22 U.S.C. § 615
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
[Amended section 6912 of this title.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1942–1987 · leading case: United States v. John Peter McGoff
United States v. John Peter McGoff (1987)
“” 22 U.S.C. § 615 (emphasis added). This understanding accords, moreover, with the stated purpose of FARA, which is to permit, promptly, evaluation of these activities as they are undertaken.”
Attorney General of the United States v. Irish Northern Aid Committee (1981)
“22 U.S.C. § 615 ; 28 C.F.R. § 5.501 . Nevertheless, the Government denied the claim, stating that a search of the Department of Justice records reveals no instance of unlawful electronic surveillance.”
Irish Northern Aid Committee v. Attorney General of the United States (1972)
“” 22 U. S. C. § 615 . The Attorney General has apparently determined that the names and addresses of all contributors must be disclosed to insure full disclosure of contributions from the foreign principal.”
Attorney General of the United States v. Covington & Burling (1977)
“There it held that implicit in the Act is an attorney-client privilege which allows an attorney to withhold documents sought by the Registration Unit under 22 U.S.C. § 615 . The Court accordingly ordered C&B to submit the documents withheld for judicial review to determine if…”
Viereck v. United States (1942)
“633 , 22 U.S.C.A. § 615 . 4 We are concerned with the 1938" Act as amended in 1939.”
Attorney General v. Irish Northern Aid Committee (1972)
“22 U.S.C. § 615 . Section 5 provides that: “Every agent of a foreign principal registered under this subchapter shall keep and preserve while he is an agent of a foreign principal such books of account and other records with respect to all his activities, the disclosure of which…”
Attorney General of the United States v. Covington & Burling (1976)
“22 U.S.C. § 615 . It is with the extent of the power given in § 615 that this case is primarily concerned.”
Emerson v. Department of Justice (1985)
“22 U.S.C. §§ 615 , 618. An in camera hearing was necessary to review document Nos.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.