457-10014-10161 AGENCY : RECORD NUMBER: RECORD SERIES : AGENCY FILE NUMBER : ORIGINATOR : FROM: TO; TITLE: DATE: PAGES: SUBJECTS : DOCUMENT TYPE: CLASSIFICATION : _ RESTRICTIONS : CURRENT STATUS : DATE OF LAST REVIEW : OPENING CRITERIA : COMMENTS : v9.4 HW 50955 BDoocld: 3234273549 JFK Assassination System ; Date: Identification Form Agency Information SSCIA 157-10014-10161 MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE 07-M-66 Document Information SSCIA MADIGAN, MICHAEL J. CHURCH, FRANK MEETING 29 JULY 1975 06/10/1975 18 MAHEU, ROBERT A. MEMORANDUM Declassified 1B; 1C Redact 03/22/2000 CCBOX 447 Page 1 77/2015
« 08/07/95 1 JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FORM AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : SSCIA RECORD NUMBER : 157-10014-10161 RECORDS SERIES : MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE AGENCY FILE NUMBER : DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : SSCIA FROM : MADIGAN, MICHAEL J. TO : CHURCH, FRANK ? TITLE : MEETING 29 JULY 1975 DATE : 06/10/75 PAGES : 18 SUBJECTS : MAHEU, ROBERT A. DOCUMENT TYPE : MEMORANDUM CLASSIFICATION : TOP SECRET RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 01/08/99 OPENING CRITERIA : : CCBOX 447 COMMENTS [R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED HW 50955 Docld:32493549 Page 2
MEMORANDUM To: Senators Frank Church, John Tower, Philip A. Hart,. Walter F. Mondale, Walter D. Huddleston, Robert Morgan, Gary Hart, Howard H. Baker, Jr., Barry Goldwater, Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., Richard S. Schweiker , From: Michael J. Madigan, Counsel Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Date:~° June 10, 1975 Subj: Robert A. Maheu Appearance Before the Committee Fifth Amendment Invocation - Congressional Immunity Robert A. Maheu was subpoenaed to and did appear before this Committee on June 9, 1975. In response to all sub- stantive questions put to him, Maheu invoked his Constitu- tional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Maheu, through his counsel, indicated that his sole basis for refusing to answer the Committee's questions was his invocation of the Fifth Amendment. His counsel indicated that should the Con- mittee vote to immunize Maheu, Maheu would cooperate fully with the Committee and answer any and all questions. HY 50955 DBocld:32423549 Page 4
HY 0955 -2- : A Congressional committee has the power to compel. testimony from any person who is subpoenaed to appear before it. This power to compel testimony, however, is limited by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrinm- ination. Succinctly, the Fifth Amendment privilege protects ja witness against disclosures which could be used against him in a criminal prosecution, or could lead to evidence which could be uséd ‘against him in any such prosecution. It can be argued that the events about which Maheu was and will be questioned took place well more than five years ago and that, therefore, the statute of limitations for any crime that he may have committed would have run. The argu- ment would continue that since the statute of limitations has run on any possible criminal conduct, Maheu therefore has no Fifth Amendment right to assert before this Committee about any’ question asked of him concerning an event upon which the statute of limitations has run « “Maheu's counsel, however, has asserted that notwithstanding that the events questioned about occurred more than five years ago, he has advised his client not to answer any questions because of a fear of a possible prosecution for conspiracy to cover up those events. While Maheu's arguments for asserting the rc pan BDoctld: 32423549 Page 5 \
HW 450955 ~3- Fifth Amendment may not be totally persuasive, they are sufficient enough to create a question which a court would ultimately have to decide. In short, therefore, Maheu's assertion of the Fifth Amendment at least has a semblance of validity. | In the final analysis, the Committee is faced with three options with regard to Maheu's assertion of the Fifth Amendment: | | | (1) challenge Maheu's assertion of the Fifth Amendment as not well founded under the law and ultimately go to court to decide whether Maheu's assertion is or is not valid; (2) grant Maheu "use immunity" (explanation infra) and compel his testimony to all questions the Committee wishes to ask which are within .the framework of the Commit- tee's mandate; (3) not obtain any testimony from Maheu. Of these three options, it appears that the quickest and best option is‘to grant Maheu "use immunity" and compel his testimony. BDoclda: 327473549 Page 6
The Nature of Use Immunity In 19706, Congress amended the immunity laws and created "use immunity' to compel testimony of a witness before a Congressional committee. The immunity statute is found in 18 United States Code, Sec. 6001 et seq. The statute provides in pertinent part: ~ "Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self- incrimination, to testify ... ina proceeding before . . . a committee ora subcommittee of either House and the per- son presiding over the proceeding communi- cates to the witness an order issued under this part, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used: against the witness in any criminal case, except a prose- cution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order." This statute allows a Congressional committee to grant "use immunity" to any witness appearing before it who invokes his Constitutional rights under the Fifth Anendment . "Use immun- ity" means simply that a witness' compelled testimony be- fore a Congressional committee cannot be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution by either state or é HW 50955 Docld: 32425549 Page 7
HW 50955 federal authorities. Additionally, no information derived. directly or indirectly from the witness's compelled testi- mony before a Congressional committee may be used against him in any subsequent criminal prosecution by either state authorities. or federalf/ This does not mean, however, that the witness is "immune" from prosecution for any criminal conduct about which he testifies. The federal or state prosecuting auth- orities may prosecute the witness if they have independent information (other than the witness' own testimony) which would constitute a basis for indictment: of the witness. | Thus, in essence, "use immunity" merely provides that the witness' own testimony which is compelled before a Congres- sional committee may not be later used as the basis for his own indictment for criminal conduct about which he has testi-— fied before the Committee. The immunity statute provides that the Committee by a vote of two-thirds of its members must agree to give the witness immunity and that notice of the Committee's action in granting the witness immunity must be filed with the Attorney General. The immunity statute provides that notice must be given to the Attorney General so that he has ten days in which to search his files and segregate any incrim- inating information he may have against the witness so that Boclda: 32473549 Page &@
HW 50955 ! an t Peete the witness may not later contend that the Attorney General's evidence came from any testimony the witness might give be- fore the Congressional committee. The statute also pro- vides that the Attorney General may request twenty more days, in addition to the ten days which the statute pro- vides, in which to segregate his files. The Attorney Gen- eral, however, may waive any or all of the thirty day wait- ing period. Communication has already been made through Fritz Schwarz toMr. O'Connor at the Department of Justice. Maheu's Value to the Committee as a Witness Robert A. Maheu has been utilized by the CIA for a wide variety of projects and tasks. ‘The two most important areas - in which his testimony may be expected are (1) Assassinations and the Las Vegas wiretap; and (2) domestic CIA activities. This memorandum will briefly outline the areas of informa- tion about which Maheu can be questioned and in which Maheu has knowledge. (1) Assassinations Maheu was the person originally contacted by the CIA in August of 1960 to provide them with an introduction to organized crime figures in order to accomplish the assassi- Docld: 3274273549 Page 3
Later, Maheu participated in the introduction of the | second CIA officer (Harvey) to Roselli in New York for purposes of Harvey taking over the Agency's liaison role with the members of the Mafia in the ongoing attempts to assasSinate Castro. The time period of the Maheu/Harvey/ Roselli efforts begin in April, 1962 and last at least until sometime into 1963. During this period of time there has been alleged to have been $50,000 in small bills in a suit- case shipped down to Florida for delivery upon the comple- tion of the assassination. This, of course, never took place and the money was alleged to have been shipped back up to the CIA in Washington. Additionally, $10,000 on. one occasion and perhaps $1,000 or $2,000 on another occasion is alleged to have been given to individuals in Florida along with quantities of guns and explosives in pursuance of the Agency's goal of assasSinating Castro. While it is uncertain as to Maheu's exact knowledge of the &tails of either the so-called "first phase" or "second phase" of the assassination attempts, he did provide the original introductions and may have extensive knowledge of HY 50955 DBocld:324273549 Page ii
HY 450954 the events occurring thereafter. In any event, his testi- mony will provide the sworn details of how the original Agency contact took place, who was there, and what was said Pa and what eventually was done. 2) Las Vegas Wiretap on Dan Rowan's. Apartment ( g Pp p Maheu will be able to provide the Committee detailed testimony on how this tap was requested, why it was requested, and how the CIA was involved. It has been alleged and testi- fied to (by witness O'Connell) that the Las Vegas tap on -Rowan's apartment originated with a request by Maheu to the CIA that Giancana wanted a tap placed in the apartment. Maheu advised the Agency to seek its approval of the placing of the tap. In my opinion, Maheu did this so that if any- one was caught he could then avoid prosecution since the Agency was involved (which ultimately occurred). The CIA, in its documents, has denied it had any advance knowledge of the tap but this denial is contradicted by the sworn testimony of CIA agent O'Connell who says that Maheu did advise him in advance that Giancana wanted the “tap placed. O'Connell further ‘testified that Maheu said that if the tap was not placed, Giancana would withdraw from his efforts in the assassination scheme. O'Connell testified Docld: 324293549 Page 12
HY 0955 -~10- that this was passed upward within the CIA and that approval to place the tap came back down to O'Connell and O'Connell transmitted it to Maheu. The tap was placed on the telephone in Rowan's apartment and subsequently the persons who placed it were apprehended. The tap was placed in (approximately) the winter of 1960. O'Connell has also testified that the CIA provided the money to pay the indi- viduals who Maheu hired to place the tap. Subsequently, the Justice Department was investigating the Las Vegas tap and. there was a move within the Department to prosecute Maheu and the persons who placed the tap for illegal wiretapping. It was at this time that Maheu went to the CIA and asked the CIA to intervene with the Justice Department to get his prosecution dropped. The CIA then approached Attorney General Kennedy and the prosecution was dropped. Maheu can provide the Committee detailed testi- mony in this area and is one of the few people who can do so. Maheu's testimony regarding the details of these, con- versations in this area is of great importance to the Committee. 7 He can establish the involvement or lack of involvement of the CIA in this illegal wiretap. Bocld: 32423549 Page if
-ll1- (3) Maheu involvement in CIA domestic activities In 1954 Maheu was recruited by the CIA for use by the CIA's Office of Security for "extremely sensitive cases.'' He was paid $500 per month on the condition that he move into his own private office (he had previously’ | shared office space with Carmine Bellino -- associated in the past with illegal wiretapping) and be "on call" by the Office of Security for sensitive assignments. The CIA doc- uments do not indicate how long a period Maheu was on the $500 per month retainer, but it would appear that this re- tainer was only for the first year or. two, i.e. 1954-55. It was at this time that Maheu was first starting out in the investigative area and in fact it was in the year 1954 that Maheu first formed his private investigations company of Robert A. Maheu Associates. Through the previous: testi- mony of CIA official O'Connell we know that Maheu was used for wiretapping and surreptitious entries. ‘Connell re- calls one specific incident of Maheu entering a student's apartment in Washington, D. C. for the CIA. Maheu can pro- vide detailed testimony on exactly what he did for the CIA, how often/and where. HW 50955 DBocld:324273549 Page 14
(a) Wiretapping/Surveillance of Aristotle Onassis In July of 1954 Maheu was hired by British shipping interests sponsored by Stavros Niarchos. During his employment for Niarchos Maheu conducted a surveillance of Aristotle Onassis in New York City. CIA documents indicdte that Maheu stated that he had technical coverage (wiretap) of Onassis’. New York apartment and that he used one of his employees,.~John Frank, to perform electronic surveillance. The CIA documents also indicate that Maheu hired a technician by the name of "Leon" to perform this surveillance and that the CIA 'may have" been given some of the information received by Maheu from this technical coverage. Maheu can_ ‘provide an explanation for exactly what he did and what con- nection he had with the Agency in this venture against Aristotle Onassis. (b) Procuring Females and Producing Films of Foreign Leaders for the CIA Maheu was used by the CIA in 1957, 1958, and 1959 on. three different projects involving leaders of foreign countries, i.e. heads of state. The first such project was entitled "Project Happy Days’ and occurred in 1957. In this project Maheu was requested by the CIA to rent a movie studio Fa ’ in California and make up an actor to look like a foreign HW 350955 Docld:327423549 Page 145
HY 0955 head of state. Maheu was to produce a film with the actor and an actress simulating an intimate relationship. The CIA then, through its Technical Division, provided a backdrop for the film, which would make the completed film appear to be a film of the foreign leader having an affair in Russia. The Agency was then to distribute the film in the leader's, country to embarrass him and to make him angry at the Soviets.” CIA documents indicate that while the film was completed and sent to the Office of Security of “the CIA, it was never distrubuted abroad. The second project which the Agency asked Maheu to complete was entitled "Project HARPSTAR."" In this 1958 project, Maheu was requested _ to and did obtain a woman to send overseas to try and "culti-- vate'’ the same foreign leader about which the film was made. The woman was apparently sent overseas but it is unclear exactly what she did with regard to the foreign leader. Maheu should be able to provide the details. Maheu was in- volved with the CIA in still a third project which was en- titled "Project NORFOLK." In this project, Maheu was asked to and did provide "female companionship" in June of 1959 for foreign leader #2 (this head of state of a foreign country is different from the foreign leader heretofore referred to in Projects Happy Days and HARPSTAR) . Maheu Docld: 32423549 Page 16
introduced this woman, who was described as a "part-time actress" and she was instructed that the CIA "wanted her to go to bed" with the foreign leader. The CIA rented a house in Long Island for the female and the leader to stay at, and they did stay there during the month of June 1959. The CIA documents also reveal that mail sent between the. female and the leader was opened and that they were other- wise surveilled. Maheu may explain upon whose authority this was done and to what extent the CIA was involved. Maheu will be able to testify about the exact instruc- tions he received and the persons he dealt with at the CIA in these three projects which were mounted against leaders of foreign countries. Maheu may also be able to provide any hearsay knowledge that he might have about the use of the CIA's Technical Services Division for other such pro- jects or programs. Note: TSD also produced the poison pills for Castro and, allegedly, poison virus for Lumumba. (c) Maheu's Provision of Commercial Cover Facilities for CIA Agents Maheu provided ‘the CIA with (1) use of Maheu's office as a live address for cover, (2) assistance in ob- taining Safehouses, (3) use of Maheu to provide cover employ- ment for CIA personnel both in the United States: and abroad. HW 50955 Docld:32423549 Page 17 |
HW 450955 In this regard, CIA documents establish that Maheu provided cover for a CIA employee in Washington, D. C. (who was | ostensibly employed in Maheu's Washington office) from September 1964 to June 1966. It is unknown exactly what this employee did in the United States. Additionally, CIA documents establish that Maheu provided cover for a CIA employee in [ from August 1968 to December 1970. Again, it is unknown exactly what this Agency employee did in that country. Maheu should know details. (d) Miscellaneous Activities of Maheu for CIA International Labor -- CIA documents seem to indicate that Maheu was requested to provide the CIA with an ‘entree into the international labor field. The documents ‘reference Maheu's involvement with David J. MacDonald, former President of the United Steel Workers, state that information was passed from CIA Commercial Cover Division employees to Maheu. The details and import of this are unknown at the present time, and, of course, Maheu should be able to elab- orate on what, if anything, was involved in this. Howard Hughes Organization -- Much of the contact between Maheu and the CIA oécurred when Maheu was either attempting to line up Hughes as a major client or actually DoclTd: 32423549 Page 18
in the employ of Hughes. Agency documents indicate that | Maheu was involved in the use of Hughes for non-official cover in 1962-1964 when the aircraft division of Howard Hughes Tool Company in Culver City, California was utilized by the CIA. The documents do not provide any details as to what this is all about. Additionally, CIA documents indicate that Maheu placed a telephone call in December 1970 to the CIA complaining that the CIA was using Hughes to "embark on a new project without going through Maheu." This information is again fragmentary and Maheu could perhaps provide the full story. For the reasons outlined above, it is submitted that Maheu possess sufficient information about matters within the Committee's mandate to make him a valuable witness for the Committee. Therefore, he should be granted "use immunity" so that he might be compelled to testify before the Commit - tee. As aforementioned, "use immunity" will not prevent the prosecution of Maheu by any federal or state authority, should either desire to prosecute and should they have "independent evidence" with which to so prosecute him. It must be stated, however, that ultimate prosecution of a person like Maheu who was involved in events some ten to i HWY 50955 Docld:327423549 Page 19
fifteen years ago is highly unlikely. In any event, Maheu's grant of immunity will allow the Committee to rapidly proceed in its fact-finding process in determining to what extent the CIA engaged in activities in violation of its charter. HY 50955 Docld:324293549 Page 20