CINDY A. COHN, ESQ.; SBN 145997
   McGLASHAN & SARRAIL
   Professional Corporation
   177 Bovet Road, Sixth Floor
   San Mateo, CA 94402
   Tel: (415) 341-2585
   Fax: (415) 341-1395
   
   LEE TIEN, ESQ.; SBN 148216
   1452 Curtis Street
   Berkeley, CA 94702
   Tel: (510) 525-0817
   
   M. EDWARD ROSS, ESQ.; SBN 173048
   STEEFEL, LEVITT & WEISS
   A Professional Corporation
   One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 788-0900
   
   JAMES WHEATON; SBN 115230
   ELIZABETH PRITZKER; SBN 146267
   FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT
   1736 Franklin, 8th Floor
   Oakland, CA 94612
   Tel: (510) 208-7744
   
   Attorneys for Plaintiff
   Daniel J. Bernstein
   
   
   
                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                      
   
                  FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                      
   
   DANIEL J. BERNSTEIN )
   ) C 95-00582 MHP
   Plaintiff, )
   ) PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
   v. ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
   ) JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ) ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 
   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) F. R. C. P. 56
   STATE et al., )
   ) Date: September 20, 1996 ) Time: 12:00 p.m.
   Defendants. ) Judge: Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel
   )
   )
   
   TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
   NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 20, 1996, at 12:00 p.m.., or
   as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard by the above-entitled
   court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102,
   Plaintiff Daniel J. Bernstein will and hereby does move this court as
   follows:
   1. For summary adjudication about the appropriate legal tests to be
   applied to the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic and
   Arms Regulations ("ITAR Scheme") to the extent it controls protected
   expression about the science of cryptography. Plaintiff argues,
   a) As to the prior restraints, the ITAR Scheme must pass the test
   provided in New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
   b) As to the application of the ITAR Scheme as subsequent punishment
   for speech about cryptography, Plaintiff submits that the tests of
   strict scrutiny apply.
   2. This motion also seeks partial summary judgment that there is no
   genuine issue of material fact that the ITAR Scheme, to the extent it
   reaches protected expression about the science of cryptography, fails
   three standards of First Amendment jurisprudence:
   a) It lacks procedural safeguards required by Freeman v. Maryland 380
   U.S. 51 (1965),
   b) It is vague, and
   c) It is overbroad.
   3. This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
   accompanying
   1. PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
   
              JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES;
                                      
   2. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
   
                   3. DECLARATION OF DANIEL J. BERNSTEIN,
                                      
   4. DECLARATION OF HAROLD ABELSON,
   5. DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. APPEL,
   6. DECLARATION OF MATTHEW BISHOP,
   7. DECLARATION OF BRIAN BEHLENDORF,
   8. DECLARATION OF JAMES T. DEMBERGER,
   9. DECLARATION OF CARL M. ELLISON,
   10. DECLARATION OF DR. PAUL GINSPARG,
   11. DECLARATION OF MICHAEL PAUL JOHNSON,
   12. DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE MILLER,
   13. DECLARATION OF PETER JUNGER,
   14. DECLARATION OF BRUCE SCHNEIER,
   15. DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STALLMAN,
   16. DECLARATION OF PHILIP R. ZIMMERMANN and
   17. DECLARATION OF LEE TIEN
   filed herewith, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and
   upon such other and further matters as may be presented to the court
   at the time of the hearing.
   Dated: _______________ McGLASHAN & SARRAIL
   Professional Corporation
   
   By________________________
   CINDY A. COHN
   Attorneys for Plaintiff