Associate Director for Technical Assistance maintains a program of technical support and services for agency conciliators and mediators to facilitate more effective delivery of conflict resolution assistance to communities. The office keeps field staff up to date on developments important to the agency’s work, aids directly in addressing many disputes and matters of concern, coordinates training, and produces technical publications and other materials to support the agency’s conflict resolution efforts.
Associate Director for
Policy Development
The Office of the Associate Director for Policy Development is responsible for overseeing the agency’s Operational Planning System, which involves the functions of planning, policy analysis, management information flow and analysis, program evaluation, and budget formulation.
Associate Director
for Field Coordination
The Office of the Associate Director for Field Coordination is responsible for coordinating the programmatic delivery of services to communities through the agency’s 10 regional offices. The office is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that day-to-day operational problems are addressed, that regional offices are kept informed of policy decisions and other pertinent actions affecting their work, and that field activity adheres to policy directives, established priorities, and agency standards.
195
Regional Directors
The Offices of the Regional Directors are responsible for coordinating and supervising the delivery of all conflict resolution assistance and other CRS services in their respective geographic areas. As a part of that responsibility, they are charged with establishing and maintaining liaison with all appropriate public and private groups, organizations, government agencies and officials.
Program Structure
Although there are inherent limitations to the extent to which level of demand for CRS services can be anticipated, the agency employs a basic program structure to systematize the planning, delivery, and monitoring of its assistance to communities. That program structure, based on need demonstrated over a period of time has three major areas: administration of justice, education, and general community relations. While this structure serves as the basic framework for planning, that planning process also takes into account the need to maintain the flexibility to respond to unanticipated developments. In addition, the program structure and planning process also allow for conducting special projects from year to year, such as a demonstration project to explore how a particular problem can be dealt with.
The administration of justice and education program areas are further broken down into project areas. For the administration of justice category, the project areas are 1) police use of excessive force and 2) police-community relations. For education the project areas are 1) school disputes and 2) school desegregation.
While maintaining a basic program structure for planning, CRS also determines priorities to be pursued from year to year based on particular concerns. During 1982, there were three such priorities: 1) cultivation of community/police cooperation against crime; 2) containment and reduction of racial harassment; and 3) reducing the risk of civil disorder. Operationally, these priorities were pursued as an integral part of ongoing casework.
Police-Citizen Conflict
The use-of-force issue produced some of the most volatile cases to which the CRS responded during the fiscal year. Allegations against police by minority citizens grew out of the question of when and under what circumstances it was proper for police officers to use firearms or other means of deadly force. The agency processed approximately 300 alerts—or intake reports—involving alleged use of excessive force, a substantial increase over Fiscal Year 1981. Other
police-citizen disputes to which the agency responded involved day-to-day stress over such charges as verbal abuse by police, inadequate police services to neighborhoods, and unfair recruiting practices—countered frequently by charges from police of a lack of community support and cooperation.
The agency addressed these problems in several ways. For example, police officials often called on CRS to mediate disputes with citizens, to train rank-and-file officers in human relations, and to provide models of effective citizen participation in the activities of law enforcement agencies. CRS’s actions in excessive force disputes typically included persuading police departments to review their firearms policies, and advising community organizations on practical approaches to seeking redress of their grievances. The agency’s activities in regard to other types of police-citizen disputes often involved establishing constructive dialogue between police officials and citizens’ groups.
Two cities where CRS responded to police department requests for assistance were Indianapolis and Mobile. Following several fatal shootings of minority citizens by police over a two-year period, Indianapolis officials asked for CRS’s help in revising its firearms policy. The new policy on use of deadly force has been integrated into a revamped police department training program. In Mobile, the police department and the city’s Ministerial Alliance requested the agency’s assistance in forming a citizens advisory committee to the department. A major concern had been the Mobile community’s lack of input to police department policies and practices.
An example of problems which community groups brought to CRS is a request from West Liberty, Iowa, Hispanic citizens for help in dealing with alleged police harassment. Leaders charged that police unlawfully sought to disperse groups of Hispanic citizens whenever and wherever they gathered. CRS recommended in meetings with Hispanics, the police and city officials that officers’ language capability be improved and that sessions be held to acquaint Hispanic citizens with the enforcement of ordinances against such offenses as loitering.
Minority citizens also sought the agency’s assistance on crime prevention projects. For example, the Kansas City Council on Crime Prevention sought help with its program planning and outreach activities. The Council hoped to secure foundation funding to expand its effort.
These conflict resolution activities also supported the Department’s priority against violent crime. Although minority citizens are disproportionately the victims of such crime, their cooperation with the police is often impeded by mutual antagonism and distrust growing out of these other issues. CRS efforts to alleviate police-minority hostility produced tangible results.
196
School-Related Conflict
During the year, community conflict related to alleged racial inequities in education remained a serious problem. Generally, school officials and community groups sought CRS’s help in two situations: the implementation of desegregation and in dealing with general conflict in the multicultural setting. Although the agency’s school desegregation caseload has leveled off, desegregation remained a concern because it was still an emotional issue and an unsettled question in several major cities.
With respect to general school disputes, a number of factors affected the schools in ways that helped contribute to requests for CRS’s assistance. One such factor was the willingness of parents and community organizations to organize and challenge education policy believed detrimental to the interests of minority children. Another factor was the difficulty many teachers and administrators have in understanding conflict in the multicultural classroom.
Specific issues which surfaced as the cause of unrest covered a wide range. For example, Hispanics in Omaha strongly criticized bilingual education programs and denounced school officials for alleged insensitivity to Hispanic community needs. But in Portland, Oregon, a serious confrontation developed over the site chosen for a school, an issue of great importance to the black community. CRS resolved these disputes and scores of others over a variety of issues. The agency also responded to many problems characterized by chronic fighting between groups of racially or ethnically different students.
Other Community Conflict
Responding to acts of racial harassment and violence was a major CRS concern. Alerts involving these acts increased from 117 in Fiscal Year 1981 to about 150 this year. The Ku Klux Klan and like-minded groups sought to prevent minorities from moving into residential neighborhoods, to obstruct the resettlement of refugees, and to otherwise prevent minorities’ exercise of legitimate rights. For example, CRS declared alerts in the following cases in a single week: a cross-burning and shots fired at the homes of several black families in Fayetteville, North Carolina; crossburnings at the homes of two black families in La Grange, Georgia, one of them that of a police officer; a crossburning at a black church in Pearson, Georgia; and a planned march by the Ku Klux Klan in Seabrook, Texas, to protest against the presence of Vietnamese fishermen.
A typical incident to which the agency responded occurred in Grenada, Mississippi. The Ku Klux Klan rallied there in support of local businesses accused by black residents of employment discrimination. Since black leaders
had received threats from persons identifying themselves as Klan members, tension was extremely high at the time of the rally. However, it went off without incident, and CRS subsequently attempted to work out the underlying problems with local leaders. The agency generally tried to help local and state governments organize to better address these problems, and also assisted concerned civic leaders in developing a climate and programs to combat the spread of racial hatred.
Another major agency concern was conflict stemming from immigration problems. For example, after 500 Haitian immigrants stormed Miami’s Krome Avenue Detention Center in an apparent attempt to free Haitians housed there, a CRS team was assigned to help relieve tension and avoid future confrontations. In addition, the agency provided continuing community relations counsel to the Immigration Monitoring Committee, which was established to address refugee problems and was made up of a cross section of community representatives.
At the request of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, CRS also sent a team of conciliators to alleviate escalating tension after 250 Haitians at the Fort Allen detention camp in Puerto Rico staged a sit-in to protest U.S. refugee detention policy. The agency’s intervention resulted in the refugees’ voluntary return to the compound, ending the incident peacefully.
However, a greater proportion of agency time was spent in responding to disputes in small towns and metropolitan areas where refugees have settled. In a number of instances, the barriers of language, culture, and intolerance led to confrontations. For example, CRS was designated lead agency in a joint federal, state, and local effort to resolve friction that led to violence between Indo-Chinese and Hispanic residents of a Denver housing project. One potentially important outcome was an agreement by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide funds for a three-member team—one Hispanic, one Indo-Chinese, and a city employee—which will attempt to resolve disputes working under the auspices of the city housing authority.
Comparison of Workload Data for Fiscal Years 1981 and 1982
	FY 1981	FY 1982	Percent of Change
Alerts	 Assessments	 Conciliation Cases: Conducted	 Concluded	 Mediation Cases: Conducted	 Concluded		1,548 1,219 991 792 31 20	1,996 1,476 1,070 836 26 19	+ 28.9 + 21.1 + 7.8 + 5.6 - 16.1 - 5.0
197
FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
BUDGET ANO FISCAL PERSONNEL
COMMISSIONER
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
PROGRAM SUPPORT
CHAIRMAN
FUTURE PROGRAMS
GENERAL COUNSEL
COMPLETED AND PENDING PROGRAMS
COMMISSIONER
VIETNAM
AND CZECHOSLOVAKIAN CLAIMS PROGRAMS
198
Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission
J. Raymond Bell
Chairman
This constitutes the first report of a full year’s activities by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission since it became a separate agency within the Department of Justice.
The Commission, which had operated as an independent agency since its formation in 1954, was transferred to the Department of Justice on October 1, 1980, by P.L. 96-209 [94 Stat 96, approved March 14, 1980; 22 U.S. Code 1622a].
The function of the Commission is the adjudication of claims of American citizens against foreign countries for the nationalization or other taking of their property. In addition to claims for the nationalization of property, the Commission also considers, under the relevant provisions of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, claims of prisoners of war and of civilians who were interned by hostile forces during certain periods. Payment is made for violations of the prisoners’ rights as protected by the various provisions of the different Geneva conventions.
The work of the Commission is, in effect, largely paid for by the claimants themselves and the foreign governments against whom claims are filed rather than the taxpayers at large. Most of the programs which specific acts of Congress authorize it to conduct contain a stipulation that five percent of the funds utilized to make payment on losses are to be used to reimburse the United States for the appropriations granted to the Commission for expenses incurred in carrying out its work.
At the end of Fiscal Year 1981 over $29 million had been returned to the Treasury, while the costs of operating the Commission since its formation came to a total of $26.4 million.
The Commission consists of a chairman, who serves on a full-time basis, and two commissioners, who serve on a part-time basis, all of whom are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The chairman and commissioners as a body are responsible for the review of claims and staff proposals and the issuance of decisions thereon.
During the period of this report, the Commission inaugurated a claims program for losses in Czechoslovakia which occurred after August 8, 1958, as authorized by the Czechoslovakian Claims Settlement Act of 1981. The Commission also continued to receive claims for losses in Vietnam. In response to increased interest from potential
claimants, the Commission extended the filing deadline for Vietnam claims from July 31 to October 31, 1982, which was also the deadline for filing claims against Czechoslovakia.
Czechoslovakian Claims
In the Czechoslovakian Claims Settlement Act of 1981, Congress also authorized the Commission to redetermine certain claims involving property nationalized during the administration of Eduard Benes, prior to the Communist takeover in 1948. Awards granted on redetermination are to be paid from an ex gratia fund of $5.4 million. The Commission had originally denied the claims because the properties had not been owned by U.S. nationals when the original nationalization had occurred. Since no new filing of these claims was provided for in the law, the Commission’s staff had to thoroughly review decisions on nearly 4,000 claims previously filed with the Commission for losses in Czechoslovakia prior to August 8, 1958. Some 65 redeterminations totaling nearly $22 million on 93 claims for losses in Czechoslovakia which occurred prior to August 8, 1958, were issued during the period.
Though the Commission has until October 31, 1984 to complete its redetermination on these claims, many of which involve complex problems of valuing large industrial and business concerns in Czechoslovakia in 1945 and 1946, the Commission expected to have all initial determinations issued by the beginning of 1983. This rapid production of redeterminations would ultimately mean that each awardholder would be able to obtain his or her share of the $5.4 million fund set aside by Congress long before the end of the time period allowed for the Commission’s actions. Since awardees will have to share pro-rata in the fund, accurate payments cannot be made until the total of all awards on redetermination is known.
Iranian Claims
Acting in its advisory function, the Commission continued to consult with the Congress and the Executive Branch concerning legislation involving claims against Iran. On September 14, 1982, draft legislation was submitted to Congress by the Administration which would give the Commission authority to act on claims of American citizens against Iran in asserted amounts of under $250,000. The new program would be predicated on obtaining a new
199
settlement with Iran for these “small” claims. At present, claims of U.S. nationals have to be presented directly to the Hague Tribunal established under the Algerian agreements of 1981.
Annual Report to the Congress
By statute, the Commission is required to issue an annual report to the Congress delineating in detail the adjudications of the Commission, including its major precedent decisions concerned with international law. Reports for calendar years 1981 and 1982 are available upon request at the offices of the Commission.
Management Improvement
In Fiscal Year 1982 the Commission reduced the legal staff of the General Counsel’s Office by one half, having previously successfully completed the German Democratic Republic Claims Program and the Second China Claims Program, which together involved nearly 4,000 claims. The savings in Fiscal Year 1982, after the costs of separations, was over $50,000.
Although the Commission will face two new claims programs in the coming years, the retention of senior attorney staff members and the introduction of management innovations, such as an emphasis on word processing capabilities and lower grade programs assistance
through employee development, will help compensate for the loss of staff. At the same time, the Commission will not be jeopardizing its commitments to the Congress that the “Czech II” and Vietnam claims programs will be successfully completed within the time frames set by law. The Commission has, by law, until October 31, 1984, to complete its actions on claims against Czechoslovakia and until October 31, 1985, to complete its actions on claims against Vietnam.
An analysis of the claims being filed under P.L. 96-606 for losses of American citizens in Vietnam indicated that many Vietnam refugees who did not meet the criteria of being U.S. nationals on the date their property interests were nationalized or otherwise taken were nonetheless applying for compensation. This was in spite of the explicit instructions which accompany claim forms distributed by the Commission.
In order to forestall the futile expenditure by such claimants of funds to try to obtain documentation or to have translations made of documents in support of their claims, the Commission made it a policy to contact these ineligible claimants directly as their claims were received. By further emphasizing that the Commission’s limited statutory authority provides only for granting awards when the subject property taken was owned by a U.S. citizen on the date of loss, undoubtly many recent refugees were saved needless expense.
200
INTERPOL—United States National Central Bureau
Richard C. Stiener
Chief
The United States National Central Bureau of INTERPOL (INTERPOL—USNCB) facilitates international law enforcement cooperation as the U.S. respresentative with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) on behalf of the Attorney General, who maintains U.S. membership in INTERPOL, pursuant to 22 U.S. Code 263a.
The INTERPOL—USNCB addresses the problem of international criminal activity and the movement of international criminals and individuals who are members of organized groups, such as terrorists, who have committed criminal acts, across international borders that affect law enforcement capabilities within the United States and in the 133 other foreign countries which are members of INTERPOL. The INTERPOL—USNCB serves as a catalyst to provide efficient communications between this country, other member countries, and the INTERPOL headquarters, in St. Cloud, a suburb of Paris.
INTERPOL was formed in 1923 and reorganized in 1946. Its functions are to ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance among all criminal police authorities, within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and the INTERPOL Constitution, and in keeping with the spirit of the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Each member country of INTERPOL is required by the INTERPOL Constitution to maintain a National Central Bureau within its national boundaries, which operates under its own national laws and within the framework of the INTERPOL Constitution. Generally, this activity is undertaken by some component of the national police in the capital city of each country.
The 134 National Central Bureaus are linked by a worldwide communications network, centered in INTERPOL headquarters. The National Central Bureaus utilize the support of a permanent administrative and technical organization, the General Secretariat. The General Secretariat consists of a headquarters staff; a large international communications facility; a Secretary General, who is elected for a five-year term by the General Assembly; and a number of other activities needed to coordinate a worldwide entity. The INTERPOL Executive Committee, composed of 13 elected officers and delegates from the member countries, meets at least two to three times
annually. During October 1982, at the 51st General Assembly in Torremolinos, Spain, Director John R. Simpson, U.S. Secret Service, was elected to serve as Vice President for the Americas, with an Executive Committee term of three years.
Support for the General Secretariat is transmitted from member nations in the form of membership dues, which are based on a number of factors, such as size and development of the country and use of INTERPOL channels. The budget of the General Secretariat is constituted in Swiss francs, which as a currency has a notably minimal fluctuation in exchange rate. The United States pays approximately 5.2 percent of the overall budget of the General Secretariat, for which $401,606 of appropriated Department of Justice funds was paid in Fiscal Year 1982.
Fiscal Year 1982
Highlights
The INTERPOL—USNCB participated in investigations of international criminal activities in over 23,170 cases in Fiscal Year 1982, including approximately 12,800 pending cases and more than 10,370 new cases. The INTERPOL—USNCB disseminated wanted notices on fugitives and international criminals in over 500 cases in Fiscal Year 1982.
The broad range of types of offenses and requests for investigations handled by the INTERPOL—USNCB extends from serious crimes such as murder, robbery, large-scale narcotics violations and large-scale fraud and counterfeiting to the location and apprehension of international fugitives involving arrests and extraditions to the countries where the crimes were committed. The types of requests also extend to criminal history information and license checks. Requests for assistance also include humanitarian matters such as notifying a relative of a serious illness or death in the family in a foreign country. INTERPOL and the INTERPOL—USNCB assist foreign and domestic police departments in tracing license plates on vehicles believed stolen or involved in commission of a crime. Through INTERPOL, weapons are traced, witnesses are located and even interviewed abroad, and background checks are conducted on candidates for sensitive positions and applicants for permits and licenses.
During Fiscal Year 1982, the INTERPOL—USNCB placed increased emphasis on complex and emerging areas
201
INTERPOL—UNITED STATES NATIONAL CENTRAL BUREAU
ASSISTANT CHIEF OPERATIONSAND ADMINISTRATION
CHIEF
DEPUTY CHIEF
ASSISTANT CHIEF INVESTIGATIONS
202
of international criminal activity by forming new investigative units, in anti-terrorism and economic and financial crimes, and a new operational element, the Analytic Unit, which includes enhanced quality control. The organization extended its official duty hours to a 12-hour day, with a senior investigative Duty Agent on call at night and on weekends.
Mission of USNCB
The official functions of the United States National Central Bureau include:
1.	To transmit information of a criminal justice, humanitarian, or other law enforcement related nature between National Central Bureaus of INTERPOL member countries, and law enforcement agencies within the United States and abroad, and respond to requests by law enforcement agencies and other legitimate requests by appropriate organizations, institutions and individuals, when in agreement with the INTERPOL Constitution.
2.	To coordinate and integrate information for investigation of an international nature and indentify those involving patterns and trends of criminal activities.
3.	To conduct analyses of patterns of international criminal activities when specific patterns are observed.
4.	To establish, and furnish the Secretary to, a policy advisory group consisting of designees of the Departments of Justice and the Treasury, and of the heads of the participating law enforcement agencies, which will review and develop INTERPOL programs and policies.
5.	To represent INTERPOL—USNCB at other criminal law enforcement and international law enforcement activities, conferences and symposia.
In order to accomplish its functions, the INTERPOL—USNCB also provides rapid communication with domestic law enforcement agencies via domestic teletype systems, computer systems, and interfaces with other systems, and has created a vehicle for dissemination of information to the law enforcement community concerning international fugitives and missing persons.
Using established criteria, the INTERPOL—USNCB evaluates each case prior to the release of information. These evaluations are performed by experienced senior criminal investigators. The three criteria that must be fulfilled before information leaves the United States through INTERPOL—USNCB channels are:
1.	A crime has been committed in the country requesting the information and the crime would be considered a violation of U.S. federal or state law.
2.	The INTERPOL—USNCB is satisfied that there is a link between the crime and the individual about whom the information is requested.
3.	The type of crime does not violate Article III of the INTERPOL Constitution, i.e., it does not involve matters of a military, religious, racial, or political nature.
As a further safeguard against abuses, the INTERPOL Constitution and the General Secretariat encourage the questioning process by the countries receiving requests, in order to obtain further information to fulfill the above three criteria. Even after additional substantiation is received, a National Central Bureau may still refuse the request.
The organization’s concern for proper release of information is exemplified by the 1982 General Assembly’s approval of a new Headquarters Agreement with the French government. Included is the formation of a Supervisory Board of five international judges and experts to review complaints concerning data in the organization’s archives.
The General Assembly also approved written guidelines for handling of information by the General Secretariat.
Links with Federal Agencies
The INTERPOL—USNCB operates through well-established collaborative efforts with federal agencies, primarily within the Departments of Justice, the Treasury and State, the United States Postal Service, and the Department of Agriculture. The United States maintains its National Central Bureau as an integral part of the Department of Justice, which acts in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury in working toward the goals of the National Central Bureau. Pursuant to an agreement between the Departments of Justice and the Treasury, the alternate U.S. representative to INTERPOL is the Secretary of the Treasury. As noted previously, the Attorney General is the principal representative.
Under the agreement of January 1977, as amended in May 1980, the two agencies provide staffing and professional law enforcement leadership for the position of Chief and Deputy Chief of the INTERPOL—USNCB, for two-year rotating terms; however, regardless of which agency’s personnel are in office, INTERPOL—USNCB is always officially part of the Department of Justice and, as such, the INTERPOL—USNCB, always represents the United States on behalf of the Attorney General.
The INTERPOL—USNCB is unique in its personnel composition; it is a cooperative organization, staffed by members of law enforcement agencies in the federal sector. The Department of Justice provides six permanent full-time positions for the INTERPOL—USNCB. In addition, in order to give the needed United States support to INTERPOL, participation by all law enforcement agencies is encouraged. Traditionally, each of the participating federal law enforcement agencies provides at least one senior investigative agent and other management or support
203
personnel. These positions support the investigative, administrative and operations systems that are located within the INTERPOL—USNCB.
From the Department of Justice, the INTERPOL—USNCB has detailed staff members representing the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. From the Department of the Treasury, there are representatives of the U.S. Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The United States Postal Service provides representatives of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Department of Agriculture provides representatives of the Office of the Inspector General.
The total staff of permanent Department of Justice employees, detailed and temporary employees on board at the end of Fiscal Year 1982 was 46.
In order to accomplish its mission and objectives, the INTERPOL—USNCB utilizes various interrelated computer and telecommunications systems, maintained in the Operations Section of the organization.
The principal method used in the Operations Section of the INTERPOL—USNCB for opening cases, processing and tracking investigative requests is the INTERPOL Case Tracking System (ICTS), which is a computer system installed in the INTERPOL—USNCB facility in Fiscal Years 1979 to 1980. The information is stored in file folders, on magnetic disks and in microfiche records at the INTERPOL—USNCB. It functions as an index for the names of persons and organizations, as a retrieval method for descriptive data relating to items of property connected with international criminal activity, and as a management analysis tool.
A second means for opening cases, processing and tracking investigative requests, is through the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems, known as “TECS”. This is a computer system maintained by the Department of the Treasury, through which the INTERPOL—USNCB can directly make data entries and record checks into the computer data bases of participating Treasury and other federal agencies, including, for example, the U.S. Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Internal Revenue Service, and, to a limited extent, the Department of State.
Transmitting Information
The primary method of transmitting information of a criminal justice, humanitarian, or other law enforcement-related nature between National Central Bureaus of INTERPOL member countries, and law enforcement
agencies within the United States and abroad, is through the two international telecommunications systems in the INTERPOL—USNCB. The primary system is the INTERPOL radio network, with rapid communications ability to transmit and receive codified messages from any of the 65 INTERPOL National Central Bureaus connected to the network, via the American Embassy in Paris.
The INTERPOL—USNCB upgraded the telecommunications link between its office in Washington and the General Secretariat in France in Fiscal Year 1982, by establishing a direct link between the Secretariat and the INTERPOL—USNCB, using Department of State telecommunications lines. This new system greatly expedites messages that are transmitted to and from the INTERPOL—USNCB by eliminating manual message transmission at both the American Embassy in Paris and the Department of Justice Communications Center, and by reducing the total transmission time from approximately three hours to a few seconds.
The second telecommunications system used by the INTERPOL—USNCB is an international telex/cable facility, which enables the INTERPOL—USNCB rapidly to contact those foreign National Central Bureaus that are not yet connected to the INTERPOL radio network.
The INTERPOL—USNCB has numerous methods available for disseminating information on cases and for obtaining information from other law enforcement organizations.
One method used by the INTERPOL—USNCB to disseminate information regarding fugitives and missing persons from the United States and other INTERPOL member countries is to have lookouts posted through the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) at all U.S. border points. International wanted notices (“Red Notices”) on wanted persons and fugitives are posted to all INTERPOL member countries, and indicate to the receiving country that an arrest warrant has been issued by the country circulating the notice and that extradition will be sought if the subject is located. Those Red Notices on fugitives which are issued by the United States are posted only as a result of coordination among the INTERPOL—USNCB, the Office of International Affairs of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and the Department of State. Most INTERPOL member countries will proceed with the arrest of a suspect on the basis of a Red Notice if there is an existing extradition treaty between the two countries.
Other methods of providing rapid communications with domestic law enforcement agencies are accomplished via the Treasury’s TECS lines. Through this system, the INTERPOL—USNCB investigators and staff interface with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain information, including automated stolen and/or registered ownership
204
information for vehicles, which is now available from all states except Hawaii.
Rapid communication with domestic law enforcement agencies, through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications (NLETS), is provided to the INTERPOL—USNCB by an interface through TECS. Through NLETS, since 1975, the INTERPOL—USNCB has had almost immediate teletype contact with virtually all of the approximately 20,(XX) eligible state and local police agencies throughout the country. The INTERPOL—USNCB’s operations rely heavily on communications through NLETS, by which the United States National Central Bureau transmitted or received over 1,500 messages per month in Fiscal Year 1982.
Rapid communication with federal law enforcement agencies is also provided by the INTERPOL—USNCB’s link through the Department of Justice communications system (“JUST”), which provides direct communication with the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and other agencies of the Department of Justice.
Another method of rapid communication in aid of investigations of requests is through the INTERPOL—USNCB’s in-house terminal, connecting it to the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System (NADDIS), which provides access to the Drug Enforcement Administration files to make record checks on individuals involved in narcotics.
Fugitives
The INTERPOL—USNCB also exchanges information regarding fugitives and wanted persons with the Department of State’s Advanced Visa Lookout System (AVLOS) and it has access to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Master Index Files (MIRAC).
The broad range of types of offenses and requests for investigations received by the United States National Central Bureau extends from such serious crimes as murder, robbery, large-scale narcotics violations, large-scale fraud and counterfeiting to the location and apprehension of international fugitives, involving arrests and extraditions to the countries where the crimes were committed. The requests also extend to criminal history information, license checks, and humanitarian matters. Both INTERPOL and the INTERPOL—USNCB can assist foreign and U.S. domestic police departments in tracing license plates on vehicles believed to be stolen or used in the commission of a crime. Through INTERPOL, weapons can be traced, witnesses can be located and even interviewed abroad, and criminal record checks can be conducted.
The INTERPOL—USNCB also has designated staff to
ensure compliance with federal statutes and regulations, Department of Justice policy and directives and international standards for investigations and exchange of information; conduct research and analysis in support of public and media requests for information; respond to requests for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts; and coordinate international visitors representing INTERPOL member countries’ National Central Bureaus to the United States. The Administration activity is responsible for supporting all the activities and programs with administrative and budget services, and coordination of management analysis and evaluation functions.
Caseload
In Fiscal Year 1982, the INTERPOL—USNCB handled a total of over 23,170 cases presented, including 10,370 new and reactivated cases and matters, and over 12,800 cases pending from Fiscal Year 1981. Of the 10,370 new and reactivated investigative and law enforcement cases and matters which were received by the INTERPOL—USNCB, 8,030 were opened as investigative cases in the ICTS; the other 2,340 cases and matters, which were not treated or counted as new ICTS cases, included: 732 formerly closed ICTS cases which were reopened during Fiscal Year 1982 for further investigative action; 230 new TECS cases (which were counted separately from ICTS cases only during October to December 1981); 271 cases which were exclusively Canadian vehicle and license trace cases (in addition to other Canadian vehicle and license traces that were part of other investigative ICTS cases); 318 matters which were finally declined as investigative matters by the quality control function, because supporting information and reasons for the investigative request were not provided by the requesting agency or the National Central Bureau; 26 matters that were special requests from the Office of International Affairs of the Criminal Division; 198 matters (“Quick Turnarounds”) which involved immediate international or domestic telecommunications message transmission, completed without the necessity of opening a formal ICTS case; and 565 cases which were in the Special Projects and Administration Section.
Cases and matters closed by the INTERPOL—USNCB in Fiscal Year 1982 totalled 7,050. Based on a total caseload presented of 23,170 open and pending cases, this represented a closure rate of 30.4 percent; based on the total of 10,370 new cases and matters received in Fiscal Year 1982, this represented a closure rate of 68 percent.
Approximately 2,000 of the pending cases and 500 of the new cases opened each year represent wanted notices on fugitives or international criminals; these notices are retained in an open status for at least five years, and are
205
reviewed for extension, until the fugitive is located and arrested or until the notice is cancelled. During Fiscal Year 1982, the INTERPOL—USNCB developed and implemented a systematic program of thorough review of all outstanding wanted notices, to ensure the accuracy and need for retention of the notices.
The INTERPOL—USNCB’s Fiscal Year 1982 caseload of 8,843 new investigative cases included a total of over 13,129 separate offenses or activity codes, in the following 14 categories: fraud cases, 17.7 percent; counterfeiting cases, 4.8 percent; narcotics violations cases, 12.4 percent; vice and morals cases, 0.9 percent; theft and crimes against property cases, 17.4 percent; violent crimes, 8.9 percent; firearms and explosives violations, about 5.1 percent; international fugitive cases, 7.8 percent; extraditions and international wanted notices, 2.6 percent; immigration violations, 3.1 percent; criminal history checks and identification checks, 11.6 percent; humanitarian matters and missing persons cases, 4.3 percent; law enforcement assistance cases, 1.9 percent; and miscellaneous criminal cases, 1.1 percent of the total activities.
Improved Management
Various management improvements and new methods of case handling were instituted during Fiscal Year 1982, including the following:
The official hours of operation of the INTERPOL—USNCB were expanded during Fiscal Year 1982, to 12 hours a day, from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and an investigative Duty Agent is on call 24 hours a day and on weekends, assigned on a weekly rotating basis.
In order to reduce the great volume of case files and to assist in document control, during Fiscal Year 1982, the INTERPOL—USNCB installed a complete updatable microfiche system for recording, printing and duplicating all documents in the investigative case files, and to facilitate case analysis.
Several special programs have recently been instituted by the INTERPOL—USNCB, in order to focus attention on complex or emerging areas of international criminal activity.
Within the Investigations Section, the Economic and Financial Crimes Unit program, which was established in Fiscal Year 1981 and expanded in Fiscal Year 1982, is responsible for coordinating and integrating information for fraud investigations of an international nature, and for investigative cases of violators of federal, state, local and foreign laws, traditionally considered as white-collar crimes. This unit is comprised of senior investigative agents as representatives of the federal law enforcement agencies with primary jurisdiction and investigative responsibility for
economic and financial crimes; i.e., the Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; U.S. Customs Service, and the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture. To prevent duplication and enhance cooperation, this unit has established liaison with the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Law Enforcement Center (FLEC).
The Anti-Terrorist Unit program in the Investigations Section was begun in Fiscal Year 1982. This unit directs its efforts to evaluate information at the INTERPOL—USNCB and determine if it would be of any value to the participating agencies, as well as to determine the appropriate role of the INTERPOL—USNCB in this area. The unit is staffed by senior investigative caseworkers from those federal agencies with a direct interest or expertise in anti-terrorism activities; i.e., U.S. Secret Service; U.S. Customs Service; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
A plan for forming a Fugitive Unit in the INTERPOL—USNCB was formally studied in Fiscal Year 1982, in conjunction with the U.S. Marshals Service, and is under serious consideration for creation in Fiscal Year 1983. It would formalize and augment the existing fugitive tracking program already performed within the INTERPOL—USNCB. This Fugitive Unit, if created, would assume a major coordinative function for information for the investigation, identification, location and return of internationally wanted fugitives and fugitives in drug violations cases, to the countries of their offenses, for criminal prosecution and incarceration.
Analytic Unit
Within the INTERPOL—USNCB Operations Section, in Fiscal Year 1982, the INTERPOL Analytic Unit was established and staffed by professional law enforcement analysts, to maintain certain programs essential to the INTERPOL—USNCB mission. These programs include, but are not limited to, the following nine functions:
The Quality Control Function was formally established in the INTERPOL—USNCB in Fiscal Year 1982, in order to safeguard the integrity of the data maintained in the INTERPOL system and to protect the privacy rights of subjects of investigations, by ensuring compliance with standard criteria prior to the opening of investigative cases and the release of information.
The Art Program computerizes data concerning stolen and forged art work and circulates information concerning stolen and forged art to major police departments, law enforcement agencies, art dealers and galleries, among others.
The International Wanted Notices program ensures that
206
information concerning international fugitives is circulated to United States border points.
The Vehicle Traces program completes vehicle and license registration traces for investigative requests, accurately and timely, by maintaining source books and other necessary information.
The Anti-Terrorist program’s purpose is to establish a system for maintaining information on persons known to be members of organized groups engaged in terrorist activities and who are wanted for committing a criminal act.
The Travelers Checks and Credit Cards Cases program completes investigations of an international nature concerning lost and stolen travelers checks and credit cards.
The Applicant Cases program completes investigations of an international nature concerning police applicants, applicants for liquor and casino permits, and firearms permits.
The Humanitarian Cases program handles requests involving international notification of next of kin in family emergencies.
The Suspense System program ensures that the INTERPOL—USNCB cases are kept up to date and that ICTS and TECS computer entries are modified accordingly.
The INTERPOL—USNCB serves as liaison between U.S. law enforcement agencies and the INTERPOL General Secretariat in France, for the development of specialized programs within the General Secretariat and provision of U.S. personnel to staff the programs. The INTERPOL General Secretariat has created specialized units in various complex or emerging areas of international crime. One of the most highly successful such units is the Drugs Subdivision, which is headed by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent and for the year ending June 1982 was staffed by 28 persons from 24 countries. This Drugs Subdivision handled about 24,500 international illicit drug cases in each of calendar years 1978 and 1979, approximately 28,500 drug violations matters in Fiscal Year 1980, and 27,762 drug violations matters from 111 foreign countries during 1981.
C”2cialized Units
The United States, through the Associate Attorney General and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations, has encouraged the further development of specialized investigative coordinating units, located at the INTERPOL General Secretariat, particularly in the four following significant areas of international criminal activity:
1.	Economic and financial crimes (including counterfeiting, currency violations, laundering money, other financial crimes, and general fraud);
2.	Tracking international fugitives;
3.	Crimes against persons and property;
4.	Explosives and weapons trafficking.
The participation by the United States in the General Secretariat was increased during Fiscal Year 1982, through the U.S. Marshals Service’s assigning of one senior investigative official to develop further a specialized international fugitive tracking system for INTERPOL. The U.S. Secret Service also assigned a senior investigative official to the General Secretariat during the year to assist in combating the increased activity internationally in counterfeiting U.S. currency. In Fiscal Year 1982, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the U.S. Customs Service selected senior investigative personnel to assign to the General Secretariat’s Fraud Unit and Economic Crime Unit, respectively.
The INTERPOL—USNCB provides benefits to U.S. law enforcement agencies at the state and local level. Use of the facilities of the INTERPOL—USNCB by state and local law enforcement agencies is essentially the only medium, in the absence of federal jurisdiction over the case, that state and local police have for securing the assistance of a foreign police force. The greatest proportion of the 30 percent annual increases in the caseload over each of the Fiscal Years 1977 to 1980 came from state and local law enforcement requests. There is a total of approximately 20,000 U.S. state and local police agencies which are eligible to use the services of the INTERPOL—USNCB, and which also respond to requests from the INTERPOL—USNCB to provide assistance to foreign National Central Bureaus.
Through the aegis of INTERPOL, federal law enforcement agencies have a continuing open channel for international investigations, which eliminates the need for each agency to maintain an extensive contact system to investigate violations of the law. In turn, through the INTERPOL—USNCB, federal agencies can ensure rapid coordination of their international investigations, and can obtain necessary information through police channels, without the necessity of a treaty, or even in the absence of a treaty with the particular country.
The international police community obtains information on advanced investigative techniques through INTERPOL channels, by participation at the periodic specialized conferences and symposia conducted by INTERPOL headquarters on such topics as financial crimes, laundering money, fraud, and violent crime. The staff of INTERPOL—USNCB participated in several of these conferences and symposia during Fiscal Year 1982. Additionally, INTERPOL—USNCB participated in and provided speakers for other law enforcement conferences in Fiscal Year 1982, such as those of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association.
207
Recipients of Attorney General Awards at the 32nd Annual Department of Justice Awards Ceremony
Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award
William L. Colwell Executive Assistant Director Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Awards
L. Eades Hogue A ttorney-in-Charge New Orleans Strike Force Criminal Division
Dennis G. Linder Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch Civil Division
Kelley D. McCullough Special Agent Drug Enforcement Administration
Joseph D. Pistone Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation
Daniel Rinzel Chief, Criminal Section Civil Rights Division
Kevin D. Rooney
Assistant Attorney General for Administration Justice Management Division
Dean St. Dennis Assistant Director Office of Public Affairs
208
Adrian F. Sereda
Enforcement Specialist Office of the U.S. Marshal Chicago, Illinois
William P. Tyson
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
David L. Westrate
Special Agent-in-Charge Washington Divisional Office Drug Enforcement Administration
John Marshall Awards
For Interagency Cooperation in Support of Litigation
Ernest Mayerfeld
Deputy General Counsel Central Intelligence Agency
For Providing Legal Advice or Preparation of Legislation
David D. Hiller
Associate Deputy Attorney General
For Handling of Appeals
William C. Bryson
Special Litigation Counsel Criminal Division
209
For Preparation of Litigation
James H. Jeffries, III
Trial Attorney Tax Division
David M. Jones
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Office of the U.S. Attorney New York City
For Support of Litigation
Mark P. Leddy
Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division
John A. Mintz
Assistant Director (Legal Counsel Division) Federal Bureau of Investigation
For Trial of Litigation Stuart J. Baskin
Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of the U.S. Attorney New York City
Katherine P. Ransel
Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division
Attorney General’s Meritorious Public Service Award
John W. Black
Area President
ARA Transportation, Incorporated St. Paul, Minnesota
210
Attorney General’s Award for Excellence in Law Enforcement
Harold A. Deadman, Jr.
Special Agent Laboratory Division Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attorney General’s Award for Outstanding Service to Department of Justice Handicapped Employees
Howard L. Dobres Supervisory Chemist North Central Regional Laboratory Drug Enforcement Administration
Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity
Joseph A. Sanches
Director, Administrative Services Staff Justice Management Division
Attorney General’s Award for Upward Mobility
Nick F. Starnes
Assistant Director (Identification Division)
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FCI-RBK-79OO-9/3O/83
211





HECKMAN |±l
BINDERY INC. |a|
DEC 99
Bound-To ^01^469^”’
_________________'
.-.i,, T ■,,	,	__________________„,-	7_	•■--•■_-	_ <«'•:»*:'-■
? - ZT.TZVC*	.. _r_~	- r.T“- - -■-	■■“■•£" - - -■■■ ■■*	--’j.-j ■'	■-'X J®;; XiX.
®-	W ■
■-’. -	: • -	-••■• -•-•-•-.^-."X.-l’V "7 '■>’'' ■:	J<- •'--•-•■■ z-;..-^V5 .• 7,v “4 -. -■■ ■-- - - - -	-	. - .«w-5J>'~r r’”	~ r* -. \	'' z‘- •:	■ p-j? 1> -••:•••-• -•• ■ ->.
“ •••“ :: “	•*_*' ■•' -*? 'z ~' ‘	2^27 ~	■ 7	'_'*«.4;.*_‘ •“' "2“ -' '	'	” 7 jj “ *	J7j".“ ~ -	t	'<’"■ z' "’"“ -'•--'V’-’'.‘Z-Jd’~*5;'-• — '.’'-j^V>' ■■' ‘"^•..•.'2’’.r,.7-f>’« 7 t ; j-*.-"-'	*' *.?!'".'•.'■'.‘r-^> '•>•' 7 '*7 '	?-,'.'^r
-	'* -: -V-'.l'Xj- .--■'£*•X-'-i..~ " >7 ^-■■-■*-•4 r-X'L". - ii'-7-“77	- Ci' '?' /	_X><•'•'~‘.~-‘22r2'', ".'/■. J< :	~’X'~ ” -	4 /'’“-•*■■’■■’• ■•'■'*• •’ • ’-.T.’".	*=* - XX. '0C‘'7’X;? • ■".■■	7 •*'" J ••■: '•••-X?'.\*:' -	= 7 —s'l	’	' "’' '
?	■ '	. .	. P
i illlWIiBi®K181®	dij ■
-. ... - - - -- --- . . ..........................................................................- _ .. -... - -- - ... - -- - _ - .- - ., ',, ’ ■•:
z.	ZdzX®®817®'7'8z.^W8z-888181r:-^7:l‘-'7'M\:“Z ■ d&.
.• •	-■	.’*•■ “"’i*"'-- -' '*’■-	2-~ '*„"4'‘7	’ /■• - -	i'f’'-‘JX	>i'''>'•.•”	'X. "’.'*■ '■■•’”•“	■■•.-. '• *•••'<’’. d.i. / .'•r’.6?;- *" ~ -"•• •d"V\"vX;” "2“'Z *'/ X’* •" *'	--Z.”. ’_7x’ "	*-7 • * .’ ''■	7“	’“-*i'S.,-.-.~X --’4 Z, ’iZ "’•’^L.V-*■"»■’•. - ■■- ■>22z2^".'.'	.' '■ ■;•»
?.•;;'	:'X
Z;' d^y.4dZ-7"-Zd7:-;7-4’'ri<7~jX’ -Z7-	22^2222--V22-ZZ'Q?Z;d A77Z7Z77A;dZ:vd*'17i.7:x;;-7Z'.ZZ Av7d^77.ZZ,?Z'^?ZZZ>v777Z.ZZ^Z7i7Z'AiA4Z4Z'-'i*-77ZZv;:d?dYZZd"^’;"'’-7./Z? . .. ;'Z
Zdj ZZZ;Z7ZdddZZ-dX^4?ZX'7-'ZZZ4Y7-}4^7vdZZ-ZZh-:7-ZZZZ'C-Z"Z': . z
Z IS®
. - 2	•	-' u®_	‘ I ®	*	3"* *2	"'	® ~ ~ - “ ” - -_ /■*-?**
11:®®®®®^:® ®®®rz®®::4zx®d®®^zzxd;®	® 8	.i zl
-7 'ZZ®i*dZd^Z®Z?Z®®r®4®	..;; ?!!?.
H* di®?®'i“AZ"A’jSvS'Z':v:7--Ai-AV.'i^Z^dA"ZZ^'^'-'d-7;®dZiyi'7^AiZ?rA7rZdd®--'^7-v	ic‘.
&a