[104-10229-10000.pdf — page 131]
# SECRETUFGB-6306brother who is an American citizen residing inNew York. This brother, an engineer who may beengaged in space research, recently queried NASAconcerning the possibility of obtaining assistanceto effect the release of his brother from prison.## Case # 144Andrew VEGA Perez originally designated his wifeand child as dependents and named another sisteras Trustee. Information obtained from ANTIKIand various records available, indicate that VEGAlearned that his wife was a GOC follower and directedthat the present Trustce, another sister, nesumecontrol of the money. This could account for thediscrepancy between the amount of money now holdin trust and the total amount of money paid from1961-1963 since the new trusteeship was not croateduntil such of the money had beon spent. In order toprotect the interests of the prisoner, some procedurewill probably be devised by which a long-rangeprojection can be made for actuary purposes and thetrusteeship torminated. Recommendations for handlingthis cane will be submitted to JAVE in the nearfuture.3. In order to arrive at the exact amount of money to   be saved by the immediate and future tersination of paymente   to certain dependents, a definite criteria must be established   concerning adjustments for secondary dependents when the   first dependent has been torminated. In discussions between   Ellen F. MARGANY, during her recont TDT to JEWAVE, and   Humphrey O. TIMANUS, it was MARGANY's understanding that the   procedure is to raise the second dependent to the status   of first dependent when the original first dépendent is   terminated for couse. For example, the first child would   receive the amount originally paid to the mother, instead   of the customary $50 paid to a second dependent, and the third   dependent would then become the second dependent and receivo   $50 instead of the original $35. This procedure 596 not   followed in case # 44 where the second dependent payment   remained at $50 after the remrriage of the mother, Case   #25 where child, now sole dependent, coes not receive full   Ist dependent payment, nor is the contentious CUERVO-RUBIO   case (#54) where an attempt to hold the second dependent   to $50 précipitated considerable unpleasantness. However,   in case 86, the procedure of raising the payment level   of the second and third dependents after the remarriage of   the mother, was followed. Logically, the termination of   payments to dependents in any of the top categories vould   automatically lead to an adjustment in status and payeont   to not only children, but in some cases parents as well,   depending on their position of inheritance. A clarification   of Station's past procedure, any known committaents to   dependents, and present views as to fira criteria to be   followed in such cages is urgently requested. Not only is   such a fixed criteria necessary to deteraine the amount of   savings involved in the recommended izneciate ternication,   and to provide accurate long-range figures for the actuary   study, but also for the purpose of avoiding any possible   repercussions such as occurred in the CUERVO-RUBIO case.   Request Station cable reply.continued...