MEETING 29 JULY 1975
Originator: SSCIA
From: MADIGAN, MICHAEL J.
To: CHURCH, FRANK
Document date: 06/10/1975
Document type: MEMORANDUM

## Page 1

157-10014-10161

2023 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992

JFK Assassination System

Date:

Identification Form

7/7/2015

Agency Information

AGENCY:

SSCIA

RECORD NUMBER:

157-10014-10161

RECORD SERIES: MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE

AGENCY FILE NUMBER: 07-M-66

Document Information

ORIGINATOR: SSCIA

FROM: MADIGAN, MICHAEL J.

TO: CHURCH, FRANK

TITLE: MEETING 29 JULY 1975

DATE: 06/10/1975

PAGES:

18

SUBJECTS :

MAHEU, ROBERT A:

DOCUMENT TYPE: MEMORANDUM

CLASSIFICATION: Declassified

RESTRICTIONS: 1B; 1C

CURRENT STATUS: Redact

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 03/22/2000

OPENING CRITERIA:

COMMENTS: CCBOX 447

v9.1

NH 50955

DocId: 32423549

Page 1

---

## Page 2

Date

Page:

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

:

07-M-66

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR

SSCIA

FROM

MADIGAN, MICHAEL J.

TO

CHURCH,

FRANK

TITLE : MEETING 29 JULY 1975

DATE : 06/10/75

PAGES

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

COMMENTS : CCBOX 447

[R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED

NW 50955

DocId: 32423549

Page 2

---

## Page 3

MEETING 29JULY 75

445 6

BOX 447

TOP SEGRET

TOP SEGRET

---

## Page 4

TOP SECEN

MAR

21 194

MEMORANDUM

To :

From:

Date:--

Subj:

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

MIchaeL J. Madigan, Counsel

seeMa digan, Counse Intelligence

June 10, 1975

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 Com-

mittee vote to immunize Maheu, Maheu would cooperate fully

with the Committee and answer any and all questions.

00 CCC02T

NH 50955

DocId: 32423549

Page 4

---

## Page 5

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-incrim-

ination. Succinctly, the Fifth Amendment privilege protects

a witness against disclosures which could be used against

him in a criminal prosecution, or could lead to evidence

which could be used 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

NH 50955

Doold: 32423549 Page 5

---

## Page 6

-3-

TOP PRAn

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.

3095J

Noc1d: 32423549

Page

---

## Page 7

• 4-

TOP

The Nature of Use Immunity

In 1970, 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 seg. The statute

provides in pertinent part:

"Whenever a witness refuses, on the

basis of his privilege against self-

incrimination, to testity ... in a

proceeding before

• a committee or a

subcommittee of either House and the per-

son presiding over the proceeding communi-

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 Amendment. "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

NH 50955 DocId: 32423549

Page 7

---

## Page 8

- 5 -

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 federal

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

-!

NW 50955 DocId: 32423549 Page 8

---

## Page 9

- 6 -

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 to Mr. 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-

HW 50955 DocId: 32423549

Page 9

---

## Page 10

- 7-.

nation of Fidel Castro. Maheu met CIA officer O'Connell

and introduced O'Connell to one John Roselli who was, at

that time, an organized crime figure in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Maheu also was apparently involved in the introduction of

the CIA officials to Sam Giancana and Santos Trafficante.

Roselli was alleged to have had the ice machine concessions

in the

gambling interests in Las Vegas; Giancana was one of

the Mafia bosses; and Trafficante was the Mafia leader of

the Cuban gambling interests. It was thought that the

Mafia would be interested in assisting the CIA in this pro-

ject because of its (the Mafia's) concern for getting rid of

Castro who was about to close down their gambling operations

in Havana. After the introductions by Maheu, it is unclear

as to exactly what Maheu's role was during the various

assassination attempts. Maheu is said to have spent much

time in Florida during this period of time, however. Maheu

was involved in the $150,000 offer which was made by the

CIA to the Mafia for the accomplishment of the assassination

of Castro. Maheu may or may not know many of the details

regarding the

shipping of the poison pills to various

individuals in Florida in an attempt to have Castro assassinated.

AW 50955

DocId: 32423549

Page 10

---

## Page 11

-8-

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 details 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

NW 50955

DooId: 32423549 Page 11

---

## Page 12

- 9--

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

and what eventually was done.

(2) Las Vegas Wiretap on Dan Rowan's. Apartment

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

50955 DooId: 32423549 Page 12

---

## Page 13

- 10-

2

in.:

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.

He can establish the involvement

or lack of involvement of the CIA in this illegal wiretap.

NH 50955

DocId: 32123549 Page 13

---

## Page 14

-11 -

(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. O'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 DocId: 32423549

Page 14

---

## Page 15

- 12-

TOP

*. I

(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 indicate

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

in California and make up an actor to look like a foreign

HW 50955 DocId: 32423549 Page 15

---

## Page 16

-13 -

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

NH 50955 DocId: 32423549 Page 16

---

## Page 17

-14-

-...

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.

NN 50955 DocId: 32423549

Page 17

---

## Page 18

- 15-

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 Ecuador 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 occurred when Maheu was either

attempting to line up Hughes as a major client or actually

NW 50955 booId: 32423549

Page 18

---

## Page 19

-16-

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

IN 50955 DocId: 32423549

Page 19

---

## Page 20

- 17-

70P

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.

HHT 50955

DocId: 32423549

Page

20

---