The second main objective of the brief was to attack the busing edict of the Tenth Circuit beyond the points raised by the school board in a way that would at least highlight the concerns of those who become real parties in interest when busing removes family members from their neighborhood schools without parental and student consent.

Fortunately, my background in San Diego prepared me in a way which was especially beneficial in the preparation of the brief. I had possessed more autonomy than the average prosecutor because there were only two of us on the scene to authorize prosecutions of the many different types of violations of the law arising from our proximity to the Mexican border. Also, as the authorizer of the complaint I ordinarily had (1) to prepare and present an indictment to the Grand Jury, (2) to try the case before a U.S. District Judge and jury and (3) to brief and argue any appeal arising therefrom to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Authorizations and presentments had to be made promptly and properly without "running" to Los Angeles any more than absolutely necessary. And they were tempered by the responsibility to see that the ingredients necessary for a proper and successful prosecutive termination were present.

One of such prosecutions was that of a husband and wife charged with conspiring to illegally bring parrots into the United States from Mexico. That case had come back to the San Diego office following the landmark decision in United States v. Dege, 364 U.S. 51 (1960), overruling an ancient doctrine that a husband and wife alone, because a wife's legal personality being merged in that of her husband, could not be so charged in a single count.

Paradoxically, the wife was considered the prime mover in the conspiracy, so I prepared, presented and obtained an indictment on a substantive count charging her with illegally receiving and concealing the parrots in violation of law. A conviction in the case was obtained on both counts following a consolidated trial, and affirmed on appeal, which I had the opportunity of trying and finally arguing on appeal. Dege v. United States, 308 F.2d 534 (1962).

This and other experiences were invaluable in drafting the various unique claims of these busing dissenters in the Carlin case, and to their reference in the amici briefs in behalf of similarly situated dissenters. For example, their claims of racial discrimination and lack of due process enabled them to establish their interest in advancing those points, as