!

J osftM'73
UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT~blfTI:JE
;; I

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEW
YORI<'.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

73C 1529

)
)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTIONNO.____

)
)

v.

COMPLAINTFOR INJUNCTION
PURSUANTTO FAIR HOUSING
ACT OF 1968. 42 U.S.C.
3601, et seq.

FRED C . TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP )

)
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC ,
)

_____________
Defendants.

The United

of America alleges:

This is an action

1.

3613 seeking
Title

States

28 U.S.C.
3.

brought

to remedy violations

VIII of the Civil

2.

)
)

Rights

1345 and 42
Defendant

u.s.c.

and elsewhere.
stockholder

of this

14,000

Defendant

action

in the Eastern

District

numerous apartment

dwelling

units

Defendant

Management Inc.

The defendants

policies

and practices

of

buildings,

in the New York area

Fred C. Trump is the principal

Management Inc.

business

under

which is a New

and Chairman of the Board of Directors

transact

3601,

3613.

doing business

at least

Housing Act,

Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

Trump Management Inc.,

New York, manages and operates

to 42 U.S.C.

of the Fair

This Court has jurisdiction

York corporation,

totalling

pursuant

Donald Trump is president

of Trump
of Trump

Fred C, Trump and Donald Trump

in New York and are responsible

of Trump Management Inc.

for the

4.

The apartment

buildings

by Trump Management Inc.

of 42 U,S.C.
5.
agents
because
ings,

are dwellings

within

managed

the meaning

3602(b).

The defendants,

and employees,
of race

of the Fair

dwellings

of dwellings

with respect

of the Fair

different

to the rental

804(c)

804(d)

because

of Section

of dwellings

limitation
and color

of the Fair

804(b)
3604(b),

which

and discrimiin violation

of

Housing Act of 1968,

3604(c).

(d) Representing

in fact

3604(a).

to be made statements

to the rental

based on race

804(a)

and conditions

of dwellings

in violation

a preference,

inspection

because

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

with respect

and color

build-

and negotiate

of Section

terms

(c) Making and causing

42 U.S.C.

apartment

with persons

in violation

and color,

Section

persons

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

(b) Requiring

nation

against

of their

to rent

and color,

indicate

of their

ways, by:

the rental

of race

the actions

have discriminated

(a) Refusing

of race

through

in the operation

among other

for

and complexes

that

to persons

dwellings

and rental
so available,

of the Fair

because

of race

are not available

when such dwellings

in violation

2 -

are

of Section

Housing Act of 1968, 42

3604(d).

for

u.s.c.

6.
ceding

The defendants'

paragraph

conduct

and practice

by the defendants

to the full

secured

by Title

(b) A denial

of 1968, 42
raises

VIII

u.s.c.

an issue

and successors
with

those

denial
importance.

that
their

in active

the Court
employees,

concert

against
color,

with respect

any person

religion

to any right

on

or national
secured

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

by
3601

~~

(b) Failing
affirmative
their
tices.

past

steps

or refusing
to correct

discriminatory

Plaintiff

to take

further

- 3 -

adequate

the effects

policies
prays

of

and pracfor

such

enter
agents,

and partici-

from:

of race,

the Fair

Housing Act

public

prays

(a) Discriminating
the basis

Housing

of rights

3601 ~~,which

of general

any of them,

origin,

of persons

the defendants,

and all

of

of the Fair

of the Fair

WHEREFORE
the plaintiff
an Order enjoining

enjoyment

3601 ~~;and

to groups

by Title

of resistance

VIII

Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

granted

in the pre-

constitutes:

(a) A pattern

rights

pation

described

additional
may require,
bursements

relief

as the interests

together
of this

with

of justice

the costs

and dis-

action.

ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON
Attorney

General

/Uq'tJL

..tf;,it,~

ROBERTA. MORSE
United

States

Attorney

FRANKE. SCHWELB

Chief, Housing Section

Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice

SUMM~NS

IN A CIVIL.

ACTION

lltnit:eb~tnt:es il istrftlr Cltnurf

.
1

OCT29 1973

..,.~- ..,

FOR THE

1:[;;_

J::AS.'l'EfilLD.!8-TRICT __QF...NEILY.ORK.

CIVIL

ACTION FILE

NO ... --

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

2
Plaintiff

SUMMONS

v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,

rn
C.)

Defendants
To the above named Defendant

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon

States

Attorney

plaintiff's attorney

for

the

Eastern

, whose address is

District

225 Cadman

ROBERT A, MORSE, united

of

New York,

Plaza

East,

Brooklyn,

New York,

11201,

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within

20

days after service

of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgement by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

'~~~; !/!/:;,
Date:

October

Note:-This

15, 1973

[Seal of Court]

summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

MARS HALS SER1.rI CE

U.S.
I N S TR U ~ T

roN

A N D P R O C E S S R EC O R D

INSTRUCTIONS:
See "INSTRUCTIOi,J FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
BY TIIE U.S. MARSHAL" on the reverse of the last (No. 5) copy of th.is
fonn. Please type or print legibly, insuring readability of all copies.
Do not detach any copies.

PLAINTIFF

COURT NUMBER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TYPE

DEFENDANT

FRED C. TRUMP e
NAME OF INDIVIDUAL.

Summo

COMPANY,

o:W~
-c -/ s-~ 7

CORPORATION,

ETC., TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION

OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN

FRED C. TRUMP
ADDRESS

(Street or RFD, Apartment No., Cltv, State and ZIP Code)

AT
SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS

r-----------------------------------A. Brachtl,
AUSA
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York
11201

Show number of th.iswrit and

total DUmberof writs submitted, i.e., I of I, l of 3, etc.

BELOW:

Henry

L __________________________________

NO.

OTAL

1
oFI

I CHECK

IF APPLICABLE:

Ooe copy for U. S. Attorney or designee and

two copies for Attorney General of the U. S.
included.

u. s.

...
..,..

I SHOWIN THESPACEBELOW
AND TO THELEFT
I ANY SPECIAL
.INSTRUCTIONS
OR OTHER
I INFORMATION
PERTINENT
TO SERVING
THE
I WRITDESCRIBED
ABOVE.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

TELEPHONE

NUMBER

DATE

10
LOCATION

D
NAME

OF SUBOFFICE

OF DIST. TO SERVE

I hereby certify and return that, after diligent Investigation, I am unable to locate the Individual, company, corporation, etc.,
named above within th.isJudicial District.
A person of suitable age and
AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED (I/ not hown above)

ADDRESS

{CompUlte only if dlfferent

discretion then abiding in the

defendant's usual place of abode.
FEE (I/ applicable)
MILEAGE

than hown above)

S,6JC)
DATE(S) OF ENDEAVOR (Ue Remarks

if neces.tO"lf)

REMARKS

USM-285 (Ed. 7-1-70)

1. CLERKOF YHECOURT

$ -

U.S.
1 NSTRUCT,

MARSHALS
.JN

AND

INSTRUCTIONS:
See "INSTRUCTIONS FOL

SERVICt.-

PROCESS

RECORD

..RVICE OF PROCESS

BY TIIE U.S. MARSHAL" on the reverse of the last (No. ff) copy of this
form. Please type or print legibly, insuring readability of all copies.
Do not detach any copies.

PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATE

RICA

DEFENDANT

Sl:R.VE

AT

ADDRESS

(Street or RFD, Apartment No., CihJ, State and ZIP Code)

600 Avenue z, Brooklyn, New York

2 OO ,;a c,1e c, C i I 1' P J a 2 a , Ga , cle 11 C i I y ,
Show number of thls writ and
total number of writs submitted, i.e., l of l, l of 3, etc.

,------------------------------------

SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW:

Henry A. Bracht!,

u. s.

AUSA
East

Broo kl yn, New Yor k.

One copy for U. S. Attorney or designee and

two copies for Attorney General of the U. S.
included.

11201

J INFORMATIONPERTINENT
TO SERVINGTHE

_______

INSTRUCTIONS:

Show amouut of eposit (or applic:able

code)and sign USM-285 for 6rst writ
on! If more than one writ submitted.
I acknowledge receipt for the total number of
writs indicated and for the deposit (If appUcable) shown.

I SHOW IN THESPAa BELOWAND TO THE LEFT

I ANY SPECIALINSTRUCTIONS
OR OTHER

TELEPHONE

OTAL

1
oFI

IF APPLICABLE:

L------------------------------------~l_WR_IT_D_S_~_IB_~_~_O_VE_.
SPECIAL

J CHECK

Courthouse

225 Cadman Plaza

NO.

LOCATION

NUMBER

DATE

OF SUB-OFFICE

OF DIST. TO SERVE

I hereby certify and return that I have personally served, have legal evidence of service, or have executed as shown in
"REMARKS," the writ described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual,
company, corporation, etc., at the address inserted below.

DI
NAME

hereby certify and return that, after diligent investigation, I am unable to locate the ihdividual, company, corporation, etc.,
named above within this Judicial District.
A person of suitable age and
AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED If not ,hown abooe)
discretion then abiding In the

ADDRESS

defendant's usual place of abode.

FEE (I/ applicable)
MILEAGE;)

{Complete onlr, if dlfferent than ahown abooe)

$
DATE(S) OF ENDEAVOR

(Use Remtub if """8$'$arf1)

TIME

.'ftM

PM
REMARKS

USM285 (Ed. 7-1-70)

1. CLERKOF THECOURT

.3.oo

o/

$dt.&o

u. s.

MARSHALS SER1,,,,CE
AND

INSTRUCTfON

PROCESS

RECORD

INSTRUCTIONS:
See "INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
BY THE U.S. MARSHAL" on the reverse of the last (No. 5) copy of this
form. Please type or print legibly, insuring readability of all copies.
Do not detach any copies.
COURT NUMBER

PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

7s-'3-/S,;;;i...9

FRED,. c. TRUMP, et

~
SERVE

NAME OF INDIVIDUAL,

TYPE OF WRIT

DEFENDANT

al.

COMPANY,

Summons
CORPORATION,

ETC., TO SERVE 0~ DESCRIPTION

&

Comolai nt

OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN

TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.

ADDRESS (Street

or RFD, Apartment No., City, State and ZIP Code)

2SSttl&Wf:cit;P~iii;'11~a&1ny8iiy,
Na Y.
(s,113- #oo)
I<
~E~~ ~021.::E_O~
~E~~C= ,::O_!'~
~~~M3f~D _!,~D~~~ ~E~O!'.:._
__ -~ !~7
ni:=.::
~f::
:em~~
0

AT

,-

__

ted, i.e., 1 of 1, l of 3, etc.

I CHECK IF APPLICABLE:
I

Henry A. Brachtl,
AUSA
u. s. Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

NO. I

ITOTAL

10F1

One copy for U. S. Attorney or designee and

two copies for Attorney Genenil of the U. S.
included .

I SHOW IN THESPACEBELOWAND TO THELEFT

l ANY SPECIAL
INSTRUCTIONS
OR OTHER
1INFORMATIONPERTINENTTOSERVINGTHE
_______

L------------------------------------~I_WR_IT_D_~_a_,e_m_ABO_VE_.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

Defendant
Fred C. Trump is Chairman of the Bd. of Directors,
Donald Trump is president
of the above named corporation.

TELEPHONE

Show amount of posit (or appllcabli:

code) and sign USM-285 for 11mwrit
onl if more than one writ submltted.
I acknowledge receipt for the total number of
writs Indicated and for the depogt (I/ applicable) shown.

and

NUMBER

DATE

/0

- /,:::s- ..

rv( I hereby certify and return that I have personally served, have legal evidence of service, or have executed as shown in
~ "REMARKS," the writ

described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual,
company, corporation, etc., at the address inserted belmv.
'

hereby certify and return that, after diligent investigation, I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc.,
above
Judicial District.
D Inamed
within this

DATE(S) OF ENDEAVOR

(Use llemarb if

neca:laf'!I)

TIME

AM

PM
REMARKS

USM285 (Ed. 7170}

<

1. CLERKOF THECOURT

NO\/2 1913
"'1'" 'IL

..

.f\

,1.i.
t ..

'"-r.n.....-~
.'........

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NOTICE OF
APPEARANCE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action File
No. 73 C 1529

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP,

TRUMP MANAGEMENT,
INC.,

and

Defendants.

sIR
PLEASE

TAKE NOTICE,

Donald Trump,

and Trump

entitled

and that the undersigned

action,

for said defendants

served

Management,

and demand

upon the undersigned

that the defendants,

Inc.,

hereby

havebeen

that copies

Fred

appear

retained

of all papers

C. Trump,

in the above

as .attorneys
in this action

at the office and post office address

be

stated

below.
I

Yourizl', etc.

//
'1

'
v.:

,.Jc;_.'?
... . ,;_)ic

...

d..._.,/l~~,L

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLE

Attorneys for Defendants
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
(212) 472 1400
TO:

I11

Hon. Robert A. Morse

United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
Attorney for Plaintiff
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

'I
I
Nov7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_. --------~

1973

..

'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

STIPULATION

Plaintiff,

Civil Action File

No. 73 C 1529

-againstFRED C, TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP,

TRUMP MANAGEMENT,
INC,,

and

Defendants,

IT IS HEREBY
the United States

Attorney

for the Eastern

for the plaintiff, and Saxe,

that the defendants'
respect

Dated:

Bacon,

AND AGREED,
District

be and the same hereby

by and between

of New York,

Bolan & Manley; attorneys

time within Vlhich to answer

to the complaint

November

STIPULATED

attorney

for the defendant

or otherwise
is extended

move with
to and including

26, 1973.
Robert A. Morse
United States Attorney
Eastern
District of New York

New York, New York

November l, 1973

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley

Atto- rne?
for Defendants
By - (,

5'c>

o;f!..DER.7>
~
ge1>ot:.L fJ<.::
#Fu.,

df=!-~
J,

S,

D.

T-

role' I::

C/--

Elt:EO

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR1f'if~RK'S

omc::

U. S. DISTRICT
COURT
E.D.N.Y

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK*

TIMEA.M
...........
- ............
,v ... ..
P.M
.........
~ .._..,
.............
.

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA, )
)

Plaintiff,

NOV
151973

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

)
)

v.

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP,DONALD
)
TRUMPand TRUMPMANAGEMENT
)
INC.,
)

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
INTERROGATORIES
TO
DEFENDANTS

____________
Defendants.

TO THE DEFENDANTS
, FRED C. TRUMP,DONALD
TRUMP,ANDTRUMP
MANAGEMENT
INC.:
Plaintiff
Interrogatory

requests
separately

oath,

in accordance

Civil

Procedure.

rogatory

that
papers

the defendants

and fully,

in writing

If the information
in documents,

of the defendants,

Interrogatory

requested
papers

by attaching

which those documents or papers

copies

documents,

papers

contained

and specifying

by any Inter-

and answer

the Interrogatory

Interrogatory

or records

the location

in the

of such documents or
to
In

by identify-

in which the answer is

of the documents,

and making the same available

copy or photograph.

Rules of

are deemed responsive.

you may answer that

ing those

or records,

and under

or records

you may so indicate

to your answers and by indicating

the alternative,

answer each

with Rule 33 of the Federal

is contained

custody

that

to Plaintiff

papers
to inspect,

These Interrogatories
able

to the defendants,

officers

call
their

of defendant

employees

matter

information

is known or available

another

officer,

answers

all

or agent,

into

information

1. Please
persons
direct

state

or indirect,

please

to

officer,

include

to
in your

employee
employee or agent

to each answer:

the name, race

and address

or who have any other

and the date

of all

ownership

in Trump Management Inc.

to as nT.M.I."]

respect

is available

which officer,

with respect

and the

If some of the

known to each officer,

who own stock

referred

information

specify

information

with

to a particular

employee or agent,

avail-

and agents,

which they inquire.

and other

and please

provided

information

Trump Management Inc.,

the subject

employee or agent,

for all

interest,

[hereinafter

they acquired

such

interest.
2. Please
of T.M.I.

state

and the name, race

the corporation.

Please

3. Please
in T.M.I.,
directly

state

as described
or indirectly

ments owned and/or

the person
in detail

the date

4. Please

and address

specify
whether

duties
state

any person

of each officer

of

duties.

with an interest

in the above two Interrogatories,

supervises

the management of the apart-

with

If so, please

such supervisory

duties

identify
and explain

performed.
whether

any person with an ownership

or, management interest

in T.M.I.,

indirect,

real

in any other

of incorporation

each officer's

managed by T.M.I.

or persons
those

and place

estate

- 2 -

owns any interest,

development,

direct

or

management or

promotion
estate

company.

interest

apartment

If so,

and its

please

identify

location.

each such real

In the case of any other

complex in which an interest

is held by such person,

or which is owned by a company in which such person

owns an

interest,

at each

said

please

apartment

apartment

indicate

Please

ment building

number of units

complex and the number of units

complex that

5.

the total

state

or real

in whole or in part,
and with respect
A.

are occupied

by Negro~/

the name and address

estate

development

by T.M.I.

to each,
The date

state

the apartment

persons.

of each apart-

owned and/or

at anytime

please

at each said

since

managed,

January

the following

1, 1968

information:

or development

opened for occupancy;

B.

The number of efficiencies,

two-bedrooms,
C.

and three-bedrooms

The number of units

by Negroes

as of January

and as of the present

individual
D.
tenant,

time.

other

indicate

in each building;

in each building

1, 1968, January

by name, address
Please

one-bedrooms,

Please

the date

1, 1969

identify

and dates

occupied

each

of occupancy;

the first

than an employee of T.M.I.,

Negro
moved into

each building;
E.
units

Please

set

forth

the number of apartment

which became available

for rental,

by size,~/

~/ In each Interrogatory
requesting
information
concerning Negroes,
please also indicate
the same information
for Puerto Ricans.
**/ For example, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, etc.
- 3 -

per month, between

January

1, 1969 and November 1,

1973;
F.

Please

state

month, by race,
availability

the number of persons

making inquiry

of an apartment

1969, and the present.

number of people
an apartment
exact
provide
please

state

G.

Please

state

for

the

If

available,

written

please

In any event,

the figures

of every prospective

for

of time.

or approximations.

the basis

1,

applications

the same period

Whether a formal,

required

also

are not reasonably

estimates

the

between January

who submitted

during

figures

concerning

per

provided;

application

tenant

and,

is

if so,

whether

any exceptions

are made to this

general

policy.

If exceptions

are made, please

state

frequently

they are made, why exceptions

and the name, race.

person

who has the authority

If any applicant
out submittJng
past

address

three

name. race,
the rental
applications

a formal

years,!_/
address

application

indicate

apartments

!_/ The term "past three years"

rogatories
means the period
and November 1, 1973.
- 4 -

Please

exceptions.

as a tenant

with-

in the

the tenant's

and the circumstances

of the apartment.
for

of every

to make these

written

please

are made

and job title

has been accepted

how

surrounding

state

are retained

used throughout
of time between

how long
on file.

these InterNovember 1, 1970

If you are willing

attach

copies

answers
H.

to do so, please

of such application

to these

Interrogatories;

The maximum, average,

of time required
applications.
affected

Please

for the processing

Please

state

education,

other

factors

deciding

for an applicant

family

whether

status,

to accept

to these

state

exceptions

what qualifications

exceptions.

as a tenant

in the past

three

name, race,

address

an applicant.
are made,

address

If any applicant

without

years,

in

who has the authority

meeting

please

these

indicate

and the circumstances

has been
requirements
the tenant's
surrounding

of the apartment;

Please

state

whether

credit

checks are or have been obtained

years

account

are made and the name, race,

to make these

J.

or any

they are made, why

of every person

the rental

into

qualifications

and job title

accepted

standing,

children,

or reject

how frequently

have

to be accepted

credit

which may be taken

If exceptions
please

applications;

in terms of income,

age,

have

the time required

of individual

indicate

of tenant

what factors

affect

been or are required

as a tenant

and minimum length

for the processing

or presently

I.

forms to your

on every prospective

any exceptions

are made

- 5 -

tenant

or background

in the past
and,

three

if so, whether

to this

general

obtaining
please

policy.

credit

state

exceptions

If exceptions

or background

how frequently

to

checks are made,

they are made, why

are made and the name, race,address

and job title

of every person who has the authority

to make these

exceptions.

been accepted

as a tenant

ground check being

please

indicate

Please

credit

reporting

time since

without

a credit

obtained

in the past

the tenant's

name,:mce,

the circumstances
ment.

If any applicant

surrounding

state

whether

please

state

or in writing,

types

are required

of reports

contents

of any

on all

different

the
have

the reports

whether

the same

applicants,
and under what,

types

indicate

whether

of reports

a waiting

from which new tenants

so, please

state

whether

there

the buildings

or if there

each apartment

of the apart-

services

whether

maintained

T.M.I.

and

or required;

Please

for all

its

of the reports,

if anY, circumstances

list

address

the services

are given orally

K.

years,

1, 1969 and, if so, indicate

Also,

are requested

three

the rental

name of each company and the dates

the general

or back-

companies have been used at any

January

been used.

has

building

- 6 -

is

are selected.

is one central

managed anq/or

is a separate

list

waiting

managed and/or

If
waiting

bwned by
list

for

owned by T.M.I.

Please

describe

met before
waiting

the conditions

an applicant's

list,

new tenants

Please

state

made, why exceptions

requested
building

list.)

list

an apartment

while

that

(if

utilizes

list

whose names were not on a waiting

attach

1, 1970, including

and date

of application

In the alternative,
sentatives
these

- 7 -

for

and address

of

who were rented

was maintained,

but

list.

lists

used since

the name, address,

of each prospective

of the plaintiff

Rule 34 of the Federal

state

a waiting

are you willing

documents without

no

to do so, would you please

a copy of the waiting

January

please

applicable)

a waiting

If you are willing

(If

above separately

the name, race

ten tenants

who has

exceptions.

is maintained,

each apartment

the last

they are

of every person

list

the information

If exceptions

are made and the name, race,

to make these

waiting

all

are made to rent

how frequently

and job title

the authority

on the list

whether

not on the list.

are made, please

Please

is updated

from the waiting

exceptions

to individuals

central

state

are selected

or whether

address

the list

number of persons

at any one time.

list

name goes on the

how often

and the average

which must be

race
tenant.

to allow repre-

to inspect

and copy

an Order of the Court under

Rules of Civil

Procedure.

L.

Please

state

whether

is required

of every

so, whether

any exceptions

policy.

prospective

If exceptions

frequently

If any applicant

address

a security

please

indicate

apartment.

Please
required

of application
to the formal

Please

state

state

indicate

this

exceptions.
withthree

name, race,
the rental

address

of the

the amount of security

it

is required

the time

it may be submitted

the monthly

whether

so,

rental

subsequent

rates

two and three-bedroom

in these

1968, and, Jf

of every

in the past

surrounding

and whether

one,

or decreases

are made

application;

Please

efficiencies,

how

as a tenant

deposit

or whether

general

to make these

indicate

if

indicate

and job title

the tenant's

and the circumstances

M.

and,

are made, please

has been accepted

out submitting

deposit

tenant

are made to this

who has the authority

years,

deposit

they are made, why exceptions

and the name, race,

person

a security

there
rental

apartments.

have been any increases

rates

the reasons

information

for

since

for

January

1,

such changes.

Please

for each complex owned and/or

managed by T.M.I.;
N.

Please

describe

used to publicize
utilized,

please

has run apartment

vacant
indicate

the method presently

apartments.
every

advertisements

- 8 -

or formerly

If advertising

newspaper
in since

that

is

T.M.I.

January,

1968,

whether
papers

advertisements

have ever been run in news-

which have predominantly

audiences,

if so, please

the approximate
and whether

identify

frequency

T.M.I.

Negro or Puerto

housing

a fair

referrals

are or were ever used,

is or was ever

rent

available

logo.

present-tenant

referrals

please

explain

the rental

1968.

If any exceptions

or ever

please

indicate

whether

means utilized

If neither

to

advertising,

nor

are or have ever been utilized,

procedures

used since

to the normal rental

have been made, please

state

generally

the circumstances

them, and the name, race,

of each person

advertising

If present-tenant

the exclusive

apartments.

such exceptions,

newspaper
now contains

contained

this

each such newspaper,

of all

advertising

Rican

January
procedures

the nature

of all

and the reasons

address

1,

for

and employment position

who is authorized

to make or allow

such

exceptions;
O.

Please

indicate

job title,

job location,

supervisor

and details

has had the authority

act on rental
P.
officers

the name, race,

dates

Please

to accept

describe

of T.M.I.

over the persons

in detail

referred

- 9 -

T.M.I.

immediate

of every person who

and/or

since

or other

known address,

of employment,

of the duties

applications

last

January

consider

and/or

1, 1968;

the supervision
personnel

to in Interrogatory

that

maintain
No. 5 (0)

and whether

they have ever instructed

to maintain

racial

records

these

or use racial

persons

codes for

any purpose.

6.

With respect

and/or

managed,

please

state:
A.

in whole or in part,

Whether there

policy

to refuse

for tenancy
of their
state

it

agents

Please

the policy,
to,

January

the nature

including

because
If so, please

please

state

of the change,

state

(It

any steps

taken

to

but not necessarily

to resident

managers,

rental

personnel.
the name, race

and last

known address

employed for any period

job location,

duties.

origin.

in detail

1, 1968, including

the job title,

of persons

was maintained,

instructions

and other

Please

applications

was maintained;

state

employees_ of T.M.I.

of their

or national

for making a change and when the change

implement

since

color

or to dissuade

has been changed,

was made.

limited

owned

by any of the defendants,

classes

If such a policy

the reasons

of all

to accept,

why such a policy

whether

building

has ever been in effect

from certain

race,

B.

7.

to each apartment

for each employee listed,

dates

of employment and details

is unnecessary

mation which has been provided

of time,

to duplicate

in response

any infor-

to Interrogatory

5 (0)).
8.

Please

ever had a policy

racial

or ethnic

state

whether

any of the defendants

not to employ Negroes

group,

or to consider
- 10 -

have

or members of any
race

or national

origin

in any manner in relation

origin

are considered,

circumstances

please

surrounding

a change in this
including

Please

and Puerto

state

10.
of all

rental

records

in detail

records

since

or control

logs and waiting

lists.

of the plaintiff

documents without
Rules

and date

Please

please

state

and location

1, 1969, in

applications

Are you willing

January

Please

to allow

five

if any
if so,

for such destruction.

tenant

years,

population

apartment
presently

number,
living,

in any apartment

of less

if the individual

- 11 -

state

1, 1968, and,

managed in whole or in part,

indicate

daily

and copy any or all.

the name, address,

and which now has a black

for

correspondence,

Procedures?
since

in the past

please

the nature

therein,

of each black

owned and/or

each tenant,

and indicate

For each individual

January

and reason

provide

of occupancy

or who has lived

buildings

years,

to inspect

of Civil

circumstances

11.

for a position

an Order of the Court under Rule 34

have been ~estroyed

the date,

three

including

taken

of the Federal
records

in the past

of action

representatives
of these

in detail

of each black

who has applied

describe

custody

telephone

ever been

for the rejection.

T.M.I.

tenancy,

pertinent

change.

for employment was rejected,

Please

defendants

all

explain

of each such application.

whose application

or national

Has there

the name and address

of any kind with T.M.I.

the reason(s)

policy.

for this

If race

in detail

If so, please

Rican individual

the disposition

state

this

policy?

the reasons

9.

to employment.

by T.M.I.

than 10%.

For

had been placed

on a waiting
if so,

list

prior

to being

for how long the tenant's

leased

an apartment,

and

name had been on a waiting

list.
12.

Please

describe

in detail

if any,

each of the defendants

housing

opportunity

Department

of Justice

13.
person

Please

who has,

T.M.I.,

after

racial

discrimination

by any agent

interest

in T.M.I.,

January

1, 1960.

of every

oral

If so, please

representing

complaint

and the disposition

to this

Interrogatory,

incident

including,

suggesting

to or about T.M.I.

having

Complaints

by

an ownership
of T.M.I.,

since
and

the details

of the complaint,

to

address

who dealt

and job title

in any way with

of the matter.
give all

made directly
an ownership

of the
the

With respect

details

of each such

limited
to T.M.I.
interest

to:
or
in T.M.I.;

made to the owners or the repre-

of the owners of any building

*/, As used herein,

or written,

of

the name, address

please

having

of every

of any owner or agent

but not necessarily

to any person

sentatives

and race

state

T.M.I.

Complaints

States

1972.

or by any representatives

person(s)

B.

by the United

in employment or housing

whom it was made, the name, race,

A.

contacted

of or any person

complainant,

steps,

to promote e.qual

the name, address

to the knowledge

T.M:I.,

race

being

made a complaint,'!:_/

regarding

has taken

in October,

state

what positive

managed by

"complaint"
refers
to any information
or alleging
actual or possible
discrimination.

- 12 -

T.M.I.

or by any person

with an ownership

interest

in T.M.I.;
C.
local

Complaints

made to any federal,

organizations,

Please

in whole or in part
and/or

give all
necessarily

having

having

The name, race

B.

been

(as that

concerning

agents?

word

discriminatory

If so, please
including,

but not

to:

whose application

later

or its

managed

initially

made a complaint

Interrogatory)

to the

have ever been

by T.M.I.

of each such incident,

limited
A.

any persons

after

housing

etc.

owned and/or

by T.M.I.

details

or fair

to any building

after

practices

A.C.L.U.,

whether

is used in the preceding

rental

rights

but not limited

N.A.A.C.P.,

indicate

as tenants

rejected

civil

including,

Urban League,

accepted

or

agency such as the New York City Human Rights

Commission or to any local

14.

state

for

The dates
acceptance

and address
tenancy

of original
and the date
T.M.I.

of each person

was originally

rejected;

application,
tenancy

rejection,

commenced;

C.

The names of all

personnel

involved;

D.

The reason(s)

the application

was originally

The reason(s)

the application

was subsequently

denied;
E.
approved.
15.

Please

state

the name, address,

of each person

interviewed

to this

Please

case.

and occupation

race and occupation

by you or on your behalf

state

of any person

separately

the name, address,

not interview

- 13 -

in relation

by

race

you or on your behalf

but whom you intend

or who has information

to this

with

respect

to interview,

to any facts

pertinent

case.
16.

If the answers

to any of these

Interrogatories

are not known to you or to any of your representatives,

state

the name, address,

whom you believe

in a specific

and occupation

may have knowledge

of any person,

or information

requested

Interrogatory.
Please

must be served
service

race

please

take notice

that

upon the undersigned

of the foregoing

a copy of such answers

within

days after

interrogatories.
Respectfully

ROBERTMORSE
United States Attorney

thirty

submitted,

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice

fAJ.,~d. ,di~k~L::ie,
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
I hereby certify
of the foregoing
fendants

Plaintiff's

were placed

postage-prepaid,

that

on November 7, 1973, copies

First

Interrogatories

in the United States

addressed

first-class

to:

Michael Rosen, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bollan and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York City, New York 10021

ELY E S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

to Demail,

* NOV26 1973 *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X

TIMEA.M............................
,.....

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

P.M
....................
.

-againstSTIPULATION
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP,
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,

civil
Action
File
No. 73 C 1529

Defendants.
-

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between

the

United

attorney

States
for

attorneys
which
be,

the

for
to

and

same

for

plaintiff,

the

answer
the

Attorney

and

defendants,

or

otherwise

hereby

the

is

Eastern

Saxe,

that

Bacon,

the

move with
extended

District

to

Bolan

defendants'
respect
and

of New York,
&

Manley,

time
to

the

including

within
complaint

December

3,

1973.
Dated:

New York, New York

November 21, 1973
ROBERT A. MORSE
United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York

::;~~;{~
-

us~

SAXE, BA ON, BOLAN &

Atto n ) ~or Defenda

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

STIPULATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

'i..\).&\n
Action

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP,

TRUMP MANAGEMENT,
INC.,

an\r;IS

(' ~ L,:
\)t.!,.,

. N~

File
73 C 1529

\~l~

,\t.i\1,,
"':,..

Defendants.

: )i>,

IT IS HEREBY
the United States

Attorney

for the United States

attorneys

or otherwise

hereby

is extended

for the Eastern

of America,

for the defendants,

answer

STIPULATED

AND AGREED,
District

and Saxe,1 Bacon,

that the defendants'

move with respect

to and including

DA TED: NEW YORK, NEW YORK

November 30. 1973

of New York,
Bolan

/V6v;"'N:?(.C

u.s.1D.1J:1 .-

be and the same

Robert A. Morse
United States Attorney
Eastern
District of New York
Attorney for the United States
of America

~efJiZIY;;;;;;;
~

which to

10th, 1973.

., SO ORDERED
Datedt ~~t:t.-r/<-}

attorney

& Manley,

time within

to the complaint

December

by and between

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
-

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORTOF
DEFENDANTSMOTIONTO
DISMISS OR FOR A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-against-

Civ. Action File

No. 73 C 1529

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Defendants.
-

STATE OF NEWYORK~ ss.:

COUNTYOF NEWYORK)
DONALDTRUMP, being
I am a defendant
am associated
I make this
Government's

in support

complaint

more definite

for

radio,

iscriminated

in renting

action

and

a defendant.
to dismiss

a claim

was all
received

whatever,
the first
of the 15th,

15th while
to hear

ever,

the

or for a

the more shocking

any formal

I heard

about

it

to

the Governmert

and Trump Managenor has

of my knowledge,
of our apartments,

inasmuch

communication

the subject

listening

I have never,

to the best

in the ~enting

regarding

that

me, my father,

our apartments,

or shown bias

he news report

morning

of October

against

nyone in my organization

In fact,

to state

I was shocked

an action

ent for bias

overnment

also

and says:

statement.

he news on car

point

Inc.,

of our motion

failure

On the morning

o that

deposes

in the above-entitled

with Trump Management,

affidavit

as bringing

duly sworn,

matter

as I had not

from the
of the actio~

was on my car radio

the

Later
next

day,

Daily

that

on the front

News, there

charged

with

in renting

Government

stories

itself.

I have always

.maintained
but

the

anyone

tried

to rent

respect

the community

result

charges

that

run and that

apartments.

not

is unfair

many calls

community

a date,

As is

leaders

year,

has never

expressing

in the

discriminated

answer
they

out in the

before

is no one

location,
charges

not
against

are made, and to

we had received
to have a trial

the national
of surprise

their

be charged

with

community

wire

or

services,

from tenants

shock and disbelief

such outrageous

have the

same ratio

as a whole.

and
that

lies.

our
The

of minority
Our organization

and does not now discriminate.

Sworn to before me this

1
. dayt' o~% . ~cemb~ .. , 1973
,-.,, (; L-j, . 6~..J~J~~_;,-

'$

hit

and letters

our apartments

as exists

substantial

there

apartment

We cannot

stories

fact

tenants

unwarranted

and unjust.

should

that

our tenants,

set

affidavit,

in the press

organization
is

is equal

we have suffered

and had an opportunity

When these
received

there

of the Government's

name mentioned.

notification

even answer

buildings

of not only

and reputation.

our name blackened

formal

no

We have always

us when we do not know upon what grounds

find

still
the 17th

to see to it

made public,

alleged,

an employee's

Again,

served,

Memorandum of Law and Roy M. Cohn's

fact

we had been

as a whole.

damage to our business

single

that

were finally

and admiration

As a direct
and unfounded

and the

It was not until

which we own and manage are well

for

stating

our apartments.

the Summons and Complaint

opportunity

news repo~ts

page of the New York Times and in the

were headline

bias

word from the

that

day on television

Ws~

l!NI'I'ED STP,TES DIS'I'RICT COURT

EASTERN DIS'I'RICT OF NEW YORK
-

UNITED S'l'ATES OF AMERICA

-against-

AFFIDAVIT

Civ. Action File

No. 73 C 1529

C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMPand

FRED

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
STATE OF N~W YORK~

ss.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

ROY M. COhN~ be

I am a partner

Manley,

attorneys

for

and am familiar

the

the

relief

complaint

can be granted

Government

has failed

upon which

a cause

certain

that

Rules

of Civil

dismiss
relief

the

or for

~rocedure,

complaint

alleged

factual

allegations

of their

ed on the

the

failure

to have been
to support

suit

United

front

page

16,

the

1973,

Charges

to

upon which

statement.

The

in the complaint

and it

a motion

to state

in the DaUy
States

a claim

to no relief.

appears

Under Federd
may be made to

a claim
complaint

violated

action,

of our motion

be granted

12(b),

Rule

for

On October

that

could

Bolan &

herein.

one fact

The Governoent's

statutes

ing

even

be entitled

can be

filing

to state

to allege

will

Bacon,

above-entitled

a more definite

of action

they

of Saxe,

ln support

failure

and says:

deposes

and circumstances

affidavit

for

firm

in the

facts

I make this
dismiss

in the

defendants

with

sworn,

duly

verbatim

upon which
recites

with

the

110

complaint.
the

Government

News with
Bias.

of the New Yerk Times,

banner

Similar

announced
hmdlines
headlines

They attempted

the
sia tappear
to bring

unlawful
case.

and undue pressure

The Government

they

did,

they

to coerce

nothing

more.

The request

by the Government

facts

exist

upon which it

definite,

certain

so that

they

The Federal

and specific

Rules

statement

is the

of a cause

of Civil

Procedure

evident

this

"fishing"
do not

a sufficiently
be served

and prepare
provide

for

for

Rule 12(e)

full,

upon defendant
trial.

such a motion

method of obtaining

of action,

is a

exist.

that

Procedure

that

was

and

These facts

do not

answer

proper

action

upon

is merely

case.

complaint

their

of Civil

and such a motion

its

I request

may prepare

served

Government

knows they

In the alternative,

This

If

making a settlement

makes it
the

this

the charges.

interrogatories

can base

and the Government

to support

into

for

and that

to settle

in the complaint.

the defendants

form of harassment
for

has no facts

would be stated

brought

defendants

upon the defendants

a fuller

of the Federal

Rules

states:

"
if a pleading
to which a responsive
pleading
is permitted
is so vague or ambiguous
that a party cannot reasonably
be required
to
frame a responsive
pleading
he may move for a
more definite
statement
before interposing
his
responsive
pleading.
The motion shall point
out the defects
complained
of and the details
desired-,
11
As has been set
hereto

clearly

answer

the charges

of these

shows,

charges

Division

piece

of paper

as a court
discriminatory

alleged

therein

It

of process.

a lawsuit.

use as a press

practices

to properly

and a more definite

an abuse

did not file

document.

are unable

attached

statement

be required.

represents

for

above and as the complaint

the defendants

should

This case
Rights

forth

release,

contains

not

against

blacks

It

The Civil

slapped
and only

one fact

together

secondarily

concerning

the

by the Trump organizatio

It

does not name one single

tices

were directed.

or months,
year.

but believe

or not,

largest

such a paper,

it

to the defendants.
the filing

of this

the litigation
the Civil

in the next

been a surrender

that

and the

substitution

under

an efficient

to community

maintenance

present

of the

type

decree

and future
service

rights

terminate

dictated

life

have resulted
the capitulation
Department
would have

which has con-

on all
of the

levels

for

many

interests

of our

entitled

to the

-- who are

we offer

by

of the defendants,

organization

It would have been a surrender

past,

to quickly

of the Welfare

of the

after

is even more outrageous.

Such a capitulation

pressure

because

conduct

one announcing

corporation.

of

with costs

would undoubtedly

--

substantially

tenants

-- not

subservience

tote

Department.
When it

"capitulation"
no case,

became apparent
an amazing

t~e Civil

Ri~hts

of :'Lnterrogatorles,
per month,

availability
to Def.

This

any

litigant

dismissed,

a "consent"

release

who have established

persons

into

Divisiont

the management

Welfare

of days

the language

Division's

document

prac-

even designate

If a private

the defendants

by entering

press

field.

Rights

threadbare

of the defendants

years.

does not

would be summarily

approached

Rights

tributed

it

to copy verbatim

in its

The Civil

They immediately

for

it

no statement

and add the name of the Trump organization,

is one of the

filed

in which any improper

not only contains

What was done was simply

the statute,
it

It

building

p,

thing
Division

asking
by race,

F');

we would not accept

occurred.

Realiz:tng

served

such question

us with

, ." (Pltf's

the name of any credit

this

that

it

fifteen

concerning
first

the

interrogatories

reporting

had

pages

as the "number of

making inquiries

of an apartment

4, 5,

that

company

used and the rJates

rental

rates

for

apartments.

in these

the reasons

servlce

efficiencies,

Indicate

decreases
so,

of their

for

have been any increases

since

such changes.

January

State

managed by 'l'.M.I.

"Indicate

the name, race,

last

location,

dates

of the duties
and/or

of' every

consider

act

The reading
in effect,

as to whether
against
front

8,M);

job title,

supervisor

on rental

applications

since

of Particulars

any of our employees

In other

have been any truth

had ever

words,

after

us to find

to it.

in advance

which is atta~hed

had a disagreement

having

smeared us on the

s charges

the Government

urge that

these

of their

are totally

defendants

unf.ounded.

to compromise

. _,,...

Sworn to before me this//

..
day of . .Dece.mb
..e~r
' 1 197.3

.,

,10'.I

/1 ~~.v.
/ .
L ,,A./:ti' .k'..-1,
~-

,
SCf1W1,:ii'11r,i1?)-1:1 te ol New'(ork,_,
' .i;:,hc, a 72220
.No.. 31-88 York County_.,./
Quai,11.ect
Marcb3_0.:i.~

;;.~::S

~~ornrniss1on

there

their

the

could
even

practices.

apartments

and the publicity

reprisal.

\t

complaint,

the opportunity

do not

and that

the

The complaint,

which was released

and has damaged the defendants

the defendants

v~

or given

we do not employ discriminatory

which shows no facts,

Government

out whether

of the charges

in the renting

Government

Janual'.\Y

Our top management was never

I respectfully
discriminate

to accept

us to go out and make an investigation

is now asking

to show that

job

and details

page of the New York Times with an amorphous

questioned

and

who has had the authority

of the Bill

asks

anyone.

Government

force

"(p.

for

o).

1, 1968 (p,9,

hereto

person

and/or

information

known address,
immediate

or

1968, and, if

1,

this

each complex owned and/or

of employment,

the monthly

there

rates

"State

J);

two and th1 ee-bedroom

one,

whether
rental

(p.5,

rights

was all
for

by

geared
fear

of

toi

NEVI

YORK

TUESD,"-;Y, OCTOBER

15, l'.iJ

II

n -r

,:

/\ //

~,.

,,/J,

.. -,

&')('

'

!~i

:J

I .r1,-,rfl.ord .ilcr11~.-?,1
~A.0 -~'"""'

:.r:i

'

-'--J~>t.J J.4,..;...,.

ur .h

.. ..,..,:.,.... -

,r-,,,

.ou1s rn \,,,1ry:
I
I

:J

P.y Momm KAPLAN"

Th~ De:1:'lrtmcnt of Justi:.:c,1and we'fl~ won them all. \Vch'
!harglng dtscrimir;ation ugainst;\vere charged with d:.;crlmina~;,
)lacks i:~ ::ir:1ttmcnt rcntnls,lrton, and }e pro\<.'!din courtl{
:,rou;;ht s~it in Federal C~urtlthat we d.id not discri~inate."
Ii.
;n Brcok!yn yestBrday agamstj
Mr. Trump .:lnd h1s father.
th~ Trur.:p Man3ger;1ent Corpor"';Fred C. Trump, th~ princip:::Ji1

1
e.tion, a major 01.vr:ercn<l man~f::;tockholder and
corpora.fo j,:
of rnal estate her~.
lbuard chairman, w~re also

i:orporation,

which ownsrnan\ed

as ctj,'efendants. They are I

a::d rents more than l~.ooo!req\lired fo respond to theij

apamnents in Brooklyn, Queensicon\p!aint within 20 da\'~ The,,
and Staten Island, was accused,,Trump family. has been m the I
..
!
of dolating tile !'air Housing real.estate husiness for more '.
Act o{ J96S in its operation of than 40 years.
39 buildings. Most are in Coneyj !n Washington, J, Stanley
Island., Brooklyn, and in Jamai-1Potting.er, assistant
attorney
ca Estates ancl Forest Hills, general in charge of the Just!c~
!Queens.

. Department's civil-rights diviSekin0 an injunction to haltlsion, termed the suit the secondj
a!le;ed ct/;;crirninatory practlses,,major rental discrimination acthe Government contended that tion begun by the department!
Trump Management had .re- in the last two years.
i
fused to ri;nt or negotiate rantThe first involved S:mmel Ji
1
0
als "because of race and colon. Lefrak, one of the country s
It also charged that the comColumn2
pany had required . different Continued on
rental terms and conditions be- ; .._____
cause of race and that it had
misrepresented ,to blacks 'that
apartments were not available. i
At the corporation's main of. 1
fice, 600 Avenue Z in Brooklyn, .
Danald Trump, president, de- '
nied the charges.
1
, "They are absolutely ridicu1ous/' he said. 0 \Ve never have
discriminated, and we never
wou.ld. There have been a num
ber of local a.ctions against u~.

'======

\'

.,:
,I
)
)

DAILY NEWS, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1973

", \~ITTtl;f
ti f@~;ffi\1~11-~ri,,,
U $ ~1Mil~IEFi~~EJ~siiJ~Charges~ ias iiri Rf:;tbig
,.

r<

.....
f0

;.

'

.9

f?i1~\r~-~~-

a ~KH~~diW_

By ROBERT KAPPSTATTER
'
Charging discrimination against blacks, the U.S. Department of. Justice. filed
a civil suit yesterday against th_eTrump Management Corp., which owns and operates
more than 14,000 apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.
The suit chnrges specifically
thnt the firm refused to rent or
negotiate
renting
units
with
blacks;, th:it it required different
rental terms and condilions because o! race, and that it misrepresented to blacks that apartn1ents were not avail:ible. The
suit asks Brookl_>-n:F'edera) Court
to order the alleged discriinination ended.
..
Named as 'defendants .in the
nit, beside. the firm, "ere Donaid Trump, president and his
fatlu:r Fred, the principal .. stockholder and chairman of the
board. The Trumpa, who own and
operate 39 apartment buildin1<s,
most of them. in Coney Island,
Jam.:iica Estate3 end For~st
Hills, were charged ,vith violating the Fair Housing Act of:196S.
Second Such Action

Donald Trl\mp fl:itly deni~d the

clrnrge3
yesterday,
stiting~
urhey are ahzolutely ridiculous.

metropolitan area filed by the department in the bst two years.

The first, against Life Realty,
an aim of the Samuel Lefrak organizatiou, ended with a consent
decree in which the firm agreed
to rent more units to members of
minority groups.
.
. Announcing the filing of the .
suit in Washing-ton, J. Stanley
Pottinger, the assistant attorney
general in c.harge of the civil
rights dh-ision, said the Trump
case was ori ~inally referred to his
office by the New York City Human Rights Commission.
. "We've'Wo11 ~'hem All"
It.was based in pa1t, he said,
on allegations made b)' Operation Open City, an affiliate of
the Urbn1\ League.
'l.'he young-el' Trump said "There
hav~ be~11a nui(lbet of local actions against us and we've won
them all. We were chargetl with

J
)

{
~

i
.)

===========--

{'
~

>

.-1

.
'1
I

';r
I

,ve neYer have discritpinnte~ and ~isc1imination and we proved

-Fr.c:d.
TrumP.
we never woulc?."
.
1n court that we did not discrimi.
.. . .
nate!'
. '.
;
Broo'klj'n, have 60 dav:5 to nnSwcr
Th.a suit W3.3 the second :inajoi- Attorneys for the firm, who::;c the char-"i:-3
1~:1.de
by
the
(:"~vCrn0
0
rental-c.!i~~riminatfon action in the main office i3 at GOOA vcn'.le z,. m.:mt.
~ .; .

,.

"

rn

DIST,UCT

THC LJ:.IT:SD ST/,TSS

EASTER~

DISTRICT

UNITED STATES OF ANERICA,

COL:i,T FOR THE

t:zw YORK

OF

)
)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

. '}

v.

,;

) ~\
FRED C. TRUNP, DONALD
)
TRUMPand TRUMPMANAGEMENT
)
INC.,

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
INTERROGATORIES
TO
DEFENDANTS

)
)
)

Defendants.

, FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD

TRUMP, ANTI TRUMP
TO THE DEFENDANTS
MANAGEMENT
INC.:
Plaintiff
Interrogatory

requests
separately

oath,

in accordance

Civil

Procedure.

.rogatory

that
papers

and fully,

Interrogatory

in documents,

documents

the alternative,

requested
papers

copies

or papers

ing those

documents,

papers

contained

and specifying.

and under
Rules

in the

and answer
or

the Interrogatory

Interrogatory

or records

the location

of

by any Intcr-

are deemed responsive.

to
In

by identify-

in which the answer is

of the docum~nts,

and making the same available

'-.

each

of such documents

and by indicati!.1g

you may answer that

copy or photograph.

answer

or records

you may so indicate

by attaching

to your answers

or records,

in writing

If the information

of the defendants,

which those

the defendants

with Rule 33 of the Federal

is contained

custody

that

to Plaintiff

papers
to inspect,

-r 1 ,,"
...

,.

officers

..,

,.i..,~-,.,,,)-i"-

..,.,.

""'i

..,

v L~ '"

.;..

of defcncant

t-,

.,

.-_,ti

..,. "- .)

--

[cJ~-

"'

.:_111 info::::::.:ition

Trt!I::p ~-!anagc~cnt:

avail-

with respect

Inc.,

to --

the

subject

information
employee

matter

or agent,
officer,

answers

all

or agent,

and other

information

1. Please

state

is available

please

include

which officer,

employee

and address

and the date

of all

ownership

in Trump Management Inc.

]

in your

to each answer:

the name, race

11

to

employee or agent

or who have any other

to as "T .M.I.

officer,

'

known to each officer,

who own stock

referred

with_respect

or indirect,

If some of the

to a particular

f.nforination

specify

information

persons

inquire.

employee or agent,

and please

provided

which they

is known or available

another

direct

into

interest,

[her_einafter

they acquired

such

interest.

2. Please

state

the date

of T.M.I. and the name, race

the

corporation.

Please

3. Please
in T.M.I.,

directly

--

state

as described
o~ indirectly

ments o,med and/or

'
the person
in detail

and place

and address

specify
whether

of incorporation
of each officer

each officer's
any person

of

duties.

with an interest

in the above two Interrogatories,

supervises

the management of the apart-

managed by T .M. I.

I so,

please

identify

'

or persons
those

4. Please

duties
state

with

such supervisory

and explain

performed.
wheth_er any person

or management interest

in T.M.r:,owns

indirect,

real

in any other

duties

estate

f
- 2 -

with

an ownership

any interest,

development,

.direct

or

management or

pro~otion

co~pany.

estate

interest

apartment

and its

complex

or which
interest,
said

If so,

identify

location.

in which an interest

apartment

complex

Please

state

or in part,

and.with

respect

opened
B.

development

by T.M.I.

at anytime

please

state

the apartment

as of January

of the present

other

each building;
E.
units

managed,

January

1, 1968

information:

or development

one-bedrooms,

Please

in each building;

in each building

1, 1968,

time,

by name, address

January

Please

1, 1969

identify

and dates

occ.upied

each

of occupancy;

..

D., Please

--tenant,

since

the.following

and three:..bedrooms

c.' The number of units

individual

said

of each apart-

owned and/or

The number of efficiencies,

by Negroes

at each

occupancy;

two-bedrooms,

andas

at each

by Negro !!._/persons.

occupied

estate

The date
for

number of units

the name and address

to each,

A.

\\.

are

or real

in whole

owns an

I . ..,

that

ment building

total

such person

and the/ nur.;,ber of units

complex

5.

the

of any other

is held by such person,

is owned by a company in \ihich

indicate

each such real

In the case
r

please

apartment

please

indicate
than

the

date

an employee

the

first

of T.M.I.,

Negro
moved into

set

forth

the number of apartment

which became available

for

rental,

by size,

::!:_I

!!._/ In eacninterrogatory
requesting
information
concerning
please also indicate
the same information
for
::!:_IFor example~ one-bedrooms,
two-bedrooms,
etc.

/J -

con:n,

on-

bct~c~n

J, 1959 and

Janu~ry

Novecber

1,

1973;

F.

Please

month,

state

by race,

availability

the nu_'Tlberof persons

inquiry

making

of an apartment

1969, .and the present.

an apartment
exact

figures

provide
please

state

the same period.of

of every

written

prospective

If

available,

please

In any event,

for the figures

G. Whether a formal,
required

time.

or approximations.

the basis

the

applications.for

are not reasonably

estimates

state

1,

who submitted

during

the

between January

( Pl;:3-se also
i

number of people

concerning

per

provided;

application

tenant

and,

is

if

so,

whether

any exceptions

are made to this

general

policy.

If exceptions

are made, please

state

frequently

they are made, why exceptions

'
and the name,
person

race,

who has the authority

If any applicant
out submitting
past

--name,

address

three
race,

the rental
applicat:i.ons

a formal

years;'!:_/
address

indicate

with-

in the

the tenant's

of the.apartment.

Please.state

for apartments

are reta:i.ned

I
- 4 -

exceptions.

as a tenant

and the circumstances

"!:_/The term ''past three years"

rogatories
means the period
and November ,l, 1973.

of every

to m~ke these

written.application

please

are made

and job title

has been accepted

how

used throughout
of time between

surrounding
how long
on file.

these InterNovember 1, 1970

If you arc
copies

a~tach

answers

of

to these

to do so, please

such application

of time required

for

applications.
affected

Please

the processing
Please

state what factors

have
/ ,/
ffect
the time requi~ed

of individual

indicate

applications;

what qualifications
for an applicant

as a tenant

of income,

credit

status,

children,

in terms

education,

other

factors

deciding
If

family

which may be taken

whether

exceptions

please

exceptio~s
and job

to accept

to these

state

accepted

as a tenant
three

name, race,

address

'
the rental

years

account

an applicant.
are

made,

who.has

address
the authority.

If any applicant

without

meeting

please

these

indicate

has been
requirements
the

and the circumstances

tenant's

surrounding

of the apartment;

Please
are

person

years,

in

they are made, why

exceptions.

in the past

checks

or any

are made and the name, race,

to make these

J.

standing,

qualifications

of every

have

to be accepted

into

or reject

how frequently

title

your

of tenant

been or are required

age,

to

and minimum lengt~

the p'rocessing

or presently

I.

forms

Interrogatories;

The maximc:.m, avera&~,

H.

for

willing

state

whether

credit

or have been obtained

on every

'
.any exceptions

prospective
are made
I

- 5 -

tenant

or background

in the
and,

past
if

three

so, _wll.ether

Please

dcscrib<.::

met before

waiting

the

conclitions

an applicant's

list,

new tenants

the

list

Please

are selected

state

be

on the

is

nwnber of persons

at any one time.

cust

na~c goes

how often

and the average

which

updated

list

the

bn

whether

---------

all

f.:r.'orr,.
the waiting

i ,

list

or whether

except~ons

to individuals

not on the list.

are made, please

state

made, why exceptions

address

the authority

of every person who has

list

the information

requested
building

list.)'

list

the last

while

that

please

utilizes

no
state
for

a waiting

the name, race and address

applicable)

a waiting

list

whose names were not on a waiting

If you are willing

attach

(If

above separately

ten tenants(if

an apartment

ex~eptions.

is maintained,

each apartment
Please

they are

are made and the name, race,

to make these

waiting

If exceptions

how frequently

and job title

central

are made to rent

of

who were rented

was maintained,

but

list.

to do so, would you please

a copy of the waiting

lists

used since

January

1, 1970, including
the name, address,
race
'
and date of application
of each prospective
tenant.
In the alternative,

'the plaintiff

sentatives
.,..
these

are you willing

doctuuents without

to allow

to inspect

repre-

and copy

an Order of the Court under

'.
Rule 34 of the Federal

Rules
I

of Civil

Procedure.

L.

Please

state

whether

is required

of every

so, whether

any exceptions

policy.

exceptions

If

frequently

they

a security

prospective

deposit

tenant

and,

are ma.de to this

are 1made, please

general

indicate

are made, why exceptions

and the name, race,

if
- ------

how

are made

ad,dre~~ and job title

of every

;\

person

who has the authority

If any applicant

has been accepted

out submitting
years,

a security

please

and the

deposit

indicate

Please
required

of application

M.

Please

state

indicate

three

name, race,
the rental

it

address

of the

is required

the

it may be s_ubmitted

the monthly

whether

1968, and,

if

state

information

so,

rental

time

subsequent

rates

two and three-bedroom

in these

this

past

the amount of security

and whether

one,

or decreases

with-

application;

Please

efficiencies,

tenant's

indicate

or whether

to the formal

in the

surrounding

exceptions.

as a tenant

deposit
the

circumstances

apartment.

to make these

there
rental

the

apartments.

have been any increases

rates

reasons
for

for

for

since
such

1,

January
changes.

Please

each cot:nplex owned and/or

managed, by T.M.I.;
N.
used

Please

describe

to pub_licize

utilfzed,

pie'ase

has run apartment

,,_

vacant
indicate

the method presently

apartment,,:.

or formerly

If advertising

every ne~wspaper that

advertiseriients

ir.i since

is

T .M. I.

Januaiy,

1968,

- 8 -

"~:,.

. -7

-":- :".

, ....

_. -- .

-.,,-'

'-"' _....

<~- - .

'

whether
papers

advertisements

have ever been run in news-

which have predominantly

audiences,

if

so,

the approximate

please

Negro or Puerto

identify

frequency

Rican

each such-newspaper,

all

newspaper

advertising

and whether
contained

T .M. I.
a fair

referrals

are

adverti,sing

housing

l~go.

i;
l

,,

If present-tenant
please

is or was ever

rertt

available

the exclusive

apartments.

present-tenant

referrals

please

explain

the

1968.

If any exceptions

procedures

to

advertising,

used since

to the normal
state

generally

circumstances

and the name, race,

of each person

whether

means utilized

If neither

rental

the

indi.cate

nor

are or have ever been utilized,

have been made, please

such exceptions,

or ever

,.

or were ever used,

this

them,

no,;.r contains

rental

January
procedures

the nature

of all

and. the reasons

address

who is authorized

1,

for

and employment

po!ition

to make or allow

such

exceptions; '
O.
job

Please.indicate

title,

Job location,

supervisor

authority

on rental
P.

Please

of T.M.I.

over

persons

'-.

to accept

describe

referred

- 9

,,

known address,

in detail
T.M.I.

immediate

of every

and/or

since

or other

last

of employment,

of the duties

applications

officers
the

dates

and details

has had the

--act

the name, race,

person

consider

who

and/or

Janua_ry 1, 1968;
th~ supervision
personnel

to in Interrogatory

that

maintain
No. 5 (0)

/
and whether

they

to maintain

racial

have ever

instructed

records

these

or use racial

I
t

persons

codes

i
!!

for

!i.

any purpose.
6.

With respect

to each ap:3-rtment building

f:

owned

and/ or m_anaged, in who le or in pa,rt,

please

state:

A. Whether there
policy

to refuse

tenancy

of their
state

race,

to accept,

color

or to dissuade

classes

or national

such a policy

whether

it

has been changed,

limited
agents
7.

to,

Please

employees
January

state

including

please

please

state

of the change,

and wryen the change

any steps

taken

to

but not necessarily

to resident

the.name,

race

employed

job location,
(It

so,

_managers,

rental

personnel.

of T.M.I.

duties.

the nature

in detail

1, 1968, including

the job title,

of their

state

because
If

was maintained,

instructions

and other

of persons
origin.

for making a change

the policy,

applications

was main.tained;

If

Please

B.

"implement

mation

,,.,/

has ever been in effect

why such a policy

was made.

since

from certain

the reasons

of all

~
1

1/

for

by any of the defendants,

of time,

each employee

listed,

of employment

and details

to duplicate

any infor-

is unnecessary

which has been provided

known address

for any period

for

dates

and last

in response

to Interrogatory

5 (0)).

8.

Please

state

ever

had a policy

not

racial

or ethnic

group,

whether a:ny of the defendants

to employ Negroes
or1to
.~

- 10 -

consider

have

or members of any
race

or national

origin

I
(
t

in any manner in relation

origin

are

considered,

circu.11stances
a change

please

surrounding

in this

including

Please

and Puerto

for

this

If race

in detail

policy.

If so,

state

Rican

state

this

policy?

the reasons
9.

to employment.

all

pertinent

Has there

please

explain

ever been /./

in detail

c~ange.

-----~

the name and address

individual

or national

of each black

who h~s-applied

for a position

\
of any kind with
the

T.M.I.

disposition

the reason(s)

of all

years,

for

T.M.I.

describe

telephone

logs

in detail

records

custody
records

please

state

the rejection.

rental

tenancy,

and indicate

For each individual

for employment was rejected,

Please

defendants

three

of each such application.

whose application

10.

in the past

since

or control
of action

January

including

taken

and waiting

the nature

1, 1969,

in

applications

therein,

lists.

and location

for

correspondence,

Are you willing

daily

to allow

representatives
of these

,of the plaintiff

documents

of the Federal
records

without

Rules

an Order

of Civil

have been-destroyed

the date,

circumstances

-1-1.
and date

Please

and which

now has a black

each tenant,

please

1, 1968,

five

tenant
years,

indicate

if

. ,.-

, ., ... :,.>-.- .. .......

~

~~,

....--~---~,--~-

if

so,

in any apartment

of less

the individual

11'

and,

if any

apartment
number,
.
presently
living,

managed in whole or in part,

popula~ion

state

destruction.

the name, address,

in the past

under Rule 34

Please

for'such

of each black

owned and/or

of the Court

Janu~ry

and reason

buildings

and copy any or all.

Procedures?
since

provide

of occupancy

or who has lived

to inspect

than

by T.H.I.
10%.

For

had been placed

/
on a waiting
if

so,

for

list

prior

how long

to being

leased

the tenant's

an apartment,

and

name had been on a waiting

list.
Please

12.

if

any,

describe

in detalil

each of the defendants

housing

opportunity

after

what positive

ha's taken

bei1z

steps,

to promote

ci,ntacted

equal

by the.United

States

Deparfment

of Justice

13.
person

Please

who has,

T.M.I.,

state

the name, address

to the knowledge

made a complaint,~/

regarding

racial

and race

of every

of any owner or agent

oral

discrimination

T. M. I. , by any agent

1972.

in Octo~~r,

or written,

to or about

in employment

of or any person

having

of
T.M.I.

or housing

by

an o,mership

interest

in T.M.I.,

1, 1960.

, January
race

of every

whom it

or by any representatives
If so,

please

compl.:.inant,

person(s)
complaint

and the disposition

to this

Interrogatory,

incident

including,

A.

the name, address

and

the details

of the complaint,

to

give

all

made directly

having

an ownership

of the

in any way with

\vith

details
limited

the

respect

of each such
to:

to T.M.I. or
interest

in T.}i.I.;

made to the owners 01: the repre-

of the owners of any building

:!:..IAs used herein,

suggesting

and job title

of the matter.

but not necessarily

Complaints

sentatives

address

who dealt

please

to any person
B.

T.M.I.

Complaints

since

state

was m~de, the name, race,

.
representing

of T.M.I.,

managed by

"complaint"
refers
to any information
or,alleging
actual or possible
discrimination.

12! .~

/
or by any person

T.H.I.

with

an o~-mership

interest

in T .N. I.;
C.
local

Complaints
agency

Commission

made to any federal,

state

such as the New York City

or to any local

organizations,

civil

includi1l'g,

Human Rights

rights

.1:fut.not

or

or fair

limited

housing

to the

Urban League,
14.

Please

N.A.A.C.P.,

indicate

A.C.L.U.,

whether

etc.

any persons

have ever

accepted

as tenants

to any building

owned and/or

in whole

or in part

by T.M.I.

having

rejected

and/or

is

used

in the

after

having

preceding

after

Interrogatory)

managed

initially

made a complaint

been

been

(as

that

concerning

word

discriminatory

rental
give

practices
all

by T.M.I.

details

necessarily

whose app'lication

later

If

so,

please

including,

but

not

to:

The name, race

B.

agents?

of each such incident,

limited
A.'

or its

for

The dates
acceptance

and address
tenancy

of original
and the

date
T.M.I.

of each person

was originally

rejected;

application,
tenancy

rejection,

commenced;

C.

The names of all

personnel

involved;

D.

The reason(s)

the application

was originally

The reason(s)

the applicatio:n

was subsequently

denied,_;
E.

appro1J.ed.
15.

Ylease

state

the name, address,

of each person

~nterviewed

to this

~lease

case.

and occupation

race

and occupation

by yo.u or on your behalf

state

of a_ny persoA

separately
not

the name,

interview

irCrelation

address,

race

by

- 13 -

,..--.,..-._.......,~ Y--:.,.,,...":'",,....._,'"'."r"..~:':.~r.
..~~;~~:~..,'7.'c:"7.--:-:--:.;':':-:~.:~--:---:-.:-""-:'~--_;,:r~~T,?"''v:--:-~':-."'?~-"..-,,,,-_...,~
..._.--,--,...,..~.,
......
-"' ........
~-. -,:--:,,-<';__.,..,..._...,"".""-:-.,-.-,........J~.""":"'~-..,:-:-o--f

you or on your behalf

but whom you intend

or who has information

to this

with

respect

to any facts

If

the answers

to any bf these

are not known to you or to any.,. of

(

the name, address,

whom you believe

in a specific

.?

1 our

Interrogatories

representatives,

race ~nd occupation

may have knowledge

please

of any person,

or information

requested

Interrogatory.
Please

must be served
service

pertinent

case.

16.

state

to interview,

take

notice

that

a copy of such answers

upon the undersigned

of the foregoing

within

days after

interrogatories.
Respectfully

ROBERTNORSE
United States Attorney

thirty

submitted,

SCH\lELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice

FRANK E.

d ,,J~~~L--ie

~oce-

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice

....-

'
I

'\

: :'

. -.. .

- , . ,.....'.,.. .---:', .' ..~,........,--_

.-- . A,,,....,.~-;--:-

..

'

"..

.;.,...J;...:..,.,...;;_7\~;.,.i:c:\,.>L-.

.
.

'

0
'

.-..-..y..

,.

-"",~.._-,.-~._~

.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby
of the foregoing
fendants

certify

Plaintiff's

were placed

postage-prepaid,

that

on November 7, 1973, copies

First

Interrogatories

in the Un:j.ted States

addressed

first-class

to Demail,

to:

Michael Rosen, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bollan and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York City, New York 10021

Errs
.1oL~::~efu,J(_~
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

-'

,,..

- '
.

----...--.....

.~-

SUMMONS

tN A CIVIL

ACTION

FOR THE

\
UNITED

STATES

CIVIL

ACTION

FILE

No ...---

OP AMERICA,

Plaintiff

Silltli.'i!ONS

v.,.
FRED C. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP
and TRUMP M..l\J.'IAGEM.ENT, INC. ,

,Defendants

To the above named Defendant

You are hereby su:mmoned and requ~ed to serve upon

States

Attorney

piaintiff's attorney

for

the

Eastern

, whose address ,is

District

225

Cadman

ROBERT A .. HOR~E,

of

New York,

Plaza

East,

Brooklyn,

United

New York,

11201,
;_. ,..! \ .. ::

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within

20

. days after .service

of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail 'to do so, judgement by default

mil be ta.ken against you for _the relief demanded in the complaint.

A
Q.,,.c-1'~?/
'

October

/J

1'5,

/,l".

f~
[3eal of Cou::-tJ

197 3

i.

I
UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE
EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEW YOR..l(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
.)
)
)
.)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
'.FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP
. and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC. ,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

------

COHPLAINTFOR INJUNCTION
PURSUANT
TO FAIR HOUSING

_______________
Defendants.

ACT OF 1968, 42 U.S.C.

3601, et seq.

.)

;.

J; .
,! ,'./

The United

1.

!l

This

3613 seeking
Title

VIII

States

is

an action

to remedy

of the

of America
brought

violations

Civil

alleges:

Rights

of the
Act

u.s.c.'

to 42

pursuant
Fair

Housin~

of 1968,, 42

Act,

u.s.c.

3601,

action

under

i.

2.
28

u.s.c~

This

Court

has

u.s.c.

1345 and 42

. --3;;- Defendant

jurisdiction

Tr.imp

ManagementInc.,

doing

}lew York,

manages

and operates

totalling

at

and elsewhere.

stockholder

business

in

Fred

and Chairman
Inc.

Defendant

Management

Inc.

The defendants

transact

business

policies

and pr2ctices

in

C. Trump is

Donald

Fred

in New York and are

a New
of

buildings,

the New York area

the

principal

of Directors

Trump is

is

District

apartment

units

of . the Board

Management

which

the Eastern

numerous

14,000 dwelling

Defendant

--- --- ~---

3613.

York corporation,

least

of this

of Trurrm.

president
.

of

Trumn

C. Trump and Donald

responsible

of Tr0.:.1p .Managerr.ent Inc.

for

the

'

Tr...unp

... ~

i.

'
4.

The apart,.ient

by T,::-urapHanagement

of 42 U.S.c.
5.

agents
because
ings,

The defendants'/

of race

'I

i:r.eaning

the

Refusing

against

of their

persons

apartment

build-

to rent

dwellings

of dwellings

and negotiate

~vith persons

in violation

because

of Sect~on

804(a)

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(a).

of the Fair

Requiring

respect

of race

of tbei:;:-

by:

and color,

(b)

actions

have\ discriminated

ways,

the rental

with

th~ough the

in. the operation

among other

of race

~,

with.in

3602(b).

(a)

are dfvellings

Inc.

and employees,

for

and complexes

buildings

different

to the rental

and color,

terms and conditio-ii.s

of dwellings

in violation

because

of Section

S04(b)

. of the Fair

Uousing Act of 1968~ 42 U.S.C.

}laking and causing

(c)

__,,_ ..-.~.witJ:1 respect

----indicate
nation

to the rental

Section

to be made statements
of dwellings

preference;--limitation

based

on race

and color

804(c) of the Fair

3604(b).

which

and discrimiin violation

of

Housing Act of 1968,

>

42 U.S.C. 3604(c).
(d) Representing

and color
inspection
in fact
804(d)
3604(d).

that

to persons

dwellings

and rental
so available,

of the Fair

because

2.re not available

when such dwellings

in violation

of race
for
are

of Section

Housing Act of 1968,

4i U.S.C.

. .
----~~

----~-

\
6.
ceding

The defendants

paragraph

conduct

described

in the pre-

constitutes:
'

A pattern

(a)

and practice'of

by the defendants
rights\secuied
-Act

to the full

42 U.S.C.

granted

3601 et~;
'

(b) A denial

enjoyment

to groups

of general

WHEREFOREthe plaintiff

1-.
It

.I

an Order enjoining
and successors

which denial

public

prays

the defendants,

and all

of rights

of persons

VIII of the Fair Housilig Act

by Title

an issue

Housing

and

of 1968, 42 u.s.c. 3601 rt~,

raises

of

VIII of the Fair

by Title

of 1968,

resistance.

those

importance.

that
their

in active

the Court
employees,

concert

agents,

and partici._'

pation.

with

'

any of them, from:

(a) D':i.scriminating

of race.

the basis.
. :

enter

-'"-;"':--:.:--.
----"'

.origin,

--- - ------~ -with

the Fair

respect

affirmative

tices.:

col~r;

steps

past

to any right

or refusing

further

- -

....-------

secured

by

42 U.S.C.-3601

to take

to correct

on

o:i:::nationa;L

-----

~-

discriminatory

Plaintiff

any person

religion

Housing Act of 1968,

(b) Failing

their

against

adequate

the effects

policies
prays

of

and p~acfor

such

,I

- 3

---. ----------.-

\
additional

relief

&s th 9 interests

of justice

may rfquire,

bu~sements

together

of this

,~ith

the

costs

end

dis-

accion.
/
,,,., .,

t' . ;'
\

i~_A
~ t".'~

:
\

:>-:Y,.,.

r7. ;
~

l...

J. ..

~~.~~_.....

ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON
Attorney
General

,(
a
a
.

!
1f /
P
{.-7;__.//
(!_
.
-~

r "./.

--;t/:STANLEY POTTINGER

Jssistant

I~.

. ,j
'

Attorney

.V / - ,,/l

i.

.~

lfL-

/l.r,.

/.r"'{t...-/

Gener~f

:..

.
I

.FRAN'r<:.
E. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
.'

........ ~.

Civil Rights Division

Departrn~nt of Juscice
. ' .-

. fA~1t-JJ
/Ja_();l~f~R.

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
,,.

ROBERT A. HORSE
United S.tates At:;~

IJ

.
. .

q(Z/~#

/KtJ--41

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil
Rights Division
Department

of

Justice

LED

I
IN CLERK'SOFFICE
J. S. DISTRICT
COURTE.D.N.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- DEC121973
MOTION 1l:MDISMISS

UNITED STATES

I) "'

OF AMERICA,

Civ. Action File No.

73 C 1529 /

-againstFRED C, TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT,
INC.

S I R S
PLEASE
before

United

States

United

States

Courthouse,

,Ju{hJllf j

day of B

for failure
definite
seem

as counsel

to state

statement

a claim

and Roy M. Cohn,

all the pleadings

Fsd.sy

New York,

!l(;}llolPlil,

can be heard

the

"Ir/ ;f,._

on thfU..J. --

of that day or as

dismissing

can be granted
relief

is based
sworn

and proceedings

upon this notice,

the complain

or for a more

as to the Court may

the affidavits

.,f

to the I/ day of December,

heretofore

United States Attorney

Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney for the United States
of America
225 Cadman Plaza East
New York, New York

of Donald

1973, and upon

had herein.

Yours,

TO:

New York,

for an order

and further

7 , in

at Room

in the forenoon

upon which relief

will move

in the premises.

This motion
Trump

Judge

and for such other

just and proper

that the undersigned

#Al/ f
CllbfJ
tW :Pl.AZ
11

District

197'1/, at 10:00 o'clock

iiibL',

soon thereafter

TAKE NOTICE,

etc.,

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley

Attorneys
for Def~

BY~12
3 9 East 68th Street
New York, New York
(212) 4 72 1400

10021

I'

UNITED STATES DISTRIC'l' COURT

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
- - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE

UNITED STATES OF JlMERICJ\

Civ,

-ag:<tinst-

No.

FRED C, TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.

- - - - - Defendants

Action File
73 C 1529

-x

in the above

entitled

cause

hereby

separately

and severally

move the Court

pursuant

_provisions

of Rule 12(e)

of the Federal

Rules

Procedure

for

the plaintiff
with

respect

the District

Courts

be ordered

to furnish

to matters

of the following
1.
paragraph
state

(c)

of the United

That with

respect

supporting

the Fair

(a)

in the Complaint

that

statement
herein

to the allegations

their

Housing

plaintiff

conclusion

Jlct of 1968,

in t~e following

in each

building

that

42 U.S.C.

the parties

(a)

the

time,

addresses

and agents

3604(a),

(b),

alleged

to have

for

the defendants;

and locations

at which the

alleged

to the alleged
giving

discrimination

to

defendants

of the apartmett

discrimination

occurred;
(c)

in

be required

out the discrimination

the exact

contained

respects:

name the employees

carried

(b)

States

a more definite

5, page 2 of the complaint

and (d)

of Civil

particulars:

the facts

violated

alleged

to the

exact
occurred.

discrimination;

dates,

that

the alleged

2.
in paragraph
be required
contained

That with

respect

to the allegations

6 page 3 in the complaint,

to state

the facts

in paragraph
(a)

that

supporting

have carried

the plaintiff

the allegations

SIXTH in the following

name the employees

contained

respects:

and agents

alleged

out the discrimination

to
for

the defendants;
(b)

the exact

addresses

apartment

building

discrimination
(c)

the parties

(d)

the

time,

alleged

Dated:

and locations

of the

at which the alleged

occurred;
to the alleged

giving

exact

discrimination

discrimination;

dates,

that

the

occurred.

Sa.xe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley

Attorneys
for Defendants
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
(212) 472-1400

New York, New York

December 7, 1973

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Civ.
No.

-against-

Action
File
73 C 1529

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP,

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM OR FOR A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO
FRCP RULE 12
Preliminary
The Government
served

a summons

answer

has

yet

six

paragraphs,

Fair

Housing

upon

which

simply

been

for

of

1968,

even

of

a year,

in
nor

upon

but
might

the

one

address

not

one

to

committed

the

violations.

no answer

can

be given

is

is
the

is

to have

the

one
alleged

for

the

no facts

name who is
It

that

contains

There

there

where

No

to

absolutely

employee's

and

which

alleged

complaint

1973,

defendants.

be granted.

statutes

the

15,

pursuant

states

occurred,

that

the

an injunction

lations
have

October

The complaint,

injunction

Nowhere

about

complaint

asks
Act

the

on or

made.

a recitation

violated.
not

and

Statement

these

defendants

been

date,
vioalleged
reasons
are

making

this

ment

is

motion

obviously

consent

decree

were

served

upon

ally

news

extremely

they

tions

to

charges

of

Donald

a sample

questionable

how the

with

do not

the

operate

and

have

even

it

facts

undue

complaint
nation-

sent

to

decree.

when

(See

Government

the

with

religions

It

is

can

enter

is

apparent

alleged

into

viola-

is

the

the

are

filled

to

The buildings
same

communities

any

especially
with

tenants

whatever

to

racial

or

as a rule

are

percentages
in which

company

city,

No attempt
according

made.
the

management
of

The buildings

roughly
as

many areas

tenants

lines

a large

nationalities.

prospective

filled

in

and Queens.

religious

of
these

races

and

buildings

located.
An examination

discloses
no facts
void

and

publicized

consent

what

are

buildings

many races

screen

are

and

defendants.

defendants

know upon

sign

unfair

summons

media

They

attorneys

defendants

the

the

The Govern-

occurred.

Brooklyn
of

before

Trump.)

the

through

against

The defendants
and

them

even

complaint.

have

defendants,

the

agreement

that

fact,

of

defendants'

the

by harassing

In

affidavit

dismiss

seeking

publicity.

any

to

of

that
to
any

the

of

Government

support
information

their

the

complaint

has

complaint.
which

would

immediately

no facts
It
enable

and knows
is

of

completely
the

defendants

to

supply

an answer

or

to

properly

respond.

Issues
There

are

(1)

Whether

the

for

failure

to

Civil

Procedure

relief

might

statement
of

Civil

two

issues

Government's
state

12(b)-(6)

should
Procedure

and

12(e).

(2)

of

to

to

Court.
be dismissed

Federal

action

whether

pursuant

this

should

pursuant

because

be required
Rule

to

complaint

a claim

be granted,

presented

upon

Rules
which

a more

definite

Federal

Rules

of

POINT I.
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM SHOULD BE GRANTED
The Governm~nt
which

a judgment

complaint
of

Civil

not

been

be dismissed.

Procedure,

Rule

adequately

stated

ing

In

and
legal

the

the

to
and

12{b) (6),
in

allegations

state

are

where

the

a claim

therefore

Pursuant

Government's

Federal

the

claim
it

complaint
nothing

the

to

complaint

Rules
has

should

there

more

upon

are

than

be
no

"sweep-

conclusions."
In Pauling

107

failed

be rendered

should

dismissed.
facts

might

has

u. s.

D. c.

App.

U.S.

835,

not

accept

v.

5 L. Ed.

372,

McElroy,C.A.
cert.

2d 60,

"sweeping

denied

the

legal

allegations."

In

the

has

not

even

attempted

to

make

but

has

relied

upon

Law alleged

pal

was

adopted

of

Omaha

{8 Cir.

restating
to

in

Court

have

held

that
in

instant

case

these

factual

the
been

McCleneghan

1962),

278 F.2d

81 S. Ct.

conclusions

factual

Housing

1960,

298 F.2d

sections

the
the

Union

61, 364
they

would

form

of

Government
allegations

of

violated.
v.

252,

the

Fair

The princiStock

Yards

Co.

659:

"For the purpose

of the motions
to dismiss
we are to regard
as admitted
the well pleaded
facts
of the complaint
...
This admission
'does not,
of course,
embrace
sweeping
legal
conclusions
cast
in the form of factual
allegations.'
.. Furthermore,
a general
allegation
of conspiracy
without
a statement
of facts
constituting
that
conspiracy,
is only an
allegation
of a legal
conclusion
and is insuf11
ficient
to constitute
a cause of action ..

See
283 F.
1971,

Supp.

also

Stewart

842,

Blackburn

443 F.2d

Gas Co.,

121;

D.C.

Ga.

v.

v.

Atlanta
1972,

ment

that

of

their

they

338 F.

this

courts

and

When the

complaint

broad

1969,

statements

Thurston

48 F.R.D.

405 F.2d

v.

134,

871,

a civil

the

Court

rights

Natural

Southern

6th

1039.
state

even

really
valid

nothing

but

is

against

insufficient.

a series

of

should

be

Institute,

Nelson,

fact

state-

claim

complaint

Computer

one

a bald

held

v.

Barloga,

given

a liberal

the

rules

contemplate

C.A.

D.C.N.Y.
9th

by any

factual

statements

allegation

of

constituting

the

legal

conclusion

claim

for

relief.

have

1968,

and

supra.

similarly

conspiracy
is

been

is

insufficient

In
held

only

courts,
in

support

kind

unsupported

rejected
Stewart
that

a statement

state

pleadings

statement
this

Supp.

to

federal

usually

without

277 F.

failed

the

of

Barloga,

Court

conspiracy
that

in

allegations

Huey v.

1967,

"although

some factual

General

supra,

that

construction

claim.

Havelone,

Ill.

a complaint

stating

the

insufficient.

D.C.

held.that

claim,

are

of

v.

have

Setab

Jackson

C.A.

of

the

1968,

872.
In Huey v.

864,

type

contains

conclusory

dismissed.

the

is

Neb.

University,

to

allegations
some

D.C.

Supp.

failure

may have

defendants

Fish

Gas Co.

The Government's

in support

Havelone,

as
v.

a general
of

the

facts

an allegation

of

to

constitute

We are
the

presented

Government's

should

here

with

allegations

and

no facts

therefore

to

support

the

complaint

be dismissed.
POINT II.
AMORE DEFINITE
The courts

motions
when

for

the

permit

a more

broad
the

Engineering

sketchy
ing
action
of

the
at

for
Co.,

there

is

complaint
the

plaintiff's

conduct

D.C.

can help

not

1949,

8 F.R.D.

pleading

stage

and

620.
vague

and

in

respond-

defendant
the

thereby

among

Cope v.

extremely

formulate

will

expedition

misconduct.

no way in which

12(e)

be granted

of

are

Rule

complaint

a fishing

herein

issues

limit

in

the

the

scope

discovery.

The Government's
does

Pa.

that

should

plaintiff's

evidence

allegations

and

to

of

to

held

statement

allegations

records

The

consistently

definite

Government

defendant's
Fuyn

have

STATEMENT IS REQUIRED

even

include

complaint
dates

of

is

the

so general

alleged

that

it

violations.

CONCLUSION

The

In

summary,

complaint

should

claim.
to

support

the

be dismissed

The Government
its

statute

complaint.

has

provided

and
for

case

law is

clear.

failure

to state

no facts

whatsoever

If
very

least,

ment

pursuant

should
dants
when

the

Government

defendants'
to

reply

no facts

to
are

motion

Federal

be imposed.
to

It

or

Rules
is

these
for
of

facts,

then

a more

definite

Civil

impossible

a complaint

couched

at

state-

Procedure

to

require

in

vague

the

12(e)
the

defen-

allegations

stated.

WHEREFORE, the
dismissed

has

a more

Government's

definite

complaint

statement
Respectfully

should

be

required.
submitted,

SAXE, BACON, ,BOLAN & MANLEY

Attorneys
for Defendants

Of counsel
Roy M. Cohn

J.

s.D1SlmCi

<..;OURIf:.i). r...

l'J,. DEC12 1973

- A.M.......
..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

"' .

-------------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Civ. Action
File
No. 73 C 1529

-against-

COUNTERCLAIM
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and
TRUMP MANAGEMENT,INC.,
Defendants.
-

AS AND FOR A FIRST DEFENSE AND BY

WAY OF A COUNTERCLAIM
1.
a

statement

ing

the

On October

containing

suit

mation

false

1973,

the

New York

and misleading

Times

published

information

concern-

herein.
2.

News to

16,

On October

publish
which

under
it

16,

banner

1973,

plaintiff

headlines

knew to be

false

Defendants

have

untrue

unfair

caused

a story

the

containing

and misleading

and

Daily
infor-

damaging

to

defendants.
3.
the

plaintiff's

tions

media

prior

tiff

knew the

to

and
any

information

sustained

formal

damages

statements
action

which

it

on its

to

as
the

a result
communica-

part.

released

of

The plain-

to be

false

and

misleading.
WHEREFORE, defendants
order

granting

amount
with
and

of
such

the

defendants

One Hundred
further

costs

and

pray

judgment

Million

Dollars

that

on their

this

Court

enter

counterclaim

in

($100,000,000.00),

an
the

together
may require

'

. )
;_

.
-.

.! ~t r

'L !:. /ft.

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE r

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

* JANS

1974

Plaintiff,

)
)
)

v.

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP )

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC. , )

NOTICE OF MOTIONTO DISMISS

DEFENDANTS'COUNTERCLAIM

_____________
Defendants.

)
)

SIRS:
PLEASE TAKENOTICE that
America will
Neaher,

move this

District

Cadman Plaza
day of January
that

before

East,

Brooklyn,

1.

United

States

the Honorable
States

11, 1974 at 10:00 o'clock

defendants'

of

Edward R.

Courthouse,

New York in Courtroom

day or as soon thereafter

Rule 12(b)(6)

225

9, on the

in the forenoon

as counsel

can be heard,

counterclaim

of the Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

pursuant

on the grounds

This Court has no jurisdiction

of
for

to
that:

over the subject

of the counterclaim;
2.

which relief
that

Court,

Judge at the United

an Order dismissing

matter

plaintiff,

this

That the counterclaim

can be granted;and
Court deems just

fails

to state

for other

and proper.

a claim upon

and further

relief

Dated:

January 4, 1974
Brooklyn, New York

To: Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan
and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

Yours,

etc.

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

Assist
t United States
Attorney
Brooklyn, New York

ff1;t:S,~UJ~f~
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Elyse
hereby

certify

S. Goldweber,
that

I have served

of Motion of the United

claim,

an attorney

States

to Defendants'

More Definite

Statement

to Dismiss

defendants'

Motion to Dismiss,

prepaid,

States

Motion for

of Plaintiff's

Motion

and a copy of the attached

States

in Response

of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn on the defendants

copy, postage

Notice

counter-

Memorandum of the United

and in Support

the Counterclaim

Memorandum of the United

a copy of the attached

to dismiss

a copy of the attached

in Opposition

for the plaintiff,

to their

attorney

to the Affidavits
by mailing

at the following

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
This,

the 4th day of January,

1974.

Efsts.
dwwE{f;!dlVJ!~
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP
AND TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS'MOTIONTO DISMISS, MOTIONFOR MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT
AND IN SUPPORTOF
PI..AINTIFF'S MOTIONTO DISMISS
THE COUNTERCI..AIM
HENRYA. BRACHTL
Assistant
United States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP,DONALD
TRUMP
ANDTRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITEDSTATES IN OPPOSITIONTO
DEFENDANTS'MOTIONTO DISMISS, MOTIONFOR MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT
ANDIN SUPPORTOF
Pl.AINTIFF'S MOTIONTO DISMISS
THE COUNTERCI.AIM

INTRODUCTORY
STATEMENT
The United
pursuant
housing.

States

to 42 U.S.C.
The operative

initiated

3613 ~/ alleging
paragraphs

*/ 42 U.S.C. 3613 provides

-

this

action
racial

on October

15, 1973,

discrimination

in

of the Complaint

allege

that:

that the Attorney General may sue when

there has been a "pattern
or practice"
of discrimination
in housing
or where he determines that a denial of equal housing opportunity
to
a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance.

"S. The defendants,

through the actions
of their
agents and employees, have discriminated
against
persons
because of race in the operation
of their apartment buildings, among other ways, by:
(a) Refusing to rent dwellings
and negotiate
for the rental
of dwellings with persons because
of race and color,
in violation
of Section 804(a)
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(a).
(b) Requiring
with respect
to the
of race and color,
of the Fair Housing

different
terms and conditions
rental
of dwellings
because
in violation
of Section 804(b)
Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(b).

(c)
Making and causing to be made statements
with respect
to the rental
of dwellings which indicate
a preference,
limitation
and discrimination
based on
race and color in violation
of Section 804(c) of the
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c).
(d) Representing
to persons because of race
and color that dwellings
are not available
for
inspection
and rental when such dwellings
are in
fact so available,
in violation
of Section 804(d)
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(d)."
ceding

"6. The defendants'

conduct
paragraph
constitutes:

described

in the pre-

(a) A pattern
and practice
of resistance
by the defendants
to the full enjoyment of rights
secured by Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et~.;
and
(b) A denial to groups of persons of rights
granted by Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et~.,
which denial raises
an issue of general public importance."

- 2 -

The defendants
alternative,

for

Complaint
able

fails

have

to state

be a counterclaim

which

that

charges

filed

misleading
the Daily

have

damages

information

also

an "amorphous"

plaintiff

News concerning

filed

no facts

dollars
conveyed

this

to en-

because

to

States

in the

is

grounded

to support

complaint,

the

what. purports

counterclaim

in the

too vague

from the United

having

amount of 100 million

that

and is

Defendants'

plaintiff

and,

alleging

of action

dollars.

on the proposition
and having

a cause

seeks

to dismiss

statement,

Defendants

amount of 100 million

in the

Motions

a more definite

them to respond.

dants

filed

its

damaged defen-

of the

false

and

to the New York Times and

lawsuit.
DISCUSSION

I.

Motion

to Dismiss

Defendants
allege
therefore

facts

claim

to support

be dismissed

relief

can be granted.

to the

requirements

that

the

its

general

for

Complaint

allegations,

failure

Plaintiff
of F.R.C.P.

in this

to state
submits
8(a)

*'
Affidavit
of
and counterclaim,

action
and that

a claim
that

and is

the

does not
it

should

upon which
Complaint

conforms

sufficient.

Roy Cohn, p.4.

Ostensibly
in support of their motions
defendants
have filed
extravagant
and misleading
affidavits
by the defendant
Donald Trump and by his counsel which
accuse the United States,
in the most inflammatory
rhetoric,
of bringing the suit without
grounds,
of attempting
to "bludgeon"
a settlement, and of various
other nefarious
activities.
While these affidavits
have nothing
to do with any of the motions before
the Court, Motions
to dismiss
and for a more definite
statement
are predicated
on pleadings
alone.
We respond to them briefly
in a separate
memorandum in order to
set the record straight.
- 3 -

Under the Federal

courts

Rules of Civil

are not hampered by the morass of decisions

a particular

allegation

is one of fact,

is no requirement

that

facts,'

sufficient

or 'facts

2A Moore's
Gibson,

Federal

the pleading

here,

another

a motion

as to whether
There

or 'ultimate

In Conley v.

case of racial

identical

the Supreme Court sustained

federal

a cause of action.'"

pp. 1692, 1694.

1813,

"[the]

or law ...

'facts,"

to constitute

Practice

filed

evidence

state

355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957),

in which defendants
filed

Procedure

in principle

the Complaint

discrimination
to that

as follows:

The respondents
also argue that the complaint
failed to set forth specific
facts to support its
general allegations
of discrimination
and that its
dismissal
is therefore
proper.
The decisive
answer
to this is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
do not require a claimant to set out in detail
the
facts upon which he bases his claim.
To the contrary,
all the Rules require is "a short and plain
statement
of the claim" that will give the defendant
fair notice of what the plaintiff's
claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.
The illustrative
forms appended to the Rules plainly demonstrate
this.
Such simplified
"notice pleading"
is made possible
by the liberal
opportunity
for discovery and the
other pretrial
procedures established
by the Rules
to disclose
more precisely
the basis of both claim
and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues.
The Complaint
a racially

in this

discriminatory

case alleges

policy

that

the defendants

in the operation

- 4 -

of their

pursue

apartment

buildings.
places,
basic

While omitting
etc.,

outline

concise,
ants'

it clearly

advises

of the charges

and direct"~/

noncompliance

complaints

by alleging,

matter,

by the Attorney

General

to which similar

uniformly

denied.

See e.g.,

(D. Colo.

1972); United

States
rel'd

P.H.E.O.H.

Rptr.

Para.

v. Bob Lawrence Realty,

order

aff'd

of the nature

categories

of the defend-

It is identical,

in

to a number of other
brought

motions

United States

and

5, in "simple,

Housing Act.

of evidentiary

States

such as names, dates,

in paragraph

terms four separate

3613, with respect

372(1),

details

the defendants

with the Fair

terms of nonpleading
housing

evidentiary

pursuant

to dismiss
v. Luebke,

v. Black Jack,

Civil

fair

to 42 U.S.C.

have been
345 F. Supp. 179

Action No. 71-C-

13,561 (E.D. Mo. March 30, 1972); United

Inc.,

313 F. Supp. 870 (N.D. Ga. 1970);

474 F. 2d 115 (5th Cir.

1973), ~.

~'
42 L.W. 3195 (Oct. 9, 1973.); United States
Associates,
324 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. Ga. 1971). ~/

den.

---

v. Northside

U.S.

Realty

"!_/ FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e)(l).

**/ The Courts have reached the same result in the following unreported
cases:
United States v. Raymond, Civil Action No. 73-119-CIV-T-H (M.D.
Fla. Sept. 5, 1973); United States v. City of Parma, Civil Action No. C73-439 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 1973); United States v. Robbins, Civil Action
No. 73-848 CIV-JE (S.D. Fla. June 22, 1973); United States v. Watson
Civil Action No. 73-97 (M.D. La. May 15, 1973); United States v. Pelzer
Realty Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 3284-N (M.D. Ala. July 16, 1971);
United States v. Davis, Civil Action No. 6451-71 (S.D. Ala. May 18, 1971);
United States v. A.B. Smythe, Inc., Civil Action No. C-69-885 (N.D. Ohio
Nov. 24, 1970); United States v. Goldberg, Civil Action No. 70-1223-CIVCF (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 1970); United States v. PMCDevelopment Co., Inc.
Civil Action No. 13578 (N.D. Ga., July 28, 1970); United States v. Palm
(continued on next page)
- 5 -

The same result

nation

cases.

has been reached

United

States

538, 541 (N.D. Ga. 1969);

of Electrical
Ohio 1967);
of St.

Louis,

Workers,
United

in numerous employment discrimi-

v. Georgia

United

Power Company, 301 F. Supp.

States

v. International

Brotherhood

Local No. 683, 270 F. Supp. 233, 235 (S. D.

States

v. Building

and Construction

Trades

Council

271 F. Supp. 447, 452 (E. D. Mo. 1966).

In Conley v. Gibson,

supra,

the Court said:

"
in appraising
the sufficiency.of
the complaint we follow, of course, the
accepted rule that a complaint should not
be dismissed for failure
to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle
him to relief."
355 U.S. at 45-46.
See also

2A Moore's Federal

Practice

112.08,

p. 2271-2274 and

(continued
from previous page)
Beach Listing Bureau, Inc., Civil Action No. 70-379-CIV-CF (S.D. Fla.
May 5, 1970); United States v. Miller,
Civil Action No. 70-40 (D. Md.
April 27, 1970); United States v. H.G. Smithy, Civil Action No. 21470
(D. Md. April 17, 1970); United States v. Management Clearing,
Inc.,
Civil Action No. 70-23-PHX.
(CAM) (D. Ariz. April 8, 1970).
Copies of the Complaints and Orders
been attached
to this memorandum.

- 6 -

in the above cases

have

cases

there

admitting

collected.~/

A Rule 12(b)(6)

the validity

contests

plaintiff's

to dismiss,
favorable

and existence
right

the complaint

of the claim

to recover

under

United

supra,

301 F. Supp. at 541.

In United

Action

No. 73-439 (N.D. Ohio Sept.

13,616

the Court,

as stated,

v. Georgia

States

5, 1973),

of

but
On motion

in the light

States

summarizing

the effect

the law

is to be construed

to the plaintiff."

after

motion'has

most

Power Company,

v. City of Parma, Civil

P.H.E.O.H.

the foregoing

Rptr.

Para.

authorities,

added

that:
"It is especially
in civil rights
disputes
that
we ought to be wary of disposing
of the case on
pretrial
motions and courts do in fact have a
predilection
for allowing civil
rights
cases to
proceed until a comprehensive
record is available to either
support or negate the facts alleged."
Sisters
of Prov. of St. Mary of Woods v. City of
Evanston,
335 F. Supp. 396, 399 (N.D. Ill.
1971).
Consistent
authorized
dwellings
conditions

with

the allegations

to adduce proof
on the basis
with

respect

that

of race,

of the complaint,

defendants

have refused

have required

to the rental

different

of dwellings

race,

made discriminatory

statements

relating

ings

and have represented

on account

of race

plaintiff
to rent
terms and

on the basis

to the rental
that

is

dwellings

of

of dwellwere

~/ The test as to sufficiency

laid down by Mr. Justice
Holmes in Hart v.
B. F. Keith Vaudeville
Exchange, 262 U.S. 271 (1923) is whether
the claim is wholly frivolous.
Radovich v. National Football
League
352 U.S. 445 (1957) reh. den. 353 U.S. 931 (1957).
- 7 -

unavailable

for

rental

when such dwellings

Defendants

can hardly

controvert

proves

allegations,

then

its

to have violated
entitled

42 U.S.C.

to relief.

Georgia

support

and suits

defendants'

be liberally

testing
Court

Cf. United

at 541,

Council

will
States

Louis,

be
v.

543; United

of St.

do not

the

in this

cases

States

supra,

the

v. McElroy,
sustained

on the grounds
explicitly

demonstrably

stated

278 F. 2d 258 (D.C.

the plaintiffs

that:

- 8 -

of a suit
lacked

of defendants'
which are
all

from the
Cir.

here,

of complaints

pleadings

were dismissed,

the dismissal

that

kinds

be
involving

to those

in substantially

absent

should

out of cases

in several

of gEneral

complaints

case

different

to dismiss

was recognized

even remotely

in principle

entirely

and the propriety

in which

arise

identical

the motions

on considerations

of Appeals

complaint

authorities

involve

construed

In Pauling
Court

supra,

by defendants

virtually

Even so,

were denied,

In those

that

authorities

and issues.

rested

cited

While plaintiff's

complaints

have been shown

at 452.

the proposition

dismissed.

if plaintiff

(d) and plaintiff

301 F. Supp.
Trades

so available.

that

will

through

Conley v. Gibson,

The authorities

cases

3604(a)

and Construction

271 F. Supp.

the proposition

the defendants

Power Company, supra,

v. Building

were in fact

of them.

that
instant
1955),

to enjoin
standing.

result
case.
the
nuclear
The

to

"we need not reach possible

questions
ar1.s1.ng
out of the facts,
well pleaded or otherwise."
Id at 254.
The Court

recognized

miss does not admit

factual
other
account

that

of race

policies

complaint

claim

any injury

resulting

explicitly

requires

was compelled
general

liberal

conclusions
case,

of fact

...

cast

to rent

pertaining

be characterized

a motion

to dis-

in the form of

however,

have refused

to rely

we allege,
to blacks

among
on

to defendants'

as a "legal

conclusion".

v. Setab

Computer Insti-

on Thurston

134 (S.D. N.Y. 1969).

which alleged

fraud

that

supra.*/

Defendants

tuting

defendants

which can hardly

48 F.R.D.

legal

In the present

- a statement

Conley v. Gibson,

~,

"sweeping

allegations."
things,

by way of dictum

fraud

from that
that
shall

to dismiss
rules

That case

by the defendants
fraud.

involved
but failed

Since Rule 9(b),

in such cases,

"the

be stated

particularity,"

with

the action,

of pleading

circumstances

even though
described

a pro~

it

in this

to allege

F.R.CIV.P.
constithe Court,

recognized

the

memorandum.

~/ The McLeneghan, Stewart,

and .Atlanta Gas cases purportedly
relied
on by defendants
at pages 4-5 of their brief are apparently
cited
simply because they contain the same observation
about "sweeping
legal conclusions"
as in Pauling.
They are all distinguishable
on
the same ground as Pauling.
In the Blackburn case, the Court declined to "accept as true allegations
that are in conflict
with
facts judicially
known to the Court." 443 F. 2d at 123. This is of
no help to defendants
here, for this Court can hardly take judicial
notice without proof that the Trumps do or do not discriminate
in
their rental
practices.
- 9 -

But it

is well

for racial

1963),

said

suit

by the Attorney

States

v. ~'

no more specific

in this

subject

General
to Rule 9(b).

321 F. 2d 26, 27 (5th

on Conley v. Gibson,

complaint

complaint

a civil

is not one for fraud

in United

in relying

discrimination
nation

that

discrimination

As the Court
Cir.

settled

supra,
than

to sustain

the housing

a voting

discrimi-

case:

As to the problem of pleading,

we adhere to our
former ruling that "it is clear that there was
no justification
for the Court's
requiring
the
government to amend its complaint in this civil
rights
action to allege specific
details
of voter
discrimination
as if this were an action for fraud
or mistake under Rule 9, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure."
Accordingly,

defendants'

Finally,
position

that

not survive
conspiracy

defendants
a general

a motion
is alleged,

particularity

cite

duct with

as intentional

to a civil

irrespective

unnecessary

complaint

effect

to plead

no
with

acts,

Huey v. Barloga,

alleges

established

violates

housing
that

the Fair

con-

Housing

of motivation.~/

~/ Huey v. Barloga,
277 F. Supp. 864 (N.D. Ill.
Havelone, 283 F. Supp. 842 (D. Neb. 1968).
~/

more, will

and overt

action

is well

the pro-

however,

in conspiracy.

The present

discriminatory

case,

wrongdoing

and it

for

is unsound.

without

In the present

is therefore

not conspiracy,

a racially

of conspiracy,

to dismiss.~/
and it

decision

a group of decisions

277 F. Supp. at 871-872.

discrimination,

Act,

to the Thurston

allegation

such items

which are essential

supra,

analogy

1971);

Stewart

v.

United States v. Pelzer Realty Co., 484 F. 2d 438 (5th Cir. 1973);
United States v. Real Estate Dev. Corp., 347 F. Supp. 776 (N.D.
Miss. 1972) and see Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
- 10 -

We believe
the
at

that

authorities
issue

relied

in this

should
II.

Housing

specific

stands

complaints
in suits

Act and similar

for More Definite

facts

volved

that
for

none of

any proposition

such as that

in this

by the Attorney

statutes,

case

General

the motion

under

to dismiss

that

is based,

alleged

through
"is

..

the

a more definite
~[12.18,

F. 2d 610 (2d Cir.

observed
1967),

in Michael
motions

pleading

into

evidentiary

frivolous

suits

statement

will

Della

kind
shape,"

facts
disposed

that

3604.

Plaintiff

detail

on which

not

Court

Equipment
ostensibly
are

often

can easily

the

of by a motion
- 11 -

than

claim,

Engine
for

designed

to "get

a waste

of time,

Federal

Co.,

this

380 F. 2d 351,

through

want

a motion

2A Moore's

v. Fairchild

for

motion

of Rule 8 and

of the

of Appeals

should

defendants'

be granted."

be elicited

sub-

which

requirements

Co.,

were in-

rather

of the nature

Vecchia

As the

Clark

12(e)

meets

party

v.

and dates

at unintelligibility

opposing

1968).

requests

to evidentiary

Rule

the pleading

of this
better

amounts

to strike

p. 2389,

Statement

of 42 U.S.C.

discovery.

If

buildings

violations

designed

notifies

Practice

for More Definite

such information

of detail
fairly

Motion

Statement

as to the persons,

in the

be obtained

since

Since

sustained

Defendants'

for

demonstrates

be denied.
Motion

mits

foregoing

on by defendants

case.

have been uniformly

the Fair

the

171

Circuit
352 (2d Cir.

the plaintiff's
especially
discovery

summary judgement.

and

It
statement
Wis.

is not

1972).
racial

complaints

discrimination

by the Attorney

General

to which motions

cation

or evidentiary

States

v. Bob Lawrence

United

States

C-372(1),
United

holding

United

States

P.H.E.O.H.
States

Ohio 1973).

v. City

*'

Rptr.

Inc.,

v. City
Para.

of Parma,
said

fair

statement

of these

motions

of
housing

to 42 U.S.

3613,

have been
have been

additional

were unnecessary.

Realty

As the Court

in terms

pursuant

that

in-

need not plead

a more definite
All

40 (E.D.

in cases

number of other

in each instance

Realty,

held

identical,

brought

for

allegations

v. Northside

is

to a

of grounds.

the Court

55 F.R.D.

the complaint
action

matter,

denied,

Ga. 1971);

that

in this

on a wide variety

a more definite

have repeatedly

of evidentiary

respect

for

Nixa v. Hayes,

courts

The Complaint

non-pleading

of a Motion

evidence.

Accordingly,

evidence.

filed

function

to discover

volving

with

the

clarifi-

See e.g.,

United

313 F. Supp. 870 (N.D. Ga. 1970);

Associates,
of Black
13,561
P.H.E.O.H.

324 F. Supp. 287 (N.D.

Jack,

Civil

Action

No. 71-

(E.D. Mo. March 30, 1972);

Rptr.

in Lawrence,

para.

13,616

(N.D.

supra:

The Courts have reached the same result

in the following
unreported
cases:
United States v. Mrs. Dean Miles, et al.,
Civil Action No. CA3-7243-E (N.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 1973); United States v. Robbins, Civil
Action No. 73-848 CIV-JE (S.D. Fla. June 22, 1973); United States v.
Jim Tucker Co., Civil Action No. 72-H-993 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 1972);
United States v. J.C. Long, Civil Action No. 71-1262 (D. S.C. April 3,
1972); United States v. Exclusive
Multiple
Exchange, Civil Action No.
C-70-969 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 1971); United States v. Margurette
Jones,
(Continuedon
next page)
*I

- 12 -

We conclude further
that the complaint,
couched as it is in the very language of the
statute,
provides
adequate notice of the claim
made by plaintiff
and is not subject
to a
motion for more definite
statement.
Any
additional
information
to which defendant
is
entitled
may be obtained
by use of the discovery procedures
provided by the Federal Rules.
United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty,
Inc.,
supra, 313 F. Supp. at 873.
(emphasis added)
Likewise
to 42 U.S.C.

2000e-6,

substantially
motions

outline
the

(which

identical

for

complaints

in employment

of the charges

law and not evidentiary

Division,

426 F. 2d 539,

832 (1970);
at 543-44;
Workers,

United
United

Local

States
States

No. 683,

and practice

holding

the defendants

by alleging

Cir.

270 F. Supp.

have denied
the Government's

States

Power Co.,

233,

and basic

of noncompliance

1970),

International

pursuant

provision

of the nature

United

v. Georgia
v.

that

categories

details.
543 (10th

brought

3613) the courts

statement,

advised

cases

has a pattern

to 42 U.S.C.

a more definite
clearly

discrimination

v. Gustin-Bacon

~-

den.

supra,

Brotherhood
235 (S.D.

with

400 U.S.

301 F. Supp.
of Electrical

Ohio 1967);

(continued
from previous
page)
Civil Action No. 71-H-279 (S.D. Tex. April 30, 1971); United States v.
Chirico,
Civil Action No. 70-1851 (E.D. Pa., August 12, 1970); United
States v. Gilman, Civil Action No. 70-Civil
1967 (S.D. N.Y. July 28,
1970); United States v. PMC Development Co., Inc.,
Civil Action No.
13578 (N.D. Ga. July 28, 1970); United States v. Palm Beach Realty
Listing
Bureau, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 70-379-CIV-CF (S.D. Fla.,
May 5, 1970); United States v. Arco Inc.,
Civil Action No. 70-29
(W.D. Tenn. March 20, 1970).
Copies
been attached

of the complaints
and orders
to this memorandum.
- 13 -

in the above cases

have

United

States

v. Building

and Construction

271 F. Supp. 447, 454 (E.D. Mo. 1966).

Lynd, 321 F. 2d 26, 27 (5th
(district

judge

definite

statement

equivalent

is well

to set

for

voting

of St.

United

States

motion

464 (S.D.

discrimination

case was

fraud).

settled

that

out in detail

"Rule 12(e)
the facts

Co. v. American

N.Y. 1966);

does not require

the

upon which he bases

Electric

4 Moore's

is whether

the complaint

Acoustica

Associates

v. Powertron

241, case

to claim

that

have refused

to rent

his

sented

availability

their

12.18,

Corp.,

Defendants

on account

on account

of race,

answered."

4 F.R.

things,

of race

462,

pp. 2395-96.

are hardly

among other

claim,
Michigan

41 F.R.D.

of being

Ultrasonic

alleging,

apartments

Practice

is "capable

1 (E.D. N.Y. 1961).

a complaint

Power Co.,

Federal

The test

12e.

v.

for a more

. nor may the Rule be employed as a means of discovery."

Gas & Electric

Louis,

discrimination)

by granting

that

Council

See also,

1963) (voting

discretion

on theory

to suit

It
pleader

abused

Cir.

Trades

Serv.

2d

in a position
that

defendants

and have misrepre-

is incomprehensible

to

them.
The defendant
affidavit.
that

they~/

Donald Trump has denied

His counsel,
will

discrimination

Mr. Cohn, has sworn that

be entitled

to no relief"

~/ Although Mr. Cohn consistently

we expressly
disavow the royal

-14

refers
"we".

and,

"it

in his

appears

further,

to the Government

certain

that:
in the plural,

"these
defendants
do not discriminate
in the
renting
of their apartments
and that the
Government's
charges are totally
unfounded."
Being so connnitted
the Complaint,

under oath,

deny the allegations,

instead

of engaging

motions

for a more definite

tories

the defendants

v. Savage Laboratories,

shadow boxing"
are prone.

26 F.R.D.

1960).

- 15 -

answer

and put us to our proof,

in the "barristerial
statement

can surely

to which

Lincoln

141, 142-143

Labora-

(D. Del.

III.

Defendants'

Counterclaim

Defendants'
pleaded

and has apparently

defendants
alleges

purported

seek dismissal
in substance

that

pecuniary

libel

with

Court's

States

"depends

waived

its

immunity

must be unequivocally
584 (1941);
States

United

v. Clark,

It

information

seeks

face,

it

abuse

jurisdiction

appears

to suit

to be a claim

to suit,

8 Peters.

relief

United

v. King,
436,

Either

con-

way, the

be dismissed

damages for

against

cannot

States

395 U.S.

libel,

the United

be implied

v. Sherwood,

1, 4 (1969);

33 U.S. 436 (1834).

- 16 -

could

to which the sovereign

and such waiver

expressed."
States

for

way possible,
it

should

for

2680(h).

to grant

upon the extent

the suit,

damages in the modest

and it

28 U.S.C.

by causing

about

of process.

of the claim,

is not subject

wholly

and have not answered,

Read in the most generous

or abuse of process.
This

even though

the Cohn and Trump affidavits,

Court has no jurisdiction

slander,

false

as alleging

States

to the Court

cryptically

has defamed defendants

damage.
On its

be construed

as the United

plaintiff

or slander.

and in conjunction
ceivably

been presented

to publish

amount of $100,000,000.
damages for

which is rather

of the main action

two New York newspapers

to defendants'

counterclaim,

United

has
but
312 U.S.

Despite

the express

claim contain

"a short

which the court's

contains

requirement

and plain

jurisdiction

Tort

United

"for money damages

Act expressly
against

I n sum,

torts

II

of its

Administration,
United

provides

the United

of process,

States,

. ."

28
that

States
libel

the United
agents

u.s.c.
it

shall

on "[a]ny
[or]

slander

States

acting

1346(b).

1968);

Court has

"

act or omission
the scope of

jurisdiction

Claims

of actions

out of abuse

28 U.S.C.

2680(h).

for the deliberate

1964).

467 F. 2d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir.

and Benjamin v. Ribicoff,

of

Wessly v. General

341 F. 2d 275, 276 (2d Cir.

the

However, the Tort

is not liable

of Labor,

against

or loss

claim arising

of the kind alleged."

U.S. Department

1346(b} and

within

not confer

181 F. Supp. 860 (E.D. N.Y. 1960);

Compensation,

28 U.S.C.

or wrongful

DiCova, 329 F. Supp. 439 (E.D. N.Y. 1971);

States,

this

of actions

of any employee of the Government while

counterclaim

is plain:

for injury

caused by the negligent

his employment

of the grounds upon

Claims Act,

Court does have jurisdiction

property

a counter-

claim.

Ch. 171, this

States

that

defendants'

The reason

of defendants'

Under the Federal

statement
depends,"

no such statement.

no jurisdiction

of Rule 8(a)

1972);

DiSilvestro
Teplitsky

Services

See also,

Baca v.

Smith v.
v. United
v. Bureau of

288 F. Supp. 310, 312 (S.D. N.Y.

205 F. Supp. 532, 533 (D. Mass. 1962).

- 17 -

That defendants'
here,instead

alleged

claim

of as an independent

action,

of the Federal

Rules

of Civil

"[t]hese

shall

not be construed

rules

now fixed
against

by law the right

the United

Moreover,
for

defamation

this

tained
statutory
States

consent."

been given

to claims,

Rule 13(d)

provides

to enlarge

that

beyond the limits

or to claim

the sovereign

were cognizable

*I

credits

States

for damages

in this

"With the exception

a matter

nor a compulsory

3 Moore's

324 F. Supp.

expressly

counterclaims

unless

Federal

v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495 (1939);

Associates,

is immaterial.

against

which asserts

the United

as a counterclaim

II

would not be.-

a permissive

against

to assert

or abuse of process

counterclaim

neither

Procedure

even if a claim

counterclaim

pulsory
off,

States

is asserted

of a com-

of recoupment
counterclaim

it has given
Practice,

United

Court,

and a setmay be main-

specific

2d ed.

313~28;

States

v. Northside

287, 292 (N.D. Ga. 1971).

No consent

or counterclaims,

such as this.~

United
Realty
has

**I

~/ Were such a claim within the Tort Claims Act jurisdiction,

it would
nonetheless
be jurisdictionally
defective
for want of compliance with
the requirements
of 28 U.S.C. 2675(a), which bars a tort action
against
the United States'unless
the claimant
shall have first
presented
the claim to the appropriate
Federal agency and his claim shall have
been finally
denied by the agency in writing
.
"
~/ The total absence of any foundation
in law for
ported counterclaim
is compounded by the technical
fact that this extraordinary
pleading has not been
one attorney
of record in his individual
name," as
(footnote
- 18 -

defendants'
purbut significant
signed "by at least
required
by Rule 11,

continued

next

page)

*
This is not the first
has sought

to strike

for seeking
United

to bring

States

motions

its

Trumps, Northside

Although

a large

real

against

the United

practices

Realty

before

Associates,

and its

per each defendant,

States
In

324 F. Supp. 287

the same baseless

here presented

More temperate

Ed Isakson,
a substantial

company

the courts.

statement

sued for damages.

president,

estate

Inc.,

made essentially

and for a more definite

by the Trumps, and also

only one tenth

housing

the defendants

to dismiss

than $100,000

time that

back flamboyantly

v. Northside

(N.D. Ga. 1971),

than the

only sought not less

enough amount but

of one per cent of what the Trumps would like.

a similar

press

release

was issued,

(footnote
continued from previous page)
F.R.C.P That salutary
Rule declares,

and received

in pertinent

considerable

part:

The signature
of an attorney
constitutes
a certificate
by him that he has read the pleading;
that to his
knowledge, information,
and belief
there is good
ground to support it; and that it is not interposed
for delay.
If a pleading is not signed or is
signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this
rule, it may be stricken
as sham and false and
the action may proceed as though the pleading had
not been served.
See American Automobile Ass'n. v. Rothman, 104 F. Supp. 655 (E.D. N.Y.
1952); American Automobile Ass'n. v. Rothman, 101 F. Supp. 193 (E.D.
N.Y. 1951); and United States to Use of and for Benefit of Foster
Wheeler Corporation v. American Surety Co. of New York, 25 F. Supp.
225 (E.D. N.Y. 1938).

- 19 -

play,-

*I Northside's

was limited
addressed

counterclaim

to abuse of process.~
to the Complaint,

comprehensively

Despite

the minor technical

claims,

they are two of a kind.

brief,
so that
issue
pattern

***/

**I

presented

as well

in this

case,

differences

and practice

equal housing

opportunity

grounds

two counter-

related

in this

with prejudice

to the one and only real

defendants

have engaged in a

in housing

to a group of persons.42

*/ Defendant Isakson was the President

for

given by the Court

the counterclaim

of discrimination

motions

324 F. Supp. 290-293.

between these

themselves

and

the counterclaim

For the reasons

whether

for libel

defendants'

opinion,

as the additional

can address
namely,

denying

in its

we ask the Court to dismiss

the parties

After

no count

the Court dismissed

reasons

in Northside,~

contained

or have denied
U.S.C.

of the Georgia

3613.

Real Estate

Commission.

**/ Northside's
subordinates,
States.

counterclaim
was against the Attorney General and his
but the Court treated
it as a claim against the United

'!!:!::!!_/
The Court held, in sum, that the claim did not qualify as a
compulsory counterclaim
since it did not arise from the same transaction,nr
as a permissive
counterclaim
because the suit was really one
against the United States to which the sovereign had not consented.
United States v. Faneca, 332 F. 2d 872, 875 (5th Cir. 1964).

- 20 -

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing
that

defendants'

ment be denied

reasons,

Motions
and that

to Dismiss
defendants'

plaintiff

respectfully

requests

and for a More Definite

counterclaim

State-

be dismissed

with

prejudice.
Plaintiff
this

has prepared

a proposed

Order which is attached

Memorandum.
Respectfully

Assistant
States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

submitted,

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

z'L-~
xl, ~d~~
ELYSt~. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

to

..
I, Elyse
herepy

CERTU"ICATEOF SERVICE

S. Goldweber,

certify

that

an attorney

I have served

of Motion of the United

State~

in Opposition

to Defendants'

More Definite

Statement

to Dismiss

Memorandwu of the United

defendants'

Motion

to Dismiss,

postage

prepaid,

States

Motion for

of Plaintiff's

Motion

and a copy of the attached

States

in Response

to the Affidavits

of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn on the defendants

copy,

to their

attorney

by mailing

at the following

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
This,

the

!+th

of January,

,i

Notice

counter-

Memorandum of the United

and in Support

the Counterclaim

the plaintiff,

a copy of the attached

to dismiss

a copy of the attached

claim,

for

1974.

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department

Washington,

of Justice

D. Co

20530

""'

.,... ,,.

...:..

"

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

~ "'

ill
J.

c:. ,1,\:

fiL ..

S. Lli;,JHiLf COJiil E.D.N.V.

* JANB 1974 *
CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

TIMA.111
...........................
,..
P.M.......

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

FRED C. TRUMP,DONALD
TRUMP
ANDTRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC.,
Defendants.

UNREPORTED
ORDERSCITED IN THE
MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITEDSTATESIN OPPOSITIONTO
DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONTO DISMISS, MOTIONFOR MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT
ANDIN SUPPORTOF
PLAINTIFF'S NOTIONTO DISMISS
THE COUNTERCLAIM

I
!

I
I
l
I

@I

.. ..
\

'

....

..
TABLEOF CONTENTS

United States v. Raymond, Civil

(M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 1973)

Action No. 73-119-CIV-T-H

United States v. City of Parma, Civil

(N.D. Ohio Sept. S, 1973)
United States v. Robbins, Civil
(S.D. Fla., June 22, 1973)
.

Action No. C-73-439

Action No. 73-848 CIV-JE

'

United States v. Watson,

May 15, 1973)

Civil

Action No. 73-97 (M.D. La.,

United States v. Pelzer Realty Company, Inc.,

3284-N (M.D. Ala. July 16, 1971)
United States v. Davis,
May 18, 1971)

Civil

Action No.

Action No. 6451-71 (S.D. Ala.

United States v. A.B. Smythe, Inc.,

(N.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 1970)
United States v. Goldberg,
(S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 1970)

Civil

Civil

Civil

Civil

Action No.

United States v. Palm Beach Listing Bureau,

No. 70-379-CIV-C (S.D. Fla. May 5, 1970)

Inc.,

Civil

States

v. Miller,

Civil

Action No. 21470 (D. Md.

United States v. Management Clearing,

Inc.,
70-23-PHX (CAM) (D. Ariz. April 8, 1970)

'
United StAte$
v. Margurette
(S.D. Tex. April 30, 1971)

Action No. 70-Civil

Jones,

Civil

Civil

Action No.
1967 (S.D.

Action No. 71-H-279

United Sta~
v. Exclusive Mutual Exchange,
C-70-969 {N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 1971)
United States v. Chirico,
August 12, 1970)

Civil

Civil

Action

Action No. 70-40 (D. Md. April

United States v. H.G. Smithy, Civil

April 17, 1970)

United States v. Gilman, Civil

N.Y., July 28, 1970)

Action No. 70-1223-CIV-CF

United States v. PMCDevelopment Co. 2 Inc.,

13578 (N.D. Ga., July 28, 1970)

United
1970)

Action No. C-69-885

Action No.

Action No. 70-1851 (E.D. Pa.

27,

I
!

..

United States v. Arco, Inc.,

March 20, 1970)

Civil

Action No. 70-29 (W.D. Tenn.,

United States v. Mrs. Dean Miles,

3-7243-E (N.D. Tex. Sept., 1973)

et al.,

United States v. J.C.

April 3, 1972)

Action No. 71-1262 (D. S.C.

Long, Civil

United States v. Jim Tucker Co., Civil

Tex. Sept. 27, 1972)

Civil

Action No. 72-H-993 (S.D.

_./.

- 2 -

Action No. C.A.-

'I
,i

I!
ii

:
I
!(

l
Il

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLEDISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPADIVISION

.:..

UNITEDSTATES OF .Af.lERICA,

vs.
GEORGEN. RAYNOND,

-..ti ..r

,,

t D -..
~,
' ..
l,"Oo
.. If'I(;,' .u"'
'-t.u'

)
)
)
)
)
)
),
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

I!
,,

,~, 10 ,..,

r,

l1rvt.; ,

,., OF

SEp .

L.o,(

b 1973

~'Ar1~1

No.,73-119-Civ-T-H

________
_______
Defendant.
,

.I

FINDINGS

The United

States

March 14, 1973, pursuant

Defendant

Fair

VIII

of Title
Housing Act),

alleges
persons

that

conditions,

42 u.s.c.A.

of race

of race

and color;

limitation,
Complaint
stitutes

based

a pattern

enjoyment

to groups

,I importance.
!I

that

and practice

of rights

Housing Act,

and made statements

and discrimination
alleges

secured

of persons

which denial
The Complaint

unavailable

of dwellings

which indicate

further

!!:.9. The Complaint

the Defendant's
of resistance

of rights

seeks

terms,
on persons

with

respect

a preference,

on race

by the Fair

raises

to

imposed different

of dwellings

vio-

Act of 1968 (the

of rental

on
the

for alleged

Rights

3601,

action

3613 against

made dwellings

and color;

this

relief

of the Civil

and privileges

to the rental

denial

to 42 U.S.C.A.

the Defendant

because

because

of America filed

George N. Raymond seeking

lations

OF FACT l co:~CLUS IONS

OF IAW ANDPRELININARY INJUNCTION

and color.
conduct

The
con-

to the full

Housing Act and a

granted

an issue
injunctive

by the Fair

of general

public

and affirnative

1t

!1
I

relief.

The Unit~d

States

alsornoved

for a preliminary

in-

!!

I! junction.
'I
I,

On April

12, 1973, the Defertdan_t filed

II

il

\I
11

\'
\

a motion

to

dfsmiss

the Complaint,

definite

or in the alternative,

statement.

Both of Defendant's

for~ ,a 'mote'

motions

have been

denied.
On July
Injunction

came on for hearing.

. testL~ony
counsel

and documentary
for both

Rules

of Civil

of Fact

5, 1973, Plaintiff's

of La'tv:

Findings

FINDINGS OF FACT

approximately

50 apartment

He previously

Florene

to Rule 52 of the Federal

the Court makes the following

The Defendant

additional

the

of

Procedure

1.

Florida.

has considered

and the contentions

Pursuant

'

' t

The.Court

evidence,

parties.

and Conclusions

Motion for a Preliminary

apartment

George N. Raymond owns and operates

rental

units

in St.

owned and operated

units

in St.

Petersburg,

approximately

Petersburg,

20

including

~he

Apartments.

2.

All of Mr. Raymond's tenants

have been white

3.

During May 1972,

Bureau of Investiga-

persons.

tion,

United

vestigation
racially
Fair

of allegations
discriminatory

Agents
admi;ted

ii,1

11

I!

1:
,,
'i

Ii

that

of his

a racially

buildings,

My policy

is not

of the

of the purpose
interview;d,

which was witnessed

by Special

.Mr. Raymond

policy

in the opera-

as follows:

to rent mv apartments
to
black people.
If I rented to black people I
would lose the :white tenants
in my npartmant
house.
In addition,
with my plan to sell this
apartment house [loco.tcd at 516 10th Avenue
South,] if I had rented to black Rcople, I
feet as it l woulu. have lost. 1/3 of my investment in this particular
property.

q
.,
'

to being

discrimina;o~

apartment

an in-

in violation

and John V. DeNeale

I,

,,

practices

Mr. Raymond was told

statement

James Delk Leland

conducted

Mr. Raymond was engaged in

He consented

a signed

pursuing

of Justice,

housing

investigation.

and furnished

Department

Hous.ing Act of 1968.

I. of this

tion

States

the Federal

-2-

Thcr~ nre no black

apetrtments
and
never

in any of these

tenants

has been.
If a black
pGrson wanted
to rent
~n apartmant
in one of
these
anartmcnts
I would refuse
to rent it
, in.:1::,much as l i:-,ould not "brcn.k the color

line."
4.

(Emphasis

and Gail
August

Apartments,

Sorenson,

l,

26, 1971, Mr. Raymond rented

On July

at the Florene

added)

1971,

'

a white

through

to Bradford

couple,

period,

July

31, 1972.

outside

Sorenson

apartment
son whether

or not having

had anything

to do with

in front

of the building.

Apartments)

and that

her that

and told

his

female

and met :Mr. Raymond

joined

them shortly

it was because

Mr. Raymond also

the apartment

the presence

would decrease

response.

asked Mr. Raymond why he was

apartment.

of selling

affirmative

they had black

Mr. Sorenson

in their

Bureau

this

the apartment

them, Mr. Raymond told

was in the process

premises

left

in

to the Federal

ap.artment

because

When Mrs. Sorenson

had two blacks

!j

statement

to his

evicted

Mrs. Sorenson

evicting

II

returned

guests.

thereafter.

signed

in the apartment

:Mr. Raymond replied

eviction,

Mr. Raymond admitted

they were being

asked by Mr. Soren-

guests

of Investigation,

wife

Ii

two black

In his

Sorenson

apartment.

to move out of the

Upon being

the affirmative.

Mr.

the Sorensons

their

the value

said

building

of the black

he

(Florene

females

of the property.

they

on the

Finally,

11
,,

Ii
Ji

Mr. fulymond stated

tnat

another

tenant

hnd complained

11

Ii

rcg,'lrding

the presence

Mr. Raymond tol~

Once outside

as soon as possible.

"

II

he wanted

at th~ir

I
I

two

and asked to speak to Mr.

at the garage.

that

On May 4, 1972,

the Sorensons

Raymond came to the apartment

Sorenson
}Ir.

for a one-year

'I

#4

516 10th Avenue South,

blac.k f"ernales were visiting

}Lr.

apartment

of the black

females.

to him

I
i

I
I
i
!

11

Ii

",;jl

:1
11
i- ,'

>d f

... l

, \

I ~

; !

,4

Mr. Raymond subsequently

notice

and they vacated

5.

the apartment

Apartments

to rent

a vacant

to "colored

she would leave

signed

people"

if "colored
statement
'

Mr. Raymond admitted

the Sorcnsons

tenant

apartment

at the Florene
told

moved into

to the Federal

telling

asked Nr. Ray::nond

and subsequently

people"

'an 'eviction

at the end of May 1972.

On May 4, 1972, a white

if he was going

In . his

sent

him that

the apartment.

Bureau of Investigation,

her that

he "was not going

I

to co lo.red people."

to rent

..

''

CONCLUSIONS
OF I.AW
1.
28 u.s.c.

This Court has jurisdiction

1345 and 42 u.s.c.A.

2.

the meaning

The Defendant's

4Z U.S.C.A.

tion

against

nation
their

"

guests

Hunting

Park,

304 F.Supp.

of race

because

within

discrimina-

or color.

of the race

prohibited.

Discrimi-

or color

Cf. Sullivan

'396 U.S. 229, 237 (1969);

of

Little

v.

Walker v.

Pointer,

(N.D. Tex. 1969).

To prevail

on the merits,

the Defendant

the United

States

must

has either:

i:n a "pattern

(a)engaged

because

is therefore
Inc.,

are dwellings

3604 (a) and (b) prohibit

persons

56, 57-61

4.
show that

white

under

3602(b).

"any person"

against

action

3613.
apartments

of 42 u.s.c.A.

3.

of this

or practice"

of resistance

to equal housing

opportunity;

to the full
11

.I
11
I!

enjoyment

or

II

ii

(b) denied

11

of the right

and "such

i'

42

denial

u,.s.c.A.

the right

raises

to equal housing

an issue

3613; U.S. v.

of general

public

Bob L;:i.wrence Realty)

import.::mce.

Inc.,

474 F.2d

11

.1
l

I!
!: 115, 122-123

(5th Cir.

j; 216-218

Cir.

U.S. v. Hunter,

1973);

ii

(4th

opport~nity

1972).

ii

":j

liII
!J
fl

f ,1.

Ci

t 1

l'I

W .ii

459 F.2d 205,

5.
the full

enjoyment

the United
instance
term

To prove a "pattern
of the right

States

'resistancet.

violative

conn9t~s,

of the right

an in~entional,

granted

'

1972).

practice.

Cf. U.S. v. West Peachtree

347 F.Supp.

1971);

policy

of a white

(Finding

pursuant

due to the Defendant's

and regretable);
policy

or attitude,

tenants

corroborated

ciples

With ~egard

of equity

injunctive
restriction

dictate

relief

or practice

was not'.accidental
(however impetuous
(due to the admitted
of any black

should

Inc.,

474 F.2d 115,.127

(5th Cir.

while

the Court has concluded

including

the element

that

I
,,

1973).

v. Hunter,

-s-

no

459

Bob Lawrence Realty,

In this

the evidence

claim as al lcged

of "pattern

to gr~nt

the plaintiff

U.S.

Cf. U.S. v.

to protect

of which he complains."
1972).

whether

prin-

impose upon a defendant

than necessary

the Government's

"r'e]stablished

in considering

ii

:1

they had blac~

a pattern

by the absence

F.2d 205, 219 (4th Cir.

to establish

because

act

to the remedy,
that

a court

greater

from the injury

a,1

with the eviction

in the past).
6.

it

of a discriminatory

The incident

and it was not isolated

that

policy

own deliberate

. or

F.2d 221,

The Court finds

admissions

conduct.

of

DevelopmentCorp.,

of Fact No. 4) constitute

of discriminatory

admissions

Tenth Corp.,.437

1972).

to that

or repeated

of a pattern

of Fact Nos. 3 and 5) coupled

tenant

as the

U.S. v. Hunter,

are evidence

U.S. v. Real Estate

extrajudicial

(Findings

guests

policy

776; 783 (N.D. Miss.

the Defendant's

or accidental

Extrajutlicial

discriminatory

to

opportunity,

regular,

by the Act."

a racially

227 (5th Cfr:

. I:

to equal housing

of the Act, but rather,

459 F.2d 205, 217 (4th Cir.

II

of resi::;ta.nce

must show more than "an isolated

of conduct

violation

or practice"

or practice,"

instance,
is suffici2nt

in the Cor.:1plaint,
the proof

do,;:;

Ii

I. not justify
l maliciously

a finding

and re~eatedly

Act or that

his present
his

Peachtree

Tenth Cor2.,

Defendant

is the proprietor

scale

notes

that

applicant

contrite

he would freely

without

Together

these

junctive

decree

restriction

factors

greater

Accordingly,

II
,
,:

clusions

I!

Ii
ii

Ii
,,

,,

injunction

to the circumstances
in Peachtree

present

here.

I,
'II

I;
,,

as required

by the
at 126.

in framing

the in-

upon the defendant

to protect

no

the plaintiff

!!.:... v. Hunter,

in the form that

suura.
follows

of this-- case as contrasted

U.S. v. West Peachtree

to the foregoing

of Law, it

Tenth Co10.,

Findings.of

ORDERED,ADJUDGEDANDDECREEDby this
pending

further

Fact

and Con-

is hereby

Order of the Court,

Court

the Defendant,

that,

George N.

I
I

';
'

II

Ii

to atiy

which had none of the mitigating

:i
.!

units

suora,

.' .

at the

at 228-231.

Pursuant

H
'.l

"impose[s]

the Court

testimony

rent

Inc.,

moderation

Cor-o.,

PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION

11

11

or color

than necessary

a preliminary

the facts

it

Further,
in his

of which he complains."

is amply suited

I .. features

dictate

West Peachtree

v.

and willingly

to race

so that

from the injury

supra

regard

offices

of numerous

Development

1972).

declaration

19_71).

with

staff

v. Real Estate

U.S.

West

owner of a large

Cf. U.S.

Cf. U.S. v. Bob Lawrence Realty,

Act.

business

with a supporting

776, 779 (N.D. Miss.

Defendant's

hearing

223 (5th Cir.

of a small

in management.

Tenth CorE.',~supra;

with

43 7 F. 2d 221,

v.

Cf. U.S.

policy.

by the

a contumacious

He is not the corpotate

to help

347 F.Supp.

guaranteed

portends

discriminatory

apartment'complex

assist'q.nts

Dafendanb has

rights

attitude

to

own home.

that

denied

ndhcrcnce

in his

or conclusion

-6-

li

li .
!1

I
p

,Raymond,

and his

in active

concert

1.

agents,

or participation

Failing

successors,

a~d.all

persons

with him are

enjoined

from:

employees,

or refusing

to rent

an apartment

to any

11
I
!

person

because

unavailable

of race

or color

to any person

2.

'
of services

of race

of rental

of ah apartment,
in connection

printing,

tisement,

with

respect

indicates

any preference,

or publishing,
any notice,

to the rental

..

or color,

Representing

such apartment

adopt

is in fact

or adver-

..

that
based

for

to rental
be rented

shall

past

inspection

or color

or rental

affirmative

discriminatory

(10) days of this

a notice,

applicants,

without

of race

the Defendant

the following

ten
post

because

when

available.

of his

Within

permanently

I such notice

I!

to be

to make such preference,

is not available

effects

1.

will

statement,

to any person

and implement

the

visible

or ca~sing

or~discrimination

IT IS FURTHER
ORDEREDthat

shall

of an apartment,

limitation,

or an intention

an apartment

correct

therewith,

or discrimination;

4.

with

or in the

'

or published,

that

in the terms,

or color;

m~de, printed,

limitation,

or color;

any person

or facilities

3. t Making,

on race

of. race

against

or privileges

provision
becau~e

because

DiscrL~inating

condit.ions,

and from making an apartment

regard

be posted

or notices,

forth-

program

to

practices:

Decree,

Defendant

at places

stating

that

to race

or color.

at each of his

shall

Defendant's

several

clearly
apartments

At least

one

apartment

complexes.

I,
,,

2.

,.

ii!1
l!,.

The Defendant

of his

employees,

Decree

and with

if

$hall

any, with

forthwit~
respect

fully

instruct

to the provisions

all
of

.
this

,I
I.

respect

to their

obligations

i:

!l

"
II
11

II

-7-

I
i
j

I
, t ..

~r

ii,,

) ,.,,

.t,,ij

"

,i lM

J:l,,;)t

thereund~t'.

Upon

'!
1,

I'

,,1.

hirini,;
this

a new employee,
Decree

to him and advise

1 requirements

contained

3.

or other

estate

promote

rentals

association,

that

or color.

..

a firm,

for

of this
a period

for

preceding

Decree,

shall

file

or person

are rented

(a)

act

to

as

such firm
be notified

regard

to race

with

race

this

(90)

days after

intervals

the entry
Court,

containing

the

thereafter,

of this

Decree,

and serve on counsel

the name, address,

of each person

who has,

and

within

the

days:

(90)

made written

application

for

the rental

of an

and/or
(b)

the purpose

visited

1.

the premises

of inspecting

These reports
whether

shall

as a prospective

an available

apartment.

additionally

or not the rental

tenant

contain:
of an apartment

was

of an apartment

was

to such person;

2.

whether

or not the rental

by each such person;

3.

the

manage or

shall

without

ninety

following

a report

observed

apartment;

accepted

or otherwise

and at three-month

of two years

ninety

offered

to all

company,

the Defendant,

corporation,

apartments

the Plaintiff,

the visually

for

of

the Defendant
for

subject

association,

agency,

IT IS FURTHERORDEREDthat
entry

he is

the.' cont~nts

is engaged by Defendant

referral

company,

that

of apartments

by Defendant

explain

him that

person

agent,

shall

herein.

In the event

corporation,
a real

Defendant

the dates

on which each of the foregoing

actions

II
'I

!':I were taken.

1:

Ii

j1

1!

For a period
decree,

the Defendant

of two years
shall

maintain

1'

11

I',I
Ii
11
I
I

,
ll
I

-8-

following
.

'

the

and retain

entry

of this

any and all

l.
'

"

ii

1:

' ..

li

,,
1,

,1

i'
,I

:1
I'

1J
1,

records

which
are. the source
,

II tion pertinent

to Defendant's

Ii

I!I Representatives

I
ii

and copy all

ll

reasonable

11

II endeavor

Ii

of the
pertinent

times,

the inspection

Plaintiff

provided,

II

including

of the terms'and

objective

of the Defendant

requirements

of this

inadequate

additional

to notify

evidence

from

action

all

for

of modification

Decree

Defendant's

the Court

hereof

whether

at the trial

to Rule 65(a)(2),

the hearing
previously

shall

in the event

the

an efficient

and

compliance

with

Federal

on the application
held may be treated

counsel

in writing

for both
within

ten

(10)

wishes

to present

of this

cause,

or whether,

Rules of Civil

for the preliminary

as a trial

Procedure,
injunction

of the general

issues.
J..,1-

of September,

this

51' ....._day

1973.

United

II
ll
I
'

li
!l.,
lj

!!
lj
ll

-9-

11

parties

either

DONEand ORDEREDat Tampa, Florida,

'.

and the Decree.

directed

pursuant

of this

to facilitate

method of determining

days from the date

I

the Plaintiff

the purpose

IT IS FURTHERORDEREDthat
are

inspect

at any and all

to the Defendant

jurisdiction

particularly

prove

the statute

that

to

of such records.

purposes,

same should

to the Co~rt.

be permitted

any inconvenience

'

any o'f the info:;:-r..a-

to report

shall

however,

The Court retains

I

or contain,

oblig~tion

records

to minimize

1
11

of,

States

District

Judge

r;l , r
f" ! t
,-

U:HTED STl"7.'ES f\ISTr:-H'T

:10?::',r!:R:;
r:I S'i'PI r':' m:El\STE !"Cl DPlIS PJ:r

.--~--

'

f'OPPT

I'"'\
if

:.....,

onrnSEP 5

4 .il r~'73

CLH
~ r ~ i ..~.~:i=~~;?~7
HOflitiC:i'tkl,l!j: R,r;r Or Ori,O
1 ~'.~~-

u:iITED

STA'rES

OP )',"IBRIC}\,

)
)

Plaintiff

)
)

v.

NO.

C 73-..139

}
)

CI':'Y

()F Pl\ p7

, (")f'I"

1 ,

---------Battisti,

C.,T.

This
on behalf

reiief

of

use

an action
United

the

against

Provisio~s
42

is

violations

contained

et

corporation

in ~itle

established

the

general

defendart,
policy

sidirg

within

a federally
of the
have

offered
ar.d,

effectively
federally
1The effect
eate

accommodations
further,
Lil.od:

assisted
of the

from beirg

t:1,.: virtu:111:

as

purported
from re-

(under
which

it

blac':-:s

236

would

of black
to

irtcnrat.:::d

r::tcially

built

of

Section

designed

acts,

to

its

construction

in the
is

-.1ll-.1hi te: porn~latior

de r v dw? 11

.I

of

substance,

percentage

procedures

above-described

Act,

in

blacks
the

a fair

nossi'.)ilit:/

housinq

with

12 USC l 715Z-1)

adopted

ut"J

...

development

to

Rights

a municipal

alleges,

prevented

Act,

Housing

law.

excluding

apartment

f;eneral
injunctive

Civil

accordance

boundaries,

Housirg

Fair

of Parma,

complairt

substantiBlly

assisted

T~ational

ter.ur.ts

perp0t

its

the

of the

Ohio

ir

Attorrey

A..1nerica seeking
of

City

under

acting

of

by the

VIII

se_g_., by the

The r.overrme:rt's

that

.. of

States

alleqed

3601

brouaht

purely

City.

alleged,

is

to

makeup of .the
or

accc~rt

sin1ilc1rlywork

n:ice;

to

resi<lcrts

of

racially

Motives;

and

irtarfere

a~d prosnectivc
asc;istirr.
I' riqhts

fair

cor~stitutes

complaiPt

of

States

rights

t!1e

that

th is

has

failed

Defendant

has

pursuant

to

Court
to

lacks

cnjonnent

Fair

actual

of

of

from

t'r-teir

opportunities.
conduct

resistarce

t1:e

l)y

racial

housirg

tleFendaPt's

of

require

the

Goverrmert

argument

General

that

to
!Iousirrr

full

Act

ar.d

pursuant

municipalities
"persons"

to
or

aaail"st

is

and

r,,ore

definite.

its

motior

subject

political

to
for

subdivisiors
such

a suit

on the

that

the

relief

the

...

grounds

Goverrl"'.ent
car. he qranted.

separate

various

42 USC 3611

which

which

strike

not

tl1e f;overnrrent's

F.~.Civ.P.

=ias filed

bott0P1S
it

12(b)

upon

to

make others

Defendart

dismiss

jurisdiction

defendar.t

ve,

and

Rule

a claim

alterrati

cor.:tplairt

movcd.,to

state

In the

3613

a:.:,ili ty

housinq
that

securer'l.

for

assisted
arcl

or::ictice

of

Purely

r1:!1ite

Corstitution.

co~plairt,

the

fe~crally

char"~s

Prospective

arcl

non-discrirniratory

a Dc1ttcrr

er.joyrert

ri0:1t

v:i t~1 the:

of

to

housirq

ir. t!1e exercise

and

The

d,:elliros

ir.tearatcd

sporsors

persons
to

deny

notions

alleaatiors

to
ir.

its

to disniss,

first,

suit

Attorney

by the

reasor
of

on

that

a state

may bE=:.brouoht.

are

not

42 USC

provides:
"Hhenever
th} l'.ttorney
r.eneral
has reasonable
al"y persol"'
or group of percause to believe
sons is enqaged
in 3 patterr
or nractice
o~
resistance
to the full
enjoymert
of any riahts
by this
subchapter,
or that
an? group
granted
of persors
has been denied
ar.y of the rights
by this
suhchapter
and sue', dcrial
granted
raises
an issue
of general
public
i~~ortarce,

I
I

-2-

I
l

he ~ay

brirn

a civil
action
in any annror;pi t-~(1 States
District
Court by
witJ1 it a conpl~irt
settirn
forth

nriatc'

filir0
such prcverti
ve
t:1e facts
ard requestirq
an anplicatior
for a nerrelief,
includirn
mar.ent or tA~norary
irjurctior,
restrairirCT
order,
or other o-rc:er a0airst
t 1 1e persor
or
persons
res,orsible
for such patterr
or
nractice
or ~enial
of ricrhts,
as he d~ens
r.cccssary
to irsure
the full er.j,oyr,ent
of
the rinhts
crrarted
by this
suhchar>ter."

Ir
reliarce

us

support

on the

~---~~'

taken

amenable

to

suit

or equitable

two cases

of Keroscha,

Both

cases

1983

history

peculiar

ar.y

regard

to

statutes,
after
City

is
the

issue

however,

initial

of~oscha,

11,

ir

if

only

urges

one passed

statutory

corstruction

not

of

lecrislative

giver.

to Section

nearly

these

viewed.

case

other

not

declaratory

In neither

of Section
are

are

l-'!orroe and

..

to

"persons"

that

be so broadly

cors.truction

therefore,

not

v.

cases

accordincrly,

on explicit

apply

These

questior.

the

great

'Torroe

are

even

statute.

er..:tmert

ir

1973).

and,

may rot

was to

particularly
the

here

olaces

Court

Defendant

predicated

the

"persons"

involved

to that
that

(Jure

statute,

souaht.

and were

suggestion

Suprene

muricipalities

that

exclusively

Section

defendant

42 USC 1983;

under

resolve

City

that

of

relief

the

4Rlg

establish

meaning

position,

of

u.s.L.N.

41

the

its

holdincrs

toget~er

within

of

civil

1983

in

rights

hundred

one

1983.

was there

years

:ior:roe

dispositive

and

of whether

--------l'll1ile the Court in r1onroe ~- Pape,

supra_, at p. 187-192
seemed to have expressly
held that muricipalities
were not
ur.der
Section
19A3, the holdincr was construed
amer.able to suit
in several
subsequent
decisions
by lower
federal
courts
to
disalow
suits
:or daP1aaes but not suits
seekincr only equitable
relief.
Sea ~.n.,
Schrell
v. City of Chica~o,
407 F.2d 1nq4
( 7th Cir. -11 r ,i}:- ':'he re cert
rul irg i.r. Ci
. of ::;c;ros r;t1 -3. v.
Drur'.C?_, SU'")rn., (!iS~)Clled ar::' doubts
relati:r,,
tr~ "::~:~
the '!onro(1
::oU:.i!'<T bv.... squareJv ,, rulirq
th<1t ur<::er ro c1.,...,; .- --stances
may Muricipaliti0s
suhj~ct
to s~it
urder
Sectio~
1)

~}
.p ,.::c:c ~l"r,-:;
Klux Act of ~pril

.-:,v, oririp
20,

1871,

1]

1y r1r,:r::t:.ed

17 ftat.

13.

i:t':i

:ection

1 o~ the

'."lunicipalitics
Housirrr

.:,ct.

a construct
its

'!:'his

Court

of

Sect ior.

ion
particular

O\!r

Ir
"?ersor"
11 Act,

'"-r(?rsors"

e,re

is

3613

t!Bt

issu0

rri.ust resolve
3<-i11 P 11ich

~etcr~irir.rr

the

cor,text

the

Sectior.

of

the

Fa.ir

adoptir.~

by

orop<Jrly

cor,,norts

or

of

th

'li

cortext.

ir. the

it

urdAr

of

mearinn
Sectior

ex,:,ress

c'ut;

of

to

eFf-:ct

reach
of

3613

t'1~

courts

Fair

the

to

the

word
Housir,o

cor,strue

the

j la.rauar:c

so

as

t;ritet~

----------Statr:s
:rn.ar.ifestircr
to

be

however,

Act
deal

housing

1968

its

practices
and

access

to

decent

Fair

Housirq
for
In

the

should

be

read

Griffin

v.

of

provide,

broadly

in

OLD.

States

niss.

the

Civil

lesiglation

so

other

full

ard
it

United

ur.der

fulfill

US 88

'Peal

1972),

the

lire"t-

States."
in

that

light

of

civil

construction
their

(1971);

!:state

is
underlying

and

465 F.2d

v.

fair

constitutional

purpose,

Pi~ley,

-4-

clear,

and

r::epurpose

the

to

403

Mayers!

of

Irdeed

within

hGre

order

Breckenridqe,

is

construction

or.e

were

It

blacks

expansive

as. the

542

discrirriiratory

that

statutory

clearlt

er.joyiro

throughout
this

United
776

"to

such

(1969):

(~bane);

347 F.Supp.

of
caner

statutes

1972)

is

cited

VIII

housirg.

4?. USC f;3601

housing

established

395 US 298

desirable

FS 534,

enact

hlockir.cr
fro~

310

let.

prevalent

t:onnress.

rmricinalitics

Title

was to

mirorities

light

ricrhts

See

were

Act

fair

Housirq

purpose

which

in

stated

passed

those

and

heer

w'.1et!1er

Fa:j.r

with

ratioral

explicitly

ations,

Cor.oress

broadly

racial

the

when

of

t:as

tl-ie other

by the

of

nssoc.,
----

history
or

way

intcrt

t'1e

'

covered

that

Rights

as to

-ore

to

?rucldrri

v . ~.:1::>ricfl

~re le0isL1tive

(lq,t')).

meapt

riive

~;urposes,
Daniel~630

(D.C.

Develo'J

wor<l "perso~"

Paul,

Cir.

.. Corn.,
must

be

I.
construed
in the

ir

such

coverage

a manrcr

of the

Defer.dart,
is

exnrc:?ssly

withir

the

irtcrdc<l

Fair

that

by 42 use ~3G02(d)

dcfirition

arc

there

exclu<le

irc1t1:,~

rJ-(

1
~:.;

of the

term

mentioned

Cororess

~-;r~

!'):"'

"persor. .,

nousir0

Fair

specifically

forth,

.."

loopholes

as the

4~ cs~ ~3C~~(d)

the~.

"''Pcrsor'

rot

set

sirnular

J\ct.

ar9ucs

nunicipalities

to

foreclose

nousirg

ho.1ever,

defined

Act aPd since

as to

r:iust huve

nrovi~es:

ir<t ..,.:_-~-~~=~s,

cornoratior.:~'.,
~)<'1".:-t:'"':~-.:;-:i:c;,
::-: S')::
-:: .::;,
la~or ornari~atiors,
leaal
renrese~tati~cs,
mutual
cn~rarirs,
joint-stoc~
cornari~s,
trusts,
unircnrporated
oraari3atiors,
trustees,
trustees
ir b2r.r:rU'r1tcy, r-:?c"=ivers
and fiduciaries."
The Govern:inr.>nt argues
in

Section

private

corporatiors,

arquendo,
it

uperson"

as set

al 1-incl
"person"

terr;i

forth

it

3602(d),

of

"persor."

should

t'herein,

and not

'includes'

is

could

Section

be linitcd

v.

1960)

United

States~-

1957).

This

is

Accordingly,
is

a "nersrn,"

it

.dthir:

___________

:I

the

have

def i,1 i tion

what

is

1:->

Gertz,

held

of
..

,_

__

and not
14,

662,

_____

word

(5th

20

a city

666

Cir.

(9th

or municipality

42 USC ~3613
..,

term

here.

that

r1e,1rirrr

"The

249 F.2d

case

the

enuinerated

erume:cation.

P.2d

he

Instead

"iPcl ude"

4')4

to

of

so stated.

that

such

of ertities

only

the

is

meant

indicates

to

so

of

enumeration

easily

ner:-ni<1an,

plainly

to be read

definition

a terM of enlarge:"ert,

usually
i'.rqosy

quoting

meant

only

l\ssurni:riq,

not

the

express

to

not

3G02(d) ., was not

3602(d)

cor st rued

be

is

t~at

had

limitation."

Cir.

clear

to the

"corporution"

as well.

corporation"

Conr;ress

If

ones

in Section

to be limited

language

11

t:1e term

to ercompass

public

noretheless

usi ve.

Section

the

is

be read

hut

the

that

broadly,

in

should

3602(d)

that

_____

and

is

anen-

Lack,rnanna,
43G F.2d

United

F.Supp.

318
108

(2d

States

v.

P.H.!";.O.I!.

Cir.

1<)70),

Ci

of

--=--

Rptr.

Para.

nefen<lant
su:Jject
nust

to

not
of

suit

t:L!
beiro

dwell in0s,

real

~state

a matter
contained
other

or

in

!1and,

law,
the

in

be deemed
Fair

charge

practices

ur0es

fallir.g
o~ Section

in
the

to

have
l',ct. 3

tl:e

thir,

3617

the

to

violated
The

the

co::i9lairt
reli0f
si rce

sale

or
of

it
any

of

..

it

is

rental

dwe llir.os,
ir

carrot,

the
as

?ro'd:Jition

Government,

with

f:ectior.

is

opportunities

allegations

of

-----

that

financir.r;

<leferdant
,.;1

it

for

42 US(; 5 3606,

Housing

squarely

housinq

a clair

access

services,

that

and

violations

providing

if

Goverr.raert's

state

in

(1971);

F. Sm:>p.

even

the

De fer.dan

or

US 1010

"

that

cUscrimiration

rr.air.tains

clearly

with

,d th

bro}:erage
of

J\ct.

401

~~o. }(')72).

(F..D.

to

aff'd.,

1970},

-----

secor~ly

42 USC '336 04,

42 USC ~3G05,

Jack

failure

r:ou~ing

n.Y.

den.,

42 USC ~3613,

for

charged

(h'.n.

cert.

13,561

urder

Fair

694

Black

arquGs

be <lisnissc~

ur.der

669,

its

on the
co:'lplaint

discri~inatory
361),1 ( a)

as

well

as

Act.

3)
In support
of this
contertion,
defendant
has cited
to the
by various
Government
and concrressioral
Court
several
remarks
nacle either
in the course
of corcrressior.al
he arir.c:s
figures
on tho l'-.ct, or in the course
of debate
on t:1e floor
of
to the ]\ct' s :.,as sage.
'!'.:_.s_.114
Cor:r.:cess ir1..r:1cdiat 2ly nrior
Cong. ~cc. 2275,
227'.J, :!2'3~-:~~'.":3, 252?
('"\:,nnr::s
of 20riator
'
"'
+~
,
m
,
"o ,r.c,:1
' 1 c, s era ....
.. or .,.,
,Jroo.-;:1-?
arc ' ,;(C?ru.
....or ,.,cyc.1.r.ns"
1:1ese
ret-:3.r,s::s
~ay be generally
c~aracteri~cd
as attenpts
at settira
fort~
underthe purposes
of the rair
::ousina
!1.ct ar.d the nolicies
lyir9
it.
~hey focus,
as is natural,
on t~c need to pass
legislation
proscribing
discri~iration
in the housina
sector
itself.
They do not indicate,
ho..;ever,
what the impact
of
the legislation
was to be on mur.icipalities,
r.or do they seerr.
to conte'.71plato:
the problens
presented
by this
suit.
1

,.

-o -

T.:hilr:- lt
~ovcrnment's

comnlaint

.:it:1 rafusir.0
the

to

so limited.

, ~ut

Section

also

I, :~,:-y

relicrior.,
all

it

a d..:ellirrr

"appears

it,

made

dwellinos
United

all

and

P.H.E.O.H.

grounds

v. Youritas
Para.

of its

of

as

are

13,582

added.)

sectior.

catch-

or de-emphasized.
could

have

of deriying
unlawful."
F.Supp.

----1973).

invokes

This

or

This

effect

C'J.D. Calif.

further

reasops,

color,

therefore
Co.,

to

u~availa~le

race,

the

not

unlawful

Congress

have

clearly

racial

discounted

Constr.

co~plaint.

it

for

{~mphasis

11

which

The Government
support

hecause

to be as broad
practices

Rptr.

makes

grounds,

are

~ake

be easily

on prohibited
States

only

to

oriqir.

may not

3'104(a)

awellincr

al"'y p1:rson

or r.ational

it

"a

urla~ful

to

phraseoloa~

Indeed

not

snecifically

or. racial

in Section

3604(a)

of t1ie

deferdant

d\:ellir.gs

or rer.t .

~3k0s

ci1arge

or rent

contaired

to sell

''refuse

do not

sell

prohihitio:r.s

t'.1at t 11e alle0atiors

i;; true

42 USC 3617

~akes

it

in

unlawful

"to

coerce,

intimidate,

person

in the

exercise

of his

havino

aided

exercise
3604,

or enjoyment
3605,

broadly

or

worded,

now received

threaten,
or erjoyment
or encouraged

treatnent

defendant's

conduct

granted

endless
by the

complaint,

in barring

with

a~y oth~r

title."

and seemingly

The Gover:rment's
that

of

of any right

3606 of this

little

or interf~r~

or on account
person

in scope,

has

3603,

althouoh
until

however,
the

in the

by Sections

42 USC 3617,

courts.

any

fairly

construction

alleges
of

4}
!.'; would seem, ho'.vever,
that Judge Meredith,
in passi!'g
on the sufficiency
of a co!T1nl2tirt comnarable
to the one her.~
i~.several
resnects,
relied
oartially
on 42 USC
at issue
!i3617 in '.;ustair.iro
the cornnlaint.
S0e 1Jnih?1 St;=it,~s v. ,...;t:
-- ..-----......---- ..-- __
of Black J. ~k, supr_~.
,,.

..,

I
fech rally

actual

.
hons inr

assisted

and propsectivc

to assist

persors

opportunities.

in excrcisirg

clear

tt-i at

relief.

See

Je!"kins
t~e

the

admitted
complaint,

purposes

light

the

sunra,
mird,
dismiss

it

would
this

car
t'"lat

Co:r>le~ :::_. Gibsor,

and the

ir

of

housirn .

to equal

fall

housina

within

395

oft~~

the

arnbit

could

421-422

complaint

must

~avoruble

3q5 US at

be ertirely

n.

the
be

relief
of

ertitle

facts

hin

45-.1fi

~!oreover,

to be taken

sufficiency

liberally

A21~

as

of t~e

corstrucd

With these
for

..

to

(1052);

(1960).

are

not

unless

to t~1e plaintiff.

inappropriate

co~p:i.ain t surmnarily.

should

!)ro_ve no state

of evaluatinn

?::09t

for

3513 US 41,

US 411,

complairt

a comr,lairt

a clai~

state

all~gatiors

allegations

for

vie-wed

to

that

nL=dr.ti ff

:::_. }~cr<e_ith~,

rnaterial

right

assisted

riq~t

seer.is to

established

f~ilure

o-: its

in suriport

federally

their

allegation

is well
for

is

of

~vit!-1 the

1617.

It

it

sponsors

This

of Section

irterfered

this

ard
JerJ:irs

rules
Court

in
to

Pai:-k Hones

See Kennedv

7.Ioteworthy too is Section

3615 of the Fair Hou.sir.g ;let.
section
provides,
ir pertinent
part,
ttat:
or political
subdivision,
or
"
ar..y la~-, of a state
that rurports
to require
or
ot:1er such jurisdiction
permit
any action
that ,:ould he a discrininatory
sl:a.11 to that
housina
practice
urder t:i.is subchar,iter
extent
be invalid."
Ir, T'r1rk '!ir..::1 :IeifTh.ts Corn.
v. City of nlacl:
- .:-l:, 4r.:.., .'.2d
1
12oq,
12ll'
(fit 1 Cir.
1()7'2), ar actior
challer"'i.r.o
al>'ogen
~iscriminatory
zor.ing by a municipality
was expressly
sus3615.
tair..ed as arisirg
under Section
5)

This

-8-

'

..

of

:nad:

of

r>rov . of

Supr.

:rad:,

39(;,

, .Judge

St.
309

~!arovitz

I!

F.2d

467

1208,

rary

of

Hoo,1s v.

Ci'J.D.

Ill.

l'J71).

so

correctly

(2th

1214

City

Cir.
of

IT' the

r:vanston,

335 F.

last-cited

case,

pa'le

at

said,

Siste_rs

1()7~);

39 0 :

It is especially
ir. ci vi 1 rio:1ts
disnutes
that
v:e ou0ht: tr 1)e r..,:ary o~ disposir-roi:
the case on pretrial
motions.and
courts
do
in fact
have a predi liction
for allouinr:r
civil
ria:1ts
cases
to proceed
urtil
a conpreh(~nsive
rec0rd
is available
to eit!1er
the facts
alleged."
support
or negate
11

I
I

AccordiPaly,

defen0ant

s motion

to

dismiss

the

..
Govern~ent's

co~olaint

alternative,

moved

four,
to

five,

strike

seven,

is
to

statement

as to

ten

of

the

are

denied.

ten

Defendant

in
of

their

the

of'paragraoh

~aragraphs

complai!1

IT IS

strike

and

a portion

denied.

t.

These

the

paragraphs

Government's

comolaint,

and

six,

motior.s

seven,

for

a more

eight,

art:'! without

definite

nine,
rneri t,

and
and

so onnr.PED.

~
--

-~

I
1;
-9-

'

/l . /~:.e.c
-'c:7<~.

d'_

~~

FranY

II

in

entirety

nine,

five,

has,

. Battisti
ef

Judqe

..

...

""

. m,;r.r;:iED STl,TES DIS~?.J:CT

COURT

MIDDLEDIS~RICT OF LOUISIANA

YuNUTE ENTRYa

MAY15, 1973
WEST, J.
UNITED

STATES O? A.V.i.ERICl1.

CIVIL ACTION
VER&'US

NUMBER 73-97

"'**'"t*
Thie matter
for

no oral

the Court on defendants

statement.

a more dofi11ite

that

is before

A rcvie,.-1 of

&rgument in required

on thio

motion

L"ie ;ccco:cd inc1icatoa

motion.

of the info1.--nmtion which the defcndunts

Sinco all

seek

through

fendunta
the

this

of tho statute

could

proper

on its

face,

i.i,volvod,

is

be,

in fact,

Ul'ld

it

G. Watson,

Sr.

Su1:.1ptc1. B. D~Nio,

III,

i.i:: hereby

Esq.

I:.:.;;q.

defendants
DEHIED.

and since

procechu:-cs,

in language

the court

m~de by tho plaintiff:

Pouglc:io M. Gonzales,

Gillio

couched

does,

IT IS ORDEREDthat
statement

ho obtai1:1cd by the do""

us.o of discovery

and since

of tho complaint

of the claim

more pror.,orly

the

through

complaint,

languago

motion

similar

concludes

provide

that

udequato

to that

the

notice

-
motion fo;i: a more definite

.
...

~.

I
I

RE:

civil
United

]'.ct.ion
States

72-H-993
of Americu.

vs.

The Jim

Tucker

Company,

Inc .

....

..

9/22/72

In view

of

Meire Definite
shall
notify

answer having
been filcd1
Defendant
s r-1otion for
Stntcrn:Emt
iE denied.
Fed. R. c:i:~.ll 12 (c) Clerk
counsel.
COB

,,.
,

..

IN THE UNIT[.;!) STJ\TES DlBTrtIC'l' co:..:RT FOR

'l'HE MIDDLE DIS'l'RIC'r
OF ALA.D!-~1'1.\

JUL16 1971

NORTHERNDIVISION

JANE P. GORDON, CLER

Plaintiff,

vs.
PELZER. RE.U...TY cc:'1PANY,

BY~~~~~~~-~~

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

IUC.,

ET JAL,
Defendants.

DEPUTY CLERK

CIVIL ACTION N0.3284-N

__--

ORDER
....,

The Defendants,
Thrones,
submitte~.
it

motions

Pelzer

to disrniss,

Realty
filed

Upon consideration

is ORDERED that

said

motions

Company,
herein

on f.Iay 7, 1971,

of tho motions
be,

Inc .. and William

and the

and the

are

same are hereby,

'T!c

tl1e .

1C -

day of July,

United

..

1971.

Gtatos

District

now

complaint,

denied.
DOl-lE this

G..

Judge

UNITED ST/\TES DiSTRICT COURT

S0UTHERL1 DISTRICT OP J\IliBAMl\

213 U:.

DATE:

'!O:

CtvtL ,HIGHT.. 5 .'

36602

MAY 18, 1971

. .

-f:t::-

/'

. .

c.

Mr. Henry

36601

'

RE:

6451-71

CIVIL ACTION NO.

ADM. HO._____

VS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CR. NO.___

H. MELVILLE DAVIS,

JR.,

ET AL .,

********************~***********~***********************************
You are advised

that

19 71

, the following

case by

Judge

18
-------

on the
action

d~y

Motion for change or venue filed

and submitted on 4/9/71 is DENIED.

__.

.,.
I

..'
\

,. '

,,,

J'

on 2/3/71 and

by defendants

--

Motion to dismiss filed by defendants

submitted on 4/9/71 is DENIED.

,.,

MAY
-...------
- - "--

was taken in the above-entitled

__ P_I_T_Tlv,_1A_N
________

o~

l)f./ } / (-.-. '"

,A ~ )_') 1

--

S. White-Spunner, Jr., P. o. Drawer E, Mobile, Ala.

c. Hagen., Housing Section, Civil Rights Division
u. s. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. c.
Mr. William L. Irons, 1300 City National Bank Building,
"Birmingham, Ala. 35203
Mr.

-~
..

S. ,COURT HOUSE & CUSTOM HOUSE

MOBIL_E, AUBAMf\

on 2/3/71

_.........._,_.,,...,~.

.
:..,

!.
. I.!

. . ..

; ',,'

1 ..

...

,j

~'--

.:
'

..

...

'!
I

;;

...

A.

n.

~-"......

,.:~ ,:.1

..

'!

-~J

~"!

,...,

:..,,

1-l

..:,

.~...

"'i~.}

'

~;

:.:.

',
.

I r..
i
' ..

'

.. ,..,
.....

'~
,...>

....

,,......

"'
1,,.7;

:;

~'I

t'l
(J

:j. ~

Irene

; ::~

I',::}
.

~~;

'

"r:

JUDGE

. I
I

tt

..

! .
l
I

cause o: action

was instituted

by t~e

VIII

the Civil

of

Rights

Act of 1968,

A.B.

42

Comrany

Smythe

u.s.c.

and

j .

-~

~,;)

0
~:
;~
c,

Defendants

.~'f: ~e
!
.,~36 01 -_ ~.I,:
,_ ;"I'he
.dc~cndants,

\:) r;:;

ORDErt

t;

Title

)
.)

: I I !

under

o-.- .... ,,

..,
~~N.J.0..'i
AND

.,.... '. .......

; t

This

, '

'

.)

DIS'i'RIC?
i . '
..: , '.' I ; : ;

LA.'1BR0S,

c 69-ass

.. :.........

ar.d

INC ,

'..

- -

...~. .;. .:...

.')
...,..1 '"'Mt.'VO..,'NDU''
.
........ .....,...
I'\.J'U.

al.,

.
I. I i .1 ,

: ;ti#

(1

\..~
f. #

et:.

..

....,, ..;:))

"

I i

IRENE MICHAEL,

'"':

Plaintift;:,
.
.:

:i
I I.

co:{?.;xy,

sxY?HE

)
)

v. !:

..:,.:-
-~..
I

,, .

i [' .

.I

l'

i: :.,

. I

4}

'

' '

i
. I

.'
.,

... :,, . ....

--> ..~

UNI?ED STATES OF

..,.:

,c r;.
- , ,..l
: ,. :

: t

..

Jl

' i.

:;/

"~
.. ,:~;

'"-""'

'

, ....

U~ITED STAT:S DISTRICT COURT

NOR'l', :;::;;"'{:!DI S':':1:CCT Ol;, OHIO
BASTE~~ n:v:sro~

It

. . . .,-,,.,
:=-,
0
,,.,-
...........
......
:

.I

;I I

Michael,

r.mv r.,ove to disr..iss

is

in its

denied

'\"'"

,r

Two basic

;i

~ntireiy.

issues

, py

are raised

, I

'

from ~he provisions~~

theAct

complaint

single

i'

.
'

family house

'

.or

or rente~

e:<c;.1pt
;

alleged~~

'

I
I

I I

of the exemption
sold

.'

becauze

:'.

for the condu~t

the

are

'

If

rr,ot.ion

'

'

the~defcnoants'

;one, whethe::- or not the dafcndants

t.o dismiss.

The

motion

the co.riplaint.

~rovidcd

to any

an owner under

by

42

.:

u.s.c.

3603 (:J) (1);.

Two, 'whether'.
.

is unconstitutional

iiI . j

:.

'~

as a violation
issue

a=ises

I,

specific

effective

effective

in'certain

date

fo=.all

sta;as.

3601. {'c)

A.~endmcnt.

since; the ~ct

,

..

u.s.c.

of the First

~he first

not 42

does not have a

I;

1ts orovisions

but becomes

' I "'

'
~tis

Upo~;~~actmcnt,

.1

applica-:

!'

blo

to dwellings(l)

I l

-------.

l .

I,

assistance

which hav~ fc~~ral

. I ..
I

or arc

----------------11

l.
Undc:: the Act, a c1.:.,clli~g is defi:1cd as II any bui laing,
l!
structu=c,
o= ?O=ti0~ ~~c=co~ which is occupied ~s, or
ti
designed
o=in~c~d~d ~o::- occ~?~ricy 1 as, a residence by one
ll
0
....
.::
~
'
:
"',..
c.
,,
V
C
...
a~
\,'"Ii'
c'n.
'
O.::.::
"'"'",.,
r;
;-:
().....
0
._\.!
... -......u
......-.._-..;..:,, "
..:>..
C....""'
._....,t...;......L.:"" """
!;
snlc o~ lci:.sc :o:.: t:1~ c..;:i;st::uctio:-. or loc=-tion thereon
of .:i.;l:
scch building,
.~~=~c:u:c, o~ portio~ the~cof."
49 u.s.c.
-

th

-u1l

&,...,

'

~,
r.

53602 {~).

....,.;:;,

It
,I

11

:,J

I .,.
I

I I

'.

'.'

'

.!

..

:I

. II '.: ,
. fi:
,.,
of fcdcrul
c:.:Ghip.
1
1
II, 31, l9GO, ii ap~lios to
I

.' .I

,;

, .

I. :

cxcmi,tion5.;

is

for

42

u.s.c.

.i:2

. .
i ' !

any 1 si~gle-f~~ily

to

owner

11

I manner

if

! :

agent,'.o.r_

or rented

an ownar.

by

31, 1969,

sold

the Act

o.r rented

:, ,i

or rcntcd [with)

the.use.in

of any real

servic~s

or scrvi~cs.
I

the busi:-.css

of selling

, .

or rentingdwclli::.gs;
..

iI l'

..

c~ployee or.agent
of any iuch broker,
: :i .:
roan, or perso.1 i 11 42 U.S.C. -~_3603 (b) (1) (A).
'

cst~te

6r of s_uch facilities

or o~.a~y

...

an

by

s~lcsrnan;
'

in

person

sold

Dccc~bcr

o~ re~tal
; i

i :

sales-

agent,

''

.a..-.ily

!,

house

for

the year

of 1969.

Particularly,

they

contend

. .

thut

for
; i

within

yc~r

th~

that

the

of ~969,

the':
sale

i .
;

the assistance:
~

a real

excwpticn

since
.

fer~

1969,

the

est~tc

for

or agent

of real

estate.men
'l'he

Court

is
need

implicitly

. .

~ot reach

! .

.~
I

December

aid

the

I I

...o"' ....i....-t
.. '

prior

cxciuaed

J
.
i !

with

..

of such a house with

. I
'

..

sp~cifica:.::..y

is

time after
.,of
.

the period

o:: rental

..

i .

house

,,

b~oker

includJa

is

They claim

'

~ale

house.

single-family

31,

Agent

or r,::mtal of a ~singlc-f amily

of a real

in the ~ct

brokcr~r

cstat~

'

included

; i

. i ;

!I

'T-he dcfe:1dz.nts argue that they co~e within the

1
i
;
.
exemption accorded to 'thG. sale o:::-.rental
of a singlc-f

One of thcsccxcmption5

house

is sole

suc:i:house
~

,Il

of t~e~alcs

I broker,
I of any

After

for two

dw~llings,.cxccpt

3,GOO(u),(2).

house

J\~t':r :~C:cc-~nbc~j .1'

g3G03 (a) (1).

other

3603 (b) (1).

applies

u.s.c.

all

any singlc~f~~ily
.

u.s.c.

42

..

I 1

'

''

.. ,

'

; I ;

t.:....,n
......i.;;;.,

the validity

of the

~
.f!
., ). '
a.e
...
cr.aant...:>

i .
I

contention.

..

The Gcve:nmc~t

that

allog~~
'

the

I :

....
.....
'

the Lake Lucerne

J,

houses
1,
11

in the

subdiv!sic~

subcivisio~.

acco::dcc~ t:.o a sing~~-=a~ily

v~c~~t
I .,

la~c

&~d with
?h.o.Court
house

finds

nor to a:su~division

'

..

!I
.,

that

for the year

.i'

ii

t~ all

rc~pect

'

the

the cxc~~tio~

.I

o: 1969 is no~!
as an entity.
....-

I
I

I
I

I
i

II
t

. t,.I: .

,i
,

.,

,,

.
I

,,

.
.
.

..

11
,, I
I

..

'

a claim

'st'.1t60

relief

for

"

:l

..

a11cs-i:!d exemption,.

has still

'

'

I. 'l'hu.:;,
I

,,I

Io

''

the

il.gainst

Govc!:nrnc:r!:

I
i

de foncl;,n t3 ,

thc.
0

As for

of 42 U.S.C.

tutional.

I,...

the

second

[360~(~),

iszuc~

thatis

the

finds

that

thecourt

The section

reads

co~stitution~li~Yi

is consti-

it

as frillows:

LTo raake, print,

o~puhl{sh,
.or cause to be made,
o=publie~cd a:1y notice, s~atcment,or
pri~tcd,
advartisa~c~t,
with =aspect
to the sale o=rental

of
..........:o ....
p.._e.._ .._C,l cc t 1.;. i,.....J..,.
,,,J..'-'-""'~
1
or discri~i~&~ion
~~s0d nn race,
colo~, religion,
or natio~~l
o=i~in,
o~ an in~cn~io~
~o ~ake ~~Y sue~
~""','\-a c....\..:cJ.-'-~':;;:

,I..,...,..~
~"""'..-::1."'--..;.......,s
a-,:
.._,,.;..'-..- ~'-"
Le..~!.:,;

linitation,

prefere~cc,

or discri~ination.~

..

is not void

This

II
,
,

is not viola~ivc

arc

denied

othe~

contentions

vn.gl.:.encss.

Amen<l~cnt.

in regard

to thei~

..

also'withcut

"iccordingly,

for

~he'.defenda~ts'
motion

of the First

,!

'.

section

'

the ~otion

to

., :
.!'dismiss

the

co:nplaint

!.s

i.'1

1
I

.1
.

..
~;

-I
'..
I

j:
I

i:_;-

1:

t 'iI

I
'

..

t
'
t

..

'

..
'.
.
I

..

,,
\

l
J

'
I
11

Um:'fi::)r;n;n:s lHf:'l'::!C'!' CC1(':t'C

counm,~11
n1~:'J'c~1c;1
c-.:J!Jjj:~1.u.\

3 '-'l FH'70

UCTiu

..
)
)

"'-

..

, , "'\...

;L;_tJ

c'\ ..

'-,,.:

..-'"'I-"'

b/U

..

SO DI"..,..
.f'
.
.._)J. n1~
.
........1,.

1Hght Act of 1963. 42 u.s.c . 3601 ot ccq.,

op~r~tion

o! t.t.:o spst>tocnt

l:Lorida.

'l"ho dcfcr..dont

011

thrco

. -

.."'""..._......
....
.
...

....,.

by tho cic!:e:m.iant fn. the:

buil<lS.n;;;o he mms and opcrnteo

ha& oovccl. th.ie. Court

to dit;t:1!.00

in Eolly;1ood"
the: co~plo.int

gi:'cunds.

. '

2.

erentcd;

.:
d

fai luro to eta to n cl..nf.1.:1

upo11_\ih~.c~l roHcf

...

end

:li

fnUuro

to otato

cnn

b3

..

in the cor,.plaint

r:uicicnt

facto

to

'

'

~. i'

..

,.
for 6u.,...
"l".!lt')' Judsr.;;.-.mt

'

...

---

:l

,I

.i

Dof:ondont ch!\ll~, bow,

.. until

coc;>ld.nt,

i:ovcmbo:: 9 1970 to cnot.-or tho

.

........
'

rMo ..

ooc,---...
.t:
; ,t'\.

.~ I

' J,....,.,...,.,

NOVE, 1970

tJ..

ucy

or Octobar,
"' ..

. ...
'.

1970.

~lVIL. HIGi-rr::::;

________
___-,

..

..

........

II

:)!f>T:lIC'.r COUD.T
1--~01~'r11~I{li
1:i:/f~ :rc~r 01_.-r::;_~o::c!i\
1

/'i.TU.It,.'.'. f:IVI.SIUH

tnUTEU STATES OF AHERICJ~

VERSUS

,...-"".

p;1c co:,iPANY, nic.

GLORGL\, et al

UOC}(fTED

CIVIL ACTIQN l~O. 13,573

OF

"It

-----ORDER
The de fenc:ant:s
d ,..,.r.Jn{tc('!"'t
,._,J..) ......
...... <>

0
'"
.....
,0.-1'"l*'
....

This

behalf

this

~-...

t,2

States

u.s.c.

by virtue

court

co:npl:,1.int it

is ellcgcd

pcnclin.; before

unclcr Title

360.1,

of 28

!.

VIII

General

on

of the Civil

Jurisdiction

:ea.

court:.

this

by the /ittorncy

brour;ht

more

r~u
.r. tr e
pu
-~ "'"~t t o n,,u11;.1 12 o;i.:
1

1
""
'"'f,..i
"-"-L ..~--,

Procedure:.,

a. ouit

is

of tho United

Act _of 1968,

'.

nurl to

of Civil

Fc<lc1:al Rulco

have ;,1:.:i1:ions to <l:i.s:::tlss, for

rtir:hts
'-J

exists

in

u.s.c. 1345.

In paraeraph

10 of the

in part:

The dzfcnd,mts
follow n policy nnd practice
of rncial
c!iscri:":".in.n.tion a{;ainst Fe::;rocs
with respect
to the snle of lots in the
pro 1'.X.!rties described
in the prccccding

paragraphs.

A readir13
iS Stated

that

of the co::-.1plnint clf.'llrly

6Ufficient

tO pDSS defcnclSnt:B

the alle~ations

respond.

Conley

are clear

pre-Act

ir,1,.utE::rinl,

'
i~:ipertincnt:,

to strike.

LT.C.

Accor<lingl},

all

v.

'j"he issues

41 (1957);

and Uriitcrl

~:t;itcs

r,nd rcquir,

.
533 (?!.D. Ga. 1969).

Dotibns

1n.a.tter" subject
333 U.S.

683,

to n notio

t.1otion

nrc

ucrit.

\:!:' 11-::c<:

Ir,
..:
.

.. ~

.:,-
, . ' .. ,. ; , ..

'.,.

r,11r

in tLc bovc: rr.,.:.cr.t. {.

7-;,-:-~-.../ .-:---~ .
"
F--:-.. .. . . ,
.:.,,J' .. ~.
, :/.-:,

tld'
. I

'tta t provided

705 (lW,3).

arc denied ns without

by l:r:'fcnd.nnts'

no (1iScJz::;ion bcyn:,d

l urtl.t>r,

is not "rcduncnnt,

c!iscii::d.nD.tion

f:c~ent Ir~-:tit'!!:.,

rn iscd

nn<l

to

or vcondclous

defendants'

J.10ti.On to dis:zdSS

defendants

v. Gi..bs:m, 355 U.S.

alleged

a claio

cnou[)i to enable

y. Ccor,~ia Po,.;~!r Co.,. 301 F .Sup?.

defend.ants

shows that

' : . ., ,..1

....
.'

lfl?O
,, '

. ,,

I
I

hrlcf.

for

Follcwing

defendants

gc.tions.

snst:cr

their

within

Dit:covei. 1 is not

dili 0 cntly
four

is

the

to C:nploy in lc.:.:cnin3 r:10rc obout

to b,J used

l:(>

such "pr~ccdurcs

Locnl Rule 10 provides

puroucd

discovery

plaintiff

be com:nenccd prompt

and co:11pletcd witr:.out: unnecc:.:wary

months after

So ordered

the nns.wcr has been filed

this

the 28th day of July,

/s/ Albert

s alle ...

L1rther procccd.ing.f.

dclny

chull

procedure

propar

y,

clelay and

"

1970.

J. Henderson.

Jr.

.1:e , --;-;:-1.
. :~,l ~t r. /;;-s \ "i,~w ;, -.;...;..,-1--,-0-,
u,,<i
",.I, ,.,.,.t-
Jll ~o
for the iforthem
1 iGtrict
of~ Gcorr:;:l. 1.
1,..._ ..............

t....\ t..,.._.

....

J.....J.. .,:...i ........

\,,,4,,1,.,.

...

: .....

..

ll ~ ~ !-;.! ~J : ..! .' ,; !

..

J ...' : i_

-'

'

t . , ' \: ... t

iJ, ..
',":.;:
.. , .
"'

..

,.,

,.

( .:; .t..q,-yIc..,,,
.. ,\.. h.'

...

t,.! ,.!
Jn1n
,,...
l.,.,L

..

rr

l
.

.. t.. .. '
i .

.. .,~.;.,

l.

...

'

; __
.-, Defendant.

..~:"'... .

I
I.

'

..

.:__ .

... ..l

~
~

o:ront
----

..

')

.,

' .,i

,.

... .. ~;::. ..
...
........ :-....~~~;i
. . .. .. . : ... : ,... .

...

).

..

........

..,,,.,,..J....
l tr,11-~c
\

.. ,...

..'

.
.!

'.

.....

... '

V!t

:.)

.....

'

...... ,..

Court on
.

;'..

. :. . . ...

-.,::_'.~~:--l1or.1clny, ?-1ey 11, 1970,

:.......: ...,.. -:.
.
,

~ '

st

10':CO

~.::
.,.>_:_:.:':,-.-~
defcr:tl.:1nt
.. .......
...
:.

..

:.

'

- ,. : .,.

.J'

--~~.
.. ....
;

.
,:
__

,.,..

t:o d5.r;r~isn the

CO;Jplnir.t.' or in the eltcrnetivc

-.,..

,~~..: .._..\
.

strike

certain

cilrcru;1y

for

:, ..

..._..~..r.,;.;

-~

h~arinr;

t.ho Court

has

i.nd the notion~~ nn<l has

,...
.t.1,..

ic

- d"'"""r"'"'l.1
....-1
'

thia

tha cocplnint

st'!..!:.!icd

to

or for r.roro <fofinitc

thereof,

port:iona

ln preparation

......

..

., .

upon t1otim1r: of the

'

...... """'

....

...
"':.. ... ......
. -~...
-- _...
.......;._ . .

'I
II

tbnt: th:~$!: mot:tons be und th:::

..

:*

a-re hereby

r:.}otiO!l for u:;,re

by

The 1ncte:ri.:1l

.,.Lf
,..j " f!C~c""'-"
-~
V -.,
- .J

...

~L

'...- " ....

._

..

c~enic-cl.

... ......-:_f .... -

florica,

. JiOir!::
't

this

- ....... .

.x-.
. -

...

.. ,. "

,,.;."
..-..

- -..,.

cc:

..

.~
-~

,,.
r
I. ~,.

.,-, i
__ t

...............

" '-~ : ".

:-."\,

. .:

. --~----

....

~ _. '.,

t
l

,~
'\ ' "
...,.,_ii~~)

..,_...,r..,_
-.,__ 'C
-
G"~'r,-:r..
_,.,h..., J.'! H { f- r, 1,,-.11 ~ ..r .. ,, { '"'C
..hrd ~ L<!:0:"!.'.':1<l,
F~q-..1:i.)~c,
..... ""'""'"'

;:

~! . ...:-<h~.yof

. . ..

-~/

1w

-,

........

.,\.,...,_

. .,

- .......

,.

...

. ,.,

.-

,......
,

'.

"
I"

. .

..

.'

'

'

~ ....

---

.. -.

:f

"

.J

..

\
.

.,
,\

....
IN THE u:n:TED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE

..

DISTRICT Cff Hl\RYLAND

r.~C:

JosEPH and ROSE HILLER and

UNITED INVESTO:<.S:Mi\NAGEMENT
. CORPORJ;,.TIOlJd/b/ a PENNBROOKE
TERRACE AP,\::~THENTS_,
i

Defendants.
'

t'.."'.
.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

..

This matter

. 1970 on th~ motion

:;:J
Pl

,:?

..

...
,

:..:....,
'

."'-::"~ ' ' . ' l

;- c:.:

ORDER

..

,,....., .,

..

-i
~ z.:.;

.
.

.-.~.

.. - "':.-

.~...

came on fora
of the

-.....:

c . ........

NO., 70-ltO

..

,...._,

.
... _:-:;

CIVIL ACTION

_,,:,

).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,'

hearing

dcfcridants

on April

to dismiss

10 1
the

comp1ainto
The United
:,.

e.cticn

under

42 U.s .c. 360i' et ~

on

commenced

this

the

. Fair_ Housing

the owners and managers of

...

'

Pennbrooke
, Marylando
after

Act of 1968,

12, 1970, against

.January
..

States

Tcrrl:.ce,

an apartment

The. operative

allegat!cns

portions

of jurisdiction
.

compl~~

in Su.itland,

of the complaint,
and coverage,

read

as

.,

follo~,,s:
11

,i

The defendants
follow a policy and practice
of racial
discrimination
against Negroes
with respect to the renting of apart~cnts,
Pursuant to this rcJcially discriminntory
policy; defendants have refused to~makc
.,. apartments
available
to Negroes and have
made statements
with respect to the rental

..

..\
\ .

'

'

....

..
#

"'

of dwellin~s that indicate

a preference,
limitation,
or discriminntion
based on race.
~

Defendants have rented 1 of the 404 npartment

units in the above named building
to a Negro
tenant,
and have retained
the one Negro .
.tenant for the purpose of creating
a nondiscriminRtory
image.

.,\.
,. ('
. :\-'

The ~onduct described

in the preceding
and practice
paragraphs
constitute
a pattern
of resistance
to the full enjoyment of
rights
secured by Title VIII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968, 42 u..s.c. 3601 et seq."
~

'

-.

Th~ defendants

~ovcd to dismiss

the action

on the

.t

. grounds

that

the complaint

dqe$ not comply with

.1 .

813 of the Act,

Section
,_ provides
cause
,

42 U.S.Co 36130

persons

section

qas re~sonable

Gener_al, when he

~hat the Attorney

to belie~e

This

to have eng~ged in a pattern

or

practice

of resistance

rights

by the Act,

granted

forth

the

to the full

facts

may file

and requesting

as he deems Qecessary

The defendants

contended,

Fcder9.l

"shoi:

failed

and plain

Procedure,

relief

..;;.

in additlon,

that

the

of Rule 8(a)(2),

which provides

of the claim.,"

statement

"setting

such preventive

to meet the requirements

Rules of Civil

'

a complaint

.. ..

'

_complaint

_enjoyment of any

for

a.nd did not

state

a claim upon which relief

could be granted.

Rule 12 (b) (6) , '.Fed. R. Civ. P.

-

..

-:-

..,.

.\
'

...
2

'
.'

.,

.'
\

..

.. .
i

\l
.. \.

....
Upon due consideration,

the Court finds

the

.complaint states
a claim upon which relief
may be granted,
\
f1
. compl~es with 42 u.s ..c . 3613, and. is sufficient
to resist

..
to dismiss.

a motion

The factual

details

allegations

-defendants

the

,'.

broad

underlying

of the' complaint,.,. arc

by means of pretrial

available

discovery,

to

Rules

26-37,

Fed .. R. Civ .. P..

The motion to dismiss

is denied

.l

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this

.. .April,

1970 ..

. -..;
.

c:,

..

,'
~

. -,-L
1,- day of

j,

..

. ...

' ..

-----

R.. DORSEY HAT:i:GNS

United

..

States

Di~trict

Agreed as to form:

I '

"i(
(
.!' ~;

..

MIRilll"l R. EISENSTEIN

Attorney

I
I/').//I
I

for Plaintiff

'I, , \

---------

11ELSON D2C1G:Li3Aill1

Attorney

for

..

Defendants
,

..

;.a.

~~.

,..

'\

'

.......

'l'HE u:U'I'L-:0 STI~'l':.::s DIS'rRIC'l'

CUuR't'
FOR TI!E DLS'l'RIC'l' or Ml'.RYL7tND

xn
"

. >

UNITED STl.TES

01? h.Vi.EP.IC1\I

....

)
)
)

Plaintiff

v.

Action

No.

21470

et al.,

COMP}\J.:,i:lI.

H. G. SMITi-IY

Civil

}
)

Defendants

ORDER

This
on all

and

Comparly,

Victor

severance.
hearing

and Lydia

b'

:..i

~--

Company to dismiss
be

and

it

hereby

and
is

the

the

defend.ants

of

the

in

and

alternative

and

it

for

sumrnary

Sidney

j1Jdgment

it

Victor
f

a severan'.cc

be

a.nd Lydia

the

l
II

a full

it

now therefore

is

o,

for

motion

Rothstein
be and

a11d they

Carone,

hereby

FURTil.CR ORDERED that

z..nd Lyd.i,'. Carone

'

and

,i

H. G. Smitl1y
smmnary

judgment-

of
to

it

the

Chillum

dismiss

hereby

or
is

Hcig:'1tS

in

the

denied,

is

Company,

..

for

is

FURTI-lER ORDERED t11c1t the

Victor

rmm.mary

Armstrong

briefed,

alternative

the

Le\ds

of defenc12;.nt

motion

denied,

dcfcn- ..'<r-':.s and

court,

1970,

H. G. Smithy

_ __;..1~_.
r_r:._'I
_1_c...._,197

FUR'l'.i.P-;;RORDERED that
corporate

fully

been

17!

c1nd for

action

and Hrs.

open

.;

.O.z. day

on April

dismisc

of

in

ORDERED that

a hearing

Carone,

held

:;: ?~.:.: I '

thi!.

for

having

The motions

Court

to

motion

on the

having

the

car:1e on

motions

defendants'

judgment,

by

mai :.er

and

motions

and Mrs.
urc

denied,

tJK~ motions

of IL G. Smithy
"-

Lewis
and
of

Lewis Armstrong

Armstrong
it

for

is

c1efenc1b.nts

to di.cm.ins

and

...

l
:

t'

l in

the

al tcrnr,t.ivc

.c'ie1Jied without

motions

its

for

for

summncy judgrn'?.:nt be nnd they

prejudice
.._

to said

r;ummary judgment

discovery,

and it

wh,;n the

1970,

to

renew

plaintiff

hus

defendants

shall

their
cor.-iplctcd

iG

I:'URTHER ORD23R.:CD
that

May 18,

defendant.a

hE::r.c-.b.yare

to answer

all

have

until

the complaint.

kJ.J)o~~f y

h1A

r-r~
1rl'i

UNITED S'ff~TES DISTRICT

'

JUDGE

....,.

,,../

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.,
Plaintiff.,

NO. CIV. 70-23-PHX.

vs.
._
0

MANAGEr{i:i::NT
CLEARING., INC ,
a corporation.,

__
RD ....
ER_
.

Defendant.

The defendant's
argument
tion

u.s.c.

42

that

of legislative
,

Motion to Dismiss

based on the

3613 is an unconstitutional
'

authority.,

that

{CAM)

delega-

the Court lacks

juris---

diction
facts

because

the coo.plaint

or circumstances

to file

authorized

suit

and that

a claim upon which relief

fully

heard

vised

in the matter,

argument

th~ complaint

___'0~--

having

been

fully

ad-

the Motion to Dismiss

day of April.,

States

1970.

District

...,JI

is

I!

to

fails

and the Court being

United

t.to,-,u-ew

General

...-,-.

oi!l

DATEDthis

--

or show any

can be granted.,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that

.is denied.

t-o allege

under which the Attorney

state

in oral

fails

Judge

.,.

}lit,.'{2 lt 1~I I

UNITED ST!~TES DISTRIC'f COURT

SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF f1Il1BAMA

ClvtL

HlGBTS

7,../ '<'..

/ _ -()"J(ji

213 U. S. COURT HOUSE & CUSTOMHOUSE

.
MOBI~E, .t\U\BAMA 36602
~

-..)_.;

DATE: MAY18, 1971

c. s.

White-Spunner,
Jr., P. o. Drawer E, Mobile, Ala.
Mr. Henry c. Hagen, Housing section, Civil Ric;htn Division
U.. s. Dept. of Justice,
Washington, D. c.
Mr. William L. Irons, 1300 City National Bank Building,
Birmingham, Ala.. 35203
..
,,.

'J!O: Mr.

: '.

36601

f.

l'

I .

RE:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

61+51-71

ADM. NO._____

VS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CR. NO.____

H. MELVILLE DAVIS, JR.,

ET AL.,

*********************:***********~*************************"''**~******
You

19 71

a.re

that

advised

, the following

case by Judge

on the

action

MAY
~
-..--------~
~- ..._ - _....._.,.,,...
...

18
-------

dn.y 01'

was taken

PITTMAN
-------------

in the above-entitled

Motion to dismiss filed by defendants

submitted on 4/9/71 is DENIED.
Motion for change of venue filed
and submitted on 4/9/71 is DENIED.

by defendants

. '

.. ,
\

on 2/3/71

I '

and
on 2/3/71

f,(ll!'i.'iti~!~~' J1:.s.i:GC'i 0;_; l~i.:~;~YO?..!(

~ -..., .. ---.....-.-

..........

~-:

..

'

,,-,

-:

--

___

..

4 __

..

_____

'.

.... . .

,. ..I

'

V ..

-~

---

.:. ....

.. :
;

.'

.,

'

I..

~:

,:.:

..

. .
.

:.-..~ .: .:; .. : . . .
.: .
. ..
. . .. .. ......
. ... .... -

. ~-

.:

.;

.. :
.....
...

~-;

:-

"

for the United States

of New York

of

Dy: MICHAEL C. S ILBER.3ERG, ESQ.

AsGistnnt
United ~tatcs Attorney
.,
Of Counsel

'

GIT.,P.,:-...,
. .,L,h.l.....

l:C

Attorneys

'

for

...,..,

._,

De!cnda~ts
Street

22 West First

r.c-q~

GlI .,J.11:.L\.'v)
-,.,...l'"'

..
.
:- .. - ~ .

Ho1.1nt Vernon,
N'. Y.
10550
: By:-David C. Gilberg,
Esq.
..
For tl1c F:Lr,~

''

..
.
..
.-

..

....- . !....

: ..
....

...

.. . CROA
KE, D. J.

... . . . ...

....

-~

. '

-~.

.. ..
..

....

'

..

..

.;

..

: ~ Xhis is an nci::ton brought

b1the

..

. :-- .- -

.....- .:.-.....

~--

... -- .. :.:.: ~

. --. -------------.
---

. .

....
.
. __.....-;-~-. .

...

- -

Gerier~l

Attorney

e I

. .of: the

Uriltcd

Stc1tcs

pu:csu~nt

Rightr. Act of 1968 (82 Stat:.

.'

:-------

. .

---

. . . . . .. .. . .
. ...
. . -......___;. -. .'Jt - .--. _;.. . . ....
.
'
.. ..
.:

.to

81),

Title

VIII

of the Civil

1:.2 U.S.C. 3601,

...

--- -

. ..

r-:,.l- .seq. ,
..
.
...

. ..

. ., ..

. -~.. . :.- ...

. ...

....
" '.~
. 'r,.

. f ..
: t .

. ..

.
'

....

..

,"

.i.
.
,,
) .

.. '
'

..

.'

..

.- ..

~ .:-:. .. ~

South~~n District

"II

...

l =~..-......
-y
J:'.lJ.1,,,l,-'u,'tl:.

C'"'\~-('
L)J.~.l.;J

Attorney

,'

:.-:t\)_'.\?
/}-_
.

Ul'I1 I1Tl',o

:.

.
'

~-!.

___

"'':-~.-.

... ....;_ .

...

---..

i. :-::::.",

Defendants.

.::

::._..

. -------------------------------~--x:

...

70-Ci.v.1967

---;:-;'.

; :

-.. -.... ~-~ . ~.: ...

: t ..
.

.. 'JJ..VIN GIU-~\.;.~ nnd laTCrISLL EISEN,

d/b/ a G_il~.:!:1-Ei.::;cn Co:7:p~ny,

Plaintiff,

.. f

-A- ----"'-----~-

,'

'

'

- - ....- ..... ,,.......- - _ i,.. - - .. - ...... - - - - - - - '" - - .

...

UN1TD S'i'A7~S Ol' AI:.~RICA

....

..

'r

...

.;

'

... " ..

'

'.

..

,.

,.
".t'. ,~
'
!' :

. '

'.

...
:.)

'

.."'

'

: :

..

..
.
'

.
..

---

"-

..

I.

(: :

which vcc~::s tq c:ij_oin :i "policy

::ind pr...-1cttcc" of
. . --------------------------------------------------

.......

...

-.

.>J
..-~---~dizcrimlnntlon
.I

1 .

of

..

..

.. :

..

lfuito

.net ion

. .

"' ~

' Defendants

Alvin

on t11iB motion,

and thnt

. "'.....
.. . .
~

."

'.

..

.. .... ~.
.

..

.: ...

. .. :. :

813. effective
:

in

...

fec1crc!l

..

..

..

- : ;... -
.

.. ,,,,., ...-, .. -~
,.

'...r. .
i~

' .. ' .
'"..
. ..

.:

I.

..

~ t

..

Y.

,c

..

..
. .. .....

... .

:
. -. ....
.
...
.,,.......
.

:.

"

;:..

: -: .... i

orderfor

n
.

of 3613
Law

April 11, 1968)~

:,1nd nmbi2,uous that

be required

reason.:1bly

..

-.
I

. ,.

.. .

plen<l:i.n~s chall

the

Procedure

no mo.r:e:t'han
. .. .

...

contnin

...2 ..

-... ..
.
'*t'

of Civil

.
,,;,

......

<

...

..........

-.

,_ .
..

..

..

":'"".:, ...-:-,:--.~-:-~.":
--.,

'

.. .. ... ...
.~.
.. .
.

'

... ::-.--~:-:

....

............

ii

.'1
1

..

,i

..

,;

c
'

.
.

.i,

. ~.

..

:'

.'.' ..
io

J .
l

.~ -...

.-

to prcpa1e

thnt

. .

this action fails to set fort:h

.. .
. ..
'requi~c<l by such lnu, but

...

~ ..

: I:

the provisions

It .

...
. ... .

.'

on the ground

provides

.
. . .......
..

of the comp1aint

so vague

..

sh~mld ~ot

..

I ..

. . a_ responsive pleadinz . . .
.
. ;..::-,..r~ule 8 (~) of the Fc<lcrnl Rules

.. ~.
.;

to Rule 12 (c) of tho

ns specifically

:. dc.fcndnnts
. : -r, ...:-:.
~:--...
.

compl.:!lnt

the

---

..

. ~ L
.
.
.
.
.
'
.
:
.
.....
...,.
../-:../ :}>-~
. . ~. ..;
Eisen,

and, Wclfc>.rc Law (bc.in3 Public

VIII,

. >=:.dthe1.,.conclusions

. !

..

to cou1ply with

"....
. :

.nny fncts

!
. : I

.....

,j"'

llealth

Title

' I. I
Procedure~ seeking an

stntcf!)ent

. fails

..

commencing

Cil.aan &nd Hitchell

..

,90-284,

. . ..

by them

The co~plnint
;\

pursuant

of Civil

of the Public

____
:
.. -..............

. that ".

.~1-.

---

I.

more d~finitc

..l

..

to .the r~ntal
. ..

by t!"le clcfenclnnts.

..

. . '.:.l1

.
on Hdy 1/i, 1970 .nnd no answer has

0\,,.1cd anc.1 opm~n tcd

New York.

filed

,;,r.g

.
Federal Rules

..

. .
Yor1kcrs' New Yor!,;;, llnd 2-4 Windsor

Plains,

filed

- . ;

bring

.,

...... .
' .

rc~pcct

vith

in buil<lin3s

....~.....:.:..
... ~ -

'

. . ... : yet been

..

.. - :.

t .

by dcfcncl;;.nt:;

555 Mel.can Avenue,

this

,,. .

.. .:.

. I

"

.? Terrace.,

t :...~
..

. ..

,.

rncinl

nt

..

opc1rtr.:1cnts

I. ..:

..

..

. \

ij
'

.1.

' .

c ho r t "n U p l a in it at c:~~'.~~cc\~:."

.~l:n~"'.. l

. 1.'. :. 11

11

-:--:::~r~
-:-~--.=~-~?\c__~~~~::
~1:-~o cnt:i. tlcd
---;---7-.
.

.:-.-_s.-~

_.__

....

.-.
r~
\.:
....
:

S tn tc:ncn t Of

definite

~ ~~~~~~:!1~' l:___-

to.

Ii.cf

j~C

'.

pbin tiff

<I

A mo2:c -- -------.-:-::-- .

u.

inst,rat

in the

r..:,;

' ..

ns r~qUC3t,cd

C cfoi,;,,

c.:i.sc, is required

by

\,

..>f:. ;~:.:: .
.
.: ....
-.. . .

tha.t a party

cc1nnot reasonably

.: -

. .

.!

to frame
,, ... ;;.

.n responsive

pleading

A rca<lin3

th2 co1:1plaint

of

'...

~:.::_._that tho nl legations

.. -

.. . .. .. .....:~ ..: : .... -nor a:nbi b"'"uous

The action

"poi,:cy

...

..

"

...
;

..

c.rwo reveals

.:ir~ neither

...

vogue

by the Govcrn:.icnt sce~s

discrimination

I!

In pnrairaph

an::1 practice"

.. ..

t:i1crcin

brouzht

.._.... .

'i'

..

in this

.. l .

....

by dcfcnd~nts.

'

"',.

.. '
-:anu_p_f.iEfiEc".of raci6.1

.>.......to-cnj-c>i.n-~c:"poiicy
.....

contnined

..

.. . 1
, . \

: ..

. -.... ...

be required

. :.

.. . ..

......

. .

or ambiguous

. . .:

::. -

.,.

:: .. :. : ... ' . .

'. ...

< .,,.:

Ruic 12 ( c) of the F c::lcr al Rul cs o Civil. l'ro c cdurc only..

.
...: t ~ .: .J.' ..:... .
'~ .
.~:- ..: .. "1hcn the plc.:1din3 to "'7bic"n it is D.dclrcsped iB 11 SO vague

.......

..

-. -:
!'

. by dcfcnclznts

.,

..

of the co.:};_)lnint:

lr

allczcd

is

Si.!ch

.j

to inclu,Jc:
.

1) Hnkinz

...,.

..

not be r~ntcd

will

. ...
I

thnt

st<1tc ..n1ents inDicnt:i.n~

opar.tments

.. ... 'It.

t .

to Neorocs
p
1

2f RcprC6Cnt1.n;;

..

to Nc~.roc~ th.1t npartmcnts

.nrc.

: ...

. ..
'

..

. . .

. "tinnvtdlable

for

~.

...... ... -

.'

. .

. .

...

. ..

. ,....and
. ' ......

...

apartments

uhcn in fact

rental
..

..

. , ...

,,.

-,--..

..

..
..,

...

.
..

'

't

:"*

..

to1"7'1G

.. 3 -

..

..

..

/,

- -~...
....
:-:;:..:.:.::::.:.
:~.:.:
:-r

-...............
.

"

...

..
... .

iJ

. . .
'.

.,

.,
.,

.,....

'-. ..
.
i,

11

..
.

..

..

.....

c".,

..,

. rt

..

\.

.r

'

.~.., .... :....

..

::. ..

:.

..

..

'

I :

..

,.

.- .
.
.
.
..
....
'
.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...... .. ..
....
.
....
- . .
' ............~.... .. .....
;: .
't i. ..
.. ...
,
'.
,
'I
.. . . ....
..

...

. ..,,

availnblc;

:~3.) D:i.scri.!i11-nat5.ng rt[;ai;1st Ecgi:ocs in the

nnd condl t::Lo~s of rcn t:.:.1.

..,.

nre

.i

..,
I

...

..

..

'X.i1is Cou;:1..-r-11-.cl'"'.,
'
~ s Dlnin 1 )'
l, i), 1t
tl1c "'O
\. :: 1r)1..:int
L y

"-

..

>

'

.f .~_!1__~g_1~_f:>_;~;:;i=_ty
__.\:"J_t_h_J:}).c~_r~~quJ.rc;1:;;n
t:3 __0 f _}iulc~. 8 (li).=.~_1_1::1.:.
..,.---.-----,.
----...~~~ ~[-~~~~~~~=.::
:_.;_
C . p ~{t cn.tly . tili f I ci. ~n t On' -1 ts - f ~~ e:;_:_.
l f"'i; So~.11',f"
hc:-fu r the l: ---~~.
~ -

---

"' ...... -

l .
i ...:

.. -.:.,..-~_,.,._:

'""

-"'

"-'"*

""'

"'

---

., ..

.-.-----

noted

notfons

that

for

no.i:c p;frtJ.culc:.l" stal:ci.1ents

in the

CoS?_., ~248 F .2d 319 (2d Ci:r.

A<l8irnl

:._.:./
---~
~-~
..:.(S.D.ii.
Y. 1969);
.. .
.. ..
.
.

M.:ic1)::>:1~1c1
v.

. .. >_ ;. . ~-(S. D. N. Y. 19 5 7)

.....:"". .
. ,..

....

':'

" .

"''

.... ...

... ...........
~

~:-.

their

...

. 1

-. ... . Def:ei1dants
'

'.

.# :

. c.vJ.-tlentinr;r

. .

.. ..support

. ...~..
. .

. .

..

. ..

. . .....
. .

..

.
in sup?ort

"...

i.. ; ..~

. .-... !

...

of this

proposi

. ..

..

short
...

,:nc.1 plain

..

,,,.

..

..

' : .....
.

to adopt

rcf'-:scd

shall

..

..

..

.. '

( . J:
'!-.

'

the

..

...

ii

;.

. ... . -:, .
~

...

. '.

~:-.,
-,

of

...- 4. ~ .

"'..

:.

.. I
~

..
,

~ ~

,.'. ..
.....
.. ..
..

...', .

.. ...

:,

.. .::,
(

conta3.n no inorc thun a

"

..

of the clni\!1 shot-:ing that

.

r.tntcU1ent

of the rcqu:b:c~ents

'..
.

..

this

and to contnie.

by deend2.nts

'..
,:"
..
: .

in
.

,.

.. .
.

h.:1ve. consistently

co10:ts

Rule 8 tltat:: a compln:i.nt

..

.... . .

t~on

as bcin 6 in dcrog~tion
.

section

..

,,.:..

.;

..

of

No casen.. arc cited

&

-~r.

~.: .. . ..

..

......

'

..
t.

'

..-~--~.- ..

of

11

.,

"

P.roce<lt.ire <1.ndrequ.il:c

. the ~r 6 u.mcnt proposed

":.

of Civil

-.

. ..- ,.. -...

3.613, nrc in dcrozatioa

to be plc~_dc<l
.

facts

..._!he

.
-:.;. .;.. . ~

..

-~

1957);

of 813 of the Civil

"'

....

. s

..

the. ar~mc~tt

Act of 1963., 1.2 U.S.C.

Rules

.:~ .

t}ic provisions

thnt

~,.
_.,.::. Ru_1C 8 of the Federal

i.

159 ....

.. I.

advnnc~
..

i:1otion,

Rights

...

..

. . .

~-# ..

......

832

Ast~;~;21 F.R.D.

301 F. Supp.

-... ,

'..,a!'-1 ..

:.,. :.

.......

H~~anellC?_,

t~f:
_,. ...,.,

:,:.,.

...

1)'

which

S~tisfics

CD.SC. clearly

pt'Cscnt

F~:tnr.e>nt Fo~dn Co. v.

...... ~ J';c!3ler v.

.....L~:(;:-.<-"-.
-

of the claim,

. ..

.j~. :~...:: : : : . .

=.i./

.,

. =_
...._.....)

ere

,.

on;Ly to give. .:!d~qur.te notlcc

t _.:.
.. _.! . the CO,nplaint
.

co~rts

! t

..!.;:.:~-~:....

federal

. ..

in the

plea.dings

arc not

since

,"

..

::..t_.
...
:_:
;::: ~~~r;quir~<l

.,.

. ~

'I

.:.j.

:
..
'.
.
:
..
favored
..! .. . ,-.
.

"'-

..

.. . ....
I
:q ... ...
.,

:
'

.....

...

..

. ..

..
...
In ~1tcc recent cn~cG,
; "plc~adcr is cnt.i tlc<l to relief."
t . .
--~:7-~:-
~ :-.-..---o-t--l-1c-,-~---f-c-J:-c-t-_
.J._l_d_i_~-.
t-r_i_c:_t:_c_O_U_
rt~..1;~~c .~ c3'c~
~t~cl;
si.~;i
I;:~.~
-.---=-.t
:

...

..

.....-.-.,t-----~----

..---.--:

i:
-.. a1~r,ura0nts
. .
.
!

,,

..

........ .. .

..

'

and sustained

:,

under

com?lc:d.nts.

...

~~ :-.-~

VIII

'l'itle.

..

; .
which nrc nearly
idcntic.11 to the one :tt1 this case.
s .
. .
Bob
. ,!l_nitcd St.:-:.tcs v. LLmrre:.ncc Rcnl ty co.. 'Inc. , ct al.
.
; ~ .:..... ~-: : ~
.
..
:; . .:':...-. (it; D. Ga. 1970, civ:i.l act:ioa fr 13li68); Uni tcd Stn tcs v.

... .I

::i:.:
::".:.
f>.

. ... .

... .""'...- .-

..
. . . ..
. ..... . .
.,

'

.;

......4

'

..

..

----

:~ .
. . . . . ..

.-.

...

. civil
..

iction

. =_.:
... }lO$C

Nil ler,

......

. -..

! ... .. .. ..

Stn tes

v. 'Joscnh
I

(D. H<l. 19.70> civil_

kcccntly,

..
.

v.

c1nd

c1ction

!) 70 ..~0)

Court of Appca.ls

. ..
nlVl510n,

. .......
Gu S t 1n-~cCOn

ct nl.

..
.
.

....

. .

11'.2d

10th Cir.
pr0vision

in 'fitle

1970, No. '71369) construing

VII of the Civil

Rights

Act

. ... I . .
:. . 4.

t:ho Tenth Circuit

a nimilnr

.. ,

Uni tcd

...

. ..-. . .

'

----

...

'

..

.. ..
i

!; 70-379);

1970~

'
\

--~.
.. . ,,:..... ... in Unl tc<l States

..

'

..

.._

(S.D.Flo..
f

--

.. t

Lis tin,;:: Bu'!."cu, Inc.

..

" :.. .

". .. . .;:.. :~:.-~

.. Palm :Beach t:.c:ilty

'

.......
~-...

. .,.

'"

..

...: _.
. of 196!1 1 govcr11in3.
. .
it

:--. .:. tlint

.

did

<lisc:ri1:1ination

rcqui10 the .Atton1cy

not

held

in em?loyraent,

to plead

General

'

matter.
As stated by the Court:
- .. .. .
..,
...
.
. ..
.
;
.
..
~--.
."By
construin
as a
0 Section 2000(c)(G)(c1)
. . . 1 .

.:. .
. ~-
:. tr5.nl cout't: interpreted,
is to reins ta tc a
>. type.of net plcaciin3 w~dch ,;as cradic.:ited
. -~- --:"':~:--~-~--:.-:-::--- ..~-:-_by the current
fcdcrc1l ruleG.
Rule B of
(. .~:
. .. . ' ~- : the Fcdcr~l
Rules of Civil Procedure
w;1s
~ . ..
.:.~.:~....._".:~:.....
...originally
designed to circur:.vent the r.1:irnss
'
:
. ...,:::_ cnur,cd by the Code plead in~ J=cqu:.i.re,!1~nt

.: of plcadin.3
fn.cts, .c.on.stitut5.ni
a c~t1sc of
..
ectlon.
J\r, l):::ofc::::so.!'."Eoorc
1)05.nts out, the
.
1. rcq1.1lrc~:12n t th.:1t f l!c t~s be pl ended
is illusory
... llp_~l
unsound;
and results
in n battle
over
.
I
evidentinry

...

.,

i
i

-- .. - i

'
.1

...
...--........_ ... ......
_.

'

..

"'

...

~~

. ... . ... -

! .. .

...
,:

,
........

!'!

..t,..

..

l,.
.
.

'.

...s...

-. '
. '
,
. ,, .. ...
......
- ...
.. ... . . . -.......
..

..

..

.,

..

.J

.., ......_. ___...,.._

......... - ..-----.- ,
,:
. .
I
.,
' i

~
.f

i,.
'~'

..

'
c_t:fl',:

JI

.i

'.
I

'~

.1
.!

'

-~,
.. 1

. . .

..

._..

..

.'t

. i.r

'

..

{
;,
. ....

~
..

.... ,

'

: t

. , ',

.,

..

..

,.
~

.. . .....,. ,,-

...

entirety.

--t... *

..... : . ,,...._'\,!....

-. .....
..

.. -

':"'-

';,

...

....

t
1

1.

...-.... .

':'~~

.~
lDatcci: Hew York, H. Y.
-...
July. 23., 1970
.

.-

. -~.

..I

...

..

..

.'...
~.

"

J!

.,. ..

: ..

-.

...

'!

.:

....

...
~:
.. .

,.

~..

. .. ~[

....

... .
,

.......
"~.

...
'

t
(

..:

.. .._

....

....

"

.. .

...

.. .

/1

It

..:'..
...___
_,....
....
-...-..
;

-~---

I'

<

...,:

..
.I:

.. 6 ...

'.

.. - -...... ~.......

.... _,

'

..

. ..... ,.

.. .

"

..
....

..

. .. : ..
..

."...

..

.. - '

..

..

..

..

..

..
.

- .. ..

'"'.":.

...-....

. ...

...

..f'.

......

..
._

..

.
.

_____
..

.11,,

..
...

.
l: ___,.._
..

..:

~...

..

....... .

...

::_~~:

..

..

.. " .
'

.-'
i

...

..

il

.
.. .

..

--

..

.,_.

...

1,.

so ORDERED.

'

..

.. . ..

. ..

.
..
..

'

tt

....

C.:,,. .

..

....

..

. ..

.... .

OFt'ICC

V.,OAILE\'THOt-.1AS

OF THI'.

CLl:RK

Houston, Texas
May l.J., 1971

cu:m<

United

Re: CA 71-H-279

Stutes

vs Margurette

Jones,

et al

Mr. Anthony

J. P. Farris/
United States Attorney
Houston., Texas

Messrs.Vinson.,Elkins,Searls
& Sml+.h
First
City National
Ban_k Bldg
77002
Houston.,
Texas
Gentlemen:
Judge Carl O. Bue, Jr. has entered
in the above
case:
.-- ,
----- order
------~----------- -------------------~--~1i-30-71:

11

the following

Dei'endants .,1otion for more de:fini te statement

is denied
since plaintiff's
complaint is sufficient
pursuant
to
Rule 8., F.R.C.P.
The information
defendant seeks can be
mere adequately_secured
:--y ordinary discovery methods.
Clerk will notify counsel.
COB"

,. '
.

i.,

Yours very truly,

V. Bailey
.

By

tlt.iuJZ.U-A-t
d!1.t..=-e-~

Albert

- '

... .,..... ~ ..~ ........

--....: ...--

'-.,.--

.........

... -.'""~-r:;'""'--~.--:--

,.,.,..
.......
,w--. .... --""""'

.. -.. --

--

ro~

'

~-'"?'.:':"\'"'7'"'"'""'.'"
....',.._~,,...

..... -~ ~-

Thomas, Clerk
Deputy

E. Anderson

,.

.':"',,....., ..,. --......-:":'""

........~ -~-

.:,,.-.-..11,::-i.
-,-,.,.,-,---,7"'"'7" .. , ."':,,~:.-:,~, ..- ... ~ o.s- ~ ..........

.,..... ..,.._

...... --

..

..

'

... -

q ./. ' /. / . ,.../ ../ , ..

{./'"

..... .

~, . J

'\..,;..
\

l:'OR 'i'im E.A.S'1'Ei~1 DISTlUC'i'

. .. .

..

Plaintiff

. . ..

......
~ ."

. .. :

: v.
..

....

..

. .. a. ....
.
.

"

Defendant
... .." _,...

.,;..

.r*'

i
. . . . . .....
; ...
;_-~-::_;._:>
!t.
"'

.':.

. ...,.. ~

. .. .. ..
. . . . ..

-..

-..
.

.'
:

'-:-.

..:

:;.-.

America

. ..

!'.

"!'

:.

. ... ...
..
.
.. . : .. ..

..

..

,~.
~,
..
....
l
. ,,:

..

.. .
"'

.!f

'

...

August
.

,1,.l

.}

'
.

1970

under

brousht

the Civil

Rights

Act

United

States

of

.bythe

to enjoin

racial

follows

a policy

et.seq.,

discrimination

The. cor:1olaint
..

states

furthering

segrcga

of

in the rental

i
iI
t..

defendant .

that

..

tion

and

in housing

and

.I

refused

...

to make availc1ble

dwellings

ancl negotia

for

tc

sale or rental
of housing to Negroes on account of
--c::-thei>. race.
.It also alleges
that defendant
has made stateto the

mcnts

.cf!:cct-

..........

to Ncqrocs
.

in

has moved for

at
a

..

thn t he ,-:ould not

r.1akc o.wclli:1s;s availn.bl.::;

least

.one

white

mo~.-ccafini'tc

re!:idcntin.l

area.

statcr:1cnt

to ncsot:i

:-i.tc

pr('. r c~:c:llc(:

}>c. nnmco,.

cli!~cr.blin~to:r.y

enti

I .: ,
I ti. : i .

and to who:-:1 he made

f. ic<l.

-=llH

1 tnc

<1ct.:6
:(lc:C\lrrcd,

under

Fcd.R.Civ.P.

!;tn tcmcn t!:. of

the

l..
..

f
rf

...
!

r.
.
~;pc:cJ....:i.c
occ,1!:.1on:;

nnd

'

Defendant

.. .

. \

h(! id

..

'

'

..

.....

.-

3601.,

of"housing.

.the

":-~

- - - has

...

..
':. : ...

is a suit

u.s.c.

1-960, 42

...

NO. 70-1851
.: ...

'

..
.

. . ...
-..
. . ........

....

...

,ti

This

sale

:~
~ ..
.

. ... .

;"

..
of

: ..

...

._FULt ..:t-1\.M,J.
..

. .

.
.

":

..

ESTATE

..
'
.

CIVIL l1CTIOrl

....,. ... .:.'

.. ::
~-~ .:::
:~.-~
..
. . ..
.. . . .
.

SIDD7\LL ~AL
CONPAHY,

OF PENl~SYLV}\NIA

IGNATIUS J. CHIRICO,
doing business
as

.....

..

UNI'l'ED S'].'ATES OF JJ,n:::nICl\,

'l

lN 'iHE' UNI'i'ED S1'h'fl::~;- DI STl\IC"l' .COURT

J ~l~
\

.~

\'
,..,.

:.-

propc'.rt.i.c:~

rci.:tl

wrir::)

,
~uc.1

i:~volvc:d

.i

..

91:antsd

unlc::.s

,.
~cfcnc!.xn

the
.

cpmplaint

is

~;o tmintcdli<Jiblc

that

the

.. ...

'

t" cunnot

fr.:nnc a rc.r.ponsivc

to it.

pleading

l\s
"

..

..

-long

as

the

claims,
"'.

co:nplain

the
.

'
v.

prohibit

of

the
F.<1crle

Rc;:idinq

i9G~).

. .I

which

nature

795 (3rd Cir.

on statutes

of

... ~ch,1 ccilcr

j70 F.2d
.

based

notice

5.s sufficient.

it

Pcl>lication,-Inc.,

..

t give~

Complaints

discrimination

agains~

: I

:-~c.mcral

class

citizens

need

of discrimination

..

t.."'1e general

allege

only

!1as been

way in which

followed

,.

he has

States

Bui ldinq

V.

. I

such

dcfcndunt

by the

and Con str.uction

discri:ninatio:...

Uni tc:.:i

I'

fostered
'

. .!I

such

that
I

. _pattern

: _.. ~nd

of

'

!.
Trades

CO\l:1C

United

St2tes

5.1

.,,

:f

ll

:.:~-- St;
,
;-

"\

Lciuis,

271

F.Supp.

447

(E.D.H;.

19.66);

v.

: .a.~

,.

233

Ohio

(S.D.

1967)

~Ooo: et

u.s.c.

(discrimination
~

seq.);

employment

in

United

States

v.

under

Grav,

.
42

39 U.S. L. W.

..

.. ..

. 20~7-

fileci-" July

(D_.C.R.I.

(lisc:rimination

"".

.. _thr(?ugh

~
t

relied

14,

1970).

on by the

Specific

of

.. .. .

..

govcrn.tilcnt may be determined

.. ..
'
~

discovery.

instances

'

. .

. -...-

.... .. . :_ ..:: .,,;,;:. . .

.. . ..-: ~
.
.
..-......~. : .......
_ ...
- '"; ... -...-- ..:.
............ . .;' .......
'.

'

',
~

: .

..
.

.~.

..- . .

...

...

....

. .

!. . '

.
..-...
..

..

. - .:,

ly.

...

..

,j

......

'\

.I.

('

..

"I.

l,..

. ~ ..,

0 R

....

>

'

i
f

...

....
..

-.

---~

..

d
I

- --

...

41

~ '.

-:-' . :.. ,. !

.. :. :

...

............
- ..
.

...~

":.
'

....

.... .....

I !.

;
'

"

. ..
..

.:.

...

.;

--'

'

..

.
,

..

'

:".

.
.

--

-----

-...

..
--
....
..
:

'

..

....-..

.-.

.:'

'

-----.--.

.
.. .... .-~ ----------

...-....

. ....}'-;..

..

.!

. ,_

...

'

.-

'" ... ~

..

..

..

"

..

..

....
.

....

...

'.

.....
>

....

..

..

--

J.

.....

.
.

'!"

i.1

. ..
.

..

<x.
\-__
JJ~/S=

l.S

state~ent

~-

.. ..

..

,it

1970,

... . ..

,.. .,

!
I

"!:

';

is DENIED.
.. .

.....

for more definite

motion

defendant's

,,,,,,,..,...-

,..

day of August,

l }.

1\HD N0\111 this

..
'

I ~i....

'.

'.

. ._:ORDEREDthat

. ..-:'

'I

-..

t
3.

'

()

.,.

UNITJ;n ~'.i'!\'t~S f,J'.'~Tj!lC'l' cmn:.T

NOTI'Tm:r;.~ Dif.'l'!".ICr

O!.. OHIO

l.:A!''l'E,Cl DJV1:;ro:i

- UNITED STAT:CS OP AMl{~IC.l\,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff

v.

.)
)
)
)
)
)

EXCLUSIVBMULTIPLE i:xcn1~
';cm,
ot al.,
Defendants

C 70-969

1;0.

- - E- R

0 RD

LAMDROS,D.lSTRIC'l' JUDGE
Upon comdderation,

a ruore definite

statcr1ent

Court

in

Inc.,

313 F.Supp.

sir-.il~r

the

tho ::-:.otion of tho

case

of

is

untt("!d
----

870

cfoniod.

l'~s stnted

n:.D.Ga. '1970)

by

for

the

----~ P.:~:=tlty,

v.

state~

d.efendnnt~

Doh LnJ:rr::nc~

wit..'1 rcn:.).ect

to

motion:

(Tl he co:--,plaint,

cot::.chcd

...........
u.,ge
oC:
+-h,,.
l ~'';;J
""'.,.,
4
"""~ , ...... r.t--tu'-e
,
...
~

\OP

as
T"Y(-\1J..
.- ..... ....

of

it

is in the vorv
1
"',
JV,-l,~r:-...
1r
1 CA
.......
C
.. ..,nrn1
........ <,\..~
.,\~ ..............
"""
.::nd :tz not subj Get
~

;;;,>

the cl~ira 0:1lHfo cy p \~inti.ff

to a r..iotion for ec,ra daf ini t:~ !ltatc~,~".:nt.
Any
a.d<lltion.1.l
ini:orr>:,1tion
to vhidi
dcf,.::..:-.<.:,mtis
cnti tlcd may be ohtnin'2,1 hv use of t:!c <liscovc,:y
procedures
provick:d
by the Fcc.~arZ\l l.ules .. "
Id .. at 673; s..:::e .-:1lso Uni t,3cl Statc!l
v .. C:1irico,
Caso Ho. 70-1051 (~.:.D.Fa. Aug. 12, l97!J)

,,

IT

IS

so

o~mi::R!!D.

r;Tio~:ash.
-::-Jm:i5ro~Unitcd

States

tistrict

Juago

----------

DATED:

.,

l:

r-

,,

'J

IJ!ST:~ : CT COURT Fen THE

r.'>' TE:-!NJ:s~;J~I(
WES'JEi\1\ l>IVJ:;JQ;{

llHlTED

..

l!ES'i'E:~:-:1n~::'fRlCT

~.

.)

~.::,,
.

..) .,

v.

.....
....
.i':1""'
..
:-,,..
~

ct

. ARCO, INC.>

--~
~-~~1
....
-~:

J ., .
i

. .'
' ' ..~1'.

. ..""'"':'
' ."

I .,

: ....)
.)
)
. .. )
. )

al

Defendants

-..

..~

Ji

)I :

-<;4~
J; -

I ,( .

..._. . . CI-VILACTION

.....,~....,.,.... .
.Jl..h, t\.
rr-,
J..::..i.)

. !. .

i ''

iNO. C- 70-29

v . )

I'

.,

~"'~

..
~

. I

. I~

'I

ORDER

...- ...

action

/~'-;~
.....

.,.

-~

..-~
.....,_;.
..
:...
. .,::..,.
. :'.;/:.

Title

VIII of the Civil

Rithts
.

.; Code,

~ f;eg.,

3601,

Realty

and Cornette

. ment of

Rule
,..

Realty>

the

12 (c)

..The .relevant

moved for

Rules

of the

to

. . .

na:l.r's
~or:1pany >

'

a r~ore. definite

so<Clo:npltdnt,

state-

pursuan~

I Procedure.
:
-

of Civil

of plai~ti~f

par.:i.grr.ph

-: .. -..i ., ..

have

Federal

H.

. ..

Stntes

f' Ha3:,r<l, d/b/a

. -.. .

Inc.

1
!
.
d/b/ a Edw.:ird Dc!vis Realty

Davis,

allc~ati.ons

of the

I .

Robert

defendants

Cor::ipany, Edward

'1

'

pursuant

Act of 1968, 42 United

.

,: .:.,,

'

....

:~ .

, ....

1.
hY. the United States

br~~ght

r--

.,..

.":MJ:t,
r.:, .-.7.-,
.. :~... .,...
Y !~. ~
..''" ..

\.

In this

to

~..
.... '

Compl\11.nt alleges:

..

....

- 1>ursuant
to a policy
ar..d :>ractic0,
the
defc:adm1ts
have for profit
induced
~nd attempted
to induce
theo,mers
of certain
dwellings,
hy 'White persons,
loca tcd in the Cherokee
occupied
Heig~t& $ubd :i.vision in Nemph , TcnncssEe,
to sell
#thos~
dwellings
by representations
regErding
the.
entry c:.ncl prospective
entry of Negroes into the
neighl)orhocd.
This conduct
of tlle dcf:encl~mts is
______
_.:._J.11
violation
of Section
SO!,(e) of the Civil
Rights.

..

A6t of ~968, 4~ U.S.C.,

......

.. .:. Itt the :presc~~

.....

defcndnnts

"ft
u.

tl 1c (ct
1 .t'E~s,

...allegedly

er . fl]
.ll.

..

induc~d
.

- _,. '

dwellings.

>

Notions,
p

seek a more clef:i.n5.tc state-

def cndants

..

-..:.-_

,.
.._~\
ment 1nc.1.c~1-l.nt::

Court

3604(c) .

~ :

1.ace!:,

..., ,1 p.-t1.L1.CU.><,l.
.... ,.. ;,,..... C).;.C:u!i,S
~ :,.""' t-r....
c,l'h

1 ,.....tlo
con <-"
.. l.((.,c,.

. ..

C:"
:"\.r:
:CC..,
...
,.

or itt~mptcd

to induce

to sell

ci1cir

..
h

cf1_

t'l""
''"

,.
o-.._,c.,i"'..~
.-;15 .....
;!,, ....,.n..,:-,.
,..1~..,,
._

-.i:t:"(<I\.
....

.,,j

. 1

'.

'J'he .Hotion!;

ci/1,/~l-,J~-,.

) ....~, ). t <'
t J

of: clcf (.'ncbr:t:,

'

(. 4

, .. .,

'..

.~.

pany,

.. ..
~

'.

.:Ind C0nie t t c Realty;

.,

are ovcn.iuled.

'\!

. .

...-

'nns\1cr:.:: to

s,11:.ill [5.lc

))cf cri'clont,i;;

on or he:J.:o::.c }!arch 30,

. ..,

for n norc ' 1l'. [ l.ll

Jnc.,

''

1970.

.!

l. t}-~

the Co:npls.int

..

..
...

So ORDERED
. :...;..:.....

.-"'-' ...

-;: ...' '":

"

._..,

'

'

- ....
\.

.;

. - -....

.,.

._. :': .....

~

.. ,,..-..,~
..;.,-

.::.. . .;.

..-.

..
.
.;

~~-

. . .' .

,
.......
-

,:.

-~

.: .

...

...

.,..:

. .. . .. .

- ...-

.....

..

...
.

.. ..

C.

.
...:...
-~
~=
l ,
. .."',~

...

. -.........

: . -

..'

. ... '

-i

....
.

..
....
'

...

# :..:.

:--,

~:

:.~

..... ::.:"'

;;

.;

.,-.;;,,,,.;.,. :,

.: ..

..-.

....

.... . .......
.

..

__.... ;.

.~
..
...
...
..
'
_.
. .. ,,.
..
:, .
..,. . ...
:-

_4

..,

'-~
.

..

....
' '.

.
. .-,,.' ......
.

...

..
.

.t
....
..,.;

t,
: ,/......

....::~
.. ~-

. . .,:
. -.-.._--...

. ....

. --:

.,_ ..
... ~.....
--.....
'

'

.......

......

,.,.,

..

IN rm::l'
[ED s ,,,TES DISTI:ICT COURT
FOR THI:: 1\l1RTH-E:Ri~DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALIASDIVISION
UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA

vs.

CIVIL ACTIONNO. CA 3-7243-E

MRS. DEANMILES, d/b/a

DEANNILES REALTY,et al.
0 RD

This matter
for

a more definite

Complaint

plaintiff

is before

The pleading

filed

the 1968 Civil

under

discrimination

After

Court

the Court upon defendants'

statement.

3601 !~.,alleging

by both

ER

reviewing
in support

of their

concludes

as follows:

Rights

is the

Act, 42

u.s.c.

in housing.

the Complaint

parties

in question

motions

and the authorities

respective

positions,

cited
the
,)

With respect
plaintiff

the

to the motions

has provided

sufficient

for a more definite

notice

statement,

to the defendants
I

of the Govern;nent' s claims to enable them to fra."lle a responsive

pleading.

The Complaint,

itself,

meets

Procedure
United

the requirements

and is not subject

States

defendant

the facts

defendants'

motions
Entered

'.\;,_,:

1'

'

- ...... ,

,,.

/'. '.,l
,,
\

.....,

'j

,,,
: ..

Rules

for more definite

Inc.,

313 F.Supp.

statement.

870, 873

ample opportunity

of plaintiff's

case fellowing

..,.

,J

'

l!, f \ ..,

-.

:.

,.

, /

-- ''

,I

,)

of this.Court's

--7--

conclusions,
statement

day of September,

--

of Civil

Rules provide

for a more definite

this

.r:~,
j , ,

of the statute

of the issue.
In consequence

'

to a motion

The Federal

to discover

the language

of the Federal

v. Bob Lawrence Realtv,

(N.D. Ga. 1970).

joinder

paraphrasing

above,

is deni0d.

1973

for

th~

... ..

.,.

IN

THE DISTRIC'l'

COti?..'I' OF 'l'HE UNITED

STA'l'ES

FOR TEE DISTRICT OP SOUTn CAROLINA

CP...r'\RLES':::'O:JDIVISION'

Civil

UNITED

No.

i.ctio:1

OF A.~lERICA,

STATES

,,.
,,... ,
.~'!.,,

71-1262

~. ! -;~ )

1.-,;,_

}
) .

Plaintiff,

)
)
)

. -versus-

}
)
)

J.
and

c.

LO~;G, individc.ally
as Executor
for the

EST.A'l'B O? FR.t~~K J.
and

'l'HE \'l0h.7r-I

E R

)
)

SOT'l'ILZ,

AGENCY,

0 RD

partnership,

Defendants.

n:rtter

This

-:

'

) }

. ('

\i

~.-j

for

a More

is. the

within

the

tr.e court

Stateme:1t.

Definite

Civil

Co:anlai.
nt
..:-

Act

Rights

After
by both

cited

it

the

is

parties

that

defenda:1ts

in g2nc;:-al

of

terr.is,

acquaint

lations

chargee.

474

169,

(:7,t.h cjr.

of

upon

The

the

in

and

the

filed

defendants'

pleading

in que::;tion

Complaint

support

of

plaintiff

1SS5),

and the

their

cir.

l9c.6};

an~ .t:2 U.S.C.A.

posi tior;s,
notice

enable

th-2 l;msuagc

the

wit:1

authoriti~s

them

complaint

plaintiff's

pa:::-t follows

ccfE::1dants

to

character

meets. both.the

36]3,

the

Lo fr,1:r.e
couched

of

the

'
statute,

of

the

vio-

requirements

s::.~ite::: v. Pru:--0,
----M--------------

to

.is

u:dted
''

of

in ho1.:.sing.

sufficient

Govern."tlE:nt s claims

in

VIII

n-~spective

provided

Although

Title

discrin1.ination

the

Such a pleading

175 {4tt

under

alleging

1968,

pleading.

it.d0:~.::;

361 F.2d

..-;:>laintiff

reviewing

concluded

a respo.isive

before

;,.,-.......
(,. C./.,
I'

Mot.io!'l

in

st.::tutc

353

:,'. ;,.:;

u:;d,:::: wl,jc:-,

.. .

1
!

,[

l.t

t1
1. e d L

was

States

v.

Gustin

Bacon,

United

States

v.

Lynd,

30~ F.2d

the

opportunity

fendants
to

..

for

s. case

tiff.

the

respond

of the

entry

~39

(5th

818

Cir.

of this

Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

ample

facts

of plainthe

of time

in which

is concluded

Complaint

Moreover,

ancf be'causa

two extensions

to the

1970):

1962).

the

jo""iri'der of ...issue

it

Cir.

provide

to discover

pleading

41 (1957).

(10th

Procedure

civil

secured

responsive

should
days

of

355 U.S.

426 F.2d

defendants

already

their

defendants

fifteen

the

following

have

frame

Rules

Federal

Gibson,

v.

United

since
.--"".,.,..

Conley

Sec,

in this

de-

that

the

case

within

/~-

/'(. - '. ~<.

. )i1

~--: .- '- ,>il,, " ,,

r\' -;--'1.....~-, .,, -,~/1
Charles
E. Simons, Jr.
,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGR/
"ti

Aiken,

South

March 31,

Carolina

1972.

..

\~

-.> ~\
... >'''

'

:-I

,..,~;:.;;
----""-,,"'",,:7
..., ... ./}'

-27-rn /'/-,

-....-~

/ r ,;
/j

.L~-/

_;,-;~11:r:
:."i.r
/)>.4r>_~5"
1

/7/~.Ltl;~::
<!:.l/V

7-/.
.

i.!::~t
.. r:rT.:.7,
..,.v/ t-:....
,.,....)

...

-
l

ruling
that w.:i.s found
L, contained
in the:
conclus::on
p;icon,
.102 F.,Supp.
759 {D.Kan.
Distric':
Court was reversed
on
The

only

which might support

a different
case of United States
v. G1..,c-;tin1969); but thc,.t. ruling
by the
appeal.
426 F,2d 539 (lOc.!1 cir.

197 O)

- 2 -

CLERK,U.S. DiSLt~i~L CUUK,

COURjOU.THERN
.DISTR!.CIOF,TE.KAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FILED

. .
'
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF TEXAS

JUL2 71973

HOUSTON DIVISION

Y.BAflEY.THOr,JAS,.
CLERK

flli DJ~E.U.1:Y.;
Cf:-..!),/u:wffJ
tlk"
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.
TUCKER COMPANY, INC.,

THE JIM

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 72-H-993

0 RD

Sununary
conflicts,

and

facts,
the

judgment

be aenied.

654,

8 L.Ed.2d

Broadcasting

123

defendant's

Since

even
taken

more

v.

(5th

Cir.

vigorous

threat

the
of

to

United

Great

that

it

in

a pattern

has

not

the

there

458,

future

is

Tea

clear
the

States

v.

law

in mid

w.

in

actions

of

1972,

will

be

being

On this

which

the

of discrimination.

Program

severe

co.,

that

violated

no showing

violatior;ts

United

82 s.ct.

practices

with

is

369 U.S.

y. Columbia

employee-agents.

defendant,

an injunction.

future

to

judgment

Pacific

non-discriminatory
in

material

favorable

Poller

or practice

Opportunity

legal

y. Diebold,

The record

is

non-complying

rec'urrent

and

to

summary

7 L.Ed.2d

Atlantic

as

most

for

(1962);

464,

1968).

an Equal

light

States

993

u.s.

368

Harvey

the

of

issues

a motion

82 s.ct.

defendant,

against

concludes

site

176,

resolution

genuine
in

See,~-,

by engagi~g

the

are

a motion,

implementing

alleges

a favored

inferences

position

past

not

there

System,

(1962);

388 F.2d

the

the

opposing

must

486

where

viewing
party

is

ER

record,

a substantial

is

the

prerequi-

T.

Grant

co.,

345 U.S.

629,.633

(1953);

United

States

y. Oregon

State

TRUE COPY I CEETU'1

ATl'EST:
V B~fEY
T~I0?.-11:-S
~ CLEHK

\
By

;1 t,
/:1Hl

lltY.l tf.J"-L-

Medical

Society,

343 U.S.

326,

333

Hunter,

459

205

Cir.

1972).

F.2d

Accepting,
of

law,

it

is

defendant

w.
- -T.

but

that

co.,

supra,

not

also

to

materials
and

exist

as

as

the

it

defendant's

by the
three

is

denied.
In

being

light

of

agents

his

for

unless

Interrogatory

to

somewhat

tardy

the

the

issues

For

plaintiff's

grants
motion

granted.

17 appearing

the

this

Strike

to

is

Produce

g::r::::inted.

For

the

same

De ,:umen-::s

'
1.s
gr ante d/ /

DONE

interviews

permission

to

to

Interrogatories

~ be

...:>

to

s Mo;ln/
to compel
,plaintiff's

at ~ouston,
Texasi;::1~;;;;;?
Carl,..o.
United

to

releva{t.'

/f

'1

Bue,
States

be

conduct

answers

/1/1 not 1. y
C.1:er k w1.
(j

not

compel

reason,

'

days)

Affidavits

will

the subjectmatterof this action,~nti~'

Answers

of

defendant

court

well

demonstrated

that

The answers
to

do

denied.

to

to

plain-

as

(a couple

assurances

and

reasons,

defendant

plaintiff's

defendant

these

is

Motion

law,

the

practices

filing

with

the

genuine

defendant's

associated

obeys

is

The affidavits

past

the

respect

to

Judgment

no prejudice

6 is

16 and

Sununary

the

1309.

favorable
that

relief.

at

an injunction

do so.

alleged

upon

with

Mr. Tucker

Court
to

97 L.Ed.

that

v.

expectation.

position

inferences

this

one"

reasonable

633,

agents

injunctive

still

interviews,

8,

that

affidavits,

conducted

7,

for

plaintiff's

of

.,such

that

material

M')tion

There

with

ensure

States

proposition

a heavy

no such

to

to

is

at

United

defendant's

defendant's

support

facts

need

is

contends

appears

to

"burden

and

submitted

tiff,

to

the

only

ensure

the

345 U.S.

violations

necessary,
but

the
there

disputes

past

deciding,

that

to, show

Grant

both

not

clear

The plaintiff
to

(4th

(1952);

Motion

7ounse

(I

73

Jr.
District

Judge

NOTir;"F: UI'

FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRIC'I'

OF TEXAS

-uousrmr-ti
:r
UNITED

STATES

OF AMERICA

v.
No.
THE JIM

TUCKER cm-IPAI\"YI

i!

72-H-993

li

INC.

l
'\

TAKE NOTICE that the above.entitled

at

pre-trial

case has been set for

I
l

, on
August
31
before
United
States
Magistrate
515 Rusk, Houston,
Texas
11 a .m.

Date

August

, 19

, 19 73 at Houston,
Texas
room 12628,
Ronald J. Blask,

73

V.

By

BAILEY

I
'1'

THOt,ll\S

__
5f20!
__
c)!2r,~,uu
~z~~
Rona

O 'Quinn

.1

Deputy Clerk.

'
To

Mr.
Mr.

Mr;

P. Goldberg
James R. Gough y'
John A. Bailey
Norman

''L

\'
..

i ... , t

-,

",.CJ

..

I
i

. "!

,.'. 11... mo
, 1--.
-,..o, ..,
1c,~

~;ill

.J

3. Ju:::y L0_

In"'."'r.,,_.,
.....-. '-.

amendments,

:siill be completed

i.s not

4. E~timated

,_.{.

---
(:i ......

ori or before

be filed

?.. l"'-11 di:s:over'y

5. Other

~ .:,
~ c 1-~..,
r u- .-.,
<'- .1-rn~

r-~

duration

on or before

ret;uested.

of trial:

in8truction3:

t.

Pre-Trial
Order, }'T:;:moranda of Lm,1 and other rr2tri.2.l
material
ac s~e~ified
in Judge 3u2;s Pro~edures
are to ~e filed with the
c1er1.:, not: les.3 than 3 business
day; ':Jefore tr
1.

7.

The ca~e i3 set

oiclock

for Do:ket
on

of th5Tc.n~0
cm thG
Deputy C r!(.

<lod,2

Cell

and Trial

Judge Jue at
The po.:::ition
by contacting
the

befor2

t can b2 as~ertained

....

"

Settlement
neeotiationJ
are
ere not
presently
in progress.
If tb.a case is settled,
ancl- such annou-;_;;m2nt
is made prior to
settlemGnt
i:,anerJ will b2 su!Jmitted
to Judge 3ue b2fore
th,2
trial,
trial
<la
OR counsel
will
a~pear
in court
on the dat2 of trial
to dictate
the term3 of the oettlem2nt
into the re~ord and the
ceae will
diami3
at that time, the court retaining
jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enfor~ing
settlement.
A NOTIFICATION
j

OF SETTLENSr-1T 3Y TELEPHONE tJILL

appearance

on th2 schedu

d trial

NOT obviate

the

necessity

of

~~ta.

-------------------------------A COFY O::? :,PP.OCEJURES TO

:?OLLffiZD BY COUNSEL IN
/

PREP.APj\TION OF
CASE ?OP. TRH~L ?OLLG:!IHG PRETRIAL HEARING 17 IS ENCLOSED.
3RHJG THIS

'FORMr:rTH YOU TO THE P:RETRIAL CONFEREr~CE.

Pretricl

con

nee held

H. Lingo

We agree to and acknowledge the date8 set

out abov,2, ;:-::nd8~knoq ledge t,12 have received
a co9y of Judge 1ucrs Proccdurc3.

~ttorney

for Plaintiff

ttorncy

for D2fendsnt

Platter,

U.S.

Magistrate

--

').

I
..

f
IN 'l'HE UNITED STA'i'ES DISTRICT

I
f
i

COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGE CARL 0.

PROCEDURES

BUE, JR.

TO BE FOLL0';,'1ED BY COUNSEL

IN PREPARATION

OF CASE FOR TRIAL FOLLOWING PRE-TRTAL CON?ERENCE

I.
IN GENERAL

The paramount
a just
in

result.
such

a problem

create

with

the

court

for

of a case

guidelines

a result.

and

trial

following

The

achieving

in the

goal

counsel

opposing

one

or

more

in

any

case,

of

in

to assist

these

they

well

counsel

to accomplish

designed

are

If

is

procedures

will

be discussed

advance

of

the

trial

Well prepared
expeditious

if

appeal,

conserve
the

of

the

to

expedite

one

becomes

necessary.

real

The

the

ability
fully,

of

a just

of a lawyer,
faiflY

fairest

complete

expense
to

and

result

juries,
the

and
forth

as an advocate,

the

evidence

record

for
must

witnesses

administration
clear

below

without

most

latvyers

--

of

advance

set

and

present

courts

an efficient

trial

The.procedures

the. reaching

the

-the most

They owe a duty

issues.

case

create

and rainiroize

time

about

prcp2\r<=::d counsel

and

by ro3.J-:ing the

way the

client's

well

clearly

parties.

justice

bring

and

tha

of

any

trials

verdicts.

fully

most

and

date.

exposition
are

designed

impeding

to

present

and effectively:

',,

in
his

II.
PROCEDURES 'l'O BB l\CCO:!PLISi-ED
~~:'7~.\~...---Z-:.~::e:::,~~_;.;."':,;:,:_"'W'="

1.
of

In

party's

each

three

business

fixed

by the

so that
with

court

this

th.::, court

the

case

\1ith and support

the

case

would

The

Points
trial

ties.

It

issues

of

The court

law

set

evidence

admissibility

of

The Pre-Trial

Order
Order

will

evidence,

issues.

the

filed

be

-at

least
---"-

the

issues

three

------.--~
- . ---

for

and rule

contain
the

the

the

the

(b)

Specification

{c)

stipulated

(d}

J'acts

in dispute.

(e)

J1 grecd

trial

follo~ving

requirements

case.

(f)

iisputed

appli.cabl~
propo~ition5

proposi

tion.s

authori-
of

of issues.

Pacts

..,..

court.
the

legal

questions

before

to

along

during

suppo::-ting

on such

tailored

clerk

of

to arise

objections

generally

the

benefit

the

with

along

with

bu!:>iness
davs before
------- ~---------~------------~

anticipated

the

rature

it

feels

case~
(a)

Pre-Trial

to argue

court

the

,&:

1. J..

dovetail

the

in

is

with

m2moranda

be prepared

of

time

acquainted

should

be

le:ist

fully

counsel

should

at

complied

parties

and

should

clerk

by the

out

support

some other

be

Such

in

raised

review

will

can

t:ried.

reasonably
be

tho

unless

clerks

of the

narrow

also

the

ba

lav

must be strictly

Pre-Trial
Orel.er will
---------------------

should

should

individual

to

of

with

trial,

in clarifying

of evidence

although

law

cases,

nU"1,\orarda

trial.

the

the

be helpful

the

rule

upon conclusion

2.
with

This

is

In non~jury

Order.

b<J filed

the

and

which

must

before

court.

memoranda

detailed

position
da.ys

'

of law.

~flaw.

,.

conunence!:.".

matters,
of

the

3.
with

(g)

Such other information

or data as the
attorneys
and helpful.
. . m~y deem pertinent

(h)

List
of witnesses
(except rebuttal
witn0sses)
concise
but corml0tc
smr.mar1,
of the substance
k
1
each witness'
testimony.

(i)

List

(j)

Estimate

clerk

with

Findings

These

adducad

at

porting

each

should

be set

cases

the

the

trial

Findings

directly

cases

each

jury

along

with

This

court

formulated

and submitted

this

to

court

in non-jury
thoroug11ly
the

case

cases

will

aft.c:... the

h~vc been

and jury

heard

law

and the

be regularly
jury

sup-

prepare

Jury

issues

charges

that

have

the

by

charge

a duty

jury.
is

to

and Conclusions

jury

cases

in the

made n part

-J-

by connsel

jury

are

as possible

upon by the

applicable.

be included

a proper

Findings
in

a Memorandu:n

where

Counsel

prepared
evidence

and

with

to be resolved

jury.

Proposed

ready

and file

Order

should

insure

for

caseo

of the

court.

as

based
Such

record

has b~en ch;1.rgcd end objc-cti011s

and ruled

proof

the

authorities

authorities;

to the

that

if

Conclusion

Pre-Trial

the

to

and professionally

applicable:

of counsel

insure

each

fact

a duty

of LaH

and a Memorandum of La,.,.

The legal

supporting

ultimate

has

and Conclusions

will

to the

all

and file

prepare

of Law, \'1here appropriate,

counsel

Proposed.Interrogatories
so as to cover

o-F Fact

it.

under

with

will

can be amended,

Conclusion

out

trial.

counsel

order

requires

clerl::. 'concurrently

to the

each

Pre-Trial

Proposed

for

required

and Conclusions

In jury
the

of time

Prooos.ed

concurrently

of exhibits.

In non-jury

the

and
of

on
proposals
in the

to the
'.

ch:1rg~

...

4.

The court

cotmsel

8.t a mutually

if

a conference

such

th,:;re will

initiated

by the
call

fully
the

of

expense

parties

well

ahead

be

or_ objects."'must

such

the

fi::st

days

exhibits

before

at

busin~ss

the~ trial

the

cas2

and

the

in order

n\ 1.111.r~11.z a

be

. .

to

of the

court,

the

and expert

witnesses

so that

their

not be available.

the

befm:2

received

and
trial.

those

starts.

in the

p:.:i.rtics.

should

trial

r:1arked

be offered

will

i tern of

of the

nl?-rn}:::i2_red and

to the

jury.

th~y will

if

chte,

discussions

and effort

doctors

date

taken

can.be

time

with

th,:! trial

conference

of trial

notify

of the

to

pre-trial

and the

should

of time

depositions

the

conferences

couns2l

settlement

date

counsel

Counsel

All

the

p::-ior

with

the

All

and conserve

and their
5.

between

case.

for

or advantageous

be no contact

before

exhaus'cec1

time

necessary

court
the

available

convenient

is

norreally,

docket

rcgul~rly

io

At

trial

evidence

in
least

as
b_1:,sine~~

three

to which

exhibits

start::;.

obi,r.::~tion.._

are

made will

be nu..."tlbere.d, mark8d

be notified

,rill

supporting

legal

on the

.rule

mences,

objections

authorities

is

to

comply

the

of counsel
of any party

obliga.tion

with

party

procedure

this

or p~rtics

for

in writing

\:here

of such

admissibility

and objections

It

oth~r

of the

and tenc12red,

court

acco.npanied

by

appropriate.

exhibits
will

before

The court

v1ill

the

trial

com-

in the

record.

be preserved

who wishes

b'y' tendering
examination

and the

to offer

exhibits

such exhibits

nnd app~oval

to the

or obj~ctions

as

the

indica

court

prcncntcd

tcd

abc,-ve.

,,1ill
pursue

Cl:my

nt

In

the

absence

th:;; introduction
to

these

of unusual
of exhibits

circu:znstanc~1s,

'.1hicb arc

guidelines,.
,,,

-4-

not

..
7.

'

If

summarized,
court

at

his

necessity

for

lines

portion

portions

inclusively)

trial,

and

trial

with

the

court

of

rule

inclusively)
(unless

unavoidably

promptly

objections

deposition

(citing

authority
on the

or
the

starts

his

note

the

r~nd
and

lines

develops

supporting

will

be

trial

the,

will

counsel

to

counsel

antl

a deposition

using

or

pages

be:i:0::2

dciys

is

opposing

(citing

Opposing

such

notify

busin:~ss

thereafter).
to

will

intention,

thre8

least

any deposition

of

counsel

of

the

n portion

pages

before

ohjections

the

day

before

and

of

tt

ths

commences.
8.

All

trials

will

commence

at

a.m.

10:00

unless

li

counsel

r
are

to

notified

contrary.

the

will

recess

The noon

run

normally

f
j

from

12:30

p.m.

will

norm~lly

to

2:00

recess

p.m.

about

In a multi-day
4:45

p.m.

trial,

Counsel

the

should

court

bear

in
I

mind

these

arrange
to

hours

for

permit

will
the

to

and

has

be handled

as

9.

This

cases.

business

the

to

th~

days

iurv

to

prior

that

and
recess

h3 has

Ccse,
require

the

been

matter

including

t
'

appropriate.

voir

dire

examination

guestions

These

not

unless

justice

where

proposed

the

In

of

the

oc:inel.

be on time
will

witn2ss,

app2aro

warrant,

conducts

to

Th2 court

interests

may submit

to

parties

a missing

failed

court

Counsel

.Eropcund0d

call

of a bench

issuance

notify

accordingly.

witnasses
counsel

subpoenaed

court,

of

will

commencern~mt

in
be

of

the

in

writinq

submitted

jury

to

be

thr2e

trinl

for

the

court

con-

'

sideration

by

the

court

and,

,,,here

appropriate,

will

~make
,, arc
a ,,

every

effort

thought

to
to

ask

such

questions

La relevant.

-5-

of

the

prospective

jurors

to

10.

move their

only

infor~ation

to

they

~fuich is

the

called

relevant

trial,

.I

If

counsel

in

the

equipment

proper

advance,

Court

counsel

vish

the

order

sLurts

.Evcr:7

witnesses

in the
the

wl tness

to the

the

case

and

M~rohal

room as

in which

or

needed,

courtroom

clerk

thay

b::

tvill

the

and
case,

and

Clerk

promptly

13.

lf

\'Jith

answer

any

above

procedures,

court

well

all

court

or

the

trial

co~mences

such

equipment

hearing
the

law

counsel
every

of

is held,

will

cler:ks

at

As arms

courtesy

writtc:u

the

of

a case,

frequently

request

the

the

such

cooperation

telephone
relative

comrnunications

of

coL~rt

and complete
all

once

calls
to

their

received.

other

m::?.tters arise

counsel

in advance

~-

jury,

the

handling

im,.'11.ediately :return

who will

th3y are

once

to

b~fore

procedural

and

be extended

attornE:ys

case

possible.

to be in contact
will

viewbo:x or other

can be mada to obtain

and a pre-trial

Deputy

the

be 2dvised

should

wherever

personnel
by

issues

trial

t~o

a blac1;:board,

of

arrange:uents

is activated

require

presentation

Administrative

120
it

promptly

to the

the

require

will

clerk

courtroom

so that
in

case
fro~

from

forth

the

elicit

of witnesses

setting

vhen

11.

the

If

witnesses

a list

supply

the

to

testimony.

surJ:1.on th3

should

before

by counsel

ba made

avoi a cumu 1 ative

of

..

should

Bailiff

be in a position

rcspr::!cti vc portions

effort

...
~o

shaJl

Couns2l

for

of the

-6-

which
,.

are

not

cmrered

in th~

/,,.-.,

,-!if1

co~f

fr

with

the

CERTIPICATEOF SERVICE

...

I, Elyse
here~y certify

S. Goldweber,

an attorney

I have served

that

of Motion of the United

State$

in Opposition

to Defendants'

More Definite

Statement

to Dismiss

Memorandum of the United

defendants'

Motion to Dismiss,

postage

prepaid,

States

Motion for

of Plaintiff's

Motion

and a copy of the attach~d

States

in Response

of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn on the defendants

copy,

Notice

counter-

Memorandum of the United

and in Support

the Counterclaim

the plaintiff,

a copy of the attached

to dismiss

a copy of the attached

claim,

for

to their

attorney

to the Affidavits
by mailing

at the following

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 East 68th Street

New York, New York

This,

the 4th

of January,

10021

1974.

.ELYSE
tl.:!,~,-
d ,/J<--f/tu~;_,.Jj1-.a,z
S. GOLD';lEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil
Rights Divis ion
Department

Washington,

of Justice
D. Co 20530

,(.

r- IL.EL,
m CLERK'Somc::

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

J.

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEW YORK

s. DISTRICT
COURTLO ru.

* JANS 1974'k

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

UNITED ST~TES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,
. v.
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE
TO THE AFFI,OAVITS OF DONALDTRUMPAND ROY COHN

HENRYA. BRACHTL

Assistant
United States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

FRANKE.

SCHWELB

Chief, Housing Section

Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice.
Washington,
D. c. 20530
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. c. 20530

f'

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.
FRED C. TRUMP,DONALD
TRUMP
ANDTRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC.,

MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITEDSTATES IN RESPONSE
TO THE AFFIDAVITSOF DONALD
TRUMPANDROY COHN

HENRYA. BRACHTL
Assistant
United States
Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP

AND TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE
TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF DONALDTRUMPAND ROY COHN

Ostensibly
have filed

the affidavits

Roy Cohn, their

on the pleadings
miss
motion

in support

the action
to dismiss

pending

motions,

defendants

of Donald Trump, a named defendants,

attorney.

The only matters

hereinbefore
and for

of their

filed,

a more definite

the counterclaim.

the Court,

based

are defendants'

motions

to dis-

statement

and plaintiff's

Since

before

and

such motions

are all

r.

addressed

exclusively

elaboration,
that

to the pleadings,and

and since

there

is no

they seek summary judgment,

germane to any issue

nice

before

announced

its

filing

inference

is reasonable

suggestion

conference

filing

of the affidavits

was extrajudicial.

accuse

the United

and its

it

appropriate,in

before
I.

spite

In an affidavit
of extrasensory

a brief

oath,

characterized

perception,

among other

the

the purpose
these

the
of the

affidavits
we think

to the issues

directly

response.~/

of the Complaint
by what must be remarkable

which enable

mind both of the Court and of opposing

under

seeks

defendants

of misconduct,

irrelevancy

at least

Baselessness

that

papers

no purpose

at a major hotel,

Since

counsel

of their

the Cour~ to file

Alleged

and since

if not compelling

States

serve

The counterclaim

in damages,

at a press

no factual

in defendants'

the affidavits

the Court.

round sum of $100,000,000

require

things,

the affidant
counsel,

to read

powers
the

Mr. Cohn has stated

that:

~/ There being no specific

matter before the Court for which affidavits
would be appropriate,
we have not responded by affidavit.
Most of
the facts discussed
herein are based on the pleadings
and associated
papers previously
on file.
The remaining facts - primarily
those
dealing with the press release
and with notice of the suit to defendants - are true to the best of the knowledge of the undersigned
counsel for the United States,
and, so far as we know, undisputed.

- 2 -

1. "It appears certain

be entitled
to no relief."

that

[the

Government]

will

2. "The Government has no facts to support the charges.

If they [sic] did, they would be stated
in the complaint.
This action was brought to coerce the defendants
into making
a settlement
and nothing more."
3. The United States is "merely fishing
These facts
upon which it can base its case.
and the Government knows they do not exist."
Mr. Cohn has thus
that

he is personally

state

of mind.

to it

that

provisions
forbids

gations

familiar

He claims

counsel

counsel

for the United

States

for Mr. Cohn's

plaintiff

nature*/,

and that

parties

the

which

that
for

the alle-

the United

in the complaint,

to defendants.

would have disclosed

all

certitude

evidence

interrogatories

need not and should

to swear

violated

of Procedure,

by counsel

did not plead

inquiry

certainty

which he knows to be false.

were fabricated

most superficial
facts

Rules

but

malicious

deliberately

stated

basis

is baseless,

counsel's

sufficient

a pleading

propounded

evidentiary

opposing

from signing

in the complaint
is that

the complaint

to know with

and subsequently

ofthis

with

of Rule 11 of the Federal

The sole

States

sworn not only that

for facts
do not exist
(emphasis added)

to the affiant

not be pleaded
- including

Even the
that

in a complaint
plaintiffs

- may

~/ See the unanimous line of decisions

collected
at pages 5-6 and 12-13
of our brief in opposition
to the motions to dismiss and for a
more definite
statement.

- 3 -

..
conduct

discovery

responsible
reason

after

litigant

filing

conducts

or authority

discovery,

to suggest

rogatories

to his

infirm.*/

Simple interrogatories

defendants

still

affiant

that

crimination
together
vided

implies

that

persons

affidavit

it

is apparent

were readily

by him prior

*I See, e.g.
(1958),
a trial

to filing

that

case

of recent

of different

of inter-

which

acts

to the
of dis-

Trump complexes

of discrimination

pro-

of the City of New York and

with knowledge

ascertainable

in

is in any respect

to plaintiff,

evidence

facts

is no basis

would have disclosed

number**/

and organizations

Any

propounding

its

has evidence

additional

kind.

and there

addressed

States

substantial

of this

a party's

have not propounded,

at a substantial

Accordingly,

~/

that

by the Commission on Human Rights

by other

~/

adversary

the United

with

an action

directly

of pertinent

contrary

by the affiant

facts.

to counsel's

but not ascertained

the affidavit.~/

United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 682-83

in which the Supreme Court described
how discovery makes
"less of a game of blind man's buff and more a fair contest."

This number has since

may well rise further

been increased
by further
as discovery
proceeds.

investigation

and

The very newspaper clippings

which counsel attached
to his affidavit disclose
that the City Commission and the Urban League provided information
to the United States,
but counsel's
affidavits
disclose
no inquiry with these organizations.
There has likewise
been no suggestion
of an exchange of informal discovery,
which
would then have been forthcoming,
and could have provided defendants with information
contrary
to the content of Mr. Cohn's
affidavit.

- 4 -

II.

Alleged

Coercion

Mr. Cohn's
bring
this

"unlawful
case"

terminate

of Defendants

affidavit

and undue pressure

Rights

lawful

Division."

or unlawful,

decree

by counsel

is attached

responded,
counsel

recites
for

Division

face,

the letter

It relates
[equal
It

with

The letter

*I

that

proposed

relief

unmistakably

"alternative

counsel

See Ex. 1.

makes it

to plaintiff
regarding

clear

following

clear

that

- 5 -

responding

a possible

Jr.,

in suits

plaintiff

never
by

of the

On its
under

no ultimatum

42 U.S.C.
was intended.

the same result

appropriate

is ready

to

consent

Chief

office.

to accomplish

It explicitly
that

due or

a communication

Attorney's

may be given

for plaintiff

dictated

to which defendants

customary

steps"

for defendants.
also

States

Decree

of pressure,

to Mr. James D. Porter,

opportunity]

that

counsel

it was sent

to settle

false.

The letter,

of the United

housing

states

*I

to

to quickly

a Consent

The allegation

from counsel

that

3613, and makes it

into

for defendants

defendants

Civil

the defendants

is completely

hereto:-

of attempting

upon the defendants

by entering

A copy of a letter
an inquiry

the Government

approaching

the litigation

undue,

accuses

by'immediately

by the Civil

to Settle

consideration.

to meet and negotiate

invites

counterproposals.

does not want negotiations

to delay

the litigation,*/

opportunity
position,

and it

bilities
III.

promptly

under

but seeks

one way or the other.

is consistent

42 U.S.C.

"Capitulation

suit

of the defendants

with

is a press

qualify

statements

to rent

to seek to require
general
true,

rental

hereto

!I

criteria

documents,
v. Life

Realty

responsi-

it

the real

pur-

the capitulation

of the Welfare

as claiming

to welfare

Department

.....

for

who do not

of the United

the Trumps,

is apparent

the amended consent

Action

is trying

These
States

to waive their

who are on welfare.

of the allegation

Civil

plaintiff

in our buildings."

including

especially

that

recipients"

has been the policy

for persons

Inc.,

that

In the New York Post of December 12,

landlords,

and the falsity

pertinent
States

that

plaintiff's

General's

"announcing

for our apartments

suggest

is still

Mr. Cohn swears

release

1973, Mr. Donald Trump is quoted

otherwise

housing

Department"

affidavit

the management corporation."

defendants

This

the Attorney

and the substitution

to force

equal

3613.

to the Welfare

At page 3 of his
pose of this

to achieve

This

is not

from the face of

decree

in United

No. 70 C 964, copy attached

.'f::!!.I

Or, for that matter,

dilatory
motions addressed
the facts sought to be elicited
by such motions
secured through interrogatories.

'f::!!./ See Ex. 2.

- 6 -

to pleadings,
can so easily

where
be

No proposal

has ever been communicated

ants at all

about welfare

defendants'

accusations

with Life

Realty

Co.,

recipients.
about

asked

the United

In fact,

States

the letter

for defendants'
expressed

interest

recipients

to provide

to plaintiff

in a consent

decree,

for

negotiated

at the request

as their

counsel

him with

to present

November 7, 1973 responding

decree

in Life

and
a copy.

counsel

to defendants'

contains

the Life

the decree

*I A copy of this
in the curious

Realty

as a model for
Realty

to meet the landlord's

the contrary,

office

basis

decree

to defendants

who was then acting

Attorney's

to defendants

does not require

who fail

is the consent

to defend-

no mention

of welfare

at all.!/

The consent
proposed

this

from counsel

dated

The only possible

which was given

of Mr. Abraham Lindenbaum,

by plaintiff

this

case,

Co. to rent
standard

requires

Co.--even

letter
is attached
position
of having

hereto.
sworn,

it

had been

which it was not

to persons

rental

defendants

if

on welfare

qualifications.

to rent

to all

On
applicants

Mr. Cohn is therefore

in effect,

1.

that the United States has brought

put unqualified
welfare recipients
buildings;
and yet

2.

that it
signing
welfare

this
into

suit to
Trump

has sought to bludgeon the defendants

into
a consent decree which makes no mention of
recipients.

- 7 -

equally,

regardless

the basis
parties
also
its
that

of the rental
and approved

a welfare
officers,

as well

the attribution
inconsistent

ascribed
this

case

to us,

previously

by the Court.
brought

as against

decree

States,

suit

for

Realty

the suit

345 F. Supp.

of this

woman who is

the United
Co.,

purpose

et al.,

against

persons

against

the United

with

the other

evil

but also

lacks

to the United

on

by the

States

and

alleging

on welfare.
States.

790 (E.D. N.Y. 1972).

malign

or of any other

a black

against

Life

funds,*/

negotiated

In fact,

discriminated

found no basis

Boyd v. United

of an applicant's

standards

recipient

the consent

The Court

only

of the source

States

Accordingly,
is not

deeds which Mr. Cohn has

any support

whatever

in the record

of

case.

*/ If they were unable or unwilling

to read the Life Realty decree
before filing
their affidavits,
Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohn could have
contacted
the voluble Mr. Samuel Lefrak of Life Realty.
Mr. Lefrak
is quoted in the New York Times of December 13, 1973 as expressly
denying that the consent decree in Life Realty requires
him to rent
to persons on welfare who do not meet the other objective
rental
standard~
Mr. Lefrak's
explanation
in the New York Times conforms
to the provisions
of the consent decree.

- 8 -

IV.

Notice

to Defendants

The affidavit
to hear

that

any "formal
action,

and because

release,

"the

surprise

first

based

unlike

defendants

record.
it

the Complaint

was filed

The case was certainly

is both the right

*I

of the Department

record

to the press.

Equal housing

benefit

to anybody if

so that

prospective

beneficiaries

.,~7See

Ex. 3.

news of

notified.

the United

That

steps

A simple

public

held

adverpress

no facts

about

to the press

and had become a matter

of public

interest,

of the Public

and

Information

to disclose

matters

opportunity

would provide

little

it were taken

secretly,

to assure

could never

- 9 -

States

of their

was released

one of general

of Justice

practical

being

and which states

and the responsibility

Office

the suit

and that

or otherwise.

a copy of which is attached";

after

that

motivations"

the Trumps which are not in the Complaint,

shortly

appear

Mr.

occurred.

defendants,

intuitively

of this

was filed.

on no investigation,
without

matter

it was on my car radio

to make it

in which the "real

were discussed,

he had not received

the complaint

from what in fact

conference

he was "shocked"

the subject

I head about

chosen

we note that,

that

because

about

the date

to the press

different
First,

saries

whatever"

words are carefully

it was released

no press

had been brought,

of the 15th,"

was a complete

is quite

suit

connnunication

the morning
Trump's

this

of Donald Trump alleges

learn

of public

of them

Even if
released
true,

defendants'

to the media before

this

rights

with

v. Luebke 345 F. Supp.

is

required,

Rights

of courtesy,
followed
torted

before

the events
facts
This

suit

Shortly

phoned both
agents

for

than

10:30 A.M.,

by the media,
was filed.

Ms. Wolf spoke

for

practice

when suit

States

no such
of the

as a matter

and this

The defendants

shortly

of Durban

after

procedure

have seriously
was filed

was
dis-

by omitting

10:00 A.M. on October

Attorney

and Tosti,

and defendant
filed.

in advance

the press

of suits,

them,

notice

See United

the general

Departmental

had been
well

pre-suit

Even though

report

civil

affidavits.

was filed

suit

require

was

were

some other

1972).

defendants

case.

the defendants,
the

is

which occurred

Mr. Durban

that

case

the media

thereafter,

each

it

to notify

from their

Unlike

defendants.

179 (D. Colo.

in the present

critical

1973.

prospective

suit

were notified

3613 does not

however,

Division

news of the

the defendants

42 U.S.C.

to or negotiations

notice

that

would not have been unlawful.

statutes,*/

Civil

allegations

This

Judith

attorneys

Donald

Mr. Trump expressed

Wolf teleand statutory

Trump and advised

was accomplished

of any dissemination

release

was not

issued

no awareness

15,

no later

of the news
until

after

the

of the

suit

when

to him.

*/E.g.
42 U.S.C. 2000c-(6)
(employment discrimination

(school desegregation);
42 U.S.C.
suits by private
parties).

- 10 -

2000e-5(a)

Mr. Trump's
call

at all,

except

communication'
"formal"

affidavit

fails

by the artful

in denying

communication

notice

to mention

Ms. Wolf's

use of the phrase

Mr. Trump implicitly

as he must - that

he received

"informal"

by means of Ms. Wolf telephone

that

notice

the presentation

mention

of an event

transaction

what he chooses

of this

incident

changed

effect

that

no

admits

to characterize
call.

by affidavit

which completely

has the foreseeable

"no formal

By claiming

of the suit.

was received,

telephone

We submit

without

the character

of misleading

as

any
of the

anyone who reads

it.
CONCLUSION
Were it

not

in the affidavits

for

submitted

the Court with material

motions

now before

discussion

conclusively
for the United

changes

submitted

basis

defendants

for
ever

We believe,

establishes
States

will

get around

of impropriety

we would not have burdened

which is so remote

on behalf

the suit

intimations

by defendants,

the Court.

counsel

tial

the extraordinary

from the merits

however,

that

of the
the foregoing

the propriety

of the conduct

and the baselessness

of the sworn

of defendants.

The existence

be demonstrated
to a serious

discovery.

- 11 -

effort

of substan-

beyond peradventure
to elicit

of

the facts

if
by

If
in this

the entire

case,

it

is

controversy
to establish

made serious

but baseless

could

have been discovered

easily

has any relevance

that

allegations,

defendants

and their

the insubstantiality

by them.
Respectfully

States
orney
Brooklyn, New York

to the issues

submitted,

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D.C. 20530

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
'Department
of Justice
Washington, D.C.
20530

counsel
of which

EXHIBIT 1

NDV7 1973

T. 11-7-73

JSP:FES:ESG:cmk
DJ 175-52-28
Mr. Michael Rosen
Saxe, nacon, Bollan and Manley
3'l Ett~ t 68th

Stt~!'!t

New York City,

Re:

New York

10021

United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump

and Trump Mana~ement Inc. C.A. No. 73 C 1529

Dear Mr. l.osen:

I am writing to you in response to information

that Jim Porter has conveyed to me indicating
that your
clients might be interested
in negotiating
a Consent Decree
with the United States in the above-mentioned lawsuit.
this Deparcment, while certainly
not desiring
to delay
the litigative
process is at the same time amenable to
affording the defendants the opportunity to enter into
a Consent Decree.
If a Consent: Decree could be negoti.ated.
the question whether there have been violations
in the
past need not be resolved,
and any such decree would
ordinarily
be entered without adjudication
of the merits.
The specifics
of a Consent Decree, of course, depend
of each ease, and if your clients
are
on the specifics
interested
in negotiating
a Decree,, it will be necessary
for ua to obtain further information in order to formulate
the details of appropriate
relief.
However, on the.basis
of the information we have a a result of our investigation

 2 prior to. the f111ng of the complaint in this action, ve

believe the Decree should prohibit all discriminatory
practices and should include, at a minimum., provisions
such as those described bel0"1. Let me stress that tbeae
provisions are not necessarily exhaustive, and that alter
native step to aceompli!Jh the same result may be given
appropriate consideration:

their

1. Instructing
responsibilities

t-"'
Ar...~..........

t,,t.-.. ~,vHJ<o,n
"".~.~ "t """"'l'r~
': ,...., 1

2.

all employees in detail as to

under the civil rights laws and

Including 1n. all advertising,

leasea, brochures
relating to renting of apartment,
an appropriate fair housing statement, auch as the slogan
and logotype approved by HUD;

and other materials

3. Taking appropriate steps to acquaint blacks

and Puerto Ricans with their opportunity to live at Trump
buildings.
This might be accomplished by advertising
on
a periodic basis 1n media which primarily serve tile nonwhite co:nr:lunity tho availability
of apartments in all
geographical areas. and by sending vacancy reports oa a
periodic basis to local groups which assist bl"k and
~!~rto &ican persons in obtaining housing;
4. Devising and implementing an affirmative
action
program for the recruitment and hiring of black and Puerto
and renting agents:
Rican superintendents
5. Devising and implementing objective
rental atandarda, and procedures;

and uniform

, 6. nacing victims of unlawful discriminac;ory

in their rightful place
practices,
as far as possible,
including financial compensation
appropriate;

7.

Periodically

sending to the court and to tbia

Department reports on the implementation of tha Consent

Decree, so that the effectiveness
of the steps taken may
be evaluated.
Maintenance of appropriate
records with

\
.,r

\
'

ractalfdentification

would be necessary to enable us

to make an appropriate
evaluation
affirmative
action program.

of the adequacy the

It would also be necessary. during the discussion

of a Consent Decree, for our representatives
to inspect
appropriate
company records and obtain certain information
pertinent
to relief.
We will, of course, be happy to meet with you and
v-our clw,t::
to dtsc,.,j.JA tht." t~,X'lMi of. .::i. Consent Decree
consistent
with the principles
set forth herein, aa well
aa any counterproposals
which you may have. Please feel
free to contact me at (202) 739-4132 if you have any
questions concerning the matters set forth in this letter.
Sincere1y

J. STANLEY
PO'ITINGD.
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
By:
ELYSE S. GOLDVr1EBEll

Attomey
Housing Section
cct

Porter
Assistant United States

Mr. jira

Attorney

..
...

,-,'

"1,

) .

EXHIBIT 2
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEWYORK
,,

'RA!.i'::-ro

F. 700827

-7-----

if

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
I

..

Plaintiff

........
;,

'

COHSENTORDER

-against-

;'"

Civil

Action

. Uo. 70 C 964

LIFE. REALTY, INC ., et al.

Defendants

.
<

I.

..

(Leasing),

- ~- _____
:r -- - -- this
-

I.(~~.

---

Court

"A" hereto,

;cand.

and authority

1 ,---

which manages all

on Attachment

.'

The Apartment

Leasing

Corporation

the buildings

..to

submits

which are listed

the jurisdiction

warraiitsto-thecour"t-t;hatrt

to, carry

of Americ~

of

ha.s _the po"ier

out the provisiop:s

o"f those

paragI'aph.,

i;-ro~:."Pn~1...

~-r't~i~orcter
d~I:~~e~--~
t:~_:
{i;:-~~~b.je.c"t-to
iiab{~1

tempt for

~;~~y~~t-;~~h

fail~~;-to

to be a party-defenrant

consents

ame_ndment of the complaint.

II.
that

uel- J. Lefrak,

-~it~out

IT IS SO ORDERED.

the following

individuals:

Sam-

Anthony Cuccia a.nd Rheba Gelman, ls

to the allegations
in Attachment

personal

capacities,

respect

with

"A" hereto,

III.

1/

action,

Accordingly,

against

them in their

Leasing,

to this

-LeasirJ

IT IS FURTHERORDERED,ADJUDGED ANDDEC:IBED,

the complaini

agai.nst

p;~visio;~:~--S~id

with prejudice

to the buildings.set

predating

this

employees,

as,

forth

Order.

IT IS FURTHERORDERED,that

their-agents,

dismissed

Life

successors.::/,

Realty,

Inc.,

and all

For the purpose of this order the term "successors"

sha.l .
oe defined as follows: The successors of Life Realty, Inc.
include any person or group of persons who in the future mayl
act as rental agent for any of the buildings
in Brootlyn
ren~ed by Life Realty, I~c. at the time_ t~;~_decr~e.;s_entj
erea, unless the ownership of any such ou.1.J..a1.ngs.rtalJ. oe
l
changed in a. bona :fide arms' length transaction.
I
I<urther, for the purpose of this C:-d-?:r-the ~mccessors
of1
Apartment Leo.sing Corpor2.tio::1 of .America shall include c.ny
. person or grot.:p of pcrsoLs who in the future nay ~ct as man--.
e.r;in~ agent
fo:- the builc. ine;s in Brooklyn
listed
on Atta.ch- 1,
11
11
mcnt A !,e:r,::to, unless both the o,mersi1i.p and m~.n.:::e;e1;1cnt
of1

I
I

"'l1Y

c1,

C\""'h

.._,. {\...~i-.

.1.

'. .r,

:J~l/~~
C.l,,lJi

I.
I

C'-f.J..,,

,-,.

"

. .:.,.

"1 ',

_;,

,.~."-~ci,,.,.,..,nt11 " 11

J'\ 1.j (::.~

.Lt

J.id;..

1--n-1,1~ ... +pvcr,cJ-io1

-L-.:.,,.,.,
v ....<..:..i.J.;:.s;;.:.

.., ..... -~,

..

4 '

in

r:,,-,-

11
,._1
U '--'- ~'-.'t~t.J.1.t.:.,

1 -,
... -fja i..,
bon"c ..,

L., .._

.. ~-t ....

...

.to~

1
.l.:~~t:
.,.1.~,J.c.

t ) _..,
,~ '.'.. " ' ', c .

~.~'~.::-'-"::\:.::.~
1:-lO,lct.:01..:d
~1,.,;

.:.

.L

1.,,

-h~,,

._..,

1 ,. V

...

lt:,1

1 --1""cn,1,r,-',ru.1\,..L:...... ..... Lu

( .., "' )

_)V

ct,.,,n-,,-1
in~
,
#{ 1,..;
., J .:._4 ,,.1.

'l.)C
l..~

::) .... L.-...

m1r
....
Lt.::

d !:I y
...

- l'

, .!..J.....i
~,.,. ..!.

~ 0 '

s 1-' ,Lr

~.
vO

(.!

l~
\,
!

I.

those

1r~ active

ar~ pe~SI1ent~

concert

or participation

.
/.

.

1
1....

-..

.
. ~~ '

In order

of tenants,

inga listed

to assure

and to encourage

integration

. \

r .t

..
because
origin,,.
inspecin

nondiscriminatory

"An hereto,

on Attachment

-- -

L~.__;.._-.
---

from:

i}

,
I
.

. B. Making unavailable
or denying any
dwellln~ to any person on account o( race,
color, religion
or national
origin.

IV~

ment

"A"I

to the buildings

.
A. . Representing
to any person,
pt.race,
color, religion
or national
' -that any dwelling is unavailable
for
. . tion or rental.
when such dwelling is
.: .: fact available; ., and

"

with any of themV,

e"701ried with regard

Bnlooklyn ~~e~. on ~ttachment.

\...
I

assign-

of the build-

Life Realty,

Inc.

will

:._
__-- --------~-__..:..
- -,:.:....
__
-=Maintain a date and time-punch
~-.-... -. clock. -in its . rental
office
in Brooklyn , and
.
..
=
'
- .. :stamp every
application
which is submitted
with the
:-together with a $25.00 deposit,
.
-.:--a:a.te--an:d-ti-meof
filin
.
.,.
. --.. . .. . .. . . - :- .. "
-- ... -- ..
. .:s;:>.A
-' .
-'------
-.
.. --- ---., ... B . On Wednesday ..of each week, compile a list
of apartments for which Life
Realty, Inc. is rerital agent, believed.:iobe available
for rent, including
the size;
rent, (s~ecifying
whether utilities
are
included),
the a.ddress of the building,
and the probable date when a new tenant
may .take occupancy;
.

..

-"'t
>

::~-~'

...

..
C. Display such list
of available
apartments
at all times after it is compiled in a prominent place in its Brooklyn
office,
and include on the current weekly
list all apartments available
for rent; 1 _

D. Eliminate from said list a.part. ments for which incumbent tenants have
:_reserved orally or in writing since its
listing,
or for which application
with a
$25.00 deposit has been received,
by
striking
such apartment from the list.
Wl;lenever application
is made for any
iapartment appearing upon the list,
the
application
shall be recorded with .the n_ame
and race of the applicant
as provided for
in paragraph E. below, and date and time
of filing
in a dally log, as more fully
set forth below.

! .

'

...

E.

Maintain for two years from the

en~ry of this decree, as a daily log,
all applications
filed (retaining
the
original
applications),
with the follqw
ing information:

used in the remainder of thls Order, the terms 11Dc'!fendant" or "D~fcndr,nts 11, or the named defcnda.nts,
include
employees, agents,
successors,
ns~igns, and all thoEe actl:1g in concert
or participation
wlth any of ther.1.
~/

As

- 2 -

:--..... _....
:--..- .--..-.-.
J.
,

. 1. The name of the applicant

and his or her race (Black, White
or Other) as perceived by tbe de-

fendants'
agents, unless race has
been voluntarily
furnished by the
applicant
on a form such as the11 one
B 11;
attached hereto as Attachment

i
.

...
....

. I

:\

2.
The building,
the apartment
. applied
for, the date and time of
filing,
whether the applicant
was
- accepted or rejected
and, if the
applicant
was rejected,
the reason
therefor.

Accept applications
only for specific
available
units in the Brooklyn buildings
appearing on Attachment "A" hereto, and will
not take applications
which fail to specify
a particular
unit;
F.

. .- .
G. Within thirty
(30) days of the
_____ _.____
. , ___entry .of .this Order, mail to every tenant
. - -
in the buildings
listed
on Attachment "An
~.:-. hereto the fi'rst--list
of available
apartments. to be published pursuant to para- --graph B. above, together with a statement
--- . -that such apartments are available
on a
-- . first-come,
first-served
basis (provided
that the applicant
meets the qualificatj9~s
set forth in Part 7. of this Order), and
that similar lists
may thereafter
be viewed
at Life Realty,
Inc. offices
at 1790 Flatbush Avenue, Br:>oklyn, New York.

V.

The,defendants

will:

A. post and maintain in the Life

Realty, Inc. offices
in Brooklyn, in a
prominent place, where it is clearly
visible to all applicants,
a sign reading
as follmrn :
"UNDERTHE FEDEP~L FAIR HOUSING

ACT OF 1968, ALL APARTMENTS

RENT-

ED THROUGH
THIS OFFICE SHALLBE

AVAILABLEWITHOU'fREGARDTO RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION OR NATIONALORI.GIN"

B. Through a joint press release with

the plaintiff,
or otherwise,
communicate
to the general public, including members of
minority groups, their policy favoring
integration
in housing;
C. .Adopt and i:..1plc:ment the follo,1ing.
standard procedure for approval of all

applicants
for ape.rtments:

indicate

l.
All a.pplicants '\rill
upon their applications:

address, age,
sex, maritai
status and name
of spouse, relative
or other
person who will live in the
ape.rtment;

(a)

Home

- 3 -

'--.

),:&-.... - .. ~

(b) Employment, address

I.

employer, gross salary,

.. net salary after withholding
tax,
. other income and obligations
on
installment
contracts,
conditional
sales, bank loans, fin. ..
ance company loans, mortgage
. . .. ;
loans, payments required
to be
made on judgments,
garnishments,
and all other information
show.:: ing, on a monthly basis
the
obligations
(in amounts1 of the
applicant;
and the same information, together
with the age
for any working spouse or other
person who will live in the
apartment;
of

'

..

'

...
.. ~.

, ~.

. . ( c)

'

'I

'

'

The name of any bank

.: . in which any or all adult appll-;___~--__ :.:.,.:.._:~.~ants maintain either a check. -- --:- - ~~ ~::-.-::-:-;-:;---=1ng
account or savings account;
~~.

---,.--

'.

.. -------

-r.

----r

: .. '*' .. ~

____ ;...

. - - . . . :.-. .
.. "':

..

'.

1.

:".

~.:,',-"'

:-

Former residence
and
prospective
occupants;
.
.

of all

-------------

______

._:-

h
:.:.._:_~

...

~ ..............
..

-.. .. -~-..:::;;.:i~
- 2. ~The information furnished
pur: :' :suant to paragraphs
(a) through (d)
.-:;;,.
.above, will re verified
by defenc.~nts
and' if it proves accurate,
an appro. pria te indication
will be made on the
applica tirm or on an accompanying
. f'orm as to whether verifica.ti.on
has
:!'
bean made;
..I
..
3. If the applic.ant is rejected,
..~ :...
:
the reasons for the rejection
shall
be entered upon the application
and
the applicant
will be informed within
five days thereafter
of the fact of
his rejection;

...
..
,
'

'

..

:=~
_
--- . ---...landlord(d)
~

4. If the information
furnished
by the applicant
has been verified
by defendants,
and if he has been a
satisfactory
tenant at his prior
residence,
and if his net income
per week, after deduction of the
obligations
listed
in v. C. 1. (b)
of this Order on a weekly basis,
proves to be equal to at least 90%
of the monthly rental of the apart.ment for which he has applied,
no
further
investigation
sha.11 be conducted, and the applicant
shall be
accepted or rejected
on the basis
of informatlon
already available.
No applicant
shall be rejected
for
failure
to ha.ve a checking or sa.vings
account at a conunercial bank., if said
failure
was truthfully
stated by the
in his application;
applicant

5. If any item
the applicc1.nt cannot
or if he has proved
isfactory
tenant nt
dence, or if his net
- . li -

furnished

by

be 1crif'Jc:d,

to be an unsathis prior
resi-
weckJy 5 n:'.'.0::10

i~_....

.
"'-~

'

'

....

i,,l.... -~-.

/'

/"'

A. ,Within thirty

VI.

this

Order,

Life

the buildings
Purdue,

Realty,

Inc.

the form attached

-- -.the-defendants-shall

carry

fn said

-.'

--

-~

...

. -.. t

... - .~.

Cornell,

and Clarkson

---

-l

----~--_

--

--

in

Terrace,

"C", and

described

-.

Order

--

--... --
.. ______

.B. Beginning

of

Princeton,

as Attach,"Ilent
\,

-- - -

--

i_

"c11, which is .. made a part of this

Attachment

reference;--".'"-

1 _

mail to each tenant

out' the obl~gations

~-_....-"

. .

by

will

hereto

(30) days of the entry

Northwestern

~--

known as the West Point,

Syracuse,

notice

..

as defined above is less than 90%

of the monthly rental,
such further
and additional
lnvestlgation
may
be conducted as may be judged nee~
essary to determine the applicant's
provided
acceptability
as a tenant,
only that the extent of such addltional investigation
may not be
. determined or affected
by the applicant's race, color, religion
or
. national
origin.

,/

I.....

---

--

.,
--

)",.-

.,

-.

..,_

(30) days

no more than thirty

. t:':.

--.-.

rrom the entry

tain

in its

posted

of this

Brooklyn

Order,
office

apartm_nts

kno~m to be available

than those

which wil+ be available

if'y

the price,

eluded

size,

in the rent,

be available

List"

in any building

to be

date.
rental,

no less

This special
and whether

those

on Attach-

A. hereof),

named in paragraph

for occupancy

weeks from the posting

main-

i:i-rl

of each week, showing all

ment "An (other

Inc.

a weekly "special

on Wednesday.morning
.

Life Realty,

than four

list

will

utilities

specare in-

and the date on which the apartment

will

for o~cupancy.
C. The special

list

described

in paragraph

,,.

B. above shall
$25.00

deposit

to tenants

be available
untll

5:00

have commenced a~ter

After

5:00

list

shall

special
described

in Part

application

P .M. of each

of the seven ouild!ngs

abo\'.'c, whose. occupancy,

1970.

by written

by lease

1, 1969 and prior

P.M. on e,ach Friday

be incorporated
IV.,

paraera:phs

- 5 -

exclusively

named in paragraph

as determined

January

Friday,

with a

into

date,

A.

shall

to Aue;u.st 1..,

the a.pa.rtments
the general

B. a.nd C. of this

on .. the
list
Ordt:r.

I !/
1

,.!.)
&..

.,:

. ..D

Tenants

buildings

in the aforementioned

who apply for any apartment

fr

~egular

list

~t least

four

seven

on either

weeks prior

the specia

under Part V
.I
lease obliga

and permitted

without

to take occupancy of the new apartment

any penalty*

cept in relation

to projected

to_ccupa.ncy, and who qualify for said apartment

...
,.
..,..c. of-~this Order, will be released from their
tion

or
sacrifice
.

of security

deposit,

ex
!

to liability

for damage to the apartment

vacated.

E.

of Part VI. hereof

The provisions

termina:t~_a._~ter one year from the first

posting

shall

pursuant

--.- -~~--~-!l~r.e;~.~or--~~~~~
-~!~~r-,
c.s~)_
--~~~~\~-~ -~-f~th~
shall

have transferred

to other

n~me~ buil~in~i
pursuant hereto,

buildings

..
(

. .. VII.

The defendants

A.

will,

beginning

:. :..,_.

t:".,...

ten (10)

<:,;

days after

the entry

records:

..

of this

maintain

the following

. ..
'. f.-

1.
The log of applications
J.escribed in Part IV. above, such
log to designate tenants transferring pursuant to Part VI.
hereof;

2. All applications,.whether
aicepted or rejected,
with accomchecks and leases.
panying credit
Defendants will keep these records
available
for periodic
inspection
by the plaintiff's
representatives
for two years from the entry of
this Order.

'

B. .No less

from the entry

data:

indicating

months and ten days

and therea.fter

for t,10 yea.rs,

pare and send to counsel

tl\e follow,tng

than three

of th.ts Order,

months intervals

ceived,

Order,

at three-

the defendants

for plaintiff,

reports

will

pre-

including

numbar of applice.tions

The total

the bu11dings

for which appl:i.cut.tons

11ere made; the name, address

and race of the applicant;

whether

-.,ms a.cccptcd

if

or not the applicant

rejected,

ma.y fulfill

the reason
their

for the rejection.

obligations
- 6 -

re-

tmder this

or rejected
Defendants
pcuo~~raph by

and,

1
-(

'. -

.;_

forwarding

to the plaintif.f

of the log which they. have kept pursuant

f

of this

shall

Order.

'

In addition

mail to counsel

.....
,:

Order.

to Chief,
States

special

list

All notices

to the foregoing,

a_s defined

and reports

..

Housing Section,

Department

VIII.

Civil

of Justice,

Rights

" .

Division,

except

wh~re the Goverrunent detercines

,. ........

arises

o{

B.

United

.I

c. -

D.

IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED,that

complaint

VI.

be addressed'

Washington,

future

20530.

whenever a.ny

under the provisions

of this

that

there

Order,

exists

"

-- .-n~eg for -emergency-relief

decree,

IV.

of each r~port

in Part
shall

the defe dant

as part

to Part

for plaintiff,

,,

a copy o~ each

this

intervals

copies

this

at the prescribed

threat"en~n~ _the' effe~tiveness

t~2.Go~ernment

- ........
---------- --~-

the name of the person

shall

furnish

of

the defendants

--

who made::.such complaint

and a brief

.t

description

of the nature

including

respect

..

to which the complaint

the defendant

date notice
thereof,
is

of the complaint,

the date of the al_;J.eged.incident

!ng with
after,

and substance

is

to investigate

determined

was made.

{15) days from the

of such complaint

and the nature

such complaint,

by defendants

to be valid,

to advise

if any, have been taken

tbe conditions

to the complaint;

plaint
vise

is determined

the Government of the basis

plaint,to
this

by defendants

be invalid,

before

threatening

pers;

to correct

if

the com-

to be invalid,

to ad-.

for determining

the Government shall

motion to compel compliance

the Gover1nnent determines

ants

'or,

the

the comapply

to

Court with any motion for an Order to Sl1.,owCause or

any other

there

a.nd if the complainv

Government what steps,

leading

There-

have fifteen

shall

received

and the build-

a situation

that

the effectiveness

of this

is a need for emergency relief,

shall

wi thou:t the

be by telephone

and the Court,

aftei

consulting

with this

...
I -

If

has arisen

decree~
notice
filing
orally

Order.

ancl. that

to the defendof any pawith both

,_
. ~t :

parties

by telephone.,

exists.

shall

If the Court

decide

determines

whether
that

exists,

plaintiff

may proceed

without

necessity

for the fifteen

an emergency

an emergency

to move for

immediate

(15) days'

notice

in fact
relief
prov.ided

.ti

lI
IX.
ered,

Two years

or thereafter,

from the date

the defendants

this

decree

is ent-

\I

may move to dissolv,e,

Order.

this

objection

---

within

shall

missed without

a hearing

,-:.

.x....

Order- shall
their

No costs

to interpose

or fu~~her

dis-

Order of the Court.

pri?r.

against

any

of Motion,

and the complaint

in-curred

be assessed

agreement

fails

be dissolved

--~---------=

States

(30) days of the Notice

thirty

the injunction

--------.
----

If the United

to. the date

the defendants

to take- the afffrmative

steps

of this

in light

of

d'escribed

in

..

this

Order and in the simultaneous

between

the parties

XI.
cction
Dated:

ell

~o~

to this

The Court

extrinsic

agreement

Order .

shall

retain

jurisdiction

of this

purposes.

Brooklyn,
January

New York,

~r ,

1971.

!3&~

.~

ITED TATES DIS'l'RICrr JUbG-E

EASTERN DISTRICT OF HEH YORK
.
.

. :..

'

Without

any adjudication

out any admj_ssion by a.ny party

- 8 .

of the merits,

e.$ to the existence

and withor ab-

sence of liability,

..

to the entry

the under&igned

apply for

and
cj nt

of the above Order.

.

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

.. ...

r.

..

. ,.. ,'MA~

LEONARD

Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division.
U
Department of Justice

EDWARD
R. NEARER
United States Attorney

_Ea~~;tofN~w
for:~~~-~~~-,~-=ROBE.RT~.

M~o=Rs=E::.----------

Chief AssistaP\_U

-----

. S. Attorney

... ._....-._ .

- --Ea,stern Dis tr.: ?t--of:'Nel'T Yer~ -- :

1~

'j

~ ~:- - ... ._.._

...,_
-~.- . -

. ~,--.J.?.
-.----.-----

,-4

...

li,RANK E. SCH:WEr.s--

Chief, Housing Section

Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice

t
t

~~
MIRIAM

J?rL~

R. E1SEWSTE1

Attorney,

Department

l:". _:.

of Justice

~JJL-~~
t.

~TASTER--------

Rn;HARD
At torney,

Department

of Justice

.....

. FOR THE DEFENDANTS

J

A~

~.

~/~Z,

?!/!_?'cL-'2-;tc,1!
$7d'(ei.!.!)~7e"_A_J
__
1,___
ANDERSON
& ALLEGAERT
Attorneys
for Life Realty,
,_.,

.,

,. ..

'

'

, .

... : .

:, ...
J_ l . :

.. "

"\

Inc.

0:1?
1:,{1/1/.~,,/},,./ ~ J::C.~~.iflww<-,
&

. GOLDSTEIN,

GURFEIN,

SHM!ES

i~ c>Q,----.._

HYDE

A]t13>rneys fodr;1ment
Leasing
0
J?.~za, ..~.a;__
__fr..:
LEO}fARD
SCHOl?FW\N
l::..~----Pre~id~nt,
11,ite Re~lty, Inc.

co_rporation

of America

/l,,._-1'--

/'t-.,

/)

r.-:/

..__:..}'_'...,.z..1.'7,'1-'\
.-:::.:&,tl1:,f/Ji,:,---

IRWIN SCHOFF'MAN/

President,

Apartment

Leasing

Corporation

- ,9 -

of America

OWUER

;ADDRESSES
IN BROOKLYN,rIEWYORK

Amherst Leasing co p.
Annapolis Leasing
orp.
Arcadia Leasing Corp.
Atlantis
Leasing Corp.

845 - 43rd Street

2815 Coyle Street
3232 Shore Parkway
3235 . Ermnons Avenue

...

..Bel Air Leasing Corp.

Belt Parkway Constr. Corp.
Buick Leasing Corp
.Citadel
Colgate
Cornell

. --::

... -..--- - -

Leasing
l~asing
Leasing

2775 East 12th Street

2625 East 15th Street
2626 Homecrest Avenue

1 Prospect Park Southwest

4411 Church Avenue
665.New York Avenue

Gorp.
Corp.
Corp.

Dakota Leasing Company

2425 Nostrand Avenue
388 Avenue X
Danbury Leasing Company
Dartmouth Leasing Corp.
4114 Ninth Avenue
Delaware Leasing Company
7705 Bay Parkway
District
Leasing Corp.
250 East 38th Street
. Dodge Leasing Corp. .. -- . ___95Q_Ru.tla.nd_JJoa,d_ _.
-Dover Leasing -Corp.
. 2375 East 3rd Street
-

~.
-,..

:,

..

Georgeto'.m Lea~j.rig_C~rp. . . .170 East 4.th Street ..

- - -------- - ---....------....__ - ---. - ....._----- - -- ---- Hampton Leasing Corp~ ~205 Emmons Avenue
Harvard Leasi:ng Corp.
4190 Bedford Avenue
2750 Homecrest Avenue
Hollywood Leasing Corp
Iowa Leasing

Life

2401 Nostrand

Company

Kings Highway Property

\-

Corp.3900

Management Corp.

Avenue

Kings Highway

2021 East

41st

Street

(
I

'

MinneLota LeaslnB Corp.

Mon~auk Leasing
orp.

1145 East 35th Street

3191 Emmons Avenue

National Realty Co.

National Realty Co.
National Realty Co.
Na.utilus Leasing Corp.
Me,rport Leasing Company
North Carolina Leasing Co.
No::-thwestern Leasing Corp.

1640 Ocean Park\ray

8301 Bay Parkway
35 Pierrepontstreet

2790 Bragg Street

44!~ Avenue X
2501 Nos trs,nd Avenue
lt52 East 96th Street

Oxford.Leasing

288 Bay 38th Street

Corp.

Plymouth Leaslng Corp

Pontiac Leasing Corp.
Portl~nd Leasing Corp.
Purdue Leasing Corp.

410 Avenue X
2611 East 13th Street
2411 East 3rd Stree,t
450 Rockaway Parkway

Rakfel
Ra.kfel
Rakfel
Regent

2044
205
2064
1035

Realty Corp.
Realty Corp.
Realty Corp.
Leasing Co.

Stanford
Syracuse

Leasing
Leasing

Corp.
Corp.

Wc3t

Gardens,

Point

WcrL~n~~
\1
"' L<.1.J"-
.1.

Wctherole

Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue

1625 Rocka,.-w,yPark'.rn.y
1115 Willmohr

Street

7410 R.i.dge Boulevard

7420 Rid~e Boulev~rd

Tri Bulldings
'l ri Buildings
Virginia

Nostrand
Nostrand
Nostrand
Clarkson

Inc.

3502 Kings

Hig}1wo.y

Lear;ine; Co]~p.

Ic~s~r~
.1 <:.,..- .L.a.1

Holrtin~

Wlr.conr..;j.n Leasing

~Ol'')
v
!

Corp.
Co.

I
1,

ATTACHMEMT ":a"

TO ALLAPPLICANTS:
1

In order

an acco~dance
I

,. ..

to promote nondiscrimination

-------------

~,. _ Faflure
-

---""

.' ,

..

..

I
.

11

White
Black
-Other
...

.....-~-

"

;..

..

to a.ns\'ier wilr not adversely

~"""

I1

a~ to you~ race_ or national

IF YOUCHOOSETO DO SO.

..

with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, pleas

check O!)e of ~he following

origin,

in housing

'(Please

affect
.

Print)-NAME

"'.

your

.j

ATrACHHENT

"C"

TO TENANTS WHOSEOCCUPANCY COMMENCEDAPTER

1969 AHD BEFORE AUGUST 1, 1970:

. JANUARY1,

Dear Tenant:

"' t-

..

'

...
. We would like to offer you on a limlted
basis the
:f'ollowing opportunity.
If you desire
to move to other of
our buildings
in Brooklyn,
we will allow you to move without
any penalty
except for property
damage to your present
'.
apartment.
In addition,
if you are accepted
for another
apartment,
we will credit
you towards the first
month's
rent of the new apartment
to the extent of one month's rent
or your present
apartment.
In other words, you will not
have to pay the first
month's rent on the new apartment,
except to the extent that the new rent is higher than your
present
rent.
However, if the new apartment
rental
is less
than the rent you are now paying,
~ou will rece5.ve the
difference
bet .-reen the old monthly rent and the new rent
- ror -the first. month~ in cash,. as. well as your first
month's
rent free.
__ ... . . ~ --------

I
I

1.

1
,
1

This offer. applies .only to those apa.rtmeni..s c-:r,Jear--

ing on lists
avillable
a:t Life_~_h.ealty Corp., 1790 Flatbush
Avenue Brooklyn,
New York, for occupancy not less tha.n
four (f~) weeks from the date of application.
Thi~ __o..ffer
'
will exp1re ,rhen the first
f'ifty
( 50) tenants
have trans-fcrred under its terms, and in a.ny. event will expire Ol)e
year from the date of this letter.

If you ha.ve any questions

regarding
thls special
offer., call Mr. Heward Ja.cobs at IL. 9-9021, or :Mrs. Rheba
Gelma.n a.t Life Realty Corp. , 1790 Fla tbush Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York, celephone CL 8-9090.

Very truly

yours,

APARTMENT LEASING CORPORATION OF

Af,IERICA.

EXHIBIT A

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT

EAS'l'ERNDIS'l'RIC'r OF HEWYORK

-------------------~----------~-x

UNI'l'EDSTA'_fESOF AMERICA,
CIVIL ACTIONNO. 70 C 95~

Plaintiff,
-against-

AMENDMENT
TO CONSENT
1971

LIFE REALTY, INC., et al.,

ORDEH OF ,I/dWARY--2<f:

Defendants.

---~-~~-------------------------x
Upon the report

of the parties

a copy of which is annexed

on January
paragraph

28, 1971, in this

V, c, 4 shall

4.
the

If the

tenant

the Consent
is hereby

information

at his

Order

equal
,of

. ~--".

to at least

payment

authorized
vestigation

basis

and. if

1n V, c,

for

his
o~

1 (b) of

~roves

tobe

90%.of the monthly

rental

which he has applied

of r~nt

shall

be guaranteed

enforceable
contract
by a duly
.
/
governmerit agency, no further
inshall

shall

by

deduction

on a weekly basis,

by a legally

cant

furniched

residence>

listed

the apartment

or his

amended so that

by dehe has been a sati~factory

prior

the obligations
this

entered

..

- net income per week, after

Decree,

has been verified

and if

ants,

case

December 6, 1971,

be:

applicant

~ -rend

...

hereto,

dated

bc'conducted,

be accepted

of information

and the appli-

or rejected
already

on the

available

'

.! I

No appllcant

chall

be rejected

to have a ch6ckinG

..

commercial

fully

bank,

or cavings

if

said

failure

account

failure

by the applicant

stated

for

at a

wa~ truthin his

appli-

cation;
Dated:

Brooklyn,
New York
December 22, 1971.

Jack Weinstein
United Sta'ces

The parties,

by their

attorneys,

of this

amendment to the Consent

For the

Plaintiff:

i)istrict

conbent

Judc;e

to the

Order .

~or

the

Defendants:

GOLDS'l1EIN) SIIAr,ms & HYDE

Attorneys

.HODER'l' A MORSE

States
Attorney
'Eastern District
of New York

for

Defendants

United

By:
EDWARDBRODSKY
A Member
.--of.the Firm

FHANK g.

SCH\foLh

Chief, Housing Section

Civi 1 R1ghts Division
Department of Justice

liENRY A. BHACil'l'L

Assistant
United
Eastern District

HICHAHD L.

States Attorney
of New York

MAS'l'i~H

i/

Attorney,
Civil Rights
Department of Justice

Division

,1,

'l

'

'

entry

.,.,
..
EXHIBI'l'

Section

604-4.0

--

Adminlstr~tive

Code

of

Lnc City

of New York provides:

(1)
'l'he Cornmi:::;sioner of Social
Serv:Lces
shall
have the power to and may, within
the amount appropriated
therefore,
enter
into a contraqt
to make to the owner, landlord,
lessee,
managing aGent of, or other person entitled
to
rent and receive
rental
payments for, housinG
accommodations
whenever
(a) a recipient
of public assistance
and care has nc~lected
or failed
to make rental
payment and payment has not otherwise been made, or (b) a housing
acco~modatlon
is
vacant and the owner, landlord,
lessee,
managin~
agent or such other person a~recs
in such contract
to hold such housing
accommodation
vac~nt and to
accept
as a new tenant
a reci~ient
of Public
assistance
and care dcsJGrw.ted by the commissioner,
and until
such hous1nc acconunodation
is occupied
payments are 1t13.cleby 5uch nc\-1
by and rental
tenant;
provided,
however,
that no rental
payment
shall
be mnde in accordance
with this provision
if
such housing accommodation
remains
vacant
for
more than 60 days.

(2)
The commissioner
shall
not be dec::med
to have assumed the duties
of a tenant
under lease
because
he has entered
into a contract
to muke
rental
payments.
,

......---

'-..

, I

---

EXHIBIT C
NOTICE TO WELFARE RECIPr32?TS
Before
in a Lefrak

you fill

building,

out an epplication

please

cons idcr

the

for an apartment
follc-:,ing:

The Lefrak org.:mization

treats
all appli.cants
for apartments
equally,
reg.::1rcae3s of
-race, color,
religion
or nation.s.l origin,
and
of whether or not the applicant
reregardless
ceives public assistance.

The Lefrak organization

will t.::.ke an
just as
application
from a wclfarcrecipient>
from anyone else.
The rental
st.::.nd.::i::ccL:\\'hich
it uses apply to all 2pplications
regardless
of
the source of an individual
applicant's
money.
The rental
standQrds include economic standards
which are as follows:
NO APPLICANTWILL BE ACCE?T~D
AS A TENANT BY LEFRAK m:L:.:ss
HIS NET WEEKLY r::cm,fEIS EQUAL

TO OR GREATERTHAN90% OF THE
MONTHLY
RENTALFO!l THE APARTMENT
FOR WHICH HE APPLIES,

OR
THE APPLICANT SECURES
A

PRIVATE

GUARA:t-.1TOR
ACCEPTA:3LE TO LEFRAK
OR
THE APPLICAl\i"T'S PAY}~NT OF RJ~:-:T

SHALL BE Gl1~RA~1TEED
BY A LEGALLY
J

ENFORCEABLE CONT:1:\CT BY A DULY

AUTHORIZEDGOVERNNENT
AGENCY.
This means, for example, that if you
apply for an apartment which rents for $175 per
month, your application
cannot be seriously
con~
sidered unless you receive at least $155 per week
in benefits.
If an apartment rents for $200 per
rnon_th, you must receive at }.east $180 pc:c week 1.r...
benefits
in order ~o be seriously
considered.

EXHIBIT 3

FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
MONDAY,
OCTOBER
15, 1973

The Department

of Justice

filed

a civil

suit

today

charging

that

cori'trols

more

than

14, 000 units

area

with discriminating

an

.
apartment

management

New York

City

metropolitan

in the operation

of their

Attorney

suit was filed

Donald

buildings.

General

in U.S.

Named
stockholder

firm

District

and board

black

persons

'
L.

Richardson

Court

as defendants

were

chairn1an,

said

in Brooklyn,
Trump

Fred

the housing

New York.

Management,

C.

discrimination

Trump,

Inc.,

its principal

and its president,

Trump.
The defendants

principally

in Brooklyn
The suit

1968 by refusing
rental

Elliot

against

in the

terms

apartments

said
to rent

and requiring

39 apartment

buildings,

the defendant~
and negotiate
because

have

violated

rentals
of race,

the Fair

with blacks,

Housing

Act of

requiring

and misrepresenting

different
that

not available.

The suit
racial

son1e

and Queens.

and conditions
are

practising

own and manage

asked

for

discrimination

them

to correct

a court

order

enjoining

in the operation
the effects

of their

conduct.
.(OVER)

the defendants
of their
alleged

from

apartment
discriminatory

buildings

- 2 -

. ;
A~sistant
Righ~s

rental

Attorney

Division,

said

discrimination

Life Realty

Company,

and Puerto

Rican

Mr. Pottinger

Pottinger,
1

Department

in the New York metropolitan

involving

about

was resolved

occupancy

10,000

rental

by a -consent

at previously

head

of the Civil

s second

major

area~
units

decree

controlled

by

':lllder ,\h ich black

all-white

buildings

rose

referred

' the Justice

to

substantially,

said.

He also

,i

suit,

J. Stanley

the suit is the Justice

case

The first

General

said

the Trump

case

by the New York

City Conunission

allegations

by Operation

made

was

on Human

Open City,

Rights

and was based

v.hich is affiliated

Departm<;!nt
in part

on

with the Urban

League.

l)(IJ.1tr::1.111

. i

I,
hereby

claim,

Elyse

certify

of Motion

CERTIPICATEOF SERVICE

S. Goldweber,

I have served

that

of the United

a copy of the

State~

to Defendants'

More Definite

Statement

Memorandum of the United

of Donald

copy,

prepaid,

defendants'

Notice
counter-

Memorandum of the United

Motion

to Dismiss,

States

Motion

of Plaintiff's

for
Motion

and a copy of the attached

States

in Response

Trump and Roy Cohn on the

postage

the plaintiff,

a copy of the attached

and in Support

the Counterclaim

for

to dismiss

attached

in Opposition

to Dismiss

an attorney

to their

to the Affidavits

defendants

attorney

at

by mailing

the following

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon) Bolan & Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
This,

the

4th

day

of J anua'.':.".,, :97.+.

~.t-(?.r_..,.;
:.1.-.(
{?d/ll {Jj)/{{_a-,z
r..LYSE u.
,...::,t,R
7

vl.;1..v,;

...

Attorney,
Hcusing Section
Civil Rights Division
Departmens
~f Justice
Washington,
J.C.
20530

II
~

-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

.-tt..C..CJ

1N ctrn:csOfl 1c.1:
u. S. o:STRlCTCOL;RTt.'D.N.Y.

--------------------------------x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-against-

TIMEA.M........................
.

STIPULIAM.ION
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP,
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Civil
Action
File
No. 73 C 1529

Defendants.

--------------------------------x
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between
the

United

attorney

for

attorneys
the

for

to

January

Dated:

Attorney

the

complaint

motion
to

States

25,

plaintiff,

the

defendants,

and

for

dismiss

for

a more

defendants'

the

and

Eastern

Saxe,

that

District

Bacon,

Bolan

defendants'

definite

&

motion

statement

counterclaim

of

is

and
hereby

New York,

Manley,
to

dismiss

Government's
adjourned

1974.

New York, New York

January
9, 1974
EDWARDJOHN BOYD V

~xx~~ix

United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff
By

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY

Attorneys
for Defendants
-

By'-~{,

WI

/I

./

/i

,1-,,,l.vt->f/:;;,<
,,./o

UNITED .STJ.\;TESDISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEWYORK

----------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.~

73 C 1529
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC. ,
Defendants.

Frc

----------------------------x

fN CLERK'
O
u.s.DISTRICTs.amcrr

* JAN2a1974*

COURT
E.D.N.V;.

rJMf <lM
P.M..

...........
~ .............
""'-

DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM

OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONTO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY

ATTORNEYS

AND

39 EAST 68TH STREET,

COUN5E'LLORS

AT LAW

Attorneys

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021

for

Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

73

1529

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP

and TRUMP MANAGEMENTINC.,
Defendants.

------------------------------x
DEFENDANTS REPLY MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The defendants
complaint

for

definite
All
abuse
ment

these
of

to

unfair

the

and

state

Federal

pleading

to

a cause

have

were

pressure

moved

filed

taken

dismiss
of

the

action

a compulsory
in

order

rules

and

on defendants

to

to

government's

or

for

a more

counterclaim.

prevent

a trend

a clear

by the

settle

with

govern-

them

by

publicity.

served

and T.V.
were

to

actions

exert

In
were

failure

statement,

of

have

the
with

instant
the

is

accused

October

16,

bias

renting"(Daily

1973,

even
and

reported

banner

landlord

in

summons

newscasters

carrying

case,

the

headlines
of

p.l),

News,

"U.S.

the

complaint,
case

newspapers

that

a "major

in

suit

against
16,

radio

the

bias

October

defendants

the

and

proclaiming

anti-black
and

before

the

1973).

city"(N.Y.
Trump

Times,
charges

The government's
affidavits

submitted

to mask
their
to

the

true

intent

the

facts

is

premature

purpose

is

whatever

purpose

by defendant

was to

public

memorandum

of

stated

the

to

some wrong

critical.

by holding

the

as well

charges

and especially
that

claim

they

that

had

as

the

against

merely

and there

government

has

analagous
but
that

one

all
to
line

filed

that

not

defendants

into

is

the

to

unreported
one

case

motions.

this

to

facts

an indictment

case

put
that
in

unproven

won the

the

burden

they

lack.

a criminal
with

case;

cases.

An analysis
their

The cases

-2-

argument
break

on the

but

factual
The

defendants

The situation

arson

its

one

this.

action

to

throughout

not

permits

investigators

supports

citizens

Trump buildings,

and

contains

which

a defendant

hire

in

not

hypo-

the

unfounded
had

guilty

utterly

residing

were

no case

attempted
of

alert

are

a complaint.
in

charging

defendant

to

no
real

defendants

was to

government

The government
cites

are

defendants

is

tenants

them

the

allegation

supply

benefit

only

conference

purpose

The complaint

to

It's

that

a news

The defendants

of New York,
that

there

that

settlement.
The government's

of

claiming

The practical

complaint.
the

attempts

releases,

since

pressure

to

attorneys

public.

doubtful

in

obviously

news

the

extremely

response

and his

these

benefit

in

which
and

the

memorandum
of

each
in

down into

contains

then

disprove

is

requiring
charge.

of

opinion

opposition
two major

law
shows
to
groups.

The

first

in

their

in

the

are

those

complaint
instant

decisions

and

they

are

listed

in

as

the
cases

absent

second

is

major

reached

as

fit

separately.

cited

table

..

from

complaint

either

of

the

contains
court

them.

A case

government's

facts

by the

regards

into

supplied

group

no discussion

do not

discussed

government

totally

The

there

which

the

are

may be

cases

"unreported

which

which

so no conclusions
a few

which

action.

in

are

in

of

There
these

by case

contents

and

groups

analysis
in

the

"follows:

CASES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT CONTAINS

FACTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CHARGES
United
(M.D.

States
v.
Fla.
Sept.

United
N.Y.,

States
v. Gilman,
July
28,1970.

United
1970).

States

v.

United
August

States
v.
12, 1970)

United
March

States
v.
20, 1970).

Raymond,
Civil
5, 1973}.

Miller,

No.

73-119

CIV-T-H

Civil

Action

No.

Civil

Action

No.70-40(D.Md.

Chirico,
Arco,

Action

Civil
Inc.,

Action

Civil

70-Civil

No.

Action

1967(S.D.

70-1851
No.

April
(E.D.

70-29(W.D.

CASES IN WHICH THERE IS NO DISCUSSION

IN TEE DECISION

United
States
v.
May 15, 19 7 3) .

Watson,

No.

United
States
v.
No. 3284-N
(M.D.

Pelzer
Realty
Ala.
July
16,

United
States
May 18, 1971).

Davis,

v.

United
(S.D.

States
v. Goldberf,
Fla.
Oct.
19, 1970

United
13578

States
v.
(N.D. Ga.,

Civil

Action

Civil

Company,
1971).
Action

Civil

Inc.,

No.

Action

73-97

27,
Pa.
Tenn.,

{M.D. La.,
Civil

Action

6451-7l(S.D.

Ala.

No.70-1223-CIV-CF

PMC Development
July
28, 1970.
-3-

Co.,

Inc.,

Civil

Action

No.

United
States
v.
No. 70-379-CIV-C
United
States
Md. April
17,

Palm Beach
{S.D. Fla.

Listing
May 5,

v. H. G. Smithy,
1970).

Bureau,
1970).

Civil

Inc.,

Action

No.

United
States
v. Management
Clearing,
Inc.,
70-23-PHX
(CAM) (D. Ariz.
April
8, 1970).
United
(S.D.

States
v.
Tex. April

Margurette
30, 1971).

United
States
v. Exclusive
C-70-969
(N.D. Ohio Nov.
United
States
C.A.-3-7243-E
United
April

8,

Jones,

Civil

Mutual
1971).

Action

Exchange,

J.C.

Long,

Civil

Civil

Action

No.

{D.

Action
No.

Civil

Action

21470

Civil

v. Mrs. Dean Miles,

et al.,
(N.D. Tex. Sept.,
1973).

States
v.
3, 1972).

Civil

No.

71-H-279

Action
Action

71-1262

No.
No.

(D.S.C.

MISCELLANEOUS CASES CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT

United
States
v.
(N. D. Ohio Sept.

City of Parma,
5 , 19 7 3)

Civil

Action

No.

C-73-439

The motions
in this
case were based on the defendant's
argument
that
municipalities
or political
subdivisions
are
not persons
against
whom a suit
may be brought
and in addition,
facts
are apparently
presented
in the complaint.
United
States
v.
( S . D F 1 a , June
given

Robbins,
Civil
2 2 , 19 7 3) .

A copy of the decision

to the defendants.

United
States
v.A.B.
(N.D. Ohio Nov. 24,
The motion
to
the unconstitutionality
violated.
United
States
v.
(S. D. Tex. Sept.
to

This
dismiss

was
or

Smythe,
1970).
dismiss

Jim
2 7,

of

was
Inc.,

Action
not

included
Civil

was based
the statute

Tucker
Co.,
19 72) .

No.

Civil

-4-

in

Action

CIV-JE
the

Orders

No.

C-69-885

on exemptions
alleged
to
Action

a motion
for summary judgment
for a more definite
statement.
IN SUMMARY

73-848

and
have been

No.72-H-993
not

for

a motion

In
it

is

seen

in

addition

done

in

the

decisions

that
to

the

the

in which

government

a mere

instant

there

is

supplied

recitation

of

some discussion,

facts

the

in

the

statutes

complaint

as

they

have

case.
POINT I

GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT
SHOULD BE DISMISSED
The government's
In opposition

to

this,

the

Gibson,

355 U.S.41(1957),

portion

quoted

have

been

in

cited

he bases

his

of what
it

rests,"

to

claim,

the

government's

the

set

but

that

plaintiff's
( 4 7-4 8) [emphasis

The government
defendants
to

get

if

what

dates,

fair
around
is

the

places,

of

is

etc."

fact

is

evidentiary

failed

to

state

any
a recent

State

of

Colorado,

said

citing

to

would
and

that
well

motions.

that

the

entirely

they

facts

would
upon

"fair

grounds

failed

grounds

which

which

to

although

give
they

details
must

since

attempt

it

is

alright

such

as names,

conclude

that

they

have

v.

Supreme

F.2d

993,

totally

whatsoever.

case,
(10 Cir.

Conly,
-5-

Coopersmith
1972)

not

notice

upon

by claiming

"evidentiary

detail

their

the

v.

direction

facts

Conly

could

require

The government

every

In

detail

is

the

of

said

supplied]

court's

lacking

it

has

notice

support

in

claim

cited

especially

court

out

be dismissed.

memorandum,

in

supra,

has

decision,

by defendants

a claimant

should

government
the

the

In Conly,
require

complaint

4~

Court
the

court

"alle
ations
of conclusions
or of
are not sufficient
when no facts
are a
by way of the statement
o'f the claim."
supplied)
.
In Burak
the

complaint

was

v.

Sprague

(E.D.

dismissed,

the

Pa.

1971)

court

335 F.

Supp.

347,

stating:

The complaint
fails
to state
a claim on
which relief
can be granted;
it fails
to
set forth
facts;
it sets
forth
only a series
of conclusionary
charges
devoid
of factual
content
lacking
legal
significance.
The
complaint
is dismissed."
A complaint

in

and

to

merely

not

enough.

1970),

a case
state

vague

Nishiyama

49 FRD 288.

(C.A.2d,

like

1971)

and

v.

of

City

in

civil

must

v.

442,

set

forth

conclusionary

North

Shemtob

448 F.2d

Administration

this

America

of New York

City

are

(C.D.

Hammill

v.

facts,

allegations
Rockwell

Shearson

Israel

some

Co.

&

Rent

Calif.

Rehabilitation

&

(S.D.N.Y.1965)

28 F.Supp.

908.
Even
more

than

plaintiff's

statement,

(E.D.

1972)

Woods v.
that

it

police

City
is

power,

dismiss

Sisters
of

the

of

unsupported
will

Jones

to

of

determination

the

Saint

has
and

-6-

not

the

based

presented

so the

very

any
real

the

court
right

is

v.

805.
Mary of

infringed

factual

Bales(N.D.Ga.

F.2d

of which

nothing

Scott

v.

335 F.Supp.396,
balance

is

by any

be granted.

Providence

Evanston,

allegations

a claim

(C.A.5th,1973)480

The government
these

where

58 FRD 131),

aff'd

important

presented.
support

to

Wis.1973)

58 FRD 453,
In

cases

conclusions,

a motion

Larson,

rights

noted
against

on facts
facts

possibility

to

of

abuse

has

to

substantiate

a reality.

it,

substance,
abuse

become

and

newspaper

the

court

protection

The complaint

as

if

reports

in

in

an attempt

are

Sisters

of

lacks
gave

released,

Providence

facts

it

this

is

the

exact

sought

to

provide

against.
POINT II
DEFENDANTS' ~OTION FOR A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT SHOULD
BE GRANTED
The defendants

around

which

government
motion

has

can

to

the

statement

The cases
to

this

motion

sufficient

this,
is

not

Jenn

not

where

information

pleading.

The

thus,

if

granted,
Air

defendants'

then

Products

a more
Co.,

v.

283 F.Supp.591.

by the

involve

sufficient

and

E.D.Pa.1968,
cited

all

facts

supply

required.

Inc.,

to

a responsive

complaint

is

Ventilator,

entitled

frame

failed

dismissing

definite
Penn

they

are

government

in

opposition

the

courts

situations

where

they

no facts.

found

found

POINT III
DEFENDANTS'COUNTERCLAIM
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
The government
by releasing
untrue
Federal
state
the

before
Rules

to

the

they
of

press
served

Civil

as a counterclaim
opposing

party.

has

severely

statements
the

which

defendant.

Procedure
any

damaged

claim

Defendantscounterclaim.

-7-

defendant

it

knew to

Rule

13(a)

requires
which

the

a pleading
the

pleader

be
of

the

to
has

against

The government,

by the

institution

defendants'
18 of

of

this

compulsory

the

action,

has

counterclaims,

government's

subjected
as

it

itself

admits

to

on page

memorandum.
CONCLUSION

The government
of

their

failure

a more

definite

cases

cited

their

argument.

defendants

to

are

state

statement

by the

complaint
any

It

is

facts

should

government

should
in

their

evidentiary

fail

because

complaint

be required.

completely

mere

be dismissed

and

The unreported
to

detail

support

that

the

requesting.
Respectfully

submitted,

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY

Attorneys
for Defendants
39 East 68 Street
New York, New York 10021

-8-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)

;,1. .\fl.N2 4 1914 , ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD
TRUMPand TRUMPMANAGE- )
)
MENT, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

1'.t.r::
/UL

.. .. .'
P.!l ... .. '

NOTICE OF MOTIONTO
COMPELDEFENDANTS
TO
ANSWER
PLAINTIFF'S
INTERROGATORIES

____________
SIRS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

America,

will

R. Neaher,

move this

District

225 Cadman Plaza

Court,

of that

East,

Brooklyn,

States

~. """

Courthouse,

1974 at 10:00 o'clock

day or as soon thereafter

9,

in the

as counsel

can

--

inte;:igga.t,aries

'"'

propounded

"'"""""'"N!"'''";d<,

and served

is made pursuant

to Rule 37 of the Fed.R.Civ.P.,

grounds

are set

other

Edward

New York in Courtroom

November 7, 1973 and not yet answered.

therefor

supporting

of

for an Order compelling__.....,._---defendants... ..--.-to ......----~~..,-,

answer

plaintiff's
about

States

the Honorable

__________

be heard,
~

before

United

Judge at the United

on the 25th day of January

forenoon

plaintiff,

memorandum.

and further

relief

forth

This motion
and the

with particularity

Plaintiff
that

on or

this

further

prays

in plaintiff's
for such

Court deems just

and proper.

Dated:

To:

January 21, 1974

Brooklyn, New York

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan
and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York

10021

Yours,

etc.

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

. BRACHTL
Assi
ant United States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

~ff's~Gsa~~~~L
Attorney, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

"

II.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
plaintiff,

Elyse

S. Goldweber,

hereby

of the foregoing

certify
Notice

to Answer Plaintiff's
by mailing

a copy,

at the following

an attorney

that

I have served

the

the
a copy

of Motion to Compel Defendants

Interrogatories

postage

prepaid,

on the defendants
to their

attorney

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York

This,

for

21st day of January,

&

Manley

10021

1974.

~d

M,LJ' i'-&G

ELY~
GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

"'

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORTOF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO COMPELDEFENDANTS
TO ANSWER
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
CITY OF WASHINGTON )

) ss

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
Elyse

S. Goldweber,

being

duly sworn,

deposes

and

says:
1.
Rights

I am an attorney

Division,

United

one of the counsel

C. Trump, et al.,
2.
counsel
file

States

Department

for plaintiff
Civil

Action

a set

with the Court.

interrogatories,
copies

thereof

States

and

v. Fred

No. 73 C 1529.
to be mailed

of interrogatories

Defendants

as evidenced

Civil

of Justice,

in United

On November 7, 1973, I caused

for defendants

attached

in the Housing Section,

to their

presently

have received

by the fact
motions

to

copies

that

on

of these

they have

and counterclaim

now

pending.
3.

On December 21, 1973, having

Mr. Michael Rosen, an associate

I telephoned

Bolan and Manley concerning

to plaintiff's
that

Shulman, Esq.,

4.
of several
effort

defendants'

from his

handling
on January

On January
telephone

to discuss

Local Rule 9(f).

had no intention

this

failure

no response,

of Saxe,

firm,

Bacon,

to respond

Mr. Rosen indicated

interrogatories.

the attorneys

would return

received

to me

Roy Cohn, Esq. and Jeffrey

lawsuit

were out of town and

2, 1974.
4, 1974, Mr. Shulman returned

calls

which I had placed

the unanswered

interrogatories

Mr. Shulman informed

of filing

any answers

me that

the last

to him in an
pursuant

to

the defendants

or objections

to the interrogatories
in the alternative,
ruled

until

their

motions

for a more definite

to dismiss,

statement,

were

on.
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

Subscribed
before

and sworn to

me this

18th day of January,

My Connniss ion Expires:

,~.

/~

/~

1974.

7::7.

or

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Elyse
hereby

certify

Affidavit

S. Goldweber,
that

in Support

I have served

To Answer Plaintiff's

dants

by mailing

Motion To Compel Defen-

Interrogatories

a copy, postage

prepaid,

the 21st

on the defento their

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York

This,

for the plaintiff,

a copy of the foregoing

of Plaintiff's

dants

at the following

an attorney

day of January,

& Manley

10021

1974.

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JAN24 1974

-------------------------------------x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

\-'..,, .......

""'

Civil

Plaintiff,

f,

Action

No. 73 C 1529

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONTO COMPELDEFENDANTSTO ANSWER
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Of Counsel:
HENRYA. BRACHTL
Assistant
u. s. Attorney
FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington,
D. c. 20530
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
u. s. Department of Justice
Washington,
n. c. 20530

EDWARDJOHN BOYDV
United States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORTOF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONTO COMPEL
DEFENDANTS
TO ANSWERPLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

HENRYA. BRACHTL
Assistant
United States
Attorney
U.S. Department of
Justice
Brooklyn, New York
11201

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington 1 D. C. 20530
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC. ,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORTOF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONTO COMPEL
DEFENDANTS
TO ANSWERPLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

INTRODUCTION
On

pursuant
3601 et~apartment
that

October
to Title

15, 1973, the United

VIII

(Fair
complexes

the defendants

of the Civil

States

Rights

Housing Act) against

the defendants,

in unlawful

this

action,

Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

in the New York City area.

have engaged

instituted

who operate

The Complaint
racially

alleges

discriminatory

housing

practices

practice

and that

of resistance

by the Fair
secured

such conduct

to the full

enjoyment

Housing Act and a denial

by the Act,

importance.

which denial

See 42 U.S.C.

in the alternative,

the Complaint

fails

raises

filed
seeking

filed

a claim

them to respond.

before

the purported

against

alleging

dollars.

that

can be granted
have also
States

On January

to defendants'

7,
motions

These motions

are

the court.

a set

of interrogatories.

having

been received

served

On January
in the interim,

the United

States,

defendants

pursuant

to respond

to plaintiff's
that

public

the United

counterclaim.

On November 7, 1973, plaintiff

Ms. Goldweber

of rights

to dismiss

Defendants

a memorandum in opposition

and moved to dismiss

presently

Motions

upon which relief

to be a counterclaim

filed

secured

of general

statement,

damages in the amount of 100 million

1974, plaintiff

or

3613.

to state

what purports

of the rights

an issue

for a more definite

and is too vague to enable

a pattern

to a group of persons

On December 12, 1973, defendants

or,

constitutes

telephoned

4, 1974, no answers
Elyse

Jeffrey

to Local Rule 9(f},

interrogatories.

the defendants

on defendants,

Goldweber,

Shulman,

or objections

an attorney

an attorney

to discuss

defendants'

of filing

for

for the
failure

Mr. Shulman informed

had no intention

- 2 -

by mail,

any

answers
their

or objections
pending

received

to the interrogatories

motions.

any response

to its

protective

order

this

for an order

Court

gatories

As of January

until

21, 1974, plaintiff

interrogatories,

has been filed.

a ruling

has not

and no motion

Accordingly,

plaintiff

defendants

to answer

compelling

on

for a

has moved
the interro-

promptly.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's

the breadth
tory

16 interrogatories

and scope of defendants'

practices,

having

to ascertain

knowledge

determining
relief

objections

to these

if

defendants'
as well

plaintiff

an attack

The interrogatories
may rely

the defendants

as answers,

and if

defend

to defend

in

finds

each

have not made.

interrogatories

the Court

also

have not filed

we do not here

to these

in

and affirmative

which the defendants

response

is prepared

of persons

plaintiff

on which defendants
Since

discrimina-

and location

of any injunctive

interrogatories,

against

to determine

unlawful

and to assist

be awarded.

of the action.

interrogatory

timely,

facts

any information

defense

objections

the identity

of pertinent

which may ultimately

However,

allegedly

the scope and specifics

seek to elicit
their

are designed

includes
such objections

each interrogatory

which it

has propounded.
We observe

that

defendants

have not moved this

- 3 -

court

for a

protective

order,

under Rule 26(c)

them from responding

time prescribed
provides

to plaintiff's

by Rule 33(a)

that

of the Fed.R.Civ.P.,

failure

interrogatories

F.R.Civ.P.

to excuse

within

In this

the

connection,

Rule 37(c)

to respond
.
may not be excused on the ground
that the discovery
sought is objectionable unless the party failing
to act
has applied for a protective
order as
provided by Rule 26(c).

Defendants
can they,

have identified

no provision

which would automatically

to interrogatories,
Instead,

until

no protective

has been sought.

in order

presently

that

suggests that

further

should

be remedied

address

themselves

in prior

of pending

unilateral
promptly

under

and defendants
issues

- 4 -

to

prove

"willful-

does not

to its

the Rules

disregard

memoranda, we are prepared

when

The Rule was amended in

While plaintiff

to the factual

motions.

to impose sanctions

but only a response

the availability

nor

of a response

the moving party

to obtain sanctions.

seek sanctions

we believe

that

Rules,

the Rules.

the Court

1970 to remove the requirement

ness"

the filing

disregarded

authorizes

order

stay

the disposition

they have blithely

Rule 37(d)

of the Federal

interrogatories,

of a sterner

remedy

of the Rules by defendants

should
in this

be required
case.

to

As stated

disclose

all

interrogatory,

discoverable

evidence

and we ask that

in response

defendants

to an appropriate

be required

to do the

same.
For the foregoing
Court grant

plaintiff's

reasons,
motion

plaintiff

requests

to compel answers

that

the

to plaintiff's

interrogatories.
Respectfully

submitted,

FRANKE. SCHWELB
States
ey
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

Chief, Housing Section

Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

E~

1o!~ef:s.~

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I,
hereby

Elyse

certify

S. Goldweber,
that

I have served

Memorandum in Support
by mailing

a copy,

the following

an attorney

the plaintiff,

a copy of the foregoing

of Plaintiff's

postage

for

prepaid,

Motion on the defendants

to their

attorney

at

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

This,

the 21st

day of January,

1974.

~i/'- J Mk~L*-

ELY S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

JDP:HAB:sm
F.#730959

- IN Gli:"'~ S Ur I i,~E

n:~;rn~cr
cc,,IF r E t1. ~J.Y~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------~X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

IL

/\.

Plaintiff,

0 R D E R

-against-

Civil

Action

FRED C TRur1p , DONALD TRUMP

AND TRUMP MANAGEMENTINC.,

No.

73 C 1529

Defendants.

-----------------------------------x
This
1974

on

plaint

(1)

cause

the

for

(2)

counterclaim
motion

motion

failure

statement,

(1)

can

be granted

and

cannot

reasonably

pleading,
subject
(3)

answers
forth

the

that

matter

of

justice
to

is

to

it

complaint

is

and

it

is

or

before

is

plaintiff
ruary

28,

February

relief

ambiguous

that

defen-

frame

a responsive
of

counterclaim

by requiring
terms

the
and

defendants'

and

conditions

for

motion
a more

for

definite

set

an order
statement

defendants'

counterclaim

defendants

answer

plaintiff

answer

such
and

1974;

8,

upon

1974;

which

is

dis-

further

ORDERED, that
defendants

appear-

further

ORDERED, that
on or

it

upon

jurisdiction

alleged

definite

plaintiff's
and

Court

defendants'

ORDERED, that
it

(3)

to

lacks

com-

is

the

and

the

defendants'

be required

on the

dismissing

missed;

or

25,

a more

dismiss

a claim

be served

ORDERED, that

denied;

for

and

so vague

interrogatories

below,

dismiss

interrogatories,

defendants'
will

to

states

not

this

or

jurisdiction

complaint

(2)

that

of

on January

to

a claim
motion

answers

ing

dants

state

want

be heard

defendants

plaintiff's

compel

that

of

to

for

to

came on to

should

and

on or

is

further
-1-

is

before

complaint

further

interrogatories

interrogatories
it

it

the

be served

February
on or

8,

before

1974,
Feb-

by

ORDERED, that
interrogatories

of

defendants

November

7,

answer
1973

on or

plaintiff's
before

April

1,

1974.
Dated:

Brooklyn,
,,/ ~anttary

New York
, 1974

~~

District

Ju ge

O;

V
AFFIDAVITOF MAILING
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss:
-------------,

being duly sworn, says that on the _________ _

day of_ ________________________ , I deposited in Mail Chute Drop for mailing in the
U.S. Courthouse, Cadman Plaza East, Borough of Brooklyn, County of Kings, City and
State of New York, a __________________________________________________________ _
of which the annexed is a true copy, contained in a securely enclosed postpaid wrapper
directed to the person hereinafter

named, at the place and address stated below:

Sworn to before me this

day of

AFFIDAVITOF PERSONAL
SERVICES
ST ATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss:

___________
,IQ.!:ULI:.IJLtl'I'_EJ_L
__________, being duly sworn, says that he is employed in
the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern

District of New York. That on

the ___ J_Q_th__ day of __J_a.DJ.l_a.ry_i..._1__9_7_1

______, he served a true copy of the annexed

of Settlement
and signature
O_r_de.r.._wi_tb___N_o_t_i_ce/m
the office of Saxe-41
__
_BaC_O.I1_,
___Bolan____&__Manl..e_J1'.""-_Es.q
s.
attorney for _clei_e_l)gj;l_Ilt_s
_____ herein, located at J9 __Ea__s._t
__6 8-th__st_r_ee_t__,_
______
Borough of --~anhattan__

-----------------------------,

leaving a true copy of same with his clerk ~on

Sworn to before me this

31st day of January

--~dil_

~trl\J

STELLAB. MAGl'ER

Notery Public, State of New York

No. 24-4501884
Oualified in Kings County
Commission Expires March 30, If

r~

ibaid

____, City of New York, by

office. ---""-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Civ.

,. '" },3
(,,.....

' .......

1529
1'

Plaintiff,
ANSWER
-againstFRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants.
-

Defendants,
for

an injunction,
1.

a belief
II

for

and

as

their

answer

to

the

complaint

state:

Deny any knowledge

as to

the

or

allegations

information

contained

sufficient

in

to

paragraphs

"l",

form
11

2 11 an

411

2.
"5"

and

11

Deny each

6 11 of

the

and every

plaintiff's

other

and

together
further

relief

contained

in

paragraphs

complaint.

WHEREFORE, defendants
be dismissed,

allegation

with

demand
costs

as

this
'\

that

plaintiff's

and disbursements,
Court

may deem just.

Attorneys
for Defendants
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

complaint
and such

r-:
! t r::..
l~J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

C'. ~

; .

u. S. DlSLrcr

C.\'J:.' ..

FEB 8 1974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

73 Civ.
Plaintiff,

1529

T!f,1E~..r.i ......... .
P.r.t.............

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants.
-

DEFENDANTS' FIRST DEMANDFOR INTERROGATORIES

TO PLAINTIFF
TO THE PLAINTIFF,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Defendants
rogatory

separately

accordance

with

If

the

in

documents,

Rule

such

cating

the

deemed

responsive.

in which

to

the

subject

and

answer

that

In

answer

is

papers
inspect,

These

the

in

or

those

or

interrogatories

matter

its
into

in

of

Civil

your

of

and

plaintiffs,

by attaching

documents

and by indior

papers

may answer

specifying

and making

contained

the

answers

you

Procedure.

is

documents,

the

that

fapers

or

the

location

same

are

records
of

available

to

photograph.
call

employees

which

oath,

interrogatory

alternative,

records

under

custody

those

copy

plaintiff,

the

to which

contained

inter-

interrogatory

to

the

each

Rules

or papers

by identifying

documents,

to

by any

answer
and

Federal

records

interrogatory

the

defendant

the

or

documents

interrogatory

plaintiff

in writing

requested

indicate

of

that

fully

33 of

papers

copies

able

and

information

you may so

the

request

they

for

all

information

or

agents,

with

inquire.

If

availrespect

some of

the

to

information
agent

and

agent,
to

is

known

other

agent

available

information

please

each

or

include

employee

or

provided

is

in

your

agent

and

information

1.

Please

allegations

stated

a particular

available

to

answers

all

please

with

provide
in

to

all

another

the

each

information

paragraph

"FIFTH"

employee

which

to

or

known

employee

or

answer:

which

in

or

information

specify

respect

employee

your

supports

your

complaint

for

an

injunction.
(a)
and

locations

for

the

of

date

of

was

taken

to

investigation,

defendants

and

had

manner

to

the

the

you,

in what
of

interrogatory

those
learned

of

way it

or

action

and

the

is

or

responsib
the

violation

informant

and

investigation

results

of

alleged

was

dates

allegedly

complainant

what

and/or

this

you

complaint,

knowledge

to
and

name of

complaint

verify

answer

in what

the

the

your

violations

and

particularly

the

in

alleged

violation

giving

or

Include

said

that

involved

in

action

each
such

of

the

alleged

violation.

which
of

2.

Please

supports

your

the

complaint

and

the

informant

and

said

that
in

each
such

the

date

was

taken

action

or

of

the

alleged

contained

your

answer

alleged

and

particularly
of

the

to

upon

the

your

in

paragraph

this

in what

possession
"SIXTH"

verify

the
and

had

interrogatory
those

manner

name of

complaint

to

you,

complaint,
in what

knowledge

allegedly
you

the

learned

corrplainant

what
and

action
the

way it

is

and/or

was

of

of
or
or

results
alleged
involved

violation.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

served

in

and

the

investigation,
defendants

to

violations

violation,

giving

investigation
of

the

violation,

in
of

for

information

an injunction.

Include

locations

responsible

all

allegations

for

(a)
dates

give

undersigned

within
2

a copy
thirty

of

such

days

answer
after

must

service

be

of

the

foregoing

interrogatories.
Respectfully

submitted,
BOLAN & MANLEY

Attorneys
1or Defendants
Office
and P. 0. Address
39 East
68th Street
New York,
New York 10021

rlLt:.1- ..
fU ClERifS Gffl(, .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

.;.s. oisrmcrco;J,ff
E.n.rt 1.

* FEB28 t974 *

-----------~--------------~--~x
:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:

-~gainst-

10

73 C 1529

F. C. TRUMP, D. TRUMPand
TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,

JtME.
A.M....,.,.....- ............
.....
P.M
......

Defendants

-----------------------------xunited

States courthouse
Brooklyn, New York

11

January 25, 1974

10:00 o'clock
a.m.

12
13

14
15

Before:

HONORABLE
EDWARDR. NEAHER, u.s.o.J.

16
17
18
19

20

21

22
23
24

25

BURTONH. SULZER
OFFICIAL COURTREPORTER

APPEARANCES:
2
3

EDWARD
J. BOYDV, ESQ.,
Acting United States Attorney
Eastern District
of New York

for the

BY:
5

HENRYA. BRACHTL, ESQ.,

Assistant

United

States

Attorney.

6
7

FRANKE.

SCHWELD, ESQ.,

MS. ELYSE GOLDWEBE!t

Attorneys for Housing Section,
Division.

Civil

10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17

18
19

20
21

22
23
24
25

ROY COHN, ESQ

Attorney for Tx,.:uap Management Inc.
F. c. Trump and D. Trwap.

. . . . . .

Rights

3
2
3

THE CLERK: United

o.

States

Trump and Management,

F.c.

against

Inc.

MR. BRACHTL:Your Honor, the first

several

be Mr. Cohen's

I would like

Schweld,

the Civil

to which we'll

to first

Rights

and Attorney

11

Section

introduce

Elyse

13

calendar

14

case:

15

the complaint,

16

definite

this

first,

there

of the Department
also

Rights

Division.

there

of Justice

which are on the

are three

is the defendant's

concerning

this

motion to dismis

or in the alternative,

for a more

statement.
There is,

secondly,

the plaintiff's

18

compel an answer to interrogatories,

19

there

20

ant.1s counterclaim.

is the plaintiff's

With respect

21

of

of the Housing

to the matters

morning,

get to that

to the Court Frank E.

Goldweber,

of the Civil

of

morning will

this
we

matter

of the Housing Section

Division

With respect

17

but before

who is the Chief

10

12

be addressed

motion,

Trump,

22

those

several

23

arguments

24

in the alternative

25

as we think

motion

to counsel

matters,

with respect

to dismiss

the defend-

for the government

Ms. Goldweber will

to the motion

corollary

to

and, thirdly,

for a more definite

a necessary

motion

on

address

to dismiss,

the
or

statement,

to that

argument,

and

our argument
2

answers

in support

At the conclusion

a few remarks

for the dismissal

of

have to be affirmative

this

government

batterycf

rr.ry very

all

a big gun,

by myself

I am afraid

I will

talent

motions,

to

from the
but I will

do

~~,

Mr.

recognize

you as

too.
You are very kind,

your Honor. I wis

it was so.
I guess

Judge Neaher,

15

at the beginning.

the best

16

is start

17

the Trumps and the Trump organization

18

to start

19

which is a defendant,

20

Donald Trump,

21

ment,

22

ful and most respected

23

area,

by telling

having

and Frederick

one day

-- well. I ought
Company,

and his

Trump

son,

with Trump Manage-

management and most sueces

management companies

in this

in the country.

day back in the late

been served

to do here

Baek in the fall

who are associated

and I suppose

thing

you the Trump Janagement

is one of the largest

One fine

24

25

that

with respect

legal
on all

COURT: Well,

MR.~}:

13

counterclaim.

and negative

distinguished

have

of our application

defendant's

the

I will

best.
'l'HE

11

argument

to make in support

14

of that

MR. COIDI::
!.: Your Honor,

12

to compel

to interrogatories.

10

of our motion

with any legal

fall,

papers

without
or any such

formality,

all

radio

pursuant

ment of Justice

people

policies.

of a sudden

and heard

themselves

to a press

the Trumps turn

being
issued

release

in Washington

The next

News and the

the

facts

day,

front

for

adopting

the bulldog

to see and all

11

someplace

and we found out what this

that

of the Daily

the court

to read,

thereafter

said

discriminatory

editions

some time

is

-- as

page of the New York Times emblazone

all

I noticed

over,

out of the Depart-

10

12

all

-- not up here

who are discriminating,

blasted

on the

papers

in some papers

13

it

14

a phone call

15

simultaneously

16

But what I am saying

17

us at the moment, except

18

claim

19

to your

20

thing

and I guess

finally
was all

submitted

turned

up

about.

to your Hono

somebody made or was supposed

to make

to somebody in the Trump organization

with

which I will

the release

of this

now, really,
with

press

is not actionable

reference

by

to our counter

come to in a few minutes.

Honor as the background

release.

I tell

as to how this

it

whole

started.
I know that

21

22

Southern

23

things

24

being

25

is,

District
to say about

handed

the Eastern

District

and the

and the Second Circuit

this

out in the

and the government

idea
first
concedes

of these
instance,
that

have had
press

releases

but the

fact

they did hand out

one and they have been candid

2

press

Honor.

release

to the papers

that

which are submitted

to yo

The damage done to the Trumps and the defendants

here was, 1 suppose,

no matter

damage is never

you are never

headlines.

10

something

that

is never

what the outcome of this

going to catch

When these

motions

12

the same people,

13

to whom the government

14

release

15

papers

16

them with his position,

17

he wanted to have before

18

do business

19

banks and everybody

20

which is that

21

front

22

here we are where we should

conference

these

in which we tried

had distributed

and we acquainted

we were filing

in Court

of the media
its

the charges

the thousands

24

is one of the most unusual

25

must admit that

of people

foundation.
be,

them his

and

position
over the

In any event,

in court.

the complaint
things

who

tenants

made and emblazoned

years

the

which he felt

and his

have before

pages were without

Now, Judge Neaher,

press

them with

which is a denial

else,

to contact

and Mr. Trump acquainted

with him commercially

in recent

initial

we had a somewhat

the same representatives

originally,

the

undone because

were filed,

reserved

press

up with

going to,

1 suppose

case,

going to be completely

11

23

enough to attach

in this

I have ever
1 suppose

case
seen.

my practice

ha1 gone from between

office

matters

inal

rights

founded by some of the principles

government

cases,

and I frankly

case before

urges

First

you a motion

it

stitute

totally

have not been in a civil

apply

to this

this

to set

a cause

of action.

ll

we

12

Honor should

disagree,

13

alternative,

dismiss

14

file

15

so that

16

able

17

are

it with

charged

This complaint
pages

is a very

to con-

the complaint.

If you

your Honor,

leave

in the

to the government
allegations

are on notice

as to exactly

specifically

sufficient

some factual

the defendants

on the grounds

if your Honor disagrees,

we ask that

with

You have befo

is a bare bone co~lain.

ask you to dismiss

a complaint

18

facts

It

And we ask in the alternative,

detail

type of case.

complaint

forth

10

of course

of law which the

as to the complaint.

to dismiss

fails

of crim-

and I must say I am amazed and con-

of all

and trial

in it

with some reason-

what proscribed
with having

conduct

committed.

which gave rise

to all

short

The only

these

front

20

stated

21

Trump Management and Fred and Donald Trump, and from

22

therein,

there

23

language

of Title

24

that

25

enjoinable

it

violation

facts

are the names of the defendant

is a verbaim
42, 3602(b)

is a violation

document.

they

19

in the complaint

recitation

of the statuto

and 3601, which says

of the Fair
to discriminate

Housing Act,
because

and

of race,

color

or creed,

are

pursued

Fair

injunctive

if

by a landlord,

Housing

relief

short

discriminatory
this

Act and the

There

and that

is proscribed

government

of the

very

complaint.

They don't

such projects

blacks

10

1973,

11

able

12

apartment

because

13

was given

to a subsequent

14

that1

even say between

John Jones,

to pay the rent,

not one line

applied

16

it,

I said,

I don't

17

name and it

18

saying

19

one specific

20

being

21

and not one specific

sets

indicted

I said,

with

the

23

could

then

24

bill

25

grant

if

case,

something

it

of particulars,

It's

crazy

like

in to me and I read
you.

It

has yo

language

And there

section

isn't

being

charge

in a criminal

and ask the

existed

same apartme

indictment."

which is

a situation

an

akin to a defendant

a defendant

come forward

and

or something

statutory

statutory

in the

17,

whole complaint.

verbatim

Now, I realize

22

the

applicant,

not discriminate.

act.

qualified

know what to tell

forth

you should

fully

and was denied

When Mr. Trump brought

15

such-and-

or on January

race,whereas

in this

a year.

Trump Organization,

otherwise

of his

in this

even give

such-and-such,

being

for

1968 and 1972 at

by the

have been denied

may apply

allegation

They don't

operated

by the

Court.

is not one specific

policies

a relief

government

for

the Court

as I described.

happened,

case

Judge Neaher.

would

In this
After

th's

complaint

was filed

and I don't

motion

isn't

complaint

is filed

and said,

we don't

didn't

we didn't

can sink our teeth

10

and we made the motion

remember whether

or after

and we set

know what this

you haven't
into:

0ont

12

taken

care

of.

13

taken

care

of,

14

atories

and tell

15

to find

out whether

16

them with the answers

17

the answers,

18

amplify

19

fact

20

in this

21

And then
they

about.

given

that's

will

we

be

us with 16 pages of interrog

make an investigati

or not we discriminated,

to furnis

and when we furnish

them with

be in a position

and tell

us whether

motion before

or not in

23

I'm going to say just

24

would seem to me, and I don't

25

disagreement

think

the first

front

page
or not.

your Honor this

morning is to compel us to answer these

a word about

to

to it

22

that

you

us one

I find out how it

area might have some substance

on that,

We

going to be

which they made on every

How, the third

it

which we can answer here.

worry:

serve

this

know how to tell

you haven't

then they will

the charge

is all

us to go out and

the complaint

after

given us one thing

one name, one fact

They said,

11

really

up a rumpus about

and we don't

because

made the

we

and it

in any event,

-- but,

discriminate

location,

it was before

we made the motion,

too material

to dismiss-

interrogatorie.

them because
there
thing

will

it
be much

we do is

10

impose upon your Honor for a ruling,

2

has had a chance

at you, on the sufficiency

your Honor rules

or rules

give

up;

rogatories

that

to go into

it

they

of the complaint,

should

facts,

then we get down, I suppose,

Now, this

some facts
once that

served

on us to find

ll

for their

12

read

13

of proceeding.

14

the name, address,

15

interviewed

16

this

case.

17

race

and occupation

18

you or on your behalf,

19

in the future

action

and all

out whether

there

Maybe it

of that.

race

state

about

thing

and occupation

separately

of any person

can just

picture

myself

22

sayiing,

I d

23

way, are you black

24

or Jew?

25

that

like

type

state

of each person
in relation

to

the name, address,

not interviewed

by

to intervie

case.

I have been around a little

21

of this

but whom you intend

this

I ever

Please

by you or on your behalf

Please

they

is my ignorance

On page 15, they say,

of inter

is any basis

has to be the wildest

in my life.

Well,

is cleared

to the stage

particulars

it,

and then

16 pages of interrogatories

10

20

and if

and does not dismiss

furnish

them time to furnish

your Honor

mess we are throwing

this

sufficient

and further

after

calling

while

up some witness

to talk

to you about

or white

or Catholic,

And then making a note of it

over to the government

and I

thia.

and

, By the

Protestant
and then turning

or something

like

that.

11

That's
2

what this

whole darn thing

They say,

for example,

and address

of eaeh black

who has applied

Management in the past

charge

in hiring

housing

to him, he said,

"Please

and Puerto

for a position

its

three

11

have thought

it

12

body to say,

'what

He said,

13

is.

Well,

-- it

me to answer

highly

improper

doesn't

of Trump

is a fair

I couldn't

tell

because

I would

it,

yo

when we employ some-

is your race1

1 don't

know what their

14

religion

All I know is,

15

ences

if

16

job,

and whoever our personnel

17

daft

ask race.

18

of these

19

or Puerto

20

Jew,

21

in the world

22

concerning

23

like

that

24

jobs

in ar organization.

He said,

Rican or white

and he said,

or

they get the

people

are,

And I haven't

and I wouldn't

race

they have good refer-

and they meet the qualifications,

people

this

Mr. Trump and readit

now can I do that?

the Court ordered

the name

on the part

When I called

if

state

Rican individual

years.

management personnel

proceeding.

like.

of any kind with Trump

employment discrimination

10

25

reads

do that.

We

even seen most

know if they are black

or Catholic,

Protestant

or

x would think the most'inproper

thi

for me to do would be to have questions

a person's

raoe or religion

on employment applications

Now, when it

or something
when we give out

comes to the units,

oh, they want

--

12

to know things

like,

and since

decreases

rates

January

14,000 units

of the actual

the number of persons

concerning

January

practices,

ed, would never

here.

and increases

1, 1968. You are talking

14,000 units,

they ask us to tell

of an apartment

1, 1969 and present.

and obviously

the Trumps have never permittan application

which is given out for a broker

11

to say to a person,

12

would have no way in the world of knowing.

our 14,000 units

15

a number of blacks

16

visibly.

17

them and blacks

18

not there

19

the place.

20

canvass

21

many blacks

22

there,

23

or non-Puerto

24

25

"What's

thing

renting

your race

an apartment
or religion?

and findout
who live

-- there

are definitely

in there,

that

and looked

we know

at some of

walk in and out and I assume they are

for any improper

purpose

and they live

But they want us to go, apparently,

all

We

they ask us to do is to canvass

I have taken a ride

14,000 of these
live

there

and I suppose

units

and find

and

out how

and how many non-blacks

how many Puerto

in

Ricans

live

live
there

Ricans.

The whole tenor

offensive.

between

We deny any discriminato

dream of permitting

14

them

per month by race making inquiry

the availability

The next

about

When you get down to the question

10

13

in rental

of the thing

If they have some proof

have been discriminating

seems to be
that

and have applied

the Trumps
discriminato

13

and I know there

pol:i::ies
2

blacks,

we represent

these

to support

have been followed,

tell

doing,

note

every

person

in a proper

units

that

-- but if

area

to the Court,

they

a complaint

who live

discriminatory

race

the minimwn facts,

11

claim

12

we can meet that

13

those

14

tion

15

what happened.

witness

to about

complaint,

10

it,

it

statutory

action

and say'in

or on this

application

is not a fact

that

us at least

language,

charge

That's

all

a barebones

tnat

submit

followed

19

tories

telling

20

own investigation,

which would be long,

21

in many instances,

impossible,

22

country

24

rogatories

25

point,

we are

complaint,
heels

without

by 16 pages

us to go out and find

going

like

one fact

of interroga-

and conduct
expensive

our
and,

is not the way in this

this.

asklt)ur

in abeyance,

situa-

to your Honor the

in it,

So we therefore

in

we ask.

18

23

building

and here's

concept

you do something

of

which they

or in this

17

on its

or

by us so that

we discriminated,

I would respectfully

16

we interview,

which advises

not

and in so

but ask them to put

shows some discriminatory

units

proof

we ask them to do is not to

of every

I talk

in

practices

us to go out and make an investigation

the

number of

have some specific

that

all

considerable

Honor to hold the

and if we ever

to ask leave

get

inter

to this

to make a motion

to

14

strike

some of these,

this

dismissal

plead

complaint

and ask your Honor to dismiss

-- and if your Honor feels

is not warranted,

at least

total

ask them to re-

and give us some facts.

The government

some cases which they

cites

a complaint

justify

like

could

actually

think

one of them that

insofar

They have been kind enough to supply

as this

they cite

complaint

I'm sure,

is concerned,

knowing,

the expertise

11

Division,

they

12

were nice

enough to mimeograph off

13

table

14

gone through

15

one of them that

16

am not going to cite

and I don't
supports

There are,

18

a complaint

you don't

19

tiary

20

boredom that

21

a bill

22

The defendant

23

government

24

your Honor strikes

25

tell

detail.

cases.

think

says,

says,

forth

don't

find

this.

which say in
every

eviden-

to the point

every time there

before

like

with

I have

-- don't

somethings

Your Honor has heard

of particulars

and they

lack.

have to set

argument

Rights

for us a list

a complaint

of course,

Civil

fingertips

the general

of

is a motion

you in a. criminal
know anything.

They want all

cas.

us with a pile,

of the unreported

these

I don't

a reported

of their

have them at their

of contents

this.

say

is of significance

10

17

that

our evidence.

a happy balance

and says,

them enough so they know of the

specifics

for

case.

The
And
well,
here

15

they are supposed

to meet.

them all

cite

iarity,

don't

somethingi

with and what they

done,

favor.

your evidence

this

Connelly

and all

of that.

everything

you have to tell

and I think

feel

It says you

but you have to tell

them what they are charged

someone is supposed

that

case

cuts

go to these

to have

most heavily

unreported

11

talk

12

myself

13

which they set

14

start

15

obvious

16

of detail.They

17

so I just

18

might have been and the preliminary

19

papers

in our

cases.

Just

to

about a few of them and not to be discriminatory

here,

I will

just

take

them forth

with a case called

from that

case,

don't

them in the order

in their

your Honor, there

set

have to piece

forth

It

They
is

was a wealth

the actual

together

in

memorandum.

the Raymond case.

complaint

what the complaint

pleadings

from the

they have here.

In the Raymond case,

20

Okay. They

both ways, of course.

have to tell

Then they

have to tell

case with which I have some famil-

which cuts

10

But you don't

21

this

was a small

situation.

22

less

than 40 apartments

23

we have in this

24

lord

publicly

announced

25

rent

a place

to a black.

case.

your Honor,

first

They would say,

involved,

and admitted,
Forget

I think,

not 14,000,

What they say there

about

such as

is the land-

1 will
it.

of all,

never

And,

16

furthermore,
2

friends

their

place.

impropriety

when a wlite family

of theirs,
lease

they promptly

was terminated

I can understand
and fact

They go then

6
7

against

Ohio,

Township refused

entertained
told

the white

a charge

that

that

to this

like

that

should

Palmer case,

to go forward

10

a specifically

11

with Federal

12

bring

about

13

area.

The issue

14

should

15

ship was specifically

16

ity

enumerated

which was

funds,

of blacks

there

be blocked

was whether

or not then

project,

this

might

a community or

this

housing

project
town-

and the defendant

so charged

the

to be done

that

into

in

that

a housing

poject

on the grounds

an influx

I think,

charge

with

housing

in its

have been met.

was a specific

there

family

and to get out of the

the City or Township of Palmer,

and there

some black

and had the opportun~

to meet the charge.

In the Smythe case,

17
18

single

19

apply.

family

exemption

In the Goldberg

20

the government

did just

22

case:

forth

23

in which claimed

set

followed

25

whether

your Honor,

what it

a list

were being

,,;1,~;1;;,

lots.
denied

or didn't

they did just

had not done in this

di~rimina~or.(.f;actices

and \~umerated
lots

was whether

law applied

a schedule,

,.,,,11,li
24

to this

case,

21

they

the issue

The jssue
to people

of properties

have been
there

was

because

of

17

race,
2

and they

set

forth

As you go through

any case or anything

that

defendants,

statute

put the defendant

really,

and beyond that

and then

file

16

17
18

19
20

21
22

23
24
25

its

proof

been made specifically

(Continued

is,

page).

it.

the
and

the burden--

is a shifting

of a charge

against

on next

photostat

and shift

to establish

innocence

fin

the only facts

of interrogatories

your Honor, what this

proceedings,

I don't

are the names of the

you just

a list

to its

11

15

whole thing,

have to be in a complaint

burden on the defendant

14

this

which says that

10

13

of lOts which were so

involved.

12

a list

of the

in preliminary
which has never

18

td

I don't

see what reason,

fairness,

should

not to be willing

specifics

candor
stand

for,

and type of fair

that

in this

practice

your Honor most respectfully

or make them replead

Court

13
14
15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

in conformity

in the United

that

--

point,

we ask

this

complaint

with the practice

States.
I have covered

on that,

but I would think

appropriately

get your Honor's

the

as your Honor

we would allagree
dealt

disposition

about

with after
how this

we all

complaint

be handled.
I had a little

representative
we will

case.

your Honor, and I would say we

is probably

should

motion

there

as I know, in every

do want to be heard

might gather,

in this

to dismiss

and, as far

interrogatories,
certainly

us some factual

to do so, at this

The only other

19
20

District,

and District

12

the Government

to give

case

Having failed

11

the Government

as to when, where and how they claim

has been discriminatory

in this

play,

can occasion

10

in the name of

conversation

with

of the Government,

the very nice

and I don't

have any problem on that.

think

They have made a

motion:t:o .dismiss

our oounter-clailll.

a hundred million

dollars,

We have sued for

which i& a possibly

--

THE COURT: A tidy

sum.

MR. COHEN: A tidy

sum, your Honor, right.

They say it

is 90 percentlogic,

or something,

than

19

anything
2

this,

on that.

that's

been sued for in previous

and I am not prepared

The basis

bringing

soaet.hi.Jl(J that

of the

saying

things,

first

11

an attorney

12

And they aight

of all,

If

contends

what they

that

15

willing

it

in
is

process.
what we are really

they say three

say,

things,

they say,

is defective

did not personally

in that
it.

sign

have me on that.

they do,

and they might

I would be willing

be right

to sign

about

The second objection

and I would be

that,

that

them make, is that

the time to file

not timely,

18

after

19

your Honor on the complaint

20

an answer,

an answer has been -- after

if

to sign a pleadin,

it.

17

21

that

that

our pleading

of record

14

16

the action

your Donor -- they say four

10

13

is that

goes beyond an abusive

here's

is --

suit

like

thera factually

was unauthorised;

the action

The Government

to dispute

cases

thatbecomes

something

it

like

is
this

the motion before

is disposed
necessary,

of,

and after

is filed

by us.

seems to me they then go on to say we

But it

22

have something

here which is a compulsory

23

meaning that

24

the proceedings,

25

in with point

it must be asserted

and I don't
three.

at an early

know how point

If the fact

counter-claim

is there

stage

of

two fits
should

be

20

made at a later

time,

we would be agreeable

to a

severance

without

prejudice

on their

part

to -- when

we renew it,

to raise

whatever

objections

they want.

Now, they come to number four,

which is a basic

objection,
6

7
8

9
10

11
12

13

14

its

consent,

17
18

19

say that

which it

of course,

probably

are going

to advise

that:they

intend,

as a matter

in the interest

because

they have nothing

verdict

froa

their

roar

actions

the apirit
forward

of fairness,

was an action

case,

that

they say

that

the Federal

So I know in

duties,

injury

and damage to the defendants.

namely,

abusive

process,

in this

case,

24

slander

and abusive

25

but not within

I am looking

we would be entitled
Tort Claims Act,

the scope of their

Tort Claim Act,

officials

are exclusions
libel,

in

from the

slander

and

our counter-claim

to amount to a contention

the permissive

if

even

which results

and they construe

process

because

from the Governmen.

by the Governaent

Federal

23

proper.

now prevails,

there

22

to give it,

in this

But they say that

21

aorning

Honor or a jury

within

20

they

as any damage

for such a gesture

that,

play,

insofar

to come in here under

there

of fair

your Honor this

have been entirely

hopefully

-- I am

to fear

of fairness

Absent

the Government without

has not as yet given.

hopeful,

15
16

and they

of libel,

and therefore,
features

not proscrib

of the Federal

21

Tort

Claims Act without

We don't

2
3

stage,

gander,

that

the Federal

injury,

and injury,

first

view it

and in a pleading

We say in a pleading

stage,

where we are now,

is sufficient

under

Tort Claims Act to spell

and it

cannot

would be libel,

that

slander

10

reputation,

11

which are not proscribed

12

require

13

sued.

other

the

than by libel

consent

However,

are right

ness

16

agreeable

17

when, as and if

18

with the reservation

of their

19

opportunity

part

20

all

21

degree

22

complaint,

23

to ba sued in this

and which do not

of this

to a severance

issue,

as to that,

we are perfectly
and as to a renewa

an answer has to be filed

on their

rights,

to consult

be an Attorney

of perll&Dence,

unlike

as to whether

the

think

that's

all

to be

on the lack of timeli

in this

case,

and with an
with what I guess
General

with some

the one who signed

this

Government would be willi

action.

Your Honor has been very patient

24

and things

of the Goverllftlent in order

15

of us hope will

process.

and damage to

and alander,

by the Act,

if they

in the raising

the only dama.g

or abusift

might be damage to property

It

the lack of

out damage and

be determined

25

way.

by the Government.

for the goose is sauce for the

what is sauce

our counter-claim

14

that

consent

I would like

with me and I

to say on these

motions.

22

!l

td/2

11

THE COURT: All right.

2

the matter

of the complaint.

to proceed

with Mias Goldweber on that?

I take

Firstly,

a civil

States

15, 1973,

in racially

I would like

action
filed

its

complaint

and alleged

discriminatory

10

rental

11

Housing Act.

of their

12

that

The defendants,
argwaent

14

the Government's

15

a claim upon which relief

16

The United

correctly,

its

that

allegations

18

the coflainta

19

relief

20

defendants

have refused.

21

on account

of their

22

required

23

to the rental.

of those

24

person's

and color.

race

on October
have engaged

with respect

in violation

their

court
it

to the

of the Fair

I understand

contends

contained

to dismiss

fails

to state

to the contrary,

in paragraph

atate

a claim

by alleging,

firstly,

specifically

can be granted

The United

the defendants

because

is

can be granted.

States

17

action

action

have moved this

complaint

different

in this

and if

13

this

action.

conduct

apartments,

you are going

your Honor.

to remark that

and not a criminal

me hear on

it

MS. GOLDWEBER:Good morning,

25

Now, let

to rent

race
terms

that

and conditions

dwellings

They have made discriminatory

of

upon which
that

apartments

and color,

five

the

to persons
they have

with respect

on account

of a

statements

with

23
respect
2

they
for

to the rental

of these
their

have represented

rental,

when,

dwellingsr

dwellings

in fact,

and that

were unavailable

such dwellings

were availabl.

We claim

in paragraph

six of the

complaint,

that

this

conduct

constitutes

both

pattern

or practic

of racial

discrimination

in violation

of the Fair

Housing

and a denial

Act,

to groups

of persons

of

rights

secured

to them by the Fair

Housing

Act.

of a motion

For the purposes

to disniss,

plaintiff's

allegations

in the complaint

admitted

and the only

are deemed

10

thing

that

is contested,

is

11

plaintiff's

right

to recover

under

the

law.

12

Obviously,

if

the United

States

can prove

13

at trialr

among other

things,

that

the defendants

14

have refused

to rent

apartments

to persons

on account

15

of race

and color,

then

the United

entitled

to both

affirmative

pursuant

to 42

States

will

be

16

and injunctive

relief,

17

use

3613.

18

Now, Mr. ~.

has said

that

the other

cases

19

that

we have cited

five

and six,

in our brief,

specifically

pages

20

have all

pleaded

I respectfully

disagree

with

complaint

has been filed

evidentiary

matter.

21

him since

each and every

22

that

under

the Fair

Housing

has been written

in the

23

Act by the Attorney

General,

. 24

same Section
25

of the Government,

signed

by the

same

24

people,

and all

have been substantially

none of them have pleaded

allegations.
Also,

for

discussed,

brief,

they

this,

couched

the Fair

the requirements

10

because

11

nature

12

it

the

a complaint

one is

Act,

is

has been

to on page five

go on to say that

Housing

it

where this

referred

as this

in the very

sufficient

apprises
claim

Accordingly,

the United

of

language

because

it

meets

Rules,

the defendants

of plaintiff's

of the

such as

of Rule-a of the Federal

clearly

and

any kind of evidentiary

cases

which are

similar,

of the

and the grounds

upon which

rests.

13
14

urges

that

15

denied.

defendant's

motion

States

to dismiss,

THE COURT: I certainly

16
17

motion.

18

this

19

is a civil

20

is,

21

GoVernment,

which does charge

22

of conduct,

which,

23

violation

of fundamental

24

certainly

imply perjorative

25

defendants

it

get

I have a few questions

complaint,

is an action

if

true,

were concerned,

of your

do arise

with

as you point

out,

and not a criminal

brought

would be

the purport

that

and even though,

action

respectfully

action,

the

by the United

States

a somewhat

serious

would be clearly

national

policy,

inferences,
and the

like.

this
fact

course

in
which

so far

as the

25

I have looked

at your paragraph

five

and I

realise

pleadiD9

what you seem to say in five,

is to the defendant,

You have violated

the law.

And you say,

You have violated

the law by refusing

making stateaents

-- how does a plaintiff

deal

that

under our very liberal

permitted

with

it?

in civil

form of

thatin

essence

actions

with

faaed

to rent

ll

follows

12

sufficiency

13

place

or material,

14

other

averaents,

and I notice,

Rule 8, that

for the

of a pleading,

as I see it,

under
purpose

motions

now pending

16

of other

17

repect

l8

by the plaintiff,

19

to 1968, which I take

20

enactaent

to interrogatories

of this

that
before

served

asking
it,

the

of time and
like

all

matter.

I bring

that

of testing

be considered

in a material

The reason

Role 9, which

of averment

shall

and

rentals,

such a complaint,

There is no allegation,

of time or place,

in effect,

and so to some extent

and so forth,

10

15

notice

up is

because

tbe court,

with

on the defendants

for information,

dating

back

was even the year of the

Act.

21

HS GOLDDBER: Right.

22

THE COURT: And yet there

in this

pleading,

is no statement

which would enable

23

ti.me or place

24

a defendant

25

go back to 1968,

as not being consistent

causes

pleaded.

perhaps

of action

to challenge

of

interrogatories
with the

that

26

Por example,
2

does not make this

undoubtedly

be able

doubt,

cited

it

type situations

workers,

who felt

10

by their

union.

while
charge

believes

to prove

despite

I assume that

these

in a capricious

has the proof

it

the Government

or will

of authority

which you have

to me, and which I hAve examined,

difficult

to assimilate

themselves

discriminated

the case

does not aet

allegations,

13

Mr. Cohn pointed

14

opinions,

such as preventing

15

apartaent

house or dealing

16

permitting

colored

17

particular

building,

18

them that

19

let

make it

the exact

of others

possible

21

either,

22

coming before

23

by the Securities

24

same kind of relief

25

affiraative

appendix

with a situation

to visit

white

of not
people

for a defendant

so charged,

them in a reasonable

this

question

manner.

not capriciously

injunctive

at the complaint,

agencies

and a very recent

and Exchange Comlllission,

that

you seek,
relief,

no defendant

in a

definitionabout

with

Court,

of

of one

we have many adilinistrative

this

that

the construction

have a certain

to deal

because

against

forth

is reminiscent

people

find

band of negro

out in your supplemental

I am raising

20

that

to Connolly-Gibson

a small

12

us say,

case

which involved

While the Court

11

this

certainly

I do bave some

allegations,

the array

way and

that

in which,
could

case prough
seeking

the

is to say,
when you look

complain

about

it

27

because

it

being

Securities

and this,

tells

charged

him very definitively

with,

in effect,

Exchange Act,
as I say,

Mr. Cohn's

without

to say that

ogatories

12

location

13

made

no time liait,

so I do think

a defendant,

17

does the private

18

to inform

19

say,

20

criminal,

21

criminal

that

23

under 18 US 241, for

and

area, which,

peraons

to
than

litigant,

manner -- and as I
although

we know there

who conspire

may well be charged

riqhts,

others

were

here,

the private

sues in this

might well be because

That includes

is presented

versus

particular

statutes,

of statements

the Government in fairness

litigant

someone it

and looking

that

have DlOre of an obligation

22

25

your

of the complaint

a problem

doesn't

of civil

by interr-

practice.

whether

sues in this

is an answer

particulars

or what nature

or what particular

16

think

does not give any particulat

of building,

I am wondering

it

is not altoget

job is to resist

on the basis

15

out is that

that

these

of his

when part

sets

the

definitely,

about the complaint

he can get all

11

24

pointing

I am not certain

basis.

interrogatories

14

specifically,

I aa

coaplaint

10

having violate

may be doing more than is required.

But all

what he is

not

are
to deprive

criminally,

example.
invading

in his file

a psychiatrist's

-- you just

saw that

office
in the

er

28

paper

yesterday.

cases

you cite,

in an area

dealing

but fourteen

7
8
9

10

13

spread

definition
initial

into

broad,

undefined

defendant

20
21

22
23

24

25

flung,

wide-

in the Government's

proper

basis,

interrogatories

and issues

might

more readily

focus.

picture,

this

is a very

of a pattern,

1 can't

is saying

apartments,

in the way of a

Ar the moment, as I see it,

and the

even see the pattern.

MS. GOLDWBBER:I would like

THE COURT: I understand

to respond

to that.

and I am. perfectly

happ

to have you do so.

Do

17

19

sharper

a far

something

so that

even be served on that

brought

where you are

apartments,

be conveyed

should

the problems

of not one hundred

that

pleading,

15

18

thousand

many of these

do not perceive

such as New York City,

organisation;

14

16

I feel

with a landlord

11
12

So I must say that

justice

you feel

to the complaint

there

ought

of action,

required

-- so that

facts

type of situation
depiciton

-- and

-- but something

at such and such a time,

at so-and-so

causes

terms

evidentiary

says beginning

located

th.at in this

to be a more definitive

I am. not saying

that

or don t you feel --there is some

in buildin

-- they might even be separate

I don't

know whether

the proof

of more definitively

could

stated

that

be dealt

claims

that

would be
with in
appear

in

29

this

document.

As I say,

I would be perfectly

willing

to supply

SEC production,

to illustrate

you with

the latest

what

I mean when I say that

this

would not bring

about

the

sort

of contr<>Yersy we have here,since

lays

out for the defendant

it

so clearly

in that

case,

what they

have done wrong.

MS. GOLDWEBER:Well,

your Honor,

in this

case,

10
11

12
13
14
15

I respectfully

have a bit

I think,

of all,

affidavits

18
19

discriminatory
dants,

22
23

Court,

isn't

it?

on the part

knowledge,

have

have both filed

that

there

was any

of any of the defen-

and the Government's

It

is conclusions

that

is all

opposed

charges

way, rather

that

been able

if

conclusory,

to conclusions;

but I frame my denial

than

they

to answer

in an

in a negative

MS. GOLDWEBER: I understand

to believe

Donald

unfounded.

I deny what you say,

affirmative

they

denying

THE COURT: Of course,

that,

had done that,

the complaint

way.
but I seem

then

they would

and that's

all

they would have to do.

24
25

this

counsel,

conduct

to their

are totally

20
21

with

interpretation

one of the defendants,

Trump, and defendant's

16

17

first

of a different

THE COURT: From the standpoint

say,

with

your interrogatories,

of dealing,

how can they

let

successful

30

.,
object

to interrogatories

going back to 1968,

don't

scope of information,

would be demanded by the allegations

I don't

time-wise,

say that

of discovery,

confronted

at the complaint

one of the things

10

or not you may be seeking

know whether

those

of limitations

of time,

occurs

will,

racial

discrimintation,

13

prior

to the effective

14

bring

in evidence

and,

when

16

of prior

conduct,

17

so forth;

such as this?

based on things
date

to prove

on issues

happened

but we can

value

and design,

and

that.
question.

19

We are getting

the area

into

20

of course,

I understand

21

enable

22

the other

23

to the discovery

of evidence,

24

order

a claim

to call

the probative

of intent

That is a different

to support

that

of the Act,

18

parties

a statute

to

I understand

parties

look

for example,

a claim

THE COURT: I can understand

15

limiting

to me, doesn't

ever run against

12

25

of your compaint?

MS. GOLDWEBER:We are not allowed

11

than

to interrogatories,

in terms
that

chronologically,

Courts

with objections,

a broader

are necessarily

but very often,

if they

that

of evidence,

discovery

is designed

upon the parties

to produce

These are commonplace.

-- call

information,
as well

or defense

and,

upon

even leading

as evidence,

against

I am sure

to

in

a claim.

you understand

31

that.
Whan you are talkin9

thousand

complex,

-- and again,

where it

fourteen

does occur to the Court that. there

which prohibit

example,

I am not passing

interrogatory

that,

inquiries

I don't

on it

but I believe

require

11

of any particular

12

understandin41.

directed

believe

in this

10

in its

are certain
to race,

employment policy-to see tbat

-- Iva.a suprised
case,

I will

be frank

it would be against

in an employment situation

person.

your Honor.

laws

for

to say

the law to

as to the race

I believe

so.

That is my

MR. SCHWBLD: Co11ld I say one thing

13
14

apartment

about a large,

about that,

We have done a lot of employment work.

COURT: Yes.

15

THE

16

MR. SCHWELD: The Zqual Employment Opportunity

17

Commission requires

18

employees,

19

22
23
24

25

to keep a racial

the EPOC in enforcing

census because

Title

7.

THE COURT: That is now a new policy

20
21

I believe,

it has helped

of over 1S or 20

each eaployer

enactment
exaaple,

of that

Act, as I recall

trying

demands that

for a job.
the Federal

the

But, for

here in New York, it was against

any e11ployment agency to inquire

person

it.

since

the law for

as to the race of any

I understand

that

law take precedence,

supremacy
but there

32 I

may ber and I dont

2

Opportunity

Commission?

THE COURT: I don't

were adopted.

10

colleague,
or eight

ll

THE COURT: It

12

Na. SCBDLD: Yes,

13

THE COURT: I see.

15

appears

16

before

17

point

18

some attempt

19
20

that

that

me.

22
23
24

25

mean to interrupt

my

has been about

seven

is

that
sir.

There are problems

the interests

at definition

this

that

these

that
rather

case

things

to

can be served
than

simply

by

a charge

the law, which is the way I have

complaint.

MS. GOLDWEBER:I think

are involved

interrogatories,
information,
objection

such as

of what I have seen in the papers

you have violated

issues

long ago?

I am simply mentioning

out again

21

recent.

m.a.ycrop up in terms of the way this

in the light

to read

re9ulations

ago, at least.

years

that

to

'64.

They may be cc,mparatively

your Honor, but it

14

of the

pursuant

know when these

MR. SCHWBLD:. I don't

8
9

under regulations

7, which we have had since

Title

Act -- is this

MR. SCHWELD: Yes, your Honor,

know when the Equal Employment

here.

are two separate

In response

to the

in which we ask for fairly

if your Honor will

that

there

they could

file

still

detailed

entertin

with their

defendan

answers

to

33

these

interrogatories,

defend

Honor felt

well

to answer that

then we will

each and every

at that

enough,

across

are in control

units,

ti.ae

that

and if your

we did not defend

the country

against

a lot

of many units,

ten,

11

complaint,

12

allege

13

the cOlllplaints

to this,

twelve

tacts

is that

16

the complaint,

17

interrogatories.

18

have held

19

has proven

20

ordered

21

employment relief

22

affirmative

and we inquire

Well,

that

and none of

relief,

relief

at issue

about

it

to give

has

to also

get

to the housing

they have been able

interrogatories,

tha

once the Government

they have been entitled

ready

cases

and the court

as an incident

in

in the

have been three

there

Housing case,

We are certainly

here today

employment relief

employment relief,

a Pair

of our witnesses,

it did not

in the complaint,

we allege

we ask for

25

thousand

as I said before

to,

which is not really

15

with

who

have.

The fact

served

complaint

and in the Raymond

which Mr. Cohen referred

specific

filed

of defendants

of thoae complaints,

and in all

24

it

would not be ordered

is we have sued people,

they were very similar

23

to

interrogatory.

10

14

interrogatory,

t.hentheclefendants

The fact

be prepared

to obtain.

and willing,

if we are

or depositions

are taken

any kind of proper

evidence

34

that
2

we don't

object

them more clearly

affidavits

denying

complaint,

and their

which requests

and persons

Fair

motion

10

utilised

12

13

14
15
16
17
18

19

20
21

22

23

24
25

because

that

11

to apprise

of what is happeninq.

I believe

to the defendants,

to

it,

that

involved

Housing Act,

they

motion

specific

they have filed

in the

for more definite

statement

as to the names,

alleged

violations

the kind of thing

statements

for.
(Continued

deny the

for more definite

facts,

is just

can just

these

on next page.)

should

dates

of the
that

not be

Js
THE COURT: Well,
2
3

are demanding

I think,

4
5

6
7

in terms of specifity,

have been better

exhaustive

there

like

that

followed

is no time period,

me is that

you

by a fairly

interrogatory

is on the part

lligbt

to seek.

what concerns

this

demand for

Govermaent,

and that

remedy for defendants

however,

get a complaint

interrogatories

I understand that

answers

by the

of the Governaent,

no time frame possible

to

8
9

determine
such an

from the face of the complaint

eA4'1:110us

request

as to whether

going back six years

would

10

be justified,

at least

in the first

instance,

without

ll

some more of a showing that

wbat was asked

for was

12

truly

relevant

to the issues

that

were going to be

13

litigated.
14

MS. GOLDWEBER:Could I suggest

that

one thing

15

the Court's

purpose

is served

as well

if the defendants

denial

to the complaint

either

a motion

16

knew he filed

a denial,

general

17

and then filed

with

this

Coiart,

for

18

protective

order

to give

them further

time to object

19

or an answer to the interrogatories,

and then filed

20

their

answers or objectiOlls,

thing

that

and then

each specific

21

is contained

in that

interrogatory,

so we

22

would understand

exactly

what everyone

was objecting

23

to,

and it wouldn't

be just

sort

of a vast

array

of

24

things,
25

but we would know specifically

what interroga-

36

tories

the defendants

United

States

specific

don't

would be able

interrogatorY

purpose

unnecessary

get down to the merits

in and will

here

of the rule
focussing

to give

endorse

are.

without

12

opportunity

to object

13

might think

should

14

effect,

15

that

16

within

an

believ

I would be inclin

of interrogatories

to serve
seeking

the Government of any

to anything

about

those

that

to,

and I would,

to dismiss

the complaint

that

you will

have

they

in
with

an opportunity

-What would be a reasonable

17

could

and

I heartily

opportunity

be objected

understanding,

the

and papers

principle.

depriving

deny the motion

that

to do away with the

of the claim.

a set

definition,

put together

something

time in which you

like

that?

MR. SCHWELD: You mean to answer them or to

19

them?

file

THE COURT: To file

21

it

take

to file

them.

them?

I would think

if we write

How .much time would

them.

MR. SCHWELD: Mr. Cohn

23

25

or however many there

the defendants

11

24

that

that

Government

and the

to defend

on pleadings

upon the

22

to try

was to try

10

20

was relevant

THE COURT: As l aay-, I recognize

18

feel

we could

says 45 days to file

file

them informally

down what he wants to know and then answer

37

them in twenty

days.

THE COURT: Could you get up a set

MR. COHN: Sure.

THE COURT: TWO weeks.

ia not intended

you,

this

upon the Government,

to obtain

covered

paragraph

11

work or discovery

12

goes on.

on that

16

your Honor.

17

interrogatories

18

to try

19

definite

22

well.

24

25

COHN:

as a starter.

prejadice

cast

to define

further

to dimd.ss

interrogato
as time

complaint

the

fair

dispositio,

two weeks, we will

file

in effect,

in the

fora

of a Bill

some of these

things.

MR. SCHWELD: Does that

include

statement

motion,

Obviously,

interrogatories,
willing,

to

That would

That would be a very

Within

extend

Yes.

of Particula

them.ore

your HonOI!', also?

It would dispose

of that

as

yes.

With respect

23

seems to be the sensitiv

work of one kind or another

THE COURT:

21

us say,

let

basis.
MR.

15

attempt

of aatters,

I would deny tke motion

13

20

without

draft

a preliminary

that

of the complaint,

be, of course,

out to

to be an exhaustive

but rather

I think

10

14

I am fe)iating

some more definition

in five.

in two weeks?

to the Government's

I would,
a reasonable

assuming
period

that

deaand

for

Government

of time to the

is

38

defendants

to object,

becauae,

been operating

how the Fecleral procedure

5
6

any interrogatory
within

10
11

In other
selection

14

17
18

19

time,

Now, let

you can't

to the extent

would be answered

to,

so that

there

interrogatories
to,

that

will

you don't

that

to you,

a problem

raising,

that

revelations,

but it may be that

with the Government's

you feel

you

and that

I believe

them.

it

to

something
that.

to atate

of burden which you

is to say the making of

you will

then be faced

demand for productions,

the right

and copy your records.

That may be an alternative,

its

make a

have to answer

may consider

ha

be

be aade to answer

You are at liberty

There is also

20

woaldn't

and you urge that,

me pointout

answer.

to inspect

possible,

I assume you will

words,

an attempt

be the rule,

here as to

in progress.

of those

as to others,

15

16

that,

have a good objection

12
13

delay

they have

operates.

not objected

a reasonable

a complete

8
9

on a misun.derstan4i.ng

I would expect

apparently,

resources,

and I take

it

since

the Government

you would contend

that

21

22

you,;,,-,client 's resources

25

somewhat limited.

MS. GOLDWEBER:We have made that

23
24

are

interrogatories,
compile

all

that
this

if defendants

information,

offer

didn't

we would,

in the

want to

at their

39

convenience
2
3

4
5

CODlein,

and inspect

MR. COHN: YourBonor,

reasoning,

and I think

on the matter.
fixing

it

their

I think

we all

is a very fair

MR. COHN: Sure.

we will

and consider

10

interrogatories

11

long to answer?

take

I don't

that

a firm date

13

MR. COHN: We will

an order

15

to you that

A certain

16

interro,atories,

17

this

18

covers,

19

will

20

against

complaint
and all

period

provide

we don't

24

the 0011.plaint as best

25

that

things

out?

for that.
they answer the
better

then shortly

think

want how

out and submit

idea what

of time this

interrogatories

may that

you don't

work those

of time after

of that,

compleint

thereafter

we can,

we

and move

we ought to answer.

do to a formal

answer to the

be deferred?

THE COURT: No.

23

you work those

-- what periods

What does this

complaint,

'!'hey will

so we have a little

answer those
those,

will

by your Honor,

by which we serve

on the Government.

THE COURT: Why don't

out?

see why we can't.

the two weeks suggested

12

22

on an order

time limits?
'!'HE COURT: Could you work that

21

get your

disposition

to agree

Should we try

14

documents.

include

I would a1199est that

you can.

you answer

However, I would sugges

your counter-claim,

because

I am

40

going

to dismiss

it.

MR. COHN: We won't

THE COURT: I have to say that

too many hurdles

of which is,

still

It certainly
the framework

10

11

12
13

14

15

18

19

fits

of the

Tort

THE COURT: Yes,

it

would,

to be sued within

Act,

as

and paper,

say,

and diverting

to be the real

the interests

discretionary,

it

is his

is,

and if

the

of
time

you .lfOul.d be waatillg

from what I consider

here

of the

importance

sides,

to both

has a job to do,

of

the Governae
and it

is not

is imposed by law.

If your clients

20

It

the framework

mindful

General
it

--

2680.

of claim,

yourself

is very

involved

-- the Attorney

with n

you have to meet if you do so.

issues

"!'he Court

consent

under

type

think

conduct.

Clai.Jlls Act --

would require

consented

Mr. Cohn, it

it,

MR. COHN: ftic:h

party

least

in my judgment,

squarely,

Federal

are simply

not the

of tortuous

an accepted

that

there

how you slice

in ray .judgment,

16

17

no matter

the counter-claim.

counter-claim,

comes out as a claim

7
8

in that

include

duty

are violating

to take

action.

the law,
On the other

it

is,
hand,

21

if you believe

they

are not,

it

22
23

something

about

it.

I am giving

24

is your duty to do

you that

opportunity.

MR. COHN: I appreciate

it

very much.

I think

25

we all

understand

the purport

of your Honor's

views,

an

41

we will
2

try

and submit

to draft
it

an order

coYering

all

these

things

to your Honor.

THE COURT:

Fine.

Is there

that

aaytbi.ng

has

not been covered

here?

MR. BJtACHTL: Just

one question

with respect

to the dismissal

Do you wish

of the counter-claim.

an order?
7

That coul.d be included.

-THE COURT:

Whatever

order

you submit

could

include

that.

If you wish it

separately,

I see it

as sort

of an anomalous

document,

10

it

of walked into

sort

court,

it

an answer,

wasn't

it

11

was a counter-claim.
12

MR. COHN: What we will

do probably

is just

omit

13

it

from an answer,

have to do anything.

and they don't

14

MR. BRACHTL: We would suggest,

your Honor, that

15

would be appropriately

amended,

and because

the counter

16

claim

cannot

be asserted.

except

in a pleading,

and,

hen e,

17

the pleading

which has been asserted,

contains

no --

18

THE COURT: I think

19
20

21

22
23

24
25

It drops
serve
best

out of the picture

a proper
he can.

the questions
want to call
that
called

Mr. Cohn gets

entirely,

answer to the existing

have the

But he will
in preliminary
them that,

the point.

and he will

opportunity

interrogatories,

to frame
if you

to give you an opportunity

you may amend your answer if you think

for.

the

caaplaint

Do you understand?

that

so
is

42

2
3

MR. BRACHTL: We will

aubmi t a short

and just

submit

we agree

on a total

signing

on the motion

MR. COHN: Why don t we submit

I think

10

or something,.._

we are looking

which you might

--

one order?

for another

11

MS. GOLOWEBER:No, we are not.

12

THE COURT: I have your proposed

13

I would believe

14

we have discussed

15

separate

order

that-the

here

this

claim

stands

19

understanding

20

probably

21

ou~ press

22
23

United

24

Assistant

25

private

order

release

here.

that

here

what

If you wish a

on the counter-claim,

is immaterial

together,

the counter

dismissed.

MR. COHN: May we do this,

18

press

ought to encompass

morning.

So far as you are all

16
17

order

order

it?

MR. SCHWELD: We have an order

conwider

form order

to the dismissal.

MR. COHN: Why don't

your Honor.

with respect

MR. COHN: Perfectly,

could

frOlll here on in -- and I think

get agreement
releases

to this

and try

this

--

that

case

THE COURT: Mr.

Cohn, having

States

-- and I think

Attorney

-- you know that

litigant,

we have an
we will

they stop

puttin

in court?
served

as a

you were an

the Government,

unlike

does have to keep the public

informed

43

I must say that

2

the document

they

I have to agree

that

was most chaste,

issued

I think
and under

the Oircumstaneea,

it

is just

one of the things

that

you have to grin

5
6

7
8
9
10

On the other

fair

trial

out anything

involved

in this

14
15
16
17
18

will

about

press,

to a fair

trial

be no press

SCBWELD:

a definite

release.

Wait a minute.

I think

statement.

He said

your Honor;

when a complaint
this

it

is usually

is drawn,

was extremely

20

MR. SCHWELD.: I a:m not.

21

MR. COHN:

24

MR. BRACWI'L: But it

informing

the public.

released

but I think,

to the
as your

chaste.

we are going

and not in the press.

MR. SCHWELD:. It

comes out

have to apologize.

I indicate

23

the motion

your Honor is

in a case,

in court

issues

to me by a

with what you do when a judgment

Honor said,

the rights

of the

They have indicated

THE COURT: You don't

25

not be putting

acq\lilinted

press

as

and consequently,

4:Jipair or prejudice

19

22

is such a thing

case.

MR. COHN:

MR.

as free

which will

defendants

nod there

there

the Government will

of these

13

hand,

as well

I would hope that

11
12

and bear when you are a litigant.

Is that

to try

this

fair?

is fair.
is not a limitation

upon

44

2
3

MR. COHN: Prior

to a determination.

Are you planning

any press

of these

(Discussion

10
11
12
13
14

17

the record.)
further

is a judgment

ca~e at some time,

it will

As to the judgment

whether the counter-claim

released,
will

I don't

press

release

hundred

definitely

that

doll.ar

wanted mentioned

that

to start
Honor,

again

counter-claim,
that

it

that

the Jlld.ge

if you are going

people

in this

they

was dismissed.

mentioned

these

and do business

information

When they brought

we have the opportunity,

this

has been

I am not going to

they won't.

million

in the

to the preas.

the public

or not.

MR. COBN: I want it

stated

be given

know whether

give any assurance

this

press

right?

MR. SCHWELD: If there

15
16

is that

releases,

7
8

off

MR. COHN: You are not planning

on any

proceedings?

releases

have to rent,

coaununi ty.

If., they

your
are

18

going

to start

parading

around,

stating

that

the

19

counter-claim

is dismissed

or something,

I am 9oiog

20

to have to start

with

the fact

that

your Honor has

21

given

us leave

to

file

interrogatories

against

the

22

complaint,

which was not --

23

THE COUR'l': Let me put it

this

way, Mr. Cohn.

24

Unfortunately
25

for your clients,

because

they are so

45

large

and well

known, they

For all

become objects

I know, the press

of newsworthy

interest.

But I do think

concerned,

matter

occurred

one way or the other, ,.when they win the lawsuit#

they

and that

10

between

that

it

so far

as the

understands

and I assume

confidently

it

we won't

will

they

await

are going

MR. COHN: That's

12

MR. BRACHTL: All of this

14

and inquiries

15

18

19

it

out,

22

it,

THE

25

take

~are

what has
blessed

day,
as

communiques

must be in context,
of the press,

if your fellows

and attention

of the office

would perhaps

at the

I think,

a response.

thing,

upstair

to the prosecution

and let

resolve

if your Honor would hold

everything

23

24

that

the

to do, you see,

interest

MR. COHN: One further

20
21

your tiae

of the business

is

now that

which are made, which require,

obligation,

would apply

now.

your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Brachtl,

16
17

fine,

of the continuing

as a public

right

capitols.

11

of course,

that

have any intervening

opposing

13

point,

has announced

it

think

Government

at this

is in litigation,

is here

the press

ferret

the problem..
I would appreciate

the orders

and sign

same tiae.

COURT: When I see new orders

come in,

of them.

One thing

I would remind

you of,

and in this

I wi l

46

District
2

and in the Southern

a local

rule,

made, it

District,

where objections

too,

we have

to interrogatories

ia the responsibility

of the lawyers

are
to first

try

and iron

out their

differences,

and only plague

the Court,

which has enough to do in this

District,

so much larger

than the Southern

District,

and with so

many fewer Judges

7

MR. COHN: But by their

competence,

they make

up in quality

for what is lacked

in quantity.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cohn.

But that

won't

10

get you anywhere.

11

You are under obli9ation

to try

and discuss

the

12

matter
13

MR. COHN:

As long

as they

promise

not to talk'

14

about

a consent

decree,

we will

have a meeting.

15

MR. SCBWELDs We love

to litigate

16

Honor.
17

MR.. COHN: Thank you for your time.

18

19

20
21

22
23
24

25

the case,

your

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR Tj!.EfLElEASTERNDISTRICT OF NEW YORKu. s.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

111CLERK':,Urfic-~
01.:::rnir:i LOJi\l .D. N.Y.

MAR6 1974

Tllv.t /!,

:;,

) CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 CJNiv

.1?29
)
)
)
) PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS
AND OBJECTIONS
) TO DEFENDANTS'FIRST INTERROGATORIES
)
)
)

v.
FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,

_____________
Defendants.

The United
undersigned

States

attorney

by the defendants
the allegations

answers

and sets

claim.
also

The evidence
supports

through

black

ments were unavailable

to white

in paragraphs

to the subject
paragraph

of
5 and

who have

matter

of the

5 of the complaint

their

agents
of race

or employees

have made

in the following

ways

known to the plaintiff:

of defendants,

of rental

on it

elements

the names of persons

on account

(A) Several

available;

served

6.

unavailable

agents

by its

Number 1 and Number 2

The defendants

which are presently

contained

which supports

paragraph

herein,

below the factual

relevant

Answer to Interrogatory

apartments

forth

by providing

of information

plaintiff

the interrogatories

of discrimination

6 of the complaint
knowledge

of America,

persons

on account

persons;

ings which indicated

black

have quoted
persons

and statements

of the defendant:swith

of race,

when apartments

the defendants
to certain

have been advised

respect

that

were,

apartin fact,

different

from those

by

terms
quoted

were made by agents

to the rental

a preference

on account

of dwellof race.

1f

The following

individuals

have provided

information

with regard

to the above:
Fontainebleau
Apartments
8855 Bay Parkway
Brooklyn, New York
160 units
On July

1.
Plaza

Street,

22, 1972, Ms. Henrietta

Brooklyn,

at the Fontainebleau.
Fici,

told

rental.

Salzman,awhite

(2820 Ocean Parkway,

that
ments.

after

Brooklyn,

immediately

to be Ken

applications

for

from the Urban League,

New York) went to the Fontainebleau

Ms. Davis and was told

she could

(10

an apartment

believed

to accept

tester

black,

to obtain

The superintendent,

her he had no authority

Muriel

directly

New York) tried

Davis,

rent

either

by the same superintendent

one of two available

apart-

"!:._/

Beachaven Apartments
Sheepshead Bay
Brooklyn, New York
1200 units
2.

On July

31, 1972, Godfrey Jacobs,

the Urban League,

to the Beachaven
rental

agent,

apartments

(2401 Nostrand
in response

believed

East

69th Street,

Brooklyn,

to an advertisement

to be Mr. Levy, told

were available

George Sim Johnston,

Avenue,

white,

a black

at Beachaven.

tester
New York),

came

of a vacancy.

him that

Later

from

The

no one-bedroom

on July

31, 1972,

employed by the Urban League,

(131

New York, New York) was shown a one-bedroom

apartment

at this

complex which the rental

be rented

immediately.

*/ All of the persons

forth in plaintiff's
interviewed
by Elyse
otherwise
specified.

agent

told

him could

with relevant
information
to this lawsui4 set
answers to defendants'
interrogatories
were
S. Goldweber, a Departmental
attorney,
unless

- 2 -

.,

3.

In December,

Second Street,
advised

Brooklyn,

by an agent

a one-bedroom

rudely.

identifying

were available

Human Rights

as Mr. Rosenberg

a white

tester

a complaint

was offered

with

agent

that

no

with the New York City

admitted

to tenancy.

Brooklyn,

the same agent

a rental

that

Ms. Best was treated

(1833 Ocean Parkway,

who dealt

by said

day at the Beachaven,

Commission and was subsequently

Kirschenbaum,

(2681 West

telephonically

was told

for rental.

filed

Phyllis

Ms. Best,

was available

black,

being

himself

the following

Ms. Best

Best,

New York) after

apartment

upon her arrival

apartments

1972, Beverly

application

New York)

a few days after

for a one-bedroom

apartment.
4.
ployee

On March 10,

1973, Muriel

of the New York Human Rights

New York, New York) was told

who identified

himself

Later

by the rental

of the Urban League,

although

a one-bedroom
Mr. Ziselman
racially
superiors,

(150 Fifth

he had no one-bedroom
apartment
also

and that

rental
there

to Phyllis

at Beachaven

no one-bedroom

apart-

the same rental

Spiro,

white,

an employee

Avenue, New York, New York) that

apartments

available

would be available

acknowledged

discriminatory

that

an em-

(52 Duane Street,

agent

on the same day,

at Beachaven volunteered

black,

Commission,

as Paul Ziselman

ments were available.

agent

Silberberg,

as of April

to Ms. Spiro
policy

- 3 -

that

time,

1, 1973.

he followed

at the direction

were only very

at the Beachaven.

at that

few "colored"

of his
tenants

Lawrence Gardens
3301-3315-3223 Nostrand
Brooklyn, New York
160 units
5.

On March 10,

1973, Ms. Silberberg,

of the New York City Human Rights

the rental

agent

Mr. Limani

that

for rental.

at Lawrence
there

Later

the rental

agent

was shown two vacant

an employee

was also

Gardens who identified

day, Ms. Spiro,

at this

black,

Commission,

were no one-bedroom

that

the Urban League,

Avenue

apartments
white,

told

by

himself

as

available

an employee

one-bedroom

of

apartments

by

complex.

Shorehaven Apartments
1483-93 Shore Parkway
Brooklyn, New York
1100 units
6.
Street,

Brooklyn,

Shorehaven,
available,

tially

New York) was told

believed

she should

Trump buildings,
all-white,

try

black,

by the rental
that

to obtain

similarly

Patio

Gardens
Ms. Davis

had recently

at the

no apartments

were

an apartment

encouraged

there

at Patio

to apply

at any

to be substan-

is substantially
to apply

(10 Plaza
agent

most of which are believed

encouraged

judge

Davis,

to be Mr. Sarnell,

Ms. Davis was not

Mr. Sarnell
a black

22, 1972, Henrietta

but that

Gardens.
other

On July

integrated,

and

by relating

that

become a tenant.

Highlander
Hall
164-20 Highlander Avenue
Jamaica, New York
165 units
7.

On April

21, 1973, Annette

land.Avenue,

Jamaica,

in response

to a newspaper

apartments
himself

(164-20

New York) went to the above apartment

were available.

as Mr. Zelle~

Gandy, black,

told

advertisement

indicating

The superintendent,
Ms. Gandy that
- 4 -

there

that

Highcomplex

studio

who identified
were no vacancies

1J

and the apartments

already

that

..

had been advertised

in the newspaper

had

been rented.
On April

23, 1973, Monique Golden,

the Urban League,

(170-25

Highland

Avenue,

to the above complex to inquire

about

The same rental

that

apartments
On April

agent

indicated

in the building

tester

Jamaica,

renting

from

New York) went

a studio

he had three

and offered

24, 1973, Ms. Gandy filed

City Human Rights

a white

apartment.

vacant

studio

Ms. Golden an application.

a complaint

with

Commission and was subsequently

the New York

admitted

to

tenancy.
Kendall Hall Apartments
41-10 Bowne Street
Flushing,
New York
165 units
8.

On February

(41-10 Bowne Street,

ment in response

6, 1970, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Bunn, black,

Flushing,

New York),

applied

for an apart-

to a New York Times advertisement.

The super-

intendent,

who identified

that

were no 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 room apartments

there

February

himself

7, 1970, Ralph Stein,

New York) was offered

On April

white,

an application

(134-54

told

the Bunns

available.

Maple Avenue,

On
Flushing,

for a 3 1/2 room apartment.

9, 1970, Mr. and Mrs. Bunn filed

New York City Human Rights

mitted

as Mr. Spitrey,

a complaint

with

Commission and were subsequently

the
ad-

to tenancy.
Westminster
Apartment
405 Westminster
Road
Brooklyn, New York
165 units
9.

tisement

On February
of a vacancy,

26, 1972,

in response

to

a newspaper

and on March 18, 1972, Alfred

- 5 -

Hoyt,

adverblack,

..

(11728 Wilshire

Blvd.,

Los Angeles,

California)

Cannon, who identified

himself

two-bedroom

were available

apartments

1972, Mrs. Sheila

as the superintendent,

Hoyt, Mr. Hoyt's

an application

to rent

Mr. Hoyt filed

a complaint

was told

for rental.
wife,

a two-bedroom
with

that

no

On March 19,

who is white,

apartment

by Mr.

was offered

at this

complex.

the New York City Human Rights

Commission and the Hoyts were subsequently

admitted

to tenancy.

*
In addition

to the foregoing,

is aware of seven

practices

by the defendants

complaints

of alleged

filed

the New York City Human Rights

with

only two of these

discriminatory

plaintiff

additional

(a) During
Bolling,

(77-79

New York) was told

at that

admitted.

that

Robert

Ms. Bolling

130th Avenue,
no vacancies
ments,

at the

blacks

filed

an

were not

a complaint

with

Commission and was

(Interviewed

F. McCarthy and Michael

(b) In early

agent

complex because

to residency.

New York,

she could not rent

the New York City Human Rights

admitted

have been located:

Columbia Street,

by the rental

Apartments

apartment
being

seven complainants

To date,

the summer of 1960, Harriette

black,

Shorehaven

Commission.

by Special

Agents

J. Hayes).

1964, Mrs. Mae F. Brown, (163-17

Jamaica,
at the still

New York) was told

uncompleted

Mrs. Brown subsequently

- 6 -

filed

there

Wilshire

were
Apart-

a complaint

with

the Commission and was offered

she declined.

(Interviewed

an apartment,

by Special

which

Agents Edward

F. DeRosa and John Aherne).

The following

complainants

have not been located

by plaintiff:

(a) James Chestnut - Last known address

166-05 Highland Avenue, Jamaica, New York.
(b) Charles Hall - Last known address
89-31 161st Street,
Jamaica, New York.

was
was

(c) Mrs. Carl Nickelson - Last known address

was 2064 Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
(d) Lorraine Haynes - Last known address
2611 West 2nd Street,
Brooklyn, New York.

was

(e) Robert Edward Harris - Last known address

was 2064 Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

*
(B) 1. Defendants'
Mrs. Williams

and Ms. Sophie

Inc.

have instructed

dall

Hall,

Woodside,
paper

a former

Mr. Thomas Miranda

New York) to attach

to every

"colored"

comptroller,

application

renter.

Mr. Miranda was instructed

indicate

address

that

Hyman,

(LNU) at Trump Management

superintendent
(39-89

at Ken-

50th Street

a separate

submitted

On this

Mr. Stuart

sheet

of

by a prospective

separate

sheet

to write

"C" in order

the prospective

tenant

of paper,

was "colored."

2. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Schefflin,

last

33-24 Parsons

New York,

have advised

counsel~/

~/ Frank E. Schwelb and Elyse

Blvd.,

Whitestone,

for plaintiff
S. Goldweber
- 7 -

to

that

known

they were

..

employed in a general
Apartments

during

was purchased

rental

the fall

capacity
of 1973.

time.

The Schefflins

and other
to rent
rental

agents,

to blacks.

appears

defendants
(C)

that

blacks

that

being

working

The following

have indicated

a racial

code

to as ''No. 9."
by the

for them for a few months.

persons

follow

have been interviewed

of Justice

of apartments,

decision

on the subjective

and

Trump Management

objective

in the renting

rental

and discouraged

was discharged

the defendant

does not always

based

that

of the Department
that

at the

Mr. Fred Trump

referred

Mr. Schefflin

after

sunrrner

Mr. Wiss, wanted them

They advised

by representatives

Inc.

integrated

advised

including

the late

only to "Jews and Executives"

was in effect,
It

This building

by the Trumps during

of 1973, and was substantially

at the Briarwick

rental

but often

criteria

makes rental

impression

of the

agent:
1. Guido Lara:

(2650 Ocean Parkway,

New York) Complex: Ocean Terrace

Lara advised

that

Agents R. Patrick
2. Vikentije
Brooklyn,

Apartments.

only 1% of the tenants

complex were black.

(Interviewed

at this

F. Kaminski).

(2727 Ocean Parkway,

New York) Complex: Lincoln

- 8 -

Mr.

by Special

Welch and Robert

Besu:

Brooklyn,

Shore

'

Apartments.

At the time Mr. Besu was inter-

viewed by the FB4 there

at the Lincoln
by Special

were no black

Shore Apartments.

Agents

R. Patrick

tenants

(Interviewed

Welch and Robert

F. Kaminski).
3. Walter
Brooklyn,

Rohr:

observation

by Departmental
Gardens

(Interviewed
Scigalski

to plaintiff

a "pattern

by Special

denial

raising

an issue

Plaintiff
seeks
that

disclosure

been disclosed)
of informants
Attorney

that

United

discrimination

with

have engaged

in

in housing

and

public

of "informers,"

of discrimination

the free

flow of information

v. Northside

- 9 -

has

of the identities

Realty

Except

to the~

Associate$,~//....;po

Wirtz v. Continental
1964).

as

on the ground

disclosure

326 F. 2d 561 (5th Cir.

such

importance."

and that

States

avail-

to a group of persons,

324 F. Supp. 287, 296 (N.D. Ga. 1971),

and Loan Co.,

presently

to so much of the interrogatories

is irrelevant

General.

A.

(once the evidence

interferes

Robert

defendants

opportunity

of the identities

such information

of "general

objects

S. Goldweber,

the information

of racial

housing

interviews

40% black.

Agents

to the effect

equal

Gardens.

C. Satchwell).

constitutes

or practice"

have denied

Elyse

is approximately

and Jeffrey

The foregoing

and tenant

attorney,

*
able

Avenue,

New York) Complex: Patio

From visual

Patio

(580 Flatbush

insofar

Finance
as

disclosure

has been made herein,

so much of these

interrogatories

action

took to verify

plaintiff

plaintiff

further

as seeks

objects

to inquire

the complaint,

to

into

what

on the grounds

that:

cause
United

1.

The Attorney

exists

to bring

States

1168 (5th

Cir.

General's
the action

v. Northside
1973);

United

474 F. 2d 115, 125 (5th

2.
claim,
without

determination

Cir.

is not judicially

Realty
States

Associates,

reasonable
reviewable;

474 F. 2d 1164,

v. Bob Lawrence Realty,

1973).

This Court has dismissed

which alleged

that

in substance

defendants'
that

cause.

- 10 -

the action

spurious

counter-

was brought

. .. ......

A F F I DAV I T
CITY OF WASHINGTON )

) ss

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)

I, Elyse

S. Goldweber,

being

duly sworn,

deposes

and

says:
1.
Rights

I am an attorney

Division,

of the counsel
et al.,

Civil
2.

prepared

United

in the Housing

States

for plaintiff
Action

in United

of Justice,

States

Civil
and one

v. Fred C. Trump,

No. 73 C 1529.

I am informed
and signed

Department

Section,

of the facts

Plaintiff's

of this

case and I have

Answers to Defendants'

First

Interrogatories.
3.

Those answers

my information,

knowledge

are true

and correct

to the best

and belief.

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Subscribed and sworn
to before me this ~rt
day of February,
1974.

My commission

expires:

of

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby
of the foregoing
dants'

First

first-class

certify

that

Plaintiff's

Interrogatories
mail,

postage

on February~~'

1974,

Answers and Objections

were placed
prepaid,

copies
to Defen-

in the United

addressed

to:

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Jeffrey
A. Shuman, Esq.
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

[{i,rsJ

~w

ELYS~.
GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

States

11

il
,,
;

:1
n
,!
,1

'.!
i

JDP:HAB:ec
F.

#730959

//UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

liEASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

:I

:1
'.!;/

- - - X

;1
,I

liUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ii

ii

ii

Plaintiff,

!!
- against

11

NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION

!i
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMPand
Ii
:1TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC ,

:i:1

Defendants.
-

!!S
!I

Civil Action
No. 73 C 1529

I R S :

ii

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

OF AMERICAwill

take

the

deposition

MANAGEMENT,
INC. as an adverse
by the
times
the

officers,
set

United

Floor,
suant
Notary

tinue
attend
Dated:

forth

to the
Public

Borough
Federal

upon oral

examination,

and at the

hereto,

at

the

225 Cadman Plaza

of Brooklyn,
Rules

or before

TRUMP

and employees

Attorney,

UNITED STArES

of defendant

party

in the Appendix

States

in the

law to take

agents

plaintiff

of Civil

some other

depositions.

City

The oral

from day to day until

of

Fifth

of New York,

pur-

before

authorized

examination

completed.

and

office

East,

Procedure,
officer

dates

You are

will

by
con-

invited

to

and cross-examine.
Brooklyn,
New York
March JI/ , 1974
Yours,

etc.

EDWARDJOHN BOYDV
United States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
By:

Att

7!:r~

HENR A. BRACHTL
As stant u. S. Attorney
22 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

ii,,
q

:1

Ii

ii

',
i

:i

ii

i!

\ITO:
q

liSAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY

ilAttorneys
for Defendants
d39 East 68th Street
!!New York, New York
10021
fl

,!

!!

!il.
l;

Fred c. Trump
Chairman,
Trump Management Inc.
March 22, 1974
2:15 p.m.
Donald Trump
President,
Trump Management
March 22, 1974
10 a.m.

Inc.

Mr. Stuart
Controller
March 25,

Inc.

Hyman
Trump Management
1974
10 a.m.

Ms. Sophie Friedwald

Office
Manager,
Trump Management
March 25, 1974
2 p.m.

Inc.

Ms. Marrazzo
Resident
Manager:
April
18, 1974

Avenue,

Ken Fici
Superintendent:
8855 Bay Parkway,
April
18, 1974

!il(

3901 Nostrand
10 a.m.
Fontainebleau
Brooklyn
2 p.m.

Mr. Levy
Rental
agent:
Beachhaven
Sheepshead
Bay, Brooklyn
April
18, 1974
4 p.m.

Brooklyn

Apartments,

Apartments,

,j

'I1 8.
1

!l
I

:1

li9.
p

:1

n
d

Mr. Abe Rosenbery

Rental
Agent:
Beachhaven
Apartments,
Sheepshead
Bay, Brooklyn
April
19, 1974
10 a.m.
Paul Ziselman
Rental
agent:
Beachhaven
Sheepshead
Bay, Brooklyn
April
19, 1974
2 p.m.

Apartments,

lj

!110. Mr. Limani

Superintendent:
ii
April
19, 1974

H
lj

ii

Lawrence
4 p.m.

Gardens,

Brooklyn

;I

ii11.
!!
!;
!

Mr. Lou Sarnell

Rental
agent:
Shorehaven
Apartments,
April
22, 1974
10 a.m.

Brooklyn

.-

ii

ii12.
'.i
i!

;i
i

,,
Ii 13.

Mr. Zeller
Superintendent:
April
22, 1974

Highlander
2 p.m.

Hall,

Brooklyn

iJ

!l
11
,I

11
;,

Rene Canon
Superintendent:
April
22, 1974

Westminster
4 p.m.

,,i

!I
11

A P P E N D I X

ii

1!
it

I:
I,!

i!
H
'.i

2 -

Apartments,

Brooklyn

;i

Ji

"ll

ii

!I
1'

'ih
1,

,l
JDP:HAB:eh

F.

#730959

IiUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IiEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ii- - - - - - - - - - - - -

!I

:1UNITED

iiII

STATES

OF AMERICA,

NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION

Plaintiff,

!I

il"

- against

ii

Civil Action
No. 73 C 1529

jl FRED C.

ii and

TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. ,

>i

lj ________

~e!e~d~n~s:

___

;,

IiS
1,

I R S

;,

iil1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

i!aay of March,
,,
!!Attorney,
ll

!!Borough

1974,

at the

"

!!as an adverse

IiFederal
.I

Rules

!jor before

party

of Civil

iito day until

H
ii,, cross-examine.

2:15

take

the

Fifth

Floor,

authorized

22nd

States
in the

plaintiff

UNITED

of FRED c. TRUMP

deposition

before

on the

United

examination,

Procedure,
officer

p.m.

of the

of New York,

upon oral

some other

!1depositions.

East,

City

llsTATES OF AMERICAwill

:!

Office

225 Cadman Plaza

of Brooklyn,

at

pursuant
a Notary

to the
Public

by law to take

The oral

examination

will

completed.

You are

invited

continue

to attend

from day

and

!I

'!

iiII Dated:
!!

!i

Brooklyn,
New York
March 19, 1974

ii

Yours,

ii

EDWARD JOHN BOYD V

etc.

United States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff

1!
,1
'l

11

ij
11

1!

II
!I
II
'I

;1
d
11

;1

ii

i!

TO:

SAXE, BACON
, BOLAN& MANLEY, ESQS
Attorneys
for Defendants
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

ii
:,

il

il
,I
;t
H

:I
,i

ii
I!
1:
H

JDP:HAB:eh
F. #7 30959

ijUNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

\\-~~Ct

COURT

0
X~-n\CI
cLtRi:..s ~;~ t.\). N:-l
!I
e,OU,,
Db'
~
:1-- - - - - - - - - - - - -\).
~-- - \ \~1A '""
_,

L EASTERN DISTRICT

OF NEW YORK

\1

1
"

ii

!i

iiUNITED

STATES

!II
ii

t-J ri'

OF AMERICA,

\.

Plaintiff,

!I

- against

:j

NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION
UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

FRED C. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP

.. and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
:1

11

'I

:1
I

Defendants.

'i
ii

"

ii
!I - -

'I
'l

ii

S I

R S

!1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

ii day

of March,
1974, at the
:i
,.
!I Attorney,
225 Cadman Plaza

at

10:00

Office

of

East,

a.m.

the

Fifth

on the

United

Floor,

22nd

States
in

the

11

;I Borough

of

Brooklyn,

City

:1

ij STATES OF AMERICA will

of New York,

take

the

plaintiff

deposition

UNITED

of

DONALD

ii TRUMP as

an adverse

party

upon

oral

examination,

pursuant

:1

H
si

to

the

ii Public

or

ii take
ii day

Federal

Rules

before

depositions.
to

day

until

of

Civil

some other

Procedure,
officer

The oral

before

authorized

examination

completed.

You are

will
invited

a Notary
by law to

continue
to

from

attend

!I
cross-examine.
Ii
11
:

ii
1

Dated:

Brooklyn,
March 19,

iiI

New York
197 4
Yours,

[i

ii

etc.,

EDWARDJOHN BOYD V
United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff

ii

:II
I

H
ii

{?~

ii

ii

"
,1

,1

By:

----7U_./IA/r..-......

11

RACHTL
u. s. Attorney
Assista
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York
11201

11

!I
ii

ii
!!

ii TO:
ii

:J

ii

ii
ii
:1

Ii
!l
ti

SAXE,

BACON,

BOLAN & MANLEY,

Attorneys
for Defendants
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York
10021

ESQS.

and

L___L..

\,

...
-

JDP s JfAJh eo

F. 1730959

nrmt>. STA'!BS DISTtaCT COUR'f

BAS'fllaN DISftICT 01' NKlf YOU

jt,_L:,.

IN CLERK'SOHiCE
. S. OISTRlCTCOURTE.D.N.Y.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -* X
~

UN.ff.EDS'rATB8 OP J\01tICA,

.r;,pp~ 1974

,-1ME
A.1\1
......... .................

0 ,..,

Plaintif'f,
- against

ST?PULA1':IOJI

civil Action.
No. 73 C 1529

PRED C. .TJWMP, DONALD 'l'lWMP and

TRUMP MUAGEMEIIT, INC. ,

Defendants

..

............. ff

IS DUBY

the aaderaigned

of' defeaclants
tiff

C011Dael t.o the parties

to be ~en

in. accordance

at 4et'en4anta

and times

set

t'ortb

Bzooklyn,
March. lt,

u;poa oral

with not:ieea

1974 are,

Datedt

ftIPULATBD AND AGRBBDby and between

in

that

examination

dated

request,

the deposition

and served

adjourned

1:be at.tacbed

by plain-

March lt,

to the date

Schedule.

Hw York
1974
BOWARD
JOHN BOYDV
uait;.ed Sta.tea Attorney

sa...-rn

A~rney
Bys

SO ORDERED:

Diatrict of Hew York

for Plaintiff

1.

Donald

Trump,

indivi.dually

and as

President,
Trump Management Inc.
March 27, 1974
9 a.m.
2.

Fred c. Trump, individually

and as
Chairman, Trump Manageaent Inc.
March 27, 1974
2:15 p.m.

3.

Mr. St.uart

Hyaan

controller,

April

Trump Management

10 a.m.

18, 1974

Inc.

4.

Ms. Sophie Friedwald

Office Manager, TrWap Management Inc.
April 1S, 1974
2 p.a.

5.

Ma. Narrasso
Resident
Maaagar,
April 18, 1974

6.

Ken Pici

7.

Mr. Levy

Superintendent:
Fontainebleau
8855 Bay Parkway, Brookl.yn
April 19, 1974
10 a.m.
Rental a9ent1
aeachhaven
Sheapshead Bay, Brooklyn

April
8.

3901 Nostrand
4 p.m.

19,

1974

Avenue,

Brooklyn

Apartments,

Apartments,

2 p.a.

Mr. Abe Rosenberg

Rental

A9ent:
Beacbbaven Apartments,
Bay, Brooklyn
19, 1974
4 p.m.

Sb.eepahea4

April

,.

Paul Ziaelman
Rental

agent:

Beachhaven

Apartments,

Sheepahead Bay, Brooklyn

April 22t 1974
10 a.m.
10. Mr. Liaani
Superint.endenti
April 22, 1974

Lawren.oe Gardena, Brooklyn

2 p.m.

11. Mr. Lou Sarnell

Rental
April

agents
Shorehaven
22, 1974
4 p.a.

12. Mr. Zeller

Superintendent.,
Highlander
Adjourned witthout date
13,.

Rene canon

Superintendent:

Adjourned

withOut

wesuinster

date

Apartments,

Hall,

Brooklyn

Brooklyn

Apartments,

Brooklyn

r I LEU

\N CLERK'SOHICE
.
....
u.._c;_DJSTRlCT
COURTE.D.N.Y.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT LUORT

APR231974 -1(

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

TlMEA.M...........................
..

NEW YORK

p ~,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.

FRED c. TRUMP, et.

al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONFOR SANCTIONS

HENRY A. BRACHTL

Assistant
United States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department
of Justice
Washington,
D.C.
20530
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department
of Justice
Washington,
D.C.
20530

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERNDISTRICT OF
NEWYORK

)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, et.

al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORTOF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONFOR SANCTIONS

)
HENRYA. BRACHTL
Assistant
United States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D.C. 20530
ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D.C. 20530

INTRODUCTORY
STATEMENT
The United
tions

pursuant

because

States

to Rule

to make discovery

Rules,

a later

by the

Court

objections

generous

efforts

Esq.,

only

over,

Donald

that

defendants

to discontinue
plaintiff's

motions

this

has been

of defendant,

interrogatories

tiff

has been almost

this

litigation

half

a year

totally

since
were

after

the

the

complaint

was filed,

In spite

as to accomRoy Cohn,

to date.

disclosed

in that

on him.
in its
with
the

Moredeposition

company records

litigation

in compliance

neither

taken

of any orders

served

Federal

to them.

of destroying

frustrated

expeditiously

respect

counsel,

he was unaware

practice

with

De-

and ordered

filed

principal

have had the practice

and that

to by the parties
and have

failure

Court.

by the

discovery

deposition

total

of this

- one set

sanc-

Procedure

and almost

to schedule

of defendants'

Trump, president

appropriate

of Civil

orders

interrogatories,

one abbreviated

space,

the

one agreed

by plaintiff

convenience

Rules

two deadlines

nor any protective

the

to save

very

ignored

for

unexcused,

and to comply with

- to answer

of continuous
modate

continual,

have wholly

Court

37 of the Federal

of defendants'

fendants

has moved this

to his

began

or since

Accordingly,
attempts

plain-

to conduct

42 U.S.C.
suit

employees

3614,

and,

has gone nowhere.

Defendants'

noncompliance

has included,

among other

very

Order

generous

usually

long

time

press

the merits
enter

to answer,

unless

the Court

without

to matters

obligations

interrogatories

disregard

that

courts

abhor

to preclude

defendants

chance.

Accordingly,

defendants

which are
come into

of this

5, 1974 granting

and we believe

one last

defendants

blithe

Nevertheless,

an Order barring

respect

things,

of February

would be appropriate.
we do not

as to plaintiff's

subject

compliance

defendants

an un-

meaningful

sanctions

forfeitures,

and

from defending

from asserting

the

Court's

we ask the Court

any defense

of unanswered
as to all

in
to

with

interrogatories

of their

discovery

immediately.
HISTORY OF THE CASE*/

The Complaint
December

12, 1973,

defendants

filed

definite
claim

after

motions

statement.
against

million
Tort

in this

States

than

three

and,

of claims
5, 1974,

on October
stipulated

in the

asserted
seeking

On February

counterclaim

was filed

to dismiss

on the basis

Claims Act.

and their

no fewer

They further

the United

dollars

action

15, 1973.
extensions,

alternative,

a patently

On

for

frivolous

a more
counter-

damages in the amount of 100

explicitly
defendants'

barred

by the Federal

motions

were denied

was dismissed.
I

On November 7, 1973,
a set

of interrogatories.

nor objected

to within

'!:_/ Elyse Goldweber,

the attached
affidavit

plaintiff

served

on defendants,

These interrogatories
the

thirty

days prescribed

were neither

answered

in the Federal

one of the attorneys

for plaintiff,
that the history
that follows is
- 2 -

by mail,

Rules

has sworn in
true.

of Civil
after

Procedure.

having

the United

sought
States

motions

an agreement

a motion

defendants

interrogatories,
April

1, 1974.

generous

time

four

frame

for

defendants

they

had previously

ignored,

that

the

then

case

would

consented

proceed

interrogatories

were

to propound

February

8, 1974.

in 20 days.

earlier

to agree

to respond

but

implementing

to plaintiff's

months

was reluctant

disposing

an Order

interrogatories

and a half

to answer

were directed

to respond

21, 1974,

Rule 9(f),

after

on or before
the

were directed

Plaintiff

Court,

entered

Defendants

to answer

filed

this

as to when various

to plaintiff

was directed

to Local

to compel defendants

S, 1974,

and answered.

interrogatories

On January

pursuant

and counterclaim~

of the parties

to be propounded

Finally,

compliance

On February

of defendants'

Plaintiff

they were ignored.

informal
served

interrogatories.

initial

Instead,

original

on or before

to this

unusually

to interrogatories

nevertheless

expeditiously.

which

in the hope

Unfortunately,

this

did not happen.

Plaintiff
going

Order

defendants'
at

seven

judicial
meets

and,

complied

on February

interrogatories
of defendants'
admissions

the

fully

standards

*/ At his deposition,
own the part of the

with

28,
which

its

1974,

obligations
served

disclosed

buildings,*/

detailed
alleged

as well

of a discriminatory

policy.

for

under

relief

in cases

under

answers

foreto

discrimination

as a number of extraSuch proof

42 U.S.C.

easily

3613.

Donald Trump testified

that defendants
complex involved
in one of the incidents.
- 3 -

the

See,
did not

e.g.

United

States

cert.

den.

1973),
to

two blacks

P.H.

v.

U.S.

is

a pattern

13,569

Ala.

1972),

aff'd

per

States

incidents

at

a word

from

v.

Gilman,

found

as

a single

On April
weber,

an attorney
respond

for

to

and were
they
this

motion,

has

plaintiff

their

agents,

been

take

Law Nos.

are
(S.D.

to

defendants'

a protective

by its

inability

counsel,

appropriate

securing

into

any

depositions.

4 -

(pattern
on two
with

any

not

room

informed

her

He stated

1974.

As of

bring
for

After

to
been

to

the

the

its

date

inter-

filed.

its

any

that

interrogatories

them.

has

Gold-

Shuman,
to

the

answers

S.

failure

response

order

to

Elyse
Jeffrey

answering

in May,

for

1972)
based

Shuman

do so some time
received

1972)
and practice);

9(f),

discuss

not

13-15)

interrogatories.

telephoned

has

11,

however,

Rule

Mr.

sell

Reddoch,

Cir.

N.Y.

answering

in

(5th

States,

of

v.

apartments

Local

Cir.
to

a pattern

begin

compounded
their

of

plaintiff's

process

would

difficulty

and
to

to

the

and no motion

tories

sufficient

in

possibly

Plaintiff's
,~.

United

of when they

might

rogatories,

not

States

1 passed,

interrogatories.

were

unsure

to

pursuant

the

United

of

April

(5th

(refusal

2d 897

891

operator

defendants

plaintiff's

defendants

Supp.

response

1974,

for
the

large

in

11,

an attorney

341 F.

467 F.

2d 438

1974)

admissions

building).

defendants

15,

(Conclusions

and

to

484 F.

practice);

curiam

instructions

and practice

of

and

Para.

United

Co.,
(April

Rptr.

(discriminatory

that

Realty

E.O.H.

(S.D.

the

Pelzer

interrogadefendants,

length

extensive

of

time

efforts

by plaintiff

to acconmodate

on and then cancelled

counsel

depositions

and 25, 1974, an agreement

attorneys

arrival

that

available

travelled

was reached

was taken during

17 through

that

these

eternal

for defendants,

of the 29th.

time.!/

scheduling
that

advised

on

would be

One abbreviated

An attempt

additional

was then made,

depositions

of defendant

Ms. Goldweber on April

15, on 48 hours

would have to be cancelled

plaintiff

would apply for sanctions,**/

a trip

dates,

on April
to Texas,

subscribing

in the human breast."

23 and 24.
plaintiff

to the ditty

too.

After

Mr. Cohn

While Mr. Schwelb

innnediately
that

for

Fred Trump, but

depositions

to hold depositions

revised

that

22, including

that

had to reschedule
these

reached,

for defendants

being advised
offered

Two Depart-

to New York on March 27, but learned

Mr. Cohn, the lead counsel

and a stipulation

notice

for March 22

only for about two hours on the morning of March 28th and

deposition

counsel

agreed

to depose both Donald and Fred

on March 28 and 29.

for about two hours on the afternoon

April

who first

which were scheduled

Trump, the two named defendants,

mental

for defendants,

agreed

to

''hope beats

Within hours of the new agreement,

*/

Plaintiff's
counsel suggested that progress could be made if only
junior counsel, Ms. Goldweber and Mr. Shuman, participated
in depositions
while Mr. Cohn was unavailable.
Even though the two juniors were classmates, Mr. Cohn declined this offer, but generously advised plaintiff's
senior counsel, Mr. Schwelb, that he could do as he chose.
~/

See Attachment

"A."
- 5 -

Mr. Cohn cancelled

however,
citing

imperative

business

the depositions

only one day for a case dealing

"the highest

politan

Life

Ins.

Plaintiff

national

with rights
priority."

also proposes

to conduct

that

this

would be permitted.

responded

to interrogatories

and since

Donald Trump disclaimed

during his

deposition,!/

request

back to

This left

him

to which Congress has

Trafficante

discovery

and hopes soon to inspect

Mr. Donald Trump and his attorney

assurances

proper

than a week.

24,

v. Metro-

Co., 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972).

Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P.,

records.

for April

which would take him to Europe,

New York, and to St. Louis in less

accorded

scheduled

pursuant

seeking

plaintiff

to

and copy pertinent

were fulsome

in their

Since defendants

a description

detailed

pursuant

have not

of their

records,

knowledge of these

has been hampered in serving

records
a

to Rule 34.

!!

Mr. Trump described certain employees, including Stuart Hyman, as

being the persons with this and other pertinent
information.
Mr.
Hyman is among those who were scheduled to be deposed on April 18
pursuant to stipulation,
but whose depositions
were cancelled on short
notice by counsel for defendants.

- 6 -

ARGUMENT
As related
this

in our introduction,

kind of case be "in

view of the national

Trafficante,

these

suits,

are "pregnant

delays

to which defendants

United

States

(7th Cir.
States

cases,

with

cert.

v. Gustin

den. 400 U.S.

"warrant

given

for

832 (1970).

States

expedition,
we will
It

it

be lucky

is particularly

in the Federal
its

full

to equal

and now," and not for

526 (1963).

to counsel

this

of

litigation.

see also
Cir.

1970);

that,

of this

like

own choice,

so that

rights

that

and while

directive

current

magnitude

Rules must be followed,

- 7 -

hereafter.

accommodation

the statutory

one that

and substantive

is a

some distant

on defendants'

to have a case

cert.

While we appreciate

of his

with

United

opportunity

this

procedural

the kinds

to make any reasonable

consistent

in cases

In

opportunity,

which precludes

The right

is obvious

3614.

discrimination

404 U.S. 830 (1971);

is prepared

schedule

that

Local No. 1, 438 F. 2d 679, 681-82

den.

is entitled

to counsel's

employment

have been subjecting

Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S.

the United

like

housing

Bacon, 426 F. 2d 539, 543 (10th

the here

any litigant

42 U.S.C.

to equal

an urgency"

v. Ironworkers

1971),

has decreed

every way expedited."

priority

supra,

Congress

of

schedule,

resolved

by 1984.

the procedures
each party

in orderly

outlined

can enjoy

fashion.

Accordingly,

in the light

noncompliance,

the

sanctions

of the record
prescribed

of consistent,

unexcused

in Rule 37 are

particularly

appropriate.
Rule 37{d)
in pertinent

part

of the Federal

Rules

of Civil

Procedure

that

if a party
fails
to serve answers
objections
to interrogatories
submitted
Rule 33, after proper service

the

may make such orders in regard to

failure
as are just
The Rule cites

provides

as examples

any action

"A", "B" and "C" of Rule 37{b) (2),

authorized

which

or
under
court
the

under

paragraphs

include

(A) An order that the matters

regarding
which
the order was made or any other designated
facts
shall be taken to be established
for the purposes
of the action
in accordance
with the claim of the
party obtaining
the order;
{b) An order refusing
to allow the disobedient
party to support or oppose designated
claims or
defenses,
or prohibiting
him from introducing
designated
matters
in evidence;
(C) An order striking
out pleadings
or parts
thereof,
or staying
further
proceedings
until
the order is obeyed, or dismissing
the action
or proceeding
or any part thereof,
or rendering
a judgment by default
against
the disobedient
party.

- 8 -

These
Order

sanctions

compelling

failed

ground

that

failing

to act

Rule 26(c)."
repeated

eliminated
to the

Federal

sanctions
this
priate

2nd Ed.,

chosen
para.

since

of February

they have ignored

failure

the party

as provided

see how defendants'

can be

as a condition

failure

to answer

even if

defendants

determining

4A Moore's

p. 37-95.
consider

precedent

interrogatories.

is "in

by the Court."

might

In deciding
that

these

had not

ignored

5, and must be even more approit.

- 9 -

by

1970 amendment to Rule 37(d)

37.05,

the Court

and

on the

unless

order

of "willfulness"

would be applicable
Order

for

"the

interrogatories,

of "willfulness"

sanction

of severity,

Court's

to the
the

of sanctions

of the

Moreover,

While we do not

least

relevance

interrogatories

is objectionable

than willful,

the only

Practice,

issue

at

has inexcusably

may not be excused

for a protective

See Rule 37(d).

imposition

severity

the

has applied

the requirement

Presently,
the

sought

a pre-existing

a party

served

has been sought.

discovery

as other

as here,

subdivision

noncompliance,

described

even without

to properly

order
in this

the

where,

or object

where no protective
described

authorized

discovery,

to answer

to act

are

Cf. Rule 37(b).

Sanctions
failure

under

to answer

entry

Cir.

judgment.
1959)

interrogatories);
(6th

Cir.

Sivelle
default

Hesse v. Brunner,
default

judgment

Moore's

Federal

cited

(unconditional

against

to the

as to which

1966);

issues

Music,

Inc.

Bernat

be taken

Inc.,

41 F.R.D.

Cir.

16 (S.D.

failure

to answer

218 F. 2d 728

failure

to answer
Cir.

1967)

interrogatories);

N.Y. 1959)

(conditional

interrogatories);

See 4A

para.

37.05,

p. 37-102

as the proper

and cases

sanction

introduction

of certain

evidence

the opponent

has failed

to make discovery,

Music,

1960);

Inc.,

41 F.R.D.

RR, 14 F.R.D.

certain

as established.

278 F. 2d 834 (9th

and
272 F. 2d

373 F. 2d 520 (1st

have imposed

v. Pennsylvania
that

for

for

284 (S.D.

v. Broadcast

and have designated

issues,

the

dismissal

v. Rowley,

to answer

Some courts

inexcusable

Co. v. Aprile,

to answer

2nd Ed.,

a prohibition

Life

failure

failure

Practice,

therein.

included

dismissal

172 F. Supp.
for

Inc.

v. Maloof,
for

involving

default

Mill,

(unconditional

interrogatories);
(unconditional

have

Weiss Noodle

Brookdale

1954)

in cases

interrogatories,

of default

923 (6th

Rule 37(d),

facts,

with

465 (E.D.
respect

McMullen v. Travelers
Life

N.Y. 1966).

- 10 -

Music,

Inc.

relating

16 (S.D.
Pa.

N.Y.

1953),

to such
Ins.

v. Broadcast

Co.,
Music,

It

appears

unconditionally
compliance

from the
their

we think

defendants'

answer

opportunity

for

having

brief

more draconian
We believe

if

and depositions
be litigated

taken

plaintiff

an ironclad

immediately,

unilateral

judgment

in the
to defendants

compliance

defenses

interrogatories
further

case.

any further

Nevertheless,

their

non-

to strike

has no objection

striking

for
in this

without

to come into

forfeited

before

are made absolute.

are

answered

dealy,

the

immediately,

case

can still

on the merits.

While

of the

of defendants

to respond.

without

have

the authority

default

opportunity

the

litigants

on the merits

that

has

plaintiff

measures

that

than

and enter

play,

that

to litigate

the Court

defendants

of fair
another

rather

rights

no more sustained

Accordingly,

interest

foregoing

does not
assurance

we believe

sterner

that

unconditional

disregard

that

promptly

and finally.

full

and complete

held

to be in default.

discovery~;

seek a forfeiture,

defendants

will

under

remedy,

that

suggests

by defendants

Defendants
failing

- 11 -

should
that,

but

make discovery

the availability

of the Rules

with

presently

the Rules
further

should

be dealt

be required
they

should

to make
be

We wish to observe,
tions

now, that

any objection,

their

in connection

failure

to make timely

to plaintiff's

interrogatories

to do so even if any objection

see Rule 37(d),

quoted

at p.

Davis v. Romney, 53 F.R.D.

defaulting
this

..

party

with

defendants'
objection,
waived

were substantively
9,

supra.

or indeed
their

well

As the court

247, 248 (E.D. Pa. 1971),

was far more diligent

obliga-

taken,
said

in

in which the

than the Trumps have been in

case,
The passing of the forty-five
day period without any objection
being made to the questions
set
forth in the interrogatories
clearly
must be considered a waiver by the defendants
of any objections they might have had.
Cephus v. Busch, 47
F.R.D. 371 (E.D. Pa. 1969).
Regardless
of how
outrageous
or how embarrassing
the questions
may be, the defendants
have long since lost
their opportunity
to object to the questions.
If they feel that the questions
are unfair
they
have no one to blame but themselves
for being
required
to answer them now. If discovery
rules
are to have "any effect
or meaning, the failure
to serve such objections
within the time prescribed***
should be considered
a waiver of
such objections."
Bohlin v. Brass Rail, Inc.,
20 F.R.D. 224 (S.D. N.Y. 1957).
The plaintiffs'
patience
in agreeing to wait for answers beyond
the forty-five
day period cannot be considered
of the time for filing
as a stay or an extension
objections.
Sturdevant
v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,
32 F.R.D. 426 (W.D. Mo. 1963).

- 12 -

right

CONCLUSION
For
for

the

sanctions

foregoing

be granted,

opportunity

described

in

(1)

fully

(2)

making

reasons,

plaintiff

with

defendants

the

the

event

the

answer

the

allegations

that

compliance

of

prepare

as

the
future

to

for

future

fully

and

the

to

suggest

if

immediate
discovery

ensures

provided

the

compliance

by

agents

deposition;

with

take

defendants
.

the

motion

and

an assurance

cooperation.

discrimination
that,

their

for

fail

and

its

interrogatories;
and

Court

that

being

come into

all

available

defendants

We further

schedule

full

be stricken

to

themselves

providing
of

In

motion

answering

promptly
(3)

the

prays

the

these

be precluded

defendants

controversy,
which

compliance

both
with

- 13 -

steps,

from

come into

the

Court

permits

each

the

we ask

expedition

set

that

contesting

prompt

party

to

provisions

of 42

u.s.c.

attorney
will

3614.

on either

The schedule
side*/

then be required

will

then be clear,

who is unable to meet this

to withdraw or delegate
Respectfully

cf
fl
)/\.41~
NRY A.

Assista
United States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

and any
schedule

accordingly.

Submitted

j;
1 1
,1/J
-7-. -fJ~rr:,ll,

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

:'.-1l<2-"...J.~.Jvcuhlll.

ELY ES. GOLDWEBER

Attorney, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
!/Mr.Cohn
is not alone in being busy.
Mr. Schwelb is in charge
of the Housing Section's
entire litigation
program and active
in many of the cases.67 fair housing suits or amicus participations were initiated
by the Housing Section in 1973 alone,
and earlier
and later cases remain open.

ATTACHMENT A

rJ
HAB:ec
1.730;)i5:)

April

BY HAND

S<:t~J:~}
i
J3r!c;o11,

39

~~~t

63th
Rey

M.

Re:

Schuman,

prf'c'.ncc
of ,':

Esqs.

Street

Ne:w York

New York,
Atti.i~

Bo1.an & Manley,

16, 1974

Cohn,

10021
Esq.

United
States
v. Fred C. Trump,
U.S.D.C.,
E.D.N.Y.
Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

et

al.

We are sorry to learn from your associate

Jeffrey
Esq. that you will not honor your commitment to

designated
off ice rs, agents
and employees
the above ltction
for depositions
on April
17,
18, 19 and 22, 1974,
notwithstanding
your written
stipulation,
by I1r.
u'1an~ so ordered
by the Court. on April
l, 1974,
ar::: the oral
r:n:,resentation
of Mr. Cohn of your firm to
GO'.lc,rma{_,n:t counsel
on Eetrch 2 9, 197 4.
To avoid obviously

fnti
e:>:pcnditurc,
we have cancelled
our request
for a
st:1Do-srrap!113r to record
the depositions
on those dates.
previously
in

We regret,
too, that
defendant
has chosen to
vicL~tc
the Court's
ori.10.r of February
5, 1974 which ordered
I
d~ cada.nts
to ans"11er plaintiff
s interrogatories
on or
b0
Ap~il 1, 1974.

s2~ctions

\'Jill,
agains~

of

course,

apply

for

appropriate

defendants.
Very truly

yours,

J;D';{ARD JOEN BOYD V

United

.
By:

~_i7

tctw.:u:-d R. Ncaher
District
Judge
22S Cadman Plaza
East
nro0:;;,.1yn, !Yew York
11201

'J.'h{~.r:onorable
UnitBd
Stat0~

Attorney

-----i,,// ././
~;1RY

cc:

Statca

A.

IlRACHTL

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT

\~foc~

FOR THE EASTERNDISTRICT OF

C"
H~Cl ~1 collR1 .0. N..
u.S. D\S1R\C
i(

\9,~

NEWYORK

1< l\~R'l,J
~

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
FRED C. TRUMP,et.

al.,

Defendants.

......
.

1\Mt f.\..M
.............;

..

{)\I

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 73 C 1529
MOTIONAD NOTICEor
MOTIONFOR SANCTIONS

____________
SIRS:
PLEASETAXENOTICEthat
America, will move this
Heaher, District

plaintiff,

Court, before

United States

the Honorable Edward R.

Judge at the United States

Cadman Plaza East,

Brooklyn,

day or as soon thereafter

for an Order striking

Courthouse,

in the forenoon

as counsel

the Answer herein

can be heard,

and precluding

defendants

from contesting

plaintiff's

contention

defendants

have engaged in a pattern

and practice

mination

within

has raised

alo within

u.s.c.

the meaning of 42

denied equal housing opportunity

denial

an issue

of discri-

to groups of persons,

of general

complete and responsive

interrogatories

that

3613, and have

public

heretofore

defendants

answers to all
propounded to them

by plaintiff

within

ten days of the entry

this

Order;

and

Court's

which

importance,

the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 3613, unless

(1) File

225

New York in Courtroom 9, on

the 3rd day of May, 1974 at 10:00 o'clock

of that

of

of

(2) Provide

and adhere

availability

for depositiorsof

and their

agents

deposition;
(3) File

to a firm schedule

heretofore

proceed

by this

with and respond

with the Federal

Procedure

and any Orders

Rules of Civil

Court in relation

Procedure;

with particularity

and in the attached

prays

Dated:
To:

they

to discovery

in

thereto.
to Rule 37 of the Federal

in plaintiff's

affidavit

that

Rules of Civil

and the grounds

for such other

Court deems just

for

which may be entered

This motion is made pursuant

further

noticed

and

accordance

forth

the defendants

with the Court an assurance

will

of

therefor

are set

supporting

of Elyse Goldweber.
and further

relief

memorandum
Plaintiff

that

this

and proper.

April / ft", 19 74
Brooklyn, New York

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan
and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York

10021

Yours,

etc.

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

BRACHTL
Assist
States
Attorney
Department of Justice
Brooklyn, New York 11201

:}~~..,,J aed+~l,-<~.

ELY S. GOLDWEBER
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

. _.,,,.

AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
Elyse

S. Goldweber,

being

duly sworn,

deposes

and

says:
1.
Rights

I am an attorney

Division,

one of the counsel

C. Trl.lltlp, et al.,
2.
tiff's

United

in the Housing Section,

States

for plaintiff
Civil

Action

I have prepared

contained

my knowledge

and belief.

Subscribed
and sworn to
before me this n;'"""CL
day
of April 1974.

My Commission expires:

in United

therein.

of Justice,
States

and

v. Fred

No. 73-C-1529.

the factual

Memorandl.lltlfor Sanctions

of the facts

Department

Civil

statement

and have personal

It

is true

in plainknowledge

to the best

of

Fl f ED

umce
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTUE()~Nj,Jf,;;;Z!s
IStRler COURTf.D. N.
MAY
8 1974

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

JIMEA.M.................................
.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,

P.M.....
-.,,unu,OUoh

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 CIV 1529

PIAINTIFF'S REQUESTFOR
PRODUCTIONOF DOCUMENTS

_______________
Defendants.

Plaintiff

hereby

Federal

Rules

permit

plaintiff

listed

and described
It

of Civil

is

Street,
shall

Inspection,
by or under
Department

the

A to this

1974,

and that
offices

at

and copying
copying

shall

10:00 a.m.
Inc.,

at

production

documents
remain

of an attorney

available

will

until

be performed

of the United

Respectfully

as

and records,

of Justice.

FRA~.

Inc.

be completed.

and photographing

York

the

2611 West Second

of Trump Management

can reasonably

supervision

request.

the aforesaid

shall

and

and records

production

and copy the requested

and records

produce

documents

Trump Management

as such other

the documents

such inspection

defendants

the aforesaid

New York,

to inspect

and that

that

of defendant

to Rule 34 of the

and copy the

12th day of June,

Brooklyn,

necessary

that

in Attachment

requested

continue

pursuant

Procedure,

to inspect

commence on the
main office

requests,

submitted,

xi. LV~

sCRwEtB

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER
Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D.C.
20530

States

ATTACHMENT
A
LI ST OF DOCUMENTS
AND RECORDSSOUGHTTO BE
PRODUCED
FOR INSPECTIONAND COPYING
All

deeds,

cancy lists,

contracts,

correspondence,

cancelled

checks,

W-2 forms,

and other

written

records,

possession,

custody,

association,
said

application

memoranda,
journals,
books,

or control

ledger

sheets,

or other

accounts,
lists,

and writings

in the

or any firm,

business

entity

which contain,

any of the following

va-

waiting

of the defendant,

Trump Management Inc.~/

or in any way reflect

forms,

receipts,

documents,

company, corporation,

defendant

January

leases,

of

constitute,

information

since

1, 1968:
1.

The names and addresses

residential

lots

by or through

and all

said

other

defendant

of all

apartment

dwellings

buildings,

::!:_I owned and/or

for any period

of time since

managed
January

1968, in New York and elsewhere.

2.

A.

The address

available

for rental

any period
B.
available
January

and apartment
by or through

of time since

The size

January

and rental

for rental

number of each dwelling

said

defendant

for

1, 1968;

range

for any period

of all

dwellings

of time since

1, 1968;

*/ For the purposes

of convenience,
the word "defendant"
as used
in the remainder of this Request, shall include defendant Trump
Management Inc. or any firm, association,
company, corporation,
or other business
entity of said defendant,
or any agent, or
employee of said defendant,
and shall include Fred Trump and
Donald Trump.

**/ For purposes of convenience the word "dwelling" as used in the

remainder of this Request shall include any apartment,
house,
building
lot, or any other dwelling as that term is defined in
42 u.s.c. 3602(b).

1,

C.
rental
3.

The dates
since

each apartment

January

The name, address,

inquiry

of each prospective
regarding

B.
tenant

The preferences

dwelling

size,

race,

of

who has

of a dwelling;

expressed

a particular
date

and date

tenant

the rental

regarding

for

1, 1968.

A.

inquired

was available

by the prospective

apartment

of occupancy,

building,

and/or

rental

rate;
C.
tenant

The information
in satisfaction

criteria

by each prospective

of the qualifications

to be met by prospective

D.

The results

landlord,

prospective
E.

employment,

background

whether

and

tenants;

of any credit,

or personal

made in deciding

tenant

provided

checks

to accept

prior-

or verifications

or reject

each

tenant;

The name of the person

with whom the prospective

dealt;

F.

The name of the person

application
G.

H.

of the prospective

The address

dwelling

whom processed
tenant;

and apartment

shown to the prospective

Whether

an application

the prospective
to rent

the

number of each
tenant;
tenant

a dwelling,

submitted

and if not,

not;
I.

The name, address,

occupancy

of tenants

of former

tenants;

race,

and the

- 2 -

and dates

forwarding

of

addresses

why

If the prospective

J.

as a tenant,
K.

the reason

If there

the prospective

for his

tenant's

and

at the time of
any memoranda

the applicant's

name

list.

The qualifications

account

rejection;

application

whether

was put on a waiting

A.

was not accepted

were no vacancies

which would reflect

4.

tenant

or criteria

in deciding

whether

to accept

The credit,

employment,

taken

into

or reject

applicants;
B.

or personal

background

made in deciding

checks

whether

prior-landlord,
or verifications

to accept

or reject

appli-

cants;
C.

The policy

regarding

the rental

D.

to black

or agents
persons;

E.

rental

to refer

prospective

documents

organizations,

and standards

the rental

of dwellings

estate

such company engaged

applicants

to the defendant

of dwellings

to black

persons.

memoranda of oral

or other

or employees

written

of said

or agencies

to be followed

to any real

or other

instructions,

correspondence,
to agents

persons;

to the defendants

given

agency,

the rental

All written

instructions,

regarding

to black

and

company,

5.

given

The instructions

regarding

of the defendant

of dwellings

The instructions

employees

persons,

or practice

defendant

concerning

by such persons

- 3 -

records

or

or to other

the procedures
with

respect

to

the rental

of dwellings

and the treatment

including

to any person,

to be accorded

black

prospective

including

prospective

tenants

black

tenants

of dwellings

persons,
of dwellings,

since

January

1,

1968.
6.
race

All

between

referenced

Act,

or papers

or concerning

said

tenants

7.
papers,

documents

All

since

or communications

papers,

All

and other

trade

of apartments

for

previously

and other

documents

to the Fair

or nondiscrimination

in rentals.

placed

by said

defendant

brochures,

by or through

said

or

Housing

in news-

radio,

or media which advertised

rent

to

1, 1968.

publications,

publications

or its

agreements

advertisements

magazines,

any reference

which make reference

or to discrimination
8.

defendant

January

correspondence,

containing

television,

the availability

defendant

since

January

1968.
9.

All

cancelled

records,

checks

and other

address,

race,

or other

employee

January

position

Copies

documents

rights

and date

which contain

of employment

W-2 forms,
the name,

of any rental

at any time

agents

since

of all

EE0-1 reports

furnished

to the Equal

Commission by the defendant,

reflecting

the race

or national

and of all

origin

of defen-

employees.
11.

City

documents

contracts,

employed by the defendants

Employment Opportunity

dant's

reports,

1, 1968.
10.

other

payroll

All

Commission

correspondence
on Human Rights

responsibilities,

other

between
or with

defendants
any other

and the New York

agency with

than the U.S. Department

- 4 -

civil

of Justice.

1,

12.
formal

correspondence,

and informal,

in housing
produced
gation

All

reflecting

by defendants
irrespective

and irrespective

documents,

memoranda and papers,

or alleging

or any of them,
of the merit

racial

such documents

or lack

of the formality

complaint.

- 5 -

discrimination

of merit

to be

of the alle-

or informality

of the

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,

Elyse

S. Goldweber,

hereby

certify

that

Request

for

Production

mailing

a copy,

following

an attorney

I have served

prepaid,

the plaintiff,

a copy of the

of Documents

postage

for

foregoing

on the defendants

to their

attorney

by
at the

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

This

the

6th day of May, 1974.

ELY ES. GOLDWEBER

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D.C. 20530

L..t:..L)

IN Cl H~KsOHICE

JDP:HAB:sm
F.#730959

u.s.01snucrcournE.o.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1C MAY3 0 1974

------------------------------------x

JIMA.M.................................
.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

P.M.u
..............................
.

Plaintiff,

NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and

TRUMP MANAGEMENT,

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

Defendants.

------------------------------------x
SIRS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

OF AMERICA will

take

the

MANAGEMENT,INC.

as

by the

agents

times
the

officers,
set

forth

United

Floor,

States

in

suant

to

the
the

Notary

Public

law

take

to

tinue
attend
Dated:

in

from
and

deposition

an adverse

the

and

Federal

of

to

day

defendant

upon

employees

and

hereto,

Brooklyn,
of

The oral
until

City

Civil

some other

depositions.
day

UNITED STATES

examination,

at

at

the

the

dates

office

East,

officer

Fifth
pur-

before

authorized

examination
You are

will

and
of

of New York,

Procedure,

completed.

TRUMP

oral

225 Cadman Plaza

Rules

or before

of

party

Appendix

Attorney,

Borough

plaintiff

by
con-

invited

cross-examine.

Brooklyn,
New York
May 30, 1974
Yours,

etc.,

DAVID G. TRAGER
United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff
By:
BRACHTL
Assis
nt u. s. Attorney
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York

-1-

to

TO:
SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY
Attorneys
for Defendants
39 East
68th Street
New York, New York
10021
1.

Ms. Marrazzo
Resident
Manager
3901 Nostrand
Avenue
Brooklyn,
New York
June 18, 1974 - 10:00

A P P E N D I X
a.m.

2.

Mr. Ken Fici

Superintendent
Fountainbleau
Apartments
8555 Bay Parkway
Brooklyn,
New York
June 18, 1974 - 2:00 p.m.

3.

Mr. Levy
Rental
Agent
Beachaven
Apartments
Sheepshead
Bay
Brooklyn,
New York
June 18, 1974 - 4:00

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Mr. Paul Ziselman

Rental
Agent
Beachaven
Apartments
Sheepshead
Bay
Brooklyn,
New York
June 19, 1974 - 10:00

p.m.

a.m.

Mr. Limani
Superintendent
Lawrence
Gardens
Brooklyn,
New York
June 19, 1974 - 2:00

p.m.

Mr. Lou Sarnell

Rental
Agent
Shorehaven
Apartments
Brooklyn,
New York
June 19, 1974 - 4:00

p.m.

Mr. Zeller
Superintendent
Highlander
Hall
Brooklyn,
New York
June 20, 1974 - 10:00

a.m.

Rene Canon
Superintendent
Westminster
Apartments
Brooklyn,
New York
June 20, 1974 - 2:00

p.m.

Mr. Abe Rosenberg

Rental
Agent
Beachaven
Apartments
Sheepshead
Bay
Brooklyn,
New York
June 20, 1974 - 4:00

p.m.

Ff LED

IN

IN ClH!K'Smnc
STRICT COURT DO$tcmHj1crcournE.D.N.Y.

UNITED STATES
EASTERN DISTRI

JUN5 1974

OF NEW YORK1(

TIMEA.M.................................
.

STATES OF AME CA,

P.M.................................
.

)
)

Plainti

CIVIL

ON No.

)
V

73 C 1529

DEFENDANTS'
RST ANSWER
TO INTERROGATORIES

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP )

and TRUMP MANAGEMENTINC.,
)
)

Defendants.

)
)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

The de
plainti
, state

by the

s, answering
as follows:

The sole

1.

shareholder

hereinafter

referred

to

quired

interest

on June

such
2.

T.M.I.

on April

22,

Estates,

New York,

Parkway,

Jamaica

J.

Tosti,

of

printed
3.
Trump were
before

is

lyn,

24,

is

in

Donald
is

Jamaica

cer

are

C. Trump.

Queens

8814 Mid

New York,

each

Fred

Inc.,
ac-

1969.

C. Trump,

Estates,

propounde

Trump Management

"T.M.I.",

President;

County,

New

Trump,

ca

8814 Midland

Vice-President;
tates,

set

in

'

Parkway,

Matthew

New York,
standard

is

Secretar

New York

cor-

byThe supervisory
in

conducted

City,

approximately

hood.

Fred

explained

trial

in

was incorporated

1969;

4 ~Starex

as

8620 Avon Street,

duties

interrogatories

roles

de

1 in

by

of

C. Trump and

their

res

a moderate-income

New York,

The Trumps

units
in

examinations

plaintiff.

d C. Trump and Donald

6,000

ctive

Donald

housing

located

a low-income
no managerial

Trump own an interest

development
the

East
ally

control

consisting

New York
integrated
over

in

this

section
neighborcomplex.

of

The renting

process

been

rented

to

high

percentage

has

date.
of

to

of
October
Elyse

Washington,

11,
S.

72,

and

Goldweber

at

Department

of

Jus

With
nection

with

formation

Annexed

8.

Defendants

or members

who were

Street,

Stuart

Hyman.

all

of

emp

ees.

of

Tosti,

d to

the

are

dated

Tosti

to

United

March

Miss

States

15,

1973.

maintained

by Stuart

are

their

rental

in

con-

remaining

in-

Hyman and

11

in

in

effect

any po

cy

icants.

never

located

had

a policy

or ethnic

not

to

employ

group.

and

in

lications

T.M.I.

New York,

orally

the

had

I.

under

the

office

of
at

tenants
2611 West

supervision

of

lable.
posted

offices.

in

never

leases

e defendants

scrimination

cks.

available.

12.

any

Department

from

of

non-white

any racial

No information

contained

have

have

11.

superintendents

J.

However,

compiled

as Exhibit

Brooklyn,

ive

Donald

no records

The executed

accepted

Second

the

memorandum

5 O.,

No information

10.

to

communications:

Matthew

D.C.,

ainst

7.

9.

an extremely

supp

Drumm., at

from

not

e plai

discriminated

negroes

F.

Washington,

being

that

lowing

Thomas

The defendants

6.

are

is

have

previously

Section

to

apartments

be rented

Housing

race

to

has

D.C.,

the

regard

the

would

a subsequent

ce,

requested

be furnished

which

of

the

expe

by the

attention

tice

is

apartments

Justice

the

and

it

information

Department

letter

begun

However,

5.

the

just

that

renting.

the

H.U.D.

Defendants
T.M.I.
Detailed

examinations

before

Trump.

have

absolutely
responses
trial

housing
told
does
to
Fred

poster
the

ct

not

allow

s ques
C. Trump

13.
will

This

be supp
14.

15.

DATED:

information
the

plai

fas

s was answered

No information

New York,
May 15,

to

being

detail

compi
soon
in

by Stuart
as

sible.

the

examination

Hyman

be-

availab
SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY
Attorneys
for defendants
Office
Post Office
ss:
39 East 68
Street
New York, New York 10021

New York
19 74

BLACKand PUERTORICAN EMPLOYEES

s.

Terr

P. Taylor

J.

Brown

Bennett

H. Culbrehda

A. Countil

A. Cambell

H. Rodrigues

L. Cordero

C. Echavarria

J. Williams

F. Lorenzo

J. Maldonado

0.

Curtis

D. Alvarez

M. Perez

Jr.

M. Adams

A. Hampton

M. Perez

Sr.

A. Alphonzo

V. Matos

L. Perez

R. Robinson

M. Matos

w. Martinez

L. Bidal

V. Gregaria

s.

A. Andersen

w. Reyes

A. Diaz

H. Solar

Monurle

s.

Diaz

R. Garcia

T. Logan

E. Aquino

C. Pradera

A. Clemens

R. Nieves

A. Fuentes

C. Roles

M. Marquez

R. Garcia

E. Iglesia

R. Delgado

V. Rodiguez

E. Mosely

J. Rivera

M. Wilson

Perez

F. Alvarado

R. Joyner

J. Alicea

G. Rosado

G. Lara

H. Dolphin

C. Gouzalez

Salastro

D. Banks

P. Alvelo

Perez

H. Witherspoon

R. Cardona

Kastro

J.

J.

Pablulla

F. Santiago

J. Medina

Y. Augiston

H. Dunlap

M. Tilghman

D. Lugo

A. Green

L. Vega

J. Herlero

R. Urena

D. Reyes

J.

J. Garcia

C. Flores

J.

A. Serapio
J.

0.

Vasquez

Nunez

Jenkins

J Raso
I.

Pedro Matos

Garcon

Grullion

Brownhill

H. Quel

J. McLean

R. Munog

L. Hurlston

A. Escalante

J.

w. Parma

M. Hunt

w. Spruill

s.

V. Jerome

R. Bullock

A. Magana

N. Nelson

T. Leach

w. Sanders

R. Yocono

R. Condon

A. Clanton

R. Rodrigues

C. Litvak

J. Wyatt

J.

J. Rosado

Jose

Luis De Jesus

C. Comrie
I.

Butler

Boston

Betancourt

Sandiego

l..

ADUTIESS

UXIT1':U

REPJ,Y

STATl-:S
A:SD

1.""ITIALS

JUa'EH.

A:SD

~luifco ~tatcs ~cpartmmf

TO

of 31nsfirc

A'I TORNEY
'I'O

XUMIJl-;R

UNITED

JDP: HAB: jdp

F#730959

STATES

EASTERN

ATTORNEY

DISTRICT
OF NEW
FEDERAL
IlUILDING

BROOICLYN,

N. Y. 11201

YORI(

FJJ r:-

IN Cl f;:~ .L. 0
(J,S, DI
, .,, 5 Off/(;

STn,c1Cni,rr ED. NY

BY HAND

June

Saxe,
Bacon,
Bolan
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York
Attention:

Scott
Re:

Dear

13,

1974

JUN141974

& Manley
10021
Manley,

Esq.

United
States
v. Fred C. Trump, et
U.S.D.C.,
E.D.N~-~
Civil
Action
N~~ 1529~

al.

Sirs:

As you know, Attorneys

Donna F. Goldstein
and Norman
Goldberg
of the Civil
Rights
Division,
U.S. Department
of
Justice,
Washington,
D.C.,
and Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Henry
A. Brachtl
of this
Office
with others
from our staff,
appeared
at the offices
of defendant
Trump Management,
Inc.,
2611 W.
2nd Street,
Brooklyn,
New York, at 10:00 A.M. on June 12,.
1974, to commence inspection
and copying
of records
required
to be produced
under the Government's
request
pursuant
to
Rule 34, F.R. Civ. P., served
upon you as counsel
to defendants
on May 6, 1974.
At that
time,
employees
of Trump Management,
Inc.,
including
Stuart
Hyman, Controller,
expressed
complete
surprise
at the visit
of Government
counsel,
professed
never
to have
been advised
of the appointment,
and declined
to produce
the
requested
documents
for inspection.
No objection
to the Government's
request
for production
- either
formal
or informal
- has been previously
made by or
on behalf
of defendants,
no application
for a protective
order
has been made, and no notice
of intended
non-compliance
with
the request
had been given,
though
minimal
professional
courtesy
would have required
as much .
In response
to our telephone
inquiry
to your office
for an explanation,
we listened
later
in the day to your
letter,
read by your secretary,
offering
to discuss
today
the breadth
of the request
for production
and proffering
the
possibility
of some production
of documents
at your office
on Friday,
June 14, 1974.

To: Saxe,

Bacon,

et al.

June

2 -

13,

1974

We find your proposal

to begin negotiations
over the
breadth
of the Government's
request
for production
now - thirtyfive days after
service
of the request,
one day after
production
was to begin and after
Government counsel have travelled
from
Washington,
D. c. for the inspection
- entirely
unacceptable.
We write now in a final
effort
to secure,
without
juaicial
assistance,
the Government's
right
under the Federal
Rules of
Civil Procedure
to inspect
and copy the designated
records
and
documents
We are willing
to commence the inspection
at 9:00 a.m.
tomorrow, Friday,
June 14, 1974.
The inspection
is to proceed
in all other respects
in accordance
with our May 6, 1974
request,
i.e.,
with the production
of the documents designated
in the request
at the office
of Trump Management, Inc.,
2611
W. 2nd Street,
Brooklyn,
New York, and other offices
of Trump
Management, Inc.,
as necessary.
If you accept this accommodation,
please
advise by
telephone
call to the undersigned
at this Office,
(212) 596-3563
or 596-3562,
before
3:00 p.m. today,
Thursday,
June 13, 1974.
If you decline
our offer,
or do not respond,
we shall
very promptly move the Court - once again - for sanctions
and
an order appropriate
in the circumstances.
Depositions
of Trump Management,
Inc. employees are to
recommence next week on June 18, 19 and 20, 1974.
We received
yesterday
your letter
declaring
that the scheduled
dates are
not convenient
for you and that,
therefore;
neither
defendants'
cou~sel nor witnesses
will appear.
You did not suggest
alternative
dates.
Unless you supply proposed
alternative
firm
dates .for the depositions
before
3:00 p.m. today,
we shall
also apply to the Court for an ordered
schedule
with conditional
sanctions
so that these much delayed depositions
may proceed.
Very truly

RY
Assis ant

f:s/

yours,

u. s.

Attorney

~LG~

nONNA F. GOLDSTEIN, Attorney

Civil Rights Division
u. s. Department of Justice

..
To: Saxe,
Copy:

Bacon,

et

al.

3 -

Hon. Edward R. Neaher

District
Judge
United States
United States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201
(BY HAND)

June

13,

1974

F ILE!:J

1N CiEi:K,.: ry-~"'F

0':i.'.?,.TLS iJIS'IEIC':'

li~:I'I:CD
--, ~ ~'1,--.-,

..

r,rsn-,rcr,
..Lt-.. l or
,.

..__,c~~.,,..1~1\......
.._. u

.1

...

u. s. 01srn1cr 6Ju~ttb. /'J.Y

COG:~':i:

v._ U.t-\.1\.
,,--,-,

-1'

J...,yJ

-----------------------------------

JUN2 5 1974

TiME
AM.............

FPLD TRG:P,

P.M..............

Civil

-a9a::.nst-

Act~on

~o.

73 C 1529

.:t al.

Dt"'fE'ndant.

-- -- -- ____,..______
~.~---- ---- -- ---_,

_-- -

......

~~

United
East~rn

Stat~s
District
Court
District
of ~Pw York
l.Jni t.t:<.l Ste.tes
Court
IiousA
Brooklyn,
ilew York
11701
3,

:'lay

17:00

H01JORJ,BLr.:

United
l\. P

VLK:2rJ'.:'

Stat~s

L i'. R l,.

lI0nry A.
Assistant

_._J

l,.

1974
3oon

CJ\'l'OGGIO

MagistratA
C ::C~S ;

:;Jrachtl,
United

Esq.

States

Attorney

FrantCi:~. Scl:iv,rPll, :~sq.

DPpartr1en t of Jus ti C'?

Alic0

Goldw0bPr,
~sq.
D0partrrw n t of J-us tic(
IlanlE>y,
:Csq.
Scott
Attorney
for D0 fendant,

FrPd

C. 7runp,

Pt.

al.

Tl<AiJSCRIDED 3Y:
~ast0rn
Transcription

Service

?
T

to

ri?cord

casP

.Oonald

'l'rump,

t,

I.JI:'f8ndan

sanctions
failurP

to

for

Uni.b'Ci

answer

r:. Schw~ll,
attorney

havf'

b,"',c"n sraced

i'lanag~mf'nt,

nda.nt

for

i.t

s :>cti..on,

Housing

by

And

for

the

hour

two

statute

pro vi

t~1i.s t:..tlr',

we nmr

::Tr. ;,1a.nL;,y

cf

c>.nc ':ff'

Ad,

. Scott
shall

undPr

dr.>lay was

not

by

vihicn.

institutPd

sha.11

proct

0rc.

assign

undtr
tlF'

all

promptly.

any

has

court

Jlonor

2.

of

the

:Jo;,
.00fm

insti.tutE"-d,

i.n \frii ch
361?

S~ction
casr:- to

Your

plaintiff.

the

th:. ..s action

that

shm1,

Alric;ht,

w2r,g hPrP

42 L:2 3 3ti 14,

is

'Ianl1:y.

d:, 1

s cmploy':'('<S

s in

procPe~i.ng

Fran;-:

Di.vi.si.on,

d,.,.,fc:,.ndant,

Scott

C.l.'l'OGGIO:

~:!.il.GIS':'F.A'.i.'E CATOGGIO:

the

Xir.

and

s. Goldwe,b,~r,

r"'cord

Gov~rnment'

Inc.

Ci v::..l Rights

appr>arnanc"'

t!:v?

no\.! l?:00

is

a tl::o hour

th0

._.

d0fr,ndant's

th?

iI.r,,nry 21.. jjrach tl,

?11.GISTR\'l'i.;

th2.t

f"'

r-L"',;,JLJ::Y:Scott.

1.fr)

aft;:,,r

PrPd

fi.rs t narir"

t_....

right,

vs.

ti.

Justi..ci:~.

your

Statris

s Gold,.-t.'"'b1:=r, Alic"'

ti.1~

of

'l'rurnp

an .. going

WP

interrogatoriPs.

States,

for

Uni.t'?d

and

th~.:, dcf

anu

D0partnv.:1nt

the

plain

a.ga.inst

th('

of

Trump,

no

l:.lri~~ht,

CATOGGIO;

IL:'\GISTRA':'~

or

3Cl3

:-1~::iar.:.n':Jat

of

th~s'

3.

,?arli2st

pract.:.cabl

:>

c-:atr,,

f3o that

ti:~d.

priori.

ty

'11.h'? court

only

not

by

proLably

u~ing

hPr~

on in,

or

r:iattt2r

is

0:zifor,2

tion.

_;o,,,,, I want

Is

re

second

any

not

lling

at

least

long

r:r--, I wi.11

crin,in2.l

as

:nsi.st

r..:sn t
~~s

Court.

failur;?

on thr

comply

on th

s?rvQd

of

on proir:.rit

disposi.-

to

thP

ct que-s ti.on.

th'.:' Cov2rmr.:"'nt

wi. th

Li'fort."", thi.s
dPf?nd;rnt
th,.,

cor:;r, up .. or

is
for

d':'"n211d to

counsPl

d~fentlant's

So from

.r::--i :_f

:{OU

a motion

to

('<.

I i.ndi catfcJ

to

this

any phase

.. do you ,,:ant

1"

1:),:,

casf',

Glse.

'

bf'

L.1'~in

attorney.

thr>

Cl1Ct:.

sanctions

ir:.mos"'

to

tr1i.s

a~y way you want,

'iv"a.nt it

has

by

anythi.ng

to

ask

casn

but

c2_s~, to

th.:

countenancn

as

to

this

court,

t:ir-

will

cas~

anc~ causE'

dr:.f"'nc.an+.' s

t:10

ans'::''r

ntr'rrosa.torv

plai.ntiff's

uy thP

counsel.
led

in

on .Iov.:-

fi. l<''d in

thi.s

court

r 15,
this

1973.
court

interrrn.:ratorh~s.
was

25,

before
but

trw

pl2.i.ntiff,

On January
a raotion

to

this

uoti.o~

Im6.

lP& on April

an app~arance
Ja.nuary

by

73,

thf'
74,

Govrnr::""nt,

1974,

th~r~

c01::p.?1 answers
to

was

to

thosi~

.:..m!:JOSe sa!'l.cti.on

1974.
Judg0

(!n2udibl0),

I t~ink

I v.;ron't ...

It

was,

Your

Honor.

it

was

4.
But
that

gatori.as

tl1at

any

of

they

filed

ti1~ 8Xc2ption

th,~y

would

have

rath,~r

sticky,

fend.ant

s . oh,

the

papers,

In

a. conw::~rsation

fact

homt::work

in

duct:>d five,

heVP

rn;? ask

and

I do b0liev':"

I had

that

with

Lr.

case,

:11? said

and

on that.

yes,
for

thf'

d?-

also

<lf'posi tions.
who

Coht;n,

doi.ng

his

we havr.- pro

Is

c:1.::\positions.

Goldweber?
i,J,::,11,

GOLD\.'i:lti~R:

i;e

not

is

bEen

Tlv2r,? is

yesterday

this

;uss

what

of

l1im with

thatli.ad

havP

onr- qU'."St::..on.

I chc1rg,~d

,:1iss

would

;Jow,

when

0xc?pt::.ons

in terrogatori<?s

tak.ing

for

And

bE-en answPr'd

any

thP

schE,dul~

1.

fil0d

sevGn or raon~ pPoplc.

thc1.t correct

ynt

not

to

the? intPrro-

not

(inaudibli:~).

let

hold

April

to many of

madE:' questions
a.nd

in

on th(;

haV('

i.ntf~rrogatori.es,

tlh~

that

on or b~for0

thPy

'.io11, t:1~ c1,~fendan ts

Jow.,

h0ard

wa.s dircctpcl

be answerPd

should

Govs?rnmc":nt says

thE'

to

it

datE' . alright,

I won't

triE>d

tiii.GIS?R.11.TE

to

I would

sch!:ldule-

CATOGGIO:

Did

bf:'

l.::.ke to

you havE

fi.v(

depositions?
VP

i'1AGIC'.iT:A':'B

CATOGGIO:

It

i!a.s

is

i.t

s~ven

deposi.tion.s.
or

fivr?

vt~ but un cl? r

Vf'

ry

5.
tryin<J

circumstances,

honor.

Your

but

l\lri.9!1t,

;:i;J,GIS'.i..'.J,ATE CA'l.'OGGIO:

you ha.Vt"'

them.

:USS

GOLDKEJ3I::R:

them.

',J,;:, had

r,~.AGIS'l'R}\Tl:': Cl1.TOGGIO:

J-;.lright,

v,-h,::,r]

are

thP

dc::>positions?

the

ot:h,~r

~nss

GOLCMLBER: '1i'ell,

four

a_re bei.ng

we

intention

to

i'lISS
HR.

thf>m?

file

Alri.gh t,

T,-ii.th tJl(" court

Your

~ronor,

:'11-\GIS'l'PJ\'l'E CATOGGIO:

were
,,.;ords,

in

all

Cl',TOGGIO:

ER2\Cl:'l'L:

tlR.

:..ns tances

thf..' d1=po3i tions

1:1i:?

i1ISS

may

intPrj~ct

that

thP

depositions

';'Jer0 they?

In

othPr

wcin:> complPtcd?

GOLm:z1mF~:

indicates

clerk?

Go ahe-2.d.

compl<?ted.

that

GOLDlfLi.3;.i;R:

J:S:iss Goldw@b?.r

( inaudiJJ

A.A.GIS'l'R.;;.'.1.'E C.l\.TOGGIO:

hf' r h.::-,ad and.

i. t

You n2.mE' is?

beliPVf'

Ili\GIS'.i.'R.l\.':.:'E CA'l'OGGIO:

IHSS

is

Ilt:"nry Brach tl.

BRl\CII'.:'L:

tlAGIS'IFA'l'E

now,

Yes.

GOLrniEBER;

BRACIITL:

ER.

one witn~ss,

led.

Lil-;.GIS'.i:'FJ,'i':t:: Ci,'l'OGGIO:

your

hav,:

she

10) .

~:Iiss Goldwe-;:i,:,r shakes

l1as ..

7hos@ doposi

1.!X\.GISTP~A'.r:::.:Cii':..'OGGIO:

ti.ens

w~,r~ compL?ted.

'l'I-i0 y ,,;rer~ filL'd?

iJ

They

U~HDLrJTIFI;..u;

w0r0

I stand

corr0ct~d.

g':-tting

I think

SCff,1LLL:

t.

Alri.gh

1-11-\CIS'lRh'l'l~ CA'I'OGGIO:

dR.

filed.

We'.:'

LJO'.v',

wr1 11.

sa.y tha.t

should

.
Your

111:~GIS'l'.zfa'.1.T.:
CA'l'OGGIO;
Ei:C

scm-;rr.:LL:

il~{.

scmJ.i::;LL:

ta.ken ... producf'd

tting

That

sorn'? a<lv,"'ntures,

thosP

the

But
(inaudible)

name?

we

depositions

likes

d g0t

of

which

a lot

of

.
d..i;.GISTHATE

li kt? 2.dv2nturP.

But

1ou

hav~
Those,

:ass

GOLD,i:SBLR;

lJ:.GI:::;'II~:TL
,.:f> c:.rP n~xt?

Llrn:,

,J,11,

Ci.'l'OGGIO;

the

pos:. tions.

fi.vc,

y:>s s:.r.

YPS

nothinq

Slr.

Alriq}1t,

CATOGGIO:

do you

t1v=r1;, is

n(!':'O r.10rr

:.s

d;,posi

tha.t

tons?

\iherc

I:ow

n.any?

aproxi.rnab,~ly

for

po,3i tions

nin;::, other

unc_1,:-r

t10

p<2orl.-

who ...

or: ~.:inal

noti er.

JfovJ:v,-r,

7.
I hav:"

no

r::--

long,'r

,:ork.

fer

t.hi.s

Yes.

Lc,GIS'ITU:.'I'1~ CA'l'OGGIO:

;,::rss
tac tea. ilr.
at

about

Colin

11.:.s re-1ucst,

I di~: not

at

GOLD\JEBLR:

th

2. t:

&.

.L

fer

to

, I

I tJ2.ntf:d

for

?.nd tl,?n

s cas~,

H.ovint_?.

on tl1,:! <JU.'"st::.on of

..Jo11, can
ti1t 0 Sc

t could

. I don't

....

rrnrp08'.:
Ilr.

:ie.n

l. S

+_c

sh.::d

oth:'."r c:.'cposi.t::.ons.

try
any
IJo

any
:i: :1op," so,

,mtir:,

d?r,,osition

.i''11 nov; .

Our

you

2d,

:.ti.on2l

I 2on't

g::-t

con-

Cov, ....rnr~"n

tlv~

Yes,

to

first

frlt

oplc,
riotic,:::

s uc::1 dr,posi_ ti.ens

courti?sy

t:v~0 ryon>:0 tha.t

notice,

when

arranging

and a.s

ti ,:,c'

Also,

t-.hin0

first.

P:t a.po loqi.c-s

Your
for

LOnor,
(inaudiL

on tlF?
1,,,}

..

ha.d a coupl~-" of
Mr.

Colin

ar

t~1ing:.;

want0-:;. to

n:.:/ control.

i..;,..0 y0r.cl

L,~ ll>:!r~,

but

a ~12.lf comm.:.tr~,,:.:nt to

and

try

Hi~CIS'i'Rl\" ...l.: C\'l'OCGIO:

bE?for0,

it

g!v0

th:::> 1:-ar..dc.b.? of
prefer0nc2

t:ic- court

authority

I ,?racticFd
ah,'ays
you

ar@ too

that

cases

to

la.1.,1 for

.. Judgi:

you

It

pref?.r,:,ncr.

judicial

si.ncP

i\nd

s a. hard

say,

court

the

rna.ny yr>ars . but

Irving

1~aufr:1an ...

busy,

say

so.

hav",

so.

too

.busy,

am mPrely

i,,iAGIST1vs::.:;

r1P.. :f2\~JLLY;

you

~fe is

in

Gt.
~:0

a dozf"n

~,Ir. Colin

on thi:-> tl:'.'l>"phone.

:1obody

a real

1:-andate

la.wyE' rs,

handlP

saying

it

J'tr.

that

ser-ims

it

ll,

a :1alf

Col.:.n

r-0n:.ind

Louis

thf'r?

Mr.

Kaufr.1an,

cannot

,Jf'll,

yes t?day,

gav0

ng th2.t

the

Colin

CATOGGIO:

:11\GIS',;.'I',.l\.'i'i:: Cl\TOGGIO:
\'7f>rt..,,

Irving

I am not

saying

forgPtti

U3':>c:i to

If

c1.nyon":' ,vie1

for

t!1ing

a.no I ari not

'.Jf,11,

is

m':':n tion~C

that

is

Louis

to

gi.ve: it

if

St.

ca.s:,,.

as

'\;.:"11,

Ili\GI G'iR.Z\.Tl: c::rOGGIO;

has

in

this

statut(

th?

is

~'1('

of

could

s:.,':?ms

..
S!=)l?f'lS

us

it

that

trying

to

rPach

him.

h"'- bf' hPr"" today

.
9Pt
I

')

..
.,

of

th~

for

always

is

2.na ,1e

pap,:,rs

this

and

i.1E'rE,

th...:: Gove rnri,en t to

poi.nt

hGrf:

is

as ths

Government

s,,,cond

rung- with

i.npossi.01.>
irposec.,

at
and

is.
us.

~E,sides
case

the

havP

aksed

been

Dut,

would we would

days

to

rnf'nts,
ing

to

orally

comp
that
tl1e

,,rho didn't

tions

to

(inaudiblE)

to

major

1.d.tnssscis

thr.- five'

tP

fortl1

like

prepare

!lave, already

plea.s~?

An.cl

:..nthis

sam':' qu?sti.ons

to
a few

tl1t~ answers

v,c couldn

were

wer""'

th> in ti::"rrogatorL~s,

in

put

mr-c~1ani.c2.lly

1':',ajor wi tnesst"'S

v9ry

Th~

and

was pur,"!lly

on t:1e

ti v0s

forrr

asked

cc.SP is

Can I finish

just

is

i!l ti-:rroga

d~posed.

also

Colin

thE"

that

i.n a wri tt~n

;1r.

that

fa':.posed.

fact

vr::ry bri<>fly.

t~12.t t!1is

five

to

the

t m":'cl:anically

int?rro<;F:ltoriic:s

and

already

at

t()stify

in.

thi.s

anc.~ th(~

complet<?ly

ba.ttl,

TiE'

tim"'

the

just

anx:.ous,

Uot

tiH? dPposi.

th~: wi tnessPs
bE'en

we arc

that

he adt::ay

ma.IC' any

l.'Ell,

, I h;:ivr, r'2'ad n:ost

0(!"-n an awful

has

these
days,

witnesses.
po~sibly

intrrrogatory
hand.li?

conff~rri.ng

t:d.s

wPrf"

stab:"-

both
th~

ten

rEspond-

witn(-l'ss,~s

sar1E' ti.mf'.(i.naudible)

t:iat
Trump
thE

Organization,

same

r1ufstions

interrogatories.

who

that

had
wer"

2lready
wri.ttPn

b ?Pn
0

d,'."post?d to

on pap1.,.,r in

thr,,

ans1'1f'r

10.
;lAGIS'l'RlVl'E

to

make

swers

a gu,:=,ss,

to

obviat~

I would

th> need

iiiss

say

for
to

if

that

you

you

ask

got

i.n an-

you probably

int1:rrogatories,

the

Are :':lou willing

oh,

,I,.:>11, if

Ch'l'OGGIO;

taki.ng
allow

would

furth<:c~r d?posi

that

as

me

tions.

:1r.

..li ty,

a possib:.

Goldweb~r?
I ...

way I could
answi,rs

that.

answer

to

th

I dent

int?rrogatori.es

tlAGIS'I'RP;l'L:

is

th0rc

no possibl~

know what

kimi

of

I woul<.1 :1avP l1ad.

CA'l10GGI0:

Yr,s,

we 11

that

is

2.

questi.on.
1'1C

thE> nan,'.,s of

tht?

p.:>ople

know rr,ally

don't

wi?r(', .

., U\.GI~3T.E.ATL CA'i'CGGIO:

Y~~s

On~ other

to

:r1ak~.

7hesr

what

interrogatoriPs

point

wer~

I vould

s~rved

like

3ix

rnontis

s ai r3

ago.

rl.AGIS'I1I;.1"'..'1
i::: Cl\'l'OGGIO;

I know that.

that

forP.

You know.

it?

Is

:;rss

GOLU:r:.:.:dL::~:
Piv,"' and
011 ,

I was

Or is

it?

onr:-ha_lf.
I

m-'vr,r

c..,.
any

qood

a_t I1at:1

11.

~.

sor:-:f of

information,

th"

rDally

l,n~ you

rough.

r:rss
t::c, ndants

.:..nt?rrogc.>tori

at

all

GOLrnmB.t:m:

~lastic

\Je 11,

he.Ve.: uai vr: d thE.:.r

ar.e . ar~

PS

on thf"m?

1 t:-iat

the'

objection

u""~GIS'I'I::.A'
....
'E Cl.l 1 0GGIO:

v:::--11, that

Und< r th0

I an g

i.s

a good,

rulr

old

th--

33,

t:Lons

to,

toc"th~r
st

now.

of

practical

t21a.t i.s

0:1,

the

the

party

(inaufi0l~)

s~~rvc

a copy

in

of

tl1irty
of

to

L,otJ1 partiPs.

old

rul ... that

t:1J:,

th0

dl"fEndant

r,;,a1 s-erv"'

f:i.v;:. days

aftc-'r

t::1a.t d<:'

ndan t.

large

th~

timP

t,

Alri

servic0

is

that

had

au6its

hav~

rE:..i.s::c"'.
it

court

sum,"1.ons

of

may allow

ght
PXCFptions.

giv,:'

us

cas0.

beFn s~rv~a

shall

i.f

with-

a.ny,

aft~r
a

:~::-~ct.~pttha.t
00ject:..ons

tho

this

fror:1 t,':"n c:.ays,

int0rrogatori:--.s.
answ.:1n:: or

both,

in

c=msf'rs and O;.Jjections,

st" rvi.c;-::i or

for

sown

int~rrogatories

long:->:r timt-,.

~fter

i r oL j n cti om, 2t

!nterrogatori.0s

'I'h<"'y

Uv~ st?rvic""'

of

a noti.c,,

C~ID~JTIFISD:
of

~ays

t?n

nov; I

,,Ovi,

servic0

~!thin

,-.:ithin

forty-

cor1pl2_.: n t upon

a short~r
2.uthor.i

ty

I don ' t kno'>'1.

or

to

rm-

l\nd

12

..
in

a cas?

that

c;-1aracb?r,

poss

ly

th0

and
if

to,

to .. and

in
in

ordPr

sp0ct

to

some of

dillies.

namn,

and

1,\1.::ll, that's
enter,?d

in

a.lri.ght.
or

Your

date

they

suppos,~
they

hav~; plcdgt:'c

i.ng at
to

tlw

first

know thE

:Jational

City

Bank?

su.bsb:rntial
could

1,,?

th::>y allow

i.n top

int~ri.".st

loa.n

th2.t

th,..,.ir

which

se.::m

state

r'."-

th"'

rnar..2.g0ment,

r:ianagemPnt,

Inc.
or

I know.

. or
th,

assc-ts,

suppos21d,

J\ncJ.

in

and.
look

you 1..1ant

th"'

First

i.n thP

First

interrogatories

for

has

I arr. just

PV'"',ry stockholder
':'hese

1:i.nd

company

int':'rrogator:?s.

ar,e

so

somt" possibili.ties.
Your

GOLD',JEBER:

typehandled

with

of E>VE"rybody who works

.bank or

1':ISS

such

th0

Ci. ty

that

:"'la.stic

a.ny ot::-wr own?rsllips

a. family

some of

:Jational

Lroad

La w~ll

who own stock,

CATOGGIO: I know,

a Lank

of

racP

rsons

oh,

It's

acquirC:-c.

th,-::,re is

would

Honor.

l'L"IS'.I'F:ATE

the

it

tori.:~s

all

indir,:~ct,

I i:R ll RACH 'i' :

corporation,

1:1ov0 thci ca.sr- ahe>c>.d,

on-"', :nloa.s?

Or hav

I don't

oLjections,

sornE' regard

of

a guf:'SS

V"'ntur0

I think

first

address

dirPct

to

t..~.c~se int~rroga

'.1.ak,;; the

rac,~

h~ar

fairness,

Gov,::,rnr:-1{"ntw~rc

t1?

real

rnig~t

court

:Sut anyway,

I ':muld

of

interr:st,

if

they

did

Eonor.

VJ&: rn~an

and

th2.t

interrogatory

have

bcmk

loans,

it

a.

is

13.

me-ri?ly

a s-::ntenct':.

wanted

to

.3ay that

gi.v2

you

will

b sat~sfiPd

days

nr.

you

from

Is

that

you

it

is

'..1.aV{"'
some

your

ki.no. of
I

';]ell,

1onday.

Instead

Your

Eon or.

1.,:,t's

t~m da.ys

of

wi.th:i.n

that

answt.,.rs ..

1
E?.1.GIS'IIU~'.':C CJ,.'1
0GGIO;

'I'ha_t

it.

with

proposal

riqh t.,

lil:..:JLEY:

just

a substantial

say

fror:;

tPn

today.

0E'th:.r?
HR.

Fi\.i:./LEY:

ten

Y?s,

days

from

That

would

l.londay

..:;e fi.n,s.

would

i-IAGIS'i'lL"\TI:

15th

they

i1anl~y,

will

JlR.

days

if

hopPfully

:rov;,

Okay.

ten

'de 11,

then

answ::'r,

alright.

1
;_ll"\GISTHA'.i..
1:.: CA'l'OGGIO:

of

January

...

CATOGGIO:

no of

llay.

15th

'i.'h0

of

makei. t

t,ouldn'

l,ia.y.

it?
T~v" 16 tl1 of
i:1.hGIS'IT.lt-::::':CCA'l'OGGI O:

guaranteed

you will

:ray.

'l'h.,::. 16th

hav~., answ,::rs

to

of

tlv~sc:

::.u.y,

int'rroga-

tori,.::,s?
I~I:.

IITULEY:

~lA.GISTJ~\'I:E

tho

Y".'S sir.

CI~'l'OGGIO

Is

that

alris:;.t

for

Governm.:mt?

r,:rss GOLD,)I:1:n:R:
possible

e1at

ther0

could~~

Your

donor,

sorr~

~ind

would

of

thP

it

conciitional

14.

se.nctions

imposed,

uut

it

would

...:e lifted

;1.:~,GISTR.l::.T.E CA.TOCGIO;

I could

could

irnnos;':'!d ?.ny r,-is tr: cti.ons,

not

as
only

or

soon

,I3

rPco1ru'.'"'nd

s a.net.ions

cysr,lf.

_uss

GOLDl7Li:.r::I~:

. L:\GIS'I'fJ\TE

thf-

point
to

answers

to
the

gott8n

to

to

intcrrogatori~"s,

think,

is

the

point,

Your

Honor?

r:i V(' tho::

or

to

W('

j,avF

int0rro9atoriPs?
CATOGGIO:

;.L\GIS':'fJ'\Tl~

the

Y,:>s.

thr." dF f ..~nda.n t,

punish

that

undr'rstc.nd

Cl\.'l'OGGIO:

,fl.at
Is

..;o,

t~at

11,

'J?

not

y~t.
and

h2tv~nt

tlir:y

,,

',,l1a.t t:h~Y
it

r,ss"c,.

arr:

-:>xactly

say::.ng

::.s,

corr..:ctly,

JES,

ti.ons

until

th,~ 16tJ-. of

would

in to

corn?

Fc.y,

a.ns,1,>r th,:, i.ntPrro,::;ator:,'.'s

pla:;7.

You
I

opl~

thnn

they

do run

can

t into

don't

know rour

slack

pto,riods

Coli.n

anu ~1r. ; la.nL?y' s firr,

S<'"t-.
2.:- 1

into

not

::ut

cJoins

cm: not
to

I1ak2

E~fficulti0s

!n

o.-.mnarn:', a::16 you tr:.',

. i.t

rna.y De, that

Wt') ha.vi:.

:Ln a pe:r.iod

and
just

then

you

gotto:n

w:1ic-:inth

g.::-t
:.:r.

a.r:'

15

..
ur: to

?,:,;.rs .:..n2. lot

tl1-:'ir

of ~ueks

or ~n

2onth

'..:h?' 1 Gt:.1 of

right.

th~

~Jout

cf

or

and

so :..twill

2.

counl2

a~2y.

~1-

r,a:r!JE i.n

clrar

JJo you ,.,,a.nt to

a~positions.

dcposit:.ons

1;ork

advanc~

:.olc~ :furtI1r r

you

until

r:;o t:1rough

nanag,~r2

cknt

\JOUld

a lot

of

so thr;:,y

t-',-,+......1 ... U-

victiLs,

t:.v~- al lf

s"d

v.i.ct.::..,r,.s c'.talt

1:;i

th.

A.r"' they a.rP t:1py

of

stc>.tur'.'

such

not
\lOUld

;.;i.:: of

thc:t,

adr:iss:.on

now .'..;rcausi:: what

a.ga.i.nst

thr:y

sa.J would

F'r:-d '..:rump :..ndivi.dual

it'?

,:o,
in~ivi<luall;,

~ut

not

asa.:.n3t

Ilr.

Truup

t~~y ...
Jr

30n

(i.naudib

16

..
t.
,.J';."11,

the

anythins

that

1=up<>rvisor1

agency.

of

:1ucsti..on

tl-.ir::y

or

70 to

sa1.

on

an adn~ssion

as

us0

~1av,'!, to

You

.::..n a ,:~1at capac:..ty

h2.ve

thi?l':1 in

I s2.y h0r"?

shall

1:ana.g ..'.'."rial.

:,;_::_. BIJ\Cll'IL:

1:AGIS':i.'10\TE

not

C2\'IOGGIO:

':'ll

no,

t::..v:? capacity.

her0

i.s . ..
dAGIS'l'lli"\'I'i:.:

ti10

rna::1 i.s

c'12.rgr

i.n

CLTOGGI O:
of

e, housr

ar~

,,;R

I:uL::- 4 3, Your

ilonor,

I::J,GIS'l'R.l\'ZI:

contract

for

thF

peop

and

talkirvr

v1ho run

1-,:..

ha.ppr'nP<l

'.l:run\),
tlv~y

tl1ey

a.c:rnts

und<:'r

th?,

, who ru:.1 the

landlord?

during

indi ca.ti?d

e.idn' t haw'

thr> a.sh

CA'I'OGGIO:

Your
thins.r

out

~)Uts

b1r

llonor,

an interestiws

ck:.posi tions.

c~.uring

r:mch control

thc.::.r dt"posi
a.t all

ov,-r

ti.ans

that

the'

appli-

17

.cati.ons.
.

And all

t(mant,

and

a nunw2r

of

that

h0lo

Pstatt?

who will

f'air

thf':' duty

of

is

Ilousi.ng

Act

that

anyon2.

of

thcir

if

orga.nize.ti.o:-i
ate

'i"Jith

and

any

the.t

hav~

a.:)uild:Ln0

or

non -de la.,gaI.:,h~.

Th-~f

cannot

d' lagate

undt.r
of

th>2y an'

thn

Fair

of

as

would

Act

for

to

o.llPged

chanqf'

discrir:infor

th'?

You r.-::-an llayor

ar"

talk.i.ng

T.Jn2.mc'

r-..ousi.ng

d"':'Vf:'loprn,~nt .voulcl Jx, w2.s cEscri.rrinatory?

you

tha.t.

p?.:ttf'rn.

son,.,l.',ody mana.g:.n~:r a city

vhat

cove

a large

he le. accountable

b"'

patt0rn

if

we

a.ction

tlw

Superior.

rrousing

who wor~ed

conti.nw:1

would

Ii.ab 1::: for

i:r--spond,7:at

p~rsons

could

tl1a.t

a real

th-2 Fa:i.r

.bc, liai;lP

would is

in

with

duty

Ii.A.GIS TR.A'l'L CATOGGIO:

would

r-::ally

was

L2.wsuits

comply

th0

kind

a b.:ndant

an own':"r of

,"'\nc. t!1 at

no one

who ~ncamP

to

-.~rnployees

naught

that

llousi.n9

th,:>i.r

tus
to

control
Lecomr

their

company,

to

this

Is

thc,t

2.;)out?
liaJ)l(:.

~~caus~
'1'11:'."' City,

the

City

thGr2
'11 1:'lc

was just
City

::.rousing

a r~c~nt

iTousing
Authority

cas~

i\uthori.ty,

:lou know,

of

Otaro

ancl

vs.

th::_i' held

res pons:..-

woule

bl(-1.
:11\CIS'l.2.l\'l'l:

Ci\'l'OGGIO:

Th0 ~al~

so

call0d,

1 r,u.
:::,.ayor . .

.Jr 11,

;\utll.or:,

is

ty

part

of

th,..,

ot's

tl"lP

h,:, hac

to

sup0rvise

could

to

supt=>rvis, .. 2.nd fa:.1,-J.

ar,,

prol.:ie..bly
of

r~"'s pons i.:Ui.li

want

lia;:.; l"

l,c

to...

L~d

a~e1uat~ly.

I...a,v,

,lousing

tc

a duty

aiOUS:.ng

cy.

i'layor

if

ty

broad"r

pr:.ncipal

ar;.y oth0r.

Co you We,nt to

do now.

on th':'

for0

you

wait

to

s::>e what

a~y DorP

approach

d::-pos.:..tions?
would

That

alri.ght,

0(:'

;:JUt

;IA.GISTl,1\'l'E

A.lr::.gh t,

CA'l'OGGIO:

v,,T

r:ms

t r..,ak<:

a .schf'dul:".

:n s::.;GCLD.iL:l.lLH:
that,

you

I don't

..~xtr0rrn? ly
fror,1 th~
plan
casP

to

want

:!Jusy,
court,

,':'nough

of

sornt"'

Si 0 '2,

consist,>nt

ons

th"'

would

lik~~

a. schpdul

lens

w.!.th

the

prot

this

har3hly,

.s:.na

T.H"

..Ir.

tlHm

ah~ad

,}A

of

wi

tr.

his

a.r!"' to

to

would
hav,?

oth."'r

Mr.

case,

Colin

i.f h,...,.had

1 t'1at

Colin

timi2

but

so

and

is

a schPcl.ule

t:1'?n ::iec ablr:> to

rf'3ponsibi.l.i

obli.ga.tions.

L!-' cor.~r:iL~tPd wi.thin

ty

in

Such
si.}:ty

t.his

as
da.ys.

19.

Ano. then

t1v~y could

from

tirP:::> of

the

.Another

sixty

ot:iPr

any

to

days

knov.' their

1:r.

at

busy,

Do :you have

ilISS

CATOGGIO:

GOLrnn::.!i3:CR:

now,

let's

his

bt:en

too

ow:-r.

ther'?

see,

to

was

be dcposeJ.

You

di.d

havl;'> such

forr~.

rIAGI.S'l'RATE

s,

to
take

people

Jc,nd

Y..?s.

Cl'l-'IOGGIO:

':.:'~1a.tis

iUSE> GOLrn::C.iJER:

oh

thP

of

i.nsp-::ction

t11,:, cast".

could
I

handy?

H1\GISTRN1'I:

a sche,du?

v,i tnesscs

i::1en 'Avr..ry-

conti.nuo

attornr".\y

a list

that

r,:;,cord

i.n

t~12.t tim.e- woulc.

come across

our

interrogatori.es.

th('-n he another

I did

the

oL li.gations

IIAGIS'l'PJ\'l':C

of

the" interrogatoriE"s

corrplet;,

suppl.?m.:>ntal

Colin

dr>posi.ti.ons

r?C!"'iving

one would
if

take

lw,r:'! i.t

is

<JO through

has

this

help

Yt?S,

that

was it.

on the

that

whi

Would
CATOGIO:

right

ri.g:1t,

Ii.st.

top.

Fi.n?.

Donald

you?
J:iow.

Alright,

'l1 rump,

has

taken?

l'faGIS':i:'iv\'IL
:USS

CAI'OGGIG:

GOLD\:i.:B:Sll:

GOLD~LDER:

'I'rump,

tak\?ll?

Yt'S.

:,ll\.GIS 1l'h.1\'l'G CA'.i'OGGIO:

EISS

F'r:1d

Yes.

Stewart

Hyrnan?

20

..

iI,"\.GIS':;.'Iv\Ti: CNEOGGIO:
IlIS:J

:uss

wer12

take.n,

Cl'..TOGGIO:

GOL0~h:~13LR:

Pr::,dwald?

Yes.

GOLD;n..:::;:n::R:

A,\GIS'fltl\'l'E

Sophi.

i1s.

.:Jcn0. of

Bare-tzo

(phonE>tic)

tlit rest

of

th!?m

i1onor.

Your

1u~GISTF.Z'i.'1J.:; CATOGGIO:

:Cut

that

i.s only

four

taken?

; 1I S S GOLDiiEBB R:

on this

who wasn't

t:1e 'frumps
them,

Cl,.'l'OGGIO:

GOLD',JI.:BEF:

produc11::id

e.nd it

was

t1h: r,::, wan

fth,

list.

:IAGIS'l:'RNl'E

IHSS

We 11 ,

',Jho

was

It

WcLS

a. !?rs.

i. t was

111.~r r.,ecausE'

he?

Buckley.

And

ol':'as:;..er for

alright.

~{2\GIS'rRA'i'E CA'l'OGGIO:

;ias

S~H'

of

a rnanagr:.r

th0irs?
:1ISS

a.n a S~'!'ction

o.fter

GO:i:..UJt:Bi:E:

Ilanager.

wt?rt

thf'ly

havt:

tlle

HR.

li.st

of

any

of

tlwsP

}rnm-1

Alright.

CATOGGIO:

bf:'fore

d1'1..1LEY.

Do you

what

r:':'vir?w~d th(,

tht~y

calli::\d

appli.c2.tions

.~o , Your

anythi.nry

fH'"Ople?

:Jr.

tlanley.

you?

:.IAGIS'IT.11.TI: CATOGGIO:

:1anlr 0y?

was

sW)m:.ttC'd.

:li:..GIG'l'.l(,il,'l'I:;

Do you

ShP

She

Honor.

Can

aLout

it

you

show

to

the

avail2J)ili.t~l

:1r.

~:R.

\,uold
ar(J

(incrnc:iilJl,::')
still

:Dut if

wor:king
they

say

very

for

much,

people

the

who of

onP w~'3f'k aclv.:.s

thi.rt.oen

of

th"'

of

1,

1974.

tlic

April
cr,:ploy

of

ll}:.

did

I say?

thesa

of

l),? I

p~opl~

I think.
wor%inc-r for

wI10 P"ma.in:":'d

tl:v:,.y would

wr:1.s about

to

lE'.

.pf'ople

thPSf'

All

I-:onor.

Organization,

Alrig:1t.

r:Zi.GISTRA'l'I:: CATOGGIO:

:'Jill you within

Your

sure.

th,::, lrurnp

Or<;c.nization,

avai.lab

too

I aD not

ar;::,n' t

tlH' 'iru:rip

~iot

M.\~ILEY;

li.st

t:1r

that

~ilio of

th!:' GovF'rnrn,;,nt

nurrt.0,::>r five

ta};:i.ng

forrn

part

th~sc

of

peoplA

'~'rui:,p Orga.nizations.

:IA.JLI~Y:

".i:,,s,

Point

Your

dmm
tlw

One.
of

through
stipulati.on

ar@ still

under

By that

I r10an

IIonor.

7~n da7s?

tha.t .. Fr:. <lc.f tlF

1 Ot!1?

l\.lr:.r;~1t,
13th.

I :rill

qi.v-: it

?:,.lri ..gh t?

. You

/ .7

Your

r1y30lf,
. U.CIS'I'R.i.,.'i:'L

CATC>GCIO:

Ponor.

1':is s ...

Goldw.,~b(lr.

:-Jracli t 2.n6 .
"'r,"

I clon' t think

''Lt\.

Your

ifonor.

'
a:or ,'....
r.

r.:

;:;c:r~J"11,

' .,-.. ., ......r' .-' "/ ....,r ~ -,

i',Jl.
..:_1J.. .l.\J"l..L-.i

!'.;..i.

to

that

;;_r.

~racllt,
.."~
! ...

:donor.

ano
~

s e,

;::_copy

to

,....,(.

v;a.nt

to

CO')".J
.!,. -

11'

Or.f ot:F'r

..L~.,....J

I just

:JL.

C/,TOGCIO:

1:a:~:' cl-"'ar

thi:ng,

]o no.

that.
con~unicate

w~th

th0

lGb-1,

ycu

Cov~rnmnnt

11,

Y1 s,
1

Your

~ionor.

It
I will

t.
tJF'

''dOn I t

this

t11at

w:.11
C0

court

i.n

So,

and

not.
nitrly

on

/ 3

...
l:1

or mann"'r.

, .sh

SOTIV'

Alr:.gl1 t.

thos~.> ansi,!'' rs

try

\.coulC

to

r( 0 sponsi

bi? sor,:.:v,1hat

to

V('

qu;,-stions.
rli1.GIS'lFJ.'l'}.:;

tor1

is

too

C7.TCGGI0:

i. ts

i. t dF f""ats

cor~pli.cat,?c:.,

:.f an intErroga-

.7011,

own purpose.

Tl1at s i:>Pen my ,~xr)'2-ri.:::mc,s,.

GOLU.JL.8ER:

LI[;s

are 1:xc~pti.cnally

i.~:..GIS'l'l\J/l'E

pared

terrogatory,

not

interrogatory

the

of

r:acl1 in-

'rlHc> rc-orf' in vol Vt.'d th,..,

l,?ns

good

it

is.

Own or

,mything

~ls0

you

Dut

9:vc

,:i th

have

I do think

t:iat

us meaningful

(inaudiblr:)

to

s0nt

troublf,

I don't

is ... what

that

i.f

want

i::.1:Rl\.CI:iTL:

. IJ{.

PVfln

ha.vr-

Z,,.lright,

any

t11ing

t11<1

I or:\-

s whf:n

I ni2.dC' thPr::'. short.

involwC:.

::.s,

:lost

thc:,v

tlv:"rn ..

CA'i'OGGIO:

:i.nb~rrogatoriPs,

thc.t

think

r':'c:.lly.

compli.catPc'.,

conc,::>rnc"d in

i.nformat:ion

I don't

l"i(ll,

out

so

I think

i.n 1rdnd is

th,:,- 1:'ost

obvious

an o~ligation

th..-y

answ<?rs

think

I :iav,:,

with?

=tr. r1anl'y

as

to

thr

That

ones,

long

to

do to

:.nfon-:-tion

Ii\GI S '11 K.:\?l.: Cl\.':;,.'OGGI O:

I an d~pending

onf'

on

..

...

t}1e fact.s

and ..
I

32 I don

duty

to

knov;,

i ...

und,Pr

;:mt llatl
rules,

t,'lC

somethings,

tlH,,Y be2n
tiwy

to

and

find

IL1.GIS'IRATE

to

imprPss

ri:.ust

up a r~cord
let

that

w:-if'r(~ they

of
thE'

th("

all

and

to

nr.

thc.t

make

to

the

for

thE ordfr

int.f~rrogc1.tories
of

Your

thf'y

arf'

bui ldi.ng

troubl(.>.

just

Gov~rnm~nt,

rr:quiring

Don't

to~~

t\:o
and

poi.nts
first

subjrct

th~

by Apri 1 1st,

d~positions

thci

and

taken

w~rr

to

2.ns':,fr

stipulated
orders

of

court.

t:J..

Governrtf:\nts'

rPport

Yes.

S Ci~\'JI::LL: ':i:'!1us, WE' are

slicond-round

und,:,,r thos,:i

your

thf'y

:1onor,

at.GILJ'I'l-;1'\TE Cl\TOGGIO:

of

Col.in

let's

c.1o is

an: tr:/inc::r

art invi tin9

SCII\JELL:

both

schedule

know

happen.

I wish
all,

to

1:lE"ll,

Yt>s.

and b"."cause

thing

Eh.

that

~avC" an obli.gati.on
the1:1 out.

on .,Ir. .Manley

n:ov,? this

I hav-: 1 a

accJpta}::;.11? .. whi.ch

CNl'OGGIO:

:JoK,

t :{now if

ordPrs,
circumstancr:.s,
rcicr-1(?St th2.t

and

and

to

af

I \Ii.sh

now :Ln a p,. 1 riod

ct

to

cond:. ti.ona.l

r'.?cori1nrnd2_tions

to

the

t..11,'.'sc>.me rf'sul
rc,i.t3rat?
sanctions

Court,

th2
would

that

ts

/. 5

..you

for

r<?(Juest

a r.:><:JUlation

b.? impos.:H.: and

sanctions

that

such

conci.tionl?cl

bf~ granted.
,Je 11 I ..

Secondly,

CATOGGIO:

El\.GISTL"\'J.'E

v,hat

:.{OU

a lawyer

to

an~ c:..ski.ng i.s the

court

w:io fi.nd.s

v:ht>n he~ fi.nds

w:.Hrn lie is

time

be r:w.ybc.

too

self

1,,,112.tis

~;ood

for

and

onn

of

is

ask

plcc:'.sed

&iffi.cul

sc.nct:.on

impos:,"

h:.rrself

busy busier

]_,::,to

11oocl for

Jr,otion,
t:1a.t

to

at

t
on
a

ht~ wa.nts

than

a ti.7i'.,' ,:,.1hen a j udgt"'

f.::..nc.s hi.m-

take

today

it

thr> othr.:>r.

'.i..'h'f>otlv-r

t:.is

WI".'woul.J

counsP l's

to

juc1g"' i.~3 not

SClE'TLI..:

:.;:?"

too

the:. t at

The

costs

and ',Jr' woulC:

ing

a l::.ttl;~

busy.

including

hi.msPlf

im<l

Im.

a.te

.i.t is

t{,:,,11,

.:tf'rn,

which

,muld

is

2.pprop-

LP

costs

thos::~

sui:..ir1i.t

Honor,

Your

the'

rr-c::arE-

affi.davi.ts

ti.1~.,.., a.nd :'xpenses wi t!1 r:>spect

to

this

J'~oti.on.
,.J:"ll,tha.t

cult

on,"'.

If

i nts:-rro0ator:.-:1s,
liet's

t1F if

tit<"

our

trcujl,::-s

not

dcfos

Ct'

the

c. d.if

s producl"'

ndant'

wi.11

is

;,Jc a lot

.:.ssu"".

answ,'-'rs

l.Pss

.le .vant

.:_

tha.n

a.nsw1:>rs.

..
de

?6
want

to

mOVE'' the

alr.:.gh t,

th~n

thoughts

to

touching

thi.s

to

9::.V(

.:. t

dr.

'/'/P

~iow, if

ca.sf'.

vli.11

Colin,
ca~0.

at t.:n ti. on.

go to

work

and

anyon0

can

T}V'Y

C;:--..nyou

on it.

around.

It

c~'

can't

Honor.

;,lri
t~12.t

offi

do that?

Your

~'"S,

On your

0 ls,:1 :..n your

fool

c.on I t conply

th0y

fin?.

i:_rl:t,

it.

:thank you vrry

ruch,

Your

Honor.
Thank

you,

Your

Honor.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Transcribnd

by ZastPrn

~ranscription
Junf

? 4,

S0rvic0
19 7 4

~"-.

1~

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTuJi'Q!,fj?fl2;i

',:

! -

EASTERNDISTRICT OF

JUL 12 1974

NEWYORK
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff,
)

,,1

Tif;'.:A.:l. ............
PJ.1..............

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

v.

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP, ET AL.,

)
)
)

NOTICE TO TAKEDEPOSITIONS
UPONORALEXAMINATION

_____________
Defendants.

To:

Roy Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68 Street
New York, New York 10021
Please

July

take notice

that

1974, the plaintiff,

the depositions
Inc.,

United

of the agents

whose names are set

hereto

commencing on the 30th day of

States

and employees

forth

225 Cadman Plaza

of Brooklyn,
oral

examination

Civil

Procedure,

ister

oaths

tinue

from day to day until

Also,

of Civil

East,

City of New York.

pursuant
before

Procedure,

of the United

Fifth

Floor,

authorized
The oral

attached

States

in the Borough

These depositions

an officer

take

of Trump Management,

will

to Rule 30 of the Federal

and take testimony.

pursuant

will

on the time schedule

as Appendix A, at the office

Attorney,

of America,

be upon

Rules of

by law to admin-

examination

will

con-

completed.

to Rule 30(b)(l)
Documents designated

of the Federal

Rules

in Appendix B attached

hereto

are being

taking

of this

subpoenaed

9rt:.J
of July,

DAVIDG. TRAGER
States

by deponents

at the

deposition.

Dated this

United

to be produced

Attorney

1974.

L~t~:.J

DONNA
GOLTfu
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

APPENDIXA
To Notice
To:

to Take Depositions

Upon Oral Examination

Roy Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

1.

Ms. Minerva Gilbert

res.
3000 Ocean Parkway
Brooklyn, New York
emp. Trl..lltlpManagement, Inc.
2611 W. 2nd Street
Brooklyn, New York

Tuesday,
July 30, 1974,
9:00 a.m.

2.

Ms. Margueritte
Marrazzo
res . 2457 Grogg Street
Brooklyn, New York
emp. Trump Management, Inc.
2611 West 2nd Street
Brooklyn, New York

Tuesday
July 30, 1974
12:30 p.m.

3.

Mr. Skender Fici

Tuesday,
July 30, 1974
3:00 p.m.

Superintendent
Fountainbleu
Apartments
8855 Bay Parkway
Brooklyn, New York
4.

Mr. Guido Lara

Superintendent
Ocean Terrace Apartments
2650 Ocean Parkway
Brooklyn, New York

Wednesday,
July 31, 1974
9:00 a.m.

5.

Mr. Louis Sarnell

Wednesday,
July 31, 1974
12:30 p.m.

Rental Agent
Shorehaven Apartments
8850 19th Avenue
Brooklyn, New York
6.

Mr. Walter Rohr

Superintendent
Patio Gardens Apartments
590 Flatbush Avenue
Brooklyn, New York

Wednesday
July 31, 1974
3:00 p.m.

7.

Mr. James T. Green

Superintendent
Westminster Hall Apartments
405 Westminster Road
Brooklyn, New York

Thursday,
August 1, 1974
9:00 a.m.

8.

Mr. Daniel Borth

Superintendent
Kendall Hall Apartments
41-10 Bowne Street
Flushing,
New York

Thursday,
August 1, 1974
1:00 p.m.

9.

Mr. Joseph Zecher

Superintendent
Trump Village Apartments
2940-3000 Ocean Parkway
Brooklyn, New York

Thursday,
August 1, 1974
3:00 p.m.

10.

Mr. Milan Mitijevick

Superintendent
Wexford Terrace Apartments
86-75 Midland Parkway
Jamaica, New York

Friday,
August 2, 1974
10:00 a.m.

11.

Mr. Raymond E. Travis

Superintendent
Wedgewood Hall Apartments
2580 Ocean Parkway
Brooklyn, New York

Friday,
August 2, 1974
1:00 p.m.

APPENDIXB
To Notice
To:

to Take Depositions

Upon Oral Examination

Roy Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
The documents*/

from the following

Inc.,

set

agents

to be brought

forth

and employees

subpoenaed

of Trump Management,

at the time of each employee's

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

Skender Fici
Guido Lara
Louis Sarnell
James T. Green
Daniel Borth
Walter Rohr
Joseph Zecher
Milan Mitijevick
Raymond E. Travis

1.

All completed

payment of deposits

below are being

leases,

applications

in the possession,

deposition:

and records

of

or control

of

custody

the deponent.
2.

All records,

of documentation
deponent
tact

of any prospective
sought

at an apartment
3.
other

deponent

lists

or other

custody

or control

of the

and dates

of con-

the names, addresses

tenant

or any individual

to apply or made inquiry

building

All written

writings

waiting

in the possession,

which contain

applied,

cards,

who has

concerning

residing

owned by the defendants.

documents,

in the possession,

which contain

forms

instructions,

correspondence,
custody
advice

forms or

or control
or stated

of the
or

!_/ Documents previously

made available
to the government pursuant to the May 6, 1974, Request for Production
of Doc\Dllents
need not be reproduced here.

suggested
apartments
buildings.

policies

or practices

or the processing

with respect
of applications

to the rental

of

at the defendants'

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
I, Donna Goldstein,
certifies

that

I have served

to Take Depositions
by mailing
following

an attorney

a copy,

for plaintiff,

a copy of the foregoing

upon Oral Examination

postage

prepaid,

hereby
Notice

on the defendants

to their

attorney

at the

address:

Roy Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
This

c;Tb
/

day of July,

1974.

~~~~
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

NPG:jfb
DJ 175-52-28

Mr. Roy Cohn

Saxe,

Bacon,

Bolan 6, Manley

39 E. 68 Street
New York, New York 10023
Re:

United States v. Fred

C.A. No. 73 Cl529

c.

Trump, et al.

Dear Mr. Cohn:

Pursuant

to Magistrate

August 8, l97lt we have set

of discovery
that is necessary

that

1.

'

Catoggio's
order of
forth below the remainder

phase of our preparation

for us to complete
of this lawsuit

Depositions:
a. Ms. Carol Falcone
b. Mr. Thomas Wiranda
c. Mr. Louis San1e 11, Supt. , Shorehaven
(deposition
previously postponed)

d. Al Weber, Superintendent:
Edgarton Hall
e. Mr. Henry Neher,

The Belcrest

Supt.

Apts.

. Mr. W. Volz, Supt.

Winston Hall
g. Mr. Jqhn Raymond,

Nauti1us,J\pts.

Supt,.

.. 2 ..
We are planning to notice these depositions
for
August 22-23, 1974. If this date is unacceptable to you;
please contact us by Wednesday August 14, 1974; otherwise,
notices shall be sent out accordingly.

2o

Request for Production

of Documents

We are sending under separate cover a request for

production of the following documents that have not previously
been produced:

ao Current
following buildings:

tenant

lo

Chelsea Itall

2.
3.

Nautilus Hall
Ocean Terrace

4.

Lincoln Shore

applications

and leases

for the

b. Receipt books or other documents which contain

raeords of payment of deposits for the rental of apartments
for each of defendants'
buildings situated in the'New York

area.
We propose that this production take place at
your office on Monday, August 26, 1974. If this date is
inconv-enient to you, please provide us with an alternative
with the discovery deadline
date that is not inconsistent
by Magistrate
Catoggio.
We are also sending under separate
for the following documents relating
to the
defendants'
apartment buildings in Norfolk.
(Hague, Pembroke, Oceanaire and two smaller
Current tenant applications
lm.ployee payroll records
Waiting-lists
Rejected applications

!I

See paragraph
defendants operate

set

cover a request
operations of
Virginia,*/
buildings):

and leases

3 of the Com.plaint which states

that the
dwellings 0 in the New York area and elsewhereo"

We are proposing that the documents be made available

at the Oceanaire on August 29, 1974.
If this date is
inconvenient
to you, please advise us in advance of
that date so that we may make new arrangements.
I look forward t:o hearing
from you by August
1974, to confirm the schedule set forth above.

Sincerely,
J. STANLEY
POTTINGER
Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
By:

NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorney
Housing Section
cc:

The Honorable

Vincent

A. Catoggio

14,

II
II _

iij,

ilii
h

I"

1l
i

JDP:HAB:ec
F. #730959

I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
I!- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I UNITED

NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION

STATES OF AMERICA'

Plaintiff,

'I

I.!

~I'

- against

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

IN~J~
f: 0

IIFRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and

!lTRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. ,
11 _

!11

1,

__

U.S. D15TR1c;,~ UJflt..'

cnurnED. NY

:e:e:d:n:s
~ __X*

S I R S

AUG2 1974

TIMEAM
...................
P.M..............
.

jJ

~
.......,.,....,..,..,._.,..,l'u

!I

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

Iiof

August,

I the

at

1974,

Borough

of

at

Room 290,

Brooklyn,

City

4: 00 P .M.

on the

Cadman

225

Plaza

of New York,

8th

day

East,

the

in

plaintiff

11 in

the

above-entitled

llCAROL R.
jl

11 suant

to

action

FALCONE as
the

will

a witness

Federal

Rules

take

upon
of

the

oral

Civil

deposition

of

examination,

Procedure,

pur-

before

the

li

j! Honorable

Vincent

A. Catoggio,

United

States

Magistrate,

or

before

some other

I depositions.
I

I to

day

until

officer

authorized

by law

The oral

examination

will

completed.

You are

invited

i
II
.
,11 cross-examine
I!Dated:
Brooklyn,

to

continue
to

attend

take
from

day

and

ii
!1'

August

2,

New York
1974
Yours,

etc.,

!f

!I

ii,,
11

ii

DAVID G. TRAGER
United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff

ii

!l
11
11

Ir

1!
11

iiL
11

Ii
II

,
I

I TO:
I SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS.
! Attorneys
for Defendants
, 39 East
68th Street
1
:INew York, New York 10021
II
ii
'I

ii11

<)
l

"

I
I
!1
11
I

ii

!1

JDP:HAB:ec
F. #730959

11,

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK

!I - - - - - - - - - - - - ii

ii UNITED

STATES

!I

- against

II

,-

. ) I\

AUG2 1974

..

Y,

NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION
Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

ll FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP

ii TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC . ,
II

""--'L

-' !

Plaintiff,

11

'( ~

TIMEA.M.,
p .........
...,-~~
...,......
.
.M....~~~-------...........

OF AMERICA,

I'
11

and

Defendants.

11
,,
J!

ii

v,,

U.S.u

11

S I R S

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

:I

ii of

August,

!I Jamaica,

at

1974,

at

Room 409,

Borough

of

Queens,

10:00

90-04
City

A.M.
161st

on the

9th

Street,

of New York,

day

in

the

plaintiff

'I

in

!I

the

above-entitled

THOMAS MIRANDA as

!1

I suant

to

'

the

I Notary

Public,

ii law

take

!,

ii

to

action
a witness

Federal
or

and

of

take
oral

Civil

the

of

examination,

officer

The oral

purbefore

authorized

examination
You are

completed.

deposition

Procedure,

some other

depositions.

!I from day to day until

!I

upon

Rules
before

will

invited

will

by
continu

to

attend

cross-examine.

ii Dated:
11

Brooklyn,
August
2,

New York
1974

11

!I

'I

Yours,

etc.,

!1

i!

:I

ii

ilii
il:!

DAVID G. TRAGER
United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff

II

!I
11

ii~~~.

BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS.

for Defendants
1139 East 68th Street
New York, New York
10021

ii Attorneys

:1

II
ii
'I.
!

!I

",I

e
I

'I

n
'I

ij
I'

"ii
!1

ii

Ii

ii

I<

;1

i'

11

JDP:HAB:ec
F. #730959

IIUNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

OF NEW YORK

II EASTERN DISTRICT

!I

!l -

'I

IIUNITED

NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION

STATES OF AMERICA,

11
H

Plaintiff,

!i
- against

!I
a

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

lj FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and

IITRUMP MANAGEMENT
, INC . ,

ll

Defendants.

1-

!I
II

;1
I'

il

ii S I R S :
11

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

11

q
I

ii of

August,

1974,

liii Attorney,
ii

Iii Borough

of

at

the

Plaza

Brooklyn,

City

l
i
11

:I

il

to

the

Federal

Public,
take

ii day

an adverse

or

before

day

until

of

some

of

the

other

oral

in

the

DONALD

examination,

pursuant

before

a Notary

authorized

examination
You are

day

UNITED

of

Procedure,

9th

States

plaintiff

deposition

officer

completed.

on the

United

New York,

upon
Civil

P.M.

Room G-80,

the

The oral

depositions.
to

of

party

Rules

3:00

East,

take

JI

ll TRUMP as

Office

225 Cadman

,. STATES OF AMERICA will

at

will

by law
continue

invited

to

to
from

attend

and

ll,, cross-examine.
H

11

,l

Brooklyn,
August
2,

:l Dated:

!i

/j

New York
1974

l!

Yours,

i!

etc.

II

H
;1

DAVID G. TRAGER
United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff

:I

!jij
H

!j

ii

:1
1l
:1
!l

By:,,..,.-
/

ii

/'"

'

/
"

fl
d
'.I

il

!l

ll

BACON, BOLAN

&

MANLEY, ESQS .

i!!j Attorneys
for Defendants
Ii 39 East 68th Street
ll New York,

;I
!!
.,

1 y'"~

'

,--.>

,..-

'

J~
S
OR
.. , -.Assistant
U. 1... Attorney
Chief,
Civil
Division
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York
11201

:1

!l ~~~E,

V( )

.r

New York

10021

,,

;I

!I .
I'
!I
:1
!a

ii

F"ILED

I;

n
!I

''~ Ct r!:ics 0111~,E

LJ.S. 015 I RC1 en,nn r:n.,'\'.

Y.

ii,.
JDP:HAB:ec
F. #730959

\I
d

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

II EASTERN
'I

ll!
11

li

-~MEA.M................................
..

.P.M
......
NOTICE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION

,I
ii

AUG2 1974
u .........................

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

!I

Plaintiff,

;l.,

Ii:1

- against

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

:1

Ii

d
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and
ii

II TRUMP MANAGEMENT
' INC . '
q
11

Defendants.

ii

q
ii - -

11

!I
S I R S
H
;1

"ii

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

Ii

at

10:00

A.M.

on the

12th

day

ll!: of August,

!I 900
:i:i

:i in
,1

Ellison
the

ii PAUL
l!

L1

to

,I from
ii
H
;\ and

,,

take

day

11

the

to

Office

action
a witness

or

Rules
before

until

the

will

of

United

New York,

upon

take
oral

Civil

the

the

plaintiff

examination,

of
pur-

before

authorized

examination
You are

Attorne

deposition

officer

The oral
completed.

States

Procedure,

some other

depositions.
day

of

in Westbury,

Federal

Public,

to

11

the

Avenue,

ZISELMAN as

Notary

ii law

at

above-entitled

ii suant
ii

1974,

invited

will

by
continu

to

attend

cross-examine.

ii Dated:
d

ii

Brooklyn,
August
2,

New York
1974

Ii
:(
d
,I

Yours,

\I

etc.,

;I

DAVID G. TRAGER
United
States
Attorney
Eastern
District
of New York
Attorney
for Plaintiff

ORTE,
R.
Assistant
U. s. Attorney
Chief,
Civil
Division
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York
11201

!i,,

1:

11

'I

ii
Ii
'I

!I

iiTO:
Ii

11 SAXE

, BACON, BOLAN

IiAttorneys

&

MANLEY, ESQS.

for Defendants
:I
39
East
68th
Street
d
!J New York,
New York
10021

:1
,J

!l

I'!"IL ~

1,v_CUilK'_:;.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

$ Orfll;f
1

U,S, 015(fllC .

. cnw~,Eo

,N,Y.

;;~!1.:
*

------------------------------------xTIME

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Civil
Action
No.
73 C 1529 (EN)

Plaintiff,
- against

NOTICE OF MOTION

FRED c. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

------------------------------------x
MISS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE,
ROY M COHN, the

affidavits

hereto

all

and upon

undersigned

will

that

and

the

upon

statements

proceedings

move this

the

Court

annexed

attached

heretofore
on the

the

Federal

and

State

day,

or

finding

Court,

of
as

New York,

soon

of

at

16th

day

Justice,

guilty

and

desist

order

any

all

other

agents

said

parties

implied
including,

to

threats
but

as

cease
upon
not

and
any

of

the

desist
potential

limited

to,

of

Civil

Rights
of

the

DONNA F.

u.

S.

from

making

witnesses
former

New York, New York

July
26, 1974

- 1 -

employees

any
in

City
of

for

of
and

the
for

GOLDSTEIN and
ordering

express
this
of

that

an order

court,

Government,

1974,

Division

contempt
said

,kk

forenoon

the

the

Kings,

may be heard,

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.

Dated:

the

exhibits

of August,
i4M

County
in

counsel

against
of

E.,

of

herein,

c;

o'clock

GOLDSTEIN, Esq.,

a cease
and

10:00

thereafter

DONNA F.

Department

Cadman Plaza

as

had

...-

in

affidavit

the
or

proceeding,
the

defendant,

Respectfully,
SAXE, BACON, BOLAN& MANLEY
Attorneys
for Defendant
(

'

BY: ((~ini:~L!?r~o~fEJFlt~t'.:...Y"'-.:::'.::;.;.e;..."__ ..--1

Off ice & P.0. Address
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
Telephone
(212) 472-1400
TO:

I
I
I

DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN, Esq.

Civil Rights Division
c/o Henry Bracthl,
Assistant
U. s. Attorney
United States
Department
of Justice
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil
Action
73 C 1529

Plaintiff,
- against

No.

AFFIDAVIT

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP,

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

ss.:

ROY M. COHN, being

1.
BOLAN

I am senior

MANLEY, attorneys

&

affidavit

Department

in

support

2.

The

was

Rights

Division,

was

in

charge

her

duties

of

duly

sworn,

deposes

and

partner

in

firm

SAXE, BACON,

for

defendants,

defendants'

investigation

initiated

by Miss

with

the

said

of

this

but

and

case

Elyse

for

make

the

Goldweber

Justice.

At all

investigation,

diligence,

of

this

motion.
of

Department
of

the

the

says:

of

the

times

Miss

observed

Justice
Civil
that

Goldweber

legal

and

she

pursued

ethical

strictures.
3.
weber

was

At

replaced

with

her

been

conducted

into

a gestapo-like

defendants
berated

some

entry

them

by one

upon
within

contacted
with

time

the

during
DONNA F.

scene,
the

the

GOLDSTEIN,

the

threats

Miss

Esq.

investigation,

boundaries

of

interrogation.
them

investigation,

legal

Former
complain

that

of

jail

accusations

and

- 1 -

Commencing
which

propriety,

employees

to

Miss

Gold-

had
turned

of

the

Goldstein
that

had
they

were

"lying"

and

had

the

defendants.

what

happened

been

have

action

affidavit

of

obtained

by this

Court.

Carol

Ziselman,
Miss

the

formerly

of

these

prospective

to

interfere

passing

the

of
entry

should
only

about

Civil
the

corporation,

contact

our

offices

contacting

and

and

proper

12,

1974,

the

by the

of

Mr.

Miss

for

the

rights

and
of

continues

this

defendant
and

Donald

case.

with

Student

Trump,

of

Goldstein

Paula

Goldstein,by-

the

production

of

defendant.)

with,

Division

by

Exhibits

and

conduct

upon

Rights

a clerk
affidavit

Paul

Miss

conduct

I the

as

disregard

interfered

and
that

of

has

offices

When informed

after

June

the

agents

descended

the

into

defendants'

records.

orderly

literally

representatives
demanding

the

On or

counsel,

abuse

witnesses

with,
4.

rental

as

defendant;

statements

of

Exhibit

2 we attach

witnessed

harassment,

as

for

describing

a course

employed

by the

working

witnesses

indicate

formerly

as

while

these

(We attach

employed

employed

Goldstein's

and

as Exhibit

formerly

4 we attach

government

some of

R. Falcone,
Inc.;

Miranda,

of

been

Trump Management,

3 and

by the

Statements

requiring

Thomas

"taped"

persisted

in

United

States

Attorney

officer

of

defendants'

and

they

Interns

her

their

associates
demands,

for

the

and

Eastern

11'1

District

of

New York

defendants'
Exhibit

offices.

offices
Miss

we able

(See

to

attached

get

them

letter

of

to

leave

Scott

the

E. Manley,

5.)

Goldstein
(50)

were

boxes

5.

In order

and

her

of

be as

associates,

defendants'

and were
Goldstein

to

completely

that

this

helpful

as

we provided
files,

which

open

to

investigation

2 -

possible
them

were

them.
would

to

with

over

conveyed
We were
take

Miss

to

fifty
our

informed
only

a very

by

I
11
''

"short

II two

period"

to

three

I,thereby
I

when
weeks

that

and

the

disrupting

her

case
its

made

blast,

the

spent

files

functioning

defendant

of

in

of our

from

our

offices,,

firm's

legal

her

sentative

I have
the

tactics
of

that

the

there

to

is
lend

the

been

recent

informed

by granted

day

before
of

here

having

is
and

was made.
accomplished
to

build

verisimilitude

a
to

activities

past

employees

are

completely

United

of

by representatives

of

of Miss

badgering

the

out

States

in

all

July,

of

Goldstein,

the

defendant,

and

submit

character

for

a repre-

the

defendants'

Government.
request

respects.

i'

;f

and

artistic

11

to

no case

now attempting

WHEREFORE, I respectfully

Sworn

conduct

charge

charge

motion

is

this

well-publicized
legal

and

from

complaint.

threatening

II that

be drawn

plaintiff

means

7.

when

a serious

unsupported

to

allegation

such

by illegal

'I
and

our

was none

a publicity

associates

defendants'

the

The conclusion
of

there

Having

she

work.

correctness

fact

examining

completely

6.

in

me this
1974

Ii

3 -

that

the

.b

x11-18rr
j_

'

'

'""
~

...

'

'

~.
"'-'

-i:~~~

, '{I!i ~

1 j._t..,

'1 ) (/

~1~~~111-'J,

~~
WILLIAM PREIS!

Notary Public, Stllte of New Yorli

I

.. N?. 8431925
O~al,f1ed on Queens Counfy

,
'

Comml6$ionExpires March 30, 197ll

'

July 22nd, 197 4

TO

WHOM

IT MAY

CONCERN:

I, Thomas Miranda, residing at 3989 - 50th

Street, Woodside, New York, N. Y. 11377 seek
protection from the harassment of the U. S. Department of Justice and specifically Ms. D:mna Goldstein.
D2spite the fact that I have stated on numerous
occasions that I have never discriminated
or have
never been told to discriminate while working for
Trump Management, and although I have no great
liking for Trump Management, I have constantly and
persistently
been called upon by Ms. Goldstein to go
against Trump Management, even though, if I did, I
would be lying.
Additionally, she stated that if I did not cooperate
with her and in effect "lie" in order to help her in her
ambitions and winning her case, " I will be thrown into
jail".
I can no longer tolerate this persecution and am
asking for the immediate ceasation of any further dealings
with Ms. Goldstein.
I refuse to change my testimony in that I will not
lie under any circumstances
regardless of Ms. Goldstein's
unyielding threats.
Additionally, I would like to add that I am a panish
speaking Puerto Rican hired directly by Mr. D:ma d Trump.

\~ -:;;z_,&-,

~ =Miranda

Sworn to before me th is
22nd day of July 1974

~.)

County of Kings
State of New Yor~

~~f~

...--W,!IIAlA'
pR!1~ -Nohl,v Public, State of New Yorlc
No. 8431925

Qua1ified in Que0ns Count/

Commi,,ion

Expires ~Aarch 30, 197A

xttt g;T

100 Jedwood Place

Valley Stream, L.I.,
July 19th, 1974
TO l~:rro~.,1
IT

correct

N.Y.

~1J\Y CO}JCFRN:

I, Paul.eZiselman~(\hereby
statements
of my own free

make the
will:

following

true

and

I was formerly
employed by Trump Management on a parttime basis as a rental
agent at Beach Haven Apartments,
2611 W.
2nd Street,
Brooklyn,
New York.
During my period of employment
I personally
never discriminated
against
any prospective
tenants
regardless
of race, color or creed.
Additionally,
I have never been instructed
by any
superior
of the Trump Office,
nor was it ever suggested
or
stated
to me in any way, manner or form to follow a racially
discriminatory
rental
policy while I was employed by this
company.
In fact,
during such employment I rented many apartments to minorities,
including
blacks.
Despite the above mentioned,
I was visited
by a
representative
of the Justice
Department who stated
that an
"FBI Agent" would be back to continue
the interrogation.
These
statements
were made in a threatening
manner and I strongly resent
and object to it.
I was especially
harassed
and intimidated
by a Donna Goldstein
and in my opinion,
her unethical
conduct
in itself
should be a matter of investigation.

WIT ESSED:
r;

tl '-Ll;({__,

PA

100 Jedwood Place

Valley
Stream,
L.I.,
July
19th,
1974

N.Y.

TO WHOMIT MAY CONCERN:

f>f'l-.,} L A
I,
statements
correct.

fy

1--Ziscelman
of my own free

hereby
make
will,
which

the
are

following
true
and

I was formerly
employed
by Trump Management
on a part-time
basis
as a rental
agent
at Beach Haven
Apartments,
2611 W. 2nd Street,
Brooklyn,
New York.
During my employment
under no circumstances
did I ever
discriminate,
nor was I ever told
to discriminate
by
any superior
of Trump Management
against
any person
regardless
of race,
color
or creedliring
the rental
of an apartment.
/
~,

~~=~~,;
P1~vu.~

Ex1-+113;
r If

"'2. :

'"'t_E
t f"L 11{'1'

NEW
JOHN

GODFREY

,:OCERS

SAXE;

H. BACON

Q009l9:l3l

YORI(.
~12)

NEW

':(ORK

100'.;?l

472-MOO

THo!-{ .<,sA.

C1919li>5Z)

BoI.hN

co,.m:,;i:t.
RO'f

M.COHN

SCOTT
E. MANl.i?:Y
MlCHAEL
FIOS.E:N

DANIS:I.

G<OM1TT~o1w...o,s .. ,,ou,01 ...,, ..)

J. ORISCOl.l..

HAROl.!:l
SCHWARTZ
.MELVYN RUBlN
,.H:.Fl'"Ri::Y A. SHUMAN
,.

LORIN

OUCKNAN

June

13r

.J.974

BY. HANO

HenryA. 'Bracthl,
Assistant
UoS. Attorney
Donna F. Goldstein,
Attorney-Civil
Rights
. .Division
. .

United
States . I)apartment::. of \Justice

Fede:ialBuilding
. Brook_lyn,

Dear Mr.,

.N~w York
Bract.bl:

:t am in receipt
of your letter.
datea. t:odc).y which was wa.:Lt-.
ing .for me at my off ice .upon ray retui:n f:coro the C"ohe'n v,
Cohen trial
this
afternoon.
ctt 5:00 ppm.
i'1e :stand .ready to let you begin inspect:i.n.g
o.na. copying
'.i'.'(:.C.m:cdr::

. iri u.s.A.: v. Trump tomorrow :morn:i.~g, June~ 14 r as per my ag:r.eereached

over the t(~lephone
on WecJne.s~
ment with .Hiss Goldstein
day~
While I. r~gret
the misunderstand:L~19
that
led to yov.;:'
d'ascendi~g
upon 1;,he. Trnrap orfic:2.-:c: with
f:l.ve nto':i:mt:r.oopex:r:l
wec.1nesday moxning banging
on the doorr.J. o.nd dc~mand::Lng to be,
allowed. to s~arin. haphazardly
through
all o:r: t11e: r:rJ:u.mp f:il0s
disrupt
'thei:;:: daily
bus:Lnc.ss :cout:l.ne,
I do not
ctnd to totally
feel
that
there
is. any point
is carryl~1g
the a.:cg1irne.rit any f:u.:.::ether.
X would ass1une that your objc;ctive
:i.H the. smrie a.s ours
in .this
matter,
namely,
proceeding
m.:de:c1y with )?xe.-:tria.J.
di:::'"'."
covery
so as to enable
both sides
t.o .cont:inue
p:r.ej;>aring
or
a fair
trial
in this
matter~
'}.\'.lv;-a:cc1
t:)1at~ encl 1 \,;re look form
wal'.:"d to cooperati~g
,;qith you Friday
rno:i:-n:i.!)9 at our. offices,
t:hat tb.c. :i.nnpcct5.on
v1onJ.d i:a)(e.
of rrurnp so 0.s to not ha:ve to unnedessarily
totally
disrupt
Trum~ necessary
siness
routine$
I would. assUJD.a. t:.hut by youx derm.:.nd in .ymJJ:: J.si:tc:r;
to
i 1spec:t t:he materials
at TrL1mp o:ff:Lces
that
Misi:.:: .Goldsb:=.d.i"i necr1ectea. to in.form you of om: o:r>tl i:._).(J:i.:eerncrd:to t:.hri r<'rd"J' ~.r"'_1
>

Miss .Goidstein
and
place
at my offices

f+I

f3rt

_.

we are re~dy
both
old and

I agreed
instend

_,

~ <....J, ~ ..

to provide
you with ove:c 1,000
files
Friday
on
current
ter:.an.
of ~t'rmnp. J.:ecaus2. '.i::r:urnp cc.1nnot.

-2-

function
at all with all of its current
leases
and files
out of
its off ices,
we will have to worJ:: out a schedule
whereby as soon
as you have completed
inspecti:,1,g and copying this very substanto
tial
amount of material
that this material
will be returned
the ~CrUJ.11p
office
and.additional
material
will
.be r5ent to ou.:i:
offices
for your inspectionG
With. regard
r;:o the depositions
o:c further
Tx:urnp pe:r.sonnel
ten.:.. .
. atively
scheduled
to begin
on J'l1ne 18, I. al:i:e.ady have advised,
the Government
that this date is .impossible
as both Mr .. Cohn
still
be on tr:Li:11.before Justice.Gomez
in the
and myself.will
Supreme Court of the State
of Ne,,v York in Cohen v. Cohen and _
Judge Gomez absolutely
refuses.to
haa:r.any
application
for
. even a half-day
adjournment
i11 that
case .... I will
supply
you
with alternate
dates.as
quickly as possible
and I am sure we
. can come to an ~greeable
solut:.ion
't1hich will
neitheJ:delay
.the matter
unnecessarily
for.y,n.,-norprejud::Lce
the.rights
of
the defendants
by denying thern the right
to counsel
:Ln these
proc<:e,di~gs.
. I would. respectfa:dly
s~1.9ge.st that
is complet.e.1~{
unfa:i..r on your part to set 'fo:r;th ul timatumr; . in the way of
3: 00 deadlines
to respond
or else in.. vievi of the f:act that
you are comple-~ely
aware of both Mr. Cohn. and myself
bei~1g
on trial.
before
Judge Gomez f1:om 9: 00 to 6 ~ 30 daily..
We
are completely
ready to coopera-te
in c1isco\rery;
all we :J:equire. is a lil::.tle time in which to assembl0
matter
in vie'il
. of. our extremely
hea,ry present
litigatior;.
Gchednle
.
A

'

Finally.,
I sincerely
wish that. at: least
fr-om th:i.s point
for-.
ward,
that we could attempt
t.o cooperate
botter
in a.11 of
these
matter.so.
If your goal ir3 to. expedite
discovery
e.nd to
prepare
for a fair triat
for both.sides
as is ours" I think
that.this
end would be better
serve.cl by coope:r.at:i.on and ob.servation
of the basic
courter:i-:1.es normally
extena.ed bet.ween .
. private
counsel
in litigaticn
instev.d of (!ontinu.EJJ. threats
.-b]- the Government
and its tre;:::ting
th0 rulf~s of oivil
pro-.
cedure
as some kind of undevir.:rU.i1.g Bible which cannot. bend
i::;:s timetables
fo:r even a few h.r,11:i::sto p:coii1ot.e the end.s .. (Jf:
. '.j us t;ice ;,
Ver:y tculy

SEB/a.p
cc:
Hong Ec1ward R. Ne"'he:c
unt:ed Stat8s
District
.Judge
United
States
Courthouse
225 CacL-n2:.n Plaza
B:::1st

Brooklyn,

New York 11201

..

Honorable
Vincent
Catoggio
United
States
Magistrate
United

.States

Cc.n:1.rl::lto U..'.'~e

Eastern
District
225 Cadman Plaza

of N2w YoTk
East

__yours,

J::J L ~

LJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFJ

-,,,.:-

/,\I CJf

L;:.

11ffci~18tf!1E,,_:rD_
. . /V.y

AUG5

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

D .

797
4

TIME
A.M

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

P.t.1..
..........

)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529 (EN)

)
)
)

v.

RESPONSEOF UNITED STATES

TO DEFENDANTS'MOTIONOF
JULY 26 1 1974

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP )

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC. , )
)

_________
on its

Defendants.

The United

States

of America,

own behalf

and on behalf

Goldstein,

to defendants'

judication

of contempt

desist

11

order

1.

against

conduct

representative
interviews

2.
improper

The United

including

alleges

and

as follows:
allegation

or by any other

Thomas Miranda,

alleges

with

the

Paul Ziselman,

witness

that

allegations

the testimony

said

or other

of this

That expedited

of prospective

of

and other
witnesses,

constitute

an

Court.

States

discovery

of misconduct

allegations

of threats

and consequently

WHEREFORE
the United

attorney;

an ad-

and a "cease

in connection

prospective

States

and scurrilous,

the allegations

seeking

case.

abuse of the processes

1.

Donna F.

each and every

States

R. Falcone,

to influence

are false

States,

denies

or any other

conduct,

devices

attorney

by Donna F. Goldstein

of Carol

in this

said

responding

attorney,

of Motion"

the United

of the United

Paula Ziselman,
person

''Notice

States

plaintiff,

of its

against

The United

of improper

prays

as follows:

be had with respect

by the United

States

to

and its

2.

That depositions

supervised

That a full

Honorable

defendants'

said

discovery

evidentiary

hearing

be

be held before

Court on August 16, 1974, as prayed

Notice

4.
gations

during

by a master;

3.
this

taken

of Motion;

That following

of misconduct

the evidentiary

by the United

as scandalous,

in accordance

the Federal

Rules of Civil

Procedure,

and desist

order

hearing,

States

be stricken

tempt and a cease

for in

the alle-

and its

attorney

with Rule 12(f)

and the motions

be in all

of

for con-

respects

denied;

and
That following

5.

Court determine
cesses

and,

this

whether

evidentiary

there

hearing,this

Honorable

has been an abuse of its

if so, enter any appropriate

disciplinary

pro-

or

other

Order.
The United
relief

States

as the interests

the costs

further

prays

of justice

and disbursements

for such additional

may require,

of this

~Js"~
Deputy

with

proceeding.

Respectfully

JAMES PORTER
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

together

submitted,

Assistant

Attorney

General

FRANKE. SCHWELB,Chief
NCRMAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 (EN)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD

)
TRUMPand TRUMPMANAGEMENT,)
INC.,
)

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES

TO THE COURTON THE STATUS
OF DISCOVERY

______________
Defendants.

In accordance

with

instructions

Catoggio,

United

America,

submits

action.

On May 3, 1974, Magistrate

obligation
action

its

of defense

in accordance

for not having

I.

States

the

Magistrate,

report

with

States

of

in this

made reference

as the Court
3614,

Vincent

to the

to expedite

and rebuked

defense

the
counsel

done so.
DELAYSAND DIFFICULTIES

Depositions
Prior

substantial
defense

United

of discovery

Catoggio

as well

42 U.S.C.

DISCOVERYIN PROCESS
A.

plaintiff,

on the status

counsel

of the Honorable

to the hearing
difficulties

counsel's

of May 3, 1974,

in taking

continuous

plaintiff

any depositions

cancellations

encountered
because

and rescheduling.

of

This

activity

resources

resulted

in a substantial

of counsel

for plaintiff,

plaintiff's

memorandum in support

dated

19, 1974, at pp. 4-6.

April

sition

were outstanding

plaintiff

agreed

year.

Abbreviated

were finally
Thereafter,

of its

plaintiff

until

in detail
for

notices

in

sanctions,
of depo-

hearing,

defendants

but
had answered

to them in November of the previous

and incomplete

provided

motion

Several

these

propounded

of the time and

as described

at the time of that

to postpone

the interrogatories

waste

answers

on May 16, 1974.

attempted

to these

interrogatories

(See pp. 10-1~ infra).

to reschedule

depositions,

as

follows:
1.
for

On May 28, 1974, Ms. Donna Goldstein,

the plaintiff,

Mr. Scott
noticing

replacing

Manley in order
depositions

to propose
2.

~/

Goldweber,

him that

telephoned

the plaintiff

1974.~/

dates

within

occasions

the next

Mr. Manley proposed

These depositions

were noticed
- 2 -

to discuss

no alternative

to

with an oppor-

Between May 28 and June 3, Ms. Goldstein

three

was

In deference

Mr. Manley was provided

alternative

Mr. Manley on at least

depositions.

to advise

for June 18-20,

Mr. Cohn's busy schedule,

tunity

Ms. Elyse

a new attorney

few days.
telephoned

the contemplated
dates

on May 30, 1974.

on the two

occasions

he was reached,

to the message left

3.
letter

On

and failed

on the third

to Mr. Manley indicating

that

the government

as noticed,

On Jtme 11, cotmsel

since

delivery

intended

to

no alternative

for the plaintiff

received

from Mr. Manley dated Jtme 6 cancelling

on the grotmds that

but promised
5.

of defense

an inquiry

they conflicted

to suggest

cotmsel

inspection

by cotmsel

2, and that

than the third

6.

dates

the following

periodically

described

for plaintiff,
of depositions

visited

below.

week.*/
the offices

On Jtme 26, after

Mr. Manley stated

would be provided

in no event would these

dates

that

firm

no later
be later

week in July.

Having heard nothing

Ms. Goldstein

depositions

between Jtme 14 and Jtme 28, 1974, as a part

for the taking

than July

these

with Mr. Cohn's schedule,

alternative

Cotmsel for plaintiff

of the records

dates

sent a special

had been offered.

4.

letter

back in response

call.

Jtme 5, 1974, Ms. Goldstein

proceed with the depositions

dates

to call

telephoned

could not provide

from defense

cotmsel

Mr. Manley and was told

firm dates

for the scheduling

*!

that

by July

3,

he still

of depositions.

This letter
included a list of those employees scheduled to
depose who were no longer employed by the defendants.
This information, which plaintiff
had been attempting to secure for many
months, was to be given to the plaintiff
no later than May 13,
1974, at the direction
of Magistrate
Catoggio at the May 3
hearing.
- 3 -

Mr. Manley promised,

however,

to call

back on July

8 with

recommended dates.
7.

Mr. Manley did not call

matter,

thereafter.

defense

counsel

agents

On July

back on July

9, plaintiff

of the scheduling

were served

8.

On July
that

to be taken

on July

agents

on July

these

depositions

B.

Inspection

30-31 only,

since

at any other

plaintiff

that

!/

would have

schedule

could not

Yielding

The first

advised

to these
of eight

attempt

to take

had been made on Mar~h 19, 1974.

of Defendants'

Records

requested
forward

he knew nothing

served

and filed

of Doc\Dilents on defense

On May 15, 1974, Mr. Scott

Elyse Goldweber

deponents.

took the depositions

30 and 31, 1974.

for Production

telephonically

his

on

2, 1974.

depositions

time.

On May 6, 1974, plaintiff

Request

30 - August

scheduled

that

of eleven

on each of the prospective

the eleven

him to attend

time strictures,

notice

26, 1974, Mr. Cohn, by telephone,

Mr. Goldberg

permit

served

of depositions

of Trump Management for July

Subpoenas

8, or for

Manley,
that

counsel

an associate

plaintiff's

a Rule 34

former

of Mr. Cohn,
attorney

to him a copy of the Request,

about

it.

Roy Cohn.~/

saying

This was done immediately.

See Appendix A.

- 4 -

Ms.

On May 28, 1974, during

discussions
reminded

about

the scheduling

inspection,

stated

and requested

copy of the Request,

On at least
Ms. Goldstein
sentatives

two occasions

or indicate

that

Management,
dance with

any objection

the records

him another

or date,

would be permitted

arrived

attorneys

the notice
present

expressed

Defendants

also

nor did they

the United

at the offices

Brooklyn,
inspection.
surprise

- 5 -

to the

or any limitation

for

See Appendix B.

these

on what

to inspect.

at 10:00 a.m.

of records

repre-

would not be made

inspection,

2611 West 2nd Street,

and employees

forward

to New York on June 12,

time and place.

site

On June 12, three

two law clerks

the proposed

At no time during

to the records

any alternative
States

about

Mr. Manley that

as noticed.

at the designated

the United

reminded

would travel

records

no objection

inspection.

between May 28 and June 3,

did Mr. Manley express

conversations

available

Ms. Goldstein

Ms. Goldstein

which she did on the same day.~/

of the plaintiff

inspection

records

he knew nothing

that

telephonically

1974, to inspect

suggest

that

of one of their

of depositions,

Mr. Manley of the proposed

Mr. Manley again

filed

the course

States

and

of Trump

New York,

in accor-

The Trump ag~nts

at their

arrival.

Mr. Stuart

Hyman, controller

Mr. Henry Brachtl,

Assistant

office.

attorneys,

The other

of Trump Management, asked

United States

Norman Goldberg

Goldstein,

and the assistants.Frank

law clerks

at the United States

Phillips

minutes,

Mr. Hymanaskettthe

of the United States

been informed
stated

that

defendants'

that

and that

placed

a call

remained

approximately

remaining

that

he had not

until

he had been unable

and returned

to reach

banging on doors,

Ms. Goldstein

not present

then left
Attorney's

overreaching,

or other

office.

about the conduct

office

by defendants

- 6 -

was no

conduct

by

Mr. Cohn was

riOr were any calls

of representatives

Attorney's

Contrary

there

improper

of the United States.

Attorney's

to have

che Trump Offices

in Mr. Roy Cohn's affidavit,

at the Trump offices~

the United States

complaining

at the United States

representatives

any of the representatives

counsel.

to Mr. Manley from Mr. Hyman's

to the United States

to the allegations

He further

he contacted

Mr. Manley was not in and a message was left

Plaintiff's

ten

was scheduled.

any records

in

representatives

and stated

inspection

be could not produce

Mr. Manley contact

office.

his office

a records

counsel

Ms. Goldstein
office.

into

his

and Donna

office,

After

into

and Larry Rogers,

Attorney's

the anteroom of the Trump offices.

to fifteen

Attorney,

placed

or their

to
counsel

of the plaintiff.

On June
telephoned
for

12, 1974,

Ms. Goldstein

the Eastern

expressed

his

him that

tion

to begin,

apply

to the

37(d)

of the Federal

tions

between

if

first

Request.

Attorney

time,

He claimed

that

Ms. Goldstein
either

informed

formally

or

a records

appropriate

of Civil

sanctions

Procedure.

on Friday,

June

at

to

Rule

some negotia-

to begin

14, 1974,

but

under

After

was authorized

inspec-

inspect-

the

law offices

counsel.

the morning

of June

them a letter
the offices

representatives
14, Mr. Fanelli,

from Mr. Manley which

of Trump Management

Trump offices

with

five

to be allowed

and to totally

Letter

the

States

would have no recourse

for

plaintiff

records

Mr. Manley

would not permit

plaintiff

Rules

When plaintiff's

files

for

earlier.

defendants

once again

a.m.

of the United

had been transmitted,

counsel,

ing defendants'
of defense

objections

as noticed,
Court

office

to Plaintiff's

these

and that

the

11:30

of New York and,

objections

no objections

informally,

at

District

he had conrrnunicated

demanding

at approximately

Court.)

of June

14 denying

their
June

for

the veracity

13,

these

offices

to Mr. Manley,
their

banging

daily

business

1974,

of these

all

at

upon the

on the

through

on

handed

conduct

12, as "descending

plaintiff

- 7 -

at

characterized

to swarm haphazardly

disrupt

Counsel

a clerk

on June

stormtroopers

of Mr. Manley dated

to this

arrived

doors

the Trump

routine."

(See

a copy of which was sent

responded
rhetorical

and

by a brief
flourishes.

letter

From Thursday,
records

inspection,

exclusively
was then
2-1/2

June
counsel

with

On Tuesday

days of records

inspection,

records

the

following

day,

June

that

records

at

On June
a.m.,

plaintiff's
broken

Washington
result

19.

However,

of these

almost

18,

1974,

informed

counsel

for

Mr. Fanelli

after
for

inspection

did give

and Friday,

on

assurances

June

20 and

a.m.
the records

the automobile

lost

June

on Thursday

counsel

On June

of the

Mr. Cohn nor Mr. Manley

Mr. Fanelli

At 11:30

were inspected

21.

neither

as agreed.
that

communicated

would not be available

20, however,

down and that

Records
June

10:00

the completion

afternoon,

would be available

21, beginning

until

plaintiff

since

available.

that

1974,

for

Mr. Fanelli

the plaintiff

10:00

13,

records

a.m.,

were not made available

Mr. Fanelli
carrying

informed
the

would not be produced

on Thursday

afternoon,

19 and 20 alone,

plaintiff's

a day and a half

of their

June

records

until

for

had

2:00 p.m.- *I

20, and Friday,

two counsel
time

at

from

no purpose

as a

cancellations.

*/ When the records

arrived
on Thursday afternoon,
the driver
of
the automobile,
Mr. Simon Wiss, recounted
to plaintiff's
counsel
the many errands
he had to run for Trump Management by auto that
morning, and extolled
the virtues
and dependability
of the automobile carrying
the records.

- 8 -

On Friday,
records
26,

could

1974.

not

back

26,

ing

days,

Not

only

27,

for

to

and

interruptions

1974,

28,

plaintiff

1974.

were

but

travel

not

occurred.

details.

to

We believe,

may be relatively
amount

of

the

While

it

is

less,

quite

of May 3.
defense

petty
out

of

harassment,
of

in

about

papers

that

are

foundation

with

view

this

while

counsel
seems

the

United

fact.

- 9 -

on

thirteen

over
saved

with

each
has
for

work-

seven

had

to

been

days.

these

foregoing
individually

to waste

United

States.

us harassment

none

Catoggids

repeated

effcrts

inspection,
States

the

item

the

Magistrate

records

the
in

of

Court

impact

it

keeping

defendants'
without

total

and money

Moreover,

counsel

the

D. C. and

*
the

that

of

a little
been

June

inspection

a period

have

belabor

records

for

additional

Wednesday,

to Washington,

during

could

that

until

the

available

however,

minor,
time

complete

money

reluctant

indicated

inspection

Thus,

made

Fanelli

returned

to

*
We are

Mr.
for

New York

records
time

21,

be available

Counsel

travelled
June

June

the
tried

to

a large

the

Jirections
to

deal

with

allegations

in

"by-pass"

counsel

'II.

'DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERABLE INFOIDvlATION

RE0UESTED BY PLAINTIFF
A.

Defendants'

Answers

Plaintiff's
pounded
more

on November,

than

Court

First

six

finally
slightly

more

than

1974{t~ut
tiff

still

As noted
goes

waiting

below,

to

the
While

a renewed

the

heart

Rule

this

answer

of

week
ten
for

That

(letter

weeks

since

defendants

objected

two Orders

that

to

Scott

that

promise

of

at

for

this

consisted
least

of
three

would

Manley

be forth-

of May 16,

was made,

complete

their

have

failed

defendants

to

defendants

responses

from

pro-

plain-

answers.
to

provide

case.

memorandum

37 motion

or

submission

to

were

Interrogatories,

In response

information
the

after

the

indicated

defendants

answered

1974,

two pages.*/

than

not

response.

following

more

is

to

defendants

by the

Interrogatories
to

and were

On May 16,

their

interrogatories,
coming

1973,

defendants

submitted

Plaintiff's

Interrogatories

months.

directing

to

is

not

dealing

*I

with

intended

to

be a substitute

the

deficiencies

of

for

defendants'

The unusual
brevity
and incompleteness
of these
responses
may
be explained,
in part,
by the fact
that
on May 15, 1974, one day
before
the interrogatories
were due, defendant
Donald Trump called
former
Departmental
attorney
Goldweber
and indicated
that he had
only recently
heard
about his obligation
to answer
the interrogatories
and wanted
to know if there
were any penalties
for filing
untimely
answers.
Ms. Goldweber
referred
Mr. Trump to his counsel.

~/

See Appendix C.
- 10 -

responses
'to
tion

file

to Interrogatories,
such a motion

and while

in the future,

of some of defendants'

Court's

we wish

we believe

responses

should

to reserve
that

our right

a brief

be brought

examina-

to the

attention.
(a)

Interrogatory

information

for

by defendants.

complex

The information

sought

of the

response,

defendants

force

received

Plaintiff

has no record

the other,

which

In eight
time

is purported

months,

racial

approximate
characterized

1972,

defendants

to their
occupancy
form,

the racial

and their

almost

superintendents
information
since

super-

two years
had the
and to
in at

The

con-

least

Donald Trump

makeup of Trump buildings

- 11 -

of ever

to be a

merely

have surely

particularly

been

March 15, 1973.

of the Trump buildings

to write

provide

was furnished

as of October,

to

had in fact

to plaintiff

intendents

which

documents

document

a list

In

furnished

dated

tains

a racial

to two documents

memorandum to Ms. Goldweber

that

owned or managed
includes

to have previously

to plaintiff.

of basic

of each building.

referred

One of those

furnished
having

tenant

claimed

plaintiff.

16 items

each apartment

breakdown

defendants

5, requests

ago.

in an affidavit

December 11,

made no attempt

to do so.

of this
this

kind

kind.

is,

ment Corporation,

tion

(E.D.

Pa.
(b)

Electric

In response

the

Answers.

name and first

locate
other

Develop-

776 (N.D. Miss.

to secure

Corp.,

1972).

such informa-

City

of Philadelphia

205 F. Supp.

to Interrogatory
race,
for

defendants
That

employees

Estate

of

831

1962).

of employment

Trump,

have

in cases

v. Real

superintendents.

the name, address,

dates

States

have an obligation

v. Westinghouse

they

information

important

347 F. Supp.

from their

but

Statistical

of course,

See United

Defendants

1973,

them for
requested

title,

initial

job

each and every

attached

Exhibit,

of the

job

7, which

Exhibit

however,
of black

defendants
interview

location

and

employee

of

1 to their

contains

only

and Puerto

- facts

requests

the

last

Rican

insufficient

to

- and none of the

information

was provided.*/

~/
Plaintiff
has subsequently
secured some of this information
during
the inspection
of defendants'
records.
The identities
of former
employees,
of course,
constitute
critical
information.
See United
States
v. Youritan
Construction
Corp., 370 F. Supp. 643 (N.D. Calif.
1973), and cases there cited,
holding
that proof of discriminatory
instructions
to employees meets the Attorney
General's
burden of
proof.
- 12 -

The names of black

complaints

about

racial

gatory

13) and the

secured

apartments

ing to complain
tory
B.

Failure

furnish

about

certain

there

still

exist.

(Dep. p. 33).

these

records

may also

answer

those

applicants

records

requested

that

to rejected

with

and that

respect

Mr. Trump also

p. 99),

so that

calling
if not

applicants.

to either
records
that

retaining
may

some of

the Interrogator-

defendants'
information

destroyed,

by their

- 13 -

On

on deposition,

stated
since

on

defendants

for

During the

served

some of these

have been destroyed

interrogatories

was impaired,

to Defendants

policy

these

(Id.,

by defendants.

Donald Trump testified,

was no particular

were propounded

(Interroga-

Applications

relating

defendant

who

or threaten-

policies

Interrogatories

or destroying

ies

racial

Rejected

information

March 28, 1974,

complaining

first

(Interro-

of tenants

been provided

plaintiff

11),

discrimination

after

to Produce

November 7, 1973,

(Interrogatory

identities

14) have never

In Plaintiff's

that

tenants

capacity

to

as to rejected
own conduct.

'taking

of this

of assurance
including

deposition,
that

those
During

requests

for

provided

with

troller
there

his

clients

pertaining
the June

1974 records

all

relevant

applicants.

(Id.,

inspection

of rejected

destroying

stating

that

it

taxes

credulity

day that

these

the

applications

and who have repeatedly

are

closely

testified

reviewed,

have not

28,

a year
their

of

between
to have

1974,

the

(Hyman Dep. p.

agents

rejected

was

March 28, 1974"

supposed

- and June

through

repeated

Hyman, comp-

that

are

who have 2500 - 3000 vacancies

99-100).

the meaning

to suggest

defendants

pp.

plaintiff

"effective
Whatever

a measure
records,

and after

applications,

applications.*/

1974 - the

defendants,

provide

a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Stuart

Hyman's memorandum,

cations

to rejected

of Trump Management,

March 28,

however,

would preserve

the production

were no rejected

stopped

Mr. Cohn did,

a single

that

73)

appli-

applica-

tion.~/
Defendants
claim

that

Gilbert,
~/

there
office

See Appendix

now go even further

have never
manager

for

than Mr. Hyman's memorandum and

been any rejected

the past

seven

applications.
years,

Minerva

who has the

D.

~/
On July 3, 1974, we sent a letter
to Mr. Manley reiterating
our
concern that none of the rejected
applications
had been produced and
requesting
that the defendants
furnish
us with an explanation
for
the reproduction
of these documents prior
to this hearing
but no
explanation
has been forthcoming.
- 14 -

responsibility

for

approving

during

the depositions

recall

ever

having

Each of the
July

six

taken

rejected
tions

a single

superintendents*/
that

to bring

certain

deposits

in the

The six

documents

including

nrecords

custody

or control

with

produced

the others

no such records

Mr. Travis,
the past

five

described
first

hired

instructed
submitted
marked
that

years,

as having

also

been supplied

with

the

"refunded."

he has never

early

(Raymond Travis),

Apartments

*I

deposition

rejected,

Mr. Skender Fici,

Mr. Guido Lara, Mr. Walter
Borth, Mr. Joseph Zecher and Mr. Raymond Travis.

- 15 -

for

which he
when he was

tesitfied

that

he was

when a deposit

A number of these

had an application

of

existed.

applicant

in his

them

of the deponent."

by the main office

application.
While

directing

a book of receipts

to each

on

accepted

of the payment

records

Mr. Travis

a receipt

taken

whose deposi-

at Wedgewood Hall

produced

as superintendent.
to give

these

superintendent

they

subpoenas

Only one superintendent

that

were

superintendents

served

st3ting

tenancy.

had an application

were also

possession,

for

even though

they have never

by the main office.

were taken

application

testified
she cannot

whose depositions

stated

from anyone,

applications,

30 and 31 that

on July

rejected

30 and 31 likewise

applications

or rejecting

receipts
Mr. Travis

he later
Rohr,

is
are
stated

explained
Mr. Daniel

'that-"refunded"

signifies

Ms. Gilbert.

In Mr. Travis'

an apartment

complex

at

such

least

six

plaintiff's

of only

"refunded"

Accordingly,
but

that

which were rejected

receipt

book alone,

approximately
receipts

interrogatories

mation.
exist

applications

which

94 units,

since

is used

there

the date

is apparent

information

about

that

rejected

them has not

for

were

of service

in November 1973 requesting

it

by

such

of

infor-

applications

been made available

to plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
While
the hearing
stantial

some progress
before

with

their

a harassing

of this

case,

and disruptive

scurrilous

charges

counsel,*/

there

has been

of discovery

involves

while

nature.

assembled

defendants

other

by defendants

sufficient

to warrant

consideration

material

to

critical
has been of

from the

against

resistance

in sub-

in relation

conduct

Even aside

following
remain

responsibilities

Some of the noncompliance

to the disposition

conduct

Catoggio,

Magistrate

noncompliance

discovery.

has been made in discovery

false

and

one of plaintiff's
to the orderly

of a new motion

*I On or about J,uly 26, 1974, defendants

noticed
a motion for a
contempt citation
against
Ms. Goldstein.
While we generally
avoid
the argument by inflarrnnatory
rhetoric
which has characterized
defense
counsel's
submissions,
we can only say that,
for reasons
set forth in our other papers filed
herewith,
these charges
are
utterly
fantastic.
- 16 -

for

sanctions

after

present

discovery

proceedings

have been

completed.
Respectfully

JAJ.'1ESPORTER
Assistant
United States
Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

submitted,

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530
I""

~.-I~~

DONNAF. GOL'fisTEIN
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

APPENDIXA

T. 5-6-74

IAY6
JSP:FES:ESG:c:mk
DJ 175-52-28

M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan and Manley

Roy

39 E.1st 68th f.treot

New York, Ne-J York 10021

Re: United States

Civil

Action

v. Fred C. Trump, et al.,

Mo. 73 C 1529

Dear Roy:
Please
Request

find enclosed

for Production

two copies

of Plaintiff's

oi vocuments.

Sincerely,

J. ST,\11'1...EY
POTTINGER
Assistant
Attonley General
Civil Rights Division

I
l
I

cc:

..

Records
Chrono
Goldweber
Trial File

Rold

By:
ELYSE S., COILVEBER
Attorney

Housing Section

1974

I. -

APPENDIX B

.I
T. 5/28/74
.JSP:IXi:mlp
D.J.175-52 ..28

MAY2 81974

Scott Manley, Esq.

sax~, Bacon,

Jlolan & l:.Snley

39 East 68th Screet

New York. flew York
Re:

United

. Civil

10021
States

Action

v. Fred C. Trump.
No. 73 C 1529

et al

Dear Mr. Manley:

In reaponae to our telephone conversation

1974, please find enclosed a ccpy of Plaintiff's

of May 28.
Request

for Production
of Docu1J'ents, i!t"h.etluled t.t) commence on
June 12 1 1,711. Also, lase note the accached
proposed
dcposit:.h:ms of the azents and
schedule
for continuing

employees of Trump Management. Inc. Forn...al notice will

be fort.hcomi.ng.
These depositions
had been previously

acheduled.for

April 18 - April 22, 1974.

'!'!7...:.
..,K. :"t! for your cooperation

in t.hia matter.

look forward t:o hearing from you soon t:o confiTID the
attached discovery schedule.
Sincerely
J. S~~EY

~POT'tlNGER

Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Di'\l'ision

By:

cc:

Records
/
Chrono
Ms. Goldstei
Trial.File
Henry Brachtl

DONNA
GOLDSTEIN
Attorney
Housing Section

APPENDIX
C

,,, :

.<:! .

...... ,.,,
f'.'

'

'

NEW
JOHN

GOOF"RCY

ROGERS

SAXE

H. BACON

yoru<.'NEW

L-.: .

(1909!9!:>ll

(212)

472

YORK

10021

'

fe\, ).,
' (ll

THOMASA. BOLAN

1400

(191919621
DOCKr.~~SDEL

ROY

M. COHlo

SCOTT

E. MANLEY

MICHAEL

(AOMl'!'1'0

ILLINO!S

AND INO!ANA)

ROSEN

OANIEL

MAY2:;, bt4

..J. ORISCOLL

HAROLO

May 16,

SCHWARTZ

MELVYN

RUBIN

..JEF"FREY
LORIN

- ' c:..

'

1974 CIVIL. RIGHTS

A. SHUMAN

DUCKM

AN

Miss Donna Goldstein

United States
Department
Washington,
D. c. 20530
Re:

United States
Civil Action

of Justice

v. Fred C. Tru~p,
No. 73 C 1529

et

al.

Dear Miss Goldstein:

Enclosed please
find a copy ccf: defendants'
answers to plaintiff's
interrogatories.
It is my understanding
frc!"!l speaking
with Miss Goldv1e:t:2,r that you are
taking her place on this case since she h-as left
to work
in New York.
As you will note from our zr..S'l,vers, most of the
information
requested
by the Governmen:.:: i_:n the interrogatories
already
has been supplied
in the
examinations
before
trial
which you already
have ca:;:,7.et:d.
We could
not make specific
reference
to page m.:::!~.:::e:rs
due to the
fact that the transcripts
have not bee.:: cor:pleted.
You
requiring
detailed
will no~~ that there are three questio~s
in-f:.1.rrnation from records, which Stuart :-;:-.:::iam
has been compil17e. ,.;.:ill supply
you
ing and hopes to complete next week.
with this information
as soon as Mr. Eyr.2.n completes
same.
Very truJ.y

yours,

SEM/ew

cc:

Hon. Vincent Catoggio

United States.Magistrate
Eastern
District
of New York
United States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

Scott

- E.

Manley

..

..

'

APPENDIX
D.

'

-----------

......

..

.
- - . . --.....

."""!

.,,.

.
~

.,
......

- - - ....-

-- --~,,--- ..._ -.
..._

:""'.

---'.--:

I
n,

I :

. j,

i:'

,..

.--.........

~ '

-----... .. ,

... -

. : ....

..

--- ~-.......
....-- "

.\

- -~-..-----

- ....-- .. - -::_
-.l-: .:..

l''

__

- ....

.,

- .... - . -~--

-. '
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify
the

following

that

I have on this

documents,

postage

date

mailed

prepaid,

copies

to:

Roy Cohn, Esquire

39 East 68th Street
New York, New York

10021

1.

Response of the United States

to
Defendants'
Motion of July 26, 1974

2.

Supporting

3.

Order

4.

Memorandum of the United

5.

Plaintiff's

6.

Report of the United States

on the Status of Discovery

affidavits

to Show Cause

(proposed)
States

Interrogatories

to Deferrlants
to the Court

_,,
August ,S,

1974
Plaintiff

of

'
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR 'IJ!EIL E D

p.Jf>~,-~\';;:
t)f"?"I- ~E

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK U. S Dr'.:T;CCTCOU:lr U). ~l.Y

..,,J,,

,~

~t
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,

AUG6 1974
T:M2.UL ....... , ....

P.r.t.............

CIVIL ACTION NO.

73 C 1529 (EN)
ORDERTO SHOWCAUSE

_______________
Defendants.

The United
davit

having

applied

for an Order to Show Cause,

ing is scheduled
mine motions
attorneys
and it

States

before

involving

in this
further

which alleged

by one of the
misconduct

is denied;

discovery

is necessary

so that

this

motion may be expeditiously

that

the nature

justifies

judicial

with 42 U.S.C.

3614; and it

of the respective

supervision

parties'

of depositions

and the Court having

a hear-

16, 1974 to deter-

expedited

in accordance

motion;

misconduct

that

that

appearing

pending

appearing

Court on August

alleged

action,

and it

Court by affi-

appearing

and appropriate,
determined

this

to this

further
allegations

relating

considered

to the

the pertinent

submissions,
NOW, THEREFORE,upon the affidavit
and for good and sufficient

reason,

IT IS HEREBYORDEREDthat
there

be,

Brooklyn,

in the chambers
New York,

soon thereafter

of this

on August ~,

as counsel

of FRANKE. SCHWELB

defendants

show cause,

if any

Court at 225 Cadman Plaza,

1974, at

may be heard,

l ~ Oo f..M., or as

why

(1) defendants

should

answer plaintiff's
to the pending
service

interrogatories
motion within

thereof;

should

supervision

with

five

to
respect

days of

and

(2) the depositions

motion

not be required

with

respect

not be conducted

to this

under

the

of the Court.

IT IS FURTHERORDEREDthat

service

upon counsel

for

defendants
than

() .. ,,

shall

~U.<l.+"

be done by

~ ~ no later

I 00 P. ~

'J

LP,\~14-,o..t , and that

good and sufficient

this

shall

constitute

service.

IT IS SO ORDEREDthis

S-i;t_

day of August,

1974.

~12.-~
United

States

District

Judge

'

.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE
EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
)
)
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 (EN)

)
)

v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,

)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITED STATES IN
SUPPORTOF THE ENTRYOF AN ORDER
TO SHOWCAUSE

)
)
)

_______________
Defendants.

On or about
seeking

July

26, 1974,

an adjudication

Department

including

order
that

Ms. Goldstein
influence

of contempt

of Justice

and desist"

attorney

against

among other

the testimony

defendants

States

to this

case,

a hearing

In five

threatened
witnesses
on this

allege

and sought

supported

Chief

Section,

Division,

Department

of Justice,

and of Ms. Goldstein

and every

allegation

of improper

conduct.

that
to

case.

on August

of Frank E. Schwelb,

affidavits

in this

matter

a response

of the Housing

of Motion

and a "cease

Roy Cohn, defendants

things,

has filed

a Notice

Donna F. Goldstein,

States.

of prospective

have requested

The United

assigned

counsel

filed

against

the United

of defense
has,

defendants

The
16, 1974.

by affidavits

Civil

Rights

denying

In preparation

each

of the

hearing

on August

depositions
against

16, 1974,

of several

Ms. Goldstein,

as well

have also

to determine

the pertinent

by plaintiff's

has applied

motion within

by an officer

discretion

against

one of its

counsel,

of mis-

the United

States

to
respect

days of service

to take
these

Rules

defendants

States

Donna F. Goldstein.
on August

and,

Procedure

vests

the

for responding

have made serious

in particular,

They seek

16, 1974.

the depositions
charges

of Civil

the time permitted

case,

the United

do so unless

not be super-

to Respond to the Interrogatories

to shorten

on for hearing

and cannot

defendants

of the Court.

In this

accusations

about

with

five

should

of the Federal

to Interrogatories.

mation

Brief

and

Rule 33(b)

entitled

the

incident

not be required

Defendants Should Be Required

Within Five Days of Service.

matter

for

In addition,

interrogatories

(2) the depositions

Court with

on counsel

of any alleged

should

answer plaintiff's

A.

Donald Trump.

to Show Cause why

(1) defendants

vised

the

who have made accusations

been served

attorneys.

to the pending

has noticed

as of defendant

details

for an Order

thereof;

States

of the affiants

interrogatories

conduct

the United

against

to bring

The United

States

the
is

of several

persons

who have infor-

and to otherwise

prepare

for

their

identities
- 2 -

are disclosed.

the hearing,

Defense

counsel

Roy Cohn in his

of the persons
had signed
order

for

fully

the hearing

brief

Should
thrust

counsel

have unduly

Plaintiff

contends,

which

statute

of plaintiff's

Miranda

that

the

requires.
counsel

at

least

--

the
that

if

3614.

Goldweber

occasions
testify

Magistrate

to have been in noncompliance

with

- 3 -

and

of

that

plaintiff's

are

42 U.S.C.

know-

be forthcoming.

of prospective

allegations

witnesses.

false

and have

of the case

The affidavits

of two

and Donna F. Goldstein

one of the prospective

he should

he is aware.

testimony

consideration

Elyse

time,

by an Officer
is

In

interrogatories

cannot

motion

the

behavior

to advance

in a short

response

some

Ms. Goldstein's

entitled

expedited

-- has on two separate

from defendants
of which

however,

that

answered

only

pleading.

Plaintiff's

Be Supervised

influenced

defendants'

her.

of defendants'

of preventing

the

disclose

against

why an immediate

The Depositions
this Court.

effect

is

that

Goldstein's

and assure

and can be responsively

is no reason

with

plaintiff

case

indicated

of attorney

submission

protected,

The basic

the

for

of the purported

there
B.

statements

are

ledge
are

who had complained

to prepare

rights

affidavit

deponents

expressed

to the
Cattogio
discovery

fear

discriminatory
has found

the

procedures.

--

Thomas
of reprisal
practices
defendants

With the
unlawful

issue

herein

tactics

vis-a-vis

sworn testimony

be given

source.

Accordingly,

an officer

of this

1915; Fisher
Freeman,
Elec.
Cir.

witnesses,
without

Court.

61 F.R.D.

308 (S.D.

~-

denied

JAMES PORTER
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

it

is

side

that

or pressure
be conducted

Federal

Practice

447 (S.D.

Co.,

their
from any
before

28.02,

N.Y. 1973);

see also

Gas and Elec.

has used

imperative

should

N.Y. 1965);

355 U.S.

either

interference

4 Moore's

Coop. v. Iowa-Illinois
1957),

whether

the depositions

v. Harris,

38 F.R.D.

being

First

p.

Shapiro

v.

Iowa Hydro

245 F. 2d 613 (8th

871 (1957).

SP.TilRNER
-Deputy Assistant

Attorney

General

FRANKE. SCHWELB,Chief
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 (EN)

)
)

v.

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP )

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,
)

PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
TO THE DEFENDANTS

_____________
)

Defendants.

To Counsel

for

the Defendants:

The following
pursuant

interrogatories

are addressed

to Rule 33 of the Federal

and you are required

and fully,

to answer each interrogatory

in writing,

under oath,

your Answers on counsel

prescribed

Rules of Civil

by the Court.

The United

within
States

Court for an Order that

your time to respond

five

of service.

days from the date

1.

Please

state

known or believed
or any of their
information

officers,

with respect

by Donna Goldstein,
the United
2.

States

interrogatory,

by the defendants
to have any
engaged in

representative

with the above-styled

to each person
please

identified
provide

to

of each person

misconduct

or by any other

in connection

With respect

to the preceding
information:

Esquire,

to the

be shortened

or employees

to any alleged

of

is applying

for defendants,

agents,

copies

the time to be

the name and address

by counsel

Procedure
separately

and to serve

for plaintiff

to you

case.

in response
the following

of

(a) The nature

of the alleged

by a representative

of the United

misconduct
States

alleged

by such person;
(b) The time and date upon which such misconduct

took place;

(c) The names and addresses

who witnessed

of all

persons

or who may have information

about

the incident;
(d) The means and date
tion
dants

was brought
or their
(e) A full

wrongful
the United

by which such informa-

to the attention
counsel;
description

conduct

of the defen-

and
of the alleged

by the representative

of

States.

JAMES PORTER
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

FRANKE. SCHWELB,Chief
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

'i

:
!

;!
! '
i

'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
AFFIDAVIT OF
PERSONAL SERVICE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,

. 11'r::-r,
I

(,

't""

,,,.,. ! "

Def end ants.

u.S, 0 ;; 1\.1'-

- - - - - - - -x
STATE OF NEW YORK

AUG7 1974

ss. :
COUNTY OF KINGS
JOHN HUNTER, being
I am employed
Attorney

for

the

Eastern

On August
served
related

an Order

at

to

documents,

and Manley,

68th

6,

1974,

Street,
of

documents

with

Phyllis

of

at

dated

Order

and

Goldman,

a signed

receipt

United

Noon,

Saxe,

copies

of

5,

No. 24-4!502158
Qualified in Kings County
Commiuion Expires M.,rch 30, 19

7j

/'

1974,

Bacon,

and
Bolan
located

by leaving
said

a secretary
therefore.

JOHN HUNTER

EVELYNSOMMER
'Notny l'ublic, St ..t of New York

States

I personally

New York,

~~~=10

says:

New York.

cfizu (t;6"
Sworn to before
me this
6th day of August,
1974.

and

defendantsherein,

New York,

said

the

August
of

for

deposes

of

12:00

offices

attorneys

copy

receiving

Office

Show Cause

certified

and

the

sworn,

District

on the

Esgs.,

39 East

in

duly

in

related
said

office,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF

!\J
U.S. DLS

NEWYORK

AUG191974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP, ET AL.,
Defendants.
To:

TIME/UL ............

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 7l>.r.C

15 29
................

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS

UPONORAL EXAMINATION

Roy Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68 Street
New York, New York 10021
Please

take notice

that

August 1974, the plaintiff,

the depositions

the United

United

of the present

of Trump Management,
time schedule

Inc.,

attached

States

Attorney,

will

Federal

be upon oral

Rules

of Civil

by law to administer
examination
Also,
of Civil

will

Procedure,

and former

agents

225 Cadman Plaza

will

take

and employees
forth

East,

City of New York.

Procedure,
oaths

of America,

on the

as Appendix A, at the office

examination

continue

pursuant

States

whose names are set

hereto

in the Borough of Brooklyn,

tions

colllllencing on the 22 day of

pursuant
before

and take

to Rule 30 of the

an officer

from day to day until

Documents designated

Floor,

These deposi-

testimony.

to Rule 30(b)(l)

Fifth

of

authorized

The oral
completed.

of the Federal

Rules

in Appendix B attached

hereto

are being

the taking

of this

DJ.ted this

subpoenaed

to be produced

deposition.
rt
I.('
of August,

by deponents

1974.

0
r
D0{7;'J;ii;;lotz4~
.-1

DAVIDG. TRAGER
United States Attorney

at

NORMANP.'GOLDBERG

Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

APPENDIXA
1.

Ms. Carol Falcone

2771 Stillwell
Avenue
Brooklyn, New York

Thursday, August 22,

1974, 9:30 a.m.

2.

Mr. Thomas Miranda

39-89 50th Street
Woodside, New York

Thursday, August 22,

1974, 1:00 p.m.

3.

Mr. Louis Sarnell

Rental Agent
Shorehaven Apartments
8850 19th Avenue
Brooklyn, New York

Thursday, August 22,

1974, 3:00 p.m.

4.

Mr. Al Weber
Superintendent
Edgerton Hall
178-10 Wexford Terrace
Jamaica, New York

Friday, August 23,

1974, 9:30 a.m.

5.

Mr. Henry Neher

Superintendent,
The Belcrest
162-15 Highland Avenue
Jamaica, New York

..<\partments

Friday, August 23,

1974, 11:00 a.m.

6.

Mr. W. Volz
Superintendent
Winston Hall
178-60 Wexford Terrace
Jamaica, New York

Friday, August 23,

1974, 1:00 p.m.

7.

Mr. John Raymond

Superintendent
Nautilus Apartments
1230 Avenue Y
Brooklyn, New York

Friday, August 23,

1974, 3:00 p.m.

APPENDIXB
The documents~/
from the following
Inc.,

set

forth

agents

to be brought

below are being

and employees

subpoenaed

of Trump Management,

at the time of each employee's

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

Louis Sarnell
Al Weber
Henry Neher
W. Volz
John Raymond

1.

All completed

payment of deposits

leases,

applications

in the possession,

deposition:

and records

of

or control

of

custody

the deponent.
2.

All records,

of documentation
deponent
tact

the names,

of any prospective
sought

at an apartment
3.

deponent
suggested
apartments

tenant

or other

custody

or control

of the

and dates

of con-

addresses

or any individual

or made inquiry

building

owned by the defendants.

documents,

which contain

custody

instructions,

or practices

or the processing

with respect
of applications

residing

forms or

or control

advice

forms

who has

concerning

correspondence,

in the possession,

policies

lists

to apply

All written

writings

waiting

in the possession,

which contain

applied,

other

cards,

or stated

of the
or

to the rental

of

at the defendants'

buildings.
~/ Documents previously
made available
to the government pursuant to the May 6, 1974, Request for Production
of Documents
need not be reproduced here.

...
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Donna Goldstein,
that

certify

I have served

to Take Depositions
by mailing
following

a copy,

an attorney

for plaintiff,

a copy of the foregoing

upon Oral Examination

postage

prepaid,

hereby
Notice

on the defendants

to their

attorney

address:

Roy Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
This

IS

ck:
day of August,

1974.

DONNAGOLDS~ N
Attorney,
Ho sing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

at the

~I;
\,,J

u. s.
IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT~QR THE

A.UG20 1974
EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
TU~::fd1,t..
?.!.L ............
.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 CIV 1529

)
)

v.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTFOR
PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)

Plaintiff
Federal

hereby

Rules of Civil

and permit
records

plaintiff

listed

and described

requested

Vincent
that

A. Catoggio

the aforesaid

Norfolk,

Virginia

continue

at such other

records,
available

and that
until

be completed,

defendants

produce

and copy the documents

A to this

deadline

shall

request.

set by

on August 8, 1974,
production

and

it

is

commence on

1974, at 10:00 a.m. at the rental

and that

to inspect

to Rule 34 of the

in Attachment

of Ocean Air Apartments,

necessary

that

with the discovery

the 29th day of August,

office

pursuant

Procedure,
to inspect

In accordance
Magistrate

requests,

725 East Chester

the aforesaid

offices

production

such inspection

shall

of Trump Management,

and copy the requested

the documents

Street,

documents

Inc.
and

and records

shall

remain

and copying

can reasonably

as

Inspection,

copying

by or under the supervision

Department

and photographing
of an attorney

will

be performed

of the United

of Justice.
Respectfully

HENRYA. BRACHTL
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Eastern District
of N.Y.
225 Cadman Plaza
Brooklyn, New York

submitted,

DONNAF. GOLDSTEIN
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

States

Attachment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS
AND RECORDS
SOUGHTTO BE PRODUCEDFOR
INSPECTION AND COPYING
The records
for the

following

and documents
apartment

by Trump Management,

listed

buildings

below are requested

owned and/or

managed

Inc.:

1.

The Hague Apartments,

Norfolk,

Virginia

2.

Pembroke

Apartments,

Norfolk,

Virginia

3.

Ocean Air Apartments,

Norfolk,

Virginia

4.

Any other

apartment

buildings

owned and/or

managed by Trump Management,Inc.

in Norfolk,

Virginia.
A.

Tenant

files

containing

leases,

receipts

of payments,

relating

to the tenancy

of all

individuals

complex since

January

1, 1969.

apartment
B.
jected

All

correspondence

applications

for

C.

All waiting

containing
interest

lists

or other

the names of individuals

at living

or any other

tenancy

or which have been cancelled,

applications,
documents

residing

at the

which have been re-

since

January

1, 1969.

forms of documentation
who have expressed

at the apartment

complex since

an

January

1,

1969.
D.

All written

structions,
documents
persons,

instructions,

correspondence,
to agents
organizations,

and standards

memoranda of oral

or other

or employees

of said

or agencies

to be followed

written

records

defendant

concerning

by such persons

inor

or to other

the procedures
with

respect

to

the rental

of dwellings

and the
lings,

treatment

black

All

or papers,
Housing

correspondence,

formal

tenants

of dwellings

documents
of merit

persons,
of dwelsince

or informality

cancelled

All

records,

payroll

address,

race,

position

or other
since
G.

and other

employee

January
All

documents

and date

memoranda and

of the merit

reports,

of the

contracts,

which

racial

by the

such

or lack
formality

W-2 forms,

contain

of employment

employed

Fair

in

or any of them,

and irrespective

complaint.

to the

or alleging

irrespective

of the

checks

documents,

reflecting

allegation

documents

or nondiscrimination

by defendants

to be produced

and other

which make reference

correspondence,

in housing

of the

F.

agreements

and informal,

discrimination

deposits

tenants

or to discrimination

including

papers,

since

black

prospective

prospective

or communications

Act,

rentals,

agents

including

1, 1969.
E.

time

to be accorded

including

January

to any person,

the name,

of any rental

defendants

at any

1, 1968.

receipt

books

or other

January

1, 1969,

which

contain

for

the rental

of apartments.

- 2 -

documents
records

maintained

of payment

of

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Norman P. Goldberg,
hereby

certify

that

I have served

Request

for Production

mailing

a copy,

following

an attorney

postage

for the plaintiff,

a copy of the foregoing

of Documents on the defendants

prepaid,

to their

attorney

at the

address:
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

This

the

----

day of August,

by

1974.

CY\
--- ~ ~ ~~~
N~.
GOLDBERG)
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

FJ LED

!f,J Cl :::~s
orIICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR 't!fEDSrnic,CO!1:nE.D.N.Y.

tc

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

AUG201974

TIMEA.1\1...............................
.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.
FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff
Federal

hereby

Rules of Civil

P.M.................................
.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 CIV 1529

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTFOR
PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS

requests,

pursuant

Procedure,

permit

plaintiff

listed

and described

in Attachment

In accordance

with

Magistrate
quested

to inspect

that

Vincent
that

26th day of August,

records

and copying

by or under
Department

shall

A to this

the discovery

and

and records

request.

deadline

on August 8, 1974,

production

shall

set by
it

is re

commence on the

39 E. 68 Street,

remain

can reasonably

Inspection,

produce

1974, at 10:00 a.m. at the law offices

Saxe Bacon, Bolan & Manley,

and that

defendants

and copy the documents

A. Catoggio

the aforesaid

to Rule 34 of the

copying

the supervision

available

of

New York, N.Y.,

until

such inspection

be completed.
and photographing
of an attorney

will

be performed

of the United

States

of Justice.
Respectfully

HENRYA. BRACHTL
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Eastern District,
N.Y.
225 Cadman Plaza
Brooklyn, N.Y.

submitted,

DO~ F. GOLDSTEIN
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

Attachment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS
ANDRECORDS
SOUGHTTO BE PRODUCED
FOR
INSPECTIONAND COPYING
1.
tenancy,

Current
leases,

defendants

tenant

or their

agents,

buildings

2.
records

Chelsea

b.

Nautilus

c.

Ocean Terrace

d.

Lincoln

since

applications
the tenant

of payments,
or their

tenants

for

and the
or any other

agents

which

at the following

owned by the defendants:

Hall Apartments
Hall Apartments
Apartments

Shore Apartments

books or other

of payment of deposits

maintained
situated

receipts

of present

a.

Receipt

between

by the defendants

to the tenancy

apartment

containing

correspondence

documents maintained
relate

files

January

documents which contain

for the rental

of apartments,

~1969 for each of defendants'

in the New York metropolitan

area

listed

buildings

in Attachment

B.

ATTACHMENT BKHl i1S COU~JT{ l':Wl'ETi.'L."S

~--:":!.---

;.;:;::.::--:- _;::::.;:.::-::c-:
=::\;\,...:.... -- ~"':'."'.:::-'., ~"X":.;';"."::i.1::t

;..nv;1ESS

NAf.TE OP .hl!JLDING

4U:J J\r LY H'

Brooklyn,

Paul

Ho:-; Cl

?C::
__.v
..J'1 i\V
'
e.nl;e
8700. ~-i
Brookl:rn,
Ne,.; York

Nnut:llus

2650 Ocean Par~~ay

Brooklyn,
;,:e\,' Yorlc

Guido La:13.

2580 Oc02n Park~ay

Brooklyr ..., Nev: tork

Ray

Hall

405 testmin&ter
Road
Brooklyn,
~e~ York

Renee

Gardens

3301 t~os trc: nc. Ave mi.e

Brooklyn,
:~e't; Yo1'l:

1,;estminster

Brooklyn,

!:ev:

3323 Nos~rand
Broo:{lyn,

Sea Isle

11-,

Towers
Shore

Fontainebleau

'I'r\:l 'l is
Corman

Ray Lar.12.ni

, 3315 Nostrand

Lincoln

Al Caudc.iJ.
. li .
Gene Hn.y.nond

Wedc;c~wood Hall

Laurence

Avenue
Yo::'k

Avenue

lJew Yor;c

3901 Nos t.i...,:md /\ venue

Broo:clyn,
1;ei1 'Yorlc

Flnnegrin

----Frank

:3903 Nostrand
Avenue
Brooklyn,
'"' Yo2k
3280-3310
Brooklyn,

Nost:rand

Avenue

Jim Gardner

Ne;,1 York

Apts.

2727 Ocean Parkway

Brooklyn,
New York

Victor

Apts.

8855 Bay Parkway

Brooklyn,
New York

Skender
Walter

Rohr

F.ohr

Besv.

Fici

Flatbush

Patio

#1

59)Flatbush
Brooklyn,

Flatbush

Patio

#2

580 Flatbush Avenue

New York
Brooklyn,

Walter

370 Ocean Parkway

Brooklyn,
Ne:1 Yorl{

Joe Heid

8SOJ-2Clt1J

i\ vt:ri'-At:~

John

Brooklyn,

Ne:w York

Park

Fiesta

1230 :i.vetr,.-:.::.:Y
Broo\clyn, Ne-;\ Yorl:

Hall

Ocean Ter:::,ace

La\,rence

JWUJ..

Nei: York

Tmvers

t ,'i venue

O,..,c:
uO.);;

fl.pts.

Avenue
Ne~ York

, John Ro'saC.o

S .

Brooklyn,

New '.:'ork

Sou th amp to:-: /~pts.

Trump v111~:e
Trump Village

Sec.
Sec.

Pln:y.

l
2

29~0
3000

Occa~
Oeea.n

Giol"d.2.no

P&rk~ny,
Pur!ni:1y

ncaJ.

Bkln.,

N.Y. Joe

Bkln.,

N. Y. Joe

73

J.~

St ..

Zecher.
Zecher

..

Kil~CS

COUlTi'Y PEO~'?ri'l'IES
- F!,GS
---~----...-----------------------

21 Flili.l~!i.r~t: :,v.::::~~.v~-:: .:.~

followinG
add~csses:
'>7~.:;
,_ I .,. Shore

2795 Shore

Par:c:~y,

Nine

Nixon

Cou1,t,

Nine

Mu:::--dock comt,

H. y.

13100",{lyn,
1

Broo:clyn,

~:e,
.. Yor/

.Brooklyn,

N. Y.

29 ~-lurdoc :< co:lrt,

Bl'OOl{lyn_,

NeH York

49 Murdoc:< Ccurt,

3rool<lyn,

New York

67-;..~
~'

Avenue

l.J,

.Broo!dyn,

West S"creet,

:srool{lyn,

263't West Street:,

3::1ooklyn,

2612

2662

west St:ree; t,

Ne~ York

New York

Abe Ros('rbE

( Rental

New York

Brool:::ly:::11 new York

2681+ \Jest

Street,

2681 West

2nd

Street,

B::-ook1yn,

N. Y.

2661 1:est

2nd

St!'eet,

Brooklyn,

".T \r
..H -

2631 West

2nd

Street,

Brooklyn,

~Iev: Yorl-:::

\','est

2nd

Street,

Brooklyn,

N.Y.

2611
621
2612

Avenue

r,

L.,'

B::.-'oo!cl:,'n, !le"t-1York

Brockl)'n,

west 2nd Street,

2632 West

2nd

Street,

New York
Br0oklyn,

N.'Y.

Brookl:,,'11,

N.Y.

2662 West 2nd Street,

Brooklyn,

-N. Y.

2682 West

BrookJl.yn,

NeY.

2nd

74

..
i,r~<::;~:. '

street,

'

..

l 1j
3..., I'l'- 1 7""
,_

..J

A..,_

\A.

'

11;"
' l)

i'ollo;:inr;

~l. ,\."c:1
tee
I
,. .,

<I..

."1t

the

;~dd:',.:3~;cn:

N.Y.

Cropr,c y ,\ vc. , 3rooklyn,

N. Y.

N.Y.

'

}~:..')O>:l:tn,

r1. ...
..:

Brco:l:/n,

N.Y.

z,:~J~.:~
Crop~.c::.'

I\:.;(}

~!056 Cropsey

;\ ve.

2058 cropEey

:'\ve.,

2061; Cropsey

/1ve.

2071.J. Cropsey

Ave.

l'.:)r'76
t:.v
Cropsey

Ave.,

13:...ootl:.'n,

11.Y.

2078

Ave.,

Brooklyn,

\!

Cropse~r

'
'

oo::l:.n,

, Brookl:;n,

'

.....

i.T

'

1;. y.

B1~00>:~.::n, ?<Cy.

Lou Sa1~nel1
* (Rental
Agent)

. . ...
V

'

8331-20th

P.venue,

Broo:-:lyn,

8841-20th

;..venue,

Broo'.cl;yn., !l(; ;: Yo::--k

8851-20th

Avenue,

Broo!:lyn,

8361-20th

A v2rn.:;.e, Brockly:1,

1:e;,~ York

8869-20th

Avenue,

Broo!clyn,

Ne~: Yo:--i~

8871-20th

Avenue,

Brootdyn,

New YC!:'l-:

889J.-20th

J:.venue,

Brooklyn,

New York

2040-20th

Lane,

Brooklyn,

Nev;

2Qi;h-20th

Lane,

Brooklyn,

New Yor:<:

2049-20th

Lane,

Brooklyn,

New York

2050-20th

Lane,

Brooklyn,

New York

:: C \:

Yo1 l-:

!Jc,\ York

York

1483 Shore

Park,1ay, Brooklyn,

N. y

llt85 Shore

Pa:r!nmy, Brooklyn,

N. Y.

11+87 Shore

I.,ar1~,lay, Brooklyn,

N.Y.

1489 Shore Parkway,

Brooklyn,

N.Y.

1491 Shore Parkway,

Brooklyn,

N.Y.

11~93 Shore

Parkway,

Brooklyn,

N.Y.

1535 Shore Parkway,

Brooklyn,

r~ x

2070-20th

Lane,

2072-20th

Lane, Broolclyn,

20711-2oth Lane,
2076-20th

Brooklyn,

Brooklyn,

Lane, Brooklyn,

'15

New

York

Nc1,,1Yo:ck
Nev;

York

New York

, ;~ ?TJ.1: Tft L
.. __
,,,.

---- ---

'} .....
; ";" p
' . ~ - ~ ..' ._'

..i.. ,...

Jt:-"~)...,l;,,: ll 1.;"".::~.t:1 ..~ / ..\ f'.,

'"'Tt.:ti~i i c:: > .:; ~ :: \'.,Jl~~,.

.t.,<J: t, C .

172-7~; it! :~1-~t:.;1,:! J.ve.,

:<c.~.:'r'~.)i..:

J:1:;~t:ic:-1,

,)7-.:,1> lf,c,"~.l! 2,:.::(::ct,

J<..1r1_.1
tc ::1, ;,Je....
; ~:....:
~ <
l '( (1- l _; }/
e ;.~.
r ..y :.:J i\~
t.lEt;f~(~:~-C:

i"lL' .I..

t '

!-. ::.~1.-~e

1~:
~~-~) .:'.

1-'; :-t) .";, l l, .?: J ~l? T~o.

~~i.;J."t~J
PJ.usI~t11r;, :~.:,; y~o~..]<
Ji~j--~

J; "'::~r)cl

.~.\~e.

.::-,c Dle1.

}..VP.

El

Di1:r

r:-:.::
,: Yo : ~c

F 1 u s n :: n ;~ ,

l~_1--;-2{)
:1!~~:1:~,;_r~C
t~\e.
Ja~r:c.~
:;~c:~, :~c
.:!.'0:"i~
j J1 - l. ) ;.'0 :: n ,.~ S ,.,".-..:,
I<('l.t1f.:>j
:nr, :~._\\' ~_:~C'I
1

(i 7 -

-:..:) l (. ..: I S t: :;:C e 'c

.Jtt!E~liCCt,

\.-01~;-::

:~ ::.-;

...
~'

}.:-ith.:

'

i ,.; ,

~..
: (_;~r.}

id..lshll"e

1f::2-

!-f;.;.ll

f C'Y':..l1\=~-
rac e
\e.: Yo.,,\.

.\.,?z

j'.)

.Jamai.:.:a,
:ilns ton

11'"{(~
-GJ

He,11

,-'(e~.~
r- ()

rd

l?.

W. VoJz

Te::,~~"!:~c

J:::"'..:r.tajcc:., ::.::.-.:~!or}~
. "-..,__:; \

,,.rs.'"

... "'""::"- ..
,;.

2:2 _,."r
~ ") 1~c.'.":;.,_;
I{i <; fJ!L(i :1(i, - >>~
~,:'l C ..~{

65 :: r~:;'" n !:',

I_::,:: t

id.cri:::c:1;..;., !ii'.:. Yo[':(

:' ..
!.., :

'I

--

"'

,......, ,r

' .......

..t '

l"\~~(:~~r:~._,:-!UJ '::c
'.1 ... .
B~ r r.,'..
i.,
21;~~ ~':,;.1
.,' '
f..~ 1 :-:~ . ;! ~i ,

S1:e.

:~:~ ::tJ;.~J...
..)

Hall

'\

l ~ _,

...
~

:.

t.,1
..

. .. .
""/

NEW
JOHN

GODFREY

ROGERS
ROY

472

YORK

10021

THOMAS

-1400

(1919-1962)

E. MANLEY

MICHAEL
I EL

HAROLD
MELVYN
JEFFREY
LORIN

(212)

(1909-19531

NEW

A.

BOLAN

COUNSEL

M. COHN

SCOTT

DAN

SAXE

H. BACON

YORK,

(ADMITTED

ILLINOIS

AND INDIANA)

August

ROSEN

J.

20,

1974

Fl LED

DRISCOLL

IN ClEP.K'SOFFICE

SCHWARTZ
RUBIN

U. S. DISTRICI COURTE.D.N.Y.

A. SHUMAN
DUCKMAN

i< SEP5 1974

Hon Vincent
Cattagio
United
States
Magistrate
Federal
Court House
225 Cadman Plaza
East - 2nd Floor
Brooklyn,
New York
Re:
Dear

Judge

U.S.

v.

P.M.................................
.

Trump

- Civil

Rights

Case

Cattagio:

Following
the helpful
conference
with Your Honor,
and your direction
that
discovery
and depositions
be completed
by September
1, 1974, the Government
has done the following:
former

1.
Noticed
employees.
2.

of

seven

more

Made new demands

TIMEA.M.................................
.

for

depositions
production

of
of

employees
large

and
quantities

records.

3.
In plaintiff's
letter
of August
12, 1974, for
the first
time since
the filing
of the complaint
in the fall
of 1973, it has now attempted
to enlarge
it by indirection
to
all
units
operated
by the defendants
in Norfolk,
Virginia
and
surrounding
areas
- and demanding
production
of extensive
records
down south
from these
buildings
nowhae before
cited
in this
case - in the complaint
or in the answers
to interrogatories
and bill
of particulars
furnished
by the Government
at
the specific
order
of Judge Neaher,
who found the complaint
far too general,
and directed
specification
of locations,
dates,
details,
etc.
of the charges
of discrimination.
A ten page response
to Judge Neaher's
order
filed
by the Government on February
28, 1974, listing
said locations
and dates
in
detail
- at no point
mentioned
directly
or indirectly
any units
outside
the Eastern
District,
or specifically,
any units
in
Virginia.
To attempt
on the eve of conclusion
of discovery

Hon. Vincent
Page Two

Cattagio

in a priority
case to suddenly ring in locations
never before
alleged
despite
Judge Neahen's order seven months ago to name
locations,
is improper and unfair.
To expedite
this matter,
and even though plaintiff
has already
deposed 13 of our officers,
employees,
maintenance
men, etc. - and even though the new seven depositions
sought
include
those of former employees,
and those whose statements
could not legally
bind us - we are willing
to and hereby agree
to all seven depositions;
and to have them completed
before
September 1, 1974.
As to the records,
even though the new
demands happen to include
a series
of records
we already
produced and others which are not relevant
- again to expedite,
we hereby agree to the production
of all requested
records
also before September 1, 1974.
The only item with which we are completely
unwilling
to comply is the production
of records
and information
about
some units
in Virginia
and elsewhere
in the country outside
the Eastern
District,
for the grounds previously
stated.
To
document this in detail:
The complaint
was filed
October 15,
1973.
We moved to dismiss
or to make more definite
and certain
on the grounds it told us nothing.
On January
25, 1974, Judge
Heahen heard argument.
The minutes containing
his comments and
rulings
are attached
to this letter
as "A" for Your Honor's
convenience.
We particularly
refer
Your Honor to pages 25 28, wherein Judge Heahen indicates
that "location
of buildings"
must be specified
(p.27) and pointed
out the defendant's
difficulty in meeting these charges because of the number of units
involved
"in New York" (p. 28).
The Government's
furnishing
of
locations
and details
pursuant
to these directions
of Judge
Neahen came on February
28, 1974, and are also attached
to
this letter
(as "C") along with our demand {"B").
At no point
in the ten pages is a single
location
outside
the Eastern
District
mentioned
- and now, only days before conclusion
of discovery,
they seek for the first
time to ring in units
far away
from this District,
which would result
in considerable
delay
and prejudice
to the defendants
in this priority
case.
We agree to all seven new depositions,
and to produce
all requested
records
for all locations
set forth in the Government's
response
to Judge Neahen's
order.
We ask Your Honor to
exclude the attempt
to expand this case to never before cited

Hon.
Page

Vincent
Three

buildings

Cattagio

in

other

areas

of

the

country.
Respectfully
I

'1

l ,, / 1
11.//rv
1 \.j) , 'L;,!(._
,

'

!. -..

Roy M. Cohn
RMC:sb
cc:
Donna
Civil

Donald

Goldstein
Rights
Division
Trump

yours,

;3.:luifco
~hdcs :!(l.eparmentof Wusticc

ADDRESS
REPLY
TO
UXlTED
STATJ<:S ATI'ORNEY
IS'ITIALS

AXD

NUMDEU

UNITED

JDP:HAB:sm
File
No.
730959

STATES

EASTERN

DISTIUCT

FEDERAL

ATTORYEY
OP NEW

YORK

BUILDING

BROOKLYN,N.Y.11201

August

20,

IN CLU~CS UHICE
U.S. DISTl<lCICOllRl ED. r..:.Y.

iC SEP5 1974

Honorable
Vincent
A. Catoggio
Magistrate,
u. s. District
Court
Eastern
District
of New York
U. s. Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York
11201
Re:
D/J
Dear

United
States
v.
Civil
Action
No.
Ref.:
JSP:DFG
175-52-28

Magistrate

FILED

197 4

JIMEA.M.................................
.

P.M.................................
.

Fred c. Trump,
73 C 1529

et

al.

Catoggio:

On August
13, 1974, the plaintiff
in the above styled
lawsuit
noticed
a Request
for Production
of Documents
under Rule
34 of the Federal
Rules of Civil
Procedure.
This records
inspection was to commence at apartment
buildings
owned by the defendants
in Norfolk,
Virginia,
on August
29th in accordance
with
the discovery
deadline
which you directed
at the August
8th meeting
in your office.
he intends
to comI have been informed
by Mr. Cohn that
municate
to you by letter
defendants'
objections
to any production
of documents
dealing
with apartments
outside
of New York City.
We believe
that
the complaint
and related
case law show that
plaintiff
is entitled
to such discovery.
Therefore,
it is respectfully
requested
that
a decision
on this
issue
not be made until
plaintiff
submits
a brief
supporting
its position.
Thank

you

for

your

consideration
Very

truly

in

this

matter.

yours,

J. STANLEY POTTINGER
Assistant
Attorney
General
Civil
Rights
Division

By:/}~ f.~
DONNA F.
Attorney,

GOLDSTEIN
Housing
Section-/

~~

~ff.

q},acm'7/,
f!iJ,olwrv
gc~
3()
NEW

EAST
YORK,

6ffr"

NEW

STHEET
YORK

.
100 2 l

THO>fAS
JOHN

GODFREY

ROGERS

SAXE

H. SACON

ROY M. COHM
SCOTT
E, MANLEY
MICHAEL
DANIEL

A.

BOI.AN

COUNSEL

(1919196'?)

(ADMITTEO

ILUNOIS

ANO INOL~NA)

J, DRISCOLL
SCHWARTZ

MELVYN

RUBIN

LORIN

472-1400

ROSEN

HAROL.0
JEFFREY

(212.'i

11909195~)

,,/

A, SHUMAN
DUCKMAN

\
\

Hay

""
l~~~;::;:.-_:::::::
..

:L6 ,

Miss Donna Goldstein

Department
of Just<tce
United States
Washington,
D. c. 20530

Re:

United States
v. Fred C~ Trump, et
Civil Action No. 73 c 1529

al.

Dear Miss Goldstein:

Enclosed please
find a copy of defendants'
answers to plaintiff's
interrogatories.
It is my understanding
from speaking with Miss Goldweber that you are
to work
taking her place on this case since she has left
in New York.
As you will

note from our answers;

most of the
requested
by the Government in the interrogainformation
tories
already
has been supplied
in the five examinati.ons
before trial
which you already
have completed.
lie could
not make specific
reference
to page numbers due to the
fact that the transcripts
have not been completed.
You
will note that there are three questions
requiring
detailed
information
f:?;omrecords, which Stuart
Hyman has been compiling and hopes to complete next we~':lk... We w.ill. supply you
with

this

information

as soon

as Mr. Hyman completes

Very truly

SEM/ew
cc;

Hon. Vincent
United
States

Scr:,tt

Catoggio
Magistrate

Eastern
District
of 'New York
United States
Court..~ouse
225 Cadrnan Plaza East
Brooklyn,
N<2:w
York. 11201

yours,

E ~ Manley

same.

"

"'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

IN cu:,{\ 5 Oil ;C[

. S. D!5TitC1 COURJ LD. N.Y.
('

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

The United
undersigned
First

States

attorney

Interrogatories.
all

some additional

investigation

by defendants

be further

has been secured

its

states

herein,

while

available

based on records
recently

as expeditiously
supplemented

by its

Answers to Defendants'

that,

presently

and on information

Answers will

plaintiff

supplements

information

Urban League is continuing

PIAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
ANSWERSTO DEFENDANTS'
INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff

Answers include

,,. 1974

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

of America,

hereby

these
to it,

made available

furnished

by the

as possible.

The

as soon as such information

and assembled.
Supplemental Answers to
Interrogatories
1 and 2

The following
fendants

through

unavailable

their

on account

1.

agents

(a)

outside

with

Virginia,

the following

that

de-

have made apartments

constitutes

ways:
evidence

in by the defendants

of

in their

of the New York area.

On May 21, 1974, Mr. Ellis

Fair

evidence

in the following

engaged

Head of Tidewater
Norfolk,

or employees

information

policy

of buildings

constitutes

of race

The following

a discriminatory
operation

information

W. James (white)

Housing at 1802 N. Lakeland,

provided
account:

a Departmental

representative

,,.

In or about July
Jones

(black)

denied

informed

an apartment

Norfolk.

1971, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph

In early

James that

they had been

at the Oakdale Apartments

July,

1971, James and his wife

went with Mrs. Jones

to the complex.

went into

alone

manager,

the office

which had been advertised

and spoke with

that

no apartments

and indicated

that

an apartment

on August 3, 1971.

could

submit

might become
Morgan indicated
if

immediately

and spoke with Morgan about

ment.

Morgan stated
in about

the apartment
question

about

Morgan stated
residing
(b)

that

immediately.

there

an apart-

they could

composition
was one black

the

would be

In response

the racial
that

renting

an apartment

a week and that

that

she so chose.

went into

office

available

an apartment

were available

an application

James and his wife

the

in the morning newspaper.

Morgan stated

Jones

Mrs. Jones

Mrs. Morgan, about renting

available

in

rent

to a
of the complex,
officer

in the complex.
In June 1973, Mr. Richard

furnished

the Norfolk

office

following

information

of alleged

- 2 -

Foard

(black)

of the FBI with the

discrimination:

,.

Foard,
Station

who was assigned

in Norfolk,

to the Naval Force

stated

that

in mid June,

1973,

he went to the Ocean Air Apartments

in Norfolk

apply

Foard stated

for a two-bedroom

that

he decided

to apply

Mr. Eugene Sorel,

obtained

at that

in July
time.

about

that

office,

at that

crimination

for a reasonable

Foard was advised

told

that

tests

conducted
at various

Most of the tests

summarize all

indicate

so that

plaintiff

buildings

In the interest

of the "tests"

he would

with

by the League to

at the respective

were conducted.

an application

time to see the model apartment.

practice

is practiced

from

he had just

or August and submit

several

the racial

by defendants.

draw their

learning

The New York Urban League furnished

information

the tests

after

male,

Foard was also

have to return

determine

there

at Ocean Air

At the rental

to return

2.

a white

an apartment

price.

apartment.

to

that

operated
racial

buildings

disat which

of fairness,

interested

parties

we
may

own conclusions.
(a)

Belcrest
Hall
166-05 Highland
Jamaica
Ms. Stephanie

the Urban League,

Hall
Bush, a black

went to the Belcrest

12, 1974, to inquire

apartment.

employee of

about renting

Mr. H. Neher,

- 3 -

on July

a one-bedroom

the superintendent,

advised

Bush that

a one-bedroom

rented

$280.00 and would not be available

October.

Neher suggested

Kraham Realty

Co.~/

that

at

until

Bush contact

which would find

her

an apartment.
Ms. Susan Bernstein,
of the Urban League,
at the Belcrest

ment,

told

$250.00,
available
(b)

that

for an apartment

rented

the apartment

on September

Bush left

was shown an apart-

the apartment

and that

employee

time after

Bernstein,

for

would be

1.

Saxony Hall
87-15 165 Street
Queens, New York
On July

Hall

applied

a short

the building.

a white

12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to Saxony

to inquire

ment.
renting

about renting

Bush spoke with Supt.

an apartment

none were available

a one-bedroom
Kurt Marscheider

and was advised

and that

apartabout

by him that

he did not know

when one would become available.

~/ Kraham
brought by
difference
"steering"

Realty Co., is presently

the
the New York City Commission
in treatment
of home seekers
of home seekers to different

- 4 -

subject of a complaint
on Human Rights alleging
based on race, and the
areas based on race.

Ms. Bernstein
short

went to Saxony Hall

time after

Bush left

and spoke with Marscheider

a one-bedroom

apartment.

shown a one-bedroom
business

the building
about renting
Bernstein

apartment,

card and told

was

given

to call

back in

a week, at which time Marscheider

know when an apartment

would

would be available.

(c) Clyde Hall

87-06 166 Street
Queens, New York
On July
Clyde Hall

24, 1974, Ms. Bush went to

to inquire

bedroom apartment.
woman who stated
The woman advised
vacancies

about renting
Bush spoke with

a onea

she was the superintendent.

her that

there

were no

and none would be available

for

six months.
Ms. Bernstein

went to Clyde Hall

time after

Bush left

the building.

spoke with

a woman, who stated

the superintendent,
only a studio

The woman advised

apartment
estate

other

first.

she was
by her that

a one-bedroom

tenant

of that

and the apartment

She stated,
in her building

however,

that

would have to

The woman added that

- 5 -

available.

as soon as the

deceased

had been settled

"empties"

be filled

that

would be available

had been painted.

that

was immediately

Bernstein

of the recently

apartment

Bernstein

and was advised

apartment

a short

because

the

there

were so many "empties"

building,

that

were being

the apartment

handled

rented
(d)

rentals

by another

in the Trump building

but that

in her

Trump agent

across

the street,

the same apartment

from her at a less

could be
expensive

price.

Edgerton Hall
178-10 Wexford Terrace
Queens, New York
On July

Edgerton

9, 1974, Ms. Bush went to

Hall

one-bedroom

to inquire

apartment

about renting

that

in the New York Times.

doorman who said
was on vacation
vacancies.

that

the superintendent
there

so that

she could

check on vacancies.
morning,

at about

day advised

superintendent

was out.

9:30 a.m.,

at about

her that

Bush

her that

bedroom apartment
not be available

2:30 p.m.,

The superintendent

and that

- 6 -

at which time

rented

another

the middle

stated

that

The superintendent

he had just

until

the

Bush returned

she met the superintendent.

informed

The

and the same doorman as she met on

the preceding

afternoon

were no

The doorman gave her the name

periodically

returned

was advertised

Bush spoke to a

and that

of the superintendent

following

that

a oneone would

of August.

he had a vacant

...

two-bedroom

apartment.

Ms. Bush was

not shown an apartment.

Ms. Bernstein

went to Edgerton

on the morning of July

with a doorman.
that

apartment.
following

The doorman advised

there

Bernstein

and a four-room

the

2:00 p.m. and met the

as Mr. Weber.
he had a one-bedroom,
apartment

available.

was shown a one-bedroom

apartment

and was told

available

her that

one-bedroom

returned

identified

Weber advised
studio,

was a vacant

day at about

her

was out for the

Ms. Bernstein

superintendent

(e)

9, 1974 and spoke

the superintendent

day, but that

Hall

that

the apartment

would be

for August 1 at $250 per month.

Winston Hall
178-60 Wexford Terrace
Queens, New York
On July

Winston Hall

9, 1974, Ms. Bush went to

to inquire

bedroom apartment

that

in the New York Times.

superintendent,
a one-bedroom
Saturday,
no other

July

about renting

had been advertised

Bush spoke to the

Mr. Volz, who told

apartment

- 7 -

her that

had been rented

6, 1974, and that

vacancies.

a one-

there

on
were

Ms. Bernstein
short

time after

about renting

went to Winston Hall

Bush departed

a one-bedroom

man who identified

stated

that

himself

he had just

an available

woman and suggested

was also
per month.

to a
apartment

at $195-200
then showed

to her.

The Highlander
164-20 Highland Avenue
Queens, New York
On July

Highlander

12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to the

to inquire

bedroom apartment

about

that

in the New York Times.

Bush met a maintenance
he thought

a studio

renting

for a studio
was told
available

that

At the building,
man who told

apartment

or one-bedroom

and that

and asked

apartment.

at $390 per month, but that

in a studio

none was likely

January

or February.

- 8 -

her that

was vacant.

a 4 1/2 room apartment

were no vacancies

a one-

had been advertised

Bush then met the superintendent

until

showing

a studio

available

apartment

as the superintendent

The superintendent

the studio
(f)

apartment.

apartment

that

innnediately

to inquire

completed

one-bedroom

She
was
there

or one-bedroom

to become available

..

,-

Ms. Bernstein
shortly

after

Bernstein

went to the Highlander

Ms. Bush left

spoke to the superintendent

was told

that

there

apartment

available

Bernstein

was told

at the present
occur
(g)

and

was only a 4 1/2 room

at $370 per month.
that

time,

there

were no vacancies

but that

vacancies

usually

in September.
Sussex Hall
166-05 Highland Avenue
Queens, New York
On July

Hall

the building.

12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to Sussex

to inquire

apartment.

about

renting

Bush spoke with

Mr. Pajumae,

who advised

3-room apartment
Pajumae advised
application

a one-bedroom
the superintendent,

her that

was available
Bush that

and that

only a junior

at $210 per month.

she could

fill

out an

she would be advised

one week as to whether

her application

in about

had been

approved.
Ms. Bernstein
after

went to the Sussex

Bush had left

to rent

a one-bedroom

advised

her that

shortly

the building.

Bush asked

apartment

and Mr. Pajumae

a one-bedroom

$260 per month.

- 9 -

was available

at

....

(h)

Coronet Hall
172-70 Highland Avenue
Queens, New York
On July

the Coronet

9, 1974, Ms. Bush went to

to inquire

bedroom apartment

about renting

that

had been advertised

in the New York Times.

superintendent

renting

Bush spoke to the

who advised

was presently

vacant

a one-

her that

and that

a studio

a one-bedroom

at $270 per month would be available

on August 1.
Ms. Bernstein
after

Bush left

advised
vacant

that

went to the Coronet

the building.

a studio

and that

Bernstein

apartment

a one-bedroom

shortly
was

was presently
would be available

shortly.
(i)

Wexford Hall
86-75 Midland Parkway
Queens, New York
On July

Hall

12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to Wexford

to inquire

ment that

was advertised

Bush spoke with

her that

about renting

a one-bedroom

in the New York Times.

the superintendent

he had available

for rent

who advised
a 3-room

apartment

at $250 per month and a 3 1/2-room

apartment

at $270 per month.

were shown to Bush.

- 10 -

apart-

Both apartments

Ms. Bernstein
time after

Bush left

intendent
rent

went to Wexford Hall

advised

the building.

her that

a 3-room apartment

a 3 1/2 room apartment

Bernstein
(j)

he had available

for

at $250 per month and

for

$270 per month.

Wilshire Hall
182-30 Wexford Terrace
Queens, New York
12, 1974, after

a non-rental

against

non-white

has been practiced

(who takes

rental

absence)

agent's

Consalro,

the possibility

the rental

in the newspaper
already

rented
that

or

by the

agent,

in the

to discuss

a one-bedroom
advised

apartment
Bush

available

A New York Times advertisement

explained

is

Ms. Bush spoke with

he had a 1-bedroom apartment

Consalro

dis-

applicants

Mr. Consalro

the apartment

with

that

applications

of renting

at the Wilshire.

$295.00.

dealing

at the Wilshire

superintendent

Mr. Joseph

first

employee who indicated

crimination

that

The super-

was shown both apartments.

On July

that

a short

for
indicated

at $275 per month,

the one-bedroom

was on the first

been rented.

- 11 -

floor

but

advertised
and had

Ms. Bernstein

went to the Wilshire

on

12, 1974 and spoke with Mr. Consalro

July
about

renting

advised

a one-bedroom

her that

available

for

apartment.

Consalro

he had a one-bedroom

apartment

$295 per month.

(k) The Essex

143-11 Barclay Avenue
Queens, New York
On July

24, 1974, Ms. Bush went to the Easex

to inquire

about

advertised

in the New York Times.

a non-rental

a one-bedroom

but that

not on the premises.

the superintendent

non-rental

her that

the superintendent

employee

told

her that

at the Essex through

no apartments

on August

Bush that

there

have to return

agent,

was a vacancy,

- 12 -

This

to blacks
Bush returned

3:00 p.m. and spoke

as Ann.

Mr. Graham.

day

is practiced

The woman advised

but that

day between

10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to speak with

renting

that

out.

misrepresentations

on another

there

employee who advised

discrimination

2, 1974 at about

was

was

later

was still

are available.

to a woman identified

her that

Bush returned

and spoke to another

that

Bush spoke with

employee who advised

were vacancies,

that

apartment

she would
the hours
the

of

On August
departed

2, 1974,

shortly

from the Essex,

that

there

but that

apartment.
was a vacant

the hours

to speak with

after

He advised
Gilbert,

that
wanted

applications
this

father,

employee

of defendants,

1973 at the
all-white

the previous

building,

superintendent.

including

Minerva

to know the race

of the applicants

whose

to the central

was provided.

that

he should

instead
that

a sham lease

applicants.

after

he had been falsely

and shown the sham

of another
have told

Mr. Connan advised

kept

One black

that

his

- 13 -

he overheard
building,

a black

applicant

father,

his
while

and check to be shown to

to residency

no apartment

and only after

was demonstrated

and that

of forwarding

was admitted

told

lease,

office,

On one occasion

the superintendent

black

of a vacancy

and 2:00 p.m.

Mr. Graham.

agent,

a virtually

were no vacancies,

superintendent,

on another

staff,

tell

application.

apartment,

the Trump office

unknown,

there

one-bedroom

a former

then

of his

information

identity

her

1972 and early

were submitted

Mrs. Gilbert

that

in late

Apartments,

the death

The woman advised

of 10:00 a.m.

Connan,

was superintendent
Westminster

in

the renting

Mr. Peter

3.

went to

a woman residing

she would have to return

day between

Ms. Bush

Ms. Bernstein

the Essex and spoke with

the Moltzen

after

by the offer

only

was available

the actual

existence

of an apartment

..>

to the black
at least

applicant's

three

but defendants
4.

white

applications

of blacks

did not rent

to them.

The defendants

made false,

friend.

misleading

have,

The affidavits

with

their

filed

The affidavits

with

the spurious

Statements

nonexistence
(d)

attack

in connection
on the

consciousness
S.

tactics

tenants
their

to adduce

of guilt
On August

during

evidence

subleasee

was black.

as Attachment

thereon.
of the

on the part

foregoing

a letter

their

to show

of defendant's.

Avenue who had recently

Laitman,

vacated

to Mr. Trump at the offices

of Trump Management Company charging

to sublet

to the

20, 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth

wrote

the right

discovery

outlined

report

and guilt

at 3901 Nostrand
apartment,

and

of records.

in plaintiff's

proposes

integrity

to the supposed

which have been previously

Plaintiff

in

thereto;

for plaintiff;

relating

Disruptive

Court

including:

as outlined

filed

of one of the counsel

proceeding,

in connection

memorandum response

(b)

(c)

this

statements,

counterclaim;

plaintiff's

to the Trump office,

throughout

and reckless

(a)

Connan submitted

apartment

A copy of this

that
because
letter

they had been denied

the prospective
is appended

hereto

A.
I

k~~ (.,eL;t~-,._/
-14-

Donna Go~in
AttorJIBY
Department of Justice
Washington,
D.C.

_,

AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF WASHINGTON

)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

ss

I, Donna Goldstein,
1.

I am an attorney

Division,

United

counsel
Civil

for

sworn,

in the Housing

Department
in United

I am informed

are

knowledge

duly

deoose
Section,

of Justice,

States

and say:
Civil

and one of the

v. Fred C. Trump, et al.,

of the

Supplementary
true

and correct

facts

of this

Answers
to the best

case.

The fore-

to Defendants'

and belief.

and sworn to before me

of September,
1974.

My Commission expires:j1

(),~

7 'L,0Ld._,, :/
{/.

Interro-

of my information,

Attorney,
ousing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530
Subscribed
lj
this

Rights

No. 73 C 1529.

Plaintiff's

gatories

States

plaintiff

Action
2.

going

being

,:J~If 7 7

..

-"

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby

certify

of the foregoing
Defendants'
mail,

postage

that

Plaintiff's

Interrogatories
prepaid,

1974, copies

on September S,
Supplementary
were placed

addressed

Answers to

in the United

to counsel

States

for the defendants:

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York
10021

11

~~d,h,,,:,,;

DONNAGO~jfmN
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C.
20530

,:,;

l''

ATTACHMENT
A

' ..

, ,

\_,.,

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

F I L E D

EASTERNDISTRICT OF

IN CJ}!('S orm:E
U.S. DISTRICTCOU:{i LD. ~J.Y

NEWYORK
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

.kt
'i

&it

I1l:.~r:
11

) CIVIL ACTIONN0~ 73~. 1529

)
)
)
)
)

APPLICATIONOF THE UNITED

STATES THATDEFENDANTS'
MOTIONFOR SANCTIONSBE
HEARD, DENIEDWITH PREJUDICE
) AND STRICKENAFTER HEARING

V'.

FRED C. TRUMP,ET AL.,

______________
Defendants.

SIRS
PLEASE TAKENOTICE that
America,

will

R. Neaher,

move this

District

Court,

forenoon

can be heard,

Brooklyn,

of October,

of that

before

United

States

the matters

on July

that

contained

by fact

and are sham and false.

in the

as counsel

for an Order denying with prejudice

grounds

Edward

Courthouse,

1974 at 10:00 o'clock

filed

of

New York in Courtroom 9,

day or as soon thereafter

motion for sanctions,

States

the Honorable

Judge at the United

225 Cadman Plaza East,

on the21stday

plaintiff,

defendants'

26, 1974, on the

therein

are unsupported

'
The grounds
with particularity
in the attached
further

prays

deems just

for this

Application

in plaintiff's
affidavit

are set

supporting

memorandum and

of Frank E. Schwelb.

for such other

further

relief

forth

Plaintiff

that

this

Court

and proper.
Respectfully

f~
JAMES PORTER, Chief
HENRYA. BRACHTL,Attorney
United States Attorney's
Office for the Eastern
District
Civil Division

submitted,

Cs~

FRANKE. SCHWELB,Chief
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. c.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF
NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FRED c. TRUMP, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA }

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

AFFIDAVIT

WASHINGTON

ss

FRANKE. SCHWELB,being
1.

I am the Chief

Rights

Division,

charge

of the above-styled
I make this

an early

hearing

against

motion

impose such sanctions

abuse

of its

this

Court

denying

and says:
of the Civil

in supervisory
of the United

of our request

motion

for

and Ms. Donna Goldstein,

affidavits

Court

Section

on behalf

in support

an Order be entered

and supporting

2.

litigation

affidavit

States

deposes

of Justice,and

be had on defendants'

the United

a hearing

sworn,

of the Housing

Department

States.

duly

said

motion,

be stricken,

sanctions
that

after

that

the

and that

as may be appropriate

that

for

the
any

processes.
On or about
a Notice

one of plaintiff's

July

2~ 1974, defendants

of Motion praying
counsel

in this

that

action,

filed

with

Donna Goldstein,
be adjudged

in

contempt

of this

against

Court

prospective

be ordered
conduct.

to cease

former

Ziselman.
defense

from such alleged

R. Falcone

Also attached

of events
present,

the United

and by the
employees,

to the motion

the best

supported

signed
Paul

but un-

and Paula

is an affidavit
to describe

of my knowledge,

and which did not occur

by

and Thomas Miranda,

in which he purports

at which,to

States
unlawful

of Motion was purportedly

of two former

counsel,

and threats

and desist

of defendants,

sworn statements

coercion

and that

of Carol

employees

alleged

witnesses,

The Notice

the affidavits

for

by

a number
he was not

in the manner described

by him.
3.

On or about

response,together
allegation

expedited

5, 1974, plaintiff

affidavits,

denying

and requesting

filed

each and every

expedited

discovery

on the motion.

On August

8, 1974,

this

be conducted

defendants'

Magistrate

discovery

directed

that

in preparation

charges.

Catoggio

Court

This

supervise

Court

the

for

also

taking

a hearing

directed

of certain

depositions.
5.

direction,
for

hearing

discovery

to resolve
that

with

of misconduct

and an early
4.

August

On August
counsel

the purpose

depositions.

8, 1974,

in accordance

met -informally

of scheduling
At that

the

meeting,

with
taking

defense

- 2 -

with

Magistrate

the Court's
Catoggio

of the proposed
counsel

withdrew

his

request

for a hearing

on his motion but refused

the motion and the attached

things,

Ms. Goldstein

As a result

of this

remain on file,
counsel's

affidavits

is accused
action,

in which,

to being

Subsequently,

plaintiff

against

revived

conduct.
Ms. Goldstein

at any time at defense

caprice.
6.

depositions

noticed

nature

and my conviction

they are completely

that

to take the depositions

of her principal

to plaintiff,

defense

for deposition

two days ahead of schedule.

on August 26,

since

more routine

for that

day and were scheduled

assigned

to this

case.

was taken outside

Ms. Falcone

of

for August 28, 1974.

of the charges

Without notice

7.

the taking

of Mr. Miranda and Ms. Falcone

In view of the serious

against
false,

accusers

counsel

Ms. Goldstein,

I had planned
personally.

produced

Mr. Miranda

I was not in New York

depositions

had been scheduled

to be taken by younger attorneys

As a result,

my presence.

the deposition

I did take

of Mr. Miranda

the deposition

of

on August 28, 1974.

For reasons

I am satisfied

that

set

forth

and that

regard

of the facts, which facts

counsel.

they were filed,

I have full

against

of Ms. Goldstein

conduct

case.

memorandum,

Ms. Goldstein

at least,

with reckless

were readily

available

confidence

professionalism
in this

in our attached

the allegations

false,

defense

among other

of unprofessional

the charges

subject

to withdraw

- 3 -

disto

in the integrity

and of the propriety

are

and

of her

8.

I believe

declining

that

to withdraw

hanging

defense

these

charges

over Ms. Goldstein's

cloud on her professional

believe

that

to carry

head,

case.

withdrawn,

on the evidence.
necessarily

as a possible

permanent

In addition,

I
can only

for Ms. Goldstein

responsibilities

Accordingly,

the charges

in connection
should

either

be

or evaluated

by this

Court based

Even though a hearing

on this

matter

be unpleasant

my

view done nothing

it

is preferable

to be false

them unfairly

of making it more difficult

with prejudice,

in

pendency of such charges

out her professional

with this

action

leaves

reputation.

the continued

have the effect

counsel's

for Ms. Goldstein,

to warrant

any challenge

to the prospect

and scurrilous

since

of allowing

would

she has in

to her integrity,
charges

I believe

to hang over her professional

career

indefinitely.
9.
that

For reasons

defendants

set

forth

in our memorandum I believe

have used disingenuous

tactics

to a degree which warrants

a strong

against

of the case.

them on the merits

order

to facilitate

trial,

we request

Ms. Goldstein's
that

in advance of the trial

this

matter

adverse

case

inference

Accordingly,

and in

participation

in the

be scheduled

for hearing

of the main case.

- 4 -

in this

relief

10.

No previous

here

requested.

application

has been made for

FRANKE. SCHWELB

6;/<L
#~~~_,
,~~
=
to before me this
day of September,

;2tJ

1974.

Lq Com:r.1,sion Expires Amr,.st 14, 1977

the

FI LE)

IN CLERK'SOFFICE

--~~-~--~---~------------~-----------x

U.S. DISTRICTCOURTE.D.N.Y

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
.

SIP 241974

. .

' "I:

'

....-._ . . ~
_

...
~

PJ,L ....

AMERICA,

Civil

Plaintiff,

~against-

.
.pefenq.anti;.

DAVID G. TRAGER

Uni.ted State$ At"t:o:t"n~y

Eastern District.efNe:W
Attorney
forPlairit:iff
225 Cadman Pla2;aEast
Brooklyn., New Ybrk 1120:1

, Attorney

\.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

On July

seeking

Goldstein,

a Department
and a "cease

In affidavits
that

filed

of defense

have threatened
improper
of this

spection

counsel

accused

together

order

their

against

against

to this

the United

including

was alleged

themselves

by three
of improper

trial

of the United

in an unprofessional

to conduct

of the defendants.

to

by other

in the forthcoming

representatives

of attempting

liti-

States.

and to have attempted

and other

allegation

Donna F.

of Motion,

testimony

of conducting

Court a ''Notice

assigned

Notice

witnesses

with affidavits

each and every

this

Roy M. Cohn, Ms. Goldstein

in the process

at the offices

a response,

attorney

with Defendant's

Ms. Goldstein

also

manner while

denying

and desist"

with

of contempt

of Justice

prospective

case.

filed

an adjudication

means to influence

States~

MEMORANDUM
OF UNITED STATES IN
SUPPORTOF ITS APPLICATIONTO
DENYDEFENDANTS'MOTIONFOR
CONTEMPT
WITH PREJUDICE2 FOR AN
EARLYHEARING
2 ANDTO STRIKE

26, 1974, defendants

of Motion"

gation,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

a records

The United

States

of plaintiff's
conduct

as false

infiled
counsel,
and

scurrilous

and requested

on the issue.
request

On August

for expedited

directed

that

scheduled

expedited

8, 1974, this

discovery

Magistrate

Catoggio

withdrew

to the hearing

the proposed
their

refused
allegations

with

hearing

plaintiff's
this

issue

the taking

plaintiff

and

of the

the underlying

that

which will

with prejudice.

pleadings

and leave
until

burdens

which contain

lie

dormant

contained

therein

interfere,

and now requests

but
the

on Ms. Goldstein's

depositions
that

in the file,

this
- 2 -

continue

to

at any time at

or withdrawal

practically

preparation

at the forthcoming

discovery

charges,

a shadow over her reputation

also

with plaintiff's

and effectively

of

defendants

removed by adjudication

The accusations

impose unwarranted

taken

pleadings,

They can be resurrected

there

as psychologically,

meeting,

on the contempt

the charges

caprice,

remain

for the purpose

by Ms. Goldstein.

hang over Ms. Goldstein.

counsel's

8, 1974, Magistrate

At that

for a hearing

of misconduct

believes

on August

for both parties

Even though defendants'

accusers

supervise

discovery.

request

to withdraw

cordingly

Court granted

in connection

Catoggio

met with attorneys

scheduling

fully

and an early

depositions.

Subsequent

defense

discovery

of the case and

ability

trial.

to participate

Plaintiff

of Ms. Goldstein's
Court

as well

schedule

has acprincipal

a hearing

on the

merits

of defendants'

deny defendants'
this

matter

motions

be resolved

is established,
misconduct

motion and at the conclusion

are false

fendants

on the merits
case,

it will

then that

be,

that

asks that

fact

of

and malicious

is admissible

against

of defendants'

presented,

If it

the allegations

with reckless

as an indication

if truthfully

Plaintiff

hearing

and in advance of trial.

and were filed

of the truth,

their

promptly,

as we believe

disregard

that

as sham and false.

of that

is weak.

de-

consciousness
See .pp. 17-18, infra.

DISCUSSION
I.

THE FACTS
A.

Counsel for Plaintiff

Did Not Threaten
Harass Prospective
Witnesses

The two persons

professional

conduct

who have made serious

against

and Ms. Carol Falcone,!/

Ms. Goldstein

allegations

of un-

are Mr. Thomas Miranda

both former employees

*I

or

of defendants.

Two other persons, Mr. & Mrs. Paul Ziselman, submitted affidavits,
but neither of the affidavits
in our opinion contained
allegations
of unprofessional
misconduct against Ms. Goldstein.
We do wish, however, to preserve our right to call them to testify
at any hearing on this matter if we believe that such action is
necessary to resolve this controversy.

- 3 -

They allege

in separate

affidavits

and harassed

them in an effort

their

employer,

former

been subjected
that

truth

on deposition,

in the record,

counsel

seriously

saw fit

counsel

never

met,

or her until

the day of their

inflammatory

charges

any inquiry

into their

truth

Ms. Carol

Falcone

(1)

In her affidavit
Ms. Goldstein

the testimony

combined with

other

of July

While

attesting

on depositions

communicated

another
is,

attorney

at least,

conduct

with him
of such
without

unusual.

19, 1974,-*I Ms. Falcone

in unprofessional

to the

by Mr. Miranda

The filing

against

or falsity

at fault.

testified

depositions.

evidence

allegations.

Ms. Goldstein

or otherwise

by counsel

had engaged

their

own affidavit

witnesses

spoke,

has yet

by plaintiff,

made against

each of these

against

While neither

the only persons

his

threatened

them to testify

discredits

to file

of the allegations

and Ms. Falcone,

that

to induce

to cross-examination

Nor are the witnesses

defense

Ms. Goldstein

Trump Management Co.

they have given

already

that

charged

that

in a number of

~/ Although the affidavit

bears a date of July 19, 1974, Ms. Falcone
swore that she,in fact,wrote
it several days later.
She also swore
that every word in it was her own, and that it was written without
assistance
in spite of some striking
similarities
in language to
earlier
submissions
on behalf of defendants.

- 4 -

significant
Falcone
that

ways.
withdrew

or substantially

she had previously

the "softened"
a full

In the deposition

of Ms. Falcone's

and adversary

cross-examination

deposition),

a comparison

is instructive
preliminary

at this

1.

accused

Deposition

never

nor did she,

in fact,

jail.

that

Ms. Goldstein

~at

the penalty

Ms. Falcone

directly

harassed

I would

threaten

asked her whether

construed

this

*I

jail."

testified
accused

and

in-

that

Ms. Falcone

for perjury

avoided

that
her of
to have

did testify
she knew

was, and that

question,

in the

Counsel have not yet been furnished

with copies of the
depositions,
but we believe that the transcripts
thereof will
fully support our references
here.
- 5 -

on

the Court to make a

and thrown into

- Ms. Falcone

her thrown into

the hearing

and deposition!/

and withholding

for perjury

and while

testimony.

- ''Ms. Goldstein

and then threatened

Ms. Goldstein

must await

to enable

me of lying

be held

While even

(which we carefully

of Ms. Falcone's

formation

lying

charges

of her affidavit

Affidavit

many of the allegations

be shown to be false,

juncture

appraisal

however, Ms.

at Ms. Goldstein.

will

airing

followed,

modified

leveled

accusations

that

context

in which it was asked,

of perjury

and a threat

Ms. Goldstein
perjury

will

Ms. Falcone

the penalties
filing

testify

that

with

of

interview
had mentioned

- and she did not - the

that

Ms. Goldstein

imprisonment,

threatened

when the affiant

is at least

will
reckless

of the truth.

legitimately

-"[Ms.

Goldstein]

accused

owning my own business

the money I used for

obtained,which

Ms. Goldstein

its

purchase

- Ms. Falcone
never

for her business

and stated

that

was illegally

the fact

accused

acknowledged

remarked

that

ment even though

that

her of obtaining

in an illegal

Ms. Goldstein

manner.
during

Ms. Falcone

funds

She stated

the interview

owned her own establish-

she was young and had apparently

low wages from Trump.

Ms. Falcone

and from nothing

else,

that

having

obtained

illegally

me of not

it was not."

Deposition

about

the

Even if Ms. Goldstein

for perjury

Affidavit

that

the subject

to no more than she did,

disregard
2.

testified

of an affidavit

Ms. Falcone

that

to jail.

mentioned.

also

ended amicably.

to be sent

testify

was never

as an accusation

- 6 -

inferred

she was being

money to finance

earned

from this,
charged

with

her business.

3.

Affidavit

Goldstein,

- "I was interviewed

attorney

of the Justice

for the Civil

Department

the morning of July

in connection

and~

employer,

referred

later

Rights

Division

another

attorney

19, 1974, at my place

with the Civil

former

by a Ms. Donna

Rights

suit

Trump Management."
in the affidavit

on

of business
against

my

She also

to her interrogators

in the plural.
Deposition

- Ms. Falcone

Ms. Goldstein
and that
Falcone

interviewed

no other

attorney

did say that

of arranging

an interview.

The foregoing

description

is not intended
the matter.

given

We believe,

against
establish
are true

Ms. Goldstein.
that

had called

for the purpose

basis

that
for

At the hearing

the entire

on two separate

or necessarily

none of the accusations

and that

attorney

of some of the discrepancies

however,

on the insubstantial

the suit
Ms.

under oath*/

to be exhaustive

only

was present.

another

days beforehand

testimony,

that

her about

her several

Ms. Falcone's

light

testified

affidavit

this

dispositive

discussion

the serious

directed
should

occasions,
of

does shed

charges

on our motion,

in

made

we expect

to

at Ms. Goldstein
be stricken

as sham

~/ On deposition,
Ms. F8lcone was unwilling
to answer, clearly
and
unambiguously,
whether or not she knew she was under oath when she
signed the affidavit.
- 7 -

and false.

We will

drawn against
(2)

also

defendants

states

accusation

Ms. Goldstein

be

in his

made by Mr. Miranda

affidavit

in which he

the following:
stated

to help her

and winning
into
On deposition,
that

described

jail.

to rely

on Miranda's

both parties
ability

Miranda's
of his
ago,

employed by the Department

interviewed

in an affidavit

The nature
submitted

role

recent

allegation.

He acknow-

were friendly,

but he

have at different

to tell

the truth

in this

litigation

charges

attorney
of Justice

Mr. Miranda as part

litigation.

this

on the job.

litigation,

About one year

be thrown

with Ms. Goldstein

In this

the validity

'lie'

'"

dealings

to explain

I did not

'I will

Mr. Miranda reaffirmed

his

if

in her ambitions

her case,

her as "tough"

necessary

that

with her and in effect

in order

assess

of misconduct

is contained

cooperate

sought

inferences

for the use of such tactics.

"[Goldstein]

ledged

the appropriate

Mr. Thomas Miranda

The principal
against

ask that

Elyse

against

of plaintiff's

and substance

- 8 -

is

in order

to

who was then

to this

preparation

of that

by Ms. Goldweber

and it

Ms. Goldstein.

Goldweber,

and assigned

times

interview

in connection

case,
of this

are described
with

these

proceedings.

According

information

to the effect

criminatory

practices.

concerned

that

part

He also

indicated

Subsequent

under the rules

in response

to their

mation provided
was notified

by letter

that

that

since

this

year,

he was considered

interview,

Mr. Miranda,

about defendants'

in this

if

damaging information

to the

retracting

the two government

his

as

furnished

with the inforidentity.

Mr. Miranda

A copy of that

affidavit.
reinterviewed

in several

provided
practices.

the statements

plaintiff,

of discovery,

expressing

direction

attorneys,

interview,

to be an important

action,

discriminatory

Mr. Miranda reversed

effectively

harmed by the defendants

Ms. Goldstein

while

dis-

he was deeply

had been done.

and had not been contacted

becoming a witness

ever,

that

interrogatories,

to Ms. Goldweber's

During July of this

litigation

engaged in racially

by Mr. Miranda including

is attached

Miranda,

Mr. Miranda provided

to that

obligations

defendants,

letter

defendants

he had furnished

of Justice.

of its

that

he might be physically

they became aware that

Department

to Ms. Goldweber,

witness

months.

additional

in this
During

apprehension

about

information

A few days later,

and executed

how-

an affidavit

he had previously

and accusing

Mr.

Ms. Goldstein

furnished

to

of improper

conduct.
In his
had furnished

recent

deposition,

to plaintiff

Mr. Miranda flatly

any information
- 9 -

unfavorable

denied

that

he

to defendants'

position

in this

litigation

despite

Ms. Goldweber and Ms. Goldstein.

worthy that

defense

counsel

In this

was in charge

of the said

to the contrary

connection

does not challenge

Mr. Cohn's affidavit

veracity.

affidavits

states

that

investigation,

it

by

is note-

Ms. Goldweber's

"At all

times

that

she

Miss Goldweber pursued

./

her duties

with diligence,

but observed

legal

and ethical

strictures."
The positions
counsel

are,

initially

taken by Mr. Miranda and the two government

of course,

told

irreconcilable.

Ms. Goldweber about racially

engaged in by the defendants,

and deposition

are false,

and Ms. Goldstein

designed

whether

Mr. Miranda made these

assessment

to induce false

of the credibility

statements

Procedtres,

would ordinarily
that

were lying.

counsel

interviewed

never

The determination
turns

largely

of

on an

of Rule 11 of the Federal

to the signing

assume that

United States

in his affidavit

of the witnesses.

relating

Mr. Miranda was telling

practices

did not make alleged

testimony.

In view of the requirements

of Civil

discriminatory

then the statements

threats

if Mr. Miranda

Obviously,

defense

counsel

the truth
As previously

Mr. Miranda,

August 26, 1974, more than a month after

- 10 -

of pleadings,
had reason

and that
stated,

Rules
one

to believe

counsel

for the

however,

defense

and had never met him until

the affidavit

was filed.

The only information

veracity

which defense

was the following

excerpt

counsel

had as to Mr. Miranda's

from the deposition

of defendant

Fred Trump., at which counse 1 was present:

Q.

Do you have any knowledge of instructions

were given to any of your managers

piece

of paper in order

the prospective
A.

tenant

That is such.!.

lie,

who has been lying

home money, but hasn't

to flag

to attach

produced

Dep. p. 37)

- 11 -

we hired

that

person?

and by our friend,

since

the main office

was a black

1:!_

that

Mr. Miranda,

him, has taken

{Fred Trump

B.

Counsel for Plaintiff

did not Engage
In Unprofessional
Conduct During a
Records Inspection

In his
asserts

affidavit

of July

29, 1974, defense

counsel

that
On or about June 12, 1974, Miss Goldstein
~-passing

counsel,

literally

upon the defendants

the Civil

Rights

with representatives

Division

demanding entry

descended

into

and Student

the offices

Trump, officer

of the defendants'

and production

of defendants'

of
Interns

of Mr. Donald
corporation,

records.

(emphasis

added) */
His affidavit
ignored
that

further

requests

defendants

representatives
the United

States

asserts

to contact

that

the offices

were unsuccessful
to leave
Attorney

Ms. Goldstein

their

of defense

in getting
offices

until

for the Eastern

!/

and her colleagues

counsel

and

plaintiff's
defendants

contacted

District.

The affidavit
also refers
to a letter
addressed to Assistant
United States Attorney Henry Brachtl from Mr. Scott Manley, cocounsel for defendants,
which accuses plaintiff's
representatives
of "descending
upon the Trump offices
with five storm troopers
banging on the doors and demanding to be allowed to swarm
haphazardly
through all the Trump files and to totally
disrupt
their daily business routine."
- 12 -

These allegations
against

other

virtually

against

representatives

no resemblance

Ms. Goldstein,

of plaintiff,

The fact

that

the offices

neither

counsel

of defendants

time when plaintiff's

large

part,

does not excuse

or accessible

its

States

position

opportunity

again

documentary

proof,the

the proposed

Cohn.

has previously
to the

on these

to set

forth

actual

records

following

records

may, in

but it

briefly,

we take

together

sequence

served

pursuant

copy of the request

a telephone

attached

was mailed

of

the

involving

of June 12th.

of Documents on

by Ms. Goldweber,

in its

with supporting

of the events

and filed
defense

'

copy of the request

A third

at the

Court on the Status

of May 6, 1974, addreased

(See letter

by Ms. Goldweber

at

described

allegations,

inspection

for Production

and signed

was present

of the charges,

On May 6, 1974, plaintiff

Request

morning.

them.

of the United

Discovery

up to that

to inspect

the inaccuracies

on the

by telephone

arrived

Even though plaintiff

report

leading

as

bear

took place

for defendants

counsel

explain

in fact,

to what actually

morning of June 12th or the events

as well

telephone

was sent

conversation

- 13 -

counsel

to defense

Roy
counsel

'

as Appendix A).

to defense

to his

a Rule 34

counsel
request

Scott

Another
Manley

on May 15, 1974.

to Mr. Manley on May 28, 1974,

between him and Ms. Goldstein

in which Mr. Manley stated

proposed

inspection.

that

plaintiff

was planning
offices.

the records

any objection

Moreover,

inspection,

and did not

suggest

Initially,

Trump Management,

met solely

States

met with

Attorney.

the other

Norman P. Goldberg
was unaware of
records

could

the

no objection

to the records

site

or date,

at the offices

who expreksed

scheduled
until

records

minutes

and

surprise

at

later,

Mr. Hyman

including

inspection

of

Assistant

and informed

he contacted

- 14 -

of

Hyman, controller

of plaintiff,

and Ms. Goldstein,

or

to inspect.

with Mr. Henry Brachtl,

representatives

time

hour for inspection

Mr. Stuart

Ten to fifteen

be produced

at the designated

arrived

were met by a group of Trump employees

did

or indicate

would be permitted

representatives

12 at

conversations

any alternative

on what plaintiff

visit.

Mr. Manley

on June

these

filed

B.)

telephone

records

on June 12th at the designated

plaintiff's

as Appendix

to the inspection

defendants

Plaintiff's

United

attached

would not be made available

and place.

any limitation

to inspect

the

1974, addressed

of two additional

At no time during

Mr. Manley express

defendants

about

between May 28 and June 3, reminded

defendants'

that

of May 28,

by Ms. Goldstein,

in the course

conversations

he knew nothing

(See letter

to Mr. Manley and signed

Ms. Goldstein,

that

attorneys

them that
and that

defense

he
no

counsel.

Ms. Goldstein
telephone
States

attempted,

and left

without

a message

Attorney's

office.

the Trump offices

success,

to reach

for him to contact

Plaintiff's

and returned

Mr. Manley by

her at the United

representatives

to the United

then

States

left

Attorney's

office.
About one hour later,
at the office
first

of the United

time that

stated

that

objections

whereupon Ms. Goldstein

spection
After

and that,
to proceed,

attached

is apparent
documentation,

counsel

in its

to a properly
and letter

efforts

that

if defendants

plaintiff

of defense

counsel,

there

improper

conduct

or other

representatives.

No calls

by defendants

of representatives

brief

counsel

of the plaintiff.
- 15 -

motion.

counsel.

discussion,

and the

did not bypass

Moreover,

records

contrary

was no banging

in-

the inspection

of defense

defense
pursuant

to the affidavit
on doors,

by any of plaintiff's

were made to the United

or their

the

to allow

defendants'

request.

had been

an appropriate

agreed

even from this

to inspect

been made to plaintiff

no such objection

would file

defendants

that

Mr. Manley

would not permit

noticed

overreaching

to inform her for the

had previously

plaintiff

Ms. Goldstein

to the inspection.

on June 14, 1974, at the offices

It

office

Attorney

responded

some negotiations,

to begin

States

he had objection

these

transmitted

Mr. Manley telephoned

complaining

States
about

Attorney's
the conduct

We are prepared

to call

each of the representatives

of these

events
II.

of plaintiff

in order

to refute

that

there

is additional
of Civil

on this

matter

who has some knowledge

defendants'

charges.

THE IAW

While defendants'
grounds

at the hearing

are

insubstantial

authority

Procedure

motion may simply be denied

facts

to support

it,

under Rule 11 of the Federal

for the striking

found to be sham and false.

of pleadings

on the
there

Rules

which are

Rule 11 states:

The signature
of an attorney
constitutes
a certificate
by him that he has read
the pleading;
that to the best of his
knowledge, information,
and belief
there is good ground to support it;
and that it is not interposed
for delay.
If a pleading is not signed or itis
signed with intent
to defeat the purpose
of this rule, it may be stricken
as
sham and false and the action may
proceed as though the pleading had not
been served.
For a willful
violation
of this rule an attorney
may be subjected
to appropriate
disciplinary
action.
Similar action may be taken if scandalous
or indecent matter is inserted.
That Rule is to be construed
on the attorney

filing

made the determination

facts

contained

the documents
that

there

in the pleadings.

395, 397 (S.D.N.Y.

obligation

as imposing

1961).

was not fulfilled.

an affirmative

that

he has in good faith

is good ground

to support

Freeman v. Kirby,

The evidence
Counsel

- 16 -

obligation

suggests

that

who disregard

the

27 F.R.D.
this
this

Rule

are to be held
Benefit

"strictly

of Foster

225 (E.D.N.Y.
provide

accountable."

Wheeler

1938).

Corp.

v. American

The sanctions

not only for the striking

and false

but also

United

for

provided

States

Surety,

25 F. Supp.

in the Rule

of a pleading

such disciplinary

for the

found to be sham

or other

action

as

may be appropriate.

*
If the Court
allegations

of unprofessional

sham and false,

strike

finds,

those

plaintiff

pleadings

draw appropriate

Professor

hearing,

conduct

that

against

such allegations

inferences
of their

against
cases

this

cousel
Court

but that
defendants

on the merits.

Wigmore
[A] party's
falsehood
or other
fraud in the preparation
and
presentation
of his cause, his
fabrication
or suppression
of
evidence by bribery
or spoliation,
and all similar
conduct,
is
receivable
against
him as an
indication
of his consciousness
that his case is a weak or
unfounded one; and from that
consciousness
may be inferred
the fact itself
of the cause's
lack of truth or merit.
The

- 17 -

defendants'

plaintiff's

ask not only that

containing

unfavorable

after

will

the time of the presentation

quote

it
at
To

are

inference
thus does not apply
itself
necessarily
to any specific
fact in the cause, but operates,
indefinitely
though strongly,
against
the whole mass of alleged facts
constituting
his cause.
Wigmore Q!l
Evidence, 278 (3rd Ed. 1940) ~/
That principle

set

U.S. 613, 620 (1886),has

courts.

See e.g.

forth,in

been consistently

Holt v. United

Andrews v. United

States,
that

plaintiff's

which disrupted

case and misled

of drawing

defendants

the Court,

an inference

States

followed
272 F.2d

57 F.2d 723 (5th Cir.

the Court concludes

counsel

Wilson v. United

as well,

we submit

as to the weakness

case would be particularly

162

by federal

(9th Cir.
1946).

made spurious
plaintiff's

States,

1959)

Accordingly,

claims

against

preparation
that

of its

the propriety

of the defendants'

appropriate.
CONCLUSION

Fore the foregoing

that

this

matter

be set

reasons,

we respectfully

down for hearing

in advance

request
of the trial,

~/ This episode is merely the most striking

example of conduct
by the defense of the kind condemned by Wigmore, and not the
first.
In that connection,
plaintiff
invites
the Court's attention
to our Memorandum of the United States in Response to the
Affidavits
of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn, filed on January 7, 1974,
and to the Report of the United States to the Court on the Status
of Discovery,
filed on August 25,1974.

-18-

if

that

the defendants'

sham and false,

motion be dismissed

and that

the Court deems just

appropriate

with prejudice

sanctions

as

be ordered

as

and proper.
Respectfully

JAMES PORTER, Chief

HENRYA. BRACHTL,Attorney
United States Attorney's
Office for the Eastern
District
Civil Division

submitted,

FRANKE. SCHWELB,Chief
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.

___

APPENDI:{ A

__..,,,,_,

T. 5-6-74

. f~r

t-,AYc

~p :rv~

'-'"""""
.. '-~~,..
/. "'"""'\.l C""t'I"
.t::,
J ......
c-

.Jo

DJ 175 ...52...20
Roy H ..

Cohn, EGq.

Sa..~c 1, Ba.con, tolan nnd Hn.nley

39 E,::-{S
t: 63th S trect'
Hew Yo1:k, He.1 York 10021
I

Re:

United Bto.tco
Civil
Ai:.'.tion

v. Fi:Qd C. TrurJp,

no. 73 C iS2'J
---------------------

,.._

...--, .......

Dear Roy:

Il
il

Sincerely,
J. sr,\~-itr:Y r~o~rr11;cEI{
Assi.st;in.t:

Ci ,,,.Ll
~

cc:
'

Records

Chrono
Gol& ...~cber
1.'rial File

Hold

By:

Atto:::T1.e:{ Cr.~nc!_
"fi' .t c-,t,1"'

-.'lt.-.L..~:.+ '-' ,.,

D .,..~ .'. ::., ...,,.}

,..J...
~'.......-

APPE~:-~)D:
--,--~.,
....~.
..,.,._

,,.,
5/1),")
/7!
J.
L. t,
r"'. r,,.,...
t.J' J ...
!'
J "n.
,i ~,

2P
tl.~.AY
\.}

".J,...

10-;i
11
1.)J t

Sec,tt H;?.ulcy,. Esq.

l3:.i~:c:, il~con, j}ol.an & l::S.nlcy
39 f:'::_5t 68th SCT."~et

..
Re:

United St:.c"ltcs v. F}:ccl C. Trc:-.::p, c:t. nl.

Ci""il ....
Acti,..,n !fo. 73
1579
.....
-~,,,_
..C
_.,--.._
...
.. ' ,,..,...;;

~~

---~

..

:--

to our tclf!~:-:~1,:1necon .."cr1H1tlon cf 1{,'l}' 28,

enclosed
..:. co~;; of PL:Li.ntiff o r:.c:quest
of .rocu:r:ntr.:- fU'
'.lulcd t,") cn-::r::enc(f on

In response
1971,, please
ind
for

Pro<lucti.;"';i

u-'l1.l'""'
"\:...

.l-2
I

""Ch"{1'tlr:.
1.,'"J

,....

l~

"-"

0
/.":"o I 'J-;('.""c
! - - ., , .."'> .... 1.,,,
, ,w.. - .,_. l.;.,,,.
.
t."l'r.c~,.....:;
....,..,.,...,,;}.
u ,...,,...-,)q0,~"'"
;.,
t"
- t...:.y 1
11
Cc)r
CO""'tl.'..-,,i..,,
r~,r,<>
tl-in
"e.,'c,
nd
"{,-...,,..
,....,-:
A.
,.
&.f..V
.. 1~.,
t ....H ...\!J...
.... M..:::.;,.
&I.Lt_,.)
(,,-,.

;:~7r,
,,,, .,

1o

,..., .. ,.,...

ii,

J...o.,t,,..;;,.

i. -

.1{..1L,

.. ,'._,.,...,,~-

1--

.. . ;::_
..

"""'""loy
"''""' o'"J ... ,,.._
.... 1.,,,
<" ,.,,.,,,nt-..., T"''""''""'~,
..,,...
r.o,'.>'"l
t'
4J..UJ - ..r:i""
....,..._.,,.,
...,."'.""'~"'....
*"-....l n'"t { ",.._T,!111
be forchcornir, 0 .. Thcnc <l.:.q:-oaitic1;1s b::id be::cn previously
Dchcdule:d. for April 13 ... April 22, 1971:-.
~,,.J.J ..

,t..,4,...,J

1...,

-'-'-.;.

Tb,,:i.nk _:10!fo,: your coo?u1:atioa

in t:hio ~-2tter.
look :(01:~.mrd to h~.a:ri.ng fro::i you soon to conf iro the
atta.ch\":!d dizcovc-ry
Gc.h~c.ule"

'

cc:
I

.1

Sincerely,.

Reco:r.ds

Chrono

tC~~~..

GJLDS1'EIH
/Atto:.:-r,~~y
,..,,,_ <"
4 ,..,_.,
~t~o (' ""-~,
...,...t..
.......
~.-

U'ri1
'b f "'""
i ...,., ....".;,,,....

,.
T "(~

1'

c.1,

t.-

t::. ~

IN CLERK'S01 HCE
\1\{b1STRICT
COURTE.D.N.Y.

-.;, -,,

ICA,

'I
T'1

1. ,.al

r'i"'.+'.
.1.-'--'-,

)
)
v.

s-crFL1,fEtuAL

LJ C. 'rltlJI:--:F),
et

ANSWE'F.S TO

)
)
)
)

al. ,

_________________
Defen:fants.

)'

Th2 United
its

und~rsignEJ

0efEnda,:i-ts'

States
attornc~

of America,
hereb~

,1efendants
1n
n!tS_
,. r.....

Tbc

supp1.0raen~s

tL2 :Lr agents

11n_
a~Ta1.
1___
,:.',~_
o-.....
acco,~nt_
._
"'""
; 1""..
"
_
...
.

1,rr. Carlos

a.

Answ0rs

to

to
1 an~ 2

er c711r,lovees
have
'
.

u,_f ra~cc..c'.
i,...
_
....,,. ,

ZPli.cr,

~ 1
i.1--:

those

in or.d".?r *:o int=orn

appl~ca~t

was ~lack.

su

Drive,

fendants,

1n adcli+-ion,

1"";y b lachs

of:cic'::: tha1

Mr. Zeller

~inten<lents

,-a.

"! ,,-,,tn
v,.t. t. f::; w ~ .;

app 1-icat i.oLs s~.1b.:nitt:2c

th::: central

t1.~at
apart-

...r,.,.)"1,
_ ~ __ ,.

Sl:. Harbor

of

to

,:vidence

constitutes

i'';.nc1
~11..usia,

,artous

its

by

Ansi:1ers

orma.......
ion

followinr,

t:1:rough

ol: paper

herein,

Inte;rogatarics.

Ffrst

Supplcr,1ental
Interrogatories
"I

plaintiff

in Queens

al

o ad7

,
1.1ser a

Mr. Zeller

state(

ed that

.' p::1.ony
.,

t~at

'.')!"ally

~.rc1 to

cnt

an apartment.

ire1

Mr. Carlos

Zeller,the

th~

rent

did

so for

Sa~v~r

stated

t~at

to blac',

persons,

rcj2c~cd

for

s.
'Jse('

forcer

approximctely

Sarvr-r

and

tr.at

1~7C and 1~71.

~r.

s:i.~.,

of their

~Rec.

a racial

co~e was

process

to

tre

Jac1, For;ler,

York,

two

t~at

'l.fr,icr: app1:Lcat.=.ons

~~e;1

1n 1"73.

t}1c reason

was on acco~n~

is2J

also

:~r.
,

nonths

i~

on one

tEnancy

o1=ficc

c.

superintendent,

three

:..n t}1e application

central

to assist

Trump

Fnz1er

:in-Forn

were:

sub:.n:Ltt06

C) Occa11

a~ isc~

at

=~at
t

rrnt

a -1J()Ut"~ t

.t

an

so as to discouragr

..,

th~

l,,

ql' i r Cr.

(l)

On on occasion,

in,:"icatcc

a.pr

of

applicant.
r~)
\L.

-,
,
i'il1:""anc:a

J -

..

-4.Li..::Lan

l""!',
.., ....

''

ap ltcant

was as~0ciat2d

with

'_&ir

a lo~

,,
rto

c}ants

1-S

applicants

0irectly

to

'f

ccnt::.:-al office

in

'1('/':
L ./

! _)

accc pt app 1.icat ioris

a~1tl1c~:~iz::::J to

and

rlications

of:'.:"ic"!

to

('

t1 e

plicant,,

SE

l adviscr:

that

.:i

s in.
the

According
c0tu1t2 d ir,

e\: aluat

1Pcome

sufficient

was

Iroo~lyn,

~as

ility

of tlac~

appli~a~~s

to Heusel,

a wlfe!s

incornr

C j_

the ... o-:::-not

ing

to

a former

meet

r~ntal

a cor;p le'

.l.,

or: - Ln P 111,,
l" ..\..ov,,
,.;
.

I ,

.__,.

..

.dt:

"'~i

financial

t}e

agent

~mploye!

hy

that

at the

man indicatef
11"'
c 1_ 11n;
,.,
',
. - - (:.
.. l.
_J.(.,.'

was no~

+-

" - -

rtn.a-;:-1,

ilt~

~-_1J

t2,1a1,ts

arc
s

th~

~est

tenants.

r1.nan al

() stat.

d t'r.:a!:

~,

\_;'

},.J ac 1<s.

cat
A .,.,
l.!. a1,J

Tyriens far~
at

l0ast

~1ac~
alsc
t-o

two

0
...

1 '1-

" u .U,;:;;ci,

Scaste

Av~.,

oc:asio8S

Statr

+-1
...,1

Apa~t~cnts.

apolicant~
statcc'

L'.l,.

nazi,

he

from

a.t-

Oi.1

z.

~~nt

t' a'- a c

d,:,s

was

a rental

are~t

at ~ysens

1J ..-

,...1.

.l cl. - .

Ace

at

r,-.

c1.1r1~r:n~ 1.~.1.a"c~
.. ~rnarit:s

"- 5Cl1S

a co~e

was pla~cf

on rcata]

app1lcatiails.

nth

to

the

~ein

office.

White

states

that

2~a~c~s

the

appl

ation

as a dc,o:-rnan
Gom2z state(

that

tl;cr2

,:ere ro vacaG~

tha~

es

apartments

a doorman

2v:::n

he

thot,f:h

r. rent ..

the

,,

l.'c.i3

tol '

f- (
"' )

..

(.' ti.J

.I

r-

,.... r"\

. ..~1\.. :rJ_r-;q_

'

an

~; ~ .. !

"-r

5:

1 .-

3.5

-'

',:..

()

...,

......

L,

f-,,..
"I .
, ...
,i_ ./

a' 1.c

ruximatel.v

tir.

;j1

~)i'.'

a~,ou~

Liebowitz

_;:.
e ..
r. J__0.. ~
.., ,

Jec2

?l1.lec..: c111t an appJ.icati'.:m

12:00

.,

,.

o.
r.-

,('-1

respon?~~

._-_
d~ r- .,.._
.. .c
1.,....n c-~~..:
, .,,,.

~or a one-

la-:::er,

nothing,
to

e callc

e WllshirP

rental

office

and

c;
...

W'-le,;

'l

. 0 ,.(1

~~own theo

(i"'ef

Eights

a com-

~ae

ts
at

t~e

apart0cnt

was not

O """'
l.--

t~Eter
ilCt

yet

tol< t~at

was subGcquentl}
ava:Llal le

for

occupancy.

apRrtments

were

i:fa .crm,;,u I s cu~n-

ar
Conmtiss ion

amJ

;10-

Irown

~~cured

ler

present

apar~-

2.
United

Pursuant
States

to the agreement
in open court

the following

list

on October

in connection

Miriam Abrams
Casper Aloi
Cosmo Aloi
Ames

Corinthia

Anderson

Lola Anderson
Carmen Baceret
Jose R. Barros
Peter

Baybak

Victor

Baybak

Susan Bernstein
Beverly

Best

Vikentije

Besu

Luiz Betencourt
Kalman Biczo
Theodore Bogart
Harriette

Bolling

Carl Bonekoskey
Rene Bouchard
Gerard

Breitner

Donald Brofman
Mae F. Brown
Maxine Brown
William

V. Buffa

Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Bunn

Stephanie

those

persons

with the investigation

of this action:

Shirley

of the

24, 1974, we submit

of names which represents

who were contacted

and preparation

made by counsel

Bush
-11-

Joseph

Calcaterra

Doreen

Cameron

Alfred

Cardilli

Regis

Cardillo

Martin

Celnick

Lawrence
Michael

Cheng

Andrew
Ruth

Ceraula

Cirelli

Clarke

William

Clay

William

Cloonan

Nafi

Coker

Peter

Connan

Ismail

Dahbali

Henrietta
Marie

Davis

Glen

G.

Oscar
John

Day

G. Deagustini
DeMark

Edward
Charles
John

Davis

Dier
Duryea

Egeland

Rufus

Ensley

Selma

Epstein

Janice

Evans

Carol

Falcone

Diane

Falcone

Victor

Falcone

Theresa

Farina

Skender

Fici

-12-

Elizabeth

DiFiore

Max Fischer
Richard
Jack

Foard

Fogler

Marva

Forde

Linda

K. Friedman

Anita

Furman

Edwardo
Mary

Galdames

Gallager

Annette

Gandy

Edgar

Gelar

Rhoda

Glasser

L.

Goldberg

Monique
Dina

Golden

Goldfarb

Morris

Goldfarb

Adolfo

Gomez

Benny

Gonzales

James

Gordon

Patrick

Dennis

Green

Max Greenbaum
Hyla

Greenberg

Frank

W. Greene

Allan

Gross

Mabel

Gruber

Josephine

Gugliotta

Ernestine

Guzman

-13-

Virginia
Lucy

Hallero

Hanna

Herbert
Mr.

Heller
Mrs.

&

Ricky

Donald

Herman

Robert

Heusel

Sara

Helms

Heyman

Mr.

Mrs.

&

Alfred

Hoyt

Ann Hurley
Stuart

Hyman

Clara

Jacobs

Gustav

Jaeckh

Carolina

Kanguat

George

Sim Johnston

Charles

Jonap

Ellis

W. Jones

Margaret
Rose

Jones

M. Jones

Nettie

Kerstein

Harry
Mr.

Kreitzer
and

Mrs.

Kenneth

Guido

Lara

Henry

Lawson

Adelfa

Leal

Joan

Jivi

Laitman

Legeno

Anthony

F.

Licari

Ray LiMani
Nicholas

Luttendodt

-14-

Dora Mabunda
John Mare
Charles

W. Martin

Mary Massa
Gary M. McCaskill
Peter

Menza

Youn Minn
Thomas Miranda
Charles

Mitchell

Geraldine

Mitchell

Esther

Monasch

Lillian

Morales

Robert

Morrison

John Mosby
Sheila

Moskowitz

Alan Newman
Gertrude

Olin

Wilma Parker
Robert

L. Patterson

Yolanda Perez
Julius

Reinheimer

Thomas Randazzo
Joseph

Reed

Frank Regina
Julius
Gertrude
Walter

Reinheimer
Robinson
Rohr

Chauncey Roles
Abraham Rosenberg
-15-

Robert

Rosenblaum

Erruna Rossinsky
Albert

Rossland

Andrew

Rossner

Muriel

Salzman

Louis

Sarnell

Ruth

Sarver

Dominic

Scaglione

Mr.

Mrs.

and

Helen

Harry

Schnitman

Marcia

Schwartz

Charles

Sedita

Louis

Sforza

Martin

Shaechter

Sarah

Shah

Pearl

Shaw

Muriel
Otis

Silberberg
Simpson

Gloria
Herb

Schefflin

V. Sloley
Smith

Phyllis
Frank
Jeanette
Simone

Spiro
Stern
Strauss
Taha

Meilech

Teitelbaum

Matthew

Tosti

Anthony

Tringo

-16-

L.

Warkol

Olga Wusits
J. Hugh Watkins
Edward Watson
Arlene Weiler
James Gordon White
Robert H. White
Bill

Wiedmann

Pauline M. Williams
Helen Wrenne
Abraham Wybinow
Stephen Zaffarano
Mr. and Mrs. Paula Ziselman

~ubmitted,

Frank E
chwelb
Norman
. Goldberg
Donna F. Goldstein
Attorneys,
Civil
Rights
Division
U.S. Department
of Justice
Washington,
D.C. 20530

,_ OF WA.:iil

f ,:'-'-.'.
>J.l.

)
)

cs

,
, Pnitc,'

StatAs

,,.--.. , .. r,

\ ..J . /. '

,..
j~

.-

C)re [~O J~nf_ .r , a

tiff's

Ci V t1 I: )_;(1 t s
D-~part;nent
of

i ~.Tis tu i1
Tus t ice
'('';
.;_ \J ~'

1
1 anrl
.:.:c:..i:~-'::-(
t1 1J{1r;-1tt,
-:e. ~o~:'."~ :-.-!e
tl:
/,0.,(,, 0 e ::OV"' n~~ E ;A 1 <:I l;
1

I){'
' . \.)

1:::-

r', e r orr

~1.,

S'3::~~c,

Coi.rn,

r:a,20-rt,

t:~q1.1i:....::

:Iar)le)'

I?:ol_.;u

']9 ...:.. 6 ,...t:, S'-rcet

'..cor ' ~,

Ci"Jil

.,I_

21

~-::L[-:htrj .Ji,r:rt;l(Jr:

D~partffic~~
Wa
tan,

c[

Tcstic
0 .. -~

2C.: ..~~

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 01? JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Addr-

20530

Reply to the

Division Indicated

and Refer to Initial. and Number

JSP: F'':s:N ': Cur

175-5

-~-3

SEP171974
llonorablc
\d:;-;rard R. Neah,:?r
Ui:dtcd StJtcs
Ji:..:.trict
Court
~astern
District
ot New York
t
C8.dman PLr:a
Brooklyn,
i:JcH York
lli.01
R2:

02dr

Judg~

tnitcd
Civil

St3.tes
v. Fred:,;.
Trump,
Action
No. 73 C 15:~9

et

al.

Ncuhcr:

On September
11, 1974, we received
i copy of a l2tt8r
sent by Mr. Roy Cohn to Magiatr~te
Catoggio
in which he state
that
the above-captioned
:.;uit be placed
th3.t he has ri-2t,UCJi::
on the trial
cc.1len<lar.
our responding
letter
to liagh tr ate
(:z1toggio
(:1 copy o:.: which is enclosr~d)
iudicD.tcs,
we believe
there are imt;>orta:.1t matters
remaining
outstanding
,vhich
to be settled
bciore
thiG cas2 i set ;or trial.

For example,
deiendants
have rn~de objections
to plaint
J:'s ,\ugust 13th Rec;uz:st .:or Production
o::: Documents.
1'he
parti21., arc now iwliting
a determination
by :Magistrate
Cntoggio
~"'-S to
the permissibility
of this rec,ues
discovr:ry.
Mor2ovcr,
we intend,
in the very near Iuture,
to ile d motion to Strike
Affidavits
defendants'
July ~6th Notice of Motion and Supporting
which se
<liLJciplin~ry
action
against
plaintiff's
counsel
;or
alleged
mif;conduct.
i'..s you mdy rec:i.11, on .:rngu3t /J, 197l~,
after
the hearing
on plaintiif's
Order to Show ~use, th0
part
s met with Judge
toggio.
~t that
time the dc~endauts
ckci(k:d to withdra;1
thLir contempt
motion
from the
ndar,
but rciuscd
to agree to a full
withdrawal
with prejudice.

PL1intL.c
l
;:, th::t ullowing
this aot::..on i:o re.-ini1.1 in il:0
pr"'t:2n t :: tat2 o:L limbo only ::;crve:c: to j:urt:.1cr c:: oud the lr' ;;;ucj
in thi
la~suit.
rt additionally
unduly prejudice~
the rcpu12 couni. el with chargct;
tatio11
oc one o~~ plninti
,vhich we :n:c
prepared
to prov8 are totally
~ithout
f0unCation.
'fhe Un:~u~d Stc::ted ar~:nts ar;. 2.::1rly and cxeditious
tr:L.11
case in keeping
with the requirements
of 4Z U.S.G.
3613.
Ln fact,
this la~suit
could hnve ~lre3dy
0Gen tried
had it not been ior the continued
delays
and dilatory
tect
s
occ~sioned
by the d cnd2nts
and cheir
counsel.
However, we
do not believe
th~t with these
outstanding
issues
Ll~ill
unrei:::olveC::, this
ca~~e is now r,2.:1.dy to
~:;,::t .'.:or trial.
l'hL:r2iore,
~e rc~pcctfully
urge that
this
case not be placed
on the
trial
calendar
until
the resolution
o; these
open matters.
in

thi8

Respectfully

yours,

..J STANVZY POTTJN-::ER

sistant
Civil

"y ,

Attorney
General
TI.ights Division

'Y\u~ G,)8-t"o
'-<V

NOm-L:\N P.

;'

GOLDBERG

i:orncy
Housing

cc:

The Honorabl2 Vincent

Roy M. ~ohn, Es4uire

rl.

~utoggio

Section

,,

SEPi 31974
; - t:.

JSP:FES:DFG:car
DJ 175-52-28

0. S. D:STlfCl COURTE.D.N.Y.

Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio

Magistrate,
United States District
;astern
District
of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

I
J

Re:

t...,

l~JCLERK'SOFFICE

Court

NO\/G/1974

United States v. Fred C. Tri.imp, et al.

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529

Dear Judge Catoggio:

We have just received
a copy of Mr. Roy Cohn's
September 5 1 1974, letter
tc y9u in which he contends that
our response to defendants'
objections
to plaintiff's
Request
for Production
cf Documents in th::: .:!~ove=c;:~ptioned case ..:~s
so untimely as to render the isuue "academic."
While we
hesitate
to burden you with additional
correspondence
on this
matter,
we believe
the letter
raises
issues requiring
a short
response.
On August

20, after being infonned by the United States

Attorney's
office that Mr. Cohn had .objected by letter
to our
to inspect records in Norfolk, Virginia 1 we delivered
request
a letter
to you which advised that we intended to respond
fully to these objections.
You may recall
that on September 3,
I advised your Honor by telephone that I was on that date
mailing,
by special
delivery,
plaintiff's
response.
During
it ,.,as my impression
that. the matter
that conversation,
remained open for determination.
Despite
"academic,"
we
for Production
remains active

Mr. Cohn's asserti~n

that the issue is now
believe that Plaintiff
s outstanding
Request .
of Documents, noticed on August 13, 1974,
and survives
the .September first
discovery

,,
deadline.
Indeed, if plaintiff's
September third response is
deemed to be untimely because it comes after the discovery
deadline,
defendants would succeed in defeating
what would
otherwise he permissible
discovery by making informal objections
at the eleventh hour.

Mr. Cohn also indicates

.!

that be bas asked Judge Neaher

to fix an early trial date.
We have, as yet, received no
notice from the defendants,
either formal or informal,
that
they have requested that this case be put on the trial calendar
Howeve~, we will be contacting
Judge Neaher to advise him that
we believe there are certain mutters remaining outstanding
in
this lawsuit which need to be settled
before this action is
set for trial.
These include our request to inspect records
in Norfolk, Virginia,
and a foTthcoming motion which we intend
to ~ile to have defendants
July 26 notice of Motion and
supporting Affidavits.
which seek to have plaintiffts
counsel
held in contempt of court, stricken
from the record.
kaspectful1y
J.

your8,

STANLEY POTTINGER .

Assistant
Civil

Attorney General
Rights Division

. By;

DONNA.F.GOLDSTEIN
Attorney
Housing Section

cc:

Honorable Edward R. Neaher

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire

'

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OJ? JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

20530

Addr- Reply to the

Diviaion Indicated
and Refer lo lnitiala and Number

JSP:F ....
S:DFG:c.:J.r
DJ 175-5 <.8
Honor<.:j,ble Vinc:i~1 t A. Catoggio
Hagistr.:1t2,
Unit,;:,d Stat~s
Di trict
.~as t0rn District
of lk:w York
L~-5 Cadman Pl.:1:2:d. A~a~t
New York
11201
Brooklyn,

,,'"'
;,;,...,,,.,
c..-

Re:

Dear

Judge

_:ourt

United
St.::1t8S v. Fred C. Trump,
No. 73 C: 15:.9
Civil
Action

"
~

1,~c: u:<s omc;E

J. S. D:Sl :. ci COL11'ZTE.D.N.Y.

NO\/c;;l 1974

,:.:t al.

Catoggio:

We h,:';V,c j us..:. rcc:.:ived

a. copy of Mr. Roy Cohn I s
S,;:pt,.::mbcr 5, 1974, letter
to you iu ,vhich he contends
thai:
our response
to defendants'
obj~ctions
to plaintiff's
RLquest
for Production
of Documcni.:;j ic th(;: dbovc-c1ptioned
ca;:c
1vetE:
so untimely
as to rcnde:r
th:..: is:3ue "academic.
u
Whil::! we
hesitate
to burd,~n you with udditional
correspondcL,c:,:.
on this
matt2r,
we bcli..)ve
tht.' l:ctt8r
rait,eE,
i::.:su(~S reciuiriug
a short

On August
:'O, .:1fter b:::i~1g informed
by th::: United
St.::1t2s
a o
ice that Mr. ,::ohn had obj Qcted by lettt.:r
to our
,Attorney'
we delivered
r~~u~st
to inspect
records
in Norfolk,
Virginia,
a letter
to you which advised
that we intended
to respor ....
d
on Sept2mbE!r 3,
fully
to these
obj ectiocs.
You may recall
that
I advised
your Honor by telephone
chat I was 011 that
<l3te
miiling,
by special
d~livery,
plah1tiff's
response.
During
that
the mnttE:r
that
convi2rsation,
it was my impression
remained
ope~ for determLnation.
Despite
Hr. Cohn's
asscrtioa
that
the issue
is now
11
ilacademic,
w2 b2lieve
that Plainti
's outstanding
Requ::st
13, 1974,
for Production
of UocumeL1t:.:, noticed
on August
remains
ctctivc
and survives
the September
first
discovery

..
".

de:3.dlinl.:.
J.:nd,.,ed, if plainciU:'
s September third re::;pon 2 J.f:i
deemed to be unt
ly becau3e it comes ofter
the discovery
de line,
dcfcndnnts
would Gucce
in defeating
what would
be
rmia~ible
discovery
~y making infonnal
cbj2ctions
otherwise
at the eleventh
hour.
Mr. Cohn also ind ic::ites thu t he has :1sked Jud
Ncc1hcr
to fix an early
trial
date.
have, as yet,
received
no
noc1.ce .i.:rom the defend.:-:Jnt:;,
either
forn':11 or in.Eorm'1.l,
that
they have resucstcd
that th
case be put on the trial
calcnd~r.
However,
Y.vewill be contacting
Juc1
Neaher to advi,~:c him that
we believe
there are certain
mJtters
remaining
outst~nding
in
this
lawsuit
vihich need t.:o be ~;cttl
before
thic:: action
set lor trial.
Thase include
our reque~t
to in3pect
records
in

Norfolk,

Virginia,

and

ct forthcomit1g

motion

;vhich

to file
to have defendants'
July :6 notice
of Motion
supporting
idavits,
which seek to have plaintiff's
held in contempt
of court,
stricken
from the record.
Re3pectfully

yours,

J. STANLEY POTTH~G~:!l
Assistant
torney
General

Civil

Hy:

Right8

Division

~.~u.~-,~
DONNA F. LebLDSTE:CN

,\.ttorney
Housing Section
cc:

Honorable
2dwar<l R. Neaher
Koy M. Cohn, 'Zsl,uire

we intend
2nd

counsel

NEW
JOHN

GODFREY

ROGERS
ROY

(212)

(1901H9531

NEW
472

YORK

10021

THOMAS

- 1400

(19191962)

A. BOLAN

COUNSEL

M. COHN

SCOTT
MICHAEL
DANIEL
HAROLD
MELVYN
JEFFREY
LORIN

SAXE

H. BACON

YORK,

E. MAN

LEY

(ADMITTED ILL!NOIS

ANO INOIANA)

September

ROSEN

5, 1974

J. DRISCOLL
SCHWARTZ
RUSIN
A- SHUMAN
DUCKMAN

Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio

Magistrate,
United States
District
Eastern
District
of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201
Re:
Dear Judge

United States
Civil Action

1S
....,.

Court

v. Fred C. Trump,
No. 73 c 15'29

et al.

Catoggio:

On August 14, 1974 Your Honor fixed September 1, 1974

for the completion
of all discovery
in the above entitled
matter.
The Government noticed
a bunch of depositions
in addition
to the
13 they had already
taken,
and requested
a volume of new records
pertaining
to the buildings
involved.
We promptly
advised
that we would object
to none of
the depositions
and would supply all of the records.
The only
exception,
which we set forth
in a letter
to Your Honor dated
August 20, 1974, was our objection
to the attempt
to ring in
some buildings
in Norfolk,
Virginia
which were never mentioned
during its pendency until
10 days before the conclusion
of
discovery.
We received
no objection
to our letter
of August
20, 1974, stating
that we would supply all of the witnesses
and records
requested
except for the extention
to the Norfolk
buildings,
and assumed that that ended the matter.
We went
ahead and completed
the depositions
and produced the records.
The date for conclusion
of discovery
passed on September 1, 1974.
Now, on September
5, 1974, I received
in the
morning mail a reply to our letter
of two and a half weeks ago
(August 20, 1974), raising
the Norfolk issue again.

P.
you wish

1 t fo:r
tl

ier

than

truly

VI

United

Ji,. CAjrOGGIO

tes

strict

M~.gis:tra:t.e

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHING TON, D.C.
Addr- Reply to the
Diviaion Indicated
and Ref..- to Initial and Numll

20530

SEP 3 1974

JSP:F'ES:DFG:car
DJ 175-52-28
Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio
Magistrate,
United States
Di~,trict
Court
Eastern District
of New York
Z25 Cadman Pla~a East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201
Re:
Dear Judge

United State~ v. Fred C. Trump,

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529

et al.

CAtoggio:

to Mr. Cohn's letter

to you dated
This h; in response
to plaintiff's
Renuest
August 20, 1974, in which he objected
for Production
of Documeots from apartment
buildings
owned by
the defendants
in Norfolk,
Virginia.
Since he proceeded
informally by letter,
we are doing the sam~ rather
than filing
a formal
motion.
Mr. Cohn's objection
appears
to be based essentially
on
two grounds:
relevancy
::ind timeliness.
Specifically
he contends that the plRintiff
is not entitled
to any discovery
with
respect
to apartment
buildings
in Norfolk,
VirginL~,
because
the United Statef
made no allegations
of discrimination
in
Norfolk either
in its Complaint or in its A,1Swers to Interrogatories.
He further
argues that the recuest
is untimely
of discovery.ii
We
because it comes on "the eve of conclusion
believe
that such documents are properly
discoverable
and that
the issue of lack of timeliness
has been ineauit2bly
raised,
I
consince any latene:::,s was directly
created
by defendants
tinuous
postponements
and delays during discovery.
Before directly
dealing
with defendants'
specific
objections,
we respond to defendants'
repeated
contention
that plaintif:L should have had its evidence
before bringing
this lawsuit,

~~.
~

- 2 rather
than relying
on discovery.
As plaintiff's
answers to
interrogatories
and its forthcoming
supplemented
answers will
indicate,
the United States has a substantial
amount of evidence, quite independent
of discovery,
indicating
discriminatory housing practices.
Before filing
a Complaint under 42
U.S.C. 3601 et seq. the Attorney General must have "reasonable
cause 11 to believe
that the defendants
have engaged in a pattern
or practice
of di::;crirnination.
If defendants
believe
that
such reasonable
cause does not exist,
the appropriate
remedy
would have been a motion for summary judgment which would have
tested
the credibility
of their oft-repeated
generali~ations.
Defendants having failed
so to move, each party is entitled
to discovery,
both to discover
additional
evidence and to
prepare to meet its adversary's
case.
Considering
that the
Trumps control
in excess of 12,000 units,
our discovery
has
been modest in comparison
t:o what occurs,
for example, in the
typical
~ntitrust
case.
To support the allegation
that the United States
is not
entitled
to information
with respect
to buildings
outside
of
New York City, defendants
represent:
that Judge Neaher found
plaintiff's
Complaint too general.
In fact,
on January 25,
1974, Judge Neaher denied defendants'
motion for a more definite
statement
and directed
the defendants
to seek its specifications
through interrogatories.
It is also alleged
that plaintiff
has heretofore
made no mention of buildings
outside
New York.
This too is incorrect
and we respectfully
direct
your Honor's
attention
to paragraph
3 of the Complaint which states
that
the defendants
own and operate apartment buildings
in "New
York City and elsewhere 11 (emphasis added) and to page 29 of
the Deposition
of Donald Trump, where plaintiff
attempted
to
obtain information
about these very buildings
now in dispute.
Mr. Cohn at that time objected
to the pursuit
of the issue,
11
based on his :rreading
of the Complaint contrary
to its terms.
Even if our attempt to inspect
Norfolk records were a
fishing
expedition,"
that would not be controlling,
for "no
longer may the time-honored
cry 0 fishing
expedition
serve
to preclude
a party from inquiring
into the facts underlying
his opponent's
case."
Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 507
11

- 3 -

(194/).
In any event, this is no fishing
expedition.
Our
forthcoming
supplemental
answers to interrogatories
will disclose alleged
discrimin1.tion
at Trump's Norfolk properties.
We will not burden your Honor with citations
for the
incontestable
proposition
that the discovery
rules are to be
liberally
applied,
and that discovery
extends not only to
matters
that are odmissible
in evidence but also to those that
may lead to the discovery
of admisfdble
evidence.
The Complaint
alleges
that defendants
have engaged in a ilpattern
and
practice
of discrimination."
if defendants
were to introduce
evidence,
for example, that their Norfolk operation
is fully
integrated,
that it affirmatively
advertises
to attract
blacks
into a white area, etc.,
that evidence would surely be receivable.
For that reason alone, plaintiff
is entitled
to discovery to prepare for it.
Conversely,
if plaintiff's
discovery
in fact discloses
discriminatory
practices
at apartments
outside
New York City,
that evidence would be admissible
toward proving such a
i'pattern
or practice."
In the debates on the 1964 Civil
Rights i\ct, Senator Humphrey remarked that:
11

there would be a pattern

or practice
if, for
example,
...
a chain of motels or restaurants
practiced
racial
discrimination
throughout
all,
110 Cong.
or a significant
part of its system.
Rec. 14270 (June 18, 1967).
Defendants'
assertion
that discovery
may not be secured
outside
the parameters
of the specific
discriminatory
incidents
listed
in our answers to interrogatories,
prepared
before discovery began is inconsistent
with the very purposes of discovery, for the Rules are designed to enable the parties
to
discover
all pertinent
facts.
This is particularly
true in
Civil Rights cases,
in which "statistics
tell much and courts
listen,"
United States v. Youritan Construction
Corp., 370
F. Supp. 643 (N.D. Calif.
1973) and cases cited,
and the overall
statistical
picture
is therefore
critical.
f.n Burns v. Thiokal

- 4 -

Chemical Corp., 483 F. 2d 300 (5th Cir. 1973), a suit brought

under the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et~-,
a statute
almost identical
in respects
here pertinent
to the Fair
Housing Act, the district
court had limited plaintiff's
discovery
to only those employment records relating
directly
to the specific
incidents
of discrimination
which had precipitated
the lawsuit.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit
reversed,
holding that this limitation
was an abuse
of the district
court's
discretion.
The court allowed full
discovery
of records relating
to the employment of all of
~
the defendants'
employees, stating:
Our wide experience
with cases involving
racial
discrimination
in education,
employment,
and other segments of society have led us to
rely heavily in Title VII cases on the empirical
data which show an employer's
overall
pattern
of
conduct in determining
whether he has discriminated
against particular
individuals
or a class as a
whole.
(Emphasis added), 483 F. 2d 300, 305
(5th Cir. 1973).
If a defendants'
overall
practices
are relevant
in a suit
on behalf of an individual
plaintiff,
they are even more
relevant
in a pattern
and practice
case, in which admissibility
is very broad.
Evidence of a pattern
and practice
can go back "many many years."
Kennedy v. Lynd, 306 F.
2d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 1962) cert. den. 371 U.S. 952 (1962).
Moreover, if the United States proves its allegations,
it
will be entitled
to broad injunctive
relief.
Louisiana v.
United States,
380 U.S. 145, 154 (1965).
The Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
has recently
held that injunctive relief
may be available
as to all of defendants'
operations
upon a showing of discrimination
only at some of
them.
Brennan v. Fields,
488 F. 2d 443 (5th Cir. 1973).
If the other complexes are relevant
to relief,
it is surely
imperative
that sufficient
facts be discovered
to ensure
that the relief
fit the operation.

- 5 We would like to briefly

address ourselves
to defendants'
ironic
claim that plaintiff's
request
is untimely.
First,
the
request
came on the date specified
by your Honor.
Second,
without burdening
your Honor with the long list of cancellations
and delays occasioned
by defense counsel during discovery,
we
earnestly
request
that you consider
our prior submissions
on
this question
particularly
pp. 4-6 of plaintiff's
Memorandum in
Support of its Motion for Sanctions,
and our recent Status Report
on discovery.
These passages
show that the experience
encountered by you at the original
hearing on discovery,
when defense
counsel showed up several
hours late,
was no aberration.
It is
because of the delays here described,
and our attempt
to secure
discovery
in an orderly
and logical
pattern,
that we have only
now requested
records
inspection
as to complexes outside
New
York City.
In the Status Report we address ourselves
to defendants'
failure
to answer several
of the United States'
interrogatories
even after
two motions to compel.
If these interrogatories
had been answered,
some of the information
we are now seeking
would be unnecessary.
At the January 25 hearing,
Judge Neaher
stated
that if the defendants
were to find the United States'
interrogatories
burdensome,
"you will then be faced with the
Government's
demand for production;
the right
to inspect
and
copy your records."
(Tr. p. 38).
The United States
has attempted
to meet the discovery
deadline
which you set at the August 8 meeting in your office
by moving swiftly
to apprise
the defendants
of the remaining
discovery
we wished to secure.
We think the defendants
must
now accept their
share of the responsibility
for this Request
coming on the "eve of conclusion
of discovery."
The United
States
therefore
respectfully
requests
that defendants
be
required
to produce the requested
documents.
Sincerely,
J. STANLEYPOTTINGER
Assistant
Attorney
General
Civil Rights D'vision

By:

:;,

/J 't.l--x4L.I;(

DONNAGO STEIN
Attorney
Housing Section
cc:

Mr. Roy Cohn

Attorney
for the Defendants

-~.
'

-4<...J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

u.s.
}.;t..

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF NEW YORK

NOV7 1974

3
4

---------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

-against6

FRED

c.

TRUMP, et

73-C-1529

..
.

al.,

Defendants.
8
9

..

TIME/\.M........ :
P.t.1
..........

---------------------------------x

10
11

United
States
Courthouse
Brooklyn,
New York

12

October

24,

1974

13
B e f

o r e :

14

HONORABLEEDWARDR. NEAHER, u.s.D.J.

15
16
17
18

19

20
21
22
23
24

25

DANIEL D. SIMON
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1
2

Appearances:

3
4
5
6
7

DAVID G. TRAGER, ESQ.

United
States
Attorney
for the Eastern
District
BY:

FRANKE.

SCHWELB, ESQ.
-andNORMANGOLDBERG, ESQ.
Assistant
U.S. Attorneys

8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

of New York

ROY M. COHN, ESQ.

Attorney
for Defendant

MR. SCHWELB:
2

your

MR. COHN:

we are

witnesses

but

I would

ing

to

ready

Before

we hope

ask

to

like

But we

MR. SCHWELB:
as you know,

11

tories.

12

Court

15

or

that

these

nor

would

MR. COHN:

16

affidavits

MR. SCHWELB:

19

MR. COHN:
third

one

is

22

Honor,

as you know,

23

and matter

24

affidavits

25

Riahts

of

which
Division,

mornina's

hear-

date.

relation

answer

to

that,

some interroaa

here

the

in

open

interroaatories

me on the
are

telephone

he cares

simple.

attached

on Friday
to

call.

The witnesses
to

are

these

two we propose

very

papers.

Just

a few opening
matter

accusea

call.

arose

remarks,

Mr.Cohn,

of

your

when rather

my colleagues

Brachtel,

to

Dan Bronfman.

mv colleage,

Mr.

today,

witnesses.

a man named

this

factly

in

Cohn to

very

three

The Zisselmans?

There

MR. SCHWELB:

21

is

we have

18

And the

Honor,

witnesses
It

are

Honor.

answered

he tell

who the

this

us another

be the

not

remarks,

be here

a representation

would

He has

Thursday

whose

Mr.

there

of

your

Your

opening

couldn't

give

ready,

we asked

I -further

to

And he gave

13

14

are

that

conclusion

Honor

his

however,

call

the

your

10

he makes

ao forward,

to

20

remarks,

Honor

17

May I make a few opening

staqina

in

casua

filed
the

some
Civil

a gestapo

ly

raid

on the

claimed

attorney,

which

themselves,

and

from

terrible

Trump

that

Miss

had

11

ness.

bypassing

we wiretapped
that

the

they

and

witnesses

tapping,

counsel.

a young

criminal

to

and wire

He

and

promisina

unethical

about

conduct

perjurinq

or

talking

to

Trump

offices

and we knew

were

lyinq

and

all

people,

kinds

of

things.
And unlike

this

in

threats

wiretaps

10

and

Dona Goldstein,

engaged

included

that

office

as

a minor

the
matter,

We determined

12

13

Court

in

14

make up its

15

any merit

pounded

18

to

19

interrogatories.

Honor

22

Catoggio

to

23

formed

24

to

25

Mr.

will

about

said

out

the

qreatest

the

facts

so that

whether

recallthat

qet

these

of

seriour-

before
the

treat

the

Court

could

charges

had

and
this

the

depositions

I don't
--

we immediately
Court

an immediate

And then

M.r. Cohn that

Cohn

lay

and

took

witnesses.
--

with

to

interrogatories

We also
posed

but

we do not

them.

show cause

21

counsel

hearing

own mindaas
to

17

20

to

an evidenciary

Your

16

defense

and

Maaistrate
this

withdraw

before

vour

an order
to

a couple

we went

he withdraw

he wouldn't

response

of

know if

siqned

of

has

Catoggio

it.

those

the

pro-

Maaistrate

Honor

entire

pro-

been

suggested

thing.
He would

And
4ust

in-

drop

it

charges

is

Miss

from

the

hanging

not

over

acceptable

fairly

treated.

in

professional

life

one

11

to

ness

which

13

from

his

14

by the

15

and

16

something

17

present,

18

was represented

19

a matter

20

that

count

21

calls

the

Goldstein

24

of thesetwo

25

trasts

to

that

that

the

to

me as

to be so unover

her

remainder

head

of

her

use

trooper

affidavit

and

I think

Goldstein
that

hear-

this

happen

like

of
to

the

the

about

show as

phrase,
raids

that
re-

land.

alleqation
and

was

that

to

qestapo

never-never

circumstances.

establis

anythinq

a number

letter

Mr. Manley

Wisdom's
and

busi

~1r. Brachtel,

be able

discovery

disclose

the

affidavit

Cohn or

Judge

raid

we can

and

Mr.

troopers

respect

extraordinary

an evidenciary

storm

Manley,

atmosphere

witnesses

the

and we will

storm

personally,

for

his

didn't

fact,

eery

in

neither

there

about

attorneys

for

to

proof,

which

and

Tha

today.

of Miss

at

And with

23

it

Mr.

by documentary

22

indefinitely.

a cloud

I ask

had

colleague,
testimony

our

--

respect

Mr.Cohn

of

the

heard.

have

Now, with

12

leave

acceptable

want

life

being

and want

not

of

I do not

So now therefore
ing

would

Goldstein

us or

want

without

that

supervisor.

I do not

her

But

Miss

to

Goldstein's

10

calendar.

acrainst
the
of

Miss

depositions
oross

con-

Mrs.

Falcone

attorneys

her,

and

Miss

Goldstein.

inferences.

intimidated

Miss

is

accused

her

we hear

what

ing

Mr.

12

what

it

Schwelb,

it

THE COURT:

Well,

Of course

I have

mitted

which

were

dating

Mr.

I hate

to

said

on

that

Trump
interrupt

but

hearing

witnesses

say

without

say

tell

your

it,

one,

based

she

I am outlining

I assume

MR. SCHWELB:

17

18

was only

.havHonor

is

14

16

two

abused

an evidenciary

they

MR. SCHWELB:

proof.

is

the

before

it

example,

Honor,

13

15

said

of

that

affidavit,

conclusions

for

If

11

of

says

her

she

affidavit,

summation?

why don't

in

deposition

Your

10

affidavit

her

MR. COHN:
this

her

A lot

Goldstein

on her

In her

6
7

in

shorten

you
All

he is

he says
read

my proof,

the

your

outlining

affidavit

Hono.

his

already

are

summing

up?

right,

your

Honor,

to

Miranda

sub

I will

it.
Now, with

19

20

to

state

21

from

Mr.

22

Trump

--

23

the

24

that

25

she

that

proof
what

he testified

Trump
to

respect

and

said

be involved
much of

he didn't

was trying

to

Mr.

on deposition
he didn't
with

his
like

compel

I just

want

his

lousy

testimony
about
him to

was

Miss

wanted

that
--

he ran

that

case,
to

is
and

the

Goldstein

be involved

that

effect
was

in

Donal

that

a case

didn't

want

byes.

--

conclusion

performed.

Mrs.

Miss

of

the

to

kind

of

wasn't

had

these

12

this

13

casionally

14

they

case

to

example
filed

contempt

bearing.

21

if

you

feel

22

at

the

end

of

--

with

him at
that

that

of

good

I am sorry

that

reaction

kind

we have

and

become

circumstances
my eyes

we had

in

the

she

is

not

you have

thing.

That

accustomed
which

in

have

astonishment

a hundred

by defense
Excuse

motion

I will
it
of

qive
is

oc-

that

the

in

dollar
this

me.

Your

Honor,

does

before

your

Honor

today?

you

think

it

really

an opportunity,
to

case
this

has
Mr.

bea

a direct
Schwelb,

sum up in

these

we go any

further

matters

case.

MR. SCHWELB:

24

THE COURT:
that

million

counsel

necessary,

23

realize

kind
this

THE COURT: I do not

20

25

the

Honor,

MR. COHN:

19

and cake

be shown

saying

events

counterclaim

on the

had

intimidations

will
--

pleasant

happening.

For

17

be shown

terrible

made me rub

are

15

will

said

we discovered.

Now, your

11

witnesses

coffee

it

who is

all

it

conduct

somebody

with.

these

Falcone

And I think

18

of

Goldstein

16

be involved

Now, both

10

to

All

right.

Now, before

you have

some witnesses

available

I
here

and

are

ready

Is

this

the

sidered

draw

to

put

it

still

matter

them
your

position

these

we completely

felt,

Mr.

thoughts

11

motion

12

was

on this,

13

have

14

place

15

worked

16

qoing

to

press

--

17

going

to

press

our

over

and

it

and

23

willinq

24

out

25

course

you

pursue
open

have

to

you

completely

to

get
is

to

have

would

it

con-

with-

to
not

all

battle
they

would

at

facts

our
motion

renew
prejudice

it

it

at
the

saying

trial

We are
off

a future
rights

not

and

dispose
of

the

of
case.

perfectly

the

calendar

time

which

of

not

he

calendar,

way to

positon.
marked

we were

point.

by

the

on the

get

and we were

this

be the

it
things

usually

--

the

takes

words,

off

put

pre-trial

actual

resolved

the

still
the

these

we all

fifth

I thought

then

motion

at

what

and

be marked

that

he had

that

do is

over,

our

Catoggio
it

I think

In other

is

suggested

we would

as

is

motion

on to

That

prejudice

trial,

disappear.

that

never

what

trial

that

he felt

should

when the

the

request

and

to

or

before

probably

doing,

that

out

that

after

And Judge

21

are

Honor.

Schwelb,

that

a way of

your

is

until

indicated

that

you

The magistrate

10

20

or

magistrate

that

withdraw

including

would

Cohn,

charges?

MR. COHN:

19

Mr.

basis

made by the

the

18

desire,

on a litigated

suggestion

on.

either

with
of
party.

THE COURT:
2
3

4
5
6

Schwelb

sees

good

reason

this

young

appeared

8
9

10

as

have

motion

13

fact

14

rather

And I must

say

that

because
held

iqregious
is

the

in

of

the

there

charges

contempt,

the

way Mr.
some

were

and

affidavits

is

to

have

froro what

would

perhaps

conduct.

not

quite

as

simple

or

a sort

of

Damacles

And under

to

12

not

basis

a cloud

someone.

is

attorney

So it
over

that

evidently

be a rather

the

as

letting
over

circumstances

it

hang

thehead
:hink

of

we will

go forward.

11

MR. COHN:

Your

is

complete

made in

facts

on the

17

it

motion

on an evidenciary

19

depositions

20

Falcone

I wanted

ready

to

Let
say

disclosed
until

her

the

As a matter

increasing

in

of

volume

22

MR. SCHWELB:

23

thing

24

that

25

he was interviewed

they
Trump,

Sr.,
for

say

your
Mr.

ANd that

that

Honor

in
is

Cohn had

of

those

Mr.

go forwar

conclusion

that

never

the
met Mrs.

known about

testified

that
to

ten

facts.

Trump

have

five

to

was taken.

I am aware

could

prepared

hearing.

here

deposition

THE COURT:

and

me just

that

21

that

that

diminishing.
perfectly

of what

say

faith.

become

We are

18

I miqht

good

of

MR. SCHWELB:

Mr.

Honor,

supportive

than

15
16

it.

on the

Well,

--

the

only

Mr. Miranda

he was a liar.
minutes

by

was
And

Don Trump

10

and not

at

I have

your

your

first

Cohn.

your

rather

I would

right,

I think

I have

what

why don't

it

is

Mr.

witnesses

do,

and

I know the

The substance

11

charge

12

interrogatories

13

charges

14

I believe,

was made in

specific

16

the

17

tactics

18

were

19

of

you call

Cohn's

motion

date

then

which

is

in

this

Honor

of

case

and

to make those
were

furnished

1974.
came into

a new turn

conduct

constitute

motion

a serious

Goldstein

took

All

the

that

location

Miss

on it
and

read

motion

and

I would

themselves.

has

or February

investigation

pursued

the

thereafter

And from
of

Court

by your

to

to make.

for

complaint

in January

case.

this

the

as

speak

of

directed

At sometime

15

no answer

the

papers.

toward

an abuse

of

in which

witnesses
the

process

Court.
First

first

all

have

10

essentially

witness.

MR. COHN:

DON

is

Honor.

20

That

Honor.

MR. SCHWELB:

'22

bv Mr.

THE COURT: Well,

21

all

witness

we would

GOLDSTEIN,
dulv

sworn

called

by the

call
as

Deputy

t\That is

Miss

a witness
Clerk

23

DEPUTY CLERK:

24

THE WITNESS:

Dona Goldstein.

25

MR. SCHWELB:

I think

your

it

is

is

Goldstein.
havinq

testified
full

been
as

follo

that

he

name?

understood

s~

Goldstein-direct
2

is

calling

her

as

an adverse

THE COURT:
the

motion

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR.

I suppose

Miss

Department

In what

I am employed

Rights

13

Goldstein

For

to

you employed?

Washington.
section

ployed

in

in

the

how long

Housing

the

of

Housing

a period

Section

16

So thatwould

18

Correct.

19

And did

December

the

Justice

Depart

Section

of

the

Civil

of the
will

of time

have

you been

Civil

Rights

Division?

em-

be two years.

make it

December,

1972,

is

that

right?

a case

involving

the

there

come a time

Trump Manaqement

21

Yes.

22

When were

23

May,

25

be adverse

Division.

This

R2 fl924

are

Justice,

particular

20

where

of

15

17

would

ment?

11

14

it

COHN:

12

witness.

obviously.

10

11

you assicmed

when you were

Company?

to

the

Trump case?

1974.
(Continued

on next

page.}

assigned

12

Goldstein-direct
TlR2
DDS:QM

Before

2
3

stance

of

another

the

lady

work
named

that

you were
Elyse

That

In effect

that

time

is

you

May of

10

Mr.

11

You and Mr.

12

Yes.

13

All

Trump case

weber

but

20
21
22
23
24
25

the

been

sub-

handled

by

took

over

for

Miss

Goldweber,

is

to

in

and myself

took

over.

Goldberg?

had you had

any

connection

with

the

that?

because

connection.

I worked

in

I was aware

No official

the
of

Had you discussed

time

Goldberg

No direct

worked

18
19

do

to

the

1974?

right,

before

15

17

that

riqht?
Yes.

all,

assigned

work

correct.

16

the

Goldweber?

14

had

same office

the

case.

it

with

connection
that

Miss

Miss

Goldweber

Gold-

from

time?
A

Yes.

You had

a general

A general

idea.

But would

it

specifics
A

very

much?

That

is

correct.

idea

be fair

of what

to

say

it

was

you were

about?

not

into

13

Goldstein-direct
After

2
3

1974

case?

did

you were

familiarize

you

Yes.

And did

by the

the

crimination

10

11

Trumps

yourself

you

Section

with

of

respect

I was
complaint

units

familiar

I knew the

You knew a complaint

Ye;.

Did there

--

case

file

had

the

filed

charginq

practicing

dis-

prior
of

been

in

was

and

specifics

May of

Division

Brooklyn

the

in

legal

Riahts

in

with

case

a complaint

discrimination
to

and

the

that

Civil

the

Queens?
to

the

filed

that.

complaint.
about

Octobe

1973?

14
15

16

Judge

17

of

18

propounded

19

Yes.

And those

the

20

Neaher

had

Civil

come a time

directed

Rights
by the

the

Division,

when you

Government,
to

learned

the

answer

that

Housing

certain

Section

interrogatorie

defendants?

of

interrogatories

21

specification

22

where,

and what

location,

23

alleged

by the

Government

24

place?

25

the

to

with

discover

practicing

with

knew the

12
13

Housing

assigned

various

Are

you

items
under
that

familiar

of

-that

what
these

with

charge

called

the

including

circumstances
discriminatory

that?

for

it

when,
was

acts

took

Goldstein-direct

by the

defendant,

rogatories

filed

Riqhts

10

tories

13

16
17
18

Yes.

When did
the

course
them

when

25

propoun

the

answers

Court's

order

to

the

by the

inter

Civil

familiar

thereto?

Prior

withthe

to

May,

interroga-

1974,

or

there

Is

that
for
that

I read

them

personally

prior

to

involved

in

May and
the

case

of
I read

again.

the
the

it

fair

to

interrogatories
purpose

which

of

they

putting

were

the

being

the

the

I am sorry,

but

MR. COHN:

Would

asking
that

her

for

that
are

we would

vour
and

understanding
the

defendants
in

could

answers

given

on notice
this

as

were

to

complaint?

you restate

you read

was

the

that.

question

please?

read.)

question

trouble

that

charged

MR. SCIIWELB:
of

say

propounded

(Record

21

24

the

you become

answers

I became

20

23

with

to

I believe

19

22

interroqatories

after?

14

15

familiar

pursuant

l\

and

11

12

the

Section?

with

yes.
Were you

4
5

I was familiar

14

the

Your
the

I object

following

reason:

witness

these
refer

Honor,

the
to

in

to

the

answers,
case

until

form

I think

may be having
final

the

is

is

the

only

the

end

that
he
thing
of

the

ed

Goldstein-direct

case;

time.

of

not

or was this
If

he is

two alternatives

the

But

that

to identify

referring

to

whic

it

would

Of course

that

anticipates

my next

did

you have

those

Yes I did.

Also,

When you took

MR. COHN:

15

16

interrogatories

17

the

understandinq

Mr.

Cohn,

I didn't

answer

Your

over

the

the

--

Withdrawn.

is

recollection

and

case

answers

that

thereto

you

had

before

read
you

both
took

the
over

case?

18
19

1974,

21

22

}\

Yes.

()

And after

you

looked

at

Yes.

Well,

purpose

of

as

the

case

aqain,

what

was your

understanding

and

responses

My understanding
in

any

was assiqned

them

interrogatories

tories,

in

interrogatories.
Q

24

difficulty

question?

14

25

question

at

be objectionable.

13

23

his

available

BY MR. COHN:

11

20

we had

few questions.

12

that

phrase

MR. COHN:

10

he would

those

proof

15

case,

is

is

the
of

to

that.

--

the
the

to

vou

in Mav,

riqht?

purpose

as

to

the

thereto?
of

interrogatories

the

interroga
asked

for

Goldstein-direct

the

known to

answered.

the

specific
the

of

discrimination

plaintiff

at

And I believe

the

that

time

that

is

the

purpose

certain

And following
depositions

took

the

filing

of

place,

is

That

And during

what

MR. COHN:

lH th drawn.

12

is

Those

13

weren't

14

sitions.

15

Division

16

employees,

17

of

18

depositions

19

they?

were

and effect

of

that

the

interrogatories

correct?

correct.
period

depositions

In other

of

of

time.

various
and

were

taking

21

tell

you the

22

was present

23

July.

time

did

those

deposi

prior

All

us the

Mr.

defendants

the

by your

office,

noticed

the

by

were

period

of

no depo-

Civil

defendant

number

Cohn,

I believe

to my becoming

exact

some depositions

of

taken

Riqhts

and various

taken

over

a period

time

over

which

these

that

some depositions

taken?

Well,

and

all

noticed

a considerable

were

the

were

officers

Can you give

were

words,

The depositions

20

25

were

tions

11

24

which

interrogatories

the

10

occurred

interroqatories.

acts

16

period

took

time

that

some depositions

right,
that

of

involved

let's
were

taken

take

in
these

the
were

I believe

that.

during

case.
taken.

during

You were
June

and

I can'
I
June

present

July,

is

at
that

right?

Yes.

Miss

of

incidents

terrogatories?

the

alleged

the

10

exact

11

you.

of

noes
That

answers

--

number

at

the

If

as

to

form.

14

does

he mean

it

is

15

admission

16

mean?

of

18

Rights

19

under

20

acts

21

in

Section
your
as of

the

Trump

the

of

the

at

I can

tell

an

it

discrimination"

what

judicial
does

on by the
specific

what

an

extra

or

put

of
over

read
with

of

12 citing

I do not
were

MR. CORl'iI: The

dicating}.

in-

they

a fourteen

he

civil

instances
claim

to

be

year

perioa

office.

interroqatories

24

to

I may interpose

policy,

direction

THE WITNESS:

22

if

I mean numbers

discrimination

twelv

familiar

look

an admission

Honor's

answers

By "incidents

1 through

about

I haven't

that

I could

discriminatory

MR. COHN:

17

the

Frankly

MR. SCHWELB: I wonder

objection

there

riqht?

I am not

moment.

an examination

were
in

about

correct.

so that

of

way,

forth

seem

may be

a result

hy the
set

that

recently

13

25

as

discrimination

12

23

Goldstein,

incidents

8
9

17

Goldstein-direct

believe

that

that

is

how

answered.

answers

that

you

submitted

{in-

1
2

Goldstein-direct
BY MR. COHN:

()

~ow,

after

you

these

instances

will

period

examined

der.ositions

find

in

in

some
them

tion

15

plaint

16

the

17

be given

19
20

the

over

to

there

to

you we

a fourteen-year

apartment

that

with

I suggest

twelve

listened

come a time

interrogatories

and

thousand

that

there

units,

the

when you

testimony

at

the

was no case?

a fact?

is

not

a fact,

Mr.

Cohn.

That.

is

not

any-

it.
Did you

but

for

events

complaint

conclude

that

was

that

concerning
were

filed

specifics

conduct

to

were

and when you

was called

18

they

fourteen

That

14

did

discrimination,

you concluded

near

13

Golnstein,
answers

a minute

thing

the

of

Is

11

Miss

reviewed

10

12

18

of

not

his

Honor's

Cohn,

Please,

Miss

inthe

month

after

direction

that

I think

new investiga-

charged

place

charges

No, Mr.

events

taking

and
the

an entirely

were

you

comboth

that

we

made?

are

misconstruinq

our

-Q

21

MR. SCHWELB:

22

MR. COHN:

23

MR. SCHWELB:

24

structed

25

questions.

to

allow

Goldstein.
Will

I think

this

Your

you

allow

the

answer

Honor,

witness

her

answer.

was no.

could
to

to

answer

Mr.
his

Cohn be

in-

very

probi

THE COURT:

record,

Mr.

Well,

Simon,

(Record

is

the

last

All

riqht,

that

didn't

you

state

of

two questions

the

and

answers.

read.)

THE COURT:

is

the

answer.

BY MR. COHN:
Miss

vestigation

of

Goldstein,

the
No.

10

Sometime

following

11

No, what

we did

12

MR. COHN:

13

chance

14

quately.

to

15

tion

and

17

No,
he

if

I say

did

you

tell

that

19

to

20

not

she

wanted

do so.
to

21

to

I would

interrupt

Goldstein

23

cohn

24

in.the

is

is

in

nature
Now, so

to
of
far

answer

Honor,
her

the

Well,

the

entitled

I haven't

appreciate

THE COURT:

22

Your

in

role

lawyer

you initiate

explain

her

1974?

your

feels

~e the

MR. SCHWELB:

18

May,

ma'am,

up if

if

a new in-

--

get

But

initiate

Trumps?

25

what

the

16

19

Goldstein-direct

I suppose
of

conduct

is

ade-

no I accept
me,
and

of
that

direct

but

has

Cohn being

an adversary
his

it

his

a new investiga-

answer

middle

have

covered

excuse

Mr.

will

that.
I thir.k

the

right

instructed

answers.
since

Miss

witness,
examination

Mr.
as

a cross-examination.
we really

have

a statement

from

Miss

Goldstein-direct

Goldstein

case.

that

And as

she

was necessary.

didn't

conduct

question

investigation.

10

explain

11

BY MR. COHN:

12

or

Is

to

have

16

number

17

invalid

it

that

this

consider

that

there

was no

last

answer

was no

that

a new investiqatio

correct?

Well,

be was did

what

I understand

I initiate

My answer

that

but

he didn't

Well,

let

me draw

Did you
to

conclude

an altogether

was no.
give

upon

Mr. Cohn's
new

And I was goinq

to

me a chance.

your

words

now that

them.

14
15

not

I understand

THE WITNESS:

the

18

invalid?

20

complex

21

apartment

conclude

that

interrogatories

propounded

of

twelve

the

alleged

and mistaken
A

19

22

did

Right?

13

she

20

Did

onthe

complex
Q

23

that

of

that

one
they

of

there

25

an attorney

is

one

problem.
about

his

vour

there
trying

Now one
work

furnished

of

Court

this

discrimination

of
to

instances

no longer

answers

were

Section?

incident

the

MR. SCWA1ELB: I'm

of

a number

one

Do you mean that

24

by order

part

I conclude

I understood

the

instances

I had understood
--

in

instances
be part
to

were
of

be part

a
of

an

owned.
was a mistake?
to

be helpful

doesn't

product.

here

ordinarily
And that

but
exami

is

what

the

witness

I suggest

examiner

so much,

an end.

your

I understand

some point

at

that

that

is

Honor,

she

we have

to

is

have

an adversar

an end

and

now.

I think

THE COURT:

if

with

Mr.

Mr.

great

Cohn,

Schwelb

did

respect,

would

not

talk

we would

have

to

have

say

am

perplexed.
May I explain

MR. COHN:

10

make

an offer

of

13

her

her

14

with

the

connection

15

into

what

16

with

respect

case,

the

issues

mind

with

case,

it

seems

20

an offer

of

21

I am going

22

think

it

23

this,

there

24

fond

that

25

answers

proof,
--

will

to

and
take

seem

as

Well,

twelve

interroqatories

from

familiarity

we are

now qoinq

lawyer's

mattes

litigation.
have

any

relevance

to

motion.
your

counsel
long

eliciting

oriqinal

me to

whatever
if

your

strictly

of

to

by your

came a time
these

May I

Honor?

to me that

conduct

do not
framed

the

regard

the

MR. COHN:

19

I didn't

I certainly

They

17

but

to

your

~roof?

THE COURT:

12

18

doing.

MR. COHN:

11

is

but

21

Goldstein-direct

to

Honor,
your

in

Honor

bears
get

where

when the
instances
were

with

nature

might

they
the

of

wish,

the

me I do ~ot

I am going,

Civil

out

the

Rights
supplied
window,

is

Section
in
that

the

Goldstein-direct

there

ally

found

own,

and

of

witnesses,

not

of

specificity

was no case,
wrong
at

conduct

of

involving

10

to

this

if

12

that

as not

13

and

scandalous.

14

he is

not

proper

THE COURT:

15

a lawyer's

16

to

17

thing.

the

18

Court,

19

charges

20

the

21

taking

22

certainly

23

that

24

of

taking
of

had

of

this

or

didn't

that

when we would

it.

think
to
that
get

the

in

the

course

forth

with

inflarnatory

to

in

connection

of

we were

going

of

the

be reserved
merits

it

as

made

explain

some-

certain

with
for

examination

the

improper

view

about

preparation

down to

strike

statements

was all

merits

sub-

and

I merely

case

was to

strike

I move to

an attempt

or

depositions,

a course

new case

I move to

course

conduct

depositions

pertained

set

you understand,

that

I thought
date

as

in

upon

even

intimidatinq

are

Honor,

remarks,

Well,

set

actu-

motion.

prove

specific
of

didn't

an entirely

to

you k.now,

I thought

Trumps

which

Your

argument,

the

And that

contempt

able

they

agents,

build

acts

MR. SCHWELB:

cases

Goldstein

specifics.
the

certain

which

Miss

trying

committed

ject

in

undercover

these

11

25

point

usinq

in

that

buildinqs

that

and

that

and

22

either
the

records.
into

I
anything

case.
for
of

a future
the

case.

Goldstein-direct

What we are

2
3

merits

I understand

so forth.

are

with

the

incidents

we are

now.

10

R3 fls

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

of

the

charges
desire

I think

until
to

which
to

MR. COHN:

considering

made

your

respect

going

really

what

All

this

probe

into

we know what
did

nowhere

right,

(Continued

here

aaainst

to

formed

get

23

or

the

did
basis

because

your
on next

for

And

motivation

and

real

take
your

I am lost

Honor.
paqe.)

the

witness.

the

not

are

facts
place,
motion,
right

THE COURT:
of

a collateral

I understood

hearing

MR. COllN:

4
5

Honor

in

what

looks

of

the

course

allegations

are.

Your

Honor,

that

is

11

out

12

proper

13

which

14

are

15

fore

16

specifics

the

when

and

tactics

set

in

set

forth

your

in

the

Honor.

19

lectionof

20

the

regular

21

that

had

22
something

24

making

25

I don

,-our

my affidavit

it

spells

out

just

motivation,

of

at.

There

complaint
of

totally

a pre-trial

im-

period
-this

be very

was

examples
motion

glad

to

be-

turn

to

I would
that

events

here

is

framework

of

the

have
was

to

the

that

a consid-

case.

that

progress

have

My recol-

occurred
of

the

within

litigation

begun.

to
all

If

of

supportinq

that

Now whether

23

papers

Well,

demonstration
the

all.

now.

THE COURT:
erable

misconduct.

specificity

And I would

right

18

some

natu

of

original

of

the

six

on a series

guise

with

at

term

this

embarked

forth

be in

I am getting

felt

the

and

the

what

they

that

I think

usinq

exactly

window

was

in

to

charges

in

one

motion

came a time

17

No problem

this

10

this

on some

up paragraphs

support

24

Goldstein-direct

TlR3
1
DDS:MM
2

litigation

be determined.

the

t know,

that

statements
when we have

It
to

has

merit

may be thatyou

the

a full

Court
exposi

at

or

not

is

would

be

some point,

tior.

of what

th

facts

plaint.

are

is

and I wonl<l like

score.

are

with

respect

to

What weare

allegations
something

plan

quite

to get

respect

of

specifics

12

paragraph

Honor,

15

ing

16

ducting

this

17

of the

rights

18

witnesses,

the

manner

and is

your

terms

Miss

defendants,

turn

to

on that

further
it

would

to get

down to

in your

affidavit

our

Goldstein

which

totallv

but

one and six

investigation
of the

it,

And that

your

Goldstein

in general

in which

And I will

19

some
in

in my affidavit,
complaint
has

cancer

been

con-

we say

is

of the

perspective

improper

pre-trial

specifics

right

violative

procedure.
this

minute

Honor.
THE

21
22

state

what

you said

MR. COH'N: Paragraph

your

as I see

some proof

we ought

that

here,

com-

to my way of thinking,

to Miss

11

of the

witnesses.

know exactly

seem to me that

20

the

down to

certainly

14

with

collateral,

10

13

allegations

made aqainst

is with

these

the

concerned

Now, I don't

8
9

25

Goldstein-direct

COURT:

All

right.

BY MR. COHN:

23

Do you know somebody

24

Yes,

25

Did you send

named Stephanie

Rush?

I do.

Stephanie

Bush in as an undercover

agent

into

Trump buildings

No.

--

No,

Did

sent

into

her

identity

in

in

other

I did

in

10

agent."

If

11

a tester

for

12

name of

as

the

Stephanie

16

I believe

17

Does

she

work

18

Yes,

she

does.

after

it

was

the

for

events

MR. COHN:

23

THE COURT: It

24

MR. COHN:
Miss

the

been

concealing

terrr

Miss

"undercover
Bush

she

is

Group.
for

the

Miss

Fair

Housing

Group

Bush?

in August
the

of

Urban

Oh,

no,

I think

I believe
form

it

that

thebasis

for

this
your

came before.

came before?

Oh yes.

Bush,

which

1974.

Leaoue?

Am I mistaken?

22

that

to

Housing

you meet

THE COURT:

think

had

Bush?

When did

25

Bush

agent

know about

Do you know a tester

motion.

to

Fair

15

21

Stephanie

an unde~cover

you want

Yes.

occurred

that

I object

20

aqt.

1974?

14

19

1974

two months

you discover

July,

of

not.

MR.-SCHWELB:

by the

July

words

Trump buildings

13

26

Goldstein-direct

Specifically

according

your

Honor,

to my infcrmati6n,

I
was

Goldstein-direct

contacted

Section,

That

at

at

Urban

according

Miss
the

Bush

In

set

bringing

of

it

on her

July,

1974.

one word

10

propounded

11

he didnt

about

of

in

testing

the

Rights
June

of

1974.

campaign

factors

there

motivating

the

motion.

MR. SCHWELB:

Civil

my information,

was one

this

by the

about
of

fact

League

to

beginninq

the

27

Miss

If

your

Bush

in

interrogatories

Honor
Mr.

please,

Cohn's

with

there

is

motion.

respect

to

not

We

that

and

12

mention

it

MR. COHN:

and

Your

Honor,

13

cludable.

14

gations

where

I was not

15

name of

every

witness

16

every

tactic

17

Mr.

19

motion

20

told

21

it

22

else

23

fit.

25

Schwelb
to

Miss

is

I do not

to

if

had

the

set
has

has

forth
been

to

do with

is

alle-

the
done

or

preclude

that

remedy

on a

is

surprise

I should

it

is.

if

pass
to

But
on to

hav

he savs

something

do whatever

call
Miss

pre-

done.

the

think

it

general

knwo what

Interrogatories
to

think

to

him an opportunitv

that

that.

a motion

it

willing

MR. SCHW~LB:
information

--

in
to

Goldstein

I don't

preclude

give

enough

whom this

reference

I am perfectly
and

is

preclude

I do not

required
to

says

him today,
is

there

which

Now, with

18

24

I think

I move to

for

Goldstein's

he sees

all

the
conduc.

He didn't

as

be able

of

Trump buildings,

Mr.

list

that.

a witness

at

to

the

Miss

the

Bush will

trial

determine

testing

a month

in

full

by a black
and

probably

from

detail

they

weren't

now and

what

and white

be calle

the

tester
very

you wil

results

were

from

favorable

to

Trump.
MR. COHN:

8
9

28

Goldstein-direct

to

the

basics

here.

10

a complaint

here

11

advised

12

Goldstein's

13

covering

not

14

covering

events

15

pre-trial

of

the

of

events
that

of

been

19

and

20

process,

21

ever

22

day

23

saying

and doing

24

to

original

25

ficity

one

serious

given

in

doing
to

they

want

the
this

are.

case

based

complaint

occurred

ri~ht

are

directed

in

which

can

the

to

the

place.
as

we have

meet

and

go out

in

depositiona

agents,

or

how-

around

day

somebody

into

have

complaint

we were

while

after

sent
trap

but

we regard

testing

to

we be

takinq

actually

them,

trying

charges

was

what

upon

on Miss

inthe

But

told

it

down

new investigatio

matter.

or

that

we trying

which

and

something

Honor

this

things

denominate

Trump buildings

your

gets

complaint

undercover

to

that

a completely

and

it

have

are

charged

specificity

start

Honor,

direction

allegedly

is

18

the

or

original

extremely

Honor's

specifics

on the

17

to

on your

the

your

Are we trying

fashioning

That

16

You see,

entitled

afte

no relevancy
and

the
to

speci-

have,

think

by the

of my affidavit,

it

a Government

an existing

and

a framework

and

they

it

is

totally

purport

agents

11

as

to

that

issues

and
are

out

MR. SCHWELB:
low key

14

were

presentation.

amended

to

15

It

16

THE COURT:

has

17

asking

18

I started

off

19

somethinq

20

I find

nothing

a question

this

by

on the

motion

was

happened
THE COURT:

lying
--

to

Mr.

dated

July

Cohn'

interrooatori

testimony.
charqes.

provoked

after

MR. COHN:

order,

I owe you an apology

August

given

undercover

from

the

in

23

to

answer

happening

THE COURT:

a Court

additional

has

of
and

been

I appreciate

do with

part

a pre-trial

are

this

22

of

have

wasn't

MR. COHN:

it

conduct

sayina

21

prove

tha

buildinqs,

our

Perhaps
which

--

they

the
to

improper

Honor,

But

disclose

totally

under

their

where

Your

six

defendants

of

and

and

specifics

the

covered
one

middle

drawn

subjecting
in

is

the

when

and

by paragraphs

it

in

complaint

are

a tactic

improper

attorney

of

as

motion

totally

who they

13

25

this
and

going

12

improper

of

constitutes

10

24

29

Goldstein-direct

for

so much debate.
a recollection
the
26,

motion

of
and

now

I am goinq

to

1974.

Yes.
So it
No,

did

she

weeks
Well,

happen

after.

just

said

it.

before

this

motion.

her

answer,

as

I understand

it,

it

that

we should

what

other

these

this

this

way --

I think

to

events

MR. COHN:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. COHN: (CONTINUING)

10

Miss

11

cover

did

12

buildings

13

this

9,

would

it

to

1974,

key witnesses

I don't

Cohn may have.

I have

named

be the
on here.

that

rule

Goldstein

a tester

on July

Mr.

I will

motion

that

be concentrating

witnesses

pertain

occurred
all

But
prior

know

unless
to

making

irrelevant.

your

Honqr's

ruling.

your

knowledge

did

an under-

Stephanie

Bush

go around

some weeks

prior

to

as

relevancy

the

to

Trump

making

of

motion.

MR. SCHWELB:

14

15

Objection

to

your

Honor.

16

THE COURT:
A

17

I am aware

18

New York Urban

19

early

20

provided

21

after

July,

the

Stephanie

24

capacity?

events

Well,
that

and
the

do you know or
a

that

that

testing

to

was

testing

information

about

the

Department,

say

you

do you not
conducted

by the

was conducted

in

that

know

testing

believe

was

sometime

occurred.

When do you
Bush

that

my office,

23

League

and

to

22

25

31

Goldstein-direct

going

around

Do you want

to

the

an exact

first

learned

Trump buildings

date?

I don't

of

this
in

have

this

an exac

Goldstein-direct

date.

()

Didn't

Oh,

League.

Mr.

you

speak

I met with

Goldberg

and

to

when did

you

first

I believe

it

was

Yes.

Miss

Goldstein?

10

It
to

the

in

Urban

Haeber

at

Miss

Hoeber.

with

rlfiss

the

Leaque.
Urban

Haeber?

June.

you are

You don't

It

met Miss

15

was before

Trump buildings,
A

13
14

meet

the

sure

have

it

was

any

in

doubt

June,

about

aren't
that,

do you?

11

12

Well,

in

Betty

I met with

you,

someone

Mrs.

32

Miss

wasn't

was before

Bush

started

marching

around

it?
testing,

yes,

definitely,

when

Haeber.

When you

16

Bush

until

17

around

August

18

August,

the

19

June,

had

around
and
fact

told

July,

you

you are
is

you

his

Honor

are

not

not

you didn't

quite

quite

sure

had met Miss

meet

sure

--

but

Bush's

it

Miss

I am sorry

was around

superiors

back

in

you not?

20

MR. SCID1ELB:

21

MR. COHN:

22

Did you meet

23

I met

24

Who is

25

I don't

Betty
Betty

He is

I will

misouoting

withdraw

Miss

Bush's

Haeber

then,

the

the

testimony.

question.

superiors

in

June?

yes.

Hoeber?

know what

her

title

is,

but

Betty

Hoeber

is

the

director

of

of

the

New York

Urban

of

agents

around

she

might

send

mation

and

10

listed

inour

their

12

cated

that

she

13

agents

of

ours

with

Betty

with

League

clients

were

Hoeber

might
in

was

her?

had

Hoeber

Miss

an arm

the

sending

Haeber

provided

a number

stated

us with

of

Can you answer

that

the

some infer

people

we have

in

testing.

the

case

They

and

indi-

weren't

any way.

that

interested

do some more

Did you ask

yes

I don't

Mrs.

or

Hoeber

to

have

the

testing?

no?

believe

I asked

Miss

Hoeber

to

do the

to

you is

testing.
THE COURT:

18
19

far

20

allegations

21

tion

22

so?

to

say

that

supplied

of

I was

some of
the
by the

TFtE WITNESS:

24

THE COURT:
case

originally.

just
the

about
information

complaint

23

25

is

Trump buildings?

I discuss

Miss

16

which

interroqatories.

11

14

Center

League.

The Urban

17

Open Housing

some testers.

15

to

Did

the

Did you discuss

4
5

33

Goldstein-direct

were

New York

In
Well,

But did

the

Urban

ori.ginal

I realize
you

learn

ask

involved

predicated

it
in

the

on informa

League?

Is

that

complaint?
you were
that

at

not

in

any

time

the

that

which

the

in June,

you or Mrs.

It's
of fair

housing

information

Yes.

12

for

the

part

13

project

14

was doing

15

on having,

16

but

17

I believe,

that

at

on a regular

your

of discussing

in New York,
I believe

Section

that

20

ready

21

acts

which

22

case

was as of June,

23

stage?
A
any different

about

answers

you claim

I met with

that

but

the

Mrs.

Hoeber

may not

it

Mrs.

been

was during

Miss

Roeber

inwords
of the

interrogatories

conference
with

her,

1974,

in the

depositional,

know whether

the

discovery

or in substanc
Court

setting

in tris

normal

planning

possibly.

committed

the

Center

were
that

not
another

my meetinq

were

I don't

Roeber

to discuss

they

have

to an order
to

representatives

Open Housing

a conference

and it

pursuant

than

--

you tell

19

furnished

it

project,

Did

with

basis.

Trump,

about
--

we talked

18

I believe

she was doing

another

meeting

of my job we meet with

groups

purpose

the

recall.

In fact

11

25

had supplied

Hoeber?

I don't

24

group

Now, who initiated

10

League

BY MR. COHN:

Urban

THE WITNESS:

4
5

34

Goldstein-direct

case,

forth
and that

the
the

pre-trial

depositional
stage

had al-

of

stage
litigation.

is

I will

I don't

Haeber

that

rogatories

case,

that

10

R4 fls

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

we had

I stated

that
were

and

she

take

anything.
I have

recall

any way you want.

whether

may have

I may have

--

before
known,

the

Miss

mentioned

first

involved

Haeber,

answers

to

on next

page.)

Miss

possible
to

in

I have

it.

(Continued

is

answers

of whether
the

told

It

I became

no recollection

of

I specifically

interrogatories.

we provided

provided

no recollection

it

answered

I have

35

Goldstein-direct

inter-

this

no idea.

or not

I said

interrogatories

36

dds;pc
tl/4

1
2
3
4
5

fact

that

agent
A

14
15

her

17

information

statement

20

24
25

right

to the

but if

that

I was

at this

point

to Miss Hober
to be sending

buildings

because

you do it

on your own, that

you can give

I don't

believe

Well,

that
I don't

I didn't

-- because

to Miss Hober that

we have already

and I would be very happy to receive

reG'Ollection

presented

time

truck

want your

22
23

around?

of anything
Q

the

to do this.

our case,

she and you had discussed

Did you say in words or substance

around

presented

that

I may have indicated

your business

21

agent

might not be the

18

tester?

The fact

agents

the

16

19

about

Did I ask Miss Hober to keep quiet?

asking

12

it

of 1974?

of this

the

undercover

Yes.

A
not

this

sending

10

13

in July

Are you talking

11

you ask Miss Hober to keep quiet

you had knOW'ledge of her sending

around

Did

our case

for me to do the

testing.

any

us?
that

would be a correct

I would have said

to Miss Hober.

want what you would have said.

of what you did say.

say to Miss Hober that

and it

we presented

is

wouldn't
our case

we have already

be appropriate
it

wouldn't

for me to

be appropriate

What I may very well

have said

37
1

to Miss Hober is that

if

had a plan

any testing

any testing.

the Urban League wished

specifically

I wasn't

and get the Department

said

that,

reports

in and about

of this

the middle

around

15

21

22
23
24

25

concerning

around

the truck

the

buildings?

14

20

inf or-

of July

lady who was marching

MR. COHN: I will

19

in

from Miss Hober from time to time thereafter,

13

18

they

involved

did you receive

MR. SCHWELB: I object

17

that

That

going to initiate

of Justice

12

16

any testing.

-- They had indicated

and I said

And having

mation

11

on testing

10

I would not initiate

various

Housing Center

the words

(continuing)

who was presenting

involved

Yes, I did.

in this

I received

And I would like

Is there

herself

at

case?

any difference

information

from the

to -between

the Open

and the Urban League?

is

an arm of the Urban League.

It

An arm of the Urban League?

organization:

"marching

Open Housing Center.

Q

withdraw

characterization.

11

buildings
A

to the

is that

It is a private

correct?

I have no idea.

Now, just

one last

I guess

it

question

may be.
on this

point:

38

1
3

2
3

I used the word undercover

corrected

Let me ask you this:

To your knowledge,

Bush,went

1974 and thereafter,

the Urban League?

10

and you

me and used the word tester.

agent,

to these

Trump buildings

I don't

believe

And in fact,

11

-- the impression

12

thing

13

from the Urban League?

14

that

herself

superintendents

somebody else

16

all

know what testers

calls

how this

19

mind.

All right.

20

To your knowledge,

one Trump employee

22

League based

23

Miss Bush whenever

24

you met her,

25

housing

that

of

But I think

we

I do not see

somebody else's

state

did Miss Bush ever

that

or from anyone else

last

she came

a conclusion

so.

she was connected

you met her,

the

for.

can invade

upon any reports

or Urban League?

for

I think

18

21

me that

operation.

are

THE COURT: Well,

witness

as coming from

to know was that

and a mental

of July,

would you ag.ree

would you agree with

15

Stephanie

she did.

the impression

MR. SCHWELB: It

17

lady,

at the beginning

did she identify

she wanted

when this

with

or from Mrs. Hober,

with

tell

the Urban

you have received

connected

of

from
whenever

the open

39

MR. SCHWELB: NCM, your Honor,

a hearsay

we will

that

identify

themselves

the test

wouldn't

representative

to determine,

10

answer.
concede

Furthermore,
and we will

when testers

11

At the

13

Hober,

14

did you consult

15

Department

in which this
with

because

work and it wouldn't

of the

and in this
before

case

they
if

they did,

they

a
are trying

--

testing

that.
conversation

was discussed

as to the propriety

in the Justice

of this?

16

MR. SCHWELB: Objection.

Work product.

17

THE COURT: I do not think

it

19

Now, during

20

following

21

July

22

as the perameter

23

occasion

24

names were not set

25

February,

26th,

your entry

into

to determine

to make up a list
forth

1974 in answer

has relevance

same period

this

case in May of 1974 until

motion,

of time,

under his

certainly,

of former

to

here.

this

1974, which I would fix

of this

with Miss

in June of 1974,

any of your superiors

what we are trying

don't

did determine.

time you had this

18

and

Mr. Cohn

give

conduct

for

stipulate

a building,

as testers

MR. COHN: Strike

12

we will

calls

be happy to tell

go to test

example

Well,

this

Honor's

to our interrogatories?

ruling

did you have

Trump employees

in the information

namely

supplied

whose
to us in

40

1
5

2
3

I am afraid

Are you really?

question.

Maybe I can restate

At the time of your entry

had already

containing

been furnished
specific

into

the

to the defendants

it

if you

case,

there

interrogatories

and the names of witnesses.

incidents

Do you

recall

that?

Are you talking

about

the

original

answers

to

interrogatories?

11

I am talking

12

Right.

13

You are clear

Yes.

After

later,

did you make up a list

14
15
16

months

17

the Trump organization

18

MR.

answers

about

to interrogatories.

that?

the

case,

SCHWELB: This

20

of --

of former

is

product.

23

24

to the incidents

I am getting

right

of

to the

that

she spoke

in their

work

incident.

Did you make up such a list?

THE COURT: I will

employees

some more work product.

MR. COHN: I have no interest

22

which was some

which were not mentioned?

I wish you would get

21

about

you came into

19

25

by the

are confused.

10

I am confused

We conducted

allow

a records

that

question.

inspection

in June of

41
1
6

1974.

Trump employees ,

that

At that

records

present

were produced

inspection

we did make a list

and former,

pursuant

to notice

About when was this?

In June,

Did you turn

Did I turn

Did you turn

from payroll

of records

records
inspection.

1974.
this
that

list
list

over to the FBI?

over to the FBI?

No, I

did not.

10

11

over to the FBI?

12

Pursuant

13

list

14

litigation

15

the FBI conduct

I requested,

as in the

those

18

the records

19

from that

l received

course

from that

of our conducting

-- made this

request

we request

Now, would it

agents

21

Were you the person

conducted

to be interviewed,

from the list

that

some of

we secured

these

be fair

interviews

in charge

to say that

from

of the Justice

Department?

No, not really.

23

Under whose direction

24

I may have -- some of them -- there

a lot

of paperwork

the FBI

under your direction?

is

that

inspection.

20

there

list

interviews.

names were furnished

22

normal

I asked

certain
People

17

the information

to information

investigation,

16

25

of

involved.

did they

My

conduct

it?

have been -

name may be on it.

42
1
7

2
3
4

Mr. Goldberg's
reviewed

and finally

Carol

I believe

Do you have any doubt

I believe

10

I want to know is,

A
I don't

19

22
23

Falcone's

evidence

I sent

out.

out.

in that

Mr. Goldberg.

the

that

All

witness

chair

carol

Falcone?

the FBI to interview

home at 10 o'clock

believe

we both --

One of us did.
fact

is

that

so going

at night,

sometime

before

to show, at Mis

you were the one. who

the FBI to go?

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor,

to that

entire

the question
the

24
25

as you are sitting

if

list

might have happened.

Were you aware of the

the FBI appeared,

that?

were sent

know which one she was on.

20
21

of requests

advised

told

about

she was on the

were you the one who told

16

18

a lady

yes.

A number of anything

14

17

I did,

A nunber

11

15

the FBI to contact

Falcone?

13

are

out by Mr. Schwalb or two of his

Did you request

12

sent

All our requests

deputies.

5
6

name may be on it.

tone which is unnecessary,

is so.confusing

that

of all

I object

and,

I would object

second,
to

form.
MR. COHN: I will

first

could

you

tell

be glad
us simply,

to withdraw
did you tell

it.
the

43
1
8

FBI to go to interview

knOW"ledge that

to interview

Falcone

or did you have

any of your colleagues

Carol

the FBI conduct

former

Cohn.

myself

the FBI to go

or Irr/ colleagues

an investigation

employees.,

told

Falcone?

Either

Carol

or to interview

and Miss Falcone

THE COURT: I think

that

11

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, will

13

superfluous

please?

14

he stop

us what the

testify-

is highly

answer is.

get straightforward

answers , your Honor

16

THE COURT: I think

17

ward,

18

talk

21

interviewed

22

contacted

23

Miss Falcone
Q

Is it,

answer was straightfor-

the FBI that

you wanted

to

to Miss Falcone?
A

24

the

Mr. Cohn.
Now, did you tell

20

25

if he tells

is yes.

of the witness

MR. COHN: If I could

15

19

The presence

Mr.

has been answered.

MR. COHN: The answer

ing,

that

certain

was one of them,

10

12

requested

What I believe
Miss Falcone

I contacted

the FBI to inform

and it

I said

them that

was that

we had already

last

contacte

for them to do so.

Do you want to give me the

from your

I had

the FBI, or Mr. Goldberg

would be unnecessary

as I understand

after

chronology

answer,

that

of this?
you told

44
9

1
2

the FBI not to get

of the FBI , tried

her

her,

to do anything?

first

to Miss Falcone?
to reach

and then

or whatever

I object

Other

Locate?

10

11

I interviewed

12

tell

13

unnecessary

them that

I then

I had interviewed

to contact
Before

"get

to."
to"?

and at hours

after

her

contacted

her

Reach?

9 0

that
1

Miss Falcone.
the

and that

it

FBI to
was

as well.

you interviewed

16

Miss Falcone,

FBI agents

clock

did it

had gone to her home

at nightl

17

Absolutely

18

When did you first

At the deposition

not.
hear

about

this,

if you

did?

20

to this

hearing

-- prior

to this

22

That was the

23

her uncle,

had been visited

24

25

..get

the FBI to interview

Miss Falcone.

come to your attention

21

for you

statement?

the phrase,

We requested

15

19

is not necessary

to the phrase,

than

we have located

Find?
A

14

a fair

Is that

and it

independently

That you reached

the FBI and said,

might be,

Miss Falcone?

called

it

That you,

first

of Miss Falcone,

with

referen

hearing.
you knew that

by FBI agents

her mother,

at hours

Absolutely.
MR. SCHWELB:Excuse me . It

calls

for

45
1

10

innumerable

it.

hearsay

answers

and I want to object

THE COURT: Well,

so the FBI went there

6
7

come to your

10

So the

at night,

that

is

15

That she was involved

was anything

16

No, the

17

That's

22
23

is

other

at

Or at any time

to the FBI any ground

than

only

rules

--

that.
to believe

a former

in anything

Trump

Miss
employee?

herself?

information

an answer.

Did you give

these

at 10 o'clock

correct.

Did you have any reason

Falcone

what hours

didn't

right.

14

18

again.

deposition?

MR. COHN: I withdraw

13

21

that

Did you give

12

20

the

You say it

That she had been visited

by any FBI agents,

11

19

until

we are straying

and what?

FBI went there.

attention

night

I think

to

witnesses

the FBI general

should

I didn't

give

You do not ever

instructions

on

be approached?

them instructions.
outline

the perameters

of

investigation?
A

24

information

25

organization

I outline

the questions

to be received.
and it

never

to be asked,

The FBI is

a very

cane to Irr'/ attention

professional
that

they

46
1

11

ever

conducted

themselves
And certainly

3
4

instructions

elsewhere,

unprofessionally.

this

it

to the

is not

FBI.

That

as I understand

'lWf

business

to give

is

generally

done

it.

Well the

fact

is you are saying

sent

out

a request

I merely

With whom were you dealing

involving

you contacted
A

contact

17
18
19

in the

our office.
FBI,

specifically?

Are you asking

Yes.

15
16

through

me who the

special

agent

of the

FBI was?

13
14

Miss Falcone,
A

11

12

in

ease?

10

you didn't,

Would this

refresh

your

menory?

somebody to say you had located

I don't

recall

whether

Mr. Goldberg

or whether

Miss Falcone.

I personally

made the

made the

contact.

who was contacted

And do you recall

We had been working

You said

in the

FBI?

20

who in New York had been

21

who may have been

22

no objection,

conducting

contacted,

I will

mention

together

on it.

the

investigation

And Mr. Schwelb

it.

23

MR. SCHWELB: No, your Honor.

24

THE WITNESS:

25

THE COURT: He is

Mr. Terrence
a special

cox.
agent?

--

I know
and

if he has

47
1

12

THE WITNESS: A special

this

case,

yes,

agent

in charge

sir.

THE COURT: In New York?

THE WITNESS: Yes,

that

is

correct.

THE COURT: He was doing

it

or in charge

it,

is that

would be correct.

I don't

have much contact

10

FBI.

11

Well,

13

I interviewed

14

On how many occasions?

15

One occasion.

16

How long did the

17

About a half

12

18
19

20

21

22
23
24

25

of

correct?

THE WITNESS: From what I understand,

of

did you have much contact

with

Falcone?

( continued

Miss Falcone.

interview

last?

an hour to 45 minutes.
next

page. )

that
with

Miss

the

Goldstein-direct

About

30 to

About

that.

Where

did

In her

That

6
7

I would
A

Right.

About

10

I believe

Was the

what

were

lunch

the
they

Hero

sell

Hut.

hero

sandwiches

of

the

day was

at

it?

approximately

quarter

What time

16

I would

17

Did you have

laws

with

Miss

was some.

No.

20

Did you

substance

that

22

think

for
A

at

progress

the

was not

say

you

the

latest

occasion

tell

Miss

while

you

to

very

left

crowded.

there?
about

discuss

12:30.
the

perjury

Falcone

in

words

or

in

--

I withdraw

Did you question

It

do you

MR. COHN:

work

in

Falcone?

19

23

business

there?

15

25

business,

I arrives

There

24

place?

where

time

21

of

a place

14

18

take

twelve.

12

13

that

assume.

11

45 minutes?

place
is

48

Trump
Yes.

organization

Miss
in

that

question.

Falcone
prior

concerning

years?

her

to

2
3

to

her

that

she

I asked

specific

she

Miss

refresh

say

at
to

that

her

you

can

12

You deny

13

Totally.

14

Now, did

Falcone's

her

18

married.

19

asked

20

21

No.

that

to

that

would

words

specific

question
on a

believe,

that

and would

you

that

there

are

for

up to

five

ask

questions

her

if

I may have
be

found

it

perjury

hard

laws

years?

dealing

with

asked

the

she

was married

--

her

whether

was

personal

she

questions

her

I would

age,

have

her.
Did you

she

worked

for

23

Did you

money
A

to

open

ask

the

Absolutely

25

one

that.

life?

the

concerning

recollection,

hard

suggest

categorically?

you

22

24

you

not.

I asked

occupation.

when

jail

personal

17

did

truth

in

her

the

her

go to

Absolutely

16

full

point

it

use

tell

Miss

one

I found

11

15

the

duties

recollection.

did
you

her

refresh

When you

believe,

which

described

t telling

Falcone

to

wasn

point

she

I believe

10

After

49

Goldstein-direct

the

I hate

her

Trump

if

she

dated

Donald

Trump

Organization?

not.
ask
Hero
to

her

where

she

could

have

Hut?

be repetitious,

but

no.

gotten

2
3

50

Goldstein-direct
I don't

is

the

first

time

think

I asked

Did you

substance

place

telling

that

at

the

there
Trump

is

that

tell
were

office

you was not

it

repetitious.

Miss

Falcone

records

of

and

in words

phone

therefore

Now, do you know somebody

11

Yes.

By the

the

date

14

Mr. Cohn.

of your

I believe

it

Miss

took

knew what

she

was

never

have

crossed

my

it

was

17

Was it

19

I know it

20

Then

not

July?

named Mr.

August

August
August,

Wait,

I asked

Miranda?

you

to

fix

Falcone.

was Friday,

was Friday,

No,

--

was it

the

19th.
was

I'm

it?

a little

confused

on

that.

July

22
23

would

think

with
it

21

That

I don't

interview

I believe

19th?

way,

16

18

that

mind.

12

15

in

true?

10

13

or

calls

you

No,

it

question.

I think

19th.
Q

named

Thomas

it

My dates

was July.

was July
are

Now, did

19th.

Then

it

was Friday,

wrong.

you have

occasion

to

interview

a man

Miranda?

24

Yes.

25

Had you previously

asked

the

FBI to

locate

Mr. Miranda

3
4

for

No.

already

you?

spoken

We knew where

to

Did you

Yes,

Where

I telephoned

Where

10

At his

11

Can you

12

It

13

same week

call

I telephoned
did

him?

him at

home.

We had

Where was

I?

telephoned?

home.
remember

was most

of July

his

was he when you

19th.

--

when

what

Midday.

17

Did you have

this

I believe

So it

16

time

would
of

the

was?
it

was Tuesday

be July

16th

day

you

did

of

the

perhaps.
phone

the

home?

working

knowledge

about

Yes.

20

Where

was he working

21

Well,

he was a superintendent

22

building

23

would

24

to

where

he was

then?

19

25

was.

Mr. Miranda.

you telephone

About

18

Miranda

him?

14

Mr.

him.

15

51

Goldstein-direct

that
be his

he lived
working

in.

This

then?

phone

and home number

of
number,

from

what

the

apartment

his

telephone,

I believe

it

be.
Q

Now, was

a meeting

between

you

and Mr.

Miranda

52

Goldstein-direct
set

up?

Yes.
Did you go to his

home?

I did.

Yes,

Anybody

His wife.

How long

About

You were

Correct.

Did you ask

No.

Did you say

else

present?

6
7

were

you there?

two hours.
there

about

two hours?

10

11

12
13

14

Mr. Miranda

that

you did

for

another

in words
not

interview

or

feel

in

after

substance

you lef?

to

he was giving

you the

15

whole

story?

16

17
18
19
20

21

A
was at

discuss
felt

the

reluctant

to

story.

He told

matter.

But

he was giving

--

speak

No,

I did

with

me.

me he didn't
I never

me a story

not.
He never

want

indicated

that

Mr. Miranda

at

gave

first

to

to him that

was incorrect

me

or

incomplete.
Did you tell

discuss

24

25

first

a different

22

23

No, Mr. Miranda

the
A

didn't

want

him that

you didn't

have

to

matter?
I indicated
to become

-involved

Mr. Miranda
in

this

--

he told

lawsuit.

me he
That

he

was

frightened.

and

tell

5
6

Did you

3
4

Mr.

friendly

that

have

Miranda

witness

this

to

his

Honor's

witness.

He,

as

I don't

17

witness

18

advise

I understood,

like

you

to

answer

had

said

him of

his

Mr.
was

provided

After

the

that

tion,

but

21

Mr.

Miranda

22

wasn't.

23

stood

man you

not

24

warning.

to
Your

implication

was being

as being

you answer

Miranda

he didn't

I did

Will

finishing

his

subject

my question?

not

to

to

talk

to you?

talk

Honor,

just

that

charged

Just

to be a friendly

wish

this

he was entitled

THE COURT:

No,

us.

thought

in

want

rights?

to be a friendly

information

rights

the

you

considered

MR. SCHWELB:

19

mind

Yes.

I give

I said,

He had
Q

16

I would

instruction.

Did

15

rights

May I finish?

THE COURT:

12

didn't.

his

to you?

from what

First

MR. COHN:

10

14

talk

him of

--

THE WITNESS:

13

advise

question.

11

point

was,

MR. COHN:

25

at

him he didn't

20

53

Goldstein-direct

because

to

you,

a minor

question

with

a crime

question
to

his

to

is

did

you

objecthat

and he
be under-

some Miranda

name was Miranda.

MR. SCHWELB:

4
5

I'm
to

asking
talk

wish

to

11

if

to

10

I'm

talked
to

not

you had

told

No.

How much longer

after

to

you

remain

me and

told

I am sorry.

your

mental

that

you

he told

processes.
do not

have

you he didn't

there?

I remained

there

for

a few hours.

me why he did

not

want

Mr.
to

Miranda

get

to

talk

me.
Q

Did you help

MR. COHN:

help

15

him he could

16

No.

Did you

17

bring

about

jog

his

memory

I withdraw
a change

go to

use

--

that
in

his

question.

Did you

position

by telling

jail?

the

word

jail

in

talking

to

Mr. Miranda?

19

20

21

22

25

for

wish.

did

that.

Mr. Miranda

you

14

24

you

dn't

13

23

I missed

asking

me now if

12

18

54

Goldstein-direct

in
deal

the

No.

Did you make any

No.

Did you

Department

with?
A

No.

of

tell
Justice

him

threat

to

there

were

that

he was

Mr.

Miranda?

bigger
going

people
to

have

to

MR. SCHWELB:

MR. COHN:

Mr.

Schwelbe
Do you

Yes.

Did you

Yes.

10

When?

11

I belie~

Mr.

13

during

Miranda

later,

that

interview

the

Where

15

At their

home.

16

Was that

in

17

18

was Valley

19

phone

did

believe

them

after

the

same

of
the

interview

Valley

it

is

I would

Paul

and Paula

I interviewed
day.

middle

of

It

that

was

week.

them?

Stream?

on Long

have

to

Island

see

and

their

think

address

it

in

the

of

the

book.

20

Did you

21

interview

that

22

statement

to

at

not

or

about

satisfied

tte.conclusion
with

Mr.

Ziesselman's

you?

No.

24

Did you
more

state

you were

23

furnish

you

I am giving

them?

during

again?

statements.
named

afternoon

14

back

show

Ziesselman

Sometime

Stream.

record

I interviewed

in

week.

his

that

know two people

Ziesselman?

12

May I get

May the

back

25

55

Goldstein-direct

information

tell

him that
that

unless

you were

going

he was
to

able

send

to
the

FBI

1
2

agents

back

to

requested,

them

them,

them

to

and

interview

them.

they

10

coming

11

interview

If

try

not

pursuant

to

12

That

was

is

I had

so

that

the

I said

to

them,

or

frightened.

from me for

the

contacted

FBI to

You didn't

threatening

FBI wouldn't

I miss

the

the

come

FBI

They were

same

kind

of

conducted.
context

in which

you

referred

to

correct.
say

it

in what

we might

call

No.

18

And the

your

testimony

Ziesselmans,
would

if

they

so interpreted

be mistaken?

20

Yes.

21

Did you know a man named Mr.

Herbert

22

Do I know a Mr.

I believe

a former

employee

midnight

that

the

Heller?

Bureau

at

a summer

resort

at

No,

did

Did you make a phone

24

context?

17

25

let

FBI?

15

23

I ha

FBI contact

the

with

them

the

that

was that

touch

already

That

that,

in

a request

I had

Ziesselman

now that

be concerned

19

get

seen

14

16

And that
to

to

to Mr.
Falcone,

by chance,

came,

that

to Miss

I had

know that

I said

them.

I would

that

see

the

I had

as

and

them?
No, what

13

56

Goldstein-direct

which

Heller/
he is

contact.

call

to

Mr.

Heller

he was vacationing?

at

Goldstein-direct

What?

Did you make a phone

No.

Did anyone

I have

Is

Yes,

Did you

10

I believe

Mr.

FBI requests

that

11

one of

12

don't

13

have

14

15

the
think

any

it

this

the

16

first

ask

outside

Heller

18

have

the

at

scope

no idea

When did

22

I don't

of

the

such

Mr.

yes,

a suggestio?

Heller

for

--

because

yo?

was on

although

I prepared

Is

you

back

minutes

after

the

time

Honor,

I
I don't

motion.

talking

I have

no idea.

the

of

all,

and,

pre-motion

FBI to

that

they

midnight?

first

this

know that

Honor,

to you

affidavit,

he is

ask

MR. SCHWELB:

scope

out,

report

Your

of

what

21

25

call.

name was on it

that

five

THE WITNESS:

your

of

locate

we sent

FBI ever

20

Court,

phone

it.

THE COURT:

24

such

FBI to

one

19

23

of

Heller's

MR. SCHWELB:

17

knowledge?

you heard

the

of

Did the
Mr.

to your

absolutely.

recollection

called

call?

no knowledge

was on the

had

else

57

this

secondly,

is
I

about.
or

after

contact

Mr.

motion?

Heller?

I have

There

I object
Further

is
to

something

before

the

that

as outside

the

I think

your

Honor

has

ruled

that

if

it

happened

MR. COHN:

afterwards

I would

like

THE WITNESS:

in charge

Mr.

of this

Herbert

to

is

find

irrelevant.

out

when it

In the

requests.

But can you

13

sit

witness

14

contact

on the
Mr.

tell

Heller

20

in June.

21

August.

It
It

his

a knowledge

me your

best

recollection

that

know.

name was included

as you
the

FBI to

been

have

in March.

been

in

Yes.
MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor,
four

witnesses

that

I have

Mr.

John

this

know

may have

may have

September.

the

It

It

23

think

I don't

in.

Do you know a man names

of

of FBI

I don't

I prepared.

scope

of the

you know.

22

24

--

have

I don't

list

may have
might

operation

--

was on the

FBI list

the

now as to when you asked

(Continuing)

which

locate

I too

MR. SCHWELB: If

19

FBI to

person

Heller.

Well

16

Mr.

as the

know.

stand

Herbert

18

the

explain

dim past

12

17

recollection,

you ask

to

I don't

15

did

I am trying

FBI operation

11

case,

best

know.

Heller?

I don't

When to your

25

it

happened.

10

58

Goldstein-direct

been

been
in

no idea.

Brofman?

is

he talked

outside
about

the
that

Goldstein-direct

we asked

particularly

this

had.

world,

the

lady

I don't

to

that

believe

is

if

he does
Well,

antecedent

MR. COHN:

10

secret.

I can

11

an offer

of

12

phone

13

by Miss

14

or

calls

it

proof.

is

all

he

around

the

in

this

something

you

motion?

have

to

the

made by people

ask

form
is

her.
of

It

no
or

basis

called

or

is

a statement

on the

who were

associates,

THE COURT:

16

the

17

couldn't

18

responsible

FBI this

I would

wouldn't

possibly
for

20

suggest

21

knows

22

FBI is

23

of

that

anything

the

better

Except
person

than

any of

an investigative

Justice

and

it

THE COURT:
Department

say

if

be helpful

tell.

MR. COHN:

19

the

is

he does.

What I have

Goldstein,or

against

that

go and meander

to your

state

charges

He said

now,

I will

I very

of

either

FBI agents,

called

visited

15

24

the

he had.
he can

THE COURT:

about.

know all

think

although

25

interrogatories

wanted

young

in

59

for

this,
that

this
It

under
it

your
as your

us in

is

witness

my judgment.

HOnor,
Honor

courtroom
not

programs

happens

by

vicariously

FBI does,in

operates

of Justice.

not

called

This

the

--

were

here.

She is

arm.

Well,

they

the

I would
well
--

the

Department
given

to be part

to
of

it-

MR. COHN:

THE COURT: Although

60

Goldstein-direct

didn't

Of course.

recognize

thank

the

goodness,

after

as

10

the

11

standards,

12

and

dealing

13

the

defendant,

14

and

decency

15

such

fact

is

your

At various

but

we are
Honor

to whether
person

your

hears

charge

to
the

is

its

director

of

raise

the

not

the

case

during

whether

and

it

might

question
from

to

see

the

witnesse
part

that

be observed

period,

employees

standards

of

in

of

certain

discovery

former

be,

here

on the

the

certain
to

my part

whatever

testimony

employees

are

It's

any obligation

particularly
with

times,

Honor,

going

there
in

many years

that.

MR. COHN:

for

the

of

ethicality

course

of

an investigation.
MR. SCHWELB:

16

FBI to

contact

We will

17

the

these

18

charge

19

he wants

20

and we will

propound

21

and

FBI agent

22

Miss

some FBI agent

let

to

the

charge

with

stipulate

people.

If

contempt

them with,

that

he wasnts
or

interrogatories

else

he name them
and

and not

to

whatever

I suggest

be here

we asked

put

identify
it

on

again

if

him

Goldstein.

23
24

people

25

the

THE COURT:

Well,

were

the

employe

that

they

impression

in

I also

assume

of your
were

former

client

--

employees.

these

I have

61

Goldstein-direct

THE WITNESS:

Oh, yes.

MR. SCHWELB:

We don't

agent

without

counsel

THE COURT:

yourself,

Justice

tion

of

tion

work,

you

are

10

as

11

and

12

And they

civil

a crime
the

only

buster.

They

responsibility

16

he has

17

also

18

in

19

do not

such

under

to bring

necessary

trial

think

these

Now, so far

all

criminal

notion

the
as

it

is

they

G-man

Department

has.

this.

Attorney

on the

preparation.

or

FBI for
as

helpful

Don Brofman,

THE WITNESS:
Mr.

Brofman

Yes,

a few weeks

I do.

MR. SCHWELB:

It

25

THE WITNESS:

After

was

do you know

I interviewed

after
the

the

motion.

aid

here.

ago.

24

and

I say,

him?

22

that

forth

So,
are

General's

feels

be brought

call

this

the

investigators

when he

FBI requests
as

investiga

League.
the

should

of

investiga-

is

trained

cases

that
statute

not

Urban

Well,

our

FBI in

tasks

And the

information

the

that

like

Department

of

are

managing

an old-timer

the

popular

investigators

do precisely

15

is

the

THE COURT:

23

It

their

Honor.

as

that

use

although

14

21

aware

cases.

MR. COHN:

20

well

your

course,

makes

13

the

present,
So of

judicially

interview

motion.
I didn't

MR. SCHWELB:

further

examination
THE COURT:

(Witness

All

having

the

been

court,

11

BY MR. COHN:

12

Miss

13

My name

it

is

Carol

I think

courtroom

that

your

17

Yes.

18

Called

19

Yes.

20

Where

is

21

It

located

22

New Hyde

down.

called
by the

as

a witness,

deputy

clerk

of

is

your

full

Balistreri.

name?
When I was with

Falcone.

Now,

the

chief.

follows:

what

16

any

Falcone.

sworn
as

Falcone,

was carol

in

reserve

you may step

Miss

duly

testified

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I will

case

right,

Imll

first

10

15

our

B A L I S T R E R I

CAROL

Trump

Honor,

excused.)

MR. COHN:

14

Your
until

63

Goldstein-direct

is

we know

business

the

Hero

that

is

from

some testimony

conducting

a Hero

Does

it

have

24

Yes,

it

does.

25

Is

the

phone

shop.

Hut?

located?
at

253 Jericho

Turnpike

Park.

23

in

a telephone?

listed

with

Information?

in

Yes,

Is

No.

Now, did

it

is.

tehre

any

secret

there

about

MR. COHN:

I will

Did you work

for

I worked

Yes,

What was

10

I was a clerk.

11

Now, did

named

I did.
the

the

that

Trumps
for

at

question.
any

time?

three

and

a half

of

your

duties?

nature

come a time

when you met

year.

a lawye

Donna Goldstein?

I did.

Yes,

14

You saw her

15

Yes.

16

Before

your

withdraw

general

there

13

17

it?

come a time

12

64

Balistr~ri-direct

attention

here

in

you met Donna

that

somebody

18

Yes.

19

What happened?

20

They came

21

What time?

22

About

9:00

23

Nine

o'clock

24

In the

25

Who was

from

Court

this

Goldstein

did

somewhere

wanted

to my home looking

o'clock.

evening.
that?

when?

morning?

for

And I wasn't

it

come to
to

me.

there.

see

you

MR. SCHWELB:

something

somebody

it

her

5
6

is

not

Miss

Goldstein

Yes.

were

FBI agents

there

her

I didn't

10

said

there

11

night.

12

uncle.

16

what

said

looking

they

was two or one.

came at

FBI,

10:30

speaking

is

or what

she

in what

And I told

this

I
at

to my

based

on

knows?

you told

Miss

Goldstein

met her.
I will

what

she

19

purpose

with

respect

told

Goldstein

truth

thereof.

state

than

witness

Goldstein

what

I am not

for

to

a limited

of mind.

The testimony

rather

THE COURT:

permit,the

Miss
to

MR. SCHWELB:

the

her

there

Honor,

testify

22

I told

my home.

Your

THE COURT:

Miss

you and

me at

MR. SCHWELB:

18

23

for

her

If

object.
between

And someone

told

on

Goldstein?

the

uncle

based

own knowledge?

discussed

from

first

17

21

her

this

I would

whether

one.

is

came to my store

I am interested

20

or

were

her

when you

When she

was two or

They

Honor,

her

something

know exactly

13

15

told

when you met Miss

Your

own knowledge

Was this

14

64

Balistreri-direct

that

she

she

told

accepting

it

is

as

a part

Is

it

Do you understand?

24

MR. SCHWELB: Yes sir.

25

THE COURT:

All

right,

go ahead.

telling

of

Balistreri-direct

Mrs.

Balistreri?

THE WITNESS:

4
5

told

Miss

Goldstein

and

seen

your

uncle

10

you

13

16

at

Twice.

Did you
be

say

answered

had

been

us that

at

your

hous

night?

anything

to

Miss

Goldstein

on how

located?
I told

her

they

should

have

just

called

my

store.
Two gentlemen
spoke
she

to
is

my husband.

not

here

but

also

went

to my store

My husband

said

that

every

day.

she

is

here

MR. SCHWELB:
Miss

19

to

20

Goldstein
the

outside

or

is

22

You said

I told

Is
that

this

it

just

something

something

and

you
that

they

happened

related

you

to

related

world?

THE WITNESS:

21

25

10:30

On how many occasions?

18

24

at

just

FBI agents

17

23

that

you

Right.

14

15

I think

could

12

Yes.

event

you

11

In any

65

to
her

He said
Miss

to

Miss

Goldstein.

Goldstein?

how many people

had

been

looking

for

me.
THE COURT:
FBI man came to

your

store?

Well,
Is

did
that

you

understand

what

you

are

that
saying?

an

Balistreri-direct

THE WITNESS:

didn't

came

tell

me who they

looking

for

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

practically

every

10

keep

11

I am here.

saying

they

12
13

are

said

I said,

looking

for

"Well,

about

How long

She came about

5 or

10 to

lunch

hour

in

2:00,

did

this

to

Goldstein?

that

I am right

Miss

I am here
me;

they

that's

every
are

here

day.

They

looking

why I came

to

for

me.

speak

to

reason

the

shop

Hero

Was she

20

Definitely

21

Your

before

12:00

to

23

Yes,

before

24

Now, did

duties

with

the

stay?

20 after

The only

little

she

somewhere

19

25

you

17

22

two gentlemen

you."

15

18

He said

Yes.

her,

She said,

14

16

My husband

day?

I told

were.

You told

And I think

two gentlemen.

you.

No,

66

around

that

more

it

was more

recollection

is

around

she

2:00

the

is

than

and

she

left

there.

I remember
and

there

11:00

our

time
busy

is

it

was

time.

a half-hour?
than

it

half

was around

an hour.
from

o'clock?

12:00.
ask

you

Trump Organization?

any

questions

about

your

2
3

Yes,

were

there.

asked

did

All

you about
she

ask

to

she

Briefly

10

said

14

She said
three

and

said

a half

than

that.

18

said

That

22

is

is

Yes.

this

the

When she

Trump Organizatio

duties?
describe

you
I

that's

all

my duties

and

describe?

filed,

did

and

a half

clerical

years

work.

that

is

all

did.

I worked

in

other

I knew more

than

well,

word

there.

perjury

offices

and

during

that.

am sorry,

I did

all

to
for

her

--

she

She said
said

just

That
used

at

didn't

was

about

any point

know mo
it.
during

she

to me

remember,

said

when

do you know what

I said
the

char

perjury.

23

So I said

24

She said

25

there.

interview?

20

21

did

three

Was the

the

were.

her.

in

years

16

19

for

my duties

did?
I

17

you
for

me to

typed,

13

15

your

what

She said
you

me stop

asked

me what

Who my friends

you worked

them

12

let

describe

Yes,

11

She asked

I worked.

right,

I described

--

did.

how long

you

said

she

How long

67

Balistreri-direct

no,
you

I didn't
know,

she

know.
said,

it

is

one

to

years.
I said

oh,

that's

nice.

You know,

I didn't

five

Balistreri-direct

know what

she

you what

I did

4
5
6

about

there.

Now, you

are

quite

clear

to

five

years?

she

ask

one

Now, did
to

your

employment

Yes.

15

She said

16

Then

20

Trump

yes.
penny
think
or

22

own a place

23
24

25

yes,

Then
friends

any

I did.
her

talking

personal

me how old

I own this

a young

I said

to

since

questions

are

in

you.

if

that

her,

that

is

no,

like

girl

place?
place.

like
Miss

you?
Goldstein,

I am 17 years

and

She said,
could

about

own this

any way that

anything,

21

to

do you

I made

in

you

what

I am 28.

I worked
that

That's

of

by Trump?

She said

I said

you

truth?

14

If

the

truth.

She said

19

was

the

13

every

end

was

Yes.

it.

the

That

I am telling

was

being

I said

And that
her

I said

18

out.

told

12

am 28,

bring

you

17

to

What

relation

11

trying

perjury

10

was

68

is

old.

I have

how I own this

I got

the

money

what

you

are

I just

I said,

wanted

to

saved

place.

from,

trying

you
to

know,

say?

know how a girl

this.

she

asked

me alx>ut

my friends,

who my

were.
Q

I want

you

to

go into

all

the

questions

that

Balistreri-direct

she

asked

want

to

ship

you had with

5
6

you about
ask

you

different

did

she

Yes.

friends

ask

Donald

69
of yours.

you about

any personal

She said

I said

were

you single

when you worked

married.

I wasn't

yes,

do you know Donald

She said

11

I said

12

Did he ever

13

I said

no,

he did

14

MR. COHN:

Nothing

15

MR. SCHWELB: Can I have

you ever

did

go out

him?

with

not.

I did

no,

Trump?

him.

for

I worked

yes,

10

ask

you out?
not.
further.
about

a two-minute

recess?

17

THE COURT:

Let's

have

a ten-minute

18

MR. COHN:

What's

your

pleasure

today,

20

your

THE COURT:
go,

22

adjust

the

23

2:00

o'clock.

24

It's

a juvenile

except

recess.

about

time

Honor?

21

25

relation-

there?
I said

19

I do

Trump?

She said

16

But

what

As far

as there

I will

do is

hour

because

lunch

That

will

are

I will

probably

I have

probably

take

hearing.

MR. COHN:

That

would

help

witnesses

me.

a matter

to

have

to

on at

a half-hour.

Balistreri-direct

THE COURT:

lunch

hour

4
5

C A R O L

10

and

at

your

16

word

18

19

20

21

(After

recess.)

previously

been

as

out

so

that

the

over.

called

duly

further

Miss

taken

Yes

And you

Yes.

Didn't

of

this

sworn,

as

a witness,

resumed

the

stand

follows:

the

record,

you

ago,

did

appeared

you

not?

No.

And that

you

testify

at

nobody

you

that

deposition?

the

deposition

that

every

own?

just

helped

signed

But

you write

testified

nobody

MR. COHN:
mind.

the

I did.

and

at

was your

And that

I don't

for

a few weeks

testified

affidavit

that

just

you

Yes,

say

just

I did.

own handwriting
could

Falcone,

24
25

recess.)

deposition

15

23

(Short

testified

14

22

stretched

it

BY MR. SCHWELB:

13

17

be

work

CROSS-EXAMINATION

11

12

So we will

B A L I S T R E R I

having

will

70

if

could
it,

Your

Honor,
it

that

is

it

--

is

in

that
if

going

it

was
that

at

in

all?

your

case

nobody

right?

it

is
to

just

preliminary

be on something

Balistreri-cross

particular

this

1would

question

rather

and

did

Well,

let

me ask

it

MR. COHN:

THE COURT:

Let

write

10

just

it

in

signed

your

Yes.

12

Now, was

13

tion

of

14

that

you wrote

the

is

All
it

interview
that

it

you

asked

answer.
summary,

your

Honor.

what

I am worried

about.

right.
differently.

Did you

~o that

also

with
statement

Yes.

16

Now, you were

affidavit

before

the

18

Yes.

19

You testified
didn't

nobody

in

fact

could

say

you

Yes.

22

And now
MR. COHN:

24

to

talk

25

him say

that

your

Goldstein
rather

given

was

than

at

it

the

the

weren't

was

all

recollec-

at

an opportunity

deposition,

that

best

time

present

time.

to

at

look

you?

true

and

no

you?

21

23

true

Miss

errors,

very

were

differently.

15

20

him say

it?

your

is

own handwriting

11

17

It

That

me ask

have

you givethis

MR. SCHWELB:

71

about
were

the
you

Of course,

your

deposition

I would

asked

this

question

Honor,

if

prefer
and

he wants
to

did

have

you

give

Balistreri-cross

this

answer.

THE COURT:

4
5

you

7
8
9

what

try

to

You tried

had

12

for

13

by another

14

place

15

against

Civil

Miss

Goldstein

20

21

" that

22

a criminal

23

in

in

the
of

with

you

Miss

down

your

affidavi

Goldstein,

July
the

attorney

Department
19,

civil

1974

and

at

my

rights

suit

on that

occasion

by

Goldstein.

And now later

on in

your

affidavit

I was a criminal

made me feel
Was that

Goldstein

wrote

attorney?

you.

Miss

in

Justice

interviewed

Thank

"

Trump Management."

MR. SCHWELB:

charge

stated

Donna

morning

connection

another
just

you

of

employer,

and

fact

Falcone,

I said.

that

Division
on the

No,

Miss

You know,

by Miss

Now, were

19

25

Rights

my former

18

24

exaggerate.

interviewed

business

16

affidavit,

exaggerate?

to me and what

attorney

of

to

Now, I believe

" I was
the

your

not

didn't

said

that

right.

fair?

Yes.

11

17

be

she

10

All

Now, in writing

did

72

you
being

only

Miss

Goldstein?

was

the

only

one

I said

it

that

because

that

said,
held

on

questioned

me.
I meant

when

they

came

looking

they

my place.

for

were

me at
all

Miss

she

such

trying

That

is
Is

Goldstein

7
8

10
11

12
13
14

came at

15

2:00?

to

it

No one

The others

Very

And they

Polite

I think

that

right

know,

there

feel

somebody
like

my unfairly

about

as
at

other

than

a criminal?
except

19

20

and

nice

you

I felt

that

you

today

12:00

three,

Well,

affidavit

22

right,

is
A

Miss

Goldstein

and

testified

left

that

at

she

about

was

in

your

three

and

three

and

it

a half

a half

says,

hours."

11

hours.
which

That

isn't

it?
Yes,

and maybe
Q

they?

hours.

Approximately

approximately

that

o'clock

you

lasted

were

fairly?

testified

affidavit

a half

21

to you,

fairly.

before

In your

three

were

treated

a little

there

all

and

17

25

I was

you

nice.

Yes.

hours

they,

by it.

make you

treated

24

that

me when

testimony

to

and

I meant

your

tried

hours

reach

what

16

23

odd

did.

18

73

Balistreri-cross

ten

Three

it

is

right.

minutes,
hours

It
or

and

three

ten

is

approximately
hours

minutes?

and

seven

three
minutes

About

until

time.

about

5
6

me of

dating

10

2:00

your

affidavit

Donald

Trump

Actually
whether

you

dated

Donald

Trump

did

Donald

Well,

if

I guess

12

you mean?

13

I assume

14

That

15

It

is

that

17

18

questions,

19

different

did

she

not,

Yes.

21

She asked

23

there
A

24

were.

25

think

in

Around

stated

front

that

is

that

right?

said

to

" . she

of my husband

according

you

to

do you

that

11

you,

date

accused.

what

she

And is

that

what

meant.

assumption.

Thank

you.

Goldstein

asked

you a number

of

about

racial

composition

of

the

buildings?

20

whites

you

2:00.

11:00

my assumption.

Now, Miss

to

you,

is

MR. SCHWELB:

16

ten

after

ask

is

your

a quarter

accused.

that

is
is

she

someone

You guess

or

Trump,

that

11

22

From about

after

Now, in

accused

that.

a quarter

7
8

74

Balistreri-cross

were

in

each

She said

How many do you

were

white.

you how many blacks

of

how many

them?

what

do you

think

were

And I said

and

think
black

I didn't

the
and
know.

denominations
how many do you

Balistreri-cross

not,

that

4
5

And you

she

A
I would

as whites.

know,

were

was accusing
Well,

assume

inferred

that

if

you meant

And I said
in

from

you or

you had

I didn't

that

10

GR fls

11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

next

questions,

page.)

you

discrimination?

me a question
did

did

we have

like

that

as many blacks

know how many of which,

the'building.

(Continued

those

Trump of

asked

8
9

75

you

76

GR/rp
2amrl

1
2
3

cusing

And you took

you of

lying

MR. COHN:

that

the

12

oid

14

what

It

18

she

said

ask

understand.

Miss

was ac-

You took

from

the

racial

composition

of

Goldstein

--

friendly

of

questions

Do you understand
Excuse

the

withdraw

it?

question?

Do you want

me.

how many blacks

I'll

about

to know

and how many white?

the

question.

phrased.

Now, at

the

strike

At the
a very

she

lying?

you a lot

about

was poorly

20

25

she

MR. SCHWELB:

17

--

me?

you of

THE WITNESS:

16

24

I don't

THE COURT:

15

she

building.

13

23

Excuse

MR. SCHWELB: About

11

that

What?

she was accusing

10

that

that?

THE WITNESS:

22

from

about

MR. COHN:

21

- Schwelb

BY MR. SCHWELB (Cont'd):

19

- cross

CROSS-EXAMINATION

4
5

Balistreri

conclusion
that,

of

conversation,
Yes.

She was polite

Yes.

your

discussion

with

please.

beginning

of

your

didn't

I was polite

you?

to her.

to you?

discussion,

you had

77
1

Balistreri

- cross
her

And you offered

Yes.

And she had it?

Yes.

And you discussed

She was discussing

at her nails

and said,

And you said

11

Yes.

12

That was the tone

13

At the beginning.

14

When you left,

15

16

And she said

17

Yes.

10

18

manicures.

you couldn't

in your

rude

said,

you said,

"Goodbye.

11

line

of

"Goodbye"?

"Goodbye!? .

She was in my place

and I wouldn't

be

to her.
MR. SCHWELB: I have no further
this

witness,

questions

your Honor.

THE COURT: Any redirect?,

22

MR. COHEN: May I have

just

23

25

11

of conversation?

21

24

She was looking

business?

19
20

I think?

had a manicure.

a cup of coffee?

manicures,

just

"I

- Schwelb

(Continued

on next

page.)

a second?

of

78

Balistreri

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. COHN:

Just

you on the

about

- redirect

one.

subject

Did Miss Goldstein

of the

Government

what went on in the

the

scope

of the

wondering

if

11

to ask it

as an omitted

12

Mr.

I could

it

Honor.

probably

is.

have your Honor's

question.

THE COURT: We will

oppor~unity

for

see.

Beyond

I was

permission

I suppose

possibly

I'll

give

you an

some recross.

15

MR. SCHWELB: All

16

THE COURT: Go ahead.

right.
I'll

let

you ask the

question.
BY MR. COHN:

19

20

any information

21

going

22

23

your

--

13

17

from --

direct.

10

14

to

information

Trump organization

MR. COHN: I think

18

having

MR. SCHWELB: Objection,

say anything

--

about

how the

say anything
Government

to you about
knew what was

on in the Trump organization?

A

that

Did Miss Goldstein

Yes.

you answered

She said
the

24

I said,

25

She said,

phone,

to me, she said,

"You told

me

did you?"

"Yes , I answered
"Did you notice

the

phone. "

when you answered

the

79
1

Balistreri

phone if

anyone

I said,

in the voices.

11

are

tapes,"

incident

you would say,

"

I said,
of it."

I said,
the

11

you know,"

She said,

14

I said,

15

She said,

16

I said,

"And we can prove

' Shoo,
"I never

that

every

'Hang up on them. ' "

did that.

I never

what she said

"Are you saying

"There

in the background

shoo, ' or

about

that

trying

to bring

''Well,

the

even heard
tapes.

I did this

you did answer

"I didn't
11

always

on

"I do not know anything

out

11

the phones.

of this.

11

this?"
What

to me?M

MR. COHN: I have nothing

19

MR. SCHWELB: I don't

particular

answer

the phone.

Do you know of anyone who did

18

20

she said,

tapes?"

13

you're

"Why?

"Because

And that's

11

12

didn t know the d.fference

I said,

she said,

phone was Negro?"

when a Negro would call,

10

was on the

I really

She said,

17

that

redirect

allegation

further.

think

is necessary,

21

MR. COHN: Well,

22

THE COURT: You may step

23

MR. COHN: All right.

24

(Witness

25

MR. COHN: Mr. Miranda,

any cross

on that

your Honor.

you -down.

excused.)
with

your Honor s

80
1

Miranda-

permission.

2
3

direct

THOMAS

MIRANDA,

having

been first

testified

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. COHN:

called

duly

sworn by the Clerk

Mr. Miranda,

Yes.

10

You saw her here in Court

11

Yes.

12

did there

14

Yes.

15

July

16

That's

17

About how long was she there?

18

About one hour

19

And when she came in,

sion

21

wanted

this

morning?

come a time when she came to your

with

her about

to talk

of 1974?
right.

on the

and a half,

subject

two hours.

did you have any discusmatter

of whether

you

to her or not?

22

Never.

23

Did you tell

I told

25

do you know Donna Goldstein?

home?

20

24

of the Court

as follows:

13

as a witness

She didn't

mention

that

to me.

her you did not want to be involve

in this?
her

I don't

want to be involved

in this.

81
1

Miranda

2
3

Did she tell

have to answer

her

- direct

you at any time

Never.

Now, did she ask you questions

tion

in any of the
A

She asked

And did

or not

10

11

she was satisfied

my answer,

questions

that's

with

your

she was not

13

Well,

15

is.

17

she told
of higher

me that
authority

MR. SCHWELB: I don't

16

satisfied

--

she threatened

or jail

understand

your Honor.

19

MR. SCHWELB: Can he go more slowly?

20

THE COURT: Let's

21

(Question

24
25

it

the witness,

MR. COHN: May the

23

me

or whatever

18

22

with

right.

What did she say to you?

the question

whether

answers?

with

yes.

to you about

12

14

discrimina

of discrimination,

she say anything

In the beginning

about

Trump buildings?

you did not

questions?

that

answer

hear

be read,

it.

Read it

with

which

your Honor?

back.

read.)

BY MR. COHN:
Q

That was in connection

answers,

Mr. Miranda?
A

In connection

with

the question

I refused

to

82
1

Miranda

be cooperative

in relation

be involved.

4
5

discrimination

at the
Well,

building,

with

Did she press

- direct

precisely

that

No.

10

After

keep pushing

Yes.

13

About what point

16
17

18

Well,

conversation
Q

that

discrimination

her

there

of the

was not,

interview

put

it

that

this

way.

did she

was the

term

Maybe in the beginning

we have.

By the way, you yourself

are

Puerto

Rican;

is

correct?

19

I am Puerto

20

How long did you work for

21

Two years.

22

Rican.

MR. COHN: I have nothing

23

CROSS-EXAMINATION

24

BY MR. SCHWELB:

25

Trump

used by h.er?
A

of the

--

you on it?

15

had been

her?

you h.ad told

12

11

there

want to

yes.
What did you tell

"jail

I don't

Trump buildings?

14

case.

you to say that

11

this

Mr. Miranda,

you filed

the

Trumps?

further,

an affidavit

your

Honor.

in this

83
1

case

Miranda
earlier,

- cross

did you not?

If

Yes.

To whom?

You signed

I signed

a paper

And that

affidavit

wasn't

I file

Yes.

11

You don't

is

in this

a paper

is

that

That's

14

Youwere given

16

is

17

was written

in legal

terms;

the

legal

terms

very

well;

right?
A

ddn't

an affidavit?

when?

understand

13

15

which

case?

it?

10

12

an affidavit

right.
a chance

know how to make changes

that

to make changes

on a document

in legal

but you
terms;

right?
I don't

18

mentioned

19

and good

that

to me.

looked

all

think

so.

I don't

I saw the
right

20

You didn't

21

No.

22

Who write

23

Somebody in the

24

What office

25

Trump office.

write

think

affidavit

and I signed
it,

it?
office.

was that?

that

they

even

was in good terms

it.

did you?

84
1

Miranda

- cross

Thank you.

Now, when

'This

gentleman

came first

For the

Deposition.

10

So you had not

11

affidavit,

here,

Mr. Roy Cohn?

for

a hearing

I met

in the

him over

deposition;

is

Whatever

that

right?

met him when you signed

your

had you?

13

Now, did you know that

fidavit,

Miss Goldstein

could

get

MR. COHN: Your Honor,

16

Did he know with

Miss Goldstein

could

get

into

think

that's

I don't

19

THE COURT: I think

20

MR. SCHWELB: If

22

your

Honor,

explained

24

sought,
Q

to him why the

trouble?

affidavit
trouble?

question.

objection

I understand

is well

the ground

inquire

affidavit

whether

explain

for

was being

anyone
asked

etc.
Did anybody

take.

I could,--

THE COURT: You might

23

to his

a proper

af-

to that.

serious

that

of your

serious

I object

respect

18

the objection,

as a result

in ver

15

25

when I

you call.

No.

21

here

lobby.

17

Roy Cohn.

Mr.

12

14

meet Mr. Cohn?

Mr. Cohn?

.did you first

to you why the

affidavit

--

85
1

10

was being

Miranda

taken?
If

that

- cross

anybody

-- well,

is

quite

explain

it

to you?

Did anybody

The result

Did anybody

No.

what would be done with

10

No.

11

Now, I think

6
I

12

office

13
14

to answe

question.

difficult

after

I don't

--

explain

this

Miss Goldstein

following

of the

the affidavit?
to you --

the

affidavit?

-- did you go to Mr. Trump's

came to see you?

remember

if

it

was the

same day or the

day.

15

Sometime

16

Yes.

17

You told

18

Miss Goldstein

19

his

case

after?

Mr. Trump, didn't

had interviewed

and not your

you about

you,

you --

that

this

case

and it

was

in his

lousy

cas?

case?

20

I --

21

You didn't

22

That's

23

Now, he's

24

Mr. Trump, yes.

25

So he spent

want to be involved

true.
a very busy man, is he not?

only

about

five

or ten minutes

with

86
1

11

you;

Miranda
is

that

- cross

right?

15 or 20 minutes,

Didn't

Five,

short

time?

short

time.

Now, do you think

9
10

summary of everything

10 minutes.

that

that

it

I don't

your

happened

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

follow

affidavit
between

In this

particular

case

tion.

13

JC fols.

was five

or 10 minut
the

is

s?

time.

a fair

you and

Miss Goldstein?

11

12

you testify

more or less.

(Continued

on next

page.)

I was looking

for

prote

87

Miranda

Trump
2am2
gr/nc

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. SCHWELB:(Cont.)

..-'.cross/Scnwelb

What kind of protection?

You see,

many, many, many times

when they mention

authority

affidavit

11

happened

13
14

you put in your

of everything

that

day?

I put a fair

picture

of everything

that

Right.

Between you and Miss Goldstein.

A

16
17

because

18

the second,

It's

I didn't

very difficult.
have it

because

19

it

for me to

happens

Mr. Miranda,
called

In the first
right

place

at the moment,

a long time ago.

All right.

20

isn't

it

true

that

Miss Goldstein

you -THECOURT: Hold it

22
23

purpose

24

read

25

higher

in my house?

15

21

picture

words,

scared.

ask you whether

at your house that

happened

And I need protection

I was a little

you gave a fair

If

I have been harassed

in other

of

the question

Let me just

12

city.

in this

or somebody else,
Q

10

I'm a minority.

of this

just

a minute.

I know the

was to give him an opportunity

to

it.
MR. SCHWELB:I'm sorry,

your Honor.

I was

88
1

going

to take

Q
telephone,

16

17
18

get

25

withdraw

it.

is

all

first

right.
contacted

you by

she not?
That

And she was very

you,

is

right.
polite

when she set

up the

was she not?

She was very

polite.

And when she was at your house

she wasn't

rude,

Well,

I was not

Now, Mr. Miranda,

She was all

You say

You see,

cooperative,she

was a little

--

right.

she has her

in relation

own purpose

with

to be there

discrimination

to

in

Trump buildings.

22

24

did

some information

21

23

I'll

rude.

15

20

but

was she?

13

19

This

Now, Miss Goldstein

with

11

14

by step

step

meeting

10

12

it

THE WITNESS:

- cross/Schwelb

THE COURT: Yes.

Miranda

mind,

Right.

Right?

in other

But that
authority

doesn't

words,

So in the
that

mean that

or something

like

position

that

she has to do her

she is,

I don't

job properly.

she has to use words of higher

that.

89
1

Miranda

- cross/Schwelb

The words were higher

authority?

Yes.

in the Department

Let me just

youtestified

girl?

Somebody higher

Justice.

and isn't

ask you first,

it

true

that

A nice

She wasn't

10

11

Her job was to interview

12

Yes.

13

The agency?

14

Yes.

15

At the

you -- you-had

nice

rude

girl.

that

she is a nice

coffee

and donuts

18

You had a very

if

Rico and the problems

with

you about

her job,
her,

the Trump --

she asked

did you not?

I remember.
friendly

of Puerto

20

Yes.

21

And at the

good bye and everything

A

Of course.

24

As a matter

end of it

of fact,

again,

isn't

discussion

Ricans,

was very

23

to come to your house

to you in her words?

end of her doing

Yes,

25

true

Doing her job.

22

it

girl.

17

19

isn't

you think

16

of

didn't

you said

about

Puerto

you?

good bye and she

friendly?

you -she?

she is welcome

aid

90
1

Miranda

2
3

Anytime.

Thank you.
Now, it's

you told

that

her that

that's

true,

you didn't

Mr. Trump's

I don't

All right.

necessary,

10
11

isn't

it,

Mr. Miranda,

want to be involved

She told

She mentioned

All right.

you, did she not,

something

about

what you mean by the higher

No.

14

What do you mean by the higher

15

Higher

18

what I mean, higher

that

authority

She said

that

She mentioned

20

Is that

21

That's

22

Thank you.

authority?

means FBI, police.

the FBI might

Goldstein's

presence

to your son?

something

like

what you considered

what I considered

Now, during

23

talk

authority?

That's

interview

you,

is

what she said?

A

25

if

authority.

19

24

that

it.

case

you might have to be subpoenaed?

Is that

17

in this

want to be involved.

13

16

that

case?

12

- cross/Schwelb

the course

at your house,

that.
threatening?

threatening.

of your -- of Miss
did you have occasion

to

91
1

2
3
4

didn't

8
9

I called

Now, didn't
to give

12

16

ANd he advised

20

21
22

23
24

25

No.

In other

words,

information

to her,

You talked

Yes, I did.

And wasn't

to him, too,

the subject

subject

of the

with that
son told

The

she talked

didn't

you?

of your conversation

information?
conversation

but when I took the phone after

me to make my own judgment.

with my son.

conversation.

give

was in relatio

she finish,

To do it

my

or not.

All right.
Now, Mr. Miranda,

the main problem

was she was trying
didn't

as to

he?

you should

18
19

you to give

with him whether

17

your son for advice

to her?

Yes.

14
15

you call

information

They have a short

11

- cross/Schwelb

my son.

10

13

whether

Miranda

about

would it

be fair

Miss Goldstein's

to get you involved

want to be involved

to say that

visit

to your house

in the

case and you

in the case?

MR. COHN: Your Honor,

MR. SCHWELB:

I object

to that.

Cross-examination,

THE COURT: Yes, I think

it

is fair

your Honor.
cross-

92
1

Miranda - cross/Schwelb

6
examination.

Do you understand

THE WITNESS: Make the --

8
9

10

MR. SCHWELB: I'll

Q

back.

rephrase

You were annoyed because

you involved

in the case and you didn't

in the case;

is that

it,

your Honor.

she was trying

to get

want to be involved

right?

That is right.

Okay.

11

12

Read it

THE COURT:

6
7

the question?

Now, Mr. Miranda,

do you know Ronald

Bunn and Agnes Bunn?

13

No.

Weren't

14

you talking

to Mr. Bunn in this

15

room today?
16

Oh.

A black

Yes.

Do you know him?

Yes.

For how long have you known him?

For two years.

And a nice

Very nice

17

gentleman

in the courtroom

18
19
20

21
22
23

fellow?

24

25

fellow.

today?

court-

93
1

Miranda

2
3

4
5
6
7

of

Truthful.

Now, didn't

to return

don't

woman and tell

that

18

I dont recall

You don~ recall

No, I don't

I don't
with

you didn't

a deposit

want to have
the

that.
it?

remember that.

remember doing

that.

I never

Now, is it

that

I don't

So you do recall?

I didn't

I never

and talking

did it.

with this

g y

did.

you don't

recall

or you didn't

do it.

recall.

MR. COHN: He recalls

20

25

to return

Mr. Trump ought to return

19

24

with

do it?

17

23

that

in relation

16

22

having

him that

deposit,

recall.

14

21

you have a conversation

deposit?

11

15

a black

10

13

Truthful?

Mr. Bunn or with Mrs. Bunn about

12

- cross/Schwelb

In other

for the business

discuss
that

this

I'm talking

of the ---

matter

we discuss

words,

everything

about

that

of the company,

with the tenants.

with the office

Well,

he --

I work.

I consider

this

I never
someth ng

or --

do you have any

with respect

is in particula

idea

of what incident

to a black woman?

94
I

Miranda - cross/Schwelb

MR. COHN: Your Honor,

beyond the scope of direct

the scope of this

moreover,

of this

22
23

24

25

than the merits

testimony

The problem

If I may

is that

-is very apparent.

is very apparent.

MR. SCHWELB:All right.

All right,

your Honor.

BY MR. SCHWELB:

16

21

on that?

THE COURT: The problem

14

20

of the case

is getting,

MR. SCHWELB: Pardon?

13

19

It

is.

it

THE COURT: ,The problem

12

18

the merits

briefly

Mr. Miranda's

11

17

hearing.

particular

be heard

IO

to as

and beyond

MR. SCHWELB: Here is the problem:

15

into

objected

examination

THE COURT: I think

that's

Now, did you have ---

else

from the Department

of Justice

did you meet anybody

before

you met Miss

Goldstein?
First,yeah

-- was another

girl.

I don't

rememb r

her name, no.

Q

Was it

Elise

I think

this

Have you seen her in the courtroom

Yes.

Is it

Goldweber?
is the name.

the young lady wearing

glasses

tod~y?

in the third

95
1
2

Miranda
in the right-hand

3
4

side?

Yes.

All right.

- cross/Schwelb

When she came to your house,

was she polite

to

you?

Very polite.

And pleasant?

Pleasant.

And she asked

Yes.

And there

9
10

you questions,

also,

did she

11

not?
12
13

14

Miss Goldstein

15

questions

More or less.

And both of them asked

any information

to the ones

you?

A
16

17

asked

were similar

about

discrimination

you whether

you had

by Trump, didn't

they?

18
19

Yes.

And you had a long chat

with

her and

were

20

friendly
21

with
A

her also?
And isn't

it

a fact,

MR. Miranda,

22

told

Miss Goldweber

that

racial

markings

23

pieces

of paper

attached

24

A
25

No.

to applications?

that

were placed

you
on

96
1

Miranda

10

2
3
4
5

6
7

told

12
13

place

15
16

17
18

19
20

21
22

23
24

25

No.

Did you tell

No.

Did you ever

Department

possible

10

14

You didn't

Justice

11

those

tell

people

discrimination

her that?

that

to Miss Goldstein?

tell

anybody or tell

that
with

No.

Did you ever

that

- cross/Schwelb

-- about
any black

tell

No.

Did you tell

an incident

of

family?

anybody that

the management preferred

any of the

you had been

Jews?

them that

they wanted

to keep your

white?
A

No.

You didn't

tell

any of those

people

any of

things?
A

Any of those

things.

Now, I think

you testified

was written

the affidavit

by somebody else?

Yes.

And Miss Goldstein

at any time?
A

that

Yes.

is welcome in your house

97

JIXX

Miranda - cross/Schwelb

11

MR. SCHWELB: Thank you.

THE WITNESS:

REDIRECTEXAMINATION

BY MR. COHN:

6
7

word "jail"
A

in the beginning

10
11

12

of the interview

used by Miss Goldstein,

Quite

difficult

what you should

A

--

I believe

it

was

of the conversation.
you telephoned

your son to ask

do?
Before,

before.

13

MR. COHN: I have nothing

14

MR. SCHWELB: I have nothing

15

was the

do you remember?

but I think

Sometime before

questions.

All right.

About what point

No further

further,

your Honor.

further,

your

Honor.

16

THE COURT: All right.

17

You may step

18

MR. COHN: May I have just

down, Mr. Miranda.

19

your Honor.

Your Honor, that's

20

the exception

of the testimony

21

could

a second,
all

please,

we have with

of Cecilmans

who we

not get today.

I will

22
23

subject

24

that

25

motion.

that

not call

to confirmation
incident
That's

Mr. Brovman in view of Miss -of Miss Goldstein's

took place
it.

after

Then we will

statement

the date
rest.

of our

Subject

to

98

1
2

Miranda

12

the -MR. SCHWELB: Could I have about

3
4

minute

conference

the

COURT:

THE

(continued

10

11

12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

to resolve

Yes,
next

a three-

Mr. Cohn?

calendar.

with

We may be able

5
6

- cross/Schwelb

certainly.

page.(

this

.and unclog

99
GR:MM 1
T2R3

MR. SCHWELB:

excuse

ing

has

his

been

I might

say

by defendant

for

that

not

no

produc-

witnesses.
MR. COHN:

Mr.

I' 11 give

Schwelb

has

your

Honor's

patience

this

because

it

Miss

8
9

sets

10

the

11

incorrect

12

in

13

next

14

and

15

to

16

was desired.

is

morning,

week,
she

not

had

be over

of

explained
in

this

direct

pleasure

around

at

her

to

today,
she

MR. SCHWF.LB: This

had

I had

has

12:20

in

them

with

to

change

told

--

29th,
said,

on a phone

whenever

her

sornethinq

of

different

on October

was available

courtroom

all

three

two of
she

I know

here.

up to

be here

when

with

of

hours

which

and

issue

subpoenas,

them

for

instead

the

tried

the

of

around

a little

three

one

calling

marshals

in

had

serving

longhand

sent

going

dates,

a qoo d excuse.

gets

Falcone

of marshals

17

Honor,

furnished

18

Your

call

testimony

to

do with

the

Zisselman's?
MR. COHN:

19

20

concerned,

21

as

I tried

I could.

had
23

date

24

had

25

today.

a calendar
had

to

switched

Yes.
to

As far
treat

When your
problem,
be changed.
around

their

as

them

Honor
and

had
the

the
with

are

as much courtesy

a calendar
Court

I contacted
proqrams

Zisselman's

of
the

and

problem,
Appeals,

I
the

Zisselman's
could

not

who
come

100
I said
2

to

them,

"If

you?"

They

cannot

get

We can

come on a few days'

to

agree

"Now that

us with

Mr.

5
6

said

He apparently

first

fy.

11

wants

these

Now I think
one

of

the

having

second

affidavits,

16

timony

would

if

his

18

that,

your

19

suggested

20

That's

Zisselman's

be in

miqht

I miqht

be able

Zisselman's.
I thought
would

thoughts
the

the

so testi
and only

other.

--

both,

I accept

hearing,
were

with

me take

In

their

tes-

affidavits.

a couple

offered

it.

I would

here,

these

of minutes

on

him anything.

to

some tim.

be a possibility,

save

all.

THE COURT:

23

MR. SCHWELB:

will

Let

I never

22

25

be there.

they

this

accordance

Let

to

can't

--

not

is

the

21

24

offer
conclude

Honor.
that

Honor

and

MR. SCHWELB:

17

and

Your

the

we take

he's

expedite
that

that

that

MR. COHN: If
to

of

stipulate

13

stipulate

you

notice."

and

MR. SCHWELB:

15

We just

affidavits

12

order

I qet

us that,

made a proposal

sugqesting

affidavits

14

told

could

to.

10

has

you,

you have

a subpoena.

Schwelb

We have

I subpoena

Mr.

me study

Cohn's

testify

it

right

All

right.

Your

proposal,
in accordance

now and we'll

Honor,

that

Mr.
with

I will
and
their

determine

stipulate

Mrs.

it

as

Zisselman

affidavits.

They

101
3

weren't

affidavits.

2
3

MR. COHN:
Honor?

Or read

4
5

They were

them

THE COURT:
exhibits,

if

MR. COHN:

Paul

THE CLERK:
dant's

I have

in

and

Exhibit

You can

have

them marked

Thank

Paula

That's

A in

Paul

Exhibit

( So marked.

14

MR. COHN:

We rest,

15

MR. SCHWF:LB: Your

18

for

19

that

the

20

kind

of proof

21

credible

and

haven't

contempt

aqainst

an order

22
23

the

the

against

defendant

the

marked

THE COURT:

All

Paula

Bin

evidence.

your

Honor.

Honor,

defen-

States,

the

right.

this

against
the

States,

Court

time

Miss

Gold-

proceedings
on the

make anything
if

Zisselman

I move at

United

didn't

heard.

is

proceedings

required,

marked

one

United

evidence

been

Zisselman

13

stein

as vour

evidence.

Defandant's

17

your

Zisselman.

The other

dismiss

now,

vou.

THE CLERK:

to

marked?

them

11

16

marked

have

( So marked.

marked

them

or

10

12

statements.

you wish.

Should

siqned

arounds

approaching
considers

May I see

the

the

that?

They

yet?

24

THE CLERK:

Yes,

25

THE COURT:

Do you want

your

Honor.
to

be heard,

Mr.

Cohn,

103

I think

1
2

part

of the

the

a case

a charge

rights

it's

it's

Government

which

and I think

further

by putting

meet,

when it's

10

those

stages,

11

knowledqe

12

Government,

13

permitted

14

tion

15

complaint

16

around

17

circumstances

18

a prosecutor.

defendants

the

send

Government

Trump buildinqs,
is

mit a little

21

I've

22

fering

law.

been through

The second

24

this.

As is

25

this

did not

filen
with

Honor's

IT won't
that

circumstances

what they
trial

issue

take

issue

the
of the

aaency,

is

informa-

time

inthe

undercover

a lot

to

and after

the

an

which

are

and furnish

outside

imoroner

I would ask your

20

Court

-- when with

in a --

periods

charoe,

the

or any other

particulars

that

of the

submit the collaboration

to and does

is

resists.

for

Government

Urban Lea~ue

or the

when there

and clarifies

case

of

a serious

on notice,

a priority

and I would

violative

of all,

stoutlv

complaint

when the

to the

it's

containinq

defendant

the

the

of power on the

has been an order

expands
the

first

a case

the

When there

23

an abuse

of a defendant,

in progress,

19

--

teste

of attendant

conduct

onthe

leave

on that

me very

in another

oart

of

to sub-

long because
forum on dif-

recently.
phase

apparent

ofthe
from the

motion,

your

testimony

come -- we probably

haven't

Honor,

before

is

you,

scratched

the

109
11

who sends

supervision

telling

civil

r.icr"'ts

being

charged

certainly

telling

12:00

housekeeping

boys
and

them

out

to

call

case

in

12

the

13

nothinq

14

in

rules

night,

to

job

can

this

closing

record,
to

relation

that

in

do with
to

his

22
23
24
25

hours

to

Honor

not

there

is

which

not

at

10:00,

that

the

11:00,
better

things

references

completely

outside

are
motion

--

I object.

(Continued

make

he complained

Your

is

by t~e

original

anything

and

think

to

are

that

he entitled
to

this

I think

homes

I just

my judgement

MR. SCHWELB:

21

to

--

employees

courtesy

that

extend

within
former

be done

argument

16

20

--

I think

certainly

go around

MR. COHN:

19

of

which

job.

1 and

murder

15

18

these

MR. SCIDAJELB: Is

11

flw 17

should

and

not

do the

witnesses

with

them

to

control

ground

at

10

notes

the

on next

page.)

not

true

and
about?

and

didn't

have
happe

ll
GRrp

2amr4&5

MR. COHN: What is not

7
8

went in the middle

12
13

14

that

outside

evidence

19

of a request

the

tasks

tactics

that

an agency

in respect

politeness
this

anything

Mr. Schelb,

--

section,

I find

no

of the

nature

by the FBI in doing

to them.

I consider

acted

that

with

office

was permitted

assigned

make about

by his

such a request.

in the record

of Gestapo

an extraordinary
which,

in my view,

even of criminal,

and respect

for

charge

the

has always

with

rules

to

the

utmost

and laws of

country.
MR. COHN: Let me say this,

16

18

of the night.

to the FBI to conduct

15

17

FBI agents

THE COURT: I would have to agree

10
11

record?

MR. SCHWELB: About what these

4
5

in the

As far
a better
with

Judge

as the FBI is concerned,

friend

of the FBI than

you completely.

Neaher.

nobody has bee

I have.

I have written

I agree

that

publicly,

magazines,

books,

newspaper

a:rticles,

and I think

20

they

consider

21
22

me such.

But I will

say this

tolyour

Honor.

I think

it

is way out of line,

in a civil

rights'

case,

23

for

agents

24
25

to be at potential

THE COURT: Well,

I will

witnesses'

homes.

have to take

notice

of the

fact

that

the

Federal

Bureau

of

judicial

111
1

Investigation

is precisely

not only

United

States

of the

Department

the

ivolations
but

And this

to my attention

or agents

that

could

type

conduct.

10

it

that.
of the

acts

in purely

time

that

anyone

has charged

matter

with

in a civil
be described

it

as storm

some kind
trooper

of conduct

or Gestapo~

in the
the

such a charge

13

charge

is utterly

without

14

B here.

16

no~ against

The charge
the

in this

..from A to

proceeding

is

FBI.

THE COURT: I mderstand.

18

MR. COHN: I have never

the FBI in my life.

why I haven't

we' re going

contempt

17

against

and I think

foundation.

MR. COHN: Your Honor,

15

and I never

brought

a charge

I have personal
would.

reasons

My relationship

is much too close.

THE COURT: There

23

MR. COHN: Fine.

24

THE COURT: Other

25

an FBI agent

THE COURT: I have found no evidence

to sustain

22

matters.

has ever. been brought

record

21

arm

civil

first

12

20

investigating

MR. COHN: Your Honor.

11

19

investigates

laws of the

as the

of Justice

is the

It

in regular

course

to the

is no evidence

in this

record.

than

the making of a request

FBI,

giving

names of persons

112
1
2

the department
tion

with

wishes

to have interviewed

a particular

matter.

MR. COHN: Okay.

THE COURT: The FBI is supposed

trained,

tion

assignments

perhaps

are

professional,

would be that

based-upon

in the evening,

oftentimesrequired

10

in order

11

people

12

hours.

13

whatever

14

that

15

other

16

shown here.

own schedule

they

because

their

time,

performed,

oftentimEBbecause

as I say,

in my judgment
action

It

by

during

there

would warrant

this

Court

is perfectly

the daytime

employees

were approached,

19

attempted

to be interviewed.

20

son or another,

21

witnesses,

22

tions

23

a basis

24

attorneys.

which is

However,
is nothing

here

any contempt

or

on the basis

'.Obvious that

18

they

agents

in the evening

even approachable

the

of

went out,

No one at home and so forth.

17

25

their

or presump-

to work late

to get matters
aren't

to be well

and the assumption

and work to be done,

late

in connec-

of the proof

some former

were interviewed
Presumably

did not turn

understable

such as one of this

kind.

for one rea-

out to be willing
in some certain
But I hardly

for

critisizing

the actions

I feel

that

here

nothing

or

situa
find

it

of the plaintiff'

would amount to any

113
1

reason

why this

them or censure

that

grant

tion

Court

in this

Government's

from the

condemn

them or punish

them for what was done here.

is my ruling
the

should

matter,

motion

and I therefore

to strike

this

MR. COHN:

All

Your Honor,

may I have two points?

THE COURT: In toto.

MR. COHN: May I have two points

I'd

like

11

the

FBI.

--

I'd

right.

like

That that

the point

allegation

on that?

clarified

concernin

was not made.

THE COURT: Mr. Cohn, you and I don't

12
13

it

have to

argue.

14

MR. COHN: Okay.

15

THE COURT: It

16

MR. COHN: Okay.

17

THE COURT: Now, what I am interested

18

progress

19

Magistrate

of this
for

is unnecessary,

case,

of discovery

Is this

21

MR. COHN: The Magistrate

22

time that

23

1974.

all

along

discovery

there

and he thought

there

to the

specification.

ruled

would terminate

had been -- a priority

it

t e

or --

He commented in making the

24

you.

in is,

I remember referring

purposes
going

I assure

Fine.

20

25

applica-

record.

10

And

case

had probably

ruling,
under

that

at that

by September

he though
the

statute

been too much

114
1

discovery

2
3
4

There had been 13 depositions

time.

7
8
9
10

tions.

We engaged

13

schedule

14
15
16
17
18
19

,.didn't

22
23
24
25

of not calling
-- couldn't

defendants.

a lot

understand

in a Courtroom

After

having

ment then noticed

set

and all

except

the Government,
us, exactly

of that.
the GovernI

in that

number.

who was excused

or something,

as noticed

in what would be

something

one witness

sick

the

bunch of depositions,

six or seven or eight,

All of those

who

the law behind

the ground rules,

another

about

of ex-employees

He was more interested

admissible

by

were pro~uced

by the Government,

by

and we

now have some, I believe,

20 depositions,

which have been completed

and the -- and were complete

prior

of September

20
21

of weeks to

more and gave them some ground rules

the facts

think

at that

in no discovery.

He gave the Government a period

11

12

taken

He gave the Government -- we took no deposi-

5
6

already.

to the cut-off
In addition

certain

records

date
thereto,

over.

and we turned

additional

records

September

1, 1974.

and all

The only item that

ordered

We.had turned

them over again,

of that

could

of

1st.

Judge Catoggio

to be turned

over once before

all

was completed

conceivably

some
plus
by

be regarde

120
1

11

New York or elsewhere?

2
3

MR. SCHWELB: Almost all

I think.

MISS GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

MR. COHN: I'm going

two rulings
about

the

here.

I heard

contempt

motion.

agree,

your Honor has the ball

10

which I guess

Be it

a civil

12

case

13

seen anything

14

don't

15

day about

undercover

buildings

while

21

time,

24
25

when it

case,

respectfully

dis-

and I know

comes to making a

think

like

a criminal

this

I should

and let's

didn't

assume a
case,

be met with

agents

I'm trying

period.

phone calls

going

civil

I have never

in a discovery

around

to get this

I
every

to the

case

to that

for

ready.

the

.eightee

th

your Honor.
MR. COHN: Your Honor,
prepare

They're

22
23

I might

MR. SCHWELB: I object

19

20

what your Honor said

is my prerogative

is even more than

17
18

to ask your Honor for

decision.

11

16

of the New York,

doing

this
it

case, before

inquiry.

How much longer

new areas,

new things,

-- they

filed
for

to trial

to get hit

not mentioned

the complai

it.

in is responding

Are we going
are we going

didn't

they

now and I'm paying

What I'm interested

Honor's

they

to your

November 25th?
by them with

in the

complaint

t.

121
1

12

and not mentioned

in the

interrogatories,

which we have or have not taken

upon which 20 depositions

have been turned

going

ruled

understand

why in October,

having

a trial

in a priority

10

these

based

of records

to be -- when Judge

the end came, September

date,

case,

1974,
it

1, 1974,

still

I do not

your Honor

this

is a statute

why we're

Catogg o

requirement

talking

about

things.

11
12

our discovery,

and carloads

set

upon

over?

When is there
that

based

MR. SCHWELB: Can I answer

why we are,

your

Honor?

13

THE COURT; All

14

MR. SCHWELB: I think

15

that

16

Discovery

17

was a ruling

ffi

made.

right.

we had considerable

19
20

records

21

employees.

22

1973.

that

Mr. Catoggio

of that

discovery

which got
We asked

We never

reason

25

that

I think
it

in discovery.
the

1st.

-- Magistrate

That
Catoggio

was to look at their

us the names of their

for

recall

them late

former

in -- the

fall

of

got them.

Now, finally,

24

difficulty

was to be over by September

Part

23

your Honor will

that

we've

gotten

them.

your Honor would agree

is our responsibility

to interview

For that
with
them,

us
to

122
1
2

13

determine

what facts

As soon as we get

our answers

bility

inter-

to interrogatories.

Mr. Cohn is

that

information

we supplement

It

is our responsi-

to do it.

hurry,

talking

and we're

boggles

the

11

object

12

they

fact

that

they

to them.
answered

this

delaying

the

I come

14

to be met with

15

be held.

16

against

17

only attorney

fate

didn't

it,

case

being

in

is something

I've

of the

answer

Then after

them about

13

18

about

the mind.

If you recall

10

they

that

it

who can represent

With due respect,

20

possible,

21

a right

22

can have the entire

23

trying

and we've

did answer

them,

any number of time

depositions

is he's

can't

Cohn, Jones
in.

He's

the

them.

we want to move as quickly

asked

to move as quickly

but we do discovery
to interview

didn't

in Cohn against

or whatever

as possible

they

come up here

Mr. Cohn is
Jones,

them,

interrogatories,

a page and a half.

a proposition

19

25

And we've

viewed them.

24

they have.

as

and get names,we have

them and use them so the Court

truth.

And that's

what we're

to do.
With the new information,

have an excellent

I believe

case when we started

with

that

we

admission

123
1

14

of discriminatory

policy,

seven

by their

we had some former

or eight

agents

happens,

it

we've

to your

don't

employee

and with

statements

want to rent

to blacks,

of discovery

which often

deal

more.

I understand

that

We want to gi

Honor.

your

case

has a point

11

date,

12

come to an end.

13

cerned.

about

thoroughly
there

when he can feel

but

having

I think

Mr. Cohn

to be some cut-off

confident

as far

you want to

that

as trial

the matter

preparation

has

is con-

You understand?

14

MR. SCHWELB: Yes,

entitled

16

about

proof.

got a great

10

15

how they

'fHE COURT:
prepare

incidents

buildings

Now, as a result

definite

with

your Honor.

I think

he's

to that.
THE COURT: It's

17

you're

18

only

to find

19

this

(indicating).

dealing

with
that

it

very

a case

unsettling

that

is

like

this,

is now grown to something

like

20

MR. SCHWELB: You see --

21

THE COURT: At the

22

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor,

23

date,

24

some relation

25

discovery.

as to when the

to believe

cut-off

last

shaped

minute.
with

respect,

that

must come, must bear

to when we were given

our rights

of

th t

124
1
2

We've moved with

15

looking

at his

considerable

THE COURT: The whole purpose

to the

these

impression

from what you said

that

had been.

Magistrate,
matters

these

though,

could

be ironed

Did I misunderstand?

MR. SCHWELB: I think

10

were in conflict

11

I think

except

a little

--

MR. SCHWELB: We don't

number of people.

18

additional

19

In other

21

the

22

investigation

23

us,

24
25

deposition

we've

reason

I think,

we just

because

matters?
their

interviewed

number of those

people

a
have

to what we had before.

We want to -- we have not yet

to Mr. Cohn because

we

and we want to

want to take

words,

'A

evidence

20

realize

to interrogatories.

15

17

ago

your Honor,

interviews

THE COURT: They are not

depositions.

all

too.

14

16

that

while

I didn't

I have a responsibility,

amend our answers

it

out and I had the

I advised

We have additional

of referring

was to make sure

12

in

records.

13

dispatch

we only
got it

by the

just

in August.

recently

is because

FBI based

disclosed

that

got it

and

we had an

on the

records

he gave

I may be wrong.

THE COURT: August

MR. SCHWELB: Yes.

of

'74?

And I may be wrong about

125
1

16

the date.

I'm not positive.

takes

a certain

these

people

my word that

on it.

But in any event,

amount of time
and we're
we're

for them to interview

move --

I give

moving with

the

MR. COHN: Maybe I could

Our position

We're

the complaint,

trying

10

interrogatories

11

direction.

12

this

simply
case

as clarified
filed

I am going

in answer

14

Honor upheld

15

motion

16

dates

him over July

in the

17

In other

18

does not charge

19

20

says

21
22
23
24
25

based
events

that

contempt
comes after

in this

the

case.
in this

case

what Miss Busch from the Urban League

to her about

a current

situati

1974.
The complaint

October,

to the

over and your

26th on this

the complaint

someone indicated

in July,

to get

complaint

of

as strenuously

to anything

words,

to be this.

to your Honor's

just

as Mr. Schwelb did when I tried

charged

this.

by the answers

to object

morning,

clarify

dispatch

on the allegations

13

this

your Honor

utmost

is going

based

it

1973,

in this

and that's

upon the specifics,

prior

So I am going

to the date
to object

case

charges

up to

what I am prepared
all

of which relate

of the
at the

filing
trial

of the

to meet,
to
complai

to the admission

126
1

17

of anything

complaint

are

that

which is all

called

aonor

gatories.

we are called

upon to meet in this

I think

goes beyond the charge

He wants

upon --what

is saying

to file

to your

supplemental

MR. SCHWELB: Answers to interrogatories.

MR. COHN: Answers to interrogatories,

expand what he says

he now has.

10

of the trial

he will

11

evidence.

12

comes,

I don't

13

serve

14

delaying

15

God bless

care

me with
the

if

try

trial

him,

to offer

if

taking

17

MR. SCHWELB: Not by us.

18

MR. COHN: No objection

19

At the trial

21

I will

that

23

on legal

both

in

to

without

contemplated?

to that

r~serve

my

suggest

of you pay some attention

authority

those

day

at all.
right

to object

of any proof.

THE COURT: I would.

22

when the

him do it.

THE COURT: Are more depositions

to the offering

to

more deposition.

16

20

interro

he wants

anything,

and without

let

so that

he does that,

any supplemental

we

case.

what Mr. Schwelb

is this.

made in this

with

respect

24

MR. SCHWELB: We will

25

THE COURT: Ordinarily

in that

case

to inform

the Cou t

to that.

do that.
I would view this

as

127
1

18

any equity

speak

if

I am simply

type

as of the

that

THE COURT: It

like

lations

the past,

growing

This

with

is a -- well,

civil

enforcement

where the

13

suppose

to the extent

14

whether

it

15

the

17

about,

18
19

20

23
24
25

it's

Government

have the

pattern

that

and I
proves

they're

benefit

there

it,

after
had in
talking

of discrimination.
an exi!Jting pasttern

that

to make a point

MR. COHN: Thank you.

fact

ligitation,

which they

was filed,

therefore

so that

of thing.

in a certain

type

for a form of injunctive

going

in mind the

sort

in

which was developed

consider

mind if your

and re-

occurred

which is why they're

So I suggest

I'll

that
or that

the

it

a past

of discrimination

rights

or evidence

before

situation

of discrimination,

that

was filed

of course,

ask I'm sure

legal

normal

of a statute

be by evidence

possession

the

I suppose

is pattern

But what they

21
22

claim

complaint

their

the

of contract

12

16

isn't

out of something

a breach

was to be granted

-not.

dealing

would

not a pre-judgement.

MR. COHN: Of course

where you're

sense

That's

saying

10

where the complaint

time and injunction

one were to be.

11

action,

asking

or will

relief.
you have that
of it

of your

in

at the trial
--

I would have very much

is nothing

about

a civil

128
1

19

rights

case

position

point

a date

evidence

the

that

over
that

raises

ordinary

--

that

months

opportunity

it

to some kind

litigation

the

of

and litigants

I have to meet evidence

after

of which

filing

to th

up until

of a complaint

I have not been advised

and

and given

to meet.

I think

--

law on that.

Maybe I'm wrong.

10

a --

and I understand

I hope .we
I find

will

your

be able

out every

Honor wants

to furnish

it.

day I'm wrong on

things.

11

THE COURT: As I said,

I prefer

12

the

13

to give

you an opportunity

14

people,

we may have to do that.

trial

15

of this

case.

not to delay

If we have to suspend.the
to interview

your

17

intend

18

about?

19

Honor's

good offices

to give

me his

I don't

know.

we'll

21

week.

22

here

23

certainly
I'd

like

give

--

the

final

I believe

24

over

or almost

25

that

we got

the
that

over.

in --

last

statement

--

with

thing
the

is

one this

my operating

four

comi g

counsel

over.

FBI investigation

We have

he talke

your Honor,

them a substantial

to consult

as to whether

through

now, when does Mr. Schwelb

MR. SCHWELB: We certainly

20

al

some of these

MR. COHN: Could I ask your Honor --

16

tr

a substantial

or five

days,

is

either

number
that

we

129
1

20

want to amend.

2
3

We will

give

that

to them next

week.

THE COURT: Answers to interrogatories?

MR. SCHWELB: Yes.

the

answers

as the

case

With respect

question

hold

10

posed,

that

essence

We find

goes along.

to the question

of course,

equity

-- to supplement

looks

there

to the

of the

future

12

MR. COHN: I am not prepared

13

MR. SCHWELB: Just

to respond

that

15

against

16

-11-r-a-f-fi-c-a-n-t-e.against

17

Insurance

Company, 409

18

the

to equal

19

corded

25

Metropolitan

right

the highest
Thank you,

Life

to argue

to respond

Mr. Cohn made, Congress

the

has said

Insurance

it

to one point
in Trc:fficante
Company,

the Metropolitan

u. s.

now.

205,

Life

at page 211,

housing

opportunity

national

priority.

that

has been ac-

your Honor.

MR. COHN: Your Honor --

22

24

and that's

to one --

14

21

that

of tbat.
Just

20

legal

are many cases

11

23

there

is an

If

MR. SCHWELB: One other

that

is,

could

have just

we have our costs

denied?

MR. COHN: Costs?

word about

this

of this

motion

and
that

130
1

THE COURT:

21

MR. COHN:

2
3

anything

that

costs

now and then.

had

Honor's

things

a particular

furnish

12

it

to

13

I think

a charge

14

laws

seriously

15

is

16

that's

17

the

defendant

18

trial

date,

is

why it

to

stand.
dispute

has

them

this

to

pay

costs

particular

but

motion

I abide

by your

Schwelb
ask

for

of

of

for

law.

the

who has
the

last
the

people
civil

interesting

We

civil

rights

against

whom it

rights

in

been

statement,

this

asking

law and
case

for

the

that

it

is

priority

Government.

ready

wants

us

Schwelb's

violation

to
to

meet

file

a minute's

it

next

delay

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. SCHWELB:

24

MR. COHN:
be this

Mr.

violate

not

asked

you.
to

is

We are

21

I thought

when the

made do not

19

25

up by denying

Your Honor

In response

Mr.

it

I don't

never

characteristic

MR. COHN:

20

let

ruling.

10

will

word?

The Government

MR. SCHWELB:

I'll

--

so I even

I think

The final

THE COURT:

11

Well,

All

and no matter
week,

in

this

we're

what
.not

going

trial.

right.

Thank

Thank

you.

you.

November

25th,

that

Courtroom?
THE COURT:

November

* * * *

25th

is

still

the

date.

wil

/1

I/

,;

'?J"'"

. 730

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.
The United
its

undersigned

Defendants'

States

CIVIL ACTIONN<h.:73. CIY -~S?.9

I ,

SUPPLEMENTAL
AN5'WERSTO
DEFENDANTS'INTERROGATORIES

of America,

attorney

First

NOV14 1974

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

hereby

plaintiff

supplements

herein,

by

its Answers to

Interrogatories.
Supplemental Answers to
Interrogatories
1 and 2

1.
that

The following

defendants

apartments

through

unavailable

information
their

constitutes

agents

on account

evidence

or employees have made

of race in the following

ways:
(a)

Mr. Kalman Biczo,

588 West End Avenue,

New York, N. Y. a former employee of defendants,

was superintendent
Biczo states
tenant

that

believed

Gardens in 1971.

at or about the time a black

was being evicted,

the Trump apartment

Gardens,

at Laurence

the superindent

building

opposite

to be Laurence

at

Laurence

Towers, whose

name was Frank

him that
blacks,

(last

name unrecalled),

he would be better
indicating

you run into

that

trouble.

Biczo was relieved

at Laurence

off not renting

when you rent

A short

of rental

Apartments.
Hall early
planning

responsibilities

to Frank.

unknown).

are caucasion

Zinunerman {current

Mr. and Mrs. Zinunerman who

are former

tenants

at Kendall

1970.

At or about

to move from Kendall

as a rental

.!!2.!5:!.inform their
that
black

Hall

The Zinunerman's moved from Kendall

the time they were
Hall,

Mrs. Spitrey

who was the wife of the Superintendent

served

to blacks

responsibilities

{b} Mr. and Mrs. Harold

address

to

time later,

Gardens and these

were assigned

advised

agent,

the apartment

the Zinunermans

neighbors,

they were moving,

friends

told

since

and who

Mr. and Mrs. Walarsky,

the Walarsky's

who were interested

in renting

had
at

house.
Respectfully

(.\

submitted,

/'

~~d~~
FRANK~ELB
NORMAN GOLDBERG

DONNAF. GOLDSTEIN
Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF WASHINGTON )

ss

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)
I, Donna Goldstein,

being duly sworn, depose and

say:
1.
Civil

I am an attorney

Rights

Division,

in the Housing Section,

United

States

and one of the counsel

for plaintiff

Fred C. Trump 2 et al.,

Civil

2.
foregoing

I am informed
Plaintiff's

Interrogatories
information,

of Justice,

in United

States

of the facts

and correct

of this

case.

to the best

of my

DONNA
STEIN
Attorne,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Subscrfbed and sworn to before
this/
c.J-of November 1974.

My Commission expires:

me

The

Answers to Defendants'

knowledge and belief.

NOTARYPUBLIC

v.

Action No. 73 C 1529.

Supplementary

are true

Department

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
I hereby certify
of the foregoing
Defendants'
mail,

postage

that

Plaintiff's

Interrogatories
prepaid,

on November 11, 1974, copies

Supplementary
were placed

addressed

Answers to

in the United

to counsel

for the

defendants:
Roy M. Cohn, Esquire
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
J

'

&~0

d ..J:?.
..

EIN
Attorne
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

States

".

NEW
..JOHN

GODFREY

ROGERS
RO'!'

SAXE

H. BACON

YORK,
(212)

(1909l9S3l

NEW
472

YORK

10021

THOMAS

- 1400

(19191962)

C'

M. COHN

SCOTT
MICHAEL
DANIEL

E. MAN

LEY

(ADMITTED

A. BOLAN

COUNSEL

ILLINOIS

AND JNOIANA)

ROSEN

November

16,

li7J.4L
;.,..,
1;,1
....

J. DRISCOLL

/:' i /".

F
,: ;).

[:.

HAROLD
MELVYN
JEFFREY
LORIN

SCHWARTZ

"Jn1J
l~ C, 1.,,
;J/ .:j

I'._,

RUBIN
A. SHUMAN
DUCKMAN

TIME
JUL ..
P~M
....

Hon. Edward R. Neaher

United
States
District
Judge
United
States
Court House
Foley Square
New York, New York
10007
Dear

Judge

L_..

i.~~~

Neaher:

When we last
appeared
before
Your Honor,
it was
brought
to Your Honor's
attention
that
the case now bore
stamped
resemblance
to the original
allegation
contained
in the complaint
and to their
specification
by the Civil
Rights
Section's
responses
last
January,
1974, amplifying
the complaint
by listing
the specific
locations
and incidents
already
called
upon to me at the trial.
Extensive
depositions
of the people
involved
in the listed
incidents
and others
in the Trump management
were taken
- all by the
government,
none by us, as we were anxious
to expedite
this
trial.
Discovery
was terminated
by Magistrate
Cattagio
on
September
1, 1974, and we moved the case for trial
by communicating
with Your Honor's
chambers.
However,
thereafter,
the government
served
a whole
new set of amended or additional
answers
to the ten month
old answers
to interrogatories.
From these
it appeared
that
right
during
the taking
of discovery,
the government
was
going around
trying
to bolster
its case by the use, among
other
techniques,
of undercover
tester
agents
of the Urban
League,
in an attempt
to entrap
(albeit
substantially
unsuccessfully)
certain
employees
of the defendants.
This new slew of answers
to interrogatories
and
alleged
incidents
obviously
produced
an entirely
new list
of alleged
incidents,
some within
a few weeks of the September
set of new answers
to interrogatories.
Nevertheless,
we persisted
in our attempt
to have this
case disposed
of
promptly.

Hon. Edward R. Neaher

November 16, 1974
Page Two
When we appeared before Your Honor in October,
we were told,
for the first
time, that the government
intended to file
still
another
set of answers to the January,
1974 interrogatories,
containing
still
additional
incidents.
We advised
the Court that without
a cut-off
date it would
be impossible
to have the prompt trial
to which we are all
entitled,
and to have substantial
justice
done with an opportunity
on our part to meet allegations
- which we thought
governed the period to the date of the filing
of the complaint
- in a monitoring
current
spy network operating
around our units.
It was then and there represented
to Your Honor
that a final
set of new answers would be submitted
the next
week.
They were not.
Some time after
the promised date
there was submitted
an entirely
new list
of answers containing
previously
uncharged
and unspecified
alleged
incidents.
This letter
was supposed to end here, but after
I started
preparing
it, and on yesterday,
November 15, 1974,
we received
still
another
new set of allegations
and specifications.
In view of this amazing conduct on the part of
the government,
we now have no choice but to reluctantly
request
Your Honor to adjourn the trial
date of November 25,
1974, which was fixed at our instance
and opposed by the
government,
and to ask for the re-opening
of discovery
so
that we may examine witnesses
involved
in incidents
of which
we have been notified
since the date discovery
was ordered
concluded
- September 1, 1974.
We also request
that Your
Honor formally
fix the November 15, 1974 additional
allegations
by the government as the final
cut-off
date prior
to trial
for the filing
of such new allegations,
so the
period between now and whatever the trial
date Your Honor
sees fit to fix after
November 25, 1974, may be used for
the preparation
of a case of which we have been notified,
and can be prepared
to meet.
If Your Honor feels a conference
result
of this letter,
we are, of course,
convenience.
!~pectfu~ly
i

't [....
{ .
,Lv
)

Mr. Frank

Schwelb

'/

f'-LJl1
f!i

'.Roy ;)1. Cohn

sb
cc:

is required
as a
available
at your

1
,

....

..
.

CIS:HAB:gp
F. 730959

)~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

'

'

- --x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

1\1.\fJ.a.TNqirFlr::f
SUPPLEMENTAL
0

AlfllcJiiR'S"TO DEF.ENDANTS'

Plaintiff,

INTERROGATORIES
-againstCivil
FRED C. TRUMP, et

Action
No.
73 C 1529

al.,

Defendants.
-

The United
undersigned,

submits

fendants'

69th

On or

Street,

conferred
the

with

Johnston

the

Mr.
at

that

in

blacks,

were

kept

Avenue,

at

the

that

24,

answer

by its
to

de-

a rental

agent

"people

be

July

N.Y.,

a black
a
to

that

Brooklyn,
November

was

George

in

that

rent

and

trouble"

that

2401 Nostran
League

defendants
a one-bedroom

Times

on or

inquired

shown

the

about

about

apartment

it.

N.Y.
20, 1974
NP.
Attorney
Depaprtment
Washington,

and

was available.

white,
was

the

renting

nothing

effect.

persons.

Urban

of

there

implying

Jacobs,

the

New York

Sim Johnston,

apartment

he could

the

that

those

agent
about

because

community

from

by

informed

to

Godfrey

tester
rental

the

from

1972,

inquire

told

in

131
League,

employed

part,

who make

safe

31,

in

or words

area

would

The Urban

Sarnell

safe,

area

about

a one-bedroom

comples.
was

was advertised

later

Sim Johnston,

Sarnell,

a specific

Jacobs

George
of

that

complex

1972.

informed

Dated:

in

On or

Beachaven

few minutes

and

supplementary

an employee

Mr. Abe Rosenberg,

apartment

renting

herein,

N.Y.,

immediate

Johnston

Brooklyn,
to

July

plaintiff

1972,

Shorehaven

the

indicated

Shorehaven,

14,

neighborhood

also

2.

June

Louis
the

the

no blacks

spoke

following

about

Sarnell

at

of America,

New York,

defendants

were

interrogatories.
1.

E.

States

GOLDBERG
of Justice
D.C.

V E R I F I C A T I O N
STATE OF NEW YORK

) ss. :
COUNTY OF KINGS

Division,

Civil

I,

Norman

1.

I am an attorney

United

counsel

for
Action

No.

knowledge

Goldberg,

States

are

being
in

Department
in

United

of

the

Supplementary
true

and

the

duly

sworn,

Housing
of

depose

Section,

Justice,

and

Civil
one

of

States

v.

Fred

C. Trump,

facts

of

this

case.

and

correct

Answers
to

the

best

to

Defendants'

say:

Rights
the
et

al.,

belief.

me this
1974

The foreInterro-

of my information,

NORMANP. GOLDBERG
Attorney,
Housing
Section
Civil
Rights
Division
Department
of Justice
Washington,
D.C. 20530

before

and

73 C 1529.

I am informed

Plaintiff's

gatories

P.

plaintiff

2.
going

-
'

'

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT~Q!lotJi~.,

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA,

T:t,l:AJt .............

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

undersigned
answer

to

submits

States

attorney
defendants'

Blate,

tenant

currently

Beachaven

larger

apartment.

unknown,
near

observed

the office.

want to rent

the following

While at the
through
The agent

to blacks

submitted.

Brooklyn,

in the

to inquire
office,

about

or words

to that

proceeded

to pull

the window shade

he wanted

to glve

the

appearance

agent,

people
that

effect.

down indicating

that

defen-

moving to a

the rental

to Blate

is

Beachaven

went to the

a window some black

stated

New York,

defendants'

Mr. Blate

1970,

office

plaintiff

Answer

residing

rental

by its

supplemental

In addition,

49 Nixon Court,

Soa1etime in late

dants'

herein,

to an answer previously

Hr. Saul

Complex.

plaintiff

submits

Supplemental

a white

SUPPLEMENTAL
ANSWER
TO DEFENDANTS'
INTERROGATORIES

interrogatories.

a correction

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 73 CIV 1529

of lunerica,

hereby

P.M
..............

_____________
The United

DEC3 1974

the office

name

walking

"we" do not
The agent

then

to :31.ate that
was closed.

Corrected
Reference
Supplemental

is made to Item l(i)

Answer served

of the Answer referring

Carlos

Zeller

Answer

on November 4,

to Gomez, Zeller

Management did not want to rent

advised

Gomez that

ments Zeller
order

when blacks

informed

to implement

be changed

informed

inquired
there

the defendants'

The portion

statement

to blacks.

them that

in Plaintiff's

1974.

to a discriminatory

to Adolpho Gomez should

According

contained

made by

as follows:

Gomez that
Zeller

about

Trump

further

renting

apart-

were no vacancies

discriminatory

Respectfully

policy.

submitted,

NORMANP. GOLDBERG J
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

in

AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF WASHINGTON

ss

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
I, Norman P. Goldberg,
1.
Rights

I am an attorney

Division,

United

for plaintiff

Trump, et al.,

Civil

foregoing

Plaintiff's

Interrogatories
mation,

Department
in United

Action

I am informed

duly sworn,

Civil

of Justice,

States

and say:

and one

v. Fred C.

No. 73 C 1529.

of the facts

Supplemental

of this

case.

The

Answer to Defendants'

is true and correct

knowledge

depose

in the Housing Section,

States

of the counsel

2.

being

to the best

of my infor-

and belief.

NO
GOLDBERG
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Subscribed
and sworn to before
this ci,.c'110 of November, 1974.
'

me

vLi/~'t_(,
~(~@~L,

1
(/

NOTARY
PUBLIC
My Conunission

expires:

~1'-'"?J

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby
of the foregoing
Interrogatories
postage,

prepaid,

certify

that

on November

Plaintiff's

Supplemental

were placed

in the United

addressed

to counsel

7).

Cl...,1974,

copies

Answer to Defendants'
States

for

mail,

the defendants;

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan
& Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

CIS:HAB:gp
F. 730959

'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION
UPON ORAL EXAMINATION

-againstFRED

c.

TRUMP, et

al.,
Defendants.

S I R S
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
December,
Cadman

1974
Plaza

at

the

East,

in

plaintiff

in

Adolpho

Gomez,

the

Federal

before

You are

Dated:

as

Rules

Borough

Procedure,

attend

continue
and

will

oral

States

by law
from

day

cross-examine.

12th

day

Attorney,
City

take

the

take

to

day

225

deposition
pursuant

a Notary
to

of

of New York,

examination,
before

authorized

on the

Brooklyn,

action

of Civil

A.M.

United

of

upon

will

to

10:00

the

a witness,

of

examination
invited

the

of

above-entitled

some other

The oral

will

the

Office

at

of
to

Public,

or

depositions.
until

A Spanish

completed.
interpreter

be present.
Brooklyn,
December

New York
4, 1974
Yours,

etc.

TO:
Saxe,
Bacon,
Bolan & Manley,
39 East 68th Street
New York, N.Y. 10021

th

Esqs.

r,r;;

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

TIME
A.M
.. ............

P.M
........ .

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 73 CIV 1529

)
)
V

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,

SUPPLEMENTAL
ANSWER
TO DEFENDANTS'
INTERROGATORIES

______________
Defendants.

The United
its

undersigned

mental

answer

)
)

States

of America,

attorney

hereby

to defendants'

submits

black

August

17,

male who is associated

to the Trump apartment

Brooklyn,

to inquire

with

renting

Mr. Jacobs

was informed
for

the Open Housing

Jacobs,

Center,

went

Avence,

or one-bedroom

in the New York Times on

by the rental

agent

that

rent.

Mr. George Sim Johnston,

with

supple-

3323 Nostrand

a studio

that

was available

Mr. Godfrey

located

which had been advertised

neither

following

the Open Housing

apartment,
day.

by

Answer
1972,

complex
about

the

herein,

interrogatories.

Supplemental
On or about

plaintiff

Center,

III,

a white

went into

male associated

the rental

office

of

3323 Nostrand
departed

Avenue,

Brooklyn,

in order

to inquire

bedroom apartment.

Johnston

were available

for

a few minutes

about

renting

was informed

after

a studio

that

the

Jacobs
or oneapartments

rent.
Respectfully

submitted,

Attorney~
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department
of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF WASHINGTON

)
)
)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
I,

Donna Goldstein,

being

I am an attorney

1.

Rights

Division,

of the

counsel

for

Trump,

et al.,

Civil

2.

United

plaintiff

Interrogatories
knowledge

depose
Section,

and say:
Civil

of Justice,

States

v.

and one

Fred

C.

No. 73 C 1529.

of the

facts

Supplemental

is true

sworn,

Department
in United

Action

Plaintiff's

duly

in the Housing

States

I am intormed

foregoing

mation,

ss

of this

case.

The

Answer to Defendants'

and correct

to the

best

of my infor-

and belief.
(

(--,

,,...

~'~

'

DO~~~'?oL~~
Attorney,
J:tc{using Section
Civil Rights Division
Department
of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530
Subscribed
and sworn to before me
this I 7 t{.., day of December, 1974.

My Commis

ion expires:

iiuX l..,O~"'";:::

,:.:.:;,irP.S June

14. 19'7'1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby

certify

that

of the foregoing

Plaint

f's

Interrogatories
postage

prepaid,

were placed
addressed

on December 17, 1974, copies

Supplemental
in the United
to counsel

for

Answer to Defendants'
States

mail,

the defendants:

Mr. Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan
& Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

Attorney,
ousing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

.
l';".''~
-~
-'''

.} .

......l~J..-w~d~

'... .JSl)
,

1;..

...

1:;<17s

a..:::i.. J-t

DG+t!HU
~ sO

FEBla l915

"'

':". UJ 175-52.:..20
:-

'f The Honorable Edward R. Ne.a.her

D1st1"ict Judge
.Eastern District
of New York
22.S Cadr.ian Plaza E.
Brooklyn~ Nmr York 10023

u~s.

Re: U.S. v. Fred

Ci,vil

Action

i \' r ,

'S.

Dbi

Cl

FEB~~: ,.1

c.

Tramp. et al.
Ne;,~-73C1S29

Tlr.:: 'l. ...........

P.r.t............

'

Dear Ju.dge Neaher:

..

I ;-,~

I am writing
~o request an early conference with the
Court so that a CQi::'iSB.Iit decree~ which has been agreed Upon in
principle~
can be entered as soon aa po@sible.

As the Courc is awa:re:, the parties

have agreed to a
settlement
of the above-Gtyled action on the terms contained
in the ~r.andum
1975 .a.nd suhmitted

proposed
modified

the parties ahall seek the assiatance of the

Court to resolve any disagreements .. as to moaning., and that all
provi.aiona
11ot: in diaput:e
as to meal;;linF: ab.all be contained
in

provides

.1..

of Uuderstan.ding 1 executed
on January 20.,
to the Court on Jauu.~ry 21, 1975, and the
consent decree -wh:lc.his attached t::her(-;to.t which may be
only as described in the memorandum. 'lne memo:rti'ndum

t.heir

that

entirety

in

th.a final

coo sent

de;. ae.

Because of the delays previously

ancountered

in this

action~ including
the p!rntponement: of two trial
dB.tea._ and the
requircmBnt for expedition. contained in 42 u.s.c. i3614~ the
i

1
i,;f{_.

...

#'
;

- 2. -

..
"';,.,

contad.n.s a. ti:metahle

Meoorndutn of Unde.:rstantHng
exem.1.t.ion

of

fur

fi..."'l.al

of t:he IDt!:tno:n.rndum 1
by Fe:hr11ary 14;i: 1975 ~ nt:he

the decree..
Unr'ie:r the
decree
ha.a be.en executed

termn

if no final
partiIHJ aha11 then seek
a13s1.~ts.nce of
Court to resolve
. any dispute
arising
sol,;ly out of <lisagroerr.u.-:i:r.ttas tcf tha
meaning of a.ny proposed change referred
to in the ~ie,.-oclrandumof
Understanding

...tt

.'.

' Shortly

standing>

a.ft:er

~laintiff

the

execut!on

of the

1-!emorandum of Under-

forward~d to defen.se counsela

proposed

contair1ing
the provieiona
p~evi.ously agreed upon.
Several
attempts
to contact
Mr... Cohnt both before
and after
t:he
Fcbr,.t~u~y 14 deadline~
have gone 1manswered~
and, no d.ecree baa
there.fore
been executed.
Accordingly~
we are wt'i.tin:g t:o request
that s. meeting t>n'.th the Court be scheduled
in accordance
with
the provisions
of the l>ieinorandum of Unde~atanding~
~o th.at the
settlement
can be made final
and t:he consent:
decree
promptly
mits:red.
Thank you for ya.u.r conaider.ation.

consent

decree

Sincerely*
J.. STANLEY POTTL.~:;ER
ABHiatililt
.l'ttt:oruey General

Civil

,,

Ri.ghts Division

. /'

f /}a..

By:

{j

...k

.9 ') 7
~-.

(J(J

.J:Jtw{.t.t--

FRANKE. SCH.WELB
Chief
.Houilng Section

'

----------------

--------

..........

---- ...

- ..

'

.............

............
-'

Qr

. ,t. .................. u .......

1' JSP:FES:DG:sas
,,
.
.

FEBlsl91S

: DJ 17S-.52-20
~

Ibe Honorable

u~s.

Eward

'Oist:t'i.ct

It. Neaher

Judge

,Eastern District
of New York
22.5 Cac:ban Plaza E ..
Brooklyn" N8WYork 10023

Ru:

U.S. v. red c .. Trump11 et al ..

Civil Action No, 73C1.S29

Dear .Judge Neaher::

I am writing to request an early conerence with the

Court ao that a consent decree:, vhich baa been agraed upon hi
principle.
can be eutered as anon aa poss1ble4
As the Court is aware 11 the parties
have agreed to a
settlement of the above-styled action on the terms contained
in the Memorandumof Underst.anding:s executed on Janua:r:y 20 11
197.5 and submitted
t:o the Court on January 21 11 191.5;, and the
proposed cooscnt decree which is attached
thereto.
which may be
modified only as described
in t.he meaoranduai.. The 11mOrandu.m
provides that the parties shall seek the assistance of the
Court to resolve any disagrsem.en.tB"' as to muanf.ng:t and that all
provisions
not in dispute as to mea.J,l:i.ng aball be contained in
their entirety
in the final coosent decree.

Because of the delays previously encounte-.:ed in this

action, including the postponement:. of two trial
dates~ and the
requirmant

for

expedition

contained

in 42

u.s..c.

13614ll' the

o-

Meaorandwn o.f Understanding

contiiitin.s a timetable
&n." fin.al
e1tacution of the deer~..
Under the terms of t:he memol'Sllm.mi,
if no final
decree has been executed by Feb1:uary 141 1975,. "t:b.e

parties
shall then !Jeek the assistance
of the Court to resolve
any dispute arising
solely out of disagre~t
as ttf the
lDftilDfngof any proposed change referred to in the Memorandum.of
~d.erst:anding,.

the e,rec.ution of t:he Memorandum of Understanding.

Plaintiff
forwarded to defense counsela propoaed
consent decree containing
the provisions px-eviOW;1lyagreed upon ..
Several attampta
to contact Mr .. Cobn.t both before and after t:he
February
14 deadline it have gone 1mauawered. and~ no decree baa
therefore
been executed.
Accordingly p we are writ:iqg to request
that a meeting with the Court be scheduled 1n accordance with
the provisions
of the Memorandum of IJQderatanding 11 so that the
settlement
can be made final and t:he consent: decree promptly
entered.
'.lhank you for your consideration.
Shortly

after

Sincerely,
STANIEY POT'l'INGER.

J.

Assistant
Civi.l

At:t:ol'.'lley Gene~al
llights

./

By:

I)

Division

.9 ) ii

FJIANK g_

SCHWELB

Chief

Housing SeGtion

..

~'

'

{j{J

j/UJ...,.-k'-:. ..J
...
-f~tt--

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

OFFICE Of THE CLERK

EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK

LEWIS ORGEL
CLERK

U. S, COURT HOUSE

BROOKLYN,

NEW YORK

11201

February

20,

1975

Roy !-1. Cor:.:1, E :sq.

Sax..:, llact'.>n, Bolan & Manley

39 ~~at 66th Stroot
Naw York., ...
-J. Y.
100, l

Re:

Dear

a copy

Hon. -----E-DW

above

c.

Trump et

al.

Si:c:

I enclose

herein

USA -vs- Fred

73 C 1529

on ___
entitled

of

the

memorandum

.......
A
....Rn...-1'!..-.NB.AHF.JL_ ___

..February

and

order

of
filed

_ , U.S.D.J.

20, .1.9..7..s__

in

the

matter.

Very

Lewis
Clerk

truly

yours,

Orgel
of Court

By:

Thomas B. Costello
Chief
Deputy
Clerk
Encl.
cc:
Fran!, E. Schwclb,
:\;s(.
U.S. AttorneyB.},.J-;..

----,:,,

.....,~

r,..-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-against73 C 1529
FRED c. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and
TRUMP MANAGEMENTS, INC. ,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
11
~
TiMC

MEMORANDUM.
ORDER
Pursuant
February

18,

with

court

the

standing,
in

the

therefor,

to

from

plaintiff's

counsel

requesting

the

in

accordance

with

the

Memorandum

of

Under-

1975,

and

filed

the

court

January

above-captioned

20,

scheduling

action,

and

good

counsel

for

the

of

a meeting

with

cause

appearing

is

ORDERED that
chamber~

Room 252,

purposes

as

set

at

forth

10:00
in

a.m.

the

parties

on March

Memorandum

5,

appear
1975,

U.

Brooklyn,
February

New York
20, 1975

for

of Understanding.

~R..~
Dated:

dated

1975,

dated

it

a letter

P.ici.

S.

D.

J.

in
the

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

20530

MA'<
8 197S

Ad~

Reply to t:ie
Dirioion Indicated

and Ref... to Initialaand Number

JSP:FES:dcr
DJ 175-52-11
~

Honorable Edward R. Neaher

United States District
Judge
Eastern District
of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
New York, New York 11201
Re:

r,1AY1 ::J

TIMEA.'.1.........
PJ.1
..............
.

United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al.,

C.A. No. 73 C 1529

Dear Judge Neaher:

We are writing
to you to respond to your law clerk's
inquiry about the status of this case and to request the
assistance
of the Court once again to implement a settlement
of the above-styled
lawsuit,
previously
agreed to by the
parties.
Despite painstaking
and time-consuming
efforts
by
my colleagues
and myself to complete the settlement
through
telephone
conversations
with Mr. Cohn and lengthy conferences
with his clients,
we have been unable to reach a final resolution of this matter.
As the Court is aware, on January 20, 1975, the parties
executed a Memorandum of Understanding,
attached
hereto as
Appendix A, incorporating
a proposed Consent Order and specifically outlining
the terms of a settlement.
That Memorandum is
on file with the Court.
It was only because of the execution
of this document, and the representation
contained
therein
that
the lawsuit had been settled,
that the plaintiff
agreed to the
adjournment of the second trial
date of January 27, 1975.
In
fact, in the Memorandum the parties
agreed to the entry of
the Consent Order on or before February 24, 1975.
In addition,
the Memorandum provides
(starting
on the bottom of page 3):

2 -

If no final consent has been executed by February

14, 1975, the parties
shall so inform the Court.
The parties
shall then seek the assistance
of the
Court to resolve any disputes
arising
solely out
of disagreement
as to the meaning of any proposed
change referred
to in the Memorandum of Understanding.
All other provisions
in the attached
Consent Decree and those not in dispute as to
meaning in the Memorandum of Understanding
shall
be contained
in their entirety
in the final
Consent Decree.
On February

4, 1975, a copy of a proposed Consent Order

(attached
hereto as Appendix B) based on the settlement
outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding
was forwarded to
Mr. Roy Cohn, defendants'
counsel.
We were unable to contact
Mr. Cohn to agree on the terms of a settlement,
and we wrote
to this Court on February 18, 1975, seeking a conference.
The
Court scheduled a conference
for March 5, 1975, which was later
cancelled
by reason of the Court's
illness.
Thereafter,
Mr. Cohn forwarded to this office a proposed
Consent Order which omitted many of the major provisions
of the
settlement
terms agreed to in the January 20th Memorandum. (A
copy of this proposal is attached hereto as Appendix C.) On
March 14, we wrote Mr. Cohn a letter,
a copy of which is attached
as Appendix D, indicating
that we believed
the terms of the settlement had been fixed by the Memorandum of Understanding
filed
in this Court and that we therefore
found the defendants'
proposal completely unacceptable.
On April 15, 1975, after we had
again encountered
substantial
difficulties
in finding anyone
with whom to deal, defendant Fred c. Trump, and his colleague
Mr. Irving Eskanazi came to Washington to meet with counsel for
plaintiff,*/
without their counsel but with his consent,
to

*/ This meeting took place only after Mr. Cohn twice cancelled
s'cheduled conference
calls between him, defendant Donald Trump,
and counsel for the United States which were supposed to resolve
Mr. Cohn adthe controversy
once and for all.
Subsequently,
vised counsel that defendant Donald Trump would come to Washington to negotiate,
but his father and Mr. Eskanazi came instead.

- 3 -

discuss the terms of the final Consent Order.

Despite our
often stated position
that we had negotiated
in good faith the
terms of a settlement
which we considered
binding on the parties by the signed Memorandum of Understanding,
all three counsel for plaintiff
spent half a day with Mr. Trump and
Mr. Eskanazi,
and Ms. Goldstein
spent the remainder of the day
with Mr. Eskanazi,
working out what we understood
to be a final
settlement.
It was the understanding
of all concerned that
Mr. Trump and Mr. Eskanazi were negotiating
for all defendants.
A meeting was arranged for April 23 to take place in New York
for the purpose of executing
the settlement
and on April 19,
1975, a last proposed Consent Order which set forth the precise
understanding
between Ms. Goldstein
and Mr. Eskanazi,
was sent
hereto as
to Mr. Cohn. A copy of that document is attached
Appendix E.
that he
On April 22, Mr. Cohn informed us by telephone
now wished to make new changes in the terms of the settlemento
These proposed changes were represented
to us as being "minor",
and, despite
some misgivings,
a meeting was scheduled in New
York for May 2, 1975 for the purpose of working out these minor
changes and executing
a final consent decree for presentation
to this Court.
On May 2, 1975 Ms. Goldstein
met with Mr. Fred
Trump and Mr. Irving Eskanazi at the law offices
of defendants'
counsel.
Mr. Cohn was again
not present.
Defendants proposed
several new changes, and several were conditionally
agreed to by
plaintiff
even though they were inconsistent
with the Memorandum
of Understanding.
Defendants also made new proposals,
however,
which in our judgment would have changed the character
of the
settlement
and seriously
impaired the effectiveness
of the
Decree, and to which we were unable to agree.
Specifically
defendants
now propose to delete provisions,
previously
agreed to, dealing with the inclusion
of fair housing
stat.ements in advertising
[see III A(3) p. 8 of Appendix B (the

- 4 -

Proposed Consent Order pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding) and Section IV A(3) p. 8 of Appendix E (the Proposed Consent Order drafted pursuant to the April 15 meeting)],
and with
affirmative
steps to ensure equal employment opportunity
(see
III C p. 11 of Appendix B ~/ and IV C p. 10 of Appendix E).
In
the Memorandum of Understanding
agreed to on January 20, 1975,
(Appendix A) and in the settlement
negotiated
with Mr. Trump and
Mr. Eskanazi (Appendix E), the Injunction,
including
the affirmative provisions,
applied to all of defendants'
properties
in
New York City.**/
The reporting
provisions
(part V, p. 15
Appendix B, and'"""part VI, p. 17, Appendix E) were to apply to
fifteen
properties.
'!!!!.!:.IDefendants now propose, contrary to
the explicit
provisions
of prior agreements,
that the affirmative provisions
of the Decree (see part Ill of Appendix Band
part IV of Appendix E) apply only to those properties
listed
in
the reporting
provisions.
This proposal is inconsistent
with
what has been previously
settled
and makes the decree far less
effective
in ensuring the full enjoyment of equal housing opportunity.
While we have, at defendants'
request,
agreed to a number of changes in the January 20th Memorandum of Understanding,
even though defense counsel had then represented
it to be a final
settlement,
we cannot agree to the three most recent proposals.
Defendants apparently
take the position
that without these new
alterations,
all three at odds with what they have previously
signed, they will not execute a consent decree as they have
previously
committed themselves to doing.

*I

At the May 2 meeting, plaintiff

lete III C(l) of the decree.

conditionally

agreed

to de-

**I See Brennan v. Fields,

488 F. 2d 443 (5th Cir. 1974) for the
'"""propriety of relief
at complexes other than those at which the
alleged discrimination
occurred.
In Fields,
nationwide
relief
was granted,
whereas here, we negotiated
affirmative
provisions
applicable
only to New York, and not affecting
defendants'
properties
in New Jersey,
Maryland and Virginia.

'!!!!.!:.I
Reduced

to fourteen

at subsequent

meetings.

- 5 -

In light of the foregoing,

we are now requesting
the
Court's assistance
in accordance with the provisions
of the
Memorandum of Understanding
quoted at the beginning of this
letter.
We believe
that we have exhausted all reasonable
avenues towards securing a final consent decree short of requesting
the assistance
of the Court.
The United States
agreed to a second postponement
of the trial
in this case,
which is required
by statute
to be expedited,
42 U.S.C. 3614,
solely on the representation
that the terms of a Consent Order
has been agreed to by the defendants.
Now, nearly four months
later,
it appears that the defendants
do not consider
themselves to be bound by prior agreements,
including
the Memorandum of Understanding
filed in this Court.
The January 20th agreement specifically
states
that all
in
provisions
not in dispute as to meaning 11shall be contained
their entirety
in the final Consent Decree."
Accordingly,
we
respectfully
request
that the Court exercise
the authority
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding,
and
(1) resolve
the three issues separating
the parties
by evaluating
the present
positions
of the parties
as against
the Memorandum of Understanding;
and
(2) enter an Order pursuant
to that Memorandum of
Understanding,
either by issuing
a document in the
form of Appendix "E" as the Court's
Order, or by
entering
an Order based on the Memorandum of Understanding and the initial
proposed Consent Order
attached
thereto
(Appendices A and B).
We are, of course, ready to meet with the Court and with
defense counsel at the Court's
convenience
to resolve
this matter, and we hope that this litigation
can be completed without
further
delay.
In view of the constant
attempts
by defendants
to renegotiate
what has already been settled,
and in view of
defense counsel's
consistent
unavailability,
we do not think

- 6 -

that further
negotiations
without the assistance
of the Court
would be any more productive
than the many dozens of attorneyhours already spent.
Once a settlement
in substance has been
reached between counsel which provides
for resolution
by the
Court of any difficulties
in completing the settlement,
then
we believe
that the parties
are required
to utilize
the machinery for resolution
by the Court of disputes
as to the meaning
of the Understanding,
and are not free to disregard
prior commitments.
In the event that the Court should think it inappropriate to require
the defendants
to comply with their prior agreements, then we must reluctantly
request
that the case be
scheduled for trial
at an early date.
In this connection,
the
Memorandum of Understanding
includes
a list of witnesses
for
each side, and only four witnesses
- the two Trumps, Althea
Gibson, and one NAACPrepresentative
- are eligible
to testify
for defendants.
Accordingly,
substantially
all of plaintiff's
case will be uncontradicted.
Since the case was, for all practical purposes,
settled
once, it would seem to be an unnecessary
expenditure
of time and resources
to go to trial.
Nevertheless,
if the defendants
are not to be bound to their prior bargains,
we will be ready to proceed.
Sincerely,
J. STANLEYPOTTINGER
Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
J

By:

/0
FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief
Housing Section

cc:

Mr. Roy M. Cohn

Mr. Henry Brachtl

!----FILMED
)I'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

TIME
A.M
.............. .
P.M7
~-.c. Ts2 9

-againstFRED c. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. ,

TIJ..-.}mD
,. __

u,
Wl
-

i-....,..

h_;..,:,i

'.

--

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
0 RD
The court
sel

in

the

above-captioned

Understanding
it

and

appearing

progress

that

of

conference
4,

1975,

having

is
in

case

Proposed

hereby

Courtroom

of

the

scheduled

correspondence

concerning

Consent

a conference

settlement

ER

received

Order

with

the

action

is

for

3:00

the

therein,

necessary,

such

Wednesday,

No. 2.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Brooklyn,
May 19,

New York
1975

S.

D.

J.

of

and

concerning

p.m.,

U.

coun-

Memorandum

filed
court

from

~.,....= .....,,.,_

the
a
June

.-,u-,r,

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

~.J. f'~.Y

T:t'
UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP,et al.,

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 TIME/\.M.............
P.M.........

MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
TO ENFORCEA SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT

_____________
Defendants.

On January
lawsuit

executed

the provisions
was intended
language

20, 1975, counsel

a ''Memorandum of Understanding"
for settlement

as a settlement

as:

"Plaintiff

agrees

of the representation

principle

along the lines

1, p. 1.

stated

the country

Memorandum was signed,

Decree was postponed

until

such

solely

on

case is settled

herein."

in

(Emphasis added)

counsel,

for a matter

mid-February,

Mr. Roy Cohn,

of weeks, the

of executing
1975.

a final

No final

now seeks to have the

enforced.

It is well established

and will

this

and plaintiff

containing

and contains

but the formality

Decree has been executed,

entered

that

in this

The Memorandum

to a continuance

Because defendants'

was about to leave

settlement

of the case.
agreement

the basis

Para.

for the parties

into voluntarily

that

"cannot

be summarily enforced

a settlement
be repudiated

by the Court."

agreement
by either

party

Cummins Diesel

Michigan,
1962);

Inc.

v. The Falcon,

see also

Bond Co.,

All States

Kelly

and specifically

way affects

and to later

enter

into

2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.

whether

or whether

they

a written,

signed

352 (D. Ore.

intended

the provisions

of language

left

contract

v. Robinson,

v. Greer,

supra.

exists

question

is "whether

to be bound and regarded

as a memorial

419 F.

In cases

the crucial

contract

the

of a prior

Pyle v. Wolf,

No such question

Memorand\llll contemplates

a lawsuit

contract

only to be bound upon the execution

contract."

1972).

may be a valid

agreement,

agreement

in the

doc\llllent in no

to compromise

Autera

Kelly

a binding

written

to be contained

of the Memorand\llll as a final

an accord

intended

the later

of a subsequent

agreement

is only an oral

contemplated

374 F.

the memorand\llll clearly

provisions

nature

1969),

or not the parties

only matters

all

to writing.

not reduced

to determine

However,

The anticipation

Even an oral

all

de Navagaceon v. Harris,

outlines

the binding

where there

382

365 F. 2d 669 (3rd Cir.

Decree.

settlement.

although

denied,

20th Memorand\llll contemplates

of a Consent

Decree.

v. The Bankers

1967).

The January
execution

Inc.

1965) !;!!.

v. Greer,

CA ANONVenezolana

2d 33 (5th Cir.

final

Investors,

343 F. 2d 618 (6th Cir.

U.S. 830 (1965);

1966);

305 F. 2d 721, 723 (7th Cir.

that

contained

the final

354 F. Supp. 346,

exists

here.

decree

shall

The
contain

in the memorand\llll and that

open were to be disputes

and not as to material

- 2 -

portions

the

as to the meaning
of the settlement.

of

Since

the final

decree

the prior

agreement,

settlement

of this

to the execution

indicated

settlement,

concern

and plaintiff

to effectuate

a final

to seek changes
provisions

represents

of this

alone

as a

Memorandum,

about various

agreed
Decree.

provisions

of the

to numerous changes
However,

in substantive

believes

appropriate

a settlement

defendants

in order
have continued

provisions,claiming

each provision

relief

is agreed

what a court

that

in a case

to by the parties,
would order

As the Court of Appeals

J.

can stand

"memorialize"

that

these

were beyond the scope of what the Court would Order.

While plaintiff

consider

the agreement

to simply

lawsuit.

Subsequent
defendants

was intended

Kahn and Co. v. Clark,

for

after

the Fifth

of the settlement

of this
it

kind,

once

is irrelevant

a trial
Circuit

to

on the merits.
stated

in

178 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir.

1949):
Where the parties,
acting in good faith,
settle. a controversy,
the courts will
enforce the compromise without regard
to what the result
might, or would have
been, had the parties
chosen to litigate
rather than settle.

An agreement of the parties

settling
a
disputed
liability
is as conclusive
of
their rights
as a judgment would be if
it had been litigated
instead of
compromised.
In view of Mr. Cohn's

intended

absence

inunediately

after

the signing

of the Memorandum, it was impossible

draft

and execute

a Final

Decree at that
- 3 -

time,

to

and a provision

was inserted

providing

disagreement

as to the meaning of the language

memorandum.

The parties

as to its

readiness

for the Court to resolve

to resolve

trial

and will

and, accordingly,
that

to proceed

will

be bound to the witness

between the parties

the Memorandum of Understanding

Court can easily

if such disputes

the parties

in the Memorandum. Should the court

the differences

pursuant

proceed

lists

to

incorporated

be unable

to resolve

as to the meaning of

- and we believe

do so - then the plaintiff

to trial

the Court

any such disagreement

was added specifying

could not be resolved~/

of the

had not then consulted

as to the meaning of the language,

a provision

any

to the last

that

the

is prepared
provision

in the

signed Memorandum.

*I

In view of the very limited character

of the questions
left open for resolution,
all dealing with meaning of
language rather than substance the possibility
was
recognized by all parties
to be extremely remote.

- 4 -

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing

reasons,

Memorandwn of Understanding
decree

entered

in accordance

we believe

that

should be enforced

the

and a

therewith.
Respectfully

submitted,

FRANKE. S
NORMANP.

OLDBERG

DONNAF. GOLDSTEIN
Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
I hereby certify
of the foregoing

on June~'

1975, copies

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's

to Enforce a Settlement
counsel

that

Agreement were hand delivered

for the defendants

at the following

Request
to

address:

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 i'... 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

DSTEIN
Attorney
ousing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

1
_,
1,,,--

L ,.

'--'-it'

,..--Y-'""

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
,)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.
FRED C. TRUMP, et al.,

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529

MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
TO ENFORCEA SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT

_____________
Defendants.

On January
lawsuit

20, 1975, counsel

executed

the provisions
was intended
language

a ''Memorandum of Understanding"
for settlement

of the case.

as a settlement

as:

"Plaintiff

agreement

agrees

the basis

of the representation

principle

along

Para.

the lines

that

stated

to leave

the country

Memorandum was signed,

Decree was postponed

Decree has been executed,

settlement

and will

this

case

herein."

for a matter

and plaintiff

solely

on

is settled

(Emphasis

counsel,

mid-February,

such

in

added)

Mr. Roy Cohn,

of weeks,

of executing
1975.

the
a final

No final

now seeks

to have the

enforced.

It is well
entered

The Memorandum

and contains

but the formality

until

in this
containing

to a continuance

1, p. 1 . Because defendants'

was about

for the parties

into

established

voluntarily

that

"cannot

be SUIIIIlarily enforced

a settlement
be repudiated

by the Court."

agreement
by either

party

Cummins Diesel

Michigan
1962);

Inc. v. The Falcon,

see also All States

305 F. 2d 721, 723 (7th Cir.

Investors,

Bond Co., 343 F. 2d 618 (6th Cir.

U.S.

830 (1965);

1966);

2d 33 (5th Cir.

Decree.

way affects

20th Memorandtnn contemplates

outlines

the binding
Even an oral

and to later

enter

2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.

to determine

whether

intended

a written,

signed

of language

Autera v. Robinson,

contract

supra.

the crucial
exists

419 F.

In cases
question

is "whether

to be bound and regarded

the

as a memorial of a prior

contract

that

contained

of

Pyle v. Wolf, 354 F. Supp. 346,

No such question

Memorandtnn contemplates

contract

only to be bound upon the execution

contract."

352 (D. Ore. 1972).

left

doctnnent in no

to compromise a lawsuit

agreement,

agreement

in the

of the Memorandtnn as a final

agreement

a binding

written

the provisions

to be contained

of a subsequent

nature

is only an oral

they intended

only matters

provisions

to writing.

or whether

all

all

1969), Kelly v. Greer,

or not the parties

contemplated

the later

into an accord may be a valid

not reduced

where there

374 F.

However, the memorandtnn clearly

The anticipation

settlement.

although

382

365 F. 2d 669 (3rd Cir.

de Navagaceon v. Harris,

of a Consent Decree.

and specifically
final

denied,

1967).

The January
execution

1965) ~.

Kelly v. Greer,

CA ANONVenezolana

Inc. v. The Bankers

the final

exists

here.

decree

shall

The
contain

in the memorandum and that

open were to be disputes

and not as to material

portions

the

as to the meaning
of the settlement.

- 2 -

Since the final

decree

the prior

agreement,

settlement

of this

Subsequent
defendants

to the execution

provisions

can stand

of this

"memorialize"
alone

as a

Memorandum,

concern about various

a final

to seek changes

to simply

lawsuit.

and plaintiff

to effectuate

agreed

Decree.

in substantive

prov is ions of the

to numerous changes

in order

However, defendants

have continued

provisions,claiming

that

these

were beyond the scope of what the Court would Ordero

While plaintiff
represents

believes

appropriate

a settlement

consider

the agreement

indicated

settlement,

was intended

each provision

relief

is agreed

what a court

that

in a case of this

to by the parties,
would order

As the Court of Appeals

J. Kahn and Co. v. Clark,

of the settlement

after

for the Fifth

it

kind,

once

is irrelevant

a trial
Circuit

to

on the merits.
stated

in

178 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir.

1949):
Where the parties,
acting in good faith,
settle
a controversy,
the courts will
enforce the compromise without regard
to what the result might, or would have
been, had the parties
chosen to litigate
rather than settle.

An agreement of the parties

settling
a
disputed liability
is as conclusive
of
their rights as a judgment would be if
it had been litigated
instead of
compromised.
In view of Mr. Cohn's
after

the signing

dxaft and execute

intended

absence

innnediately

of the Memorandum, it was impossible

a Final

Decree at that
- 3 -

time,

to

and a provision

was inserted

providing

disagreement

as to the meaning of the language

memorandum.

The parties

as to its

readiness

for the Court to resolve

to resolve

trial

and will

the differences

to proceed

that

if such disputes

the parties

Should the court

between the parties

the Memorandum of Understanding

Court can easily

and, accordingly,

will

be bound to the witness

in the Memorandum.

pursuant

proceed

lists

to

incorporated

be unable

to resolve

as to the meaning of
and we believe

do so - then the plaintiff

to trial

the Court

any such disagreement

was added specifying

could not be resolved~/

of the

had not then consulted

as to the meaning of the language,

a provision

any

to the last

that

the

is prepared
provision

in the

signed Memorandum.

*/

In view of the very limited character

of the questions
left open for resolution,
all dealing with meaning of
language rather than substance the possibility
was
recognized by all parties
to be extremely remote.

- 4 -

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing

reasons,

Memorandum of Understanding
decree

entered

in accordance

we believe

should be enforced

that

the

and a

therewith.
Respectfully

submitted,

fL~~l~~

FRANKE. SCHWELB
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
DONNAF. GOLDSTEIN
Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

.,

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
I hereby certify
of the foregoing
to Enforce
counsel

that

on June~'

Memorandum in Support

a Settlement

1975, copies
of Plaintiff's

Agreement were hand delivered

for the defendants

at the following

Request
to

address:

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

DONNAF. GOLDSTEIN
Attorney ,C}fousing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

FILED

IN CLER.K'S
OfFtCE

CIS:HAB:iq
F.11=730959

U. S. DISTRICT
COURTE.D.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_ 1l;c JUNl O1975

TIM[ A.M~.........
P.M,,m,OilBf}R:
..'!'O SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

,M

...................

Plaintiff,
Civil
Action
73 C 1529

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, et

No.

al.,
Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Upon the
the

affidavits

having

application

filed

been

shown,

in
it

support

is

this

Court,

Court

uouse.

after

as

counsel

submitted

to

subsequent

a permanent

the

in

an appropriate

expenditure

incurred

2 of

the

the

a.m.,

defendants

constitute

than

States

as

soon

there-

on January

of
20,

not

be

Understanding
1975,

and

the

and

thei

counsel;

costs

against

amount

for

by counsel

for

defendants
unnecessary

plaintiff
service

time

and

herein.
upon counsel

be m~de by~~~~
aa..c:--~~-------,
June G:, 1975, at 'g,'oof!f1;, and that
thiS
Shall

later

or

should

IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat

for

cause

show cause

United

Memorandum

by defense

assessing

good

and

why

herein

commitment

States

herein

injunction

to

Court

and

defendants

Courtroom

pursuant

(2)
counsel

the

may be heard,

herein

United

thereof,

lo"'"'-, at ID

on June

(1)
entered

in

the

hereby

ORDERED that
before

of

shall

good

and

sufficient

service.

IT IS SO ORDERED this

day of

June

1975

~e-~

EDWARDR. NEAHER
United
States
District

Judge

CIS:HAB:gp
F. 730959

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, et

PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION FOR
ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

al.,

Defendants.

- - X
The United
fully

moves

this

show cause,

if

States

Court
any

of America,

for

there

an Order
be,

(1} a permanent
pursuant
mitted

to
to

the

the

commitment

and

appropriate
incurred

their

amount

the

interests

of

counsel,

thereto.
plaintiff's

to

be entered

heretofor.esub-

1975,

and

the

subsequent

be assessed

see

28 U.S.C.

prays

for

1927,

and

such

against

the
in

an

expense

other

relief

as

may require.
is

based

FRANKE.

basis

memorandum

not

herein.

justice

legal

20,

plaintiff

further

GOLDSTEIN and
The

not

Understanding

time

The application
DONNA F.

should

unnecessary

for

Plaintiff

of

should

for

by counsel

defendants

counsel;

(2} why costs

defendants

requiring

injunction

on January

by defense

respect-

why

Memorandum

Court

plaintiff,

on the

SCHWELB and

therefor

herein

affidavits

filed

is

set

on June

Attorneys
U.S. Department

the

forth
4,

of
attachment
in
1975.

of Justice

the

CIS:HAB:gp
F. 730959
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

Plaintiff,

AFFIDAVIT

-againstFRED C. TRUMP, et

al.,

Defendants.
-

STATE OF NEW YORK

) ss. :
COUNTY OF KINGS

FRANKE.

SCHWELB, being

duly

sworn,

deposes

and

says:
1.

I am the

Rights

Division,

charge

of

of

this

knowledge

and

to

1975

and

the

its

office

appointment)

me,

which

attached

satisfactory

did.
to

that

he was going

back

on Monday;

signed

this

about

4:15

Mr.

and

he would

his

clients.

hung

get

p.m.

not

leave

the

He then

for

"next

the

best

of my
of May 8,

are

also

revised

the

time

the
get

the

week"

he could

it

after

talk

that

he

on another
that

time,

and would

consent

leave

for

was

at

weekend

for

him,

decree

people

true.
in Mr.

contact

conference

not

States.

affidavit

Cohn related

I should

said

United

to

eleven

signed

the

(the

about

that

supervisory

I had waited

with

and
it

after

him that

we could

in

to

secretary

Bermuda

and

affidavit

Mr.

to

Civil

of my letter

Eskenazi.

that

week;

true

her

p.m.,

he could

that

to

I advised

was in a conference
matter

are

his

Section,

Ms~ Goldstein's

5:35

I asked

she

of

The contents

since

our

with

contents

3. At about
Cohn's

Housing

on behalf

belief.

Court

the

of Justice,

litigation

I am familiar

date

of

Department

this
2.

Chief

at

be

decree
his

office;

showing

no longer

it

to

and

up.
4.

implement
months,

My colleagues

the
but

Memorandum
our

attempts

and
of

I have

been

Understanding

have

been

frustrated

attempting
for

about
by our

to
five
com-

plete

inability

for

the

very

on these

get

short

to

concluded
without

time

dated

that

this

matter

assistance
because

with

in

have

for

"one

has

constant
amount

it

housing

is

and

Goldberg's

even

time.

by 42

this

be

kind

5.

our

of

the

settlement
and

January

Ms.

the

u.s.c.

that

3614,

every

the

for

to

before

an Order

forth

occurred
clear

in

the

me this

No.244502158
Kings County

Mr.

throughout
warning

conduct

must

that

cases

that

this

of

an Order

77

-2-

any

and

Memorandum

which

signed
of

to
be
of

kind;

be granted,
implement
by the

Understanding

1975.

c.itm'lui .. &pires -March 30, 19

the

and

To Show Cause

negotiated

EV&L
YN SOMMER
i)ufary Public, Stale of New Yo,;.

Qualified in

fair

extraordinary

tactics

enter

6t~:~~~'kl
It.

most

we ask

FRANKE.

Sworn

time

requires

delaying

promptly

previously

20,

all

any-

throughout

counsel's

foregoing,

no further

set

inordinate

way expedited."

of

Court

These

thin"

supervise

- have

which

some
delay

up an

Goldstein's

bar

made

"pretty

States

- the

counsel

decree.

Catoggio's

record,

In view

this

parties

United

their

additional

spread

this

agreed

their

have

taken

to

delays
at

application

that

is

Magistrate

"in

tolerate

and

of

more

on the

governed

that

the

years

despite

defendants,

for

These

in my seventeen
case

which

for

final

have

reached

them

or

promised

resolved

been

and

in

changes

in my

reluctantly

have
to

my responsibility

litigation

country,

Court

resulted

of my own time,

way since

this

always

and

Based

forth

I have

defendants

the

job.

I have

Court.

conference"

produced

the

a ~oom

be expeditiously

submitted

case

into

set

1975,

more

variations

are

"settlements"

each

has

never

the

and

but

which

complete

cannot

prior

signature,

request,

to

May 8,

of

defendants,

asked

Mr. Cohn

some of which

Court

the

elusive

needed

the

conclusion

but

the

experiences,

letter

upon

to

SCHWELB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

AFFIDAVIT

Plaintiff,
- against
FRED C. TRUMP, et

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 15

al.,
Defendants.
-

STATE OF NEW YORK )

55.

COUNTY OF KINGS
I,
and

DONNA GOLDSTEIN, being

duly

sworn

do hereby

depose

say:
1.

of

I am an attorney

Justice,

States

and

v.

Fred

one

of

:Tc"Y\.~

On Jttfted~o,

plaintiff's

counsel,

this

action

by executing

with

defendants'
provisions

to

be executed
3.

despite
not

able

forth

the

in

May 8,

attached

hereto.

4.

By an Order

scheduled

a conference

3:00

P.M.

a legal

al.

dated

in

this

another

of

of

Understanding

in

24,

The memorandum
the

final

of

by counsel

for

counsel
of

decree

of

outlined
which

was

1975.

execution

some of

letter

these
the

10:00
action,

for

a.m.,

to

June

while

sign

over

agreement

this

and

we have

efforts,

Frank

1975

matter

agreement,

defendants

of Mr.

May 19,

the

plaintiff,

for

implement

on this

At approximately

memorandum

Goldberg,

a Memorandum

to

1975

in United

settlement

with

months,

Department

the

the

efforts

five

plaintiff

Roy Cohn.

to

States

I negotiated

The details

of

for

be contained

to meet

decree.

a period

is

and

United

Norman

by February

numerous

final

1975,

Subsequent

been

et

counsel
to

the

counsel

C. TrumE,

2.

the

for

are

Schwelb,

set

which

Court
4,

1975

at

I was filing

I was approached

by

Mr.

Roy M. Cohn,

company
Mr.

of defendants

Irving

to

informed

be at

10:00
as

P.M.

fact

was made known

trial

of

Mr.

Cohn prior

reached

typed

office

at

to

final
P.M.

the

Decree

5.

My colleague,

the

would

Housing

States

in

principal

purpose

of

it

conference

be available

of

day,

June

this
in

conversations

a final

and we agreed

at

was engaged

Court,

form

Frank

of

of
for

while

Cohn requested

Mr.

time

not

Mr.

next

the

Accordingly,

by the

terms

who had

negotiations.

During

heard

the

with

he and
Decree,
that

and

the

I have

to meet
5,

I again

at

1975,

at

his
which

be executed.

Section

Department

New York

Court

in

Trump and

defendants

he would

the

the

Donald

understood

directed.

being

who was

settlement

that

on the

in

4:00

the

the

matter.

so advised.

Decree

of

to

of

had

a criminal

agreement
was

time

Court

and Mr.

he had

and

3:00

the

in

a.m.,

defendants,

Trump

me that

the

the

an agent

participated

Cohn

Court

for

Fred

Eskanazi,

previously
Mr.

counse~

the

Schwelb,

Civil

Justice,

had

the

P.M.

3:00

completing

who is

Rights

the

Chief

Division,

arranged

to

United

come to

conference

and

for

resolution

of

this

the

the

lawsuit.
6.

On June

Cohn's

offices

P.M.}.

Mr.

5:35

P.M.

contacted
where.

had

Cohn,

the

agreed

however,

Schwelb,

Mr.

Cohn,

accompanying

Neaher's

at

1975 Mr.

Mr.

This

7.

5,

Schwelb
time

did

through

is

(earlier

I arrived
changed

not

appear.

Mr.

Cohn's

secretary,

was

conference

who apparently

conversation

and

described

in

at

Mr.

to

4:15

At approximate!

in Mr.

else-

Schwelb's

affidavit.

At approximately
law clerk

Mr.

5:40
David

P.M.

Brown and

occurred.

I telephoned

2 -

advised

Judge
him of what

8.

Mr.

offices

at

Schwelb,

Mr.

Eskanazi

approximately

5:45

and

I left

P.M.

DONNAGOL1fS':pEIN

Subscribed
and sworn to
me thi 9 6th day of June,
I/''".

.j

~
..1.
,.. . ...

,!

before
1975.

,.,.,,
................"' ........
. ..\

. ~<!(~"},yl/YY~!
,.

MI.YN

SOMM&ll

llofary Pu.. lic, Stet of New Yon:

~ .
No. 24-4502158
.

..,ualifie4 in Kings County

:c:.i.miuio11 E:xpirttsMuch 30, 19

77

3 -

Mr.

Cohn's

T. S/8/75

JSP:FES:dcr
DJ 17S52ll
Honorable Edward&. N~aher
United Statee Dir.trict
Judge
Eastern ot~crict of New York
22S Cadman Plaza Ear.t
Bew York. New York 11201
le:

United Stat~
C.f.,

No.

1~ C

Y.

Fred

c.

Trump. et al.,

1529

Dear Jadge Beaber:

We arc writing to you to ref:'.pond ~o your law clerk's
inquiry about the &tatua of thi& cas;e nad to requ,.st thP.
asriP.tance
of th ...: Court onc,:J .egaia to implement a 1't:-ttli,fllt!Dt
of the above-styled
laws.uit, previously
agr~cd to by the
parti&s.
o~a;pite pain~takin~
and tim,:-con~umiag efforts
by
my colleagues
and myt1clf to complete th-:;, s;:ttlem-..:llt. throu:sh
tclepho11.a conv~r&ations
with Mr. Cohn. and l~ngthy confere.act~S
with his cli:nts,
we baVl!ll b~!~ll unable to r.acb a fin&l r1;~olu
tlon of thi'* matter.
A th~ Court 1~ a~are,

on January 20. 197S, the part1~s

execut:,S'.d a M-::110randum of Undi:'!'rst.anding,

attach, d hereto as
ipp ndix A, incorpo-r&ting
a proposed Coni:,"'nc Ordi~r and tp'.?eifi
cally outlining
th" t:.::rL1 of a s~tt.l.{'llar.:-nt. "J.'h.1t M:moraollum is
on fili:- vith th,! Court.
It. wae only bzcao~.: of tb.J ,~x.ecution
of thi~ ciocu::a~nt, and th, r, pr":~ ntntion
coatr.in~~d tb,. ~ in tb.,nt
the lawiuit
hsrl b, :~a l<. :'ttl d, that th,,, plaintiff
agrc:;d to th<s
acjournm~:-nt of th:: s, conJ trial
aat~~ of January 2.7 1975.
In
fa.ct, in th.:: H'morim-.:hJ!U th..., parti .~ Etg1:r.:, a to the _ntry of
th;,:- Con,,:i:cnt or~:.L,r on or o, for" F hru.ary 24, 1975.
In aJ<lition 1
the ~:randu:m.
provid-:~ s (, tarting
on th,: bott.oa of pa 6 .? J) :

cc:

Records
Chrono

Schwelb
L....--Goldstein

Goldberg

Trial

File

If ao final consent has b~ea ,~xccut~d by F~bruary

14, 197S. ths parti~a shall so inform th2 Court.
The partit:!s
tb."lll thN.\ JH! ;k the ao&iatance
of th~
Courc to r~iolv.} any disput,!s .arising
:;olely out
of disagrcca.~nt as: to the m,:,aning of any propof.ed
change r, f :rr::d to in th~.: M:aorandwn of Und:,retanciing..
lll oth,~r provir ions in th, attached
Conf'.i.:nt lhcrce
and those not. in ~ispute
as to
~ning
111 the M::morandumof Understanding
shall

be contaiaed

in th~ir

entirot7

1a the final

Coa.z..:>Dt Deere'-!.
On lcbro.ery

4, 1975. a copy of a propot:ed

ConsQnt Ord1..-r
(attach.P.d btr~to ar: lipp,.,n<llx .B) ba:,ed on th1.? ~r:ttl?Jment out .
11n,1d 1n th,! Memorandum of Und~r,tanding
vas foNarde.d
to

Mr. Roy Cohn. defc:nclants

coWl~e-1.

We were. unable to contact

Hr. Cohn to agrc:- oa tht! terms of a S'ett.lt:ment,

end we wrote
to thig Court on February
18, 1975, .scdt.ing a conft:rcncJ!!.
Th,e
Court. i;ch{~dulLd a conf.-r, nc~ for March .S, 1975, which 'llaa later
cancelled
by rca~on of th,: C.ourtr: 111:n;lt':'s..

Thereafter,
Mr. Cohn forward~d to this office a propo~ed
Cons:t:nt Order ~1bich omitte:d cwny of th;.! major provi~ionf'
of the
Ce-rms G$r,20d to in tb, January 20th M.!tnOrandum. (A
"'ettlem-0nt
copy of this proposal
1 .i;ttacb~d b~::r,:to af? lppt:-ndix C.)
On
.Ksrch 14, i:e vrot,:t Mr. Cohn a lt:tt~r a copy of \',:hich is attached
as Appcndiz .o, indicating
that ~e beli~vad
th" t!,rms 0 the fint
tli!s~nt
had bb D fixt::d by th..:: f((morandum of Understanding
filed
in this Court and th~t ~,:1 th~refor'.;; fouad th~ def.adants propo~ al compl,,tf.dy unaccept.able.
On .April 1.5 1971\. after w,1 had
a.gain 1 ncount~"r d F.ub t.ential
difficulties
in iin<ltng anyone
with whom to d<?al, d~f..:n..!ant Fr,.d C. Trump, and 1'1~ collea~u~
Mf Irving. t: - k.1n.azi cam;) to 1,,,: hint"ton to rnt~0t vitb eounf,el or
p aintiff~
*1 witnout th.::ir COWi' ii but wit.ti hit col:bl.3:0.t, to
.
0

!7

1ht(: m., tin 6 tooi< pl<:-\c.. only aft r Mr. Coho. twlct? cnncJ:lLd
d ~onf,r..1Dc, callt:. bct\,!'t'f:l\ him. d,f'.:'n<laot llonald True:;,,
aad coun, l for th
Unit,i:d Statea
which t;;E'r~ l',uppos<d to r.::t:olVt.<
th( controv,;;rt,y once and for all.
Sub. rqu ntly,
Mr. Cohn ad
vis.:;d coun,,.;_l tbf!t ccf:nd~at
Donald Trump ~oul'1 com.1-to t;echlng
toa to 11,~gotLat.;' but bir,1- fath~r and Mr. E kanaz:1 cam,c, int,t,1.u'-1.

.scb;dul

discues
the t~:ms of the final Coa.a,~ne Order.
l>-cl'ipitu our
that ve bad D~\gotiated
in good faith the
often $tated po!ition
Cermt of a rettla,,lll~nt which we con~idered binding oa th:e part
lea by th,;!; e!gn~?d H morandum of Uaderst.acding.
all threa coon
sel for plain.tiff
ii,ea.t half a day with Mr. Trump and
Mr. E~kana::i,
snd )fa. Goldstein
trp:;;at th-c r":11.S.inder of Che day
wieh Mr. E~'kana:;-'.i, "10rklm; ouc ff hr;t. 1,.~~ understood
to be a final
~ttl~m.enc. It wag the und~r&t6Dding of all concvrn~d that
Mr. Trump and Mr. ErJ.:.anazi ,,ere aq~otiating
for all deft"!ldvnt.
1

A lh!~ting was an:anicd for April 23 to take plac:~ in M~wYork

for tb~ purpor e of txecuting
th.ti: ,:,,ettl.:m, nt and oa April 19,
197.5. a lart propo.r~d Con cnt Ord~r lrihich ~et. fort:h the p.r(:Clf;e
b:~t"'.ltH?ft Ms.. Gold~,t::in
and Mr. Ei:;l..anaai. was A:nt
und:rr.tsnding
~o Mr. Cohn. A copy of that docuaent is attach~d h;:;;reto

Appe:ndix E.

Ota April 22. Mr. Cohn i!lform~d as by telephone that h~

now wishi.:,d to mak;.; new chsng~~ in the t~rmz: of the s ;,ttl, m11t.

'tb~se pro;;>oa~1d ch.neg~~ wore rtpr-&~:=-,e;ncedto u2 a~ bei.Dg "minoru,

and., daJ.:piti.l r:ora.:::mi1<givin.gs, a me~ting w:ag ech""duled in Liew
York for May 2, 1975 for t:h:;:::purpo"e of Yotking out th~se minor
cruu13iu and .xecutin& a final
cons~nt d...:.c:rtlf fer pr,.s,:;ntation
On May 2,. 1975 Mft. Golct:teia
~t '$i'lth Mr. Fr?d
to thit: Court.
Trump and Mr. Irving E!!kt>nazi at tbe law offict:s
of d.;.f,~ndants'
coun::el.
.Mr.. Cohn was eg!'in
not pr.eent.
lJaf :n.dan.tn proposed
tte:V(:ral tl!!V chan~r~ll end H!.'Vr:ral were eonditioaclly
egr.\'!t..:d to by
plaintiff
cv,:n though th Jy w,:;rc."incoo.rittr::nt
with th~ M: mor.itndum
of Und::r!taadi.ng.
ti. f,:nd..ints al$o madG nzw t)roposals.
howL'!v2r,
which in our judgm:ent would hsv~ cbangtd th cheract1?r of th~
icttl:t:aent
and rcriou:~ly imp.r.it"ed th:: c:fi.,.ct1.v.:a~~~ of tb.s:
Oecr~~, aa.d to 'kibicb w,s:w ,~rv unable to agree.
0

llOll propo~e
to dialet:ia provirioa~ .
d~aling with th~ inclu~iou of fair hou~tng
1a ad1tf:rtii."in.g {tc~e Ill A(:3) p. 8 of .App~ndix il (th,i,;

Sp"'cificslly

pr~viou~ly
stat,,z,.r1t:~

agr~~d to.

d::f ,,ndants

Proposed

Coal!eot Ordf!r pursuant

ing) end Section

to tb,e M mo1.tH.1dum of Understand

IV A(1) p. S of Appeadix E (the Propor~d Con

sent Ord~r drafted

purtuant
to th~i April 1S me.cting)l.
and tiith
affirmative
rteps to <n ure }qual employm,~nt o;,,portunity
(s~;.;;,
In
Ill C p. 11 of J.pp, ndi,: B !;I sn.i IV C P lD of Lpp1 ndix E).
th,; M:c-~orendu~ i:~f Un~:;r~tcn.:i,~;~ Ci..'t:li: d to on J;;u1.u~ry :tu, 1175
U'>?P o-.;ix /,.) and in th-.: .. cttl
Sknt ngotiat~d
with Mr. 'Irum!> and
including
tba afflr
"tr. Esknnazi
(App.ndix E}, the Injunction.
.:..ativc provV:ion~,
appli,id
to all of <l::f<.:ndant:s prop.,:rtl(H~ ill
N :1,,,1 York City. !!!,/ the r :pert in; pro11i:,ion~ (purt V p. 15:
J..p:pcodi.x B, end part VI, p. 17, /.pi)0n<li.x E) w,~re to .e.r,ply to
f ift..:: ..'n prop.rti,.,::.; .. !!f!!/
f, nct'::}nt::: n~<),,.propo~, r. contrary
to
th,, explicit.
provi:ion
of prior a2;rc.m.,::nts th~t th;:: affir~~
tiY.,;: provi
iont: o.f tb~ D,,cr0"'' (t,:,.: pr"rt I.11 uf l,P?~:,ndix .Band
pnrt IV of .l.pp4ndix E) apply only to tb.o.'1~t prop,.:rti~s
11-;t,;;:d io
th r,.porting
r,rovisicn~..
Ihi!ii proo.;..ol is incoa.1>irt.~at
with.
tJbat ha,. b.:c:n pr~. viou:r::ly r f.-ttl d and mt1l-:c3 tlt,~ <l;;;cr.:~.e far l"~:::c
cfft!Ctive
1n .--:nurin,-t th,.~ full
;,njoym,::nt: of :.qunl hou~ing op;>ortunity.
t,hilt~ w.;;,:hav:;, ~t cl f ndc1ntr;: r<t?tPr:t,
agr:''-'d to a numb,:r of ~hang"',~ in th .;:,n.:'!-1!'"Y~ 0th. n nh)l'.'.::n~:un1 of IJn,h r~ ten::1n;,
'-\V n t;\ou.:,;h d..zf:::n:?, coW1 l h..1c t!1d1 rccpr ;:.-.nt::.:d it to b{! a final
~cttl,ca.nt,
Wi.:' csnnot
ag;r:.,:! to thu thr.>' most rcc:::nt propor:&l.f.
O(:'fendant, &ppgr, ntly tDk~ th,c p:.,.""',
.ition that witho1t th:'6C n. w
alt ration~,
D 11 thr ~, at odd!~ ~ith
what tht:y b.av-a pr\;v!ou;; ly
::i5nr;d th(-.1 will not 'cY.;:;CUt.;; a con2.e,nt d.:CX'i?.:1 am th,y have
pr.:vious.ly cCMl'l!aitt~d th.2m:;Ebres to doing.

,t
th;.:
lotc Ill t(l)

!/

May 2 m::'tins.

plaintiff

conditionslly

agreed

to d~-

of th~ decree.

-**I

Sc~ Br.nnm, v. Ft ,1:!~, 4B8 F. 2d 443 (5th Cir. 1974) for th:1
proprL:ty
c,f r. lL i,t ,:.;.::-rwlr}t!;7~.
oth r thz~n thos,-:: tit -;,hich th:
nZltionwit!t:
r,,.,lf_._f
all(,Ld
~ircrimin;:ltion
occurr,Hi.
In f'i ld,
uas ~r.:nt .. d, "'h :r,,~~ h r,, .. ,..;.: n-:,'..,;otie~i:iJ:m::rt1ve
nrovL;ion;';.
appl1cabl,:~ only to ci:w Yo;k, and - not aff ,,ctin?~. tL.:f t:.nd~ntt!i prop~rt1, & in lktJ J r:...f!.y, V.arylend end Virginia.
0

'

.
- 5 -

la light of the for. going, we ar..- now rt<tllGsting th.a

Court'n
aisi~ tance in accordance
with tht, provi~ioat:
of th~
H~m.orandwa of Undcr.ttanJing
quot~d st th~ b.f.gino.ing of thiti
lf;ttrr.
\Jc b(:lirve
th~t 1-:;-:: hav;.z. ;:x.hauit,:,d all rt:iagonable
av~nu s to-":ard~ ,,'!cu.ring a final coDe ~at <hcri..'e thort of re
qul"sting
the li!Hi
tsnci, of th~ court:.
Tb,~ United Staces
agrE d to a s2colld po; l:fl{Jn;:m..:nt of th trial
in th1s ea.s~,
which 1~ r,~uir
d by t~tut~
to b~ .xp. dit~d,
42 u.~.c.
3614,
~olely on th? r. pr..: h~nt<it1on that the t,~rms of a Coa:r i:nt Order
bas b.ea:n agreed to by the rlef:ndants.
Now, nearly four months
lat.;;,r, it appears
that the def,.-ndants do not coneid.~r th~mt c!lv~=, to b"'~ bound by p-rior ,.gr~em :nts,
including
the .Kemoran
0

dum of Uad~retandin3

filed

in thl;

Court.

The J~nuaey ::otb egr, :m ,nt r:p .c:ifically

.tatffi
th;t all
11
provi::<ionc. not in di.<.put.;, ae to m anin3
.rhall b~ conta1n~:d ia
th,,ir cntir"-tY
iQ th,? final
Con.,;;;;11t 1.kcr :~~. Accordin&l:',
we
r.;.::q,"ctfully
r,t:u "'t thDC th,; Court t:::r21.ci.:>Jthu authority
con
t mplated by th,: lk;morandum of Und~rs.tanding,
and
0

(1)
r,a-~olvr"? th{: thr<:'i" ts~'lli:?~ f:parating
th~ prrtl ..
by .:valu, tin:; t.h pr s .nt pod.tiour
of th.: pflrti,:r
QS ng:.,i.ni-t thi3 M~m.orandwa of Und(;!rs tan.cliag and
(2)
<~ntt.:r an Order pursuant
to that M.:morandum
of
Understznding,
ith,:r by i!i ruing a docu:i.wnt in th,t
form of App,'n~ix
.t:11 ~& thr-: Court 1 s Or<l::~r, or by
ents:ring
en Gt~Lr bar itd on th<;. M..rooran{!u:m of Under
rt.anding and th::: initial
propo~;cd Gonr nt. Ord.?r
attached
th;:r~to (1'.pp,.auic,:s. I. ,u1d B).
ar!'.", of cour,1;.,:1,r::>ady to m.~et \,,1th th,J Court end with
coun',:.:!l .at tb:: Court's
conv,:,ni net to r ,,olve thit ms.t
ttr,
and w"' hop that thi
litigation
can bi:. comp l.3t:4.d without
furth,.::r e..lay.
In vi."" of th con' tant ett, mpt~: by d:,f n;::anti::
W1.!

d.ef,D~c

to r;;:,.r.v::gotist: wh~t hi;~ alr !H.iy b,,,-:,a ~ttl,d,

d.!f nr-::.-~
coun:.t~l'r-, con ..L t.:nt unavnilability.

and in vi,;;'A of
-e do oot think

...

..

that fttrth1i?~ Dtgotiattons

without the a,;:1ti-r.~auce of tbe Cour~
tbu th~ many doze:ns of ~ttorm:ywould b.a ac.y mor.s -productive
bours alre~dy rp~nt.
One~ a ,~ttlcment
in ~ubstance bas b~en
reacb~d betwi?en coun,~l which provides for r~iolutioa. by tb~
Court of ~ay difficulties
in completin~
the ~ettl,:acnt,
th.:n
tre b.::11-::vr: that th-:! p!l.ct:i!":~ aru ru;uirstl
to utilize
the: machic;;.:ry for r ;,:oluticn
'oy th.) Lourt of dL.put::;~ at: to tht:: m-..onin.g
of the Und..':rttanding,
and ar.::> not frc,;11 to di1r~gard
prior commtm,;--,n~s.

In th(;: -.v..~nt that the Court ~hould think 1.t inapprop-r1

th'.: d:f nc.:r..nts to cofilply uith tb2ir
prior a~r,.:e
&i.:Dt!i,
tbt.n we mu"'t r lu::tontty
r:queft
that th-Ei c,1::--e b(!
r:ch.:cluL;d for tri.::il ct :'en ,:arly dat,,1.
In thl~. conn{"ccion, th~
M~moran<lwa of Und2retanJing
includes
11,,t of ~itneiitHU". for
t?t:ch side atu.t only four witns.:s.r.es tha two tr~s
Alth...ca
Cl.b.:on. sod one ~i.?lCP r,pr r::.,ntativ-e ar~ ,;:,ligible
to t ~tify
for <h,f::o.dantt::.
lccordinr;ly,
~ ub: tan1:ially
all of plainti.if
r,
cas~ will ba uneoatl:'.ndicti:d.
Since th..: caF-e vas, for all pr.e.c
tic.al purpos,,:,~, s ittl d once, it ,rould .,.,e::i.u to be an unn ,c,,: aary
at,.:: to r ,quirF

-::~;>~ncitur.,

of

tiitt.

and r

: ou:rc:.:~: to

go to

trial.

if

th" d:.:ft:nda.nt.i:- ar:; not to b1:~bound to their

Vd

will

N vtrth:

prier

barg&in11,

be r~ady to proca~d.

J. ST/NLEY POTrUIGEi
A1\.slat.ant J ttorncy
G, Dtiral

Civil ai 6hts Divi~ion

87:
Lil,t~. E. SCfi'/ELB

Lhief
Bou1:1in1S..-ctioa
ce:

Hr. Roy K. Cohn

Mr. liunry Brachtl

1, sh,

.-

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
- against
RED C. TRUMP, et

AFFIDAVIT

Civil
Action
73 C 1529

al.,

No.

Defendants.

----------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)
OUNTY OF NEW YORK)

SS.:

ROY M. COHN, being

1.
revisions

Agreement

in

the

will
2.

the
ith

Miss

constant

are

Grumet

at

until

late

conference
. Eskenazi
ignatures,

and
3.

everything
him this

eft,

which

was fine.

Schwelb

minor

language

modifi-

the

at

all

by the

paranoia.

the

Mr.

Eskenazi
time

problems.
corpus
had

to

out

except

left

for

at

I did

proceeding
stop
in

Civil

Without

appointed

I called

worked

Court

recital,

few remaining

were

at

met
my

not
before

another

and was told

for

the

by

actual

needed.
have

a copy

this

kept

week after
at

of

of

by minute

way uptown.

was agreed

I arrived

aspects

and

to

and

substance

to

afternoon,

be signed

hysterics

aria:says:.

on the
the

habeas

I was not

it

and

DeGiarde

things

I asked

suggested
in

on the

that

the

very

the

reached

applications

a minute

the

deposes

today.

and Mr.

solved
court

been

assuming

with

sworn

decree,

These

Goldstein

of

hone

consent
later

Court

and

has

be made

Section

duly

Mr.

week.

repeating
upon

and

the

office

Mr.

Schwelb

Schwelb
same

when could

I had reviewed
the

me and my clients

and
fails

the
found
to

final
that
state

came on the

tling,
it

which

was

be signed.
draft
Mr.
in

with

my

Schwelb

had

his

affidavit

...

he returned
into

to my office

my office,

f pleasantries,
igning

of

said
the

gone

nd Mr.

Eskanizi

iss

Goldstein
5.

o the

Court

nd the

this

The business

e have

for

which

nothing

papers

4.

anguage

to

so far

to

It

is

about

any

costs
Mr.

went

them

for

thereof

the
by

to

then
is

/'

9th
1975

/1

/ .

l,4?~.

/~.~:,~,

ANNTURCHIANO

Notary Public, St1tt" of New York

No. 31--l-:'35040
Qualifi<:!'din Ne.vYork r:ounty
Comm::;,,ion Expires W,arci, 30, 1977

a brief

exchange
in

absolutely
that

the

ridiculous.

Mr.
to

inconvenience

Fred

work
Mr.

Trump
out

the

Schwelb

and

New York.

submitted
signing

left,

left.

of

that
the

a date

decree

convenient

by the

Court.

ROY M.

worn to this
ay of June,

he had

had

Washington

come to

the

after

dissatisfaction

Schwelb

than

respectfully

be fixed

acceptance

returned,

about

rather

by having

I had

and

appease

decree

an hour

week,

themselves

the

about

tn-

parties,

..

FILE

IN Ct ti~l(":; ()F!(~E
U. S. DISTRICTCOURTE.D. N.Y

CIS:HAB:ec
F. #

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-

TIME
A.M
............
P.M.............

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CONSENT ORDER

Plaintiff,
- against

}f. JUNlO 1975

Civil
Action
No. 73 C 1529

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

This
America
Act

of

action
on October

1968,

42

The claim
have

was

failed

nondelegable

housing

opportunity

persons

to

carry

pursuant

u.s.c.

3601

et~-

and
out

liability,
further
prepared

that

Decree.

Fair

defendant's

vigorously

in

resolve

as

order

said

the

and

assure
that

com-

equal
numbers

have

failed

Act.

allegations.
of

resolve

case

to

substantial

existence

the

Housing

defendants

result

the

adjudication

litigation,
this

to

of

affirmative

subordinates

deny

to

the

Act

the

under

to

Fair

that

Housing

denied

States

the

their

with

been

without

is

exercise

obligations

protracted
to

the

has

admission
and

to

United
to

States

subordinates,

Accordingly,
any

United

under

their

Defendants

without

the

duty

by their

of

1973,

neglected

pliance

by the

15,

of

and

instituted

this

merit

or

absence

matter

parties

by the

the

entry

of

without

hereto
of

and

are

a Consent

It is expressly
of this

and agreed

Agreement by Trump Management,

admission

by it

crimination

of a violation

as set

any other

forth

applicable

principal
prepared

that

this

against

dis-

Housing Act of 1968, or

or regulation.

Trump Management,

employees

the execution

is in no way an

of the complaint,

opportunity.

to resolve

Inc.,

assume and carry

their

promote equal

prepared

rule

of defendant

to affirmatively

for assuring

in the Fair

of the merits

officers

that

of the prohibition

statute,

Irrespective

will

understood

will

however,
Inc.,

are

out the responsibility

comply with the Act and

Accordingly,

case by the entry

the parties

are

of the following

Consent Order.

I.
It is hereby
consideration
contained

ORDERED,ADJUDGEDand DECREEDthat

of their
in part

III

affirmative
herein,

assumption

the complaint

Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed

personal

capacity,

contained

therein,

with prejudice,
and

predating

in

of responsibility
against

against

as to all
this

Fred C.

them in their
allegations

Order.

II.
INJUNCTION
It is hereby
defendant,
all

persons

its

ORDERED,ADJUDGEDand DECREEDthat

officers,

in active

them, are hereby

agents,
concert

permanently

employees,

or participation
enjoined

- 2 -

the

from:

successors,

the
and

with any of

GENERALINJUNCTIVEPROVISIONS
1.
the sale

Refusing

to sell

or rental

any dwelling

of,

or otherwise

to any person

sex or national

Discriminating

conditions,

or privileges

the provision

color,

Making,

made, printed,

color,

religion,
able

for

religion,

inspection,

fact

so available.

attempting

to coerce,

opportunity

or denying
religion,

any notice,

or enjoyment

protected

of a dwelling

or enjoyment

secure

housing

origin,

because

of race,

choice

or interfere
of the right

color,

is in

of any person
origin.
with,

or

with any person

to equal

housing

Housing Act of 1968, or in

of the right

- 3 -

based

is not avail-

when such dwelling

or interfering

opportunity.

that

or an intention

sex or national

by the Fair

to be

or advertise-

any dwelling

the residential

threaten

or causing

or discrimination.

or rental

threatening,

therewith,

or discrimination

that

religion,

or in

origin.

statement

or rental

origin

sale

of a dwelling,

or publishing,

limitation

the exercise
equal

for

in the terms,

sex or national

sex or national

color,

Coercing,

in the exercise

color,

in connection

to any person

Influencing

of race,
6.

or facilities

limitation,

sex or national

account

or rental

to the sale

Representing

S.

of sale

printing,

to make such preference,

4.

any person

religion,

any preference,

on race,

of race,

against

or published,

ment with respect

indicates

to negotiate

making unavailable

on account

of services

of race,
3.

refusing

origin.

2.

because

or rent,

to assist

others

to

on

7.
or

the

Engaging
effect

of

in

protected

connection,

defendants

qualification

for

of

total

income,

payments

persons,

or

act

denying

opportunity

group

any

or

practice

abridging

the

by the

Fair

Housing

shall

not,

in

rental

of

fail

or

including
other

or

to

salary,

income

from

has

right

to

equal

Act.

In

this

determining

any person,

refuse

which

the

family,

fully

wages,

or

count

source

purpose
housing

income
other

a woman's

alimony,

whatever

the

support
received.

III
ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY BY
PRINCIPALS OF TRUMP MANAGEMENT
INC., AND TRAINING PROGRAM FOR
AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES
Trump Management
units

in

therefore
company
estate
not

New York

have
therefore
conununity

only

The Fair
in

the

its

of

its

Housing
effect,

Inc.,

controls

area

a major

and

impact

occupies
and

can,

can

result

from

well

as

from

deliberate

and

on housing

by its
and

prohibits

regardless

Act

elsewhere,

a position

own agents
Act

many thousands

employees
conduct

of motivation,

thoughtlessness
discrimination.

4 -

and

rental

activities

opportunities.

of

example,

its

of

The

leadership

in

influence
but
which
and
lack

also
is

the

real

activities

of many others.
discriminatory

violations
of

the

of

information,

the
as

Accordingly,
A.
shall

it

The principal

thoroughly

the

under

the

as

judicially

defendant
amended

and

and municipal

other

of

Housing

appropriate
(2)

Take

steps
officers

themselves

with

their

carried
B.

Inc.,

Within

rental,

by its

of
Fair

the

rights

and

Urban

forth

of

1968,

under
of

the

Development

and under

assure

of

under

laws;

Guidelines

days

principal

that

and

this

Order;

their

principal

familiarize
and
to

assure

herein

is

that

the

successfully

program

in

Housing

any manner

Act

entry

the

this

all

1968.

5 -

Such

this

to

contact
the

program

and

with
with

public

for

and

Decree,

conduct

employees

employment
Decree,

of

shall

applications
in

of
of

for

information

or process

provisions

the

who have

provide

accept

of

officers,

responsibilities,

tenants,

engaged

Act

interpreted;

and

(30)

an educational

or

Housing

undertake

thirty

employment

spective

obligations

obligations;

set

personally

out.

Defendant

complete

the

similarly

Personally
program

Fair

to

and

training

of

agencies;

assistants

(3)

themselves

all

civil

Regulations

Department

the

Trump Management,

acquaint
with

pertinent

them

follows:

of

basis

state

are

officers

on a detailed

as

or

ORDERED as

forthwith
(1)

the

is

rental
pro-

about

rentals,
process,

their
shall

or who
to

duties
include:

inform
under

(1) Furnishing
a letter

to each such agent

sunnnarizing

of the Fair

the terms

Housing Act as it

and employee

of this
applies

Decree and
to the

employee.
(2) Informing
in person
of this
its

each such agent

or by general

meeting,

Decree and of duties

agents

and employees

applicable

Fair

and employee

under

subject

be advised

that

action,

of this

Order.

that

he has read

and received
preceding

Each new agent

required

so instructed
ten

and employee

of all

signed

from each such

mentioned

described

shall

above

in the

a copy of each

the initial

statements

will

upon execution.

- 6 -

be instructed

in

out above and shall

to the effect

comply with

(10) days following

Copies

set

a statement

and will

disci-

to plaintiff.

with the procedures

to sign

the letter

and forwarding

statement

Decree

for disobedience

statement

the instructions

paragraph

such signed

accordance

a signed

failure

or other

and to sanctions

(3) Securing

his

of this

him to dismissal

plinary

agent

the various
Each such agent

to comply with the provisions

shall

of the provisions

of the Company and

Housing Acts.

shall

and employee,

that

he has been

such instructions
date

be

within

of employment.

be furnished

to plaintiff

IV
AFFIRMATIVE PROGRAM
It
and

is

for

Order

further

a period
take

Housing

41:

parties
to

its

are

on the

day

hottoin(q

an

and

compliance

the

with

this

the

Fair

ew.n

of

Part
the

list

erganj

is

opportunities

&1nd weekly

zations

this

of

decree.
~

and

mail

This
epen

:iis L of

v e.cancics

of

in

in

Trump

The

letter

Listing

espies

an interest

rental

area.

shall

Central

origin.)

the

vacancies

Metropolitan

or

persons

national

V, below,

forward

with

or

synopsis

Part

made.

in writing,
owned

an appropriate

weekly

V of

New York

qualified

sex

defendant

its

all

anticipated

of

the

apartments

to

be a full

text

'1-iseretiun,

lotter

that

in

of

New York,

religion,

and

Defendant's

Center

New York,

New York

on the

of

available

present

a copy

be done

er

implement

plaintiff

Subsequently,

in

mentioned

agree

Center

a~ i~.

adopt

Community
Policy

outlined

in

infra

\\ ~ ~-- per!5ons
'v

for

of

described

may,

of

Open Housing

procedures

mailing.

Housing

entry

ensuring

the

defendant

buildings
shall

forthwith~/

the

at

Avenue,

counsel

statement

apartment

to

and

shall

following

to

without
reg:ard
to race,
color,
as ~-e.,- 1(lu-H\'.'t' 1")ro ,:cl., c(.
Included
in such letter
shall

general

~~

the

150 Fifth

by the

standards

years

defendant

1968:

Notify

copies

the

steps

aimed

Notification
to
Nondiscriminatory

League,

managed

(2)

following

of

1.

with

two

program
Act

A.

of

the

affirmative

Urban

ORDERED that

prior

to

the

of

vacancies

mailing

Open

shall

I1e1:1siHg enter
the

above-

-t.o any

~ometin9"

clflS.

all

eqUa-1.

..

*/ The defendant's
obligations
to implement
each
this
Order
for affirmative
action
shall
begin
ten
following
the entry
of this
Order,
unless
otherwise
specified
herein.

7 -

provision
(10) days

of

2.
aproved

Post

and maintain

by the

Secretary

Urban Development
where

there

rental

nonwhite

policy.

housing

of the

(HUD} ~/

Implement

3.

the

is

fair

Department

in all

activity

The defendant

of the

or public

aimed

in all

__JJap&.s,

telephone

directories,

radio,

media,

and on all

billboards,

literature

the

and the
logo

fair

shall

housing

placed

by the

to the

practices

Housing
lines,

is

attached

1,

These
placed
all

Company or its

*/ See the pertinent

HUD regulation,
attached
hereto
as Appendix A}.
**,c .. T-hi:s=.:$tilbseet.-on-~ng

with

.~~~

\\\

l~\J\l
IP!

and the

and easily
advertising

in the

Department

advertising

"B" to

Reg.,

conform
of

guide-

pp.

6700-02,

guidelines

this

Order.

37 F.R.

newspaper

3429

(a copy

adve1. tising

~eiyht
(8) lines
o:f pri~-onl-y--a~ly:~~'.n~'1paper-amr
mm:e. 'Def'-enaant."--snalr--cont:-inue -t-ts present
ael9rt; sing

shall
po,li_Qj..e.s,

not change it..s..._:present_p.rac.tices--w.i'Ett-ze:spest

to
and type ef advePt:ising
ey-sho:r:terring
or by-othGrw.i:e
changing
i: ts po!:t1!!:y-ei pl.acing
dsplay
aes to avoid t.-he-reqni:r:ement of inel-ooi.ng ...,J;he..~eq.uaLopportun
i ty stateHl.ent.
and shall
ei'ie size

*4/
housing
audible.

In radio and television

opportunities"
shall

advertising,
the
be used and shall

8 -

J''.::i

Opportunity"

words

A copy of these

as Appendix

signs,

shall

in 37 Fed.

t'I

b,. Id 10

television

agents

recommended

1972.

0t)(l f'tl'N'

promotional

logo.

and Urban Development

on April

... / in s0we-

Housing

In addition,

as published

rental

"Equal

be prominently

**~/

legible.

advertising:

and other

words

informing

Include,

brochures,

at

-ta,fl\i:'.~ytJikCi ~ ''r

shall

pamphlets,

defendant

nondiscriminatory

a.

and other

and

contact.

program

of defendant's

in a form

of Housing

offices

an advertising

community

signs

words "equal
be easily

/ !J

L1se-v+:., G~ l]''frr crf1-c11..QACL-e

:JL~/.1
.
. ;

~wr-dJ:
__
_

cJ,.__,,.
cZ.'c, 7k

I S-,,._L

~A.,'-f!_,l,J_/J...~

E-'u,,j'hA-1;, ,,R_<Yt;_j,.-y)1'{_Jrx,lh,

l~

. 4.+1

04lll't-i--b~.e
,ru.1-d:
a.J \_,_o_,.-\
c;-cb-"kc;4

q_L'-'..CL.{

fl12--~fu'>!A
a_&,
v-eztz~

kwt's

/s

LJ9

aJ

iA,

,1,-

L-1,,

Q_,~ 9

a._,,.,,__,
'JO~ .

-L,;;.-{.
cP ()._~ \eg__
d

o-,,i (' .c.

1a._y
/j'
'

a&

jQ\,L,<;.

c~itu~

sktQ

ct:.bITsfCd

~lw L->Tu.vs
,--t.k

"'qn,-Y\/W,n~+
\\C'

1/

<tAe,t_{
f+<"J
V <; ln 1
I

k>.&1

"X,1f/

Q(P(J"'
-+,.,t-H
l
J
-v

+,.__~1

bu~Mj

,E,_
a-{- -~ci c_,l_ rfi1A ~<-t
V

LU0f~

~-vv-i

fl{},(,.,.) ~-

(Jvi/l.<;,

~H

0. ,,,J,,L.t<-c;/-e_.cJ
t7r, ~ ro

,QQ...e)k,1nr ,4-k.ce

\ru ~ ~

l!M.C/~,c1

a,l, Lt_,~i.Vl

tJilL-1.
~u.__(1vv
~o_~

...
3

c-L</

Allocate
advertising

budget

directed
Rican

primarily

the

advertisements,

tising

budget

this

Provide

to

all

qualified

sex

or

procedures

as

the

shall

Spanish

requirements

media

not

the
adver-

advertisements

of
shall

Trump

stress

with

adbuildings

or

give

substantial

to

each

firm,

association

other

or

organization

engaged

agency,

regard

Each
of

such

defendant's

apartment

or management

by the

without

origin.

recipient

person

company,

or managed

persons

for

notification

referral

checking

owned

national
the

or

act

credit

apartments

radio

of

in

with

and

buildings

written

corporation,

service,

one

occupancy.**/

by defendant

*/
in

to

display

and

together

cross-section
and

emphasis

black

in minority

vacancies,

agreed

15 line

meet

its

Puerto

have

black-oriented

All

a full

and

defendant's

provision.

minority

advise

10% of

shall

vertise

undue

the

stations,

buildings

with

in

of

in media

black

press,'!:._/

to

Trump

company,

the

one

of

language

4.

to

of monthly

Rican

allocation

of

advertising

The parties

placement

Puerto

proportion

to

communities.

that

the

a reasonable

defendant
to

race,

company

are

that

available

color,

notification
objective

locating

shall
standards

to

religion,
also
and

rental.

The parties
agree
that
the placement
the Amsterdam
News and El Diario
will

**/
If the listed
apartments
with vacancies,
the buildings
ad so that
the same apartment
disproportionately
advertised

of such
satisfy

advertisements
this
requirement.

do not include
all Trump buildings
listed
shall
be rotated
with each
buildings
are not continuously
or
under this
subsection.

9 -

B.

Program of Providing
Apartment Seekers
For two years

shall

notify

League,
fifth

after

available

the entry

Avenue,
apartment

less

than ten percent,*/

that

apartment

at least

of renting

applicants

the apartment.

Open Housing Center

three

building

days prior
During

shall

this

to the defendant

provide

of every
avned

tenancy

of

to placing
three-day

have the opportunity

All applicants

shall

defendant

10003,

which has a black

on the open market.~/

qualified

Order,

of the New York Urban

in each apartment

the Open Housing Center

to refer

of this

New York, New York,

managed by the defendant

period,

for Minoritx

the Open Housing Center

150 Fifth

and/or

Listings

for the purpose

referred

the defendant

by the
or its

represerve

sentative

with an appropriate

identification

which will

to advise

the defendants

such applicant

has been referred

that

by the Open Housing Center

pursuant

three

applicant

days if no qualified

has filed

an application

apartment

may be placed

defendant's
color,

c.
transfer

seeking

referred

to rent

After

by the Center

the apartment,
to be rented

custom without

sex or national

Affirmative

subsection.

on the open market

normal business

religion,

to this

regard

the
in

to race,

origin.***/

Employment Program

The defendant

shall

recruit,

employees

and agents

without

hire,

assign,

regard

promote

to race,

and

color,

*/ The requirements
of this provision
need not be followed for
apartment buildings
which presently
have or in the future reach
a black occupancy rate of 10%. For these apartment buildings,
apartments
shall continue to be rented without regard to race,
color, religion,
sex or national
origin.
~/
The three-day
period shall begin when notification
has
beenmmpleted
and the Open Housing Center has received,
either
in person, by telephone,
or by mail, the listings.
For
purposes of this Decree, rental
on the open market shall mean
rental
to any person not referred
by the Open Housing Center.
***/ This provision
shall
not apply to Trump Village.
- 10 -

religion,
blacks

sex
and

fessional

or

other

national

origin

nonwhite

persons

positions

and will
in

as vacancies

for

endeavor

to

supervisory
which

and

they

are

place
pro-

qualified

arise.
Pursuant
the

following
1.

in

a prominent

defendant

this

program,

the

defendant

shall

take

steps:

Display

employees,
the

to

an equal
place

and

clearly

applicants
where

*/ This poster
approved
by the
Equal Employment

employment
visible
for

opportunity
to

employment

applications

for

poster~

prospective
in

each

employment

agents,
office
are

taken.

shall
be in the form,
size
and prominence
United
States
Department
of Labor and the
Opportunity
Commission.
- 11 -

of

2.
any

Notify

part

of

in writing,

of defendant's

this

Decree

and

without

regard

to

shall

not

hired

possess

exacting

force

color,

and

hiring

that

those

before

the

of

the

terms

for

any
in

institution

or

Part
to

national
the

recruited

or

job

this

origin.
defendant

or position
with

IV(C)

be referred

employees,

effect
of

of
are

sex

persons

were

representing

employees

nonwhite

nonwhite

which

union

religion,

qualifications

than

labor

prospective

race,

require

employees

work

that

In recruiting

each

more

respect

to

white

action.

IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE RENTAL

STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
In order
assignment
housing
Inc.,

of
at

nondiscriminatory
and

building

defendant

agrees

shall

whether

owned
that

or

opportunity

or managed

the

not

equal

and
in

by Trump Management,

following

standards

applied

at

all

to

to

an applicant.~

rent

of

and

its

properties

Income
One week's

be at

following

assure

selection

Standards
1.

must

to

be uniformly

determining
A.

assure

tenants

each

procedures
in

to

least

equal

gross
to

income

from

one month's

all

rent,

sources**/

except

in

the

circumstances:
(a)
mobile

The applicant(s)
payments,

or

of

$50.00

a month,

in

excess

of

four

have

other
with
(4)

outstanding

fixed

debt

a remaining
months,

in
debt

- 12 -

excess
period

or

*/
The following
standards
shall
not be applicable
Park which is subject
to other
federal
regulations
by 22l(d)
of the National
Housing
Act.
**/
This shall
include
alimony,
assistance
payments,
or guarantor's
of public
assistance
recipients,
employment,
pensions,
etc.

auto-

child
support,
assurances
wife's
income,

to Tysens
imposed

public
on behalf
part-time

(b) The family

three
In either

is in excess

of

(3) persons.

circumstance

(a) or (b) above,

income must be at least

equal

If an applicant
standards,

composition

to one month's

qualify

(a) He or she secures

funds

obligations
payments

sufficient

the applicanrs

income

for rental

a guarantor

f:

who can

to meet the financial

of the guarantors
for his

net

rent.

does not meet the foregoing

he or she may still

verify

one week's

fixed

monthly

or her residence,

rental,

as well

as

based on the defendant's

income standards.
(b) If the applicant
three
six

is willing

months security

(3)

deposit

(6)

months rent

in advance.

(c)

If a tenant

switches

building

to another

tenant

2.

obligations

to Trump Management,

Occupancy

7!,- ~-h.0(]
0.

I)

nvk~

of the same sex,/

--be,Pv-~o.v1\~~L-v~t-,
mC\_AYl,c.v

on . ._,(P~v 1('..j,

Application

Except that children

cl-iffe1:ent sexes-.

past

two (2) adu.lt.s

in a twowbeEl-e,am ,
d efev1cf a.,j.,{_fsha,,e}I

a.JI . e.. -tv t-fs epc....-;t (>rad-Le..e-<1"0~

Procedures~/
1.

*l/

in a one-bedroom

Not more than fottr (4) persons,

and two (2) children

and if that

in the past.

apartment.

B.

supply

from one Trump

Not more than two (2) persons

apartmem:

or will

Trump building

has met his

Inc.,

to post

Procedure
tmder

ten

--Q.~

age.

These procedures
are substantially
based
practices,
as described
during discovery.
- 13 -

tnay--- be-of~

on defendanes

V)/l 4

ves~c.1
I

a.

Applications

apartment

building

accept
this

Applications

or rental

agents

applications,

wi$hing

and instructed

tenant,

to apply

said
(i)

at the

is applying

be received

by Super-

by the defendant

to

in the requirements

shall

be accepted

and the superintendent

judgment

unless

be received

of

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

Applications

no subjective

shall

authorized

Order and of the Fair

3601 !:..E_~-

will

or complex where the tenant

for an apartment.
intendents

for tenancy

from all

or agent

on the acceptability

prospective
visibly

tenant

persons

shall

of a prospective

is:

and objectively

drunk

and disorderly;
(ii)

visibly

the influence

and objectively

or rental
or there

under

of drugs;

(iii)abusive

towards

the superintendent

agent;

is,
(iv)
that

a visible

her apartment
cleanliness
rights
this

and objective

the applicant

shall

tenants.

former

or

on the
to satisfy

agents

shall

landlord

to

the manner in which he or she had

the rented

the subjective

intendent

or its

his
and

In order

defendant

the applicant's

maintained

care

so as not to intrude

criteria,

ascertain

indication

not maintain

with sufficient

of other

contact

will

premises.

In no event

impression

by a super-

of the manner of dress

or style

of grooming disqualify

an applicant.

subtection

solely

shall

apply

criteria.

-14-

make

This

to cleanliness

b.
the

The superintendent

application

deposit

of

and

rent

therefor)

submit

the

rental

completeness

one month's

substitute
then

for

or

deposit,

and

and

from

all

shall

one

No superintendent

or

rental

agent

on the

acceptability

except

c.

as

outlined

Applications

of

acceptability

in

the

shall

defenant's
d.

If

employment
applicant.

employment

shall

race,

color,
e.

shall

within

ten

been

accepted

sex

ten

applicant

of

reason

applicant

not
twenty

rejected,

the

rejection,

and

has

to

failed

days

applicant
of

the

(i-iv)

above.

offices.
to

of

an

a determination

Section

Managers

check

with

employed

applied

whether

but

or

in

of

the

disposition

from

the

time

on credit

without

regard

wherever
not

objective

to

possible

he or
can

shall

of

of

she
the

standard

she
not

has
be

notify

no event

he or

be informed

specific

each

origin.

defendant

therefor,

to

based

an application

days,

shall

and/or

respect

be informed

If

(10)

be informed
(20)

review

authority

tenancy

and

national

days

tenancy.

within
the

or

shall

business
for

the

for

acceptability

be uniformly

processed

beyond

of

applicant

(10)

(a)

credit

be conducted

religion,

Each

for

two main
have

be reviewed

a uniform

The standards

and

B(l)

shall

offices.

conducted,
check

shall

be made by the

main

reasonable

The agents

defendant's

in

shall

(or

a security

application,

to

applicant

the

and

review

require

applicants.

determination

make a determination

shall

a W2 form

W2 form
of

agent

the

shall
his

an

application

applied.
reason
he or

If
for
she

meet.~/

*/ Applicants
who have not been accepted
for tenancy
pursuant
to V(B) (a) above need not be informed
of the reasons
for the
defendant's
decision
not to accept
his or her application.
However,
defendants
shall
still
note the reason
for nonacceptance
in its
records
and its reports
to plaintiff
pursuant
to Sections
VI and VII herein.

- 15 -

2.

Providing
Seekers

Rental

a.

Defendant

shall

at 2611 West 2nd Street,

Information
maintain

Brooklyn,

at

New York, a Central

on a weekly basis,

of each currently

in the New York area,

to be vacant
thirty

or available

days.

ability

and shall

available
of its

buildings

the monthly

Defendant

a similar

list

complete

lists

of all
for

at 2611 W. 2nd Street,

Apartments

to all

interested

inquirers

at each

vacant

at

and a notification
in the New

at defendant's
Brooklyn,

main

New York and

New York.

which are available

availability

the next

about

maintain

apartments

inspection

2064 Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn,

on the apartment

also

available

available

expected

of avail-

inquiring

of the apartments

that

b.

or available

and the date

shall

by type of apartment

located

to be compiled

the type of apartment,

persons

building

offices

vacant

rent,

be shown to all

are available

Listing,

include

that

York area

offices

and of each apartment

shall

apartments.

central

in the New York area within

This list

the number of rooms,

its

New York and 2064 Cropsey

Avenue, Brooklyn,

apartment

to Apartment

list

(2(a)

for rental
above)

by an authorized

and listed

shall

agent

be shown

of the

defendant.
c.
fications

Inquirers

shall

for rental,

be uniformly

including

informed

the income,

and W2 form requirements.

- 16 -

of the quali-

security

deposit

d.

No waiting

defendant's

offices

any preference
Rental

list~/

will

or apartment

for persons

will

are available

buildings

referred

be on a first-come,

apartments

be maintained

at any of the

nor shall

by present

first-served

there

be

tenants.
basis

when

for rental.

VI
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
It
entry

is further

of this

for two years

serve

Decree,

for

for

(3) months after

three

shall

file

t:he plaintiff

information

owned and/or

three

arrl thereafter

the defendant

on counsel

following

ORDEREDthat

with

a report

the following

(3) times
the Court
containing

apartment

the

per year
and
the

buildings

managed by the defendant:

1.

Argyle

2.

Westminster

3.

Fontainebleau

4.

Lawrence

Gardens

5.

Sea Isle

Apartments

6.

Bachaven Apartments

7.

Shorehaven

8.

Belcrest

9.

Highlander

Hall
Hall
Apartments
and Lawrence Towers

Apartments
Apartments
Hall

10.

Saxony Hall

11.

Clyde Hall

12.

Edgerton

13.

Winston

14.

Sussex

Apartments
Hall
Hall

*/

Since this is defendant's

present
practice
and it is non.K?adiscriminatory,
plaintiff
inte'r. ~ose,s rio o~je.ction t~~reto.
l>-."-J,
u (K-,,~
( /[Q4 -e_ :shcd ( b-e ..R./<C!.,t(?
1t'. d_ ,fr-0111 (~'J
'tr o l t ":,c t:, ..,
--pn,h

,.1.

1TVn.C.j

,.J)

--.VU

, c
O
V ,r-

o.

d)Cc

- 17 -

f V"14 f u.,5-f_

a.

The number of persons,

observable)

making inquiry

of terms of rental
period

in person

of an apartment

and the number by race,

1.

made inquiry;

2.

were offered

3.

filled

4.

submitted

5.

were accepted

6.

were rejected;

7.

withdrew

8.

had applications

submitted

the preceding

reporting

that:

an applicant
for

A report
during

with deposit;

occupancy;

applications;
pending

at the end of the

period.

may be forwarded

the following

during

the availability

an application;

to plaintiff

to the sample form attached

b.

about

(as visually

out an application;

reporting
This report

by race*/

hereto

reflecting

as Appendix C.

the applications

the preceding

information

on a form similar

reporting

for tenancy

period,

including

for each person,submittirig

an

application:
1.

name, address,
number,

business

and home telephone

and race;

2.

date

of application;

3.

whether

4.

date

5.

weekly income of applicant

a deposit

notified

of apartment

was received;

of acceptance

or rejection;
and monthly

rent

sought;

!/

For purposes of this Decree,

be as visually
observable.

- 18 -

all

notations

of race

shall

6.

if accepted,

apartment

7.

if rejected,

reason

8.

name of person
accept

9.

to the sample form attached

nonwhite

detailed

statement

supporting

to

nor rejected,

status

of application.

may be forwarded

rejected

who decided

the application;

accepted

or disposition
This report

therefor;

or persons

or reject

if neither

chosen;

to plaintiff
hereto

applicant,

on a form similar

as Appendix D.

the report

of the reason(s)

shall

For each

include

for rejection

and

information.

c.
including

A list

of vacancies

the date

and the date

during

the apartment

each apartment

the preceding

was placed

was rented

quarter,

on the market'!_/

or otherwise

committed

for rental.
d.

Reports

filed

include

the current

tenants

in each apartment

defendant,
preceding
in Sections
1.

statistics

reporting

of all

and labor

unions

of

during

the

the program outlined

including:

letters

checking

also

to the race

taken

to implement

I and II above,

Order shall

owned or managed by the

of the steps

period

Copies

to this

with respect

building

and an account

and credit

this

pursuant

sent

companies,

pursuant

to apartment
Fair

to Parts

locators

Housing groups,
III and

IV of

Decree.

!_/

Including where appropriate,

the date the Open Housing
Center was contacted
concerning the apartment's
availability
in accordance with Part III above.
- 19 -

2.

Representative

ments

copies

placed

in

to

this

pursuant

the

of

all

Amsterdam

Order

and

newspaper

News and

the

date

of

advertise-

El Diario
each

advertisement.
3.
of

The name,
each

rental

employee
Order,

agent,

as of

by Part
signed

Part

refuses

II
to

shall

sign

include

circumstances
relation

II

the

office

assignment

date

of

the

the

educational

has

been

conducted,

obtained

this

Decree.

such

a statement
statement

and

any

and

this

copies

any rental

of

of

accordance

the

action

entry

office

program

in

If

a full
of

and main

that

statements
of

and

superintendent

an assurance

all

with

position

employed

required
of

race,

agent

defendants

all

pertinent

taken

by them

in

thereto.
VII
RECORD KEEPING PROVISIONS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

years

following

following

the

records

entry
for

of

all

the

this

defendant
Decree,

apartment

shall';

make

buildings

for

two

and preserve
owned

the

or managed

by them:
1.
time

of

The name,
contact

availability
and

*/
at

the

size

of

address,
each

telephone

person

or

terms

of

of

apartment

This may be accomplished

each apartment
building

rental
sought,

number

inquiring
of

date

in person

an apartment
if

and

about

therein,~/

known.

by maintaining
a guest
owned by the defendants.

- 20 -

and

register

the

2.

A detailed

application
all

and the

steps

taken

acceptability

record

of all

reasons

for

by the
for

employee

rejected

the

application.

All

records

3.

which

information

under

Order.

this

defendant

at any and all

the

to the

steps

are

the

defendant

of,

of the

endeavor

from the

the

and the

source

name

obligations

plaintiff

shall

records

times,

provided,

to minimize

inspection

or

or contain

pertinent

reasonable

shall

including

to defendant's

and copy all

plaintiff

on each

or who approved

Representatives

to inspect

action,

applicant

pertinent

permitted

that

such

taken

in ascertaining

of the

who took

any of the

such

defendant

tenancy

of the

action

of such

be

of the
however,

any inconvenience
records.

VIII
It

is

further

years

from the

least

twenty

for

the

ORDEREDthat

entry
(20)

of this

days

prior

for

a period

Decree,

the

to the

event,

extending

defendant
report

two

shall,

at

to counsel

plaintiff:

1.

Any new ownership

residential

property,

2.

acquired

The divestment

ownership

or management

or management

by the

through

in

defendant.

transfer

interests

interests

or sale,

in residential

of any
property.

IX
It
after
counsel

is

the

further
entry

for

ORDEREDthat
of this

plaintiff,

Decree

for
the

in writing,

a period
defendant
of all

of two years
shall

advise

complaints,~/

from

*/ For purposes
of this Decree,
"complaints"
shall mean any
information
which comes to the attention
of the defendant
or
its officers
from whatever
source received,
which indicates
a possible
denial
of equal housing opportunities
under the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.,
or a potential
violation
of this Decree.

- 21 -

whatever

source,

opportunity

received

in housing

Trump Management,
period

of two

the defendant

at properties

Inc.

after

ness

of this

fifteen

Decree,

(15} days from the date

received

to investigate

an explanation

is determined

plaintiff

shall

necessary

to correct

and shall

afford

days to effectuate

any other

additional

actions

judicial

before
with

relief.

bear

its

- 22 -

with

party,

to be

to the complaint,
seven

(7)

to remedy the conditions

to compel compliance

shall

by either

believes

Each party

plaintiff

and to overcome any continuing

discriminatory

for a motion

it

is

in the complaint.

leading

steps

there

the defendant

and provide

an additional

appropriate

to the complaint

of the alleged
court

the conditions

notify

the effective-

afford

to be valid

the defendants

that

contained

recommend what steps

of such a complaint

the complaint

of the information

If the complaint

leading

shall
notice

for

Decree,

threatening

the plaintiff

managed by

by the plaintiff.

determines

a need for emergency relief

equal

shall,

of this

received

Except where the plaintiff

exists

plaintiff

the entry

complaints

regarding

owned and/or

In.addition,

years
of all

by the defendant

own costs.

applying
this

effects
to the

Decree,

or

'

The Court
for all

shall

retain

'

jursidiction

purposes.
ORDEREDthis

"'il day

I~

of

L ..

of this

action

, 1975.

EDWARDllNEAHER
United States District

Judge

The undersigned
apply for and
consent to the entry of this
Order:
For the Plaintiff:

For the Defendants:

(1{rV(IV&U{L--..

RbY
M. COHN

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan

39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York

&

Manley

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

NORMAN
P. G LOBERG
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

sing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Waslington, D. C. 20530

,A(11 JO

.-,-tt;,'/C:-t:.~
t.:
?

rf ,T CIC ''-'i.:~>
,

CHTL
t U.S. Attorney
n District
of New York

37 F.R. 342.9
Feb. 16 ,. 1972.

:R,.ules
and Regulations

.Title24_-HOUSING
AND
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Chapter ~office of Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity, Department of Houslng and Urban Devel.opment
HOUSING
No. R-72-165)

~UBCHAPTER A-FAIR

(Doclcet

PART 110-FAIR
HOUSING POSTER
The purpose of this regulation Is to
require the display of a fair housing
poster by persons subject to sections 804806. of the Civil Rights Act of1961land to
prescribe the qontent of this poster:
Notice of a proposed amendment to
Title 24 to include a new Pa.rt 72 was
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
August 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 14336). <Under
the reorganization of Title 24 published
in the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 22,
1971 (36 F.R. 24402), the fair housing
poster will become new Part 110.) Comments were received from appfoximately
20 interested pe1sons and organizations
and.consideration has been given to each
comment.
Some comm:mts with respect to proposed 72.10 criticized the coverage of
the proposed regttlation as too broad,
while other comments objected that the
coverage is too mrrow, and various suggestions were made. for changes in coverage. Comment.,; were directed not only
to what dwelllngs should be included
but also. to the stage at which. the re-.
quirement should take. effect: and the
... persons to whom It should apply. In
response to the comments, .72.lO(a)
(now 110.10 (a) and .(b)) has been
i'evlsed to clarify the extent orcovcrag-e, to broaden coverage to the extent
appropliate arid to eliminate unnecessary
burdens where the requirement can appropriately be nan-owed or eliminated.
Under 110.10 (a> and Cb>, display of
tllo prescribed poster at a single-family
d-welling is not required unless the dwell. ing is. being offered for sale or rental In
conjunction with the sale or rental of
other dwellings; however it a real estate

3429 a
broker or agent is handling the sale or
renfal he must display the poster at any
place ~f business where the dwelling :Ls
being offered for sale or rental. With respect to all other dwellings covered by
the Act the poster must be displayed at
any pla~e of business where the dwelling
is offered for sale or rental; in addition,
the poster must be displayed at the dwelling except that in the case of a singlefamily dwelling being orrered for sale or
rental in conjunction with the sale or
rental of other dwellings, e.g., a subdivision, the poster may be dhpl~yed at
model homes instead of at each of the
individual dwellings. Finally, in the case
of dwellings other than a single-family
dwelling not being offered for sale or
rental in conjunction with the sale or
rental of other dwellings, the poster must
be displayed from the beginning of construction through the end of the sale or
rental process.
l::'leveral comments suirnested revisions
in the language of the poster described
in proposed 72.25. Such suggestions included rewriting the poster in terms of
the individual's rights rather than the
Act's prohibitions,
adding additional
prohibitions contained in the Act, emphasizing the nature of penalties for
failure to post, 1md listing the HUD area
office instead of the regional office as a
location to which to send complaints.
The new 110.25 adopts the suggestion
with regard to the area offices in that
the poster wlll provide for insertion of
the address of the regional or area office
as appropriate. It has been decided that
instead of lengt.hening the content of the
poster by adding addition11I prohibitions,
the poster should be made shorter and
easier to understand by briefly hir{hUghting the major prohibitions. In addition, the Equal Housing . Opportunity
logot.ype and slogan have been inserted
at the top of the poster.
A comment by the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board (FHLBB) recommended
exempting from this regulation any person subject to a regulation of the FELBB
requiring that person to post a poster
substantially similar in content to the
poster described in HUD's regulation. A
similar comment was made by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with respect to entities subject to
supervision by any of the four Federal
financial regulatory agencies. The Department will authorize n person subject
to the jurtsdiction of a Federal financial
regulatory agency to utilize a po~ter prescribed in a regulation .by such agency,
and approved by the Department, instead of the poster prescribed by HUD.
However, all of the other requirements of
Part no will remain fully ap!Jlicable regardless of whatever sanctions the regulatory agenc_y prescribes for failure to
comply with its :l'egulation. This provision is set forth in *110.25(b). The requirement, set forth in 110.lO(c), that
financia1 institutions post .and maintain
a 'fair hom,ing poster will not be effective
until May 1, 197.2, in order to allow time
for the Federal financial regulatory
agencies to .issue appropriate regulations.
proposed . 72.30 stated that a failure
to display the poster .as required would be

deemed a disc1'imi11atoiy housing practice, i.e., an act unlawful under sections

804, 805, and 806 of title VIII, and primn
f::lcie evidence of a violation of thc;se sections, as applicable. There were comments favoring this provision and a comment st.at:11g that such a provision was
beyond the Depart,ment's authoril,y cm
the r;round l,hat title VIII prescrihc: the
specific acts of discriminaUon which are
unlawful. 'There was also a comment re.commending that failure ta comply should
subject a person to suspension from
eligibility for FHA insur11,ncc.
The Department believes that it has
the aut.hority to require a fair housing
poster, and that proposed '12.30does not
prescribe a new violation not provided for
in title VIII. Rather, the section provides
an appropriate evldentiary mechanism
for assisting in the determiria tion of 1r
whether a violation of title VIII has oc., ,tr
curred. For purposes of clarity, the provi- r ..
sion has been combined with pro- , -1,
posed 72.35-complaints-lnto
a new ,;..
110.30-Effect
of failure to display ""'
poster-and
the combined te)!;t short., ;;,
enea. Under 110.30, when a person ,i;
claiming to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice files a com- ,,1
plaint pursuant to Part 105-Fair Hous- ::l
ing, a failure to display the required
poster shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such practice.
The comment with respect to applica- ,,.,
'tion of additional sanctions is rejectei:}, ,1.
since such sanctions as well as others a,re ,;
providecj. in the Affirmative Fair Housing
Marketing Regulations published January 5, 1972 (37 F.R. 75), for failure to
make the posting required at FHA proj.,.
ect sites by 200.620(f) of that reimla- '
tion. Although Part HO is applicable to
some persons who are not covered by
the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing
regulations, the Department considers
that the insertion in Part 110 of the sanctions propo,sed in the comment is not
appropriate.
Accordingly, a new Part 110 is added
to Title 24 to read as follows:

Sec.

Subpart A..,,.Prposeand Deflnilions

110.1
110.5

Purpose.
Definitions.

Subpart
110.10
110:15
110.JO
ll0.26

8-,.-Requiremenls for Display of Poslers

Persons subject.
Location of posters.

Availability of posters.
Description
of posters.

110.30

Su.bp.CIFI
C.,.,,.,!:nforcemen.t
;Effect of failure .to display poster.

no

AUTHORITY: The provisions of this P13:rt

are Issued under section 7(d) of the pepartment of Housing and Urban pevelopment
Act of 1965 (.42 u.s.e.3535(d) ).

S11l.,part .A,--Pyl'pqs, .!=IndD~flnitiqn~

110.J
Purpos~.
The regIations set Jorth in this part
.contain the procedures .established by
the Secretary ot Hom;il)g .and Urban Pe~
velopment with respect to the l;l.isplay ot
a fair housing poster by persons subject
to sections 80~806 of the .Civil Rights Act
of 1968; 42 U.S:C .. 8604~3606.

\'

6701

plementary
advertising campaign that ls,
directed at other groups, or the use by a developer of racially mixed models to advertise one of the developments and not others.
0, Policy andpractfaell guidelines. The
following guidelines are offered as suggested
methods of assuring equal opportunity in
rea.1 esta.te ad vertlslng:

1, Gui4elfne8 for use of. logotype, statement, (YI' slogan. All advertising of residential
real estate for sale or rent can contal.n an
Equal Housing Opportunity logotype, r:i~tement or slogan as a mea.t).Sof educating the
homeseeking publlc that the property ts
available to all pe,rsons regardless of race,
color, rellgl.on, or national .origin. Table l
(see appendix) lnd!cetes suggested sizes for
the use of the logotype. In a.ll space advertising which ls. less tha.n 4 column lnehes of a
page ln size, the Equal Housing Opportunity
slogan should be used, The advertisement
may b& -grouped with other advertisements
under a captl<;>nW'.hlchstates that the housing ls _a.vallable to a.11without regard to race,
colc,,r, religion, or national origin. Alternatively, 8-6 percent ot the advertisement copy
may b& devoted to a statement of t'he equal
housing opportunity pol1cy of the owner or
agent. T&ble a (see appendix) conta.lns copies
of the suggested Equal 'Housing Opportunity
logotype, statement and slo~n.
a. Guidelines for use of human models.
Human models ln photogra.phB, dra.'Wlngs, or
other graphic techniques may b& used to
indicate racial Inclusiveness. If models are
use4 In display advertising oa.mpa.igns, the
models should be clearly definable as reasonably representing both majority and miporlty
groups i the metropol1tan area. M:odels, If
used, should lndlcrute to the general public
that the houslpg Is open to all without regard to race, color, rel1gton, or natlo_nal
origin, and Is not for the exclusive use of one

APPENDIX

The following three tables may serve as a

guide for the use of the Equaa Housing O;>
portunlty logotype, statement, sll)gll,n, and
publisher's notice for display advertlslng:
TAllLE I

can guide the real esta.te

advertiser ln using the Eqal Housing Opportunity logotype, statement, or slog11.n. If other
logotypes a.re used Ui'the advertisement, then
the . Equal Housing Opportunity
logotype
should be of a size equal to the largest of
If no other logotypes
'the other logot~;
are used, then the following guidelines can
be used. In all Instances, the type should
be bold display face and no smaller than
8 points.
A simple fonnula

Sft!.eof
Logotype
in inches
a1 :ir::
:ir:: 2.
1,

Aroximate
size of
advertisement

1h
page up
or larger---------------14page
to ,i
4001umn Inches to *i page._____
Less than 4 column Inches,______
1no not use.

page___________
% x %
(1).

TABLE n.-II.LUSTRA'l'IONS
Oli' LOGOTYPE,
STATEMENT, Al'ID SLOGAN

Equal Housing Opportunity logotype.

such group.

for notification
o/ Fair
3. Guidelines
Housing Poliey. (a.) Employees. All publishers

of advertisements, advel'tli;lng agencies, and

firms enge.ged in the sale or rental of real
estate should provide a printed copy of their
nondlscr:lm1natory policy to each employee
a.nd officer.
(b) Clients. All P,Ubllshers of advertisements .and advertising &gen.ales should post
a copy of their nondlsc:r:Lmmatlon policy ln a
conspicuous place wherever persons come to
place advertising and shoUld ba.ve copies
available for au firms and persons using
their advertising semces.
All publishers are
(c) Publisher's
encouraged to publish at the beginning of
the real esta.te advertising section a notice
such as that appearing 1n Table 3 (see
appendix).

notice.

Effective date. This statement of policy

shall be effective May 1, 1972.
SAMUEL

J, SIMMONS,

Assistant Secretary
for Equal Opportunity.

EQUAL
HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
Equal Housing Opportunity statement:
We are pledged to the letter and spirit of
U.S. policy for the achievement of equal
housing opportunity throughout the Nation,
We encoui::age and support an affirmative
advertising and marketing program in which
there are no barriers tcr obtaining housing
because of race, color, religion or national
origin..
Equal Housing Opportunity slogan:
"Equal Housing Opportunity."
TABLE

llI-ILL'tlS'l'RA'l'ION
No'l'IcE

Oli'

Pm!LISHE!l'S

Publlsher's notice:
All real estate advel'tlsed ln this newspaper
1a subject to the Federal Fair Housing Aet ot
1968 which makes 1t Ulegal to advertise "any
preference,
llmltatton.
or d!scrtmtnation
based on race, color, rellg1on, or national
origin or an Intention to make any such
prefe~noe, limitation, or d1scr1mlnatlon."
This newspaper will not,. knowingly accept
any advertising for real estate which ls In
violation of the law. Our readers are hereby
tnfonned that all dwellings advertised In this
newspaper
are available on an equal
opportunity baals.
[FR Doc.72-4988 Filed 841-72;8:45

GPO

930.389

am]

APPENDIXB

37 F.R.

6700

4/1/72

In response to publishers' comments,

Table I ha,s been simplified and referDEPARTMENT

OFHOUSING
ANDences
to minimum type sizes limited to
a recommendation that the type should
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
be bold display face and no smaller than
Office of Assistant Secretary for Equal
Opportunity
[Docket No. R--72-108]

ADVERTISING GUIDELINES FOR FAIR

HOUSING
Notice of Statem;nt of Policy
In order to facilitate and promote
compliance with the requirements of
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968
and particularly section 804(c) thereof
(42. U.S.C. 3601, 3604(c)) regarding
notices, statements or advertisements,
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development has prepared guidelines to
indicate graphic and written references
that are appropriate for the preparation,
publication, and general use of advertising matter with respect to the sale or
rental of a dwelling as defined by the
Act.
Notice of a proposed statement of polREGISicy was published in the FEDERAL
TERon May 21, 1971 (36 F.:a.. 9266). Comments were received .trom 26 interested
persons and organizations and consideration has been given to each comment.
Several comments observed that the
proposed policy statement was at times
unnecessarily limited to the field of
newspaper advertising. In response to
the comments, the policy statement has
been revised in several places to clarify
that the guidelines apply to advertisements in all media, including, e.g., television and radio, as well as to advertising
agencies and other persons who us~
advertising.
Several organizations suggested additional catchwords connoting a discriminatory effect for .inclusion in section
A-3. That section has been expanded to
include several additional terms which
may have a discriminatory effect when
used in a discriminatory context.
In response to other comments, section A-6 has been revised to clarify how
directional references could be employed
in a discriminatory context with an
ethnically, as well as a ractally, discriminatory effect. Also, section A-7 has been
added relating specifically to designation
of religious, ethnic or racial facilities to
identify an area or neighborhood.
A number of comments indicated that
human models or Equal Opportunity advertisements can and have been used
selectively to promote the development
of racially exclusive communities. A new
section C-4 has been added in order to
meet this specific problem. The previous
human models section has been clarified
by revision and reorganization in the
new section C, in light of comments
which indicated confusion or uncertainty surrounding the use of human
models.

eight points.
A number of organizations suggested
the inclusion of a publisher's notice to
appear with real estate advertising. A
suggested notice has been included as
Table m, in lieu of the provision in the
proposed guidelines for direct notification to' all firms or persons using the
advertising services of a publisher. This
provision was removed in light of objections that such notification would be
unworkable or would impose great hardship since a large volume of real estate
advertising is placed by a great number
of persons on a nonrecurring basis,
Finally, a number of minor editorial or
organizational changes have been made
in order to. clarify or simplify the
advertising guidelines.
Several organizations suggested that
the guidel1ne1>make specific. reference
to the roles of other enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice
and local agencies. These comments sugge;;ted that the guidelines specify that
they do not alter or affect conciliation
agreements or court orders obtained by
these agencies, as well as by the Department. Such JI. disclaimer appears to be
unnecessary, since there is nothing in
the guidelines to -indicate an intent to
alter or affect agreements or orders; obtained by the Department and other
agencies.
This document is issued pursuant to
section 7 (d). Department of Housing and
Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C.
3535(d).
The statement of Policy reads as
follows:
PUBLICATION

GumELINES
OF THE

WITH TITLE VIII

OF 1968

FOR

CoMPLIANCE

CIVIL RIGHTS'

Acr

POLICY STATEMENT

Section 804(c) of title VIII of the Civtl

Rights Act of 1968, 42 u.s.c. 3604(c)., makes
It unlawful to make, prJ.nt, or publish, or
cause to be made, printed, or published any
notice, statement,
or advertisement,
with
respect to the sale or rental of a. dwelling
(a.ny building, structure, or portion thereo!
which Is occupied as, or designed or intended
for occupancy as, a residence by one or more
famllles, and any vacant land which Is offered for sale or lease for the construction or
location thereof of any such building, structure, or portion thereof) that indicates any
preference,
limitation,
or discrimination
based on race, color, religion, or national
origin, or an intention to make any such
preference, limitation or dtscrtmina.tio:a.
These advertising
guidelines a.re being
issued !or the purpose of !15$istlng all advertising media., ,11.dvert!sing agencies, and all
other persons who use advertising to make,
print, or publish or cause to be ma.de, printed,
or published any classified or display advertisement with respect to the sale or rental o!
a dwelling by the owner or his agent, tn
cqmplla.nce with the requirements
of title
VIII.

Conformance with these guidelines will be

considered in evaluating compliance with
title vm in connection with Investigations
by the Assistant Secretary of advertising
practices and policies under the title.
A. The use of words, phrases sentences
and visual aids which have a dis~iminatory
effect. The foll9wing words, phrases, sym-

bols, and forms typify . those most often

used In residential real estate advertising
to convey either overt or ta.cit dlscrtmina.tory
intent. Their use should therefore be a.voided
tn order to eliminate their discrlmtna.tory
effect. In C011!3~dertP,-g
a. complaint under title
VIII, the Assistant secretary wtll normally
consider the use o! these and comparable
words, phrases, symbols, and forms to indtca.te possible vtola.tton of the title and to
establtsh a. need for seeking resolution of
the complaint, If tt Is apparent from the
context of the usage that discrimination
wtthtnthe meaning Of the Tttle Is ltkely to
result.
1. Words descriptive
of dwell'lng
landlord,. and tenant. White private ho~e. Col.,

ored home, Jewish home.

2. words indicative
of race, color, religicm, or national origin. Negro, HI.spa.no, Mex-

ican, Indian, Oriental, Black, White, WASP,

Hebrew, Irish, 'Italian, European, etc.
8. Catch words. Restricted, ghetto disadvantaged. Also, words such, as private, integrated, traditional,
"boa.rd approval". or
"membership approved" tf used tn a. discriminatory context.
4. Symbols or logo.types. Symbols or logotypes which imply or suggest race, color, reUgton, or national origin.
5. Colloquialisms.
Locally accepted words
or phrases which imply or.suggest race, color,
religion, or national origin.

6. Directions to the real estate for sale or

rent (use of maps or written instructions).
References to real estate location made in
terms of racially or ethnically slgnl:lica.nt
landmarks such as a.n existing Black development (signal to Blacks) or an existing
development known for tts exclusion of minorities (signal to Whites). Speclftc dtrecttons given from a. racially or ethnically
stgni:licant area.
7. Area (location) description. Use of reItglous, ethnic, or racial facutttes to describe an area, neighborhood, or location.

B; Selective use of advertising .media or

content with discriminatory
effect. The se-

lective use of advertising in various media.

and wtth respect to various housing developments or sttes can lead to discriminatory
results and may indicate a Violation of title
VIll.

l. Selective geographic impact. such selective use may involve the strategic pla.cement
of btllboa.rds, brochure a.dverttsements distributed within a limited geographic area.
by hand or tn the mall, or advertising in particular geographic coverage edtttons of major metropolitan
newspapers, or In !or.al
newspapers which are mainly advertising vehicles for reaching a partlcule.r segment of
the community, or in displays or announcements only In selected sales offices.
2. Selective use Of equal opportunity
slogan or logo. Such selective ur,:e may involve
using the equal opportunity slogan or logo
In advertising reaching some geographic
areas, but not others, or wtth respect to
some properties but not others.
3. Selective use of.human models. Such selective advertising may also involve the use
of human models primarily in media that
cater .to one ra.c!,a.lor ethnic segment of the
population tbat ts not bat.a.need by a. com-

3430
110,5

Dcfini1iona,

(a) "Department" means the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

(b) "Discriminatory housing practice"
means an act that is unlawful under section 804, 805, or 806 of title VIII.
(c) "Dwelling!' means any building,
structure, or portion thereof which is
occupied as, or designed or intended for
occupancy as, a residence by one or more
families, and any vacant land which is
offered for sale or lease for.the construction or location thereon of any such
building, structure, or portion thereof.
(dJ "Family" includes a single individU!ll.

(b) This part shall not require posting

and maintaining. a fa.ir housing poater:
(1) On vacant land, or
cm At any single-family dwelling, unless such dwelling
(a) Is being offered for sale or rental
in conjunction with the sale or rental
or other dwell1ngs in which circumstances a fair housing poster shall be
posted and maintained as specified in
paragraph <al <2) Cii) of this section, or
(b) Is being offered for sale or rental
through a real estate broker, agent, aaleaman, or person in the business of selling
or renting dwellings in which circumstances a fair housing poster shall be
posted and maintained as specifted in
paragraph <a) Cl) of this section,
(c) All persons subject to section 805
of the Act;Discrimination in the Financ-
ing .of Housing, shall post and maintain
a fair housing poster at all their places
of business which participate in the
financing of housing.
(d) All persons subject to section 806
of the Act, Discrimination in the.Prov!-
sion of Brokerage Services, shall post
and maintain a fair housing poster at all
their places of business.

(el "Person" includes one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor'organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, jointstock companies, trusts, unincorporated
organizations, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers and fiducia11es.
(fl
"Secretary" means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
(g) "Fair housing poster" means the
poster prescribed by the Secretary for
display by persons subject to sections
804-806 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. no.Is Locn1ion of poslel'S.
(hl "The Act" means title VIII of 'the
All fair hot1sing posters shall be promiCivil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601
nently displayed so as to be readily apet seq.
parent to all persons seeking housing
(i) "Person in the business of selling
or renting dwellings" means a person as accommodations or financial assistance
or brokerage services in connection
defined in section 803(c) of the Act.
therewith as contemplated by sections
Subpart !?-Requirements
for Display 804-806 of the Act.
of Posters
110.20
Availability of po&ters.
l l 0.10

Pl'r~ons subject.

(a) Except to the extent that paragraph lb) of this section applies, all persons subject to section 804 of the Act,
Discrimination in the Sale or Rental of
Housing, shall post and maintain a fair
housing poster as follows:
(1) With respect to a single-family
dwelling <not being offered for sale or
rental in conjunction with the sale or
rental of other dwellings) offered for sale
or rent9.l through a real estate broker,
agent. salesman, or person in the business
of selling or renting dwellings, such person shall post and maintain a fair housing poster at any place of business where
the dwelling is offered for sale or rental.
(2) With respect to all other dwellings
covered by the Act:
(i) A fair housing
poste1: shall be
posted and maintained at any place of
business where the dwelling is offered for
sale or rental, and
(ii)
A fair housing poster shall be
posted and maintained at the dwelling,
exc~pt that with respect to a singlefamily dwelling being offered for sale or
rental in conjunction with the sale or
rental of other dwellings, 'the fair housing poste1; may be posted and maintained
at the model dwellings instead of at each
of the individual dwellings.
<3) With respect to those dwellings
to which subparagraph (2) of this paragraph applies, the fair housing poster
must be posted at the beginning of construction and maintained throughout
the period of construction and sale or
rental.

All persons subject to this part may

obtain fair housing posters from the Department's regional and area offices. A
facsimile may be used if the poster and
the lettering are equivalent in size and
legibility to the poster availabie from the
Department.
110.25

Description

of poslcrs.

(al The fair housing poster shall be

11 inches by 14 . inches and shall bear
the following legend:

EQUAL
HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
We Do Business In Accordance With the
Federal Fair Housing Law
(Title VIII of the Clvll Rlghtll Act ot 111118)
IT IS ILLEGAL
TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
ANY PERSON BECAUSE bF RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
In the sale or rental of housing or reslden
tlal lots.
In advertising the sale or rental ot hoUllilig,

In the n.nanclng or housing.

In the prov!Jllon or real estate brokeraae
services.
Blockbusting Is also lllegal.
Anyone who feels he has been discriminated
age.Inst should send a complaint to:
U.S. Department o! Housing and Urban Development, A&Slstant Secretary tor Equal
Opportunity, Washington, D.C. 20410
or
HUD Region or
[Area Office stamp]

(b) The Assistant Secretary for Equal

Opp0rtunity may grant a waiver permit
ting the substitution of a poster prescribed by a Federal tlnanclal regulatory
airency for the fair housing poster described in paragraph (a) of this section.
While such waiver remains in etl'ect,
compliance with the posting requirements of such regulatory agency shall be
deemed compliance with the pasting requirements of this part. Such waiver shall
not -affect the appllcabiUty of all other
provisions of this part.
Subpart C-Enforcement
110.30

Efl'eet

of

failure

lo

di11play

poster,

Any persoIJ, who claims to have been

injured by a discriminatory
housing
practice may file a complaint with the
Secretary pursuant to Part 105 of this
chapter. A failure to display the fair
housing poster as required by this part
shall be deemed prima facie evidence of
a discriminatory housing practice.
Effective date. This part shall be ef
fective February 25, 1972, except for
110.lO(c)
which shall be effective
May 1, 1972.
SAMUEL

J.

SIMMONS,

Assistant Secretary
tor Equal Opportunity.
(FR Dac.72 2262 Filed 2-15-72;8:45
am]

..

Ir'

"

APPENDIXC

TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.
DATE:

-----------

RE:

Rental

Analysis

Report

THE BREAKDOWN
OF PERSONSBY RACEMAKINGINQUIRYIN PERSON
ABOUTTHE TERMSANDAVAILABILITYOF APARTMENTS
FOR THE PERIODOF

---------

TO

---------

AT -----------------------------APARTMENTS

WHITE

MADEINQUIRY
WEREOFFEREDAN APPLICATION
FILLED OUTAN APPLICATION
SUBMITTED
DEPOSITWITHAPPLICATION
APPLICATIONSWITHDRAWN
BEFOREPROCESSING
APPLICATIONACCEPTED
APPLICATIONSWITHDRAWN
AFTER PROCESSING
APPLICATIONSREJECTED
APPLICATIONSPENDINGEND OF PERIOD

BLACKSPANISH OTHER TOTAL

APPENDIX D

APPLICATIONSFOR TENANCY
AT
APARTl:1ENTS

JAHE*
)DRESS,

HmIE ,&

BUSil\~SS
PHONES

RA.CE.

....

IF
DATE
IF
NA!!E OF
DEPOSIT REJECTED,
APPLI- SIZE, TYPE OF
ACCEPTED,
EMPLOYEE
DATE
OF
CANT'S APT. DESIRED MONTHLYDESIRED
REC'D
REASON
DATE
OF
AND DATE
ACTI~~Go:~
RENTAL DATEOF
APPLICA- WEEKLY (Brs., FurAND
R.A.TE OCCUPANCY DATE
NOTIFIED l\OTIFIED APPLIC..;TIO~
INQUIRY TION
INCOME nished)

'
\

...

'

..,.

..

'It

.,

.,
*"

..

'

..

'\

...
~

If, two or more. single

persons

are applying

for one apartment,

please

so indicate

.. -

..

'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTI()Ns
NO. 73 C 15~

)
)
)

v.

Uv1 T 29 )975

)
)

TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC. ,

P,~I..

____________

SUPPLEMENTAL
ORDER

Defendant.

On the

of America,

application

and after

24, 1975, it

of the plaintiff,

conference

is hereby

Consent Order in this

hereby

))

ordered
action

States

with the Court on September

that

filed

Part V(A)(2)

of the

on June 10, 1975, is

amended as follows:
(a)

Occupancy
Not more than two (2) persons

bedroom apartment.
defendant
its

past

shall,

grounds. that

q.e\or

e k' y Ni
ORDEREDthis

~-c

in a one-

For a two-bedroom
in a uniform

practices

No applicant

the United

shall

.......
. ......

manner,

with respect
be denied

apartment
adhere

to

to occupancy.

tenancy

solely

on the

sh~ _has ~hiJ.:.dren.

Ye-V-k _ rf'i _-r--r-,.,

1.~"tt.dayof ~~ , 1975.

Ive(...,

EDWARD
R. NEAHER
United States District

Judge

1
2

3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF NEW YORK

-------------

FRED

c.

- against

TRUMP, et

al.,

7
8

' ' ' .J

.,. ..." ........

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

5
6

COURT

.
.
:

Defendants.
-

73 C 1529

u. s.

10

Court House
Brooklyn,
New York

11

June 10, 1975

10:00 A. M.

12
13

14

15

e f o r e :
HON. EDWARDR. NEAHER,
U.

S.

D.

J.

16

17
18

19
20
21
22

23
24
25

BURTON SULZER
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1
2

2
A p p

e a r a n c e s :

DAVID G. TRAGER, ESQ.,

United
States
Attorney
for the
Eastern
District
of New York

By:

HENRY BRACHTL, ESQ.,

and
MS. DONNA GOLDSTEIN,
Assistant
U.S. Attorneys

ROY COHN, ESQ.,

Attorney
for Defendant

10
11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22

23

24
25

Also

Present:
FRED TRUMP
DONALD TRUMP
IRVING ESKANAZI, ESQ.

THE CLERK:

2
3

Fred

Trump,

seems

to

think

the

bullet.

Honor.

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. COHN:

like

ment

that

was proposed

14

have

read

that,

15

general

16

give

17

brought

18

giving

19

if

21

Honor,

24
25

and

Honor's

Neaher

--

at

order.
Court,
statement

them

this

case

and

the

your

one

by one?

in view

Neaher

permission,

you would

application

of

the

this

opportunity

to

final

week,

docuyou

a couple

of

like

personally

fact

the

morning,

go over

Fred,

the

last

you have

Judge

If

court,

end of

I believe
that

to

in

bite

you have

the

observations

Government

rather

this

--

to

than

your

Honor,

--

the

tenor

THE COURT:

22
23

Judge

on this

to

from

his

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

20

hear

that

problems,

everybody

to

With

13

we could

versus

Yes

could

us the

States

Mr. Cohn,

say,

come when we have

12

to

United

unnecessary

We have

Would you

you tell

with

has

MR. COHN:

I must

be plagued
time

hearing,

al.

THE COURT:

et

Civil

Mr.

he can
under

If
of

I may,

I don't

the

oath.

to

object,

your

this.
think

Trump wants
take

I have

stand

to

this
say

procedure

something

and be sworn

is
to

in

the

and give

his

4
1

MR. COHN: That would be fine,

THE COURT: But this

I assume the

I will

Government
give

portunity

go away from here

as I say,

case

understood

11

understanding

12

ies,

and --

that

14

your

15

some principles

16

could

17

factory

18

were.

of the

give

there

been heard.

But

history

that

of this

so,

because

had heretofore

had been a memorandum of

had been executed

is

you an opto

of puzzlement
papers

and

No one is going

he hasn't

the

Honor,

isn't

was not a 20-page

and then

not be reduced
to both

sides,

We have gotten

19
20

gotten

21

finished,

25

feeling

that

that

I will

motion

by all

the

part-

it?

MR. COHN: The memorandum of understanding,

13

24

to be heard.

to be heard.

from all

been submitted

23

wants

me in a state

10

22

a government

my own knowledge

leaves

Honor.

is

Mr. Trump --

of course

your

to the

and I think

question
last

point

of a little

Thursday

which

decree.

provided

in the

to decretal
we then

event

it

was satis-

were back where we

direction,

where we are

like

unfortunately

stops

recited

form that

the opposite

bit

It

of lack

we have

99.99
it

is

per cent
just

of patience

us from getting

a
such as

there

100

per cent.
We have a document

which

is very

close

to a fin

document.

It

is

cerned,

shove down somebody's

and it

an important

is not the

thing

kind

on at

this

are

apart

that

if

and Donald Trump in these

would have solved

everything

I could

11

we are

12

is here

--

point

those

motion

glad

close

is minor

-- all

on it,

15

side

16

So we are

17

solve

with

as well

has precipitated

I have nothing

forum because

here

and

everybody

to add on the motion.

an affidavit

explaining

our position

and I assume your Honor does not want either

to repeat

what we have already

said

in our papers.

We have everybody

here

and if

ready.

those

final

few problems

20

THE COURT: I don't

your

Honor,
recall

MR. COHN: It was sent

21

yesterday

we can

we have got a decree.

MR. COHN: Yes,

25

Fred Trump

into

19

an affidavit?

yesterday.
seeing

out to the

it.
clerk's

office

afternoon.
THE COURT: You say in this

date

problems

as we have solved

THE COURT: You say you submitted

24

we

of days we probably

18

23

that

language

this

oouple

to have this

I submitted

14

22

you can just

else.

very

13

very

have gone over

But this

10

of thing

con-

throat.

They have come very,

to everybody

convenient

of the decree

to the
by the

Court

parties

affidavit

be fixed
and the

for

that
the

acceptance

signing
thereof

by the

court,

decree

is

which

now in

form

changes,

which

Mr. Fred

which

I think

would

have

a small

which

the

little

any

it

15

MR. GOLDSTEIN:

some minor

language

example,

one point

to make to your
inserted
of

had

in

Honor,

inadvertently,

opposite
passed

sex

to

an age

standpoint,

occupy

that

would

and a couple

of

able

to work

these

things

out

May I have

a copy

The most

of

recent

the

decree.

decree,

your

Honor?
MR. F.

17
18

sign

19

them,

20

with

this

TRUMP:

this

initial

it

and

the

record,

You call
sign

it.

the

We want

Judge,

we can

shots,

we change

to

get

through

this.
THE COURT:

22

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
your

Off

morning.

21

time,

your

perhaps

that

will

I am sure
If

the

Government

I may take

does,

a few minutes

too.
of

Honor

THE COURT:

24
25

was not

--

THE COURT:

23

the

that.

we had been

we reviewed

me that

it

for

going

they

14

16

minor:

children

like

frankly,

are

Government

from

things
If

very

to

be signed.

there

after

suggest

Honor,

Trump is

bedroom

11

after

are

required

be permissible

12

--

to

to

Your

to be signed

10

13

form

MR. COHN:

seems

Let

me hear

expedite

from

matters.

the

young

lady

and

1
2
3

THE COURT:
understand

4
5
6

times

before

that

understood

of

10

the

11

provisions

what

of

14

what

16

the

like

to

see

19

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

20

the

21

The memorandum

22

decree

23

contained

25

consent

not

the

in

have

as we have
may have

understanding
I would

the

many

that

Court

clearly

state

set

that

out

the

decree.

open

was simply

their
little,

that,

by the

an additional

to

way,

Attached

all

entirety
if

if

memorandum

is

a copy?

certain

that

copy,

it.

initially

makes

states

of

I have

You have

decree

in

memorandum

facts

often

case,

happened

papers?

THE COURT:

Very

this

Was a copy

18

24

the

be a better

was left

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

and

as

--

in

you would

is

so that

be contained

THE COURT:
submitted

is

understanding

We believe
memorialize

in

matter.

of

case

would

happened

to

the

application.

Our concern

and only

think

memorandum

your

a recitation

them,

has

read
in

in this

we would

12

17

feelings

come heretofore

what

15

your

I have

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

13

We have

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

to

submitted

by the

plaintiffs

revisions

in

consent

other
in

the

provisions
the

anything,

of understanding,

the

and

final
is

left

essentially

are

to

be

decree.
open

in
the

the
next

1
2

decree

was to memorialize

the

of which had been agreed

settlement,

all

THE COURT: This

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That

THE COURT: You are

MR. COHN: That

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That was submitted

MR. COHN: That was submitted

10

on Thursday,
in this

your

11

document?

is

Honor,

courtroom

is

that

13

ment

everything

the

about

familiar

with

this

after

the

on Tuesday.

conference

That

is

the

based

15

THE COURT:

16

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Mr. Cohn represents

18

minor

revisions
Since

19

20

revisions

21

in toto

22

provisions

23

memorandum.

24
25

been

and I believe

on your

state-

that

minor

was --

open,

and they

we are

talking

about.

signing

portions

are merely

of the memorandum,
have attempted
of the

consent

which have been agreed

Initially,

impression

left

but defendants
large

final.

and Miss Goldstein's.

that
the

it

week.

we had

the

me with

had been settled,

have always

one?

by the Government

MR. COHN: I think

things

one.

last

14

17

fifth

--

THE COURT: Which left

12

terms

upon.

the

the United

the correspondence

to renegotiate
decree,

to in the

States,

not minor

while

between

entire
first

hesitant
the parties

-in

this

matter

will

bear

that

very

out

hesitant

to re-

negotiate,
3

changed

various

4
5

7
8
9

10
11

in order

to proceed

last

five

about

to be able

little

skeptical,

to ask the
that

if

months

summarily,

then

final

will
for

for

not

close

in the

today

to have my undivided

14

this

What I would

near

like

understand

it

17

standing,

which

18

statement

of principles,

19

specific

to the

today,

this

so

decree

so that

it

may

you you are

goin

accomplishment

21

because

22

decree.

it

23

of

as I

memorandum of under-

I do recognize

is

although

to some extent
I suppose

certain

are made --

essentially

THE COURT: All

which presumably
--

down to is this,

this

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Specific

that

here

me a

supervision

to assure

to get

we have here

provisions

20

25

enter

leaves

future.

attention

16

thing

close

we are

decree.

15

24

now that

drink

supervision

THE COURT: I am going

13

so many times

is why we are

assistance

Court

well

promises

the

and that

become a reality

12

to the

that

to drink

Court's

the

we have

portions.

We have been brought

in this

to execution

adopts

right.
is

final

provisions
the

attached

are

contained

consent

But now we have someor so close

to the

edge

10
1

MR. F.
of

TRUMP:

THE COURT:

MR. COHN:

yourself

Thursday?

to

the

What are
In other

final

THE COURT:

document

to

find

we will

11

hold

that.

12

than

I had

13

words,

I want

be out

to

what

Let

they

address

point

me see

Maybe we can

about?

you want

that

Do you want

THE COURT:

10

we talking

document

out

MR. COHN:

to

produced

myself

to

of difference
Mr. Fred
for

this

on

the

final

there

is.

Trump to

a moment.

accomplish

address

testify?

We will

more

quickly

thought.

Has anyone

got

a marked

MR. COHN:

We have

copy

of

this

consent

order?

14

15

the language

16

changes

THE COURT:

18

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

191
20

21

22

11

2
!
25

was not

a memorandum,

your

Honor,

with

would want.

we

17

Judge,

here.

One hour,

Have you seen

We have

that?

not

seen

that.

Mr. Cohn

-THE COURT:

me and maybe

one

Give

one to

to Mr.

Bracht!.

Are you going

to

MR. BRACHTL:

Yes,

THE COURT:
Let's

turn

It

be a participant

might

to page

Ms. Goldstein

your

Honor.

be useful.
7-A,

item

one.

here?

and one

to

11

I
1

MR. COHN: That,

your

Honor,

refer

or managed,"

managed . " --

properties

owned or managed by the

of Tysen's

Park

to --

under

A, the

and it

is

a federal
the

for

11

without

12

like

that

is,

owned or

"New York City

defendant,

of course,

and I think

and I think

we are

is accomplished

requiring

exclusive

all

with

additional

record

Trump Village
--

Tysen's

agreed

reference
keeping

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We have exclqded

14

Trump Village

15

affect

16

that

17

requirements,

18

and things

their
they

from particular
9bligations

is

that
to them

and things

objective
like

the

under,

and

which would

federal

statutes

such as tenancy

criteria

for

accepting

they

talking

tenants

that.

provisions

20

simply

provisions

21

and I see no reason

22

federally

23

eluded

funded
in the

Tysen's

provisions

under

were constructed

These

19

25

say

owned

that.

13

24

would

"Apartments

"Apartments

would

project,

project

same effect

it

7-A-l

and Trump Village."

a Mitchel-Llama

10

line,

would say

I suppose

The reason

third

on page

to notify

are
the

community

why two particular

and. state

provisions

project,
that

about

notify

the

of vacancies,/

projects,
should

are

while

not be incommunity

as

to vacancies.
These were,

previous

to coming

in today

-- all

I
I

12
1

these

had been agreed

THE COURT: May I inquire,

2
3

upon on numerous

Trump Village

occasions.

is Tysen's

managed by Trump?

MS. GOLDSTEIN: owned and managed.

MR. COHN: Yes.

your Honor,

Mitchel-Llama

supervision.

These

one is under

I think

10

to have them in this.

are

state

Tysen's

Act;

we had all

is already

agreed

12

MS. GOLDSTEIN: One project

14

important

We might

15

16

up settlement

17

negotiate

Donna.

20

burdensome

23

24
25

go through

on minor

white
under

these.

points,

We are giving
so far

Honor,

attempt

to get

the decree.
I don't

want to hold

you know, but you re-

you a lot

totally,

everyone's
this

--

so many times.

which the

almost

very much against

was unnecessary

you exclude

done.

them,

of buildings.

It's

as the money is concerned,

on 23 points

we have given

federal

and would be an

MR. COHN: Mr. Fred Trump wanted

21
22

to include

and renegotiate

19

it

the

does have a racial

MR. FRED TRUMP: Why don't

18

under

what Miss Goldstein

which is virtually
project

two buildings,

under

that

Now, apparently

composition,

the

supervision

11

13

Park and

Government

to

also.
tell

your

made here,

and some of them are

better

judgment,

in an

13
1

Mr.

Trump

who has

been

gone

to

Washington

here

to

try

himself

very

and

constructive

working

rather
hammer

Eskanazi,

than
this

have

thing

about

Village,

nondiscriminatory

other

the

status

of

which

would

insure

or

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

11

are

no requirements

12

rights

13

with

that

enforcement
respect

to

We are

14

15

of

projects.

16

while

17

population,

not

the

about

Tysen's

Park

large

it

does

19

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

20

rnately

eight

21

alleged

to

TRUMP:

or

ten

exist

at

23

of

24

properties
tion

what

of

we allege
in
the

the

Trump

of

these

30 per

projects
kinds

Island

and

minority

cent.

cent.

But

properties.

of

different

understood

community,

government

kinds

Staten

There

no civil

federal

I had

be the

of

not.

and

a significant

Trump

however,
to

Trump

it.

Over

other

and

come through

is

and

in

anything

sort?

two very

have

per

Trump Village,

that

of

as we understand

MR. F.

would

state

is

come up

Park

presently

operation

talking

folks

have

availability

I am aware

by the

18

22 ,

of

us,

there

the

message

There

the

Tysen's

that

anything

with

is

two,

housing

agencies

10

those

an attorney

out.

THE COURT: Miss Goldstein,

25

and Mr.

it

unlike

to

be approxi

what

we have

properties.
is

very

representative

reputation
and
It

of
is

of
the

the

racial

Trump
composi-

an exclusively

14
1
2

or almost

exclusively

desirable

project.

3
4
5
6

7
8
9

10

white

We have agreed
visions
that

to exclude

it

was set

preferences
groups

up under.

in tenant

because

and they

it

is

would interfere
desirable

with

Mitchel-Llama
decree

however,

12

impression

about

13

exceptions

you have later

their

In other

15

I realize

16

Center

17

and so forth

this
that

18

project,

provisions
it

that

is a very

availability

words,
is

these

be created

if,

simply
are

some false

in the

agreed

to notify

available

light

of the

to?

on the one hand,

you say

the Open Housing

to all

qualified

Honor,

I don't

persons,

--

MS. GOLDSTEIN: No, your

that

and other

project.
THE COURT: Would there

14

certain

to veterans

in the

pro-

regulations

They have to give

a state

that;

is a very

from certain

to the

selections

have accepted

It

it

which would be offensive

11

19

project.

think

would open.

20

THE COURT: That

21

Park or Trump Village

22

thing"

23

and then

somebody would then

and say

"We have been told

people

25

are

in.

in the

some-

--

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That would simply

24

go to Tysen's

same position

that

thousands

place

these

of New Yorkers

15
1

Trump Village

MR. ESKANAZI: My name is

Honor.

This would probably

As far

not been,

for

whatsoever

which is

when the people

kept

because

there

supervised

entered

would not accomplish

12

who inquired

13

the waiting

is,

16

exist.

that

19

purpose.

20

be included.

21

do advertise

22

manner.

23

give

24

Village

have just

list

as far
they

names

vacancies

anything

requires

with

as

are

Open Housing

but merely

give

the opportunity

only

the people
of joining

under

vacancies

To include
to all

it

those

does not subscribe

that
to the

they

serve

no

shall

not

that

when they

in a certain

from the decree

read

that

the circumstances

them,

advertise

blanketly

as the rest

then

requires
they

vacancies

would really

is no vacancy

Advertising

we would be doing

to provide

been discussed

a message

that

Trump Village

If there

requirements

waiting

list.

Excepting

18

has

any advertising

their

at Open Housing

the decree

17

there

Department,

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Then all

15

your

et cetera.

listing

11

25

is concerned,

State

order,

Therefore,

Eskanazi,

is an extensive

by the

first

list.

up the matter.

a good number of years,

in the proper

14

Irving

clear

as Trump Village

10

does have a waiting

it

that

same equal

would

Trump
opportunity

of the Trump properties,

and

16
1

that

is misleading.

2
3

MR. COHN: We are

point,

which

seems to be very

You have agreed

would be meaningful

apply

it

to other

is under

10

at another
Housing,

state

it

because

them,

in effect

these

special

provisions

recognize

regulation

already.

if you stick
notices

respecting

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Footnote

14

There

is a provision

buildings

with

16

Spanish

17

Center

18

apartment.

19

ence to certain

20

list,

tenants
shall

Because

we aave

--

excluded

and does
it

shall

whereby

of black

Tysen's

for

and

an
prefer-

have a long waiting

from that

provision.

Park on page -where does

it

say

excluded?

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Third

24

two?

has to give

THE COURT: Let me ask this,

are

of one of

Trump Village

22

they

to Open

jump to fill

We have excluded

25

sent

the Open Housing

21

23

them in back

a three-day

tenants

that

3 on page 10.

numbers

a certain

be given

these

in the decree

insignificant
that

would

mislead

13

15

that

we all

and have these

will

Neaher's

two from what

of the decree

and federal

point

these

THE COURT: What would be a specimen

11

12

provisions

buildings

to Judge

cogent.

to exclude

Having excluded

not talking

not apply

footnote.

to Trump Village.

This provision

On page 12, footnote

17
1
2

one,

the part

criterion

where it

standards

goes through

for

the objective

determining

the

rental

eligibility

of

tenants.
4
5

Footnote
subject

to other

tenant

eligibility.

7
8
9

10
11

We did
would appear
outside
the

equal

defendants

that

14

housing

public

with

to

respect

to be taking

opportunity

exclusion
large

that

projects

housing

requirements

that

-the

to.

see how it

serves

any function

on proper-

--

16

by name, saying

17

defendant,

18

the

19

worried

how about

this:

Instead

apartments

parentheses,

footnotes

with

a cosmetic

of mentioning

them

owned or managed by the

with

the

exceptions

on page 10 and page 12.

noted

If they

in

are

about
MS. GOLDSTEIN: Someone who is going

is going

22

is

exclusions.

of the equal

were agreeing

problem,

to read

it

and rent

24

to come and read

an apartment

to read

it

wrong.

MR. COHN: What prospective

23

25

it

specific

MR. COHN: If we are dealing

20

#2

Those are

to the

15

21

regulations

Park because

not wish to make a blanket

I don't
ties

federal

Tysen's

of the requirements

12
13

one excludes

for

a 30-page

person

wants

to go

$175 a month and is going

consent

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We don't

decree?

want to be unreasonable

18
1

your

Honor,

2
3

7
8
9

--

MR. F. TRUMP: We have discussed

this

for

days

and days.

4
5

but

to be entered

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We want a decree

and we don't

to be unreasonable.

one of the

reasons

that

have today

is that

provisions

spent

days upon days

time we sit

10

I have retained

I understand

renegotiating

12

the

Government's

13

Suppose

14

to race,

15

mention

color,

if

position

decree

and each

one can be very

there

neutral,

is merit

to

here.

one were

simply

as hereinafter

to say,

without

provided.

regard

You don't

-- you understand?

16

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I am not

17

THE COURT: That apartments

18

the

19

without

regard

20

origin,

as hereinafter

21

partly

need to be changed.

and I think

point

the

this

down new provisions

your point

that

have been -- we have

THE COURT: Suppose,

11

I suppose

defendant

are

available

to race,

color,

are

under

23

their

24

they

25

provisions

are,

religion,

they

persons,

sex or national

are

problem

a general

regardless

and whether
--

qualified

provided.

an injunction,

properties,

you.

owned or managed by

to all

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The only

22

following

they
under

of the
are

is the

injunction
type

excluded

a general

defendant
that

all

of properties
from affirmative

injunction

to mak

19
1

apartments

2
3

available

to all

THE COURT: I did not

said

that

they

are

available

persons.

say they

were not.

as hereinafter

I just

provided.

Do you understand?

Then whatever

Trump or Tysen's

provisions

erence.

the difference

will

be governed

hereinafter

provided,

is with

respect

to

by the more particular

if

that

makes the

diff-

Do you understand?

10

MR. COHN: It

11

MS. GOLDSTEIN: It

12

that

13

Tysen's

14

provisions

15

all

16

a little

seems like

in would make it

--

17
18

qualified

were not

appears

appear

included

which require

say under

you,

triple

22

which provision

asterisk,

shall

not apply

seems to be

you

them to hold
days.

provision,

which is the

to Trump Village,

but

do you mean?

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The entire

to --

it

3 --

21

three

but

to

in 10, what do you say,

THE COURT: You say this

25

and

of

20

requires

Trump Village

available

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We don't

24

putting

them to make it

19

23

to me that

injunctive

in terms

THE COURT: Well,

solution.

in the general

I may not understand

misleading

that

a perfect

a property

But not the

provision

provision
off

the market

that

requires

that
for
them

20
1

2
3
4

THE COURT: All

inafter

provided

Tysen's

Village

which

is the

right.

simply
then

general

means that

you turn

I am attempting

to preserve

time

these

some way losing

more specifically

bear

to satisfy

11

is

12

except

13

else

for

that

they

sides

that

because

you should

Trump Village

I don't

not

in

provided

here

personally

attemptin

I do think

it

say on page 7 that

and Tysen's

I am simply
after

saying

all

Park

are

available

everything

fine,

your

as herein-

provided.

16

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That's

17

THE COURT: Do you understand

18

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That's

19

MR. COHN: On the

20

THE COURT: Where would we put

21

MR. COHN: After

22

THE COURT:

23

provided

24

all

25

same

want to over-

a mediator

not

the

are

is

which

is available.

14

15

both

important

and at

to

sentence,

approach,

of whatever

I am simply

first

you,

in 10 and 12.

you on that.

10

gentlemen

as here-

someone goes

cosmetic
for

the benefit

if

is,

not to the

blanket

to satisfy

So my point

to all

as hereinafter

my point?

fine.

same page --

the words

" are

qualified

Honor.

"national

available
persons,

that?
origin."

as hereinafter
or are

available

"

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Without

regard

to race,

color,

to

21
1

religion

or

8
9

10
11

THE COURT:
I know they
you

it

the

special

also

are

might

in

record

a problem

be that

I would
is

what

your

Honor.

details

I am trying

it

treatment
expect

should

wait.

to

to

having

apply,

in

provided.

copy?

Government,

will

some difference

that

this

you may,

but

the

exceptions

and

that

talking

We were

thinking

recognized

may be realized
with

we are

say

respect

to

to

be so,

about

I don't

here.

Do

you understand?

12

MR. F.

TRUMP:

13

excluded

because

14

restricted

now.

15

they

standpoint,

17

that

18

let

us

19

but

Trump Village,

it

20

and
would

say

--

MR. F.

21

Donna?

22

3,000

They

under

I don't

look

well

I don't

for

being

--

either

from

the

you to

a large

be

highly

and

We have

from

your

Government's,

be attempting

How many units

co-ops.

would

people.

know much about

TRUMP:
are

the

think
not

they

restrictive

pick

certainly

to~

Tysen's

Park,

prominent

--

in Trump Village,

nothing

to

do with

families.

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. F.
are

are

We don't

THE COURT:

16

25

Yes,

hereinafter

The mechanical

keeping

know,

as

May I mark

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

origin,

THE COURT:

national

rental.

It

TRUMP:

is

partly

Three

co-op?

thousand

were

co-op

and

880

22

THE COURT: It

MS. GOLDSTEIN: 880 apartments

number of apartments

about

select

it,

the

is disagreeing

ing special

10

sentence

11

exceptions

State

takes

with

care

13

in conserving

14

standable,

noted,

15

believe

16

are

17

housing

that

that

is

to retain
we will

in the

try

by call-

opening

be creating
--

if

point

with

the

the

--

you are

interested

which

is under-

here,

I don't

vast

when you
majority

of

here.

at

are,
the

I assume
foot

you are

of the

decree

going
and

come to you?
THE COURT: If any difficulties

21

nobody

saying

we are

would be unreasonable

involved

jurisdiction

saying,

10 and 12, where

a major

MR. COHN: If they

18

is

of funds,

upon to deal
is

They

you might

the Government

not called

of everything.

to them there

expenditure
if

forget

Neaher

of on pages

are

a significant

two buildings,

any of that,

attention
instead

are

to New Yorkers.

THE COURT: The details

12

22

Trump Village?

MR. COHN: What Judge

20

all

MR. F. TRUMP: On those

19

is

to iron

come up we will

them out.

MR. COHN: The next

point,

we agreed

to forward

to the

Open Housing

23

24

the

statement

That was all

25

of vacancies
right.

We agreed

to that

after

Center.
a lot

of

23

discussion.

Then they

the Open Housing

own discretion

letter

persons

equal

go ahead
Center,

and weekly

copies

list

or organizations

10

to be involved

in this

11

without

12

to an enormous

13

superintendents,

14

and we have selected

15

League,

16

but

17

which both

impugning

sides

is

office
the

20

with

21

to not accomplish

22

fusion.

we all

of extra

in processing

to advertise
papers,

of all,

really

our experience

it

leads

work for

applications,

Center,

the

Urban

not in every

on a sort

paper

of rigid

Open Housing,

to flood

every

of our vacancies,
anything

agree,

basis,

to.

mind notifying

of lists

which are

in any way,

Open Housing

right

is a limitation

because

motives

have agreed

an indiscriminate

because

in promoting

groups

volume of confusion,

selected

19

25

an interest

process,

we have agreed

We don't

get our

may at its

to any and all

of do-good

their

the

in certain

24

it,

above-mentioned

the whole decree

of groups,

First

saying

opportunities.

as to numbers

23

received
of the

with

copies

in language

of vacancies

What permeates

18

having

forward

housing

and put

it

but a total

chaos,
has been,

we have done some of this

but

if

ther

organization
is

just

going

amount of con-

and by the

time

they

as I understand,
before,

by the

time

24

they

get

through

distributing

it

has all

become obsolete

anyway:

Places

are

rented,

and the

superintendents,

the

clerical

help

go crazy.

So we want some kind of a break

5

is to flood

they

forward

want,

which

and not have

discretion

something

organizations

10

once we comply with

is to notify

forward

the

in here

copies

with

on however
the

says

to any and all

an interest

provision

Open Housing

which

this

at

Center,
its

own

persons

and

in promoting

equal

housing

opportunities.

11

I think

12

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Just

that

is what that

is

to put

about.
this

in perspective

13

and get

14

memorandum of understanding

stated

that

15

approximately

groups

to which this

16

ation

a little

history

three

of that

or four

paragraph,
there

would be
inform-

would be sent.

17

After

the decree

had been entered,

18

Eskanazi

19

when, came down to finish

off

20

spent

Mr. Eskanazi,

21

Mr. Eskanazi,

22

rather

23

to four

groups,

24

and let

them distribute

25

our initial

and Mr. Trump,

the

entire

than

in April

day with

and I believe
have the paper

So at his

why not

and when Mr.

or May, I don't

the consent

this

remember

decree,
it

was his

and I

was agreed
suggestion,

work of sending

by
that

them constantly

send them to Open Housing

Center

it.

suggestion,

and to eliminate

the

need to

25
1

send them to more than

4
5
6

7
8

one group,

If the defendants
specific

groups

much negotiation

since

then

brought

up as a sticky-wit,

at this

late

to change

gradual

11

the

12

coming to the

13

is that

of the

broadcast

This

has gone through

and this

has not been

lapse

in time,

that

concerned

because

vacancies,

you will

apartments

if

of the

they

be flooded

which are

are,

with

no longer

and
people

available;

right?
MR. COHN: That

15

The second

is one concern.

concern

is this:

16

fication

17

the

18

we have to have a proliferation

19

three

20

Housing

to the

people

other

Open Housing

directly.

or five

Center,

this

does

That accomplishes

other
is

22

would have been the other

23

would they

or ten other
its

the

it.
it

now to give

noti-

They see
and why do
a bow to

-- the

Open

function.
to the

groups

Open Housing,

you had in mind,

what
what

add to it?

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We were -housing

We think

Center

THE COURT: In addition

fair

confused

game to have them now want

of these

14

24

be more than

so I am a little

THE COURT: You are

21

we will

it.

10

25

to,

provision.

stage

was put in.

wish to go back to three

to send this

happy to make the

this

groups

in the

area,

there

are

a number of

in the metropolitan

26

area:

The Human Rights

Various

sat

other

Housing

and a very

they

the

10

#3

groups

similar

Center

don't

specific

to the

limited

resources

do also

initially,

this

come into

THE COURT: I can understand

also

understand

16

over

the

17

the management

18

after

the

it

if

will

20

of inquiry,

mail

21

accomplish

22

cause

23

and everything

the

people

with

other

on
--

your Honor.

your position

people

matter,
are

here
I can

dispatched

of activity
who get

for

there

long

has been rented.

really

Government's

to expend

advertising

a lot

and so forth,

else,

On the other

24

things

generate

dealing

apartment

these

impact

advertising

is correct,

as a practical

I can see what it

19

25

hand,
that

city

office

play?

13

15

Open

does

not certain

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That

on the other

are

because

literature,

12

but,

Center.

to have the

THE COURT: Are there

14

There

has one small

Center

to distribute

that

groups.

staff.

have the

provisions

source.

-- we never

Open Housing

Open Housing

community

is a possible

have housing

is one operation,

If the

groups

down and worked out the

11

other

Commission

flow

which may not really

purpose.

monies

all

means is a long

It may even indee

to travel

to these

places

in vain.

hand,
provisions

isn't

it

enough to,

and so forth,

with

the

to eliminate

27
1

this

sort

of broadcast

Is this
was this

--

a standard

tailored

provision,

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Notification

THE COURT; Yes.

MS. GOLDSTEIN: There

tion

One is

one is done frequently,

operation,

the

10

the

community,

11

uniform.

12

the

13

this

14

uniform;

15

significantly.be

absolutely

is done frequently.

it

housing

and the

otherwise

of the

impact

not necessarily

have

22

encountered.

24

25

seen

of the

ing detailed
Amsterdam

of the
need

in

is

not

comm.unity of
pursuant

decree,

distribution

in all

do not have them,

is

to

fairly

decree

would

by the

Housing

of list

portion
the

are

pages

listings,

--

of vacancies,
of our decrees,

decrees.
your

which

Your Honor put his

There

the

other

less.

is done in a significant

21

size

It

opportunities

terms

the

notifies

MR. COHN: Unfortunately,

20

23

on the

but

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The term

but

the

volume and the

17

19

standard;

of the

THE COURT: This

this

of notifica-

depending

16

18

two kinds

nature

equal

decree,

to groups?

are

One of them which

general

way, or

--

in here:

by the

News, so on and so forth.

the

is a problem
finger

of subsequent
advertising

Honor,

right

provisions
in El Dario,

ones

that

on it.
requir-

28
1
2
3

This
beginning
and

this
it

the

language

at

Open Housing

the

Center

Let

me ask

MR. COHN:

I have

THE COURT:

Once

you,

though,

as

a practica

the

what

MR. COHN:
but

an idea

is

Open Housing
to

stop

them

Center
from

gets

dispersing

anyway?

I don't

12

I don't

want

to

The Open Housing

14

tion.
MR. COHN:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. F.

18

she

said,

which

19

exclusively

for

is

the

them

20

THE COURT:

21

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
Housing

Center

THE COURT:

24

MR. F.

25

MR. COHN:

stop

them,

at

we take
its

that

one.
use

out.

own discre-

the

--

You won that

their

as what

it

is

one.

own discretion,
in

there.

We wan

-is

coming

The

last

its

That's

TRUMP:

to

how about

can

same

What

may at

23

They

if

operate

Honor,

Remember

TRUMP:

okay

can

Your

is

them.

That's

Center

15

know what

encourage

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

13

22

general

selected

THE COURT:

information,

10

11

they

less

matter

or

--

more

and

is

sentence,

own discretion

"The

Open

"

out.

Thank

The next

out?

you,
page

Judge.
--

I don't

think

there

29
1

should

be any

2
3

6
7

the

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
and

they

will

not

buildings

with

it

going

is

not

to

there?

with

Tysen's

and

has

no vacancies

only

if

13

all.

this.

14

I don't

ence

16

to

to

17

about

five

to only
is

it,

advertise

a pink

to

they

elephant

see

Include

in

their

then

problem

all

advertising
--

be

present

any

buildings

will

to advertise.

you do advertise

they

policy.

you conform

with

this

at

with

are

not

refergoing

that.

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
the

that

a need

Pursuant

If

New York City

argue

is

really

MR. COHN:

15

you need

so that

there

THE COURT:
to

this,

As I understand

11

12

Trump Village

exist.

THE COURT:
advertising

If

vacancies

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

New York City.

That

includes

boroughs.

19

MR. COHN:

20

Let

21

Is

problems

be in

10

18

3-A.

Trump Village?

8
9

with

Can we handle

problem

us talk

We can
about

deal

with

Tysen's

that,
for

Judge.

a second,

if

we

can.
(Counsel

22

confer,

MR. ESKANAZI:

23
24

before

25

in

that

nature.

the
There

off
Miss

the

Goldstein

two buildings
is

record.)

a difference

are

mentioned
completely
as to

the

even
different
number

of

30
1

minority

people

living

in

Tysen's,

but

even

if

we take

Miss

Goldstein's

figure

and

she

said

ten

per

cent,

one

of

the

--

it

happens

to

distinctions

in

the

be a little

higher,

but

one

of

the

agreement

is

even

if

we list

with
6

Open Housing,

three

they

want

us to

list

and

hold

for

less

than

days

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
8

ten

per

cent

Only

properties

with

minority.

MR. ESKANAZI:

This

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

It

one

meets

the

criteria.

10
11

provision

because

12
13

MR. COHN:
it

is

not

14

17
18
19

they
to

are

viewing

be careful

I --

there

means.

22

is

23

minority

in

fact

24

from
if

they

excluded

excluded

is

this

make

Why should

now because

provision

provision

--

is

is,

-they

generous
here

sure

as

what

that

be excluded?
said
has

the

Tysen's
over

the

exclusion.

by operation
Bon

you or

--

just

in

I think
have

as to

Tysen's

results

Tysen's

from

that

provision.

Tysen's

you have

which

that

population

a different

a standpoint

to

in

that.

problems

Because

percentage,

be included

know how do we say

somebody

want

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
provision,

of

be future

MR. COHN:

to

That

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

21

a significant

How do we in

because

I think

have

because

this

might

not

They want

included

MR. COHN:

20

25

does

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

15
16

it

will

page

of
10.

the
I made

31
1

no statement

from the advertising

with

to its

advertising

tions

Development.

was that

by the

minority,

reading

10

okay,

but they

of this,

all

properties,

within

Department

MR. COHN: Suppose

or exclusion

on page B.

when done would fall

prescribed

inclusion

provisions

Our understanding

certain

12

done

13

have no vacancies,

14

building

15

the

16

advertising,

17

housing

18

the

the

we are

had a vacancy.

not requiring

advertising

all

simple

advertising,

you which

requiring

that

statement,

be included,

if

if you

you follow

you use now and that

three-word

opportunities,"

provision

you to advertise

we are

blacks,

--

we have not telling

procedures

and Urban

Under your

advertising

HUD Guidelines,

to advertise,

regula-

of Housing

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Under the advertising

which follows

all

Tysen had 70 per cent

would the

11

all

"equal

as required

by

HUD guidelines.
THE COURT: I am having

19
20

respect

your problem

here,

In other

21
22

advertise

23

particular

24

with

25

lationship

this.

I must say,

words,

either

or with

your advertising

But that
to the

on this

as I understand

question

--

for

understanding
one.

as I understand

generally

building,

a problem

it,

respect

if

you do

to any

has to comply
it

without

instance,

is

reit

32

likely

that

you would be advertising

for

Tysen's,

for

instance?
3
4
5

MR. ESRA.NAZI: Yes.

Honor,

that

the whole case

is

not exist.

looking

the

premise

of this

is based

on the

to achieve

10

unique

11

is

and admitted
project

Park

it

13

MR. D. TRUMP: This

15

standpoint,

16

really

17

cost

18

to do it.

is a very

us a lot

Tysen's

19

live

is the

necessary

thing

21

uses

the

22

that

it

percentage

23

see why we have to go through

24

these

25

the

New York Times,

while

for

does

is recoga

Staten

it's,

you

It

is

in is going

to

period

us.

we are

the

supposed

does

to the

per cent.
expense

she
fact

I don't

of adding

where we advertise
Island

admit

while

I can attest

of thirty

newspaper
the

it

is also

of minorities,

cent,

is maybe in excess

to every

we put

the

there

lines

It

where Miss Goldstein

ten per

where

from the Government's

expensive

20

figure

Government

on page 12.

advertising,

of money over

a large

supposedly

one we own that

footnote

Each sentence

Park,

only

your

Government.

is the

it's

onerous.

in areas

it

Federal

is,

the

It

by the

I imagine

that

by Miss Goldstein.

MR. COHN: That

know --

fact

exist.

12

14

point

does

in that

supervised

the

whole hearing

integration

Now, in Tysen's
nized

I think

Press,

in

or the

33

#4

different

expensive.

papers,

because,

quite

honestly,

MR. F. TRUMP'.: I have the

There

or eight

are

ads.

2,100

"equal

They are 4;~f

lines,

,he

';,

;,-;,

ten

e<>,after

opportuflity"
~-;.

ads.

ten

ads in here,

ads.

housing

is very

New York Times today.

We have about

We would have

it

-,."

linesr,

?{!tall

ads,

like

lines,

and we would have to put

in this

11

the

one other

12

New York Times who does

13

tory

14

foolish

15

estate

--

against

there

us;

isn't

it

and we will

is

decree,

put

each of our ten

one-inch,

twelve

but we would have ten

10

2,100

this

underneath

:~~

eight

signing

that.

ten

different

advertiser

I think

expensive

places,

it

and it

be the

laughing

should

be left

in the
is discrimina-

makes us appear

stock

of the

real

industry.

16

I think

17

THE COURT: These

18

MR. F. TRUMP: "Equal

19

MR. COHN: Mr. Trump has now gone on to the

20

point,

21

of action

22

displayed.

that

which requires
print

that

He is telling

23

24

atory

provision

25

you won't

find

ads,

out

altogether.

what do they
housing

your

because
one other

housing

Honor that

if

eight

opportunity"

this

you go through

builder

like?

opportunity.

on ads of more than

"equal

look

11

next

lines
be

is a discriminthe whole

or developer

who is

paper

34
1

required

to do that.

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor,

guidelines,

courts

these

tunity"

the

display

given

in these
cases,

significant
cases,

require

housing

the

the Washington

opportunity

11

city

12

is a frequent

Post,

newspaper,

the

--

country

you pick

use of

11

equal

in the

you pick

up almost

any large

housing

opportunity"

industry

an eight-line

win this

as a small

ad is not consid-

ad.

case

if we fought

THE COURT: Don't

19

MS. GOLDSTEIN: An eight-line

a small

be too

sure

of that.
ad is

not consid-

ad.

In fact,

21

We would

it.

18

ered

up

ad.

MR. F. TRUMP: We were not convicted.

16

22

ficant

size

23

lines,

but agreed

24

defendants.

25

if

for

occurrence.

MS. GOLDSTEIN: An eight-line

20

oppor-

is

the

14

17

which

do not use.

if

in

what is called

defendants

MR. D. TRUMP: Not for

ered

courts

housing

logos,

13

15

all

use of "equal

throughout

10

HUD advertising

by a number of

circwnstances

ads which the

Papers

weight

by practically

and in certain

equal

the

ad.

an eight-line
We generally
to increase

The Washington

Post,

ad is considered
do it
it

the

in three

to eight

Boston

a signior more

lines

papers,

for

the

the

35
1

Philadelphia

papers,

this

would

not

appear

are

saying,

at

all

un-

usual.
3

What the

defendants

since

no other

apartment

owners

follow

the

guidelines,

we should

not

be obliged

to.

Perhaps

what

they

are

speaking

to

is

need

for

greater

enforcement

by the

Civil

Rights

Division,

8
9

10

11

something

that

the

into

this

case

--

that

the

classified

case

includes

12

13
14

15
16

alleged

that

engaged

in

ination

against

18
19
20

in

this

is

defendants
in

blacks

never

practice
in

of

New York

into

without

agreed

on a number

of

this

The first

23

have

24

integral

memorandum

The second
made

came

City

fact
in

no

it

very

part

of

Now, at

the

one

--

clear
the

we have

City:

in

the

discrim-

that

in

even

the

a case

they
city.
of

this

that

defendants

the
have

occasions.

of

understand

we have
to

continual

requirements
and

this.

it
the

have

image

entered

decree

where

discriminate,

be followed

22

about

New York

a situation

HUD guidelines
to

since

concerned

a discriminatory

a consent

21

25

very

Division,

advertising

a pattern

We have
kind

we are

the

developed

17

Rights

this.

However,

have

Civil

them

never,
that

contained
and

this

at

all

time

was an

decree.

more

than

eleventh

hour

we again

are

36

1
2

renegotiating
more significant

4
5
6

tion

to all

shall

11

of the

advertising

conform

advertising

placed,

to the

practices

THE HUD guideline

equal

housing

recommended

eight.

With respect

which are

14

and set

15

of a house with

16

community

that

it

in the

HUD

respect

17
18

that

19

other

20

by the

is additional
ads will

the

to

ads should

limited

sign,

housing

are

and it

opportunity

to that

we just

of Housing

21

MR. F. TRUMP: We don't

22

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Fine.

to

which

the

ads

bordered

of the

outline

is known in the

said,

in addition,

requirement

to the

have

logo.

eight-line

conform

it

of display

logo consists

to the

just

Department

in terms

known as ads that

an equal

With respect

all

use of a logo,

about

and then

as equal

that
We have

to the

talks

generally

off,

states

opportunities.

13

25

and so forth,

when a logo would have to be used.

HUD guidelines

24

you say in addi-

guidelines.

12

23

decree.

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That would be with

10

parts

was one of the

THE COURT: Let me ask you this,

what we have indicated

guidelines

all
prescribed

and Urban Development.

have any display
We are

ads.

not requiring

you to use them.

MR. F. TRUMP: We are
York Times that

the

would have that.

only

ones

I think

in the
that

is

New

37
1

terrible

and it

certainly

is discriminatory.

MR. ESKANAZI: To give

you an idea

of lineage,

the publishing

business,

they

classify

fourteen

lines

as equal

to an inch,

so when we speak

of eight

lines,

we are

saying

any ad that

would be just

over

a half

which would be requiring

that.

inch

in size

or more,

So if we advertise

fourteen

buildings,

we would have

that

fourteen

times.

MR. D. TRUMP: That means fourteen

10

it

is very

11

12

13
14

15
16

17
18

everything

small.

the

go through
for

proposed

is a basic

they

22

a completely

23

of money, accomplish

24

result,

25

that

and just
tell

this

is

very,

very

awfully

hard

newspapers

this

and

they

next

provision

was

one -- why them?

cooperating

here

be singled

and taking
out

for

and which would put them in

position,

cost

them a great

to nothing

make them the guinea

clients

are

itis

up the

to find

is harsher
unique

others

now since

why should

treatment

I can't

are

is probably

ads a day -- we have been doing

months

21

that

the

one because

and we have yet

decree,

and this
of problems,

when you pick

three

Because
consent

because

two thousand

over

fact,

down our list

problem

This

19
20

looking

to say to people

it

and

expensive.

MR. COHN: The plain

probably

lines,

it's

deal

as a practical
pigs

in a way

not discriminatory

38
1
2

when they

have read

have yet

to find

probably

a total

of 300,000

one which does what they

are

ads and
being

asked

to do here.

4
5

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I have not done a survey

defendants

three

years,

in these

into

one that

property

13

been charged

14

Rights

15

not

owners

Act,

decrees,

I have

ads.
a quick

look at the

in the

in that

with

newspaper

which they

have checked

17

MR.
paper

19

it

for

have agreed

three

say,

21

down the

22

an awfully

this

is the
list,

25

the

there
spirit

last

there

basic

If these
out,

entere

the other

in that

they

of the

Civil
by consent

an ad in.

and there

have

We

is not one.

found one in any other

in New York.

20

24

months

that

to settle

is never

n. TRUMP: We haven't

MR. COHN: Looking

23

are

violation

MR. F. TRUMP: There

on

this.

same position

a serious

going

and we have never

does not contain

They are

12

18

but

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I have participated,

11

16

have done,

THE COURT: I have to take

10

they

MR. F. TRUMP: TWO thousand

claim

the

at all

this

big problem,
just

isn't

language,

and if

anything,

as I

you look
but this

is

one.
people,

wasn't
of just

a trial,
that,

who, as Mr. Trump keeps

and a consent
and I think

they

decree

pointin
is

in

have gone so

40
1

is the most important.

3
4
5

We have tried
something

something

10
11

12

ting

yielding

history

300,000
other

If we advertise
we hardly

papers

here

and put-

only

people

in

when we have gone over

it

on the

just

part

of any

seems grossly

unfair

and discriminatory.
MR. BRACHTL: Your Honor,

14

the

15

those

16

regarded

17

explain

citation

18

to the

regulations

appears

HUD regulations

postdates

a significant
that

it

the

decree

difference

with

that
Lefrak

in this

to me from

the date
decree,

area,

respect

of

which

is

which may

to that

decree.

MR. GOLDSTEIN: We have been following

these

guidelines.

20

MR. BRACHTL: It

21

of this

22

advertising

decree

seems to me that

is to assure

really

affirmative

is at the

heart

23

THE COURT: I can understand

24

The Qnly thing

25

advertising

fashion.

to see this

or developer,

in the

are

to make us the

ads and have yet

and do

themselves.

of New York City,

builder

here

to the Government

On top of that,
the

a composite

is in a discriminatory

in ads in minority

13

19

that

We are

8
9

regard.

Amsterdam News and El Dario

6
7

in every

to take

I never

thought

that

of advertising

bothers

when the purpose

action,

of the

that

decree.

that.
me a little

in the

sense

bit

was

of the

tiny

39
1

far,

the

as you go through
lists

of vacancies,

decree,

it

is

cant

thing

deal

of advertising.

fourteen

me.

they

do.

Their

This
A person

who is looking

goes to the newspapers.

11

just

so much.

12

very

limited

13

operation.

in

16

my office

17

the

18

opportunity

for

a Title

an apartment

We are

a.suit
-- that

by my office

can do
and very,

not dealing

and requiring

with

a large

entered

has -- brought
provision

the

by

following

use of equal

--

MR. F. TRUMP: Lefrak

20

MR. COHN: It

21

Judge,

every

22

cation,

23

When we leave

this

Open Housing

Center

Dario

clientele

has not contained

HUD guidelines

in New York

Center

that

to

the publi.

has been not one decree

19

25

way to reach

Open Housing

resources.

there

ad is approximately

as has been represented

They have limited

As I say,

15

They do a great

is the most effective

10

14

is the most signifi-

average

lines,

notifications,

--

They advertise.

or fifteen

24

the

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Advertising

this

just
point

Miss Goldstein

does

isn't
we talk

says

this

she is going

not do it.

there.
about,

Nobody has this.

about

notifi-

is the most important.

to tell

us that

is the most important.

and the Amsterdam News and the minority

the

Then El
press

41
1

ads

saying

is

available.

indeed,

instance,

ing

a particular
I have

it

might

from

passing

complex,

it

MR. F.
equal

and

THE COURT:
where

in multiplying

13

lines

it

16

could

A 14-line

like

this,

building

there

for

advertis-

is

me say

these

not

very

one

it

is

this,

after

with

be a very

tiny

to

us,

that

--

I can

these

in

that

see

extra

expensive

The defendants'

considered

available

I think

ads

we know
a huge

important

thing

tiny

conceivably

ad is

that

where

many apartments

is

Let

City,

Parkway

That

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

14

Starrett

with

TRUMP:

12

15

page,

by on the

housing,

11

a whole

three

advertising,

be something

about

unquestionably

of

two or

generally.

Even on this

or

thought

to

blurb

availability,

apartment

always

be said

a long

10

that

item.

ads

are

not

the

industry,

tiny.
your

Honor.
THE COURT:

17

I don't

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

18

MR. P.

TRUMP:

know whether

The ads
One-inch

that
is

they

I have

are
seen

fourteen

all
of

-the

--

lines.

19

MR. D. TRUMP:

It

is

a very

small

ad.

20

THE COURT:

They

get

fourteen

lines

in one

inch?

21

Off

the

reco~d.

22

(Discussion

off

the

record.)

23

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

Your

Honor,

perhaps

we could

work

24
25

out

a rotating

cut

the

expense

proportion,
in

half.

that

is,

every

other

ad,

to

42
1
2

MR. D. TRUMP:

MR. BRACHTL:
and
ceeds

eight

and what

each

right

ads

14

"equal

15

other

16

not

17

to

or

is

the

the

expense,

much about

number
total

inserting

ads

did,

these

because

20
21

sees

out

say

that

of

ads

is

the

expens

that

ex-

advertising

budget

these

words

three

is
in

a minority

of

over

housing

eight

or

is

last

point

is

that

If

If
have

seem

as this
you read

own purpose.

and was
group

that

looking
and

for

an

I saw ten

which

said

and not

the

and

others

one

all

do

I was confined

this
that

they

everybody

a minority

insofar

that

impression

MR. COHN:

to

seems

almost

ten.

We will

going

it

opportunity

the

ten

that

something,

assume

MR. BRACHTL:

or

about

two thousand
or

almost

something

your

in

opportunity,"

equal

their

you

up a newspaper

I ~ould

eight

almost

to

I were

eight

tell

you defeat

I picked
if

have

We can

on this

That

law

heard

the

of

I want

housing

18

25

but

If

13

24

what

cost

by insisting

apartment,

23

the

now,

12

22

what

lines,

MR. COHN:

11

19

for

ad.

10

We have

I was wondering

you pay

Donna?

Will

take

person

logo
the

the

and

others

is

concerned.

this,

Judge

Neaher,

want
is

to

create

bound

by this.

risk.
is
1990

looking
don't,

do not

in

and
it

observe

line

with

is
the

the

43
1
2
3

4
5

other

provisions

vertising
ing

equally
lists

system,

the

constant

of

the

fact

that

have

got

City

of

decree

11

about

the

12

that

in

one

to

the

ad?

14

here.

do run

17

all.

Mr.

that
are,

would

objection,

in

the

the

history

form

all

ad they

of

of

the

a consent

digressed

respond

to

industry

in

a position

the

industry.

about

ads.

if

the

is

the

from

inquiry

more

This

some.

That's
was put

to

say

about

We would

we were

the

only

I don't
they

the

will

THE COURT:

You might

people,

not

as

the

expense.

be the

laughing

ones
think
be the

that
the

at

would
the

be.

primary

stock

of

had
defendants

laughing

be commended.

of

we

be in

way it

forth

cost

that.

most

would

--

you were not

with

than

logo

Expense

here

lineage,

familiar

I am curious
TRUMP:

you were

24

25

add to

small

you have

think

I suppose,

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

22

in

Cohn,

Donna

be in

and
MR. F.

the

to

relatively

you would

MR. BRACHTL:

20

every

I don't

some larger

18

record-keeping

system

person

When we talked

It

the

furnish-

--

There

16

League,

the

ad-

unfair.

Now if

I think

15

you had the

newspapers,

do this

grossly

MR. COHN:

13

where

notification

MR. BRACHTL:
my question.

decree

Urban

be the

seems

10

23

the

New York

21

to

to

this

in minority

of

19

of

stock

are
of

44
1

MS. GOLDSTEIN: New York City

is a little

behind

other
3

this

cities
will

5
6
7

10
11

continue

like

this.

find

have not been

very

It

subject

provision

of this

--

to a suit
are

13

stock

14

the Court.

I think

15

is

MR. COHN:

very

other

is

defendants

Title

8.

explicit

most important

they

are

going

simply

not

the

Are these

and it

in a consent

HUD regulations

19

which has been recognized

20

and developer.

is --

decree

example.

23

asked

It

is

have the

before

in compliance
logo?

not.
is
point

to Starrett,

not done and the

laughing

here

ads all

there
on the

Your Honor pointed

22

question

which don't

MR. COHN: Apparently

21

to be the

other

18

a custom

and usage

of every

builder

which

a good

Government

is

has never

them to do that.
In a decree

years

and it

to be the most effective,

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Apparently

25

Post

under

17

24

the

in situation

kind.
To say that

with

cities

Washington

is not

is considered

and one of the very

believe

long.

up the

The HUD guidelines

this

I don't

too many other

You pick

common occurrence.

12

16

use of advertising.
for

You won't

in the

since

this

here

and in a period

regulation

of over

was specifically

three

promulgated

45
1

which

supports

to

they

say,

and

this,

the

I read

nothing

so we are

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

of

a continuing

racial

erty

a claim,

now asked

practice

over

discrimination
in New York

to

this

requirement

guidelines,

has

How long
would

there

spirit

of

avoid

what

language
single

the

and

it

the

United

period

all

is

--

resolution
States

of

caused

of

time

most

of

Trump prop-

white.

that.
even

they
out

say

anything,

opportunity,"
saying

is

did

be allowed

to

say

is

don't

If

we refer

language

asking
want

that

there,

is

such

us to

do.

to

and
where

the

I think
they

made where

the

want

They mention

advertising

HUD

in

you

group.

in twelve

we will

ourselves

in

two thousand

we are

in mind

Two years.

a particular
if

you have

endure?

HUD guidelines

Donna

I think

flag
25

this

by the

You should

MR. ESKANAZI:

22

24

reference

negotiating

We deny

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

16

23

TRUMP:

THE COURT:

15

21

with

that.

13

20

have

be virtually

MR. D. TRUMP:

19

differently,

done

a long

which

11

18

to

a claim

MR. F.

17

been

We are

Mr. Cohn,

10

14

has

a little

others.

12

it

of

more
take

ads

in

it

will

ours
or

less

minority

the

putting
groups

Times
say

don't

"equal

up a red
--

the

others

to

46
1

may not,

but

we will.

The HUD guidelines

specifically

MR. BRACHTL:

is

THE COURT:

problem

with

That

schools

and

MR. ESKANAZI:

MR. BRACHTL:
expense

claim

9
10

is

that

read

12

the

13

to

take

large

ties

which

16

with

almost

white,

17

only

in his

properties

18

to minority

19

and

20

guidelines

24:

25

groups;
called
are

the

next

Rican

slogan

to

solve

periodic

interval

grab

of
use

the

them

the

appli-

the

there.

art

is

propersome

may be run

trying

of

that

defendants

and

logo

he is

a term

up about

operate

population

and

and

to
in

what

the
the

appeal
industr
HUD

at.
Is

there

provisionwith

possible

black

is

the

brings

which

in which

aimed

to

practice

the

stealing,

communities

ought

and only

that

least

forth.

developers

the

whole

Times.

a sufficient

THE COURT:

21

23

ha~e

at

What Mr. Eskanazi

properties

15

is

put

is

the

else.

however,

New York

it

You find

is

be overdone.

You probably

the

certain

it

can

I gather,

HUD guidelines,

14

22

It

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

11

That

everything

no longer

THE COURT:
cants

be applauded.

Not necessarily.

to

--

respect

monthly
this

any way,
to

15-line

by having

a larger

ad for

looking

over

black

and

the
display

them

place

ad.$, is
at

Trump buildings,

at
Puerto
it
some
or

47

what

have

This
this

is

of

10

a good

really

black

media

the

and

black

Puerto

and

We are

do with

to

do it,

figuring

portion

15

really

16

minority

of

Rican

in

19

whether

that

on,

next

two years

ad which

say,

or

--

Anyway,

and

going
or

the

to

pick

this

size

of

in

course,

of

ads

by
in

addition
it

the

to

says

in

-leave

those

Times

is

ads

the

out

is

greatest

looking

up the

for

an apartment

New York

Times,

Rican.

Would

insert

that,

to

Puerto

you

in

handled

that

to

Anybody

whatever

included

housing

press,

The New York

THE COURT:

20

and

toward

TRUMP:

is

black

be perhaps

ads

primarily

newspaper,

New York

can

Rican

MR. D. TRUMP:

18

partners

I was thinking

repulsive.

17

limited

it.

It

Puerto

MR. F.

fair

Starrett

Trump owns a significant

number

directed

14

25

to

THE COURT:

13

24

appear?

--

nothing

increasing

the

23

would

get

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

12

22

even

MR. D. TRUMP:

11

21

might

this

Starrett.

8
9

in which

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

6
7

you,

you object

this

is,

the

a monthly

some kind
equal

to

housing

of

requirement
basis

large

for

the

general

opportunity

and

logo?

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

I have

another

alternative,

your

48

Honor.

2
3

provisions,

properties

centage

having

advertise
with

equal

housing

say a black

of less

than

as we do with the

them,

percentage

THE COURT: Is it

MS. GOLDSTEIN: They have to keep records,

seem to be concerned

12

apartments

13

little

records

to do that?

available

that

with

come on the

MR. F. TRUMP: It
in this

building,

nothing

THE COURT: All

16
17

altogether

18

ment as fitting

19

high,

20

Washington.

21

I see the

22

The next

23

see if

sure

development

market

--

to say is,

here

we

of individual

and an ad goes

in,

they

but

I would ever

are

Post

I go there

two

construe

Perhaps
there

a couple

I am not
this

require-

of something

an inch

I don't

in

live

and I go there
of times

I am going

and

a year.

down to look

and

there.

is obvious

I think

actually

the confines

I have daughters
Washington

building,

big.

I wouldn't.

time

It

that

is one in that

I am saying,

within

honestly

24

in,

the

in any

ad.

14

25

possible

have the

11

15

have an answer.

THE COURT: What I am trying

10

per-

15 per cent?

They will

for

occupancy,

MR. COHN: We might

event.

other

opportunities

#5

How about

there

that
is

nobody else
something

here

will

to be said,

have it
the

49

defendant

is

requiring

them

paper

in the

such

decree

take

is

13

the

made,

in

advertising

Sunday

Real

in a

Estate,

maybe

papers.

cast

Would this

around

solve

quarterly

ad quarterly

MR. ESKANAZI:
inches,
that

and
it

rotate

would

we would

it?

This

whole

reporting.

Suppose

we

-That

is

three

Two inches,

so each

reach

all

our

times

a year,

your

MR. COHN:
or

six

inches,

we throw

building,

times

Four

Let's

three

four

an ad like
so eventually

buildings.

Three

MR. ESKANAZI:

16

time

be a different

THE COURT:

15

say

a year

times

is

not

very

much.

a year.

every

ad over

five

inches

inches.

MR. D. TRUMP:

18
19

in

of

been

Honor.

14

17

or

have

some kind

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

10

12

as this

a large

claims

place

MR. COHN:

11

a lawsuit,
to

Sunday

in

I would

We have

many ads

over

five

inchesr

say.
MS. GOLDSTEIN:

May I make one

additional

point,

20

your

Honor?

I know we are

stretching

your

patience

21

22

considerably.
THE COURT:

I am an exceedingly

patient

man.

23

I am really

interested

in

trying

to

work

out

something

24

here
25

which

I think

is

going

to

be realistic

and not

50
1

just

really

shrink

appear

in those

because

it

there

big problems

is

ad here

at the

think

this

11

three

12

whether

that

little

this

statement

in this
that,

this

city.

there

ought

--

something

or four-inch

city

have many burdens,

and that

is one of the

What I am trying
to be at

least

I don't

that

ad,

know whether

would be visible

or whatever

it

will

put

15

once a month.

three

or four

buildings

to the

is.

I don't

together

MR. COHN: Judge,

we will

THE COURT: Can't

we insure

rotate?

I don't

one building

know whether

that

it

as many as we see fit:

two,

THE COURT: Subject

23

it

know

be?

Judge?
and say it

the

is possible

buildings
--

are we choosin,,

it

should

three,
to your

If you have a complaint

be up to us,

surveillance,

about

it

complaint.

In other

words,

the

idea

is

I
I
I

four.
wouldn'

you make the

24
25 I

We

to be advertised?

MR. ESKANAZI: I think

21

eye,

do that.

MS. GOLDSTEIN: How many buildings

19

you do

you do that.

14

17

to say

a monthly

MR. F. TRUMP: You want one a month,

16

would

of some sort.

or not,

13

ads.

about

I was thinking

10

22

tiny

about

I really

to the defendant.

thought

is no question

20

acceptable

Remember landlords

18

is

that

it

will,

51
1

the advertising

will

apply

to all

their

buildings,

take

it,

and to comply with

the

spirit

of this

I think

all

of them at one time or another

in a revolving

way

should

turn

up in these

ads.

MR. D. TRUMP: Could we do this,

once a month

6
7
8

10
11

12

we will

take

a certain

ad that

says

"Trump Equal

we take

it

on a rotating

and if we could
together
three

or four

14

and probably

21 ,

or four
bottom

and over

all

but once a month if

buildings,

of that,
three

the

we will

go over

put them

we will
or four

period

of our buildings,

months,

take
differen

of twelve

month

and then

some,

some two or three

times.

be a display

advertise-

ment
MR. D. TRUMP: They are

expensive.

Nobody uses

that.

19
20

three

a big blank

you have twelve

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Can they

17

18

Housing,"
basis,

at the

buildings,

we have covered

16

not just

Queens buildings,

13

15

take

and then

Brooklyn

number,

MR. ESKANAZI: This

the
think

terminology
you will

22

talk

23

of 15-line

24

of one inch.

about

is a misunderstanding

or definition
see that

El Dario

of display,

in the

next

point

as to

because

when they

or Amsterdam News, where they

speak/
!

25

display

I think

ads,

they

the Government

are

talking

speaks

about

in terms

somethinJ

of display

II
1

52

ad as merely

a black

line

around

MR. D. TRUMP: If we can do that

2
3

signifying

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Can we agree

MR. COHN: Three

MR. ESKANAZI: Three

'!HE COURT: we will

MS. GOLDSTEIN: What Mr. Brachtl

considering

is the

10

of properties

11

incur,

12

of properties

13

provision

14

on the consideration

15

that

16

agreement.

that

in terms
that
the

would

it

will

least

this

cover

unreasonable.

I think

20

the

defendants

had reached

this

provision

in the

a settlement
It

to solely
date

of each

even considering

number

to the

a trial

and say to your

was included.

would

agreed

to this

been

number

impact,

and parcel

court

and I have

as opposed

off

have agreed

inches.

provision

signed,

of putting

would have been part

three

decrease

defendants

The defendants

or more.

of frequency,

19

and

subsequent

provision.
Honor it
the

is

equities,

agreement

and

is not an unreasonable

provision.
I wonder whether

23

25

say at

that

They now come into

24

it

to a size?

inches

significant

18

22

I think

inches?

and impact

decrease

17

21

ad.

be satisfactory.

the

however,
month,

from going

there

could

to every-day

which would only

cover

be this

compromise,

ad to one add once a

a small

percentage

of

53
1

their

buildings.

3
4
5

MR. BRACHTL: Perhaps

50 per cent;
a unit,

in other

the

offer

a flat

words,

all

percentage,

offerings

of one apartment

If

included

with

tion

what we are

coverage

to twelve

times

10

further,

to reduce

from what appeared

11

of ads each day to just

12

means that

13

the

14

one per cent.

logo

--

housing

lity

17

tion.

with

here

the

a larger

large

the

a year,

time

but the
then

three

or four

units
recitaotherwise

and,
number

once a month,
coverage

certainly

which
or

down to about

you get

at the

on

to be a fair

program

I glance

as

from daily

in the

you think
That

--

once a month:

advertising

ad?

are

is a reduction

more visibi-

attracts

paper

my atten-

I look at

ads.

MR. BRACHTL: In whatever

20

logo,

have a reduction

in this

The first

18

not

offerings

opportunities,"

describing

we will

of those

THE COURT: Don't

16

19

"equal

exposure

15

the

cent

considered

in one newspaper

one day.

of

50 per

perhaps

21

would wish

to connect

22

opportunity

23

to them,

but

24

of these

advertising

25

offered

recitation
the

the
with

requirement

on one day,

units,

manner

the

recitation,

the

specific

ads,

would be that
that

defendants

equal

housing

would be up
50 per cent

is one apartment

would have to be associated

being
either

54
1

in a block

or individually

with

this

recitation.

If

they

wish

to block

all

of their

ads together,

advertising

from seven

if

they

wish

to diminish

their

days

a week to one day a week,

whatever

their

advertisin

is,

50 per

cent

of the

units

offered,

considering

a unit,

as I say,

the

offer

of an apartment

on a day,

would have

to be associated

with

either

in a block

or separately

with
9
10

this

unless
wish

they

17

20
21

gether

anyway in most cases

notice

it

24
25

is

as Luna Park,
different

in the

going

opportunities,"

costs

any way they

to pay for

let's

say,

apart,

Luna Park

Forest

only

extra

ones

block

line.

in there.

them to-

in most cases

borough

buildings

or five

if

and location,

Hills,

they

are

in an entirely

section,

the

conforming

in Brooklyn,

inches

that

apart,

different

Brighton

MR. BRACHTL: If
difficulty

really

that

you

such
all

in

locations.

to be four

inches

the

because

specific

If we own ten

22
23

advertising

MR. D. TRUMP: You can't

18

19

housing

MR. F. TRUMP: Then we are

13

16

their

"equal

MR. D. TRUMP: We have

12

15

cut

of

to.

11

14

recitation

is

they

are

or maybe twelve
column;

in the

Beach section.
true,

then

there

will

be

to your program.

THE COURT: The difficulty

ad would be in a particular

section

in consolidating
at

a time;

in one
that

is

55
1

Brooklyn

one

lyn,

for

example,

advertised

the

MR. COHN:

advertising

"equal

shall

for

housing
appear

in

of

11

apartments

12

tised

13

Trump New York

14

ads

15

more

equal

an ad to
in

the

course

17

the

18

opportunity."

a year

four

apartments

with

reference

buildings,
and

run

the

once

the

Brook-

housing

a month,

of

a year

and

the

logo

a minimum

specific

buildings
basis

adver-

so that

be covered

least

to

words

fair

and

at

logo,

we were

We were

just

MR. F. TRUMP:

once,

in
one

all
such

or

just

talking

You can't
That

talking

about

put
would

about,

the

line

not

"equal

a logo?
make a display

ad out

it.
MR. COHN:

22

housing

We are

talking

about

the

words

opportunity."
THE COURT:

are.

City

read,

of

20

25

this

shall

THE COURT:

24-

once

opportunities.

buildings

19

23

or

on a sectional

MR. F. TRUMP:

of

three

do that.

New York Times,

be rotated

the

about

be advertised

City

to

times?

16

21

have

How does

shall

over

means

New York

inches

shall

willing

opportunity"

10

three

That

would

with

whatever.

We are

MR. BRACHTL:

..

Queens,

MR. D. TRUMP:

time,

I don't

know what

the

newspaper

"equal

56
1
2

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I suppose

every

MR. F. TRUMP: If you put

the

newspaper

different.

3
4

a display

sidered

we are

about

talking

We were not asked

larger

logo

equal

to put a logo

housing

"shall

that

be prominently

meaning

11

be -- with

12

buildings

the words

placed

"equal

reference

that

and easily

housing

the words

legible,"

opportunity,"

to advertising

for

shall

New York City

--

13

THE COURT: You would have to modify

14

MR. COHN: r was going

15

word ttinclude"

16

ature."

17

advertising

18

go back,

19

insert,

down to the

Then start
for

"equal

appear

00

21

II

Specific

apartments

advertised

shall

fifth

out A from the

line,

the word "liter-

"With reference

Trump New York City

the words
"shall

to strike

as follows,

of a minimum of three

all

is a

ad.

10

rI

is con-

opportunity.

in because

MR. COHN: Then we would agree

in it

ad.

22

is

housing

to

buildings,"

then

opportunity,"

then

in an ad to run once a month,

inches
shall

be advertised

be rotated

Trump New York City

New York Times.

in the

are

and the buildingls

on a sectional

buildings

basis

covered

so tha~

in such

2311
24

25

ads at

least

once in the

Then go back,

these

course
words,

of a year."
11

shall

then

be

II

57
1

prominently

2
3

placed

and easily

legible."

MR. BRACHTL: What it

"telephone

directories,

also

does,

it

deletes

radio,

television

MR. ESI<ANAZI: We don't

use that.

MR. D. TRUMP: Frankly,

you can include

MR. COHN: You want to

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The parties

ment talks

envisioned.

10

of impact.

and agreements
It

renders

the

12

dam News, direct

13

cancy

14

Housing

lists

minority

being

--

provision

El Dario,

to the

16

decrease

17

the

it

from all

defendants

could

the

you've

Amster-

got vaOpen

place

going

to

I would think

that

such an ad
on a monthly

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I am talking

about

I
I
I

basis.

a weekly

basis.

MR. F. TRUMP: This

21

25

in terms

you have the

properties,

19

24

was not

Centers.

18

23

settle-

Urban League,

MR. COHN: We have agreed

22

this

MS. GOLDSTEIN: You know, if we are

15

20

their

minute

advertising:

supplied

that.

it?

in all

heretofore

MR. COHN: You have

11

include

"

is why we couldn't

get

to-

gether.
MS. GOLDSTEIN: We had gotten

have signatures

together.

We

--

MR. F. TRUMP: One more item and we are

through

I
II

58
1
2

MR. D. TRUMP: You have the whole New York Times,

what do you want?

3
4

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The defendants

tures

to a document

which included

put their
this

MR. COHN: That

MR. D. TRUMP: I never

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Mr. Cohn signed

MR. COHN: Youalways

people

10

a chance

isn't

to read

want them to understand

12

stand

13

you don't

so.
signed

any document.
it.

push without

what they

it.

You can't

it

are

and they

giving

these

doing.
are

doing

and you

want you to under-

be intelligent

about

something

read.

14

MS. GOLDSTEIN: They enter

15

THE COURT: My suggestion

16

provision.

You want them to know what they

11

signa-

the word "newspapers"

into

in A andto

have really

MR. COHN: Good idea,

Judge.

18

THE COURT: With the

thought

consider

a distinct

20

the

21

would be looked

22

availability,

23

appear

24

Trump as an equal

25

management,

Court

advance

from looking
at

so far

on a periodic

building

-- which

housing

opportunity

management,

papers,

I
to
it

or apartment

than

basis

a new B.

as is apparent

of housing

and to have a larger

regularly

that

at one of the major

in terms

daily.

would be to eliminate

17

19

contracts

normal

size

ad

characterizing
landlord

apartment

or

management,

59
1
2

3
4

and

provide

double
of

t6

you have

asterisk,

B before

to

with

That
I suppose

the

might

MR. F.

MR. COHN:

THE COURT:

11

THE COURT:
make sure

13

to

the

that

Daily

MR. COHN:

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. COHN:

17

THE COURT:

18

in

19

"newspapers"

20

whatever

the

if

it

the

Times

to

the

only

one

--

I suppose
your

read
the

policy,
else

want
if

is

you go

around

like

defendant

shall,

out

telephone
to

the

this

A, includ
word

directories,

that?

No.

That

B -would

Then

run

B would

to

publication.

something

strike

be in

they

make B

no objection

Then

--

specifically?

comparable

says

advertising

down to

the

bottom

page?
THE COURT:

make

used.

is

know what

or

B would

have

part

I would

papers,

that

you change

would

all

B, all

one

know.

I think

so it

MR. COHN:

23

only

I would

THE COURT:

22

25

--you

to

Times

advertising

MR. COHN:

21

24

all

footnote,

Times.

the

don't

It

under

the

is

case

News --I

14

Just

I don't

in

which

New York

So maybe

MR. COHN: Refer

one,

that

the

That

the

papers.

all

10

12

next

say

TRUMP:

in

up and make that

the

even

somewhere

that

black

you cover

here

take

you come to

C, dealing

5
6

what

be,

include

in

all

of

60
1

newspaper

certain

advertising
size

at

MR. COHN:

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
times

12 times

a year

ed by the

basis?

12

people

18
19

For

defendants?

other

It

which

is

365 times

large

see

in

source

that

of

is

I don't
case

twelve

a year

to

even

win

that

to

the

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

be select

on a weekly

it?

in

you

something

a newspaper

and

in which

that

that
I find

is
no

legend.

is.

then
at

for

give

a distinct

that,

to

be done

you pay

letters

this

units

unrealistic.

advertising

not

four

not

trying

know what

over

to

totally

Will

will

ad containing

ment,

not

from

three

is

I'm

If

this

an ad of

inches.
ad,

Can this

THE COURT:

major

16
17

going

MR. D. TRUMP:

11

the

three

A monthly

we are

THE COURT:

10

15

--

Minimum of

MR. BRACHTL:

14

a month

a year?

13

once

--

least

If

advance

for

the

you want

to

litigate

I am ready
end of

to

go.

a final

We understand,

Govern-

You might

decree.
your

Honor.

20

THE COURT:

so I suggest

that

you phrase

along

21

those

lines

as has

been

indicated

here

that

the

group-

22

ing

of

buildings

in

a particular

section--

buildings

23

apartments,

whatever

it

would

be,

and

it

would

be at

24

least
25

a three-inch

ad which

I would

say

would

be

or

61
1
2

substantial
tunity"might
so that

"equal

see

or

housing

oppor-

three-line

basis,

it.

I gather,

is

not

possible

in

this

--

display

Not

unless

it

becomes

a display

I don't

know what

you mean by a

advertisement.
MS. GOLDSTEIN:

squared-off

Blocked

off.

One of

these

ads.

MR. D. TRUMP:

It

also

makes

it

a very

expensive

ad.
MR. COHN:
estate

It

couldn't

run

in

the

regular

That

is

usually

real

column.
THE COURT:

16
17

which

be a two-line

THE COURT:

14

15

can

in

advertisement.

12
13

you

and

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

10
11

even

newspaper

8
9

size

The logo,

in

new housing,

I agree.

isn't

done

for

it?

18

MR. F.

TRUMP:

19

THE COURT:

That's

You are

right.
not

talking

about

new hous-

20

MR. BRACHTL:

21

22

be run

third

MR. COHN:

23

Sunday

that

the

day

of

we specify
of

each

that

such

an ad

month?

Why not.

MR. BRACHTL:

24
25

on the

Might

the

The purpose
ad is

behind

an important

it
one.

is

simply

62

1
2

people

reason,

arises

apparently

It

another

apartment

10

Sunday

might

time.
don't

look

once

MR. F.

TRUMP:

in the

summertime.

13

but

I don't

14

for

Sunday.

know if

looking

for

housing

18

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

20

advertisement

21

day

MR. F.
it

is

this

it

vacancy

ads.
might

who are

might

are

very
put

Sunday

You want
If

is

to

be on Sunda

looking

not

for

around

well
it

the

limit

we are

the

clearly

twice

TRUMP:

an

in

on

be on a Sunday
specifically

biggest

day

for

it

to

Sunday?

considering

greatest

from

the

a Sunday

impact,

a greater

impact

than

gets

on a Sunday

a Wednes

pages

of

It

lost

because

as much.

MR. D. TRUMP:

24
25

for

advertisement.

22
23

that

a week.

It

standpoint
is

is

it

--

THE COURT:

Government's

you want.

when the

place

once,

we should

17

19

to

The supers

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

15

going

people

MR. D. TRUMP:

12

control

be on Friday
I think

when

to

be a problem,

don't

are

if

Friday

least

might

they

and when they

regard

at

That

MR. COHN:

16

or

preparing

are

first

the

With

MR. BRACHTL:

11

Make it

THE COURT:

apartment

Believe

advertising.

it

or not,

you have

twelv

63
1
2

MR. F.
have

TRUMP:

MR. BRACHTL:

THE COURT:

MR. ESKANAZI:

grant

month,

that

it

have

enough

the

makes

it

to

hard

14

third

people
or

throw

from

18

as to

19

We have

looking

Sunday

the

that

you do
a

simple

reason

we may not

size.

as

long

as

it

appears

there

an apartment,

will

I believe,

be
by the

is

a technical

problem

standpoint.

provide
not

that

Maybe we can

the

having

that

THE COURT:
it

is

very

Government

I don't

MR. BRACHTL:
I am asking

write
can

the

decree

so

the

day.

provide

experts

MR. D. TRUMP:

me that

be one

of vacancies,

Maybe there

21

25

if

for

care

I see.

week --

THE COURT:

24

here,

Honor,

Statistically,

for

20

22

Sunday,

in an ad of

MR. BRACHTL:

17

23

you

a month.

fourth

their

should

You don't

THE COURT:

15

it

paper

your

because

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
more

on a Sunday,

a Sunday

I think,

a specific

on Sunday

12

16

not

is

I think

THE COURT:

13

it

May we suggest

This

Sunday,

but

10

once

you want

it.

11

If

it

think

that

One Sunday
Not a day

is

realistic.

a month,

Judge.

for

be made in our
I don'
--

they

their

discretion.

t understand.
indicate

discretion.

It
that

they

seems

to

cannot

64
1

control

the

space

allocations

of

newspapers.

They can

take
3

an ad for

a Sunday,

go in on some Sunday

I take

in

that

it,

and

then

it

will

month.

MR. ESKANAZI:

No, your

Honor.

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
6

of

10
11
12

MR. ESl(:ANAZI:
experts
or

in housing,

fourth
of

month

and perhaps

our

best

13
14

time

would

vacancies

--

first

of

the

MR. COHN:

18

as regards

shall

20

one

advertise
Sunday

--

MR. COHN:

22

THE COURT:
change

24
25

it

out

time,

last

or

that

are

not

the

third

and we are

week of

the

second

Sunday

leases

generally

preceding

would

be

know.

Do your

run

on

All

Would

of

them

this

do.

be something

that

you had

Let's
put

see,
it

the

this

defendant

way,

shall,

B,

at

least

advertise

--

How about

with

reference

You have

three

there.

shall,

A, --

and this

to

newspaper

We don't

want

all.

The defendant
direction

night

a month.

21

to

people

point

first

to

THE COURT:

19

by Thursday

month?

16

in mind

these

the

we never

MR. ESKANAZI:

23

in

the

15

17

be in

be a horrible

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
the

to

Because
I might

Sunday

aware

the

has

week before.

the

7
8

It

is

a mandator

65
1

MR. COHN:

THE COURT:

3
4

MR. COHN:
less

than

5
6

A is

once

--

general

about

B will

begin

way it

is.

"shall

advertise

"

shall

advertise

not

Sunday

in every

month

a month.

well,

or

At least
shall

circulation,

one

--

such

insert

in a newspaper

as the

New York

of

Times

--

how

that?

MR. ESKANAZI:

10

MR. COHN:

11

THE COURT:

12

circulation,

13

Sunday

14

three

15

in a particular

Yes.

such

in

every

inches

Fine.

(Cont'g)

--

the

New York

as

month,

in

17

THE COURT:
clude

in--

19

kind,

the

20

say

the

advertising

would

words

"equal

you

say

housing

at

least

one

of

least

at

apartments

--

provision.

basis,

and

shall

larger

type

of

opportunity"

--

insome

we can't

apparently.

MR. COHN:

22

MR. F.

23

THE COURT:

At the

24

MR. COHN:

And shall

words

general

available

With a rotating

21

ad the

Times,

of

an advertisement

On a rotating

what

logo,

newspaper

section

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

18

and

length,

16

25

the

The defendants

THE COURT:
shall

just

No.

TRUMP:

"equal

At the

housing

foot

foot

of

contain

of

the

the
at

opportunity."

ad.

ad.
the

All

right.

foot

of

the

or

66
1
2

THE COURT:
call

it.

It

MR. COHN:

THE COURT:
size--

11

Whats

wrong

about

12

that

the
it

14

you have

to

--

15

just

16

some discretion

17

business

18

their

putting

surveillance.

21

it

that

one

paragraph

If

--

If
time.

--

type

specify

the

in
to

the

put

minimum

advertising?

a bigger

ad in.

wonderful.

I am talking

apartments

to

appear

so

it

is
see

they

least

them

as

in
will

would

it

at

a three-inch
a practical

a three-inch
utilize

demand

that

ad,
matter

ad.

the

space.

they

not

I think
Their
throw

paper.

up to

their

a problem

develops

Let's

how it

see

Fortunately,

good

faith

we can

and

your

resolve

works.

we are

now on page

12,

two.
The second

cruiting

typed

apartment.

apartment

MR. COHN:

22

24

of

I can't

I am leaving

at

Thats

money away on white

20

something

be included

number

one

economics

19

you

that?

THE COURT:

13

least

They may want

with

not

type

type.

Are we to
to

minimum
is

of

opportunity."

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

11

25

housing

THE COURT:

10

23

In at

of properties

8
9

equal

kind

In caps.

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
number

know what

may be a sized

I dont

and

hiring

full

paragraph,

nonwhite

beginning

employees."

"The reThat

the

67
1

defendants

qualifications

effect

of

shall

nonwhite

exacting

respect

to

than

whites

persons

those

before

to

that

the

possess

were

in

institution

action.

We are

to

even

solutely

an employment

the

asking

that

fact

that

on page

though

this

complaint

no questions

civil

rights

11

ing,

because

12

ative

13

without

regard

14

origin,

and will

15

nonwhite

16

tions

or

rental

We don't
rental

decree,

19

second

paragraph

20

see

21

we have

that

it

23

It

adds

24

qualifications
nonwhite

saying

that

which
that

in

adds

12,

anything
to

in

page
It

a requirement
not
applicants

will-

an affirmhire,
or

nationa

and other

professional

this

apartment

qualified

to

arise.
decree,

put

subdivision
not

posi-

in

that

two.
already

We don't
in what

10.
adds

that

quite

a bit,

employment

be raised
for

sex

are

is

we shall

they

that

is

to

blacks

and

not

we are

religion,
place

ab-

is

it

agree

be required

on pa9e

MR. BRACHTL:

22

to

to

we should

agreed

say

color,

for

this

nevertheless

to,

raises

case,

supervisory

feel

action

but

endeavor
in

this

pointing

affirmatively

employment,

to

race,

as vacancies

18

in

program,

persons

17

10 we agree

case,

to

be eliminating,

an antitrust

we do it,

employment

that

about

case

10

25

require

more

with

this

not

jobs;

at

least

that

is,

your

Honor.

requirements

and

with

to

not

respect
be raised

68
1
2

over

the

force

at

3
4

standards
the

and qualifications

time

MR. COHN:
understand

it,

THE COURT:

MR. COHN:
talking
sexes

about
over

11

12

Judge.

13

tions,

14

those

15

1700

16

of

17

people,

18

home,

19

they

20

there,

21

there

22

220 families.

feet,

families

they
take
for
are

to

tell

25

bedroom.

than

second

instance,

We have
us that
That

them.

to

our

that
of

request.

Mr.

the

Trump was

different

two-bedroom

built
second

are

40 per

and

we say
there

--

in

cent

we must
building

cent

bedroom:
the

the

would

We rent

we have

probably

but

they

sold

carefree
are

up to
have

these
their

living

and

no children

in

Wilshire,

whole

Three

blacks,

220 families,

building

two-bedroom,

put

FHA specifica-

buildings.

married,

us,

apartments,

bedroom.

Estates

15 per

children

under

different

move in with

six

to

thing

children

the

children

the

I don't

on 13?

In Jamaica

more

their

agreed

the

and

in a dozen

have

them.

13.

We have

100 square
couples.

in

old.

small

them

is

to
it

it

the

are

to

24

That

TRUMP:

They

23

What is

were

commenced.

it

give

They have

years

MR. F.

give

Page

before,

ten

action

we will

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
MR. COHN:

10

this

We will

but

that

which

and

out

they

two children
160 children

of

want
in each
where

69
our

pattern

7
8
9

--

MR. COHN:
you tell

is

the

TRUMP:

we have.
has

put

same exact

have

as

far

as

where

the

the

most

and boy ten

11

they

eleven

and

12

single

13

it.

14

established

bedroom.
We would

16

should

17
18

rent

to

twenty
could

the

all

colored,

22

MR. F.

want

to

a double

The next
are

that

bed

year

in a

and we have

not

done

we have

to

say

as the

a two-bedroom
vacating

tenant

be forced

Even

I'm

Patio

Gardens,

to

which

sure

TRUMP:

They

say

--

up to

two children

years

of

opposite

sex

to occupy

24

opposite

sex

to

up to
It

ten
is

is

children.

not

THE COURT:

we will

years.

have

23

25

is

they

pattern

a two-

--

we don't

THE COURT:

in

Then you would

TRUMP:

21

from

in a little

old.
and

same occupancy

F.

get

be changed

two children

sleep

years

our

same patter

We don't

housing

be changing

that

MR.

can

concerned,

sex

twelve

bad

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

19
20

It's

over

have

then

the

family

there.

you could

a girl

If

do it,

follow

are

of opposite

You have

15

to

vacating

in

10

are

like

to

children

family

two children

bedroom

We want

Whatever

bedroom
the

you

Judge?

MR. F.
that

How would

really

of

those

changes.

two children

the

age

--

footnote.

of
of

the
the

70
1

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

We have

already

stated

that

five

is

okay

with

us.

MR. F.

TRUMP:

We don't

want

the

two children

where

there

is

an adult

building

with

a beautiful

lobby

and carpeting

in

the

halls.

MR. COHN:

How do you want

to word

it

exactly?

7
8

MR. F.

TRUMP:

same occupancy

as the

A two-bedroom
vacating

should

have

the

tenant.

MR. COHN:
10
11

to

use

as

13

16

17

standard

anything
MR. F.

vacating

the

14

15

a leasing

apartment

12

The defendant

18

TRUMP:

easier.

Any higher

in

persons

the
in

MR. F.

24

if

25

children

than

presently

2,

Occupancy,

not

apartment.

TRUMP:

That

is

That's

Maybe they

that

would

more

than

not

more

than

no good.
fine
will

with
want

us.
to

do it

in a

case.
MR. F.

families

two-bedroom

a ,uggestion

a two-bedroom

MR. COHN:

23

census

apartment;

20

22

a vacated

one-bedroom

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

certain

I have

Under

19

21

be required

apartment.

two persons
three

for

not

--

MR. ESKA.NAZI:
make it

shall

or

TRUMP:

150 families,

150 families
in

If

there;

have

we have

six

children

and

200

we certainly

don't

want

one

60 two-bedroom,

they

would

ruin

we don't
the

lobby

want

60

and ruin

71
l

the

building.

They'd

and

ings

they

is

unfair

they

are

it

is

the

phrasing

There

are

restricting

11

were

there

not?

MR. F.

12

13

put

14

you can't

them

in

children

turn

TRUMP:

do this

in

the

corner

the

build-

these

into

adult

four

year-old

years,

Judge,

boy with

will

even

there

with

It

is

to

used

the

unfair

but

bit.

children

unfair

A lot

of

give

MR. F.

think

to

from

be
rentin,

children

where

people

Would you
babies,

I agree

you one
TRUMP:

the

have

Court

law with

a ten-year-old

MR. ESKANAZI:

23

is

a dispute,

me a little

about

local

TRUMP:

THE COURT:

22

It

I don't

violates

MR. F.
over

troubles

is

to

you

say

no other

though.

which

19

there

--

THE COURT:
decree

think

an apartment.

alternative,

17

25

You can

people

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

15

24

around

buildings.

some laws

about

21

from

have

adult

that

laws

20

to

THE COURT: I don't

10

18

children

buildings.

16

ten

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

7
8

it

because

--

bring

with

Why say
only.
I would

say

can

respect

sign

to

--

two children

you don't

put

not
a ten-

sister.
everything

you

two when we said

Let's
like

restrict
to

say

say.
they

it

to

as the

one.

72
1

vacating

tenant

had.

MR. COHN: This

should

not be a restriction

against

you,

this

should

be the minimum you have to live

up to.
5

If you want to make an exception

they

will

be

pleased.
7

THE COURT: There

is nothing

wrong,

is there,

wit

not more than

two persons

in a one-bedroom

apartment?

MR. F. TRUMP: Then we would have to rent

10

children

if

they

did

to two

come around.

11

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

12
13

on something.
persons

14

ments or is that

that

two

two-bedroom

is

apart-

your maximum?
arrangements:

the maximum.
in two-

bedroom apartments
MR. F. TRUMP: Same occupancy
tenant

23

MR. D. TRUMP: It
rent

as the vacating

had.
THE COURT: Same occupancy

24
25

beyond

THE COURT: What you want to say is

21
22

not more than

MR. F. TRUMP: We go to two-bedroom

19
20

focusing

apartment.

THE COURT: Are these

17
18

in a one-bedroom

Occupancy,

not

MR. F. TRUMP: Fine.

15
16

You under

You are

to more than

--

says

to solve

as the

two-bedroom

not more than.

this,

make it

--

You can't
on the bottom

73
1
2

instead

of ten-year-old,

up doing

it

that

four

THE COURT: You don't

your

you can't

bedroom apartment.

and you don't

son is

pointing

rent

out,

years

old.

this

to more than

is really

four

You can't

persons

stuff

have any desire

11

in a two-bedroom.

12

that

you

in a two-

five,

six,

seven,

to.
not be required

We want to maintain

has been set

as

telling

MR. F. TRUMP: Rent to more than

13

and end

seem to understand,

MR. COHN: You shall

10

five-year-old

way.

MR. COHN: Make it

14

make it

two children
the

pattern

in the building.

MR. D. TRUMP: You can do that.

You can rent

to two adults.

15

THE COURT: It

16

to rent

17

persons,

18

ing no more than

19

a two-bedroom
including

says

you shall

not be required

apartment

to more than

not more than

two adults

four
and includ-

two children.

MR. F. TRUMP: Now we have two persons

20

two-bedroom

21

persons.

--

in all

our two bedrooms

MS. GOLDSTEIN: As long

22

23

cept

someone without

24

rather

25

the

than

injunction.

grounds

children

as the

you have two

decision

is made on that

impermissible

You have certain

in a

to acbasis

and which violate

leeway

in your

74
1

rental

decisions.

THE COURT: The problem

3

in the

footnote,

isn't

is

the

ten

years

down

it?

MR. D. TRUMP: If you made that

5

whole

problem

five

I think

the

would be solved.

MR. ESKANAZI: Can we say in a two-bedroom

7
8
9

apartment,
that

says

practices

12

to the

procedures

are

described

10
11

we refer

below,

on defendants'

and

past

past

to people

practice

similar

has been to rent

to the

ones

these

he has had

before.

13

MR. COHN: How do you word that?

14

a comma after

the

15

including

procedures

16

defendants'

17

based

asterisk

in discovery?

Mr. Trump's
apartments

double

covery,

18

the

past
including

word "discovery"
are

practices,

bedroom you put

of favoring

20

two childre

21

in,

but

move out

not that

couple

you put

we are

MR. COHN: Including

23

THE COURT: Why don't

24

persons

25

it

is,

in a two-bedroom
defendants

shall

during
vacating

on
discensus?

moves out of a two-

in.

If a couple

a couple

with

bound to every

22

two,

based

as described

a policy

another

in footnote

substantially

MR. F. TRUMP: If a couple

19

Could we put

with

two children

two-bedroom

a policy
we say,

apartment
follow

their

not more than

-- defendant,
customary

two

whateve
procedure.

75
1

MR. F. TRUMP:

As far

MR. ESKANAZI:

What he means

THE COURT:
art

in your

Is

that

business,

MR. F.

MR. BRACHTL:

something

TRUMP:

Yes.
It

is

not

10

MR. ESKANAZI:

It

is

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. F.

13

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

THE COURT:

tially

based

15

during

discovery.
MR. F.

16

a term

of

apartment.

~mbiguous,

your

TRUMP:

necessary.
not

necessary.

a two-bedroom
To follow
These

on defendants'

MR. ESKANAZI:
isk

apartment

past

practices.

procedures
past

are

practices

You don't

need

the

substandescribed

opposite

We can

throw

out

the

first

aster-

completely.
MS. GOLDSTEIN:

20

we prefer

to

leave

first
bedroom
practice,

sentence

It

stays.

apartment
and then

As long

as you agree

to

five,

that.

THE COURT:

22

25

is

section.

18

24:

For

TRUMP:

14

23

per

somewhat

is

21

numbers,

that

Census

It

19

the

Honor.

17

is

concerned.

census?

is

occupancy.

4
5

as census

is

just

fixing

The next

defendant
maybe

would

shall
that

it

could

up here.
be for

follow

its

be the

The

a twoexisting
one

foot-

76
1

note,

these

procedures

years,

procedures
--

is

the

that

are

limitation

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

TIIE COURT:

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
of

the

same

one

sex,

Children

asterisk
It

THE COURT:

12

apartment

13

occupancy.

these

past

covery.

years

of

of

age.

Judge?

It

don't

and

TRUMP:

is

bring

think

its

two children

into

the

past

practices

you can
during

to
--

a two-bedroom

then

described

sex,

that

for

and

children

refer

that
they

say

the

to,

is

where

of

disthat

it?

two children

shall

be under

five

point?

There

is

one

slight

Why would

you

say

problem
it

at

all,

superfluous.

MS. GOLDSTEIN:
to

text

you want

opposite
Is

MR. F.

23

25

what

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

tate

sexes.

be consolidated

follow

were

that

involved

21

24

different

says,

all

the

will

practices

Except

20

22

it

an asterisk,

That's

17

19

of

Yes.

Up in

defendant

And then

14

are

be five

note.

11

18

will

-could

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

16

on such

children

Where

10

15

on children

And where

THE COURT:

based

it?

substantially

up is
the

past

The one

that

with

practices

problem
respect

which
to

as described

I hesi-

occupancy,
during

77
1

discovery

were

3
4

described

during

cedure.

That

stuff

more

11

objective

apartment
its

talks

about

was fairly

people

in

You want
shall

to

it

say

adhere

is

for

in

MR. ESKANAZI:

If

your

past

you continue

uniform

to

and

a two-bedroom

a uniform

exceed

manner

the

to

to

vacant

Adhere

to

past

20

MR. COHN:

On page

manner.

So this

practice.

No problem

with

no problem

that.
on our

next

point,

list.

22

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

23

MR. COHN:

Added

At the

tothe

bottom

Trump Village
prohibiting

rent

17-D.

We have

and no waiting

was to

people.

a uniform

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

provision

rent
in

19

we say

to

practice

I said

MR. COHN:

this

not

--

be revised.

25

is

care.

not

THE COURT:

Neaher,

as

shall

24

pro-

--

It

to people,

17-D,

As long

really

18

21

application

desire

a two-bedroom

TRUMP:

occupancy

to

as

practices?
MR. F.

is

practices

uniform.

The Government's

defendant

past

16
17

discovery

THE COURT:

14

15

past

we don't

12
13

about

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

10

uniform.

asterisk

THE COURT:

7
8

all

The second

5
6

at

of

shall
the

use

asterisk.
the

page,

be excepted
of

a waiting

Judge
from
list.

78
1

THE COURT:

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

from

list.

this

Trump Village

provision

Trump Village

prohibiting

MR. D. TRUMP:

5
6

Honor?

It

stand.

You have

now is

seems

in

that

looking

comes

bit

a waiting

11

for

a three-bedroom

12

the

person,

13

to

14

bedroom

apartment

becomes

15

in

by chance

and

16

would

rent

just

has

23

24
25

the

a waiting

the

straight,

your

for

list,

me to

months,

comes

a qualified

four

months

looking

a superintendent
likes

an apartment.

the

theoretically

meets

person,

Finally

available.

under-

saying

so somebody

apartment,

person,

right

a waiting

What we are

apartment,

a three-

Somebody
then

wants

that

walks
person

-We understand

that

Trump Village

list.

MR. D. TRUMP:

I am talking

about

our

other

buildings.
MS. GOLDSTEIN:

21
22

three

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

19
20

for

person

have

17
18

in

knows

the

list.

be excepted

of

difficult

a three-bedroom

tenant

use

this

no waiting

10

what?
shall

the

Can I get

a little

we have
for

shall

throughout

discovery,

served-no

waiting

backs

done,

are

procedure

That
that

list
and

being

therefore

is
it

the
is

procedure

described

a first-come

- first-

maintained,
to maintain

and

no call-

a uniform

79
1

MR. COHN:

THE COURT:

stood

to

from

this

press

release.

signed?

22
23

24

to

yourself

raise

following

that

That

problems

what

shall

we under-

be excepted

correct?

was a nice

Something

We had

half

day's

work,

first

apart

suggested

Have we solved

THE COURT:
right

we fell

on here

is

this?

an original

to

We have

-Is

it

to

be

be signed?

an original

that

needs

changes.
I want

them

to

sign

the

original

now.
MR. COHN:

Can we sign

our

original

right

now,

Judge?
THE COURT:
notes

indicating

original

and

I am satisfied
has

been

said
I want

25

TRUMP:

Do you have

some minor

20
21

is

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

18
19

--

THE COURT:

16

17

We are

Trump Village

MR. COHN:

14
15

want

restrict

Judge.

12

rn

to

practices.

provision

MR. F.

10

11

be your

THE COURT:

8
9

You don't

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

want

here.

4
5

You don't

Mine is

what

is

not

to

fully

be done.

I will

not

sign.

that

the

new inserts

here,
the

then
clients

it

sign

I have

You sign

I will

will
to

marked.

only

sign

conform
become
the

the
when

to what

final.

back

page

on

80
1
2

the

understanding

that

the

changes

discussed.

we've

I will
that

those

sign

changes

MR. COHN:

press

in view

press

is

that

release.
of

that

the

history

release.

don't

13

public

14

and writes

15

given

do anything
information
out

go for

MR. COHN:
say what

press

no

Then we decided
a joint

that.

with

So there

that

They will

we want.
I am sure

Lefrak?
your

releases.

an informational

(Time noted

25

that.

Essentially,

office

19

24

we wanted

we suggested

this,

What was done

about

THE COURT:

23

all

when I am satisfied

release,
to

They wouldn't

18

22

with

provision

12

21

a press

of

MS. GOLDSTEIN:

20

carries

only

They objected

11

will

decree

As to

THE COURT:

17

signature

conform.

10

16

the

takes

what

we

We have
simply

release.

say

Honor,

the

a
decree

We have

they

want

and we

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE IN/:" f L-~ Q

fl, S DI CLERl(s

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK

*' ,A,? ,. 1978

'''MEA/vf,.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.

TRUMPMANAGE:MENT,
INC.,

E.t:1.1t.~

UNITED STATES OF A:MERICA,)

fully

moves this

against

referred

United

States
1.

plaint

MOTIONFOR SUPPLE:MENTAL
RELIEF

rect

of the Civil
that

of its

On June

with

prohibited

by the Fair

it

ordered

to implement

housing

opportunity.

detail
fair
nates

with

(hereinafter

some-

of its

motion,

the

filed

its

housing
similarly

laws,

of the Fair

enter

an Order
VIII,

as might

discriminatory
this

Court

permanently

from engaging
Housing

their

enjoining

the

and directing

entered

an Order,

The defendant

was also
equal

of Trump Manage-

the Order

themselves

by

practices

to promote

themselves

under

to cor-

Trump and those

officers

to acquaint

and to assure

3601

practices.

program

The principal

obligations

42 U.S.C.

in any discriminatory
Act.

com-

Housing

be necessary

enjoining

an affirmative

understood

Act of 1968,

of Title

steps

past

were ordered
Trump's

violations

the Court

10, 1975,

of the parties,

Inc.

relief

States

violations

in privity

ment,

respect-

supplemental

the United

Rights

such affirmative

the effects

consent

Inc.

In support

alleging

from future

2.

an Order granting

15, 1973,

action,

and prayed

to take

herein,

alleges:

VIII

defendant

for

plaintiff

Trump Management,

On October

Title

of America,

to as Trump).

in this

et~.,

it

Court

the defendant

times

Act,

States

that

responsibilities.

.lf.'

Cl~~~

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73

Defendant.
_____________
The United

..

. srRtcrco:J::,cE!
'\...

personally

and in

and the various

their

subordi-

3.

Trump and its

comply fully
fically,

with

they
(a)

this

Made apartments

(b)

tion,

10, 1975.

Speci-

to black

black

of rental

that

with

persons

persons

in the

of a dwelling

(d)

Represented

race

that

respect

indicate

and discrimination

spection

on

a preference,
based

to black

dwellings

limita-

on race;

persons

were not

and rental

to the rental

and

because

available

of

for

when such dwellings

in-

were in

so available;

in violation

of paragraphs

1, 2, 3 and 4 of Part

II of this

Order.
4.

plaintiff

In conformity

with

has notified

attention

correct

the violations.

action

discriminatory

conduct

frequency

it

that

enjoyment
5.

action

to prevent

has created

and a substantial

in order

to ensure

rect

effects

the

future

to

in some instances,
it

has not

and racially

has occurred

with

impediment

such
to the

opportunity.
including
extension

additional

noncompliance.

- 2 -

affirmative

of the decree,

nondiscrimination
of past

opportunity

violations,

a substantial

Order,

which have come to

complainants,

by Trump agents

relief,

Court's

Trump a reasonable

of individual

of equal

Further

IX of this

While Trump has,

the needs

adequate

Part

Trump of complaints

and has given

accommodated

full

against

Made statements

fact

to

of race;

of dwellings

taken

unavailable

and conditions

account
(c)

Order of June

have failed

of race;

Discriminated

terms

its

Court's

and agents

have

on account

Court's

officers

in the future

is necessary
and to cor-

WHEREFORE,the United
this

Court

that

such period

the injunction

2.

housing

that

such as those

contained

steps

for

that

4.

that

lief

as this

or national

origin;

counsel

victims

to

to rent

Court's

dwell-

prior

a free

without

conduct

Order,
and in-

regard

of discrimination

by unlawful

to

be compen-

on the part

of

prays

for

may deem just

of this

to continue

to report

to the

States.
such other

and proper,

proceeding,

and further
including

including

rethe costs

reasonable

fees.

David G. Trager
United States Attorney

b.L~~~

Assistant

enjoy-

and

further

and disbursements

full

provisions

to provide

persons

Trump be required

Court

for

be granted

including

all

and to the United

Plaintiff

for

caused

agents;

the

citizens

IV of this

designed

individual

any injury

Trump or its

Court

choice

religion,

3.

be extended

relief

buildings,

in Part

as additional

color,

sated

upon a hearing,

to ensure

to nonwhite

white

formed residential

case

affirmative

opportunity

at predominantly

race,

that,

opportunity;

additional

realistic

as well

in this

of time as may be needed

ment of equal

ings

prays

order

1.

ensure

States

U. S. Attorney

Drew S. Days, III

Assistant
Attorney

General

Frank E. Schwelb, Chief

Housing and Credit Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

Harvey L. Han e~, Attorney

Brian F. Heffe
'an, Attorney
Housing and Cre it Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

,..

'

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

20530

Addree Reply to the

Dhi&ion lndicateJ
!ind Refer to Initials and Number

DSD:HLH:mop
DJ 175-52-28

'!978

U.s. trv.
Honorable Edward R. Neaher
United States District
Judge
United States Courthouse
225 Cad.man Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

/v!,tJ
t,>()
1'.1'J,,;,,..,
,.,,c:.

"

'}

Dear Judge Neaher:

On Monday, March 6, 1978, the United States
filed
a Motion for Supplemental Relief in the captioned case.
This letter
is intended to bring you up to date on the
developments in this matter and also to attempt to arrange
for a pre-hearing
conference with you and opposing counsel.

As you know, the United States initially

filed this
lawsuit on October 15, 1973, alleging
that the defendant
was conducting its apartment rental business in violation
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 u.s.c.
3o01 et .!!:9.
After considerable
delay, a Consent Order was entered on
June 10, 1975, ~/ The defendant was permanently enjoined
from discriminating
in the rental of housing and required,
among other things,
to implement an affirmative
program
of compliance with the Fair Housing Act and report periodically,
to the Court and this Department, concerning its
rental operations.
The affirmative
provisions
of this
Order expired on September 10, 1977.

for your convenience.

.t,

'
................
..

Re: United States v. Trump Management, Inc.

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529

~/ A copy is attached

D.llJ.Y.

1 1978

- 2 -

In our pending motion, filed March 8, we allege

inadequate compliance with the order and seek extension
and expansion of certain of its provisions.
We hope that the motion can be resolved by the
parties without the necessity
for a hearing.
Should such
a hearing be necessary,
however, it will probably assU)De
the proportions
of a full-blown trial
and occupy two days
or more. Plaintiff
will want to conduct a fair amount
of discovery before the hearing, and we anticipate
that
defendant may wish to do the same.
After consulting
with Mr. Homer LaRue, Assistant
United States Attorney, we have concluded that an
expeditious
procedure would be for counsel to meet with
the Court to discuss the motion and the best manner of
proceeding.
We understand that a tentative
date of
April 10, 1978 has been set for this meeting.
Although
this time is agreeable to us, it appears that Mr. Cohn,
defense counel, will be out of the country on that date
April 17, 1978, however, is agreeable to both parties.
Thank you for your consideration
in this matter.
If the Court believes that the matter should be handled
otherwise,
we will of course proceed as the Court may
direct.
Sincerely,
Drews. Days, III
Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

By:

,/~.y!Jk,)l;~
/ti/v
L. Handl~y

torney
Housing and Credit

Section

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 {EN)

)
)

v.

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP )

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,
)

PI.AINTIFF'S INTER..ROGATORIES
TO THE DEFENDANTS

_____________
Defendants.

To Counsel

for the Defendants:

The following
pursuant

,)

interrogatories

are addressed

to Rule 33 of the Federal

and you are required

and fully,

to answer each interrogatory

in writing,

under oath,

your Answers on counsel

prescribed

Rules of Civil

by the Court.

The United

within
States

Court for an Order that

your time to respond

five

of service.

days from the date

1.

Please

state

known or believed
or any of their
information

offic'ers,

with respect

by Donna Goldstein,
the United
2.

States

interrogatory,

by the defendants
to have any
engaged in

representative

with the above-styled

to each person
please

identified
provide

to

of each person

misconduct

or by any other

in connection

With respect

to the preceding
information:

Esquire,

to the

be shortened

or employees

to any alleged

of

is applying

for defendants,

agents,

copies

the time to be

the name and address

by counsel

Procedure
separately

and to serve

for plaintiff

to you

caseo

in response
the following

of

(a) The nature

of the alleged

by a representative

of the United

misconduct
States

alleged

by such person;
(b) The time and date
conduct

upon which such mis-

took place;

(c) The names and addresses

who witnessed

of all

persons

or who may have information

about

the incident;
(d) The means and date
tion
dants

was brought
or their
(e) A full

wrongful
the United

by which such informa-

to the attention
counsel;
description

conduct

of the defen-

and
of the alleged

by the representative

of

States.

JAMES PORTER
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

..

FRANKE. SCHWELB,Chief
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

)
RESPONSEOF UNITED STATES
TO DEFENDANTS'MOTIONOF

FRED C. TRIB1P, DONALDTRUMP )

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,
)

JULY 2 6, 1974

_____________
Defendants.

The United

States

own behalf

and on behalf

on its

Goldstein,

to defendants'

judication

of contempt

desist"

order
1.

against

conduct

representative
interviews

in this
2.

improper

The United

including

an ad-

and a "cease

alleges

and

as follows:

or by any other

in connection

Thomas Miranda,

prospective

alleges

with

the

Paul Ziselman,

witness

that

allegations

the testimony

said

or other

of this

That expedited

of prospective

of

and other
witnesses,

constitute

an

Court.

States

discovery

of misconduct

allegations

of threats

and consequently

WHEREFORE
the United

attorney;

seeking

each and every allegation

States

States

and scurrilous,

the allegations

Donna F.

case.

abuse of the processes

1.

States,

by Donna F. Goldstein

to influence

are false

attorney,

attorney

denies

or any other

conduct,

devices

said

of Carol R. Falcone,

responding

of Motion"

the United

of the United

Paula Ziselman,
person

''Notice

States

plaintiff,

of its

against

The United

of improper

of America,

prays

as follows:

be had with respect

by the United

States

to

and its

..

2.

That depositions

supervised

That a full

Honorable

defendants'

Court

Notice

evidentiary

hearing

discovery

be

be held

before
for

in

of Motion;

of misconduct

the evidentiary

by the United

as scandalous,

in accordance

the Federal

Rules

Procedure,

of Civil

and a cease

and desist

order

hearing,

States

be stricken

tempt

said

16, 1974, as prayed

on August

4. That following
gations

during

by a master;

3.
this

taken

the alle-

and its
with

attorney

Rule 12(f)

and the motions

be in all

of

for con-

respects

denied;

and
5.
Court
cesses

That following

determine
and,

~his

whether

if so,

evidentiary

there

hearing,this

has been an abuse

enter any appropriate

Honorable

of its

disciplinary

proother

or

Order.
The United
relief

as the

the costs

States

interests

further

prays

of justice

and disbursements

of this

for

may require,

together

with

proceeding.

Respectfully

JAMES PORTER
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

such additional

9,N~

submitted,

:JAMESP:TRNER
;e~uty Assistant
Attorney

General

FRANKE. SCffivELB, Chief

NCR.MAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD
TRUMP
)
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 (EN)

______________
AFFIDAVIT
WASHINGTON

)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)

ss

FRANKE. SCHWELB,being
1.
Rights

Department

of the above-styled
I make this

contempt

discovery

Court to supervise

and desist

depositions

order

that

charge
States.

an Order be

and designating

motion to hold one of plaintiff's

and for a cease

of the Civil

of the United

of our request

expedited

and says:

and in supervisory

on behalf

in support

directing

of this

to defendants'

of Justice

litigation

affidavit

herein

an officer

deposes

I am the Chief of the Housing Section

Division,

entered

duly sworn,

against

with respect
attorneys

in

the United

States.
2.

this

On or about

Court a Notice

one of plaintiff's
contempt

of this

July

26, 1974, defendants

of Motion praying
counsel

in this

Court for alleged

that

action,
coercion

filed

with

Donna Goldstein,
be adjdged
and threats

in
against

prospective

witnesses,

to cease
Notice

and desist
of Motion

of Carol

former

is purportedly

empioyees,

counsel,

supported

signed

which purports

The papers

call

question

the professional
an attorney

with

acquainted

reputation,

and in relation
that

out foundation
of this

of two
to

on behalf
conduct

in the manner

of defendant
and reputation
of this

of

Section,

and whom I know to have an

respect

to her professional
of improper

and therefore

at

to her

legal

competence.
conduct

constitute

ethics

I am satisfied

against

her are with-

an abuse

of the processes

Court.
3.

In view of the nature

Ms. Goldstein,
expeditiously
the factual
cleared.'

the United
handled
issues

We further

.on August
4.
called

of

Also attached

on the staff

both with

the allegations

statements

a number of events

filed

Donna F. Goldstein,

excellent

employees

and which did not occur

by him.

whom I am well

The

by Roy Cohn, on~ of defendants'

described
into

conduct.

former

Ziselman.

to describe

which he was not present

be ordered

by the affidavits

but unsworn

Paul and Paula

is an affidavit

States

unlawful

and Thomas Miranda,

and by the

the motion

the United

from such alleged

R. Falcone

defendants,

and that

of the allegations

States

requests

in accordance

may be resolved
ask that

with

that

against

the matter

42 U.S.C.

3614 so that

and Ms. Goldstein's

the evidentiary

be

hearing

reputation
be held

16, 1974 as scheduled.

In order

by defendant

to assure
to further

that

no "surprise"

witnesses

at ta.ck Ms. Goldstein's

- 2 -

be

reputation,

plaintiff

has propounded

inquiring

into

witnesses

to alleged

Adequate
unless

the identity

that

"some" fonner
have acted

improperly,

unless

to answer
defendants

plaintiff

witnesses

3 of the affidavit

we ask that

is alleged

there

this

to

are supposed

within

disclose

of only

the defendants

interrogatories

voluntarily

in advance

the statements

that

in

of Roy Cohn

as to whom Ms. Goldstein

these

States

be

five

days,

infonnation

to

earlier.
5.

The essential

this

motion

fair

tactics

spective

is that

interference
. each party's
out interruption

of all

be free

and other

the testimony

of the United

on Ms. Goldstein's

is that

part

are false

witnesses,

both on deposition

counsel,

to examine and cross-examine

or disruption

be fully

- 3 -

it

undue influence,

or from their

protected.

un-

States

this

of threats,

issue,

on

of pro-

to resolve

from the parties

right

allegations

used threats

to influence

The position

In order

the testimony

of defendants'

Ms. Goldstein

of misconduct

and scurrilous.

at the hearing,

thrust

in an attempt

witnesses.

the allegations

that

of possible

Accordingly,

States.

not be possible

to the United

which suggests

of all

of the United

will

have attached

employees

to be others.
required

the hearing

Paragraph

testimony

by agents

is disclosed

defendants

to defendants

and prospective

the depositions

of the hearing.
states

for

inforrration

time to take

interrogatories

misconduct

preparation
this

brief

is essential
and
or other
and that

witnesses

with-

6.
conduct

The most effective

of these

an officer

plaintiff

At least

on two separate

as reflected

States

Magistrate,

failing

to carry

covery

reprimanded
out their

and to expedite

effective

for.
here

relating

Accordingly,

the orderly

conduct

application

for
to dis-

the most
of these

by an officerof
request

United

for defendants

deposi-

this

on behalf

an Order to Show Cause be entered

No previous

for

At a

Catoggio,

responsibilities

I respectfully
WHEREFORE
that

affidavits.

counsel

is to have them supervised

of reprisal

to attorneys

Vincent

the action.

means to assure

fear

to

and once to Donna Gold-

respective

on May 3, 1974, Honorable

hearing

States

occasions,

Goldweber

in their

by

one of the witnesses

has expressed

-- once to Elyse

stein,

the orderly

is to have them supervised

Mr. Miranda

from defendants

tions

depositions

of the Court.

be deposed

means to assure

of the United

herein

has been made for

Court.

as prayed

the relief

requested.

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, HOU$ing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. c. 20530

Subscribed
and sworn to before me
this
d?.._ day of August, 1974.

titLew..

~~4=<

~OTARYPUBLIC
My commission

expi:res :~

'/ /17?

:J,/

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

YORK
EASTERNDISTRICT OF Nh"'W

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 (EN)

)
)

v.

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP,DONALD
TRUMP }
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC., }

_____________
)

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT
WASHINGTON

)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)

ss

DONNA
F. GOLDSTEIN,being duly sworn, deposes

and

says:
1.

I am an attorney

the Department
United States

of Justice

accuse me of threatening
improper conduct
this

action.

of Pennsylvania.

to defendants'

Rights

Division

and one of the counsel

in the above-styled

the bar of the State

in response

in the Civil

for the

I am a member of

I make this

motion and supporting

prospective

in the discharge

of

witnesses

affidavit
papers

which

and of other

of my responsibilities

in

case.
2.

I have read the affidavits

Thomas Miranda and the signed

Ziselman.
determine

While I interviewed

statements

and

of Paul and Paula

each of these

if they had information

did not do any of the unlawful

of Carol R. Falcone

pertinent

or improper

individuals
to this
things

case,
alleged

to
I

in their

statements,

each in a fair

and objective

While a complete
viduals
think

and, on the contrary,

response

way to ascertain

important

allegations,

her with perjury,

I did not accuse

business

respond

jail,

or money, or of dating
about these

accusations

at all.

phones were tapped,

briefly,

nor did I

or with anything

else.

with regard

to her

Donald Trump, and have no

matters.

In fact,

I did not tell

or that

at least

Ms. Falcone,

her of any misconduct

information

indi-

and I do so as follows:

{a) I never harassed

threaten

of these

on the pending motion I

to innnediately

to the principal

the facts.

to the statements

must await the hearing

it

interviewed

I made no

Ms. Falcone

she was guilty,

that

any

and in fact,

have no knowledge of any tapped phones and I am sure that

Civil

Rights

Division

be tapped.
In fact,
at all

does not tap phones or cause them to

I did not act in a hostile

the interview

appeared

manner towards

to me friendly

her.

on both sides

times.
{b) I never harassed

called

upon him "to go against

On the contrary,
tell

the

him that

jail,

tn1less he cooperated

I did not persecute

to relate

the truth.

I did not

he would be thrown in

my "ambitions"

or winning my case.

him, nor did I make "unyielding"

or any other

kind.

the facts

because

Trump would destroy

he described

and I never

Trump Management" by lying.

I asked him to tell

nor did I discuss

threats

Mr. Miranda,

While Mr. Miranda was reluctant

he expressed

him, or words to that

to me some racially

..

- 2 -

fear

that

Mr. F.red

effect,

discriminatory

housing

practices

in which defendants

answers

to interrogatories

States

have engaged.
filed

in the case of United

v. Fred C. Trump, et al.,

and sworn to by Elyse

Goldweber,

previous

discloses

that

discriminatory

case.

My interview

friendly

counsel

for plaintiff

Mr. Miranda had also

about

practices

Mr. Ziselman,

of his

him that

the agents

I would try

cancel

unnecessary.
Ziselman,

details

. to see him again

I wished
that

must
with

in accordance

and contact

was one of

I mentioned

the FBI to contact

that

him, but I

the FBI in time to have

with

as to a rental

him, since

my interview
witness

it was now
with Mr.

for plaintiff

transaction

from Mr. Ziselman's

with Mr.

account.

Accordingly,

and asked him if he would permit

for a short
to discuss

he considered

had,

Mr. Ziselman,

interview

Mr. Ziselman

there

Mr. Ziselman

a prospective

which differed

that

the FBI to interview

I had completed

I interviewed

I telephoned

stated

their

After

who provided

of Justice

Trump employees.

had been made for

Mr. Ziselman,

to my interview

requested

When I was interviewing

a request

suggest
Prior

the Department

number of former

matters

to the

seemed to me to be

or intimidate

affidavit

our normal practice,

Ziselman

information

I was assigned

with Mr. Miranda

have been a misunderstanding.

told

suit,

on both sides.

and the contents

them.

in this

provided

before

(c) I did not threaten

with

Plaintiff's

time since
with

it

him.

there

- 3 -

were now a few more

He refused

to be harassment.

me

my request
I responded

and
that

I was sorry

he felt

that

way, since

it was not intended

to be harassment.
(d) Mr. Manley's
Mr. Cohn's affidavit
to the records

Trump office

events,

a fact

respect

to this

3.

defendants'
are entirely
be disposed

distort

on Discovery,

and made a part

In conclusion,

of at the earliest

as to these

The facts
in detail

with

in Appendix

a copy of which is

I wish to state

foundation.

up

hereof.

on my conduct

without

information

are described

leading

Mr. Cohn was not present

from his affidavit.

incident

papers

the facts

in June 1974.

Report

hereto

of June 13, 1974, and

and has no direct

omitted

C to plaintiff's
attached

completely

inspection

at the

letter

that

the attacks

and integrity
I hope that

practicable

in

as an attorney
the matter

can

date.

f1-,ct;t;~c,;__
DONNA
F. GOLDSTEIN
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Sworn to before me this
2nd day of August, 1974.

NOTARY
PUBLIC
.
My commission expires:

()~

j'//f/l

{.../ /

..

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD

TRUMP
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
.)

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 (EN)

______________
Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEWYORK

)
)

ss

CQUNTYOF ' .NEW..YORK )

I, ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER,
being

duly sworn do depose and

say that:
1.

I am presently

employed as an examining

with the New York City Department

111 John Street,

2.
Civil

Division,

from September
3o

States

lawsuit,

Department

19, 1972 until

of Justice,

I,.

v. Fred Trump, et al.,

Prior

at

the
D. C.

May 24, 1974.

of Justice,

and the pre-trial

Civil

to the institution

I interviewed

with

Washington,

While employed by the Department

in the preparation

4.

located

employed as an attorney

ticipated

of Investigation

New York, New York.

I was formerly

Rights

attorney

Action

stage

I parof United

No. 73 C 1529 (EN).

of the above-mentioned

Mr. Thomas Miranda who was formerly

employed by Trump Management,

Kendall

Hall Apartments,

New York.
what,

practices

of this

prospective

Inc.

apartment

that

from a "colored"
me that

every

him to attach

applications

seekers

received

and that

being

from

he was to write

so as to indicate

the application

person.

he did this

Mr. Hyman, Mrs.

had instructed

to all

a big "C" on such attachment

Management,

Inc.

to me that

Inc.

of paper

black

discriminatory

Sophie whose name he did not recall,

of Trump Management,
sheet

was to determine

knew about

related

woman called

a separate

interview

at

Flushing,

of Trump Management,

Mr. Miranda

Williams&a

as a superintendent

Bowne Street,

Mr. Miranda

on the part

S.

all

41-10

The purpose

if anything,

Inc.

to Trump
considered

Furthermo~e,

Mr. Miranda

time a black

person

was

stated

applied

to

for an

apartment.

Mr. Miranda

6.
that

he was afraid

or words to that
discriminatory

also

that

stated

to me during

this

interview

the Trumps would have him "knocked

effect,

because

practices.

he told

me about

He was reluctant

their

to have his

off",

allegedly
name

disclosed.
7.
friendly,
When it
letter

After

this

interview,

I had no further
became necessary
in the form attached

,.

which was in all

personal
to disclo'se
hereto

- 2 -

contact
his

with

identity,

respects
Mr. Miranda.
I sent

to him and to the other

persons
Inc.

who had provided

The letter

in accordance

identical

letter

about

Trump Management,

was run off on an MTST machine,

with Justtce

sample copy was retained

Kirschenbaum),

information

Justice
was sent

Department
(the

practice,

one addressed

Department

records

to Mr. Miranda

and while
only one

to Phyllis
disclose

and fourteen

ELYSES. GOLDWEBER

Subscribed
this

and sworn to before me

day of August, 1974.

NOTARY
PUBLIC
My commission

expires:

that

an

others.

T.

NOV

11/5/73

l J 33

~~

.,.

! _,. i

,)

'..~,.-._
t~:~~

",roo'~ !. ':'l'

t:c:

""'t.,:il:_'1 "l. 'r'~~.-i

:".
~:"1:4~.,~~j,
r:-1~- --~,::~--~.:.:
__~_:~:7:_h-:
_."}:~~__
n -~~.c:-::,
::~~-~nt,

U;.1it-:.!

?;J2~:i
.!,,.

! ;:\;:: ;:ir
tlnt
y,yJ r
;'.;-,,~r
th l't,
d.1rinry
t'l-1;:,
fLw ~cn;t'.t,,
I r:::-i,c;f.:~,wit:;-: yo; Zt::011t four
-:::,~;n1ri:y;-:.
1 ,-:cn;u;
,.fit t1 ~ru.-,,
'.::-:,.'n t:, I;, G
., .: q.r~ t::c
in f 1.)r-r:J..:1
t.Lc,: l
}otl ~J111 r:i,-,n~/ ot
r t-~:'",.J~)l:~ r:,1vt-~ _1/;, tJ~ ..~~ :~::1:~.1rt-r.-~:t
t c:,f
JU.f.itic0.
r~.:".:;2ntlj 1 fil~! ..i Zl l,.,.v:~;,tt t i~1 t:1c
,:1t.~ral c~">l!~rt.
ii1 1ro')'i:lT1
all--~:rin<! tl!:lt
Fr:::..t c. :'r:r:,,,
.i':,rv1ld r-1r'.,
.~n:1rc:1~:;.} :,"lnaf,Ht-t;11t,
I:1c.,
.
ti(~1,.-~t,:.1 th.:: Fi:ir
:1cn1s ir1.'J i\~t
ll~{ ,:-;1(;!;!<) .ir10 i ~1 r1.c:l. 1? ~ :i.qcr i:~.in4~t ica@
!iay n,1v.:-;: hroarl a::out t.'!"." co ..:.:::-t :~'.lit a1r,~:1,!y.

la<Jt

In

court

-'!ornrar.y which

?1~vo a rir;:.t
t!1c:'{

suit

li~~

t~iJ,

t~~

;;.i.t> ~nv i.11,; Lrn'.<n tlv~

o:.:t ct i ,;.:,., :-. c-d: t'kt. :)t>Ople

c:~.1rfV't'.

t.o fin.?

L:t,.'
w>:-;~,

if

..1.i.~c~~..i ~'-\
~:l-t: ti;1rJ' lir;:,iD.:t t.
~\e;co1.,}.-t.:n ,;,;;f.~n(lan.ts Go r;:;1.::;t,
yo.:r nn.::~G ..,,111
fur:-:is1H.!d ta t.'v:,;;, iri t1c:,:::or,!"\:1C<'? with ::curt

It

r:,:!ly

<ir<~ r;~1:~r,~f<::.-"?
..";:i. th

in9ly,
!1r,V('.?>to

rules

;ir,-:

..
::..f?

t:1-"t

th;,

law',l-.:cr::-: r~pr0:J.:':nti:1g
;:;v1 ~~:".in t.hinrJ is

will want to int~?rVi(c:W 'JO:l..

h.i\ve not'llnq
to worr-t about.

th~ '";ri.;"'\.>'J
th.1.t 10....:

If: Jou ,.-i::;h to t.alk to

the?:,;, you h:1v.~ ~ ri9'.t
to ,i.o '.'i(J.
If you do not ,d:;h
talk
to the r1, you hav..:.: a rl<-,Lt:. not to.
0

cc:

Records

Chrono
'Goldweber

~-ne--

Kosack-Hold
Reichard-Hold

t,J

'~

._,..:

t..

L ,

..J<

'/C:.J
'.",

....

' . ... i

.t; :;

f'

. ir . ,-, ~ '...... .>

,, .c-

It

1.

;-_1.:/

'C.t''JY ;,.1

t,:~t11

; t"1--..t
7 ,1

.:11:t

:l''J~l

l.~'" 1 -t.(,r-c.1r
,._()

:~i

.-=t. ;,:~r::;:~n r.i:.~-r")r~:"\~:1::

) ,:...~t(::,-,~:til..
~f(':;\
~;.':;'"'~~

r l_;-~t~to '~i. ; .~-~c, 1"-~ (.":r ';!.(. t r:~:, ,.~~-.

r~ i -~~ J ft<--r~ t.id \/ i :3 .,: ,1.:: ; >:.c,-.-:..'';.r, , r' tJ)

~::1-~:~,

~'l

...
.l

yTd

c:-l;;

it ,

cl'.:> 31..j'i

t.n

a~lvi3':1l
:~l_::)rl

t:1in.r,

to

i:1

,;:'\~ ...l': t

t:~c

~:ol.:

y(J:Jr

():_;

1.

e;

).t('.)l~

t ~l i :::: a

,,,.,i

:-~;l.

1,6,i\~7:.."'::
r'

:.:;

:;t.~t.,

n t (1t:~ ; r~-~.::.~
'/ Ot:! 't:.:::..-:
ti 1;~ I

.~'l...:

.::4;r:r
:;t ..;:~t

.r<)3ti,:~~5:Si()r~

.~.:~it
J..:():t'

/~

t~>1-1t

f ':-~,7

~lti_lo~,(~

;.tsL~i

<~
.-!":/:.1 .so that

"f0~-_1 -~.....
,
rtlff)tl

(; J :-,

7_:(~r- .:.~\r~::r..t
..; t..!'iJ.t tct);:
i~:. ,Jr:: rcc;:111 all
?1~1.C8.
A~:<::1, if
~/O~l ~J.;.-.;;;i.:~~tr) -:;t::-,-; it,
~/(:1J Cttn
llt
lz::a.5t 1:\.1.) ~!:tr-~ t.:nt. ~/O;J lt."\'\f'C: i1rt ..! d ,;.1r\~Ct:
to ro~,2::Ji..~L
,.1v;::rytr-.LH1.
.r.l.:io, if ro:::. :v,::r- :o :.~i,:;1 ~- ~.::atG11:c1nt,
n~\~f: surr:? './01.l r_r::,t to l::".'-::, 0. :;r:,,,-/ f:n 1("'\ur'..;,:,l f.

2tbo,tt.

..
T

f'

yo""J.., l ;'}Tor11~...i
'f./~:~ry::~1r..:;1 ;J.Il~)?"t::(~lrt~-'-J
?oi~r l':ttti(1<r
~~.!
riry'.1t aw:1y,
Plea:Ji:: c:111 ~<' ( :~)1.le:.,~t)
!. (2 1)2)
73)~41J2.
:rf ! .:ire: ,uavai1;,hlE'
,.,,\en you c01ll,
! tiill
l'.\?tur;1
yon,
~ ti(l!l~
call
H s :1c,(..,
~1 ns
:; ~ i ~ ,l .~ r f: i.~ \t<~r..,,,i-:-~to(,.r
t (1r.t
-- ..._
t}n. t }OU :,:
'"i.) infor:,,<': 11 dt:-(sU-!:
t:~i,~.

-~~----

worry

I"in:1lly,
l;:.:t r:'t:'.! r.:::;;'.1c"tt t;;.:it yon :1,1v.:: n!)thin,;
aLrn.1t.
You Jo :iot 11.:::.v.~to tz1lk t,"> .,nyonc or

..

tn
::ii--,;:1

,.,r~.~r

r;t,;t

.,.

;,_,')

u.
j :~ t ..t ~:i;,

,i

t~~

!ir;i;

t:i. r) r ~ l

t 1 .-,1 ~ ,' it:,

:\ t tl'1 t..!: t)'r"

:;lr1tJ t~r;ction

(:;t.;rt(~

vision

r:i l

.>

- .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD

TRUMP
INC.,
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,

__________
Defendants.

The United
davit

States

having

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 (EN)
ORDERTO SHOWCAUSE

applied

for an Order to Show Cause,

ing is scheduled
mine motions
attorneys
and it

before

involving

in this
further

misconduct

which alleged

misconduct

is denied;

discovery

is necessary

so that

this

motion may be expeditiously

that

the nature

justifies

judicial

a hear-

by one of the

expedited

in accordance

motion;

that

that

appearing

pending

and it appearing

Court on August 16, 1974 to deter-

alleged

action,

Court by affi-

appearing

and appropriate,
determined

this

to this

with 42 U.S.C.

3614; and it

of the respective

supervision

parties'

of depositions

and the Court having

further
allegations

relating

considered

to the

the pertinent

submissions,

NOW,THEREFORE,upon the affidavit

and for .good and sufficient

reason,

IT IS HEREBYORDEREDthat
there

be,

Brooklyn,

in the chambers of this

New York, on August

soon thereafter

as counsel

of FRANKE. SCHWELB

defendants

show cause,

if any

Court at 225 Cadman Plaza,

, 1974, at

may be heard,

why

M.,

or as

(1) defendants

should

answer plaintiff's
to the pending
service

interrogatories
motion within

thereof;

should

supervision

shall

five

with

respect

days of

respect

not be conducted

to this

under

the

of the Court.

IT IS FURTHERORDEREDthat
defendants

with

to

and

(2) the depositions

motion

not be required

service

upon counsel

be done by

than

no later
, and that

good and sufficient

for

this

shall

constitute

service.

IT IS SO ORDEREDthis

day of August,

United

States

District

1974.

Judge

_,,
'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
.

)
)
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 (EN)

)
)

v.

)
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD
TRUMP )
)
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,

MEMORANDUM
OF THE UNITED STATES IN
SUPPORTOF THE ENTRYOF AN ORDER
TO SHOWGAUSE

)
)
)

_____________
Defendants.

On or about
seeking

July

an adjudication

Department

including

order
that

Ms. Goldstein
influence

among other

States

.of Frank E. Schwelb,

'

Department

and every allegation

a hearing

Chief

to this

case,

of Motion

In five

threatened
witnesses

on this

affidavits

a response

allege

and sought
in this

matter

that
to

case.

The

on August 16, 1974.

supported

of the Housing Section,

and a "cease

Roy Cohn, defendants

things,

has filed

a Notice

Donna F. Goldstein,

States.

of prospective

have requested

The United

assigned

counsel

filed

against

the United

of defense

the testimony

defendants

Division,

attorney

against

has,

defendants

of contempt

of Justice

and desist"

26, 1974,

by affidavits

Civil

of Justice,

and of Ms. Goldstein

of improper

conduct.

Rights

denying

In preparation

each

of the

hearing

on August

depositions
against

16, 1974,

of several

Ms. Goldstein,

as well

have also

to determine

the pertinent

by plaintiff's

has applied

thereof;

vised

Brief

the defendants

incident

of mis-

the United

States

not be required

interrogatories
motion within

by an officer

Court with

five

should

respect

days of service

In this

accusations

against

one of its

counsel,

these

Rules
the

case,

the United

States

on August

do so unless

Procedure

time permitted

and,

vests

the

for responding

have made serious

in particular,

They seek

16, 1974.

the depositions
charges

of Civil

defendants

Donna F. Goldstein.

on fo~ hearing
to take

to Respond to the Interrogatories

to shorten

Interrogatories.

not be super-

of the Court.

of the Federal

discretion

about

with

to

and

Rule 33(b)

and cannot

for

In addition,

Defendants Should Be Required

Within Five Days of Service.

mation

on counsel

of any alleged

should

(2) the depositions

entitled

Donald Trump.

for an Order to Show Cause why

to the pending

matter

the

who have made accusations

been served

attorneys.

answer plaintiff's

,to

has noticed

as of defendant

details

(1) defendants

A.

States

of the affiants

interrogatories

conduct

the United

against

to bring

The United

States

the
is

of several

persons

who have infor-

and to otherwise

prepare

for

their

identities
- 2 -

are disclosed.

the hearing,

..
'Defense

counsel

Roy Cohn in his

of the persons
had signed
order
rights
ledge

to prepare

B.

fully

protected,

counsel

have unduly

Plaintiff

contends,

the effect

of plaintiff's
that

influenced
however,

counsel
at least

that

of which he is aware.

3614.

occasions

Magistrate

to have been in noncompliance

with

- 3 -

know-

and

be forthcoming.
of
plaintiff's

of prospective
are false

consideration

witnesses.
and have

of the case

The affidavits

of two

and Donna F. Goldstein

one of the prospective

testify

time,

is that

the allegations

In

interrogatories

by an Officer

-- Elyse Goldweber

if he should

to advance

cannot

motion

behavior

Ms. Goldstein's

in a short

response

42 U.S.C.

only some

pleading.

Plaintiff's

answered

the expedited

requires.

that

the testimony

-- has on two separate

from defendants

her.

of defendants'

of preventing

which the statute

Miranda

against

Should Be Supervised
thrust

defendants'

is entitled

why an immediate

The Depositions
this Court.

that

Goldstein's

and assure

and can be responsively

The basic

with

plaintiff

case

indicated

of attorney

submission

for the hearing

is no reason

disclose

for

of the purported

are brief
there

who had complained

statements

are

affidavit

deponents

expressed

fear

to the discriminatory
Cattogio
discovery

Thomas
of reprisal
practices

has found the defendants

procedures.

--

With the issue

unlawful

tactics

sworn testimony
source.

Freeman,

Cir.

witnesses,

Court.

61 F.R.D.

JAMES PORTER
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

side

is imperative

Federal

that

be conducted
Practice

447 (S.D. N.Y. 1973);

Gas and Elec.

has used

or pressure

should

308 (S.D. N.Y. 1965);

denied

either

interference

4 Moore's

Coop. v. Iowa-Illinois
cert.

it

the depositions

v. Harris,

38 F.R.D.

1957),

being whether

be given without

of this

1915; Fisher

Elec.

vis-a-vis

Accordingly,

an officer

herein

see also
Co.,

First

their
from any
before

28.02,

p.

Shapiro

v.

Iowa Hydro

245 F. 2d 613 (8th

355 U.S. 871 (1957).

General

FRANKE. SCHWELB,Chief
NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG,Attorney
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

ll
APPENDIX
A

UNI".i.'ED S'I'.A'l'E[, DISTRIC:'

COURT
EASTERN DIS'l'l1IC'I' OP NEN YORK

-x.

UNITED STATJ:::Sor l\.MERICA,

,l

Plaintiff,
- against

~rr~~7-~0rl:?\}1DD!1
OF TJ!tr)~:::z:.~~"i'ii'!I)T:
;(~ t~
----------

FRr:D C . Tmn1P;
DOnl\l,D
and '.l'runp Mr;;.nage:nen t,

l,cticn

Civil

-----

73 c 132

No.

'1'RU~1.P

Inc. ,

Defendants.

-x
Plaintiff

which

is

~dvisad

11 to the

appen.d.,~d hereto

plaint.if!

settled

on the

in principl.e

The agreed
uocree

the

forwarded

of

alo11g the

settlenvant

a proposed

Defense

counsel

is

th:'.! decree

the

statt1d

is _b~sc<l on the
counsel

agrees

representation

lines

decree

has
subject

satisf-t,ctory,

Plaintiff

herein.

basis

to d;)fense

A.

counsel

to a

that

c-:u-:c

thhi

i1rirr~i11.

proposed

and attached

consent

hereto,

to

Bubject

following:

(a}

:C,rcd irru~1p and Donald

defendants

on tho

Inc.

them as officers,

binds

.J.nd that

it

defendants.

i offices

would

grounds

in decree

hold

by

that

~'1.erefore

La.nguage

Provisions

that

described

solely

to defense

as Attnctunl'..nt

s counsel

modifications

continuance
is

h.:ls forwarded

t.h~.'!i!l

a decree

agents,

without

agaln.st

etc.

oo superfluous

of certain

reqtdring

to be dismissed

Trmnp

mention

of

Tru..,"i'.JpHanageutentr

under

- F
Rule G:>,

~
'a.!'.'\'..o

c
,J.V

. n ,,

I
i

to ret,.1in

provisions

assumption

II

as

them

as nar:c-d

a.mended accordin,;rly.

of responsib:tllty

th~ir

nan.es.

by Fred

(b)

The provision

on pp.

4-5

the

hrvolving

ments

to persons

on public

assistance

shall

Under

the

standards

of Part

IV, of the

proposed

that

incone

footnote

income
shall

applicant,

be included

including

support

public

and wifes

financial

general

with

payments,

as stated.
decree,

sources

alimony,

of any

child

in determining

the

on pp.

prefatory

language

provis.:bms

6-7 involving

wife'.'J

eliminated,

i11 Pc.rt

I of

the

income

and included
as

decree

to be
in

set

forth

(P.

11) to

in

B hereto.

(d)

Procedural

(e)

Equal

be eliminated

history

vision.

Defendants

number

of ads of six

advertisements

in

use

not

lines

presently

(f)

On p.

clarified

On p.

not

be changed

unreasonably

or mor~ or the

language

to include

(g)

or less.

Defendants
because

advertisin

of

substitute

this

l
1

pro-

or change

the

nu_tnber of <lisplay

used.

12,

ad in Spanish-speaking

in advertising

lines

shall

shall

2 to be eliminated.

st~tements

as to ilds cf. five

presently

in minority

as to advertisements

one monthly

ad in black

presz

and one

press.
12, cross-section

in minority

advertised

~n page

opportun1ty

policies

media

all

bD considered

provision

injUt"1Ctive

Attachment

be omitted

of apart

of any applicnnt.

Tha

sumrnarizctl,

assistance

incorr.e shall

eligibility
(c)

ind,icating

renting

media

of Trump apart.~cnts

clarified

to include

only

to be
buildings

with vacancies.
(h) On p .. 13,

3-day

period

for

the

Open Housing

Center

to ref

r
!

Open marbat

completed.
referred

by

fair

hous:!.ng

to be dafincd
group.

to mean rental

to anyone

not

Objective

(i)

as to all
all

buildings

persons

and uniform

by defendants

17, inclusion

referred

by present

(k) Provision
list

is

based

option,

a uniform

included

in the

shall

leasing

agents,

reviow

applications

Provision

before

and

plaintiff.
preference

1'.t defendants'

buildings

tenancy,

may be

If no final

credit

to be

of discrimination.
provisions,
only

in the

reference

superintendents,
central

references

of the

standards

that

for

the

.affirmative
entry

office

who

or othen~ise

for

consent

be_en executed

to the Court

rental

are

of Boyd v. Lefral~

now

Second Circuit.
provisions

of the order

opportunity
ha11

for

upon ruling

of Appeals

dis so lying

to be submitted

defendants

process.

from the date

with

victims

and those

niodi'cation

the Court

allowing

employment

explaining

(o) Provision

decree

practices,

prohibiting

at all

to include

agents,

rental

ponding

the defendants

with

practices.

be included

affirmati"Je

for

to appropriate

years

past

them,

the use of a waiting

procedure

be clarified

subject

three

to determine

tenants.

from alleged

rental

in the
(n)

list

shall

(m) Under the

participate

than

qualifications,

decree.

of complaints

to employees

used

of provision

current

waiting

(1) Provision
notified

procedures

17 prohibiting

on p.

on defendants

rental

ahd negotiated

On p.

(j)

including

on and no rnorc stringent

to be based

to be prepared

for

standards'

objections

by February

upon motion

by the

on the

of the decree!

I
by

plaintiff.
proposed

14, 1975,

the parties!

I
I

i
I

,I
'

shall

so inform

of the
ment

Court

as to

to
the

The parties

the Court.
resolve

any dispute

Decree

and

those

not

final

Consent
If

for

The parties

of this

Court.

as Attachment

Agreed

solely

out

provisions
as

in

to meaning

the asoistanj
of disagree-

ref erred

be contained

a Conmmt
1975 the

exchanged

to

in tho

the

attached

in the

in their

C.

Tru.-up

Althea

Gibson

representative

parties

of

lists

list

The defendants'

the

is

Decree

witness

The plaintiff's

upon this
of January

day

24,

Donald

20t!t

any reason

have

seek

entirety

in

Decree.

by F'ebruary

entered

in aispute

shall

then

change

Jl.11 other

Me.":toran<lumof Understanding
the

arising

m{~aning of any proposed

Memorandum of Understanding.
Consent

shall

not

shall

agreed

seek

a new trial

witnesses

shall

is

tJ:ie Order

appended

hereto

be as

HP...1\CP

1975.

For
the
i

i.,:ate.

with

in accordance

of witnesses

upon and

Plaintiff
/

Donna Goldstein

Hor.man P. Goldberg

follows:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)

Plaintiff,

) CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 C 1529

)

v.

CONSENTORDER

)
)
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP )
)
and Trump Management, Inc.
)
)
Defendants.
)

______________
This

action

was instituted

of America on October

15, 1973, pursuant

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

alleges

that

and practice

by the United

the defendants

have engaged

making dwellings

U.S.C. 3604(a);

by discriminating

of rental

and color,

of dwellings

in violationaf

42 U.S.C.

with respect

to the rental

preference,

limitation

and color

in violation

dwellings

tion

.....-,.., --..~,..,...,,,.,.._~,.._
-w,- ..,-

and con-

of race

3604(c).

and color

by making statements
which indicate
based

3604(c);
of race

on race

and by
and color

for inspection

were in fact

per-

in the terms

of 42 U.S.C.

were not available

of 42 U.S.C.

to black

of 42

of dwellings

on account

and

in violation

because

3604(b);

of the Fair

dwellings

and discrimination

to persons

when such dwellings

in a pattern

unavailable

of race

representing

_,......,.,.
....--,

to rent

sons on account

ditions

Plaintiff

in violation

Housing Act of 1968 by refusing

by otherwise

to the Fair

3601 .:.! ~

of discrimination

States

so available,

that

and rental
in viola-

In December 1973,
claim

against

defendants

plaintiff

for

of defamation

or malicious

was dismissed

for

lack

the Complaint
motions

~~-~~ ..

The counterclaim

also

of the subject

filed

motions

counsel

misconduct

the United

filed

held

the Court h~ard

the evidence

adduced

'::: ........~

,.: :"',;'
.. ......

.... ,:;._..,>:"

was denied

the record,

the Court

no credible

evidence

the United

States

United

States

neglected

opportunity

out their

claim

that

attorneys

essentials,

their

':'t

from

Housing

the result

and that

of the

equal

subordinates

by

housing

numbers of
have failed

the Act.

Complaint,

and

compliance

to substantial

to

Defendants

by their

any discrimination

of the

of

and nondelegable

that

of the individual

was

or agents.

Act to assure

under

there

have failed

affirmative

obligations

of the merits

._.::..j_.

the claim

the defendants

defendants'

at the direction

:\':~,

and stricken

on the part

the number of violations

insubstantial,

defendants

..,.~.;.
.. ..

respects

thereof,

conduct

has been denied

carry

in support

of improper

with

and that

24, 1974, after

that

is that

subordinates,

order

finding

its

the Fair

of

explicitly

to exercise

duty under

tive

in all

or any of its

Strippedto

to

and for a protective

On October

the motion

a motion

in contempt

States.

persons

which

statement,

26, 1974~ defendants

for alleged

their

to dismiss

were denied.

agai~st

in the nature

of jurisdiction

have one of plaintiff's

....: "

$100,000,000

and for a more definite

On July

court

a counter-

prosecution.

The defendants

matter.

filed

agents

is

was not done

defendants.
however,

Irrespecthe

Fred C. Trump and Donald Trump are now prepared

.'

- 2 -

affirmatively
for

to assume and carry

assuring

that

Act and will

the United
the

entry

their

p::
Sta

employees

equal

~te

will

comply with

opportunity.

prepared

~s

out the responsibility

the

Accordingly,

to resolve

this

case

by

"1sent decree.

of a

INJUNCTION
It

is hereby

the defendants,
cessors,
with

the

Refusing

sale

employees,

concert

permanently

to sell

or rental

of,

any dwelling

religion,

or rent,

suc-

or participation
enjoined

conditions,

or privileges

or in the provision
therewith,

from:

to negotiate

making unavailable

to any person

en account

cf race,

origin.

against

any person

of sale

or rental

of services

because

refusing

or otherwise

sex or national

Discriminating

national

in active

are hereby

2.

tion

agents,

. GENERALINJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS

or denying
color,

officers,

persons

any of them,

1.
for

their

and all

,,-.1;:.-/~~~
.r~'.:. #., .....~

ORDERED,ADJUDGEDANDDECREEDthat

in the terms,
of a dwelling,

or facilities

of race,

color,

in connec-

religion,

sex or

origin.
Making,

3.

printing

be made, printed,

or

advertisement

with

dweliing that

indicates

discrimination
national
limitation

re

based

origin,

or publishing,

. lished,

any preference,

or an intention

to

'statement

or

any notice,

ct to the .sale

on race,

or causing

color,

or rental

of a

limitation,
religion,

or

sex or

to make such preference,

or discrimination.
- 3 -

rr~r:
f,'
l

4.

Representing

to any person

because

color,

r2ligion,

s~v or national

origin

is not

available

for

sale

dwelling

is

5.

in fact

on account

national

origin.

6.

the

Coercing,

son in the

exercise

others

7.
purpose
to equal

of the

equal

right

opportunity

or

any per-

to equal

Housing

Act of

of the right

housing

to

opportunity.

or practice

of denying

with,

with

by the Fair

in any act

effect

housing

"

or enjoyment

to secure

of any
sex or

or interfere

protected

Engaging

choice

religion,

or enjoyment

exercise

or the

when such

or interfering

threaten

opportunity

assist

color.

threatening,

to coerce,

or in the

any d~ellin~

or rental

residential

of race,

attempting

..:,;;.~.,,..
1968,

that

so available.

Influencing

person

housing

inspection,

of race,

which has

or abridging

protected

the

by the

the

right

Fair

Hous-

ing Act.
II
RENT.A_LTO PERSOXS RECEIVE;G

The great
in the

New York area

Consequently,
wise

the

qualified

racially
in the
business
person

majority

of persons

are

blanket

p2rsons

black

exclusion

necessity
receiving

exists
public

-l-.~--~---:--:-- --..

"'-"".

-~ :i .~"'

excluding

assistance
4 -

and is

of business
for

assistance

Rican

ancestry.

from tenancy
public

effect,

of a showing

on public

or of Puerto

rec2iving

discriminatory
absence

PUBLIC ASSISTP~CE

of other-

assistance
legally

has a
impermissible

necessity.

No

from residence

who, through

any

guarantor

or otherwise,

ihe rent

and who ~eets

stand3rds

forth

set

Affidavits
their

counsel~

statements,

th2 other

filed

in thi3

and press

to rent

which reluctance

past

public

assistance

right

of the

now, however,

the

rent

to persons

able

to meet the cbj ective

to all applicants

with

enjoined

standards
being

or rental

or having

assistance,

and from otherwise

such per~on

~ith

re3pect

The parties
of Appeals

recognize
for

from the decision

Rptr.

(E.D.

13,650

housin~
there

- 5 -

in active

or more

15,

on

of public
against

any

oppottunicies.
is pending

before

defendant's

Clark,

No. 71-1433,

N.Y. April

officers,

to any person

of Mr. Justice

Organization,

rental~

different

discriminating

that

are

any of them,

the Second Circuit

Boyd v. The Lefrak

para.

those

~o

to be

for

been a recipient

to his

they

their

them or with

from applying

of sale

opportunity

which are

and all

or participation

appeal

if

and successors,

concert

the Court

assistance

defendants,

employees

receiving

of the defendants

is ORDEREDthat

agents,

of his

of such communi-

housing

requirements

applied

assistance,

by persons

policy

public

of

to the public

to equal

stated

receiving

nondiscriminatorily

account

public

effect

exercise

and

out-of~court

on the part

The predictable
the

are permanently

nonracial

of certain

has been communicated

it

to pay

by defendants

receiving

has been to chill

stringent

action

reluctance

to persons

the media.

Accordingly,

objective

reports

cation

.J~ is

capacity

herein.

disclose

defendants

through

has the rejsonable

1974).

retired

in

P.H.E.O.H.
That case

involves

importa:-i.t

private

1andlor~

assistance.

issues

regarding

.o rent

r,;n~

to persons
party

~2ith~r

a party

to the

3- d litigation,

Boyd is

likely

r.o affect

to this

issue.

O~DE1ED th2t
appropriate
further

the

receiving

of

public

to the present
the

ultimate

actioh

law with

Accordingly,

the

agree,

r party

may apply

modification
developments

parties

of this

in the

to this

Order

is

decision

controlling

2ith

the

obligation

in

respect
and it

Court

in the

is

for

light

of

litigation.

Boyd

WIFE'S INCOME

1974, 42 U.S.C.

In August,
prohibit

discrimination

as that
P~ior

based

by New York

in housing

on race,

to that

income

equally

mining

whether

the

pay the

rent

on sex,

in violation
the

which preceded
the

partially.
to this
officers,

has

course

August,

it

in deter-

capacity

discrimination

to

based

3604.
in this

indicated

1
,..,.::.:2
s incc:::e

t:..,

action,

1974 amendment to the Fair

capacity
whether

to eliminate

employees.and

a lack

it

Housof cer-

,;,;ras cc:..1.ate:d in

to pay the

r2nt,

was counted

any doubt

is ORDEREDthat

- 6 -

..

husband

financial

defendants

at all,

In order

agents,

the

origin.

to consider

of her

.~ t

was prohibited

of depositions

an applicant's

question,

that

unlawful

individual

if it was counted

or national

refusal

of 42 U.S.C.

th,::r

determining

with

family

the

on sex as well

sex discrimination

constitutes

During

based

reli~ion

A landlord's

wife's

ing Act,

color,

amendment,
law.

3604 was amended to

with

defendants,

successors,

and,

fully

or

respect
their

and all

those

in active
of them,

are

to give
wife
.\

concert

full

or participation

with

permanently

enjoined

and 2qual

consideration

in d2teroining

the

rente.l

them or with

from failing

any

or refusing

to th2 iuccme

qualifications

of a

of a married

:~

- ~,.::

couple

or the

capacity

of that

couple

to pay the rent.

ASSUMPTIONOF RESPONSIBILITY BY PRINCIPALS

AND TRAINING PROGRAMFOR AGENTSAND EMPLOYEES

Trump Management ,Inc.

rental

units

therefore

tunities.

The individual

can,

own agents

The Fair

Housing

in its

and elsewhere,

a major

in the

impact

influence

Act prohibits

as well

The individual

defendants

not

and
only

'

of many others.

which

is

of motivation,

of the Act can result

of information,

community

but also

oppor-

occupy

the activities

conduct

regardl2ss

on housing

estate

of

and its

therefore

real

and employees

effect,

many thousands

defendants

example,

of their

tions

have

of. leadership

by their

tory

New York area

activities

position
,., '-t,

in the

controls

discrimina-

and viola-

from thoughtlessness

as from deliberate

and lack

discrimination.

... J

the

responsibility

agents

area

to assure

and employees

mote equal

housing

A.

They are

and to take

Defendants

it

they

have both

nondiscrimination

opportunity

Accordingly,

..., 1

that

,and a significant

and elsewhere.

responsibility

recognize

opportunity

generally
prepared

advantage

by their
to pro-

in the New York

to carry

of t~at

out

that

opportunity.

is ORDEREDas follows:
Fred

C. Trump and Donald

Trump

'

shall

forthwith

- 7 .-

......~~if"f*

ifJ!,f"

-..-'!-..,.,_.~-

- ..-,-~

...~. ..........-,~-..

........ ~-~-\I"-~ ......

(1)

thoroughly

acquaint

on a detailed

basis

the Fair

1968,

as amended;

under

state

civil

rights

laws;

and under
(2)

this

to assure

and officers

themselves

with

are

shall

principal

familiarize
and

to assure

forth

conduct

employees

information

herein

that

the

is success-

applications

of this

and complete
with rental
with

to the public

an edu-

or employprospective

about

for rentals,

rental,
or who

in any manner in the employmentprocess,

inform them of the provisions

ducies

their

obligations;

who have contact

or process

engaged

set

shall

ment responsibilities,

or accept

agenc~es;

(30) days of the entry

for all

provide

und~r the Fair

and

out.

the defendants

tenants,

of Housing

similarly

their

program

thirty

program

Regulations

appropriate

that

undertake

carried

Within

pertinent

and other

assistants

fully

and municipal

Order;

Take steps

training

Housing Act of

of the Department

(3)._Personally

cational

under

personally

of the obligntions

under

Urban Development

Decree,

with all

o.c the defendants

and Guidelines

B.

themselves

of this

~ousing

Decree,

Act of 1968.

to

and their
Such program

include:
(1)

Furnishing

a letter

to each such agent

summar?~ing

and of the Fair

the terms

of this

Housing Act as it

the employee.
- 8 -

and employee
Decree

applies

to

(2)

Informing
person

or

visions

each such agent

and employee,

seeting,

by ~ener2l

of the pro-

of this

Decree

and of duties

of the

Company and its

agents

and employees

under

'

the various

applicable

Each such agent

that

his

disobedience

(c)

Securing

such agent

tioned

shall

subject

disciplinary

for

a signed

the provisions

and to sanctions

order.
statement

he has read

above and received

warding

be advised

him to dismissal

action,

of this

that

described

shall

to comply with

Decree

or other

Housing Acts.

and employee

fai\ure

of this

Fair

from each

the letter

men-

the instructions

in the preceding

paragraph

a copy of. each such signed

and for-

'

statement

to plaintiff.
Each new agent
accordance

and employee

with

the procedures

to sign

a statement

been so instructed

and will

required

within

ten

(10)

ment.

Copies

to plaintiff

set

signed

be instructed

out above and shall

to the effect
comply with

days following

of all

shall

be

he has

such instructions

the initial
statements

that

in

will

date

of employ-

be furnished

upon exec~tion.
III

AFFIRMATIVE
PROGRAM
It

~/

forthwith

is
take

further
the

ORDEREDthat
following

steps

the defendants
to adopt

shall

and implement

~/ The defendants'
obligations
to implement each provision
of this Order for affirmative
action shall begin ten (10)
days following
the entry of this Order, unless otherwise
s p 0. c i f i c d h -~n: in
- 9 -

an affirmative
the

program

F2ir' Housing

effects

Act of 1968,

of any previous

had the p~rpose

the Fair
A.

compliance

and at overconing

cf i~pairing

with

the

s by the defendants

~ct

or effect

Housing

rights

which

secured

by

Act:

Notification
to the Community of Defendants'
Nondiscriminatory
Policy
Notify

1.

Metropolitan

the

Area,

plaintiff
dants

aimed at ensuring

that

apartments

to race,

Included

to all

color,

rental

standards

below,

and a general

religion,

of an appropriate

shall

buildings

to agree

c.

II

Subsequently,
zations,

defendants

mail

named above a copy of its

of vacancies

described

This mailing

shall

2.
approved

shall

Post
by the

i~fr~

weekly

Secretary

Central

IV of this

in Part

fair

of groups.)

to each of the organi-

be done on the day the

and maintain

on the text

mailing.

on identities
II

IV,

and anticipated

agree

to its

b.

of the

in the New York

shall

prior

defen-

origin.

in Part

of present

for

without

synopsis

outlined

The parties
letter

persons

be a full

statement

(Parties

a.

to counsel

sex or national

and procedures

Area.

copies

qualified

in Trump apartment

Metropolitan

with

in the New York

owned or managed by the

in such letter

vacancies

groups

in writing,

are available

regard

following

housing

of the Department
- 10 -

"'

,,...

,t, . - ..,, ..

list
~igns

Listing
decree.

is made.
in a form

of Housing

k/
and Urban De; .~.::ipm2nt (F .. J)

dants

where
3.

forming
natory

-re

The defendants

Include,

telephone
other

media,

:~,-
~..

..-~

.-

'

,-

brochures,

literature

the words

and the
logo

-. .. '"""""'
._.:,'"''..,
..-
r

'f

fair
shall

"Equal

practices

advertising

guidelines,

Allocate

advertising

all

advertising

agents

shall

recommended

of Housing

{b)

Opportuni-

and

Department

"B" to this

Housing

placed

Company or its

guidelines

promotional

be prominently

by the

of these

signs,

words

placed

6700-02,

and

These

In addition,

pp.

television,

logo.

legible.

form to the

in newspapers,

and other

housing

~/

ir,-

nondiscrimi-

billboards,

easily

Reg.,

ai:::ed at

shall

radio,

and on all

defen-

contact.

advertising,

directories,

and the

in all

pamphlets,

ties"

or public

co::i.r:iunTty of defendants'

policy.
(a)

of the

adv2~-tis in:; prograo

2:1,

nom:hit-2

rental

offices

re~- ?l activity

is

I::-..}.(:::;:ent

the

in all

con-

in the

and Urban Development

in 37 Fed

as published

on April
is

1, 1972.

attached

A copy

as Appendix

Order.
a reasonable
budget

proportion

to advertising

*I See the pertin~nt

HUD regulation,
attached
hereto
as Appendix A).

of their

in media

37 FR 33429 (a copy

**/

In radio and television

advertising,
the words "equal
housing
opportunities"
shall be used and shall be easily
audible.
- ll: -

.. ~,

...

_ ,.,.. ......... 1"'4';

directed
Rican

primarily

to the

co~.munities.

that

t~o rac

black

and Puerto

The parties

hly

display

have agreed

advertis0~2nts

in

::_I
the black
with

or Puerto

allocation

advertising
Spanish

budget
language

tisements

stations,
this

provision.

advertise

a full

give

to buildings

emphasis

Provide

association,
organization
as referral

written

engaged

by defendants
apartm2nt

qualified

persons

sex or national
advise

the

recipient

and procedures

!/

origin.

for

stress
with

or
sub-

""

or other

firm,

person

or

or any of them to act

service,

company that

def2ndants

are

regard

to race,

without

adver~

to each

locating

or management

owned or managed by the

All

not

notification

corporation,

company,

the

occupany.

company,

agency,

~eet

!!;.I

minority

and

cross-section

and shall

undue

radio

in minority

of Trump buildings,

stantial

checking

shall

of Trump buildings

shall

together

to black-oriented

".C

4.

press,

of 10% of defendants'

requirements'of

media

Rican

apartments

available

to all

color,

Each such notification

of defendants'

credit

objective

religion,
shall

also

standards

rental.

The parties
agree that
tisements
in the Amsterdam
satisfy
this requirement.

the placement
of such adverNews and El Diario will

**/

If the listed
apartments
do not include
all Trump
buildings,
the buildings
listed
shall be rotated
with
each ad so that the same apartment
buildings
are not
continuously
advertised
under this subsection.

.'
- 12 -

-:

~.
.
I : .'.
'

B.

Prograr:1 of Providing
Apart~ent
Seekers

Listings

for :rinoritY:

er the
.until'further
notify

150 Fifth
fifth

tenancy

days prior
During

this

After

three

Center
ment,

to placing

that

apartment

day period

the

days ii

to race,

normal

to place

and profe
qualified

employees

religion,
blacks
ion~l

apartment.

applic2nt

referred

on the open market

to be

custom without
origin.

Program
recruit,

sex or national

positions

by the

the apart-

sex or national

and agents

and other

to rent

shall
to the

the

business

E~olovm2nt
shall

applicants

seeking

religion,

The defendants

three

on the open market.

of renting

no qualified

color,

at least

qualified

may be placed

regard

Affirmative

percent,

an application

in defendants'

build-

the Open Housing Center

to refer
purpose

of

which has a

:;I

three

or

10003,

in each apartment

ten

rented

color,

New York,

than

the apartment

and transfer

shall

managed by the defendants

has filed

C.

defen~ants

New York,

of less

for

O~dcr,

of the NeK York Urban

apartment

have the opportunity

, ,,,"",defendants

Court,

Center

Avenue,

available

ing owned and/or

black

of this

the Open Housing

League,
every

Order

of this

nonwhite

hire,

assign,

promote

without

regard

to race,

and will

endeavor

origin

persons

as vacancies

iJr

in

supervisory

which th2y are

arise.

!/

The requirements
of this provision
need not be followed
for apartment
buildings
which pre:.scntly have or in the
future reach a black occupancy rate of 10%. For these
apartment
buildings,
apartments
shall continue to be rented
without regard to race, color,
religion,
sex or national
origin.

- 13 -

'

Pursuant

1.
newspaper

Place
that

program,

the defendants

acvertise8ents
prfr:arily

on a regular

serves

the black

shall

basis

in a

cornmunity de-

!!_/
the available

scribing

2.
able

'

to this

jobs

3.

Prominently
the

Display

4.

..

employment

clearly

Part

(c) of this

sex or national

employment

shall

for

poster

agents,

in each office

employment

each labor

reg~rd

'!!I

opportunity
to prospective

and that

without

of avail-

Employer."

are

of

taken.

~nion whose mem-'

work fore~

Decree

of the terms

prospective

to race,

of

employees

color,

religion,

employees,

the

origin.

In recruiting

tions

for

of defendants'

to be referred

defendants

visible

in writing,

part

are

an equal

where applications

Notify

advertising

Opportunity

and applicants

b2rs are
III

in all

"Equal

place

the defendants

J... :,

include

slogan

in a prominent
employees,

work opportunities.

not

and hiring
require

for any job or position

which were in effect

with

nonwhite

that

they

possess

more exacting

respect

to white

qualifica-

than

those

employees

before

the

institution

of this

2ction.
IV

In order

assignment

to assure

oE tenants

nondiscriminatory

and to assure

equal

select:bn

and

opportunity

in

!!_I The part:;s

agree that the placement of such advertisements in the Amsterdam News and El Diario will satisfy
this
requiremento

:!::!:.IThis poster

shall be in the form, size and prominence

approved by the United States Department of Labor and the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Cormniss ion.
- 14 -

.... . ... :r

\.
&

housing

at each building

or any of them,
the

follo~ing
A.

defendants
standards

shall

and implement

procedures:

-and

Incooe

One week's
at least

equal

. . , ~- (2)

gross

current

salary

to cne month's

'!:_/
sources must be

from all
rent

Occupancy

(Deftndants

to make a proposal

based

on their

standards.)

**I

B.

Procedures
1.

Application

a.

Anplications

the apartment
applying

for

Procedure
for

building

tenancy

an apartment.

fendants

applications,

requirements
42

accepted

of this

3601 et

from all

intendent
acceptability

Order

--

u.s.c.

or agent

be received

Applications

or rental

to accept

will

or complex where the

by Superintendents

1968,

adopt

Standards
(1)

owned or managed by defendants

persons
shall

agents

shall

wishing

to apply

make no subjective

of a prospective

by the de-

and instructed

Applications

is

be received

authorized

and of the Fair

:=:ea.

tenant

at

in the

Housing Act of
shall

be

and the
judgment

tenant.

superon the

~/ This shall include

alimony,
child sup~ort,
welfare
payments, wife's
income, etc.
The parties
recognize
that
the validity
of this requirement
may be affected
by appellate decisions
in Ro~i v. Lcfr2k,
su~r~.
Either party may
apply for a modification
or revision
of this provision
in
the light of future
u_valopments
in that case.

::!:_/ These procedures

tices,
as described

are based on defendants'

during. discovery.

past

prac-

- 15.:

,_,.T
,_
'.

b.

The iuperint~ndent

the application
security

for

agents

substitute

shall

tion,

corr.pletQness

of on2 ~~nt~'s

d2po;it

r~asonable

for

or rental

then

review

submit

and shall
rent

th2refor)

agent

the deposit,

to make a determination

described

A11 hereto

Applications

of acc2pcaoility

for

informed

tenancy.

Hall,
Central

Providing
Seekers

a.

Defendants

at 2611 l{2st
Avenue,
Hall,

York area,
or available

vacant

as

be conducted

with

and a determina-

shall

for

Rental
shall

be informed

within

five

or not he or she has been acthe applicant

rejection,

maintain

Brooklyn,

at their

central

New York and

and at Highlander

and Lawrence

on a weekly

expected

Gardens,

basis,

apartment

Ln the New York area within

- 16 -

specific

to Aoartment

New York,

or available

be

to meet.

Brooklyn,

Gardens

shall

and of the

Information

2nd Street,

Patio

Managers

main offices.

and of each apartment

check

be reviewed

Lis ~-:g, to be compiled

each curren~_v

on the accept-

which he has failed

2.

Edgerton

shall

If rejected,

standard

2064 Cropsey

shall

11 be macie by the Section

days whether

of the r2ason

objective

offices

Each applicant

(5) business
cepted

shall

in the defendants'

e.

agent

employed

or rental

and employment

11

to each applicant
d.

tion

credit

in Appendix

respect

The

of an applicant.

A uniform

c.

applicants.

to one of the defendants'

have the authority

tenancy

(o=

W2 form and applica-

No superintendent

for

and a ~2 fo~n

two main offices.

ability

revi2w

require

from all

and determination

shall

of

in the New

to be vacant
the next

thirty

This

days.
the

list,

the

and shall

be shor.m to all

apartments.

each of their
vacant

and date

wqich are

agent

also

about

maintain

at

of the apartments

available

for rental

list

interested

of the

Jnquirers

qualifications

d2posit

inquiring

list

availability

be shown to all

c.

nvail-

of

building.

Apartments

authorized

shall

similar

on the apartment

shall

of apartment,

persons

Defendants

buildings~

at that
b.

listed

type

r2nt,

available

.. .,.

include

. ability

.;

shall

(2(a)

inquiriers

and

above)

by an

defendants.

shall

be uniformly

for rental,

including

informed

of the

the income,

security

and W2 form requireQcnts,

No waiting

d.

defendants'

offices

be on a first-come,
are available

for

list

will

be maintained

or apartment

buildings.

first-served

basis

at any of
Rental

will

when apartments

rental.
V

REPORTINGREQUIREHEi'.1TS
It
the

entry

per year
serve

is

further.ORDERED

of this

Decree,

the defendants

on counsel

the following

tor

information

owned and/or

buildings

1.

Arovlc

2.

Westminster

3.

Fountainbleu

/:;;).;

that

three

and thereafter
shall

file

pi2i~tiff

for

months

(3)

three

(3)

with

the Court

a r

ort

the following

after
times

and

cont2inin;
apartment

managed by the defendants:

Hall
Hall
Apartments

- 17 -

r---

4.

Lawrence

Gard2ns

5.

Sea L;le

art:n.=~ts

60

Beachhaven

;.partm2nts

7.

Shorehaven

Apartments

8.

Belcrest

9.

Highlander

Apartments
Hall

10.

Saxony Hall

11.

Clyde Hall

12.

Edgerton

13.

Winston

14.

.Sussex

15.

Oakdale

Apartments
Hall
Hall
Aoartments

(Norfolk,

a.

and Lawrence Towers

Virginia)

in person

about

the availability

apartment

during

the preceding

number by race,

!/

!I

The number of persons,

by race,
or terms
reporting

making inquiry
of rental

period

of an

and the

that:

1.

made inquiry;

2.

were offered

3.

i _led out an application;

an application;

As visually

observable.

- 18

'

. -F---'l
'
.. t'1
,..

!.

4.

submitted

::>.

~2~2

accept~~

6.

were

rejected;

7.

withdrew

8.

had

. .1
b.
submitted
the

an applicant

ior

applications;
pending

reporting

period.

A report

reflecting

following

deposit;

accupa~cy;

applications

during

with

the

the

preceding

information

at

the

of

applications

reporting

for

end

each

the

for

period,

person

tenancy

including

submitted

an ap-

plication:
1.

_name,

address,

number,

and

2.

cot2

application;

3.

whether

4.

date

5.

weekly

of

notified

-~~,
~

For

of

sought;

6.

if

accepted,

apartm2nt

7.

if

rejected,

reason

8.

name

each

if

p~rson

rejection;

and monthly

rent

chosen;

persons
the

accepted

nonwhite

or

therefor;

or

reject

neither

rejected

received;

applicant

apartment

9.

...-.'

was

of

or

hqrne telephone

of acceptance

income

of

and

race;

a deposit

accept

. .J

business

who decided

to

application;
nor

rejected,

applicant,

the

of

the

reason(s)

during

the

status

report

shall

....

include
tion

a detailed
and

c.
quarter,

supporting
A list
including

statement

for

rejec-

information.
of vacancies
the

date

the

apa::~ent

preceding

Ln

was placed

- 19 -

I
J_,,,
__.,_,._.
_________
-...
_:__
~----..
.,..........,

......

,, :"

..... ~.'tf -

'

~' .

'

. - -- f"'T7
~

:_I
the

market

oci2rKise

and the

Reports

also

include

the

race

of tenants

the

program
1.

Copies

2.

of all

and III

checking

of this

advertisement

matn office
entry

to implement

above,

companies,

including:

Fair

pursuant

to

Decree.
of all

since

the

was placed,

race,

newspaper
entry_ of this
in which

and the

position

rental

agent,

e~ployee
of this

educational

this

st2ps

date

advertisement.

The name,

ments

of the

to apartment

unions

copi2s
placed

ment of each

the

sent

to the

m,med or

period

the name of ea.ch newspaper

of each
3.

letters

shall

resp2ct

I 2nd II

and labor

advertisements

the

reporting

R2pr2s2ntative

Order,

with

and an account

in Sections

groups,

II

or

Order

apartr:-,:.:1t building

and credit

Ho~~ing

to this

statistics

preceding

outlined

Parts

pursuant

defendants,

locators

.4 1

fi~ed
current

the

was r~nted

rental.

in each

managed by the
during

each apartment

fer

cc~~itt2d

d.

'taken

date

obtained
Decreeo

superintendent

and

as of the

an assurance

required

in accordance
If

assign-

employed

Ord2r,

program

and office

any r~ntal

by Part

with
agent

date

that

of
the

I has

Part
refuses

I of
to

..
"!;_/ Includin:-:;
Center
ability

where appropriate,
was contacted
conc~rning
in accordance
with Part

- 20 -

the date the Open Housing

the apartments'
availII above.

sign

such a statement

includ2

a full

the defendanLS

st3t~=~nt

circumstances

all

of

and of any action

in relation

shall

rtiacnt
taken

by them

thereto.

VI
RECORDKEEPING
PROVISIONS

IT IS FURTHERORDEREDthat
'

three

years

preserve

following

the

the

following

entry

the defendant
of this

records

for all

shall

Decree,

for

make and

apartment

buildings

owned or managed by them:

1.

The name,

and time of contact

about
therein,

address,

of each person

th2 availability

::.I

the

size

telephone

or terms

of apartment

number and date

inquiring

of an apartment

ofrental
sought,

in person

if known, and

whether:

2.
inquiry

he was offered

B.

he filled

C.

he submitted

A detailed

and application

3.
defendants
of

A.

such steps

out an application;
an applicati:m

record

of all

with

action

and the reasons

A detailed

record

in ascertaining

applicant

an application;

of all
the

taken

for

steps

deposit.
on each

such action

taken

acceptability

by the

for

tenancy

or who approved

or rejected

the application.

~/ This may be accomnlished

by mnintaing a guest register
at each apartment
building
Otrned by the defendants.

- 21 -

" .. ,

i-,_.. -r-r,,ptt,

'''""1.;-,_:~,..r~-_,~.,..
-,+-,-,,.~--""""""""""
t

4.
any of

under

All

records

the information
this

er.

be permitted

the source

pertinent

to defendants'

Re?~ese~t3tives

to inspect

the defendants.at
however,

which are

that

and copy all

any and all

the plaintiff

inconvenience

of

to the defendants

or contain
obligations

pla

the

pertinent

reasonable
shall

of,

ti~es,

endeavor

tiffs

11

records

of

provided,

to minimize

from the inspection

any

of

such recordso
VII

It
three

is further

years

shall,

from the entry

at least

to counsel
1.

residential

for

twenty

of this

for a period
Decree,

days prior

(20)

extending

the defendants

to the

event,

report

the plaintiff:

Any new mmership

property,

2.
ownership

ORDEREDthat

or management interests

acquired

The divestment
or management

by the

through
interests

in

defenda~ts.

transfer

or sale,

in residential

of any

property.

VIII
Each party

for

all

shall

bear

its

The Court

shall

retain

purposes

until

the

ORDEREDTHIS

own costs.

jurisdiction

termination

day of

of this
of this

apply for and

entry of this

For the Defendants:

Order.

, 1975.

EDI.JARD2-~r:.~.~.:Z
United States District
The undersigned
consent to the
Order:

action

Judge
..f

For the Plaintiff:

~-_,1,__,-,f------"".".
~-
~--'

..........

_,....,"'""'~':"-::0---

. !

'

I..

'!Ii' ..

i
I

INJUNCT~ON

I
!
!

It
their

is

officers,

active

7.

see

Engaging

protected
shall

not,

any person,
fully

support

count

and all

any of them,

appended

or practice

or abridging
Fair

defendantp,

persons

are

family,
a woman's

or other
total

or other

right

Act.

the

has

in

hereby

group

purpose

or the

to equal

housing

opportunity!

connection,

qualification

of persons,

income,

A.

the

In this

income

income

as Attachment

which

the

Housing

in determining

payments

with

Decree,

in any act

by the

successors,

the

from:

Proposed

of denying

effect

employees,

or participation

enjoined
the

ORDERED, ADJUDGEDAND DECREED that

agents,

concert

permanently
1-6

hereby

including

from whatever

for
fail
salary,
source

defendants
rental

of

or refuse

to

wages,

received.

alimony,!

II
I
I

I
I
!

1,;-!

~Ii
Ii

...
IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTFOR
THE EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Vo

FRED Go TRUMP,et al.

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTIONNO. 73 CIV 1529

PIAINTIFF'S PROPOSED
LIST OF WITtmsszs

In accorc1ance with the Order of the Cour~, the United

States

submits

the following

names of persons

expected

to be called

include

the names of any rebuttal

called
it

to rebut

include

as witnesses.

testimony

may be called

as adverse

This list
wit~esscs

by defendants'

any of defendants'

who are

officers

cloes not
who may be

witnesses

nor does

or managing agents

who

witnesseso

Walter Abramson, an official

of the City of NewYork

Commission on Human Right:;, or some

otheragent
authentic~te,
recordso
Susan Ber:i.stein
Beverly

Best

Kalman Biczo
Saul Blate

Mae Brown
Maxine Brown

of that

agency to

if necessary,

certain

Ronald and Agnes Bunn

Stephanie

Bush

BarbarA Campbell,~

York Times Reporter,

New

another
press

reporter
conference

announced
million

present

or
at the

at which defend2..nts'

the filing

of a $100

counterclaimo

James Chestnut
Solomon Cohen, an agent

of the Division

Rights,
other

State
agent

record:,

of NewYork, or some
of that

authenticate,

agency to

if necessary,certain

Peter Connan
Terrence

Cox

David DeReinzus
Henrietta

Davis

Jack Fogler
Edwardo Galdnmes
.Annette

Gandy

Monique Golden
Elyse Goldweber
Adolpho Gomez (testified
Allan

by deposition)

Gross

Charles
Robert

Hall
Echmrd Harris

l!

Lorraine

of Human

Haynes

Rick a:1d GC'mm~Helms

Donald Herman
- 2 -

''

Betty

Roeber

Alfred
Godfrey

and Sheil~

Hoyt

J0.cobs

Pritthinelln

Johnson

George Sim Johnston

Phyllis

Kirschenbaum

Mro & Mrso Kenneth Laitman

New York Times

employee to verify
certain
(if

authe~ticity

p~ges of classified

defendants

to authenticity

unwilling

of
advertisements

to stipulate

of reproduction

of

those pages)
Carl Nickelson
Dorothy

Orr

Paul and Hope Rudder

Muriel

Salzman

Ruth S2.rver

Mrso Harry Schefflin

Michael
Muriel
Pnyllis

Scott
Silberberg
Spiro

Ralph Stein
James Gordon White
Respectfully

submitted,

FMNK E.

SCir.'1ELB
NORl!Al: P. GOLDI3E:-:.G
Dm-:?:AGOLDSTED!

j
.1

l1

Attorneys,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Dc-p1..1,.
...-'"-~1
...
,....r. Js
...~ cc
t....h4~1.
'-'
U
Washington, Do C. 20530
\.,JJ..

'

L,..J,..

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE

!hereby
of the foregoing
were served

certify

that

Plaiatiff's

on counsel

on January
Proposed

for defendants

, 1975, copies
List

of Witnesses

by hand:

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 Eo. 68th StreAt
New York, New York 10021

NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Departm~nt of Justice
Washington, Do Co 20530

"

APPENDIXB
IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE
EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA, )
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 73 C 1529

)
)
)

>
'
)

v.

TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)

_________
This
,

.I

America
of 1968,

action

on October
42 U.S.C.

defendant

was instituted
15, 1973,

pursuant

alleges

and practice

making dwellings

of

Housing
that

Act
the

of discrimination

Act of 1968 by refusing

Housing

and by otherwise

States

to the Fair

Plaintiff

in a pattern

cf the Fair

dwellings

by the United

3601 .!:;! ~

has engaged

in violation

PROPOSEDCONSENT
ORDER

unavailable

to rent
to black

persons

on account

3604(a);

dwellings
ation

and color,

by discriminating

of dwellings
3604(b);

of race

because

by making
which

based

and by representing

of race
statements

indicate

on race

in the

terms

and color
with

a preference,

and color
to persons

dwellings

were not available

dwellings

were in fact

in violation

and conditions
in violation

respect

on account

so available,

inspection

of rental
of 42 U.S.C.

to the rental

limitation

in violation

for

of 42 U.S.C.

and discrimin-

of 42 U.S.C.
of race

3604(c);

and color

and rental

in violation

of

that

when such

of 42 U.S.C.

I
i

3604(d).

Stripped

to its

States

is that

failad

and neglected

essentials,

the defendant

the claim

and its

of the United

principal

officers

have

to exercise

delegable

duty under

the Fair

by certain

of their

subordinates,

housing
that

opportunity

certain

out their

under

these

the number of violations

and that

that

incidents

of discrimination

residing

in Trump apartment

affirmatively

to assume qnd carry

and will
United

that

promote
States

of a consent

their

employees

equal

opportunity.

is prepared

that

in most. ~rump

claim

that

insubstantial,

period

only a few

of fourteen

number of blacks

- 2 -

presently
of the

officers

of

are now prepared

out the responsibility

will

to resolve

decree.

years

Irrespective

the principal
Inc.,

of

Moreover,

has alleged

.however,

Trump Management,

assuring

is

and

to carry

contends

Defendants

buildings.

defendant

for

equal

re~iding

corporation.

are a significant

of the complaint,

Plaintiff
presently

over.a

there

'

have failed

agents

plaintiff

and that

merits

that

was not done at the direction

of the d_efendant

contends

compliance

to a number of persons

the Act.

by their

defendant

the result

allegations.

any discrimination

the principals

with

number of blacks

supports

and non-

Act to assure

.subordinates

of defendant's

the insubstantial

affirmative

Housing

has been denied

obligations

buildings

their

comply with
Accordingly,
this

case

the Act
the

by the entry

INJUNCTION
It is hereby

ORDERED,ADJUDGED
ANDDECREEDthat

the

,.

defendant.,
persons

its

officers,

in active

are hereby

agents,

concert

permanently

employees,

or participation

enjoined

successors

and all

with any of them,

from:

GENERALINJUNCTIVEPROVISIONS
Refusing

1.

the sale

or rental

any dwelling

of,

Discriminating

conditions,

or privileges

because

of services

of race,
3.

color,

Making,

made, printed,

color,

of race,

against

any person

of sale

or rental

religion,

l
i1

religion,

printing,

fact

or denying
religion,.

sex or national

any notice,

Representing

origin

sale

therewith,

to be

or advertisethat

or discrimination
origin,

based

or an intention

or discrimination.

to any person

sex or national

or causing

of a dwelling

sex or national

or in

origin.

statement

or rental

limitation,

religion,

in the terms,

that

or rental

because

of race,

any dwelling

color,

is not avail-

when such dwelling

is in

so available.

1.

5.

for

of a dwelling,

or _publishing,

to the sale

able for inspection,

color,

in connection

to make such preference,.limitation

4.

to negotiate

making unavailable

or facilities

any preference,

on race,

refusing

on account

or published,

ment with respect

indicates

or rent,

origin.

2.

the provision

or otherwise

to any person

sex or national

to sell

account

Influencing

of race,

the residential

color,

religion,

choice

of any person

sex or national

origin.

- 3 -

--w!'.~

"""'*-4-4kl!"O"Ac,..,
___
,.,._!'IIIPlllll!!,-..----~4+1'!lf:.?(,...A
,...,
'~'?'"l'!'l!!.f*'!"13!2"!":i'""'"---.-.:,Wffiutfi1Ji;
01 11<>1 ZMll%$;4ibiSM4,+?lf'l'N
,. 0

\,1111'--..

MW'.lfii!il,P,

on

6.
attempting

Coercing,

threatening,

to coerce,

threaten

, in the exercise
opp~r.tunity

protected

the exercise
secure

or enjoyment

or enjoyment

Engaging

or the effect

or interfere

with,

or

with any person

of the right

by the Fair

equal housing
7.

or interfering

to equal housing

Housing Act of 1968, or in

of the right

to assist

others

to

opportunity.
in any act or practice

of denying

opportunity

protected

connection,

defendants

or a.bridging

by the Fair
shall

which has the purpose

the right

to equal housing

Housing Act.

no~

In this

in determining
,,,.

the income qualification

for rental

other

group of persons,

fail

total

income,

salary,

including

ments or other

of any person,

or refuse to fully
wages,

income from whatever

count

alimony,

source

family,

support

or

a woman's
pay

received.

II

ASSUMPTION
OF RESPONSIBILITYBY
PRINCIPALSOF TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC. , ANDTRAININGPROGRAM
FOR
AGENTSANDEMPLOYEES
Trump Management Inc.,
units

in the New York area

therefore

occupies

community and can,

not only of its

The Fair

in its

ma~y thousands

and elsewhere,

have a major impact on housing

company therefore
estate

controls

own agents

a-position
by its

effect,

Act can result

regardless

example,

conduct

influence
but also

The
in the real
the activities

of many others.

which is discriminatory

of motivation,

from thoughtlessness

activities

opportunities.

of leadership

and employees

Housing Act prohibits

and its

of rental

and violations

and lack

of the

of information,

as

- 4 -

I
I
f~~

h :-\c@i_lD,.:.~+;:;a!4

4~

i&#,414

fl..,.

f/-41iW,

Al#

A~:i*':"

'*"'!- 4

t _;t;acww

nc44

4iOJ,lJ,,4?,.,04.#i fPS 4"'1?t

t
I

well

as from deliberate

discrimination.

of Trump Management,

to assure

responsibility
employees

generally

are prepared

of that

A.

opportunity

out that

ti

it

housing

and elsewhere.

They

and to take

is ORDEREDas follows:
officers

of Trump Management,

acquaint
with

the defendant

under

the Fair

all

as amended and as judicially

and municipal

civil

Regulations

appropriate

assistants

and officers

themselves

with their

(3) Personally
training
carried
B.

program

laws;

under
of the

and Urban Development

and under
that

similarly
obligations;

undertake
set

under

forth

this

their

Order;

principal

familiarize
and

to assure
herein

and

that

the

is successfully

out.

Within

the Defendant

rights

to assure

of

Housing Act of 1968,

interpreted;

agencies;

(2) Take steps

personally

of the obligations

and Guidelines

of Housing

Inc.,

forthwith

themselves

basis

other

and

equal

responsibility

on a detailed

pertinent

agents

to promote

Donald Trump and Fred C. Trump shall

Department

its

thirty
principal

(30) days of the entry

officers

- 5 -

r-----.._.------~~I

by their

the

opportunity.

The principal

state

officers

they have both

nondiscrimination

(1) thoroughly

that

in the New York area

to carry

Accordingly,

presently

recognize

and a significant

opportunity

advantage

Inc.,

The principal

shall

of this

conduct

and

Decree,

complete

an educational

program for all

or. employment responsibilities,

spective
rental,

tenants,

provide

or accept

are engaged

employees

who have contact

information

or process

with rental
with pro-

to the public

applications

about

for rentals,

in any manner in the employment process,

them of the provisions

of this

Decree,

and their

or who
to inform

duties

under

the Fair

Housing Act of 1968.

(1} Furnishing

a letter

shall

to each such agent

summarizing

of the Fair

Such program

the terms

Housing Act as it

include:

and employee

of this
applies

Decree

and

to the

employee.
(2} Informing
in person
of this

each such agent

or by general

and employee,

meeting,

Decree and of duties

of the provisions

of the Company and

I

its

agents

and employees

applicable

Fair

under

the various

Housing Acts.

Each such agent

I

and employee

shall

to comply with

shall

subject

plinary

action,

of this

Order.

the provisions

preceding

a signed

such signed statement

failure
Decree

or other

disci-

for disobedience

statement

the letter

the instructions

paragr?ph

his

of this

and to sanctions

he has read

and received

that

him to dismissal

(3} Securing

agent that

be advised

from each such

mentioned

described

and forwardirig

above

in the

a copy of each

to plaintiff.
- 6 -

,i )C.nt,t,,A

i 4

4W

4PM4i

JQMCS

UCl(i.

0: _SUSA,

.... ;;;

a 4,

ti>\.

Zl.J#,,#iifDAiAPf.i,Pf!W4f.!

.J$0S

Each new agent

accordance
required

and employee shall

with the procedures

to sign

so instruc.ted

a statement

and will

signed

to the effect

that

date

will

be

he has been

such instructions

the initial

statements

in

out above and shall

comply with

ten (10) days following

Copies of all

set

be instructed

within

of employment.

be furnished

to plaintiff

upon execution.
III

AFFIRMATIVEPROGRAM
It is further
take

the following

ORDEREDthat
steps

to adopt and implement

program aimed at ensuring

compliance

of 1968, and at overcoming

by the defendant

rights

,i

secured

A.

with

the effects

the Fair

or effect

Housing Act:

forthwith~/

an affirmative
Housing Act

of any previous

which had the purpose

by the Fair

shall

actions

of impairing

Notification
to the Community of Defendantis
Nondiscrimint:ory
Policy

1.

politan
that

the defendant

Notify

Area,

in writing,

apartments

to all

the following

qualified

in Part

synopsis

persons

to counsel

without

regard

to race,

for plaintiff
are available
color,

reli-

origin.

Included

in such letter

shall

of the rental

standards

and procedures

outlined

IV, below,

anticipated

with copies

in the New York Metro-

owned or managed by the defendant

gion~ sex or national

a fall

groups

and a general

vacancies

statement

in Trump apartment

York Metropolitan

area.

The parties

of an appropriate

letter

prior

to its

of present
buildings

shall

agree

be

and

in the New
on the tex~

mailing.

*/

The defendant 1 s obligations

to implement each provision
of this Order for affirmative
action shall begin ten (10)
days following the entry of this Order, unless otherwise
specified
herein.
- 7 -

!!!!Qt-!lll"!"!f0'!!'"~
"!"'.""''""'' -~ _...., .... -

.-----

... ~-...,...,...,..,..,.,...,.,_.,...,,...,

_____

,_!!E_O_www_.,..,
""'!JI!"!'.""'."".
---
"P,"J,

11'11!'4A-4&iiif_..
.....t""_C_il""!f
J!l!fl,i""'h""i
'l"l"OLU--------"""''*~'w;
__

__,,o..,..t4""'1'1,
-

a.

'

(Parties

to agree

b.

If

c.

II

'

Subsequently,

defendant

shall

named above a copy of its

described

infra

in Part

approved

Post

by the Secretary

is rental

Implement

3.

the nonwhite
policy.

Central
decree.

fair

papers,
and other

Include,

signs

of the Department
offices

or public

in a form

of Housing

and

of the defendant

program

where

at informing

nondiscriminatory

rental

shall
in all

advertising,.:.:~:/

telephone

directories,

radio,

media,

and on all

billboards,

pamphlets,

brochures,

literature

the words "Equal

and the fair

shall

contact.

community of defendant's

a.

of vacancies

This mailing

housing

an advertising

The defendant

Listing

is made.

(HUD)~/ in all
activity

of groups).

to each of the organizations,

IV of this

and maintain

Urban Development
there

mail

weekly

be done on the day the list

2.

on identities

housing

and other

logo.

*}

See the pertinent

HUD regulation,
attached
hereto as Appendix A).

in newstelevision,
signs,

promotional

Housing

Opportunities"

These words and the

37 F.R.

logo

33429 (a copy

**/ This subsection

dealing with newspaper advertising
shall
only apply to newspaper ads of six (6) lines or more.
Defendant
shall continue
its present
advertising
policies,
and shall not
to the size and type
change its present
practices
with respect
of advertising
by shortening
or by otherwise
changing its policy
of placing display
ads to avoid the requirement
of including
the equal opportunity
statement.
- 8 -

shall

be prominently

In addition,

all

Company or its
practices
Housing
lines,

agents

by the

conform

to the

in the Department

in 37 Fed.

Reg.,

1, 1972.

attached

as Append ix. "B 11 to this

communittes.
reasonably

a reasonable

together

prominent

with

ments

a full

Provide

company,

of its

in media
and Puerto

display

shall
All

in minority

that

press,~/

and

meet the require-

advertisements

of

advettise
with

undue emphasis

vacancies,
to buildings

occupancy.~/

notification

to act

two

Rican

media shall

or give

corporation,

Rican

advertisements,

of Trump buildings

written

by defendant

Order.

to black-oriented

minority

is

of 10% of defendant's

stations,

not stre~s

substantial

In radio
opportunities"

budget

cross-section

and shall
with

monthly

provision.

Trump buildings

guidelines

have agreed

the allocation

language
of this

pp. 6700-02,

and one in the Puerto

advertising

Spanish

4.

to advertising

The parties

guide-

proportion

to the black

one in the black

radio

A copy of these

primarily

of

advertising

on April

budget

legible.!/

placed

and Urban Development

as published

directed

*I

shall

recommended

advertising

engaged

and easily

advertising

(b) Allocate

tion,

placed

or other
as referral

and television
advertising,
shall be used and shall

to each firm,
person

associa-

or organization

agency,

apartment

the words "equal

be easily
audible.

housing

'!:!:._/ The parties

agree that the placement of such advertisements
the Amsterdam News and El Diario will satisfy
this requirement.

***/

If the listed
apartments
with vacancies,
the buildi.ngs
ad so that the same apartment
disproportionately
advertised

do not include all Trump buildings

listed
shall be rotated
with each
buildings
are not continuously
or
under this subsection.

- 9 -

in

locating

service,

company that

to all

color,

religion,

cation

shall

B.

also

owned or managed by the defendant

qualified

advise

origin.

Listings

after

Order of this

without

of defendant's

the entry

Court,

of this

Order,

or until

shall

notify

the Open

defendant

of every fifth

in each apartment

owned and/or

building

tenancy

days prior
,...in2t;;;,,
uu..a..

""

Center

shall

After three
Center

of less

to placing
thi~

'-

...

the apartment

an application

Avenue,

apartment

managed by the defenthan ten percent,'!../

that

apartment

to refer

for the purpose

may be placed

available

._._

of renting

days if no qualified

has filed

150 Fifth

+-hr''"'"'-day .,.....,.,..;
0~
t"''-'
........

have the opportunity

to the defendant

objective

for Minority

of the New York Urban League,

three

to race,

Each such notifi-

New York, New York, 10003,

at least

regard

for rental.

Program of Providing
Apartment Seekers

dant which has a black

persons

the recipient

and procedures

Housing Center

company, or management

sex or national

For two years

further

checking

apartments

are available

standards

credit

applicant
seeking

'

on the

t-b.o
Uonsina
.... JI,._. nnen
...,,.t"" ..
..... o

qualified

applicants

the apartment.
referred

to rent

on the open market

by the

the apartment,
to be rented

in

"

defendant's
color,
J,

I
!
!

j
j

normal business

religion,

custom without

sex or national

regard

to race,

origin.

*I The requirements of this provision need not be followed for

apartment buildings
which presently
have or in the future reach
a black occupancy rate of 10%. For these apartment buildings,
apartments
shall continue to be rented without regard to race,
color, religion,
sex or national
origin.
**/ The three day period

shall begin when notification

has been
completed and t1::e OpenHousing Center has received,
either
in
person or by mail, the listings.
For purposes of this Decree
rental
on the open market shall mean rental
to any person not
referred
by the Open Housing Center.
~

10 -

The defendant

shall

employees

and agents

transfer
r~lig~on,
blacks

recruit,

sex or national

and other

fessional

positions

without

origin

nonwhite

hire,

assign,

regard

and will

persons

to race,

endeavor

color,

to place

supervisory

in

as vacancies

promote and

and pro-

for which they are qualified

atise.+/
Pursuant

to this

the following

1.
papers

describing
2.
jobs

advertisements

primarily

serve

the available
Prominently

the slogan
3.

the defendant

shall

take

steps:

Place

that

program,

on a regular

the black

and Spanish

in newsconnnunity

work opportunities.~/
include

in all

"Equal Opportunity

Display

basis

an equal

advertising

of available

Employer."

employment opportunity

poster~/

..

in a prominent
employees,

place

clearly

and applicants

the defendant

visible

to prospective

agents,

for employment in each office

where applications

of

for employment are taken.

!I

References
to employees and agents in Part III C of this
Decree shall include only those persons who are presently
employed as or seek to be superintendents,
rental
agents,
leasing agents, or central
office personnel who receive,
review
or approve applications
for tenancy or otherwise participate
in the rental' process.

**I .The parties agree that the placement of such advertisements

Iii the Amsterdam News and El Diario will satisfy this requirement.

***I This poster

I
l

shall be in the form, size and.prominence

'approved by the United States Department of Labor and the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
.;. 11 -

I
l

4.
any part

. of this
without

Notify

in writing,

of defendant's

work force

Decree and that

prospective

regard

color,

to race,

In recruiting
dant shall
hired

each labor

possess

exacting

before

employees

are to be referred

employees,

persons

which were in effect

recruited

or
more

with respect

of this

origin.

the defen-

for any job or position

the institution

III(C)

sex or national

nonwhite

nonwhite

qualifications

than those

employees

that

of the terms of Part

religion,

and hiring

not require

union representing

to white

action.

IV

IMPLEMENTATION
OF OBJECTIVERENTAL
STANDARDS
ANDPROCEDURES
In order.to
assignment
housing
Inc.,

of tenants

defendant

shall

be applied

to an applicant

A.

selection

equal

and

opportunity

in

owned or managed by Trump Man~gemen~,

adopt and implement

and procedures.

shall

nondiscriminatory

and to assure

at each building

standards
that

assure

the following

The only standards

in determining

and procedures

whether

or not to rent

are as follows:

Standards
1.

Income

One week's
at l~ast

equal
2.

gross

salary

to one month's

from all

sources!_/

must be

rent.

Occupancy

l.

(Defendants

to make a proposal

based on their

current

standards.

!,/

This shall include alimony, child support,

public assistance payments, or guarantor's
assurances
on behalf of public
assistance
recipients,
wife's income, etc.

- 12 -

.......

-.--_,,_,

.,_,

...

ri

.......

,,

~---

...

'

Other Objective

3.

Within
defe~dant
rental,

fifteen

shall

Standards

(15) days ,of the entry

propose

to plaintiff

and uniform

procedures

qualifies

for rental,

applicant

including

and employment verification

mining

credit

stringent

and procedures

shall

Procedures

Application

a.

Applications
building

an apartment.

or rental
cations,

for

with plaintiff

and submitted

days of the entry

tenancy

will

of this

be received

or complex where the tenant

shall

authorized

Order.

shall

on the acceptability

from all
or agent

for

by Superintendents

by the defendant

be accepted

at the

is applying

be received

to accept

in the requirements

apply and the superintendent

judgment

for deter-

These standards

Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

.Applications

for

Procedure

and instructed

of the Fair

practices.

(30)

Applications

agents

procedures

an

'!:_/

1.

apartment

whether

for

to be based on and no more

past

thirty

Decree,

standards

arid standards

be negotiated

to the Court within

B.

all

than defendant's

objective

for determining

credit

worthiness,

of this

of this

appli-

Order and

3601 et~

persons
shall

wishing

to

make no subjective

of a prospective

tenant.

"

b.

The superintendent

application

for completeness

of one month's
therefor)

'!/

rent

from all

These procedures
as described
during

or rental
and shall

agent

shall

require

a security

and a W2 form (or reasonable

applicants.

The agents

are based on defendants'

discovery.

review

the
deposit

substitute

shall
past

then submit
practices,

- 13 -

r,,

the deposit,
mination

W2 form and application,

for review

to on~ of the defendant's

superintendent

or rental

make a determination

agent

and deter-

two main offices.

shall

No

have the authority

on the acceptability

to

for tenancy

of an

applicant.
Applications

c.

of acceptability

shall

in the defendant's

days whether

tenancy.

If rejected,

shall

Rental

a.

Defendant

shall

available

be informed
objective

Information

(5)
for
of the

standard

maintain

to Apartment

at their

Brooklyn,

central

New York, and at Highlander

on a weekly basis,
apartment

offices

New York and 2064 Cropsey

Gardens and Lawrence Gardens,

be compiled

five

to meet.

Providing
Seekers

Patio

within

shall

and of the specific

2.

Avenue, Brooklyn,

be informed

the applicant

at 2611 West 2nd Street,

Hall,

Managers employed

or not he or she has been accepted

for rejection,

which he has failed

and a determination

main offfces.

business

be reviewed

be made by the Section

Each applicant

d.

reason

shall

Hall,

a Central

of each currently

in the New York area,

Edgerton
Listing,

vacant

to

or

and of each apartment

"

expected

to be vacant

the next

thirty

apartment,

of availability

and shall

about available

apartments.

j
l

at that

buildings

in the New York area within

This list,

the number of rooms,

each of its
1

days.

or available

shall

include

the monthly rent,

be shown to all
Defendant

a similar

list

persons

shall

also

the type of
and the date
inquiring
maintain

of the apartments

at

vacant

building.

- 14 -

{
I

?;
I

'I

.,
\

Apartments

b.

on the apartment
to all

which are available

availability

interested

list

inquirers

for rental

(2(a)

above)

by an authorized

and listed

shall

agent

be shown

of the

defendant.
Inquirers

c.

fications

shall

for rental,

be uniformly

including

informed

the income,

of the quali-

security

deposit

and W2 form requirements.

d.

No waiting

defendant's

offices

any preference
Rental

will

list*/

will

or apartment

for persons

buildings

referred

be on a first-come,

ments are available

be maintained

at any of the

nor shall

by present

first-served

there

be

tenants.
basis

when apart-

for rental.
V

REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
It is further
entry

of this

for three
serve

years

I
l

the defendant

three

shall

for the plaintiff

(3) months after

file

(3) times

per year

with the Court and

a report

for the following

the

containing

apartment

the

buildings

managed by the defendant:

1.

Argyle Hall

2.

Westminster

3.

Fontainebleau

4.

Lawrence Gardens and Lawrence Towers

5.

Sea Isle

6.

Beachaven Apartments

~/ Since this
discriminatory,

three

and thereafter

information

owned and/or

1
i

Decree,

on counsel

'following

ORDEREDthat

Hall
Apartments

Apartments

is defendant's
present practice
and it is nonplaintiff
interposes
no objection
thereto.

- 15 -

7.

Shorehaven

8.

Belcrest

9.

Highlander

Apartments
Apartments
Hall

10.

Saxony Hall

11.

Clyde Hall

12 .. Edgerton

Apartments

13.

Winston Hall

14.

Sussex Hall

15.

Oakdale Apartments
Oceanaire Apartments
(Norfolk, Virginia)

a.

The number of persons,

person

about

thea,ailability

during

the preceding

race,!:.! making

by

of terms of rental

reporting

period

inquiry

in

of an apartment

and the number by race,

that:

1.

made inquiry;

2.

were offered

3.

filled

4.

submitted

5.

were accepted

6.

were rejected;

7.

withdrew

8.

had applications

b.

mitted

'

!.7

out an application;
an applicant

applications;
pending

period.

A report

reflecting

the preceding

information

As visually

with deposit;

for occupancy;

reporting

during

following

'

an applica~ion;

the applications
reporting

for each person

observable

.. l6 -

""--..
.........
~.,

~.,,.,

....-

at the encl of the

period,
submitted

for tenancy
including

the

an application:

sub-

1.

name, address,
number,

business

and home telephone

and race;

2.

date

of application;

3.

whether

4.

date notified

5.

weekly income of applicant

a deposit

was received;

of acceptance

sought;

6.

if accepted,

apartment

7.

if rejected,

reason

8.

name of person

9.

For each rejected

statement

supporting

information.

c.

including

the date

and the date

nor rejected,

applicant,

to

status

the report

of the reason(s)

of vacancies

A list

who decided

of application.

nonwhite

a detailed

therefor;

the application;

accepted

or disposition

rent

chosen;

or persons

or reject

if neither

and monthly

of apartment

accept

or rejection;

during

the apartment

each apartment

include

for rejection

and

the preceding

quarter,

was placed

was rented

shall

on the market*/

or otherwise

committed

for rental.
d.

i
J
!

filed

include

the current

tenants

in each apartment

defendant,

Reports

ceding

statistics

and an account

reporting

pursuant

period

Order

with respect

building

shall

also

to the race

of

owned or managed by the

of the steps
to implement

taken

during

the pre-

the program outlined

Sections

~/ Including where appropriate,

the date the Open Housing
Center was contacted
concerning the apartment's
availability
in accordance with Part II above.

I and II above,

to this

in

including:

- 17 -

i
1

t ,,

1.

Copies

of all

and credit

letters

checking

and labor

sent

companies,

unions

pursuant

Representative

copies

to apartment

locators

Fair

groups,

Housing

to Parts

II and III

of this

Decree.
2.

ments placed

since

the entry

of each newspaper
placed,
3.

in ~hich

and the date

The name, race,

of each rental

by Part

of all

signed

with

refuses
shall

Part

that

in relation

was

assignment

and main office

of the entry

the educational

obtained

Decree.

program
and copies

If any rental

statement

and of any action

of this

in accordance

such a statement

a full

circumstances

and office

I has been conducted,

to sign

the name

the advertisement

as of the date

I of this

advertise-

Order,

superintendent

statements

include

of this

position

an assurance

required

newspaper

of each advertisement.

agent,

employee. employed
Order,

of all

agent

the defendants
of all

pertinent

taken

by them

thereto.

VI
.. RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS

IT IS FURTHERORDEREDthat
years

following

following

the entry

records

for

of this

all

apartment

the defendant
Decree,

shall

for

three

make and preserve

buildings

owned or managed

by them:

1.

The name, address,

time of contact

telephone

of each person

inquiring

number and date

in person

about

and
the

- 18 -

,...,

'

...

-"~

- . .-~.

---

~~"'-----~~---.,,,.

...-_, __ ~,.--y...,.,,.. ___ .,.__

the

,..,....~..,.._.-tflP""""----~--~>"----~"'"''"""-"''<'_.,-

~-,"-"<-~-"--------,-.-

avai~aoi~icy
the size

cerms or rencaL

or

of apartment

2.

A.

he was offered

B.

he filled

c.

he submitted

A detailed

and application
3.

dant

out an application;
an application
of all

record

with deposit.

action

taken

on each inquiry

for such action.

of all

steps

the acceptability

taken

by the defen-

for tenancy

of the

and the name of the employee who took such steps

or who approved
4.

or rejected

All records

of the information

mitted

an application;

and the reasons

A detailed

cnerein,_:,

if known, and whether:

record

in ascertaining

applicant

this

sought,

an aparcmenc

or

Order.

the application.

which are the source

pertinent

to defendant's

Representatives

to.inspect

pertinent

dant at any and all

reasonable

times,

the plaintiff

shall

endeavor

the defendant

from the in~ection

or contain

obligations

of the plaintiff

and copy all

'

of,

shall

records

under

be per-

of the defen-

provided,

to minimize

any

however,

that

any inconvenience

to

of such records.

VII
It is further

years

from the entry

least

twenty

ORDEREDthat
of this

for a period

Decree,

(20) days prior

extending

the defendant

to the event,

three

shall,

report

at

to counsel

for the plaintiff:

1.

residential

2.
ownership

Any new ownership

property,

or management interests

acquired

The divestment

by the defendant.

through

or management interests

"!,/ This may be accomplished

at each apartment

building

in

transfer

or sale,

in residential

of any

property.

by maintaining
a guest
owned by the defendants.

register

- 19 -

I
t~-,-
~

"'

......................
~ ..

VIII
It is further
after

the entry

counsel

ORDEREDth~t

of this

Decree the defendant

for plaintiff,

whatever

source,

opportunity

in writi~g,

received

in housing

Trump Management,

for a period

of all

Inc.

shall

advise

regarding

owned and/or

In addition,

years

complaints,~/

by the defendant

at properties

of three

from
equal

managed by

plaintiff

shall,

of this

Decree,

for a

',

period

of three years after

the defendant

of all

the entry

complaints

received

Except where the plaintiff

exists

Decree,

fifteen

(15) days from the date notice

to investigate

an explanation

If the complaint
plaintiff

shall

to correct

.afford
tuate

alleged

is determined

the defendants
appropriate

leading

judicial

plaintiff

by either

with

party,

to be necessary

to the complaint,

and shall

seven

(7) days to effec-

to remedy the conditions

actions

is

in the complaint.

and to overcome any continuing

discriminatory

additional

the defendant

it believes

an additional

steps

the effectiveness

and provide

to be valid

recommend what steps

there

of such a complaint

contained

before

for a motion to compel compliance

other

afford

the complaint

the conditions

the complaint

shall

of the information

that

threatening

of this

received

the plaintiff

by the plaintiff.

determines

a need for emergency relief

notify

effects

applying

with this

leading

to

of the

to the court

Decree,

or any

relief.

'!/

For purposes of this Decree, "complaints"

shall mean any
information
which comes to the attention
of the defendant or
its officers
from whatever source received,
which indicates
a possible
denial of equal housing opportunities
under the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 ~~,or
a potential
violation
of this Decree.
- 20 -

By consent
this

Decree

of the parties,

is binding

with

the understanding

on the defendant

corporation's

that
principal

,'\

officers,

Fred C. Trump and Donald Trump,land

'--

of ,the affirmative

assumption

and Donald Trump. contained

ORDEREDthat
in their

in consideration

of responsibility
in Part

by Fred C. Trump

II hereinJit

is FURTHER

Fred C. Trump and Donald Trump are hereby

individual

capacities

as party

.defendants

dismissed

to this

action.
X

Each party
The Court

all

shall
shall

bear

its

retain

own costs.

jurisdiction

of this

action

for

purposes.
ORDEREDthis

day of

, 1975.

EDWARDNEAHER
United States District

Judge

The undersigned
apply for and
, consent to the entry of this
Order:

-l
'

For the Defendants:

For the Plaintiff:

j ....------
t
,

r~"'~
\,

-n
..

u:HTED

APPENDIX ('

STATLS oi: x,.11:nlCi\,

PlnilltifC

)
)
)
)
)

v.
:

/...
;

/.

FRED C. TiWt-1P,

n:1i:,1r

no~\ ,i\Lfl

OIUH:R

)
)
)

Defen<lants.

cm~S!:\T

)
)

and TrltJ;,1p ;.:.\~.:ACU11::\T,INC. ,

1

t\l~TTO'.~ NO. 77 C 1S?.'.J

CIVIL

_______
_______)
,.

Th i s a c t j on ,.,-:i s i n s t l t u l c d h y th c Un i t c d S t a t es o f
on October

Amcric1

of 1968,

42 U.S.C.

have

e duty

by their

tunity

has been

'

Housing

A..::.t

1s that

their

exercise

tlousing
the

assure

to

that

equal

numbers

to suhstantial
have

affirrr;::itivc

Act

result

thC' defc:Hlan;:,s

failed

:rnJ non-

coDplinncc
oppor-

housing

of per5ons

to carry

out

and t!H:
~bligatic

their

umlt:..:r t11e Act.

the

that

vigorously

number

deny said

allegations

if any,

of violations,

are

and clai~

insubstantial,

~inutc

'

and
. '.

States

fair

subordinates

Defendants
/

to

with

denied

Fair

seq.

United

the

subordinates,

defendant's
;,

under

to the

pursuant
--'

and neglected

failed

delegab]

ct
-

3601

of the

The claim
I ,

1973,

15,

11

dc minimis"

was not

',;

the

and that

done at

officers

the

if

there

direction

was o.nv discrimin3tion,

of the

of Trump Management,

Accordingly,

without

individual

it

defendants

or

Inc.

adjudication

the merits

of

and with,'

out

any admission

and in order

as to tl1c existence

to resolve

litigation,

including

the

hereto

entry

parties

of a Consent
It

.!

this
a long,

are

"

I cdmination

as

'

. ,;t,i

protracted

consuming

this

forth

and Agreed

''.',

of a violation
set

further

and ti~e

to tesolve

understood
l !L';',~)

by it

costly

prepared

is expressly

ii

admission

without

of liability,

case

by the

in the

1:1CI1 t,

it~.:.

1::.; lll

of the prohibition
Fair

the exccuti0~

that

against

Ilo11~.ing Act of

1968,

dis
OY'

o th c r a pp 1 i 1..::i b l c st a t u t c , :t1 1e or re g u 1 a t ion . {'I'o t.'1e contr<;'.tLY,

th~1t ti."1ey have been in compliance with same, and that only
minisc;ule alleqed examples of discrirninatior.
in a h'1ndful of units out of

I' any
II

trial,

Decree.

I!

matter

or absence

tJ1ey assert

II

100, COO that

!I

chetnqcd bdnds

in

J.4 yo::irs

establishes

t.1-iis.)

I~.C

!I

II
'

It
Complaint
missed

ORDERED,ADJUDGEDAND DECREEDthat

is hereby
against

Fred

C. Trump and Donald

them in their

against

personal

the

J. Trump is dis

capacity.

II

is

It
their

officers,

in active
hereby

for

ORDEREDthat

further
agents,

concert

color,

enjoined

1.

Refusing

sale

or rental

or denying

2.
conditions

of,

therewith,

refusing

or otheiwise

making

sex or national
Discriminating

provision

persons
arc

of sale

unavailable

on account

of race,

or rental

color,

1n the

any pcr~pn

terms,

of a dwelling,

or facilities

of race,

to negotiate

origin.

agaihst

of services

because

any of them,

or rent,

to any person

or privileges

and all

successors,

with

Inc.

from:
sell

to

any dwelling

religion,

in the

employees,

or particjpation

permanently

the

Trump Management,

or

in connection

religion,

sex or national

origin.
Making,

3.

be made,

printed

that

indicates

based

not

available

is
5.

on account

l!

to the

for
in fact

or

sale

u n al

inspection,

sale

Pr :

1 T!

or

or discrimination
origin,

limitation

to any person

to

of a dwelling

or rental

sex or national

preference,

11,.t 1

statement

limitation,

religion,

Representing

rel 1 g ion , sex

dwelling

I,

color,

to make such

4.
coJoi:,

respect

or causing

any notice,

any preference,

on race,

intention

or publishin~,

or published,

with

advertisement

printing

or discrimination.

because
t f1 :1 t

or rental

or an

of race,

:: !lV

when such

so available.

InfluenC"ing
of r::icc 1 color,

the

residential

religion,

choice

of any person

sex or n'ntional

origih.

. ...... , .
,.

,,

6.
attempting

in the

Coercing,

the

exercise

secure

housini;

or the
housing

In this

J_n any

effect
opportunity

connection,

group

a woman's

alimony,

support

Act of

or

person

housing
1968,

to assist

or practice

act

in

or

others

to

which

has

the

the

right

to

or abridging

protected

clefcnd2nt
for

of persons,

account

any

to equal

right

right

of denying

income .qualifications
other

with

i!ousing

of the

with,

opportuPity.

Engaging

7.

interfering

interfere

or

Fair

the

by

or

of the

or enjoyment

or enjoyment

equal

purpose

threaten

protcctc<l

exercise

equal

coerce,

to

opportunity

thrcatc,dng,

total

sh::ill

rental
fail

not,

Fair

Housing

or refuse

take

salary,

income

the

family

to fully

including

or other

Act.

in determining

of any person,

income,

payments

by the

or
into

wages,

from whatever

source

1~ece i ved.

III

ASSUMPTIONOF RFS1'0NSI11IL1TY BY PRINCIPALS

AND TRAINING PIZOGlt\;,I fOR :-\GE:'JTS,\ti!J D!FLuYEES
Trump Management,

units

in the

therefore

in the

"

estate

the

employees
hibits

a major

defendants

real

fluence

1,. -;

New York area

have

individual

but

thoug~tlessness
deliberate

and elsewhere,

and its

therefore

occupy

not

only

is

in its

The

of leadership

example,

own agents

The Fair

discriminatory

activities

a position

of their

of rental

opportunities.

by their

and can,

of many others.

which

1:1,)ti',i;cfj_01

many thousands

on housing

community

also

controls

impact

activities

conduct
o{

Inc.

in-

and

Housing

Act pro-

effect,

regard-

Il
'

'

1 ,

and lack

of information,

as well

as from

discriminati.on.
Accordingly,

A.

The

it
officers

is ORDERED as

follows:

of Trump M:1.na;:;cmen.t, Inc..

sh:111

forthwith:

Il
fC:,\

,,,,
,

r,Jf>l'.~.-t,',L,

,,

. ..;;.,..,., .

thorouehly

(l)

a detailed
the

basis

Fair

state

llousing

Housing

(2)

of their

all

Act of 196S,

civil

steps

this

and officers

themselves

with

set

forth

B.

Within

the

dcfP-ndant

program

for

all

bility,

who have contact

sha11

employees

for

employment
Decree,

Such program

letter
the

about

shall

(2)
person

Fair

Housing

shall

the

the

responsiprovide
or process

in any manner

Fair

provisions

of

Housing

Act of

and employee

of this
applies

each such agent

meeting,

under

Acts.

Decree
to the

of thjs

his

Decree

failure

o r o t h c r d i s c i p 1 i nary

employee;

in

of the provisions

the various

shall

and of

and employee,

Each such agent

be :i<lvise<l that

d i s mi s s :d

an educational

or accept
engaged

terms

Act as it

and employees

provisions

of this

tJnants,

them of the

under

or by general

Housing

out.

entry

.1

agents

program

or e~ployrnent

to each such agent

informing

training

include:

summarizing

Fair

principal

carried

rental,

to inform

furnish

(1)

the

prospective

duties

appropriate

and complete

or who are

process,

of

and

of the

days

rental

with

rentals,

and thci~

that

conduct

with

pertinent

familiarize

obligations;

(:rn)

to the public

applications

their

is successfully

thirty

Decree,

information

that

to ~ssure

herein

under

under

and other

similarly

their

undertake

laws;

under

Order;

to assure

assistants

on

obligations

of the Department

Development

and under

personally

as amended;

rights

and Guidelines

take

(3)

1968.

with

an<l Urbin

agencies;

this

themselves

and mu,1icipa]

Regulations

the

acquaint

of

'l ,..~ , i

.~ J

.4,

,. ....

<"
~

applicable

and employee
to comply with

sub-jcct

him to

a c t hrn , a n <l to

in

:I
I

sanct.ior:s
(3)

1.Li.sobcdicncc

for

.securing

and received
preceding

the

accordance

statement

required

with

the

to sign

so instructed

from each

such

mentioned

above

in the

dcscribccl

a copy of each

to plaintiff.

procedures

out

to the

with

comply

the

he instructed

shall

set

a statement

(10} <lays following

ten

Order;

forwarding

and

and employee

and will

letter

instructions

paragr:1ph

Each new agent

this

statement

a signed

he has rea<l the

age11t that

signed

of

above

effect
such

initial

in

and shall

that

be

he has been

instructions

within

of employment.

date

IV
AFFIRMATIVEPROGRAM
It

forthwith

take

affirmative

Fair

further

is

the

following

program

Housing

A.

aimed

the

steps
at

where

activity

is

rental

z.

the

April

Housing

"Equal

with

an

the

in all

sh a 11 con form

Department

of Housing
3s

1, 1972.

published
A copy

to

placed

by

lines

the Company

r cc o mmc n J ,; Ii

pr a c t ices

Development

guidelines

the

advertising

as to ads of fifteen

in 37 Fed Reg.,

,.

defendant

contact.

appropriate

the

in a

of Housing

of the

offices

a~d Urban

of these

signs

Department

advertising

all

of Defendant's

housing

or public

Opportunityu

In addition.

a g c n ts

guidelines,

Include

fair

of the

Secretary

(HUD) in all

or its

and implement

compliance

Community

and Urban Development

or morA.

shall

Policv

Post' and maintain

by the

forw approved

words

to adopt

ens~ring

Notifica!-_ion
t~he
Nond1scriminatorv
--------~'-------'-

there

defendq,nt

Act of 1968.

1.

ORDERED that

pp.
is

advertising

6700-02,
attached

on
as

1r1

..

B.

A ff i

Tlll11" j

v c I:m

Plaintiff
has working
workers.

for

acknowledges

them a large

Despite

this,

against

discriminate

or national

for

take

the

following

to this

Display

in a prominent

agents,

employees

2.
members are

p~rt

Part

of this

or national

for

positions

arise.

visible
for

shali

Decree

to prospective
in each

employment

each labor

work force

and that

without

employment

employment
for

in writing

regard

of the

to race,

are

union

prospective

not

and hiring

require

any job or position

with

institution

sex

ice

taken.

whose

terms

of

employees

color,

religion,

origin.

shall

in effect

rclii;ion,

opportunity

clearly

In recruiting

defendant

equal

of defendant's

sex

not

the defendant

applications

Notify

to be referred

color,

qu:1lificd

policy,

an

place

where

are

will

and professional

and applicants

of the defendant

IV (c)

arc

and minc)rity

steps:

1.

poster

they

presently

of bJr,ck

clue to race,

in snpcrvisory

Pursuant

defendant

the dcfcnd,ant

hohcvcr,

which

r.im

that

percentage

anyone

origin

as vacancies

Pro

llll'r1t

they

more exacting

respect

of this

that

to white

nonwhite
possess
than

employees

employees,

the

qualifications

those
before

which were
the

action.

1
j

IMPLEMCNT1\TTm,! OF OBJECTIVE RE:'JTAL

STANIJAR!JS AND l'l.ZOCEDURES

'

In

orJcr

assignment
housing

a;;;sure

of tenants
J.t each

any of them,
i P I:..
o., s ta

to

,,

and t? assure

building

defendant

r1cl," ....
, cl"
~

" 'l L1

"''

JJ r o ,.- c
l

noi,cliscri1:1inatory
equal

owned or managcJ
shall
,f .11 l'
,l

adopt
,.,.

selection
opportunity
by defendant

and implc.mcnt

the

and
i.n
or
follow-

;,

'1
1,

!i

A.

Stand:1rds
1.

I ncomc

One week's
be at

least

following

salary

net

CGual to one month's

circumstances

rent

from all
unless

sources

must

any of the

pertain:

a.

If a guarantor

b.

I additional

a customer
c.

that

switches

Inc.

with

references

tenarit

rental

quality

such as bank officers,

architects,

who will

doctors,

guarantee

their

responsibility.

If a particular

f.

balance.

(attorneys,

or relatives,

financial

to Trump

has a bank

who furnish

from people

professionals
etc.)

obligations

a substantial

Individuals

e.

and if

in the past.

If a prospective

account

in aJvance.

from one Trump

Trump building

has met his

Management,
d.

to pay rent

to another

tenant

is used or if

security

is willing

If a tenant

building

is used.

difficulty

building

is experiencing

due to economic

or other

conditions.
g.

If a prospective

relatives)
Inc.

tenant

docs business

and will

vouch for

(or his

with Trump Management

their

financial

stability.

Ali income sources

~/

income,

!~111) l) '.J

1.

trnblic

il

i r1 de t .r1ai r~
t...,

to assure
}

!1
t 1; ~~

of any applicant,
a.ssistanc~
payments,

'..
c h ...:

payment

- " - ,, ~~. 1
.. l j

of rent

including
wife's
alimony and child

l) 1
C ':: r!:; id 0 r 1 ~ .r,...,
.,
-~:1 ,"';~ .Ll. \.:; c,:t ~--::"/ .

~~

-, : 1

r: ': r! '.

1~

when due.

2.

Not more th:1n two persons

1
1 ap:irtmcnt.

Not more than

four

-7-

persons

in a one bcdroo.n

two nllul ts and

h:o

'

I
f

I
i

I
l

..

,Ii'""

j
I

t
chi1c1rcn

of

;he

same

~ I: 1 i c ~! t i o n l:1 r

1 .

at the

apartment

where

Applications
agents

instructed

shall

tenant

shall

he

be accepted

superintendent
the
tive

acceptability
tenant

3601

shall

make

iv.

b.

review

the

tenant

said

unless

on

prospec-

towards

dressed

building

with

to a

tenants

or rental

living

to be forwarded

agent

and shall

and one month's

require

security
substitute
for

review

and

main office.

respect

Appli<:a ti ons

shall

in the defendant's

-8

or

would be offended.

WZ Form (or reasonable

of acceptability

employed

shabbily

completeness

to the defendant's

be conducted

superintendent

at which other

for
rent

of drugs

agent.

The superintendent

applicants

d.

Managers

and the

Abusive

application

a current

from all

determination

Fair

judgment

Blatantly

of one month's

with

check' shall

to apply

under .tJ1c influence

in the

determination

and

Applications

Visably

point

therefor)

or rental

no subjective

rental

together

Drunk and disorderly

iii.

payment

the

is:
ii.

the

of

and of the

ct~

of a prospecti.ve
i.

shall

office

applications,

Order

wishing

persons

be re-

an apartment

to accept

of this

42 U.S.C.

or agent

for

defendant

from all

will

by superintendents

requirements

Act of 1968,

tenancy

management

or

is applying

.
received

by the

in the

for

b~lilding

the

authorized

Housing

c:tc.

o c e clu r c.

Applications

a.

complex

apartment,

Procedures

B.

ceived

in a two bedroom

sex,

to each applicant.
s ha 11 be reviewed

be made by the
main office.

and

Section

ti
l

i
.1
I
e.

twenty

Each

(20) business

accepted

for

informed

of the

I. objective

<lay::; whether

tenancy.

for

which

to be compiled
available

apartment

include

the

monthly

rent

maintain

shall

type

vacant

Brooklyn,

This

list

list

or

shall
the

shall

Defendant

a similar

listing

vacant

the number of rooms,

buildings

at that

New York

of each current

of availability.

and date

at their

New York a central

basis,

of apartment,

specific

to

maintain

in the New York area.

at each of their

II apartments

Informntion

Brooklyn,

on a weekly

be

Cr::"'..

Defendant

Avenue,

been

to meet.

at 2611 West 2nd Street,

and 2064 Cropsey

h'Ithin

shall

and of the

Rental

~ art~_!1 t S l~-

a.

office

the applicant

failed

he has

informc-d

be

or not he or she has

rejection,

Providing

2.

shall

If rejected,

reason

standard

central

nppl.icant

also

of the

building.
~)

Inquirers

b.

'of

the

qualifications

security

deposit

for

shall

rental,

be uniformly

including

the

informed

income,

and W2 Form requirements.

VI
REPOR~INGREQUIREMENTS
It
entry

is

further

of this

the defendant

ORDEREDthat

Decree,
shall

three

and thereafter
file

with

three

the Court

for

the plaintiff

a report

containing

for

the

apartment

buildings

following

(3) months

1.

Argyle

2.

Westminster

3.

Fontainbl9au

4.

Lawrence

Se a I s l e /\.p ;ir t mc n ts

following

owned and/or

Hall

Hall
Apartments

Gardens

the

(3) time per year,

and serve
the

after

an<l Lawrence

Towers

on counsel
information
managed

. if.

I"' -

6.

Beach

Huvcn

7.

Shore

Ilavca /\partmcnts

8.

Bclcrcst

9.

Bighlan<lcr

a rental
ments,

Apartments
H,,11

10.

Saxony Hall

11.

Clyde Hall

12.

Edgerton

13.

Winston

14,

Sussex

A.

Ap~rt~1cnt<;

Apartments
1Ial 1

Hall

If a prospective
of an apartment

will

fill

tion

will

will

be retained

on said

form,

application

by defendant

telephone

Date of Application

3.

Whether

the

4.

Weekly net

a depo~it

ll

I!

Ii
11

application

term of this

Apartrnen t sought

6.

If rejected,

7.

Name of person

reason

therefor

or persons

or reject

If neither

and

sought

.5.

rejection.

of a complaint,
rejection

Order:

and Home

who decided

together

to

the application

accepted

or rejected,

status

of application.
sh a 11.

for

informa-

was given

Fc1.

reasons

develop-

following

income of applicant

rent

.or disposition

on no~ification

about

number

monthly

said

the

.Business

2.

8.

inquiry

and said

during

Name, Address,

accept

making

in one of the above mentioned

out an application

be asked

1.

applicant,

to include
with

person

,-.

t)

i~

t~

\,_,,

,-.

,., (~ 'r
-,

I
i

the defendant's
rcsportsible

, '--

i
for

. """",

~~

..:..:r.l'-''""-"',.....
..,:.,_' -

...,...,,,_____
Nt_'-r-

......

'

..

, VI I

It

is

further

ORDEl<EDthat

complaints

arise

under

Government

shall

furnish

complaint

complaint,

and the

building

Thereafter,
the

the provision

and a brief

of the

description

.
including

with

notice

thereof,

is received

to investigate

i~ determined

what

conditions

leading

to which

the

any,

the

to advise

if

from

and the nature

and if

or,

was made.

days

(30)

complaint
the

have been taken~

to the complaint;

incident

complaint

have thirty

to be valid,

if

and substance

of the alleged

such complaint,

steps,

the

who made such

nature

of such complaint

by defendant

Government

of the

shall

Order,

the person

the date

respect

any future

of this

tl1e name of

the defendant

date

whenever

correct

the

the

complaint

is determined
Government
invalid,

before

any motion
compel

the

of

basis

the

for

an Order

compliance

shall,

at

least

to counsel

for

this

shall

to this

Court

with

motion

to

Order.

ORDEREDthat

twenty

apply

to be

VIII

from the

the~complaint

to Show Cause or any other

with

It is further
years

determining

Governmdnt

two (2)

for

a period

for

entry

of this

Decree,

(20)

<lays prior

to the

extending
the defendant
event,

report

the plaintiff:

1.

in residential

Any new ownership

property

in the

or management

New York area

interests

acquired

by the

defenuant.

2.

of any owncrsl1ip

The divestment,
or management

through
interests

transfer

or salet

in residential

property

in the New York arc8.

.. i 1 -

....
'

''01\

,,....,,.-.i,,
". ,,

IX
Two years
thereafter,
If

the

the
United

thirty

(30)

shall

from the

States

fails

clays of the

to

Order

interpose

Notice

and the

or further

Decree

is

may move to dissolve

defendant

be dissolved

hearing

<late this

ol

the

this

or
Order.

any objection

of Motion,

complaint

entered,

this

dismissed

within

injunction
without

Court.

Each party

for

all

shall

bear

~The Court

shall

retain

purposes

until

the

its

own costs.

jurj_sd~~tion
termination

ORDEREDTHIS

of

of this

this

action

Order.

day of

1975.

EDWARD NEAI-IER

United

The undersigned
consent
to the
ORDER:
For the

States

District

apply for and

entry of this

Defendant:

For the

!!

-12-

Plaintiff:

Judge

>

~"

/)

APPENDIX D
'

r,;,

JSP:FES:NPG:mp
DJ 175-52-28

.,.

--~."
-

!~;,,;)

Mr. Roy Coh.n

Saxe B,:tcon, Bolan
and M1nley

39 East 6Sth Street

New York, New York
Re:

10021

United States v. Trump Management

......,_.......,______________
et 31 .

I was sorry to hear of your illness

speedy recovery.

you~

As I explai.ned
that

to you by telephone,

and wish
we understand

this

case has been settled

in principle
in
accord~tnce with our Memorandu.111of Understanding
which was
signed by both parties
on January 20, 1975. The
.agreement
provides,,
among other th:lngs,
that
[tlhe
ptirtio.s shall
.
seek the
assistance
of the Court to resolve
any dispute arising
solely out of
a

dis agreement

as to

the

rnenrd.ng of

any proposed
in the

ch~nge ref~rred to
"!er:iorandmn of 'Cndcrsttmdi.ng.

All other provisions

in tha attached
Consent Decree and th~ze not in
dispute

ns to me m.ln3

of Understandin~
in their entirety
Consent })ecree.
Chr0110

Tria.1

Memorandum

sh.~11 be contained
in the final

Records

Mr. Schwelb
Mr. Goldberg

in the

I./

FiG~

- 2 ...

The second sentence

cryst.al
cl~.1r that

of tho GUoted passage n.1akes it

th~1e :'.ire to be ~ changes in the
decree att;11!hed to the Mcmor.andum except
those
cpecifically
set forth
in the Ilcmorandum.
As one who
represents
his clients
with oufficient
zeal to suit

most, you will understand my unwillingness

to
or to have
renegotiate
what we haVfl illready negotiated,
a negotiri.te:d
sett lcment picked
of immillent: trial
is off.

The"bounterdraft"

apart

once

the

which you submitted

pre!JSure

to us

does not /tppear

in any way to recognize
the validity
of the Memorandum of Under:1tanding
and makes innumerable
changes other than those sr,eclf ied in that ll'temorandum.
alt of which weaken the Order.
Accordingly,
I ~as

somewhat reassured,
took

to be your

hopefully

assurtmce

with reason~

by what I

chat

you df.d not

1..u,.11,

w,,11:1,

view the
to Uw J.<i y

-.-1.....
.." <.-.
""n,.. "--~ _,_11'- _.. . __,,

u
.......,,..,-...
...,,.,<V
...QU-YUlAi

,10

.u....L,"-t.,;l:\.

..1- -~ - ,_ - d
l,.lt:l:11.1.~SHt!

~,,

...

the ultimate
resoluti'1n
of thi.s C'1Se nnd that you do
regard it as a valid instrument which both parties
are
bound to follow as closely ~s possible.

Accordingly,
I am going along with your request
to drttft: a new letter whf..:h e.ets forth the differences
between

your

"counterdr.sft.:

n.nd the earlier

version

of

our agreement and indicating

"1hich of the provisions
omitted from your de.1":ree are essential
to a settlement.
Please keep in mind that by writing this letter
we are
not .agreeinf~ to the reopening
of any !legotiations
foreclosed

by t\e

Memorandu.-rs of Understanding

and that

we believe
that the c'.lse should be settled
forthwith
on the terms to which we previously
3greed.
It is
.!12!my intention
to txeat an agreement previously
net~otiated

negotiations

as being

a starting

point

for

which could only weaken it.

new

.... 3 -

a.
Paragraph
II A. (1). "!../ Defend.c.nta'
notlf ic:.1tion to thrtH:1 fair housing groups
(na.1;1es to be llf;reed u~,on by the parties)
of
defendants'
ftdr
housinf1; polici~s
and
subse(1uent weekly notiiica.tion
of defendants'
vacunc:f.os to c,<t.ch group.
We would be

s~tisfied

ta delc;a~e

the responsibility

fo'r selecting
the f..iir housing grotma to
the New York City C:m::mission on Human Rights.
Alternnt:ively,
wl! ::::,uld be content
with the

selection
of the following 3roups:
New 'lotk City Open Housing Center,

(1) the
the

South Side CoH:il':unity l'lission

(for Spanish
speaking
people)
and any f.:dr housing
or
civil
ri~::,;hts gx.i:.mptr.) which your prcpcsed

witness

from the NAACPbelongs.

b. Parag~aph III A (3)(a).

Inclusion of
words nEqual Housing Opportuni.ties"
and

fair

houning

log~ in all

types

of advertising

including
paragrttph

ads of 6 lines ot mor.c. See

(e) of -r~n:or~ndu~i1of Understanding

for. prior

negotiated

modifi.cation.

As you

know, WE'! had orig it1a 11y recommended

inc1u.slon i11. ads oi: 3 lit1es,
and the 6 lines
were the compror.doe 011 which we both
signed off.

*/

Refere11ces to number~d paragraphs refer to those

cont,1.ini:?d in Plaintiff's
Prm,osed Consent Decree,
forwarded to defenclc1.nts on itebruary 5, 1975, unless
otherwise specified hexein.

- 4 -

c. Paragraph III A (3)(b).

Advertising
housing opportunities
1-n minority media.
See p,'.lragra.phs

and (g)

()

of Memorandum of

Underctanding
f~r prior 11cgot!ated
tion of our original
proposal.

d.

P~ragraph III A (4}.

of

modifica

Written

notification
to all appropriate
companies
with whom defendants dobusiness
of
defendants'
fair housing policies.

e . Paragraph III B. Provision of list

of certain vacancies
to Open Housing Center.
See paragraph (h) <>f Hemorandum of
Understanding
for prior negotiated
modification.
The text

o.f paragraph

(h) makes

it

quite

clear

that such hold1.ngs of vacancies

is
to be accomplished,
and it is no secret
to
vou
that this aff!rm..-~tive relief
is of
.,
particularly
great importance.

f.

Paragraph III C (1).

Advertising of
defendants'
employment opportunities
in
minority media.
g.

Paragraph

words

III

C (2).

t'Eo.ual Opportunity

Inclusion
Employeru

of the
in all

employment advertising.

Paragr.gpb. IV A (1). Income standards

are to be one week's ~ross salary equal

h.

to one month s rent. v1rtually

every
resident
rnanager testified
on deposition
that the prior standard was gross ineon1e
and not not income. Other provisi.ons related
to objective
standards,
Paragraph IV A
3 and paragrapn (i} of the Hemorandum of
Understanding,
set for.th the principle
that the standards
for tenancy shall be no
more stringent
thB.n those previously
followed by defendants.

- 5 -

l.

Footnote

to Pcirne;raph

IV A (1).

L'lngt1c1.geshould be r.et::tined to assure that

-wife's i.ncome ..md other forms of income are
cotmted
:md not'merely
given fair
and
reaao11able consideration.
See additional
dincussion.
it1J!!!,, as to requireme1.1t for
c:ow1tin~ public
assistance
payments.

Paragraph IV B (2)(a).
Maintenance
at selected
apartment complexes in Brooklyn
j.

and f,luetms of weekly

vacancies

lisi.:.in~s

at defend-1.nts'

of all

buildings

..

Paragraph IV (d).
Rentals m3de
avaiJ~ble on first-come,
first-served
basis.
k.

1.
to

Paragraph V. Reporting obligations

for pe~iod of three (3) years.

~w.1

m.

Paragraph V (c) and (d)(l),

(2) and
(3). Other reporting requirements.

n. P~ragraphs VI (1) through

Record keeping provisions.

(4).

o. P~ragraph I. The prohibitory

injunction
is permanent.
After three years,
we have no objection
to a clause enabling
defendants
to move for a dissolution
of
relief
provisions
of the
the nffir~ntiva
decree, subject to good c~use objections
by plaintiff.

.>

consent

2. Qther
deer~:
a.

The prefatory

proposals
We should
of

chdnges related

eve?yone

language

to se~tJement

of cha two

can be combined s~tisfactori.ly.

keep the rh~t,..,ric on behalf
to

"" rn:l.ni.mnrn.

PI

- 6 -

b.

The differences

of: our

proposal

defendants'
to either.

complaints

between Paragraph

and P.1-ra;9.'.'aph VII

propossl
party'

relating

of h,?usin.g

VIII

of

to notification
discrimi.nation

~re negotiable.

a.
The terms of the dismissal
of Fred .~nd
Donald Trump i.nd:tvidt.tal ly should be reu:> trded
to cm1form to the !1..:r;10randum of Understaritling

which cl~rifics
that they are still
officers
of the corroration.

in as

d8 As you mentionec over the telephone,

;Boy~ v ~ J::.~.f!a.k w:ts reversed
by the Court
of ,:\ppeals.
Plaintlf
fs have applied
for
a rehf~aring ~ h.:.9E., and expect to go to
the Sup:n?me Court i.f they lose.
Accordingly,.

the footnote
in our original
proposal is
still
valid.
In any event, your people
teetified
that th(;?y counted public assistance
payments now and ::l-ince the standards
are
not to be more atr:tngent than before,they
should continue to do so.

Per our agreement by telephonet we will look'

forward to receiving your response within five business
days.
I suggest
that aft3r th.:1t we put aside four
continuous hours or so of attention
solely to getting
the mech.anics of this cl9cree ~rran~ed, getting it
typed

in suitable

fbrm,

ready for submission

t.tnd g~~t.ting

to the Court.

it

signed

and

If we do not hear

from you, as .:rrrnneed, W(~ will assume that settlement

is not possible
..1ithout seeking
the assistance
of
Judge Haaher as provided
in our He.morandum of

Understanding.

.. 7 ..
All in t1.ll, I h:.r<,'e tn say I don't know whether
you are
to be :lmprcsGE'.'d or surpi:::i.!;ed e.t the way tlut
Then again,
I suppose
making a cr.rrecr of thif, C'!"~~~.
I wculd like
you always nPcd rr.atm::L'll for a book.
to t:hfnk that I'll
get a co!11p11mcntary
copy of the
ne>:.t one too, and good lur.:k {:Ven if I am .s.til1
with the Chri l Ri3hts
Division ..

Si.ucerely.

J. STANLEYPOTTINGER
Assistant
Attorney General
Ci.vil Rights Division

By:
FRAUKE. SCUUEL3
Chief
Housing Section

'

APPENDIX E
IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE
EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
FREDC. TRUMP,DONALD
TRUMP )
and TRu'MP MANAGEHENT' INC. ' )
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 73 C 1529

CONSENTORDER

_________
This action

was instituted

'

America on October

15, 1973, pursuant

of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601

. The claim

j,
1

and neglected

nondelegable

duty under

by their

opportunity
and that

under

Defendants

the Fair

Housi.ng Act

the defendants
and

Housing Act to assure

com-

subordinates

the result

that

equal

vigorously

numbers of persons

have failed

deny said

if

if any,

was any discrimination,

of the individual

to carry

allegations
are

insubstantial,

it was not done at the

defendants

without

any admission

litigation,
by the entry

and

or the officers

of Trump

Inc.

Accordingly,

and in order

out their

and claim

without

housing

the Act.

that

Management,

of

affirmative

with

their

to substantial

the number of violations,

direction

is that

to exercise

that

there

to the Fair

States

subordinates,

defendant's

States

has been denied

obligations

!.

of the United

have failed

pliance

by the United

this
hereto

of a Consent

matter

.I

cf the merit

as to the existPnce

to resolve
the parties

adjudication

without

are prepared

, and

or absence
further

of liability,
prot:i:acted

to resolve

Decree.

this

case

It is expressly
of this

understood

and agr~ed that

Agreement by Trump Management,

admission

by it

criminati.cn

of a violation

as set forth

any other

applicable

principal
prepared

that

rule

against

dis-

or regulation.

Trump Management,

emp.loyees will

this

is in no way an

of the complaint,

opportunity.

to resolve

the execution

Housing Act of 1968, or

assume and carry

their

promote equal

prepared

'

of defendant

to affirmatively

for assuring

in the Fair

of the merits

officers

Inc.,

of the prohibition

statute,

_Jrrespec.tive

will

'v

however,
Inc.,

the

are

out the responsibility

comply with the Act and

Accordingly,

case by the entry

the parties

are

of the following

Consent Order.

I.
l

It is hereby
consideration
contained

ORDERED,ADJUDGEDand DECREEDthat

of their
in part

III

affirmative
herein,

assumption

the complaint

Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed

personal

capacity,

contained

therein.

with prejudice,

of responsibility
against

against

as to all

in

Fred C.

them in their
allegations

II.
INJUNCTION
It is hereby
defendant,
all

I.

persons

its

ORDERED,ADJUDGEDand DECREEDthat

officers,

in active

them, are hereby

agents,
concert

permanently

employees,

or participation
njoined

the

successors,

and

with any of

from:

,
,

.,/
I

i
;
I

.. 2 -

'

.,/

'

GENERAL INJU:,:CTIVE PROVIS IO:-IS

1.

Refusing

to sell

or rent,

refusing

to negotiate

for

the sale

or rental

any dwelling

of,

or otherwise

to any person

sex or national

Discriminating

conditions,

or privileges

the provision

of services

of race,
3.

color,

Making,

made, printed,

color,

religion,

religion,

for inspection,

'fact

so available.

any notice,

origin

Coercing,

therewith,

to be

or advertise-

of a dwelling

origin,

that
based

or an intention

or discrimination.

that

or rental

because

of race,

any dwelling

religion,

choice

is in

of any person

sex or national

threatening,

color,

is not avail-

when such dwelling

the residential

color,

or causing

or discrimination

limitation

or in

origin.

statement

or rental

to any person

Influencing

of race,

sex or national

sex or national

sale

of a dwelling,

in connection

limitation,

religion,

able

6.

color,

in the terms,

or publishing,

to the sale

sex or national

account

or rental

printing,

Representing

5.

of sale

religion,

to make such preference,

4.

any person

or facilities

any preference,

on race,

of race,

against

or published,

ment with respect

indicates

o~_acc9unt

or denying

origin.

2.

because

making unavailable

or interfering

origin
with,

or

attempting

to coerce,

in the exercise
opportunity

threaten

or enjoyment

protected

of the right

or enjoyment

secure

housingopportunity

of the right

with any person

to equal

ho1:1sing

Housing Act of 1968, or in

by the Fair

the exercise
equal

or interfere

to assist

- :, -

others

to

on

' ,.

7. Engaging
or-the

effect

protected

connect~on,

defendants

qualification

by the Fair

income,

fail

or other

the right

not,

family,

to fully
wages,

count

source

the income
or other

alimony,

income from whatever

housing

In this

in determining

or refuse
salary,

to equal

Housing Act.

of any person,

including

which has the purpose

..

shall

for rental

group of persons,

payments

or abridging

of denying

opportunity

total

in any act or practice

a woman's
support

received.

III

ASSUMPTION
OF RESPONSIBILITYBY
PRINCIPALSOF TRUMP:t-1ANAGEMENT
INC., ANDTRAININGPROGRAM
FOR
AGENTSAND EMPLOYEES
Trump Management Inc.,
units

in the New York area

therefore

have a major

. company therefore
estate

in its

and elsewhere,

and its

by its

own agents

regardless

Act can result

example,

but also

The
in the real

influence

the activities
of many others.

which is discriminatory

of motivation,

from thoughtlessness

activitie_s

of leadership

conduct

of rental

opportunities.

and employees

Housing Act prohibits

effect,

on housing

a position

community and can,

The Fair

many thousands

impact

occupies

not only of its

controls

and violations

of the

and lack of information,

as

well as from deliberate

discr~nination.

The principal

officers

'

of Trump Management,
responsibility
employees

Inc.,

to assure

recognize

generally

they have both the

nondiscrimination

and a significant

opportunity

that

opportunity

by their

agents

to promote equal

in the New York area

and elsewhere.

and
housing
They

'.'t

are prepared
advantage

to carry

of that

out that

responsibility

and to take

opportunity.

I
I
- 4 -

...
j
j

I
I


'

Accordingly,
A.
presently

it

is ORDEREDas follows:

The principal

officers

of Trump Management,

Donald Trump and Fred C. Trump shall

(1) thoroughly
on a detailed

acquaint

basis

the defendant

themselves

with all

as amended and as judicially

state

and municipal

civil

forthwith
personally

of the obligations

under the Fair

Inc.,

of

I'

Housing Act of 1968,

interpreted;

rights

laws;

under
under
\'

pertinent

Regulations

Department

and Guidelines

of the

of Housing and Urban Development

and

other

appropriate

agencies;

(2) :Take steps

assistants

to assure

and officers
I

,themselves

and under this

similarly

with their

(3) /Personally

that

principal

familiarize

obligations;

undertake

their

Order;

and

to assure

that

the

training
carried

program set

forth

herein

is successfully

'out.

B.

Within

the Defendant
complete

thirty

(30)

--.-

~y its

days of the entry

principal

an educational

officers;

program for all

or employment responsibilities,
spective
rental,

tenants,
or acc~pt

shall

provide

of this
conduct

or process

and

employees with rental

who have contact

information

Decree,

with pro-

~o the public

applications

about

for rentals,

are engaged in any manner in the employment process,

or who
to inform

them of the provisions

!.
I

the Fair

..

'

of this
- ..

Housing Act of 1968.

"I'

and their

duties

under

'

l
j

Decree,

- 5

Such program shall

include:
I

..
Iv

(1) Furnishing
a letter

to each such agent

surrnnarizing

of the Fair

and employee

the terms of this

Housing Act as it

applies

Decree and
to the

employee.
Informing

(2)

in person
of this
its

each such agent

or by general

meeting,

Decree and of duties

agents

applicable

of the Company and

the various

Fair

Each such agent

Housing Acts.
be advised

that

to comply with the provisions

subject
action,

of this

Order.

agent

that

he has read

and received
preceding
--such

paragraph

signed

required

ten

(10)

the procedures

to sign

a statement

Copies of all

signed

to the effect

the initial

statements

will

upon execution.

- 6.-

I
J

mentioned

above

in the

a copy of each

be instructed

in

set out above and shall

comply with

days following

from each such

described

and employee shall

and will

disci-

to plaintiff.

with

so instructed

the letter

and forwarding

statement

Decree

for disobedience

statement

the instructions

Each new agent

accordance

a signed

failure

or other

and to sanctions

Securing

his

of this

him to dismissal

plinary

(3)

of the provisions

and employ~es under

and employee shall

shall

and employee,

that

he has been

such instructions
date

be

within

of employment.

be furnished

to plaintiff

..
I

IV
AFFIRMATIVEPROGRAM
It

is further.ORDERED that

and for a period

of two (2) years

Order take the following

affirmative

the defendant

steps

following

impairing

rights

A.

by the defendant
secured

Notify

Urban League,
with copies

an

with the Fair

the effects

of any

which had the purpose

by t!:he Fair

or effect

of

Housing Act:

the Open Housing Center

150 Fifth
to counsel

Avenue,

without

regard

Included

to race,

in such letter

standards
general

and procedures
statement

apartment

buildings

parties

shall

agree

to its

mailing.

Housing Centera
infra

that

are available
religion,

shall

be a full

outlined

synopsis

defendant

copy of its

weekly Central

in Part

V of this

decree.

be done on the day the list

is made.

may, at its

forward

and a

vacancies

shall

in Trump

area.

of an appropriate

Subsequently,

origin.

of the rental

V, below,

in the New York Metropolitan

described

persons

sex or national

in Part

owned or

qualified

and anticipated

on the text

in writing,

apartments

to all

color,

of present

of the New York

New York, New York,

for plaintiff

managed by the defendant

of this

Notification
to the Community of Defendant's
Nondisc1=:J:.~inatory Policy

1.

the entry

compliance

Housing Act of 1968, and at overcoming

actions

forthwith*/

to adopt and implement

program aimed at ensuring

previous

shall

letter

The
prior

mail to the Open

Listing

of vacancies

This mailing

shall

The Open Housing Center

.1
!

I
l

mentioned

letter

and weekly list

persons. or organizations

l
i

housing

''

*/

own discretion,

with

copies

of the above-

of vacancies

an interest

to any and all

in promotin<- 1equal

opportunities.

The defendant's
obligations
to implement each provision
of
this Order for affirmative
action shall begin ten (10) days following
the entry of this Order, unless otherwise
specified
herein.

- 7 -

.
2.

Post and maintain

by the Secretary

approved

'

fair

housing

signs

of the Department

in a form

of Housing and

Urban Development
where there

is rental

3.

activi~y

offices

a.

in a~J. advertising,*'>':,/

telephone

directories,

media,

and on all

and other

nondiscriminatory

radio,

in newstelevision

billboards,

brochures,

literature

the words "Equal Housing Opportunity"

llogo

shall

housing

logo.

be prominently

legible.~/
placed

and other

signs,

pamphlets,

and the fair

placed
all

by the Company or its

is attached

advertising
agents

shall

advertising

in 37 Fed. Reg.,

as published
1, 1972.

and easily

conform

recommended in the Department

Housing and Urban Development

on April

promotional

These words and the

In addition,

to the practices

lines,

rental

shall

Include,

papers,

contact.

program aimed at informing

connnunity of defendant's

The defendant

of the defendant

or public

Implement an advertising

the nonwhite
policy.

(HUD).:_/ in all

A copy of these

as App.endix "B" to this

*I See the pertinent

HUDregulation,
attached
hereto as Appendix A).

of

guide-

pp. 6700-02,
guidelines
Order.

37 F.R. 3429 (a copy

**/

i.
j

'

This subsection
dealing with newspaper advertising
shall
only apply to newspaper ads of six (6) lines or more. Defend~nt
shall continue its present advertising
policies,
and shall not
thange its present practices
with respect to the size 4~d type
of advertising
by shortening
or by otherwise changing its policy
of placing display ads to avoid the requirement
of including
the equal opportunity
statement.

***/ In radio and television

'ii'oosing opportunities"
shall

advertising,
the words "equal
be used and shall be easily audible.
- 8 -

'

(b) Allocate
advertising
dir~cted

a reasonable

budget

to advertising

the placement

monthly display
black

have agreed

of reasonably

prominent

advertisements,

budget

Spani.sh language

stations,

quirements

of this

advertise

a full

of 10% of defendant's

shall

provision.

All advertise-

cross-section
and shall

undue emphasis

to buildings

and

meet the re-

in minority

with vacancies,

media shall

of Trump buildings

not stress

or give

with substantial

occupancy.**/

Provide

written

company, corporation,

by defendant

Rican press,!/

to black-oriented

ments of Trump buildings

4.

one in the

with the allocation

advertising

minority

in media

The parties

and one in the Puerto

together
radio

of its

pr.i.m"arily to the black and Puerto

Ri.can communities.
that

proportion

notification

or other

to each firm,

person

to act as referral

association

or organization

agency,

apartment

engaged

locating

service,

credit

apartments
all

persons

sex or national

origin.

the recipient

procedures

company, or management company that

owned or manag~d by the defendant

qualified

advise

checking

without

regard

to race,

Each such notification

of def01dant's

objective

color,

to

religion,

shall
standards

also
and

for rental.

*7

The parties
agree that the placement
in the Amsterdam News and' El Diario will

!!!.I

are available

If the listed
apartments
with vacancies,
the buildings
ad so that the same apartment
disproportionately
advercised

of such advertisements
satisfy
this requirement.

do not include all Trump buildings

listed
shall be rotated with each
buildings
are not continuously
or
under this subsection.
-9 -

..
'

B.

Progran!_.9f Providing __
Lj_:;>S.,ingsfor _Minority
Apa~trnf~nt

S~~eker~

For two years

-shall

notify

--________
-~eague,
fifth

150 Fifth

apartment

than ten percent,!/

that

apartment

at ~east

building

three

applicants

the apartment.

Open Housing Center

shall

days prior

to the defendant

provide

of

to placing
three-day

have the opportunity

All applicants

shall

avned

tenancy

on the open market .::::_/ During this

qualified

of renting

defendant

10003, of every

which has a black

the Open Housing Center

refer

Order,

of the New York Urban

in each apartment

managed by the defendant

period,

of this

Avenue, New York, New York,

less

to

the entry

the Open Housing Center

available

and/or

after

for the purpose

referred

the defendant

by the
or its

represerve

sentative

with an appropriate

identification

which will

to advise

the defendants

such applicant

has been referred

by the

three

Open Housing Center

an application

apartment

may be placed

defendant's

C.

religion,

seeking

employees

subsection.

referred

to rent

by.the

After
Center

the apartment,

on the open market

to be rented

custom without

sex or national

Affirmative

to this

applicant

normal business

The defendant
transfer

pursuant

days if no qualified

has filed

color,

that

regard

the
in

to race,

origin.

EmploY!nent Program
shall

recruit,

and agents

without

hire,

assign,

regard

promote and

to race,

color,

*/

The requirements
of this provision
need not be followed for
apartment buildings
which presently
have or in the future reach
a black occupancy rate of 10%. For these apartment buildings,
apartments
shall continu~ to be rented without regard to race,
color, religion,
sex or national
origino

!!.I

The three-day
period shall.begin
when notification
has
been completed and the Open Housing Center has received,
either
in person, by telephone,
or_by mail, the listings.
For
purposes of this Decree, rental
on the open market shall mean
rental
to any person not referred
by the Open Housing Center.

10 -


,.,.

religion,
blacks

sex or national

and other

fessional

origi.n

nonwhite

positions

and will

endeavor

perso.rn in supervisory

to place

and pro-

for which they are qualified

as vacancies

arise.~/
Pursuant
the following
1.
place

For every

serve

the available
2.

the defendant

shall

take

-available

on a regular

employment opportunity,

basis

and Spanish

in newspapers
community~/

that

describing

work opportunities.~/
Prominently

include

"Equal

Display

in a p'rominent
employees,

third

the black

the slogan
3.

program,

steps:

advertisements

primarily

jobs

to this

place

Opportunity

an equal
clearly

and applicants

the defendant

in all

advertising

of available

Employer."

employment opportunity
visible

to prospective

poster~/
agents,

for employment in each office

where applications

of

for employment are taken.

"!_/ References
to employees and agents in Part IV C of this
Decree shall include only those persons who are presently
employed as or seek to be superintendents,
rental agents,
leasing agents, or central
office personnel who receive,
review or approve applications
for tenancy or otherwise
p'articipate
in the rental process.
'!::!:_/The parties
agree that the placement of such advertisements in the Amsterdam News and El Diario will satisfy
this
requirement.

***/ If defendants

shall choose to restrict

employment
to persons living within a reasonable
distance
from the
employment location,
they shall so specify in these advertis.ements.
Such designated
areas shall be designed to
include areas of potential
black and Spanish residents

****/ This poster

..

shall be in the form, size and prorr,.i.nence

approved by the United States Department of Labor and the
Equal Employment Opportuni.ty Gommission.
- 11 -


'

. 4.
any part

Notify

in \vI"iting,

each labor

of defendant's

work force

of this

Decree and that

prospective

without

regard

color,

to race,

In recruiting
dant shall

__hi_red p~ssess
exacting

before

employees

are to be referred

employees,

persons

which were in effect

recruited

or
more

with respect

of this

origin.

the d~fen-

for any job or position

the institution

IV (C)

sex or national

nonwhite

nonwhite

qualifications

than those

employees

that

of the terms of Part

religion,

and hiring

not require

union representing

to white

action.

IMPLEMENTATION
OF OBJECTIVE RENTAL
STANDARDS
AND PROCEDURES
In orderto
assign.~ent
housing
Inc.,

A.

of tenants

nondiscriminatory

and to assure

at each building
defendant

standards
whether

assure

shall

and

opportunity

in

owned or managed by Trump Management,

adopt

and procedures
or not to rent

equal

selection

and L~plement the following

which shall

be applied

in determining

to an applicant.

Standards
Income

1.

One week's
be at least

equal

gross

income from all

to one month's

rent,

sources~../ must

except

in the following

circumstances:
(a) The applicant(s)
payments,

or

other

have outstanding

fixed

debt

in excess

a month, with a remaining

debt

period

automobile
of $50.00

four

(4) months,

I
L_,.

of

or

I
I

in excess

-;;r-This shall include alunony, child support, pubiic

assistance
payments' or guaranto:r..' s assurances
on behalf
I
of public assistance
recipiencs,
wife s income, part-time
employment, pensions,
etc.
- 12 -

.. r

r ~~

'

(b) The family

three
In either

(3)

{a)

income must be at least

(b) above,

or

equal

___
.If an applicant

qualify

funds sufficient

obligations

the applican~s

if:

who can

to meet the financial

fixed

monthly

or her residence,

rental,

income

for rental

a guarantor

of the guarantors
for his

net

rent.

does not meet the foregoing

(a) He or she secures

payments

of

one week's

to one month's

he or she may still

verify

is in excess

persons.

circmnstance

standards,

composition

as well

as

based on the defendant's

income standards.
'

If the applicant

is willing

(3) months security

deposit

{b)

three
six

months rent

(6)

(c) If a tenant

building
tenant
,

Inc.,

2.

to another
has met his

or will

supply

in advance.
switches

from one Trump

Trump building
obligations

and if that

to Trump Management,

in the past.
Occupancr
Not more than two (2) persons

apartment.

to post

Not more than four

and two (2) children

(4)

in a one-bedroom

persons,

of the same sex,!/

two (2) adults

in a two-bedroom

apartment.

B.

Procedures
1.

**I

Application

Procedure
"t

*/

Except

different

that

children

under ten years

of age may be of

sexes.

::::../ These procedures are substantially

based on defendanes
past practlces,
as described during discovery.

- 13 .,...,..,"

Applications

a.

apartment
for

building

accept

Applications

or rental

Order

3601

wi~hing

to apply
'

tenant,

shall

and the

judgment

unless

be received

said

by Super-

by the defendant

to
of

Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

be accepted

from all

or agent

tenant

persons

shall

make

of a prospective

on the acceptability

prospective

is applying

be received

superintendent

visibly

(i)

tenant

at the

in the requirements

Housing

Applications

no subjective

shall

and instructed

and of the Fair

will

.'
authorized

agents

applications,

this

tenancy

or complex where the

an apartment.

intendents

for

is:

and objectively

drunk

and disorderly;
(ii)
the

visibly

influence

and objectively
of drugs;

(iii)abusive

or rental
or there

under

towards

the superintendent

agent;

is;
a visible

(iv)

that
her

will

the applicant
apartment

cleanliness
rights
this

and objective

with
soas

of other
criteria,

contact

the

ascertain
maintained
shall

the

intendent
of grooming

subbection

indication

not maintain

sufficient
not

care

to intrude

tenants.

applicant's

or its
former

or

and

on the

In order

defendant

his

to satisfy

agents

shall

landlord

to

the manner in which he or she had

the rented
subjective

premises.
i.mpression

of th~ manner

d:tsqualify

shall

apply

In no event
by a super-

of dress

or style

an applicant.
solely

This

to cleanliness

criteria.

I
l

I' i
~

b.

The superintendent

the application
deposit

for completeness
rent

therefor)

from all

then submit the deposit,

W2 form and application,

or rental

of acceptability

as outlined

and employment shall

within

(i-iv)

be reviewed

a uniform

of an

above.

and a determination

credit

be conducted

The standards

color,

for tenancy

to

Managers employed

main offices.

employment check shall

race,

for review

have the authority

be made by the Section

If conducted,

-applicant.

shall

in B(l)(a)

shall

shall

in the defendant's
d.

agent

shall

two main offices.

on the acceptability

Applications

c.

a secur::ify

The agents

No superintendent

except

review

require

applicants.

to one of the defendant's

applicant

shall

and a W2 form (or reasonable

and determination

make a determination

i .

agent

and shall

of one month's

substitute

or rental

with respect

of acceptability

be uniformly

religion,
Each applicant

ten

(10) business

shall

without

regard

to

origin.

be informed

days whether

to each

based on credit

applied

sex or national

e.

check and/or

wherever

possible

or not he or she has

'

been accepted

'

for tenancy.

processed

within

applicant

of the reason

applicant

not be informed 'of the disposition

beyond twenty

ten

If an application

(10) days,

defendant

therefor,

can not be

shall

notify

but in no event

shall

of his

the
an

application

(20) days from the time he or she applied.

If

rejcted,

rejection,

and of the specific

has failed

to meet.

the applicant

shall

be informed
objective

of the reason
standard

he o~I she

.. 15

,/

/\

for

2.

Providing
Seekers

a.

Defendant

Rental

shall

at 2611 West 2nd Street,

Information
at

maintain

Brooklyn,

New York, a Central

on a weekly basis,

of each currently

in the New York area,

to be vacant
thirty

or available

days.

ability

and shall

available
of its

buildings

the next

include

shall

by type of apartment

that

complete

lists

at 2611 W. 2nd Street,

b.

Apartments

on the apartment
to all

interested

inquirers

vacant

at

in the New

at defendant's
Brooklyn,

main

New York and

New York.

which are available

availability

at each

and a notification

apartments

for inspection

2064 Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn,

about

also maintain

available

available

of avail-

inquiring

of the apartments

building

of all

and the date

persons

Defendant
list

the type of apartment>

rent,

be shown to all

a similar

located

or available

in the New York area within

that

offi.ces

vacant

to be compiled

expected

the monthly

York area are available

Listing,

and of each apartment

shall

apartments.

off i.ces

This list

the number of rooms,

central

its

New York and 2064 Cropsey

Avenue; Brooklyn,

apartment

to Aeartment

list

(2(a)

for rental
above)

by an authorized

defendant.

and listed

shall

agent

be shown

of the

\
\

c.

fications

Inquirers
for rental,

shall

be uniformly

including

informed

the income,

of the quali-

security

deposit

and W2 form requirements.

- 16 -

r ..,..
i '

..
,.

'd.

No waiting

defendant's

offices

any preference
Rental

will

list~/

will

be maintained

or apartment

for persons

buildings

referred

be on a first-come,

apartments

are available

at any of the

nor shall

by present

first-served

there

be

tenants.
basis

when

for rental.

VI
REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS
It
entry

ORDEREDthat

of this_ Decree,

for two years

serve

is further
.

following

arrl thereafter

the defendant

on counsel

three

shall'

three
file

the

(3) times per year

with the Court and

a report

for the plaintiff

inform~tion

(3) months after

for the following

containing

apartment

the

buildings

managed by the defendant:

owned and/or
1.

Argyle Hall

2.

Westminster

3.

Fontainebleau

t
I

Hall

'

Apartments
!

I
!

ll

4.

Lawrence Gardens and Lawrence Towers

5.

Sea Isle

6.

Rachaven Apartments

7.

Shorehaven

8.

Belcrest

9.

Highlander

Apartments

.. T ------

Apartments
Apartments
Hall

10.

Saxony Hall

11.

Clyde Hall

12.

Edgerton

13.

Winston Hall

14.

Sussex Hall

Apartments
i

.&-,--

'.'t

*/ Since this
discriminatory,

.'/ i

is defendant's
p~esent practice
and it is nonplaintiff
interposes
no objection
thereto.

- 17 , /

,.' .., ..-

,/


,,

a.
obs~rvable)

making inquiry

in person

of terms of rental
period

of an apartment

and the number by race,

1.

made inquiry;

2.

were offered

3.

filled

4.

submitted

5.

were accepted

6.

were rejected;

reporting

submitted

for

reporting

A report
during

with deposit;

occupancy;

applications;
pending

at the end of the

period.

may be forwarded

~he following

the preceding

that:

an applicant

to plaintiff

to the sample form attached

b.

during

the availability

an application;

bad applications

This report

about

out an application;

7. withdrew
8.

by race!:_/ (as visually

The number of persons,

hereto

reflecting

as Appendix C.

the applications

the preceding

information

on a form similar

reporting

for tenancy

period,

including

for each personsubmittirig

an

.application:
1.

name, address,
number,

business

and home telephone

and race;

2.

date

of application;

3.

whether

4.

date

5.

weekly income of applicant

a deposit

notified

of apartment

was received;

of acceptance

or rejection;
and monthly

rent

sought;
...

*/

For purposes of this Decree,

be as visually
observable.
- 18 -

all

notations

of race

shall


' ,,

6.

if accepted,

apartment

7.

if rejected,

reason

8.

name of person
accept

9.

tothe

sample form attached

nonwhite

detailed

statement

supporting

to

nor rejected,

status

of application.

may be forwarded

rejected

who decided

the a~plication;

accepted

or disposition
This report

therefor;

or persons

or reject

if neither

chosen;

to plaintiff
hereto

applicant,

on a form similar

as Appendix D.

the report

of the reason(s)

shall

For each

include

for rejection

and

information.

c.

including

of vacancies

A list

the date

and the date

during

the apartment

each apartment

the preceding

was placed

was rented

quarter,

on the market!_/

or otherwise

committed

for rental.
d.

Ij
I

I
j

Reports

filed

include

the current

t'enants

in each apartment

defendant,
preceding

in Sections
1.

reporting

Copies

of all

also

to the race

taken

to implement

of

during

the

the program outlined

including:

letters

checking

Order shall

owned or managed by the

of the steps

above,

unions

to this

with respect

building

period

I and II

and labor

*/

statistics

and an account

and credit

this

pursuant

sent to apartment

companies,

pursuant

Fair

to Parts

locators

Housing groups,
III and

IV of

Decree.

..

Including where appropriate,

the date the Gpcn Housing
Center was contacted
concerning
the apartment's
availability
in accordance with Part III above.

- 19 I

I
!

+ ,I

. ,.

'

I:

'

i
~.

Representative

ments placed

pursuant

copies

of all

newspaper

advertise-

in the Amsterdam News and El Diario

to this

Order and the date of each

advertisement.
3.

The name,. race,

of each rental

position

agent,

and office

superintendent

employee employed as of the date

Order,

an assurance

required
of all

with Part'll

.circumstances
relation

of the entry

obtained

Decree.

and copies

in accordance

If any rental

such a statement

a full

statement

agent

the defendants
of all

and of any action

of this

program

has been conducted,

of this

include

and main office

the educational

statements

to sign

refuses
shall

by Part
signed

that

assignment

pertinent

taken

by them in

thereto~

It

VII
RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS

IT IS FURTHERORDEREDthat
years

following

following

the entry

records

the defendant

of this

for all

Decree,

apartment

shall,for

two

make and preserve

buildings

the

owned or managed

by them:
1.

The name, address,

time of contact
availability
the size

telephone

of each person

or terms of rental
of apartment

sought,

A. he was off~red
B.

he filled

c.

he submitted

number and date

inquiring

in person

of an apartment

about

and
the

therein,~/

if known, and whether:

an application;

out an application;
an applicat:i.on

with deposit.

a guest
~/ This may be accomplished by maintaining
at each apartment building owned by the defendants.

register

- 2.0 -

l'"
f

,::

>

2.
inquiry

A detailed

record

and application

of all

action

and the reasons

A detailed

3.

'

record

of all

taken

on each

for such action.

steps

taken

by the defen-

. i

dant

in ascertaining

the acceptability

for te11;ancy of the

I

applicant

and the name of the employee who took such steps

or who approved

or rejected

the application.

;
I

4.

All records

which are the source

oi,

or coritain

any

of the information

pertinent

to defendant's

obligations
under
1
this Order.
kepresentatives
of the plaintiff'shall
be per/
mitted to inspect ana copy all pertinent
reco;ds of the defen-

!
I

dant at any and all

reasonable

times,

provide~,

however,

that

the plaint~ff

shall

endeavor

to minimize

any ~nconvenience

to

the defendant

from the inspection

of such rec9rds.

'

-~

-----.,.1

VIII
It

is further

years

from the entry

least

twenty

ORDEREDthat
of this

I
for a .period I extending

I.

Decree,

(20) days prior

the defepdant

at

report

to ~ounsel

.1

for the plaintiff:

shall,

to the event,

two

-~

. I

1.
residential

Any new ownership

property,

2.

or management interests-

acquired

by the

The di.vestment

through

..

defendant.

transfer

;_

o:d sale~i

ownership

or management interests

in residential

after

the entry

ORDEREDthat

of this

Decree

~ofany

---~..,

property.

r ---~~--~

IX

It is further

In
. -----4

for a period

the defendant

of two _years

shall

advise

.i- ~--------

counsel

.for plaintiff,

in,writ:!.ng,

!/

complaints,~/

from

For purposes of this Decree, "complaints"

shall mean any
information
which comes to the attention
of the defendant or
its officers
from whatever source received,
which indicates
a possible
denial of equal housing opportunities
under the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 ;:.!:_seq., or a potential
violation
of this Decree.

l
t'

of all

- 21 ..
\
~
.,, ....
_..,,
__

'

\~hatevcr

source,

opportunity

received

in housing

period

of two

-- - - the defendant

Inc.

after

ness
fifteen

(15)

received

Decree,

to investig~te

an explanation

is determined

plaintiff

shall

necessary

to correct

and shall

afford

to the complaint

of the alleged
court

the conditions

it

leading

steps

actions

judicial

before

shall

relief.

bear

"t

1
I

the defendant

its

22 -

own costs.

is

plaintiff

with

in the complaint.
by either

party,

to be

to the complaint,
seven

(7)
conditions

applying

with this

Each party

the effective-

and to overcome any continuing

discriminatory

additional

there

to remedythe

for a motion to compel compliance

any other

that

believes

an additional

appropriate

notify

and provide

contained

recommend what steps

days to effectuate

Decree,

afford

to be valid

the defendants

for a

of such a complaint

the complaint

of the information

If the complaint

leading

shall

days from the date notice

managed by

shall,

threatening

the pla1ntiff

equal

by the plaintiff.

determines

a need for emergency relief

of this

of this

received

Except where the plaintiff

exists

plaintiff

the entry

complaints

regarding

owned and/or

In.addition,

years
of all

defendant

at properties

Trump Management,

by the

effects
to the

Decree,

or

,.

The Court

for all

shall

retain

jursidi.ction

of this

actj.on

purposes.

ORDERED
this

day of

, 1975.

EDWARD
NEAHER
United States District

Judge

The undersigned
apply for and
consent to the entry of this

Order:
For the Defendants:

For the Plaintiff:

ROYM. COHN
~axe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York

FRAh1KE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

FRED C. TRUMP

P. GOLDBERG
NOR11AN
Attorney,
Housing Section
Ci.vil Rights Division
_Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

DONALDTRUMP

Q
~.

~ A-~&-:::t.L
'. .

~-!;

DONNAF. G0~9STEIN
Attorney,
H:;i,using Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
.

'

"

HENRYBRACHTL
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Eastern District
of New York

'"

APPENDIX A

ij.ules and Regulations

37 F .R. 3429
Feb. 16, 1972

Title'24-HOUSIHG
AND

URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Chapter I-Office

of Assistant Secre
tary for Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development
$U8CHAPTER A-FAIR

(Doclcct

HOUSING
No. R-72-165)

PART 110-FAIR

HOUSING POSTER
The purpose of this regulation is to
require the dispby of e. fair housing
Poster by persons :subject to sections 804806 of the Civil H.ir:hts Act of 1968 and to
prescribe the content of this poster.
Notice of a pro1;03cd n,ncndment to
Title 24 to include a new Part 72 was
published in the FE:flERAL REGISTER on
August 4, 1971 L36 F'.R. 14336). <Under
the reorganizati::m of Title 24 published

~ .

-.

'

.....

_,'..":'\.~; ~

1971 (36 P.R. 2440:ll. the fair housing

Poster will become new Part 110.) Comments were rcc::-ivtd from approximately
20 interested perrnm and organizations
a.ndconsideration has been given to each
comment.
Some commwt~ with respect to proPosed 72.10 criticized the coverage of
the proposed rc;rt!.lntion as too broad,
while other ccmmcnts obje::tcd that the
coverage is too 1r1-row, and various 1mggestions were made. for changes i11 coverage. Comment,; wci-e dirf'cted not only
to whnt dwellin;.:s should be included
but also to the st;igc :it which the re- quin:,ment should tr\ke effect and the
. pe1sons to whom it should apply. In
respo11sc to the comments, 72.IO(a)
(now 110.10 (aJ and tb) > has been
revised to clarify the extent of coverage, to broaden co,emge to the extent
appropriate ::md to eliminate unnecessary
burdens where the requirement i::an appropriately be n:in-owcd or eliminated.
Under~ 110.10 :1 nnct 1bl, display of
th:: nrescribcd poster at a sinr;lc-family
dv,clling is not required unless the dwell, tng is bdng cITcrPd for sale or rental In
conjunction with the sale or rental of
other dwellings; however if a real estate

i
l

~,.

'.,,.

-,.

'

3429 a
broker or ngent is handling the sale or
rental he must display the poslcr at any
place ~f bu:iine.ss where the dwclli11c is
being o!Tcrcd for n.lc or rental. With rc.r;pect to all other dwellings covered by
the ,\ct. the poster must be displayed at
any place of bu.,i11c,,s where the dwelling
is offered for sale or rrutal: in addition,
the poster must be disp\aycd at the dwelling, except that in the case of a sin&;lcfamily dwelling bcin:; o!Tcred for sale or
rental in conjunction
with the sale or
rental of other dweilin~s, c.:, . a subdivision, the poster may be di:playcd at
model hornr-s instead of nt c::cch of the
individu'll dwelling:;. Finally. in the ca.se
of dwellings allier than a single-family
dwelling not bcrnr:s offered for sale or
rental in conjunction
with the s::1le or
1ental of other dwellings, the poster must
be displayrd from the bcginnini:; of construction thrcugh the end of the sale or
1ental process.
Several comments Sllf:f~estrd revisions
in the language of the poster drscribed
In proposed ~ 72.25. S:.ich su~!e,tions included rewriting the poster in terms of
the individual's
ri1:;hts rather th:in the
Act's prohibitions.
adding
additional
prohibitions
cont::iined in tile Act, emphasizing the nature oi pcn:tllil's for
failure to po~t. 11nd listing the HUD area
office instead of the rei:'.ional office as a
location to whic-h to send complaints.
The new l l0.2fl adopt;, the suggestion
With rerrard tn the area ottice~ ln that
.the poster will provide !or insertion of
the address of the rc<;ir,nal or ar<"a omce
as appronriatc. It has be~n decided that
instead of lrnr>thenin('! the contf'nt of the
poster by adding additionnl prohibitions.
the poster should be made shorter and
easier to understand
bv briC'fly hi"'hli'lhtinp: the major prohibitions. In addition, the Equal Hou~ing Opportunity
logotype and slogan hwe been inserted.
at the top of the poster.
A comment by tl~e Federal Home Loan
Bank Board
<FHLBB> recommended
exempting from this rer;ulation any person subject to a re:,:ulat;on of the F'HLBB
requiring that pnson to post a poster
substantially
similar in content to the
poster det.cribed in HUD's rcrr.ulation. 'A
similar comment wa!': msde b\' the B'.)ard
of Governors of the Fedrral Reserve System with respect to entities subject to
supervision by any of the four Frcternl
financial re,rnlatory ai:;cncies. The Department will authotizc a r>crson subject
to the jurisdiction of a Federal financial
regulatory agency to utilize a po::ter pre~
&eribed in a regulation bv such a';cncy,
and approved by the Department,
in~
stead of the poster prescribed by HUD.
However, all of the other requirf'ments of
Part 110 will remain folly ap)licnbie regardless o! whatc\er snnctions the rei;uJatory arency prescribes for failure to
comply with its rerulntion.
This provision is set rorth in* 110.25,bl. The re
(lU!remem. set f0rth in~ llOJl}/cl,
tlrnt
financial
in."Lt1jtic111s p<;.,,Land n1r~:ntn~111
ll fnir hVU'U11-~' f)(l:,ter \\tll
11tt Lf.' t'.'I~lt't!VC
until May 1, 1972, in order to aliow t:mc

for the l'"cdernl financial

n:!::ulatory
n!l'encies to i~sur approprinlc rcRulalions.
Proposed ~ 72.30 stated thnt a fullt:re
to display the poster as reqmrcd would be

dcemrd a discriminatory
housing practice, I.e .. an act unlawful under sections
8114.805, and 806 of tiUe Vlll, ::mct prim,i.
f:icic evidence of n violn lion of lhcse r.~ciions. as aplicablc. There were comments fnrc:;nP, this 1>ro,is1(na:1d n comment i;taf'.nc: that such a provi>ion wa!'l
beyond the Dcp:11 Lment's n11:hority M1
the ;-,:round that Litle VlIJ p1P. 0 cril;c the
specific .ict~ of clisn;minrition
ll'hich arc
unlawfnl. Tilcrc was a,sa n c::imm::nt 1i:-commc11dinr, that failure t') cJmply shr;uld
subject a person to suspcn~ion from
eligibllity for FHA insurance.
The Drpartmcnt
believes tlrnt it has
to require a fair housing
the authority
.Poster, nnd that proposed* 72.30 does not
prescribe a new violation not provided for
in title VIII. nather. the S('etion provides
an appropriate
evidenlia ry mechanism
for assisting in the determination
of
whether a vi,.ilation of Litle VI1I has occurred. For purposes of clarity, the provi- .
sion has been combined
with proposed f 72.35-complaint.s-!nto
a new ,.
110.30-Effcct
of failure
to display
poster-and
the combined text shortened. Under 110.30, when a person
claiming- to have bem injured by a discriminatory housing prac 1.icc files a complaint pursuant to Part 105-Fair
Housing, a failure to display the required
poster shall be deemed prima facic evidence of such practice.
The comment with respect to apr,lica'tion of ndditional sn.nctio:1s Is rejected,
since such sRnctlons as well as others ll re
provided in the Affirmative Fslr Housin~
Marketing Rc1rnlations pubiished January 5, 1972 (37 P.R. 75 \. for failure t'J
make the postine; required at FHA project sites by 200.620<!> of that rerrulation. Although Part 110 is applicnble to
some persons who are not covered by
the Affirmathe Fair Housinr. Marketin's
regulations,
the Department
considers
that the insertion in Part 110 of the .sanctlons prnposed in the comment
is not
appropriate.
Accordingly, a new Part 110 is added
to Title 24 to read as follows:
Sec.

$ubpotl A-PurpoH

e>ndDellnitions

110.5

Purpose.
Definitions.

Subpart
110.10
110.15
110.20
110.25

B-Requi,.,ment,
for Dhpfay of Poslers
Pe.rsons subject.
Location of posters.
A,allnhll!ty of posters.
Description
o! post(;rs.

110.30

Effect

llO.l

Subpa,t C-Enforcemen!
o! !allure to disp!ar

poster.

Part l l O
are issued ,iuder sc-ctlm1 7(d) of the Department or Housing e.nd Urbnn Development
Act or 1965 (42 u.s.c. 3535(d)).
AUTHORl'TY: The provisions

Subpart A-Purpose

of this

and Definitions

} IO.I
l'ur11osc.
The Il'[':1.11:\tions set forth in this part
contain the procPdurcs
cst;,.bl!$bed ,y
'..he Secretary of Hou,,ing ;md Urban .1,.:veloprnent with respect to Lhe display of
a !air housing poster by persons subject
to sections 804-B06 of the Civil Rights Act
o! 196B; 42 U.S.C. 3604-3606.

,,...

.t

..
. ,

3430
ll0.5

Definitions.
<n> "Department"
means the Depart
mcnt of Housing and Urbnn Development.
<b) "Discriminatory
housing prnctlce''
means an act that is unlawful under section 804, 805, or 806 of title VIII.
(c) "Dwelling" means nny building,
structure, or portion thereof whlch is
occupied as, or desitmed or intended for
occupancy a.,, a residence by one or more
families, and any vacant land which is
offered for sale or lease for.the construction or location thereon of any such
building, structure. or portion thereof.
Cd) "Pamily" includes a single individ-

ual.

'I

<e>"Person" includes one or more individuals, corporations. partnerships, associations. labor'org:i.nizations. legal representatives,
mutual companies, jointstock companies, trusts. unincorporated
organizations. trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers and f!ducia1ies.
(f)
"Secretary" means the Secretary
ot Housing and Urban Development.
(g)
''Fair housing poster" means the
poster prescribed by the Secretary for
display by persons subject to sections
804-806 of the Civil Right.,; Act of 1968.
(hl "The Act'' means title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601
et seq.
(i) "Person in the business of ~elling
or renting dwellings" means n person as
defined In section 803< c > of the Act.

Subpart -Requirements

for Display

of Posters
110,10

;
')

P<-nou,i. ~uhj(-rt.

<a> Except to th~ extent that paragraph ( b) of this section applies. all per sons subject to section 804 of the Act.
Dlscriminotion in the Sale or Rental of
Housing, shall post and maintain a fair
housing poster as follows:
0) With respe.:.:t to a single-family
dwelling lnot being offered for sale or
rental in conjunction with the sale or
rental of other dwellmgs) offered for sale
or rcnt~.l throu!'.'h a real e!'>tate broker,
agent, salesrmm. or per:;on in the business
orselling or renting dwellings. such person shall post and m;1intain a fair housing poster at auy place of bu:c;iness where
the dwelling is o!Tered for sale or rental.
(.2) With respect to all other dwellings
covered by the Act:
<O A fair housing
poster shall be
posted and maintained at any place of
business where the dwelling is offered for
sale or rental. and
(ii)
A fair housing poster shall be
po~ted and muintalned at the dwellin.:r,
except that with respect to a singlefamily dwelling being offered for sale or
rental in conjunction with the sale or
rental of other dwellings, the fair housing poster may he po,tcd and nrnintainrd
at tl1e model dwcllln,.s m~tc:id of at each
of the individual dwelling;;,
(3) With rrspect to those dwellings
to which subparagraph
t:.?l of this paragraph applies, the fair housing poster
must be po:;tcd at the beginning of con. struction
and maintained
throur:hout
the period oI construction and sale or
rental.

(b> Tols part shall not require pO!t!ng

and mnlntalnlng a fair hous!na- po,ter;
(il On vacant lane!, or
{l.l)
At any single-family dwel11ng, unless such dv:cll!ng
(a)
Is being otiercd for sale or rental
in conjunction
with the sale or rental
of other dwellings ln which circumstances a fair housing poster .shall be
posted and maintained
us spec!fled 1n
paragraph <a.>
12> (iiJ of this section, or
( b > Is being offered for sale or renta.l
through a real estate brcker, agent, 111.lea-,
man. or person in the business of ~ell1ng
or renting dwellings In whlch c!r:::umstances a fair housing poster shall be
'posted 11nd r:iaintained as specltlI in
paragraph I a) (1) of this section,
(c) All persons subject to section 805
of the Act, Discrimination in the Financing of Housing, shall post and maintain
a fair housing poster at all their places
of businer.s which participate
in the
financing of housing.
<dl All persons subject to section 806
of the Act. Discrimination !n the Provision of Brol,erage Services. shall post
and maintain a tair housing poster at all
their places of business.
110.15

rn the nnanclng or housing.

o In the provl1!on or real estate
aervlcea.
o Blockbusting
Is also Illegal.

brokers.ii

Anyone who !eels he hll.!I been dlscl1m!nated

t.ga.inst should send t. complaint
to:
U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban De
velopment,
Assistant
Secretl\Ty tor l':qual
Opportunity,
Washington, D.C. 20410
or
HUD Region or
(Area Office stamp)

<b) The Assistant Secretary for EQual

Opportunity may grant a waiver perrr.i.Ung the substitution
of a poster p:-escribed by a Federal financial regu]a to:y
agency for the iair housing poster cescribed in r:aragraph (a) of this sectio::..
While such waiver remains in e:!ect.
compliance with the posting rec;u:remen ts of such regulatory a1;ency shail be
deemed compliance with the posting reQUirements of this part. Such waiver snail
not .affect the applicability of all other
provisions of this part.

Subpart C-Enforcement
110.30 Effeet or failure to di,play
po!!-ter.

Any person who claims to have been

l.oraiion of po,tc1~.

All fair housing posters shall be prominently dif.played so as to be readily ~Pparent to all per.sons seeking housing
accommodations
or financial assistance
or brokerage
services in connection
there-with as contemplated
by sections
804-806 or the Act.
110.20
Availabili1y of po~lcrs.
All persons subject to this part may
obtain fair housing posters from the Department's
:-egional and area 01"nces. A
facsimile may be used if the poster and
the lettering are equivalent in size and
legibility to the poster available from the
Department.
110.25
Dc.-niption
of po,wr~.
<a.) The fair housing poster shall be
l 1 inches by 14 inches and shall bear
the following legend:

injured by a discriminatory
housing
practice m1y file a complaint '\l.ith the
Secretary pursuant to Part 105 of t!us
ch1pter. A failure to display the fair
housing poster as reqUired by this par:
shall be deemed prima facie ev1der.ce of
a discriminatory
housing practice.
Effective date. This part shall be ef
!ective February 25, 1972, except for
110.lO<cl
which shall be effecti\e
May 1, 1972.
SAMUEL

J.

SlMMONS,

Assistant Secretary

tor

Equal Opportunit11.

IFR Doc.72 2262 Flled

2-15-72;8:45

amJ

//.,,
./

.,,,
.

"-..:
:.fl
C::::J ~:

c.. ,...":
.
.

't'

t.-.i,_ ...,.._l>

!
f

r ....,.. -..... ~,r;

~..

~~--~..t,',.,;,'

,. . -

We Do Business
In Accordance
W1th
Federal Pair Housing Lo.w
(Title

\'Ill

or the Civil Rights

the

Act or 111ee)

IT 1S It,U:O.\L

TO D1SCRIMINATE
ANY PEnSON

COLOR.

RELIGION,

AGAINST

BEC1'.l..i3E OF RACE,
OR NATIONAL

ORIOIN

Jn the sa,e or rent!ll 0! hnuslng or resldentln.l lots.

In aclver\.lslng the sl'lle or rente.l o! hous-

1nc.

---- ----- ..------, --------,..

i

APPENDIXB
37 F.R. 6700
4/1/72

In response

to publishers'

comments,

Table I has been simplified and referDEPARTMENT

OFHOUSING
ANDences
to mi!1imum type sizes limited to
a recommendation that the type should
URBAN
DEVELOPriiENT
be bold display face and no smaller than

Office of Assistant

Secretory

for Equal

Opportunity
(Docket

No. R-72-1081

ADVERTISING GUIDEUNES FOR FAIR

HOUSING

Notice of Statement of Policy

!n order to facilitate and promote
compliance with the requirements
of
Title VIII of the Ci Vil Ri;hts Act of 1968,
and particularly section 804 (cl tbereoi
(42. U.S.C. 3601, 3604.(c)) re.;arding
notices, statements
or advertisements.
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development has prepared guidelines to
indicate graphic and written references
that are appropriate for the preparation
publication, r.nd general use of advertis~
ing ma.tter with respect to the sale or
rental of a dwelling as defined by the
Act.
Notice of a proposed statement of policy was published in tbe FEJ:>ERAL REGIS
TER on May 21, 1971 (36 F.R. 9266). Comments were received irom 26 interested

persons aud organization.; a:nd consideration has been given to each comment.
Several comments observed that the
proposed policy statement v.>asat times
unnecessarily
limited to the field of
newspaper advertising. In response to
the comments, the policy stat~ment has
been revised in several places to clarify
that the guidelines apply to advertisements in all media, including, e.g., television and radio, as well as to advertising
agencies and other persons who use
advertising.
Several organizations suggested additional catchwords connoting a discriminatory effect for inclusion in section
A-3. That section hns been expanded to
include several additional terms which
may have a discriminatory effect when
used in a discrirninatory context.
In response to other comments. section A-6 has been revised to clarify how
directional references could be employed
in a. discriminatory
context with an
ethnically, as well as a ractaliy, discriminatory effect. Also. section A-7 has been
added relating specifically to designation
of religious, ethnic or racial facilities to
identify an area or neighborhood.
A number of comments indicated that
human models or Equal Opportunity advertisements can and have been used
selectively to promote the development
of racially exclusive communities. A r.ew
section C-4 has been added in order to
meet this specific problem. The previous
humnn models section has bcC'n clarified
by rc\ision and rcor;:aniz:,tion m ti:~
new section C. in livhL of comment,;
which indicated confusion or uncertainty surrounding
the use of human

models.

eight points.
A number of organizations
suggested
the inclusion of a puhlish1;r's notice to
appear with real ,srnte o.dvertis!ng. A
suggested notice has been included as
Table III, in lieu of the provision in the
proposed guidelines for direct notification to all firms or persons using the
advertising services of a p'..l:J!isher. This
provision was removed in ligllt of objections that sucil notification
would be
unworkable or would impose great hardship since a large volume of real est.ate
advertising is placed l:.,ya great number
of persons on a nonrecurring basis.
Finally, a number of minor editorial or
organizational changes h::we been made
in order to clarify or simplify the
advertising guidelines.
Several organizations suf(gested that
the guidelines make specific reference
to the roles of other enforcement agencies, including the Department. of Justice
and local agencies. These comments suggested that the guidelines specify that
they do not alter or affect conciliation
agreements or court orders obtained by
these agencies, as well as by ~he Dcpartr.1ent. S:.ich a disclaimer appears to lit:
unnecessary, since there is nothing in
the guidelines to indicate an intent to
alter or affect agreements or orderi obtained by the Department
and other
agencies.
This document is issued pursuant to
section 7(dl. Department of Housing and
Urban
Development
Act, 42 U.S.C.
3535(d).

The statement
follows:
PUBLICATION
WITH
Tr:n.i:

of Policy

0UIDEt.INES
OF THE

vur

FOR
ClVlL

reads . a..~
CuV.PLIANCE
R!GHrs
ACT

OF 1968
POUCY

6l'ATEMENT

Section 804(c) o! title VIII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1968. 42 U.S.C. 3604{c). makes
lt unlawful
t-0 make. print,
or publish,
or
any
cause t-0 be made, printed, or published
notice. statement.
or adverti.sement,
with
respect to the ~ale or rent.al of a c\welllng
(any building. structure,
or po:t!on thereof
which is occupied as, or des!,;"ned or intended
for occupancr
as, a residence by one or more
!>1.milles. and any vncant land whlch is ctfered for sale or lease for the construction
or
location thereof oi nny such building, structure, or portion thereof)
that indicates
any
pre!ere,1ce,
limitation,
or discrimination
based on race. color. religion, or national
origin. or a.n tntentz.on to n1t\ke any such
preference, lim1tat1on or dlscrllninatlon.
are being
These
advertising
6 u1de!lnes
lssued for the purpose 0: a.;s1sting all ,u:!vertlslng media, ;1.dvertls.lng t\{~c:.1ctes. and all
other per,,ou.s who U$e advenlsing
to make,
print. or publish er c:rn:0 e to be m:Hle. print<:'d,
~>r publbheli
n!~Y c;.i-, ...,;l,::,.J c)r ~<.<pln.y n(!nruse1ncnt wtth
i/' t1>; :-:~1~:ur rcnt,..1.! v!

a dwelling
comp!lance
VIII.

by
owner or hls s,.gent. tn
w1~h the requirc:t.,,nt,;
of title

Con!ormance
v.lth these guldellne3 wUl be
considered
in evaluating
compliance
with
tlt1o VIII Jn connection
with lnvesu,,at!on.~
by the A.ssistant. S<'cretary
o! ad'.c~tls!ng
practices 111:d policl<>s under the title.

r
'i

A. The use of words, phrases. sentence$

and visual aids which have a discrimina,o~y
effect. The iollow!ng
words, phrr.ses, symbols, and forms
typify
those most o!ten

used In residential
real este.te advertising
to convey either o\crt or tacit cliscrlmln.'\toty
Intent. Their use should therefore be e.;old:d
in order to e:!mlnate
their <llsalmlnatory
effect. In considering a complamt under tlt!e
w!ll nonnallv
VIII, the Assistant
Secretary
consider the use of these and compart.blc
words, phrases, symbols. and forms w tndlcaw possible violation ot the title and to
II need for seeking
r~solut1ou o!
establish
the complnlnt.
I! lt ls apporent
1roru tbe
context
o! the usage thnt dLscrirnlnat1on
within the meaning o! the 'I'itlc ls likely to
result.
1. Words descriptive
of dwelling,
land
lorci, and tenant. White private home, Col
ored home. Jewish home.
2. Words indicative
of race, color, religion, or national origin. Negro, Hispano, Mexican, Indian, Oriental, Black, White, WASP,
Hebrew, Irish, Italian.
Europc:.n, etc.
3. Catch words. Rcstr!cwct,
ghott-0, dlsad
vantnged.
Also, words such as private, ln
tegrated,
traditional,
"board
1morova.1 or
"membership
approved"
It u~e.;1 !n a dl.scrlmlnatory
context.
4. Symbols or logotypes. Symbols or logotypes which Imply or sugi:;est race, color, r~ligion, or national
origin.
o. Colloqui(l/ism,. Loci>.lly ncceptoo words
or phr::1.SeSwhich imply or suggest ra.ce. color,
religion, or national
origin.
6. Directions
to the real estate for sale err
rent (use of maps or written
instructlorni).

References
to Ieal estate location made In
terms of racially or ethnically
significant
landmarks
such I\S e.n existing Black development
(signal to Blacks) or an existing
<1evelopn1ent known !cr Its exclusion o! ml
norltles
(signal to Whites}. Specif!c directions given trom a racially
or ethnically
slgnlficant
area.
7. Area (location)
description.
Use o! religious, ethnic,
or raclal facilities
to describe an area, neighborhood,
or laca.tlon.
B. Selective use of advertising
media or
content
With. discrimin,::tory
effect. 'l1le sein various media.
lective use of advertising
and with respect to various housing devel
opments or sites can lead to discriminatory
results and may lndlcate a violation or title
VllI.
1. Selective geographic impa,t. Such selective use may Involve the straregic placement
of billboards,
broclrnre advertisements
distributed
within a limited gcor;rnphic
area
m pc.r-
by hand or in the mail, or ndvertlsing
tlcul:n geographic coverage editions o! major mctropol!t.an
newspap ..rs, or In lo~al
newspap'rs which are mainly adver~ising vehicles for reaching a particulur
sebrneni; o!
the community,
or in displays or anr.ounce
ments only In ,;dected sales offices.
2. Selective use of equal opportunity
s,oga1, or logo. Such selective u;;e may involve
using the equal opportunity
slogan or logo
in advertising
reac:
.g some g~ograpb.ic
areas, but not others, or with respect to
b
not others.
some properties
J. Sc!t:ctivc use c i H1!l<Pt. :node ls. Such selc-~tive fidvert1:>1ng 1nay o.Lso 1i:.rolve t~te t4..C:i)a
o! luuna.u.

1n0del~

ptln1arHy

ill

rncd~a

tl1..i;.

ca.er to one ri.cl1>l or Nbntc ser;ment o! the

population
tba.1; ts not balanced by a com

r....,.,

'

6701

plementl!.ry
advertising
ca.mpntgn tho.t l!!I
directed e.t other groups, or the use by a developer o! racinlly mixed models to advertise one o! the developments
and not others.
O. Policy ana practices
gu:de11nes. T:ie
following gutde!!nes are offered e..sGugrested
methods
ot r.ssurlng equal opportun.!ty tn
real estat-0 ndvertlsing:
1. 01,ldc !tnes for use of logotype, state-

!:f t;s%t;'fits~i~
9!v~~~~
~;;r:oe!~f1~t~
1

Equal I!ouslng Op;;ortunlty

logotype'. s~tement or slogan as n means or educatmg ,:.he
homeseeklng
publlc that the prorierty Is
a,vallable to e.ll persons rcg.'\.rdless o! rn<:c,
color, rcl!gtr,n, or rui.tlonal or!,:Jn. Table l
(see appendlx)
!ndicaU's su.:-ge,ted sizes for
the \Hie of tllo logotypo, In P.ll spaC<. advertls
1ng which ls less tba.n 4 colum.n Iner.es or a.
pa.go In size, the Equ ..'1.l Housing Opportunity
11lo&a.n should be used. The 1td\'crt! cment
ma be
Ther cave~
0

,,

e. w t out re ard to
e,
ori tn Al rerna.ve y, 3-~ percont of t..ho
vcrt
ment copy
m1:1ybe dovoted to a statement o! tho equal
housing opportunity
poller of the owner or
agent. Tnble 2 (see appendix) cont.3.ins copies
ot tho suggested Equ..l Houslllg Opportunity
logotype, statement and slogan.
2. GutdeZinee. for use of human models.
Humo.n models Jn photographs,
drawings, or
other gre.phi.:: te<:hnlques may 'be used to
lndlcato rncla.l Inclusiveness.
If models are
used in display advertising cn.mprugns, the
models should be clearly d.crtnaole as reasonA~ly repr,;-sentlng bOth majority and mmorlty
groups In the metropolitan
area. Models, If
used, should 1ndlca.~ to the generul public
that the housing ls open to all Without regarl.l to race, color, religion, or national
origin, and Is not for tile exclusive use of one
such group.
3. Dui<lelines

/or

notification

of

APFl:NDIX

'l'he following tbreo tables may serve 11S a

guide tor the use o! the Equa.t Housing Op
pcr.;unlty
logotype, i;tatement,
slog3.n, aud
publisher's
notice !or display advertising:
TAllLE I

A slmple formula

can gu!de the real estate

advertiser In using the Equal Hou.sing Opportunity logotype, statement, or slogan. lt other
logotypes are used In the t.dvertlsement,
then
the Equal Hous1ng Opporttmlty
logotype
should be o! a size equal to che largest o!
the other logotypes; ir no oth;,r logotypes
ltl'e usN'.I, then the following guidelines can
be used. In all Instances, the type should
be bold display !a.ce e.J:ld 110 smaller than
8 points.
Size of
Approximate
size of
advertisement

Logotype
in inchc.,

.z pe.ge or ia.rger---------% pn.ge up to % pa.ge------

4 column Inches to % page______
Less than

4 oolumn

l.nches.......

z 2.
l x 1.

.i x %(1).

1Do not use.

TABLE ll.-ll.LUSTRATIONS
STATEMENT,

OF LOGOTYPE,
AND S!,OOAN

Equal Ho\lslng Opportunity

logotype.

r
!

Fatr

Houstng Policy. (a.) Emplo;Jees. All publishers

of adverti~ements,
ll.dvenislng agencies, and
tlrms engo.rcd in the sale or renta.J o! real
estate should proYicle a prlnted oopy or their
nond1scrlniluatory
poI1cy to each employee
a.netofficer.
(b) C:tcnts.

All publishers
o! advertise
agencies should poet
a copy or their nondiscrlm!n.e.tlon
policy ln 11,,
consplcuou.s place wberever persons come to
pl11ce lldvenislng
a.nd shoUld nave copies
available fer n.ll flnns and persons using
their advortlslng scr;,lces.
(c) 'Publisher's
n.otice. AU publishers
a.re
encouraged
to publish at the beginning o1
the real czt.a.te a.dvenlslng
~ectlon a notice
such as that a.ppea.rillg 1n Toble 3 (see
appendix).

ments and l\dvertlslng

Effective date. This statement of policy

shall be el!ective May 1, 1972.
SAMUEL J. SIMMONS,
Assistant Secretary
for Equal Opportunity.

Equal Uouslng Opportunity

statement:
We are pledged to the letter and &pirlr, o!
U.S. policy for the Q{)hievement of equal
housing oppOrtunlty throughout
the Nation.
We encourage
and suppon
an aifumattv-,
advertising and x:nar}:etlng program 1z. Which
there a.re uo barriers ta obtaining
housing
be.cause o! race, color, Nllgion or national
origin.
Equal Housing Opportunity
slogan:
..Equal Housing Opportunity."
TABLE

III-ILLUSTRATION
NOTICE

OF

PlraLfSHEP.'S

Publisher's notice:
All real estate advertJ.B.ed tu this news;n1per
18 subJoct to the Federal Fal:r Hou.sing Act or
1968 which makes it Ulegal to adven:se "o.ny
pre!erence,
Umltatlon,
or discrimination
bs.sed on ra.ce, color, religion, or ne.tlonal

to make a.ny such

origin or an Intention
pre!er~ncc, !lmltatlon, or discrmlno.tlon."
This newspaper w111 not knowingly !\Ccept
any advertising tor real estate which 13 In
violation o! tile law, Our readers are hereby
informed thM all dwellings advertised Int,"~
newspaper
are available
on
an eqi....i.
cpport unity bo.sls.
(FR Doc.72-4963

Filed 3-31-72;8:45

e. 1]

C:P O 9 303S9

"-----~--

<

--

,_

,~ '"i

'

.,
/

..
. ,.

APPENDIXC
TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC

..
RE:

Rental

Analysis

DATE:

---

Report

'fHE BREAKDOWN
OF PERSONSBY RACE MAKINGINQUIRYIN PERSON
ABOUTTHE TERMSANDAVAILABILITYOF APARTMENTS
FOR THE PERIODOF
AT

TO

---------

---------

------------------

APARTMENTS

WHITE

'

BLACKSPANISH OTHER TOTAL

MADEINQUIRY
WEREOFFEREDAN APPLICATION
.-

FILLED OUTAN APPLICATION

SUBMITTED
DEPOSITWITHAPPLICATION
;

APPLICATIONSWITHDRAWN
BEFOREPROCESSING
~

APPLICATIONACCEPTED

APPLICATIONSWITHDRAWN
AFTERPROCESSING
APPLICATIONSREJECTED
APPLICATIONSPENDINGEND OF PERIOD

l
i

..

..

I
I

l
J
,

AIPENDIX D -

..

."

APPLICATIONSFOR TENANCY
AT
APART}IBNTS

*ss,

Ir
I
IF
r~A!rE OF
DEPOSIT REJECTED
APPLI- SIZE, TYPE OF
'
OF
REASON ACCEPTED, E:!PLOYF:E
DATE
HC:rE .&
CA~rr's APT. DESIRED MONTHLYDESIRED REC'D
.,
DATE
ACT I~~G O'T
CF
AND DATE
AND
RENTAL DATE OF
BUSil\t:SS
APPLICA- WEEKLY (Brs. , FurNOTIFIED NOTIFIED APPLIC.;TIG~
RATE OCCUPANCY. DATE
PHONES INQUIRY TION
INCOME nished)
DATE

'.

::"'
"-'

.
.

,;/

'

'II

..-

..,..

.-

"'

'

..

'

...

..

,~

,.

..

..

two or mo~e. single

persons

'

are

...r

applying

for

one apartment

please

so indicate.

-------------------------------------------------.......,_,--~-----
------~-------------------------------------------------------------

r:,.

1 r~2~
9
..a.V'
zJ

i,,'-(

.:

\j'""

JURY

TITLE

l ' --

....,,

li L.r't~, ~n,

~---~--~--DOCKET

BASIS

,- :-"'

'

OF

ATTORNEYS

CASE

UNITEDSTATESOF .AMERICA

For Plaintiff:

u. s.

ATTYf~D~:'(l

vs.
FRED C. TRUMP,DONALDTRUHP
HANAGD1ENT, INC.
and TRU:MP

-----

For Defendant:""

S;\J'..'?
BOLAN, & T"'A
1TT:EY
39 r:a::-Jt 6cth C' '-: ,~ ,, ,,-, :..
\.)

NeN ,_Yo'"k.
VIOitATION OF FAIR HOUSE1G _t.CT ""'
SEEKS: An INJut;CTION
.

OF ACTION:

TRIAL

,_:

_(:
.i_

1968

--- 1' (; __

N. Y. J ()'l? J

~ __

-----

47?-1400

Cl-AIMED

ON
DATE

ABSTRACT

OF

DEFENDANT'S

COSTS
RECEIPTS.

TO

WHOM

ACCOUNT

DUE

!!

REMARKS,

fc:TC.

RECEIVED

D1SEH.;ri.SED

r-}'
t.,.

vs.

U.S. A.

FRED C. TRUMP,INC,

ET AL
AMOUNT
REPORTED
EMOLUMENT
RETURNS

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

:ornplaint

10/ 15/7:

I~

Sun:unons issued.

St~mmons retu:rnr.,d & fil 0 d/executed.

notice
of Annearance for defts
.
---------------------NFf'.HF:R, .J. - OY'der dated
11 /5 /73 f'j 1 ea extend:i ng t:i me f"cr

":., ;r, /7~

~

filed.

173

, ~7773-j
-------

i complaint

1 .. -12-73

:~otice
of
complaint

motion
ret 1-11-74
& memorandum of law

of motion

filed

extend:tng

tte

for an order
dismissing
the
in support
of motion
filed.

and memorandum of law to

dismiss

to affidavits

8/9
10

defts'

of Donald

--

--

11/12

_i~Iemorandum of U .s. in response

_________ /Roy Cohn filed

time

counterclaim,
ret 1-11-74 at 10 A.M. filed.
J--S::-_74!_Unreported
orders
cited
in memo of U.S. in opposition
__ .___ L motion to dis_m
__
. i_s
__s_f_i_1_e_d_.
____________________
_____ , __

5
6

filed.
dated 11/30/73
to answer to 12/10/73

------- ----------------------------------1----~ < 2-73

i Count~rclaim
filed.
... ..,,____ ------------------------------------1--rotice

Lt

to 1-2-3-73

By NEA.Hl:::R,
J. - Order

I for ;the defts

JSS

----1

the defts
to ans','"'" to 111?6 frf3
I
.J-~l:J5-7]Pltff
s first
-mterrogatories
to ----------------1-..c......defts
filed.
ll-26-73:
By NEAHER,J. - Order.dtd
11-23-73
extending
time to answer

IN

to
__
1

13

...;;;_,__

Trump &

---

14

___

. . . .. .- , ,I
__
,,

'!.__f
16

/_74 I By NEARER, J. - Order dated 1/15 /74

to dismiss
is adjd to 1/25/74

=-~~
--

filed

that

the

deft'

s rnotior- _____

15

Defts'
reply mmm.orandum of law in support
of motion to dismiss
counterclaim
filed.
16
----~--c:';_7h i 1,rct.ice of rn0t;rin to ~("Impel dPfts
to 8l"lRWPr nltff's
interr0r;at_., ____
17 /1 _'
______ I l"lriPS ret. 1-?5-7~ f 1 10:00 A.I~. and memcrandnm of J.aw f11ea.1
'.~-::)-71..L(Before NE.A.HER, J - Case called for hearing
on motions to dis!

----~iss
_______

-------.

complaint
& counterclaim.
Mot~ons argued. - Defts' motion
ito dismiss
denied as indicated.
Deft has 2 weeks to prepare
iinterrogatories.
Order to be submitted.
Pltff's
motion to disss defts
counterclaim
Order to be submitted.
order

dismis

laint

is

denied,

etc.(see

19
answer to complaint
for injunction
filed.
Defts first
demand for interrogat9ries
to pltff
I
enographer
s transcript
dtd 1-25- 74 filed.

------__ --

---

--

filed.

cont'd

-----~-"---

..

22

-.

..

73 C 1529
c1v1L oocKET

U.S.A.

VS. FRED C. TRUMP,et al

CLERK'!i

PLAlNTIF'F'

3/__19_/_7_4
___

N_o_tice to take

Notice
to tak~ deposition
upon oral examiaaticl>n fitledj_25

Notice
to take deposition
upon oral ~xaminatiJ~-fif;a:J
26
By NEARER J
Or d er d ate d 4/1/74
f l 1e d t h at t :e d e1=osJ
: .It1ons1

'
27 i
date.
of <lefts are adjd to another
filed
ret.
re: motion, for
of Motion,
5/3/74
Notice
I
28
sanctions
s motion for sa he tic ns
of nltff'
Memorandum in Support
I
29
filed.

3/19/74
./2/74

./ 23/74

RETURNS

PEF'ENDANT

-+[--~1_==c-+_2_3_++:==:=
examinati9n
fitedi
24 -i.---- _L___ _

-----+--i_n_t_e_r_r_o~g_a_t_o_r_i
__
e_s_f_i_l_e_d_.
____________
deposition

:~gL~Ti;~Ni

f-------------l

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

DATE

upon oral

+---+----1
--

.-

: -------

----

I
_______j_

____

--

i
I

...........-+---------

./ 23/74

----,---

I
I

----------

I
i
'

I
I

i
I

I
'!

'
I

_L__
i

I
i

II

----------

----
------

i
j

I
I

''i
.;.---~

I
I

!
I
I

I
'

110

---

--

REGISTERED MAIL

June 18., 1974

Mrs. Dorothy Chojeeki

Manager
Eastern Transcription

Service

Lower Concourse
Roosevelt Field Shopping Center
Garden City., New York 11530
Re:

Transcription

United
qivil

of tapes in the case of

c. Trump, et al.
Action No .. 13 C 122,9,
...
Sta.te.s v. Fred

Dear Mre. Chojeck1:

Enclosed'l~rein

1974, together

with letter

Bracht!., Esq.,
explanatory ..

Assistant

please

find

tapes

on May 3,

recorded

dated June 17, 1974., :from Henry A.

u. s .. Attorney.,

which letter

is self-

Kindly send the original and one copy of the transcript

of the recording to this o:ffice together with the enclosed tapes.
Thank you for your courtesy

and cooperation

in this

matter.
Very truly

yours.,

VINCENT A. CATOGGIO
United States ~strate

Eastern District
Encls.

of New York

RE&!STfRED NO,

1221B

POSTMARK OF

JDP:HAB:eh
F. f 730959
June

Mrs.

17,

1974

Dorothy Chojecki

Manager

Eastern
Transcription
Service
Lower Concourse
Roosevelt
Pield Shoppdtn.g Center
Gard.en City,
New York
11530
Re:

United

U.S.D.C.,

States
v. Fred C. Trump, et
E.D.N.Y.,
Civil Action

al.,

.. No. 73 C 1529
Date of Hearing

Before
Dear Mrs.

- May 3, 1974
-_.Magistrate
Vincen.t
CatQggia,

Chojecki:

We would appreciate
your causing
the electronic
recording
of the testimony
in the above-mentioned
proceeding to be stenographically
transc~ibed.
This Office,
of
course,
will assume the expense of the transcript
for one
copy at the prevailing
rate plus the original
which must be
filed with the office
of the United States
Magistrates.
Our need
appreciate
your

for the
efforts

transcript
to expedite

and we 'Wnula
a11d delivery.

is pressing,
completion

Very truly

yours,

DAVID G. TRAGER
United States
Attorney
By:
HENRY A.

Assistant
Copy:

Hon. Vincent Catoggio

United States
Magistrate
United States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,

New YorJ.:

11201

BRACII'l'L

u. s.

Attorney

OCTOBER
24, 1974
B

e f o r e:

NEARER,J.

AT 10:00 A.M.
CIVIL MOTION

73 C 1529 U.S.A.

-vsFRED C. TRUMP,ET AL

APPLICATION
OF THEU.S. THATDEFrS MOTIONFOR SANCTIONS
BE HEARD,DENIEDWITHPREJUDICE& STRICKEN
AFTERHEARING.

APPEARANCES:
DAVID G. TRAGER, U.S. ATrY.
BY: H.A. BRACH.TL,AUSA.

FOR DEFTS

',

"

IN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 (EN)

)
)

v.

)
)

FRED C. TRUMP,DONALD
TRUMP )
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC., )

_____________
)

Defendants.

)
)

AFFIDAVIT
WASHINGTON

)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)

ss

DONNA
F. GOLDSTEIN,being duly sworn, deposes

and

says:
1.

I am an attorney

the Department
United States

of Justice

accuse me of threatening
improper
this

conduct

action.

of Pennsylvania.

to defendants'

Rights

Division

and one of the counsel

in the above-styled

the bar of the State

in response

in the Civil

for the

I am a member of

I make this

motion and supporting

prospective

in the discharge

of

witnesses

affidavit
papers

which

and of other

of my responsibilities

in

case.
2.

I have read the affidavits

Thomas Miranda and the signed

Ziselman.
determine

While I interviewed

statements

and

of Paul and Paula

each of these

if they had information

did not do any of the unlawful

of Carol R. Falcone

pertinent

or improper

individuals
to this
things

case,
alleged

to
I

...
in their

statements,

each in a fair

and objective

While a complete
viduals

response

must await

think

it

and, on the contrary,

important

to the principal

threaten

jail,

or money, or of dating

accusations

at all.

phones were tapped,

Division

be tapped.
In fact,
at all

else.

with regard

to her

In fact,

I made no

Ms. Falcone

she was guilty,

that

any

and in fact,

phones and I am sure that

the

does not tap phones or cause them to

I did not act in a hostile

the interview

manner towards

appeared

to me friendly

harassed

Mr. Miranda,

her.

on both sides

times.
(b) I never

called

upon him "to go against

On the contrary,
tell

nor did I

Donald Trump, and have no

I did not tell

have no knowledge of any tapped

Rights

briefly,

or with anything

matters.

or that

motion I

at least

Ms. Falcone,

her of any misconduct

about these

Civil

respond

indi-

and I do so as follows:

harassed

information

of these

on the pending

to innnediately
allegations,

I did not accuse

the facts.

to the statements

her with perjury,

business

way to ascertain

the hearing

(a) I never

interviewed

him that

jail,

he cooperated

nor did I discuss

I did not persecute

threats
to relate

I did not

he would be thrown in
or winning my case.

him, nor did I make "unyielding"

kind.

the facts

because

Trump would destroy

the truth.

my "ambitions"

or any other

he described

Trump Management" by lying.

I asked him to tell

unless

and I never

While Mr. Miranda was reluctant

he expressed

him, or words to that

to me some racially
- 2 -

fear

that

Mr. Fred

effect,

discriminatory

housing

practices

in which defendants

answers

to interrogatories

States

have engaged.
filed

in the case

v. Fred C. Trump, et al.,

Goldweber,

previous

discloses

that

discriminatory

case.

My interview

had also

practices

Mr. Ziselman,

of his

number of former

suggest
Prior

practice,

him that

the agents

I would try

cancel

unnecessary.
Ziselman,

their

After

details

I telephoned

I mentioned

that

him, but I

my interview
witness

it was now
with Mr.

for plaintiff

transaction

with Mr.

account.

Accordingly,

and asked him if he would permit

matters

to discuss

he considered

was one of

him, since

from Mr. Ziselman's

for a short

that

with

the FBI in time to have

with

as to a rental

must

in accordance

the FBI to contact

interview

to see him again

I wished

had,

Mr. Ziselman,

and contact

Mr. Ziselman

there

Mr. Ziselman

a prospective

which differed

that

the FBI to interview

I had completed

I interviewed

who provided

of Justice

Trump employees.

had been made for

Mr. Ziselman,

to my interview

requested

When I was interviewing

a request

stated

to the

seemed to me to be

or intimidate

affidavit

the Department

our normal

Ziselman

information

I was assigned

with Mr. Miranda

have been a misunderstanding.

told

suit,

on both sides.

and the contents

them.

in this

provided

before

(c) I did not threaten

with

of United

and sworn to by Elyse

for plaintiff

Mr. Miranda

about

friendly

counsel

Plaintiff's

time since
with

it

him.

there

- 3 -

were now a few more

He refused

to be harassment.

me

my request
I responded

and
that

..

I was sorry

he felt

that

way, .since

it was not intended

to be harassment.
(d) Mr. Manley's
Mr. Cohn's affidavit
to the records

Trump office

events,

a fact

respect

to this

defendants'
are entirely
be disposed

distort

and made a part

In conclusion,

without

information

are described

up

as to these

The facts
in detail

with

in Appendix

a copy of which is

hereof.

I wish to state

on my conduct

that

the attacks

and integrity

I hope that

foundation.

of at the earliest

leading

Mr. Cohn was not present

from his affidavit.

incident

papers

the facts

in June 1974.

Report on Discovery,

hereto
3.

of June 13, 1974, and

and has no direct

omitted

C to plaintiff's
attached

completely

inspection

at the

letter

practicable

in

as an attorney
the matter

can

date.

~t~-L-

DoNNAF. GOIDSTEIN
Att~rney,
Ho1.Eing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Sworn to before me this
2nd day of August, 1974.

NOTARYPUBLIC
My commission

expires:

(lA--

/F' -ru,l.Ao

5/ /f / l
/

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD
TRUMP
and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTIONNO.
73 C 1529 (EN)

_______________
Defendants.

.)

AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEWYORK

)
)
CQUNTYOF NEWYORK )
I,

ss

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER,
being

duly sworn do depose and

say that:
1.

I am presently

employed as an examining

with the New York City Department

111 John Street,
2.
Civil

Division,

from September
3.
ticipated
States

lawsuit,

employed as an attorney

Department

19, 1972 until

of Justice,

v. Fred Trump, et al.,

Prior

located

at

and the pre-trial

Civil

to the institution

I interviewed

with

the

Washington,

D. C.

May 24, 1974.

While employed by the Department

in the preparation

4.

of Investigation

New York, New York.

I was formerly

Rights

attorney

Action

of Justice,
stage

I parof United

No. 73 C 1529 (EN).

of the above-mentioned

Mr. Thomas Miranda who was formerly


,r

employed by Trump Management,

Kendall

Hall Apartments,

New York.
what,

if

practices

of this

prospective

Inc.

apartment

that

from a "colored"
me that

every

him to attach

applications

seekers

received

and that

being

from

he was to write

so as to indicate

the application

person.

he did this

Mr. Hyman, Mrs.

had instructed

to all

a big "C" on such attachment

Management,

Inc.

to me that

Inc.

of paper

black

discriminatory

Sophie whose name he did not recall,

of Trump Management,
sheet

was to determine

knew about

related

woman called

a separate

interview

at

Flushing,

of Trump Management,

Mr. Miranda

Williams&a

as a superintendent

Bowne Street,

Mr. Miranda

on the part
5.

all

41-10

The purpose
anything,

Inc.

to Trump
considered

Furthermore,

Mr. Miranda

time a black

person

was

stated

applied

to

for

an

apartment.
6.
that

Mr. Miranda

he was afraid

or words to that
discriminatory

also

that

stated

to me during

this

interview

the Trumps would have him "knocked

effect,

because

practices.

he told

me about

He was reluctant

their

to have his

off",

allegedly
name

disclosed.
7.
friendly,
When it
letter

After

this

interview,

I had no further
became necessary
in the

form attached

which was in all

personal
to disclose
hereto

- 2 -

contact
his

with

identity,

respects
Mr. Miranda.
I sent

to him and to the other

'

...

'

persons
Inc.

who had provided

The letter

in accordance

information

was run off

with

Justice

sample copy was retained

Kirschenbaum),
identical

letter

Subscribed
t~his,-f~

,,-,

---~

-vrv,-nz)r )

NOTARY
PBLIC
My conunission

>.

expires:

EVELYNSOMMcR
Notery ltublic, St,t., ,f 'lew York
1

No. 24-'4501 l 58
Qualifi~d

Commission

in 1Caqs County

Fxp:res March 30, J 9

7j

"

records

to Mr. Miranda

and sworn to before me

~day of August, 1974.

\..Q.~

practice,

one addressed

Department

was sent

Trump Management,

on an MTST machine,

Department
(the

Justice

about

and while
only one

to Phyllis
disclose

and fourteen

that

an

others.

T.

11/5/73

!.:'; 13
,n::,o\lyr,

! -'.,:~, '.;qr:;. t.li~,t. 'l"'.)!J l" : . >,,::!': :.h1tf

,::J.rinrr t::r
la.;;t fE.'cl 1-o::~t.\..u 1 I -;r:;:-,i<~-,~
~-rtt
;JtJ
c~:_,.()1\t :~c),JL <".'."';:{:Y:::.'r
..i-~~:._:-"',
,./i t.::1 _;:
r u.~':,, i .;:;n;1<!'.~.:---:
.~ n t: , l :,:; .
. : .-..:,, : , ,, . :: ::. info rr::, t. l ,, :;
yo\l
a :v:-l ~~~.:,
1: ~l i~ t ;!;~ r ;."'.,
1,..) ~) 1-~ !~;,1\."'.
L~ , ti~~--:~
~ .. : ~,,11-t -.~-:~:it:
~j f
Jt!t~tic-:.
1--:?.~;,;;_;ntl~y
fil~-;~1-3 .:t l/1t-,::; i._tt i'.1 t;?t~
-~,.~ral c:~<")L!.rt
ir, '..~ro-:frly.1 all '!<;inzJ t!i,,t:
:i.~ ;.; :: ;r-;.i:-,,,, v,,viL1 ,: ,:11:~)
0

~=-nJ .r:.r:1;:.1;>: ..(~1"!a1,;;~-~--.:~;?t,

!;-~( ..~.,

;"1ct1!lir..q .~.:'.:'tl)).,.

!~ay t1:1v.=..:r1,'c1r:J a'.:oIJ.t

In

t~1tJ"{

:rules

It

will

(!ii.~11~~-:::.:

Y.~;u_

t!v~ la,,:'/:,r:::: repre:,,)t1ti:1q

th<?!-Tn;,.:,Y~
;0.1.
-,, r,.~.in thi.nrr
is t.:h/'.'\t /<:....:
to wor:r/
r:di,01t..
!(
1r.;1 :..'i:3
to t.1U: to
:/OU i.i,1W;! ,1 rLJ;"".t. to .:',O '.iO.
If you do not Wicih t 1)
to ti1ci,
you ;1a.vt..: a rl
.t not to.
1-:-,:::c.y
:;ie th11t

Wr.tt:.t to
h<1.v~1not'1L-1.r.
t'.1t!: . ,

cc:

Ft!ir

izljl'}',
h~,Vt~

talJ::

thf~

su.i t li.;::"' t. 'L;,

t:ic }>(.t'.TO!l.~ ,Ul.\1 tr ..:,
~_,;ft> \1.,::1.virl\JL,rcj:tR}fl tt~c l .."':~,::..,t
a rir_;'it to finJ o.:t t:i. : ;.:,, , :1 r:'Jf. t,;i
:"lCOpl+:.
arc
(f"i,1r~j'{:!']
re;ith ~1is1:;~--1:~_:i:1./~ti?1f~'ar:rz1in_..Jt.
;j.ccor-~~if t::1:..~ (~~ f.?llc'..atL ts Ge r -~
;)~_:;;
t, y~~)t::r r1;::.r:;3 will
to he? fur:"'!ich,.:d to ~
i:1
:n:cor,1'l:1c:/t with court
..
collrt
arr:1

,~0 1:~tfJrlT:r ~,~1il:'~,

;1:,,vo

!\~11.,.-~.
\tiol~~t

in re,~!i --11 Li~r::r ..t~ in~tion.

t.::0 C(Y-::.rr nit
;t1r,:-,y.

ej1:~It!tJin.(r

intt~r:ir:r1

Records
Chrono
Goldweber

~~Pll'e--

Kosack-Hold
Reichard-Hold

}- _i 1.

, f

. .
,

........'

, --'~ .._.
,

--

i ()',)

~:{~,:1 t.

.. ;..L
! /

' . -~':"'!

.1 t:.

,J..,.~
~ ..
(~';;'-~
t-::-..,.
t,. :

l "',/ t~- ,,

~,,.-:~1.
'/

,\;1/~

('

~)l. _:.\(~
:::,

'('

IL

~. '1 .!'
;

-. ..

;. t ..; -:-.t

:1C 1 r., '.,f: ft~~-'!: ::

~1:)~1

31

__t..J

c~.:;.::

i..ri

; ~:.

t::.1:;

;i:-:;vi:_;;;i:
i tJ ~:c,l._: .:~::1-/ ~.;t._-:.t
..~_.:
........
::tt t:1)t: .1~:/r-,~1(~ r:tsi<!;:; ~(0'1
::;lf.J~l i:1 .,:~:i:.1r !><>-:;~~.i,>;~;=~:i()r'.
Yer :'- ~--~."' 1 J"';/~ -~ -:J() t-,!tc~t :/cJt: c;.:
t.:1ir1.:;. ~:11,0 ..tt: it: ._
..s~: xc:cc1l l rt.11 :..:d.r.. -~~1-:nt:; t.lictt ~o~~..,
:)l/l.(.!E!.
~::~:1, it
~:"{)d. ~-~/
..::Ci.~ ..: tn :;.i.~<~ it:,
~/CY\i.! c;;tr.!. .:l.t:
lc:a3t
:.~:.) ~-~.1r-~t;::1~--: "'/0;J :1-'1'\.c .:i~'";..l it .;.1.\:1c~:,: to r~:!~-:2::.-.,r
-.'.!Vi:!:'}'t\-i:HJ.
,l,;o,
if
'f0:1 :v '!" :lo ,;~,r;c, n stac~:it.:rn.t.
g1:11:('! s:1rr~
~.....
c,...1 (J:."~t to
t~'c),.., ;l ~r1:-:.T/ fr)J:" ,;./'"'Urs;c)lf.

1 ~-;

If. 1~;()r1i:!o r,;,:1 r !".!;/r ..,...: "1".~Pt: J..P .r t:.'. -~ ~ r' : ...'..; s .l.t1~.?!~ l~~Jrl t t, 2 t
you, I ;.:ot,1-l v~ry ;_':E:,1 ,:1:1,;r:,c:_.~;''.'>.; ,n~,r. l::>ttin(r ~-_:'! ::;,,:,'
rirf1t
a:;;1'!
Pl:-'l:JC G'.111 :.~ (,:,.1i.L ...:-:;) :-:t (2';2)
73]--,':L::~.

If!.'','.'~

U:l~'lftil;,iLlr'

,.:\;-;,,

'JOU

c~;ll,

r:
:~inally,
\lorry

a Lou I:..

L::t r::L:' rc;z:,1t.

You

Jo

:1,Gt

:1-JV.)

t:,:-st

to

! ,.,ill
r'.:.!tur.:'l I:,11;
i::; V:~!:V i::;o:)y:t lL~
---
,,
--- -~..-

yoi.1

1av,:: noth.in.; '.:,-)

anyor.c
or :.;J.;:1

ta 1;~ t~;

; '[ ?0~-~
;':!._:

~/Ci\

,.....

'

'
J.

1. .
! I

,,..;

.:\t. ~..:
<'j J:"! r::
y

">;ct ion

..

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP

and TRUMPMANAGEMENT,
INC. ,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

73 C 1529 (EN)

_____________
Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT
WASHINGTON

)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

ss

FRANKE. SCHWELB,being
1.
Rights

I am the Chief

Division,

I make this
entered
an officer

contempt

motion

Section

discovery

to supervise

and desist

of the Civil

depositions

order

that

charge
States.

an Order be

and designating

to hold one of plaintiff's

and for a cease

and says:

of the United

of our request

expedited

Court

deposes

and in supervisory

on behalf

in support

directing

of this

to defendants'

of Justice

litigation

affidavit

herein

of the Housing

Department

of the above-styled

duly sworn,

with

respect

attorneys

against

in

the United

States.
2.
this

On or about

Court a Notice

one of plaintiff's
contempt

of this

July

26, 1974,

of Motion praying
counsel

Court

in this

for alleged

defendants
that

action,
coercion

filed

with

Donna Goldstein,
be adjudged
and threats

in
against

prospective
to cease
Notice

witnesses,
and desist

and that

the United

from such alleged

of Motion is purportedly

of Carol

R. Falcone

defendants,
former

employees,

the motion
counsel,

supported

signed

is an affidavit

The papers

call

question

the professional
an attorney

with whom I am well

acquainted

that

out foundation
of this

of two
to

on behalf
conduct

in the manner

of defendant
and reputation
of this

of

Section,

and whom I know to have an

respect

to her professional
of improper

and therefore

at

to her legal

competence.
conduct

constitute

ethics

I am satisfied

against

her are with-

an abuse

of the processes

Court.
3.

In view of the nature

Ms. Goldstein,
expeditiously
the factual

the United
handled
issues

may be resolved

on August

16, 1974 as scheduled.

In order

by defendant

requests

in accordance

We further

4.

of the allegations

States

cleared.

called

of

Also attached

on the staff

both with

the allegations

statements

a number of events

filed

Donna F. Goldstein,

and in relation

employees

and which did not occur

by him.

reputation,

The

by Roy Cohn, one of defendants'

described

excellent

conduct.

former

Ziselman.

to describe

which he was not present

be ordered

by the affidavits

but unsworn

Paul and Paula

which purports

into

unlawful

and Thomas Miranda,

and by the

States

ask that

to assure
to further

with

that
42

no "surprise"

hearing

reputation
be held

witnesses

Ms. Goldstein's

be

3614 so that

and Ms. Goldstein's

attack

- 2 -

the matter

u.s.c.

the evidentiary

that

against

be

reputation,

...

plaintiff

has propounded

inquiring

into

witnesses

to alleged

Adequate
unless
time

the

the

that

defendants

have acted

improperly,

statements

are

this

to

supposed

defendants

within

disclose

of only
is alleged

there

the

interrogatories

voluntarily

in advance

of Roy Cohn

that

we ask that

in

be

five

days,

information

to

earlier.
5.

The essential

this

motion

fair

tactics

spective

is

that

at the hearing,

used

of all

be free

allegations

threats

to influence

The position

In order

testimony

of defendants'

Ms. Goldstein

of misconduct

and scurrilous.
the

thrust

in an attempt

witnesses.

the allegations

that

the

suggests

States

witnesses

as to whom Ms. Goldstein

these

defendants

to the United

3 of the affidavit

which

States.

not be possible

of possible

Accordingly,

to answer

plaintiff

disclosed

of all

of the United

will

have attached

employees

to be others.

unless

is

testimony

by agents

the hearing

Paragraph

"some 11 former

required

for

to defendants

and prospective

depositions

of the hearing.

interrogatories

misconduct

information

to take

states

identity

preparation
this

brief

the

and other
testimony

of the United

on Ms. Goldstein's

are

issue,

witnesses,

both

on deposition

undue influence,

from the parties

or from their

each party's

right

and cross-examine

to examine
or disruption

be fully

- 3 -

counsel,

protected.

is that

part

this

interference

out interruption

States

it

un-

of pro-

to resolve

of threats,

on

is

false

essential
and

or other
and that

witnesses

with-

..
6.
conduct

The most effective

of these

an officer

is

plaintiff

on two separate

stein,

as reflected

hearing

on May 3, 1974,

States

Magistrate,

failing

to carry

covery
effective

Honorable

out their

is

for.

that

an Order

No previous

here

counsel

Catoggio,

for

relating

conduct

for
to dis-

the most
of these

by an officerof
request

United

defendants

deposi-

this

on behalf

to Show Cause be entered

application

for

At a

Accordingly,

the orderly

WHEREFOREI respectfully
States

affidavits.

responsibilities

to have them supervised

of reprisal

to attorneys

Vincent

the action.

means to assure

fear

to

and once to Donna Gold-

respective

reprimanded

and to expedite

occasions,

Goldweber

in their

by

one of the witnesses

has expressed

-- once to Elyse

the orderly

to have them supervised

At least

Mr. Miranda

from defendants

tions

depositions

of the Court.

be deposed

means to assure

of the United

herein

has been made for

Court.

as prayed

the relief

requested.

FRANKE. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530

Subscribed
and sworn to before me
J<.... day of August,
1974.
this

?:cfiVr!-c
~:fit

On<

NOTARYPUBLIC
My

commission

expires

:;)1--%,.,_,,)J
-~// /17?

JDP:HAB:sm
F.#730959
BY HAl"\JD
June

Bacon Bolan & Manley,

39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
Saxe

Attention:

Scott
United

Re:

u.s.n.c.,

14,

1974

Esqs.

Manley,

Esq.

States
v. Fred c.
E.D.N. Y. civil

Trump, et a:\,{
'\
Action No/ 73 c 1529 )

We have your

letter

Your description
of Government counsel
at
is false.
duction
fendants'

\"--._____ _,,.,.,-~//

Dear Sirs:
of June

111., 1974.

and characterization
defendants'
office

of the conduct
on June 12, 1974,

Your statement
that Attorney
Goldstein
of defendants'
documents
at your offices
office
is also false.
We are

considering

an appropriate
Very truly

agreed
instead

to proof de-

response.
yours,

J. STANLEY POTTINGER
Assistant
Attorney
General
Civil
Rights Division
Department
of Justice

~CJ
e.fi:.
?;:_
/) /
.,:::,c:r#-,L--;1-t.t:.i
.(_
..;>- ~ .
-<-----..,.
DONNAF. G-'DSTEIN, Attorney

By

..

Housing
-1-

Section

/_

'?

'

Saxe Bacon Bolan

&

Manley,

Esqs.

Copy to:

l
I

2 -

The Honorable Edward R. Neaher

United States
District
Judge
United States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
N'ew York
11201
(BY HAND)

June

14,

1974

., '

,t',

.-'

NEW
.JOHN GOOF"REY
SAXE 090IH9!13l
ROGERS
H. BACON
l191g,1gi,2)

YORK,
(21Z)

NEW
472

YORK

10021

-1400

THOMAS

A.

BOLAN

COUHSEt.

ROY

M. COHN

SCOTT
E. MANLEY
MICHAEL
ROSEN

. ,,

DANIEL

.J. DRISCOLL

HAROLD
MELVYN

SCHWARTZ
RUBIN

(AOMtTTltO ILUNOIS ANO tNOIANA)

A. SHUMAN
.JEF"rREY
LORIN
OUCKMAN

June

13,

1974

BY HAND
Henry A. Bracthl,
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Donna F. Goldstein,
Attorney-Civil
Rights
Division

United
States
Department
of Justice
Federal
Building
Brooklyn,
_New York
Dear

Mr.

Bracthl:

I am in receipt
of your letter.
dated
today which was wait-.
ing .for me at my office
.upon my return
from the Colten v.
C6heri trial
this
afternoon
at 5:00 p.m.
We :stand

ready

to let you begin

inspecting
and copying
records
Trump tomorrow.morning,
June 14, as per my agree~
ment with Miss Goldstein
reached
over the telephone
on WednesrA
day.
While I regret
the misunde:tstanding
that. led to you:i:
descending
upon the Trump officef:;
with five
stO"rmtroopers
Wednesday
morning
banging
on the doors and demanding
to be
through
all of .the .Trump files
allowed
to swarm haphazardly
and to totally
disrupt
their
daily business
routine,
I do not
feel
that
there
is any point
is carrying
the argument
any further.
I would assume that
your objective
is the same as ours
dir:::in this
matter,
namely,
proceeding
orderly
with pre-trial
covery
so as to enable
both sides
to continue
prepar1ng
for
a fair
trial
in this
matter.
Toward that.: end, we look forward to cooperati~g
with you Friday
morni~g
at our offices,.

in u.-s.-A.: v.

Miss Goldstein
and I agreed
that
the inspection
would tak.e
place
at my offices
instead
of Trump so as to not ha~ve to un=
necessarily
totally
disrupt
the Trump necessa_ry
business
routine.
I would assume. that
by your demand in your .letter
to
neinspect
the materials
at Trump offices
that
Miss .Goldstein
. glected
to inform
you of our orril agreement
to . the contrary.
We are ready
both old and

to provide
you with over 1,000 files
Friday
on
current
tenants
of Trumpp
Because
Trump cannot

~~ f4actm/,f!llolcr#1/
~ J/kvn&y

..

.,,

..

..:

-2-

function
at all with all of its current
leases
and files
out of
we will have to work out a schedule
whereby as soon
its offices,
as you have completed
inspecting
and copying this very substantial
amount of material
that this material
will be returned
to
the Trump officeand.additional
material
will be sent to our
offices
for your inspection.

With regard
to the depositions
of further
Trump personnel
tenatively
scheduled
to begin on June.18,
I already
have advised
as both Mr .. Cohn.
the Government that th:is date is impossible
and myself .will still
be on trial
before Justice
Gomez in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York in Cohen v .. Cohen and
Judge Gomez absolutely
refuses
to hear any application
for
in that case.
I will supply you
even a half-day
,adjournment
with alternate
dates as quickly
as possible
and I am sure we
can come to an agreeable
solution
which will neither
delay
the rights
of
the matter
unnecessarily
for.you
nor prejudice
the defendants
by denying them the right
to counsel
:in these
I would respectfully
suggest
that is completely
proceedings.
unfair
on your part to set forth ult:imatums
in the way of

3:00 deadlines
to respond or else in view of the fa.ct that
you are completely
aware of both Mr. Cohn ;.1nd myself
being
we
on trial
before
Judge Gomez from 9:00 to 4:30 daily~
all we reare completely
ready to cooperate
in discovery,.
quire
is a little
time in which to assemble
matter
in view
of our extremely
heavy present
lit~gation
schedule,,
Finally,
I sincerely
wish that at least
from this point for-
to CC)Operate better
in all of
ward, that we could attempt
these matterso
If your goal is to expedite
discovery
and to
prepare
for a fair
trial
for both sides as is ours,
I think
se).:ved by coopera.tion
a.nd obthat this end would be better.
servation
of the basic courtesies
normally exterJBed between.
private
counsel
in litigation
instead
of continual
threats
by. the Government
and its treating
the rules
of civil
pro-.
Bible which cannot bend
cedure as some kind of undeviating
~ts ~imetables
for even a few
to promote the ends of
Justice
..

houx:s

Very

SEM/ap
cc: Hon. Edward R. Neaher
Unted States
District
Judge
United States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201
Honorable
Vincent Catoggio
United
States
Magistrate
United
States
Courthouse
Eastern
District
of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
N.Y. 11201

truly

yours,

39
NEW
JOHN

GOQF"REY

ROGERS
ROY

SAXE

H. BACON

EAST

YORK,

68
NEW

STREET
YORK

10021

THOMAS

{212) 472-1400

(!909-1953)

(J9Ha-1962i

A.

BOLAN

COUNSEL

M.COHN

SCOTT

E. MANLEY

DANIEL

J. DRISCOLL

MELVYN
MICHAEL
HAROLD

\ADMITTED

ILLINOJS

AND INDIANA/

September

11,

1975

RUBIN
ROSEN
L.SCHWARTZ

Honorable
Edward Neaher
United
States
District
Judge
Federal
Building
Cadman Plaza
Brooklyn,
New York
11201
Re:
Dear

Judge

Trump Decree

Neaher:

I am writing
to Your Honor in response
to a letter
Donna F. Goldstein,
Esq.,
United
States
Department
of Justice,
the August
5, 1975 letter
of Donna Goldstein
in which Ms.
Goldstein
alleges
that
Trump Management
is in violation
of
Real Property
Law 236, which prohibits
the failure
to rent
based on the fact
that
an applicant
has children.
Ms.
Goldstein's
presentation
omits the crucial
statutory
word
"solely.~
We submit
that
this
section
is in no way applicable
to the instant
proceeding,
as the Consent
Order entered
into
between
the parties
provides
that
rentals
shall
be pursuant
to the policy
which Trump Management
had employed
in the
past,
i.e.,
if there
w~re children
under the vacating
occupancy,
there
could be children
under the new lease.
It is thus evident
that
no one is denied
rental
solely
on the basis
that
they have children.
In fact,
this
is what the statute
provides
- that
it is a violation
only
if the sole reason
that
a prospective
tenant
is denied
rental
is that~has
children.
As a practical
matter
it is my understanding
from
discussions
between
Trump Management
and this
office
that
the
only apartments
in which this
situation
even arises
are a few
buildings
located
in the Jamaica
Estates
area of Queens.
These buildings
are not designed
to accommodate
the needs
of young children,
but rather
older
people
who need peace
and quiet
and a greater
amount of security
than is usually
found in buildings
which are designed
for the young.

of

Honorable
September
Page Two

Edward Neaher
11, 1975

In this
one area,
children
cannot
be as happy with
the facilities
as in the over thousands
of other
units,
and
what Ms. Goldstein
suggests
would be unfair
to them.
With
these
few exceptions,
the buildings
under
the control
of
Trump Management
not only welcome rental
to families
with
younger
children,
but,
in fact,
have specifically
designed
a majority
of their
complexes
to meet the needs of minors.
Respectfully,
SAXE, BACON & BOLAN, P.C.

;l)/~

1/l,-t{c~t.,~

Roy M. Cohn~sb
cc:

Donna

Goldstein,

Esq.

..

...

39
NEW

EAST
YORK,

68"
NEW

STREET
YORK

10021

RoY M.Co:a:N

(212)472-1400

COUNSEL

CABLE:

SAXUM

August

11,

1975

Honorable Edward R. Neaher

United States
District
Judge
Cadman Plaza
Brooklyn,
New York
Re:
Dear Judge
decree,
nificant

Trump Decree

Neaher:

The Trump organization

has observed
the
but the Civil Rights section
has violated
respect.

terms of the
it in sig-

We declined
to execute
the decree unless
language
in the Civil Rights Section
proposal
- Article
IV, Section A
(bottom of p. 77), which gave the Open Housing Center the
unbridled
right to redistribute
vacancy lists
all over the
place - was deleted.
We pointed
up the administrative
difficulties
this would present,
and after
discussion
before Your
Honor, the language was deleted,
and the vacancy list
to
go to Open Housing Center - period.
vacancy
causing
inquiry
And what
deletion.
that he
and then
will not

Despite
this,
the Center has been mailing
out the
lists
we have sent to them to other organizations,
total
confusion
and extra work, as by the time the
catches
up with us, the list
is usually obsolete.
they are doing defeats
the very purpose of the
I am advised by Mr. Eskenazi
of the Trump office
has specifically
asked Miss Parrish
of the Center,
Miss Goldstein
to desist
- and both have said they
unless
specifically
directed
to by Your Honor.

Secondly,
Miss Goldstein
advises
that
No. 2 - p. 13 - which provides
that Trump shall
its past and existing
practices
with respect
to
apartments
and number of occupants
- is in her
"discriminating"
and should not be observed.

Article
V,
adhere to
two-bedroom
opinion

Honorable
Edward
August
11, 1975
Page Two

R. Neaher

This is to respectfully
request
Your Honor to
set a hearing
on these
ex parte
decisions
by the Civil
Rights
Section
for sometime
in early
September
(I shall
be abroad
on business
until
Labor Day.).
Hoping

Your

Honor

has

a pleasant

summer,

I am

Respectfully,

sb

~ c;111.
Cd<~'lr..,
.
{
./

Roy M. Cohn

NEW
..JOHN

GODFREY

ROGERS
ROY

(212)

(1909-1953)

NEW
472

YORK

10021

THOMAS

-1400

0919-1962)

A.

COUNSEL

M. COHN

SCOTT
MICHAEL
DANIEL
HAROLD
MELVYN
..JEFFREY
LORIN

SAXE

H. BACON

YORK,

E. MAN LEY

(ADMITTED

ILLINOIS

AND INDIANA)

ROSEN
..J. DRISCOLL
SCHWARTZ
RUBIN
A. SHUMAN

August

DUCKMAN

5,

1974

Honorable
Edward R. Neaher
United
States
District
Judge
Eastern
District
of New York
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York
11201
Re:
Dear

United
States
Civil
Action@
Judge

V.

Fr.ed.-- C.- ..'l'.rump,

et

al.

C _:-5~-=~

Neaher:

I telephoned
Mr. Brown of Your Honor's
following
receipt
of a call
from Mr. Goldberg~
the hoard of eager-beavers
in the Civil
Rights
who is working
on the above entitled
matter.

chambers
one of
Division,

Apparently,
what Mr. Goldberg
was trying
to tell
me was that
he wished
to take depositions
in connection
with the contempt
motion
concerning
prosecution
tactics
which Your Honor made returnable
for next week (August~th).
Having spent
the first
week of August
suffering
through
government
depositions
of approximately
10 more Trump
employees,
I hardly
look forward
to another
set of depositions
rel a ting
to a motion
which has not even been heard
by
Your Honor as yet.
I would respectfully
request
that
the entire
matter,
including
what,
if any, "pre-trial"
should
be
had in connection
with this
motion
be considered
by Your
Honor at one time on the already
scheduled
date of August
16th,
at which time I shall,
of course,
be personally
before
the court.

BOLAN

-2-

We wish also
to apply
to Your Honor for an
order
setting
some boundaries
on the Civil
Rights
Division's
discovery,
which is proceeding
at a pace
that
would suggest
the facts
are being
explored
now
rather
than prior
to the following
of the compliant.
The purpose
of concluding
discovery
at an early
date
would be the fixing
of an early
trial
date by Your
Honor so that
the preference
granted
by Congress
under
this
act may be fullfilled.
The defendants
who have protested
and continue
to protest
their
complete
innocence,
are most desirous
of a prompt trial.
Respectfully

RMC:ap
BY HAND

yours,

Honorable
Page Two

have asked
matter.

Vincent

A. Catoggio

We assume that
the matter
is
Judge Neaher to fix an early

now academic,
and we
trial
date in this

Respectfully

&

yours,

ft1 (:/JkA
~

. Cohn

sb
cc:

Mr. Donald Trump

Donna Goldstein
Attorney,
Housing

Section

<

IN THE UNITEDSTATES.DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNI1ED STATESOF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NiO. 73 C 1529

(EN)

)
)

v.

)
)

FRED C TRffi.1P, DONALD

REPORTOF tHE UNITED STATES

TO THE COlJKTCl.NTHE STATUS
OF DISCOVERY

TRU}1Pand TRUMPMANAG~fENT, )
INC. ,

)
)

______________
Defendants.

In accordance

with

Catoggio,

United

"-~er!cz,

::ubr!lits

action.

On May 3, 1974,

obligation
action

States
its

of defense

in accordance

))

the instructions

Magistrate,

report

en the

Magistrate

counsel
with

plaintiff,
stat:.is

United

of

Catoggio

as well

42 U.S.C.

of tll.e Honorable
States

of

disco" ..~cry in this

made reference

as the Court
3614,

Vincent

to the

to expedite

and rebuked

defense

the
counsel

for not hav5ng done so.

T

DISCOVERYIN PROCESS DELAYSANDDIFFICULTIES

A.

Depositions
Prior

substantial
defense

to the hearing
difficulties

counsel's

of May 3,

in taking

continuous

1974t

plaintiff

any depositions

cancellations

encountered
because

and rescheduling.

of

'
This activity

resources

resulted
l

of counsel

<

in a substantial

for plaintiff,

plaintiff's

memorandum in support

dated April

19, 1974, at pp. 4-6.

sition

were outstanding

plaintiff

agreed

year.

were finally
Thereafter,

.of its

until

plaintiff

in detail

in

for sanctions,

notices

of depo-

hearing,

but

defendants

had answered

to them in November of the previous

and incomplete

provided

motion

Several

these

propounded

Abbreviated

as described

at the time of that

to postpone

the interrogatories

waste of the time and

answers to these

on May 16, 1974.

attempted

interrogatories

(See pp.

to reschedule

10-1~ lnfra).

depositions,

as

follows:
1.

On May 28, 1974, Ms. Donria Goldstein,

for the plaintiff;

Mr. Scott
noticing

replacing

Manley in order
depositions

tunity

to propose
2.

Mr. Manley
depositions.

!/

Ms. Elyse Goldweber,

to advise

him that

for June 18-20,

Mr. Cohn's busy schedule,

a new attorney
telephoned

the plaintiff

1974.!/

In deference

Mr. Manley was provided

alternative

dates

within

at least

three

occasions

the next

Mr. Manley proposed

These depositions

were noticed
- 2 -

to discuss.

no alternative

to

with an oppor-

Between May 28 and June 3, Ms. Goldstein

i:;..;:l

was

few day~.
telephoned

the contemplated
dates

on May 30, 1974.

on the two

occasions

he was Ireached,

to the message left

3.
. letter
proceed
dates

to call

back in response

call.

June 5, 1974, Ms. Goldstein

with the depositions

sent

a special

the government

as noticed,

since

delivery

intended

to

no alternative

had been offered.

On June 11, counsel

for the plaintiff

received.a

from Mr. Manley dated June 6 cancelling

on the grounds
but promised
5.

of defense

an inquiry

that

counsel

inspection

by counsel

2, and that

than the third

6.

dates

depositions
schedule,

the following

periodically

visited

week.*/
the offices

between June 14 and June 28, 1974, as a part

for the taking

than July

alternative

Counsel for plaintiff

these

with Mr. Cohn's

they conflicted

to suggest

of the records

dates

on the third

to _Mr. Manley indicating.that

4.
letter

On

and failed

described

for plaintiff,
of depositions

below.

On June 26, after

Mr. Manley stated

would be provided

in no event would these

dates

that

firm

no later
be later

week in July.

Having heard nothing

Ms. GoldstP-!11 telephoned

could not provide

from defense

counsel

Mr. Manley and was told

firm dates

for the scheduling

*/

that

by July

3,

he still

of depositions.

This letter
included a list of those employees scheduled to
depose who were no longer employed by the defendants.
This information, which plaintiff
had been attempting
to secure for many
months, was to be given to the plaintiff
no later than May 13,
1974, at the direction
of Magistrate
Catoggio-at
the May 3
hearing.
- 3 -

Mr. Manley promised,

however,

to call

back on 3uly 8 with

recommended dates.
7.

Mr. Manley did not call

matter,

thereafter.

defense

counsel

agents

On July 9, plaintiff
of the scheduling

8.

On July

Mr. Goldberg

that

agents

on July

these

depositions

B.

Inspection
On May~'

Request

plaintiff

time.

30 and 31, 1974.

1974, plaintiff

Elyse Goldweber forward

he knew nothing

of eight

Records
served

and filed

Manley, an associate
that

to take

1974.

of Documents on defense

requested

to these

attempt

had been made on Mar~h 19.

of Defendants'

could not

Yielding

The first

advised
would have

schelfule

took the depositions

On May' 15, 1974~ Mr. Scott

.!/

deponents.

depositions

since.his

at any other

for Production

.::elephonically

scheduled

30-31 only,

him to attend

time strictures,

30 - August: 2, 1974.

on each of the prospecti,re

the eleven

plaintiff's

fornEr

a Rule 34

counsel

Roy Cohn.!/
,,.,,.

of Mr. Cohn,
attorney

to him a copy of the Request,

about it.

on

of eleven

26, 1974, Mr. Cohn, by telephone,

to be taken on July
permit

served notice

of depo.siticms

of Trtnup Management for July

Subpoenas were served

that

back on July 8, or for that

Ms.

saying

This was done :immediately

See Appendix A.

- 4 -

6n May 28,, 197~,.during

discussions

the course

about the scheduling

of depositions,

reminded Mr. Manley of the proposed

Mr: Manley again

inspection,

stated

and requested

copy of the Request,

On at least
Ms. Goldstein
sentatives

filed

two occasions

records

or indicate

would travel
as noticed.

that

the proposed

forward

him another

site

any objection

or date,

of records

and employees present

expressed

or any limitation

inspection.
surprise

- 5 -

on what

to inspect.

Brooklyn,

See Appendix B.

also

nor did they

at 10:00 a.m. at the offices

dance with the notice

these

to the

Defendants

for the United

Management, 2611 West 2nd Street,

12,

would not be made

inspection,

would be permitted

arrived

repre-

to New Yo~k on June

time and place.

On June 12, t!u:ee attorneys

!.I

about

At no time during

the records

to the records

any alternative

two law cler!:.;

reminded Mr. Manley that

at the designated

the United States

inspection

between May 28 and June 3,

did Mr. Manley express

no objection

suggest

Ms. Goldstein

Ms. Goldstein

which she did on the same day.~/

of the plaintiff

conversations

available

records

he knew nothing

that

telephonically

1974, to inspect

inspection

that

of one of their

States

and_.

""'~.,

of Trump

New York, in accorThe Trump ag~nts

at tbeir

arrival.

Mr. Stuart

Hyman, controller

Mr. Henry Brachtl,

Assistant

office.

attorneys,

The other

of Trt.nnp Management, asked

United States

Norman Goldberg

Go!dstein,

and the assistants.Frank

law clerks

at the United States

Phillips

been informea
stated

that

defendants'

office.

that

approximately

a records

and that

placed

a call

and stated

i~spection

Plaintiff's

that

until

he had been unable

he had not

on doors,

Ms. Goldstein

he contactad

to reach

not present

then left
Attorney's

overreaching,

Attorney's

counsel.

or other

office.

improper

of the United States.

office

- 6 -

Attorney's

Contrary

there

by defendants

was no

conduct

by

Mr. Cohn was

nor were any calls

about the car.duct of representatives

to have

the Trump Offices

in Mr. Roy Cohn's affidavit,

at the Trump offices.,

the United States

complaining

at the United States

representatives

any of the representatives

He further

to Mr. Manley from Mr. Hyman's

to the United States

to the allegations

ten

was scheduled.

any records

in

representatives

Mr. Manley was not in and a message was left

and returned

banging

his office

be could not produce

Mr. Manley contact

office.

into

counsel

Ms. Goldstein

remained

Mr. Hyman-askei:ithe remaining

of the United States

his

and Donna

office,

After

into

and Larry Rogers,

Attorney's

the anteroom of the Trump offices.

to if teen minutes,

Attorney,

placed

or their

to
counsel

of the plaintiff.

On June 12~ 1974; at approximately

Ms. Goldstein

telephoned
for

the Eastern

expressed
he.had

his

to begin,

to Plaintiff's

these

and that

objections

if

defendants

as noticed,

37(d)

of the Federal

tions

between
dc.fencants'

of defense

Rules

the morning

the offices

either

time,
that
informed

formally

or

a records

would have no recourse

of Civil

sanctions

Procedure.

was autoorized

on Friday,

but

to

some negotia-

to begin

June 1~, 1974,

inspec-

under Rule

After

inspect-

at the law offices

representatives

arrived
a clerk

at these

offices

to Mr. Manley,

from Mr. Manley which charat'terized

their

rr;

with
be

five

allowed

and to totally

stormtroopers.

to swarm haphazardly

disrupt

of Mr. Manley dated

to this

Court.)

of.June

14 denying

Counsel

banging

their

daily

at

upon the

on the doors

through

business

on

handed

conduct

of Trump Management on June 12, as "descending

Trump offices

Letter

He claimed

would not permit

of June 14, Mr. Fanelli,

them a letter

files

first

Attorney

counsel.

When plaintiff's

demanding

States

Ms. Goldstein

for appropriate

plaintiff

records

the

earlier.

plaintiff

to the Court once again

counsel,

United

Rtquest.

had been transmitted,

apply

ing

of the

of New York and, for

objections

no objections

informally,
tion

District

communicated

him that

at the office

11:30 a.m. Mr. :Manley

all

and

the Trump

routine."

(See

June 13, 1974, a copy of which was sent

for plaintiff

the veracity

of these

- 7 -

responded
rhetorical

by a brief
flourishes.

letter

Juri.e 13, 1974, until

From Thursday,
records

inspection,

exclusively
was.then

2-1/2

counsel

with Mr. Fanelli

available.

days of records
that

the following

day, June 19.

records

records

18, 1974, after

June

Mr. Fanelli

informed

would not be available

on Thursday

the records

were not

At 11:30 a.m.,

Mr. Fanelli

plaintiff's

counsel

the automobile

carrying

result

that

down and that

records

were inspected

Washington

June 20 and

made available

as agreed.

June 21.

on

did give. assurances

and Friday,

10:00 a.m.,

Records

for

a~ 10:00 a.m.

On June 20, however,

broken

counsel

for inspection

However, Mr. Fane11i

would be available

21, beginning

Mr. ;Cohn nor Mr. Manley

since ..neither

inspection,

of the

coIIImlllnicated almost

On Tuesday afternoon,

the plaintiff

that

for plaintiff

the: completion

afternoon,

On June 19 and 20 alone,

lost

of these

informed
the records

would not be prod\l!Ced until

on Thursday

a day and a half

plaintiff's
of their

June

for

had

2:00 p.m.-*I

20, and Friday,

two counsel
time

at

from

no p~rpose

as a

cancellations.

~/ When the records

the automobile,
Mr.
the many erranils he
morning, aP-: extolled
mobile ~arrying the

arrived
on Thursday afternoon,
the driver of
Simon Wiss, recounted to plaintiff's
counsel
had to run for Trump Management by auto that
the virtues
and dependability
of the autorecords.

- 8 -

On Friday,
records

could

26,.1974.

21, 1974, Mr. Fanelli

not be available

Counsel

travelled
June

June

for

for

plaintif~

inspection

returned

back to New York to complete

26, 27, and 28, 1974.

ing days,

records

Not only

to belabor

We believe,

may be relatively

is petty

quite

of May 3.
defensa

Wednesday,

have been

June

D. C. and

inspection

on

of thirteen

for a little

over

work-

seven days.

saved had these

however,

minor,

the Court with

that

the total

*
while

harassment,

out of keeping
Moreover,

it

each

for the

with Magistrate

defendants'

papers

that

are without

foundation

records

the United
in fact.

- 9 -

item

individually
to waste

United

Catoggio'
effcrts

inspection,
States

tried

a large

States.

seems to us haras_sment

in view of the repeated

=-~~~=! 3bout_ this

the foregoing

impact has been

amount of the time and money of counsel

less,

a period

additional

not occurred.

We are reluctant

While it

that

to Washington,

during

money could

*
details.

until

the records

were made available

time but travel

interruptions

Thus,

indicated

none the
jirections

to deal

with

the allegations

in

to "by-pass"

counsel

II.

DEFENDANTS'FAILLTRETO PROVIDEDISCOVERc\BLE
INFORMATION
RE0UESTEDBY PLAINTIFF
A.

Defendants'
Plaintiff's

Answers to Plaintiff's
First

pounded on November,

directing

finally
slightly

On May 16, 1974,

defendants

submitted

their

more than

interrogatories,

tiff

defendants

As noted

waiting

below,

goes to the heart

While this

nro Orders

week (letter

ten weeks since

for defendants

defendants

consisted

to at leas.t

that responses

to for

of this

the Interrcgatories,

In response

indicated

the information

after

were pro-

or objected

That submission

two pages. *I

more than

is still

to answer

response.

coming by the following

1974)*:~ut

to defendants

1973, and were not answered

more than six months.

Court

Interrogatories

Interrogatories

of

three

would be forth-

from Scot:t Manley of May 16,

that

promise

to complete

defendants

was made, plaintheir

have failed

answers.
to provide

of the case.
memorandum is not intended

a renewed Rule 37 motion

dealing

with

to be a substitute

the deficiencies

for

of deJendants'

*/ The unusual brevity and incompleteness

of these responses
may
be explained,
in part, by the fact that on May 15, 1974, one day
before the interrogatories
were due, defendant IDonald Trump called
former Dep.:;rtmcntal attorney
Goldweber and indi1eated that he had
only recently
heard about his obligation
to ansver the interrogatories
and wanted. to know if there were any pe.n.alties for filing
untimely answers.
Ms. Goldweber referred
Mr. Tlrump to his counsel.

!!!I

See Appendix C.

- 10 -

responses
to file
tion

to'Interrogatories,
such a motion

and while

in the future,

of some of defendants'

Court's

we wish

we believe

responses

should

to reserve

our right

a brief'

that

be brought

examina-

to the

attention.
(a)

Interrogatory

information

for

by defendants.

5, requests

each apartment

of the tenant

response,

defendants

defendants

claimed

plaintiff.

referred

sought

Plaintiff

the other,

a racial
In

to two documents

to have previously

to plaintiff.
received

includes

of each building.

One of thosedocuments

furnished
having

force

of basic

complex owned or managed

The information

breakdown

16 items

which

furnished

to

had in fact

been

has no record

which is purported

of ever

to be a

memorandum to Ms. Gold.weber dated March 15, 1973.

document that
tains

a list

intendents

was furnished

to plaintiff

of the Trump buildings

as of October,

merely

and their

1972, almost

The

consuper-

two years

ago.
~~

In eight

months,

defendants

time to wriL~ co their

provide

racial

approximate
characterized

occupancy

form,

have surely

superintendents
information

particularly

the racial

since

had the
and to

in at least
Donald Trump

makeup of Trump buildings

- 11

in an affidavit

December 11, 1973, but

they have

made no attempt

to do so.

information

of this
this

kind

kind.

is,

of course,

See United

ment Corporation,
Defendants
tion

Statistical
important

States

v. Real Estate

347 F. Supp.

have an obligation

from their

776 (N.D.
tc secure

Electric

of
Develop-

Miss.

1972).

such informa-

City of Philadelphia

superintendents.

v. Westinghouse

in cases

Corp.,

205 F. Supp.

831

(E.D. Pa . 1962).
(b)

In response

the name, address,

dates

to Interrogatory
race,

of employment

That Exhibit,

name and first

employees
'locate
other

attached

initial

them for

of black

requested

interview

employee

Exhibit

however,

of the defendants

location

job

for each and every

Trump, the defendants

Answers.

job title,

7, which requests

only the last

and Puerto

Rican

insufficient

- and none of the

information

of

1 to their

contains

- facts

and

to

was provided.*/

~/ Plaintiff
has subsequently
secured some of this information
during
the inspection
of defendants'
records.
The identities
of former
employees, of course, constitute
critical
information.
See United
Corp., 370 F. Supp. 643 (N.D. Calif.
State~ v. Youritan Construction
1973), and cases there cited,
holding that proof of discriminatory
instructions
to employees meets the Attorney General's
burden of
proof.
- 12 -

The names of black

complaints

about

racial

secured

apartments

ing to complain

about

Failure

In Plaintiff's

complaining

racial

furnish

relating

information

March 28, 1974, dc.(endant

that

there

these

still

exist.

(Dep. p. 33).

these

records

may also

answerthose
applicants

records

was impaired,

to Defendants
requested

that

with :respect

and that

on

defendants

so that

calling

- 13 -

records
that

defendants'

by

retaining
may

some of

the Interrogator-

for information

if not destroyed,

During the

to either

stated
since

On

on deposition,

some of these

Mr. Trump also

p. 99),

served

to rej ect:ed applicants.

have been destroyed

interrogatories

by defendants.
'

policy

or destroying

(Id.,

(Interroga-

Donald Trump tes;tifi.ed,

was no particular

ies were propounded

threaten-

Applications

Interrogatories
first

who

or

policies

Rejected

November 7, 1973, plaintiff

certain

(Interro-

of tenants

been provided

to Produce

11),

discrimination

after

14) have never

tory

(Interrogatory

13) and the identities

gatory

B.

tenants

their

capacity

to

as to rejected
own conduct.

taking

of this

of assurance
including

de:position,
that

those
During

requests

for

provided

with

troller
there

his

Mr. Cohn did,

clients

pertaining

would preserve
to rejected

the June 1974 records

the production

relevant

applicants.

(Ia.,

inspection

stating

taxes

March 28, 1974 - the day that

destroying

these

.:/

credulity

Whatever
to suggest
are

- and June

who have 2500 - 3000 vacancies

and who have repeatedly

are closely

testified

reviewed,

records,

and after

pp. 99-100).
repeated

through

a year
their

March 28, 1974"

the meaning
that

of

between

supposed

to have

28, 1974, the

(Hyman Dep. p. 73)
agents

have not rejected

was

Hyman, comp-

"effective

the defendants

applications

a measure

applications,'plaintiff

that

e.pplications

Hyman's memorandum, it

cations

all

of rejected

of Trump Management,

defendants,

provide

a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Stuart

were no rejected

stopped

however,

that

a single

appli-

applica-

tion.**/
Defendants

now go even further

than Mr. Hyman's memorandum and

.iJ

claim
Gilbert,

!.I

chat

there

office

See Appendix

have never
,,iana.ger for

been any rejected

the past

applications.

seven years,

Minerva

who has the

D.

~*I

On July 3, 1974, we sent a letter

to Mr. ~nley
reiterating
our
concern that none of the rejected
applications
had been produced and
requesting
that the defendants
furnish us with an explanation
for
the reproduction
of these documents prior to this hearing but no
explanation
has been forthcoming.

-14

responsibility

for

approving

during

the depositions

recall

ever having

Each of the six

July

rejected
tions

taken

rejected

a single

that

The six

superintendents

with

of the payment of

custody

or control

of the deponent."

produced

the others

no such records

stating

Mr. Travis,

instructed
submitted

years,

as having

superintendent
also

to give
with

rec0rds

been supplied

tesitfied

in his

deposition

he ha~ never had an application.rejected,

*I }1"c. Skender Fici, }1r. Guido Lara, Mr. Walter

Bozch, ~r. Joseph Zecher and Mr. Raymond Travis.

for

which he
when he was
that

he was

when a deposit

A number of these

- 15 -

Apartments

a book of receipts

to each applicant

While early

(Raymond Travis),

by the main office

the application.

them

existed.

Mr. Travis

a receipt

directing

at Wedgewood Hall

produced

as superintendent.

marked "refunded."
that

that

these

subpoenas

whose deposi-

"records

Only one superintendent

hired

they accepted

including

in the possession,

first

on

documents

depqsits

described

were taken

served

certain

five

tenancy.

were also

to bring

the past

she cannot

for

even though

testified

they have never had an application

by the main office.

were taken

application

whose depositions

stated

from anyone,

applications,

30 and 31 that

on July

superintendents.:/

30 and 31 likewise

applications

or rejecting

receipts
Mr. Travis

he later

is
are
stated

explained

Rohr, Mr. Daniel

..

that

"refunded"

Ms. GilbeTt.

signifies

applications

In Mr. Travis'

which were rejected

receipt

book ala.me,

an apartment

complex of only approximately

at least

such "refunded"

six

plaintiff's

exist

Accordingly,
but that

which is used for

9~ units,

since

there

tJhe date

it

is apparent

information

about

that

rej;,ected

were

of service

in November 1973 :requesting

interrogatories

mation.

receipts

by

of

such infor-

applications

them has not.: been made available

to plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
While some progress
the hearing
stantial

before

Magistrate

noncompliance

discovery.

with

Catoggio,
their

a harassing

of this

and disruptive
charges

assembled

defen~ants

responsibil:iities

Some of the noncompliance

to the disposition

scurrilous

has been made in dlii.scovery

case,

involves

while

nature.

other

remain

in sub-

in relation
material

to

critical

a:-onduct has been of

Even aside

by defendants

following

from the false

and

ag;;aiinst one of plaintiff's

;,:1

""'~

couns e i ;!:_/ there

conduct

has been sufficient

of discovery

to warrant

resistamce

consideratiorn

::.,I On

to the orderly
of

a new motion

or about ~uly 26, 1974, defendants

not::i:ced a motion for a
contempt citation
.:1gainst Ms. Goldstein.
Whil.e we generally
avoid
the argument by inflammatory
rhetoric
which hal.s characterized
defense counsel's
submissions,
we can only sa~ that,
for reasons
set r~rth in ou~ other papers filed herewith,
these charges are
utterly
fantastic.

- 16 -

--

.. .
for

s.anctions

after

present

discovery

proceedings

have been

completed.
R~spectfully

JAMES PORTER
Assistant
United States
Attorney
Chief, Civil Division

submitted,

FRANK.E. SCHWELB
Chief, Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

NORi.'1AN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Depart~ent
cf Justice
Washington, D. C.
20530

DONNAF. GOLDSTEIN
Attorney,
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530

APPENDIXA

..

/.
T. 5-6-74

JS P :FES : ESG: cm.l<

DJ 175-52-28

. Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan and Hanley

39 E.3st 63th Street

New York, Ne-wYork

10021

Re: United States

Civil

v. Fred C. Trump, et al.,

Acti.':m No. 73 C 152')

Dear Roy:

I
I

Please
. Request

for

find enclosed

two copies of Plaintiff's

Pro&-.:.ction 01; Docu:ncm::s...

Sincerely,
J., ST,'\!Il.EY POTTINGER.
Assist;;.nt Attonicy
General

Civil
cc:

.'

Records
Chrono
Goldweber
Trial File
Hold

Rights Division

By:
ELYSE S. COLD\J'EBER

Attorney
Housing

Section

AP.PENDIXB
\

T. 5/28/74

MAY2 81974

JSP: tG: n~lp

DJ~l75-52-28

Scott Manley, Esq.

Snxo, D-.1~on, ilol.an & I~nley.
39 E-:ist 68th 5crcet
1'1ewYor~, 1-;c,;.,Ycrk 10021
Ra:

United States
v. Fred c. T~,
Civil ActlcYa th. 73 C 1529

et nl.

Dear Mr. Ma~ley:

In response to our telephone conversation

1974, please ind enclosed a copy of Pl~intiff'o

of May 2S,
Rcquesc

for Product: ion of f.:octrJ'ents,

sche<lulcct itt) comII:ence on
..lune 12, 197/;.
Airu 1 }'le.."\se 1mte the a~ca.:hed
proposed
schedule
for continui:1g
dc;:,oo lti-.::r:1s of ,th!:! s:;eni.:D and
will
employees
of Trump M:1nagement, Ine.
1!"'01.'l.:Al
notice
be !ort:hcornin3.
Theta~ depositio:is
had ~ccn previously

scheduled.for

April

Th..:ink yo! for

18 - April 22, 1974.

your cooperation

i:n t:h.is matter.

look forward to hearing from you soon t:o confirm the

attached discovery schedule.

.'

Sincerely,
J. STA~TL!:YPOTTillGER
Assi~tant Attcrney General
Civil Rigbts Di\rision

cc:

Recorde
Chrono
Ms. Goldstei
Trial File
Henry Brachtl

By:

oo:m.\GOLDSTEIN
Attorney
liousio.g Section

..

JOHN

GOOF'RCY

ROGERS

ROT

'

SAXE

H. BACON

M. COttN

SCOTT
MICHAEi.
DANIEi.
HAROl.0
MELVYN

APPENDIXC

(212)

(19099~)1

472

THOMAS A. Bou.N

1400

1191Q111e2l

DOCK

21-20
COUNSEL

'

E. MANLEY

(AO"'llTi(O

lLLIN015

ANO HiOIANA)

ROSEN

MAY2?

.J. ORISCOI.I.

May 16,

SCHWA.RTZ
RUBIN

JEF'FRE:Y
A. SHU~AN
LORIN
OUCKMAN

1974 CIVIL

b14

RIGHTS

Miss Donna Goldstein

United States
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. c. 20530
Re:

United States
v. Fred C. Tr~~P, ~t al.
Civil Action No. 73 C 1529

Dear Miss Goldstein:

Enclosed please
find a COP: c-!: defendants'
answers to plaintiff's
interrogatories.
It is my under. standing
f:::-c::1speaking with l!iss Gold,.:f::-2r that you are
to work
taking her place on this case since shi.:.:r..:as left
in New York.
As you will note from our :c.r....5"1..-ers,
most of the
information
requested
by the Governr:ter.:::. i.::i the interrogatories
already
has been supplied
in thi= :.:'i.v2 examinations
before trial
which you already
have cc:-.:;:2.et2d. We could
not make specific
reference
to page nt.==~rs due to the
fact that the trc.nscripts
have not bee::. ccr:pleted.
You
will not~ that there are three questio~~
requiring
detailed
ini:::...cr.1ation from records, which Stuart :::.-am has been compil'.ing and hopes to cor..l_)lete next week.
will supply you
with this infc,1::r,ation as soon as Mr. E..:, .,n completes
same.

:e

yours,

truly

Very

~r~U
SEM/ew
cc:

Scott

Hon. Vincent Catoggio

United States.Magistrate
Eastern
District
of New York
United States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

E. Manley

./:2_~ - 2:;i'''------p='

i::t..l;.:;:;,
'1 .:,~:i
. -:--:--:-1_-:...
.--; u:;~;1.,:...1
,.~~
J;d
t,;/
...
,
...,
T:,

b~tMAY211974 !
f

..-:;; ~,...nTC'."
-i..:t
1
~-

--~-,--

}'p-.r-;;;
r

l
. ,
...--......;.,l~~..;,;w,~

~.J.\

n /.,M :DIV

-------

'

-APPENDIX D

.
--------

',

..

--~
......

'

; .

.. . ........ .
... :.

..

..,,

. - .. .

t -

. 1 1'!.' i..

+a

e,

..- - .....
......

. .

- ... "1!...

- .
: _..- .. ..
'

"':

- - . . ... ..........---- ~

- ....

-...:

-.

-.

... . .

'

'"'

... ..,._~

* -

....

__

;..

__

.............

#,

....

I' .
I
I

! ,

.r...

...
!

...

i ~ :.

......

~
-

..

---

..

. f

_...._...... -

_..,

....._........-

.\

.'.

,,.

_.,,..#:

I:

..

,..

'

..

....

,_

4;

........

,o;

H,-..:-

'

'

.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify
the following

that

I have on this

documents,

postage

date mailed

prepaid,

copies

of

to:
r

Roy Cohn, Esquire

39 East 68th Street
New York, New York

10021

1.

Response of the United States to

Defendants'
Motion of July 26, 1974

2.

Supporting

3.

Order to Show Cause (proposed)

4.

Memorandum of the United

5.

Plaintiff's

6.

Report of the United States

on the Status of Discovery

affidavits

States

Interrogatories

to Defen:iants
to the Court

,,,.,

August

,.S, 1974
Coun"Sel for Plaintiff

..

....

NEW
.JOHN

GODFREY

ROGERS
ROY

SAXE

H, BACON

(212)

(l909195Jl

NEW
472

'YORK

100Z1

THOMAS

14()0

MICHAEL

E. MANLEY

C.OMITTEO ILLINOIS

DANIEL

.J. DRISCOLL
SCHWARTZ

MEL.VYN
.JEFFREY

ANO INOIAHA)

ROSEN

HAROLD

May

9,

1974,

RUSIN
A, SHUMAN
DUCKMAN

Elyse Goldweber,
Esqe
Attorney,
Housing
Section

u. s.

Department

Washington,

D. C.
Re::

Dear

of Just.ice
20530

United
States
Civil
Action

v E'red C. 1!'rurnp,
No .. 73 C 1529
o

et

al.

Elyse:

In connection
with
tising
by The Trump
Organization,
and its
support
of civil
rights
organizations,
you might remember
that. F'red and Donald did. not
recall
certain
specifics
at the timtS: of their
depositicJ11s.

:r am enclosing
a h~t::tc:n: fron1 CORE concernipg
advertising
and support
from 'l:he Trump Organization
in
and would appreciate
it if you would add it to
the past
the depositions.
Sincerely,

En~J~vsure

Frank

A.

COUNSEL.

(1919196Z)

M, COHN

SCOTT

LORIN

YORK.

E., Schwelb

Henry A. Brachtl,
Eng.
Hon. Vincent
A~ Catoggio

nay M. Cohn

Bar.AN

.,

..

CORE
CONGRESS
OFRACIAL
EQUALITY
:!00 West 1:1:,th S1r<,1.~.-~ \,11k, I\.\'.

100:Hl. 21:!

368-8104

April 30, 1974

Mr. Donald Trump
The Trump Organization
600 Avenue Z
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11223
Dear Mr. Trump:
I am writing you concerning our recent telephone
most certainly
wish to thank you for the interest
with National COREin our salute to Hank Aaron.

conversation
and
of participation

It is only through the support of thoughtful and interested

individuals such as you, as well as all segments of the industrial
and commercial society of our country, that the Congress of Racial Equality
can continue its efforts and pursuits as it has for many years.
Last year, The Trump Organization was represented
in our national
publication
by purchasing
1/8 page advertisement
in the amount of
$250.00.
This year, we are requesting
that The Trump Organization
duplicate last year's representation.
Many thanks
,-, /
L

for your cooperation.

/ ,;....----.

ci~{;;1;
:leing

:A:

National

Affairs

~ ~ ~J

Advisor

NEW
JOHN

GODF"REY

ROGERS
ROY

(190919~3)

(212)

NEW

YORK

10021

4721-'IOC

(19191992)

C:OlJN5.EL

M. COHN

SCOTT

E. MANLEY

MICHAEi.

(Aoo,11nEo ILLINOIS

ANO INOIAHA)

ROSEN

DANIEi.

J.

HAFlOI.D

April

DRISCOLL

17,

1974

SCHWARTZ

MELVYN

RUSIN

.JEF"F"REY
LORIN

SAXE

H. BACON

YORK,

A. SHUMA1,f

DUCKMAN

Elyse
s. Goldweber
Atto:eney,
Housing
Sect.ion
United
States
Department
Washington,
D. C.
20530
Re:

of

Jus1ic:e

,lSP: ESG: eym

DJ 17 5--!:>2"'28

United
Civil

v.
No.

States
Action

Fred c. Tr.ump,
73 C 1529

et

al.

DE:a.r Elyse:
I never
knew you were :.,uch a hol>tempered.
white
female!
The reason
for the doubt about
the ability
to
go forward
with the continuatj_c,,'J
of depos:i tions
which
ha.ve already
comme11cE~dv was bee use J had been directed
to proceed
to trial
in another
matter.
As I have advised
you, the whole thing
is a t,1?ntpt0 1;t in .::1 t:c:-!apot, as the
other,. trial
is not going
ahead :Lor a week, and we can
continue
depositions
on Tuesdav,
ApriJ
23, at 9:30.
witnesses

We will
see
next week.

you with

M::. '1'J:urnp and

the

Sincerely,.

Roy M~ Cohn

cc Hon.

Edward

Neaher

other

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Add,_

20530

Reply to t:ie

lliviaion Indicated
and Ref to lnitiala and Number

JSP :FES :DFG:saf

DJ 175-52-28

AUG2 2 1975
The Honorable Edward R. Neaher
United States District
Judge
Federal Court House
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 10023
Re:

United States v. Trump Management, Inc.

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529

Dear Judge Neaher:

I am writing in reference
to the Consent Order in the
above-styled
lawsuit.
We are in receipt of Mr. Roy Cohn's
letter
to you of August 11, 1975, which states that the United
States has violated
the terms of the Consent Order, and requesting
that a hearing be set.
We have no objection
to another hearing
in this matter.
In that regard, I am enclosing,
for your
information,
a copy of a recent letter
from this office to
Mr. Cohn advising him that certain rental practices
authorized
by the Consent Order are in violation
of State Law.
in this

Thank you for your continued

matter.

patience

and consideration

Sincerely,
J. Stanley Pottinger
Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
By:

()u',l,.__

V:(ife~'-'

Donna F. Gol~ein
Attomey
Housing Section

1
f
...
.

r
t a....1f. r..

1
..

.s-..
'

1
....
=

=....
,...
l

.
..;.... 11

=.

i lif

;.
..

c)ll
,
f~ fr:
l
..,itf' . !
1.
11
.I. t..
. li.
"
I.,
; 1
..
rii!-tf~f
....'.
r - .
I"~

" : .!-'
l
r~t...I Ctr
=11"f
a
:a~ .
..

r!J
ftlioC

i !

~1..,..

1.
..
~ f

'i

.:,a
rli''r1 1r

., .
I ,.Ir Jr.........
1&.r
..., ._ .,
1.

r I .~
~ It

.J

'
,ar

I
.4,.
i
:Ji
I fiiitllrJ
i ..
' .r1r1,,,
fll."f

....

II

'I'

J:,

C:
G')
N)

N)

(D

......
U1

T. 8/4/75

AUG5 1975

!toy

r.

c "IV/',

-.,,-)1 ...... .,.----

:,

& ; ' t...iy

J, .....
,. r~-~
~~

1...

~;..,..

Neu 'lo~

~r.~ ..~~r
, ;.:;c..,vYork
~-~

.....

..

:::,
"-"''

--~r""
-<I

.,,.~--,.-----

....

_. .. ,----

'1'

.... s;,..,,__, .... H-,-"-"--~--::,,_f

t ;-),,.
....
~~~

l
...,.

011

t;.

h..1d

::.

rtni,

-..:.~,,.,,>y
1: ....,_
~:1!.ldJ..nr::{ c .

,"',.""'!,

;, ; it

,_

.,.':Ji.:,,

,.J

oC

~.:1c pii:-t
J r.;,.'ln

..1nt:1i

to
al :.o
t:f;~:::;il

th"1 nw:,.:;.;;:-:;
of
.i. .!'":'n. ~ud;re t nh-'."r
.::::tat~ or ;ity 1At7.

unlt!r in his
rd ..-~d :vr
a~k'.!.i,.l ii.: sudj, poll. i;~j
v .. t,1d
At that t:im:'.!:, we v..?t:e u;"' .:.1t'e of t:.::-1.

It ha; r:2;;-i1ntly
;""t"'r..,.
u._~

~ ( ,,.11-.,__.,._._...,
,....,..,
~ r -.J..-,..Aa
~-, ., ..,,1
Law) p:ohibi:.:~
th~
~

311-

.-:_,;J'!C

noti
to

ch~ ~0~l Prep~~~/

1 .. ,__,.__
;;

on

n 3 $:1

c.

fa:zt

,...,: fla
..... ....
''.I.

i..tin;rniSnt,;

of

~...

...

'lltat'!?

sc.::it hi 1 .-:o.;;~.::n.J.
.
.i 1 volun
ily
1u~ti~~ bi~
p t:a.::tic .). , .o.
.:., i.t. a; -:,:.:.I-.::3ti-:at
.._: c~odant

rentcl

't

l:t1*
1

:J.

,.

.I

rental
ber.::1

polic
:;J

:; t".zt!t:1 r~'.:.: ,:;t to , ,ildi:~a

;.) <.:c11 ~:Cj\~~~ to
t1t:,....; ~ :)

L~:; not

a.;

y:'!t.

~:;-..,.~, ,'2\;-.:}r
~ of

l:,<:~::: c:t,/~ :tr.:

tt]l]

;;.::
tnr.:tl t

in
the
. ':.>y

L,

nll p
l.:1w.

look

'Sy:
F. Gol..!jtcin
Acto:rne1
ltousini Se~tioo

,!Ontla

at

\1 S

'4ll i! r G

...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE

EASTERNDISTRICT OF NEWYORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALDTRUMP )

AND TRUMPMANAGEMENT
INC. ,
)

PROPOSEDORDER

_____________
Def end an ts .

This matter
to Dismiss

Rights

in housing.
motion

Act,

missed
doubt

for
that

is also

filed

The pleadunder

alleging

before

the 1968

discrimination

the Court upon plaintiff's

counterclaim.

consideration

For purposes

of these

of a motion

are deemed admitted

most favorable

matters

failure

to state

plaintiff

(1957);

of the Act itself,

a claim

would be unable
him to relief.
United

that

and is not

to dismiss,

the Court

States

A complaint
only when it
to prove

The complaint

subject

appears

a set

has engaged

to dismissal

beyond

of facts

Power Co.,
alleges,

355 U.S.
301 F. Supp.

in the language

in discriminatory

under

in

may be dis-

Conley v. Gibson,
v. Georgia

defendant

the allegations

and are to be construed

to plaintiff.

538, 541 (N.D. Ga. 1969).

practices,

plaintiff

Motion

as follows:

which would entitle

41, 45-46

Statement.

3601 et~-,

defendants'

careful

of the complaint
the light

the Court upon defendants'

42 U.S.C.

This matter

After

1.

is before

is the Complaint

to dismiss

concludes

and Motion for More Definite

ing in question
Civil

this

test.

2.

With respect

Statement,

the plaintiff

the defendants

has provided

of the Government's

frame a responsive
language

to the Motion for More Definite

pleading.

of the statute

Federal

Rules

of Civil

for more definite

Lawrence Realty,

Inc.,

The Federal

Rules

to discover

the facts

claims

meets

Procedure

notice

to enable

The Complaint,

itself,

statement.

sufficient

to

them to

paraphrasing

the requirements

and is not subject

See, e.g.

United

the
of the

to a motion

States

v. Bob

313 F. Supp. 870, 873 (N.D. Ga. 1970).

provide

ample opportunity

of plaintiff's

for the defendants

case

following

joinder

of

issue.
3.

Defendants'

which relief
United

can be granted.

States,

as sovereign,

and the United

United

States

counterclaim

States

(N.D. Ga. 1971).

42 U.S.C.

States

slander,

IT IS ORDEREDthat
for More Definite
(2) defendants'

No suit
without

Realty

specific

or abuse

Statement
counterclaim

a claim upon

to suits

suits

consent,

of this

nature.

against

Accordingly,

Motion to Dismiss

be and they are hereby

is hereby

the United

and Motion
denied,

and

dismissed

with

prejudice.

----------

, 1974

United

States

the

324 F. Supp. 287

of process.

be and it

against

statutory

Associates,

2680 bars

(1) defendants'

to state

may be brought

has not consented

v. Northside

for libel,

fails

District

Judge

,.

39 EAST
NEW YORK,
JOHN
GODFREY
SAXE (19091953)
ROGERS
H. BACON 09191962)

68TB STREET
NEW YORK

10021

(212) 472 1400

THOMAS

A. BOLAN

COUNSEL

CABLE: SAXUM

ROY M. COHN
M. FRIEDMAN
STANLEY
DANIEL
J. DRISCOLL
MICHAEL
ROSEN
JOHN
F. LANG
JAMES
M. PECK
ROY R. KU LC SAR
JEFFREY
A. SHUMAN
RONALD
EDWARD
LOUIS

April

19,

1978

F. POEPPLEIN
H. HELLER
BIANCONE*

"ADMITTED

IN NEW JERSEY

ONLY

Honorable
Edward R. Neaher
United
States
District
Judge
United
States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York
11201
Re:
Dear

Judge

conference
9:30 a.m.
Heffernan

U.S.

v. Trump Management,
73-C-1529

Inc.

Neaher:
This is to confirm
that
the scheduling
of the status
in the above-entitled
action
for May 9, 1978, at
is agreeable
to counsel,
and confirmed
by Brian
of the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Respectfully

yours,

SAXE, BACON & BOLAN, P.C .

..;.,y . -J

:.JI
(,/1---1/1./-.-..
Stanley
sb
cc:

Brian

Heffernan

M. Friedman

......
_.

~ ro[.30[
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
W ASlllNGTON,

D.C.

20530

Add .. Reply to the

Division

Indicated

and Hefer to Initials

and Number

DSD:BFH:mop
DJ 175-52-28

Honorable Edward R. Neaher

United States District
Judge
United States Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: United States v. Trump Management, Inc.
Civil Action No. 73-C-1529
Dear Judge Neaher:
Homer LaRue of the United States Attorney's
office
has informed us that the Court proposes to reschedule the
status conference in the captioned case for May 9, 1978
at 9:30 A.M. I have consulted with Mr. Friedman of
Saxe, Bacon and Bolan, counsel for the defendant,
and
this is to advise you that May 9 is satisfactory
to both
parties.
in this

We appreciate
matter.

the Court's

consideration

and time

Sincerely,
Drews. Days, III
Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
t
''
By:

1L QL
f }J

Brian F. Heffernan
Attorney
Housing and Credit Section

MAY3, 1974

Before:

HONORABLE
VINCENTA. CATOGGIO
United States Magistrate

AT 10:00 AM

CIVIL MOTION

1529

-vs-

U. S. A.

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.

DEFENDANT'SMOTIONFOR SANCTIONS, ETC.

'PEA RANCES:

For Pltff:

Henry A. Brachtl,
Frank E. Schwell,
Miss Goldweber

For Defts:

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

By: Scott Manley,

Esq.
Esq.

Esq.

CASE CALLED- DELAYED2 hrs DUE TO DEFENDANTS'ATTORNEY'S

LATENESS- GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEYSPRESENTAS SCHEDULED
RESPECTIVEPARTIES HEARD- PROCEEDINGSRECORDED
- TWOTAPES MR. MANLEY
AGREEDTHAT BY MAY13, 1974 HE WILL NOTIFY THE
GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEYS
AS TO WHOIS STILL UNDEREMPLOY
,MENT
WITH TRUMPMANAGEMENT
CORP., AND BY MAY16, 1974 HE WILL
ANSWERINTERROGATORIES.

MAY3., 1974

Before:

HONORABLE
VINCENTA. CATOGGIO
United States Magistrate

AT 10:00 AM

CIVIL MOTION

B C 1529

U. S. A.

FRED C. TRUMP.,et al.

-vs-

OTION FOR SANCTIONS.,ETC.

~PEARANCES
:

For Pltff:

Henry A. Brachtl.,
Frank E. Schwell',

For Defts:

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Esq.
Esq.

...

.....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

EASTERN DISTRICT

UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA,

Vo

TRU!1P HANAGE}ENT,

INC o

__________
Defendants

the application

On

OF NElt YORK

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

of

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 73 C 1529

SUPFLEHENTAL
co:;sENT ORDER

the Plaint.if

of America,

and by consent

of Defenoa~t,

Inc.;

here.by

tha't

it

is

Order in this
is hereby

ordered

action

Lirt

in this

fi-led

iCOURT FOR THE

f,

United

States

rrump Management,
~.\) (2)

of

the Consent

C:oui.t on June 10, 1975,

amended as follows:

(2) Occupancy

Not more than

apartment,

adults

two (2) persons

nor more than

four

and two (2) children

(4)

in a one bedroom

p~rsons,

two

(2)

of

in a two bedroom apartmento

No

applicant

she has children_,

!/

shall
s~

Except that children

different
sexesa

be denied
as the~.

under

ter .;ncy

her;attee

he or

of persru'.1S to nee~

seven y.ears

of age may be of

...

'
'

tb.e t=e~l
te

..
t1nit,

the a0eve

and tbe

o-ccttt)tt!"lr.y

s~s

of

th9

cb:i l.dreo

..

<>.H'lferm

standard~,,

day of __

ORDEREDthis

'19750

----

Edward R, Neaher
The und~rsigned
apply for and
consent
to the entry of this
Order.

For the Defendants

----------.....;,,_.,

For the Plaintiff

_____

ROY Mo COEN
Saxe, Bncon, Bolan &
Manley
39 E. 68th Street
New York, New York

FRANKE. SCHWELB
f,

Ch

Housing

St:c tion

Civil Rights Division

Department
of Justice
Washington,
D. C. 20530
/

(//

--

,r ~~~~rl<-<-.-..0
DONNAF. GOLDSTEIN
Attorney,'
Housing Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Washington,
D. c. 20530
~-:C<._A{

FRED C. TRUMP

DONALDTRUMP

DAVIDG.. TRAGER
United States Attorney
by HENRYA., BRACHTL
Assistant
u..so Attorney

NEW
.JOHN

GODF"REY

ROGERS

SAXE

H. BACON

(1gogl953l

YORK,
(212)

NEW

YORK

10021

472-1400

THOMAS

(1919-1ge2J

A.

BOLAN

COUNSEL
ROY

M. COHN

SCOTT
MICHAEL

E. MAN LEY (AOMlTTE:O ILLINOIS

ROSEN

DANIEL

.J. DRISCOLL

HAROLD

SCHWARTZ

MELVYN

RUBIN

.JEF"F"REY
LORIN

ANO 1NOIAN4)

A. SHUMAN

DUCKMAN

June

13,

1974

BY HAND

Henry A. Bracthl,
Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Donna F. Goldstein,
Attorney-Civil
Rights
Division

United
States
Department
of Justice
Federal
Building
Brooklyn,
New York
Dear

Mr.

Bracthl:

I am in receipt
of your letter
dated
today which was waiting for me at my office
upon my return
from the Cohen v.
Cbheri trial
this
afternoon
at 5:00 p.m.
We stand
ready
to let you begin
inspecting
and copying
records
morning,
June 14, as per my agreein U.S.A .. v. Trump tomorrow
ment with Miss Goldstein
reached
over the telephone
on Wednesday.
While I regret
the misunderstanding
that
led to your
descending
upon the Trump offices
with five
stormtroopers
Wednesday morning
banging
on the doors and demanding
to be
allowed
to swarm haphazardly
through
all of the Trump files
and to totally
disrupt
their
daily
business
routine,
I do not
feel
that
there
is any point
is carrying
the argument
any further.
I would assume that
your objective
is the same as ours
in this
matter,
namely,
proceeding
orderly
with pre~trial
dis~
covery
so as to enable
both sides
to continue
preparing
for
a fair
trial
in this
matter~
Toward that
end, we look forward to cooperating
with you Friday
morning
at our offices.
Miss Goldstein
and I agreed
that
the inspection
would take
place
at my offices
instead
of Trump so as to not haVe to unnecessarily
totally
disrupt
the Trump necessary
business
routine.
I would assume that
by your demand in your letter
to
inspect
the materials
at Trump off ices that
Miss .Goldstein
neglected
to inform
you of our oral
agreement
to the contrary.
We are ready
both old and

to provide
you with over 1,000 files
Friday
on
current
tenants
of Trump.
Because
Trump cannot

A_
Yd,aotm/,
$o/cwv J/~ntr
.
@:7

-2-

f{inction
at all with all of its
current
leases
and files
out of
its offices,
we will
have to work out a schedule
whereby
as soon
as you have completed
inspecting
and copying
this
very substantial
amount of material
that
this
material
will
be returned
to
the Trump office
and additional
material
will .be sent
to our
offices
for your inspection.
With regard
to the depositions
of further
Trump personnel
tenatively
scheduled
to begin
on June 18, I already
have advised
the Government
that
this
date is impossible
as both Mr. Cohn
and myself
will
still
be on trial
before
Justice
Gomez in the
Supreme Court of the State
of New York in Cohen v. Cohen and
Judge Gomez absolutely
refuses
to hear any application
for
even a half-day
-adjournment
in that
case.
I will
supply
you
with alternate
dates
as quickly
as possible
and I am sure we
can come to an agreeable
solution
which will
neither
delay
the matter
unnecessarily
for you nor prejudice
the rights
of
the defendants
by denying
them the right
to counsel
in these
proceedings.
I would respectfully
suggest
that
is completely
unfair
on your part
to set forth
ultimatums
in the way of
3:00 deadlines
to respond
or else
in view of the fact
that
you are completely
aware of both Mr. Cohn and myself
being
on trial
before
Judge Gomez from 9:00 to 4:30 daily.
We
are completely
ready
to cooperate
in discovery;
all we require
is a little
time in which to assemble
matter
in view
of our extremely
heavy present
litigation
schedule.
Finally,
I sincerely
wish that
at least
from this
point
forward,
that
we could
attempt
to cooperate
better
in all of
these
matters.
If your goal is to expedite
discovery
and to
prepare
for a fair
trial
for both sides
as is ours,
I think
that
this
end would be better
served
by cooperation
and observation
of the basic
courtesies
normally
extended
between
private
counsel
in litigation
instead
of continual
threats
by. the Government
and its
treating
the rules
of civil
procedure
as some kind of undeviating
Bible which cannot
bend
its
timetables
for even a few hours
to promote
the ends of
justice.
Very

SEM/ap
cc: Hon. Edward R. Neaher
Unted States
District
Judge
United
States
Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201
Honorable
Vincent
Catoggio
United
States
Magistrate
United
States
Courthouse
Eastern
District
of New York
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
N.Y. 11201

truly

yours,

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY

By:.-.scott
E. Manley~
('.'.

~.

,~~~-z,JA~
-,--

()

~'=tttifco~fairs

..

~cpnrtnmtf

of 3']w:;ticc

il'IJALS

UNITED

STATES

ATTORNEY

EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF NEW
FEDERAL
BUILDING

JDP:CIS:es
File
No.
730959

BROOl{LYN,

YORK

N. Y. 11201

BY HAND

August

6,

1974

Roy M. Cohn, Esq.

Messrs.
Saxe,
Bacon,
Bolan
and Manley
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
Re:
Dear

Mr.

3.

4.
5.
6.

7.
8.

v. Fred c. Trump, et
Action
No. 73 C 1529

al.

Cohn:

Enclosed
1.
2.

u. S.
Civil

herewith

are

the

following

documents:

Order to Show Cause,

entered
August
5, 1974,
Memorandum of the United
States
in Support
of the Entry
of an Order to Show Cause,
Response
of United
States
to Defendant's
Motion of July
26, 1974,
Affidavit
of Frank E. Schwelb,
dated
August
2, 1974,
Affidavit
of Donna F. Goldstein,
dated
August
2, 1974,
Affidavit
of Elyse
S. Goldweber
with
accompanying
letter
of November
5, 1973,
Plaintiff's
Interrogatories
to the Defendants,
and
Report
of the United
States
to the Court
on the Status
of Discovery.
,I,..

Please
note that
the Order
August
8, 1974, at 2:00 P.M.

to

Show Cause

Very

truly

is

returnable

yours,

DAVID G. TRAGER
ed States
Attorney
By:__..

u.z:
.;,._

C RL I STEWART

Encls.
a/s

Assistant

U. S. Attorney

cc:

The Honorable Edward R. Neaher

Unj.ted States
District
Judge
stern District
of New York
ited States
Courthouse
5 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201

-2-,.

NEW
.JOHN

GODF"REY

ROGERS
ROY

SAXE

H. BACON

YORK,

NEW

(212)

(19091953)

472

YORK

10021

THOMAS

-1400

(1919,1962)

A. BOLAN

COUNSEL

M. COHN

SCOTT
MICHAEL
DANIEL

E. MANLEY

(ADMITTED ILLINOIS ANO INOIANA)

ROSEN
.J. DRISCOLL

May 15th,

1975

Hon. Edward R. Neaher

United
States
District
Court
Eastern
District
u. S. Court House
225 Cadman Plaza
East
Brooklyn,
New York 11201
Re:
Dear

Judge

Neaher:Your

page

single

Housing

Trump

Honor

space

Section

can

letter
under

surmise
written

date

much bureaucratic

knit-picking

has

the

characterized

language

in

I think
meeting
is
last

with

precisely

the

from
to

May 8,

of

six-

by the

1975,

and

process

you

the

just

how

time-wasting

agreeing

on final

decree.

what

they're

trying

to

Your

Honor

would

what

I had

suggested

say

is

be constructive,
to

Miss

week.
R~'/ectfully,

lf/lhf/J/~?z __
ROY M.jCOHN
RMC:at
cc: Frank Schwelb,
Housing
Section

Chief

that

a
which

Goldstein

JSP:FES:DFG:car
DJ 175-52-28
Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio
Magistrate,
United States District
Eastern District
of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

Re:

Court

United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al ..

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529

Dear Judge Catoggio:

We have just received
a copy of Mr. Roy Cohn's
September 5, 1974, letter
to you in which he contends that
our-response
to defendants'
objections
to plaintiff's
Request
for Production of Documents in the above-captioned
case was
so untimely as to render the issue academic."
While we
hesitate
to burden you with additional
correspondence
on this
matter,
we believe
the letter
raises issues requiring a short
response.
On August 20, after
being informed by the United States
Attorney's
office that Mr. Cohn had objected
by letter
to our
request to inspect records in Norfolk, Virginia,
we delivered
a letter
to you which advised that we intended to respond
fully to these objections.
You may recall
that on September 3,
I advised your Honor by telephone that I was on that date
mailing.,
by special
delivery,
plai:r.1tiff's
response.
During
that conversation,
it was my impression that the matter
remained open for determination.

Despite
"academic," we
for Production
remains active

Mr. Cohn's assertion

that the issue is now
outstanding
Request
believe that Plaintiff's
of Documents, noticed on August 13, 1974,
and survives
the .September first
discovery

deadline.
Indeed, if plaintiff's
September third response is
deemed to be untimely because it comes after the discovery
deadline,
defendants would succeed in defeating
what would
otherwise be permissible
discovery
by making informal objections
at the eleventh
hour ..

Mr. Cohn also indicates

that he has asked Judge Neaher
to fix an early trial
date.
We have, as yet, received no
notice from the defendants,
either formal or informal 11 that
they have requested
that this case be put on the trial
calendar.
However, we will be contacting
Judge Neaher to advise him that
we believe there are certain
matters remaining outstanding
in
this lawsuit which need to be settled
before this action is
set for trial.
These include our request to inspect: records
in Norfolk I Virginia,
and a forthcoming
motion which we intend
to file to have defendants'
July 26 notice of Motion and
supporting
Affidavits,
which seek to have plaintiff's
counsel
held in contempt of court,
stricken
from the record.
Respectfully

yours,

J. STANLEYPOTTINGElt
Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

By:

DONNA
F. GOLDSTEIN
Attorney
Housin.g Section
cc:

Honorable Edward R. Neaher

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire

JSP :Ji.EStN;G:car
DJ 175-5.Z-28

Honorable Edward R. Neaher

United States District
Court
Eastern District
of New York
225 Cadma11Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re:

United

Civil

States
v. Fred c. Trump, et al.
ActiQn No. 73 C 1529

Dear Judge Neaher:

On September ll,
1974, we received a copy of a letter
sent by Mr. Roy Cohn to Magistrate
Catoggio in which he states
that he has requested
that the above ...captioned suit be placed
on the trial
calendar.
As our responding
letter
to Magistrate
Catoggio (a copy of which is enclosed)
indicates,
we believe
tbere are important matters remaining outstanding
which need
to be settled
before this cas.e is set for trial.

For example, defendants have made objections

to plain ...
tiff's
August 13th Request for Production
of Documents.
The
parties
are now awaiting a determination
by Magistrate
Catoggio
as to the permissibility
of this requested
discovery.
Moreover,
we intend, in the very near future,
to file a motion to Strike
defendants
July 26th Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavits
which seek disciplinary
action against plaintiff's
counsel for
alleged misconduct.
As you may recall,
on August 8, 1974,
after the hearing Q.n plaintiff's
Order to Show cause, the
parties
met with Judge Catoggio.
At that time the defendants
decided to withdraw their contempt motion from the calendar,
but refused to agree to a full withdrawal with prejudice.

Plaintiff
believes
that allowing this motion to remain
present state of limbo only serves to further cloud the
in this lawsuit.
It additionally
unduly prejudices
the
tation of one of plaintiff's
counsel with charges which
without foundation.
prepared to prove are totally
The United

in its
issues
repu ...
we are

States wants an early and expeditious

trial
case in keeping with the requirements
of 42 U.S.C.
3613. In fact, this lawsuit could have already been tried
had it not been for the continued delays and dilatory
tactics
occasioned by the defendants
and their counsel,
However, we
do not believe that with these outstanding
issues still
unresolved,
this case is now ready to be set for trial.
Therefore, we respectfully
urge th.at this case not be placed on the
trial
calendar until the resolution
of these open matters.

in this

Respectfully

yours,

J. STANLEY
POTTINGER
Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
By:

NORMAN
P. GOLDBERG
Attorney
Housing Section
cc:

The Honorable Vincent

Roy M. Cohn 11 Esquire

A. Catoggio

JDP:HAB:ee
F .. f7309S9

April

BY IiAND

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan

39 East 68th Street
New York, New York
Attn:

&.

Esqs ..

10021

I<oy M. Cohn,

Re:

Manley,

16, 19-74

Esq.

United

States

u.s.o.e.,

Civil

v.

Fred

z.n.n.Y.

Action

c .. Trump, et al.

Ho .. 73 C 1529

,------------

>ear Sirs:
We are sorry to learn from your associate
.Tef frey
Schuman, Esq .. that you will not honor your commitment to
produce previously
designated
officers,
agents and employees
of defendants
in the above action
for depositions
on April 17,
18, 19 and 22, 1974, notwithstanding
your written
stipulation,
by Mr. Schuman, so ordered by the Court on April 1, 1974,
and the oral representation
of Mr. Cohn of your firm to
Government counsel. on March 29, 1974.
'fo avoid obviously
futile
expenditure,
we have cancelled
our request
for a
stenographer
to record the depositions
on those dates.

II

:!

We regret,
too, that de.fendant has chosen to
violate
the Court's
order of February 5,. 1974 which ordered
defendants
to answer plaintiff's
interrogatories
on or
before April 1, 1974.

sanctions

We will,

of course,

against

defendants.,

apply

for

Very truly

appropriate

yours,

EDWARDJOHN BOYDV
States A7ney

--~ited

By:ZC~
~~;;-).

Ass~ant

cc~

The Honorable

Edward R.. Neaher

United

District

States

1lRACB'1'L

u. s.

Attorney

,Judge

225 Cadman Plaza Bast

Brooklyn,
New York 11201

JSP:FES;ESG:saf
DJ 175.52-28

MAY ~ 1974

Manley, Esq.
Saxe, Bacoa, Bolan
39 East 68th Street
Scott

New York~ New York

&

Manley
10021

United States v. Fred c. Trump, et al.,

C~v11 trtlon No. 73 C 1529

Re:

Dear Mr. Manley:

I am writing to confirm our telephone conversations of

May 9, 1974. During our conversations,
you requested that
the United States stipulate
to granting the defendants a ten
of time to respond to our tntet"rogat:ories of
November 7, 1973.
day extension

Ordinarily we would consent to such a request, however,

in light of the fact that there have been so many delays in
the above-styled lawsuit; that we have previously made a Motion
for Sanctions; and that on May 3, 1974, Judge Catoggio ordered
on or before
the defendants to respond to our interrogatories
May 16, 1974, we decline to consent to an extenaion of time.

If you decide to move for leave of court for an

extension

of time, we would naturally

a copy of all the pertinent

want to be served with

papers.

Sincerely,

J. STANLEY
POTTINGER
Assistant
Civil

Attorney General
Rights

Division

By:
ELYSES. GOLDWEBER
Attorney

Housing Section
f

ee:

Hon. Edward B.. Beaber

United States

J>istl:'ict Court Jud,ge

Eastern Distriet of New York
United States Cont'thouse
22.5 caaman
Plaza East

Brooklyn. NewYork 11201

Hon. Yineeat

C&toUio

United Sttat.es Magistrate

Eaaceira Dist,riet of NewYork

United States Courthouse
225 C4<JmanPlaaa Ent
Brooklyn, 1ew Yoirk 11201

MAY 91974

...............
......._ .
nae,, c.a,,
.......
--~I

--

.............

..,

l'N'k, -

,11
..

....

..,,,
... ......

-*

10021

1111u.1

hN

BY&I

Zlli.181,

1 .....................
lt74 ....................
....

1,1,.

~F

.. Ualll ........

1, ec a1

,..==-...

1.,1111
...............

at.t,Glate - ..-t.Soa
.., ....... t.oa of tS.. a. ................
.. 11,11- 7.

die

..

w w.W e1111-

to ...

dad ..............

8&7W
,......c,tllat
, ... tltac - ..,

..

.......

__...

..

of

............
_,.

fa

.....

- ..... .......,.i,
.....
, ., .,111
..............

......
..

...
...,.
....
u..,
......
,...........
......
.., 16, 1974, ... u..
f

......

te

u,..
' -- ...,

ef

te

........

ot ...

,.....
., , .. .
of dat
- .w ......
..... u,
... - .. -.u
.. ,adaNI
.

............

.......

17,

J .......
~

Clwll

.,.

wt.ti.I

......,....
,Dllll.

ltabta HYhiN

.....,
..............

a.1111

'

.....................
.............
., .....
-----...................
.............
.,
...
..
...................
adltMt -

DiabUt

mt111t11n..a.t
.. ._.

......

1lltl

lld.t,MI ......

Cowa

....

........

GI .1n llw
.._
....... ,.. 'Ion 11191
U,

l'
I

Jutta

t.ir.:rn.:r11
/\. J3rr.i<~Jrt
1, r;st{..
liftflisi:tlrtt t.J~ ;~. l.\trt~<.)1~.J.'}~::t
t.ern D:b)tr:tct
or tifsW
~-)2:5Cadman
aza Eaf:tt
1
n .....,.. r,J,4.r,.i
:;,.1,,.,." \?,.)"'tt
...f.Js :,__,/ ~ ~4ty
J.. ,,,. .:t.,;:'" l1.,..''f""
:!.:.-~l ~'""
1~

:J, _,.. '

./.)I\.',:;; {:;..

ttanlt?y PottJnger,
Esq
st.ant Attorney Gru\~ra.1
Civil Rights Division
.J..

.?\:;

f:e;;a.1~tn1et1t

oe ,_Jut~'t~:J..,~e

Ph:l.ngton., D.
i\ t ~t :

.1)0U!l8:.

J? (~<:t:l{}f~t1.~ttl

At to:rney.,

H<_:ius1

roct:ton

;J1.ixe, Ilac,?n, Bol.r:i.n !...:?4a.::,lr.~y, Frq~ ..

L'ar:it 6Hth Street
H(tw' Yorl-.,, New York 100''.1

the

appe.r{'?nt inab:t li ty of th.e

UNITED
UNITED
EASTERN
UNl'TEO

STATES
STATES

MAGISTRATE
DISTRICT

DISTRICT
STATES

BROOKLYN,

OF

CouaT

NEW

COURT

NEW

YORK

HOUSE:

YORK

11201

18, 1974

June

Henry A. Brachtl,
Esq.
Assistant
u. S. Attorney
stern District
of New York
5 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn,
New York 11?01
Saxe, Sacon, Bolan & Manley,
39 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021
Re:

United
Civil

qs.

v.
d c. Trump,
No. 73 C 1529

tes

Action

et

Gentlemen:
A further

the undersigned
made necessary

in this

case

will

on June 27, 1974 at 4:30 P. M.

by the

,Tune 111, 1971-i.

and failure

conference

tenor

No excuse

to appear

wi

your

ter

This

will

consideration

before

meeting

~s

13, 1974 and

of June

non-attendance
invite

be held

be accepted
of the

imposition

of sanctions.
Very t:ruly
f
I

\/

I.

I/,) ' ..,- I\ /

l' \ \/,.""
..

I .:

,, :

V V \. \,

'

"' \.-\

VINCENT A.

Unit~d
Eastern
cc:

norable
Edward R. Neaher
United States
District
Judge
Eastern
District
of New York

yours,
r
t,

l, ,.

'

('
t

CATOGGICY .;

States
Magi~trate
District
of New York

- ,

100 Jedwood Place

Valley
Stream,
L.I.,
1974
July 19th,

N.Y.

TO WIIOMIT Mi\.YCOHCPRN:
r-.,
\'

correct

I, PaulDZiselman1hereby
statements
of my own free

make the
will:

following

true

and

I was formerly

time basis
2nd Street,
I personally
regardless

employed by Trump Management on a parta rental

agent at Beach Haven Apartments,
2611 W.
Brooklyn,
New York.
During my period
of employment
never discriminated
against
any prospective
tenants
of race,
color or creed.

as

Additionally,
I have never been instructed
by any
superior
of the Trump Office,
nor was it ever suggested
or
stated
to me in any way, manner or form to follow a racially
discriminatory
rental
policy
while I was employed by this
company.
In fact,
during
such employment
I rented
many apartments to minorities,
including
blacks.
Despite
the above mentioned,
I was visited
by a
representative
of the Justice
Department
who stated
that an
"FBI Agent" would be back to continue
the interrogation.
These
statements
were made in a threatening
manner and!
strongly resent
and object
to it.
I was especially
harassed
and intimidated
by a Donna Goldstein
and in my opinion,
her unethical
conduct
in itself
should be a matter
of investigation.

']

l ,'.i /
PAL~ ZISELM N
l,

I...

100 Jedwood

Valley
July

TO WHOMIT MAYCONCERN:
p H"1 l f\ 7',,1
I,
Ziselman
statements
correct.

of

my own free

hereby
will,

make
which

Plate

Stream,
19th,

the
are

L.I.,

N.Y.

1974

following
true
and

I was formerly
employed
by Trump Management
on a part-time
basis
as a rental
agent
at Beach Haven
Apartments,
2611 W. 2nd Street,
Brooklyn,
New York.
During
my employment
under
no circumstances
did I ever
discriminate,
nor was I ever told
to discriminate
by
any superior
of Trump Management
ainst
any person
regardless
of race,
color
or cree
iring
the rental
of an apartment.
'- 1 .

?(' ./ , .. ,,../
/

1.:1

/1

.;!/::z.
..C (\:
/ \

'J

~--

<, (

__a~f
Q~~ }~EJAHER,
j_

...

OCT2 4 ~14

Date:

)-A-,i,
- ....- '1-F~
IS-- - d /.1r~
- - -~"~
-.
--1
- - - 'J-4.,;,t~c
,

Attorn~y

Fla-"-'"'
cf
..::..~
..-..::...!...

0-,,,ch

/~Jt::-k
--- -

!.~::/U,,..

.
Atto~~sy
c. / DJf-::mcent l, Jr}
;{~(
c~
------ --. - - - - V/'5' - . .::..i"' .! - - - - - -~--:,,--c:-

f.V'-1.-Jrj:."'

e,

r~

(}'

'

'

re.

P~.rty D ~ft.

/,

\<Jl'lNtSS

J:: s.

'~

'

'

Attorn~y
l

,i~Lt4li,
li?-c-~/L?-c::/);,1,
,....
IDENT. EVI.CJNCE

t ESC~ IPT I 01'1 ..,{! 2;~:-:IEITS

OCT24 ~74

I.

..

'

,.

'.!

L
l
lI{

..

..

,,.

OCT24 1174

Datci:

-~-i,,..,

Fla

,t,f
- #.~
- VIS' - - -

]~-.;l..,t
....- -

~1-Tu

-?.=t
---- - (

-..

u.:,?~4

- - -

D...,.t:'
...nc~n,..

e. ZL/

Attorn~y

t:'..ff

.,4
7-;;
.-.:..

'-'yY

V/'5'' -

<;.

.../f;_( ,

- -

J~ ---/~~::tu--r /fz.
Rt~~-.
--

-~

--

\..

Atto:::1~y

- - - - r,7 C;_,l::,- - - - - - - -

-="'

3 re. P~.rty D :ft.

hirv;J'
(;

jt'
/

IP',\/]

'1;..... /

b #:

t "')<1
.:?,:
.
>'""'"'.._,.

l.y,,..

L,'
.
di ,l-i,..-...'-'( .. ,~:nY-t~

',

A.
~J

1r!.
..4<J.vi.-,

.J, ....

!DENT. EVI:C3NCE

OCT
2 4 1974

. ..l""
. .
.";Z--c.

1 - - <~~1JI-I
/3,- {
, c,f I?:~,Av)

,'L/-zAf

7
_{L_/r ,:J 'Sc,
,
~~I,
{},,Ai)/'
,......
E....,'-',..:;z,
IP..,..I
.-.1
,~.....,~.."
l vl, vi:! ::;,:.:;:unrs

!1

..... -

Attorn~y
1

\<JlTN.t;::;::;t s

,..,

f\

-~

;/

. . . t?,,,.-l1,,.._/,k

A.

t.-/;;,t,,L..,,vf
. .

L-L-w-.<....-

I ,

It -;.4 - )

~-

Ii

h/7t..Lr-1"

I> - J.-/,f-

I I

..

'

L
..

I'
I
!
'!

..

!
(

'