Following is the text of the complaint filed in this case. For a brief background statement,
click here.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

_______________________________________________________________

June 13, 1974                 

ROGER HENRY LIPPMAN,                                     Plaintiff, v. JOHN N. MITCHELL RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST ELLIOT RICHARDSON ROBERT BORK WILLIAM SAXBE CLYDE A. TOLSON L. PATRICK GRAY WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS CLARENCE KELLEY GUY GOODWIN ROBERT MARDIAN LOUIS HARRIS TOM CHARLES HUSTON JOHN DOE 1 and other unknown agents of the FBI JOHN DOE 2 and other unknown agents of the U.S. Department of Justice JOHN DOE 3 and other unknown employees of Executive Branch and other agencies of the U.S. government PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY JOHN DOE 4 and other unknown employees of Pacific Northwest Bell JOHN DOE 5 and other unknown employees of Illinois Bell                                      Defendants.

Civil Action No.      C74-342S COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES and DECLARATORY and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

__________________________________________________________

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises under Title 18, United States Code, §2520, 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) and §1986, 47 U.S.C. §605, and under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The jurisdiction of this court is based upon 18 U.S.C. §2520, 28 U.S.C. §1331(a) and §1343(l), (2), and (4), and the aforementioned Constitutional provisions. The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $10,000.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff ROGER HENRY LIPPMAN is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, and the City of Seattle. During the years 1967-1970, Plaintiff was a member and leader of Students for a Democratic Society (hereinafter SDS). During the years 1970-1973, Plaintiff was a named defendant in the Seattle 8 Conspiracy case, U.S. v. Marshall, et al, No. 51942, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington. From 1971 to the present, Plaintiff has been involved in numerous political activities in opposition to governmental policy. At no time did Plaintiff have any involvement with a foreign power or its agents or agencies.

3. Defendant JOHN N. MITCHELL is former Attorney General of the United States. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

4. Defendant RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST is former U.S. Attorney General. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

5. Defendant ELLIOT RICHARDSON is former U.S. Attorney General. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

6. Defendant ROBERT BORK is Solicitor General and former Acting Attorney General of the U.S. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

7. Defendant WILLIAM SAXBE is U.S. Attorney General. He is sued in his individual and official capacities, and as custodian of certain records to be mentioned below.

8. Defendant CLYDE A. TOLSON is executor of the estate of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

9. Defendant L. PATRICK GRAY is former Acting Director of the FBI. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

10. Defendant WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS is former Acting Director of the FBI. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

11. Defendant CLARENCE KELLEY is Director of the FBI. He is sued in his individual and official capacities, and as custodian of certain records to be mentioned below.

12. Defendant GUY GOODWIN is a Special Prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

13. Defendant ROBERT MARDIAN is a former Assistant Attorney General. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

14. Defendant LOUIS HARRIS is an employee of the FBI in Seattle, presently residing in the Western District of Washington. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

15. Defendant TOM CHARLES HUSTON is a former employee of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. He is sued in his individual and former official capacities.

16. Defendants JOHN DOE 1 are unknown agents of the FBI. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.

17. Defendants JOHN DOE 2 are unknown employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.

18. Defendants JOHN DOE 3 are unknown employees of the Executive Branch and other agencies of the U.S. government. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.

19. Defendant PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY is a State of Washington corporation with its principal place of business at 1101 4th Avenue, Seattle. It is a public utility providing telephone service for customers in the greater Seattle area, including Plaintiff.

20. Defendant ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY is a State of Illinois corporation with its principal place of business at 225 W. Randolph, Chicago. It is a public utility providing telephone service for customers in the Chicago area, formerly including the National Office of SDS.

21. Defendants JOHN DOE 4 are unknown employees of Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company.

22. Defendants JOHN DOE 5 are unknown employees of Illinois Bell Telephone Company.

FACTS

A. Hoover Plan [Also, click here and here.] 23. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that sometime in the Spring of 1968, then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, acting individually and in conspiracy with other persons, caused to be instituted a plan (hereinafter Hoover Plan) for counter-intelligence, espionage, and electronic surveillance against the so-called "New Left" in the United States. 24. This operation was designed to disrupt, sabotage, and render ineffective indigenous domestic opposition to the conduct of the U.S. war in Southeast Asia and to governmental policy in general. 25. The means of accomplishing this goal included, but were not limited to, illegal searches and seizures, the use of agents provocateur who infiltrated organizations and advocated and executed illegal and violent tactics, and illegal surveillance interrogations, wiretaps, espionage, and sabotage. 26. In a memorandum to FBI field offices throughout the country, Hoover instructed each office to assign an "experienced and imaginative" agent to the counter-intelligence program. A prime target of this operation was the activity of SDS, of which Plaintiff was, at that time, a member and leader. 27. The Hoover Plan remained in effect until the Spring of 1971, when it was ordered terminated by Hoover, although FBI field offices were permitted to request approval from FBI headquarters for further counter-intelligence operations in particular instances or cases. 28. Said Plan was instituted in bad faith, to harass, annoy, and intimidate Plaintiff and others in the valid exercise of First Amendment freedoms, and to destroy political opposition to governmental policy. Said plan was in no way a legitimate exercise of executive powers. 29. The existence of the Hoover Plan first became known to Plaintiff on December 7, 1973, when he read in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that documents describing said Plan had been released by the FBI the day before. 30. The full scope of the Hoover Plan is known only to the U.S. government. Defendant Clarence Kelley, present Director of the FBI, is the custodian of the records and documents which constitute, explain, and refer to this Plan, and which would divulge the full scope thereof. 31. The initiation and execution of this Plan, inter alia, resulted in specific violations of Plaintiff's civil and statutory rights as shall be set forth below. 32. Defendant Tolson, as the executor of the estate of J. Edgar Hoover, is civilly liable to Plaintiff for the acts of Hoover in initiating this Plan, in that said Plan and/or its execution violated Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth amendments, and under federal statute. 33. Defendants John Doe 1 and other unknown agents of the FBI are civilly liable to Plaintiff for their actions in carrying out the details of the Hoover Plan, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and under federal statute. B. Huston Plan 34. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that in June, 1970, Defendant Tom Charles Huston and others, presently unknown to Plaintiff, who worked in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, conspired to cause the formulation and implementation of the Huston Plan for domestic espionage. 35. The Huston Plan was designed to deal with the alleged "need" to provide greater communication and coordination between government agencies with responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering and to compensate for the alleged defects and unsuitability of the programs of the FBI in this regard. 36. The means selected by the Huston Plan brought this country to the verge of a police state: prior restrictions on the use of burglaries were lifted, restraints on the interception of mail were lessened, and the practice of warrantless electronic surveillance of private conversations was authorized. 37. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Huston Plan was directed against domestic "radical" or "New Left" organizations and persons, including Plaintiff, who expressed opposition to government policies in the war in Southeast Asia and at home. The initiation and execution of said Plan resulted, inter alia, in violations of Plaintiff's civil and statutory rights. 38. Said Plan was initiated in bad faith to harass, annoy, and intimidate Plaintiff and others in the lawful exercise of First Amendment rights, and to destroy political opposition to government policy. Said Plan was in no way a legitimate exercise of executive powers and the originators of the Plan themselves recognized the unlawfulness of the espionage measures adopted. 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes that President Nixon's approval of the Plan on July 23, 1970, was not rescinded shortly thereafter, but, to the contrary, the unlawful objectives and illegal measures contained in the Plan were in fact implemented and executed pursuant to the Plan's scheme until at least the summer of 1973, when the existence of the Plan first became known to Plaintiff and the American people. 40. Defendants Huston, John Doe 3, and other unknown employees of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government are civilly liable to Plaintiff for their actions in creating and executing the Huston Plan in that said Plan and/or its execution violated Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and under federal statute. C. Mitchell Plan 41. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that between the years 1969 and 1973, inclusive, various officials in the U.S. Department of Justice, including but not limited to Defendants Mitchell, Goodwin, Mardian, and John Doe 2, both by themselves and in conspiracy with each other and other government agents and agencies who were carrying out the Hoover Plan and/or the Huston Plan, engaged in a series of activities, plans, or operations having as their purpose the disruption, sabotage, and destruction of domestic opposition to U.S. governmental policy in the war in Southeast Asia and at home. (Said Plan is hereinafter referred to as the Mitchell Plan.) 42. The means selected in accomplishing said goal were some or all of those utilized pursuant to the Hoover and Huston Plans, and, in addition, included the bringing of unwarranted and baseless federal Prosecutions against the leaders of said domestic political opposition, including Plaintiff. 43. Pursuant to said Mitchell Plan, Plaintiff and seven other persons were indicted on April 16, 1970, for conspiracy to cause damage to federal property. (U.S. v. Marshall et al, W.D. Wash.) Said indictment was announced nationally by Defendant Mitchell and J. Edgar Hoover. All charges in said indictment were dismissed three years later on the motion of the U.S. Attorney. 44. During the course of said prosecution, Defendants Mitchell, Goodwin, Harris, Mardian, and others caused Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments, and under federal statutes to be violated, and are civilly liable to Plaintiff therefore. 45. The Mitchell Plan itself and as executed with respect to the prosecution of Plaintiff was instituted in bad faith for the purpose of harassing, annoying, and intimidating Plaintiff and others in the valid exercise of their First Amendment rights, and to destroy political opposition to governmental policy. Said Plan was in no way a legitimate exercise of executive power. D. Specific Allegations of Government Misconduct SDS National Office 46. On information and belief, for a period of time presently unknown to Plaintiff, but including at least part of 1969 and 1970, Defendants John Doe 1 and other unknown agents of the FBI, and/or John Doe 3 and other unknown agents of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government intercepted, overheard, disclosed, used, and/or procured others to intercept, overhear, disclose, or use, without application for or issuance of a judicial warrant or order, and without compliance with 18 U.S.C. §2518, conversations of Plaintiff conducted over the telephones of the National Office of SDS, located at 1608 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois. 47. The existence of said electronic surveillance on the telephones at the SDS National Office first became known to Plaintiff in June, 1973, when this information was made public record by the government in hearings concerning a Federal Grand Jury investigation in San Francisco. (See Appendix A.) 48. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Illinois Bell and its unknown employees John Doe 45 assisted in the illegal wiretapping and/or electronic surveillance of said SDS National Office and participated in the interception of Plaintiff's telephone conversations. SDS in Seattle 49. From June, 1968, until approximately January, 1970, Plaintiff's residence at 3822 Woodlawn North, Seattle, in the Western District of Washington, was a center for SDS activities in Seattle. Plaintiff used the telephone at said residence on numerous occasions daily during said period, and on those occasions communicated his political and other views privately and frankly in telephone conversations with other persons. 50. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that federal agents, including one or more named and unnamed defendants herein, intercepted, overheard, disclosed, and/or used, without application for or issuance of a judicial order or warrant, and without compliance with 18 U.S.C. §2518, conversations of Plaintiff conducted over said telephone at Plaintiff's residence. 51. The existence of said wiretap and/or electronic surveillance at Plaintiff's Seattle residence was first suspected by Plaintiff in June, 1973, when he learned of the SDS National Office wiretaps. His suspicions were reinforced in December, 1973, when he learned of the aforesaid Hoover Plan. Other SDS Activities 52. Plaintiff's activities in SDS led him to communicate on numerous telephones in Seattle and elsewhere during the years 1967 to 1970. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that many of these telephone conversations were intercepted, overheard, disclosed, and/or used by federal agents, including one or more named or unnamed defendants herein, without application for or issuance of a judicial order or warrant, and without compliance with 18 U.S.C. §2518. 53. The exact locations, dates, and extent of such other illegal surveillance is peculiarly within the knowledge of the U.S. government and Defendants Saxbe and Kelley, and others in whose custody the files relating to said surveillance are currently entrusted. However, Plaintiff, upon information and belief, alleges that numerous locations, including but not limited to the following, were subject to illegal electronic surveillance and/or wiretapping of Plaintiff's conversations as previously alleged, during the stated time periods. a. Seattle Committee to End the War in Vietnam (1967-69) and Draft Resistance-Seattle (1969-70), 4126 Roosevelt Way N.E., Seattle b. SDS New York Regional Office, 131 Prince St., New York (1968-69) c. The Movement Press, 345 Franklin St., San Francisco, CA. (1970) d. The Shelter Half, 5437 S. Tacoma Way, Tacoma, Wash. (1969-72) 54. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pacific Northwest Bell and its employees, Defendants John Doe 4, assisted in the illegal wiretapping and/or electronic surveillance of the Seattle Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Draft Resistance--Seattle, and the Shelter Half, and participated in the interception of Plaintiff's telephone calls. Seattle Conspiracy Trial Defense (1970-72) 55. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Mitchell, Mardian, Goodwin, Harris, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 individually and in conspiracy with one another and others, caused, in connection with the prosecution of Plaintiff and seven others in the Seattle 8 Conspiracy trial, Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments to be violated in the following respects: a. (Prosecution) Defendants Mitchell, Mardian, Harris, and Goodwin, and others unknown to Plaintiff, initiated the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff and the Seattle 8 pursuant to the above described Mitchell Plan in bad faith, without any justification or belief that Plaintiff had violated any criminal statute of the United States. b. (Burglary) Defendants Mitchell, Mardian, Harris, and Goodwin, and others unknown to Plaintiff, caused the residences of at least one Seattle 8 defendant and at least one of their attorneys to be invaded and entered surreptitiously and illegally burglarized. Plaintiff first learned of said invasion when Newsweek magazine of June 11, 1973, published a story, attributed to U.S. Senate Watergate Committee investigators, saying that government agents had committed such burglaries in connection with the Seattle 8 Conspiracy trial. c. (Informant) Defendants Mitchell, Mardian, Harris, Goodwin, and others caused one David Sannes, acting in conjunction with and on the behalf of said Defendants and the U.S. Department of Justice, to infiltrate the Seattle 8 Defense Collective, of which Plaintiff was a member, for the purpose of spying upon said defense effort, gathering information about the defense case, and advocating wild, far-out, and often violent schemes offered ostensibly to aid the defense but in truth designed to discredit the Seattle 8 Defendants and their attorneys. d. (Wiretap) Defendants Mitchell, Mardian, Harris, Goodwin, and others caused federal agents to intercept, overhear, disclose, and/or use, without application for or issuance of a judicial warrant or order, and without compliance with 18 U.S.C. §2518, conversations of Plaintiff and other Seattle 8 defendants and their attorneys and defense staff conducted over the telephones used in connection with the preparation of Plaintiff's defense, including but not limited to the telephones at the locations below, during the times stated: Law offices of Chas. H. W. Talbot, 6th floor Central Building, Seattle (1970) Law offices of Jeffrey Steinborn, 1500 Hoge Bldg., Seattle (1970-72) Law offices of Carl Maxey, Rookery Bldg., Spokane (1970-72) Law offices of Lee Holley, 5th floor Central Bldg., Seattle (1970) Law offices of ACLU and Michael Tigar, 2101 Smith Tower, Seattle (1970-71) Seattle 8 Defense Collective office, 21st floor Smith Tower, Seattle (1970) Seattle 8 Defense Collective office, 3rd floor, U.S. Court House, Tacoma (1970) Residence of Plaintiff and others at 5218 Kensington Place North, Seattle (1970-72) 1971 to Present 56. From November 1971, until the present, Plaintiff has been actively engaged in political activity in opposition to government policies. During this time period, Defendants John Doe and other unknown agents of the FBI, and/or John Doe 3, and other unknown agents of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, intercepted, overheard, disclosed and/or used, without application for or issuance of a judicial order or warrant, and without compliance with 18 U.S.C. §2518, conversations of Plaintiff conducted over numerous telephones, including but not limited to the following locations, during the stated time periods: Residence of Plaintiff and others, 121 13 Avenue E., Seattle (1972-73) Prisoners support house, 314 Champion St., Steilacoom, WA. (1971-73) Residence, Steve Slatkow and others, 104 1st, Monterey, CA. (1971-72) Law offices of Smith, Kaplan, and Withey, 2108 Smith Tower, Seattle (1972-74) Further Allegations of Misconduct 57. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pacific Northwest Bell and its unknown employees, Defendants John Doe 4, assisted in the illegal wiretapping and/or electronic surveillance of each office and residence aforementioned, located within the State of Washington, and participated in the interception of Plaintiff's telephone conversations. 58. In each and every conversation Plaintiff had on telephones referred to in paragraphs 46 through 56 above, Plaintiff had an expectation of privacy with respect to said conversations. 59. The wiretaps, electronic surveillance, and burglaries described above were initiated pursuant to one or more of the Plans described above; and the execution of said Plans and the various named and unnamed Defendants who knew of or were responsible for the formulation and execution of said Plans caused the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and under 18 U.S.C. §2511; and said Defendants are civilly liable to Plaintiff therefore. 60. The Defendants, procurement of interception, disclosure, and use, and their interception, disclosure, and use of Plaintiff's wire and oral communications during the period in question were unreasonable and illegal, and were not made in good faith reliance on any judicial, legislative, or other valid authorization; and in particular did not comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §2518. Said acts were initiated and conducted by the responsible Defendants in bad faith for the purpose of harassing, annoying, and intimidating Plaintiff and others in the valid exercise of their constitutional rights. 61. Defendants Mitchell, Kleindienst, Mardian, Goodwin, Harris, and Huston, and others presently unknown to Plaintiff, knew that some or all of the unlawful events described in paragraphs 46 through 56 above were about to occur. 62. Said Defendants had the power to prevent or aid in the prevention of the occurrence of the said events, but they neglected or refused to do so; and they further concealed the occurrence of the said events and thereby facilitated their recurrence.

CLAIMS

63. Defendants' interception and disclosure of Plaintiff's wire communication was in violation of 47 U.S.C. §605.

64.Defendants, procurement of interception disclosure, and use, and their interception disclosure, and use of Plaintiffs wire and oral communications, as described herein, done after June 18, 1968, was in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2511.

65. Defendants' procurement of interception disclosure, and use, and their interception, disclosure, and use of Plaintiff's wire and oral communications during the period in question, deprived Plaintiff of his rights of free speech and association under the First Amendment, and his right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments.

66. Defendants' procurement of interception, disclosure, and use, and their interception, disclosure, and use of Plaintiff's wire and oral communications, and the, wire and oral communications of his co-defendants and attorneys and others assisting in his defense in the Seattle 8 Conspiracy trial, further deprived Plaintiff of his rights to due process of law and effective counsel guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

67. Defendants' prosecution of Plaintiff in the Seattle Conspiracy case violated Plaintiff's civil and constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, freedom of speech and association, and privacy, under the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments.

68. Defendants' procurement of David Sannes to infiltrate the Seattle 8 Defense collective deprived Plaintiff of his rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments.

69. Defendants Mitchell, Kleindienst, Richardson, Bork, Saxbe, Gray, Ruckelshaus, and Kelley are civilly liable to Plaintiff for the illegal acts attributable to them as alleged herein, and are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the illegal acts as alleged herein of other named and unnamed Defendants who committed said illegal acts in the scope of their employment as subordinates to said Defendants.

70. Defendants, burglary and procurement of others to commit burglary in the residences and offices of individuals involved in the Seattle 8 defense was initiated and conducted by the responsible Defendants in bad faith and deprived Plaintiff of his rights to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures, to due process of law, and to effective counsel, as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

71. By making the agreements or plans described herein and by causing numerous acts to be done pursuant to said plans whereby Plaintiff was and is deprived of his civil, constitutional, and statutory rights, Defendants Mitchell, Goodwin, Mardian, Harris, Huston, and others presently unknown to Plaintiff, and the late J. Edgar Hoover, have violated 42 U.S.C. §l985 (3), in that their plans and acts constitute conspiracies to deprive Plaintiff of equal protection of the laws.

72. By neglecting or refusing to prevent or aid in the prevention of the occurrence of the events described in this complaint -- although they know the said events were about to occur and although they had the power to prevent or aid in the prevention of their occurrence -- Defendants Mitchell, Goodwin, Mardian, Harris, Huston, and others presently unknown to Plaintiff, and the late J. Edgar Hoover, violated 42 U.S.C. §1986.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:

1. Plaintiff have judgment against each Defendant in the sum of $100.00 per day of interception and disclosure of Plaintiff's wire communication, done before June 19, 1968, in violation of 47 U.S.C. §605.

2. Plaintiff have judgment:

a. Against each Defendant in the sum, of $100.00 per day of procurement of interception, disclosure, or use, or interception disclosure, or use of Plaintiff's oral or wire communication, done on or after June 19, 1968, but in any event no less than $100,000, as liquidated damages, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2520 (a).

b. Against Defendants jointly for punitive damages in the sum of $200,000, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2520 (b).

c. Against Defendants jointly for reasonable attorney's fees and other costs reasonably incurred in connection with this action, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2520 (c).

3. Plaintiff have judgment against Defendants Mitchell, Goodwin, Mardian, Harris, Huston, and Tolson jointly in the amount of $100,000 for conspiring to deprive Plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985 (3).

4. Plaintiff have judgment against Defendants Mitchell, Goodwin, Mardian, Harris, Huston, and Tolson jointly in the amount of $100,000 for neglecting or refusing to prevent, or to aid in the prevention of, Plaintiff being deprived of the equal protection of the laws, although said Defendants had the power to do so, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1986.

5. Plaintiff have judgment against the Defendants jointly in the sum of $500,000 for violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and, Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

6. This court enjoin the Defendants from any further unlawful procurement of interception, use, and disclosure, and any further interception, use, and disclosure of Plaintiff's oral or wire communications.

7. Defendants Saxbe and Kelley be ordered to turn over to Plaintiff all records and logs relating to the electronic surveillance of Plaintiff or his attorneys.

8. This court declare the actions of defendants as herein described to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2511, 42 U.S.C. §1985 (3) and 1986, and 47 U.S.C. §605, and of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

9. This court grant such other and further relief as to it may seem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL E. WITHEY Smith, Kaplan, and Withey Attorneys-at-Law 2108 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone 206/MU2-1948 Attorneys for Plaintiff