Opinion ID: 614361
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hawley's Testimony

Text: Hawley's testimony was introduced through his deposition, which had been taken on January 17, 18, and 31, 1967. The parties have introduced relatively small selections of Hawley's deposition into the record before us in the current proceeding. We describe those selections, and fill in some details based on descriptions in the district court's 1967 opinion and our 1968 opinion. Hawley served as Legal Attache at the American Embassy in the Philippines starting in August 1961. Spielman met with Hawley alone on December 14, 15, and 16, 1961. Most of the information Spielman gave to Hawley concerned violations of Philippine law. Hawley testified, however, that some of Spielman's evidence suggested violations of U.S. law. For example, Spielman told Hawley that Stonehill, together with his agent Ira Blaustein in New York, had mislabeled a machine used to slit cigarette paper in order to pay the lower Philippine import duty for agricultural machinery. Such mislabeling would have constituted a violation of the U.S. Bill of Lading Act. Hawley reported this potential violation to Washington. Hawley testified that he concluded that the majority of potential violations of U.S. law were tax law violations. Hawley therefore suggested that Spielman meet Chandler. See Stonehill I, 274 F.Supp. at 421. Hawley and Chandler together met Spielman on December 18, 20, and 23, 1961. Chandler and Hawley eventually convinced Spielman to talk to Philippine authorities. Stonehill II, 405 F.2d at 741. The first such meeting occurred on January 27, 1962. Present at the meeting were Lukban, Damaso Nocon (Lukban's righthand man), Spielman, Chandler, and Hawley. We describe these meetings in detail in discussing Chandler's testimony. Hawley testified that during the period before the raid, Lukban provided him with copies of wiretaps the NBI had placed on Taxpayers. Hawley testified that he had not asked for these transcripts and that he stopped receiving wiretap transcripts after the raid. He also testified that he showed Chandler some of the wiretaps and technical surveillance reports that Lukban had made available to him. Hawley testified that at some time prior to February 24, 1962, the date the raid was originally scheduled, Secretary Diokno had casually mentioned to him that the raid had been planned. Hawley testified that he had no specific knowledge concerning what was going to be raided, and that Diokno had not asked him for his recommendations as to locations that the NBI should raid. He also testified that he did not ask Diokno to provide him with any information that the NBI recovered in the raid. The raid was postponed. Hawley testified that he had not been told of the postponement. He remember[ed] wondering why by the following Monday, I hadn't seen anything in the paper about [the raid]. Further, Hawley testified that he was never told the final date for the raid. He was asked, On March 3, you didn't know anything about the raids? He responded, No. He testified that he had scheduled a party for March 4. Even on the day of the raid he had no idea of any kind of projected raids or anything. The night of the raid he was home with his wife after spending some time at the office. He testified that he first learned of the raid in the Sunday copy of The Manila Times the day after the raid. He had the following exchange with Stonehill's counsel: Q. When did you first find out that Stonehill was arrested and that the raids had taken place? A. I think it was in the Sunday paper, the Manila Times. Q. That was when you found out and that was delivered to you in the morning when you woke up? A. Yes. Q. At that time, you knew nothing about either the raids or Stonehill's arrest until the time you read it in the Times? A. No. Q. What was your reaction? A. Interested that it had come about. Q. You knew it was planned, actually? You knew it was? A. Yes, but I had no positive date at all. Q. You had no positive date? A. No.