vol. 36, no. 2

1 AN

Ameren

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXVI

SAN FRANCISCO, FEBRUARY, 1971

No. 2

Juvenile Rights.

Max Scherr:

Cal. Sup reme Ct. Barb Case

To dear Double

Jeopardy Claim

The Supreme Court of California, all seven justices sign-

ing the order, has agreed to hear the challenge of Richard

M., a minor, to the jurisdiction of a juvenile court which is

"attempting to try him on a charge of motorcycle theft.

In May of last year a petition was filed in the Shasta

County Superior Court, sitting as

a juvenile court, charging that

Richard had stolen a motorcycle

on May 4, 1970. A hearing was

held in the juvenile court at

which Richard testified that he

had taken the motorcycle, but

only under duress. He said that

he was forced. into the act by a

larger boy who stole another mo-

torcycle and escaped apprehen-

sion.

First Petition Dismissed

At the conclusion of the ju-

venile court hearing the Superior

Court judge said "I don't really

know whether to believe him or

not to believe him, but I think it

is evenly balanced in my mind,

and in that regard I am going to

have to find the petition is not

sustained." Subsequently the

judge signed an order dismissing

the case.

New Petition Filed

But in August the prosecution,

apparently in possession of some

fresh evidence, filed a new peti-

tion charging Richard with the

theft of the same motorcycle on-

the same date. Richard's attor-

hey, R. Russ Peterson of Red-

ding moved to dismiss the resur-

rected charges on the ground

that a new trial would violate

the Fifth Amendment's bar to

double jeopardy. There is, how-

ever, a 1953 Court of Appeal de-

cision holding that juveniles are

not entitled to the constitutional

Newspaper

Vending Ban in

San Pablo Ends

Robert Avakian was arrested

in the City of San Pablo while

distributing a radical newspa-

per. He was arrested under an

ordinance which requires all ven-

dors, including newspaper ven-

dors, to procure a permit from

the Chief of Police, the chief to

issue the license only to persons

he deems to be of "satisfactory

moral character."

First Amendment Rights _

Avakian's attorneys, staff

counsel Paul Halvonik and Rich-

mond volunteer Marc Peppard,

challenged the prosecution on

the ground that the permit ordi-

nance, when applied to newspa-

per vendors, violated the First

Amendment. to the United States

Constitution. Municipal Court

Judge C. Wilson Lock was un-

convinced and declined to hold

the law unconstitutional.

City Attorney Convinced

But appeal to the Superior

Court will be unnecessary be-

cause San Pablo City Attorney

was convinced by ACLUNC's ar-

gument, He has issued a letter

to the police department instruct-

ing them that "under no circum-

stances are they to apply this

ordinance to any type of selling

of papers, pamphlets, [or] hand-

bills, in that it was designed

prior to my becoming city attor-

ney to take care of the door-to-

door book salesmen and suede

shoe operators."

The charges against Avakian

are being dismissed.

protection against being put in

jeopardy more than once and,

accordingly, the Superior Court

refused to dismiss the case,

Peterson then contacted AC-

LUNC and staff attorneys Paul

Halvonik and Charles Marson

petitioned the Court of Appeals

in Sacramento for a writ that

would prohibit the new trial. The

Court of Appeal declined to hear

the case and the petition to the

Supreme Court followed.

_ Earlier Decision Undermined

In asking the State Supreme

Court to hear Richard M.'s case,

ACLUNC urged that the 1953

decision denying the protection

of a plea of former jeopardy to

juveniles can no longer be

deemed valid law. That case had

been premised on the dual no-

tion that the Bill of Rights has

no application to state court pro-

ceedings and that, in any event,

juvenile proceedings, since they

are not "criminal," need not be

surrounded with the guarantees

of individual liberty that are

customarily enforced in proceed-

ings the result of which may be

the incarceration of the accused.

Emerging constitutional law of

the past decade has undermined

both theories.

Double Jeopardy Argument

In its Benton decision the U.S.

Supreme Court held that the

Fifth Amendment's bar to double

jeopardy is applicable to state

court proceedings and in its

landmark Gault decision the

Court held that juveniles, in pro-

ceedings that may result in con-

finement or other sanctions, are

entitled to the fundamental pro-

tections of the Bill of Rights,

whether the state labels these

proceedings "criminal" or not.

`The Richard M. petition urged

that the Benton and Gault de-

cisions, when read together, "lead

irresistibly to the conclusion

that a juvenile guarantee is an

essential protector of individual

` liberty. The United States Su-

preme Court once described its

purposes as follows:

"The underlying idea, one that

is deeply ingrained in at least

the Anglo-American system of

jurisprudence, is that the State

with all its resources and power

should not be allowed to make

repeated attempts to convict an

individual for an alleged offense,

thereby subjecting him to em-

barrassment, expense and ordeal

-and compelling him to live in a

continuing state of anxiety and

insecurity, as well as enhancing

the possibility that even though

innocent he may be found guilty.

This underlying notion has from

the very beginning been part of

our constitutional tradition.

That rationale is as applicable

to juvenile proceedings as it is

to adult proceedings,

The case of Richard M, will be

heard by the Supreme Court

within the next few months. It

is, to our knowledge, the first

time a state Supreme Court will

consider the question whether

juveniles may invoke the plea of

former acquittal.

Continues

The Max Scherr obscenity case

continues to follow its uncertain

and intricate course. Mr. Scherr,

former publisher of the Berkeley

Barb, was arrested early in 1969

for printing an issue of the Barb

which contained the picture of

a well-known rock group engaged

in extra-curricular activities.

Both the activities and the pic-

ture were offensive to author-

ities, who charged that the pic-

ture was obscene.

Complaint Amended

ACLUNC, representing Scherr,

took the position in the Berkeley

/Albany Municipal Court that in

an obscenity prosecution materi-

al must be viewed as a whole

and cannot be prosecuted in iso-

lated pieces, A demurrer to the

complaint was sustained and the

prosecution elected to amend

their complaint to charge that

the entire issue was obscene, The

prosecutorial energies of the

Alameda County District At-

torney's office were then con-

sumed with such critical tasks as

drawing up long lists of the four-

letter words used in that issue

of the Barb.

Appeal. Pending

ACLUNC then filed a petition

for a writ of prohibition in the

Alameda Superior Court, claim-

ing that the whole issue was

manifestly not obscene as a mat-

ter of law, and requesting that

the Superior Court issue a writ

to stop the prosecution in the

Municipal Court, Judge William

Brailsford denied that petition

and an appeal was taken. In Jan-

lb Otto Astrup

California Supreme Court

4-3 Decision

Voids Carmel

COLVE

Anti-Hippie La _

The Supreme Court of California, by a vote of 4 nh 3, hae

held unconstitutional Carmel's "anti- hippie" law and issued

a writ prohibiting the Monterey Municipal Court from trying

Ann Kessinger Parr, a local merchant, for its alleged viola-

tion.

The Carmel ordinance made it

a crime to sit on the lawn, Sit-

ting on a lawn as well as climb-

ing a tree has been a crime in

Carmel since July of 1968: be-

cause, according to a "Declara-

tion of Urgency," that accom-

panied the enactment of the law:

"The City Council of Carmel-

by-the-Sea has observed an extra-

ordinary influx of undesirable

and unsanitary visitors to the

City, sometimes known as `hip-

pies, and finds that unless

proper regulations are adopted

immediately the use and enjoy-

ment of public property will be

jeopardized if not entirely elimi-

nated; the public parks and

beaches are, in many cases, ren-

dered unfit for -normal public

use by the unregulated and un-

controlled conduct of the new

transients."

Equal Protection

Mrs. Parr was the first person

uary that appeal was heard by

the Court of Appeal. The At-

torney General was forced to

concede that the entire issue is

not obscene, but argued instead

that certain portions of it were.

ACLUNC responded not only

that that issue had already been

decided for the purpose of this

case, but that the Attorney Gen-

eral was in addition (and as

usual) wrong. The Court's re-

action was not clear, If the ap-

peal is unsuccessful the case will

have to. go to trial. :

Naturalization

Case to be Heard

By High Court

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review

decisions of the Northern California Federal District Court

and United States Court of Appeals denying citizenship to

Ib Otto Astrup. The lower courts held that Astrup, a native

of Denmark, is forever ineligible for United States citizenship

because he executed a request

for exemption from military

service over 20 years ago.

Rejected for Service

The exemption that Astrup

signed stated that he was ex-

changing his right to citizenship

for relief from "liability" for

military training. Shortly ~after

Astrup executed the exemption,

however, the law was changed

and he was in fact ordered to

report for induction into the mil-

itary service. He was rejected for

service because of a physical dis-

ability.

Prior Decision

The Federal District Court of

Appeals decided against Astrup

on the basis of a prior decision

holding that an alien who applies

for exemption from military

service forever forfeits his right

to become a citizen even though

he is later ordered to report for

induction and would have served

in the armed forces but for his

physical disability.

ACLU Contention

In his petition to the Supreme

Court, staff counsel Paul Hal-

vonik pointed out that the de-

cision denying citizenship to

Astrup was inconsistent with an-

other decision granting citizen-

ship to an alien who applied for

exemption from service, and like

Astrup, had the exemption re-

moved, but, unlike Astrup, later

served in the armed forces; the

relevant statute makes no dis-

tinction between persons who

have served in the armed forces

and persons who have no service

_in the armed forces. The statute,

he urged, only forecloses citizen-

ship to: persons who apply for

exemption from the armed

forces. Noting that if Astrup had

passed his physical examination

and served in the armed forces

he would be a citizen today, Hal- |

vonik maintained that Astrup is

really being denied citizenship

because of a physical disability

and contended that denying a

person citizenship because of his

illness is cruel and unusual pun-

ishment prohibited by the Eighth

Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

In preparing the Astrup peti-

tion, Halvonik was assisted by

Mrs, Deborah Hinkle, ACLUNC's

summer intern and third year

Boalt Hall student. The case will

likely be argued before the high-

est court in April.

to be arrested under the ordi-

nance; she was arrested while

attending a public assembly in

Carmel's Devendorf Plaza called

for the purpose of protesting the

ordinance, ACLUNC challenged

the ordinance in the Monterey

Municipal Court, Monterey Su-

perior Court and State Court of

Appeal, all to no avail, before

reaching the Supreme Court.

But the Supreme Court agreed

with ACLUNC's attorneys, Paul

Halvonik and volunteer Herbert

Schwartz of Carmel, that the or-

dinance is class legislation that

violates the Fourteenth Amend-

ment's guarantee of equal pro-

tection of the laws.

Chinese Case

In reaching this conclusion

Justice Stanley Mosk, speaking

for the majority, invoked an

1879 decision rendered in the

Circuit Court by United States

Supreme Justice Stephen Field.

Field invalidated a San Fran-

cisco ordinance requiring that

every male entering the county

jail have his hair cut to a uni-

form length of 1 inch. The ordi-

nance had a particularly harsh

impact on Chinese inmates who

wore their hair in queues to

which they attached religious

significance. Justice Field said,

and Justice Mosk quoted him:

"[W]e cannot shut our eyes to

vo ADVINUIa

iS OSSIONVYS

wee

matters of public notoriety and _

general cognizance. When we

take our seats on the bench we

are not struck with blindness,

and forbidden to know as judges

what we see as men; and where

an ordinance, though general in

its terms, only operates upon a

special race, sect or class, it be-

ing universally understood that

it is to be enforced only against

that race, sect or class, we may

justly conclude that it was the

intention of the body adopting it

that it should only have such

operation, and treat it accord-

ingly. ..."

Mandating Discrimination

The State Supreme Court de-

cided that Carmel's police offi-

cers and prosecutors were un-

likely to ignore the council's

"clear expression of legislative ur-

gency and that the law would

doubtless be applied only to har-

ass a particular segment of the

community: "In revealing its own

predilections by means of legis-

lative language, the council man-

dated discriminatory enforce-

ment by law enforcement agen-

cies."

Second "Anti-Hippie"' Decision

The Carmel ordinance is the

second anti-hippie ordinance

ACLUNC has successfully chal-

lenged in the State Supreme

Court. Last year the Court ren-

dered nugatory a San Rafael

anti-hippie ordinance by con-

struing the state civil rights act

to prohibit all arbitrary discrim-

inations in business establish-

ments open to the public. In his

conclusion to the Parr opinion

Justice Mosk made it clear that

the California Supreme Court

will continue to protect the

youth culture from discrimina-

tory legislation:

"This court has been consist-

ently vigilant to protect racial

groups from the effects of offi-

cial prejudice, and we can be no

less concerned because the hu-

man beings currently in disfavor

are identifiable by dress and at-

titudes rather than by color,"

`

ACLU Opposes

Reagan's Veto of -..........

Funds For CRLA

The branch Board of Directors last month authorized

issuance of a statement opposing Governor Reagan's veto of

funds for California Rural Legal Assistance. In the meantime,

the ACLU national office supported the group in a letter

which declared: "We deem it of the utmost importance that

so vigorous and intelligent an ef-

fort to achieve equal justice

through law as the California Ru-

ral Legal Assistance receive con-

tinued support from the federal

government.' The local statement

follows:

The Text

In view of the tremendous im-

plications to the poor of the

abolition of legal services and

the consequent dilution of the

rights of due process, counsel,

and equal protection of the laws,

the Board of Directors of the

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California has voted

to express its views on the veto

by Governor Reagan of funds for

California Rural Legal Assist-

ance. _

Narrowing Enormous Gap

Federally funded legal serv-

ices projects such as CRLA have

been a major step toward invest-

ing the constitutional guarantees

of due process of law, the right

to counsel and equal protection

of the law with meaning for

those too poor to hire attorneys.

Such agencies are the best avail-

able means for narrowing the

enormous gap between the the-

oretical promise of legal protec-

tion and its actual availability to

the poor.

No Sense

This value is far too important

to be sacrificed because of the

alleged misconduct of a few at-

torneys, or because of the irri-

tation of successful suits against

the state. If the veto of CRLA

funds was motivated by in-

stances of the alleged miscon-

duct of some CRLA attorneys,

PEACE and ECOLOGY

Injunction

Against

School District

Federal District Judge Gerald

SE Levin has issued an order pre-

liminarily enjoining the Rich-

"mond School District "from

threatening, harrassing, intimi-

dating, discouraging, punishing,

discriminating against, or disci-

plining [elementary school stu-

dents] for the displaying, creat-

ing or wearing of commonly used

peace and ecology symbols..."

Volunteer Counsel

The injunction was sought by

volunteer ACLUNC attorney

David Rosenthal of Richmond on

behalf of eight-year-old Roger

Genosick, a student at Rich-

- mond's Washington Elementary

School, after the superintendent

of elementary education issued a

directive to elementary school

principals instructing them to

discourage the use of peace and

ecology symbols by students, Le-

vin issued a temporary restrain-

ing order on the day suit was

filed and Rosenthal indicated

that he would be willing to ter-

minate the litigation if the school

district issued a new directive

stating that there was no district

policy prohibiting the wearing or

creating of peace and ecology

symbols by students.

Statement Issued

The district did issue a state-

ment saying that there was no

policy prohibiting the wearing of

peace or ecology symbols but, for

ACLU_ NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1971

Page 2

- ample means exist to remedy

that without abolishing the en-

tire agency. Both as attorneys

and as federal employees CRLA

lawyers are subject to correc-

tion for misconduct, if any oc-

curred. To punish individual be-

havior by abolishing the agency

employing the individuals simply

makes no sense.

Actions Against State

If, on the other hand, the Gov-

ernor's veto was the result of

successful actions by CRLA

against the state and represents

the Governor's judgment that

CRLA could more effectively

represent the poor by limiting

its services to the sort of legal -

assistance that simply adminis-

ters their poverty - divorces,

bankruptcies, evictions, and the

like-then the veto is equally in-

defensible. Its premise is wrong

because the poor, as well as the

rich, have legal disputes with

government and are equally en-

titled to representation in them.

In any case, that judgment is

not the Governor's to make. The

Office of Economic Opportunity

has wisely recognized the danger

of having government decide for

the poor what the legal interests

of the poor should be, and has

accordingly placed that judg-

ment in the relatively indepen-

dent Board or Directors of the

federal agency. It is not the

function of a state to decide

whether a federal agency ade-

quately defines its own purpose

-especially a state the agency

has defeated in court.

The Board of Directors of

ACLUNC therefore urges the

Office of Economic Opportunity

to override the veto of funds to

CRLA and to restore full fund-

ing to that important and valu-

able agency.

Suit To Enjoin

Sac. High School

Newspaper Ban

Sacramento volunteer attorney

John M. Poswall has filed suit

in the Federal District Court on

. behalf of Theresa and David

Paxon to enjoin the San Juan Uni-

fied School District policy pro-

hibiting the distribution of their

newspaper, Downwind, at El Ca-

mino High School. The school au-

thorities deem the newspaper in-

consistent with policies prohibit-

ing "teaching of issues which

could be controversial' and

"glorifying violence.''

The school district in banning

the newspaper has also relied on

Educational Code section 9012

and 9013 which prohibit the dis-

tribution of ``propaganda"' on high

school campuses. Those code sec-

tions were held unconstitutional

by a three-judge court in San

Francisco and Poswall, in his

Sacramento suit, asks the Federal

District Court in Sacramento to

follow the San Francisco decision.

some mysterious reason, refused

to say that there was no policy

against students creating such

symbols. When it became clear

that the school district had no

intention of issuing the broader

directive sought by Rosenthal,

the preliminary injunction was

issued.

Notice of Appeal

The school district has already

served notice that it is appealing

Levin's decision to the United

States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit.

`Letters to the Edior

Editor: - I do not choose to

renew simply because. this or-

ganization no longer finds its

commitment from its members

nor its scope only one of civil

liberties - the very reason I

joined.

Somewhere along the way,

someone in the apparently rul-

ing that authority should begin to

realize that the purpose of any or-

ganization can best be served

by sticking to the purpose of the

organization.

War like civil liberties can

only be meaningfully discussed

within a full development of its

content. The -world without war

organization would disagree with

the official ACLU Vietnam War

position as to having any benefit

at all - in fact, the opposite.

But that is another story-Tom

Millan San Anselmo.

Another Resignation

Editor: - It is with regret

that I must submit my resigna-

toni as a member of the Ameri-

ean Civil Liberties Union. After

several years of membership in

an organization which has been

nonpartisan in the support of

civil] liberties, I cannot continue

because of the recent political

stance taken by the organization

concerning the Vietnam War.

While the political direction of

the A.C.L.U. does coincide with

my own feelings. I do not be-

lieve it is the place of the A.C.-

L.U, to become involved in what

I term to be a politica] decision.

By doing so, the A.C.L.U. weak-

ened itself in the results that

it has and can accomplish.

I don't believe that at any

time I was a member I agreed

one hundered percent with all

the stands taken by the A.C.L.U.,

but I felt all of the important

areas were within the format of

the organization, and now I feel

I must resign because of the

stand the organization has taken

on a subject with which I do

agree.

I know that several of the

members have similar opinions

to mine and I hope the officers

and council of the organization

will review their recent action in

view of the real purpose of this

organization so that once more

I may become a member.-John

W. Rosston, Hillborough.

Patience Wearing Thin

Editor: - Speaking as a for-

mer member of the ACLUNC

Board, I want to voice my oppo-

sition to the Board's taking a

position on the Viet Nam war.

Aside from salving the egos

of the members of the Board,

this action can have no effect at

all on the war with this one

exception: it will most certainly

reduce the effectiveness of AC-

LUNC, by getting the organiza-

tion far afield from the issues

on which it is our only effective

spokesman, This action, com-

bined with the recent tendency

of the Board to get into politics,

is one more indication of how

sadly the organization has de-

clined. I am not yet ready to re-

sign from ACLUNC, But my pa-.

tience is wearing quite thin.

Herbert L, Packer, Stanford

School of Law.

Distorting Purposes

Editor: - As long as the

board feels that a poll of mem-

bership attitude on integration is

important, why not also a poll

on the much more divisive is-

sue of our recently unfortunate

policy decision on the Vietnam

War. For what it's worth, I see

no valid civil liberties issue in

the Vietnam War issue outside

the specific ones around the

draft, war crimes, etc. which

have to do with specific, indi-

vidual, civil liberties.

To broaden the scope of civil

liberties to include the war is

to broaden it beyond all recog-

nition. Why not include all the

environmental pollution issues,

transportation problems, high-

rise construction disputes, ete.

to the same degree? Given the

one, the rest would seem to fol-

low, - Albert E, Browning, San

Francisco.

No Occasion To Resign

Editor: - Had illness not pre-

vented me from attending the

meeting of the Board of Direc-

tors of ACLUNC at which the

question was debated, I probably -

would have cast my vote in favor

of the National's position against

the war, I suspect, however, that

the Board's decision to that ef-

fect may not withstand the test

of time; at best it must be re-

garded (and can only be de-

fended) as an extraordinary re-

sponse to the extraordinary cir-

cumstances in which this Na-

tion has found itself.

My own doubts are matched

by the strong and irreconcilable

views of numerous members who

have expressed themselves in

Branch Board

Supports Two

Good Causes

Last month the branch board

twice voted to support good

causes. In the first instance, it

adopted a statement opposing

Gov. Reagan's veto of funds for

California Rural Legal Assist-

ance. The national office also

opposed Gov. Reagan's action.

National supports CRLA as "an

effort to achieve equal justice

through law." The branch state-

ment describes the federally

funded legal services project as

"a major step toward investing

the constitutional guarantees of

due process of law, the right to

counsel and equal protection of

the law with meaning for those

too poor to hire attorneys."

The Federal Constitution grants

the right to counsel only in crim-

inal cases and not in civil cases.

I suspect that most members of

the ACLU support the action of

Congress in providing legal as-

sistance to the poor in civil cases.

As individuals we also support

other programs for the poor such

`as medi-care, low rent housing,

etc., etc. Some would even change

the economic and political | sys-

tems in order to provide greater

consideration for the poor. But

none of this is the job of the

ACLU.

The second good cause to re-

ceive the branch board's support

was the Berkeley/Albany Chap-

ter's Police Conduct Complaint

Center. That Center takes citi-

zens' complaints against the po-

lice and assists them in advan-

cing their claims whether they

are right or wrong. In all of these

cases a factual issue has to be

decided and the Center takes no

stand. That, too, is a very worthy

cause but hardly a civil liberties

matter.

Moreover, the branch can't af-

ford to spend up to $3600 to fi-

nance this operation. Expenses

are up, contributions are down

7.7% and at this point the an-

ticipated operating deficit for the

year is close to $20,000.

The ACLU derives its strength

mainly from the fact that it

sticks to its purposes and doesn't

get involved in political issues

and good causes. To stray from

its purposes will simply invite

more resignations and denial of

support, The ACLU has plenty

to do without taking on the good

causes which have a divisive ef-

fect on the organization.-Ernest

Besig, Executive Director.

these pages, I disagree, however,

with those who condemn the

`Board for acting without first

polling the membership, In the

first place, there is a great dan-

ger that such polls will not pro-

duce a fair sample of the view

of the entire membership. More-

over it is simply foreign to the

concept of a Board of Directors

to suggest that when tough deci-

sions are to be made, the Board

should stay its hand.

Recognizing that reasonable

persons may differ as to the wis-

dom of the Board's action (or

even to the propriety of its acting

at all), I nonetheless am baffled

by the handful of members who

found this single decision an oc-

casion for resignation, ACLUNC

does many things that are right

and renders sO many services

which are simply not provided

-by any other organization, that I

cannot comprehend such actions.

There is a kind of arrogance

there which, in my judgment,

does a great disservice to the

Staff and the Board, who have

labored long in the service of

civil liberties. Board meetings

are long sessions, and Board

Members take their work seri-

ously. Disagreements are com-

mon - discussions often heated

- but holding the whole busi-

ness together is a common com-

mitment to the preservation of

civil liberties. We temper our

disagreements with the knowl-

edge that the issues are tough

ones, worthy of argument,

The definition of civil liberties

was not written on stone; and

controversy over the subject of

the ACLU's proper role is a daily

occurrence, I submit that this

kind of constant institutional in-

trospection and debate is a sign

of organizational health. I simply

do not understand those who re-

gard it as an occasion to bail out.

-Jerome B, Falk, Jr., Member,

Board of Directors.

Supports "'People's Rights"

Editor: - In opposing the po-

sition taken by the ACLUC board

on the war in Southeast Asia,

many ACLU members draw a

distinction between "political" is-

sues such as the war and "apoli-

tical" issues such as civi] liber-

ties, I think that this distinc-

tion is totally unrealistic.

In American society - dom-

inated as it is by big business

interests - any rights the ma-

jority of the people have must

be continually defended against

encroachments by governmental

institutions. The ACLU has long

recognized the need for action

in defense of the rights to free

speech, free assembly, and due

process in crimina] proceedings.

But just as the people must con-

tinually fight against the gov-

ernment's efforts to silence and

oppress them, they must fight

against the government's efforts

to involve them in wars which

benefit big business.

Any organization concerned

_with the rights of the people

must recognize that govern-

mental action which sends young -

men to be killed in an unde-

clared; illegal and immoral war

is as dangerous to the people's

rights as action which limits

freedom of speech or the length

of someone's hair. I congratulate

the ACLU board on its actions

and look forward to similar ef-

forts in the future -Dan Siegel,

Oakland.

Withholding Financia] Support

Editor: - For the past several

months, I have followed with in-

terest the activities of the A.C.-

L.U. and have felt certain mis-

givings over some of its activi-

-Continued on Page 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subcription Rates - Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy a

Board Vote Feb. 18

Pros and Cons

of Membership

Integration

The branch Board of Directors will hold a special meeting

on February 18 in order to dispose of the nagging problem

of financial and membership integration with the national

office. While the board welcomes the opinions of the mem-

bership (now standing 174 to 37 against merging), under the

Corporation Code responsibility for making a decision be-

longs to the board alone. The board also agreed that the Feb-

ruary NEWS should include opposing statements on integra-

tion. The statements follow:

For Merging

Michael Harris

Branch Board Member

The ACLU's branch in North-

ern California has led a lively,

useful-but remarkably isolated

-existence.

Those of.us who favor joining

more closely with the national

organization believe the _ isola-

tion has limited our effectiveness

for several very important rea-

sons. o

Perhaps the most serious prob-

lem is that about 40 per cent of

the ACLU members in Northern

California belong only to the

national. organization, They are

not members of ACLU of North-

ern California.

Monthly Paper

They may be described as

separate but unequal members.

They express their concern about

civil liberties by paying dues to

the national ACLU - but they

don't get our monthly paper or

-any other information from us

telling them about civil liberties

problems in their own neighbor-

hood. We don't even know their

names.

And we, alone of all members

of the ACLU, do not receive the

national organization's newspa-

per describing civil liberties

problems elsewhere in the coun-

try. a

Civil liberties are not a local

matter. What affects the liber-

_ties of anybody anywhere affects

all of us. We should end this

patently artificial division.

Financial Points

There are four financial points

to consider:

1. ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia does not contribute anything

to any of the vital national proj-

ects from which all supporters

of civil liberties benefit. Alone

among all ACLU affiliates, we do

not contribute toward help-

ing the ACLU Washington office

in its difficult fights in Congress

and the courts, toward aiding the

work of the ACLU in the Deep

South or toward such pioneering

efforts as the New Jersey Ghetto

Project.

These are enterprises in which

we take great pride-but we let

Southern California, New York,

Detroit and other affiliates pay

the bills.

Autonomy

2. Our autonomy in making

civil liberties decisions is not in-

volved in the issue of whether

we should integrate our finances

with the national organization.

Like all other affiliates, we will

have the right to undertake or

reject cases-whether we inte-

grate or whether we do not.

The stands the national or-

ganization takes through its an.

nual convention and through its

board of directors affect all af-

filiates equally. We have neither

more power nor less power than

the integrated Southern Califor-

nia branch, for example, in ex-

pressing our agreement or dis-

agreement.

Our ability to express our sen-

timents will not change one iota

whether we integrate or whether

we continue our present policy.

Tax Deductibility

3. The problem of tax deducti-

-Continued on Page 4

Against Merging

Ernest Besig

Executive Director

The burden is on those who

advocate a financial merger with

national ACLU to make a case

since the present independent

financial system is working well.

This they have not done. Indeed,

if they could show that the cause

of civil liberties would be ad-

vanced one bit we would gladly

make sacrifices. The chances are,

however, that under integration

there will be less money available

to pay for actual civil liberties

work, especially in northern Cali-

fornia.

Minor Advantages

There are some minor advan-

tages to a financial merger with

national, such as the elimination

of confusion of separate mem-

berships and competition for

funds in northern California, but,

on balance, we would be giving

up a lot more than we would

gain. If circulation of our

monthly NEWS to national mem-

bers and. the national paper to

local members is a real problem,

it can be remedied without merg-

ing and losing tax deductibility.

A supply of each issue of the

NEWS could be sent to na-

tional's mailer for addressing and

national can send a supply of

their papers to our mailer for

addressing.

Overriding Issue

But the overriding issue is tax

deductibility, something that this

branch alone enjoys. National and

other branches never applied for

it. We did and received a favora-

ble ruling from the Internal Reve-

nue Service. That deductibility

would be lost if we merged finan-

cially with a parent group whose

contributors do not enjoy such

deductibility. Some contributors

have already indicated that they

will reduce their contributions if

tax deductibility is lost.

Not only would contributions

diminish under a financial mer-

ger, but overhead costs would in-

crease. The executive director

estimates this increase as $18,-

454, The national office says the

increase would be almost $13,000.

Whoever is right, the increase

in overhead costs is too much.

Loss of Autonomy

At the same time, financial

merger means centralization of

power and loss of autonomy.

Here are a few examples:

1. Integrated affiliates must

become a part of national

ACLU's computer oneration at a

cost to each branch of 64c per

member per year or a total cost

to this branch of almost $10,000

per year. For any local mailing,

including this paper, address

labels would have to be ordered

from New York. It may be con-

venient for national to operate

this way but it is mighty cum-

bersome and costly for the

branch.

2. No special-local appeal for

funds may be made without na-

tional's approval. And, at any

time, national may decide to take

over the solicitation of ALL

membership funds. Indeed, such

_ a proposal was recently turned

down by the national board but

-Continued on Page _4

Seek Rights to

Confrontation

In Draft Cases

ACLUNC has filed an amicus

curiae brief in the United States

Supreme Court urging it to grant

review and reverse the convic-

tion of Daniel Lloyd. Lloyd, a

Jehovah's Witness and conscien-

tious objector, was convicted un-

der the selective service law for

wilful failure to report for in-

duction. Lloyd did not report for

induction but contended that

there was nothing "wilful" in his

refusal. But at his trial he was

not given an opportunity to con-

front the witnesses against him.

The government did not, as is

customary, produce the FBI

agents who observed his failure

to submit to induction, instead

presenting his selective service

file as the only evdience against

him. Lloyd's attorney, Nathan

Smith of San Francisco, insisted'

that his client could not be con-

victed on the basis of simple rec-

ords and that he had a right to

confront his accusers under the

Sixth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

The District Court, however,

ruled that under an exception to

the hearsay rule, known as the

business records exception, the

government could prove its en-

tire case on the basis of records

in the selective service file. The

United States Court of Appeals

sustained that conclusion and

Smith has asked the United

States Supreme Court to review

that decision.

ACLUNC's brief in support of

Lloyd, prepared by volunteer at-

torneys Lee F. Benton and

Michael Traynor of San Fran-

cisco, urges that:

"The `paradigm evil the Con-

frontation Clause was aimed at'

was `trial by affidavit.' In the in-

stant case the prosecution did

not even try by affidavit, for the

documents in Lloyd's Selective

Service file were not even sworn.

The unsworn, uncross-examined

document was critical, and it con-

stituted the prosecution's entire

case.

"A defendant cannot be con-

victed of a crime when there is

no evidence of guilt at all. It

ought to be equally obvious that

a defendant cannot be convicted

of a crime solely on the basis of

hearsay from a declarant who is

neither confronted, cross-exam-

ined, nor even sworn.

"The government cannot move

Ehlert v. United States

U.S. Supreme

Court Hears

Oral Argument

The United States Supreme Court last month heard oral

argument in the case of Ehlert v. United States and took the

case under submission for decision. :

Ehlert is a conscientious objector who was convicted for

failing to submit to induction into the armed forces and sen-

tenced to two years in federal

prison. His defense at trial was

that his local draft board had

improperly refused to consider

his application for conscientious

objector status, an application he

made after receiving his order

to report for induction.

ACLU Position

ACLUNC contends that the

board should have reopened

Ehlert's case, and classified him

as a conscientious objector, un-

der a Selective Service regula-

tion which provides that a draft

board may reopen a registrant's

classification following the mail-

ing of an induction order when

the board finds "that there has

been a change in the registrant's

status resulting from circum-

stances over which the registrant

had no control."

Government Position

The government takes the po-

sition that conscientious objec-

tor status is not a "circumstance

over which one has no control."

But that view, staff counsel Paul

Halvonik contended in his argu-

ment to the court, ignores the

very nature of conscience: `a

conscience that makes known its

presence only at propitious mo-

ments is hardly worthy of the

name." Ss

against a person administratively

without giving him the right to

_ cross-examine the witnesses on

an essential question of intent,

and it ought not to be able to

move against him criminally

without allowing him to confront

and cross-examine the witnesses

against him on the same type of

issue"

The brief also urges that the

right to confrontation where gov-

ernment records are involved has

become extremely significant be-

cause of the increasing multipli-

cation of computerized govern-

mental records.

Patricia Maginnis and Rowena Gurner

Peculiar Reversal in

Abortion-Information Case

The California Court of Appeal has reversed the felony

convictions of Patricia Maginnis and Rowena Gurner for

publishing information about the means for producing or

facilitating an abortion. The publication of such information

is prohibited by Business and Professions Code section 601.

ACLUNC staff counsel Paul Hal-

vonik had asked the Court of

Appeal to reverse the conviction

because the section conflicts with

the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution. But

the Court of Appeal declined to

so rule and reversed the convic-

tion because, in its opinion,

there was insufficient evidence

in the record to demonstrate that

Maginnis and Gurner had com-

mitted the offense.

Police Report

There is no question in any-

body's mind that Gurner and

Maginnis did exactly what the

code section prohibits. At the

trial in Superior Court the case

was submitted on the police re-

port which accurately reflected

what had occurred during a

meeting at which the defend-

ants had distributed abortion in-

formation. The report referred

to the defendants as "unidenti-

fied white females" and it was

agreed by all the parties that the

defendants were, indeed, the un-

identified females. But the Court

of Appeal in an unpublished opin-

- ion, held that there was not the

necessary evidentiary foundation

to support the conviction and,

since the essential identifieation

element was in its view missing,

reversed the conviction.

Federal Suit Being Considered

Thus years of litigation which

began when Maginnis and Gur-

ner openly solicited arrest, have

come to naught. There has been

no decision on the constitution-

ality of section 601. Halvonik is

considering filing a federal suit

on behalf of Maginnis and Gur-

ner seeking a declaration that

the state law is unconstitutional.

Additionally, he has filed a

friend-of-the-court brief in the

San Mateo Superior Court sup-

porting Richard Orser who has

also been arrested for a violation

of section 601. In that brief Hal-

vonik urges that section 601 has

no legitimate purpose but merely

attempts to accomplish what the

First Amendment proscribes: the

naked restriction of the dissemi-

nation of ideas and information.

Late C. O. Applications

The government dropped a bit

of a bombshell at oral argument

by presenting for the first time .

some statistics on late applica-

tions. for conscientious obejctor

status. Between August and Oc-

tober of last year 2,625 late ap-

plications were made. The large

number, the solicitor general

said, demonstrated that a ruling

in Ehlert's favor would be "im-

practical" and would result in

"Gnefficiency" in the administra-

tion of the selective service law.

Halvonik responded that, on the

contrary, the large number of

applicants demonstrated the

need for a construction of the

"Jate filing' regulation that

would not exclude conscientious

objectors. The late claimants are

not going to go away and their

claims will have to be heard in

some forum. The best forum is

the local board whose job it is

to determine the merits of con-

scientious objector claims. If the

claims are not heard by the local

boards the already overburdened

federal courts will find them-

selves further inundated with

selective service proscutions.

That result can hardly be char-

acterized as "practical" or "ef-

ficient."

Stanley J. Friedman Helps

Halvonik was assisted in the

presentation of the oral argu-

ment in Ehlert's case by attorney

Stanley J. Friedman, San Fran-

cisco draft law expert, who pre-

pared the briefs in the case.

Halvonik and Friedman predict

that the Supreme Court will rer-

der its decision by early spring

because the number of cases

similar to Ehlert's pending in the

lower courts is so large. Which-

ever way the court rules, its de-

cision will have far reaching ef-

fects on the lives of thousands

of young men,

Midpeninsula

Meeting Feb. 25

"The Crisis of Liberation'' will

be discussed by Anthony G. Am-

sterdam, Stanford University Pro-

fessor of Law at the Midpeninsu-

la Chapter's annual meeting at

8:00 p.m., Thursday, February

25, to be held at Palo Alto High

School Auditorium, 50 Embarca-

dero Road, Palo Alto.

Following Prof. Amsterdam's

talk there will be a review of

the Chapter's activities in the

past year and election of new

chapter board members,

Prof. Amsterdam hag _repre-

sented the Chicago Seven on

their appeal and Bobby Seale on

his appeal. He represented New

York Times reporter Earl Cald-

wel] in a case involving first |

amendment rights for newspa-

permen in which Caldwell re-

fused to testify before a Grand

Jury against Black Panthers.

Amsterdam is also consultant

and litigating attorney for the

National ACLU and for the NA-

ACP Legal Defense Fund. He is

representing all of the California

death row inmates in a class ac-

tion against the death penalty.

He teaches criminal procedure,

constitutional law and civil rights

law at Stanford University, is

a member of the ACLUNC Board

of Directors, a member of the

Board of California Indian Legal

Services and of the California

Lawyers Constitutiona] Defense

Committee.

ACLU NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1971

Page 3

a

Membership Integration

For Merging

Continued from Page 3-

bility is a side issue that has ob-

scured the basic argument over

integration.

It is instructive to compare the

support given by the two groups

of ACLU members in our area.

Those who belong to the tax-

exempt ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia give the organization just

under $25 a year on the average.

Those who send their dues di-

rectly to the national organiza-

tion give about the same -

slightly more, in fact.

Major gifts' to both ere D: are

tax-deductible. -

Making a policy decision on

the basis of tax deductions

might make a great deal of sense

if we were talking about merging

a couple of department stores.

But we have to remember what

the purpose of ACLU is. We

should make our decision not on

the basis of Internal Revenue

Service requirements but, quite

simply, on how we can serve

civil liberties best.

- Not Much Change

4. No matter what we do, our

financial picture will not change

very much.

If we integrate with the na-

tional, we will start paying our

share toward ACLU's national ac-

tivities from which we all bene-

fit. But we will also start receiv-

ing the dues of the 40 per cent

of the Northern Californians

who do not now belong to our

branch.

If we refuse to integrate, we

won't have to give any money

toward helping support the

Washington office, the work in

Mississippi or the Ghetto Proj-

ect. But the decision to continue

with two separate ACLU or-

ganizations in Northern Califor-

nia will mean we will be giving

up the opportunity to enlist the

cooperation, the skill, the ener-

_ gies-and the dues-of 40 per

cent of our potential member-

ship.

O'Hare Remarks

We had hoped some of these

points would have been made

clear before this time, Rolland

O'Hare of Detroit, member of the

national board of ACLU, flew

out here at his own expense to

discuss financial and other mat-

ters, But unfortunately his re-

marks did not appear in the

ACLU News that followed his

appearance.

We have heard from some of

the members who read the ar-

guments against integration and

who expressed their opposition.

Unfortunately we have not been

able to reach the 40 per cent of

the potential membership now

outside our branch in Northern

California. We want to welcome

them to our ranks,

People's Park

Arrestee Keeps

Credential

Colleen Eldridge of Berkeley

was arrested in the largest of

the mass arrests during the Peo-

ple's Park incident in Berkeley.

Her arrest took place on Uni-

versity: Avenue near Shattuck.

Like the hundreds of those ar-

rested with her, Miss Eldridge's

case was dismissed by the Berk-

eley Municipal Court for failure

of the police to prove the identi-

fication of the arrestees, This did

not satisfy the Committee of

Credentials of the State Depart-

ment of Education, however, and

they initiated proceedings to re-

voke her teaching credential.

Miss Eldridge was represented

at the informal hearing on the

revocation of her credential by

assistant staff counsel Charles

Marson. The Committee, as has

become usual for these cases,

voted (with reluctance) in favor

of Miss Eldridge.

Page 4

ACLU NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1971

Against Merging

Continued from Page 3-

then referred to a special com-

mittee for study,

3. This year, for the first time,

all integrated branches are: RE-

QUIRED to give 5% of their net

income to a Crisis Areas Fund.

He who pays the piper calls

the tune. Whoever controls fi-

nances controls the ACLU's

work.

One product of financial in-

tegration is extra contributions

_from unwary members. This re-

sults from national's practice of

exchanging mailing lists with

magazines and _ organizations,

something which the local

branch does NOT do, In using

such lists, national is not per-

_ mitted to screen out the names

We have received

many complaint's about na-

tional's practice of keeping

money from members who mis-

takenly assume their member-

ships had expired. National

treats such money as extra con-

tributions. In this way, contrib-

utions from the area may in-

erease as a result of financial in-

tegration but at a cost of loss of

some members' good will and

their privacy as well.

The argument that this branch

is free-loading and that under in-

tegration it will not be paying its

just share of the cost of national

work is a phony, emotional one.

The fact is that under financial

integration national won't re-

ceive any more from this area

than it does at the present time.

Such dollars do not take on any

sanctity because they are chan-

neled through the national or

local ACLU. There is a limited

reservoir of financial support for

the ACLU in northern Califor-

nia. If national is receiving its

fair share, as it is (over

$100,000), there should be no

complaint. If it were not receiv-

ing its fair share some of us

would be in favor of the branch

making a contribution to _ it

through national's tax exempt

corporation, .

Income From No. Cal.

According to national's own

figures for eleven months of the

last calendar year, unintegrated

Northern California is virtually

tied with integrated Southern

California as the second largest

source of membership income

for national. Here are the fig-

ures:

of members,

1. New York State ....$129,070

2. Southern Calif. ...... 93,761

3. Northern Calif, ...... 93,364

4 llinois; 2. = 67,529

Space limitations do not allow

a complete statement of the ar-

guments against financial mer-

ger with national. For further ar-

guments, see the December,

1970 issue of the NEWS.

Right to Counsel

Calif. Court of.

Appeal Vacates

Judgment

Walter Huntsman is serving a

term for robbery in San Quentin,

When he was sentenced his at-

torney failed to appear at the

hearing. The Court proceeded to

sentence him anyway, arguing

the presence of his counsel at

sentencing would not have made

any difference.

Since this is a clear violation

of a holding by the United States

Supreme Court (Mempa v. Rhay)

which extends the right to counsel

to sentencing proceedings, AC-

LUNC agreed to file habeas cor-

pus in the Court of Appeal on be-

half of Mr. Huntsman. He had

previously filed habeas corpus in

the Marin Superior Court and had

it denied.

On January 14 the court of

Appeal heard ora] argument in

Huntsman's case, The matter was

so plain that the Attorney Gen-

eral did not argue that error

had not been committed, The

Board Grants

Complaint Center

Financial Aid

At its meeting on January 14,

the branch board of directors

voted to support Berkeley/AI-

bany's Police Conduct Complaint

Center to a maximum monthly

cost of $400 for the balance of

the fiscal year beginning Feb-

ruary 1.

Opposition to the resolution

maintained that the Center dealt

with questions of fact rather

than law and hence was not a

civil liberties matter, that if the

Branch was to be financially res-

ponsible for the Center it should

have control over its operation,

and that the allocation of $400

per month was unwise because

it would raise the branch's defi-

cit to $19,000 for the fiscal year.

The text of the resolution fol-

lows:

RESOLVED: That commenc-

ing with the month of February

1971, and continuing for the re-

mainder of the current fiscal

year, ACLUNC shal] underwrite

the cost of operation of the Pol-

ice Complaint Center operated

by the Berkeley/Albany Chap-

ter, up to a maximum monthly

cost of $400, it being understood

that the Berkeley/Albany Chap-

ter will make every effort to

continue to raise funds (beyond

those required for its normal

operation) so as to minimize the

Branch's obligations under this

resolution.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That

financing of the Center after the

current fiscal year will be the

Chapter's responsibility, and that

any further request for Branch

financing of the Center shall be

submitted through the Budget

Committee for consideration as

part of the annual budget.

San Fran. Council

Marijuana

Symposium

The smoking of marijuana as

a civil liberty is the topic of

a symposium to be held Sunday,

February 7 at 7:30 P.M, in the

Forum of the Fireman's Fund

building at 3333 California St.

presented by the San Francisco

Council.

"The Case for Grass" wil be

explored by Dean William Keogh

of Stanford Law School; Dr. Bar-

ry Ramer, director of the Center

for Special Problems, a San

Francisco drug clinic; California

Assemblyman Kenneth Meade of

Berkeley and Piedmont; Richard

Hongisto, journalist and former

San Francisco policeman; Dr.

Todd Mikuriya, Oakland psychi-

atrist and director of research at

Everett Gladman Hospital; and

Michael Metzger and Daniel H.

Weinstein, San Francisco at-

torneys who have defended per-

sons arrested under marijuana

charges.

The ACLU presently contends

that the use of marijuana is with-

in the right of privacy protected

by the Constitution, and that no_

justification has been established

for governmental intrusion into

such a zone of privacy, However,

when the ACLUNC board of di-

rectors voted in March of 1969

to oppose any punishment for

marijuana possession and use,

six of 26 members voted `no".

Their argument held that there

was sufficient information avail-

able to justify the exercise of

police power and that the right

of privacy was being stretched

beyond recognition.

The ACLUNC majerity also

hold that marijuana use has not

been shown to be dangerous to

the user or to cause harm to

others, and that criminal penal-

ties in marijuana cases are s6

harsh that they may be subject

to Constitutional objections as

cruel and unusual punishment.

Court of Appeal ruled from the

bench, ordering that the judge-

ment be vacated and that Hunts-

man be returned to the court

which convicted him for resen-

tencing,

- LETTERS.

. TO THE EDITOR"

we

Continued from Page 2-

ties. Many of my feelings have

been well expressed by other

members in their letters which

you have published, and no good

would be served by repeating

them here.

I join those who doubt the

wisdom of our involvement in

Southeast Asia and at the same

time object to the A.C.L.U. be-

coming involved in this question.

I join those who say that the

A.C.L.U. is a necessary watchdog

in the civil liberties field, is do-

ing work that no other organiza-

tion is doing, and therefore must

be supported. I also agree with

those who feel that the A.C.L.U.

is occasionally overstepping its

bounds as in the `near-persecu-

tion," if you will , of an other-

wise respected law-abiding busi-

nessman who chose not to open

his restaurant to ladies at noon.

The dilemma, at this point, is

whether to continue to support

the A.C.L.U, for the good it is

doing, or to express my displea-

sure by refusing to continue to

support the organization finan-

cially, the only form of protest

that carries much punch, unfor-

tunately. My solution to this di-

lemma is to subscribe to the

ACLU News only, and when, in

the months or years ahead, I see

that this organization is devoting

itself to its original and right-

ful purposes, I shall renew my

full membership and my support.

To those of -your members and

readers who feel as I do, I sug-

gest this course of action and I

hope that their numbers will be

many and that their voice will not

go unrecognized, - John Allan

Bier, D.D.S., San Francisco,

Not Our Business

_ Editor: - I wish to lodge a

protest against the action of the

national board in sending money

to the Canadian Civil Liberties

- Union in order to support the

latter's fight against the War

Measures Act. As Roger Baldwin

has explained, the activities of

the ACLU are restricted to the

United States and its possessions.

There are several good reasons

for this limitation, one of them

being that in a case like this we

cannot fully judge what emer-

gency measures the situation

may require in a foreign coun-

try. Our Canadian sister organi-

zation may have excellent rea-

sons for its opposition, but. it is

not our business to approve (or

disapprove) its attitude.

To be sure, events outside our

borders may sometimes cal] for

a stand by our organization, but

only if a responsibility of the

United States is involved and

thereby the affair becomes an

American case, In the fall of

1945, I suggested that the ACLU

should take a stand against the

Nuremberg indictment of the

Nazi war criminals for having

waged aggressive war, because the

tribunal's charter, in designating

war-making as a crime, was clear-

ly enacting ex-post facto law. (I

fully approved of the indictment -

for violations of the laws of war-

fare and for crimes against hu-

manity.) The national ACLU,

over the signature of Mr. Hays,

rejected my suggestion with argu-

ments which did not seem con-

vincing to me, nor do they do

so now. The decisive point was

that here the. United States Gov-

ernment, together with three oth-

er governments, had drawn up

the charter and undertook the

prosecution, In a similar case I

would again approve of an ac-

tion by the ACLU. - Carl Lan-

dauer, Berkeley.

Editor: - Jerry Burns, in his

letter of Jan, `71, seems to think

equal rights for women are hilari-

ous. One can imagine his com-

ments about the rights of blacks

to eat hotdogs and hamburgers

at dimestore lunch counters back

in the fifties.

. Right down the line, from vot-

ing to equal salary for equal

work, one can substitute the word

"woman" for the word "black."

`It would be nice to have Mr.

Burns on our sides, but we'l] get

there without him. Playing games

with comments about "braless,

ugly, lesbian" women shouldn't

fool anyone concerned with civil

rights-S,. Dye, San Francisco.

Reply From Berkeley)

Editor: - In Mr. Machlis's let-

ter of resignation in the Janu-

ary NEWS, he gives as an ex-

ample of "the blatant politics of

the Berkeley-Albany Chapter"

his version of our response to

an arrest incident which occur-

red on the U.C, campus some

months `ago.

He states that `Immediately, the

Berkeley-Albany Chapter public-

ly announced they had some 14

witnesses that the police had be-

haved wrongly.'' Fact: Shortly

after the incident occurred, the

Chronicle called the ACLU-BA.

office and asked if any witnesses

had called us regarding the in-

cident, We did not solicit the

Chronicle story. We told the re-

porter that severa] individuals

had indeed called us stating they

had seen the incident, and that -

we had a total of 14 names and

phone numbers of alleged wit-

nesses, (Should we have with-

held this information?) The story

which appeared in the August

22 edition of the Chronicle con-

tained severa] inaccuracies, Did

Mr. Machlis base his conclusions

about our part in the incident

on the Chronicle story, or did

he call us to verify its basis in-

fact?

Mr, Machlis states that "I am

sure that in the Plaza area and

Telegraph Ave. one can always

get two dozen witnesses to accuse

a policeman of wrongfu] behav-

ior." Fact: Of the 14 persons

whose names are on file, seven

took the time to fill out our wit- .

ness statement, Two were TV

photographers from Finland, one

a retired psychiatrist, two were

students, one a writer and sub-

stitute teacher, one a visiting

professor from New York, We

did not "get" any of these wit-

nesses; they came to us. Was Mr,

Machlis a witness, or was he re-

porting `another party's version

of the incident? If he was an

eyewitness, we would have wel-

comed a statement from him.

Mr. Machlis states: "Their (B-

A's) rule of thumb seems to be

that in any interaction between

police and people in South and

West Berkeley, the police are

always affronting someone's civil

liberties." Fact: Our office re-

.ceives more complaints by citi-

zens about alleged violations of

their civil liberties by police

than by any other public agent.'

However, we have never stated

nor implied that the police are .

always affronting someone's civil

liberties.

When complaints concerning

the police come from citizens in

South and West Berkeley, should

ACLU ignore them? - Diane

Schroerluke, Coordinator Police

Conduct Complaint Center, AC-

LU-BA.

Opening Victory

In Pantsuit

Skirmish

Richmond Municipal Judge Bet-

sy Rahn refused to permit a de-

fendant in a criminal case to ap-

pear in her court wearing a pant-

suit. Judge Rahn demanded that

she wear a skirt. The defendant,

a woman with badly scarred legs,

refuses to appear in a skirt and

in fact does not own one.

ACLUNC volunteer attorney

George Chaffey of Pittsburg took

the matter to the Contra Costa

Superior Court where he sought a

writ invalidating the rule against

pantsuits and permitting a de-

fendant to appear in attire other

than a skirt. Superior Court Judge

Thomas McBride has granted a

temporary restraining order in-

validating Judge Rahn's rule. The |

hearing on a permanent injunction

is scheduled for later this month.