MEMORANDUM: SUBJECT: [[DELETE]]--SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS FOR DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS FOR DEFECTOR
Agency: CIA
Originator: CIA
From: DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
To: UEBERHORST, JAMES B., ASST GC
Document date: 09/19/1969
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION FORM

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER

:104-10106-10209

RECORD SERIES

JFK

AGENCY FILE

NUMBER

80T01357A

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Released under the John

• Kennedy

assassination Recorde

collection Act of 1992

144 USC 2107 Notel.

Case#:NIT 53294 Date:

06-14-2017

AGENCY ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM

: UEBERHORST, JAMES B., ASST GC

TO

DIRECTOR OF SECURITY

TITLE

MEMORANDUM: SUBJECT: [ [DELETE]] - -SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

FOR DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS FOR DEFECTOR

DATE

PAGES

09/19/1969

2

SUBJECTS : DEFECTOR

DIVORCE

NOSENKO, YURIY

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER

CLASSIFICATION

SECRET

RESTRICTIONS

CURRENT STATUS RELEASED IN PART PUBLIC - RELEASED WITH DELETIONS

DATE

OF LAST REVIEW

: 07/20/93

COMMENTS : JFK38 : F22: 1993.07.20.19:11:33:120580

[R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED 104-10106-10209

HH 53294

DocId: 32398467

Page 1

---

## Page 2

SECRET

EYES ONLY

OGC 69-1806

19 September 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Security

SUBJECT:

George Martin Rosnek

1. You have reguested our assistance with regard to certain

personal legal problems of subject defector. This memorandum is

intended to summarize our suggested solutions to these problems.

With respect to the subject's filing for divorce, we

concluded that Virginia was the best jurisdiction for the following

reasons. First, subject lived at ISOLATION for a period of almost

five years before moving to a safehouse in Herndon, Virginia. Thus,

any legal residence in the United States would have been in Virginia.

His zecent move to Maryland causes us some concern but only

technically. In view of the strong part played by the Agency in

subject's search for and selection of the Maryland dwelling, it is

fair to conclude that he was directed to live in Maryland by the

United States Government and, therefore, would not relinguish

whatever Virginia residence he had at the time of the move. Second,

the requirement for non-traceability in the divorce proceedings ie

very well fulfilled in an arrangement we have laid on with a Tappa-

hannock, Essex County, Virginia lawyer, Mr. Joseph Spruill, Jr..

He in turn has spoken with the Circuit Court Judge of Essex County

who would hear the case and has arranged to omit newspaper

publication either of the calendar scheduling of the hearing or of

the order for the divorce itself. The judge has atated that he will

hear the case in chamber and that all pleadings will be oral. While

a witness from the Agency will be required to testify as to length of

residence, length of separation of the couple and likelihood of

reconciliation, the oral hearing will not be recorded. Any paper

work will be sealed and returned to Spruill and then to us. The only

record made will be of the divorce itself set forth in the Circuit

Court record book in subject's true name.

SECRET

EYES ONLY

Excluded from automatio

_destacoitioatien

NW 53294 DooId: 32398467 Page 2

---

## Page 3

SECRET

EYES ONLY

3. The plan is for subject to check into the Tappahannock

Motor Inn on the afternoon of the 22nd of September. This will

establish the necessary venue to give the court jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the suit. The actual hearing will be at 4:00 p.m..

Tuesday, the 23rd of September, in the Essex County Court House

in Tappahannock.

4. Subject was required to sign an Affidavit for Service by

Publication stating that his wife's last post office address is unknown

to him. The judge has been briefed on the fact that the subject could

provide an address where he last saw hie wife but that personal security

reasons preclude his doing eo. Service has issued and been posted to

his wife, address unknown, with return address to the court.

The

judge has ruled that this procedure satisfied the statute with regard to

service by publication.

5. After the divorce subject may apply for a marriage license

in Maryland in his assumed name.

We have ascertained that the Clerk

will ask whether he has been married before and whether divorced.

He may simply answer by stating that he was diverced on 23 September

in the Circuit Court of Essex County Virginia., He does not have to

produce any document proving the divorce and, therefore, the name

under which he was divorced. Since either party may apply for the

license, we would suggest that his fiancee actually submit the

application for marriage eince this would eliminate any possible

question of perjury during the interview with the Clerk.

6.

Subject can legally live under his assumed name without

the formality of the name change in view of the fact that the new

name has not been contrived to deceive or defraud others.

He may

also formally change his name at a later date. Our suggestion would

be that if and when he seeks citizenship by a private bill, his name

be securely changed at that time to the name under which he has been

living.

7.

We will gladly answer any questions you may have concerning

these rather unusual azrangemente.

(Signed) JAMES B. UEBERHORST

JAMES B. UEBERMORST

Assistant General Counsel

OGC: J BU:bg

Distribution:

Orig & 1 - Addressèe

- Subject - NOSENKO,RYURI (Defector)

1 - JBU Signer

1=chiona

HH 53294 DocId: 32398467

Page 3

---