Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10106-10143.pdf — page 15]
(Text of Russian Protest: Unofficial Translation)Embassy of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics 10 July 1956Note No. 23The Embassy of the Union of the Soviet SocialistRepublics presents its compliments to the Department ofState of the United States of America and, acting on in-structions from the Soviet Government, has the honor tostate the following:According to precisely verified data, on July 4 ofthis year, at 8:18 a.m. Moscow Time, a twin-engined mediumbomber of the United States Air Force appeared from theAmerican Zone of Occupation in Western Germany and flew overthe territory of the German Democratic Republic, enteringthe air space of the Soviet Union from the direction of thePolish People's Republic at 9:35 in the area of Grodno. Theaircraft which violated the air space of the Soviet Unionflew on the route Minsk, Vilnyus, Kaunas and Kaliningrad,penetrating territory of the Soviet Union to the depth of320 kilometers and remaining over such territory for onehour and 32 minutes.On July 5 of this year, at 7:41 Moscow Time, a twin-engine medium bomber of the United States Air Force, comingfrom the American Zone of Occupation in Western Germany,flew over the territory of the German Democratic Republic,and at 8:54 penetrated the air space of the Soviet Union inthe area of Brest, coming from the direction of the PolishPeople's Republic. The aircraft violating the air frontierof the Soviet Union flew along the route Brest, Pinsk Bara-novichi, Kaunas, and Kaliningrad, having penetrated Sovietterritory to a depth of 150 kilometers and having remainedone hour and 20 minutes over such territory. The same dayanother twin-engine bomber of the United States Air ForceDepartment of State of theUnited States of AmericaWashington, D. C.
[104-10106-10143.pdf — page 16]
invaded the air space of the Soviet Union and penetratedto a significant depth over Soviet territory.On July 9 there took place new flights of UnitedStates aircraft into the Soviet air space.The above-mentioned violation of the air frontiersof the Soviet Union by American aircraft cannot be inter-preted as other than intentional and conducted for purp-oses of reconnaissance.It must be underscored that these gross violations ofthe air space of the Soviet Union took place at a timewhen, as a result of the efforts of the Soviet Union andother peace-loving governments, a definite lessening ofinternational tensions has been achieved, when relationsbetween governments are improving, and when mutual confi-dence between them is growing. Such a development of inter-national relations is fully supported by the peoples of allcountries who are vitally interested in strengthening peace.One cannot, however, fail to recognize that reactionarycircles hostile to the cause of peace in a number of coun-tries are worried by the relaxation of international tensionwhich has taken place. These circles do everything possibleto interfere with further improvement of relations betweencountries and the creation of mutual trust among them.Among such attempts is the said gross violation by theAmerican Air Force of the air space of the Soviet Union,which consistently carries out a policy of strengtheningpeace and broadening businesslike cooperation with allcountries, including the United States of America.In this connection, the fact attracts attention thatthe said violations of the air frontier of the Soviet Unionby American aircraft coincided with the stay of GeneralTwining, U. S. Air Force Chief of Staff, in the FederalRepublic of Germany.The Soviet Government energetically protests to theGovernment of the United States against such gross viola-tion of the air space of the Soviet Union by American mili-tary aircraft and considers this violation as an intentionalact of certain circles in the United States, planned to ag-gravate relations between the Soviet Union and the UnitedStates of America.
[104-10106-10143.pdf — page 17]
Calling the attention of the Government of the United States to the inadmissibility of such violations of the air space of the Soviet Union by American aircraft, the Soviet Government states that all responsibility for possible consequences of such violations rests with the Government of the United States.The Soviet Government expects that steps will be taken by the Government of the United States to punish those guilty for the said violations and to prevent such violations in the future.Washington, D. C.July 10, 19563
[104-10106-10179.pdf — page 0]
14-00000104-10106-101792025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992SECRET![RETURN TO CIA Background Use Only Do Not Reproduce]MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORDFROM:Robert D. ClarkOffice of General CounselSUBJECT:PDLADLE: Outside Lawyer to Draw UpDeed of Trust1.  PDLADLE is a high-level defector residing in New York who has    had advanced to him a number of large "loans" over the years, in addition    to his "salary." Some of these monies have gone into the purchase of    some real estate in the State of New York. The Agency now wants a    Deed of Trust executed in favor of one of its nominees on the New York    real property.2.  Possible lawyers to handle drafting the Deed of Trust are:a.  (Natalie Koether), a cleared N.Y. lawyer, on whom FRDivision has an operational approval. They have an activeinterest in using her and her husband. If Ms. Koethen isused on the Deed of Trust, FR would lose an asset. Were itnot for our rule of no operational use of cleared attorneys,FR apparently (accordingly to Eric Sowers) has no objectionto Ms. Koether's drawing up the Deed of Trust;b.  another cleared lawyer. The clearance on any such lawyerwould have to be updated by Security. The best candidateBill Ashbaugh and I were able to locate off the Cleared AttorneysPanel was (Richard C. Kullen, Jr., OS #651 162), last cleared21 March 1975;c.  the case officer for PDLADLE, MONCURE, who is apparentlya practicing N.Y. lawyer who at one time worked for the Agency.This idea was suggested by Vasia Gmirkin of CI Staff, theclient component on the Deed of Trust. The idea would be thatsince MONCURE already knows that PDLADLE and MONCUREwould be used only on this PDLADLE job, the security and coverproblems normally associated with allowing cleared attorneysto become involved in operations would not be as pronounced as![SECRET]![IMPRET CL 1.]
[104-10106-10179.pdf — page 1]
usual. On the other hand, his prior association with the Agency could jeopardize PDLADLE if drafting the Deed of Trust exposes MONCURE to more scrutiny than his present association with PDLADLE already does; andd. an attorney from OGC. N.Y. mortgage law would have to be researched to try to make the Deed of Trust freely assignable from one CIA nominee to another. N.Y. form books should be easily locatable in the D.C. law libraries. If the Deed of Trust follows N.Y. form, would the fact that the OGC lawyer is not licensed in N.Y. in any way throw doubt on the document? When might the name of the lawyer who drafted the document come to light?![Signature of Robert D. Clark]Robert D. ClarkRDC: kasDistribution:Original - DEFECTORS1 - RDC Signer1 - ChronoSECRET
[104-10106-10188.pdf — page 0]
# 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992SUBJECT: Sam JaffeDO NOT REPRODUCERETURN TO CIA1.  Sam Jaffe's relationship with the Agency predates his assignment to Moscow as an ABC correspondent. During the period 1958-60 while in New York Jaffe was a confidential informant of the FBI on his Soviet contacts in New York. In addition, he had several meetings with the New York office of CIA's Domestic Contact Division. While in Moscow with ABC Jaffe felt he was the subject of a recruitment attempt by the KGB in 1962. He recounted his story to the Regional Security Officer at the American Embassy in Moscow, copies of which went to both CIA and FBI. Jaffe covered the Gary Powers' trial for ABC and flew on the same plane from New York to Moscow with the Barbara Powers' party. Prior to that trip he was briefed by a CIA psychologist on ways to observe Powers's behavior and demeanor. Jaffe was never "ordered" to cover the Powers' trial, but simply acted as an enterprising newspaperman befriending Barbara Powers while her party was enroute and in the Soviet Union.2.  During the latter part of his time in Moscow Jaffe was in contact with a KGB officer, Kuvkov, and this relationship is a matter of record with the FBI. There is some evidence that Jaffe was given preferential treatment by the Soviet authorities. Some western pressmen felt that Jaffe, as an aggressive newspaperman, was giving a little to get a story. Jaffe has given his version of his dealings with the KGB in a lengthy 1969 interview with the FBI.3.  The defector Nosenko provided information on Jaffe's relationship to the KGB in 1964. However as time went on, further debriefings of Nosenko indicated that Nosenko was not as sure about Jaffe's relationship as he had been originally. By 1968 Nosenko was positive only that Kuvkov had been in touch with Jaffe, but Nosenko was not certain that Jaffe was a paid and witting agent of the KGB.4.  During Jaffe's tour in Hong Kong, and subsequently in Washington, he was in touch with CIA officers. He provided good information on a Chinese news official and he was helpful to the Agency in reporting on a Canadian organization, The Committee of New China Policy All official contact with Jaffe ended in 1971.5.  Central to Jaffe's charges about CIA, which he has made public many times, is Jaffe's belief that the CIA passed derogatory information about him to his employers. Attached is a 24 November 1975 letter from Mr. Colby to Jaffe which states categorically that no information in the CIA files had ever been passed outside of official channels. In addition to this letter Jaffe has been reassured on this point verbally on at least four other occasions.. The CIA is positive that Jaffe's recall from Hong Kong in 1968
[104-10106-10188.pdf — page 1]
and subsequent dismissal by ABC, are not related to any action taken by the CIA..6. In discussions with Jaffe he frequently recounts a conversation he had with Mr. Ted Cowen, a British intelligence official in Hong Kong. 06/08   According to Jaffe, Cowen told him that he had a "security problem" but o this problem would clear up in due course. A close check of our files can not ellucidate what Cowen was talking about. It is possible, of course, 06 that Cowen was alluding to the Nosenko allegations as the British were 06 ) given much of the Nosenko debriefings. The record is unclear on this point. However, based on information available to this Agency, we feel we have tried to pacify Jaffe with the statement contained in the Colby letter that we have no evidence he has ever been an agent of any foreign intelligence service.7. Jaffe has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to CIA which has resulted in the release of a large number of documents to him. Jaffe can, of course, appeal our withholding of certain documents through appropriate administrative and judicial procedures under the FOIA.25/BR
[104-10106-10194.pdf — page 0]
# SECRET10 March 1978MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORDFROM: Robert D. ClarkOffice of General CounselSUBJECT: Meeting in New York: PDLADLEOn 2 March 1978, the undersigned and Vasia Gmerkin of CI Staff met in New York City with the defector and his wife at the apartment of Bernard MONCURE. There put a first mortgage on a New York City property of theirs located at 163 East 71st Street, New York, New York, in favor of a devised facility nominee of the Agency (Roush-Walker Company, 48 Alabama Street, S.W.), Atlanta, Georgia, for a recited indebtedness of $167,429.88. They signed a classified document acknowledging that the devised facility is an instrumentality of the United States Government. This document was witnessed in alias by Mr. Gmerkin and the undersigned registered strenuous objections to the "mortgage."Robert D. ClarkRDC: kasDistribution:Original - DEFECTORS1 - RDC Signer1 - ChronoSECRET![stamp with text "RETURN TO Background Use Only Do Not Reproduce"]
[104-10106-10215.pdf — page 0]
104-10106-10215 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF EW YORKOn the 2nd day of MARCH 1978, before me personally came and husband and wife,to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same.STATE OF NEW RX, COUNTY OFOn the day of 19 , before me personally cameto me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the same.> [Figure: Stamp with text "RETURN TO CIA Background Use Only Do Not Reproduce"]STATE OF HEW YORK, COUNTY OFOn the day of 19 , before me personally cameto me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No.that he is the of , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation, and that he signed h name thereto by like order.STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OFOn the day of 19, before me personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No.that he knows to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that he, said witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto.Mortgage HoteTITLE NO.> [Figure: Blacked out area.]WITH 24(ROUSH-WALKER COMPANY)STANDARD FORN OF NEW YORK BOARD OF TITLE UNDERWRITERSDistributed byCHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANYSECTION 5BLOCK 1406LOT 26 - Tax MapCOUNTY KRWXX NEW YORKRecorded at Request of CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANYReturn by Mail to> [Figure: Handwritten address of Morris E. Brod, Esq. 116 Sullivan Street NY NY 10012]
[104-10106-10217.pdf — page 0]
# MORTGAGE NOTE$167,429.88 New York, MARCH 2,1978 19FOR VALUE RECEIVED, We, husband and wife, residing in the City, County and State of New York,promise to pay to ROUSH-WALKER COMPANY, 48 Alabama Street, S.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA (30303)or order, at the offices of Roush-Walker Company, 48 Alabama Street, S.W Atlanta, Georgia,or at such other place as may be designated in writing by the holder of this note, the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY NINE 88/100 ($167,429.88) on demand.IT IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY AGREED, that the said principal sum secured by this note shall become due at the option of the holder thereof on the happening of any default or event by which, under the terms of the mortgage securing this note, said principal sum may or shall become due and payable; also, that all of the covenants, conditions and agreements contained in said mortgage are hereby made part of this instrument.Presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest are hereby waived.This note is secured by a mortgage made by the maker to the payee of even date herewith, on property situate in the Borough of Manhattan, City, County and State of New York, and commonly known as and by Street Number 163 East 71st, Street, New York, N.Y. ( 10021)This note may not be changed or terminated orally.In the presence of:
[104-10106-10217.pdf — page 1]
Title No.....STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF NEW YORKOn this 2nd day of *MARCH* in the year nineteen hundred and seventy-eight before me personally came the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and they acknowledged to me that they executed the same.STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OFOn this day of . in the year nineteen hundred and before me personally came to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at that he is the of the corporation described in, and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation, and that he signed name thereto by like order.(Husband and Wife)TOROUSH-WALKER COMPANY48 Alabama Street, S.W.,Atlanta, Georgia.(30303)MORTGAGEDated March 2,1978$167,429.88The land affected by the within instrument lies in Section 5.. _ in Block 1406 on the Map of the County of New York.Lot 26. RECORDED AT REQUEST OF AND RETURN BY MAIL TO:Mario E. Brod, Eng.116 Smelcon StreetNY. NY.10012STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OFOn this day of ss.: in the year nineteen hundred and before me personally came the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
[104-10106-10218.pdf — page 0]
# THIS MORTGAGE,made the 2nd day of MARCH nineteen hundred and seventy-eight, between and husband and wife, both residents of the State of New York and the mortgagor. ROU ROUSH-WALKER COMPANY, 48 Alabama Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, the mortgageeWITNESSETH, that to secure the payment of an indebtedness in the sum of ($167,429.88) ONE HUNDRED SIXTYSEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTYNINE 88/100 Dollars. lawful money of the United States, to be paid on demand,according to a certain bond or obligation bearing even date herewith, the mortgagor hereby mortgages to the mortgagee All. that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate lying and being in the Borough of Manhattan, City, County and State of New York, bounded and described as follows:BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of 71st Street, distant 285 feet westerly from the corner formed by the intersection of the said northerly side of 71st Street and the westerly side of Third Avenue; RUNNING THENCE northerly, parallel with Third Avenue and part of the way through a party wall, 102 feet 2 inches to the center line of the block; THENCE westerly, along said center line of the block, 15 feet; THENCE southerly, parallel with Third Avenue and part of the way through another party wall, 102 feet 2 inches to the northerly side of 71st Street; and THENCE easterly, along the northerly side of 71st Street, 15 feet to the point or place of beginning.Said premises now being known as and by Street Number 163 East 71st Street, New York, New York.
[104-10106-10300.pdf — page 0]
# Yurily Ivanovich NOSENKOIDENTIFICATION:NOSENKO, Yurily Ivanovich, a Soviet KGB officer who defected in 1964 and was subsequently involuntarily confined in the U.S. by the Agency for a period of approximately three years.BACKGROUND:NOSENKO first contacted Agency personnel in Switzerland in June 1962 and subsequently defected in January 1964. NOSENKO was brought to the U.S. and after a period of relative freedom he was involuntarily confined in April 1964. From April 1964 to August 1965, he was confined at an Agency controlled site in Clinton, Maryland. From August 1965 to October 1967, NOSENKO was confined at Camp Peary Virginia. In October 1967, he was returned to the Washington area, given increasing amounts of freedom until he was given total freedom in April 1969. NOSENKO became a U.S. citizen in April 1974. NOSENKO was employed by the Agency as a consultant in March 1969 and continues under contract to date. His present salary is $23,500 per year.APPROVAL:(1) The legal basis to confine NOSENKO against his will was discussed by Mr. Richard Helms, DD/P, and others with the Deputy Attorney General on 2 April 1964 (Tab 1). On 3 April 1964, the Agency General Counsel, Mr. Lawrence Houston, advised the Director of Security by memorandum that such confinement was proper (Tab 2).(2) There are a series of letters from the DDCI, DCI and others to various agencies, including the Department of Justice and the White House, covering the period 1964 to 1969, evidencing awareness of these agencies of the NOSENKO affair (Tab 3).(3) The conditions of NOSENKO's confinement were established by the Office of Security (Tabs 4 & 5).
[104-10106-10300.pdf — page 1]
# RESULTSBy memorandum dated 2 October 1968,the Director of Security forwardedtwo reports to the DDCI summarizingthe results of the NOSENKO case tothat date. The reports are voluminous.One was prepared by the Office ofSecurity and the other by the FBI.Both reports conclude that NOSENKOwas a bona fide defector. A draftmemorandum attached to this file,dated 21 October 1968 and preparedby the CI Staff, raises questionregarding NOSENKO's bona fidesand challenges the above two reports.# TERMINATIONNOSENKO continues under contract tothe Agency. He is brought to Washington,periodically to consult on mattersgermane to his background and experience.Various reports are available in thefiles of the Office of Security whichdetail financial aspects of this case.No final accounting has been made sincethe project continues.# COMMENTS(1) While the Office of Security filesdo document the rationale for the originalconfinement of NOSENKO, they do notdocument the rationale for his continuedconfinement over so long a period of time.A memorandum dated 5 August 1969 statesthat various congressional staff officerswere briefed on NOSENKO and states thatconcern for his safety, as well as con-cern regarding his bona fides, promptedthe prolonged confinement. (See Tab 6)(2) Office of Security files documenta period in 1969 during which a mailcover was placed on NOSENKO.(3) During the above period, NOSENKOwas allowed a pleasure trip to Florida.During this trip, Agency personnel, withapparent Headquarters approval, obtainedthe services of prostitutes. Thisapparently occurred on at least twooccasions.2
[104-10106-10300.pdf — page 2]
FILES:Office of Security files on NOSENKO are maintained in the following locations:OS/SSD (Contact - Mr. Charles Phalen)OS/SAG (Contact - Mr. Bruce Solie)3
[104-10106-10300.pdf — page 3]
# MEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Discussion with Deputy Attorney-General on Nosenko Case-1. Mr Helms, Mr. Houston and Mr. Murphy met with the Deputy Attorney General and members of his staff to discuss subject case. Present from Mr. Katzenbach's staff were Messrs. Foley, Yeagley and Reis.2. Mr. Helms explained the Nosenko case briefly and indicated that shortly we would be faced with what we at least considered to be two problems on which we would like the advice of the Department of Justice. First, we would seeon feel compelled to begin hostile interrogation of Hosenko in order to arrive at the truth with respect to his mission for the KGB and we wondered what the legal position would be in circumstances in which we detained Nosenko against his will for this purpose. Second, we would have to be ready after determining that we could obtain no additional information from Nosenko to deport him. We had thought of taking him to Germany and transferring him to Soviat custody in Borlin where this has been done a number of times in the past.3. There was some discussion of whether deportation to another country might be a consideration. Mr. Halms explained we would probably face publicity problems in deporting to a third country of the kind we would encounter if he were free in the U. S. Nr. Helms noted there were many items of information which we and the FBI realize are of no significance because of the file holdings we have but which an unscrupulous newspaper man could use to create mischief. This aspect was then dropped and it was the consensus that Berlin was probably the best place.4. The question of the basis for detention was again raised and related by Mr. Foley to the conditions under which Nosenko is in this country. He is here as an "exclusion and parole case" which means he has not been admitted and has been paroled to the Agency which is responsible for him while he is in this country. This