◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1870 97 during the pretrial discovery in this suit, the federal defendants continued to engave in dilatory and obstructive factics to conceal evidence of their involvement in the planning of the raid. ... His [Sadunas’] examination resulted in a crucial mis- identification which would have remained un- corrected absent Zimmers’ subsequent tests and conclusions. ... Because of the high esteem in which I hold my brother Swygert, it is with considerable regret that I feel compelled to observe that had I not had an acquain- tanceship with the case as a member of the panel prior to reading Judge Swygert’s opinion I could, upon the completion of the lengthy process of reading it, well have entertained the idea that the case involved a group of political idealists who had been subjected to a cleverly orchestrated governmental persecution designed not just to neutralize their effectiveness! but to remove them from the American scene physically. It is time, it seems to me, to look realistically at the group to which the local authorities directed their activities pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant. The state defendants have summarized from the record of this case the matters pertaining to the Black Panther Party which undoubtedly engaged the attention of law enforcement agencies. Because this factual infor- mation does not appear to be subject to challenge as to accuracy I note some of the salient aspects thereof. The Black Panther Party was a militant, black, ex- tremist, paramilitary, uniformed organization formed in Oakland, California in 1966. It was a violent, revolutionary organization, which by party edict re- quired its members to own and know how to use weapons and to have access to more than one weapon. The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party proclaimed that a class struggle in this country required ' Whatever the situation may now be, or should be, it is doubtful that in 1969 attempts to discredit groups thought to be presenting a clear and present danger of violence was a violation of First Amendment rights.