◆ SpookStack

OPTOwasl FON eo 1O 3016-104 maT 1962 EDITION Ga GIN REG MO 2? Felt : UNITED STA” 3 COVERNMENT Bates i Bishop — M. d. 1 - Mr. Felt Callahan __ EMmoranaum 1 - Mr. Bishop Campbell —_ 1 - Mr. Dalbey ed it 1 - Mr, Miller albey — TO Nr, EWS. milla’ Beit. D7 aBo 72 Murshopl a 1 + Mr. Shackelford Millef, Es. Me A.W, Gra 1- Mr. gis oyare | FROM y We 1 - — Sos ars Tele. Room __ Mr. Kintey Mr. Armstrong — eAN y 3 Ms. Herwig MAN © tf od a Mrs. Neenan ~~ sunyecr. ABBOTT HOWARD HOFFMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS ABBIE‘ HOFF ANTIRIOT LAWS 2 & C This is the case in which Abbie Hoffman was indicté¢d on 5/13/71 by a Federal Grand Jury at Washington, D.C., on antiriot charges. The charges were based on his travel from Oklahoma to Washington, D,.C., to participate in the disruptions which occurred during the Mayday Demonstrations in Washington, D.C, during the Spring of 1971, and his interference with a police officer during the disruptions, By memorandum dated 12/3/71 (A.W. Gray to E.S. Miller), you were advised that Hoffman raised the electronic surveillance issue by pretrial motion, that the U.S, District Court ruled that some overhearings of Hoffman were illegal because they resulted from surveillances authorized by the Attorney General under Presidential authority and were directed against domestic organizations and that trial date was set for 12/3/71. You were also advised that on 12/2/71 the court granted a Government motion for continuance pending a decision by the Supreme Court in U.S. versus U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division and Honorable Damon J, Keith, U.S. District Judge, That case involved the question of the legality of electronic surveillance of domestic organizations authorized by the Attorney General under Presidential authority. As you know, the Supreme Court ruled against the Government in that. case, V4 | | x BY 22 3 “a ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED Mr, Joseph Tafe, Internal Security Division, has now advised that in view of the above-mentioned Supreme Court decision, the Department has decided to file a motion to dismiss the ahove- mentioned charges against Hoffman. Tafe advised the motion will be filed later this week. =, REC-49 a a ; | | // ACTION: Lem “~ f ACTION nn ees TE : nd al For information, ot —§ B ut 31 1979, ae . # u ' . qa: ~&i_ DATE2 oa fh IE 4