Appendix — United States v. Johnson
Supreme Court brief1966
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
INDEX
Table of Contents
Vol. I
Page
II snhceriecnsicensneennsintsiibiilomienisinisibidaieitil 1
' POCKET ENTRIES WITH ORDERS OF
IIIT sticdnintrveictotinnmnssinensinsiicicntenucsieileiinsamsabiegesait 30
D PRE-TRIAL OPINION .ecccsnsnssssetesnnensntettne 48
> MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST COUNT oo..ccccccccccssse 52
ee
» MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND TO EIGHTH
Be COUNTS .u....ccvsscssssssssssssssessscsssssssesssscessaserersscccessnecessseecssene
| EXCEPTIONS TO CHARGE
PTRIAL PROCEEDINGS ........ccemssssnnnnsennnen
I
I a
EEE TE
I
a i
Russell O. Hickman .0.0..........cccccccecesesessssssesscssesecesssecess
| Frances Brown Kiernan
a ey
RE ERR NI A NEEM TEE INE Os
Page
I Wes SID ceccenvtnennnntemonereesanenensmeiimneaniiin 265
DE Fi CG Re teciicnrnsccecsrencnsncennnyunneneoetvnenaneintianieins 276
IE te IIIIIL inccensnountesconnsienvesievenicenonernseqiiiioniniins 277
I BE III oc cnissnestiniennetsntinsinieapianneniontodectinai 294
a csaunieniaieiedeiciens ~~
Be EE TEI le Seersettinicrinceccccnvssnnitommnenscniagts 355
OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF
DUP TAIT BOT IN cocescccvescevvesesceccesecccecseveverstecesenss 462
IE BID neveintccsvepircernectepnnnnrnsmrnnmencnecninn 466
Vol. II
I cans aeieheivnasonnovireteinmeniecnniig 499
a ilinacidcaen 516
SN ID ociccsoveceheesencensenvitenpnnninnidaninevenpomattonrerens 532
BG FAROE ercneressccscerserercconevovevcousesonapneensnvevereopesseess 535
aI oo esscneunacitsnevennnvesnenesntiontemneovtetienis 558
ie III» srcocerinccsicnsitesorusienseenemnevennnneren 748
EE a ee 784
A Fe cadtnnrnegnernceverseovereereneneventeveseenernennveseeccesoneee 790
I II ceselaneatiingnacioneintingntinenicitiens 806
I Wis BEE vannsastetscsererssvtinreementnninpenenmmneemennan 809
Robert Francis Kennedy .........csscsesssescessseeeseecseseens 837
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT No. 86-b (Memorandum
submitted to Attorney General) ......sccsescsesereseeneseens 895
SPEECH OF MR. JOHNSON IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES (EX. 91) c.ccccccsccccseseseseseeneens 931
EDLIN’S REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO
SE APTI - dainideeacenDersennisertnenensienarmiinniniantigienesnee 938
MOTIONS OF EDLIN FOR A NEW TRIAL AND
FOR JUDGMENTS OF ACQUITTAL NOV............ 953
MOTIONS OF JOHNSON FOR JUDGMENTS OF
RA tae le a 958
iii
Page
MOTIONS OF JOHNSON TO STRIKE TESTIMONY 964
JOHNSON’S REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO
THE JURY ooseessesen 966
MOTION OF JOHNSON FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL NOV and MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL .....
MOTION OF JOHNSON BASED UPON ARGU-
MENT OF THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
SAOOe COCO e OHO E OE OLE OLE EEE EEO OE EEE EEEEEeEEEeeESeeeeeeseseoeeS
RE ROA EAT DSS DEI LE LT ES I TT IE
INDEX
Proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the
ith CIs Nac tnn shine nn duncan dennduenne ed ce
Appellee’s appendix consisting of portions of the record from
the United States District Court for the District of Mary-
Transcript of proceedings (excerpts) --__...._..-.-_.____-
Government witnesses:
Testimony of:
Jackson D. Rains: Direct
Raymond J. Davis:
Mary B. Mitchell: Direct
T. Lamar Caudle: Direct
Defense witnesses:
Testimony of:
Manuei Buarque:
Rudolph Carrico: Cross
F. DeSales Mudd:
William L. Robinson:
Der CEE 5.5 5. oo se dn ccc
Frank W. Boykin: Cross__...-..-_-_______-
Oral argument on behalf of the Government by Mr.
Marion_
Argument by counsel during post-trial proceedings on
August 6, 1963 on alleged improper comment by
prosecutor in opening summation
Opinion, Sobeloff, J
Order extending time to file petition for writ of certiorari___
Order allowing certiorari
989
989
989
989
App. 499
[Tr. 2883-2899]
RUDOLF A. CARRICO
DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Mr. Carrico, where do you live? A. Bryantown, ©
Charles County, Maryland.
Q. And you are a practicing lawyer, I believe? A. At
La Plata, Charles County.
Q. Your office is in La Plata? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is the county seat of Charles County? A.
Charles County, yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Carrico, do you recall doing any legal work
in association with Mr. Johnson in early 1961? A. Yes, I
do.
Q. What did that case relate to? A. Foreclosure of a
mortgage from D. G. & R. to Albert Ernest and assigned
by Albert Ernest to the Charles County Land Company,
and Mr. Johnson asked me if I would be interested in being
associated with him to foreclose the mortgage.
Q. Have you lost your diary for the year 19612 <A. Well,
it is misplaced, yes, sir.
Q. In other words, you are not able to give the exact
dates based upon a diary, then? A. I can give the date
that we started the foreclosure proceedings.
Q. Well, now, before that, do you recall when your dis-
cussions with Mr. Johnson began about this mortgage fore-
closure? A. The only thing I can tell you is some time
prior to June 15, 1961, Congressman Johnson called me
presumably from Washington and asked if I would be
—
App. 500
interested in handling the foreclosure of a mortgage and I
asked him what the mortgage was and what land it involved,
Q. What land did it involve? A. The Linda City prop-
erty, some 7,000—close to 8,000 acres, in the 6th and 8th
Districts of Charles County, near Waldorf.
Q. Now, what did Mr. Johnson tell you was the princi-
pal amount of the mortgage? A. At that time I do not be-
lieve he stated, that is, on the telephone, the principal
amount of the mortgage. However, I did tell him that we
would have to have a statement of the debt and Mr. Johnson
said ‘‘Yes, I know that and I will see that you get that.”
Q. Now, what was th, amount of that mortgage? A.
Close to $6 million. I do not have the statement with me.
I think you have it.
(Mr. Tydings) I think it is in evidence, Your Honor.
(Mr. Doub) There is no dispute about that.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, did Mr. Johnson tell you where you should
obtain the Desser and Garfield original mortgage? A. Yes,
sir, he told me that the mortgage was in the office of Mr.
F. De Sales Mudd, a local attorney in La Plata. He stated
that he had asked Mr. Mudd to handle it for him, handle the
foreclosure proceedings but Mr. Mudd had told him that
he had been retained by Desser & Garfield, and therefore,
there was a conflict of interest and he just could not handle
it. So, at that time when he said that, I said, ‘Well,
Tom,’’—I call him ‘‘Tom,’’ because I have known him fora
number of year, ‘‘I represented Desser & Garfield one
time before the Sanitary Commission, so I do not know
whether I can handle it or not,’’ so we discussed that back
and forth and he decided with me that he did not feel it
would be unethical or any conflict of interest.
However, in order to satisfy my mind that there would
be no conflict of interest or any bad ethies in it, why, I
went over to see Judge Digges, who is the Judge of our
—
App. 501
Cireuit Court, discussed it with him and he could see no
conflict because I was not retained at that time by Desser
& Garfield, and was retained only for the specific pur-
pose to appear before the Sanitary Commission.
Q. Do you recall any conversation with Mr. Johnson with
respect to the standard and usual and customary fees
for the foreclosure of a mortgage in Charles County? A.
Yes, I do.
Q. What did you tell him? A. That the customary fee
was six per cent of the sales price if the property was sold.
However, if it was settled and did not go to sale, then it
would be 3 per cent.
Q. Was it 6 per cent of the sales price, or 6 per cent of
the principal amount of the mortgage? A. Well, it is kind
of cutting fine teeth. We usually look upon it as sales price,
whatever it brings, but you also act based on the affidavit of
indebtedness which, in this instance would be the principal
amount of the mortgage plus the interest.
Q. And, if a mortgage foreclosure was begun and then
the sale was withdrawn? A. Then it is customary to get
3 per cent.
Q. Three per cent of what? A. Of the amount due. That
is the principal plus the interest and that is not only cus-
tomary but it is set forth, I think, in all of our mortgage
forms that we use, and I do not remember whether it was
in this one or not.
(The Court) You mean it is a matter of contract?
(The Witness) Yes, sir.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, do you recall the provision in the mortgage as to
this subject?
(The Court) He said he did not recall. Have you got
it in evidence?
App. 502
(Mr. Doub) What?
(The Court) The witness said he did not recall whether
it was in this mortgage or not so the best evidence would
be what the mortgage said.
Q. Now, did you then prepare a form of advertisement!
A. Yes, I did.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. You drafted one? A. Yes, sir. I might tell you first,
I sent my secretary over to Mr. Mudd’s office in accordance
with the instructions of Congressman Johnson to obtain the
mortgage which my secretary did and then proceeded to
prepare the advertisement.
Q. Was that mortgage assigned to you for foreclosure
purposes? A.Yes, it was.
Q. And what was the next thing you did? A. I pre
pared the advertisement and I sent a copy of the adver-
tisement that I prepared in accordance with my conversa-
tion at Congressman Johnson’s request with him over the
telephone, I sent it to him and he wanted to review the
advertisement before it was put in the papers, and the
two papers that he instructed me to put it in was the
Washington Post and the Maryland Independent.
Q. Now, I show you a paper and ask you whether you
prepared it and what it is. A. Yes, sir, this is a copy of
the original draft for the advertisement for the sale of the
property with which we are concerned, to wit, the Linda
City property.
Q. That was your draft? A. That is a copy of my
original draft.
Q. Now, what did you do with that draft after you pre-
pared it? A. sent a copy to Congressman Johnson for his
review.
By Mr. Doub:
y
SEY CPLR EERE RIOD IE ALI ORE IT TEED ELE ERE LES OM OEE TD —
App. 503
Q. Did you testify that you sent the draft which you
prepared of the advertisement to Mr. Johnson?
(The Court) He said it twice.
(Mr. Doub) All right.
(The Court) Once before you showed it to him, and once
after you showed it to him.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Did you send it with a covering letter? A. No letter.
Q. Why? A. The reason is because Congressman John-
son informed me when we talked over the telephone that
he was anxious to get the advertisement in the papers and
I told him because of my business and my busy schedule I
was just going to draft an advertisement and just put it
in the envelope and mail it to him, which I did.
Q. Now, after Mr. Johnson received that draft, what did
he do? A. He telephoned me and suggested certain cor-
rections.
Q. And will you explain the corrections which he sug-
gested? A. One of them I know was a change of the date
of advertisement. I had it on a Tuesday and he wanted it
changed to Monday; also, at the heading of the advertise-
ment, I had ‘‘Linda City’’ set out predominantly whereas
Congressman Johnson suggested that we not put it at the
top but ‘‘Sale of Valuable Real Estate known as Linda
City’’ but to put it in the body.
Q. You made that change? A. Which we did do in the
final draft. Also he suggested or recommended as to the
terms of sale.
Q. What change did you make, sir, as to that pursuant to
his direction? A. Well, if I could see my original and see
the copy that I sent him and then the original, I could tell
you. Then there was another change that he recommended
in reference to tenancy and reservations.
(Mr. Doub) I would like to offer the original draft of
ERE Oe tien coe got rota ae ae: BARRERA EERE NERD
a,
App. 504
the advertisement as identified by the witness, Your Honor,
in evidence.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit 31 marked in
evidence:
(Defendant Johnson Exhibit 31 marked in evidence.)
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, I show you Johnson’s Exhibit 31 being your
original draft of that advertisement and ask you what other
changes you made in it at the direction of Mr. Johnson?
A. The one thing he suggested I remember was—I see this
now,—was to put in there that the County and State taxes
would be adjusted as of the date of sale. That is another
thing. Then also he suggested another one. Can I refer to
my files and tell you what they are?
Q. Yes, indeed. A. What the change was?
Q. Yes. A. I have to read from the publication in the
paper. Toward the end of the advertisement and before the
wording as to ‘‘all expenses of conveyances, including
Government and State Revenue Stamps will be at the ex-
pense of the purchaser or purchasers.’’ He suggested that
we add this clause:
‘¢ Any reservations, conditions, rights of tenants and
so forth, if any, shall be announced on the day of
sale.’’
Q. What changes did you make pursuant to his direction
as to provision as to the terms of sale, if any? A. No,
there was no change on that.
Q. No change on that? A. No, sir.
I do see one more change, too. I had in my original draft
that the property is unimproved, and he suggested that be
taken out.
Q. The date of the sale was also changed at his request,
from July 11 to July 10? <A. Yes.
et a ——
*
——
App. 505
Q. You testified the date of the advertisement. A. No,
the date of the sale, sir.
Q. You are referring to the date of sale. Now, I show you
another draft of advertisement and ask you if that is the
final edition of the advertisement after you made the
changes requested by Mr. Johnson? A. This is a copy of
final draft.
Q. Your final draft? A. Yes. And another thing I should
point out, I suppose we elected to do, and that is in the copy
that I sent Congressman Johnson of the original draft, I
had the total acreage up at tlie top, and he suggested that
that be eliminated at the top, so that was elminated.
Q. Now, this second draft, is that in the form in which
the published advertisements appeared in the Washington
Post and the Maryland Independent? A. Yes, it is.
(Mr. Doub) I would like to offer this in evidence, Your
Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson Exhibit 32 marked in
evidence.
(Defendant Johnson Exhibit 32 marked in evidence.)
By Mr. Doub:
Q. So that a comparison between these two drafts John-
son’s Exhibits 31 and 32 would show the changes that you
made pursuant to his request? A. That is correct.
Q. I show you what purports to be a copy of a letter to
Congressman Johnson from you dated June 15, 1961 and
ask you if that is your office copy of such letter? A. This
is a copy of a letter which I wrote to Congressman Johnson.
Q. And that came from your files? A. Yes, sir, it came
from my file.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, If Your Honor please.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson Exhibit 33 marked in
evidence.
—,
(Defendant Johnson Exhibit 33 marked in evidence.)
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Would you read this to the jury, Mr. Carrico? A.
Yes, sir.
App. 506
‘‘June 15, 1961.
‘¢Honorable Thomas F’. Johnson,
‘‘House Office Building,
‘‘Washington, D.C.
‘‘Dear Tom:
‘‘As requested, you will find enclosed this week’s
Marytand Independent which carries the advertisement
for the foreclosure of the Linda City Property on page
seven.
‘Awaiting the statement of indebtedness in order
that I might docket suit,
‘‘Very sincerely yours,
‘‘Rudolf A. Carrico.’’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, pursuant to your request for the statement of
account, I show you a paper and ask you if that is the state-
ment of account which you filed in the proceedings? A. Yes,
sir, this is a copy of the statement of account which was
sent to me.
(Mr. Tydings) Mr. Doub, are you inferring that that
was sent to the witness by Mr. Johnson or not? I think you
ought to clear it up. If the witness knows where he got it,
he should tell the jury. If he got it from Mr. Johnson, he
should. If he does not know, he should tell what he knows.
(Mr. Doub) The last letter which you identified from
yourself to Mr. Johnson requested a statement of account.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Do you know whether— A. Statement of indebted-
ness.
TTT Ty ane r PRR LOY IPN SUN. ONY MOEN)
* , ny FORGE MINE NT ¥ RA tl
App. 507
Q. Yes. Do you know whether this statement of indebted-
ness was received by you from Mr. Johnson? A. I had also
talked to Mr. Johnson over the telephone. There was no
forwarding letter with this statement. My conclusion is that
it came from Congressman Johnson.
Q. And what was the content of your telephone discus-
sion with him? A. I informed him that we had to have an
affidavit of the statement of the indebtedness due on the
mortgage. And also in my letter of June 15, I told him that
I was awaiting that statement, and then this statement
came.
Q. All right.
(Mr. Doub) I would like to offer this, Your Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit 34 marked in
evidence.
(Defendant Johnson Exhibit 34 marked in evidence.)
(Mr. Tydings) The original statement of account is al-
ready in evidence, Government Exhibit 153.
(Mr. Doub) Well, I am sure there is no conflict.
Now, Johnson Exhibit 34 states:
(The Court) Do you wish to put it in again?
(Mr. Doub) I just want to read the first three sentences.
‘*Principal amount due as of April 29, 1961, date
of assignment to Charles County Land Company, Inc.,
of mortgage dated January 27, 1958 given by DG&R,
Ine. and recorded among the land records of Charles
County, Maryland in Liber 41, Folio 497 through 545—
$5,905,252.52.
‘Interest from April 29, 1961 to July 10, 1961, said
date being the date of sale as set forth in Notice of Sale
heretofore published at the rate of 1 percent per an-
num—$11,648.66.
App. 508
‘Total amount due principal and interest as of July
10, 1961—$5,916,901.18, by George G. Woodman,”
with an affidavit on it.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, Mr. Carrico, did there come a time when you
notified Mr. Johnson what the premium on the required
bond would be? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you tell him? A. I told him that after
review of the law, and as I understood the law, unless he
ordered otherwise for costs, the bond had to be the amount
of the indebtedness, which in this instance was six million
dollars, and that the premium on the bond would be $24,000,
unless the settlement was consummated within three months
after the date of sale in which instance, it would be $12,000.
And those figures I related to Congressman Johnson after
I had gotten them from USF&G.
Q. Now, what did Mr. Johnson tell you in response to
that? A. Johnson was astounded to hear that the bond
would have to be that amount. He said ‘‘I just cannot see
why we have to put up that amount.’’ And he said, ‘‘I want
you to go down and see Judge Digges, tell him that the
Charles County Land Company, the holder of the mort-
gage, expects to bid on the property, and the probability is,
unless it is settled before that, they will buy the property
and see if you can’t get the bond reduced.”’
So, I went over to see Judge Digges and talked to him
about it and then thereafter petitioned the Court for a re-
duction of the bond from $6 million to $600,000. The
$600,000 figure came from the 10 per cent deposit that would
be required on the date of the sale in the event that all
cash was not paid.
And I prepared that petition and Judge Digges signed
an order which petition, copy of which petition and order
I turned over to you today, and the order read that, as as-
signee I would put up 4 bond for $600,000 for the faithful
performance of my duties and that, if the property were
RMN TALL ETL PINOT IN, OO ‘ . :
N " Te ate ca nthe TAL Lr AEDs achikasita dee Rai ctl ie LM es ei a te
ee
sold, however, to some person, firm or corporation, other
than the Charles County Land Company, Inc., then I would
first have to post the bond to the amount of $6 million
rather than $600,000.
(Mr. Doub) Now, if Your Honor please, I think it is clear
we are going to take longer—
App. 509
(The Court) Did you ever post a bond, or was it sold
before?
(The Witness) I posted a bond for $600,000, sir.
(The Court) With whom?
(The Witness) U.S. F. & G.
(Tr. 2904-2914]
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
By Mr. Doub:
Q. At the close of the trial yesterday, Mr. Carrico, you
testified that you reported to Mr. Johnson that a bond of
$6 million would be required in connection with the fore-
closure of the $6 million mortgage and that Mr. Johnson
replied that a bond in a far less amount was all that was
required. Now, after he told you that, did you go to see
Judge Digges, the Circuit Judge of your county? A. Yes,
sir, I did.
Q. And at that first meeting with Judge Digges on that
matter what was his attitude?
(The Court) He has testified that J udge Digges cut the
bond to $600,000.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. There were two meetings with Judge Digges? A.
The first question arose as to whether he had the power to
do that and then I delved into the law and, as a matter of
fact—
TORT ML MUNN Rh LAM RAAT a Lo RAEN GOT LTD RACE MA YSDE" Si RABE APRN OIE Mal
—
Q. I just want to ask you now about the first meeting with
Judge Digges. At that first meeting you had with him,
did he feel the $6 million was— A. He was under the im-
pression it had to be to the amount of the indebtedness
due.
Q. Did you then communicate that to Mr. Johnson? A.
I communicated that to Congressman Johnson.
Q. What position did Mr. Johnson take? A. Well, he
felt that the judge could lower the bond and he indicated
that to him it was just unreasonable under the circum-
stances to require such a bond so then I said to him, I said,
‘“We!l Tom, we have to look up some law on it and see if
the ige has the authority to lower the bond’’ and from
there I looked up some law and determined that the Judge
under the circumstances and all of the situation could, upon
petition, in his discretion and judgment lower the bond.
Q. Now, that second talk you had on this subject with
Mr. Johnson, will you state whether or not he took the
strong position that the judge had the authority to lower the
bond? A. He did do that. As a matter of fact, I am pretty
certain of this. There came a time where Congressman
Joknson was so set in his opinion that it could be lowered,
that he telephoned me and asked me to come to Washington
to talk further about it.
_ Q. Asked you to do what? A. Come up to his office in
Washington.
Q. And did you go to his office in Washington? A. Yes,
sir. And we discussed it further there and he said to me,
he usually called me ‘‘Ruby’’ and I called him ‘‘Tom’’—he
said, ‘‘Ruby, you go back there and talk with Judge Digges
and just tell him that such a big premium that we had to
pay or the Charles County Land Company had to pay,
rather, and attributable to the fact that the indications are
now that if settlement is not made before foreclosure, that
Charles County Land Company would bid it in and see if
you can’t get him to reduce the bond,’’ which I did. You
know the rest of it about the petition.
App. 510
App. 511
Q. Then you went to him the second time and I think you
indicated yesterday that he did fix the bond in the amount
of $600,000. A. $600,000, yes, sir, upon the conditions set
forth as I related yesterday.
Q. Now, what would have been the premium on a $6
million bond?
(The Court) He testified to that yesterday, Mr. Doub.
It is not necessary to have everything testified to twice.
Q. Now, the Court has some responsibility to move the
case along. I want you to prove all of the facts that are
important but they need not be in twice.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Did you then file a $600,000 bond? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you receive a bill from U.S. F. & G. for the pre-
mium? A. I received a bill from them for $1200 provided,
however, that in the event the entire matter was not con-
summated within three months from the date of the sale, it
would be $2400.
Q. What was the bill for the bond premium before that
adjustment, was it $2400—did I understand it was $2400?
A. $1200.
Q. Sir? <A. $1200, as I say, was the premium.
Q. Yes. A. But, in the event that the entire matter was
not consummated within 90 days from the date of sale.
Q. Yes. A. Then it would be $2400,
Q. $2400? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it consummated within 90 days? A. It was con-
summated within 90 days.
Q. Well, now, later on near the final windup of this mat-
ter, will you state whether or not Mr. Johnson asked you
to take up with the surety company an adjustment in the
premium? A. Yes, there did come a time by way of tele-
2 fe) —
a UE EEL ATR TORY WYN ILLS ARROWS NUERRE LTS IG NG ARLE ERY IPN SPD RS SOD IED
inde: 7
App. 512
phone that Congressman Johnson asked me to write a let-
ter to the U.S. F. & G. Company and see if they could not
still reduce the premium. That is, less than $1200 and I
wrote a letter to them. However, they did not see fit to
reduce it. I turned over to you yesterday the letter that I
wrote to U.S. F. & G. and also the reply I received from
U.S. F. & G. by way of Ed. L. Sanders, our local agent. The
letter being directed to Mr. Sanders rather than to me.
Q. Now, have you any recollection of taking Mr. Johnson
on one occasion to the Court House and introducing him to a
lady in the Land Records Office at a time when he was in-
terested in looking at certain plats there? A. I have some
recollection, yes, sir, of one afternoon just about the time
that the Court House was closing, and that would be at
4:30. As a matter of fact, in those days, I believe it was
4 o’clock. Now, it is 4:30 where Mr. Johnson came to my
office and wanted to go over to the Court House and I went
over there and they were just in the process of closing and,
in spite of that, why, I asked one of the ladies there, I first
introduced the Congressman and asked if he could see some
record.
Q. Now, the date of this foreclosure sale was set for
July 10, 1961, was it not? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, what happened that morning? A. A lot of
_ things happened that morning.
Q. Before the scheduled sale? A. I say a lot of things
happened that morning. As a matter of fact, I was at the
time in a dither. I did not know whether to go or turn—
which way to turn, because it had been indicated to me
that the sale would not go through; yet that morning
every indication was to the contrary. So, I got several
telephone calls from Congressman J ohnson.
Q. That morning? A. That morning.
Q. Now, at what time that day was the foreclosure sale
scheduled? A. It was scheduled for 12 o’clock noon.
App. 513
Q. Where? A. At the Court House door at La Plata.
Q. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Carrico; what happened
that morning? A. And at 12 o’clock noon that day, my
office is directly across from the Court House and, being
a small county and knowing everybody, I knew a lot of
people out there and so on, and I was looking out there
and seen all these people around and so forth. I was
concerned because I did not know at that time as to
whether the sale was or was not going through. As a
matter of fact—
Q. Had you heard whether there were negotiations in
progress with Desser & Garfield? A. Yes, sir. Mr. John-
son had telephoned me several times that morning and
caid that he was in conference with the attorneys, as I re-
call, for the mortgagors in the hope of making the settle-
ment.
Q. And the mortgagors were Desser & Garfield?
A. Yes, sir, and there did come a time at approximately
12 o’clock noon—as a matter of fact, it was after 12
o’clock noon—that is the reason I was on pins and needles
with the people over there waiting, and the auctioneer was
over there, and so on, when Congressman Johnson tele-
phoned me and said that settlement had been made with
the mortgagors.
Q. And about what time was that, what time did that
eall come in? A. The sale was called off just about ten
minutes after noon.
Q. After 12? A. Yes. I went over and there was about
fifty people there. The auctioneer was there and I an-
nounced, as they asked me, that I had just received a tele-
phone call to the effect that the settlement had been made
and the sale would be off.
Q. In the earlier telephone conversations had there been
requests from Mr. Johnson to hold the sale and postpone
it as long as you could?’ A. I would not be positive if he
said it in those words, but he gave every indication along
those lines, anyway, when he was talking; yes, sir.
f a fi Sn
; ee
(ME ores
wn EASE NS an Bae
a
App. 514
Q. Mr. Carrico, do you recall any discussions with Mr.
Johnson during this period with respect to the legal prob-
lem as to whether there might be a so-called ‘‘merger of
interests’’? A. Yes, sir.
After settlement was indicated, why, in one of my tele-
phone conversations with Congressman Johnson, I in-
formed him, as a matter of fact, I think the day after
I wrote him a letter, I told him that the next move was
to petition the Court for the withdrawal of the mortgage
and then, as I say, I think I wrote him a letter and told
him that I enclosed a release for the proper offices of
the Charles County Land Company to release the mort-
gage. After that move, I, as assignee, signed an assign-
ment back to the Charles County Land Company. That was
at the request of Congressman Johnson. When he said
that, that that is what he wanted done, I said to him, I
said, ‘‘Well, Congressman, that, to my mind, would be
out of order because, if the property is going to be con-
veyed as I understand it, to the Charles County Land
Company and fee simple title can be obtained by the
Charles County Land Company, there would be a merger.”’
Congressman Johnson said to me, ‘‘ Well, I do not know
about that.’’
I said, ‘‘ Well, I don’t know for certain but,’’ I said,
‘‘That is my opinion.”’
Then the Congressman said he would look into it.
Q. In other words, did you leave it that you would in-
vestigate that question or he would investigate it? A. No,
Congressman Johnson said he would.
Q. And you did no further work on it? A. No further
work on that. I mean, added to the merger question, no.
Q. Your fees and costs were paid on what date, if you
recall?’ A. September 18.
Q. 19617 A. 1961.
Q. They were paid by a check on what company? A. I
—
App. 515
do not know. I know that seems odd for me to say but I
had had some trouble getting my money. At least it was
delayed. Not trouble, exactly, but it was delayed and I
had written Congressman Johnson, I think, three letters,
telling him that these bills were due and enclosing him
the bills, and so on, and when I got that check— because
it was better than $3,000 due, and I was not concerned
about my fee as much as I was about the premium on the
bond, and other expenses, recognizing too, that if this
premium was not paid by October 10, then it would double—
when I got that check I was so glad to get it, I just put it
right in the bank and I do not know who signed that check
or who it came from.
Now, there was a memorandum in the letter but—
Q. Who did you look to for payment, Mr. Carrico?
A. To Congressman Johnson. As I told you, I had written
him at least three letters which I had turned over to you
yesterday.
Q. You had been retained by Mr. Johnson? A. Yes.
Q. For a set fee? A. As local counsel. A fee of $1500
was guaranteed by Congressman Johnson. I ended up, I
think, getting $1,497.50 attributable to the assignment back
‘vom me to the Charles County Land Company which cost
s I recall, $2.50 so when the check came in, I did not
bother about the $2.50.
Q. Now, at the time when you were first retained by Mr.
Johnson to the end of this legal work, you did, will you
tell the jury whether you had a few or a great many
telephone conversations with Mr. Johnson? A. I know
there were many conversations. I do not know how many.
I cannot remember back, sometimes a day or so—to go
back to 1960, I could not possibly tell how many there
were. I remember on the morning of this sale, for ex-
ample, there were three or four and prior thereto, I do
not know. I never counted them.
ees. =
ina 3 ATA SST LOT NLT OS AR TRE
App. 516
[TR 2937-2961]
DeSALES MUDD
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. MUDD
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Judge, where do you live? A. La Plata, Maryland.
Q. And you are a lawyer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you practiced law down theret
A. Since 1933.
Q. Have you held any governmental positions? A. I
was the United States Commissioner for a few years.
Q. No other official positions? A. No, sir.
Q. Why do I keep calling you Judge? A. I think
maybe you adopted that term from Congressman Boykin.
Q. What is the name of your partnership in La Plata!
A. Mudd & Mudd.
Q. Had your legal firm handled the title to this Wal-
dorf Property of some 8,000 acres over a long period of
years? A. Yes, beginning in 1933. When it was acquired
by Scott B. Appleby.
Q. So your office was very familiar with that property!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you recall any meeting with Mr. Johnson
in La Plata on May 1, 1961, or do your office records show
any such meeting? A. Yes, sir, my diary confirms a meet-
ing in my office on the afternoon of May 1 with Congress-
man Johnson.
Q. What was the subject of discussion? A. My best
recollection is that Congressman Johnson came in without
an appointment and inquired if my office had handled
this property for Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation at
the time it was acquired in 1957 or 1958 by DG & R, Inc.,
of Maryland. I confirmed that we had.
amex Avy
App. 517
Q. You confirmed that you had handled the legal title
work in the past? A. Yes.
Q. Now, what else was said at that meeting? A. He
asked if I had a copy in my file of a commitment, a title
commitment that Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
had issued to the purchaser at that time, and I told him
I did not, that the commitment had been issued by the
Corporation from its Washington office, on the strength
of certain title certifications that my office had made
after title examinations in conjunction with Messrs. Fondi
and Marselek of Lawyers Title Insurance Company.
Q. Do you recall any discussion about how comprehen-
sive the survey had been of the property? A. Yes, he
asked if I had any plats.
Q. Talk louder, I cannot hear you, Mr. Mudd. A. He
asked if I had any plats of the property, and I told him
that I did but I thought perhaps better plat information
might be obtained from D. H. Steffens, the County Sur-
veyor, whose office was in town. I believe I explained
at the time that this property consisted of basically some
38 tracts and my title plats were plats of various tracts.
And that at the time Desser & Garfield, Inc., of Maryland
had acquired the property, Mr. Steffens had done some
additional planning and put the entire parcel on two very
large plats. Copies of those I didn’t have but which I
thought would be available from the County Surveyor’s
office, and my recollection is I called Mr. Steffens while
Congressman Johnson was in the office to determine if
he was available, and I believe the Congressman left my
office to go to the Surveyor’s office.
Q. What was the discussion as to whether you would
participate in the foreclosure of the $6 million mortgage?
A. My best recollection is that there was no discussion of
that at the meeting on May 1, but in subsequent tele-
phone conversations that matter was discussed. I believe
on the May 1 meeting or some subsequent telephone con-
versation Congressman Johnson had asked my office to
0 ORL (SR AY SOP piety PORE ATEN EM
App. 518
examine the records and confirm to him that this mort-
gage was in fact a first lien against the subject property.
Q. Now, how long did that meeting on May 1 which you
had with Mr. Johnson last, according to your office ree-
ords? A. My time records indicate approximately an
hour and a half.
Q. Now, when Mr. Johnson asked you either in that
meeting, or in a later telephone call, whether you would
work with him on the mortgage foreclosure, what did you
tell Mr. Johnson? A. I ultimately told him that I felt
that I should not, by virtue of having represented Desser
& Garfield, Inc., at the time it acquired the property and
gave the purchase money mortgage and which explana-
tion I think he understood.
Q. Now, when was your next meeting with Mr. John-
son and any others who might have accompanied him?
A. You mean personal meetings?
Q. Yes. A. There may have been others in my office.
I have been unable to confirm any meeting with Congress-
man Johnson personally in my office from my office ree-
ords or from my independent recollection; we did have
any number of telephone calls and correspondence and it
is possible he may have been in my office subsequent to
May 1, 1961.
Q. Well, now, do your records show that on May 10,
1961, you did some work on this title? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does it indicate you had a meeting that day? A. It
indicates an office conference. My time records indicate
an office conference on this matter on that date but does
not identify with whom the conference was held.
Q. Now, on May 19, 1961, do your office records indi-
cate that you took someone to lunch that day? A. I be-
lieve so. I have my diary in my brief case. May I confirm
that?
What date was that?
vee
—
App. 519
Q. May 19. A. Yes. My diary shows that I was in
conference from approximately one o’clock until two-fif-
teen on that date, regarding this matter, and I charged
the firm $6.50 for taking somebody to lunch but I did not
attend as a beneficiary. It was in connection with this
transaction.
Q. It was in connection with this matter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. June 5, 1961, do you know whether Mr. Johnson was
in La Plata? A. I have no such record in my diary which
is only a time record on this transaction. That is June 5,
you said.
Q. I said June 5, yes.
Now, Mr. Mudd, on June 7, 1961, do your records in-
dicate anything? A. Yes. I have half-hour time charged
to this transaction.
* Q. Do you know whether Mr. Johnson telephoned you
on that day? A. I have no confirmation but it is pos-
sible, because we had many, many telephone conversations
about this matter.
Q. Well, now, had you, after May 1, 1961, did you pro-
ceed to go to work on this title and bring it down to date?
A. Yes, sir, and I think probably not as fast as Congress-
man Johnson wanted because my best recollection is he
needled me about it a little during that period and we
gave him a written report on June 14 although my cov-
ering letter is dated June 14.
Q. Have you any recollection of discussing with Con-
gressman Johnson on the telephone the fact that the so-
called ‘‘window’’ had been released from the lien of the
mortgage? A. Yes, sir, that was one of three or four
phases of the matter. He asked us to investigate. No. 1,
as I mentioned was to confirm that this mortgage held by
Ernest was in fact a first mortgage against the subject
property and No. 2, that some approximately 100 acres
that had been released from the purchase money, $6 mil-
lion mortgage, was free and clear and not encumbered, and
Bs phe
ii ph
ae a Sita . . . CPIELE IE IGOLAY POLL SPAN
App. 520
I think he asked specifically about mechanics liens because
the owner, D & GR, Inc., of Maryland had done extensive
work on this released area and he apparently was appre-
hensive that some of that work may not have been paid
for and that released area might be subject to possible
liens for unpaid improvements. And we did give him a
report on that.
Q. Does your diary show you did some work for Mr.
Johnson on July 17, 1961? A. July 17.
Q. I am getting a little ahead of myself here. Suppose
I strike that out. Is this a letter or an office copy of a
letter you wrote Mr. Robinson dated June 14, 1961!
A. Yes, sir, this is my file copy of such a letter which in-
dicates that the actual title work was probably done by
my associate at that time, Frank G. Parrin, and the letter
was drafted by him for my signature.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it, Your Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson ’s exhibit 35 marked in
evidence.
(Defendant Johnson exhibit 35 marked in evidence.)
(Mr. Williams) Mudd to Robinson, is that right?
(The Clerk) Letter dated June 14, 1961. It says ‘‘To
Robinson from Mudd.”’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Would you read that to the jury, Mr. Mudd? A. This
letter dated June 14, 1961, addressed to Mr. W. L. Robin-
son, care of First Colony and Continental Savings and
Loan Association, 5410 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase,
Maryland.
‘Dear Mr. Robinson:
‘Enclosed you will find the original and a copy of our
Opinion of Title with respect to the mortgage which your
company has acquired from Albert Ernest, and which I
trust is sufficient for your purposes:
App. 521
‘Our certificates shows the mortgage to be in favor of
Ernest for the reason that the assignment to your company
was not a matter of record at the time we made our last
check, and our certificate must necessarily be according
to the situation as of record. If, for any reason, this cer-
tificate is not sufficient for your purposes, kindly advise.
‘‘Also enclosed you will find two copies of the contract of
purchase by and between Charles County Land Corporation
and Mr. and Mrs. Allison F. Ryon, and which have been exe-
cuted on behalf of the sellers. I have represented to Mr.
Ryon that the purchasing company would execute both
copies and return one to me for delivery to the sellers. I
eall your attention to the fact that paragraph 8 has been
rewritten in order to obligate the purchaser to pay all
conveyancing costs except Federal documentary stamps.
It was the final decision of the Ryons to make no objection
to the contract in its original form except to request that
paragraph 8 be revised in this manner and which I took
the liberty of doing.
‘Very truly yours.’’
Q. Do you know why you wrote that letter to Mr. Rob-
inson rather than Mr. Johnson—have you any recollec-
tion of that? A. No, sir, I can only speculate that Con-
gressman Johnson directed—
Q. Had you met Mr. Robinson prior to the date of that
letter? A. I met Mr. Robinson at some stage of these
matters but whether it was before or after this letter, I
do not recollect.
Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Johnson re-
garding the Collier property? A. Yés, sir.
Q. And what were they about? A. Well, my best recol-
lection is that on the occasion of Congressman Johnson’s
initial visit, I told him that our office was in the process
of handling possibly three phases of this matter for D. G.
& R., Inc., of Maryland at the time its development of the
property terminated and one involved the acquisition of
ce i i
PELE ROS PIL IOP LONE yy ME ag T SN MY ARE OCI? 8
sae
App. 522
the Ryon tract, another an exchange for property with
Gulf, and another perfecting the title to 9 acres of the
Collier tract. The Collier tract having been acquired, I
believe, not by Ernest but by either Washington Lumber
and Turpentine Company or Tensaw Land and Timber
Company, prior to the sale to D. G. & R. Inc., of Maryland.
Q. In other words, there had been negotiations for the
purchase of the Collier property prior to the deed of this
property to Charles County Land, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And now after the conveyance of the property to
Charles County Land Company, what was done with re-
spect to these pending acquisitions? A. We obtained at
some stage of the proceeding a quit claim or confirmatory
deed to, I believe, nine acres of the Collier tract concern-
ing which the title was not perfected at the time it was
required, either by Tensaw or Washington Lumber and
Turpentine Company.
Q. How about the Ryon tract that you mentioned!
A. At the time Congressman Johnson came to my office
on May 1, I believe, 1961, I think I acquainted him with
the fact that D. G. & R., Inc., of Maryland, had contracted
to purchase from Ryon 199 acres plus, which was a wedge-
shaped parcel of land fitting into this 7,000 or 8,000 acres
but that the corporation had not consumated the purchase
and that, if his client proposed to acquire this property,
that he might be interested to know that this Ryon matter
had been under contract but had not been concluded. And
therefore, he authorized me to conclude that transaction
for Charles County Land.
Q. And the Ryon tract was then bought by Charies
County Land? A. Yes.
Q. And the Ryon tract was conveyed to Charles County
Land Company? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you handled the settlement on that? A. Yes,
sir.
SAN OLIVE LEULOBEOL SS: Es
Lepr HA 1 Nap NEA ONES
App. 523
Q. Now, I show you what purports to be an office copy
of a letter—
(Mr. Robinson) Your Honor, before we get to the next
letter, could we take a short recess, please, sir?
(The Court) All right.
The jury will take a five-minute recess.
(Brief recess.)
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Mr. Mudd, I show you what purports to be an office
copy of a letter from you to Charles County Land Com-
pany, in care of The Honorable Thomas E. J ohnson, dated
July 17, 1961, and ask you whether you wrote that letter?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
(Mr. Doub) I would like to offer this letter in evidence.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 36,
marked in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 36 marked in evi-
dence. )
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Will you kindly read that to the jury, if you will?
A. Yes, sir.
This letter dated July 17, 1961 is adcressed :
“The Charles County Land Company, Inc.,
“C/O Hon. Thomas E. Johnson
‘Snow Hill, Maryland.
‘Re: Desser & Garfield (Md.), Inc. Property described
in Release dated March 21, 1960, recorded in Liber No.
147, Folio 508
‘Gentlemen:
‘Our examination of the pertinent Charles County Land
Records as indexed by the Cott System in the Office of
ANBAR TAT LT IL SAH NE MG ENTE TRAE I
7
the Clerk of the Circuit Court for said County from March
28th, 1958 at 3:30 P.M. (the date and time of our report
to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation on the subject
property, a copy of which has been furnished you) through
July 14th, 1961 at 4:30 P.M., discloses the following
changes by way of supplement to the March 28th, 1958 |
report.
‘‘1. Deeds from Albert Ernest and others to Desser &
Garfield (Md.), Ine. (or by whatever name or names the
grantees are identified of record) transferring title to the
said nine parcels, and copies of which said deeds we be-
lieve ar2 available from your files.
“2 Deed from William J. Collier and wife, dated Feb-
ruary 5, 1960, recorded in Liber 147, folio 76, for the nine
and one-fourth acres referred to as Parcel 8 in the report
to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, the effect of
which deed is to release and quit-claim unto the Grantee
any and all right, title and interest the Grantors may have
in and to said nine and one-fourth acres, and which said
deed gives the Grantee the benefit of the adverse posses-
sion right of the Grantors set forth in Exception A of the
original report.
App. 524
‘3, Right-of-way easement and plat from Albert Er-
nest et a., dated March 28, 1960 and recorded in Liber
147, folio 514, to the extent that the same may effect the
released parcels.
‘64, The possible effect (front foot easements) of the
20 foot easement for water lines between the roads, as
granted to Charles County Sanitary District, Inc. by the
indenture dated January 23, 1961 and recorded in Liber
152, folio 249.
‘65, State and County taxes for the fiscal year begin-
ning July 1, 1961 now due and payable for part of the
total amount of $7,075.18; such taxes subsequent to the
current fiscal year; such taxes, assessments or liens
against so much of said property within the recently
created Sanitary District as may be subject thereto.
o
a
;
a
B
&
*
*
#
4
%
,
Ee
we
cs
4
2
¥
.
Ais
Fea RES
—
RE te,
Oy a. eee
ee es 32) “see
App. 525
“6, The exceptions set forth in our report of March 28,
1958, identified as C through I, both inclusive, as well as
the concluding paragraph of the report of March 28, 1998,
are still applicable to a current report on the title to the
subject property.
‘“‘This status report includes no certificates as to acre-
age, accuracy of description; does not certify against un-
recorded Mechanic’s Liens—
(The Court) Mr. Doub, can’t we just take so much
for being read? Do we care about all the ultimate details
of this?
(Mr. Doub) I think he is almost finished.
(The Court) This is a title report with references to
deeds and title references and the usual exceptions and
so forth.
(Mr. Tydings) The Government will accept any descrip-
tion Mr. Mudd wants to make of the document, and you
can pass it around to the jury, if you like. Mr. Doub. I
think it will speed this along. Just ask Mr. Mudd what
the letter is and give it to the jury.
(The Court) Just summarize what they are.
(Mr. Doub) Very well, Your Honor.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. 1 show you what purports to be an office copy of a
letter from you to Mr. Johnson, and ask you whether you
wrote that letter to him? A. Yes, July 18, 1961.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, Your Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 37
marked in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 37 was received in
evidence. )
(Mr. Doub) Well, this is a short letter, Your Honor,
of only a paragraph. Will you read that please?
PAGEL LM NAL EE NALINI GRRE TE EM
7
‘*July 18, 1961
App. 526
(The Witness) (Reading)
‘¢Honorable Thomas E. Johnson
Room 141, Old House Office Building
Washington, D. C.
Dear Congressman Johnson:
‘After the transfer of title to the Charles County prop-
erties from Desser & Garfield (Md.), Inc. to The Charles
County Land Company, Inc. had been concluded here yes-
terday, I was instructed to send a bill to you for our
services to date.
‘‘Frankly, our services in this matter are difficult to
evaluate, and I had no basis other than the time involved,
some of which had to be on an emergency basis with a
lot of after hours work. The enclosed bill, therefore, rep-
resents the time that we have spent in answering the sev-
eral inquiries regarding this property, examination of the
records and telephone and written reports, as well as con-
ferences that we have had with officials of the company
and counsel from the date you first came to the office to
discuss the situation. I, therefore, trust you will consider
the charge reasonable, and we have not attempted to bill
you for title services or on the basis of the value of the
property involved for the reason that we have not given
-the final and conclusive title opinion, but in the sense
have given you the benefit of our files, plus interim
reports.
‘‘Very truly yours,
‘*F, DeSales Mudd’’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. I show you what purports to be a letter from Mr.
Johnson to you and ask you if you received that letter?
A. Yes, I did. The letter is dated July 21, 1961.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, Your Honor.
——
App. 527
(The Clerk) Letter dated July 21, 1961, Defendant
Johnson’s Exhibit No. 38, marked in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 38 was received in
evidence. )
(Mr. Doub) It is addressed:
“F, DeSales Mudd, Esq.
La Plata
Maryland
Dear Mr. Mudd:
‘I understand that the Lawyers Title issued a Title
Commitment on all or a major portion of the Waldorf
property some time during 1958, based on your Title
Opinion. I am wondering if it is possible to secure a copy
of same.
‘‘Your statement has been forwarded to the Company
with the instructions that check be issued.
‘With kind personal regards, I am
‘Sincerely yours,
“Thomas F. Johnson.’’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, I show you what purports to be an office copy
of a letter to Congressman Johnson from you dated August
2, 1961, and ask you if vou wrote that letter? A. Yes,
sir, I did.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, Your Honor.
(The Witness) I might say I don’t believe the longhand
postscript on that copy appeared on the original.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 39
marked in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 39 was received in
evidence. )
eae : SRS RETIN TERR TR RE RI eI PN
esp ih ns A SM WABI V aR
App. 528
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Will you read that letter to the jury, sir? A. Dol
read it or summarize it?
(The Court) If he wants it read, read the whole thing.
(The Witness) (Reading)
‘‘August 2, 1961
‘‘Honorable Thomas F. Johnson
Room 141 — House Office Building
Washington, D. C.
Dear Congressman Johnson: Re: Ryon Purchase
‘J wish to confirm that Mr. and Mrs. Allison F. Ryon
are now ready and willing to deliver the deed for their
farm property to the Charles County Land Corporation,
and we are prepared to make settlement. In this connec-
tion, we enclose the following:
‘<1, File copy of deed executed by the Ryons, and which
you will note from the second page contains reservation
of possession in favor of the Sellers consistent with the
provisions of the contract in this respect.
“2. The original and a copy of the mortgage note and
mortgage to be executed by the officials of the purchasing
corporation, in the amount and terms specified in the con-
tract. You will note that the mortgage includes (as the
contract requires) the two release clauses and the subor-
dination clause contained in the contract of sale. We did
not know the names of the officers of the purchasing cor-
poration, which can be filled in at the time the mortgage
and note are executed, and returned to us with settlement
instructions.
‘3. Original and one copy of a settlement sheet, one
copy of which we will thank the purchaser to approve
and return. The contract requires taxes, etc., to be ad-
justed to December 31, 1961. Since our taxes are levied
on a fiscal year from July 1 to June 30th, and taxes for
App. 529
the current fiscal year in the amount of $180.36 are now
due and payable on this property, and must be paid be-
fore the deed can be filed for record, we have charged
one-half of the amount to the Sellers, and billed the pur-
chaser for one-half. It is my understanding that there
are no rents to be adjusted, and it is assumed that the
Sellers will cancel their insurance on December 31, 1961,
and that the purchaser will place in force as of J anuary l,
1962, insurance in the amount required by the mortgage
which would appear reasonable.
‘4, Our bill for services and disbursements incident to
closing this transaction, including purchaser’s share of
taxes for the current fiscal year.
“If the purchaser desires owner’s title insurance, we
are in a position to obtain same at tiis time at the stand-
ard rate by the several companies, which in this instance,
would amount to $265.00.
“Tf there is any question, you can telephone me, and
you will understand that the closing cannot be concluded
until the executed note and mortgage are delivered to the
Sellers at settlement. I, of course, have in hand the funds
representing the initial $10,000.00 payment. The question
has not been raised, but you might consider whether it is
advisable under the circumstances that the Sellers have
a certified copy of the resolution of the purchaser corpor-
ation approving the acquisition of this property for the
corporation, and the execution of the mortgage by the
appropriate officers.
‘With kindest regards, I am
“Sincerely yours,
“F. DeSales Mudd.’
Q. Mr. Mudd, returning to the letter Mr. Johnson wrote
you, dated July 18, 1961, in which he asked you to send
him a copy of the title commitment, which you had made
in 1958 for Lawyers Title, and I notice that in the suc-
ceeding letters you did not send him that.
7
Did there ensue after you received his letters some tele-
phone discussion with him about that matter? A. I am
reasonably certain we did have telephone conversations
which explain the fact that I as a local attorney for Law-
yers Title Insurance Company did not have a copy of its
title commitment, but all I had was a copy of my report
or one of my reports to Lawyers Title Insurance Corpor-
ation, on the strength of which the title insurance company
issued the commitment.
App. 530
Q. Well, will you state whether or not you told Mr.
Johnson where a copy of that commitment could be ob-
tained by him? A. Yes, sir. My recollection is that I
told him that it had been issued from the Washington
Office of Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and that
I had worked with Mr. Fondi and Mr. Marsalek in connec-
tion with this title commitment; that Mr. Fondi was no
longer with the company, and I suggested he contact Mr.
Marsalek, who worked out of the Washington office, but
lived in Baltimore.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Johnson did communicate
with Mr. Marsalek? A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. Did you receive a letter dated August 10, 1961; from
Harry Adelberg? A. Yes, I did. I received the letter
dated August 10th, the original of which you have, from
Harry Adelberg.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, Your Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 40
marked in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 40 was received in
evidence.)
(Mr. Doub) This is on the letterhead of Mr. Harry
Adelberg, 1235 Mathieson Building, Baltimore 2, Mary-
and.
—
App. 531
«“Angust 10, 1961
“Mudd & Mudd
Attorneys at Law
La Plata, Maryland
Attn: F. DeSales Mudd, Esquire
“Re: Charles County Land Corporation Purchase of
the Ryon property
‘‘Gentlemen:
“Your letter of August 2, 1961, directed to my associate,
The Honorable Thomas F.. Johnson, has been referred to
this office.
“May I suggest the following changes in the mortgage:
* * 7 * ” a
Q. Going back to early May, 1961, did Mr. Johnson ask
you to deliver the original mortgage, $6 million mortgage
from Desser & Garfield to Mr. Carrico, or did Mr. Carrico
ask you to deliver it to him? A. My best recollection is
that Congressman Johnson asked me to deliver it to him.
Q. Is that the mortgage—was that for mortgage fore-
closure purposes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever meet a Mr. Edlint A. I think on one
oceasion. I am sure I met him. I have no recollection
except on one occasion.
Q. When was that? A. I can not say. My best recol-
lection—my best estimate would be some time in 1961.
Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Robinson? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where? A. In my office.
Q. And was he by himself or with someone? A. He
was. I am quite sure when he came to my office he was
with someone but I do not recollect who at the moment.
Q. Is it possible that could have been Mr. Johnson?
A. It is possible, yes, sir. I might say that my records un-
AS
gee
weer
a
“ee, Oe
poe
Swe Ce RO
App. 532
fortunately do not disclose who I saw in the office, if J
did not have an appointment.
Q. Will you state whether or not you have any recol-
lection of Mr. Johnson’s telling you in the latter part of
July, 1961, that he was preparing to leave the country
and this matter was going to be handled by anyone else
other than himself? A. I am sure I had instructions from
him to make reports to Mr. Robinson but I do not have
an independent recollection of his telling me that he ex-
pected to leave the country.
(Mr. Doub) That is all.
[TR 3019]
ISABELLA J. KICAS,
[TR 3021-3025]
Q. Where do you live? A. 6710 Windsor Mill Road,
Baltimore 7, Maryland.
Q. Now, were you employed by Mr. Harry Adelberg
during the year 1961? A. Yes, I was.
Q. All during that year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you recall in April, 1961, Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Robinson being in Mr. Adelberg’s office? A. Yes, I
do.
Q. Do you recall the date? A. It was a Saturday and
it was the 29th of April.
G. Now, why do you remember the date April 29, 1961!
A. Well, my daughter and I had moved in to a very pretty
apartment on the 21st of April and we were busy fixing
it up and when Mr. Adelberg called, it was a Saturday
and we were hanging drapes in the living room and I had
to drop my end and go and I just remember it, that is all.
Q. Now, this is on a holiday, April 29 was Saturday!
A. It was a Saturday.
_—
App. 533
Q. And you were not regularly working that day?
A. No.
(The Court) She said that twice, Mr. Doub. Let us get
ahead.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. How did you happen to go to the office that morning?
A. Well, Mr. Adelberg had told me the day before he
might need me but unless he called me, I was not to come
in and he called.
Q. He did call that morning? A. Yes, sir.
Q. About when did you arrive at the office that morn-
ing? A. Oh, I would say 10:30.
Q. And who was there? A. Congressman Johnson and
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Adelberg.
Q. And were there any secretaries there? A. Yes, there
were two girls there.
Q. What were their names? A. One was actually a
client. She had come in for an early morning appoint-
ment. Mrs. Lilly Nelson and Mr. Adelberg needed a secre-
tary whicu she was, for another firm, and he asked her
to stay and do some work until I got down there.
Q. What was the name of the other secretary? A. Her
first name was Rosalie. I did not know her last name. I
only saw her once.
Q. Was it Brenner? A. She said she had worked for
Judge Thomsen at one time or another.
(The Court) Our firm had a girl who married a man
named Brenner. She was a good typist.
(The Witness) Well, then, that is the girl that was there.
(The Court) She was never my secretary. She was Mr.
Smith’s secretary. She was a competent girl.
By Mr. Doub:
, en .
Tee 2 5 Aha aD BE _ "a SO NRG DI TRG OREN IEEE SA IRE
App. 534
Q. What did you do after you arrived there? A. Mrs,
Nelson was at my machine working on some documents
and Rosalie was at the other machine which were all there
were, so Mr. Adelberg said, ‘¢You come in and start taking
dictation, and by the time you are finished taking dicta-
tion Mrs. Nelson has to go and her machine will be va-
cated and you can start to transcribe,’’ so that is what
I did.
Q. Who dictated to you that day? A. Mr. Robinson
started, Mr. Adelberg and Congressman Johnson were
sitting there, and they would stop and confer, and when
Mr. Robinson dictated quite a long document, I went
out to my machine. Mrs. Nelson had gone in the meantime,
and Congressman Johnson came out and he said ‘‘Tran-
scribe that in the rough and then show it to me,’’ and so!
did, on the yellow paper, you know, and then he read it
and then he said, ‘‘Come on over”’ into one of the asso-
ciate’s offices, and he dictated again. This and some more
things.
Q. You mean he redrafted it? A. Yes.
Q. And then did you write it up, type it up? A. Yes,
I did.
Q. And what was Mrs. Brenner doing? A. Well, she
was working on some other documents.
Q. Now, do you have any recollection of the documents
which were dictated by Mr. Robinson and Mr. Johnson
that day? A. Well, I think it had to do with Charles
County Land Company.
Q. Charles County Land? A. We had many, many
documents and after this space of time, it is a little hard
to say just exactly which ones they were.
Q. Have you any recollection of the name Desser &
Garfield? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you do not recall the specific documents by name,
whether they were loan agreements or anything? A. There
was a loan agreement.
_—
Q. How long did this work continue on that Saturday?
A. Well, I guess it was four o’clock when I left and they
were still there working. They said they were going to
keep on working. I had an engagement and said I would
have to go.
Q. At 4:30 when you left, was Mr. Johnson still work-
ing and Mr. Robinson still working? A. Yes.
Q. And were the other girls still there, or one of them?
A. No, Mrs. Nelson had gone. As I said, she was a client.
She was just retyping some documents that had been done
and had been revised. I do not think the other girl stayed
there that long. I am not sure.
(Vol. 25 [3040]) Therefore,—
HARRY ADELBERG
was called as a witness by and on behalf of Defendant
Johnson, being first duly sworn, was examined and testi-
fied as follows:
(The Clerk) State your name for the record.
(The Witness) Harry Adelberg.
(The Clerk) Spell your name.
(The Witness) A-d-e-]-b-e-r-g.
[3041] DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Mr. Adelberg, where do you live? A. 5514 South
Bend Road, Baltimore, Maryland.
Q. And you are a lawyer, a member of the Baltimore
Bar? A. I am, sir.
Q. And you offices are where? <A. At 1235 Maryland
National Bank Building, Baltimore.
a
Q. And you are a friend of the Defendant Thomas John-
son? A. I have known Congressman Johnson for perhaps
fifteen or twenty years. I have known him well.
App. 536
Q. And, as a matter of fact, does his name not appear
on the door of your law firm at 10 Light Street? A. His
name is on my front door, yes, sir.
Q. How long have you had any business association with
Mr. Johnson? A. I would say, Mr. Doub, perhaps as long
as fifteen years. That is an estimate. I do not know aceu-
rately, and I might say by way of explanation, with re-
spect to the Congressman’s name on my door. I would say
his name has been on my door for perhaps ten to twelve
years and is on my door under these circumstances:
He has his name on my door. His name is in the [3042]
telephone book under my telephone number. He does not
maintain an office in my suite. He does not have a desk,
but at all times my office or any office in the suite has been
available to him for his use.
I might say further that during the past years it has
been a very happy association. He has referred cases to
our offices that we have handled from time to time, and
when the occasion permits I have referred matters to him.
Q. Now, turning to February 1961, do you recall re-
ceiving a telephone call from Mr. Johnson telling you that
he had found something in looking at some Cassell mort-
gages? Do you remember that? A. I would say that per-
haps in February of 1961 I received such a call from the
Congressman, and at that time my recollection is that he
told me that he would like to have me review some mort-
gages in a building association portfolio.
He indicated that he felt that there were some legal
questions involved; that there was some deficiencies, but
I do not believe that he expressed an opinion to me. He
wanted to get my views to confirm his views. As a re-
sult of that inquiry—
“ fay
Sb HOME B OLGESSEMEOPLEA ME — . » puget sen cen ttonpeoyea eaae
BRIM D SOLES IEE Tt Pas : $ : j NEAT
——
App. 537
Q. What did he ask you to do? A. He asked me to
visit the building association, which was in Chevy Chase,
Maryland.
Q. What was its name, First Continental? A. First
Continental Savings and Loan Association offices, but, as
a matter of fact, the portfolio of mortgages that I exam-
ined at that place were not only First Continental mort-
gages, but it included a large portfolio of First Colony
mortgages. First Colony Savings and Loan Association,
I think the name was.
Q. Then, as I understand what you have just said, Mr.
Johnson asked you to go to the office of First Continental
and examine mortgages there of First Continental and
First Colony? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Did he ask you to check the whole mortgage portfolio
of both companies? A. Those were his requested instruc-
tions.
Q. What did he ask you to check for? A. Well, I know
what I found, and I believe in the conversation with him—
Q. No, before you get to what you found, tell us what
he asked you to look for? A. I would say legal deficien-
cies in the mortgage, with particular regard to a deficiency
in the affidavits.
Q. Under the Maryland law a mortgage requires an af-
fidavit of consideration, doesn’t it? A. That is correct,
sir.
Q. That the consideration stated in the mortgage had
been actually paid? <A. That is correct, sir; that is, Mr.
Doub, it requires an affidavit by the mortgagor to the
effect that the mortgagee’s mortgage, and an affidavit by
the mortgagee that the consideration has been paid that is
recited in the mortgage.
Q. Did Mr. Johnson tell you why he wished you to do
this? A. I thought we already covered that, Mr. Doub.
He indicated he wanted me to examine those mortgages to
confirm his opinion that the mortgages may be deficient.
TL eS, PLAYS ATS OEP INIA
Pee
ea Marry
CRAB
a Utila aad el Red Se
App. 538
Q. Now, did you then go to Chevy Chase and examine
the mortgage portfolios? A. I do not remember the exact
date, but thereafter, certainly within a couple of weeks, I
assume, I visited the Chevy Chase office on Wisconsin
Avenue in Chevy Chase, a comparatively new or modern
pbuilding, of the First Continental Savings and Loan As-
sociation, and I there met a Mr. Robinson and some other
people, whose names I now know, but I am not certain
as to who was present at the time.
I spent several hours in the offices of the building as-
sociation, and I reviewed the mortgages generally, but it
was too much work for one casual visit. I saw sufficient
to justify the suspicion of the Congressman.
Upon my return to Baltimore, I assume, I called him
and-—in any event, I spoke to him over the telephone and
confirmed his view—at least I confirmed the view that
these mortgages were deficient. They were without the
affidavit of consideration.
Thereafter there were other conversations, but I sup-
pose you want to ask about them.
Q. Now, before you get to that, were the mortgages that
you are referring to mortgages made to A. I. Cassell!
‘A. The mortgages that were deficient were the Cassell
group of mortgages. Most of the mortgages were the Cas-
sell group. Let me correct myself. All of the Cassell mort-
gages I do not believe were defective, but there were some
305 mortgages that were defective.
Q. And were those purchase money mortgages on indi-
vidual lots which had been sold to buyers by Cassell?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. And then had those mortgages been pledged with
First Continental or First Colony as security for loans!
A. That is substantially correct. Actually, what appeared
to be the picture, and at that time I had no doubt on that
aspect, but I later learned that there was a general loan
agreement and a general mortgage between Cassell and
~7~m~"
App. 539
the First Colony Savings and Loan Association, and I
might say, incidentally, as a result of those negotiations
and examinations of mortgages I did meet Mr. Cassell, but
the portion of those mortgages which related to lots that
were sold publicly were all defective mortgages.
Apparently as each lot was sold a separate mortgage was
created on the individual lots. I might say that I examined
my records, and those 305 mortgages totaled $973,000, and
some odd cents and so forth, and each mortgage was in-
dividually bad.
Now, if I may—does that answer your question, Mr.
Doub?
Q. Yes. A. All right, sir.
Q. And did you after making that examination report
what you had found to Congressman Johnson? A. I did,
sir. I am not sure whether Congressman Johnson called
me or I called him, but I know I so informed him and ad-
vised him and confirmed his suspicions or his judgment.
Q. And what happened next? A. Thereafter we had
some discussions about it, and then the mortgages at my
request were all brought to my offices. I think Mr. Rob-
inson, who is at the trial table, brought those mortgages
to my offices, and then we made a rather careful exami-
nation.
Now, I might say this, that the mortgage forms were
substantially alike, but we felt it necessary before we
passed on 305 mortgages to examine 305 mortgages.
After we examined the papers, two problems came into
being. The first, Robinson refused to accept either my
judgment or the Congressman’s judgment that the mort-
gage was defective. We then had to research some law,
and I submitted my memorandum or my work to Mr. Rob-
inson.
He still wasn’t satisfied, and then some time during that
period of time the Congressman came to the offices and
these mortgages were placed in the room of one of my
3
App. 540
associates, in Mr. David B. Rudow’s room, and the Con-
gressman went in there, and he spent some time examining
the mortgages.
After that while he was still in the offices, as a matter
of fact, he apparently engaged in some research while in
the offices. I say that because in examining my own files,
I found a handwritten memorandum of the law prepared
by the Congressman in my files, and attached to the papers
that were part of the Cassell mortgage examination.
A very peculiar thing happened. Robinson continued
to be unhappy, even though we pointed the law out to him
until he had occasion to record a mortgage. I am trying
to remember the name of the lawyer. I think he was in
Mr. Sasscer’s office and Mr. Sasscer promptly told him
that mortgage which was not of that same type was de-
ficient because it lacked an affidavit of consideration. Ap-
parently Mr. Sasscer had the occasion to reconfirm that
view.
He promptly returned to my offices and started discuss-
ing the method of correcting this deficiency. It was my
judgment at first that it was desirable that each mort-
gage be confirmed individually because they involved per-
haps different interests.
Robinson strenuously opposed this view and the reason
for his opposition was a very simple one. It first required
‘ the execution of the 305 mortgages. The expense of re-
cording affidavits and all the other incidental expenses
and he tried to come up with some view, I think he called
it an assignment or indenture, and I refused to accept his
views or judgment in that area. We discussed it with the
Congressman over the telephone and perhaps, in person,
but I want to say to you, Mr. Doub, in that area, I am a
little confused as to the Congressman’s participation. I
do not remember whether he was in the offices or I spoke
to him over the phone.
Q. Were you and the Congressman in agreement or dis-
agreement as to your final conclusion as to what recom-
_—
App. 541
mendation immediately should be followed? A. Entirely
in agreement and, as a matter of fact, we finally worked out
a confirmatory mortgage for the entire group of three
hundred five, bringing out, I think there was 311 mortgages
but removing from that group that was confirmed in the
single document, the 305 mortgages.
Now, I might say that this extended over a period of a
couple of months.
Q. The work on this matter? A. The work on this mat-
ter. First one of the reasons was that Robinson refused
to accept our judgment immediately and then it was a
question of catching up one with the other. But I know
that we finished at some time in, perhaps, mid-April or
early April or thereabouts and I think that the papers
were finally recorded perhaps in May, but my memory in
that respect is bad because I did not record them. I gave
them to Robinson for execution, for procurement of exe-
eution and recordation and I am assuming that it was
properly done. But that is the picture in that area, sir.
Q. Now, you mentioned that there was a basic underly-
ing mortgage made by A. I. Cassel. Did you find that that
basic mortgage was defective or— A. There was an over-
all mortgage that I found that was a good mortgage. At
least in our judgment it was a good mortgage. That was
a basic mortgage. But actually, in technical handling of
that mortgage, I did not approve of their procedures and
the reason for that is this: While they had a mortgage on
the whole, they were then creating individual mortgages
on individual lots as the individual purchaser would pur-
chase. It seemed to me that good policy and good opera-
tion demanded that, as a purchaser would come in with an
individual interest that mortgage should be released, the
basic mortgage should be released as to the individual lot
so that the lien should be limited to the proper lien and
the proper indebtedness.
But I did not get into that too far because it was not
within my province and at that time I think that was just
App. 542
about the first dealing I had with Mr. Robinson, although
I have a vague recollection and I am told that I met him
sometime before that, but it is not specific in my recol-
lection. I just do not remember.
[TR 3056-3076]
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Mr. Adelberg, did Mr. Johnson bring you into the |
mortgage foreclosure case with respect to the Desser and |
Garfield $6 million mortgage in Southern Maryland!
A. That is a very difficult question to answer exactly as
you propounded it. Mr. Robinson, sometime in April of |
1961, came into the offices with the Desser & Garfield |
mortgage. It was a $6 million mortgage and he indicated |
that he or his interests, he represented parties who wanted |
to take over this property and had some interest in it. We |
discussed the mortgage and started tearing it apart be- |
cause it was an unusually drawn instrument with a note,
while apparently a note merely set forth terms that car-
ried with it no personal hability or obligation. In the
course of the discussion I know that I spoke to Mr. Johnson.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Johnson sent Mr. Robinson
to you on that occasion? A. I know that Robinson was in.
I know that Robinson would come to me only as a result
of Mr. Johnson or Congressman Johnson’s reference but
H at the time Robinson walked in directly but in the course
of the morning discussion, I might say to you, we spent an
entire day in the disevssion and examination of the law.
i
;
“2
|
:
3
FESR A
: Other members of my staff joined in. We examined law and
: we calied the Congressman on the phone and there were
4 a number of discussions. I do not remember the Congress-
i man in that day, although I might say to you, Mr. Doub,
that some suggestion has been made that he was in. I do
not remember him. I know that I spoke to him about it and
I believe it was on the telephone. We reviewed the mortgage
and it was a very tricky mortgage and very frankly, after
we reviewed it and we came to a fixed conclusion and I say
bed Be sili Sans dat ‘ x ip
Peaweussn: pi AS ee
App. 5438
it took just about an entire day. We examined law. I had
different men in the office examining the law, coming back
with references. We discussed it backwards and forth and
finally came to a conclusion.
There was a question whether we would execute or pro-
ceed on the note, whether to proceed on the mortgage—
whatever the recommendation would be.
I might say to you, too, that at that time I did not know
Desser & Garfield. I do not know them now. I have never
seen them nor heard of them other than this reference and
several references subsequently. There was a man by the
name of Ernest who was the mortgagee or owner of the
paper. I do not know Ernest, never saw him and never heard
of him except by reference.
We worked on it, as I said, just about the entire day.
Robinson then left with these papers with our recommen-
dations and I heard nothing further about it until about
the first of May when Congressman Johnson called on the
telephone and discussed language of a notice that he was
sending to Desser & Garfield indicating default in the mort-
gage and note.
Q. You mean giving him notice? A. Giving him notice
of default. I discussed the language with the Congressman.
He then called back, I think the next day and by that time
I had made some research. He apparently had engaged in
some research and he then revised his notice as a result
of combined discussion and I think he, at least he said,
I do not know this but at least he told me that, based on
our conversations, he was going to send a second notice. I
heard no more about the Desser & Garfield mortgage. I do
not know its disposition. I might say, incidentally, while
Mr. Robinson was in the offices and we discussed the note,
he also indicated that there was some possible room for
purchase of the Desser & Garfield interest, but he regarded
their claim as so extravagant at the time that he was not
interested and this was a rather extensive and long discus-
App. 544
sion and I am trying to summarize real fast for you a one-
day session.
Q. Now, was it at that meeting or another meeting where
a tax problem was discussed? A. I do not think tax prob-
lems were at all discussed that day. I might say by way of
answer to that, that while I try cases in the tax court of
the United States, I now have in my office a young man
who is an excellent tax man and I refer all such matters
to him for discussion and examination.
I know that he at one time participated in a discussion
of tax liability and responsibility in connection with the
Desser and Garfield mortgage. I do not remember whether
there was discussion in the office. There could have been,
and incidentally, I am referring to David Rudow whom I
mentioned yesterday.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Johnson or Mr. Robinson coming
to your office on Saturday, April 29, 19611 A. I now do,
yes, sir.
Q. You do? A. I might say by way of explanation in
that area, Mr. Doub, that that Mr. Robinson and Congress-
man Johnson visited my offices in the last several months
: asking me for the date of this Saturday visit. I could not
E recall it.
é He mentioned my secretary who was present at the
time. I called her on the phone—a Mrs. Isabel Kicas. Isabel
remembered it very well and was able to pin it down to a
particular Saturday, April 29, 1961.
With that information I was able to call—
; Q. In other words, you recall a Saturday but you did
? not recall the date? A. Well, I am able to recall it pre-
cisely now and I was trying to tell you why, sir. I then
called Mrs. Rosalie Brenner, the second secretary who
worked that day and, as a result of her advice, I was able
to go to my records and pick out a check that I paid her
for services rendered on April 29, 1961. As a matter of fact,
je id alin Sy
Apa
Sint TERE BE se SS
Btw Pes
“td
c.
bused 2...
App. 545
with that information I then discussed it in the office and
there was no question in my mind about the date. It was
April 29, 1961 and there was a funny incident with respect
to it.
Congressman Johnson and Mr. Robinson did not have an
appointment with me that lay. My only appointment was
with a client, a Mrs. Lilly Nelson, who was due in the office
at 10:30 that morning, perhaps 11 o’clock. They walked in.
They wanted to do some work. They wanted stenographic
service and help.
Mrs. Neison walked in. She is a secretary by profession
as well as a housewife. They impressed her to work. She
went to work. She was a very unhappy woman. In the mean-
time I called Rosalie and Isabel. They came in and she
scooted out of there as fast as she finished what she was
typing. We never discussed the matter she came to the office
about. She too, remembers the date very well.
Q. So there were three girls working for Mr. Robinson
and Mr. Johnson that day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how long they were dictating to the sec-
retaries and were in the office? A. Yes, I know that Rosalie
did not leave until after six o’clock and the reason for that
was, she had to finish up work. I know that Rosalie took
dictation from the Congressman. She took dictation from
Robinson. I know that Isabel took dictation from both. T
participated very, very little because, frankly, I was not
interested in the matter nor was I participating. They
intended merely to use my office as a vehicle for their pur-
poses.
Q. Did Mr. Johnson bring you into this matter? A. No.
As a matter of fact, I did look at some language that was
subject to discussion. I am not even sure I remained in the
office steadfastly. I believe I left and returned.
But my son-in-law David Rudow, was ‘again working
that day. In speaking to Rosalie, she emphasized it because
3 wrk ya | oe
App. 546
she sent him out at five o’clock to move her automobile which
was parked down in Sam Smith’s parking lot.
Q. Were you close enough to the work they were doing
there to know what legal instruments they were preparing?
A. Yes, they seemed to be preparing a loan agreement of
some sort involving, I believe, Charles County Land Com-
pany. And the reason the name sticks to me, sticks in my
mind is that I had incorporated Charles County Land Com-
pany only a few days ago, a few days before at the instrue-
tion of the Congressman, Congressman Johnson.
Q. Upon his instructions did you prepare the articles of
incorporation for Charles County Land Company? A. Yes,
sir. Congressman Johnson called on either April 25 or
April 26 of 1961.
We immediately went to work on the certificate of char-
ter, by-laws and preliminary minutes. We used all my office
staff. As a matter of fact, Isabel was one of the incorpo-
rators. Another secretary Catherine Sennett, was the see-
ond incorporator and then my second son, David Adelberg,
was the third incorporator.
Q. Was that incorporated under the laws of the State
of Maryland? A. Yes. I might say I named myself in the
charter as the resident agent for Charles County Land
Company.
Q. Can you recall whether Mr. Johnson indicated there
was some urgency about the matter? A. Yes, he called
and asked to give it the right-of-way and, as you see, it did
get the right-of-way. As a matter of fact, it was not even
delivered by mail to the State Tax Commission. We deliv-
ered it by hand and, as a matter of fact, we prepared a
check and the check was not adequate, and I have the receipt
with me that required me to pay an additional $2.00 on
April 27.
ae
“Ser Ez.
¥ ss i
*
(Vol. 26 [3053]) :
* * * * * «
[3063] By Mr. Doub:
Q. I show you what purports to be a note from Mr.
Johnson to you of June 2, 1961 and ask you if you received
that? A. I did, sir.
[3064] (Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, Your Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson Exhibit 47 marked in
evidence.
(The Court) Any objection?
(Defendant Johnson Exhibit 47 marked in evidence.)
(Mr. Doub) It is dated June 2, 1961 to Harry Adelberg,
Esq., Maryland National Bank Building, 10 Light Street,
Baltimore, Maryland.
‘‘Dear Harry:
‘*Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am en-
closing herewith Declaration Summons in the local
bank matter.
‘*Personal regards,
/s/ Thomas F.. Johnson.’’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, did that relate to the summons or the suit that
had been filed on the Dranow treasury note? A. Yes, but
I might say to you this was not my first introduction to
the matter.
Q. Yes, but I am coming to that. A. Yes.
Q. Congressman Johnson then referred to you for
handling the suit that was brought by someone named
[3065] Marcus, I believe. A. Jules Marcus.
Q. Who claimed to be the original owner of that treas-
ury note for $100,000? A. Yes, sir.
POLE LIM ROG LEON
—,.
App. 548
Q. And did you thereafter handle that suit until it was
settled? A. I did, sir.
Q. And do you know what amount was paid in settle.
ment of his claim that it had been stolen before it had been
negotiated and sold to First Continental? A. Well, I
settled the case for $12,500. But let me say this to you,
Mr. Doub, there was work in this matter prior to this
letter and I call that to your attention for whatever it is
worth.
Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Johnson with
respect to the claim that lawyers for Mr. Marcus had as-
serted prior to the institution of this suit? <A. Well, let
me reverse the order if I may. My first introduction of the
matter was when Bill Robinson came to my offices with a
letter from Messrs. Kardy and Brannam, making demand
upon the First Continental Savings and Loan Association.
Immediately following that, I received a telephone call from
Congressman Johnson in the matter.
I did not know at this time he had been active in it or for
that matter, had referred it to the office. I knew immediately
he had after I had spoken to Robinson.
I might say this, that because of the first introduction for
Robinson, I was not clear in my own mind as to actually
who had referred the matter to my office. But when I checked
my file, I find that prior to the suit, I had written the Con-
gressman about the letters and correspondence. He had
replied to me. We had discussed it on the telephone.
Apparently, he had engaged, or caused someone to engage
in some research in the matter. I think I got his research
results. I did not use that. I mean, we read it and then prob-
ably, because of the same caution that one would exercise
in practice, I put my own men to work on the question of
research.
But, in any event, this was a suit that was finally referred
to my offices by Congressman Johnson. It was a suit filed
in Montgomery County. We filed answers and defenses
7
and immediately, coincidental with the filing of the answers,
I attempted something that worked. We filed a petition to
remove the case to the U. S. District Court. Tt was removed
to this court and it was in this court. As a matter of fact,
I believe the Court will recall that I had some conversations
with him about this particular case. But, in any event, as
the case progressed, I do not think I engaged in further con-
versation with the Congressman about it except casually
and I would say that one of the conversations was that we
had with him, it never came into being ‘‘before you fix a
fee in this case, consult me in it—so it is worth a substantial
fee if you get the result that you think you can get,’’ or
some such language.
App. 549
Q. Do you recall in August, 1961 Mr. Johnson asking you
to send him copies of some depositions which you had taken?
A. Yes, we took depositions in the Marcus case of Jules
Mareus in New York City on August 9, 1961. Some time
after that I would say that we probably did not get the
depositions for a week or two, but when we had received the
depositions, I had received a call from Congressman John-
son telling me he would like to have them. I do not know
what use he wanted to make of them but I referred them to
him.
I mailed them to him or delivered them to him. I just do
not remember but he got them.
Q. You testified at the outset of your testimony yesterday
afternoon that Mr. Johnson referred business from time
to time—legal business, to you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall a matter which he referred to you in
1960 involving some persons named Calhoun? A. Oh, that
was a tax case. Messrs. Wilgus and Calhoun were at that
time engaged in the Acme Poultry business outside of Snow
Hill, Maryland. They were involved with an income tax—
(Mr. Doub) I am not going to go into this.
(The Witness) All right, sir.
ae,
App. 550
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Iam going to ask you one question. Did you send, after
the fees were paid, legal fees due, send Mr. Johnson a check
dated April 3, 1961 for $1,000 as his share of the fee your
office had earned? A. I did, sir. |
Q. That legal matter had nothing to do with the matters
involved in this case? A. No, that was one of the many
matters that we may have interchanged and I might say
that most of the legal matters flowed from Congressman
Jobnson to my office. I did not have too many matters on
the Shore.
(Mr. Tydings) You mean you did not refer him many
matters. He referred them to you?
(The Witness) Principally.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Do you recall being at The Woodner Hotel on a late
afternoon of October 23, 1961? A. I recall being there very
well, but I do not recall too much about it. On October 23,
1961, a client and I had business in Silver Spring near Wash-
ington. We visited over there. We were engaged in a con-
ference involving a business matter relating to the client.
A day or two days before Robinson had been in my office
and told me that Congressman Johnson was leaving the
country on the 24th of October. So, I called him from Carl
Friedman’s office where we were engaged in negotiations
and discussion, wishing him a good trip, and I don’t know
whether he was visiting Europe or going around the world
but in any event, it was a trip abroad.
When I called the Congressman, he asked me if I would
mind picking him up and carrying him to Baltimore. I was
not driving my own car. My client, a Frederick Fisher, had
his car with him. I asked the client whether he would mind
and he said, no. I had to tell the Congressman I did not
know when I could pick him up. It would depend entirely
upon the time the conference ended.
App. 551
He indicated that he would be ready at about six o’clock
and I thought that was perhaps all right. We finished about
five-fifteen or five-thirty, and we drove from Silver Spring—
Q. First, did you agree to meet him somewhere? A. Yes,
We drove to The Woodner Hotel and the Congressman was
not there. I think Robinson was there. I am not sure whether
Mr. Edlin was there, but I know that Robinson was there
and some other personnel connected with the Association
but frankly, | was anxious to be home. I was irritated at
having to wait. I sat at the table in the tavern there or cafe,
and had a drink with the other men or some other men
and I had to wait for the Congressman and he finally did
arrive.
Q. Do you recall specifically whether Mr. Edlin and Mr.
Johnson moved over to another table for a short while?
A. It is all very vague. I was not paying any attention to
them. I know that they sat at another table for awhile.
What they were doing, I do not know, and frankly, I was
asked whether I remembered much about it. I just do not.
I got a vague impression which may or may not be accurate
that the Congressman was signing something over there.
More than that, I cannot tell you. I do not even know what
he was signing. It is all in the intangible.
Q. And Mr. Johnson then did drive back with you and
your client to Baltimore? A. He drove back and we brought
him to his home near Johns Hopkins University, I forget
the address, Canterbury Road.
Q. I show you Defendant Johnson exhibit No. 1 marked
for identification and ask you if you received that check
from Mr. Johnson? A. I did,
Q. All right.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, Your Honor.
(Mr. Tydings) Aren’t you going to ask him what for?
(Mr. Doub) Before I offer it?
GS Ko tote Lae cae
BBiciece i go ae tas
App. 552
(Mr. Tydings) I am going to object to your offering it
until you have the witness describe what it is for. It is not
relevant until we know what it is for. That is, until the jury
knows what it is for.
(Mr. Doub) This check has now been identified as having
been received, Your Honor. It was marked for identification
before and I now offer it in evidence.
(The Court) Mr. Tydings has objected on the ground of
relevancy and materiality.
(Mr. Tydings) T have not objected all morning to the
way he has been phrasing his questions because we want
to get to the facts out even though, in some areas, I
thought I could well have objected. I do insist that the
rules of evidence be followed now and he identify it and
establish its relevancy before it is received in evidence. It
is very simple.
(Mr. Doub) Your Honor, the check shows on its face
the relevancy. It recites it is a ‘‘Fee-First Continental.”
(The Court) Let me see it.
(Pause)
Mr. Tydings will have an opportunity to ask about it
on cross examination.
(Mr. Doub) Your Honor, I intend to bring it out.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. What was that check for? A. That was intended
to be a payment on account of services that we have ren-
dered. At least my office has rendered for First Continental
through Congressman Johnson’s office.
I might say to you, Mr. Doub, that this is not the first
check that we received in that area. We first received two
checks. One from the First Continental, both of them—
well, two checks on, I think April 17, 1961, each in the
amount of $350 and those checks were received directly
from the savings and loan associations.
———
App. 553
I wrote Congressman Johnson when I got that check,
those two checks, and asked him for instructions because
they were sent to me without any bill or any request for
payment and then as work progressed, I got this $500
check, oh, I think that check should be dated—I received
it about July 6. I do not know what it is dated.
(The Clerk) It is dated July 5.
(The Witness) I received it July 6, 1961. Then I got
another check, if you are interested.
(Mr. Doub) Well, I am coming to that. I again offer
it in evidence.
(The Court) Yes.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson exhibit 1 previously
marked for identification, now marked in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson exhibit No. 1 received in evidence.)
By Mr. Doub:
Q. It is a check to Harry Adelberg, attorney for $500
date July 5, 1961. It bears the signature of Thomas John-
son and under it ‘‘Special Account.’’ On the lefthand side
‘‘Fee—First Continental.”’
Now, I show you defendant Johnson exhibit 2 for iden-
tification and ask you what this is? A. You asked me
to tell what it was?
Q. Did you receive it? A. Yes.
Q. What was it for? A. This was a check that is dated
August 7, and I received it on August 9, 1961, also for
services rendered by my office through the Congressmen
for the Associations. I might say to you, sir, that during
that period of time while we were working, I had written
the Congressman a couple of time, discussing the question
of fees and what to do about billing, and at the same time
I also discussed the question of fees with Robinson. Be-
tween the July 6 check, dated July 5, I received it on July
6—between the July 6 check and the August 9 check. I
AF It aS TEN 2a
od " —
ohS ete aie ga &
Pisses
App. 554
had occasion to mention to Robinson that I had received
the $500 and we discussed it and he told me then that it
was his position that he was paying Congressman John-
son for the services rendered by my offices. That is before
1 received the second check.
I discussed that with the Congressman and I think that is
entitled to some explanation. The Congressman and I have
always operated on a very informal basis. I never question
any remittance that he made to me, and he never questioned
any remittance I made to him. If I made a remittance to him,
I did not give him a statement of account. I did not indicate
to him the fees ccllected. I sent him what I thought was a
fair distribution to him in the case, in a given case, consid-
ering his participation or lack of participation and consid-
ering the reference.
Q. Did Mr. Johnson seem to handle—
(The Court) I think you had better let him finish.
I thought he was in the middle of an answer.
(The Witness) It was with that view in mind that when
I got these checks, I discussed them with the Congressman.
Now, as a matter of fact, you referred yesterday, for in-
stance, to a letter of April 17. In that letter, I acknowledged
those two checks that I received from the building associ-
_ ation and I discussed that matter and also discussed the
Marcus case. I discussed the question of fees. Again at a
later time, in a later letter I wrote the Congressman and
told him that perhaps we ought to have some discussion of
the fees on some basis but this was entirely up to him. These
were kis matters as far as I was concerned, and he had to
tell me what he felt was proper or reasonable.
(Mr. Doub) I offer Johnson exhibit 2 in evidence, Your
Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson exhibit 2 previously
marked for identification now marked in evidence.
~~ SS
al Aas e,
air =
App. 555
(Defendant Johnson exhibit 2 marked in evidence.)
(Mr. Doub) Members of the jury, this is a check dated
August 7, 1961, payable to Mr. Harry Adelberg, Attorney,
in the amount of $500 and it is signed by Thomas F. John-
son, Special Account, No. 1, and on the left hand side it is
written ‘‘Legal.’’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Is that check in Mr. Johnson’s handwriting? A. Yes,
sir.
[3076] By Mr. Doub:
Q. When did you first hear that Mr. Johnson had made
a speech in Congress regarding savings and loan associa-
tions? A. I knew nothing at all about the speech until
sometime in October of 1961 or perhaps even November.
It was the latter part of October and I think it was shortly
after the Congressman had left the country. It may have
been November or the early part of November.
[3077] In any event, I think I read something about it in
the Washington Post or I got some reference to it from
the Washington Post.
Q. That was sometiiing critical? A. Yes. And I then
had occasion to ¢all the Congressman’s office in his
absence to speak to Mr. Buarque. I asked him the—
(Mr. Tydings) Your Honor, I do not want to interrupt
out we have had so much hearsay. I realize Your Honor’s
position, the fact that you have conversations admissible
but it is not admissible to prove the truth.
(The Court) I do not think it is material relative to
something that happened about the newspapers.
(Mr. Genn) I do not object to comments by the United
States Attorney as to things he does not object to. We
frequently have done the same thing, when I objected to
the hearsay matters he brought in.
oa
‘App. 556
There should be no medals awarded to anyone for not
objecting. If there are any objections made, that should be
done without comment.
(The Court) That is right. Mr. Tydings, if you object
to this, I sustain the objection.
(Mr. Tydings) I object.
(The Court) Unless the relevancy, materiality [3078]
and competency is shown.
(Mr. Doub) Your Honor, may I say this as to that: As
I understood the Government’s position on cross examina-
tion of Mr. Buarque, the question was as to the prepara-
tion of this speech, and in effect, an attack on what he had
to say, that he had prepared that speech and no body else
had done so, and since they have made that attack, it
; seems to me that I can now ask this witness what Mr.
; Buarque told him as early as October.
(The Court) Of course, that is not admissible. Self-
serving statements by Mr. Buarque are not admissible
here. You put Mr. Buarque on the stand. He was subject
to cross examination. The jury will either believe him or
: not believe him.
Other statements that Mr. Buarque made to an asso-
ciate are not admissible. ;
4 (Mr. Doub) Would it not be significant, though, if he
; made the same statements, Your Honor, as long ago as
October, 1961?
| (Mr. Tydings) You mean after he read the critical news-
4 paper articles in the Post?
(Mr. Doub) Yes.
(Mr. Tydings) That would just emphasize the fact it is
a self-serving declaration after you are under attack.
[3080] (Open court.)
(The Court) I think it is very doubtful but the objec-
tion goes to weight rather than admissibility.
N
4
‘
%
%
rd
2
4
-
ja jpPreSy A
Piisie ten etioas rnin
_—
App. 557
(Mr. Tydings) If he is going to examine him about a
newspaper article, Your Honor, isn’t the article itself the
best evidence?
(The Court) If Mr. Doub examines him about that, he
may open up a good many avenues which would otherwise
be closed to you but that is his choice.
(Mr. Genn) If the Court please, I am going to object as
to this particular line if we are going to get into news-
paper articles about this matter.
[3081] (Mr. Doub) I am not going to go into newspaper
articles.
(The Court) I do not see how Mr. Doub can avoid that
if he is asking the witness to tell about his discussion with
another witness about a particular newspaper article.
If you object, we will take a poll of the defendants. I was
going to overrule the government’s objection. Do the
other defendants object to the question Mr. Doub is
asking?
(Mr. Williams) I would just like to be left out of this,
Your Honor.
(The Court) Do you object to it?
(Mr. Genn) I do not think—
(The Court) You have got to object or not object. Yes
or no.
(Mr. Genn) Your Honor, I have stated I do object and
I do think the conclusions and opinions of newspaper re-
porters certainly should not be an issue in this case and
that is what is involved in newspaper articles.
(Mr. Doub) This is not involved.
(The Court) Well, are you going to say anything, Mr.
Robinson?
(Mr. Robinson) No. Your Honor, I neglected to come to
the Bench and I am afraid I do not know exactly what
[3082] is going on.
-,
(The Court) I do not think Mr. Genn’s objection is a
good one at this time, whatever it may be as to something
which may come up in the future. I overrule the objection.
(Mr. Doub) All right.
App. 558
[Tr. 3159-3162] :
THOMAS F. JOHNSON
DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Mr. Johnson, where do you live? A. Berlin, Worces-
ter County, Maryland.
Q. Where were you born? A. Snow Hill, Eastern
Shore of Maryland.
Q. And who was your father? A. My father was the
late Judge William F. Johnson.
Q. He died when? A. He died in 1961 at the age of 98.
Q. Mrs. Johnson, your mother is still living? A. I am
happy to say that she is and she is in court today. She
will be 90 her next birthday.
Q. And I believe you had a brother who was also a
Judge? A. I did have a brother named Edwin H. John-
son who served nine years as Circuit Court Judge. He
passed away in 1951.
Q. You have a sister? A. I have a sister who is in
court who is Mrs. George O. Haton, wife of Dr. George 0.
Eatou, the Orthopedic surgeon.
Q. You are married? A. I am married.
Q. How many children do you have? A. Four chilaren.
I had three by a marriage some years ago. I have one
step-daughter, making four children.
piste ORAS Re nO at aE a eae ASE RE ae
Se
Q. How long have you been married to your present
wife? A. I think 12, 13, 14, maybe 15 years.
App. 559
Q. You are as vague asI am? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, where were you educated? A. I
was in various schools, St. Johns College, Staunton Mili-*
tary Academy first, the University of Virginia and the
University of Maryland.
Q. And you studied law where? A. At the University
of Virginia and I had one year also at the University of
Maryland.
Q. Since graduating from law school and being ad-
mitted to the Maryland Bar, where did you practice law?
A. In Snow Hill, in Berlin which is on the Eastern Shore
and for many years I have had a working arrangement in
Baltimore.
Q. What was the first governmental position you held?
A. As a state official I was elected in 1934 as State’s At-
torney for Worcester County.
Q. How long were you States Attorney? A. I served
for four years until 1939.
Q. When was the first time you became the Democratic
nominee for Congress? A. Well, following State’s attor-
ney in 1939, I was elected to the State Senate and I served
for 12 years until 1951 in the State Senate.
In 1950 my first contact as a Democratic nominee for
Congress.
And I might say, unsuccessful because that was the year
that Governor Lane and Senator Tydings and a few of
us went down to defeat.
Q. Now, those three were the only persons running in
that election on the Eastern Shore, you and the other two?
A. There were other candidates but I do not recall the
candidates now.
Q. When were you first elected to Congress? A. I was
elected in 1958. November of 1958 and took my seat in
January of 1959.
ST ee a a ak a
7
Q. And you ran again and were re-elected in 1960? A.
I was re-elected in 1960.
App. 560
(Tr. 3163] :
Q. Then you ran again in 1962 and you were defeated!
A. I was defeated by a very, what I considered, a narrow
margin. I think I received approximately 30,000 votes and
my opponent 33,000. And that defeat came just three
weeks after the indictment in this case.
Q. Now, I want you to turn to your record in the Con-
gress briefly. What were the two most important com-
mittees which you served on? A. In my first session I
served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
of which, incidentally, my Colleague Congressman Boykin
was also a member.
My second session I was selected for the Foreigu
Affairs Committee and the second session I served on
both of the important committees, the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Q. You were a co-sponsor of the Peace Corps Bill? A.
I think I was co-sponsor of many but the Peace Corps was
one of the bills that I co-sponsored.
* * - * * *
(Tr. 3164-3166] : |
. What was your roll call record in the Congress? A.
I think I had a very excellent one throughout the tenure in |
|
|
Congress. I would say in the upper ten per cent. That
means a very high record of attendance.
Q. Did you practice law when you were in the State
Senate of Maryland throughout that period? A. I did.
Q. And did you practice law during the years you were
in Congress? A. I continued to do so as many others I
think probably sitting in Congress do who are lawyers.
Q. When you were practicing law in Snow Hill and
Berlin, did you practice under the firm name of Johnson
—
App. 561
& Johnson? A. I did, with the firm my father originated
in, I think, 1883 or 1885. And I continued under that firm
but approximately 1939 I moved near Berlin and opened
an office in Berlin and most of my time following 1939 was
in the Berlin Office and not Snow Hill.
Q. Did you continue the firm name of Johnson & Johnson,
however, in connection with the Snow Hill office? A. I did.
Q. And who were the partners, who have been the part-
ners in that firm? A. Well, for the last year I was the
sole and only partner. In the inception why, it was Wil-
liam F. Johnson, my father and my brother Edwin H.
Johnson; later there were the three, including myself,
who were partners. Following my brother’s death, after
he had been on the bench, and inactivity of my father, I
was the only remaining member of the firm.
Q. You have been the sole surviving member since when?
A. Oh, I would say possibly the last five, six, seven, maybe
ten years.
Q. Now, why did you continue that firm name when you
were the only partner left? A. Well, it was a great deal
of sentimental reasoning, because father, say, did not pass
away until the last of 1961 and he was very attached to
his old firm, and I remained more for the sentimental
reason than anything else, and because of him.
[Tr. 3184-3204] :
Q. Mr. Johnson, when was it that you first met Mr.
Edlin and Mr. Robinson? A. That was in the early months
of 1960.
Q. And in what connection did you meet them? A.
Starting in 1938 I was interested in a bridge construction
known as the Assateague Bridge. That was to connect
the mainland with Assateague Island.
There had been a group of land owners as well as citi-
zens in Worcester County who were interested in a bridge.
LTTE PAGER DLR AEE A
They were having trouble to find financing. In early 1960
Mr. Marshall Diggs or his associate introduced me to Mr,
Edlin, as underwriter for certain lending institutions.
App. 562
Q. He was introduced to you as an underwriter for
certain financial institutions? A. The bridge group headed
by Mr. Marshall Diggs, and there were several very
prominent citizens who constituted that bridge group, and
they met with me in Washington, saying that a Mr. Edlin
had discussed the matter with them and they would bring
Mr Edlin in, and they identified him as an underwriter for
several lending institutions.
Q. Now, at that time was the Assateague Island Bridge
group interested in private financing to finance the con-
struction of the bridge? A. It was private financing. At
that time the State had not considered the feasibility of
using public funds for the bridge. It was entirely private.
And as a result we had several conferences with Mr. Edlin
and with Mr. Robinson.
Q. And the subject was a loan to the bridge company!
A. Yes, I recall the first discussion was for a $1,700,000 loan.
That was not only for the bridge, but tying in with the
bridge was for sewer and water and some roads on the
Island, and as collateral they wanted 500 mortgages from
property owners. Later that was revised.
We had several conferences and the last suggestion was
that there would be 4,000 mortgages given to secure the
loan, but those negotiations continued until, I would say,
August of 1960.
Q. Now, this was the loan sought by the Assateague
Bridge Corporation that Mr. Diggs was President of? A.
I was one of the counsel for the Assateague Bridge Com-
pany. I had been approached for legislation after I had
served my term in the Senate. I had made a search and
told them there was no need for a legislative act; that the
Public Service Commission had jurisdiction, so I was
there as attorney.
App. 563
Q. I don’t want to go into that. A. All right.
Q. How many meetings would you say that you attended
where Mr. Robinson and Mr. Edlin were present from the
time you met them in early 1960 to the time when these
negotiations for a loan were concluded?
(The Court) You mean about the bridge matter or about
other matters?
(Mr. Doub) We are talking about this matter right
now, Your Honor.
(The Witness) It is not clear, as the Judge says. You
mean about the bridge matter?
By Mr. Doub:
Q. The bridge matter. A. I would say that I sac per-
haps three meetings with Mr. Edlin and possibly ‘our or
five with Mr. Robinson.
Q. And when, exactly, were these negotiations for the
bridge loan terminated? A. I put August. It could have
been later, but during the fall there became a public in-
terest, and the Governor intimated that he would put
in his budget sufficient funds for a public bridge, and fol-
lowing that—
Q. I don’t want to get into that. Let me ask you a lead-
ing question, which Mr. Tydings may object to.
As a matter of fact, didn’t a savings and loan association
with which Mr. Edlin was connected make a written pro-
posal for a loan, but the terms were so stringent the group
turned then down, and that was the end? A. Well, in
April I received a copy of a letter to Mr. Diggs setting
forth what the terms would be as to a loan, and I think
that was revised so we had possibly two or three pro-
posals. But as you state, they were rather severe terms
because of the 4,000 mortgages.
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, prior to June 20th, do you recall
any conversations you had with Mr. Robinson about Mr
ie
Ten.
yl <a ron . ane LE OTR EZ
>
Robinson’s interest in politics? A. Yes. I think Mr,
Robinson visited the property and I had occasion to be with
him, as I state, possibly five or six times, and he told me
that he had been interested in polities in Florida, and |
think he had taken some part in political campaigns in
Florida, and he was interested in my campaign. He felt
that I should be returned.
Q. That is, you were going to run for re-election that
year? A. In 1960 I had my former opponent Congress-
man Miller who oppesed me.
Q. Now, I show you a check dated June 20, 1960, in the
amoui. of $500 payable to your order, signed by W. L.
Robinson, Government’s Exhibit No. 69, and ask you if
you received that check, and I will call on Mr. Tydings to
produce the original letter from Mr. Robinson to enclose
that check, which the Government did not offer in evi-
dence. A. I mean the letter from Mr. Robinson to me.
(Mr. Doub) That is right.
(Mr. Tydings) Your Honor, any letters or anything
which the Congressman turned over to us or anybody else,
all Mr. Doub has to do is ask us in advance and we will
give them to him, and we wont have this unnecessary delay.
I don’t think it is quite proper to make a big ceremony
in front of the jury, when he can do it in the proper way
and ask beforehand.
(Mr. Doub) Mr. Tydings, you have a monopoly on what
is said before the jury.
App. 564
(Mr. Marion) Mr. Doub, you also know that we could
not call either the receiver or the sender of that letter to
the stand and introduce it.
(The Court) It is a fact the Government did not put
it in because they couldn’t have gotten it in, Mr. Doub,
over objection.
(Mr. Doub) Your Honor, we wouldn’t have objected to
it. We wanted it in.
App. 565
(The Court) All right.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, I show you— A. I am holding this check. I
have answered the question. Shall I give it back to you?
Q. Now, I show you a letter dated June 20, 1960, from
Mr. Robinson to you and ask you if you received that letter?
A. I did.
Q. And did that letter enclose this check, dated June
20, 1960, for $500? A. I did.
(Mr. Doub) I offer the letter, Your Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 49
marked in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 49 was received in
evidence. )
(Mr. Doub) This is on the letterhead of W. L. Robinson,
Attorney at Law, Miami, Florida, June 20, 1960, addressed
to Thomas F’. Johnson:
‘‘Dear Congressman Johnson:
‘‘The enclosure is with my best wishes for your suc-
cess in your present campaign for re-election, and I
look forward to seeing you on my next visit to Wash-
ington. My present plans are such that I expect to be
in Washington Wednesday and Thursday of this week.
‘‘Thanking you for your past cooperation, I am
‘*Very truly yours,
‘*W. L. Robinson.’’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, Government’s Exhibit 69, which you have identi-
fied as the enclosure referred to in that letter from Mr.
Robinson to you, a check for $500, contains an endorsement.
I would like you to read that to the jury. <A. It is an en-
dorsement on the back of the cheek: ‘‘Pay to the order of
App. 566
Russell O. Hickman, Luncheon Treasurer,’’ signed Thomas
F. Johnson. That is in my handwriting, and under that
‘‘Deposit to the account of Russell O. Hickman, Luncheon
Treasurer,’’ which I can identify as Mr. Hickman’s hand-
writing.
Q. Now, did you have any discussion about this cam-
paign contribution with Mr. Robinson when he came to
Washington, and in that connection I call your attention to
the fact of his covering letter which said that he was go.
ing to be in Washington shortly A. I did. I think I ad.
dressed him as Mr. Robinson, as the letter indicates. We
were not at that time on the first name speaking. He called
me Congressman.
He arrived, and I thanked him for the contribution. I told
him that I had not named a campaign treasurer; that we
were having a luncheon, Congressional luncheon in Balti-
more, on July 19, a fund raising. Would it be agreeable to
have the check used for the purpose of tickets at that
luncheon? And the treasurer of that luncheon was Mr.
Hickman and the chairman was Mr. James Campbell, and he
stated that it would be agreeable.
Q. Now, you stated that you endorsed the check over to
Mr. Hickman, the treasurer. Do you know of your own
knowledge that the proceeds of that check were deposited
by Mr. Hickman in his political account? A. I do.
(Mr. Marion) I don’t believe there is evidence to that
effect, Mr. Doub.
(The Witness) I do have personal knowledge because
I asked him after the charge against me that I had received
a $50U—I won’t say what, bribe or what.
(Mr. Doub) We can’t go into that.
(The Court) Mr. Hickman can go on the stand and testify
he deposited it.
(The Witness) I do have’ personal knowledge, too.
a
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Let me ask you this: Did all or any part of that
check come to you? <A. Mr. Doub, I received not one penny
of that check. It went-for my campaign along with the
carapaign of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and
that is shown by the report filed in Snow Hill.
App. 567
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, I show you Defendant Johnson’s
Exhibit No. 11, constituting the Congressional Record for
Thursday, June 30, 1960, which contains a speech on page
14,184, and ask you if you delivered that speech or caused
it to be inserted in the Congressional Record, which would
have the same effect? <A. Yes, sir, that is the speech that
was either delivered or submitted to the Clerk.
Q. By you? A. By me on June 30, 1960, after the close
of all other business by the House.
Q. Now, the first sentence of this speech states:
‘‘Mr. Speaker, on the 27th of May there appeared in
the Financial Section of the Washington Star an arti-
cle by one Donald B. Hadley, with the shocking black
headlines ‘Savings and Loans Urged to Warn Public of
Maryland Phonies.”’
Your speech then proceeds to criticize and answer that
article in the Star.
Now, when did you first see the article in the Star pub-
lished May 27, 1960? A. Mr. Doub, I don’t know when
I first saw it, the date. I know Mr. Buarque called the
article to my attention, but when I do not know.
Q. In other words, it had been some time after the 27th
then? A. I presume so, because I couldn’t guess what
date that I first knew.
Q. Now, where do you recall meeting Mr. Heflin? <A.
After Mr. Heflin testified, I recalled that I had met him
once at the Congressional Hotel.
Q. Is that at a luncheon? A. That was at a luncheon
PERLE TR LE PRESEN LE ETRE
App. 568
that Marshall Diggs wanted to discuss the bridge matter,
and I did not know %.. Heflin was there until he testified,
and | would accept his word he was there.
Q. Now, who were present at that—who else was present
at that lunch? A. I would say, I am very hazy on who was
there, but I would accept the testimony that he was there,
Mr. Edlin— I think Mr. Rains testified he was there, and,
Mr. Doub, I don’t know who else.
Q. In any event, did you meet Mr. Heflin there? A, |
could have because | had no impression because we are
meeting constantly every day delegations, and it made no
impression.
Q. Now, do you recall thereafter in June 1960, Mr,
Heflin coming to your office to speak to you? <A. I do re-
member his being in my office.
Q. And tell the jury of vour conversation with him, Mr,
Johnson? <A. I don’t know the date that Mr. Heflin came
in the office. He had a copy of the Washington Star. The
same article that had been shown to me. He stated that
he thought it was very unjust. It was unfair reporting.
I asked him what his connection was with any savings
and loan. He told me he was P.R. man for the Institute of
the savings and loan independents.
Q. What do you mean by ‘‘P.R.’’? A. Public relations
man.
I asked him about his organization. He told me that he
was located on Connecticut Avenue. They had an office.
I asked him whether he represented any Maryland insti-
tutions. He said yes. T asked him how many institutions.
I don’t recall, but I think he said two, three or four, but he
continued to say they had a drive on. They expected to
have a large number of members. He was indignant over
the speech and thought that something should be done about
it.
I told him that matters of that sort was left to my ad-
eaten
——
App. 569
ministrative assistant. He then was asked to see Mr.
Buarque. In fact, I took him out to the other office, in-
troduced him to Mr. Buarque and told him to discuss the
matter with him. That is the last time that I saw Mr.
Heflin until he was in court, and I wouldn’t have known
him.
Q. Was Mr. Robinson with Mr. Heflin? A. He could
have been, I don’t recall. He could have been with him,
but, as I say, it is an instance that he could have been to
the office only a few minutes, because a Congrescional
office, particularly ours, there was not opportunity but for
very short conferences. We have a tremendous demand of
constituents, starting in the morning all day, «nd con-
ferences are short.
Q. Now, thereafter did you have any conversations with
Mr. Buarque about making a speech replying to the arti-
cle in the Star? A. I do recall following—whether it was
that day or days following, that Mr. Buarque said that he
had talked with Mr. Heflin; that Buarque thought that it
should be answered; and that he would prepare some re-
marks for me for the floor.
Q. Now, have you any information that Mr. Buarque saw
any copies of any speeches that might have been sent to
him by anybody else?’ A. Mr. Doub, he didn’t show me any.
I had no knowledge of any, and to me the whole incident
was completely forgotten until this episode.
Q. Now, did there come a time when he submitted to you
a speech which he had drafted or said he drafted? A. He
came into my office and had a prepared statement. I don’t
recall now when that was, but it must have been before
June 30th.
Q. it had to be? A. It had to be before June 30th. We
had a discussion, and I recall that Mr. Buarque felt that
it would be a good political move. I had the election. We
were thinking about 1964, and thought we could get some
publicity from it. As it turned out, there wasn’t much
response to the speech.
a
App. 570
Q. There » « *t any publicity either, was there? A,
No. We expected some, but nothing came from it, not in the
right direction anyway.
Q. Mr. Johnson, did Mr. Edlin ever ask you to make
that speech? A. Absolutely not.
Q. Did Mr. Robinson ask you to make that speech? A,
Absolutely not.
@. Were you promised anything by anyone if you would
make the speech? A. Absolutely not.
Q. Did you know of any advantages that might accrue
to you aside from the political ones you mentioned? A,
Absolutely none.
Q. Did Mr. Edlin or Mr. Robinson hold out to you any
inducements if you would make that speech? A. None,
I don’t think I even saw Mr. Edlin during that period of
time, or Mr. Robinson, except for the occasion when he
came in about the bridge matter, and I think that was only
about a few minutes conversation.
Q. When you discussed with Mr. Robinson his campaign
contribution to you did he refer to this speech at all A.
Mr. Robinson never mentioned this speech or any refer-
ence to it, and as far as any compensation, I want it dis-
tinctly understood there was no promise and there was
nothing received, and I resent any inference of it, and
Mr. Tydings knew or I told him before the indictment
exactly the truth of this.
(The Court) Do you have any more questions, Mr.
Doub?
(Mr. Doub) Would Your Honor indulge me just a mo-
ment?
(The Court) All right.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. You have testified that you did not have any meet-
ings with Mr. Edlin or Mr. Robinson other than the fact
—
|
Ae A
ay Fe cae
App. 571
that they were at that luncheon on the Assateague Bridge
matter with Marshall Diggs and perhaps Mr. Heflin. Do
you recall what month that luncheon was in? A. I don’t
recall. Mr. Heflin, I think, testified he thought it was
April of 1960. It may have been May, but I do not recall.
I might add, at that time one savings association did not
mean any more to me than another.
Q. At the time you made that speech, did you have any
connection of any kind with any savings and loan asso-
ciation? A. None whatsoever. I was not a depositor,
shareholder or represented or had any connection, and I
don’t even know that I knew the name First Continental,
and I didn’t know First Colony, but reviewing my files I
notice in April their name was mentioned in the proposal
for the loan.
Q. The Assateague Bridge loan? A. That had slipned
my mind, but I had no knowledge of them.
Q. I show you, Mr. Johnson, Government’s Exhibit No.
1, being a check of First Continental, dated July 5, 1960,
in the amount of $168,91, payable to the order of the Con-
gressional Record Clerk. Will you tell the jury when you
first saw that check? A. I presume it was somewheres on
or about July 5, 1960.
Q. Now, it is undisputed that that was a check for the
cost of 10,000 reprints? A. That is what it so states.
Q. When did you first learn of any order by Mr. Heflin
or his Institute for reprints? A. I would not say that
Mr. Buarque did not mention to me that there was re-
quests for reprints, but I have no recollection of anything
pertaining to reprints of the speech of June 30th until
the check was brought to me for endorsement when I asked
what it was for.
Q. And that was brought to you by whom? A. In the
office there is a Mrs. Kiernan who looks after all reprints,
and I assume she is the one who brought it to me for en-
ieee
eae
Baie SA RES ~ PMID tS BRA RR RES VEO MEE EIS CR RON SR RT EELS ee ROR ee
App. 572
dorsement over to the printers, because the speeches are
not printed at Government expense.
Q. Does that document bear your endorsement over to
the Government Printer? A. Yes, under the rules of the
House, a check has to pass through a Congressman.
Q. That is your endorsement? A. That is my endorse-
ment over to the Public Printer.
Q. Now, I show you Government’s Exhibit No. 3, being
a check of First Continental, payable to you, in the amount
of $161.39, dated August 13, 1960, which would have been
about six weeks after the speech, and ask you what that
check was for, or when you first saw it? A. That was in
the regular course of the office, during August, on or about
August 13th, for reprints, and that was endorsed over to
the Public Printer by me.
Q. That is your endorsement? A. My endorsement is
on it.
Q. Just going back to that speech, I forgot to ask you
this, Mr. Johnson, when Mr. Buarque presented his final
draft of the speech to you, did you make any changes in it?
A. I think possibly a few. I am inclined to have rather
conservative speeches, and I am sure I did strike some parts
of the speech.
Q. Before you actually delivered it? <A. Yes.
Q. Now, did anyone discuss with you orders for reprints
by Mr. Heflin or his Institute? A. No one whatsoever,
unless, as I say, Mr. Buarque had mentioned it, which I do
not recall. He could have said that they wanted a request
for reprints, but it is so routine that I just don’t recall.
Q. In any event the orders were not directed to you.
In other words, Mr. Heflin did not call you about them?
A. Mr. Heflin never talked to me about any reprints.
Q. Did you ever see Mr. Heflin after he came to your
office in June 1960, when he expressed the hope that you
App. 573
would answer this blast? <A. I think I testified that from
that occasion until he was in the court the other day was
the first time that I had seen him since that date.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of the distrivution that
was made of the reprints for your speech? A. I knew
nothing. I did not know they were distributed. If they
were, I was not consulted but usually Congressmen or
Senators hope they will be distributed because that is the
way of publicizing their speeches but I was not consulted.
No one talked to me.
Q. When you did hear that this large number of re-
prints had been ordered, were you pleased or displeased?
A. If I had heard it following the speech, I would have
been pleased, but I did not hear anything about it until th's
case started and I am not so pleased particularly about any
of it.
Q. You knew about it when you received—when you
endorsed those checks over to the public printer? A. Yes,
but it is routine and i did not know at that time very much
about it.
Q. Now, Government counsel has introduced in evidence
the order of your office addressed to the Puklie Printer
for reprints ¢f tuxs speech which is signed by Mrs. Kier-
nan whom you testified was a secretary in your office.
Did you or Mrs. Kiernan personally order those re-
prints from the Government Printing Office? A. Mr.
Doub, I did not but the responsibility of the office was
mine. Mrs. Kiernan was given the authority when she
first assumed her work with me four years before, now
four years before, that she was in charge of reprints, and
according to the evidence there, she is the one who signed
for the reprints.
Q. Do you know anything about the caption that was
put on the speech in the reprints? Were you consulted as
tothat? A. I know nothing about it. If Mr. Buarque men-
tioned it to me, I do not recall. I have no information or
knowledge of it whatsoever.
App. 574
Q. Do you remember, Mr. Johnson, whether some re-
prints of this speech were kept in your office? A. They
may have been kept in the file but I do not know where
the public could have seen them, or else I would have seen
the reprints. Because I did not see a reprint until I think
this matter came at issue. Yet I am told they were in
the office.
Q. Now, in the outer office where visitors came and
constituents came, did you maintain a table on which was
printed material for such visitors? A. Oh, yes, I think
every Congressional office has—we have farm books and
we have all types of printing matter there that we feel may
be of help to constituents.
Q. Do you recall whether any reprints of this speech
were kept there? A. Absolutely not and I know that Mr.
Buarque would not have because he is very careful in run-
ning the office, and I would know what he kept out and
certainly I would have seen it.
Q. You would have seen them if it were there? A. Yes,
Q. Did you ever see any marked copies of a reprint of
your speech where any material or sentences were under-
scored or underlined? A. The first time I ever heard of
a marked copy or have seen one was in this court the other
day.
Q. Do you recall a meeting with Senator John Clarence
North of Easton about a week after you made the speech?
A. I think it was a little more than a week. It was during
July of 1960, I believe Senator North came to my office
and with him was a Mr. deFord, and the other gentleman
was Gotschalk. They were representatives of the Mary-
land Savings and Loan League or the Federal representa-
tives.
Senator North stated they were there in reference to
this speech and wanted to know whether I intended to
have any further remarks on the floor of the House.
I told Senator North that I had no interest whatsoever
App. 575
in savings and‘ loans. That I had made the speech which
I felt was an impartial, fair speech in defense of hundreds
of institutions in Maryland that had enjoyed a good repu-
tation. They should not have been slandered as ‘‘phonies,’’
those savings and loans; having made that speech I had
no idea of continuing further.
The matter was closed.
One institution meant no more to me than another. They
thanked me and said they were happy to hear that I had
no further interest and after a few pleasantries, they
walked out.
(Mr. Doub) Your Honor—
(Mr. Tydings) Mr. Doub, wouid you identify who Mr.
North is?
(The Witness) That is John Clarence North, State Sen-
ator for Talbot County.
(Mr. Tydings) On the Eastern Shore.
(The Witness) Yes. A very able and pleasant person.
[TR.3256-3258 ]
Q. Mr. Johnson, in January, 1961, did you have a dis-
cussion with Mr. Edlin and Mr. Robinson or with one of
them with respect to a new fee arrangement? A. I did.
Q. And will you tell the jury what was agreed? A.
Well, the meeting was early in January of 1961, and they
asked that they confer with me in respect to a new matter
dealing with the Dranow case which has been spoken of
before.
Q. I do not want to get into that. I want to stay for a
moment on this. What was the new fee arrangement? A.
At the conference they stated that they agreed on a month-
ly retainer of $800 a month.
Q. When was the first meeting with respect to Dranow
treasury note in the amount of $100,000 in January of
LAGE ERE: PRE ae ae ES wt 5 i Tar a i
App. 576
1961? A. I do not recall but it was the very first part of
January, 1961.
@. And do you recall specifically any particular meet-
ings and who were present about it? A. Mr. Robinson had
spoken to me, also Mr. Edlin. They gave me some informa-
ticn in respect to the Dranow matter. I told them that I
desired further information. It was suggested that a Mr.
Goldman inFlorida may supply that and he was requested
to come to Washington to give that information to me.
Q. Do you recall a meeting in your office with Mr. Edlin
and Mr. Robinson and Mr. Goldman when they gave you
the facts with respect to the matter? A. I do.
Q. Did you dictate a memorandum in their presence
from the facts which they gave you at that time? A. I did.
Q. Do you have it there? A. The memorandum bears
no daie but it was at the meeting at the office.
Q. From what file did that come? A. I have it marked
‘<The $100,000 note.’’
Q. Would you like to tell the jury who was present when
you dictated this memorandum? A. To the best of my
knowledge, it was Mr. Edlin, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Goldman,
and I think they were the only ones.
Q. All right.
(Vol. 27 [3261]) By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, were you asked to make a trip
to New York with respect to the legal problems involved
in the claim of a Mr. Marcus for this treasury note or its
proceeds? <A. Yes.
[Tr. 3261-3267]
Q. Who asked you to make the trip? A. I do not recall
whether Mr. Robinson or Mr. Edlin. I do not reeall which
—or both.
App. 577
Q. You did go to New York and you had a meeting with
whom? A. With Mr. Arthur Spielberg, an attorney.
Q. And who was present at that meeting? A. Mr. Spiel-
berg, Mr. Edlin and Mr. Robinson and myself.
Q. And what was discussed there? A. It had come to
the attention of the First [3262] Continental Savings and
Loan that a Mr. Marcus of New York had made claim to
the proceeds of a $100,000 note, a note which had been dis-
counted on a Bethesda Bank in Maryland.
In view of the possible claim against First Continental,
I was asked to diseuss with Mr. Spielberg the question first
of jurisdiction, venue, and then the case, whether or not
the case would be likely to be disposed of in the State of
New York since the note has allegedly been stolen in New
York.
Q. Didn’t you mean that you were interested in what
law would apply, whether it was the New York Law or
Maryland Law or Florida law?
(The Court) He said he was discussing jurisdiction. He
may have also discussed the other. :
(The Witness) Yes, we discussed the question of the de-
claratory judgment as to the application of the law. The
Negotiable Instrument Act of New York.
I wanted to get Mr. Spielberg—to get from him exactly
what their Act contained as to the negotiable instruments,
passing of title to a note of this nature.
We had a very lengthy discussion in New York at the
Waldorf Hotel.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, Mr. Spielberg testified it was agreed that, if
there was litigation in New York, he would handle it, and if
there was litigation in Maryland, you would handle it. Do
you have the same recollection? A. Yes, we did not know
whether firs’, the suit would be brought; secondly, if there
App. 578
was a document suit, whether it would be in Maryland or
New York and I was to handle it if in Maryland.
Q. And later suit was brought in Maryland? A. It was
brought.
Q. And you referred it to Mr. Adelberg for handling?
A. Finally, after some months.
Q. And you did not handle it, yourself? A. I did not
handle the final settlement which was settled for $12,500,
Q. That is the claim of the alleged owner? A. Of
$100,000.
Q. Now, I show you Johnson exhibit 30, being a letter
from Mr. Spielberg dated January 31, 1961; in the first
sentence he says, ‘‘in accordance with the conversation
which I had with you last Friday, a review of the authori-
ties was made’’ and then he discusses the law. Is he refer-
ring to the meeting which you have just described when
he refers to the ‘‘conversation with you last Friday’?
A. That is true.
The meeting at the Waldorf Hotel which was on January
27, 1961.
Q. And did you receive this letter? A. I did, together
with enclosure.
Q. And what was the enclosure? A. The enclosure was
a two-page memorandum setting forth the New York Nego-
tiable Instruments Act.
Those portions or sections that dealt specifically with
our problem.
Q. And there are also references to New York Legal
decisions? A. Yes, and Mr. Spielberg was rather positive
that the so-called ‘‘raincoat’’ case would be applicable to
the case at issue. We discussed that at some length, and
he later sent to me the letter with the memorandum.
Q. Did you have a meeting on the following day in New
App. 579
York on any other subject? A. I did but I did more work
on this Dranow matter, too.
Q. Tell the jury what you are referring to? A. Well,
following back to Maryland, the question was whether or
not the suit was likely to be docketed in Maryland.
I did have an opportunity to review our Negotiable In-
strument Act and I recall I did some research, I believe,
under Trover, and finally, in March or April, Mr. Adelberg
joined in the case and we made a very extensive legal re-
search. That research, for the most part, however, Mr.
Adeiberg did. Mine was rather superficial.
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, the day after your meeting with
Mr. Spielberg in New York, what did you do? A. I was
asked by Mr. Robinson to attend a meeting, a director’s
meeting of the Nationwide Savings and Loan Association.
Q. Is that the association that you referred to on Thurs-
day when you were talking about the various attempts that
you had made to locate a savings and loan association in
Worcester County. You mentioned a Nationwide. A. I did.
As I say, I was not a stockholder or director of Nationwide
but whenever I had the opportunity, I always try to get
something for Maryland and I asked them to locate one
of their offices in my district in Worcester County.
Q. I show you what purports to be an original letter from
M. A. Seymour, counsel, to Mr. Robinson dated January 30,
1961, re Nationwide Savings and Loan Association, and ask
you if Mr. Robinson sent that letter to you upon its receipt?
A. He did.
Q. Right after it was written? A. Soon after it was
written, yes.
(Mr. Doub) I offer this letter, Your Honor.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson exhibit 55 marked in
evidence.
(The Court) What is the date of it?
AS Te SRB IRR HS ABE MELEE RONDE LEI IL
App. 580
(The Clerk) January 30, 1961 to William L. Robinsop
from the firm of Nova & Seymour, New York, 120 Broadway,
New York.
(Defendant Johnson Exhibit 55 marked in evidence.)
(Mr. Doub) Now, this letter states.
‘*Dear Bill:
‘‘T have prepared and enclose herewith the necessary
resolutions and signature cards to open accounts in:
‘‘J, The First National Bank of Snow Hill,
‘2. The Exchange and Savings Bank of Berlin, Mary.
land.
‘*3. The Gotham Bank.’’
Now, at that meeting in New York, had you requested
the persons associated with Nationwide Savings and Loan
Association if they would open a branch in Worcester
County? <A. I did and I was very hopeful that they would
open a branch in Worcester County.
* * * * * *
[Tr. 3268-3291]
Q. Mr. Johnson, is there any comment you would like
to make as to what you said ‘n that meeting in New York?
A. At the meeting I told them that I would like for them
to consider locating a branch on the Eastern Shore of
Maryland. We were badly in need of capital. It was an area
that needed funds for building and home improvement.
At the meeting a resolution was passed designating the
Exciange Bank of Berlin, First National Bank of Snow Hill
as depositories in my district. I was asked to see both banks,
arrange signature cards. I do not recall as to the First
National Bank of Snow Hill but I did contact Mr. Raymond
Davis, who is Cashier of the Exchange and Savings Bank,
the one who testified here some weeks ago, and at my re-
quest, he sent to New York the necessary signature card
applications,
App. 581
Q. Mr. Johnson, who paid for your travel expenses to
and from New York for yourself and Mrs. Johnson on that
occasion? A. That is for the meeting you speak of. The
Dranow—with Arthur Spielberg and this—
Q. Yes. A. I paid personally, all of my traveling ex-
penses to and from New York.
Q. Who paid for your hotel bill? A. I think First Con-
tinental Mortgage or First Continental paid—First Con-
tinental Savings, paid for that hotel bill, one or the other.
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, let us turn to the Cassell matter,
which I understand was referred to you in early 1961.
(Mr. Tydings) Your Honor, why doesn’t he just ask the
Congressman what was referred to him in 1961 instead of
suggesting ?
(The Court) I was hoping we could get somewhere by
leading questions to save time but if Mr. Tydings objects
to leading questions, he may go back to—
(Mr. Tydings) That was not even a leading question.
That was a statement.
By Mr. Doub:
Q. I show you what purports to be an original letter from
Mr. Robinson to you dated February 3, 1961, and ask you
if you received that letter? A. Yes.
(Mr. Doub) This has been seen, Your Honor, by all
counsel and I offer it in evidence.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson exhibit 56 marked in
evidence.
(Defendant Johnson exhibit 56 marked in evidence.)
(Mr. Doub) This is a letter on the stationery of Mr.
Robinson, Attorney At Law dated February 3, 1961, ad-
dressed to Mr. Johnson.
SAE RT L OELE E HET EY
7
App. 582
‘*Dear Tom:
‘‘T enclose herewith one copy of a proposed loan agree.
ment to The A. I. Cassell Land Corporation, together with
a copy of one of the mortgages and one of the notes for your
examination. I believe, from the Loan Agreement, the rea-
son for this loan is obvious; namely, that a lien has been
filed against the subdivision, which must be released in
order to continue the sales of lots in the subdivision.
‘* At this particular time we do not desire to record addi-
tional mortgages against the Cassell property, and accord-
ing to our accountant the bonds that we will post with the
surety company will be carried on our books, until or unless
some demand is made against these bonds, as a withdraw-
able deposit as would be done with a gas company or elec-
trical company deposit. I would appreciate your opinion
of these documents at your earliest possible convenience.
‘‘Thanking you for your many courtesies and your past
cooperation, I am,
‘‘Very truly yours,
‘*W. L. Robinson.”’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, will you tell the jury just what
was this matter that Mr. Robinson referred to you by his
letter of February 3, 1961? A. It dealt with the develop-
ment in Calvert County known as Chesapeake Heights On
the Bay, which has been referred to in the testimony as the
A. I. Cassell Company. That loan was made during June
of 1960. It aggregated, I believe, some $1,600,000. In the
construction period which continued, a company known as
the H. V. Humphries & Sons Company who were contractors
in Southern Maryland, did work on the development and
not being paid, there was some dispute and through a local
attorney they filed a mechanics lien, which was against the
entire subdivision. And, as a result, there was no further
sales that could be made with that lien on the subdivision.
_—
Q. Now, this $1,600,000 loan had been made in June, 1960,
had it not? A. Yes, I had nothing to do with the loan that
was made.
Q. On the original loan? A. No.
App. 583
Q. You had nothing to do with the preparation of the
original papers such as the loan agreement and mortgage
andsoon? A. No, I had absolutely nothing to do with the
original papers.
Q. And the problem here was how to lift the mechanics
lien? A. Yes, Mr. Robinson came in and he did not under-
stand the effect of a mechanics lien. He told me in Florida
they were not troubled under the circumstances. They had
some other procedure.
I told them that it was serious to the degree that certainly
there could be no further sales in the subdivision with this
lien.
He wanted to see a copy of the mechanics lien law and
more information which was provided for him. Then it
came to a point of negotiating with the attorney for the
settlement of the H. V. Humphries claim. It was a claim of
$19,000. ‘
I did not negotiate as to the settlement of that. Mr.
Robinson reported to me that a Mr. Harry Bowen, I believe,
is the one who was handling that in Calvert County, that
it would be lifted if there could be filed in the proceedings
a corporate bond in the amount of $20,000. If that bond were
filed, then they could proceed with the negotiation for a
settlement of the claim.
The problem with Mr. Robinson was that Mr. Cassell
who developed the A. I. Cassell Company, was the one who
was the head of that development, and wanted to borrow
$20,000 from First Colony Savings and Loan Association
in order to place a corporate bond or have a bond placed
in the proceedings.
So Mr. Robinson talked with me. He had in mind first one
App. 584
mortgage. That for reasons I don’t recall, he found not
feasible. I suggested individual mortgages. Mr. Cassel]
could not give a first mortgage for security.
Mr. Robinson went over the portfolio to pick out what
mortgages were outstanding to determine which mortgages
could be placed as a second mortgage and still be within
the advertised percentage loan limit of that institution,
It was determined that there would be five mortgages pre-
pared to secure this $20,000.
Q. You mean they would be mortgages on five separate
lots? A. Five separate parcels of real estate. I did not
prepare the mortgages. Mr. Robinson prepared those,
brought those to me. He was greatly concerned as to the
effect of the second mortgage.
He insisted on my giving him a letter, which I did, that
being a second mortgage. There was a merger of interest.
Certainly I felt there was no problem as to the First Colony
having a good lien.
Q. Now, if I may—if Mr. Tydings will permit me to ask
a leading question—wasn’t the problem that the associa-
tions had advertised they only loaned money on first mort-
gages? <A. Only on first mortgages.
Q. And here they had a first mortgage, and now they
going to loan $20,000 in addition on the same property!
A. That is correct.
Q. Secured by the same property? A. That is correct.
Q. And what opinion did you express to Mr. Robinson
as to that? A. Well, they had another advertising policy,
Mr. Robinson told me, that even on first mortgages they
would only go to a certain percentage of its appraised value.
So we had both problems to contend with, the problem of
first mortgages and complying with the advertising policy
of their percentage on appraisal of the property. So it was
worked out that the five mortgages, which are very small
App. 585
in amount, would merge with the original interest, giving
First Colony, as I term, a first lien on that property, and
would not be a second mortgage in the sense that it was
referred.
Q. Are you in effect saying that when a lender holds
both a first mortgage and a second mortgage on the same
property in the aggregate it is just the same as a first mort-
gage? A. There is a merger if the parties are one and the
same, and it is on the same property.
So following giving me the mortgages, I reviewed the
mortgages, and at the time prepared a release which was
sent down to Calvert County to Mr. Bowen to be executed
so that the mechanic’s lien could be lifted.
At the same time I had seen for the first occasion the form
of the A. I. Cassell mortgage, and that disturbed me because
the affidavit on their printed form was not pursuant to our
requirements of the Maryland law.
Q. There was no affidavit of consideration at all, was
there? A. It was lacking entirely the consideration in the
affidavit by the mortgagor.
Q. As to the payment of the consideration? A. As to the
payment.
Q. And what did you do after you noticed this defect in
this mortgage? A. Well, Mr. Robinson said that the mat-
ter, I think, had been discussed, but nothing had been done
about it. I asked him how many mortgages were in the port-
folio of the A. I. Cassell Company. He told me that it was
several hundred mortgages aggregating in excess of $900,-
000. I told him that I felt that certainly there should be
immediate attention given to correction of those mortgages.
Q. Now, did you then call Mr. Adelberg in Baltimore?
A. I first had Mr. Robinson to bring me one or two samples,
additional samples, which disclosed that they, too, were
defective as to our Maryland requirement.
2 TEU Sete ESSA ANN ma
App. 586
I then contacted Mr. Adelberg and suggested to Mr. Adel-
berg that he go over the entire portfolio of the A. I. Cassell
Development Company.
Q. All mortgages? A. All mortgages.
Q. In the Silver Spring office? A. That is true.
Q. Now, Mr. Adelberg testified that he did that, and he
also testified that he brought those mortgages back to your
office. Did you ever have occasion to examine them in his
office? A. I did because Mr. Robinson had the idea that
there could be a simple amendment to correct the defect.
I certainly objected to such a correction by a simple amend-
ment.
Mr. Adelberg and myself and Mr. Robinson had one or
more meetings. At those meetings we thought first that it
may have to have individual confirmatory mortgages. Mr.
Robinson objected to that. He said that it would cost ap-
proximately $1,500 to $2,000 to prepare and to file new
mortgages.
I discussed with Mr. Adelberg further as to how best to
correct these mortgages, and we agreed that one confir-
matory mortgage would suffice, and Mr. Adelberg prepared
the confirmatory mortgage.
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, I think you testified in connection
- with this advice you gave Mr. Robinson as to this $20,000
mortgage split into five separate mortgages would not vio-
late the advertising policy of the company. Did you write
him a letter as to that? A. I did. He insisted, but I have
been unable to find a copy of my letter.
Q. Mr. Robinson asked you for a letter on that? A. He
did.
Q. And do you recall writing him a letter? A. I do
recall.
Q. And you have not been able to find it? A. I have not.
as ta) ie ra te et a ee RRL LEAL TIO ENP CIEL OT PRINS HIE Le ;
App. 587
Q. Would you say you had few or many conversations
with Mr. Robinson about the problems you have mentioned
in connection with Cassell? A. Oh, I had several with Mr.
Adelberg. I think most of our conferences were by tele-
phone, with the exception of two or three in his office.
Q. And did you have telephone calls with Mr. Robinson
also? A. Very few telephone calls. Mr. Robinson would
see me at my office or at my hotel in the evenings.
Q. Now, I show you what purports to be an original
letter from Mr. Robinson to you, dated March 31, 1961,
and ask you if you received that letter? A. Yes, that is a
letter addressed to Johnson and Johnson, Berlin, Maryland,
attention: Thomas F. Johnson, dated March 31, from Mr.
Robinson.
(Mr. Doub) I offer it in evidence, Your Honor. It has been
seen by all counsel.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 57 marked
in evidence.
(Defendant’s Exhibit No. 57 was received in evidence. )
(Mr. Doub) (reading)
‘‘Dear Tom:
‘‘T enclose herewith my check in the sum of $800.00 in
payment for your services for March, and would appreciate
your opinion at your earliest convenience on the following
matter :
‘‘In the new savings and loan law, Section (D)(1) of
161P provides:
‘**(P) Compliance. Any exisiting association which
qualified for the exception to Sub-section (A) provided in
Sub-section (B) hereof and which desires and intends to
continue in the building, savings and loan business shall on
or before January 1, 1962: (1) Require the use, at all times
in connection with such name, the phrase, in parentheses,
‘Stock Corporation’.’
App. 588
‘‘The act in numerous other sections refers to guaranty
stock and, of course, contains specific provisions requiring
the capital stock to serve as guaranty stock and, of course,
at least technically all savings and loan associations are
stock corporations. The question I desire your opinion on
is would we comply with the quoted provision if we were
to put in parentheses the phrase ‘a guaranty stock corpo-
ration’ or would compliance with the statute be limited
solely to the use of the words ‘stock corporation’?
‘‘My personal opinion is that the intent and purpose of
the act is to distinguish between those corporations having
guaranty stock and those corporations having only free
shares, and if that is correct then there should be no ob-
jection to the use of the words ‘a guaranty stock cornora-
tion’. Mr. Goldman, whom you have met, disagrees with me
and he feels that the statute having specifically put in quotes
the words ‘stock corporation’, that we are limited solely to
the use of those two words. Actually, it seems to me that
the sole phrase ‘stock corporation’ by itself would be some-
what misleading since, as I previously stated, all savings
and loans are stock corporations and the distinction in fact,
and by the statute itself, is between those stock corporations
which have guaranty stock and those which do not.
‘‘Printing of new envelopes, letterheads, and so forth is
being delayed prior to a final decision in regard to the
- phrase to be placed in parentheses. Please give me your
opinion at your earliest convenience.
‘‘Thanking you again for your many favors and your
past cooperation, I am,
‘*Very truly yours,
‘*W. L. Robinson.’’
By Mr. Doub:
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, upon receipt of that letter, what
did you do? A. I met with Mr. Robinson. I gave him first
what I felt was a hurried opinion. I told him I thought the
App. 589
Legislature was rather explicit in the statute and by desig-
nating the word stock corporation specifically there was
no question, but he was wrong in his interpretation of the
act.
He was not satisfied. He said he felt that I was wrong,
to look at more law. Well, I frankly, couldn’t find much law
on this particular subject. That went on, I would say, pos-
sibly two or three weeks or maybe a month. Mr. Robinson
stated that he had to have a decision; that it involved not
only the stationery, but a very large sign that they were
erecting, running into quite a large sum of money.
So it resolved itself that Mr. Robinson just wasn’t satis-
fied with my opinion, and I told him that I felt it could be
concurred in by the Attorney General, Mr. Finan.
I asked Mr. Hickman, who is in Berlin, I dictated a letter
for Mr. Hickman to Mr. Finan.
Q. Asking for the Attorney General’s opinion? A. Yes,
because I felt it was a matter that would be coming up with
other associations. It had statewide interest. Furthermore,
I didn’t think as a Congressman I should possibly ask for
an opinion from the Attorney General.
Q. Now, do you have that letter from Mr. Hickman to
the Attorney General, which you say you prepared? A. I
do.
(Mr. Doub) I would like to offer in evidence, Your Honor,
an office copy of the letter from Russell O. Hickman to the
Honorable Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, dated May
8, 1961, which the witness has stated he dictated to Mr.
Hickman.
(The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 58, marked
in evidence.
(Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 58 was received in
evidence. )
(Mr. Doub) The letter reads:
App. 590
‘‘Dear Mr. Attorney General:
‘In the so-called Case Bill, now enacted into law, Section
(D)(1) of 161P provides:
‘‘(D) Compliance. Any existing association which qual-
ified for the exception to Sub-section (A) provided in Sub.
section (B) hereof and which desires and intends to continue
in the building, savings and loan business shall on or before
January 1, 1962: (1) Require the use, at all times in con-
nection with such name, the phrase, in parentheses, ‘Stock
Corporation’ ;
‘‘The act in numerous other sections refers to guaranty
stock and, of course, pertains to specific provisions requiring
the capital stock to serve as guaranty stock. The question
I desire your opinion on is whether there would be compli-
ance with the quoted provisions if an association put in
parentheses the phrase ‘a guaranty stock corporation,’ or
would compliance with the statute
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.