Secretary of Defense of the United States; between January 20 and January 22, 1969 Stanley R. Resor was the Acting Secretary of Defense of the United States; on January 22, 1969 defendant Melvin R. Laird became the Secretary of Defense of the United States. At all times material herein defendant James J. Rowley has been the Director of the United States Secret Service and defendant Richard Helms has been the Director of the Central Intelligenge Agency. All activities of the defendants in the premises were performed in furtherance of their official duties, were undertaken in good faith and in the reasonable belief that such activities were necessary, lawful and within the scope of their authority. Defendants are, therefore, not liable to the plaintiffs in damages for such activity. SIXTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs' claims, contained in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Complaint, that the overheard conversations referred to in paragraphs 4 through 6 of the Complaint included matters relevant to the defense of plaintiffs Ellsberg and Russo in United States v. Anthony Joseph Russo, Jr. and Daniel Ellsberg, No. 9373-CD-WMB (C.D. Calif., filed December 29, 1971) and that such surveillance also constituted a violation of the rights of plaintiffs Ellsberg and Russo to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment have been previously and finally adjudicated and determined against plaintiffs Ellsberg and Russo and in favor of the Government in Anthony J. Russo, Jr. and Daniel Ellsberg v. Honorable William Matthew Byrne, Jr., United States District Judge for the Central District of California, No. 72-2306 (9th Cir., decided July 26, 1972), cert. denied, 41 L.W. 3271 (No. 72-307, November 13, 1972). The previous adjudication and determination of plaintiffs' claims aforesaid stand unreversed and unmodified and are in full force and effect. Said claims, therefore, were and are res judicata between plaintiffs and the defendants in this cause, and are barred by res judicata and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. SEVENTH DEFENSE Answering specifically the allegations contained in the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint, the defendants aver: 1. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e. and 1.f. of the Complaint. 2. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 2.b., 2.c., 2.d., 2.e., 2.g., 2.h. and 2.i. of the Complaint. Defendants admit that defendant John N. Mitchell was Attorney General of the United States between January 20, 1969 and March 1, 1972, and that defendant Richard G. Kleindienst succeeded him as Attorney General of the United States. Defendants are not required to respond to the remaining conclusory allegations contained in paragraph 2.a. of the Complaint. Answering the allegation contained in paragraph 2.f. of the Complaint, defendants deny that "Charles Walters" is the Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service and allege that Johnnie M. Walters is the Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service. Defendants are not required to respond to the John Doe allegations contained in paragraph 2.j. of the Complaint. 3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Defendants deny that the "acknowledgement" pertained to "one or more" of plaintiffs' attorneys or consultants for the defense and allege that the July 21, 1972 in camera submission pertained to only one of plaintiffs' attorneys or consultants, as subsequently disclosed by the Court in United States v. Russo on July 25, 1972. Defendants admit the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint not inconsistent with defendants' denial and allegations herein. 5. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, except that they allege that disclosure has been made to that Court in camera. 6. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 7. Defendants respectfully decline to respond to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint because either to admit or deny said allegations would reveal privileged information, except that defendants deny that any overheard conversation of plaintiffs included matters relevant to the defense of plaintiffs Ellsberg and Russo. 8.-9. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Complaint. WHEREFORE, defendants, having fully answered the allegations contained in the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint, respectfully pray that the Complaint herein be dismissed. Respectfully submitted. A. WILLIAM OLSON, Assistant Attorney General. EDWARD S. CHRISTENBURY, Attorney, Department of Justice. BENJAMIN C. FLANNAGAN, Attorney, Department of Justice. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Amended Answer to Complaint was served on the plaintiffs by mailing a copy thereof to their Attorney, David Rein, Esquire, FORER & REIN, 430 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20004 on January 29, 1973. BENJAMIN C. FLANNAGAN, Attorney, Department of Justice. (Attorney for Defendants.) U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action No. 2083-72 KATHARINE C. WORDEN, PLAINTIFF, V. ROBERT DOLE, Chairman, Republican National Committee, GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Secretary of the Treasury, James J. ROWLEY, Director, U.S. Secret Service, Treasury Department, RICHARD KLEINDIENST, Attorney General, Department of Justice, L. PATRICK GRAY III, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, HOTEL FONTAINEBLEAU CORP., Miami Beach, Fla.; and JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS. ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS SHULTZ, ROWLEY, KLEINDIENST AND GRAY Come now George P. Shultz, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, James J. Rowley, the Director of the United States Secret Service, Richard G. Kleindienst, the Attorney General of the United States, and L. Patrick Gray, III, the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, hereinafter the Federal defendants, by their undersigned attorneys, and in answer to the Amended Complaint herein filed, insofar as said allegations refer to them, say: FIRST DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE At all times material herein defendant George P. Shultz was the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, defendant James J. Rowley was the Director of the United States Secret Service, defendant Richard G. Kleindienst was the Attorney General of the United States and defendant L. Patrick Gray, III was the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All activities of the Federal defendants in the premises were performed in furtherance of their official duties, were within the scope of their authority, and were not in excess of their statutory authority. The Federal defendants are, therefore, absolutely immune from civil liability therefor under the doctrine of official immunity. THIRD DEFENSE The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars any suit against the United States where the United States has not consented to be sued. This suit, insofar as the allegations of the Amended Complaint refer to the Federal defendants, is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity since it is in law and fact a suit against the United States to which the United States has not consented. FOURTH DEFENSE At all times material herein defendant George P. Shultz was the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, defendant James J. Rowley was the Director of the United States Secret Service, defendant Richard G. Kleindienst was the Attorney General of the United States and defendant L. Patrick Gray, III was the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All activities of the Federal defendants in the premises were performed in furtherance of their official duties, were undertaken in good faith and in the reasonable belief that such activities were necessary, lawful and within the scope of their authority. The Federal defendants are, therefore, not liable to the plaintiff in damages for such activity. FIFTH DEFENSE Answering specifically the allegations contained in the numbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint, the Federal defendants aver: 1. The Federal defendants admit that the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint for the relief described therein, but deny that the Court has jurisdiction over them under 18 U.S.C. §2520, 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332, 1337, 1343 or 1357, or 42 U.S.C. §1985 (3) or by reason of the First, Fourth, Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States or otherwise; and deny that the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the value of $10,000. The Federal defendants deny that any action has been taken by them in violation of plaintiff's constitutional or other legal rights, deny that they are liable in damages to the plaintiff under said amendments and statutes or under any other provision of law, and deny that plaintiff is entitled to judicial relief in any form or fashion. The Federal defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint. 2. The Federal defendants do not contest the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. 3.-5. The allegations contained in paragraphs 3 through 5 of the Amended Complaint refer to defendants other than the Federal defendants. Accordingly, the Federal defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 through 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6.-9., The Federal defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 6 through 9 of the Amended Complaint. 10. The allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint refer to defendants other than the Federal defendants. Accordingly, the Federal defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint. 11. The Federal defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint insofar as said allegations refer to them. The Federal defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint. 12.-14. The Federal defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 12 through 14 of the Amended Complaint. 15.-16. The Federal defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Amended Complaint insofar as said allegations refer to them. The Federal defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Amended Complaint. 17.-21. The Federal defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 17 through 21 of the Amended Complaint. 22.-24. The Federal defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 22 through 24 of the Amended Complaint insofar as said allegations refer to them. The Federal defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraphs 22 through 24 of the Amended Complaint... 25. The Federal defendants repeat and reallege every answer to paragraphs 12 through 23 of the Amended Complaint. 26. The Federal defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint. :. 27. The Federal defendants repeat and reallege every answer to paragraphs 12 through 23 of the Amended Complaint. 28. The allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint refer to defendants other than the Federal defendants. Accordingly, the Federal defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, the Federal defendants, having fully answered the allegations contained in the numbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint, respectfully pray that the Amended Complaint herein be dismissed. Respectfully submitted. A. WILLIAM OLSON, Assistant Attorney General. EDWARD S. CHRISTENBURY, Attorney, Department of Justice. BENJAMIN C. FLANNAGAN, Attorney, Department of Justice. (Attorneys for Defendants Shultz, Rowley, Kleindienst and Gray.) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of the foregoing Answer to Amended Complaint by Defendants Shultz, Rowley, Kleindienst and Gray were served on the plaintiff and on defendants 1, 2, 3 and 8 by mailing copies thereof to: 1. MELVIN L. WULF, Esquire; SANFORD JAY ROSEN, Esquire; JOHN H. F. SHATTUCK, Esquire-American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 22 East 40th Street, New York, N. Y. BRUCE ROGOW, Esquire, City National Bank Building, suite 733, 25 Ms. HOPE EASTMAN, 410 First Street, Washington, D.C. 2. FRED C. SCRIBNER, Jr., Esquire; E. VICTOR WILLETTS, Jr., Esquire Scriber, Hall, Thornburg & Thompson, suite 1209, 1200 18th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendants Robert Dole and Republican National Committee. 3. KENNETH WELLS PARKINSON, Esquire; THOMAS PENFILED JACKSON, Esquire; JAMES P. SCHALLER, Esquire-Jackson, Gray & Laskey, 1828 L. Street NW., suite 1111, Washington, D.C. PAUL L. O'BRIEN, Esquire; W. FRANK STICKLE, Jr., Esquire; RALPH N. ALBRIGHT, Esquire-Hanson, O'Brien, Birney, Stickle & Butler, 888 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendant Committee for the Re-Election of the President. 4. JAMES J. BIERBOWER, Esquire; ALVIN B. DAVIS, Esquire-Bier bower & Rockefeller, 1625 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.. Attorneys for Defendant Hotel Fontainebleau Corporation. on December 13, 1972. BENJAMIN C. FLANNAGAN Attorney, Department of Justice. (Attorney for Defendants Shultz, Rowley, Kleindienst and Gray.) + U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ABDEEN M. JABARA, PLAINTIFF, v. L. PATRICK GRAY III, as Acting ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Come now the defendants, by their undersigned attorneys, and in answer to the Complaint herein filed, say: FIRST DEFENSE The Complaint is insufficient to create the case or controversy required under Article III of the Constitution to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. SECOND DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. THIRD DEFENSE The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars any suit against the United States where the United States has not consented to be sued. This suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity since it is in law and fact a suit against the United States to which the United States has not consented. FOURTH DEFENSE On March 2, 1972 defendant Richard G. Kleindienst became the Acting Attorney General of the United States and, on June 12, 1972, the Attorney General of the United States. Until May 2, 1972 J. Edgar Hoover was the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; on May 3, 1972 defendant L. Patrick Gray, III became the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At all times material herein defendant Neil J. Welch has been the Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and defendant Winston T. Churchill has been a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All activities of the defendants in the premises were performed in furtherance of their official duties, were within the scope of their authority, and were not in excess of their statutory authority. The defendants are, therefore, absolutely immune from civil liability therefor under the doctrine of official immunity. FIFTH DEFENSE On March 2, 1972 defendant Richard G. Kleindienst became the Acting Attorney General of the United States and, on June 12, 1972, the Attorney General of the United States. Until May 2, 1972 J. Edgar Hoover was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; on May 3, 1972 defendant L. Patrick Gray, III became the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At all times material herein defendant Neil J. Welch has been the Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and defendant Winston T. Churchill has been a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All activities of the defendants in the premises were performed in furtherance of their official duties, were undertaken in good faith and in the reasonable belief that such activities were necessary, lawful and within the scope of their authority. Defendants are, therefore, not liable to the plaintiffs in damages for such activity. SIXTH DEFENSE This suit, to the extent the Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to obtain the disclosure of the contents of the investigative files of the Federal |