Mr. Rankin. Do you have that with you?
Mr. Lane. No; I do not.
Mr. Rankin. Will you describe that document? Is it a paper or a tape recording, or what form does it have?
Mr. Lane. It is a tape recording and a transcript of the tape recording in writing.
Mr. Rankin. Was the tape recording made by you?
Mr. Lane. I think we are now moving into an area where I would prefer not to answer questions, quite frankly. I have given to the Commission the results of my investigation, and I think that the Commission are aware of the fact that I have an attorney-client relationship existing. The Commission is now asking for working papers of an attorney. The Supreme Court has been quite plain, I think, on the question of the sanctity of working documents of attorneys. And I think, therefore, that the questions are no longer in a proper area.
I might also indicate to the Commission that when I was retained by Marguerite Oswald to represent the interests of her son before this Commission, and the Commission declined to permit me to so represent Lee Oswald, it made it impossible for me to conduct the kind of cross-examination before this Commission of witnesses that I would have ordinarily conducted, and that entire conversation would have been in the presence of the Commission, obviously, had I been permitted to function as counsel for my client.
Mr. Rankin. Will you describe to the Commission the attorney and client relationship that you claim to exist?
Mr. Lane. Yes. I should think the Commission would be well aware of that since I wrote to the Commission on the very day that I was retained and sent, as I recall, an affidavit from my client, detailing the purpose, the purpose of my being retained. I think that was during the very early days of this year.
Mr. Rankin. Who was the client?