by telephone with many individuals in the course of preparing these articles. All these communications were privately expressed but, on information and belief, were intecepted under the direction of defendant SULLIVAN, and disclosed and used in regular reports to the defendants KISSINGER, HAIG, HALDEMAN and EHRLICHMAN.
27. On information and belief, the defendants' electronic surveillance of the plaintiff MORTON HALPERIN and his family was initiated by the defendants KISSINGER, HAIG, EHRLICHMAN, HALDEMAN and MITCHELL in bad faith for the purpose and effect of monitoring the political ideas and associations of plaintiff MORTON HALPERIN during the period in question.
28. At no time did the plaintiffs, citizens of the United States, have any involvement with a foreign power, its agents or agencies.
29. The defendants' procurement of interception, disclosure and use, and their interception, disclosure and use of plaintiffs' telephone conversations during the period in question were unreasonable and illegal , and were not made in good faith reliance on any judicial, legislative or other valid authorization; and their disclosure and use of such communications were made with knowledge that the communications had been obtained by electronic surveillance of plaintiffs' telephone.
30. Defendants' procurement of interception, disclosure and use, and their interception, disclosure and use of the plaintiffs' wire communications through electronic surveillance for a period of 8 to 25 months or more, was in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2511 and 2520.
31. Defendants' procurement of interception, disclosure and use, and their interception, disclosure and use of plaintiffs' telephone communications during the period in question, deprived plaintiffs of their rights of free speech and association
under the First Amendment, and their right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that:
1. Each plaintiff have judgement against each defendant (except defendant RUCKLESHAUS) in the sum of: (a) $100.00 per day of procurement of interception, disclosure and use, and interception, disclosure and use, or $1,000.00, whichever is higher, as liquidated damages pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, § 2520. (b) Such punitive damages as the court deems just under the circumstances.
2. Plaintiffs individually have judgement against each defendant (except defendant RUCKELSHAUS) in a sum deemed just by the court for violation of their rights under the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments.
3. Plaintiffs jointly have judgement against the defendants jointly for reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs reasonably incurred in connection with this action, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, § 2520(c).
4. This court enjoin the defendants from any further procurement of interception, use and disclosure and any further interception, use and disclosure of plaintiffs' wire communications.
5. That defendant RUCKLESHAUS be ordered to hand up to plaintiffs all records and logs relating to the electronic surveillance of plaintiffs.
6. This court declare the action of defendants as herein described in violation of 18 United States Code § 2511 and § 2520 and of the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
7. This court grant such other and further relief as to it may seem just and proper.
MELVIN L. WULF LEON FRIEDMAN JOHN SHATTUCK American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 22 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016 212-725-1222
CHARLES R. NESSON Langdell Hall Harvard Law School Cambridge, Massachussets 617-495-4609
WALTER B. SLOCOMBE 1101 - 17th Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20036 202-293-3900
HERMAN SCHWARTZ SUNY at Buffalo School of Law 77 West Eagle Street Buffalo, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs