Case Name: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, INC., Petitioner, v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-01-10
Citations: 301 F.2d 518
Docket Number: No. 13260
Parties: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, INC., Petitioner, v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 301
Pages: 518–520

Head Matter:
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, INC., Petitioner, v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD, Respondent.
No. 13260.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1962.
Memorandum in Explanation of Prehearing Order Entered Jan. 8,1962.
Jan. 10, 1962.
Mr. David Rein, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Frank R. Hunter, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Subversive Activities Control Board, and Mr. George B. S earls and Mr. Lee B. Anderson, Attys., Dept, of Justice, for respondent.
Before Prettyman, Bazelon and Danaher, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Counsel having appeared before this court for a prehearing conference, and it appearing that counsel for petitioner asserts that numerous alleged findings of fact included in the Report and Order of the Board here under review are without the support of substantial evidence in the record as a whole; and it further appearing that the Board in response insists that all its findings are fully supported by substantial evidence in the record; and it further appearing that the record in this cause is voluminous, consisting of some 5400 pages of transcript of testimony and about 300 exhibits, some of which are voluminous; and it appearing that petitioner alleges it is without funds with which to reproduce any considerable portion of the record for the use of the judges of the court; it is hereby
ORDERED by the court that on or before February 23, 1962, petitioner shall file herein a statement showing a selected number of findings of fact contained in the Board's Report which findings petitioner says are (1) material to the issue in the case, (2) typical as a factual foundation for the point which petitioner wishes to make upon this review as to the sufficiency of the evidence and (3) without substantial support in the record as a whole.
Further proceedings in this matter will be the subject of further orders of the court.