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				ROBERT CORN-REVERE, ESQ.
Berkeley, CA 94702				JULIA F. KOGAN, ESQ.
Tel: (510) 525-0817				JEREMY B. MILLER, ESQ.
						Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
M. EDWARD ROSS, ESQ.; SBN 173048		555 Thirteenth Street, NW
STEEFEL, LEVITT & WEISS				Washington, DC  20004
A Professional Corporation			Tel:  (202) 637-5600
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, 			)
					)  STIPULATION AND ORDER
					)  FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
v.					)  ORDER
					)
					)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF		)
 STATE et al.,				)
					)
					)
	   Defendants.			)
					)
                                      	)

	WHEREAS, Plaintiff has sued Defendants for Declaratory Relief,
Injunctive Relief and Damages on the grounds that the regulatory scheme
created by the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in
Arms Regulations ("ITAR Scheme"), both on its face and as applied, is
unconstitutional in that it restrains him and others  from engaging in
protected expression concerning encryption software and related
technical data.

	WHEREAS, on December 16, 1996 this Court entered a Memorandum
and Order finding that the ITAR Scheme was unconstitutional on its face.

	WHEREAS, on December 30, 1996 Defendants issued new regulations
shifting regulatory control over encryption software and related
technical data from the ITAR Scheme to the Export Administration Act,
Export Administration Regulations and International Emergency Economic
Powers Act  ("IEEPA/EAR")

	WHEREAS the parties agree to submit the issue of the
Constitutionality of the IEEPA/EAR Scheme to this Court for immediate
review.

	THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated as follows:

	1.      Plaintiff may file a Supplemental Complaint reflecting
the regulatory shift effected by the December 30, 1996 regulations.

	1.      Pending further order by this Court, Defendants, their
agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those in active concert
or participation with them, including the Department of Justice, the
Department of Energy  and the Central Intelligence Agency, are
restrained and enjoined from further and future enforcement, operation
or execution of the IEEPA/EAR Scheme as applied to encryption software
and related technical data, defense services (also referred to as
encryption software, software, technology or technical assistance under
the IEEPA/EAR), any of which were formerly controlled under the ITAR
and for which licensing jurisdiction was transferred to IEEPA/EAR
pursuant to the regulations issued on December 30, 1996.

	2.      Notwithstanding any provision of the IEEPA/EAR, should
Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those
in active concert or participation with them, including the Department
of Justice, the Department of Energy  and the Central Intelligence
Agency, breach this Stipulation in any way, any person affected by such
breach shall have immediate access to this Court for review on an
expedited basis.

For Defendants: 					For Plaintiff:
DATE:_______________________			DATE________________________
						McGLASHAN & SARRAIL
						Professional Corporation


_____________________________			_____________________________
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO				CINDY A. COHN




	ORDER
	IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _______________ 			____________________________________
				  	Judge of the District Court