◆ SpookStack

PAGE TWO ivan RELATES THAT USUALLY THE MANDATE OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS IS NOT FILED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOME 21 DAYS AND ~ | THE APPELLANTS HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY INTEND TO APPEAL TO THE U.sS. SUPRFME COURT. BROWNING STATED THAT’ HIS OFFICE IS PRESENTLY CONTEMPLATING ASKING FOR AN’ IMMEDIATE MANDATE FROM THE U.S. ‘COURT ae oe OF APPEALS OR SEEKING A DISMISSAL OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE | ALFONSO, ZIRPOLI *S‘ORDER GRANTING THE APPELLANT" s RELEASE. ON-THEIR “y n % \ x GaN RECOGNIZANCE. ° - o — : BROWNING POINTS OUT.THAT THE BUREAU MAY BE INTERESTED INA eS FOOTNOTE TO THE COURT* ‘S$ DECISION CONCERNING "RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF ELECTRIC SURVEILLANCE. THE FOOTNOTE CONCERNS TESTIMONY “OF MR. BRANDON ALVEY, SPECIAL ATTORNEY IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD MADE INQUIRY OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS OF THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND HAD LEARNED THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD NOT BEEN THE’ SUBJECT OF ANY: ELECTRIC SURVEILLANCE. THE FOOTNOTE READS "BECAUSE MR. ALVEY WAS NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE RECORD YEEPING AND PRACTICES OF OTHER. AGENCIES , HIS TESTIMONY IN THESE RESPECTS WAS OF A HEARSAY NATURE. AS THIS COURT NOTED AT ORAL ARGUMENT AND EMPHASIZES HERE, MUCH TIME, EFFORT, AND EXPENSE OF PARTIES, ATTORNEYS AND COURTS END PAGE Two. weg “4 . oe