FILED
97 FEB 24 PM 3:15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

PETER D. JUNGER,                  )      CASE NO. 96 CV 1723
                                  )
     Plaintiff                    )                     
                                  )      JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
     v.                           )
                                  )               
                                  )      SECOND (CORRECTED)
MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, et al.     )      MOTION TO REFILE PROPOSED
                                  )      MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                  )
     Defendants.                  )

On February 12, 1997, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to file the Proposed Memorandum Opinion instanter. On February 13, 1997, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental and amended complaint instanter ("motion to supplement") and a motion to refile the Proposed Memorandum Opinion with Exhibits ("motion to refile"). A draft version of the motion to refile, which was filed instead of the final version contained several typographical  mistakes. Plaintiff seeks to substitute the previous motion to refile with this corrected version as follows:

In the Proposed Opinion, Plaintiff argues that the controls over encryption under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 C.F.R. Part 730 et seq., violate the First Amendment. The arguments in the Proposed Opinion, however, address claims that have not yet been pled. The original complaint concerned claims for relief under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. §§ 120 et seq., not the EAR The EAR claims have been raised in Plaintiff s supplemental and amended complaint, but the Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff s motion to supplement. Thus, Plaintiff requests that, contingent on the Court granting the motion to supplement the complaint, the Court grant the instant motion to refile the Proposed Opinion with attached exhibits.

- 1 -

Plaintiff's attorney informally notified the attorney for Defendants a number of times that the Proposed Opinion would address claims under the EAR and that Plaintiff would be filing additional exhibits. Plaintiff has no objection if Defendants seek to submit additional evidence.

For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff's motion to refile the Proposed Opinion with attached exhibits should be granted should the Court grant Plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

[Signature]

GINO J. SCARSELLI (0062327)
664 Allison Dr.
Richmond Hts., OH 44143-2904
(216) 291-8601

- 2 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served on February 24, 1997, upon Anthony J. Coppolino, Department of Justice, Civil Division Room 1084, 901 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530 by Regular Mail.

Respectfully submitted.

[Signature]

Gino J. Scarselli (0062327)
664 Allison Drive
Richmond Hts., OH 44143
Tel. 216-291-8601
Fax 216-291-8601

Attorney for the Plaintiff

- 4 -

[No page 3]