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, 831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
United States v. John Peter McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 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 Gen. of the United States v. Irish N. Aid Comm., 530 F. Supp. 241 (S.D.N.Y. 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 N. Aid Comm. v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 409 U.S. 1080 (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 Gen. of the United States v. Covington & Burling, 430 F. Supp. 1117 (D.D.C. 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, 130 F.2d 945 (D.C. Cir. 1942). “633 , 22 U.S.C.A. § 615 . 4 We are concerned with the 1938" Act as amended in 1939.”
Attorney Gen. v. Irish N. Aid Comm., 346 F. Supp. 1384 (S.D.N.Y. 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 Gen. of the United States v. Covington & Burling, 411 F. Supp. 371 (D.D.C. 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. Dep't of Just., 603 F. Supp. 459 (D.D.C. 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.