◆ SpookStack

in these @.;. and the electronic @csr1ance issue is ripe | : 88 to the other motions ‘filed by the witnesses, _ . | Upon analysis, the affidavits appear to fulfill ce conditions imposed by the July 13. remorandum and, therefore, to constitute satisfactory denials of nla al activity under 18 U. S.C. § 3504, The filings with respect ‘td-both. witnesses ; are identical. in each instance, the. primary docuzent is an ffidavit ‘by John. 3. ‘Smythe, an F. B, I. sage in kashington, .C., who is "res] onsible for maintaini the * ‘xecord: - P ng the As peontain, . sikh as being ‘ing the names of individuals who have been idéntifie as ; being participants. in. conversations monitored by erect temic sur- i . | jfotudecision, Accordingly, I now tur to that issue, @s well { [ t |: ; } | 5 veillances conducted by the Federal Bureau of. Investigation | _ from 1960 to the present. " Frage inex aftidavit states that Smythe searched the records ing Wishihge ton and: caused a search if Soe to be made of the appropriate field offices of the F. B. T.y and oh that asa result of those searches, the affiant has deternined “that "Jey Weiner was never the subject of electronic surveil - ‘lance coverage ackegtt any of his conversations ever monitore< 2 aN ee by. the Federal Bureau of Investigation. " In addition, Smythe state Ss that he nas deternivied thet the FB, q.. “aid not maintain have én ‘omed, leased, or Lice snsed ‘by. Jay Weiner." _shinnde tease is identical in 211. material respects, % “GStompanying the Smythe affidavits are two affida- ~ arate ——_—S “any electronic surveillance on premises which were known to =) vits by Bran ‘8h Alvey, én attorney in the Criminal Division of the United States Departcent of Justice, one concerning Weined | And one with ressect to Shinnick. The Veiner affidavit state J. that Alvey caused an inguiry to.be made of the £olleving Rix al sy | Ect ot agencies to determine if there has been any electronic. — INP ZEEE ag ere on * cg shams Soe Ede Tete wet fen eke, ef sd