Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IN RE KORMAN

August 17, 1972

IN RE JACK KORMAN, AND ROBERT W. LIKAS, WITNESSES, BEFORE THE SPECIAL FEBRUARY 1971 GRAND JURY.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Parsons, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Motion for Production of Reports of Electronic Surveillance comes before me today as an emergency matter which demands that it be decided under the most expeditious of circumstances.

Movants made inquiry of the Solicitor General as to whether there had been electronic or mechanical surveillance in this case. Movants' Exhibits 1 and 2 are the Letters to the Solicitor General and the Acting Solicitor General's reply in which he states that:

    "Since, unlike the situation in Egan, no claim
  was raised in the district court in this case
  that electronic surveillance justified the
  respondent's refusal to testify before the grand
  jury, and since that issue is not before the
  Supreme Court, there is no occasion for the
  government to make any inquiry respecting such
  surveillance. I therefore cannot accede to your
  request."

Movants assert "that forthright acknowledgment or denial of such inquiry has been the practice" and in light of the Acting Solicitor General's response the movants reasonably believe they have, in fact been subjected to electronic or mechanical surveillance.

They believe that the questions asked of them before the Special February 1971 Grand Jury were based upon information overheard from them by means of the Government's illegal wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

Movants claim the protection and invoke the prohibition upon such use as defined in Title 18, U.S.C. §§ 2515*fn1 and 3504*fn2 (part of) and contend that if they are required to testify in order to purge themselves of the contempt citation it would be violative of Sections 2515 and 3504.

They, therefore, ask that this Court stay the mittimus herein, pending their obtaining the necessary information from the Government and a hearing thereon.

The Government's Response to this Motion is a copy of a letter dated August 7, 1972 from the Department of Justice addressed to Mr. Sheldon Davidson, the Attorney in Charge of the Chicago Strike Force, and is in response to a request by Mr. Davidson for ascertainment of whether the movants were monitored by electronic surveillance. That letter states in part:

    "The Internal Revenue Service did utilize pen
  register surveillance from February 8 to May 22,
  1963, of telephone numbers 423-7800, 423-7801,
  and 423-7802. These telephones were listed at
  9530 South Merrimac, Columbia, Illinois, a
  suspected wire room operated by Robert Likas. Mr.
  Likas has not been the subject of any other
  electronic surveillance conducted by the Internal
  Revenue Service. No conversations in which he
  participated have been intercepted, overheard or
  recorded by the Internal Revenue Service. The
  original pen register tapes of this surveillance
  are not available, but the transcripts of the pen
  register tapes can be made available to you, if
  needed. * * *
    "On October 20, 1961, an Inspector listened by
  an extension telephone to a conversation between
  P. Stollman and an individual identified as Jack
  Korman. This call was monitored at Stollman's
  office, 22100 Greenfield, Detroit, with
  Stollman's consent. On October 18, 1961, a
  telephone conversation between P. Stollman and
  Jack Korman was also monitored by an Inspector at
  Stollman's office, with Stollman's consent.
  Nothing significant developed from these
  conversations and the Internal Revenue Service
  case was closed. Mr. Korman has not been the
  subject of any other electronic surveillance
  conducted by the Internal Revenue Service, and no
  conversations in which he participated have been
  intercepted, overheard, or recorded by the
  Internal Revenue Service, other than the
  above-mentioned monitorings.
    "The above-named individuals were never
  subjected to electronic surveillance by the
  United States Secret Service, the United States
  Postal Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
  and Firearms, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.