‘404-10107-10065 Spd RETURN TO CIA OGC 69-0707 Background Use Only < 7 Do Not Reproduce 15 April 1969 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD _ SUBJECT: | b 0 1, Mr. Heinonen called to advise that Mr. would be available for a meeting on 11 April and asked if I would come to the (BGLOBE downtown office to attend. In preparation for the méeting I contacted Mr. Rocca to determine what recent developments had taken place in New York with regard to Herbert Itkin's accepting the compromise solution reached between Messrs. Hogan and Morgenthau. 2. Mr. Rocca advised that the State of New York had with- drawn from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York its motion to remand Herbert Itkin to the State of New York for trial. Secondly, Mr. Rocca stated that the Family Court of Westchester County had denied Herbert Itkin's request for rehearing the custody award of Mrs, Itkin's two sons, Thirdly, Herbert Itkin had prepared a draft letter to George Washington University, School of Diplomacy (sic), in which Itkin purported to offer a manuscript describing his work with the CIA for publication by the University. Itkin did stipulate that the University would have to obtain the approval of the DCI before publication of the book, It is puzzling to fathom Itkin's real motivation in making this offer, 3, I met with Mr. on 11 April at the (BGLOBE office in Washington and explained to him the developments which had taken place with regard to Herbert Itkin's legal entanglements in New York City. I pointed out to MY that we assessed his risk of exposure based upon three possibilities: (a) the unpublished feature article prepared by Lof the which relates to Herbert Itkin's career’ could op 24
14-00000 Sp mention in view of his | } with Itkin; (b w York County District Attorney's office has knowledge o 3effiliation with CIA and we are unable to control their use of that information; and (c) the,assumption that Herbert Itkin has been told by the FBI tha is affiliated with CIA, I further explained that at the present time it appears unlikely that would be directly involved in Herbert Itkin's trial, © but we.could not be absolutely certain that such problems would not arise in the future, O3. 4, With regard to Mr. [od future assignments, I _ explained that this was a decision which rested with the DDP, and particularly the European Division, but from a legal standpoint we were not going to object to MP: || assignment to [lt I did advise Mr? | that it was our opinion that he wou e better off not to return to New York City as conceivably the District Attorney's office might want to question him further on his relationship with Herbert Itkin, and we did not think that this would be too helpful in_trying to maintatn cover. Mr. Heinonen noted that the LOGLOBE office had considered sending Mro to New York to receive some covert training, but in view of our concern about the New York area, they would make 063 plans for another location for this training. I asked Mr. to be sure and advise us if he received any communicatio TFéCtly from Herbert Itkin or any of his associates in the Conestoga, Ltd, venture, and Mrio{__—saiid that he would comply but doubted that anyone would attempt to contact him. 02 5. Mr. Heinonen indicated that (LBGLOBE would be in touch with the European Division during the week of 14 April to assess the risk factors involved inl assignment and seek a suitable cover. (G4 JOHN K, GREANE stant General Counsel 2 co: CCSALPGLOBE C/CLI/R&A C/E/F D/Security OGC:IKG:bt 2 /Orig. - subj file 1 - ITKIN subj file CEyef 1 - JIKG signer racy 1 - Chrono