United States v. John Doe. Appeal of Samuel L. Popkin, 460 F.2d 328

United States v. John Doe. Appeal of Samuel L. Popkin

460 F.2d 328

1st Cir.

1972

Check Treatment

*1 328 Secretary Ruby v. the United States a technical omission to elevate Navy, 385, (9th 365 F.2d jurisdictional defect. of a level 1358, denied, 1011, 87 S.Ct. violate order did the June Nor (1967); Manuel San 18 L.Ed.2d 442 appellant’s fifth amendment Un International Juan Co. v. American records against self-incrimination. F.Supp. Corp., derwriters sought part a civil suit were (D.P.R.1971); Prac 9 Moore’s Federal limita statute period well within ed.) 203.11, (2d tice at Other 736-39. § violations, 29 U.S.C. § for wilful tions wise, deprive litigant temporarily could payroll Moreover, records 255. every jurisdiction a court of kept pre required to be juncture. 30 civil critical The November governmen effectuate in order served obviously nonap contempt order was Conse regulation. 29 U.S.C. § tal order, Cap pealable interlocutory v. Fox “public aspects” they and do quently have Co., 105, 107, ital 299 U.S. protection the fifth invoke the (1936), 81 L.Ed. and thus the court Shapiro United See v. amendment. jurisdiction to enter the States, 32-36, 68 S.Ct. regard do en order. court’s 92 L.Ed. 1787 try judgment” “partial default overly been harsh. that date contempt order November 37(b) (2),

was Rule Fed.R. authorized Affirmed. compliance Civ.P., induce discovery appel June 25 order. Since by compliance, lant could avoid its effect clearly in nature. civil requirements

Procedural fulfilled

providing appellant and an with notice opportunity heard,

attorney oppose appear and did in fact requirement There

the order. present. party physically himself be America STATES UNITED attorney’s fees to Sec The award 37(b), retary is authorized Rule DOE. John appellant vio claim no constitutional can ground could not on the that he lation L. POPKIN. Appeal of Samuel against attorney’s fees have recovered No. 72-1090. Secretary. 37(f) Rule and 28 U.S.C. of fees limit assessment § Appeals, Court of against car- the United and costs First Circuit. ry rule that sov- the common law out 19, 1972. April Argued ereign only ex- liable costs 3,May Decided specifically provided. tent It to be lose, govern- overlooked win or expenses all ment bears maintain- ing the courts. January 14, order en

tered after filed notice appeal from the November 30 order. filing generally

While a notice of deprives jurisdiction, the district court of deficient, manifestly

where notice is nonap e. reason of reference to a g. pealable order, the district dis

regard proceed it and the case. *2 Homans, Jr., Boston, Mass., P.

William Daniel whom Klubock Feather- ston, Mass., Klubock, Boston, Homans & brief, appellant. were on Reese, Atty., P. Warren U. S. Asst. Joseph Tauro, Atty., with whom L. U. S. Barry, Atty., and Richard J. U. S. Asst. brief, appellee. were on ALDRICH, Judge, Before Chief Mc- COFFIN, Judges. ENTEE and Circuit Judge. COFFIN, Circuit Popkin Samuel is an hold- of the district from an order contempt for him in civil propounded certain in Mas- federal professor of An sachusetts. assistant University, Pop- at Harvard articles on kin has written numerous first war in Indochina.1 He contends respond not be forced should govern- by the without a demonstration gen- ment of both the of the relevance writing According affidavit, presently a book 1. he is to his lists his states that published works, “involving Nam written on war in Viet subjects ranging origins”, a researcher number of he is war-related Af International effect on Vietnamese vil Center war’s Harvard’s lage board a member the editorial life and the use of herbicides more fairs and Policy”. general policy journal questions of American “Public Southeast affidavit Asia. appear specific questions. required inquiry and until eral urges pro- His He also that he excused renewed motions for should be answering transcript vir- tective order and priv- Upon denied. tue of a First Amendment to answer scholar’s refusal questions, divulge infor- three ilege not to con- contempt March obtained order on as those sources mation insofar Popkin purged supply informa- him with himself of fidential and Finally, by answering *3 relating he questions on to his these three tion field. testify 27, ques- until that he March then answered claims il- but, relying use of First has disclaimed the tions on asserted legal scholar, re- electronic surveillance. Amendment ques- fused to answer a of other number a sub grand jury issued protective Motions order tions. for a in that Popkin poena is the to same again and for disclosure denied on (Mike v. Doe in United States volved 29, contempt. March and he held was Senator, Inter Gravel, United appeals He now March 29 con- (1st venor), F.2d tempt order. 1243, granted, 916, (Feb. 22, 1972 [herein court, opinion, The district without Gravel]). after Popkin’s re- based its order on questions, fusal to of which ordering testify, dis- nine Popkin to In presses In jury now seven. grand found that trict court scope Popkin’s alleged order to understand the inquiry “engaged vio- in an into testify, refusal to be useful first Chapter [Espionage lations parts to sketch the relevant testi- of his Censorship] 2314 [Trans- and Sections mony response did he goods portation etc.] of stolen among state, did goods answer. He other receipt etc.] stolen [Sale things, copy Code”, 18, that seen a he had never with Title United States Pentagon Papers than those other primary focus the dissemination distribution, study Department that he had not mass classified Defense Ellsberg possi- Pentagon Papers. cussed Daniel known as the Pentagon bility releasing copy of the appear Popkin subpoenaed first was Papers (of the New to Neil Sheehan August knowledge Times), York that had no he date, 1971. Before he moved other than from as to how quash subpoena and for disclosure newspapers copies various had obtained surveillance, electronic which motions Pentagon Papers, and that he “was not, grand jury were denied. The did given never information definitive however, testify him ask at time. possessed” Pentagon someone Pa- subpoena appear He received a second pers addition, Pop- in Massachusetts. before the on October 13. having kin opinion admitted that cer- Having refused to on October persons possession of tain unnamed reappear was ordered to on October Pentagon Massachusetts, Papers date, motions, sup- 27. On that he filed explaining opinion formed was this ported by his own affidavit and those “with on the basis of conversations scientists, twenty-four social persons numerous de- numerous protect inquiry as an order to him from documents, see now cisions in his “information obtained are lot of those documents decisions capacity scholar, as a teach- author and Pentagon Papers”. in the er”, transcript testimony, of his disclosure After surveillance. questions Popkin to an- refused these motions were denied on represent October inquiry swer three lines of Popkin granted immunity which, was overlapping, con- we will prosecution testify. ordered separately. inquiry sider at- One line of Again excused, subsequently tempted identify or, cussing study pre- in- Papers the documents decisions more the cisely, knowledge dicating having knowledge person Pentagon Papers?” possession study. in- participated This who in the 7). (question began question: quiry “Who with the persons you in or- are the interviewed concept We first discuss knowledge par- acquire der to who grand jury inquiry when a least study?” Pentagon Papers ticipated in the rights impinges on the First Amendment (chronologically, witness, preliminary aof followed, after had declined relevancy long- required. Despite response to answer and had indicated in standing doctrine of Blair v. United subsequent questions it had never States, 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. object been his research discover (1919), that a L.Ed. participated study, by colloquy urge “not entitled to ob- witness is (question 3): irrelevancy” jections incompetency or legislative in- “Q. relies on to whom Who are those regard quiry you referring eases to con- as Watkins v. *4 1173, 178, 77 S.Ct. of Massa- District versations the (1957) you and etc., Commonwealth knowl- 1273 Scull v. led chusetts which 344, edge Virginia, of 838, 79 S.Ct. of who are the Pentagon study?” Papers L.Ed.2d 865 make to in effect ****** areWe assumption of the new on basis law “Q. please you name them? Would legislative grand inquiries jury and regretfully de- respectfully A. they fashion that in so similar a function cline [etc.].” argument, should be treated alike. inquiry more ex- is The second line of considered, ap- initial not without is plicit self-explanatory. and is investigation legislative has peal. But a question “Did Dan- refused to answer the previous- object a resolution of as its Ellsberg you the iel ever discuss with general ly problem of a na- identified Pentagon Pa- content or existence of the broad, power, is limited ture. The while pers and June between general advancing To resolution. to 4). (question 1971?” supply extent that can individuals legislative information related to the finally, inquiry, third re- line of task, they respond. must When opinion pos- lated to his as to conceded paint only not to broad brush seeks begin- Pentagon Papers, session of the portraits to scene but detail individual ning question: with the “[W]hat is scene, unnecessary too it ventures opinion you pos- as to believe leg- concept far. The of relevance to Pentagon copy Papers sessed a preserve purpose necessary islative prior Massachusetts to June 1971” legislative boundary between inquiry (question line ordinarily individual, and can be en- temporarily dropped, later but was then pur- forced reference to statements of by repetition resumed pose prior testimony al- which are 5). Subsequently, (question refused ready matters of record. you question “Would to answer the them, jury generally please grand fur- a much name has you object view, caused one in which nished information which smaller but you persons you opinion society At least interest. form has intense crimes, possessed copy inquiring into believe Papers grand prior jury paints brush and in Massachusetts to June with a small similar, painstaking (question 6) necessarily Its detail. 1971?” focussed, question purpose probable but if somewhat more is to there see particular crimes “Who the conversation with dis- cause to believe that by particular per- Joyce Presley, F.Supp. been committed have Brenda sons, although per- (N.D.Cal.1970): crimes petrators may discovered in the course need to not “The does taking case, evidence. either investigate; probable have cause help to which would number facts if function is determine rather its may identify and the the crime criminal probable probable if cause exists. And few, relevance well be required investigate, cause may apparent only after an- fact become re- probable follows that cause is pub- Thus other is uncovered. preliminary quired show- grand product limited is a lic ing necessary to call a whose witness indictments, processes its number of light testimony may criminal shed ” pursuit include of numerous strands activity. . . . evidence, many ultimate- if We conclude even ly use, can be of none of which but put not been safely per- abandoned. From another be relevant to demonstrated to grand jury is spective, even where justify his inquiry, jury’s this would working hypothesis aof on the clear invocation His refusals answer. depend prosecutor, its success often nothing to his adds the First Amendment upon ability to offer to witnesses relevancy context of claim the guarantee suspects secrecy and to pre investigation. Whether protection secrecy probable unless strong a First Amendment claim sented meaning- Any cause found to indict. enough to be treated as a constitutional response ful statement of relevance separate question. is a request to a witness’s would entail *5 may determining appellant In whether naming description suspects of and the ques refuse to or all of these prior testimony. present of Even aif Gravel, presented, tions, we are as secrecy, dis- witness has no wish a confrontation of constitutional injure and would other witnesses closure power privilege,. and constitutional reject appellant’s suspects. therefore overclaiming heightened by on similar argument based on asserted similari- each di side. Here also there little is legislative grand ty jury this to a of though guide us, precedent and rect hearing. Supreme pronounce soon Court sup attempts Appellant to draw also on the balance between law bears port a from Fourth rule of relevance grand jury power First and cases, Amendment such as Oklahoma privileges,2 not Amendment we Publishing Walling, v. 327 U. Press Co. await its decision.3 186, 209, 614 L.Ed. S. S.Ct. government argues schol that the this, As we deem sufficient privilege ar’s a not to be is creature Judge Hamley’s reference in United province jurisprudence; found in the Weinberg, 743, 749 States v. 439 F.2d analogue, reporter’s the closest a (9th following 1971), Cir. lan privilege, recognized by Cir the Ninth guage Judge Zirpoli in In re Grand cuit in v. Caldwell United 434 F. Jury Bursey (9th granted, 2d and Witnesses Sherrie complied Argument having subpoena, has been heard United States with a Caldwell, infra, (Feb. questions. v. refuse to answer certain U.S.L.W. precise in that issue requires 1826(b) that we § U.S.C. reporter, claiming free- case is whether a a days thirty decide this within after right, press dom of First Amendment it was that we have filed. We grand compelled appear can be before a Although quite met our deadline. though already jury, even he has been priority, gave first we this matter given barring protection of an order exceeding the stat- faced with the choice of inquiry into his confidential sources. utory sacrificing period deliberation, we making witness here is claim narrower chose former. Caldwell, may legitimately crime fear for and life (1971),4 appellant limb. Nor can stand a on rejected claim, uniformly justified, however has been otherwise that his liveli- by courts; hood as a and that if Caldwell researcher His even threatened. is privilege, exists, correctly decided, appellant if falls out- exists because of an important public compass, relationship side interest the contin- flow of ued information to scholars so intimate as about sources public problems special Caldwell, stop cano- would if nor covered py press, be- could and the be forced disclose free scholars Appellant engaged a than in a rather information. general investigation. Appellant political a scientist. As true stemming scientists, precedent counts lack of as other behavioral research technique heavily inquiry past to in- on absence of efforts rests knowledge, privilege. attitudes, a vade He claims their scholar’s others fully experience. inquiry serve a Often such interest as vital relationship reporter, predicated a served which interest on a confi- imperilled by grievously question posed a us dence. The gives forced sources, disclosure a relationship absent scholar whether compelling gov- constitutionally based possess. ernment. do not which others Although parties cast their both Gravel, supra, held that we terms, arguments broad sub- these Speech and Debate Clause was sufficient stantiated rationale inquiring from block not, questions put do Senator the re- aides opinion, quite head on. The ceiving in our meet preparation legislative overwhelming majority publication, publication, offi- lay stress republication from scholars affidavits cial Pa- two-way importance of commu- pers. decision, recognized, Our could in deci- substantially nication between grand jury, frustrate affected) making (or sion embargoed inquiry the transactions importance scholars. The asserted encompass a crime. But we *6 of sources of network thought non-disclosure a by compelled the result necessity flow in the for a continued lies Speech Clause, and Debate which not is sphere of of inside information to the involved here. assessment, scholarly reporting, and criticism, particularly im- made perspective, important flow For is a it self-serving by portant and what not been could and selective by partic- successfully argued other, Ap not of here. release information pellant higher short, not, ularly example, could for cite his officials.5 privilege in bears discomfort asked thrust of the asserted Although right about not disclose of the others. discomfort scholar real, is sourc- it is his “contacts shared all the identities of non-governmental es”, Indeed, witnesses. a witness be those officials called grand jury investigating organized purview special- fore his a within the actors Long Sulzberger, Nejelski Lerman, Row in A & C. L. See also Research- scene. Privilege: er-Subject Diaries 1934- & Testimonial What of Candles —Memoirs p. Subpoena (MacMillan, Arrives, states at To Before Do only saying Note, Reporters “May 1085; I summarize xvi: Wisc.L.Rev. newspaperman things. A for a Rule and Their Sources: The Constitutional these trade; Right Relationship, are the food that ‘leaks’ to a Confidential is that, years as found have over the L.J. 317 80 Yale always drinks, fizzes the leak the best with top. indiscretion The desire 5. This assertion seems buttressed compelling.’’ experienced upper level seems observers the national at it government, in Were knowledge, Vietnam. and views actions, ty whose question a delved become clear that give primary work.6 data relationships into with privilege lies confidential for the claimed The reason persons, not protecting we are sure importance of in the inquiry. pursue fit to per would see se but and other officials did, however, would at have a If least preserving the flow importance of setting enabling to address the factual us via scholars their communications theoretically. issue less public domain. underlying falls short rationale This analysis disposes also This immunizing testifying from a scholar Ellsberg asking whether those who about conversations cussed with the content ex- a scholar Of course sources. Pentagon Papers between istence participant a an official or such also be January 1 and June 1971. There activity he also sensitive in an during representation Ellsberg no that a scholar But to the extent source. government official, period awas qua about statements scholar source, otherwise a sensitive even we do not to him other scholars made established confiden- had posi- him in different conceive relationship tial as to matters with these doctor asked about tion that of a Ellsberg public latter was a doctors, or conversations with other official. lawyer with other law- talks analysis dispose What this does yers. reason to believe that Nor is there remaining group seek- officials, opposed scholars, concerning ing appellant’s opinion who jobs will thus lose their their useful- Pentagon possessed Pa- of their ness sources if the contents pers generally or in Massachusetts are revealed to conversations with whom talked who he acknowledge jury. And while we gave opinion. Ap- him a basis of that customarily their discuss work scholars pellant candidly testified colleagues doing may per- knowledge possession he had no confidences, haps violate opinions Massachusetts, formed give comprehensive protec- thought years over as to to such discussions would tion collateral Papers. had had access to the kind privileged uniquely scholars inquiry, present posture at least in the class sense. broadest case, does not this au- conclude that opinion. Appellant therefore thor of seeking per the names of two brief has asserted he knows gave interviewed him knowl sons case where a witness held in has been edge give opinion. Pa pers answered, study long run, quest least should be Nor In the do I. *7 opinions investiga- to the extent that the were not would be a useful government partici appellant or other officials tool. If forced to tive were pant-sources. questions, re answer, One the the scholar-sleuths in fu- Massachusetts, lating long to in ture think and hard admit- before foreign ting grand juries to to be directed either opinion, seems to an and affairs, intelligence, or defense officials would without be workable means government any person, forcing or to in or out them do so. to Faculty par- resolution of the the Council of tions relate to the scholar’s own Faculty Sciences, ticipation Harvard of Arts and the direct or involvement attention, crime, to our calls should commission of a a scholar approach. states, ques- permitted similar It takes a be to refuse to part, that about his sources.” tions contacts and (Jan. 1972). demonstration [of “Without such a strong showing ques- or that the need]

335 government satisfactory point, the makes a Beyond this, more to illegal opinion closure that no electronic surveil- previously stated basis for questioning. has tainted We matching lance lay of conversa- the content history appellant’s traced the at- content tions he had had with disclosure, tempts force appeared, to the last publicly subsequently what being formal most motion deducing the source that day many filed on March after his Papers. Appellant testified that specify- having appearance, last people publicly admitted ground as the for his claim copies that thereof. Papers or to the access telephone had been asked his number. much that It is assume reasonable to appel- forming the basis of work be, majority It as gov- judgment to well known lant’s Third held in In Matter Circuit experts appellant. In this to ernment Egan, (3rd 1971), 450 F.2d 199 Cir. cert. statement, connection, in the At- note granted Egan, v. regarding torney General’s instructions (Dec. 531, 30 L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. subpoenas press, De- that “The 14, 1971), grand jury has witness partment not consider of Justice does standing proceeding in a civil investigative press arm ‘an prohibition to raise a defense the ” government’ (quoted in Levin v. Mar- against the introduction U.S.C. § (D.Md. shall, F.Supp. 173-174 upon electronic surveil of evidence based Nor has here lance, or, majority of a District of as a shown that it cannot obtain the informa- panel in In re held Columbia Circuit by procuring tion it seeks than 1971), Evans, (D.C. F.2d 1239 Cir. Popkin’s opinion. standing has witness that a opinion generality 2518(10) (a) under U.S.C. § here, apparent basis has suppress, a motion to or that he opinion idea pursued, and the 3504(a) standing under 18 U.S.C. § using speculate scholar one deny make the affirm work, without of others’ the sources illegal On surveillance. use electronic strong therefor, are re hand, the other be apart pugnant my view, even In me. standing under of these sections. none claims, ex we should constitutional Gelbard, F.2d 837 United States supervisory power to state our ercise (9th granted, Gelbard ought circuit scholars 990, 92 v. United give go prison their 14, 1971). (Dec. opinions or casual and beliefs based on we do not because reach retrospective on similarities reflections Popkin, find even if he has stand my agree of content. But brothers ing, has failed sufficient claim to make opinion questions improp subpoena the issuance objection er, a narrower formal their asking product Accordingly, present one. See illegal infra. surveillance. simply disapprove questions as 2518(10) (a) Section indicates that a asked. suppress motion to obtained evidence illegal relevancy addition surveillance electronics justifications “grounds” First Amendment made three answer, refusal he is made and that motion “[s]uch he asserts shall duty trial, proceeding hearing, under until *8 possible grounds (iii) interception 7. in The are that the was not made “(i) unlawfully conformity the was authorization communication with the order of (a). 2518(10) intercepted; approval.” § or 18 U.S.C. (ii) ap- the order of authorization or proval intercepted under which it was face; insufficient on its or circumstances, including sub- number opportunity no there unless matter, association, or ject coincidence person aware the was not motion or lan- events. grounds motion.” The the guage (1) “upon a claim 3504(a) of § court present case, the district — aggrieved party evidence circumstances as found no such primary it inadmissible because is the illegal suspect electronic sur- lead it because product unlawful act or an stage proceed- At veillance. exploitation of it was obtained by way prelim- ings, it, we act”-—carries an unlawful inary questioning, jury ag- think, responsibility on the a similar name, telephone address, grieved show- party a threshold to make question was asked number. last ing, although con- the threshold be again on March 27. We and answered Evans, supra, siderably In re lower. See inference to can attach sinister no J., (Wilkey, dissent- F.2d at 1268 government re- fact that legislative history detailed ing), and the identifying tele- cord items. these there. And while contains § telephone phone book. number was comparable requirement, it neither does surveil- If we drew inference toas Any explicitly remedy. provide im- light might be, it of the his- lance view, remedy would, import plied in our investiga- tory Pentagon Papers requirement of basis of some (1st tion, Marx, In re 451 F.2d 466 cf. Otherwise, suspecting illegal action. government wanted in effect the two last cited sections would ready prepare if be disclaimer enacted automatic disclosure it, course, which, the court ordered Congress rule, which not think we do Furthermore, ques- it never did. intended.8 tions asked in the kind, speculative broadest most bear- time, At the same we note the state- government no hallmark that the Judge re in In ment Chief Bazelon notion of what Evans, supra, F.2d at might be able to this rec- contribute. On duty government to disclose under ord, we do not think district 3504(a) (1) triggered “is ... § compel court erred the mere assertion that unlawful wire- deny illegal or affirm tapping has been used”, and are sensitive electronic surveillance. to the concern it.9 which underlies a further makes difficult, full well that it point. Although Popkin perhaps filed motions to impossible, particularly in the raising illegal stages early matter of a case when he called surveillance, grand jury, when he refused before the for a witness to questions on March subject asserted at know that he has elec- been length Amendment the First tronic concede surveillance. We would original absurdity which had requiring been the basis precise infor- which, affidavit, surveillance, but made no mention of mation about a un- allegation poorly done, of electronic sur- pin-pointed could not defense less government says veillance. The this was the victim. Because of the elusive waiver, suggests surveillance, of electronic nature ade- might grounds accept gleaned quate claim. While effect, Judge Wilkey’s as much not intended in In dissent re Evans every grand every subpoena wit- complexi- sketches some costs and' making ness have attached to a disclaimer ties of a disclaimer. 452 F.2d log of surveillance. 1255. Even if a disclaimer is not quite great need not be an ordeal as is light of his be read Even this must indicated, there it is nevertheless true that the claim the case later statement delay expense frivolous”, “patently sufficient involved suggest Congress 452 F.2d at 1250. must have known *9 old-fashioned, Perhaps I his I am but was need not and do not whether decide taught scholarly study waiver, that a was valua- actions constituted a because illegal adequately to the extent it to claim ble disclosed failure he, time, electronic sources. How does know that surveillance being him, particularly public, horn- believe it behooved hence swoggled great him, precedent with Marx a “source”? there Is public book, point worth in a the reference reassert the surveillance refused to table which consists of bare curric- answer. ulum author ? vitae part, part. Affirmed in reversed may yes,

The answer be be no. tempted though hope I wonder, am Judge (concurring). ALDRICH, Chief uncharacteristically, if too much is are, to the extent that we asked are the First Amendment. all, to exploring very here at Hearst could consider Walter Winchell so ground, new and while willing agree it valuable to that it Judge agree and I with the re- McEntee suit, in case of a libel it would Judge sult, opin- much of Coffin’s pick up require the tab and not him to ion, our cast would differ- be somewhat divulge public Is the in- source. so Judge ent. A minor relates to difference govern- terested in research that approach Coffin’s similar, although ment itself finds awith Popkin’s “opinions” who had had as to scope, diminished in contract of immu- possession Pentagon Papers. Our nity from every disclosure with Ph.D.? only objection to those is the so, If very we believe should it be nar- badly phrased. they semantic one that Happily row limits. not' case does What, all, opinion? after meant an call for them to be defined. question been, anyone Had the “Is there you have reason to believe had possession papers in Massachu-

setts, and what are reasons?” just

would have seemed sort of in- quiry something lead to use- gold expect every

ful. One cannot pick.

stroke of the significance,

Of more we are not so sure on what calls “decision- America, STATES UNITED (and making affected)” sources. Plaintiff-Appellee, valuable, confidential source be very low, at a and even unrelated level. HANSON, Defendant- Curtis Alien protected If what is to be is the Appellant. information, interest should No. 71-1528. confidentiality test, not the need of position not the of the source? Appeals, United States Court Eighth Circuit. leads us to a dilemma. Submitted March What assurance does a court confidentiality is a there in the May 15, Decided particular Popkin, judge case? if we argument, oral that he believes all-encompassing should have mantle field, in whatever can be known as a “safe” man to talk to. Judge

We do going not read Coffin far; nor would we. But where does stop?