CJHjrValid XHTML 1.0W3C: Valid CSS2

Alt+left-arrow to return from a link

 

Legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1752
Full-text: Sept. 29, Oct. 8, Dec. 16, 1970
Protest zones: “No War for Oil” (October 24 2002)

United States v. Brett A. Bursey

United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division

Filed, JUL –8 2003, Larry W. Propes, Clerk, Columbia S.C.

 



Criminal No.: 3:03-309

 )
United States of America,)
)
v.)
)
Brett A. Bursey,)
 )

United States Attorney’s Memorandum of Authorities Concerning the Elements of the Offense

{separate document}

______________________

Attachment 1

CIS: 70 S523-38

Serial Set: 12881-5 SuDoc: 91-2:S.RP.1252

Calendar No. 1269

91st Congress) SENATE (Report
2d Session)  (No. 91-1252

 


Protection of the President

_______________

September 29, 1970—Ordered to be printed

_______________

Mr. McClellan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

together with

INDIVIDUAL VIEWS

[To accompany S.2896]

The Committee on the Judiciary to which was referred the bill (S.2896) to prohibit unauthorized entry into any building or the grounds thereof where the President is or may be temporarily residing, and for other purposes, having considered it, reports favorably on it, with amendments, and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

Amendments

1. Page 1, strike out lines 6-10, on page 2, strike out lines 1-14, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in

(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or as temporary offices of the President and his staff, or

(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President is or will be temporarily visiting,

in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress thereto;

(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to utter threatening or abusive language or to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proxim-

(1)

48-010 {p.2}


ity to any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such language or conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions;

(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area, designated or enumerated in paragraph (1); or

(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against, any person or property in any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).

2. Page 2, lines 15 and 19, strike “attempts” and insert “endeavors”.

3. Page 2, strike out lines 23-25 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized

(i) to designate by regulations the buildings and ground which constitute the temporary residences of the President and the temporary offices of the President and his staff, and

(ii) to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting.

4. Page 3, line 10, strike the word “or,” and line 10, following the comma, insert “or by section 1752 of title 18, United States Code,”.

Purpose of Amendments

The committee amendments to S.2896 narrow the language of the bill as introduced. Nevertheless, the committee feels that the bill will still achieve its most important objectives. ¶

The language, as amended, now stands upon sounder constitutional grounds, and it now meets the objections of those who expressed doubts concerning it on a basis of possible interference with civil liberties.

Subsection (a)(1)(i), as now drafted, limits the scope of the section to buildings and grounds specifically designated by the Secretary of the Treasury. These same designated apply to subsections (a)(2) (conduct), (a)(3) (ingress and egress), and (a)(4) (physical violence). It also requires that there be specific regulations governing ingress and egress to such designated buildings and grounds. Thus, both the designations and the regulations will be publicly recorded in the Federal Register. ¶

Subsection (a)(1)(ii) provides for the special case of a temporary Presidential visit where flexibility must be maintained and there is insufficient time to publicly designate restricted areas by regulation. For this special case, however, knowing and willful entry or presence in a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area is made unlawful. ¶

Subsections (a)(3) (ingress and egress) and (a)(4) (physical violence), but not (a)(3) (conduct), similarly apply to such restricted areas.

Subsection (a)(2), which applies only to buildings and grounds that are designated as temporary residences or offices of the President, is made narrower in three ways. First, this actionable conduct now con- {p.3} sists only of either (1) threatening or abusive language or (2) disorderly or disruptive conduct. Merely loud language is no longer covered by ths bill. Second, such actionable conduct must be engaged in with the intent of impending or disrupting Government business. Third, such actionable conduct must, in fact, impede or disrupt Government business.

Subsection (a)(3) remains unchanged except for extending its application to areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting. The second part of this subsection has been separated into subsection (a)(4) and made more explicit. It has also been extended to apply to areas of temporary visits.

Amendment No. 2 substitutes “endeavors” for “attempts” so that certain technical common defenses in the attempt field will be unavailable. See Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 332-33 (1966).

Amendment No. 3 parallels the previous amendment, and it accomplishes two objectives. First, it authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to designate the temporary residences and offices of the President and to prescribe regulations governing ingress and egress. Second, the word “regulations” was used, so that it is clear that it is used as a term of art and all such regulations will appear in the Federal Register.

Amendment No. 4 adds the new section 1972 to the list of protective functions enumerated in section 3056 of title 18.

Purpose of Legislation

The purpose of S.2896 is to protect the physical safety of the President of the United States and the orderly functioning of his Office by extending additional Federal protection for certain conduct to his specifically designated temporary residences and offices and to posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas where he is or will be visiting.

Legislative History

On September 15, 1969, Senator Hruska (for himself and Senator Eastland) introduced (on request) S.2896. Since it deals with criminal conduct, S.2896 was referred to the Judiciary Committee and subsequently to the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. ¶

The subcommittee held hearings in March of 1970, taking testimony and receiving statements from a variety of interested parties, including among others: representatives of the Department of the Treasury and the Secret Service and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Statement in Justification

Twice in this decade, and nine times in our history, the Office of the President has been the subject of an assassination attempt. ¶

The targets have included six incumbents, a former President, a President-elect, and a presidential candidate. ¶

Each time an attempt is made, the Nation responds, in part, by examining the procedures used in protecting the President. ¶

The killing of President Kennedy was followed by the Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (“President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy,” 1964) {SuDoc: PR 36.8:K 38/R 29 (ditto), LCCN: 64062670, OCLC: 55041572, DL, UC, WorldCat} hereinafter cited and referred to as Assassination Report), which made certain recommendations that might have saved the President’s life had they been in operation on Novem- {p.4} ber 22, 1963. ¶

Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s death was followed by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (“To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic Tranquility:” final report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence 1969) {SuDoc: PR 36.8:V 81/J 98/2 (ditto), LCCN: 75604476, OCLC: 56733, DL, WorldCat} (hereinafter cited and referred to as Violence Commission) and the expansion of Secret Service protection to presidential candidates. Had this expansion been done 1 week earlier, the Senator would almost certainly not have been shot—at least in the circumstances that surrounded his death.

The recommendations of these two Commissions were directed primarily at the problems raised in each assassination. Each began with the recognized need for protecting the President. Each then examined why the protection was not sufficient. ¶

But the reports also focused on the growing danger to the President, and urged the Nation to anticipate risks rather than react to them as has been the case too often in the past. When the Assassination Commission made public its report, assassination appeared to be an isolated event. The Violence Commission, however, expressed much greater fear about the future threats to public officials, and the events of the past two years have given us little reason to disregard those warnings.

A serious danger that the Nation faces, common in many parts of the world, but only rarely seen in America’s past, is that political assassination will become the policy of extremist groups seeking radical changes in society. The Violence Commission gave several reasons why it believed we should consider this risk:

Although the United States has differed significantly from the rest of the world in the kind of assassination it has experienced, there are indications that the future may bring more similarities than distinctions. ¶

Many of the conditions associated with conspiratorial assassination in other countries appear to be developing in this country;

Political violence * * * is * * * more intense * * *

There is much talk today of revolution and urban guerrilla warfare * * * .

* * * [t]he constant excoriation of America’s institutions and leaders may destroy their legitimacy in the eyes of other segments of society. * * *

* * * * * *

Racial tensions have been at a high level in this country during the sixties.

Finally, the United States may in the next few years undergo even more rapid socio-economic change than it has in the recent past. ¶

Rapid change is another characteristic that correlates with high levels of conspiratorial assassinations. ¶

(Violence Commission at 127-28.)

A greater threat, however, is that these same conditions of violent rhetoric and occasional violent action may provoke mentally unstable persons to make an attempt on the President’s life. ¶

This is a risk that is present in any society as open and vigorous and full of widely differing opinions as ours is, but we should be none the less aware of it simply because it is familiar. In the words of the Violence Commission: {p.5}

Consistent with its principles of freedom, the United States tolerates a fair amount of political tumult — not enough to inspire political assassination, but perhaps sufficient to provide the condition under which the twisted mind of the assassin decides that an imagined evil must be set right through violence. ¶

Dissidents in the United States have often been vary vocal and very abusive; they sometimes have heaped scorn on a President, even vilified him. ¶

Americans demonstrate boisterously, stage emotion-charged strikes and sit-ins, hurl stones and filth and foul language at authorities who, in turn, have not always been restrained and fair in their use of power. ¶

Though an assassin is mentally deranged, the violent rhetoric of our politics and our constant flirtation with actual violence may be factors that bring him at least halfway to his distorted perception of what actions are right and legitimate. ¶

(Violence Commission at 127.)

Query:  “Mentally deranged”?

Does a Secret Service agent commit a crime, when s/he stops a bullet, or interferes with a valiant patriot, attempting to kill the President?

If, at that moment, the Secret Service agent correctly believes, the President has ordered, directed, masterminded, incited, conspired, aided and abetted, facilitated, a violent criminal enterprise, certain to result in the death of many innocent people?  CJHjr

The risk of assassination falls most heavily on the highest office in our land. ¶

Attacks have been made against the lives of only eight of the estimated 1,800 Governors, eight of the estimated 1,140 Senators (including Senator Kennedy), and nine of the 8,400 Representatives (five in the 1954 attack on the House floor) who have served in our Nation’s history. ¶

In contrast, eight of the 35 Presidents, or 23 percent of the total, have been shot at—including five of the last 12. ¶

In direct contrast, no Vice President or Supreme Court Justice has ever been the target of an assassination attempt.

The reason for this concentration on one man is explained well by the Report of the “Task Force on Assassination and Political Violence” (1969), a part of the Violence Commission:

James F. Kirkham, Sheldon G. Levy, William J. Crotty, Assassination and Political Violence: A Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (Report of the Task Force on Assassination and Political Violence, U.S. GPO 1969) {SuDoc: PR 36.8:V 81/AS 7 (another), LCCN: 74603981, OCLC: 134028, WorldCat}CJHjr

The position of the Presidency in the roles described above [symbol of the Government, personification of the national character, and leader of the Nation in world affairs] makes him highly vulnerable to those individuals in the society who seek out public objects upon which to displace the hatred born of private motives. ¶

This displacement can be and usually is rationalized in terms of the public interest. Harold Lasswell notes:

“The prominence of hate in politics suggests that we may find that the most important motive (for assassination is a repressed and powerful hatred of authority.”

(Task Force, at 100, quoting Harold Lasswell, “Psychopathology and Politics,” New York, 1968, pp. 75-76.)

The danger of assassination can be diminished in part by a sincere national commitment to make ours truly a land of equal opportunity and minimum decency for all our citizens. However, this cannot be our full response. As the Task Force also pointed out:

[Although] one response to the problem of assassination must lie in responding to the underlying social, political, cultural, and psychological causes, ... in a nation of hundreds of millions, we cannot deny the possibility of at least a few persons who will become potential assassins, even in the most equitable society. ¶

Nor can we avoid the reality that, so long {p.6} as the United States remains a world power, conditions affecting the development of billions of people in other nations will tend to make the President the object of such murderous displacements. ¶

Therefore, the protection of the President from such chance encounters remains an essential requirement. ¶

(Task Force at 92.)

Thus, we must be sure that the President is fully protected at all times against the isolated deranged individual, even while we work to improve our Nation, and we must, of course, always also protect the President from organized premeditated attempts upon his life.

The committee is in receipt of specific information actually involving Presidential homes. During the testimony of the Director of the Secret Service, he was asked to supply a confidential memorandum detailing specific instances from Secret Service files. The committee has received this memorandum and other oral information and, although Presidential security requires that it remain confidential, we are satisfied that a number of recent incidents demonstrate the present need for S.2896.

In addition to past events, the Secret Service must anticipate problems and developing situations. The Assassination Commission noted that the procedures used in advance work before President Kennedy’s 1963 trip to Dallas were the same as those used before President Roosevelt’s trip to that city in 1936. The Commission admonished the Secret Service with the following observation:

In view of the constant change in the nature of threats to the President and the diversity of the dangers which may arise in the various cities within the United States, the Commission believes that standard procedures in use for many years and applied in all parts of the country may not be sufficient.... Constant reevaluation of procedures, with attention to special problems and the development of instructions specific to particular trips, would be a desirable innovation. ¶

(Assassination Commission at 446.)

S.2896 is designed to meet this challenge. It will extend Federal protection to temporary residences and offices of the President. With growing frequency, Presidents have been using their privately owned homes for temporary retreats from Washington: at Hyde Park, at Key West, at Hyannis Port and Palm Beach, at the Texas White House, and at San Clemente and Key Biscayne. Although these retreats have all been privately owned, they attract a great deal of attention because of the importance and publicity surrounding the Presidency.

S.2896 is also designed to provide a uniform minimum of Federal jurisdiction for Presidential Security when the President is on temporary visits. As the Director of the Secret Service pointed out in his testimony before the subcommittee, security is of paramount importance when the President is away from the White House:

From a security standpoint, the President is most vulnerable when he is outside the White House complex traveling or residing temporarily in some other section of the country. Wherever the President goes, he attracts wide attention and {p.7} is the object of much public notice. His movements and whereabouts are the object of much publicity, especially in the locality he is visiting. When the Chief Executive leaves the Capital City for any purpose, he carries with him the awesome burdens of his office and must continue to perform his official duties.

The Secret Service has the responsibility of establishing and maintaining a secure and ordered environment in which the President may continue to perform the functions of his office without impediment and free from annoyance. In my opinion, the enactment of this legislation is necessary in order to guarantee the safety of the President when he is temporarily absent from the Executive residence.

The Assassination Commission concluded in a similar vein:

“Whatever their purpose, Presidential journeys have greatly enlarged and complicated the task of protecting the President. The Secret Service and Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies which cooperate with it, have been confronted in recent years with increasingly difficult problems, created by the greater exposure of the President during his travels and the greater diversity of the audiences he must face in a world torn by conflicting ideologies.” ¶

(Assassination Commission at 427.)

It should be remembered that of the six attempts on Presidents or candidates in in this century, only one has occurred in Washington. Perhaps significantly, that was the only one in which the potential assassins were stopped before they could even shoot.

Although the Secret Service is charged with protecting the person of the President (among others) there is, at the present time, no Federal statute which specifically authorizes them to restrict entry to areas where the President maintains temporary residences or offices.

Consequently, the Secret Service must rely upon the assistance of local authorities to arrest persons who may be guilty of such disruptive conduct. In a quieter era, this system worked relatively well. Recently, however, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain the necessary level of security in this method. At times, local law enforcement personnel are not present when a specific individual needs to be apprehended. Often, it is difficult to tell exactly which jurisdiction bears the responsibility for detention and prosecution. Moreover, such jurisdiction utilizes different criminal statutes, with different elements of crime, which makes Secret Service agents unsure of the legal extent of their authority and makes uniform enforcement impossible.

Although State and local ordinances differ as to exact extent of their coverage, almost everything proscribed in subsection (a) is presently outlawed in some form or other at the State or local level. Subsection (a) makes these activities a Federal offense so that the Secret Service has the authority to prevent such activities. Moreover, uniform enforcement of a single Federal statute will result in greater protection for the President without any “chilling effect” on lawful dissent because the limits of that dissent will be clearly drawn. {p.8}

Yet, full protection for the President is neither a desirable nor achievable goal. The Assassination Commission explained the limits our society and our national life-style place on the protective task:

[The President] cannot and will not take the precautions of a dictator or a sovereign. Under our system, measures must be sought to afford security without impeding the President’s performance of his many functions. The protection of the President must be thorough but inconspicuous to avoid even the suggestion of a garrison state. The rights of private individuals must not be infringed. If the protective job is well done, its performance will be evident only in the unexceptional fact of its success. ¶

(Assassination Commission at 427.)

This committee has continuously kept in mind these limitations created by our dedication to a free society, and feels that this bill represents a successful balance between Presidential protection and individual liberty. This balance was not easily achieved. Certainly, this committee is convinced of the need for a uniform minimum of Federal protection for the President at all times. Yet the legislation, as introduced, contained several serious weaknesses. The committee is indebted to both the Treasury Department and others for their extensive cooperation in helping to overcome the weaknesses. Although there were a number of specific problems, most fell into one or two categories: overbreadth or vagueness—either one of which would pose serious problems of constitutionality.

Although there certainly is a Federal right to regulate to some extent speech and assembly near the President, the original language may well have gone too far. As the Supreme Court observed in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 250 (1967), there exists

the constitutional principle that “a government purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to State [or Federal] regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

In addition, with some of the original language proposed, there would be no rational way of predicting whether one’s activities were actually violating the law or not. Such vagueness could well have a chilling effect on individuals seeking to demonstrate, thereby impinging upon the full, free exercise of first amendment rights. ¶

Moreover, the constitutionality of such language is questionable. ¶

The test is especially rigid for criminal statutes. The Supreme Court observed on Connally v. General Construction Company 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) that language will be struck down if it is ¶

“so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application * * * .”

The amendments reflect the committee’s attempts to provide for that minimum of uniform Federal protection consistent with our free society. Consequently, the scope of the legislation was considerably narrowed. Whereas before, the question of which buildings and grounds {p.9} were actually included was subject to some question, there will now be a formal designation which will not only describe exactly which buildings and which grounds, but will also be available to everyone in the Federal Register. Similarly, whereas before these were to be orders, regulations, and “proper authority” governing admission, now there will only be regulations—all of which will also be available to everyone in the Federal Register. With clearly defined areas and clearly defined regulations, the question of vagueness here is overcome.

This question of overbreadth arose mainly in connection with subsection (a)(2) (conduct). Physical presence (subsection (a)(1)) on designated grounds will be clearly covered by regulations, as noted in the preceding paragraph. Egress and ingress (subsection (a)(4)) are also quite clear. Subsection (a)(2) has been narrowed to require both the intent to disrupt as well as the actual disruption by certain specifically defined conduct. Moreover, merely “loud’’ language and conduct which only “disturbs” are no longer proscribed activities within the bill.

The constitutional basis for each of the provisions is detailed in the section-by-section analysis of the bill.

In one area, the committee felt the proposed bill did not provide adequate protection: This was the authority to control physical presence, assure adequate ingress and egress, and prevent physical violence in restricted areas where the President was or would be visiting. ¶

Although every effort has been made for written public notice of the actual areas of Presidential residence and offices, there will not be adequate time for this in cases where the President will be merely temporarily visiting an area. Thus, subsection (1)(a)(ii) provides for such temporary visits. ¶

It is anticipated that the Secret Service will make every effort, consistent with Presidential security, to make such restricted areas known to the public (i.e., by posting or cordoning off). ¶

Even so, it is provided that one of the elements of the crime is that the person “knowingly and willfully” violates the restricted area.

It is worthwhile to emphasize once again the point that subsection (a)(2) relating to language and conduct does not apply to areas at temporary Presidential visits. ¶

Any demonstration outside the security perimeter (which does not interfere with ingress and egress) is left untouched by the bill. ¶

It will only affect physical presence or physical violence within the security perimeter, as well as proper ingress and egress.

It is the firm judgment of the committee that S.2896 as amended will not isolate the President from the people. It will not ban demonatrations near Presidential residences. It will still be possible to assemble peaceably wherever the visible symbol of the Government is located. ¶

No longer, however, will Presidential security depend upon differing local ordinances, some of which may be of dubious constitutionality. ¶

Instead, S.2896 will provide for the consistent, uniform enforcement of a narrow, precisely drawn statute that proscribes specific conduct for the protection of the President and his environment, S.2896 will not, however, supersede any existing State or Federal laws relative to the maintenance of order and the protection of persons and property in any jurisdiction. ¶

Local law enforcement will continue to have the responsibility to assist in providing protection to the President while he is {p.10} visiting their localities, to conduct criminal investigations involving violations of State or local statutes which could result from a Presidential visit, and furnishing police officers in adequate numbers to control demonstrations and other disturbances occurring in close proximity to places where the President is visited. ¶

Moreover, there will be many instances outside the scope of S.2896 which will require the use of State and local ordinances (i.e., demonstrations which are unreasonably loud or which, though disorderly, are not in fact disrupting the orderly conduct of Government business).

The second section of S.2896 makes it unlawful to obstruct, resist, or interfere with a Secret Service agent who is engaged in protective functions. ¶

It is presently a felony under title 18, United States Code, section 111, forceably to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with Federal law enforcement officers, including Secret Service agents, in the performance of their duties. ¶

Section 2 of S.2896 prohibits knowing and willful interference with a Secret Service agent performing protective functions. In a prosecution under section 2, a showing of a utilization of force by the defendant would not be necessary. It would suffice to show that the defendant’s willful action constituted an obstruction or resistance to, or interference with, the performance of the protective duties of a Secret Service agent. ¶

The offense would be a misdemeanor and would provide the needed authority for Secret Service agents to arrest persons who engage in activities which could nullify or reduce the effectiveness of security precautions taken by the Secret Service, without the necessity of establishing that such interference was forceable in character.

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill

Section 1752 amends title 18 of the United States Code by adding a new section on Presidential protection.

Subsection (a)(1)(i) deals with physical presence in a temporary residence or Offices of the President. It provides for the Secretary of the Treasury to designate the buildings and grounds which constitute such temporary residences or Offices, Subsection (a)(1)(i) then makes it unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any of such designated buildings or grounds in violation of the regulations governing admission. (Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe such regulations.) Both the designation of buildings and grounds and the regulations governing admission will be published in the Federal Register.

Subsection (a)(1)(ii) deals with the situation where the President is traveling or speaking. In these situations it is impossible to predict far in advance exactly where the President will be — and yet it is still necessary to have an area of security around the President. Thus, subsection (a)(1)(ii) would outlaw anyone from willfully and knowingly entering into or remaining in any posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted area where the President is or will be visiting in violation of the published regulations.

Subsection (a)(1) is concerned with the right to enter and remain in the certain areas. There is no question as to the Govermment’s right to control such presence. Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). Re- {p.11} garding possible first amendment attack, it is well established that because demonstrations involve conduct, they are subject to reasonable regulations when necessary to protect other legitimate Government interests. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965). In Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), the Supreme Court held invalid the conviction, under a general common law breach of the peace statute, of demonstrators who were told by State officials at the South Carolina Capitol that they had a right as citizens to go through the State House grounds as long as they were peaceful. The Court, however, went on to state:

We do not review in this case criminal convictions resulting from the even handed application of a precise and narrowly drawn, regulatory statute evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be limited or proscribed. (372 U.S. at 236.)

In contrast, the present section does not establish an offense so generalized as to be not susceptible of exact definition. It is aimed at conduct of a limited kind, that is knowingly and willfully engaged in violation of public regulations. The language of the Court in Adderley, supra, is applicable here:

The Florida trespass statute under which these petitioners were charged cannot be challenged on [vagueness grounds]. It is aimed at conduct of one limited kind, that is, for one person to trespass upon the property of another with a malicious and mischievous intent. There is no lack of notice in this law, nothing to entrap or fool the unwary. (385 U.S. at 42.)

Indeed, section (a)(1) of S.2896 is far more circumscribed than the general trespass statute upheld in the Adderley case.

Subsection (a)(2)

Subsection (a)(2) outlaws the intentional disruption of Government business at designated residences or offices. This subsection is designed to require both the intent to impede or disrupt as well as the actual impedition or disruption. The intent requirement is not necessarily specific intent — a showing of reckless disregard of consequences would suffice. Additionally, intent to disrupt one government function which in fact disrupts other government business would fall within the area proscribed by this subsection. The proscribed actions are, however, limited to threatening or abusive language and to disruptive or disorderly conduct. Subsection (a)(2) differs from subsections (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4), since it applies only to designated residences and offices and not to areas described in (a)(1)(ii). This subsection was drafted to provide the necessary amount of protection for the President while keeping, at a minimum interference with the action of others. “Government business or official functions” would not, of course, include entirely “political party” type business or functions. Thus, it is anticipated that this subsection will not apply to all forms of conduct occasioned by a Presidential residence — overly loud demonstrations or disturbances of the peace which do not, in fact, impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business of {sic: or} official functions, will still have to be handled through the use of State and local ordinances. {p.12}

Although it can be anticipated that first amendment objections may well be raised to the validity of this section, the committee is confident that it can successfully withstand any constitutional attack. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that even “pure” speech may be reasonably restricted given a compelling social interest. Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Mr. Justice Holmes noted that “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater * * * .” Schneck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). This would apply with even more force where conduct is mixed with the speech. As the Supreme Court recently restated:

This Court has held that when “speech” and “nonspeech” elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest can justify incidental limitation of first amendment freedoms. (United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968). See also Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 316 (1967).)

Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting in Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 54 (1966), also observed:

There may be some public places which are so clearly committed to other purposes that their use for the airing of grievances is anomalous. There may be some instances in which assemblies and petitions for redress of grievances are not consistent with other necessary purposes of public property. A noisy meeting may be out of keeping with the serenity of the statehouse or the quiet of the courthouse. No one, for example, would suggest that the Senate Gallery is the proper place for a vociferous protest rally. And in other cases it may be necessary to adjust the right to petition for redress of grievances to the other interests inhering in the uses to which the public property is normally put. (See Cox v. New Hampshire, [312 U.S. 569]; Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395.)

Certainly temporary residences and offices of the President fall within a similar category: First, because it is not at all clear that the places are even “public.” Second, because there is a viable alterative — the publicly owned areas or parks at the seat of Government in Washington, where persons may come for the purpose of petitioning the President for the redress of grievances. Third, because the orderly conduct of Presidential business is of paramount importance.

Section (a)(2) is not aimed at suppression of peaceful and orderly protest. Section (a)(2) would plainly not apply where there is no disturbance of others and no disruption of Government activities, and thus does not fall within the rational of causes such as Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966).

Nor is subsection (a)(2) vulnerable to attack on grounds of vagueness. Similar provisions — e.g., “or near” and “interesting” — were upheld in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965).

It is conceivable, of course, that particular applications of S.2896 may be held to unjustifiably restrict the exercise of first amendment {p.13} freedoms. (See Brown v. Louisiana, supra.) This is the case with any statute regulating conduct, however, and would not signify a constitutional defect in the statute itself. Moreover, as we have indicated above, S.2896 is plainly not susceptible of an “overbroad” construction, nor is it reasonably adaptable as a device for terminating the reasonable, orderly and peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights. Instead, it merely, but importantly, seeks to insure the President of the United States a safe and orderly climate in which to perform his duties, and it punishes or threatens to punish only willful and knowing violations of the statute and regulations thereunder.

Subsection (a)(3)

Subsection (a)(3) outlaws any intentional interference with ingress or egress to or from any of the buildings, grounds or areas of subsection (a)(1). This subsection is designed to assure the orderly flow of personnel and material. There is no question as to the Government’s right to regulate crowds to preserve free ingress and egress to buildings. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 553 (1965) and cases cited therein:

The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy. * * * A group of demonstrators could not insist upon the right to cordon off a street, or entrance to a public or private building, and allow no one to pass who did not listen to their exhortations. * * * We emphatically reject the notion * * * that the first and fourth amendments afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing * * * as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech. (379 U.S. at 554-55.)

Moreover, the Supreme Court recently upheld a very similar statute (Miss. Code Ann. sec. 2318.5, Supp. 1966) which was under constitutional attack for overbreadth and vagueness in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 (1968).

Subsection (a)(4) outlaws any intentional act of physical violence against any person or property within the buildings, grounds, or areas of subsection (a)(1).

Subsection (b) provides that violations of section 1752, as well as endeavors and conspiracies, are punishable by penalties of up to $500 fine or 6 months imprisonment, or both. Violation is a misdemeanor. On the construction of “endeavors,’’ see Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 332-333 (1966).

Subsection (c) provides that violations will be prosecuted by the U.S. attorney under the jurisdiction of the Federal district court where the offense occurs.

Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to designate which buildings and grounds are temporary residences or offices of the President, and to prescribe regulations governing ingress and egress to such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted areas. Such designations and regulations will appear in the Federal Register. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Treas- {p.14} ury may see fit not to withdraw such designation for a reasonable time after the President leaves office.

Subsection (e) specifically provides that the section does not supersede any of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia. This is clearly necessary since it is the intent of section 1752 to provide a uniform minimum of Presidential protection in certain specified situations, and still to rely upon other Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances for other forms of Presidential security.

Section 2 amends section 3056, title 18, United States Code, by designating the present paragraph as “(a)” and adding a paragraph “(b)” which provides penalties up to a $300 fine or 1-year imprisonment, or both, for knowing and willful interference with a Secret Service agent who is performing a protective function authorized under the Secret Service powers. This section is designed to prohibit knowing and willful interference with a Secret Service agent regardless of whether a show of force is utilized by the accused. It would be sufficient if his willful action constituted an obstruction, resistance, or interference with the performance of the protective duties of the Secret Service agent.

Section 2 also includes new section 1752 in the list of protective functions enumerated in section 3056 of title 18.

Agency Reports

Attached and made a part of this report is a letter of August 19, 1970, from the Deputy Attorney General regarding proposed amendments to the bill; and a letter of August 25, 1970, from the General Counsel of the Treasury recommending favorable consideration of the bill with proposed staff amendments.

____________

Office of the Deputy Attorney General,
Washington, D.C., August 19, 1970.

Hon. James O. Eastland,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator:  This is in response to a request from members of the staff of the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures for the views of the Department of Justice on the proposed amendments to S.2896, a bill to prohibit unauthorized entry into any building or the grounds thereof where the President is or may be temporarily residing, and for other purposes.

The first of the amendments would substitute a redrafted subsection 1752(a) for the original formulation. The substituted section would make the following changes:

(1) The building and grounds constituting temporary residences of the President or temporary offices of the President and his staff would be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury and published in the Federal Register in order to put the public on notice as to the buildings and grounds covered by the legislation;

(2) The prohibitions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4), in addition to being applicable to temporary residence and office, would also apply to areas in which the President “is or will be temporarily visiting;” {p.15}

(3) Subsection (a)(2), dealing with disruptions of official functions, would no longer cover “loud” language or conduct engaged in to merely “disturb” official functions; in addition, a violation would be made out only if a disruption of official functions actually occurs;

(4) Subsection (a)(3), dealing with blocking of ingress or egress, and (a)(4), dealing with acts of violence, separate and restate the prohibitions which were contained together in the original subsection (a)(3).

The second of the amendments would substitute a redrafted subsection 1752(d), which would reflect the reference in amended subsection (a)(1) to the Secretary of the Treasury. Thus, subsection (d) would authorize the Secretary to designate the buildings and grounds affected by the legislation, as well as to prescribe regulations governing admission, to such buildings and to areas being temporarily visited by the President.

The Department of Justice has no objection to the proposed amendments. Enactment of the legislation, as so amended, is recommended.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program, and that enactment of this bill would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Kleindienst,
Deputy Attorney General.

____________

The General Counsel of the Treasury,
Washington, D.C., August 20 1970

Hon. John McClellan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Reference is made to the informal request by members of your committee staff for the views of this Department on proposed amendments to S.2896. “To prohibit unauthorized entry into any building or the grounds thereof where the President is or may be temporarily residing, and for other purposes.”

The first amendment would amend section 1752 that would be added to title 18 of the United States Code by the bill in a number of ways. Under the amendment, the Secretary of the Treasury would be required to designate specifically which buildings and grounds constituted temporary residences of the President or temporary offices of the President and his staff. In addition, the amendment would extend the prohibitions of the section to include posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting. The first amendment would also revise the section to eliminate “loud” language and “disturbing” the orderly conduct of Government business from the scope of the bill and to require that, in addition to the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, there be an actual disruption of such business or function when one uttered threatening or abusive language or engaged in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or near any of the designated buildings or grounds. {p.16}

The second amendment would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to designate the buildings and grounds which constitute temporary residences of the President and temporary offices of the President and his staff. It would also authorize the Secretary to prescribe the regulations governing admission both to the designated buildings and grounds and to the posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting.

The Department has no objection to the proposed amendments and strongly recommends favorable consideration of the bill as proposed to be amended.

The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s program to the submission of this report to your committee said that enactment of this bill would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

Samuel R. Pierce, Jr.
General Counsel. {p.17}

____________

Changes in Existing Law

In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

Title 18 United States Code —
Crimes and Criminal Procedures

Chapter 84.— Presidential Assassination, Kidnaping, and Assault

§ 1751. Presidential assassination, kidnaping, and assault; penalties

* * * * * *

§ 1752. Temporary residence of the President

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in

(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or as temporary offices of the President and his staff, or

(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President is or will be temporarily visiting,

in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress thereto;

(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to utter threatening or abusive language or to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such language or conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1); or

(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).

(b) Violation of this section and endeavors or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.

(c) Violation of this section, and endeavors or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney {p.18} in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.

(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized

(1) to designate by regulation the buildings and grounds which constitute the temporary residences of the President and the temporary offices of the President and his staff, and

(2) to prescribe regulations government ingress or egress to such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting.

(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

* * * * * *

§ 3056. Secret Service Powers

(a) Subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the United States Secret Service, Treasury Department, is authorised to protect the person of the President of the United States, the members of his immediate family, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, and the Vice President-elect; protect the person of a former President, and his wife during his lifetime, the person of the widow of a former President until her death or remarriage, and minor children of a former President until they reach sixteen years of age, unless such protection is declined; detect and arrest any person committing any offense against the laws of the United States relating to coins, obligations, and securities of the United States and of foreign governments; detect and arrest any person violating any of the provisions of sections 508, 509, and 871 of the title and, insofar as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal land banks, joint-stock land banks and Federal land bank associations are concerned, of sections 218, 221, 567, 709, 1006, 1007, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1907, and 1909 of this title; execute warrants issued under the authority of the United States; carry firearms; offer and pay rewards for services or information looking toward the apprehension of criminals; and perform such other functions and duties as are authorized by law. In the performance of their duties under this section, the Chief, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, inspectors, and agents of the Secret Service are authorized to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony. Moneys expended from Secret Service appropriations for the purchase of counterfeits and subsequently recovered shall be reimbursed to the appropriation current at the time of deposit.

(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or interferes with an agent of the United States Secret Service engaged in the performance of the protective functions authorized by this section, by the Act of June 6, 1968 (32 Stat. 170), or by section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, shall be fined not more than $300 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. {p.19}

____________

Minority Views of Senator Sam J. Ervin on S.2896

I find myself unable to join with the majority in recommending the passage of S.2896 in its present form because of my concern about its possible impact on the first amendment freedoms of the American people.

I certainly share with the majority the unhappy but tragically necessary recognition of the need to protect the President when he moves to temporary residences, or travels about the country, as well as in Washington. Thus, I have no objection to those portions of S.2896 which govern access to, or control unauthorised presence on, the grounds of specified places where the President stays or might go.

However, I am seriously troubled by one aspect of the bill. Paragraph (a)(2) would make it a Federal crime “to utter threatening or abusive language” in or in the vicinity of the buildings or grounds serving as temporary residences or offices of the President. The Supreme Court has held, however, that the first amendment protects even verbal threats against the President which were no more than “political hyperbole,” although uttered near the White House. Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

Although paragraph (a)(2) applies to acts “in or sufficiently close to” the grounds of Presidential residences so as “to be disruptive,” there is no reason to believe that demonstrations will be permitted inside the grounds of such places any more frequently than they are now presently permitted inside the gates of the White House. Thus, the bill seems really aimed at demonstrations near, but beyond the perimeters of, these temporary Presidential headquarters. So limited, the risk of physical danger to the President is remote, and the risk of a chilling effect on free speech and peaceful assembly is pressing.

I am convinced that paragraph (a)(2) should not be defended as necessary to protect the President. Instead, it must be opposed because it will permit the Government to insulate the President from the petitions of the people. The lowest level of possible interference with the operation of his staff would be grounds for a criminal prosecution. I believe it is essential to the continued health of our political system that we protect, not punish, those who wish to communicate grievances to the President. To a certain extent, all demonstrations falling under the protection of the first amendment have as their goal the disruption of “the orderly conduct of government business.” The nailing of a 95-point thesis on a church door in October of 1517 was an exercise in religious freedom, but it undoubtedly disturbed those within the Cathedral of Wittenberg. The very purpose of the exercise of free speech is to be heard — often by noisy, boisterous, excited means of communication. The central teaching of the first amendment is that this kind of conduct must be protected. {p.20}

Thus, because I do not believe that the level of disturbance covered by paragraph (a)(2) creates a threat of physica1 danger to the President, I cannot support the suppression of dissent inherent in this bill, which would, indeed, have the effect of both insulating the President from the sounds of dissent and deterring people from engaging in legitimate first amendment activities. I, therefore, urge that the words “to utter threatening or abusive language” now in paragraph (a)(2) be deleted.

O

____________________

SuWho? SuDoc Serial Set CIS   DL USCCAN

Protection of the President (U.S. Congress 91-2, Senate Report No. 91-1252, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 29 1970, 20 pages) {SuDoc: 91-2:S.Rp.1252, Serial Set: 12881-5, CIS: 70 S523-38, LCCN: 79609560, OCLC: 106568, DL, WorldCat}.

 

Attachment 2

116 Cong. Rec. 35650-35654 SuDoc: X.91/1:116/PT.26

116 Cong. Rec. S17514-17517 SuDoc: X/A.91/2:116/???


UNITED STATESU.S. SealOF AMERICA

Congressional Record



PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 91st CONGRESS SECOND SESSION



VOLUME 116—PART 26



OCTOBER 1, 1970, TO OCTOBER 8, 1970


(PAGES 34493 TO 35916)




UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1970

 

U.S. eagle, Congressional Record

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 91st CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

 

 


* * * {35586} * * *

 

SENATE

Thursday, October 8, 1970

The Senate met at 10 a.m. ...


* * * {35650} {S17514} * * *

____________________

Protection of the President

Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, I call up for consideration S. 2896Calendar No. 1269 — a bill which would provide an increased degree of protection for the security and person of the President by prohibiting unauthorized entry into any building or surrounding grounds where the President is or may be temporary residing.

Mr. President, I need not dwell upon the importance of the position of President of the United States today: ¶

He is — simply — the Chief of State of the most powerful Nation the world has ever known. ¶

S. 2896 is designed to provide the necessary security for the proper functioning of his office.

The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence characterized the position of the presidency, as the symbol of the Government, the personification of the national character, and the leader of the Nation in world affairs. Because of this, the risk of assassination falls, the Commission found, most heavily on him. ¶

Attacks have been made against the lives of only eight of the estimated 1,200 Governors eight of the 1,655 Senators — including Senator Kennedy — and nine of the 3,400 Representatives — five in the 1954 attack on the House floor — who have served in our Nation’s history.

In contrast, eight of the 35 Presidents — 22 percent of the total — have been shot at — including five of the last 12. ¶

In direct contrast, no Vice President or supreme Court Justice has ever been the target of an assassination attempt. ¶

Moreover, the rising tide of violence here in America requires stricter security precautions. Political violence is becoming more intense within our Nation. There is today much talk of revolution and urban guerrilla warfare. Constantly, too, we hear the excoriation of American’s institutions and leaders that will destroy their virtue and legitimacy in the eyes of some segments of society, and which are calculated to inspire new attempts to inflict injury on them and on the President himself.

Mr. President, these developments must be placed in the context of the growing tendency for Presidents not only to travel more but also to use their privately owned homes for temporary retreats from Washington: at Hyde Park, at Key West, at Hyannis Port and Palm Beach, at the Texas White House, and at San Clemente and Key Biscayne. I might include also Camp David. Although these retreats have all been privately owned, except Camp David, they attract a great deal of attention, because of the importance and publicity surrounding the Presidency.

Protecting the President under these conditions is a formidable task for the Secret Service, which is charged with safeguarding the personal life of the President. As difficult as this task is, however, it is rendered even more difficult because the Secret Service’s present powers are somewhat limited. title 18 section 3056 of the United States Code authorizes the Secret Service to protect {S 17515} the life of the President, but does little more. Consequently, the Service must rely upon a patchwork of State laws and local ordinances and local officers to clear areas for security perimeters, to provide for free ingress and egress when the President is visiting, and to protect the President’s private homes from trespassers. Serious problems have arisen because the State laws and local ordinances vary widely as to application and extent of conduct proscribed, and it has often been difficult to establish the exact jurisdiction to determine who has the power to make an arrest to clear an area or turn back an intruder — and, even if then, too often no State or local police officer is immediately available to make the arrest.

S. 2896 will deal with and answer these problems. It is a precisely and narrowly drawn criminal statute that will make it a Federal offense to willfully and knowingly interfere with the functioning of the Office of the presidency. S. 2896 is designed for two types of applications: First, temporary visits of the President at any location; and, second, temporary homes or offices of the President. in the case of a temporary visit, the bill would make it a Federal offense:

First, to willfully and knowingly enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President is or will temporarily be visiting; or

Second, to willfully and knowingly obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any such area; and

Third, to willfully and knowingly engage in any act of physical violence within such area.

These provisions of S. 2896 will enable the Secret Service carefully and effectively to establish and maintain a security perimeter wherever the President travels, without having to depend primarily and necessarily upon local ordinances or local officials to move people on or to arrest them.

In the second application — that of temporary homes and offices of the President — the scope of the proposed statute is little more expanded. Initially, such homes and offices would be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in the Federal Register. Here, too, S. 2896 would outlaw unauthorized entry or presence, obstructing or interfering with ingress or egress, and engaging in any act of physical violence within such designated homes and offices. In addition, however, because of the day to day, ongoing official functions occurring at presidential homes and offices. S. 2896 would make it a Federal offense to utter threatening or abusive language or to engage in disruptive or disorderly conduct first, with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, and second, when such language or conduct, in fact, does impede or disrupt such orderly conduct of Government business or official functions. Thus, the effective functioning office of the Presidency will be secured.

S. 2896 will not supersede any existing laws, and the Secret Service will still rely upon State and local police for most crowd control as they have done in the {35652} past. It would, however, provide a minimum, uniform standard for the Secret Service to provide for the security of the President.

Mr. President, this bill is I think, a narrowly drawn and precisely focused measure. I previously said that S. 2896 would provide a minimum standard. I believe that two examples should suffice to illustrate my point: The Washington Post reported on September 18 that the assistant attorney general of the State of Kansas noted that the persons who heckled President Nixon when he was in Kansas could be prosecuted under the disorderly conduct provisions of the Kansas criminal code.

People who intentionally disrupt a lawful assembly, of course, should be prosecuted, but they could not be prosecuted under S. 2896, because it is not designated to deal with this problem. It would have applied, however, had these people attempted to enter the security perimeter surrounding the President or had blocked ingress or egress to that perimeter Similarly, S. 2896 would not apply to a disorderly ground of people three blocks away from the San Clemente home, unless they were obstructing or impeding ingress or egress to San Clemente itself. This would be a matter for the State and local police, as it has always been in the past. S. 2896 is, in short, primarily a security protection not a crowd control bill.

Mr. President, when S. 2896 was first forwarded to the Congress its reach was somewhat wider. Legitimate objections were raised to it, and the committee carefully redrew its provisions. Now, however, there is nothing in S. 2896, as carefully amended by the committee, that would isolate the President from the people. it will not ban demonstrations near presidential residences. It will always be possible to assemble peaceably wherever the visible symbol of the Government is located. No longer, though, will presidential security depend upon differing local ordinances, some of which may be of dubious constitutionality. S. 2896 will provide for the consistent, uniform enforcement of a narrow, precisely drawn statute that proscribes specific conduct for the protection of the President and his environment.

Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, and that the bill as thus amended be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment.

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Ervin.  Mr. President, I am in favor of the real objective of this bill, and I would like to pay tribute to the chief counsel for the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, Robert Blakey, who did about the finest job of revising and rephrasing of the original bill as can be imagined.

Those of us who serve in the Senate are conscious of the fact that we owe so much to the staff members of the committees and subcommittees and our aides in the performance of our duties, and I would like to pay tribute to the chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and procedures, because I have never known of a finer job or redrafting being done.

Mr. President, I move to strike out the following words on line 5 of page 3 of the committee amendment:

with threatening or abusive language or to

The deletion of those words will not affect in any way the overall objective of the bill. The reason why I object to those words are set forth in the minority views which I filed, and which I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the body of the Record as a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the views were ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:

_______________

Minority Views of Senator Sam J. Ervin on S.2896

I find myself unable to join with the majority in recommending the passage of S.2896 in its present form because of my concern about its possible impact on the first amendment freedoms of the American people.

I certainly share with the majority the unhappy but tragically necessary recognition of the need to protect the President when he moves to temporary residences, or travels about the country, as well as in Washington. Thus, I have no objection to those portions of S.2896 which govern access to, or control unauthorised presence on, the grounds of specified places where the President stays or might go.

However, I am seriously troubled by one aspect of the bill. Paragraph (a)(2) would make it a Federal crime “to utter threatening or abusive language” in or in the vicinity of the buildings or grounds serving as temporary residences or offices of the President. The Supreme Court has held, however, that the first amendment protects even verbal threats against the President which were no more than “political hyperbole,” although uttered near the White House. Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

Although paragraph (a)(2) applies to acts “in or sufficiently close to” the grounds of Presidential residences so as “to be disruptive,” there is no reason to believe that demonstrations will be permitted inside the grounds of such places any more frequently than they are now presently permitted inside the gates of the White House. Thus, the bill seems really aimed at demonstrations near, but beyond the perimeters of, these temporary Presidential headquarters. So limited, the risk of physical danger to the President is remote, and the risk of a chilling effect on free speech and peaceful assembly is pressing.

I am convinced that paragraph (a)(2) should not be defended as necessary to protect the President. Instead, it must be opposed because it will permit the Government to insulate the President from the petitions of the people. The lowest level of possible interference with the operation of his staff would be grounds for a criminal prosecution. I believe it is essential to the continued health of our political system that we protect, not punish, those who wish to communicate grievances to the President. To a certain extent, all demonstrations falling under the protection of the first amendment have as their goal the disruption of “the orderly conduct of government business.” The nailing of a 95-point thesis on a church door in October of 1517 was an exercise in religious freedom, but it undoubtedly disturbed those within the Cathedral of Wittenberg. The very purpose of the exercise of free speech is to be heard — often by noisy, boisterous, excited means of communication. The central teaching of the first amendment is that this kind of conduct must be protected. {S 17516}

Thus, because I do not believe that the level of disturbance covered by paragraph (a)(2) creates a threat of physica1 danger to the President, I cannot support the suppression of dissent inherent in this bill, which would, indeed, have the effect of both insulating the President from the sounds of dissent and deterring people from engaging in legitimate first amendment activities. I, therefore, urge that the words “to utter threatening or abusive language” now in paragraph (a)(2) be deleted.

_______________

Mr. Ervin. Mr. President my purpose in moving to strike those words is that they make it an offense to speak, that is, to utter words, and they come very close to trespassing on the protected area of the first amendment.

Since these words really add nothing of a substantial nature to the overall objective of the bill, which is to protect the President when he is required to travel to areas outside of Washington and have there his temporary home and his temporary office for the discharge of his duties. I hope the floor manager of the bill and the Senate will accept the amendment.

Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, as I read the bill and the language to which the Senator from North Carolina has alluded, and which he moves to strike, it seems to me the following phrase and paragraph are adequate to cover what we are seeking as the objective of the bill. The paragraph reads:

with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.

Omitting the words that the Senator from North Carolina would like to strike, it would then read:

To engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such language or conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts ...

Therefore, I think if the language was threatening or abusive, if it was to the extent or in an area where it disrupted, it would be, without having to use the term “threatening or abusive language.”

In other words, if a person were in such an area and used abusive language under such conditions that it would not disrupt or interrup {sic: interrupt} or interfere, it would not be a crime; but if it were a disruption or interference, or a part of conduct which did obstruct, the it would he an part of the crime.

I think I am correct in that.

Mr. Ervin. I think the words “disorderly conduct” go far enough to cover any kind of conduct which would be disruptive in character.

Mr. McClellan. We are not trying to prevent a man from using threatening language in any way if he does not interfere with the orderly processes of government: That is not what we are seeking to do.

I have no objection to accepting the amendment, and I will accept it if there is no objection. I hear none, and I am ready to take a vote on the amendment.

Mr. Cook. Mr. President, before that, will the Senator yield?

Mr. McClellan. I yield. {35653}

Mr. Cook. I really direct my question to the Senator from North Carolina. I wish to have the attention of the chairman also.

Is this the language that we discussed in the committee, where there was some doubt relative to the authority to limit the right of a person under the first amendment?

Mr. Ervin. Yes. In other words, this is the very language that the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from North Carolina expressed grave doubts about in committee. I am just seeking to strike out that part of the bill which deals with spoken words, without affecting the overall objective of the bill, in any respect.

Mr. McClellan. There was just a weak discussion of it, as Senators will recall, in the committee. I may say that a study of the other language of the bill with that language out seems to me to be adequate to reach the objectionable conduct that we are trying to prohibit.

Mr. Ervin. I think my motion should take care of the misgiving, which the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Michigan expressed in the committee.

Mr. Cook. As the Senator will recall, there was a discussion about the right of petition under the first amendment. I must admit this sounds like it solves the problem, perhaps not totally, but I think our discussion will fulfill the rest of the void in regard to the right of petition and in regard to those rights under the first amendment which we felt might be enlarged upon in this bill to the extent that this could very well take care of the situation.

Mr. McClellan. I think so. The purpose of the bill is, first, to protect the President in his body and in his person, and, second, to make certain nothing disrupts or obstructs the carrying on of the function of his Office. That is the objective or goal we are seeking to achieve with this legislation.

Mr. Hart.  Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. McClellan. I yield.

Mr. Hart. Mr. President, as the Senator from Kentucky indicated, there were those of us in the committee who had reservations with respect to the reach of the language of the bill. It would be nice if petitions could be addressed to the Government and Government agents in a graceful, civilized fashion, but the meat and potatoes of our theory of the first amendment is that sometimes the fellow who wants to talk is very tough looking and has a vocabulary that is outrageous; but, you know, Mr. President, he may have a good idea. In order to assure that we have a fighting chance to get sound answers to our problems, all of us should be sensitive that we do not reject from any source a potentially good idea.

This country is very blessed that it has a Senator from North Carolina with the name of Sam Ervin, who, in good days and bad days, whether it is popular or unpopular, is ready to blow the whistle on any proposal which would trade for comfort and genti9lity the protections of the first amendment. I am glad he has again spoken.

Mr. Ervin. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep gratitude to the Senator from Michigan for what I consider to be exceedingly high tribute. I will reciprocate the compliment i favor of the Senator from Michigan.

The Presiding Officer. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. Is there objection?

The amendment was agreed to.

The Presiding Officer. The bill is open to further amendment.

Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, the last amendment was agreed to, was it not?

The Presiding Officer. The amendment was agreed to without objection. Yes.

The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill (S. 2896) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. Hruska. Mr. President, S. 2896 is a bill to prohibit unauthorized entry into any building or the grounds thereof where the President is or may be temporarily residing. Hearings were held on this bill by the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and procedures in March, 1970. After amendment, this bill was ordered favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee.

S. 2896, as amended, would add a new section 1752 to title 18 of the United States Code designed to increase the protection of the President while he is in a temporary residence and while he is temporarily visiting in a designated area. The Secretary of the Treasury would be authorized to designate by regulations buildings and grounds which are temporary offices of the President and his staff. the Secretary also would be authorized to prescribe regulations for admission to such buildings and grounds and to post or cordon off restricted areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting.

Section 1752 would make it unlawful for anyone to enter such building or grounds in violating of the regulation promulgated by the Secretary. further it would be unlawful to utter threatening or abusive language or engage in disorderly conduct in or near such buildings or grounds with the intent of disrupting the orderly conduct of business if the language or conduct has a disrupting effect. Section 1752 further prohibits anyone from obstructing or impeding ingress and egress to or from such buildings and grounds, and it prohibits an act of physical violence therein.

The penalty for violating any of these prohibitions would be a fine not to exceed $500, imprisonment not to exceed 6 months, or both.

S. 2896 would also amend section 3056 which deals with the powers and responsibilities of the secret Service. S. 2896 would increase their authority to {S 17517} making it unlawful for anyone to resist or interfere with a Secret Service agent engaged in performing his protective functions. Violators would be fined not more that $500 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

Nine times in the history of this Nation, the President has been the subject of an assassination attempt. In this century six attempts have been made on the lives of Presidents or candidates, and of course there are a numerous incidents that are not reported publicly or which hare stopped before they fully develop. The majority of these attempts have occurred outside of Washington, and hence, in buildings or on grounds that are not under Federal jurisdiction.

At the present time there is no Federal statute restricting entry to areas where the President maintains a temporary residence or office. Nor is there a Federal statute prohibiting disorderly or disruptive conduct near an area temporarily occupied by the President. All restrictions which exist are the result of State law or local ordnances. As a result, the Secret Service, which is charged with protecting the President, must rely on local authorities to arrest disruptive persons, and this situation has become increasingly unsatisfactory. Local law-enforcement personnel often are not present when a specific offender needs to be arrested. Moreover, the differences in criminal statutes from one jurisdiction to another often create uncertainty as to the legal extent of the Secret Service’s authority and make uniform enforcement of planning impossible.

There can be no doubt that the Office of the President is extremely vulnerable and is increasingly threatened. In the report submitted after senator Kennedy’s death, the Eisenhower commission expressed its grave concern of future threats to public officials. The verbal and physical violence which we have witnessed in the past 2 years, highlighted by the recent rash of bombings, supports the conclusion that we are in a period of extreme social and political upheaval. Many of the extremist conditions usually associated with political assassination are developing in this country. While we must strive to change these conditions, we must recognize that they do exist and that they do increase the threat to an already vulnerable President.

With growing frequency, President have been using privately owned homes as temporary retreats from Washington. It would be unconscionable not to recognize the obvious facts that the President’s vulnerability is maximized when he is traveling or residing temporarily in another section of the country. It would be unconscionable not to recognize the obvious fact that theSecret Service doe snot presently possess adequate Federal authority during these most vulnerable occasions This body cannot ignore the obvious responsibility and duty it has at this moment to create the needed protection and authority.

Of course, the creation of adequate protection for the President must be balanced against the constitutional rights of private individuals.

The Judiciary Committee is satisfied that the uniform Federal protection pro- {35654} vided by S. 2896 is consistent with our free society. Most of the conduct proscribed by this legislation is presently outlawed in some from by State statute or local ordinance. The bill improves the present situation by making the proscribed conduct a Federal offense, so that the Secret Service may exercise uniform authority to protect against this conduct and to enforce these prohibitions. Such uniform enforcement of a single Federal statute instead of a myriad of State and local provisions will improve the protection afford the President.

At the same time this legislation specifically provided that other Federal and State laws would not be superseded. the intent of this legislation is to provide a uniform minimum of Presidential protection in certain specified situations. hence, it is still necessary and desirable to rely also upon other existing Federal and State laws and local ordinances.

This legislation meets the tests which have been laid down by the Supreme Court to protect first amendment freedoms. While individuals have the right to assemble and to voice their grievances, the Government clearly has the authority to control certain types of speech and conduct in certain areas. this authority was recognized in Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). In the case of Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), the Supreme Court stated that conduct could be controlled by legislation, provided the restrictions resulted from a precise and narrowly drawn regulatory statute evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be limited or proscribed. S. 2896 meets these requirements. It exercises the important governmental interest in protecting the person of the President at specific places. The areas that would be subject to this legislation must be so designated by the Secretary. They would appear in the Federal Register along with the regulations governing admission to these areas.

The legislation restricts only specified forms of conduct which this Congress feels unduly imperil the President’s welfare. A person must enter a predesignated area or violate the Secretary’s regulation knowingly and willfully.

Entrance into a predesignated area or obstruction of ingress or egress, and violation of the Secretary’s regulations, and physical violence against persons or property in a predesignated area, is prohibited only if it is done knowingly and willfully. threatening or abusive language or conduct in or near a predesignated area is prohibited only if it is done with the intent to impede the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, and it must be successful. It does not prevent the communication of grievances in ways that are not disruptive or disorderly or at places other than those specified by the Secretary. Hence, the legislation would not have a “chilling effect” on lawful dissent.

This legislation does not impose an absolute ban on demonstrations near temporary Presidential residences. It does not suppress lawful dissent. It will not isolate the President from the people. Rather, S. 2896 would create a minimum of needed, consistent and uniform Federal protection of the president. It does so through a narrow, precisely drawn Federal statute which proscribes specific forms of conduct, deemed by Congress to unduly jeopardize the President’s safety. No longer would the security of the President depend completely on differing State statutes and local ordinances. No longer will the Secret Service lack needed uniformity and authority at those times when the President is most vulnerable. the only question that can be asked regarding this legislation is why it was not enacted sooner. And I contend that this body cannot and must not postpone this matter any longer.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Packwood). The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

The bill (S. 2896) was passed, as follows:

S. 2896

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding the following new section after section 1751:

§ 1752. Temporary residence of the President

(a)  It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons–

(1)  willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in

(i)  any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or as temporary offices of the President and his staff or of any other person protected by the Secret Service, or

(ii)  any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President is or will be temporarily visiting,

in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress thereto;

(2)  with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such language or {sic} conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions;

(3)  willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1); or

(4)  willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).

(b)  Violation of this section, and endeavors or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.

(c)  Violation of this section, and endeavors or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.

(d)  The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized —

(2)  to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to such buildings and grounds which constitute the temporary residences of the President and the temporary offices of the President and his staff, and

A Congressional Record error which should read thusly:  CJHjr

(1)  to designate by regulations the buildings and ground which constitute the temporary residences of the President and the temporary offices of the President and his staff, and

(2)  to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting.

(e)  None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District {S 17518} of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.”

____________________

Senate debate, “Protection of the President,” 116 Congressional Record 35650-35654 (permanent edition 116/26, U.S. Congress 91-2, October 8 1970) {SuDoc: X.91/1:116/PT.26, ISSN: 0883-1947, LCCN: 12036438}, (daily edition 116/???, pages S17514-17517) {SuDoc: X/A.91/2:116/???, ISSN: 0363-7239, LCCN: 80646573, GPOCat, LL: paper, microfiche, WorldCat}. S. 2896, amended and adopted in this debate, was slightly amended further, in conference with the House (next), and then enacted (as title 5, § 18) in Public Law 91-644 (Jan. 2 1971), 84 Stat. 1880, 1891.

 

Attachment 3

CIS: 70 H523-44 1971 USCCAN 5842

Serial Set: 12884-8 SuDoc: 91-2:H.Rp.1768

91st Congress ) HOUSE OF (Report
2d Session ) REPRESENTATIVES (No. 91-1768

 


Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970

_______________

December 16, 1970—Ordered to be printed

_______________

Mr. Celler, from the committee of conference, submitted the following


CONFERENCE REPORT


[To accompany H.R. 17825]


The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 17825) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following:

That this Act may be cited as the “Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970.” ... {p.21} ...


Protection of the President

The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House bill amending Chapter 84 of Title 18, United States Code, which penalizes presidential assassination, kidnaping and assault. The Senate Amendment establishes new Federal penalties for unauthorized entry into any building or the grounds thereof where the President is or may be temporarily residing. It also penalizes intentional disruption of the conduct of Government business or official functions in any such building or on such grounds. The conference substitute adopts the Senate amendment with the substitution of the term “attempts” for the term “endeavors.” {p.22} ...

Emanuel Celler,
Peter W. Rodino,
Byron G. Rogers,
William M. McCulloch,
Richard H. Poff,

Managers on the Part of the House.

O

____________________

Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970, excerpt, “Protection of the President,” at page 21 (U.S. Congress 91-2, House Report No. 91-1768, conference committee, December 16 1970, 22 pages) {SuDoc: 91-2:H.Rp.1768, Serial Set: 12884-8, CIS: 70 H523-44, reprinted, 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5842, at 5849}.

The ensuing law: Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-644 (January 2 1971), “Protection of the President” provisions (title 5, § 18), 84 Stat. 1880, 1891, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1752CJHjr

 

Why do U.S. Presidents need protection?

Why do drug-lords, Mafia Dons, and other violent criminal king-pins need protection?

Exactly two weeks before the Senate ordered the printing of their Judiciary Committee Report, on the bill for the Protection of the President (Sept. 29 1970), U.S. President Richard Milhous Nixon — in secret, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. and State criminal laws, and in the presence of his law-partner, U.S. Attorney-General John Mitchell — ordered Henry Kissinger and Richard Helms to incite, conspire, and aid and abet the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile, known as “Track II (Sept. 15 1970).

Exactly one week after the Senate enacted this bill (October 8 1970), Richard Nixon signed another bill into law, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-452), on October 15 1970, about 10:30 am.

That’s the very day Henry Kissinger later claimed Richard Nixon ordered him to suspend Track II. For the time being.

Yet, exactly 24 hours later, the CIA telexed the CIA Chief of Station in Chile (October 16 1970, 10:08 a.m.), that Track II was “reviewed at high USG level afternoon 15 October” and approved. Documenting Kissinger’s apparent criminal lie, under oath, to the U.S. Senate.

That, at a CIA meeting at the White House with Kissinger and Alexander Haig (Kissinger’s deputy), beginning at 4:30 p.m.. About 6 hours after Nixon signed this law.

The CIA dutifully proceeded with the violent criminal plan. Resulting in the felony-murder of René Schneider, mortally shot three times in the chest, on October 22 1970, on his way to work, in Santiago. By CIA-paid killers. One week after Nixon signed this law.

The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which Nixon signed on October 15 1970, enacted RICO, a federal criminal enterprise crime.

The very same violent crime Nixon, Mitchell, Kissinger, and Helms were busily engaged in at the time: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (Oct. 15 1970, 10:30 a.m.).

They also remained engaged in violent criminal conspiracies under the laws of the District of Columbia and Virginia. Both, likely, assimilated, as well, into federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 13, codifying the Federal Crimes Act of 1825, § 3 (March 3 1825), 4 Stat. 115 (59 kb html/gif), discussed in Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (1998).

A law confounding the specter of U.S. Government territory, enclaves, and property, used as a hideout, by U.S. officials, waging criminal enterprises. Fearless of state investigation of federal activities. And fearless of federal investigation, and federal prosecution, for their state crimes.

Amongst the citizenry are people who are notmentally deranged.” Who believe the rhetorical flourishes of their Great Leaders. What they see on TV. What they hear on radio. What they read in newspapers, magazines. What their law books say.

And hence believe, they have the lawful right — in the collective self-defense of innocent victims of U.S. Government violent criminal enterprises — to act to suppress such violent crimes. And by force, if needs be.

And this can be a very large segment of citizens, patriots, in a society which believes in morality and the rule of law. And despises deceit. And violent crime. By their own government officials.

Though, in real time, few are secure in their facts. Victims, of criminal conspiracies, of U.S. Government official criminal liars.

And few are free enough from their responsibilities, selfless enough of their future, bold enough in their resolve, to act on their beliefs. Violently.

Instead, those few who decide to do anything, will combat these crimes with free speech.

And that’s trouble enough. For criminal enterprises.

Though dismissed as mere “background noise,” by Dick Helms. Who appeared untroubled. Until he was indicted. For lying to Congress.

Hence, free speech zones. To coral them out of sight.

But are there one or two, discontent with mere speech?

It’s little wonder, U.S. Presidents need protection.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

 

Source: Photocopy of the Court’s file copy, scanned to PDF. The Court’s file copy is a photocopy of a fax to the U.S. Attorney of a photocopy of the printed copy. The from-line on the fax, dated June 30 2003, says: “USSS Chief Counsel HQS,” presumably the office of the Chief Counsel of the United States Secret Service. Because attachment 2 was a grim photocopy (of the daily edition of the Congressional Record), I photocopied the permanent edition from the library. And while I was at it, I also photocopied duplicate originals of the other two documents as well (committee reports), from the U.S. Congressional Serial Set.

By CJHjr: Converted to text (OCR: FineReader 6.0), formatted (xhtml/css), links, text {in braces}, text beside a green bar |, text in yellow boxes, highlighting, added paragraphing (for ease of reading) marked with this trailing paragraph symbol:  .

This case: United States v. Brett A. Bursey (D.S.C., No. 3:03cr309 {200kb.html}, criminal information filed March 7 2003, jury trial denied June 4, bench trial Nov. 12-13, verdict Jan. 6 2004: guilty, $500 fine (Bristow Marchant, U.S. Magistrate Judge), district appeal docketed Jan. 13 2004, affirmed Sept. 14 2004 (Cameron McGowan Currie, U.S. District Judge), circuit appeal docketed Oct. 7 2004, affirmed July 25 2005 {64kb.pdf, 64kb.pdf}, rehearing denied Sept. 8 2005 (4th Cir., No. 04-4832), petition for certiorari docketed Dec. 14 2005, certiorari denied Jan. 17 2006 (U.S., No. 05-767).

See alsoOther Secret Service protest zone cases” on the docket-sheet page.

This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

CJHjr

Posted May 10 2004. Updated April 4 2009.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d33a.html

Visitors (all pages, from Feb. 10 2008):