0CORRECTION TO AFFIDAVIT DATED APRIL 1, 1966

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1163
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 24, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: COURTFILE

25X1 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
EERIK HEINE,
V.
JURI RAUS,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 15952
Defendant.
CORRECTION TO AFFIDAVIT DATED APRIL 1, 1966
Richard Helms, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, being
first duly sworn, deposes and says that:
Paragraph 11, line 3, of the Affidavit submitted by me on
April 1, 1966 in the above Civil Action should be corrected in the following
respect:
Change 403d to read 403(d).
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX
)
)
)
SS.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this
My commission expires
(SEAL)
Richard Helms
day of , 1966.
Notary Public
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
\
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
ApRoved For.ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.0100110001-1
0 261 F. Supp 570
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EERIK HEINE
V. CIVIL NO. 15952
JURI RAUS
Filed: December 8, 1966.
Ernest C. Raskauskas and Robert J. Stanford, of Washington,
D. C., for plaintiff.
Paul R. Connolly, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., and Hogan & Hartson,
of Washington, D. C., for defendant.
Lawrence R. Houston, General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency,
of Washington, D. C., and Thomas J. Kenney, United States Attorney,
of Baltimore, Maryland, for the United States.
Thomsen, Chief Judge
This is an action for slander in which defendant's
motion for summary judgment asserts the defense of absolute
privilege on the ground that when he made certain defamatory
statements he was acting within the scope and course of his em-
ployment by the Central Intelligence Agency on behalf of the
United States, and had been instructed by the CIA to warn members
of Estonian emigre groups that plaintiff was a dispatched Soviet
intelligence operative, a KGB agent.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment raises a number
of substantive and procedural questions. The matter is compli-
cated by the fact that the United States has asserted its privi-
lege against disclosing state secrets.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Fore lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077
0100110001-1
I.
The complaint, filed in November 1964, alleges that
plaintiff, a citizen of Canada, has never been a Communist;
that he had been active in various Estonian emigre groups, and
had earned part of his livelihood by exhibiting a motion picture,
entitled "Creators of Legend" which portrays brutalities committed
by the Communists in Occupied Estonia, and by delivering lectures
based on his experiences as a prisoner in Russian prison camps
and as a guerilla fighter; that on three occasions, in November
1963, July 1964 and September 1964, respectively, defendant de-
famed plaintiff by stating that "Eerik Heine is a Communist" and
"Eerick Heine is a KGB Agent", the statements being understood
as referring to plaintiff as a "Communist Secret Agent"; that
the statements were untrue, were known to defendant to be untrue,
were slanderous and defamatory per se, and were made maliciously.
Plaintiff demands general and punitive damages.
In the original answer, filed in January 1965, defendant
stated that he was National Commander of the Legion of Estonian
Liberation, Inc. and admitted that on the three occasions speci-
fied in the complaint he had said, in the presence of others,
that he "was in possession of responsible information received
by him from an official agency of the United States Government to
the effect that the plaintiff was a Soviet agent or collaborator
and on that account should not receive the cooperation of the
Legion and its branches during the plaintiff's tours of the United
States." The answer asserted that the statements were true, and
were made "only upon privileged occasions to persons privileged
to receive them, and each such statement was made without express
-2-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
N '
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.00100110001-1
or actual malice in furtherance of the defendant's legitimate
duties, responsibilities and offices"; that "the maintenance of
the present action by the plaintiff is contrary to the interest
and public policy of the United States"; and that "the defendant
was privileged to speak of the plaintiff as he did, since the
defendant was acting as an appropriate officer of the Estonian
Liberation movement". In the original answer defendant did not
raise the defense of absolute privilege, because he was bound by
a secrecy agreement' not to divulge such information unless
?
1/ The Secrecy Agreement, so headed, was executed in May 1963,
more than five months before the first alleged defamatory statement.
It reads as follows:
"1. I recognize that in connection with my confiden-
tial relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
I will become apprised of information relating to the na-
tional defense and security and particularly information
of this nature relating to intelligence sources, methods,
and operations, and specifically operations, sources, methods,
personnel, fiscal data, or security measures. I realize that
in addition to the actual information that comes into my
possession because of my relationship with CIA it will be
possible for me to deduce implications from such information.
I understand that unlawful disclosure of this information
or its implications could seriously jeopardize the national
interests and security of the United States of America.
"2. I solemnly swear, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion, and in the absence of duress, as a citi-
zen of the United States of America that I will never divulge,
publish or reveal, by writing, word, conduct or other means,
any information or its implications of the character set
forth above, including the fact or content of my meeting with
representatives of CIA, to any person unless I have been
specifically authorized, in writing, to do so by a representa-
tive of CIA. I understand that the term 'any person' includes,
among others, friends, relatives, spouses, employers or repre-
sentatives of any State or Federal Agency, excepting only
CIA representatives who have been specifically referred to
me by the representatives of that Agency whom I have met on
the occasion of signing this secrecy agreement.
"3. I understand that this agreement does not impose
-3-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.00100110001-1
specifically authorized to do so by a representative of the
CIA, and because his counsel had been instructed by counsel for
the CIA not to raise that defense.
In February 1965 defendant took plaintiff's deposition.
In November 1965 plaintiff served on defendant 424 interrogatories,
which defendant moved to strike on two grounds: (1) that their
number was oppressive, and (2) that many of them inquired of privi-
leged matter. See Rules 26(b) and 33, F. R. Civ. P. At the same
time defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, based upon
an affidavit of Richard Helms, then Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence, that when defendant spoke concerning plaintiff on
the occasions referred to in the complaint he was in possession
of information furnished him by the CIA and was acting within
the scope and course of his employment by that agency on behalf
of the United States.
At a hearing on the motion and the exceptions then pending,
the Court ruled: that defendant's original answer did not set up
the defense of absolute privilege, but that leave should be granted
1/ (continued)
any restriction upon me or my employer with regard
to information acquired by me or my employer in the
regular conduct of business and not as a result of
my relationship with CIA. The mere fact that such
information is of interest to CIA does not subject it
to the confidential treatment prescribed by this
secrecy agreement.
"4. I fully realize that intention or negli-
gent violation of this secrecy agreement may subject
me to prosecution under the Espionage Laws of the
United States of America (16 USC sec. 793 and 794)."
-4-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
\44*-
Approved Fort/ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770.0100110001-1
him to file an amended answer asserting that defense; 2 that de-
fendant should not be required to answer the 424 interrogatories,
but that plaintiff should be allowed discovery, so far as per-
mitted by law, on the issue of absolute privilege claimed by
defendant; that a more detailed affidavit should be filed by the
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, or plaintiff should be
allowed to proceed with reasonable discovery from him; and that
if the Government wished to assert a privilege against disclosing
state secrets, the United States Attorney should be present and
such privilege should be formally asserted.
Thereafter a much more detailed affidavit by Helms,
dated April 1, 1966, was filed. After stating his authority and
familiarity with the facts the Deputy Director stated:
"4. During the periods of time specified in
paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the complaint, the de-
fendant, Jun i Raus, was employed as a highway re-
search engineer for the Office of Research and De-
velopment, Bureau of Public Roads, United States
Department of Commerce.
2/ Plaintiff contends that defendant waived or is estopped to
assert the defense in this case because he did not raise it in
his original answer, and took the deposition of plaintiff on the
merits. Plaintiff therefore moved the Court to strike defendant's
motion to amend his answer and assert the defense. Plaintiff's
motion was overruled, and the Court adheres to its ruling, because
it is quite clear from the testimony of defendant's counsel that
defendant was refused permission by the CIA to raise the defense
in his original answers, an.d-that he was bound by his secrecy
agreement, set out in note 1, above. The Agency's reluctance to
identify an employee's covert activity is understandable; moreover,
the delay of the CIA in granting permission to assert the defense
should not be charged to defendant. Under the circumstances shown
by the record there was no undue delay, bad faith or dilatory action
chargeable to defendant, and no such prejudice to plaintiff as
would prevent the allowance of the amendment. See Rule 15, F. R.
Civ. P.
-5-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Fol. lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077000100110001-1
"5. During the same periods of time, the
defendant was the National Commander of the Legion
of Estonian Liberation, Inc., and was familiar
with Estonian emigre activities.
"6. For a number of reasons, including his
past history and his position as National Commander
of the Legion of Estonian Liberation, the defendant
has been a source to this Agency of foreign intelli-
gence information pertaining inter alia to Soviet
Estonia and to Estonian emigre activities in foreign
countries as well as in the United States.
"7. The Central Intelligence Agency has em-
ployed the defendant from time to time -- concurrently
with his duties on behalf of the Bureau of Public
Roads -- to carry out specific assignments on behalf
of the Agency. Defendant was so employed on those
occasions specified in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the
complaint.
"8. On those occasions specified in paragraphs
5, 6, and 7 of the complaint, the defendant was fur-
nished inforMation concerning the plaintiff by the
Central Intelligence Agency and was instructed to
disseminate such information to members of the
Legion so as to protect the integrity of the Agency's
foreign intelligence sources. Accordingly, when Juni
Raus spoke concerning the plaintiff on the occasions
about which complaint is made, he was acting within
the scope and course of his employment by the Agency
on behalf of the United States.
"9. On May 29, 1963, prior to the occasions
specified in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the complaint,
the defendant signed a Secrecy Agreement with the
Agency, a copy of which is attached, which Agreement
is still in full force and effect.
"10. After a personal review of the Agency's
activities pertaining to Eerik Heine, I have reached
the judgment on behalf of the Agency that it would
be contrary to the security interests of the United
States for any further information pertaining to
the use and emploient of Juni Raus by the Agency
in connection with Eerik Heine to be disclosed, other
than the disclosures already made in the defendant's
answer, in my own affidavits, and the defendant's
affidavits, which I have read.
"11. Acting pursuant to the authority lodged
in the Director of Central Intelligence by virtue
of the provisions of Title 50, United States Code,
Sections 403d and 403g, and the implementing Regulations
-6 -
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Fore lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.00100110001-1
promulgated thereunder, I have determined that
it would be contrary to the national interest
and would further compromise the proper protection
of intelligence sources and methods to disclose
further information in regard to those material
matters which the plaintiff has sought to have re-
vealed through his pleadings. I am herewith di-.
recting Jun i Raus to make no further disclosures
concerning his employment by the Agency or relating
to this matter without specific authorization by
proper officials of the Central Intelligence Agency. "
Counsel for plaintiff still objected that the affidavit
was not sufficiently specific and two clarifying affidavits by
Helms were thereafter filed. The second such affidavit stated:
"1. In Paragraph 2 of my Affidavit dated
April 22, 1966, which I executed as Deputy Direc-
tor of Central Intelligence, I stated in part:
'The defendant was instructed to warn members of
Estonian emigre groups that Eerik Heine was a dis-
patched Soviet intelligence operative, a KGB agent.
"2. The context of that statement means, I
intended by that statement to convey, and I now
so state: The defendant, Jun i Raus, was instructed
by the Central Intelligence Agency to warn members
of Estonian emigre groups that Eerik Heine was a
dispatched Soviet intelligence operative, a KGB
agent. "
At a hearing on April 14, the Court had suggested that
plaintiff might take the deposition of defendant or someone
from the CIA or both, at a hearing with the Judge present, so
that the Government's privilege might be claimed on a question
by question basis, and immediate rulings obtained.
Such a hearing was held on April 28. At the beginning
of that hearing a formal claim of privilege on behalf of the
United States, made by Admiral W. F. Raborn, Director of Central
Intelligence, was presented to the Court by Lawrence B. Houston,
General Counsel of the CIA, and by Thomas J. Kenney, United States
Attorney. The deposition of defendant was taken before the Court;
Approved For For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For. lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.00100110001-1
many of the objections asserted by counsel for the Government
or by counsel for defendant on instructions from the General
Counsel of the CIA were sustained by the Court in view of the
rules stated in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1(1953), but
defendant's multiple employment; by the Government was clarified.
Argument on defendant's motion for summary judgment
was heard on May 13, and again on September 28, after the record
had been supplemented by several letters and documents and final
briefs had been filed by both sides.
U.
Defendant relies upon the defense of absolute privilege --
that he had been instructed by the CIA to warn members of Estonian
emigre groups that Eerik Heine was a dispatched Soviet intelligence
operative, a KGB agent, and that when he made the statements
alleged to be defamatory he was acting within the scope of his
employment by an agency of the United States. Such an absolute
privilege was recognized and sustained by the Supreme Court in
Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), and in Howard v. Lyons, 360
U.S. 593 (1959), following Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483 (1896),
and Yaselli v. Goff, 2 Cir. , 12 F. 2d 396 (1926), aff'd per curiam
3
275 U. S. 503 (1927). It was recognized in Garrison v. Louisiana,
379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964), in a dictum by a justice who had dissented
in Barr v. Matteo and Howard. v. Lyons. The privilege has been
3/ The validity of the "claim of absolute privilege is governed
by federal standards, to be formulated by the Courts in the ab-
sence of legislative action by Congress. " Howard v. Lyons, 360
U.S. 593, 597 (1959).
-8-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
ApprOved Fo
ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077000100110001-1
repeatedly and recently recognized and sustained by the Courts
of Appeals of many circuits. See e.g.: Preble v. Johnson, 10
Cir. , 275 F. 2d 275 (1960); Sauber v. Gliedrnan, 7 Cir. , 283 F. 2d
941 (1960), cert. den. 366 U.S. 906 (1961); Ove Gustavsson Con-
tracting Co. v. Floete, 2 Cir. , 299 F. 2d 655 (1962), cert. den.
374 U.S. 827 (1963); Poss v. Lieberman, 2 Cir. , 299 F. 2d 358,
cert. den. 370 U.S. 944 (1962); Brownfield v. Landon, 113 U.S.
App. D. C. 248, 307 F. 2d 389, cert. den. 371 U.S. 924 (1962);
Wozencraft v. Captiva, 5 Cir. , 314 F. 2d 288 (1963); Denman v.
White, 1 Cir. , 316 F. 2d 524 (1963); Waymire v. Deneve, 5 Cir. , 333
F. 2d 149 (1964); Chafin v. Pratt, 5 Cir. , 358 F. 2d 349 (1966).
See also DeLevay v. Richmond County School Board, 4 Cir., 284 F. 2d
340 (1960); Holmes v. Eddy, 4 Cir. ? 341 F. 2d 477 (1965).
The reasons for the privilege were stated by Mr. Justice
Harlan in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. at 571, 572, as follows:
" =:":":' It has been thought important that
officials of government should be free to exercise
their duties unembarrassed by the fear of damage
suits in respect of acts done in the course of those
duties -- suits which would consume time and energies
which would otherwise be devoted to governmental ser-
vice and the threat of which might appreciably in-
hibit the fearless, vigorous, and effective adminis-
tration of policies of government. The matter has
been admirably expressed by Judge Learned Hand:
does indeed go without saying that an
official, who is in fact guilty of using his powers
to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other
personal motive not-connected with the public good,
should not escape liability for the injuries he may
so cause; and, if it were possible in practice to
confine such complaints to the guilty, it would be
monstrous to deny recovery. The justification for
doing so is that it is impossible to know whether
the claim is well founded until the case has been
tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent
- 9 -
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Foreease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.00100110001-1
as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial
and to the inevitable danger of its outcome,
would dampen the ardor of all but the most reso-
lute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinch-
ing discharge of their duties. Again and again the
public interest calls for action which may turn
out to be founded on a mistake, in the face of
which an official may later find himself hard put
to it to satisfy a jury of his good faith. There
must indeed be means of punishing public officers
who have been truant to their duties; but that is
quite another matter from exposing such as have
?
been honestly mistaken to suit by anyone who has
suffered from their errors. As is so often the
case, the answer must be found in a balance be-
tween the evils inevitable in either alternative.
In this instance it has been thought in the end
better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by
dishonest officers than to subject those who try
to do their duty to the constant dread of retalia-
tion. . . .
"' The decisions have, indeed, always imposed
as a limitation upon the immunity that the official's
?act must have been within the scope of his powers;
and it can be argued that official powers, since
they exist only for the public good, never cover
occasions where the public good is not their aim,
and hence that to exercise a power dishonestly is
necessarily to overstep its bounds. A moment's
reflection shows, however, that that cannot be
the meaning of the limitation without defeating
the whole doctrine. What is meant by saying that
the officer must be acting within his power cannot
be more than that the occasion must be such as would
have justified the act, if he had been using his
power for any of the purposes on whose account it
was vested in him. . I Gregoire v. Biddle, 177
F. 2d 579, 581."
While recognizing the rule, as stated and applied in
Barr v. Matte?, supra, counsel for plaintiff contend that defen-
dant cannot assert the privilege for a number of reasons.
First, plaintiff contends the privilege does not apply
to employees who exercise no discretion, as distinguished from
officers or officials of the Government. This argument is not
supported by reason or authority. In Waymire v. Deneve, 5 Cir. ,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-AIDP75-00770R000100110001-1
ApprOved Forelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.0100110001-1
333 F. 2d 149 (1964), the privilege was accorded to an agent
of the Customs Bureau of the United States Treasury Department,
and Wigmore on Evidence (McNaughton Revision 1961), Vol. 8,
g2368, states: "A subordinate or ministerial official -- i.e. ,
one who acts under the orders of a superior official -- is ab-
solutely exempt from liability if the harm done by him is done
solely in implicit obedience to an order lawful upon its face.
In Barr v. Matteo the question was whether the privilege
should be accorded to an official who exercised some discretion,
but was below cabinet rank. Mr. Justice Harlan said:
"We do not think that the principle announced
in Vilas (161 U.S. 483) can properly be restricted
to executive officers of cabinet rank, and in fact
it never has been so restricted by the lower federal
courts. The privilege is not a badge or emolument
of exalted office, but an expression of a policy
designed to aid in the effective functioning of
government. The complexities and magnitude of
governmental activity have become so great that
there must of necessity be a delegation and redele-
gation Of authority as to many functions, and we
cannot say that these functions become less important
simply because they are exercised by officers of lower
rank in the executive hierarchy." 360 U.S. 572, 573.
Later he said:
"* * That petitioner was not required by law
or by direction of his superiors to speak out cannot
be controlling in the case of an official of policy-
making rank, for the same considerations which under-
lie the recognition of the privilege as to acts done
in connection with a mandatory duty apply with equal
force to discretionary acts at those levels of govern-
ment where the concept of duty encompasses the sound
exercise of discretionary authority." 360 U.S. 575.
These principles apply with even greater force to an employee who
is acting under orders and has a duty to carry them out.
The test for determining the scope of the privilege,
as stated in Barr v. Matte?, 360 U.S. at 575, is whether the
-11-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077000100110001-1
action taken was within the outer perimeter of the defendant's
line of duty.
Plaintiff contends that the test is not met in this case;
that the statements made by defendant "were actions beyond the
statutory power of the CIA", because 50 U.S. C. A. 403(d) (3) pro-
vides "that the Agency shall have no * * * internal security
functions". He argues that departments and agencies other than
the CIA, such as the Subversive Activities Control Board and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must deal with security
matters arising within the borders of the United States. It is
clear, however, that one of the functions entrusted to the Central
Intelligence Agency and its Director is "protecting intelligence
sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure". 50 U. S. C. A.
403(d) (3). In his affidavit of April 1, 1966, quoted at length
above, Helms stated that Raus was furnished information concern-
ing the plaintiff by the CIA "and was instructed to disseminate
such information to members of the Legion so as to protect the
integrity of the Agency's foreign intelligence sources". In his
final affidavit, also quoted above, Helms stated that defendant
"was instructed by the Central Intelligence Agency to warn members
of Estonian emigre groups that Eerik Heine was a dispatched Soviet
intelligence operative, a KGB agent".
It is reasonable that emigre groups from nations behind
the Iron Curtain would be a valuable source of intelligence
information as to what goes on in their old homeland. The fact
that the immediate intelligence source is located in the United
States does not make it an "internal security function", over
which the CIA has no authority. The Court concludes that activities
-12-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
ApprOved For ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770.0100110001-1
by the CIA to protect its foreign intelligence sources located
in the United States are within the power granted by Congress to
4
the CIA.
Plaintiff next argues that the motion for summary judg-
ment should be denied on the ground that there is a genuine issue
as to a material fact, namely, whether defendant was employed by
the CIA and, if so, whether the statements which he made were in
accordance with his instructions or went beyond his instructions.
Since the amendment to Rule 56(e), F. R. Civ. P. , effective July
1, 1963, it is now beyond dispute that When a motion for summary
judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an ad-
verse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise
provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so re-
spond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against
him. " That was always the rule in the Fourth Circuit. Bond
4/ At the hearing on May 13 the Court requested the General Coun-
sel of the CIA to submit a statement as to the legal authority
of the CIA to engage in activities within the United States with
respect to foreign intelligence sources. In response to that re-
quest, the General Counsel prepared an affidavit which incorporates
by reference particular paragraphs of a document which is classi-
fied "secret" and which cannot be declassified for the purposes of
this case. For that reason, the General Counsel requested the De-
partment of Justice to submit to the Court under seal, for in
camera inspection, the identification of the document and the two
pertinent paragraphs, properly certified. The Agency stated that
it did not object to the Court making the classified excerpts
available to the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant respectively
for inspection but not for copying, and stated that any of the
attorneys would be granted access, upon request, to the two perti-
nent excerpts at the office of the General Counsel, \:vith the under-
standing that the attorneys would not disclose the excerpts thus
-13-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077000100110001-1
Distributing Co. v. Carling Brewing Company, D. Md. , 32 F. R. D.
409, aff'd 4 Cir. , 325 F. 2d 158 (1963). Upon examination, the
claimed conflicts in the affidavits and depositions do not ma-
terially affect the facts upon which the defense of absolute
privilege is based. The most important conflict claimed by
plaintiff is whether defendant was employed by the Bureau of
Public Roads or by the CIA. However, it appears quite plainly
from paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the second affidavit of Helms,
quoted above, and from the deposition of defendant, that he was
employed both by the Bureau of Public Roads and by the CIA, for
different purposes, and that he was acting in the course of his
employment by the CIA when he made the statements in question.
Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant was employed by the
5
United States.
There is more force in plaintiff's argument that he has
been prevented from discovering possibly conflicting evidence
by the Government's assertion of its privilege not to disclose
4/ (continued)
made available to them. The attorneys for plaintiff refused to
examine the excerpts under those conditions, stating that they
would not look at anything they could not communicate to their
client. The Court has examined the papers in camera; they are
not inconsistent with the affidavits of Helms, but the Court has
not considered the classified excerpts in reaching its decision
herein.
_
5/ Plaintiff contends that some of the statements in Helms' affi-
davits are conclusions rather than facts. No doubt some of the
statements are eonclusions, but the facts contained in the affidavits
support the conclusions, which are further supported by the deposi-
tion of the defendant taken in open court and the exhibits which have
been filed. The conclusions are not contradicted by any evidence or
other material before the Court except the bare allegations of plain-
tiff's complaint, which are not sufficient to overcome the facts
contained in the affidavits and other evidence. Rule 56(e).
-14-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077000100110001-1
the operations of the CIA. The Court has been anxious that
plaintiff should have the opportunity to discover whatever facts
he is legally entitled to discover under the rules stated in
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (1953), and has accorded
plaintiff that opportunity, through the deposition of defendant
taken in open court, and by requiring such clarification and am-
plification of the original affidavits made by Helms as the
Agency determined were consistent with the security interests
committed to its care.
Deputy Director Helms, in his affidavit of April 1,
1966, stated "that it would be contrary to the security interests
of the United States for any further information pertaining to the
use and employment of Jun i Raus by the Agency in connection with
Eerik Heine to be disclosed, other than the disclosures already
made in the defendant's answer, in my own affidavits, and the
defendant's affidavits * * *."
It is clear, therefore, that if Raus makes further dis-
closures without the approval of the Agency, he would not only
violate the secrecy agreement, see note 1, above, but might also
violate the statute prohibiting unlawful disclosure of confidential
information respecting the national defense. See 18 U.S. C. A. 793,
794, 798 and 1905.
The privilege of the Government which was recognized
and sustained in Reynolds is reenforced in this case by the pro-
visions of the applicable statutes. 50 U.S. C. A. 403(d) (3) provides,
in pertinent part:
"The Director of Central Intelligence shall
be responsible for protecting intelligence sources
and methods from unauthorized disclosure. "
-15-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Forl*ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770.0100110001-1
In conjunction with this provision, 50 U.S. C. A0 403g
provides:
In the interests of the security of the
foreign intelligence activities of the United
States and in order further to implement the
proviso of section 403(d) (3) of this title that
the Director of Central Intelligence shall be re-
sponsible for protecting intelligence sources and
methods from unauthorized disclosure, the Agency
shall be exempted from the provisions of section
654 of Title 5, and the provisions of any other
law which require the publication or disclosure
of the organization, functions, names, official
titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed
by the Agency*
See also Executive Order No. 10501, 18 F. R. 7049 (1953), as
amended by Executive Order No. 10816, 24 F. R. 3777 (1959), set
out after 50 US,C, 401 (Cum. Supp. 1965).
Plaintiff argues that the affidavits and testimony in
support of the motion for summary judgment do not present ad-
missible evidence because they were not subject to cross-examination
and were not based on personal knowledge. The deposition of de-
fendant, taken by counsel for plaintiff in open court, was itself
cross-examination, and was permitted to the full extent authorized
by United States v. Reynolds. Such testimony as he was allowed
to give was based on his personal knowledge.
The affidavits with respect to the instructions given
defendant were made by Helms; then Deputy Director of Central In-
telligence, rather than by the person who gave defendant the
instructions. The decision not to disclose the name of that per-
son was made by the appropriate official of the CIA, in the exercise
of the authority granted him by the applicable statutes and
executive orders. That such disclosure might be damaging to the
intelligence sources and methods of the Agency was asserted by
Helms in paragraphs10 and 11 of his affidavit, and by Admiral
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-FRF_'75-00770R000100110001-1
Apkoved Fo
lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077000100110001-1
Raborn, then Director of Central Intelligence, in the Claim of
Privilege which he filed on behalf of the United States.
It cannot be denied that the combination of (1) the
privilege against liability for defamation asserted by defendant
and (2) the privilege against discovery of the secrets of the
CIA asserted by the Government, places plaintiff in a very diffi-
cult position. But the fact that the two privileges operate in
concert in the instant case does not affect their validity.
The provisions of Rule 56(e), F. R. Civ. P., requiring
affidavits to be made on personal knowledge and to set forth
facts which would be admissible in evidence, must be read in
connection with the applicable statutes and executive order,
particularly 50 U.S. C.A. 403(d) (3) and 403g quoted and discussed
above in this section of the opinion. To require that the affi-
davit be signed by the person who personally instructed Haus
would force the CIA to reveal the names of one or more of its
personnel in contravention of section 403g, quoted above.
A trial would not resolve the question of the truth or
falsity of the charges, because the Court would still be required
to recognize the privilege asserted by the United States. There
is no reason to believe that the Agency's position will be altered
by any further attempts at discovery by plaintiff. The dilemma
which would be presented at. the trial would be the same dilemma
Which is presented now -- whether the fact that defendant is pre-
cluded from testifying to facts and from calling witnesses who
might establish the truth of the alleged defamatory remarks (a)
-17-.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Forbease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.0100110001-1
should require defendant to stand weaponless before his adversary,
or (b) should deny plaintiff the opportunity to attempt to vindi-
cate himself in court. No way to avoid choosing between two
evils has been suggested or discovered. The choice is dictated
by the passage from Judge Learned Hand's opinion in Gregoire v.
Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581, which is set out in full in section II
of this opinion. The principles so clearly stated by Judge Hand
and applied by the Supreme Court in Barr v. Matteo and Howard v.
Lyons require that summary judgment be entered for defendant herein.
(Signed) Roszel C. Thomsen
Chief Judge, U. S. District Court
6/ Plaintiff has embraced the opportunity to bring his case to
the attention of the public by elaborate statements to the press
in this country and in Canada. The propriety of the way the CIA
operates has been canvassed in a. series of articles in the New York
Times and other leading newspapers, and has been investigated by
the Congress during the past months.
-18--
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
!I
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
STAT Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved *Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-004,00010011000144
-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
, FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EERIK HEINE
vs.
JURI RAUS
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FRANCIS T. OWENS
'Official Reporter
514 Post Office Building
BALTIMORE 2, MARYLAND
SAratoga 7-7126
Civil No. 15952
September 28, 1966
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
?
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved lielease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00711p000100110001-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EERIK HEINE
?
vs.
JURI RAUS
Civil No. 15952
Baltimore, Maryland
Wednesday, September 28, 1966
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing
before His Honor, Roszel C. Thomsen, Chief Judge, at ten
o'clock a.m.
APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff:
MR. ERNEST C. RASKAUSKAS
MR. ROBERT J. STANFORD
For the Defendant:
MR. PAUL R. CONNOLLY
Also present representing the Central
Intelligence Agency, Mr. Lawrence R. Houston, General
Counsel.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
1
4
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19,
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved FIVelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-001,000100110001-1
PROCEEDINGS
2
THE COURT: Now, we have a criminal case
that is going to follow these motions today, and the
lawyers in that case have been inquiring when they are
likely to be reached. Do you have any estimate as to how
long you feel the present argument will take? A couple of
hours or more or less?
MR. CONNOLLY: I could not see how it could
possibly take more than an hour, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You are an optimist.
MR. STANFORD: I think it will be a little
more than that, Your Honor; maybe an hour and a-half.
THE COURT: The attorneys in the criminal
case are excused until twelve o'clock.
Now, gentlemen,I have read the two most recen
briefs. I understand there is a new affidavit been filed
today. Is that by the plaintiff?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, Your Honor. We filed
one letter from Mr. Heine's Canadian counsel to the FBI at
the request of Mr. Connolly in accordance with the--
THE COURT: That was mentioned in his--
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: In his brief.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, and that is the letter
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
S
?
?
3
4
9
19
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Ferlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0010R000100110001-1
3
and then the other was at the suggestion of the Court. We
had a letter from a Mr. Tammark in the file, and we have
supplanted that by an affidavit from him which epitomizes
the main points of his letter.
THE COURT: You have received these then, Mr
Connolly?
MR. CONNOLLY: I received both this morning,
Your Honor, just no sooner than had you, and I think _this
Tammark affidavit is meaningless and immaterial and I ask
that it be stricken. It does not mean anything in this
case.
THE COURT: Well, all right, if it is
immaterial, if I find it immaterial it is not going to hurt
you. If it is not immaterial it is no surprise to you.
Is that right? Because it says no more than--
MR. CONNOLLY: I do not understand the
question.
THE COURT: I mean it says no more than the
letter. I mean does it introduce a new element in the
case that you would have to or you would want to answer?
MR. CONNOLLY: No.
THE COURT: If you are arguing a motion for
summary judgment the record has to be closed sometime on
what is to be considered by the Court.
MR. CONNOLLY: I do not think it is
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
?
1
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
90
21
92
23
24
25
Approved /release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-000R000100110001-1
4
appropriate for me to chase down every alleyway of human
imagination. This affidavit here I suggest to Your Honor
is completely meaningless so far as it applies to this
motion.
respect to it.
So I chose not to take any position with
THE COURT: Well, it has been filed before
the motion is argued, for what that is worth, and you conten
it is immaterial.
Well, the letter from Landra is in. That is
part of the record as I take it.
MR. CONNOLLY: Mr. Raskauskas at the last
hearing wanted to introduce a response from Mr. Hoover,
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: And you asked me whether I
challenged the authenticity of that document.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: And I said no I did not
challenge the authenticity, but I thought in order to
understand it you would have to have the letter that
prompted that reply.
I take it that the letter that Mr. Raskauskas
has just furnished is the letter which prompted that reply,
and I have no way whatsoever of knowing whether that is
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
')2
23
24
25
Approved *Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0410R000100110001-1
5
authentic or not since I am not privy to any conferences
with Mr. Landra.
THE COURT: Well, it is addressed to the
headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You
have not checked with them? You want the Court to check
and ask if it is authentic?
MR. CONNOLLY: I just have not any way of
knowing whatsoever, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CONNOLLY: And again I do not think this
is material.
THE COURT: Well, let me get clear about the
Hoover affidavit.
MR. CONNOLLY: There is no affidavit from
him.
THE COURT: I mean the Hoover letter. I am
not saying it is material or that it is not material or
what it proves at this time. That is a part of argument.
But you do not contest the fact that Mr.
Hoover wrote the letter, and the only purpose of the letter
from Landra to the FBI is in order to make clear what Mr.
Hoover said?
The letter from Landra to the FBI is not
evidence to prove the facts stated in Landra's letter, but
it is evidence to show what Mr. Hoover's letter was all
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
9
10
11
12
1:3
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved *Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-000R000100110001-1
6
about? You did not ask to produce Mr. Hoover. Do you wan
Mr. Hoover? You do not need an affidavit to say that Mr.
Hoover wrote the letter.
MR. CONNOLLY: I have already agreed to that,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: So that it is simply here, and
both parties agree that the Landra letter is here just to
show what questions Mr. Hoover was answering or what sort of
a letter he was answering and not to prove the facts
contained in the Landra letter?
MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor asked me whether I
would agree to the authenticity of the Landra letter. I
said I have no way of knowing whether it is authentic or
not. I will I think satisfy Your Honor by agreeing that if
Mr. Landra were called as a witness he would testify that he
wrote that letter.
THE COURT: But do you know? Maybe they ca
tell me. Where did you get this? From Mr. Landra or frou
the FBI or somebody else?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I got that from the
plaintiff at the time the other letters were furnished to
me, and this letter is being filed with the Court at the
request of Mr. Connolly. I have a letter on that.
THE COURT: This is a copy?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: A copy.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
(i
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
94
25
Approved *Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00110R000100110001-1
7
THE COURT: That Landra sent to Heine of his
letter to the FBI because it purports to be signed by Landra.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And it was either therefore an
original or purports to be.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: A copy.
THE COURT: A copy you have given me. It
purports to be a copy of the original or a copy of a
duplicate original which was sent to somebody, and you say
this copy here--I use the words"purports to be" only in
deference to Mr. Connolly's unwillingness to admit.
This purports to be a copy, a photostatic
copy of a duplicate original of the letter to the FBI which
Landra sent to Heine?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, and Mr. Connolly
agrees that if he were here he would say he sent this, so
think we can assume this is the letter to which Mr. Hoover
replied. O.K.
Now, what else has to be cleaned up before we
hear the motion for summary judgment? I take it that all
preliminary matters ought to be cleaned up first because if
it should be granted it would end the case.
MR. CONNOLLY: I am reluctant to get into
this because--
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Firelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00411R000100110001-1
8
THE COURT: And if it is not, of course,
things will be opened up again.
MR. CONNOLLY: --because I think it, is
immaterial, but Mr. Raskauskas has a letter in the file fro
John Edgar Hoover to Mr. Raus, and he at the last hearing
wanted a stipulation as to the authenticity of that letter.
I said that I would do that but I thought that
Mr. Raus' letter that prompted that response ought to get
into the record. And I have it here. I do not have
enough copies but I thought that--
THE COURT: They can be obtained in two
minutes by the marvelous devices that we have in our court.
MR. CONNOLLY: I thought that Mr. Raskauskas
had abandoned this matter because I had not seen any of this
matter which he promised to get at the last hearing until
this morning.
Would one of you gentlemen mind running off
three copies of that?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CONNOLLY: Now, I wish Mr. Raskauskas
would agree that Mr. Raus authored this letter. If he does
not I will be happy to put Mr. Raus on the stand and prove
it.
THE COURT: Well,ies in the same situation
with the Landra letter, not to prove the facts contained in
rpproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
pproved Filelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
9
it but to show--
MR. CONNOLLY: Authenticity.
THE COURT: To show the nature of the reques
to which Mr. Hoover was replying; is that it?
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: It would seem to fall in the sam
class as the Landra letter.
Well, maybe we better take these things one a
a time and clean them up.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: That is already in the file
We have no objection to that coming in. It is already in
the file.
THE COURT: The Raus letter to Hoover is in
for the same purpose as the Landra letter. All right.
Now, I have a letter from Mr. Raskauskas dated
August 30th in which he asked that the matter be set today
for hearing on the four following matters:
"Hearing on a motion to strike the order
allowing amendment of the answer; second, hearing on
objections to interrogatories; third, hearing on
motion for summary judgment; fourth, hearing on in
camera filings of May 31, 1966."
Now, first is the hearing on the motion to
strike an order allowing amendment of answer. Do you want
to argue that? Is anything new brought up that was not
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
?
4
5
6
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
99
23
94
25
Approved Fa 'Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
10
brought up before with respect to which leave was granted?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: No, there is nothing new
brought up. Everything we have to offer other than
commenting on our briefs is already in the files.
I thought that perhaps the most expeditious
way to handle the matter this morning would be to have
argument first on the objections to the interrogatories and
a ruling on that and then the argument and the ruling on
the in camera filing; and then the third matter to argue the
motion to strike the amendment of answer, and the final
matter the summary judgment motion.
But I think that the interrogatories and the
in camera filing are more of a preliminary nature than the
other motion and the summary judgment motion.
THE COURT: Well, all right. I do not care
which order is done. Is the suggested order satisfactory
to you, Mr. Connolly?
MR. CONNOLLY: I thought that we had disposed
of the objections to interrogatories on the question of the
claim of executive privilege. We called Mr. Raus here and
we took his deposition.
THE COURT: Well, I would like to know what
is open. Certainly there is no use in my going ahead and
deciding a motion for summary judgment one way or the other
and then finding that there were open points which made it
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
S
?
?
pproved Fliplease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
11
nugatory. What I am anxious to do is to proceed in an
orderly fashion and see that each decision stands once it is
made.
MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor will recall that
these four hundred and some odd interrogatories you said you
would agree were unduly burdensome and went into areas that
you certainly would not permit the examination upon, and you
suggested that Mr. Raskauskas either take Mr. Raus' depositio
or submit another set of interrogatories.
He has not chosen to do the latter, and we have
taken Mr. Raus' deposition; so I think that the record is
clear as to your disposition of the outstanding interrogator:
of the plaintiff.
THE COURT: Well, I think I said at one time
that I thought that the four hundred interrogatories filed
were unreasonably detailed. What do you want? We cannot
go over all four hundred interrogatories. You must have
something narrower in mind than that.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, Your Honor, but I think
it is incumbent according to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for the defendant in this case to make his
objections with specificity.
Now, in the ordinary case, a personal
injury action, I would say without looking at the file that
four hundred and some interrogatories are burdensome; but we
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
es
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
90
21
23
94
25
Approved Foliplease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
12
must look at each discovery device in the light of the
surrounding circumstances, and these interrogatories were
propounded only after the most lengthy deposition that I hay
ever been involved in, one involving nine hundred and some
pages by the defendant.
Now, the defendant felt that they had to
interrogate my client for more than three days to have their
discovery. My client does not have the resources to take a
three day deposition of the defendant. We do not have the
money of the CIA behind us. All we have is a just cause.
We have four hundred and some questions here.
THE COURT: Just, please, argue the point
without making speeches to the newspapers.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Well, I am not making
speeches to the newspapers, Your Honor, but I am saying this
that every type of bad faith was used with respect to this
discovery.
I was called on the telephone by Mr. Prettyman
and asked because of the number of the interrogatories to
give him more time. There is a letter to the Court from
Jerry Collins, another counsel from Hogan-& Hartson that sal
that because of the number of interrogatories the calendar
call in this case should be delayed, that they had to
prepare them.
Then they respond to all our work in getting
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Fo"please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
13
these interrogatories together, which is certainly not a
light matter, with a one pager saying that three hundred
and thirty-five of these interrogatories are patently
privileged on their face.
Now, I am entitled to know which three
hundred and thirty-five they are and have them specify the
number.
THE COURT: All right. Let's get to this.
The point is this: If the case is going to trial and the
motion for summary judgment is not granted, obviously there
has got to be considerably more discovery by your people.
How much of this discovery is necessary on the points
raised by the motion for summary judgment? If you have
not had all the discovery you are entitled to on that point
obviously we are not ready to hear the motion for summary
judgment.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Well, I would say, Your
Honor--
THE COURT: And it was my understanding
generally, as Mr. Connolly has spoken, that the Court had
said that the question of privilege was so difficult that
the simplest way was to take the deposition of the
defendant, and I thought that was agreeable to you that we
proceed in that way.
I made certain rulings on privilege during
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
90
21
92
23
94
25
pproved Fliplease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-001.000100110001-1
14
the taking of the deposition of Mr. Raus, and of course all
of those rulings are appealable in so far as they are
against either side. As a practical matter they are
appealable by you in case I should grant the motion for
summary judgment. If?I deny the motion for summary
judgment, why, everything is going to open up again at the
trial.
Now, what matters do you want covered by
interrogatories before we argue the motion for summary
judgment that have not in effect been ruled upon by the
rulings that the Court has made at the deposition of Raus?
If you are entitled to more I want to give it to you and
postpone this hearing on the motion for summary judgment.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Well, the line of questions
we propounded in these interrogatories was foreclosed on
deposition. That is to find out where Raus was working,
how much he was paid, all the relevant matters so that the
Court could make a determination of what his status was,
which I believe none of us know at the present time, and we
are just trying to get at the truth of the matter of what
this man's capacity was. We still do not know that.
THE COURT: Well, you know what the Court
felt the Court could allow you to ask under applicable rule
of privilege. Now, if I am wrong in my understanding of
the rules of privilege and if I grant a summary judgment
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fi"please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
15
based upon such error you will certainly get it reversed
and sent back with clearer instructions of what you are
entitled to know.
If I deny the motion for summary judgment, w
then we go ahead on discovery on the merits.
Now, the motion for summary judgment is based
essentially on privilege. If there is any further
information that you think you might obtain consistent with
the Court's view on privilege as heretofore expressed I wan
you to have it. I want you to have it before I hear the
motion for summary judgment.
MR. RASKAUSKAS:
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Your Honor, if we can enter
into a stipulation that all the questions that we would ask
that we have propounded in these interrogatories pertaining
to Raus' employment, capacity, scope of authority, payment,
and so forth, if we can stipulate that these questions woul
all be objected to on the grounds of privilege and that the
Court would grant that objection we are ready to go forward
THE COURT: I am not going to rule blindfold d.
If you want me to rule on the four hundred questions I will
postpone this case until such time as the Court can consistfint
with its other obligations, other litigants of this court,
consider four hundred separate questions of privilege, and
Would Your Honor indulge us?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
pproved Fleelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
16
if you want me to do that I will postpone this case and do
it, or if you want to put both sides to arguing each one of
these separate four hundred points you can do it in writing
and I will undertake to pass on them at such time as I can
reach them.
MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor, may I assist the
Court at this point? At the hearing on May 13, 1966, that
was following the deposition of Mr. Raus.
MR. STANFORD:
Page?
MR. CONNOLLY: Page 7.
I will be happy to let you see it to read it,
Your Honor, if you want to look at my copy.
THE COURT: I do not seem to have it.
MR. CONNOLLY: May I suggest Your Honor rea
the portions that I have marked on page 7 and 8.
THE COURT: Well, it says, and this is the
Court:
"There are interrogatories which have never
been answered. The interrogatories have not been
answered.
Nr. Stanford: No, we received no answers,
Your Honor.
"The Court: I gather that for the purpose
of this motion for summary judgment they are based
entirely on the point of privilege. You have gone
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved FORelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00111R000100110001-1
17
as far as you can practically go under the Coures
ruling in the deposition of Raus; is that right?
"Mr. Stanford: Your Honor, we do not hold
that the sole consideration here is the Barr vs.
Matteo doctrine. We say that there are genuine
issues of fact which would be outside the purview
of that governmental immunity doctrine.
"The Court: I understand that, but I mean,
you are satisfied to go ahead with the motion for
summary judgment today without pressing further for
answers to interrogatories?
"Mr. Stanford: Yes, Your Honor, we are.
"The Court: All right.
"Mr. Stanford: This does not mean that we
are waiving the answers to those interrogatories.
We think it is improper but we think that the
government has taken a stand whereby they will
respond to the interrogatories. So that they have
in effect--
"The Court: So that in effect it is the sam
point that stops the--
"Mr. Stanford: That stopped the deposition
of Mr. Raus.
"The Court: That stopped the deposition of
Raus, that would stop any interrogatories that would
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
Approved Fs/please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
help you?
"Mr. Stanford: Yes, sir."
18
Well, doesn't that cover it?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Well, that is almost the
same as the stipulation; but the matter is this, Your Honor:
The only way I see of getting out of this situation is that
if the Court would continue its rulings on those objections
subject to the outcome of the summary judgment motion.
In other words, there are pending objections
to interrogatories. They have to be ruled on at some point
in this litigation.
THE COURT: Oh, certainly.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: And I thought Your Honor
wanted to clear those matters up before it ruled on the
summary judgment motion. We have no objection to continuiing
that ruling pending the disposition of the summary judgmen
motion; but we are, as Mr. Stanford said, and as I
reiterate, that we still lodge our same position with
respect to these interrogatories.
THE COURT: Well, I do not believe I ever
read all four hundred of them. I certainly read some of
them, and I am not prepared to say at this point what my
ruling on each one of those separate ones would be except
as has been indicated by my rulings on the deposition of
Raus, and I gather that Mr. Stanford and you both, Mr.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
1:3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fl "lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00*000100110001-1
19
Stanford agreed in May and Mr. Raskauskas agrees now that in
view of the rulings which the Court has heretofore made if
those rulings are applied to the interrogatories that you
would not get any more information than you have now whether
rightly or wrongly.
MR. STANFORD: May I have the Court's
indulgence for a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I think we can
proceed on this matter as it stands. However, I think that
we would like to reserve our objections to the interrogatori4s,
and I think if there was any one or two which we would again
want to assert as affecting the motion, even after it had
been decided, then I think that it would be so minor, and I
cannot conceive of it, but I think it would be such a minor
element or such a small point that it could be readily
decided by the Court even without a hearing, maybe on a one
or two page statement by counsel, I would think that that
would be the best procedural course for us to take.
THE COURT: Well, all right. If you have a
couple like that that would help you if you think you might
get this information I will be glad to rule on them on an
exchange of memoranda before I decide on them.
MR. STANFORD: Well, Your Honor, I do not fee
that that is necessary. I think that if the Court would
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
9
12
1:3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
20
rule in either way and then we had one or two questions--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: Which we think might affect or
alter the ruling of the Court--
THE COURT: I see.
MR. STANFORD: I think the Court could readil
dispose of them in that fashion.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: Without requiring a rehearing
of the whole thing.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: I cannot conceive of that
happening, but if it does I think it could be readily
handled that way.
THE COURT: Well, I think you are probably
right.
Well, then we need not go further with the
interrogatories at the moment.
MR. CONNOLLY: If I may recapture my
transcript, I may need it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: Thank you.
THE COURT: The second point would be the
hearing on the in camera filing. You had better brush me
up on that because I have not read them. I may have read
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Fcl'please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
21
them when they were filed. I read so much in this case.
I certainly glanced at them and have sealed them, and they
have been in my safe.
Now, I am not clear whether the parties agreed
that I should read them in connection with the motion for
summary judgment, whether if I am to read them--am I to
consider them in ruling on the motion for summary judgment?
And I do not see how I can consider them unless they are
made available to counsel for both sides.
Now, counsel for the plaintiff is saying that
they object to having something made available to them that
they cannot discuss with their client. I think that is
generally true. There may be exceptions to it if they are
matters dealing purely with questions of law as to which the
client could have no knowledge and do not involve any facts
of which he could have knowledge or do not involve matters
of which he could be of any help to his counsel, so that I
think that the general rule has possible exceptions.
I have not the remotest idea this falls within
such an exception or not; so perhaps the best thing to do i
to have Mr. Connolly refresh my recollection on what this
paper is that he has given me or why it was given me and
what use, if any, he thinks I should make of it.
MR. CONNOLLY: First of all, I did not give it
to you, Your Honor. The United States Attorney, I think,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ig
19
20
21
23
24
25
pproved Filpelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
gave it to you.
THE COURT:
the Department of Justice. You are perfectly right.
MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor will recall that
again at the May hearing you
22
All right. Yes, it comes fro7
asked for a memorandum brief--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: --on the authority of the
CIA in this matter. Mr. Raskauskas keeps making the point
here that the CIA has no function over internal security
matters, that that field of activity is relegated by
statute solely to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
I do not dispute that with him but that this does not mean
that the CIA has no legitimate activities to perform within
the continental limits to the United States.
Collateral to their duties to protect foreign
intelligence sources they may have to engage in activities
within the continental limits of the United States.
Your Honor suggested a memorandum be filed
and asked that Mr. Houston give you something.
Now, what you have is an affidavit of Mr.
Houston, and that affidavit refers to a National Security
Council directive to the CIA, which is a classified document;
and that is why it was furnished to you in camera, with the
invitation to Mr. Raskauskas and to Mr. Stanford to examine
it.
I have done so. I know what it contains.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
9
4
5
7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Foelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
23
THE COURT: Well, it deals only with a
narrow legal question.
MR. CONNOLLY: That is correct, whether or
not
COURT:
Let me clear this up. It deals
with a legal question raised by plaintiff as to whether the
CIA's functions are so limited that they would not cover
certain activities in the United States. I do not want
to state it in a way that attempts to prejudge it because
I have no opinion one way or the other.
MR. CONNOLLY: It is Mr.
Paragraph 2 of Mr. Houston's affidavit, and I can read this
part.
Houston's affidavi.
THE COURT:
Well, I take it that the
plaintiff agrees that the Court must read the affidavit, the
material supplied in order to make a ruling, in order to make
an intelligent ruling on what should be done with it.
MR. HOUSTON: The second paragraph.
MR. RASKAUSKAS:
Your Honor, I think we cani
dispose of this problem before we get to that consideration.
Admiral Raborn filed a formal claim of privilege in this
He could not have done it with any more dignity
than it has been filed.
The Deputy Director, now
Richard Helms, filed three affidavits.
the Director,
Now, Admiral Raborn
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
24
said, "No more information, privileged."
The Deputy Director, Richard Helms, said, Ne
are giving you everything we can, and this is it," in effect,
in those three affidavits.
Now, we are in the anomalous position where
we have the general counsel of the agency overruling the
Director and the Deputy Director.
THE COURT: Oh, I think that this is a new
point which is raised. They have made certain statements
claiming privilege and have given affidavits claiming
privilege. You then--I do not remember the exact stage--
raised some point, raised the points that the CIA had
nothing to do with internal security, and that this was an
internal security matter, and that therefore it was outside
the scope of the CIA, and therefore outside the scope of
any employee or agent of the CIA.
Now, that point has certainly come into the
case at some stage other than the very first stage. I do
not pretend to remember at what stage that point was raisel
by the plaintiff. It was certainly a point which plaintiff
is entitled to raise, and once raised the defendant and the
Government are entitled to meet it in some way, and the
Court wants to be guided by it.
Now, we have certainly certain matters of
which the Court takes judicial notice. The Court takes
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*)2
23
24
25
Approved Filelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007000100110001-1
25
judicial notice of the statute. The Court takes judicial
notice of certain other matters which are published in the
Code of Federal Regulations and published in the Federal
Register.
The Court cannot tell without guidance what
is in such publications and expects counsel to keep the
Court advised as to what it is, whether by a brief or some-
or
times by affidavits/otherwise.
Now, here we are talking about the function
of the CIA, which is certainly an esoteric subject, and we
have certain statutes, and there are probably certain
reasons why certain regulations which with some other agency
would be published in the Federal Register, probably should
not be published in the Federal Register with respect to
an intelligence agency.
Therefore, it is quite possible that there
are matters which should be considered by the Court in
deciding this matter which are not matters of public record.
Therefore, the Court feels that the Government, which has
asserted a privilege in this case, should be entitled to
make clear its position.
Now, I think you may argue properly that the
Court certainly is sympathetic with your argument that the
Government has proceeded in the matter in an unusual
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
its
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fri"lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
26
fashion in going piecemeal or step by step, only stating
what it believes was sufficient to meet what it felt was a
point raised, and only going further when the Court said
that the statements were not sufficiently clear.
I am not in a position to criticize the head
of the CIA or the head of the National Security Council for
what they think is necessary to protect the interests of the
United States. Those men know much more about it than I
do.
I have my responsibility and they have theirs.
I think that the judiciary branch of the government must be
respectful to the executive branch in recognizing that they
are doing what they think is in the best interests of the
United States, whether it results in a judgment for the
defendant or the plaintiff in this case, is an entirely
different matter.
But I think I must consider--well, I do not
say that I must consider in ruling on it, I must consider
it for the sake of ruling on whether I may consider the
matter which has been submitted. 1 therefore propose to
read it, and then I want to hear from Mr. Houston, I guess
it ought to be from him rather than from Mr. Connolly on
how much of this he is willing to be shown to counsel for
the defendant and under what conditions he is willing. I
mean, counsel for the plaintiff, and under what conditions
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
fi
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved F.elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
27
he is willing that it be shown.
Now, that has to be decided in the light of
the fact that he had shown it to counsel for the defendant,
and I do not know what conditions were imposed upon the
disclosure to counsel for the defendant, and I want to hear,
from Mr. Houston about it.
MR. CONNOLLY: There is a letter I think was
submitted to everyone, was there not?
THE COURT: There is a letter. Yes. Yes,
now, I will read as much as I can so there will be no
question about it. Yes, there is a letter.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, Mr. Kenney's.
THE COURT: Yes, from Mr. Kenney, dated May
31, 1966, addressed to me with a copy to Mr. Connolly, Mr.
Raskauskas and Mr. Houston.
"Dear Judge Thomsen:
"At the hearing on May 13, 1966 in the case of
Eerik Heine vs. Jun i Raus, Civil Action No. 15952,
the Court requested that Mr. Lawrence Houston,
General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency,
submit a statement as to the legal authority of the
CIA to engage in activities within the United States
with respect to foreign intelligence sources.
"In response to that request, Mr. Houston has
prepared an affidavit which incorporates by reference
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?)2
23
24
25
Approved Flpelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
28
two pertinent paragraphs of a document which is
classified 'secret' and which cannot be declassified
for purposes of this case. Because of this, Mr.
Houston has requested the Department of Justice to
submit to the Court under seal for in camera
inspection the identification of the document and
the two pertinent paragraphs, properly certified.
The Court, of course, is authorized to make the
classified excerpts available for inspection, but not
for copying, by counsel now of record for the plaintiff
and the defendant. In addition, any of such counsel
will be granted access upon request to the two
pertinent excerpts at the office of Mr. Houston. Of
course, counsel should not disclose the excerpts thus
made available."
take it that Mr. Connolly has availed
himself of the opportunity and has been preserving the
secrecy.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: --which is covered by the letter.
The question then is whether the plaintiffs
are willing to do so also, are willing to do what Mr.
Connolly has done.
Well, now let me see if I understand it. Mr.
Houston's affidavit purports to summarize these two classified
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fcirlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
29
orders. Are you willing to have your affidavit filed in
court?
MR. HOUSTON: The affidavit but not the
attachments, sir.
THE COURT: The affidavit without the
attachments.
MR. HOUSTON: Is not classified.
THE COURT: --may be filed.
MR. HOUSTON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Then I may now--
shall I read it aloud so that--these people have not seen
it, so that anybody in the courtroom or any of the papers,
make your affidavit public but not the two exilibits; is
that it?
MR. HOUSTON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And what you would feel is, as I
understand it, that the actual directives which are
classified should be examined by the Court simply to see
that your affidavit is an honest summary of it; is that
right or a fair summary of it?
MR. HOUSTON: It does not purport to be a
summary.
THE COURT: Or the effect of it.
MR. HOUSTON: It states the law, the
statute from which the National Security Council directive
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
9
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
01
99
23
24
25
Approved Filpelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.R000100110001-1
is derived.
30
THE COURT: Well, if that is all, it does not
summarize the directive.
MR. HOUSTON: It does not summarize the
directive.
THE COURT: All right. Are you objecting to
the effect of the directive or the substance of the directive
being made public or are you objecting to that, only to the
exact wording of the directive being made public?
For instance, in some cases that I have had
where matters have been sent out by code somewhere, the
Government has been naturally anxious that the exact
language of a particular document not be made public
because if it were made public somebody could crack the
code by using it.
On the other hand, they have not objected to
the substance of a document being made public because a
knowledge of the substance would not enable anybody to crack
the code.
So certainly the Government is entitled to
that much protection in every case, and is your objection
narrowly that or do you object to their being made public
the substance of these two directives?
MR. HOUSTON: Unfortunately I am not
authorized to make available the substance.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
7
8
9
10
fl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
')*2
23
24
25
pproved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
31
THE COURT: But you do not object to your
affidavit being read?
MR- HOUSTON: The affidavit as such without
the attachments.
THE COURT: Well, I will read the affidavit.
That is the quickest way of advancing that far. We have
advanced through the letter. We will now advance through
the affidavit.
"Lawrence R. Houston, General Counsel of the
Central Intelligence Agency, being first duly sworn,
deposes and says that:
"One. This statement is submitted in response
to the Court's request for a memorandum as to the
legal authority of the Central Intelligence Agency to
engage in activities within the United States with
respect to foreign intelligence sources.
"TWo. Section 102 (d) of the National
Security Act of 1947, as amended, provides at
Subsection (4) (550 USC Section 403 (d) (4), that for
'the purpose of co-ordinating the intelligence
activities of the several government departments and
agencies in the interest of national security, it
shall be the duty of the Central Intelligence Agency,
under the direction of the National Security Council
to perform, for the benefit of the existing
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1(3
17
18
19
21
23
24
25
pproved Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
32
intelligence agencies, such additional services of
common concern as the National Security Council
determines can be more efficiently accomplished
censorially.'
"Three. National Security Council action
in implementation of Section 102 of the National
Security Act is set forth in Paragrapf 7 of National
Security Council Directive No. 2, attached to this
affidavit."
So it is really not two directives; it is one
directive with an introductory paragraph.
MR. HOUSTON: Yes.
THE COURT: To the second paragraph. All
right.
Now, that does not tell the plaintiffs any
more than it refers them to this document which are really
just part of one document, one introductory paragraph, and
Paragraph 7, with the certification.
Now, let me see if I get it clear. You say
that this directive, this paragraph of this directive, bears
on the issue which has been raised by the plaintiffs of
the claimed limited nature of the CIA activities, and you
are willing to let counsel for the plaintiff read this but
not copy it.
MR. HOUSTON: Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Fa4!please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
33
1 THE COURT: Upon the understanding that they
4
8
9
12
13
14
15
lti
17
18
19
20
21
')2
23
94
25
will not disclose it to anyone else.
MR. HOUSTON: That is right.
THE COURT: And you are willing to have the
Court read it and you asked the Court to base or to include
this in the material on which the Court will base its
decision on this particular question?
MR. HOUSTON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you request the Court--I
suppose it is an unusually strong request coming from a
co-ordinate branch of the Government, to reseal the material
after it has been shown to counsel for the plaintiff, if
they are willing to look at it on that basis, and after the
Court has made such use of it as the Court deems proper in
deciding the case, to reseal it and to keep it secret until
the case is over or to send it sealed to the Court of
Appeals for in camera examination by the Court of Appeals
upon the same basis as this Court was looking at it; is
that correct?
MR. HOUSTON: That is correct, sir.
THE COURT: That is your understanding?
MR. HOUSTON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
Now, I will be glad to hear from counsel for
the plaintiff as to why the Court should not follow the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
90
91
23
24
25
pproved F.elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
34
course suggested by Mr. Houston.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I think that
possibly we can follow the course in connection with this
document as has been suggested, and agreed upon in connecti
with the interrogatories. That is, I frankly do not think
that the motion for summary judgment is going to turn on
this point.
I think there are many other factors which ar
of much greater import.
For the reasons that have been stated we do
not like to have to make ourselves available for something
which we cannot tell this man.
THE COURT: Well, I understand you do not.
MR. STANFORD: As we have stated.
THE COURT: "This man" being your client.
MR. STANFORD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And I can quite see it and I
agree, I sympathize with your point of view and agree with
it in the ordinary case. I think there may be exceptions,
and I want to know why. Mr. Houston suggests that this is
an exception.
I want to hear from you why you think it is
not an exception.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I would ask that
the Court not take this into consideration unless a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Flpelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
35
decision is rendered unfavorable to the defendant in the
motion for summary judgment, and then the defendant makes
the representation to the Court that a review of that
particular document would alter the course of this case
because if that is not necessary you will never have to
make a decision as to whether or not we wish to see it.
THE COURT: Well, the Court does not like
to make decisions and then change, and then hear somebody
say that if I had considered this that I would rule
differently. Of course, there are a lot of points in thi
case, that summary judgment cannot be granted unless the
Court rules with the Government on all the points in
effect.
MR. CONNOLLY: May I suggest something, You
Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: I think United States vs.
Reynolds was what I think you familiarized yourself with
before, which deals with in camera inspection and
authorizes the Court, and I think judicial experience has
pointed to the fact that in camera inspections are
sometimes used.
A typical example of course is a question
whether or not a party should be entitled to the
production of documents.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4pproved Fo*lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00710000100110001-1
camera first.
36
THE COURT: Yes, Jencks Act material.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes.
THE COURT: Which are routinely examined in
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, having seen this materia
I think that the plaintiff would be satisfied, and indeed
the plaintiff is entitled to know more than this informatio
from his counsel.
Does this interrogatory answer your argument
as to whether or not the CIA has authority in the fields
they claim?
That can be answered to Mr. Heine by Mr.
Raskauskas yes or no after he reads it, and in this limited
field we are dealing with the question of law, and I do
not think that the plaintiff as an individual is entitled
to any more _information.
This is not a complex matter of fact; this is
a matter of law, and I think that if Mr. Raskauskas wants
a satisfactory response from his client, he can say yes or
no in answer to it.
THE COURT: Well, it appears to be,without
having read the material that I have been asked not to read
it appears to me that it is a question of law, that there
is no question of fact involved.
Do you disagree with that? Isn't it going
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
ti

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved F.elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
37
to be a matter of construing this directive upon which Mr.
Houston is relying in part at least?
gather that each side is saying that I
should decide the point in their favor of whether or not
this is considered, but I do not see how the plaintiff--
you might win on your motion for summary judgment without
my ever reaching this point quite obviously because if the
defendant loses on any other essential element of his
motion for summary judgment he is entitled, or the plainti f
is entitled to go ahead with the case, whatever the ruling
on this point would have been.
On the other hand, I cannot decide it, I
cannot decide the case in favor of the Government without
deciding the scope of the agency of the CIA, I suppose, in
favor of the position taken by the Government and the
defendant unless I find that that is a completely ininiateria
point in the case.
Of course, if I find that is an immaterial
point legally, then I could decide it in favor of the
defendant and this whole thing would become immaterial.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Your Honor, there is a very
real problem that we have. Now, I do not say this for the
press; it might be newsworthy. But we have an article
here from a newspaper about a copyrighted article that
Admiral Raborn had in the U. S. News and World Reports
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
pproved Fa&lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
38
several weeks ago. In this article Raborn said:
"Any clandestine activities of the CIA are
by direction of the National Security Council and
must have the prior approval in detail of a
committee of the NSC including top-ranking
representatives of the President, the Secretary of
State, and the Secretary of Defense."
THE COURT: But that is clandestine
activities. There is nothing clandestine about a man
standing up at a meeting and making the statements that are
alleged to have been made here. So far as I can see there
is nothing clandestine about it.
Your complaint is that it was not clandestine
but that it was open and public and damaged your man.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: No, we were clandestine for
a year until we were hit with this affidavit of Richard
Helms. We were suing Juni Raus.
And if I may continue on my point, Your Honor
that is one point, but another point is--
THE COURT: I do not understand what you say
is clandestine that they were doing. This is not the
Agency.
in any way.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: That the Agency was involve
THE COURT: It does not have to publicize
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*)2
23
24
25
pproved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CI P75-0041V000100110001-1
39
everything it is doing. 40,
MR. RASKAUSKAS: We did not say they had to
publicize it.
at all.
THE COURT: --in intelligence services.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I am not arguing that point
I think the more pecrecy the better; but the poin
is that such activities are not authorized in the Act in
Title 50, and our point is this, Your Honor--
THE COURT: What do you mean by "clandestine'?
How is this clandestine? You mean that they are not
entitled, that the CIA is not entitled to determine
whether a man who has contact with the group, with the
Americans who are in contact with people beyond the Iron
Curtain of a particular group are not entitled to make
contact with people in the United States at all, to discuss
matters with them at all?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: We have had no evidence her
that they have had any contact with any foreign group any
place.
THE COURT: Well, is it credible that if the
are trying to find out what is going on, or to forget
Estonia for a moment, if they are trying to find out what
going on in Hungary, that you say they are limited to hirin
spies to operate in Hungary and not talk to somebody in the
United States, a Hungarian refugee, who is getting
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
92
23
24
25 -
pproved Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
40
information from somebody in Hungary by apparent letters
or from a friend apparently innocent but containing a code?
It seems incredible to me to say that the
CIA can't, that they are entitled to hire a spy in Hungary,
and can't have the spy in Hungary write to a person in the
United States, but that the spy in Hungary must write a
letter to the CIA and guarantee his being shot--
MR. RASKAUSKAS: It is incredible to me
that--
THE COURT: --it just does not make sense.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: It is incredible to me that
there is any directive that will be found any place, Your
Honor, that authorizes and directs a man to deliberately
assassinate the character of another man.
THE COURT: Of course, but that is not the
question; that is a different question. The question is,
that is the question we are coming to in this case, and
that is a different question from the one of whether the
CIA is forbidden to do anything at all in the United
States, which just seems to me incredible that they have
no power to do anything in the United States.
I just cannot believe that is the law, and I
certainly would not assume it to be. I assume that their
powers are limited but I assume that they have some powers
to do some things in the United States, certainly to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pproved FoOlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
41
maintain an office and to correlate material which they get
from all over the world, let us say, if nothing else, that
they certainly must do some things in the United States, and
I suppose the correlation of material that they have gotten
from agents throughout the world is not conducted with
route examiners and newspaper reporters present at every
meeting.
If that is clandestine, it is clandestine, but
that is not my understanding of what is meant by the word
"clandestine" in the passage that you just quoted.
Now, I am not passing on it. I have not got
anywhere the point that you are arguing of whether assuming
they have the right to engage in activities in the United
States they have a right to make deliberately false
statements, if you can show this deliberate, or they have a
right to authorize--well, all right, because we get into
this question of the FBI part of it which ties in to that
also.
I mean assuming that there are several steps
it seems to me in this case which have not been as clearly
briefed on either side to me. One of them is, if it was in
the interest of the CIA's general objective to make known to
the Estonian group involved that this man was a spy, assumin
they honestly believed him to be a spy or an agent of the
Russian government, whether they had the right to do it.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
42
That is one question.
The other question is, and if they honestly
believed it, that is the point. The other one is, and I
think part of the privilege is that if they concluded that
this should be done, the defense takes the position that
the man who is given this task has no choice in the matter
but that he must do it.
That point is briefed. The other point is
that where the FBI part comes in which I think becomes a
troublesome question in this case, that I want to hear more
from both the defendant and the Government than I have
heard on that, and that is assuming that Raus had the right
to say this man is an agent of the Russian government, did
he have a right to say, "The FBI has told me this man is
an agent of the Russian government?" When in fact the
FBI had not told him that and what effect the answer to
that might have on whether he has been told to say.
That is, if the FBI had not told him this,
is he privileged to say something that he knows is untrue
in this situation because he has either been--you have got
to assume one of two things here, either that the FBI told
him to say that the FBI had told him that or that the CIA
did not tell him to say that the FBI had told him.
MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
(i
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
')2
23
24
25
Approved please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007*000100110001-1
43
MR. CONNOLLY: The complaint does not charge
what you just said. The complaint charges Mr. Raus with
having said as follows, "That Heine is a communist and
Eerik Heine is a KGB agent."
THE COURT: That is right. I understand
that the complaint does not, but it has come into the case.
There has been a good deal of it, and this FBI business
has come into the case, and to my mind it makes a difficult
problem.
They can always amend their complaint.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: That does not have to be in
there, Your Honor.
MR. CONNOLLY: Well, I think it does in view
of the statute of limitations.
THE COURT: You mean that you are not relyin
upon the narrow point that I am raising? It would not
probably do your man any good perhaps to win on that
because if he wants to be cleared it does not clear him, it
does not clear him simply to say that the defendant gave
the wrong source of information. It certainly does not
clear him. It makes it appear that the defendant told an
untruth.
I hope the newspaper reporters understand
that I am simply talking hypothetically here and not
intimating any opinion whatever on the facts here. I was
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
90
21
92
23
24
25
pproved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
44
discussing possible hypothetical situations which may be
shown by the evidence.
I think that is an element. The thing that
bothers me, he may be privileged to say that, "This man is
a Russian agent," but he may not be privileged to say, "Th
FBI told me that or Mr. So-and-so told me that," if that is
untrue.
I think that gets to be a question which is
a troublesome question, and I would not have much doubt
about it in the ordinary government case. When you get
into the question of intelligence and espionage where the
entire nature of the business is secrecy it may be necessar
to make a false statement in order not to disclose the true
source.
I have an open mind on that question. I
would like to hear from Mr. Houston on that as well as from
the defendant because it raises very, very troublesome
questions of policy, which are policies not only of the
Agency but of judicial policy in how far individuals may go
in following what may be a proper governmental policy
without taking the consequences.
I think it is a troublesome question. Now,
it may be that I am seeing ghosts, that the question is not
sufficiently material to the plaintiff for the plaintiff to
care about it, or it may be that the defendant has some
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
1:3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved FoOlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
45
clear answer to the Court's worries. But I am that much
worried. I want to have the point clarified by both
sides.
Well, the only thing I think I can do is
this, is this, gentlemen: With respect to the point
immediately before me, the hearing on the in camera filing,
the Court now offers to counsel for the plaintiff the
opportunity to examine the directive of the National
Security Council upon the terms Mr. Houston has offered
here.
I cannot say at this time whether I will or
will not after having examined it in camera make any use
of it in the decision. If you wish me to--I think it is
only fair to the plaintiffs to do this, to say that they
would rather, if you wish to delay your examination of
it until the Court has decided other points to the point
that I consider it will be necessary for me to read this
to consider it.
If so, when I reach that point in my
deliberations I will get in touch with counsel for the
plaintiff. I would rather have you do it now for this
reason, that having said that I consider it material it
would rather indicate that I have decided every other
point, it might indicate that I have decided every other
point against the plaintiff, although it is possible that
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
46
the Court might come to the conclusion that some of the
points which would have to be decided might also have some
light thrown on it by this document.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Your Honor, we have to
respectfully decline to look at the secret filing.
THE COURT: At any time?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: At this time.
THE COURT: Do you want me to communicate
to you if I decide that I am going to use this?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, Your Honor. We have
no objection to Your Honor looking at it as long as Your
Honor does not consider it in resolving this case.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I understand
I have got to look at it.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: But in the face of our
objection we cannot permit the defendant to control our
litigation.
THE COURT: It is not the defendant control
this; it is the United States Government. So far as the
defendant is concerned he has no right to do it.
This is the United States Government through
Mr. Houston. The Department of Justice sent it to me,
not the defendant, and I thought I was careful after I
understood clearly that it was the United States Attorney
that sent it to me to ask Mr. Houston to state the positio
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
Approved Fo"please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
of the Government and not of Mr. Connolly.
All I asked of Mr. Connolly was whether he
took advantage of the same conditions that were offered to
you, and he says he did. He took advantage of looking at
it upon the same conditions that are offered to you.
Now, they are offered to you, and you may
take advantage of it or not, to take advantage of it, if
you want.
47
But when I get in to deciding this case I am
very laoth to reach this point and then have to send for
you and let you come read it and let you file a brief or
write a memorandum and make another argument and break up
the continuity of my decision on the case.
I think I must in all fairness call on you
to make your decision one way or the other now and not
postpone it. The idea that it could be done in two bites
is probably not a good one.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: We decline to read the secr
filing at any time and respectfully submit to the Court
that the Court should not consider it in the resolution of
this motion, and as grounds for the same that we have no
opportunity to look at the surrounding directives. We
have no opportunity to cross-examine anyone about these
directives, how they are promulgated, how they are applied.
We were fortunate in getting a little
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fol please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007700100110001-1
48
information from a copyright article that Admiral Raborn
put out that any action must have prior approval in
detail.
THE COURT: It does not say any action; it
says any clandestine action, it must have approval in
detail, and it is not clear to me that exposing--again, I
am not deciding anything--that exposing a Russian agent to
people, assuming a man is a Russian agent, exposing him to
a group of people to whom and to whose friends he might be
more poisonous, or might be no more dangerous, that that is
clandestine. Exposing someone does not fit my idea of
what is clandestine.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I think I would like to
know too, Your Honor, and we would like to find out from
Mr. Houston if there has been a review of this classificati
My honest opinion--
THE COURT: Of what classification?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Of this secret classificati n
on this directive. My honest opinion is that it is over-
classified; there is probably nothing secret in there.
THE COURT: Well, I have not read it.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: It is an innocuous
paragraph used as a stratagem to control the conduct of our
litigation and to seal our lips.
THE COURT: It is not making it secret from
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Folllease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
49
you, and there has been no indication from anything said
that your not telling your client about it could -
possibly hurt his case.
If the Court finds that it could the Court
will take that into consideration in whether the Court
should use it or not, of course. But that is one of the
elements, a purely legal question, and I am at a loss at
this time to see how showing it to counsel in secrecy
could hurt the client's case.
If there are facts involved which your clien
might know or if there are some other matters which should
be explored further the Court would be glad to hear from
you about them; but your decision, which the Court does
not criticize in any way, puts it beyond your power to
assist the Court in determining what further follow-up
you would be entitled to.
I think that must be on the record, that the
Court would be happy to have the benefit of your advice on
what further follow-up would be proper, and if you wish to
change your opinion on whether you will look at it the
Court will be glad to know.
I do not think you should decide it off the
cuff sitting here. Why don't you take a week to think it
over and talk to your client about it and let me know in a
week whether you want to look at it under the conditions
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Folease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077S.00100110001-1
suggested by Mr. Houston with the possibility of--
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes.
50
THE COURT: Of a follow-up..
MR. RASKAUSKAS: We would like to invite the
attention of the Court to the fact that this position of
ours about the lack of authority by the Agency, there is no
novelty in that position. That came in our very first
_
pleading. Several pages are devoted to it. And there
was never any response until a little information was
extracted at the last hearing.
THE COURT: That is right. The difficulty
with this case is that it is not an ordinary case between
two people; but it is a case between two people in which
the United States and all of the people in the United
States have an interest.
That does not necessarily mean that all the
interest is all on the defendant's side. The people have
interests on the plaintiff's side as well; but the Court
must recognize that there are public interests, and when
I say "public interests" I do not mean the interest of a
bureaucrat or a group of bureaucrats but the interests of
all the people of the United States are on both sides of
this case, and the Court has to attempt to do its best to
work out the difficult problems in this case with those
interests of the people involved.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
-
4
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
51
Of course, the interests sometimes conflict.
There are conflicting interests. There are very few
absolutes in this world and very few absolutes in this
government. The public is interested that the CIA
behaves itself on one thing and that its agents behave
themselves, to put it in the bluntest way, on your side.
The people of the United States are also
interested in seeing that the legitimate intelligence
activities of the United States, which must be conducted
through individuals, are not hampered by a too strick
application of legal principles including the principles
of libel and slander.
Now, I do not pretend to think that any of
these answers are easy, but I have got to do it in both
ways, and I should be happy to have the help of counsel
for the plaintiff, counsel for the defendant, and counsel
for the Government in assisting me in working out these
various problems.
So for that reason I want to give you
another week to finally decide after talking to your client
whether you do want to read this under the conditions
specified.
All right. Now we can move on to the next
point because I guess I can promise that I will not decide
this case within the next week. It is going to take some
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
7
8
9
12
1:3
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
*)2
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
study.
52
The next item is, I suppose, the motion to
strike the order allowing the amendment because the amende
answer is part of what is before me on the motion for
summary judgment.
Do you wish to be heard further on that?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Your Honor, on our motion
to amend, we will submit it on the brief, the argument.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
I am ruling on that so promptly because I
gave it full consideration.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes.
THE COURT: --before, and if there is
nothing new to be added I adhereto my previous ruling.
That brings us to the main purpose, the
motion for summary judgment, and I will be glad to hear
from counsel for the defendant.
MR. CONNOLLY: I would have thought that
Your Honor had listened to me on this subject enough, and
perhaps Your Honor has; so I will try to be brief.
THE COURT: I will be happy if you and Mr.
Houston will let me have your views on this narrow
question I mentioned of his statement that he was told by
the FBI because it may be--am I seeing a ghost or not?
MR. CONNOLLY: I think you are, Your Honor.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
53
THE COURT: Or raising a ghost? If I am,
why is it a ghost?
MR. CONNOLLY: I think there are several
answers, and I think you have quickly put your hand on one
of them.
I think there is no difference, and I think no
jury could find that there is a difference in Mr.--in the
harm that would have been done to the plaintiff if Mr. Rau
said, "Eerik Heine is a KGB agent and I have been so
informed by the Central Intelligence Agency," as opposed
saying, "Eerik Heine is a KGB agent, and I have been so
informed by the FBI," unless in some way--and I do not see
how any jury can find this as a material difference, would V/
think that if it came from the FBI it would be more credib
than if it came from the CIA.
THE COURT: I certainly do not have to pass
on that, I hope.
MR. CONNOLLY: I certainly would not think
so either, and I do not see how a jury could pass on it;
so I say it is damnum absque injuria to say that he was
liabled by being called a KGB agent on information
supplied by the FBI when in fact he was called a KGB agent
where information came from the CIA.
I think Your Honor very quickly laid that
point to rest.
Moreover, this case is really built on the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
pproved For. lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.00100110001-1
54
complaint. Now, the complaint, and this is what brought
us here, and this is what we filed our motion to and what
it was directed to, the complaint does not charge that the
libel consists in being called a KGB agent and a communist
by the FBI. It consists in the charge that was made by
Mr. Raus and contained in Paragraph 5 of the complaint,
the simple fact that Mr. Raus called him a communist and
a KGB agent.
THE COURT: Well, that is right.
MR. CONNOLLY: Now, if, I say, if they wish
to make the libel consist of Raus having said that, "He is
a KGB agent, and I have been told so by the FBI," then I
suggest that they file a motion to amend the complaint,
and I may wish to oppose it on the ground that that
complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, and I
may wish to deal with it in other respects.
I have not put anything in this record to
deal with the facts, if it is one, that he was called a
KGB agent on information supplied by the FBI because I
have considered it immaterial; it is not in the complaint,
and I have not heard that the plaintiff makes a point of
it.
I think Your Honor seized upon it, and I do
not think that the plaintiff is saying that that is the
substance of his libel. If it is, I would like to find
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Fo.lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
out.
55
THE COURT: Well, now, for the purposes of
this motion for summary judgment I have to assume that the
charge is not true. That does not mean that it is false
in the sense that it was a fraud that is maliciously made
or anything like that, but for the purposes of summary
judgment when you do not undertake to submit any affidavit
saying it is true I have to assume that the charge is--
MR. CONNOLLY: The charge is false.
THE COURT: The charge that he is an agent
was false.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I have to assume that for the
purposes of this motion because if your right to win
depends upon whether the charge is true or false you cannot
win on your privilege.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes.
THE COURT: Because I have to assume that at
least that it is open and therefore that it may be true,
and I think probably I have to assume that it is true, that
it is either a mistake or deliberate.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes. That is correct. Tha
is the posture of the case.
THE COURT: Now, assuming that it is true,
assuming it is true, then he has no real grounds of
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fol. lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.00100110001-1
56
complaint. Assuming that the charge is false that plaintii f
is an agent, he obviously wants to clear himself.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, that is where the FBI part
comes in to me. If he is told this, if he is innocent and
he says that the FBI has said this, and he gets in touch
with the FBI and the FBI says, Ne never said any such
thing," that is one thing.
If he is not, where does that leave the
situation?
MR. CONNOLLY: I think Your Honor departs
here, if I may comment on that.
THE COURT: Well, I have got to look at it
from his point of view.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes.
THE COURT: I have got to look at it from
the point of view of the people in the United States who
may be erroneously--I am not talking now about deliberate
falsehood because I can see no possible reason why the CIA
would authorize somebody to make a deliberate falsehood if
they did not believe it to be true. I cannot see any
reason why they should.
I suppose I have to conceive of the possibili
but I cannot see any sensible reasons for it, but they can
be mistaken. Everybody has been mistaken sometime.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
y,
1
3
4
5
T
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
')2
23
24
25
Approved Foelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
57
Every agency has been mistaken sometime, but what interest
do the people of the United States have in seeing or being
protected against such mistakes because they are intereste
in the career of innocent people as well as we are in the
protection of the--
MR. CONNOLLY: May I address myself to thes
matters, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: I think Your Honor departs
from the issues, if I may say so respectfully, which are
properly before you. I think Your Honor has no proper
concern for protecting the people of the United States in
a libel action from untoward activities on the part of a
federal agent.
I say, sir, respectfully, and let me point
out to you a complete answer to it: We have in this
country a Federal Tort Claims Act in which the Congress of
the United States has made a policy determination that
permits people to recover damages from the wrongful acts
of government employees or goverumental agencies. Congre s
has specifically excluded from the ambit of the Federal To t
Claims Act suits for libel and slander.
So the Congress of the United States has mad
a policy decision that an agency of the United States, or
indeed the United States itself, shall not be liable in
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foripease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00771,00100110001-1
58
damages for tort for libel and slander.
Now, Your Honor may disagree with that, and
indeed I may disagree with it; but unfortunately that is an
area of policy that is not of our concern.
THE COURT: It is an expressed exclusion
from the Federal Tort Claims Act?
MR. CONNOLLY: That is correct, Your Honor.
Now, the next question is, should Jun i Raus,
the defendant in this case, respond in damages for having
made a false, defamatory statement, not just false, but a
defamatory statement?
Just making a false statement does not
subject one to damages for libel and slander unless it
defames the person, and unless it defames him in a way that
a correct statement would not have done.
I think Your Honor got a bit off the track
when you said that Mr. Heine has a right to clear himself.
Certainly he has a right to clear himself, and there are
many, many avenues of approach; but the only proper concern
for this Court, if I may say, sir, respectfully, is to
consider it in the terms of a judicial hearing, in terms of
a cause of action stated and proven in accordance with the
rules of procedure and with traditional concepts and not
some broad forum by which a man can quote clear himself
end quote.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
93
24
25
Approved "Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
59
THE COURT: Well, your point, as I understa
it, is that the defamatory statement is that he is an
agent of the--
MR. STANFORD: A KGB agent, yes.
THE COURT: A KGB agent, and that the
defamatory statement is not that the FBI said it or somebo
else said it, but the defamatory statement is that he is
the agent, and the rest is simply evidence.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, and indeed that is the
way their own papers have framed it.
THE COURT: Yes, that is the way they have
framed it.
MR. CONNOLLY: And that is the way we have
responded in our own papers.
Now, I make no defense at this time, because
this is a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, no
defense on the grounds of proof. Roughly speaking, we say
that suits for libel and slander have two areas of defense.
One is truth, and the other is privilege.
Now, at this time, in this proceeding, we are
not defending on truth. We are saying that Jun i Raus was
privileged, and the privilege which we have asserted is an
absolute privilege, a privilege which we say finds its
origin in the law, and its most recent expression in the
law is in Barr vs. Matteo and Howard vs. Lyons, namely, tha
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
l;
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fipelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
60
if a governmental employee commits a tort in this case,
and as was true in those cases, the tort of slander, while
he is acting in the scope and course of his employment he
is absolutely privileged.
Now, one can debate the merits of that, as
indeed I have with many of my friends, and probably Your
Honor has too over an evening cocktail, and we can indeed
debate the wisdom of giving an absolute privilege to a
governmental employee acting in the scope and course of
his duties.
Perhaps on a philosopher's platform I may
take a different view from what I take here; but my job
here is to speak with force and conviction, if I can, on
behalf of my client and to advance such defenses for his
benefit as the law not only allows but indeed encourages,
and the Supreme Court in Barr vs. Matteo and Howard vs.
Lyons dealt with this very difficult problem which Your
Honor so carefully articulated a few moments ago.
Indeed, it is a difficult problem to conside
whether to balance the rights of an individual to
exoneration or damages in a lawsuit for an admittedly
wrongful act perpetrated against him, to balance those
against the interests of the United States in having the
functions of its officers carried out in accordance with
directives, and balancing those two admittedly conflicting
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
Approved Fe411please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
61
viewpoints, as the Supreme Court in Barr vs. Matteo and
Howard vs. Lyons says that the greater interest is in the
side of permitting the United States and its officers to
execute its policies and procedures and programs
unencumbered by the threat of a lawsuit.
Now, as I say, democrats and republicans,
liberals and conservatives, political philosophers and
political science phiposophers can debate that, and indeed
it may be debated again; but I think in view of those two
Supreme Court cases Your Honor should feel compelled to
follow the Barr vs. Matteo and Howard vs. Lyons doctrine.
If you do then the only point of inquiry in
this whole case is whether the record establishes that
Juni Raus when he spoke of Eerik Heine in a defamatory
fashion was acting in the scope and course of his employment
on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Now, when we come to consider this question--
THE COURT: And whether it was within the
scope of the business of the Agency.
MR. CONNOLLY: I was going to say that.
THE COURT: To be within the scope it must
be within the scope of his duty and within the agencies.
There must be some limit to which--well, the Postmaster
General or somebody in the Post Office Department could
talk about military affairs or vice versa.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
(i
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fillpelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
62
MR. CONNOLLY: And when we come to consider,
however, the scope of the Agency we must remember the
language which the Supreme Court used in Barr vs. Matteo
and Howard vs. Lyons.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: The question is whether it is
within the outer perimeter.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: Now, Mr. Raskauskas--
THE COURT: The outer perimeter, dealing
with the Agency or the individual?
MR. CONNOLLY: Correct.
THE COURT: Or both? Which?
MR. CONNOLLY: Both.
THE COURT: The outer perimeter would apply,
you think, both to the individual and--
MR. CONNOLLY: I think they are synonymous,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, of course, the individual-
MR. CONNOLLY: An individual has to act
within the scope of his authority, and the scope of his
authority must be bound by the statutes and constitution of
the United States, and if it is beyond that_ or beYond the
outer perimeter of that authority, then it is unilateral
action, individual action and not governmental action.
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
9
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Follplease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
63
think they are coincident.
THE COURT: Well, I am not so sure. A
charwoman is employed, say, by the Department of Justice,
but there are certain things that she might say that would
not be entitled to privilege because of her job.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes.
THE COURT:
And there are certain things
which are--perhaps it is an unfortunate choice because it
gets into all the others but there are certain things
that the military does that have nothing to do with some
of the other departments. There are certain things some
of the other departments have to do that have nothing to
do with the military or with each other. It seems to me
that you must have the scope
of the agency authority and
whether the scope of the individual's authority within the
Agency are two separate points.
MR. CONNOLLY: In this case I do not think
you have that problem.
THE COURT: It seems to me that both must
be met unless you have some authority to the contrary.
MR. CONNOLLY: No, I do not think we need
to concern ourselves with that because in this case throug
the affidavits of Mr. Helms, and indeed through the testim ny
of Juni Raus himself, it appears that he was acting under
orders, and he was acting on a job that was committed to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Firlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
64
him by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Now, there is no dispute in this record of
those facts, and Mr. Raskauskas takes the point, "Well,
discovery rights were curtailed because although I do not
have any other sources to prove that he was not, I have not
of
.been.able to explore those statements/Mr. Helms and Mr.
Raus as deeply as I might."
Well, I suggest to Mr. Raskauskas and to Your
Honor that he has had all the rights which the law allows
him. His right to take a deposition is to be found, and
indeed his right to engage in discovery through interrogat rieE
is governed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Rule 26 provides that depositions may be tak
and Rule 33 provided that interrogatories may be
asked on matters as to which inquiry may be properly made
in accordance with Rule 26 (b), and what does Rule 26 (b)
provide?
It says:
"The deponent may be examined regarding any
matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action."
Now, obviously I did not mean to read that.
Every lawyer knows that his right of discovery is limited
to investigate nonprivileged matters. So that if Mr.
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5 ?
6
9
10
11
12
13,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
?
65
Raskauskas cannot obtain certain information because it
falls within a recognized form of privilege, then that is
too bad.
For example, we can use a homely example:
Mr. Raus had taken the Fifth Amendment and a claim of
privilege against self-incrimination, Mr. Raskauskas
obviously could not be heard to complain that he did not
get a fuller deposition.
The claim of any privilege, whether privileg
against self-incrimination, the privilege to protect
governmental secrets, the husband and wife privilege, the
penitent-confessor privilege, that involving lawyer and
client, or patient and physician always forecloses some
sort of inquiry and always prejudices the person against
whom the privilege is raised; and that person always can s y,
"But for this claim of privilege I would have the opportun ty
to prove the truth."
But there again the law of ancient times has
made the decision and has balanced the interests and of
the public at large to protect these kinds of relationship
and has denied inquiry.
So Mr. Raskauskas on behalf of the plaintiff
cannot legally complain. He can make a claim in the
public press or on a public platform, but he cannot legall
complain that he has not had all the discovery which the
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
')2
23
24
25
pproved"lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
66
law allows him.
Now, that being so, if we have clear record
evidence that is not disputed, and I will even go so far
as to say not capable of being disputed, that Juni Raus at
the time he spoke of Eerik Heine was acting in the scope
course of his employment of the CIA we have only the
remaining question, which I think Your Honor put your
finger on at the last hearing, does the CIA have the
statutory authority to send an agent into a.a.emigree unit
with information to communicate to that anigree counnunity
the fact that a person they suspect of being a KGB agent
is a KGB agent?
I think that this, as Your Honor so well
articulated a few moments ago, this is a legitimate,
obviously a legitimate function of the Central Intelligenc
Agency.
and
An enigree community in the United States,
such as the Estonian emigree community, may very well be
a source of foreign intelligence information.
The statute organizing the Central Intelligence
Agency, Title 50, Section 403 (d) (4) specifically provide
that the Central Intelligence Agency has the right to
protect foreign intelligence information sources.
Obviously, one of the ways of protecting a
foreign intelligence source is to keep that foreign
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fol, lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
67
intelligence source being, as in this case, an Estonian
emigre unit, to keep jt from being infiltrated by an
enemy agent.
THE COURT: This right to protect foreign
intelligence agency sources, is that referred to in your
brief?
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, it is also the statutory
language.
THE COURT: I say, you said it is the
statute. The statutory language is in your brief?
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, sir. That is correct,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CONNOLLY: Now, we go one step further,
and I think Your Honor will see that there is even more
expressive authority to be found in the filing which was
submitted, and which Your Honor will consider in camera,
about which I think it would not be proper for me to
comment; but I suggest to Your Honor, as I say in my brief,
it has already been filed publicly. I think that gives
the complete answer indeed to the question of whether the
CIA has had the direct statutory authority referred to.
That being so, as I say, philosophers may
well differ as to the wisdom of this; but if Your Honor is
to follow adjudicated cases, to follow the principles of law
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Flease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
68
already laid down, i think Your Honor has no recourse but
to grant summary judgment in this case.
THE COURT: Let's take a five minute recess.
(Thereupon, there was a short recess taken,
after which the following occurred:)
MR. STANFORD: May it please the Court, the
case of Barr vs. Matteo, and continued, and in fact quoted
in the preceding case of Gregoire vs. Biddle, which set
forth the privilege enjoyed by governmental officers of
high rank. The Barr vs. Matteo and Howard-Lyons decisions
extended this same privilege, which has been spoken of by
the defendant, to officers of lesser rank.
It did not however in any of the decisions
of the Supreme Court, or either of the decisions, Howard
vs. Lyons or Barr vs. Matteo, say that this was extended
to all persons who were government employees; nor certainly
to any persone who were connected remotely or by some
tenuous cord to the government, or in particular, the CIA.
So we must examine with great care as to
whether the defendant in this case fits the prescription
of Barr vs. Matteo in its modification of the privilege
set forth in Gregoire vs. Biddle.
Now, the principal reliance of the defendant
is upon the affidavit of Richard Helms, the three affidavits,
each one stating that it could give no further information,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
69
and each succeeding one giving further information, quite
like Agent 86-1 think there is a program Maxwell Smart,
which makes some preposterous statements, and there after
modifies this somewhat down and says, "Would you believe?
Would you believe that he was a government employee based
upon this statement," and when that is not sufficient for
the Court it is expanded and additional information is
given.
These very statements and affidavits contain
a denial that further information can be given. We have
four of them now.
We have three which were made by the then
Deputy Director, presently the Director, Richard Helms,
and the fourth by Admiral Raborn when he was the Director.
Each one of these affidavits has circumscribe
itself, and a further limiting of testimony has been
brought out on the stand during Raus' deposition.
THE COURT: What do you mean? There has
been--
MR. STANFORD: There has been an exercise
of the governmental--
THE COURT: Objection.
MR. STANFORD: Objection on the grounds of--
THE COURT: You said a further restriction.
mean it was not restricted below, below what the Court
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fc.elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007000100110001-1
70
had--the Court has been trying to open up as far as it
can.
MR. STANFORD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: --can be done.
MR. STANFORD: Just as a further illustratio
during Raus' deposition that the Government in the exercise
of its powers not to disclose a secret or security
information would permit and allow no further information
concerning the employment, if there was such of Jun i Raus.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: Now, we are dealing here with
Rule 56, which is a motion for summary judgment, which in
essence a micro-trial, a small epitomization, if you might
call it that, of the full trial, and more cannot be achieve
during a motion for summary judgment than could be obtaine
in a full trial of the case.
It merely shortens the time and eliminates
the expense and trouble to the Court and the parties
going through a full trial.
But let us imagine an extension of this case
to a full trial and see where the affidavits and the
statements under oath of Richard Helms and Admiral Raborn
would inure to the benefit or detriment of the defendant.
Let us put Richard Help_pn he stand on
_ ----___
? -
behalf of the defendant and have him state exactly what he
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
92
23
24
25
Approved Fc4Iplease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
71
has stated in those three affidavits, and at the conclusion
of those statements, which would be for the purposes of
this motion identical to his affidavits, he would then be
turned over for cross-examination as any witness who
appears in a case is turned over for cross-examination.
And when counsel for the plaintiff begins to
cross-examine and asks for the basis of these statements,
many of which we claim to be conclusory anyway and not
merely fact statements, but goes in further--
THE COURT: Which ones? Which ones are not
facts?
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I will point them
out if I could.
THE COURT: All right. I will not interrup
you.
MR. STANFORD: Well, the fact, the statement
that he was within the course of his employment is certainl
a conclusion which is the Court's and not the affiant's,
because that is an ultimate fact which is to be determined
by the Court, and that certainly is a conclusion which has
been reiterated through all these affidavits, and not a
fact or a statement which could be produced from the
witness stand as credible factual evidence upon which the
Court would make a decision.
So let's get back to the witness stand where
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
(i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
72
we have Richard Helms who is making a statement of exactly
what he said in those three affidavits; and then we have
counsel for the plaintiff beginning to cross-examine, not
too dissimilar to the cross-examination or examination of
Jun i Raus at the time of his deposition.
And he asks Mr. Helms, well, about his
employment, was he signed up as an employee and put in a
regular pay grade?
And Mr. Helms or Mr. Houston or Mr. Mar oney
or Mr. Kenney, or whoever is concerned, says, "That cannot
be answered," and Mr. Helms in following his own directive
or that of the Justice Department, refuses to answer or
does not answer, then we are in a position of having all
of his testimony subject to being stricken because you
cannot have the statements of the individual from the
witness stand which cannot be cross-examined.
THE COURT: Well, except possibly on
questions of privilege.
MR. STANFORD: Well, if he has made a
statement from the witness stand, and then there is an
attempt to cross-examine on that question, and the
individual cannot answer that question, then the entire
testimony which is not subject to cross-examination must
be stricken because no testimony can go on the stand and
stand to be considered by the jury unless it is to be
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
Approved Flip lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
73
cross-examined on.
THE COURT: Well, wouldn't that have
changed it in Barr vs. Matto according to your thought?
They claimed privilege there. There is not any question
that you are stating a general rule.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, maybe I did not
make it clear.
THE COURT: The privilege cases seem to be
an exception to it.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, maybe I am
talking about two different things, or maybe the Court
misunderstands me.
I am not talking about the privilege of a
governmental officer to be inulaune from suit if he makes a
slanderous or libelous statement in the scope and course
of his duties. I am talking about the interposition of
the Government's refusal to allow this man to make any
further statements.
THE COURT: Well, of course, there are two
different kinds of privilege which do make for trouble.
was taking the decision by the Government that it would be
contrary to the interests of the United States to disclose
more than certain amounts of fact as being an executive
privilege. It is a different privilege, of course, from
the one we were talking about.
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
?
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
Colgate ad.
74
MR. STANFORD: Yes, they throw up a wall.
THE COURT: A wall.
MR. STANFORD: A glass wall like the old
THE COURT: If we could find some other
word for it other than privilege, but when the Government
says, "We can only in the interest of security disclose
certain matters and not others," you have an exception, do
you not, to this principle that you have here? Is it not
the exception that allows Barr vs. Matteo?
MR. STANFORD: No, Your Honor, I do not
think it is. Maybe I could illustrate it from a different
standpoint.
A number of years ago--I think this is
somewhat related to an Agatha Christie mystery, the "Ten
Little Indians"--but I will enlarge that a little bit and
see if we can bring it down to a stand which might allow
us to reach some reality.
Suppose you had ten persons on an island and
they were up in a secluded part of the country off the shor
and there is no way to reach the island except by one
particular boat, and during the night these ten men are
there one of them was murdered.
So the other nine learned of this or became
aware of it, all of them became aware of it, and they calle
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
(i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
75
the authorities on shore, and the authorities came over
with say, six jurors or venirmen, or twelve for that
matter, and defense and prosecution, and a chief of police,
and suppose they came over and arrested one person.
Or, let us bring a clergyman over. Let us
say they brought a priest over on this island, and let us
pretend that all these people over there, the other nine,
are all Catholics, and they get over to the island, and
the chief of police decides that one person has a motive,
a very strong motive, and therefore accuses him, and they
begin in this particular jurisdiction to have a trial
immediately.
But just before they do the other eight
people who are there suddenly get the urge to go to
confession, and they all do. They go to confession to
the priest, and the defense attorney, and the man who is
accused, talks to the priest, and puts him on the stand,
and in defense of this ?case tries to put over the testimony
from the priest, that the defendant, the person who is
accused, did not commit the crime.
Then the prosecutor cross-examines him on
that and says, "How do you know that? Did one of these
other people confess to you that he had committed the
crime and killed this man?"
THE COURT: But he would not be allowed to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Foie lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
76
testify anyhow on your theory. He would not know, he
would not have any direct knowledge of the facts.
MR. STANFORD: Well, he might have some
statement, he might have some knowledge which is gleaned
from him; but that statement of the priest is not too
dissimilar--and, as a matter of fact, I think it is
identical, to the statements, the very limited statements
in the affidavit of Helms and Raborn because they are a
few fragmentary statements which may or may not sustain
their point--and we feel that they certainly do not
because they never once say that the man was an employee
of the CIA.
They say he was employed, which is synonymou
with "used"; but they never say that he was an employee of
the Agency.
THE COURT: Well, all right. I think that
you probably have your point in this case that he was not
an employee of the Agency but was an ,agent of the Agency.
. _
MR. STANFORD: That is correct.
THE COURT: Because he was on the payroll
of--they have been unwilling to say that he was on the
payroll of the Agency, that it was the Bureau of Public
Works, I think, and we have all gotten the idea that the
employees of the Bureau of Public Works are used by the
Agency and almost may be in effect employees of the Agency.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Foelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
But they are not claiming that he was on
77
their payroll; they are not claiming that he was a regular
full-time employee of theirs, or substantially full-time.
They say he was employed by them to do it,
"
which is language consistent with his being an employee or
an agent, and I suppose you are entitled to have the
interpretation of that affidavit most favorably to you,
which would mean that he might be an agent or acting in
the nature of an independent--well, an agent rather than a
employee subject to control in every detail of his work.
I mean, you might get that far.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, we feel that ther
has been so much said that it is classically begging the
question that we presume that there is some connection.
However, all of the statements--
THE COURT: It is not a question; they have
said there was a connection, and you are entitled to have
it, and whether he is to be called an employee or an agent,
the master and servant relationship, and so on.
MR. STANFORD: Well, then it seems that it
brings into clear focus the fact that Barr vs. Matteo does
not exempt people who are independent agents anymore than
they would exempt Mr. Connolly as an attorney.
THE COURT: Well, it is only talking about
officers. One of your points is that he is a subordinate
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
(i
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
78
agent or a subordinate employee.
MR. STANFORD: That is correct, Your Honor.
He certainly is not an officer; he is certainly not even a
employee.
THE COURT: An employee.
MR. STANFORD: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But that makes it the CIA, and
I am certainly going to have to rule that he is an employe
of the United States.
That is what he is. He is an
employee of the United States, and if in the operations o
an intelligence agency somebody is kept on the payroll of
a different agency does not prevent his being an employee
of the United States and does not prevent his acting on
behalf of the United States in making these answers.
MR. STANFORD: We are not raising a great
point about the fact that this is done regularly, Your
Honor. It may well be--
THE COURT: You mean what?
MR. STANFORD: That he may have a connectio
in some way.
THE COURT: Obviously.
MR. STANFORD: That is right.
The point is, for the purposes of this
motion any statements which happen be:7777i::
or Raus himself are not subject to cross-examinatio
Raborn
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
79
Now, this governmental privilege not to have
information disclosed acts as a wall; it does not take
sides.
THE COURT: That is correct.
MR. STANFORD: It does not say because of
this one party will suffer or the other party will suffer;
it just says, "That information will not be disclosed."
Now, what is the result of that? All
throughout this case it has been, "Well, that is just too
bad for the plaintiff."
But unfortunately for the defendant it shoul
be and it is too bad for him because he cannot get credibl
testimony, testimony which would be good in court, to have
Richard Helms get up on this stand and say, as he said in
his affidavit, and if I may read from it, which is from
Paragraph 8 of his second affidavit:
"On those occasions specified in Paragraph 5
6, and 7, of the complaint, defendant was furnished
information concerning the plaintiff by the Central
Intelligence Agency and was instructed to
disseminate such information to the Legion so as to
protect the integrity of the Agency's foreign
intelligence sources."
That is probably the one area which the
defendant would take himself into, and that is a statement
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
80
of fact, but there there is, if that statement is not
subject to cross-examination, and you ask Richard Helms
when he is on the stand, "Who instructed him? Did this
man who instructed him, was he a member of the CIA? Did
he have the power to do this?" Not that we are inquiring
into something.
THE COURT: Well, the point is clear. You
made that point then, and did not the Court say that that
language was not sufficiently clear, and wasn't it clarifi d
in a subsequent affidavit?
MR. STANFORD: It has never been clarified,
Your Honor, to the extent that regardless of whether there
has been any so-called clarification.
THE COURT: Well, wasn't it made more
specific?
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I really do not
want to get to that point because I think that is an
entirely different argument that we have, which I think is
a valid one; but the point I am making is that no matter
what is said, no matter how clear these statements are, if
these statements had the name, rank, and serial number of
the person who instructed him and tell exactly when, where,
,
and the exact words used,, if it was far clearer than they
put down in the four affidavits, and the man got up on
the stand and made those extremely clear statements, no
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fc. please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
81
matter how clear they were, and then they were submitted
for cross-examination and no cross-examination can flow
from it, all of those statements must fall.
THE COURT:
Well, I do not know that that
is true when you have this wall that you speak of. The
Government has some powers.
It would be true in the ordinary case, but
I read these cases there is some exception allowed in case
where the Government for the interest of all of the people
is given a certain privilege, and is given the right to
require a man not to answer.
If Raus answered these he would be subject
to imprisonment, would he not? There are penalties which
might run not only to this charge but to imprisonment.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I am not going
argue that point; I am in full accord with that, and I
think that should be true.
That is the point I am making is not the fac
that the Government should be allowed to interject and
throw this wall down. I think they should be allowed to
do it.
THE COURT: Well, but you have been arguing,
and it seems to me you have been knocking down a straw
man, and I think you knocked down back early in April, and
that then the Government supplied a third affidavit, or
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
82
the affidavit of April 25, 1966, which answers, which is
not as vague as the one that you had.
Now, they still would not apparently agree to
go further than that on cross-examination; but it does not
leave it vague. The affidavit on April 25, 1966, which is
perfectly specific, that: IV),,
"Prior to those occasions specified in
Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of .the complaint in this
action, the defendant, in a series of conferences,
was furnished information by the Central Intelligenc
Agency to the effect that Eerik Heine was a
dispatched Soviet intelligence operative, a KGB
agent. The defendant was instructed to warn
members of Estonian emigre groups that Eerik Heine
was a dispatched Soviet intelligence operative, a
KGB agent. The purpose for this instruction was to
protect the integrity of the Agent's foreign
intelligence sources, existing within or developed
in
through such groups, /accordance with the Agency's
statutory responsibility to collect foreign
intelligence and the statutory responsibility of
the Director of Central Intelligence to protect
foreign intelligence sources and methods.
Accordingly, when Juni Raus spoke concerning the
plaintiff on the occasions about which complaint is
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Fo.lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00740000100110001-1
83
made, he was acting within the scope and course
of his employment with the Agency on behalf of the
United States."
Now, let us say that the last sentence is a
conclusion. That is what you have been talking about, but
you have got the specific--you are saying, "All we have is
a conclusion and no opportunity to get the specific facts."
Here he gives you--I agree with you up to
that point that you are entitled to something more specific
and he gave it to you on April 25th.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, for the purposes
of this point I do not care if they gave us every single
bit of information in far greater clarity and to a much
greater extent than they have. The only point I am
making is that no matter how extensive the affidavits, no
matter how clear, no matter how crystal all the points are
made, if that person who made the affidavit gets up in
trial, sits on the witness stand, and says all of those
very carefully detailed facts which make it absolutely and
abundantly clear, the point that the defendant is trying
to make, and then the plaintiff's counsel asks him one more
question, and he says, "Stop the music."
If there is no cross-examination of the
clearest, finest testimony ever put forth in court, that
testimony cannot stand.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
6
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Filelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
84
THE COURT: That is the general rule, but
the question is whether that applies to situations where
,????????????Ormoomy
the Government is asserting an absolute privilege.
MR. STANFORD: Certainly there is nothing
that indicates that the privilege cuts in either direction.
THE COURT: Well, all right. There are no
cases; so this is a case of first impressions which I have
to decide; is that it?
MR. STANFORD: That is correct.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. STANFORD: And if it merely leaves
itself alone, if it does not enter into it al all, then all
of that testimony must fail, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I understand your point, and I
think that it is certainly a general rule that you cannot
direct a verdict on the basis of testimony which is not
subject to cross-examination. Perhaps it must be stricken
out. The question is whether that should apply in a case
like this, and if there are no cases either way I suppose
I am going to have to make the first decision on it
subject to it being reviewed.
I understand your point that never mind how
specific it is, if you cannot cross-examine you should not
be non-suited or have a judgment entered against you
because of evidence which you are not entitled to cross-
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
pproved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
85
examine on. I think that would, subject to various
questions, without making any specific, there is certainly
merit in your argument.
The question is, is it offset by arguments
the other way, and that seems to be the question, and I
have a perfectly open mind on it. I just do not know.
MR. STANFORD: I think, Your Honor, that I
would just want to say one thing, one final statement or
sentence in connection with that, and that is that we are
not dealing with Eerik Heine and the United States
Government. We are dealing with Heine vs. Raus, and the
United States Government comes in and exercises without
favoritism an exclusion of certain secret material.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: So that they leave the partie
where they find them. If it happens to prevent the
testimony from being valid, then that is just too bad for
the defendant.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: There has to be an alteration
of the ordinary rule for this to be permitted.
However, in this particular case there is not
a clarity, there is not a crystal clear statement in all of
these affidavits, even though there was over a period of
time in the succession of each affidavit some enlargement
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
')2
23
24
25
pproved Foelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077.000100110001-1
86
and a clarification, and as they euphemistically called it,
but further information and a contradiction to their
statement that no further information could be given.
THE COURT: Well, all right. The Court
required them to go further. When they said no further
information could be given, it did not mean that there was
no further information in existence. It meant that in
their opinion the interests of the United States did not
permit it, and then when the Court said, "Well, I am not
going to consider that sufficient," they had then to face
the question the policy of the Agency and the good of the
country in view of the ideas or the ruling of the Court,
whether right or wrong.
They were faced with a ruling, and they
therefore were faced with a ruling in which they had to be
more specific and were more specific.
I think you have got to face the most
specific affidavit. That is all I meant before. There
is no use in arguing. There is no use in arguing the less
specific affidavit.
MR. STANFORD: Yes. The third affidavit
which I think is probably the most specific one, which Your
Honor just read, says in Paragraph 2:
"Prior to those occasions," and so forth, "th
defendant was furnished information by the CIA to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved F.elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
87
the effect--that Eerik Heine was a dispatched Sovie
intelligence operative, a KGB agent. The defendan
was instructed to warn members of Estonian emigre
groups," and so forth.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: Nothing is said in that
affidavit as to who instructed him. They might try to
garner the benefit of the fact that this was told to him
by the CIA; but they specifically have omitted this, and
I cannot believe that the carefully drawn statements which
they have produced for the Court, that this was an
oversight because we have attacked in the two previous
affidavits these repeated, unclear, and ambivalent terms.
So that we have that "the defendant was
instructed," but we do not have any information as to who
MIY,MP9i,415g,Mran.T.e.
it was who instructed him.
THE COURT: Well, you just cannot take that
sentence. It has to be read in the context of the whole
paragraph. When you read the whole paragraph, as they
say, it makes it clear.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I would like to
comment on that.
THE COURT: I understand your point on not
cross-examining.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, I would like to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
19
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
91
92
23
94
25
Approved Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
88
read in connection with that the case which I think is the
latest, the Fifth Circuit case, Fowler vs. Southern Bell
Telephone & Telegraph Company. That is 343 F. 2d. at
page 150, a 1965 case.
MR. CONNOLLY: What page?
MR. STANFORD: Page 150, and at the top o
THE COURT: What volume?
MR. STANFORD: The volume is 343 F. 2d.,
Your Honor, page 150, Fowler vs. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.
at page 154, the Court was quoting Norton vs. McShane and
Barr vs. Matteo, and then it went on to say:
"The bare, conclusory allegations of the
removal petitions, stating generally that West and
Strasser were acting within the scope of their
employment and in color of office, were inadequate
for this purpose. These allegations were legal
conclusions unsupported by facts."
Now, throughout all of these affidavits, the r
statemen1 as to the fact that he was within the scope of
his employment certainly are conclusory, and they never
have been clarified even with the so-called clear
statements.
Now, if we have to read, as Your Honor has
suggested, that the defendant was instructed by the CIA,
we clearly do not have that; and if we put somebody on the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Flip lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
89
stand and we ask Mr. Helms, "Was he instructed by the CIA
to make the statements?" and then that same wall which they
have put down at this point and said, "Not one more bit of
information can be disclosed," and as we have said, as we
have quoted a case in our brief, counsel must certainly
present all of the information at the time of hearing which
is possible to be submitted, that if we tried to cross-
examine and Helms would have to say in the good faith that
they now proport to come before us and say that "that
information cannot be expanded," that is susceptible to
several interpretations.
THE COURT:
Well, what difference would it
make if somebody said, "Tell them at that meeting,"
or if
they said, "Use your judgment as things developed at that
meeting whether to tell them," and he makes the decision
himself, what difference would it make if he was acting
for the Agency?
cannot believe that these cases like Barr
vs. Matteo can on the question of whether a man has
exercised some judgment himself as to what he should do
and whether he is acting under instructions from somebody
higher up.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, in all of those
cases there was absolutely no--
THE COURT:
You have made the opposite poini.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved FoOlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
90
I mean you can argue either way, of course. You have a
perfect right to argue it either way, but it has either got
to be the same whether he was using some judgment&r whether
he is given_ absolute 14,5.truct ionsmar?whetherlaa s9. b e tte,r
defense if he is using judgment or whether he has a better
defense if he is not using judgment, and you have made one
point of saying it is on one side and another point of
saying it is on the other side, and my disposition is that
it does not make any difference.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, it serves to
illustrate that we do not know on the basis of all of the
facts presented to us whether this man was instructed by
anybody connected with the United States Government. Now,
this is definitely susceptible to more than one interpretation.
THE COURT: What do you mean by "instructed?"
He was instructed by the CIA.
MR. STANFORD: Where is that stated, Your
Honor?
THE COURT: By the Central Intelligence.
MR. STANFORD: I do not see where that is
stated.
THE COURT: Well, all right.
MR. STANFORD: Unless it is the most liberal
interpretation of the third affidavit to say that the
defendant was instructed; but nobody says who instructed
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
is
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved For. lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770000100110001-1
91
him or that he was instructed by the Central Intelligence
Agency.
THE COURT: "Was furnished information by
the Central Intelligence Agency to the effect that Eerik
Heine was a dispatched Soviet intelligence operative, a
KGB agent."
That is certainly clear.
MR. STANFORD: And then it ends the sentenc
with a period and then says, "The defendant was instructed.
THE COURT: "The defendant was instructed t
warn members of Estonian emigre groups that Eerik Heine was
a dispatched Soviet intelligence operative, a KGB agent."
They do not say he was told to make this
statement at this meeting. They say he was told to warn
them, and he apparently had some discretion, I imagine,
as
to how he should do it.
But I do not think it makes any difference
of whether they said, "Make this speech at ten minutes pas
four at this meeting Or/make this speech if somebody says
this or make this speech if you think it is necessary."
the point.
MR. STANFORD: But who are "they?" That
THE COURT: The CIA.
MR. STANFORD: But they do not say that the
CIA instructed him to do that in that third affidavit.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
9
3
4
5
7
9
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
94
25
Approved please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
92
They say that the defendant was instructed.
MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor, the purpose of
the instruction was to protect the integrity of the Agency's
foreign intelligence sources.
MR. STANFORD: That is a conclusion.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Your Honor, if I may make
one point on this with the Court's indulgence. These
affidavits must be read most carefully. The affidavit to
which Your Honor refers goes on in the next sentence to say
"The purpose for this instruction was to
protect the integrity of the Agency's foreign
intelligence sources, existing within or developed
through such groups, in accordance with the Agency's
statutory responsibility to collect foreign
intelligence and the statutory responsibility of the
Director of Central Intelligence to protect foreign
intelligence sources and methods" period.
Now, each and every time through their
pleadings, through their arguments, through the affidavits,
there have t'ropped ut two words that are extremely salient
and those words are "from disclosure."
Now, in the CIA security regulations which
they filed here we have a description of what is protected
information.
In this regulation which they have filed in
pproved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
(i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
i Approved Fol please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
93
the Act itself in Title 50 the words "from disclosure"
appears, from disclosure to unauthorized?from unauthorize
disclosure.
Now, the reasonable inference on that
statement is this: That before something can be disclose
it must be possessed. Before something can be disclosed
in an unauthorized fashion it must be possessed by some
group or by somebody that has authority to permit the
disclosure.
Now, they have twisted the statute around to
try to include an emigre group, not information within the
Agency, the statute says, but they have twisted that aroun
to try to include an indiscriminate group of people, just
anybody, and say that this is a source that they want to
protect, when in black and white in this regulation, which
I invite Your Honor to read, it specifies what this
protected information is.
Now, I submit, Your Honor, that that is how
these affidavits are contrived.
THE COURT: Oh, well, I understand. I jus
think that there is nothing to that point at all. I thin
it is perfectly clear that they were protecting their
sources. Protecting their sources from disclosure, if
they are protecting their sources, of course they are
protecting. They are not protecting them from disclosure
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
lApproved Fo*lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
94
but they are protecting them from being shot which is the
consequence of disclosure.
They were trying to protect their sources
from--I think that is perfectly clear.
Let me ask Mr. Houston this. Mr. Houston,
would there be any objection, or do you know, you must have
you must have had something to do with preparing this, with
this sentence, "The defendant was instructed to warn
members of Estonian emigre groups that Eerik Heine was a
dispatched Soviet intelligence operative a KGB avnt "
immediately following the statement that he "was furnished
information by the Central Intelligence Agency," was that
cagily drawn to exclude a statement that Central
Intelligence had instructed him,
-V-
r could this be further
clarified or was he instructed by someone at CIA, someone
in authority at CIA to warn members of the Estonian group
that Heine was a dispatched agent, or was he instructed
by somebody not connected with CIA?
Do you know the answers?
MR. HOUSTON: Your Honor, I do not believe
it would add or detract to put in the words "instructed by
CIA."
doing it?
THE COURT: Well, is there any objection to
MR. HOUSTON: Not as far as I can see.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
9
4
5
6
7
9
1 0
12
13
pproved Foelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00741000100110001-1
95
THE COURT: Well, I suggest that if you can
say, to clarify this, take it out of the passive voice and
put it in the active voice to say that the CIA instructed
him, if that is the fact it would meet this point, and
there is no use in having a vague point if that is so.
I gather that you are willing to salr that
whether or not you instructed 1im,w#hput saying which
person in the Agency instructed him.
MR. HOUSTON: That is correct.
THE COURT: Well, I think you should take
that affidavit, and you can file a supplementary affidavit
making just that one change.
I had thought, I had drawn the inference that
14 reading the whole paragraph it seemed quite clear to me
that the next sentence just follows along, and I had
1.- 1
16
17
18
19
20
9
23
24
25
inferred that the CIA was the one that gave the instructions.
If the contention is that it is carefully
drawn to make me think that when it is not true I think
that the CIA ought to tell me how much they are willing to
have me know about it.
MR. HOUSTON: There is no problem in that.
THE COURT: You will take care of that.
MR. CONNOLLY: In the interest of time I do
not know whether Mr. Raskauskas would be willing to agree
to that or perhaps Mr. Houston could take the stand right
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
now.
96
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I will say, if Your Honor
please, for the purpose of Rule 56 Your Honor is not
permitted to take any inferences of fact. If it just
appears to Your Honor that there is a question of fact,
that means it has to go to trial.
THE COURT: That is why I am asking to have
it clarified. Let's get this thing clear. Let's get
the strongest case that each side can make and let me rule
on it, and then we can go up. Letts not have loose ends.
I think it is indicated that this may be a
loose end.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: This is manifestly unfair
to the position of the plaintiff because what the defendan
is doing is disclosing this information not on the basis
of--
THE COURT: It is not what the defendant is
doing at all. It is what the Government is doing. The
United States is trying to protect the interests of all
the parties, and if something is not clear that can be
clarified in what the Government has supplied the Court
instructs the Government to clarify it or to either tell
me whether he was told, instructed by the CIA or was
instructed by someone other than the CIA.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Well, if Your Honor please
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Ikelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
9?7
at this time I would like to note an objection to that
fact.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: That I cannot accept that
position, that the Government and counsel for the
defendant are working absolutely together in this case.
I would like the record to show today that
Mr. Houston is sitting with Mr. Connolly, they are passing
things back and forth. We have pointed out in our brief
that Mr. Maroney who was here as one of the impartial
government lawyers was objecting to the materiality of
questions, which had nothing to do with their question.
THE COURT: There is no question that the
CIA is working with the defendant and the defendant is
working with the CIA in the defense of this case. The
Court would be blind if it did not recognize that fact.
That does not alter the fact that the people of the United
States have an interest on both sides of this case, as I
said before, and that the Court has an interest in seeing
that the facts are clarified as far as they can be done,
and I have been doing my best to get them clarified as far
as they could be done for some months now.
And I intend to continue. YallE_2?1!ftion
is overruled if it: is an objection to the permission of
the Government to file a supplementary affidavit.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
99
23
24
25,
Approved Filelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00*000100110001-1
98
All right. Do you want to continue, Mr.
Stanford?
MR. STANFORD: Yes, sir.
Your Honor, as a corollary to the argument
concerning the cross-examination we have under Rule 56 (f)
the rule as stated in Moore, Section 5624:
"If however the Court is of the opinion that
since the knowledge" with regard to our inquiries to
them--"since the knowledge is in the possession or
control of the moving party, who is of course an
interested party, and that the opposing party may be
able to establish his claim or defense if afforded
the opportunity to cross-examine the moving party in
court or for some other reason the case needs the
full development of a trial, the Court may deny the
motion for summary judgment."
And we certainly have not been afforded
examination as is brought out by the interrogatories or by
the examination of Raus, which prevents us from establishing
our position.
THE COURT: Well, I think that if you have
been denied certain requests or the right to ask Raus
certain questions because the Court felt that the privilege
asserted by the Government controlled, I take it that that
same privilege would control the answers or would control
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
?
Approved F.elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
99
1 the questions, the objections and any possible answers
which might be given by Mr. Helms; so that I think you are
:t entitled to the benefit of that on your motion for summary
4 judgment, and I do not see any use--I gather both sides
5 would agree there isn't any use in going through further
motions to that effect, that if Mr. Helms were here, and
7 you asked him, "Who instructed the defendant?", he would
say, "I will not tell you because I think it is contrary to
9 the interests of the United States, I will say that some"-
10 well, if he was going to say someone connected with the CIA
11 or not, and he would say, "That is as far as I will go."
12 Now, I am going to have to decide this case o
13 the basis that that is what would happen, and I take it
14 that is what everybody wants, to try to get these matters
is cleared up so that if we do go to trial everybody will know
16 where they stand.
17 You are entitled clearly to a ruling by the
18 Court on whether this provision of 56 (f) prevents a
19 summary judgment, and if it does not prevent a summary
90
21
judgment how the Court feels the defendant has gotten
around it or why the Court feels perhaps, another way of
92 putting it, why the Court feels that it does not prevent it
23 The only reason, I suppose, that the Court would feel that
24 there would be something which would prevent the matter
25 from being explored further but which did not prevent the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved A/Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-004000100110001-1
100
amount of disclosure which has been given.
That is really the same point that keeps
occurring in various phases, and you are entitled to have
it examined in connection with each of the phases.
I quite agree with that. I think this is a
I understand your point. I do not answer
valid point.
it because I do not know the answer to it until I have done
some work on it.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, at this juncture
I would like to see what facts or statements however they
may be characterized, and I am certain that we disagree
with what they are; but taking them as they have been
characterized by the defendant, let's see what facts we need
or what statements we need to see whether we fit into the
matrix of Barr vs. Matteo, which says that this must be a
governmental officer, and that he must when he made this
slanderous or libelous statement have been acting within
the scope of his employment, and I think it isuwithin the
scope of his duties and within the course of his
employment."
Now, I think that those words do not mean
that he was getting paid by some persons or some
organization to do a certain thing. But I think we must
examine them in this way, and I hope that I can set this
forth to the Court.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Flikelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-004L000100110001-1
101
If a man in the course of his job, say a
public information officer, which is one of the fact
situations in one of the other cases which has been quoted
by the defendant, is a public information officer, and in
the course of his duties as a PIO makes a malicious
statement or an untrue or slanderous statement concerning a
certain person he would according to the decisions be
exempt because he was a governmental officer, and what he
was doing was giving public information.
That was the scope of his duties; that was
-
within the scope of his job; and as an accompaniment to tha
he committed a slander, either unintentionally or
maliciously; but it was while he was carrying out his job
that he did this.
So that it was not his job to slander but it
was his job to disclose public information, to disclose to
the public information concerning the Navy Yard, or whateve
the entity was, and in so doing the slander accompanied
it.
Now, here we do not have that case because we
fail to show what the scope of this man's duties was.
They say merely that he was
employed, and
they use it, I say, the same as "used" but even if we take
the fact that he was an employee, which we say has never
been set forth.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved FAILlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.600100110001-1
102
THE COURT: He was an employee of the Unite
States.
MR. STANFORhi? Well, the CIA, and it was no
the Bureau of Public Roads that had--
THE COURT:
Well, no, he was employed by th
Bureau of Public Roads, but isn't it clear here that the
relationship between the Bureau of Public Roads and--
MR. STANFORD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: --the CIA?
MR. STANFORD: No, sir, it is not within th
scope of his duties as a highway engineer for the Bureau of
Public Roads. Nobody says so.
THE COURT: No, but the CIA, isn't it clear
that the CIA is using and has used--
MR. STANFORD: Certainly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No question about that.
MR. STANFORD: No question about that.
THE COURT: It is a little hard for me at
this point to separate what I have--the testimony here and
the concessions here from what has been in every newspaper
about it.
MR. STANFORD: We make no point of that
whatsoever, Your Honor. He was working for the United
States and he had duties as a highway engineer, and those
duties can clearly be set forth, although we have not found
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
92
23
94
25
Approved Fakelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-000R000100110001-1
103
out what they are.
But what: were his duties in the Agency which
had the authority by statute or by secret paper to get into
these emigre groups?
Certainly the Bureau of Public Roads by
itself did not. Maybe the United States through the CIA
did. Let us assume for this that it was.
THE COURT: Yes, I understand that you have
not admitted that.
MR. STANFORD: But what are they? What are
the duties? What is the scope of his employment in the
CIA? We do not have the facts taken after that which
indicates that there were any scope of duties. All we
have is that he--and taking this as it would be interpreted
by the Court if it were Mr. Houston, that he was instructed
by the CIA to say certain things to a certain group about
the plaintiff.
Can we say that this was within the scope of
his duties? We do not know because we do not know what
the scope of his duties Kere,_
Inthere was only one directive that he was
told only to go out and make this statement, go out and
utter this assassination of the character of Eerik Heine,
then we must see whether or not it is possible for the
Agency to issue a slander.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
(i
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fitelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-004000100110001-1
104
Now, it might be said that they certainly hav,p
the authority, and I think Your Honor just said a few
minutes ago, that they have the authority to penetrate
these emigre groups in the United States and make a
statement to protect the sources or to protect sources from
disclosure, however we put it.
But if this was a known untruth, if this was
known to the CIA to be an untruth, but they thought it would
have a valid effect, that is not within the scope of the
CIA's powers nor is it within the scope of the duties of
Juni Raus, and it cannot be.
So therefore it depends upon our obtaining
the truth or falsity or the presentation by the defendant
of the truth of what they have purportedly sent this man
out to do because, and this casts a little bit of doubt on
whether or not there was truth.
In their affidavit, I think it was the second
one, the second affidavit, which says that he was
furnished information to the effect that Heine was a
communist.
That is far different from saying that he
was. That shows that maybe they made a conclusion and
maybe they made a mistake, but rather than take the chance,
they say, "Go ahead and confuse.it."
THE COURT: Well, suppose they do make an
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Filkelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
105
occasional mistake. Undoubtedly they must have made
mistakes. How in the world can anybody operate in a
business of that sort--
MR. STANFORD: Admittedly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: --without making mistakes. The
question is whether the balancing of the interests that
people with whom mistakes, honest mistakes are made must--
MR. STANFORD: How do we know that this was
an honest mistake? We give the presumption that--
THE COURT: Well, suppose it is a dishonest
mistake?
MR. STANFORD: Well, then if it is a
dishonest mistake--
THE COURT: I do not mean by--
MR. STANFORD: If it is a dishonest mistake,
Your Honor, this man--
THE COURT: It is a question of where you
draw the line. How do you prove that a man is not such an
agent? You have got to, you shade, it is not black and
white. How does anybody know anything for sure. If
they--let us suppose that they are ninety-nine per cent
sure that he is an agent, certainly it is their duty to
protect our other sources. At what point does it become--
do you weigh it?
,
Is it on probable cause? Is this a
question of the weight of the evidence that you weigh like
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Filelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
106
you would on a damage suit? Can they say that they know
it beyond a reasonable doubt before they can take steps to
protect?
questions.
MR. STANFORD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You get into a terrible lot of
MR. STANFORD: Let us assume that they do
not, that they do not need certainty beyond a reasonable
doubt or a moral certainty, but even if they have some
vague suspicion that they can do it; but if--which we are
not informed, and we have no way of knowing--if they knew
he was not, or some person within that organization knew he
was not, whether he is loyal or subversive, which is
entirely possible.
There is certainly penetration in all phases
of government, both on this side of the iron curtain and on
the other, and I hope there is on the other. But if there
is a person who intentionally had this man slandered,that
cannot in this country be within the scope of any one
person's duties nor within the power of the CIA.
And if that were the case, and we do not have
the information one way or the other, because we cannot
make a penetrating inquiry, then--
THE COURT: Well, a penetrating inquiry, if
the interests of the United States prevents it, your.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fill/2elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
107
making an inquiry, then anybody can always recover against
in a case like this because you cannot, because the
Government does not permit it, they do not allow it to go
further.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, if the United
States wishes to gain information by camera from Russia
they pay a million dollars for a U-2 plane and thirty
thousand dollars a year for Gary Powers to go over there
and get it.
If they want to prevent the disclosure of
information to a Russian agent, if that is what they believa
him to be and they wish to take this method of doing it,
they have to pay in the same way, and this may seem unfair,
but it prevents the wholesale assassination of the character
of individuals.
THE COURT: But you cannot allow everybody
who is warned, when the Government warns against somebody,
to allow him to sue and to collect damages irrespective of
the truth or falsity when the Government is not in a
position, it is against the best interests not to allow
them to sue the Government, but to go to Congress on that.
You say the Government pays a million dollars
The Government cannot pay in this case because Congress has
said they cannot in so many words.
The Congress has said that the Government
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fo4please 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
108
cannot be sued for a tort of slander and libel. So what
you are saying is--
MR. STANFORD: We are not suing the
Government.
THE COURT: The only way that this can be
done by making the individuals who work for the Government
pay whether they believe it or not. If they make a false-
what your argument comes to is this, that if a person
acting in the course of his employment.._ ,_makes a statement
_
that somebody is a spy in the presence of anybody else he
must pay damages for it whether it is true or not because
unless the Government will release him from statin& the
facts which he knows to support it.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Now, that brings you right up,
and there may be reasons why that should not be, and it may
prevent hardship in one case, but they have to be balanced
against the considerations that were set up in Barr vs.
Matteo. That is what you have to balance. It is not as
easy as all that.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, if this action
was an intentional wrongdoing--
THE COURT: By whom?
MR. STANFORD: By the defendant or by others
in complicity with the defendant. We are not charging a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fitelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
109
conspiracy, of course, or any other person involved, but
even if there was somebody else involved, or even if there
was information obtained or it was maliciously done by the
defendant or anyone else supplying him information of that
sort, then we have the situation where it cannot be within
the course of his duties or the scope of his duties
because it is not possible for duties to involve only the
very act itself.
If he was told to go and do something else,
and then in the course of that duty or the scope of his
duties--because we must hearken back to the rationale
behind the rule.
The rationale behind the rule was two-fold,
as I see it. One allowed a person in the exercise of his
official functions, an officer, to feel unrestricted and
unfettered by the possibility of suit.
THE COURT: It is just as important to allow
an employee to feel unfettered.
that.
MR. STANFORD: Well, the Court has not said
THE COURT: No, but I cannot see any
difference one way or the other. I do not think there is
any benefit one way or the other.
If it was a benefit I
should think it would be for the employee.
MR. STANFORD: But regardless of whether the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved FA"lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
110
employee, whether he is an employee or an officer, the
rationale behind Barr vs. Matteo and Gregoire vs. Biddle
is that it allows a person in the exercise of his duties,
if he is doing one job, and incidental thereto happens to
make a slanderous statement he should be exempt.
Here it was not incidental to anything; it
was the very act itself, because nothing more is stated,
and nothing more is claimed than the fact that he was
pointed like a rocket at that meeting and told to say
certain things.
So he was directed like a missile to say
certain things.
That was not within the scope of his
employment; that was merely the sending of a message. So
that it was not within the scope.
THE COURT: Carrying the message was the
scope of his employment.
MR. STANFORD: That means the very act
itself was the total employment, and if that was an
intentionally untrue act then that scope of employment was
solely to do an unintentionally untrue, to make an
intentionally untrue statement that defames the plaintiff,
and that cannot be within the scope of either his duties
or the CIA's.
I think that is sufficient on that point, Your
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
9
10
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
?)2
23
24
23
Approved Foll6lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
Honor; I do not want to belabor it.
111
I think that it does
require considerable thought, but I cannot give any further
explanation of it.
THE COURT: I understand your point and I
certainly will consider it. I do not know the answer to
it. I will read all these cases.
MR. STANFORD: Now, Your Honor, to get back
to, I think, our second point in our last brief, the fact
that despite these affidavits there still exist numerous
issues of material facts because we have the affidavit of
August Kuklane, and these have not been contradicted by the
defendant.
They state that when utterances were heard,
according to Kuklane's affidavit, that they were at a
different time from what Kuklane states. If that is the
case, then there certainly would be for the purpose of this
a different statute of limitations on each one of those
statements, and therefore there was, if there was a
difference in time, there has not yet been a denial or
?
claim of privilege for the statements which are complained
of.
motion?
THE COURT: Is limitations part of this
MR. STANFORD: No, Your Honor, but I am jus
saying but if there would exist a difference in limitation
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
9
3
4
6
9
10
?11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
Approved Folehlease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
112
then there is a different cause of action, and there
certainly would be a different cause of action if we are
complaining of the statements which are attested to by
the affidavit of August Kuklane, and they deny making
statements on a different day.
That is like saying, "I happened to see you
out at the baseball game on July 7th," and they say, "I
was not out at the baseball game on July 4th."
THE COURT: Well, so far as that point goes
on the dates, their point has to go to all of these dates.
They have to face that.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, if you cannot cla
that you are not there and also claim that you were in on
a free pass; you cannot claim that you were not at the
baseball game and then say that you were in there on an
"Annie Oakley" because you are either one or the other; and
they are claiming a privilege for a time about which they
deny the occurrence altogether.
I think this is a very essential fact. If
this man had a very limited circumscribed scope of duties,
was he given two occasions in which to say, to make the
- ,
statement_or was he given five,:cOr was he told, given the
general statement to go out and issue these utterances at
all times?
That is another point that relates back and
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
94
25
Approved Foe lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00711.000100110001-1
113
hearkens back to the fact that we are not armed with the
scope of this authority and their affidavits do not supply
this information.
I think the fact that we get to the very
factual allegations of the complaint which contradict the
answer of the defendant, and the affidavit of August
Kuklane, which is uncontradicted, it is unopposed by the
defendant, we have two different statements.
The CIA, or the Government,or the defendant,
have never said that he did not make these statements. He
just blankly says, "If I ever made a statement or if I ever
opened my mouth and talked about Eerik Heine, I want to be
covered with the benediction of governmental privilege."
That cannot be obtained in this case, and I
feel that although that may be something which has not been
in the whole ambit of the Barr vs. Matteo considerations,
and everything which goes to feed that particular area,
that it still erects a barrier which prevents the granting
of this motion.
I think we will submit on that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The counsel in the criminal case
are excused until two o'clock, counsel and the witnesses,
and we will take up the criminal case at two o'clock.
MR. CONNOLLY: I have a very brief response,
Your Honor.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Ftletelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
THE COURT: All right.
114
MR. CONNOLLY: I have a very brief response
to make.
Mr. Stanford spent most of his time arguing
in several different respects that if his right to full
cross-examination was curtailed, then all of the testimony
leading up to the point where the curtailment took place
would have to be stricken.
Your Honor said that that was strange law to
you in the ordinary situation as you could understand it;
and I take it that what you were saying was that if a man
got on the stand and testified to a story and then on
cross-examination refused to answer questions on cross-
examination the Court would be perfectly justified in
striking the testimony, certainly.
Let me put to you this case. If a man got
on the stand and testified to a story on direct examination
and on cross-examination answered questions about that, or
some questions about that story, and was asked these
questions:
"Mr. Witness, did you prepare a memorandum
of the events about which you have described for your
counsel?"
Answer: "Yes."
"Mr. Witness, may I call for the production
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Fo.lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007S000100110001-1
115
of that memorandum which you supplied to your counsel,"
whereupon an objection of lawyer-client privilege would
arise, and I take it that any Court would sustain that
claim of privilege, and I do not know of one Court that
would strike the man's testimony, and that is what has
happened in this very case.
Mr. Raus took the stand; he answered questions
as far as the Government would allow him to answer
consistent with the oath which he took and the agreement
which he signed when he became an employee of the CIA,
which is in the record.
He had to conform with that on the pains and
and
penalties, as Your Honor observed,/to the extent that he was
permitted to testify he did, and to the extent that the
Government claimed the privilege Your Honor considered
whether the claim of privilege was valid or was not.
It is true in most instances you supported
the Government, but in some instances you did not.
You therefore made a judicial ruling that the
privilege was properly claimed, and I know of no principle
of law which would support Mr. Stanford that when you
support such a claim of privilege you are thereby obligate
to strike all the man's testimony beforehand.
Now, I think it is rather preposterous that
Mr. Raskauskas and Mr. Stanford argue from the third
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
20
21
92
23
24
25
Approved Folk lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
116
affidavit that instructions were supplied to him by someone
else, but we will take care of that.
THE COURT: Well, the Court did not find it
preposterous. I had thought it was clear that when it
was pointed out I thought it should be cleared, and Mr.
Houston agreed to clarify it one way or the other.
Let us not call names. The case is serious
enough without that.
MR. CONNOLLY: The duties which were given
to Mr. Raus, I think, are set forth in Paragraph 2 of the
third Helms' affidavit. There are suggestions here that
either Mr. Raus or the Agency formed some malicious intent
to defame Eerik Heine. I say if the Agency did, it is no
business of this Court in this case. The only question
we are concerned here with is whether Juni Raus formed such
an intent; and even if he had the intent to defame the
plaintiff, and none is charged, that would not get around
the claim of absolute privilege because where you have
absolute privilege the existence of expressed malice does
not make any difference.
THE COURT: Well, defamation was charged in
some of these other cases and where the privilege was
allowed.
MR. CONNOLLY: But the affidavit we have
here is that:
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved "'Lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
117
"In a series of conferences the defendant
was furnished information by the Central Intelligen
Agency to the effect that Eerik Heine was a
dispatched Soviet intelligence operative, a KGB
agent," that he "was instructed to warn members of
Estonian emigre groups that Eerik Heine was a
dispatched Soviet intelligence operative, a KGB
agent," and that the purpose of it was to protect
the Agency's foreign intelligence sources existing
within or developed through such groups.
That is what he was informed to do; that is
what he was instructed to do, and that is what we admit he
did.
Now, one document that I think deserves some
attention is Admiral Raborn's official claim of privilege
which, in addition to that material, contained in the
third Helms' affidavit states, and was filed afterward, he
says:
"As shown by affidavits previously filed in
this case by the Deputy Director of Central
_Intelligence, the defendant on those occasions was
acting as an employee of the Central Intelligence
Agency and made the statements in question pursuant
to instructions from this Agency."
So if there is anything missing in the Helms
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
94
25
Approved Fo41,1ease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
118
affidavit it is supplied by the Raborn affidavit.
THE COURT: Well, I think we might just as
well clear up that.
MR. CONNOLLY: Certainly, sir; no problem.
THE COURT: I think that certainly is
specific.
MR. CONNOLLY: Just one other thing: Barr
vs. Matteo and Howard vs. Lyons deal with--
THE COURT: I think it is important to do
it because Raborn is a claim of privilege and is under
oath.
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, sir.
Barr vs. Matteo and Howard vs. Lyons deal
with cases where the officer who made the defamatory
statement did not act under orders; they acted in pursuit
of their own discretion. In those cases the Supreme Court
recognized the claim of absolute privilege.
If that is so, how much more justified is
the claim of privilege when the officer acts pursuant to
instructions? And in closing let me say that Professor
Wigmore makes this very clear.
MR. STANFORD: Section 2368.
MR. CONNOLLY: When he says--
MR. STANFORD: It is in the supplemental
memorandum.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
9
3
4
5
(i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Approved Riklease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
briefs?
it.
119
THE COURT: Is it in one of your recent
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, my law clerk will find
MR. CONNOLLY: It will just take me a second.
Yes, "Wigmore On Evidence, McNaughton
Revision" Section 2368.
It says:
"A subordinate or ministerial official--i.e.
one who acts under the orders of a superior official
is absolutely exempt from liability if the harm done
by him is done solely in implicit obedience to an
order lawful upon its face.
Now, Barr vs. Matteo and Howard vs. Lyons go
one step further and say even where there is discretion
involved the claim of privilege exists.
So I think there is nothing to this point
that you can distinguish Barr vs. Matteo because Juni Raus
acted under orders. Indeed if he had discretion to libel
or to make a defamatory statement concerning Mr. Heine, if
he did it under orders clearly he is as well covered by
the statute.
MR. STANFORD: Your Honor, very briefly on
that last point, in that particular quote Wigmore is like
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved File_ lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00.000100110001-1
120
a sky hook; it is attached to nothing. I do not see any
case law on that. As a matter of fact, it just sort of
stands out there, and I do not know what basis there is.
Wigmore quotes no cases, and there is no authority for it,
and I do not know if that applies to tort law where some
superior officer says, "Pull a certain handle," and as a
result of that somebody is injured, that clearly that agent
was not responsible if he did not know it.
THE COURT: You say it is something like
what we used to call a mule case around here, without pride
of ancestry or hope of posterity.
MR. STANFORD: That is about right, and not
only that, Your Honor, but I think again we are asked to
beg the question obviously by saying that this was an order
which was given in good faith on its face.
We do not have that because of the fact that
even in the affidavits they said that he was told "to the
effect that" Heine was a spy, not saying that he was and
not saying that he was given a message in a capsule.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STANFORD: And as to that illustration
of the witness who had a memorandum or had given a
memorandum to his lawyer, I think we have a clear distincti
which shows that they are not at all comparable.
Note that the distinction is this: That is
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?)2
23
24
25
Approved Filelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
121
a witness privilege rule whereas this governmental privilega
not to disclose information is entirely apart from and
unconnected to the witness.
It is not a privilege which the witness has;
so that they are therefore clearly distinct, and any
comparison between the two is, I think, improper.
MR. CONNOLLY: The answer to that is self-
evident. If the witness should not be punished when he
himself relies on it certainly he should not be punished
when somebody else enforces the privilege on him.
MR. STANFORD: It is not punishment, Your
Honor, because it is not considered to be punishment in
either direction. It is the fact that the wall falls, and
it is just the way it comes down.
If it happens to punish the defendant that is
too bad; but the privilege is not intended to punish either
party, but to leave them where they started.
THE COURT: Well, I think you can all keep
on exchanging these blows, but I think I will have to ring
the bell at this point and come in and break it.
Well, I understand that everything has been
filed that is going to be filed except the supplementary
affidavit from Colonel Houston.
I want to thank both sides for the briefs
that have been filed. They are very admirable briefs
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
23
94
25
Approved Fc.lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007.000100110001-1
122
because they are brief. They cover a lot of points and
say what you have to say and cite the important cases, and
there you are, and it has been very helpful to the Court.
All right.
(Thereupon, the hearing was concluded at 1:01
otclock p.m.)
Certified to be a true and correct transcript
of the proceedings in the above case.
-77
/i4P2-74--
Official Reporter
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?.
Copy of attached sent to Kevin Maroney
on 25 October 1966.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00
ST .-.COPY
Available
?
or Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
25X1 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Next 4 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
oVd For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
2 Sept 66
LRH - Col. White has been briefed on this.
JSW
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R0
25X1 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved F
EERIK HEINE,
V.
JURI RAUS,
lease 2005/02/10 : CIA(RD'P -007
00100110001-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Plaintiff,)
Defendant.)
Civil Action No. 15952
MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff's most recent brief, transmitted under date of
July 7, 1966, does not require an elaborate reply.
The defendant's position has been repeatedly and clearly stated:
Juni Raus, when he uttered defamatory remarks of the plaintiff was abso-
lutely privileged to do so since, when he spoke, he was an employee of
the United States acting within the scope of his employment in the specific
discharge of his duties. Under a plethora of case law, developed by the
various circuits following Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959) and Howard v.
Lyons, 360 U.S. 593 (1959), the motion for summary judgment should be granted.
At the last court hearing on the motion, the plaintiff was asked
to synthesize his position somewhat in the fashion adopted by the defendant
in his "Supplemental Memorandum of the Defendant in Support of His Motion
for Summary Judgment" (Tr. 61, 5/13/66). Presumably the plaintiff's filings
of July 7 is in response to that request. However, the points raised are un-
substantial and insufficient to defeat the motion. Each will be separately
discussed:
1. The Amendment to the Answer Was Properly Allowed
The plaintiff suggests that this Court reconsider its Order of
March 23, 1966 permitting the filing of an Amended Answer, in which he raised
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Fo
lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0077 00100110001-1
the defense of absolute privilege. Plaintiff argues that the defendant's
evidence as to why the Central Intelligence Agency refused to permit the
1/
defense to be raised earlier is insufficient. But he does not dispute
the fact that the defendant was refused permission. Mr. Prettyman's
testimony (Tr. 70-71, 3/11/66) clearly establishes this aspect of the
matter, and that Raus was bound by the discipline of his service as by
2/
his "Secrecy Agreement" of May 29, 1963.
The merits of the Agency's refusal of permission is therefore
3/
?
quite immaterial. The Agency is not a party defendant. Since the de-
fense is personal to the employee, he should not be deprived of a meri-
torious defense which he was not at liberty to assert earlier. A dis-
allowance of a right of amendment, under these circumstances, would punish
the defendant for an omission not of his making and would run counter to
the liberal policy Of Rule 15, F.R.C.P., favoring amendment.
2. There Are No Material Facts in Dispute
The plaintiff suggests that several facts are in dispute and
that this circumstance precludes summary judgment.
The defendant says there are no factual disputes in the record
and that whatever differences may apparently exist are not material and of
no substance.
The plaintiff emphasizes that the defendant in his Second Defense
"denies making statements attributed to him [in paragraphs 6 & 7 of the
Complaint] but admits in his Ninth Defense that "when he spoke concerning
4/
the plaintiff, he was acting within the scope of his employment."
1/ The plaintiff does not assert, however, what would be a sufficient
explanation.
2/ Attached as an exhibit to the affidavit of Richard Helms, dated
April 1, 1966.
3/ The Agency's reluctance to identify an employee's covert activity
is, of course, readily understandable.
4/ The quotations are from the plaintiff's brief.
-2-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Fo
lease 2005/02/10 : CIA- DP75-007
00100110001-1
The inconsistency exists only because the plaintiff does not
\.wish to live with the text of the Amelded Answer.
The Second Defense admits th\at the, defendant said "he was in
possession of responsible information received by him from an official
agency of the United States Government to the effect that the plaintiff
was a Soviet agent or collaborator. . ." It further admits that defendant
had spoken to Kuklane but on a different date than attributed to him in
5/
the Complaint. The following sentence, which contained in part the language
which the plaintiff quotes, denying the making of the statements, clearly
refers to the specific language which was used as charged in the Complaint,
not to the substance of the charge.
The Complaint alleges (Par. 5) that Raus said "Eerik Heine is a
Communist" and "Eerik Heine is a KGB Agent."
6/
The minutes of the meeting at which Raus spoke differs slightly
7/
in text from either the version of the Complaint or of the Answer. But
the differences are in semantics and of no materiality. The present matter
assumes the truth of the plaintiff's allegations, as do the affidavits
which attest Raus' authority to make the statements. The plaintiff's at-
tempt to create a factual dispute of substance from the use of slightly
different words is simply tedious.
So also is his attempt to show that Raus contradicts himself
when he says he is employed by the Bureau of Public Roads and the C.I.A.,
and when he says that he was doing the work of the C.I.A. and also serving
the Estonian liberation movement. It is now apparent that Raus worked for
both agencies and that he was recruited by the C.I.A. because of his Estonian,
5/ For the purpose of the present matter the defendant considers the
precise date to be totally immaterial.
6/ Submitted by the plaintiff as an exhibit to the affidavit of Alexander
Allikas.
7/ Raus admitted in his deposition testimony that he referred to Heine
as a Soviet secret agent (Tr. 65, 4/28/66).
-3-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved F
lease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
background and that he felt he served both parties by his activities. The
reconciliation of this asserted contradiction is so transparent that the
plaintiff no longer dwells upon it nor treats is as substantial.
Finally, there is no dispute whatever over the authority of the
C.I.A. in the circumstances posed by this case. The plaintiff simply
ignores the Houston affidavit and its attachments, as he has failed to
respond to the defendant's "Memorandum Concerning the Authority of the
Central Intelligence Agency," served May 27, 1966.
3. The Affidavits of Defendant Present Admissible Evidence
This Court, has, during the course of the Raus deposition, recog-
nized and upheld the well-founded claim of executive privilege to protect
8/
national intelligence information.
The recognition and enforcement of any testimonial privilege,
to that extent, inhibits the scope of cross examination but that circum-
stance does not render other testimony inadmissible or unsubstantial. The
plaintiff's position on this point is not well taken. Even his rights to
discovery are limited to non-privileged matter. See Rule 26(b), F.R.C.P.
4. The Record Establishes the Status of the Defendant as a
Government Employee
The Director of Central Intelligence, the Deputy, the Agency's
General Counsel and the United States Attorney, each, either by formal
claim, sworn statement or solemn assurance, has represented to the Court
that Jun i Raus, when he spoke of the plaintiff, was acting on behalf of
the United States. Unless the Court would presume to doubt these repre-
sentations, the employment Of Raus must be taken as established. There is
no word to the contrary, nor is there any basis for arguing that Raus was
"a volunteer or independent contractor."
8/ 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton Rev. 1961) pp. 794-795.
-4-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved Fceelease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007110000100110001-1
A finding that Raus was not an employee would be arbitrary and
capricious and this Court would be required to set it aside as not founded
upon substantial evidence.
5. The Doctrine of Absolute Immunity Applies to the Defendant
The plaintiff's argument that Barr v. Matteo, !LIRE..q.., does not apply
to the defendant because he is not shown to have been an employee with dis-
cretion to speak or not is without logic.
If the purpose of the doctrine of absolute immunity is to permit
the government to function freely through officers who cannot be thwarted
9/
in the performance of their duties by a threat of lawsuits, it should make
no difference whether the spoken words preceded from discretion or upon
order. Moreover, common fairness would dictate that the employee who was
ordered to speak should receive as much protection, if not more, as the one
who had the choice to speak or not.
The general rule is contrary to plaintiff's contention: "A sub-
ordinate or ministerial official -- i.e., one who acts under the orders of
a superior official -- is absolutely exempt from liability if the harm done
by him is done solely in implicit obedience to an order lawful on its face."
8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton Rev. 1961) ?2368.
6. (a) The Authority of the C.I.A.
This matter has been adequately dealt with by the defendant's
separate memorandum of May 27, 1966 on the subject.
(b) The Authority of the Defendant
Juni Raus' instructions are clearly established in the Helms'
affidavits. Whether in speaking he attributed his information to the F.B.I.
or the C.I.A. is immaterial. The plaintiff cannot be heard to say that the
damage to his reputation would materially vary depending upon whether the
9/ See Gregorie v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1949).
-5-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved F elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0070000100110001-1
F.B.I. or the C.I.A. called him a KGB agent. The defamation proceeds from
the charge of being a KGB agent, not from the source of the accusation.
7. The Existence of a Federal Question as to Absolute Privileae
This point is no longer open to question. Howard v. Lyons, 360
U.S. 593 (1959). The question is no more premature here than it was in that
case.
8. The Alleaed Refusal to Permit Discovery
The defendant by reason of his employment is not a free agent in
submitting to discovery. The plaintiff misdirects his wrath. The defendant
has not refused to make discovery. The refusal to permit the defendant
freely to testify was the decision of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Moreover, a justified claim of privilege is not a refusal to make
discovery. Plaintiff, under Rule 26(b), F.R.C.P., as we have said earlier,
is entitled to discovery only to the extent that he seeks non-privileged
matter.
9. Estoppel
This purported argument is uncomprehensible. The Houston affidavit
deals with the authority of the C.I.A. and was submitted in response to a re-
quest from the Court. It does not deal specifically with Raus1 employment.
10. The Duty of Plaintiff's Counsel
This is a spurious argument designed to permit the plaintiff
to maintain a public position on the question of Agency authority which
is known to the Court to be invalid. If counsel are seriously concerned
about the application of the Canons of Ethics to the problem of the
Houston affidavit and its attachments, it is suggested that the Court advise
counsel whether in this instance it is necessary that they discuss the attach-
ments to the Houston affidavit with the plaintiff.
-6-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved F elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-007
OF COUNSEL:
Hogan & Hartson
815 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20006
000100110001-1
Respect41.1- submitted,
Paul R. Vonnolly
5411 AllAmarle Street
Westmoreland Hills
Washington, D, C. OL 2-5851
427----
-
E. Barrett Prettyman4r.
3708 Bradley Lane
Chevy Chase 15, Maryland OL 6-7289
Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A-copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was mailed this
? day of July, 1966 to Ernest C. Raskauskas, Esquire, 910-17th Street,
N.W., Washington, D. C., and Robert J. Stanford, Esquire, 1730 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C., Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Paul R. Con holly
5411 Albemarle Street
Westmoreland Hills
Washington, D. C.
-7-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
a
25X1 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS &
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910.17TH STRECT. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296.4272
Approve
r Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP7540R000100110001-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EERIK HEINE,
v. ) Civil Action No. 15,952
JURI RAUS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In compliance with the direction of the Court at the contin-
ued hearing on May 13, 1966, on the defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, comes now the plaintiff, Eerik Heine, by his counsel,
Ernest C. Raskauskas and Robert J. Stanford, and submits this
outline of his principal points in opposition to the defendant's
pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. Plaintiff Urges Pending Motion Respecting Amended Answer.
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Motion to Amend Answer redesig-
nated by the Court as a Motion to Strike Order Amending Answer is
still pending and plaintiff urges the Court to rule on said Motion
prior to its consideration of defendant's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment, and in accordance with the Court's statement at the hearing
of April 14, 1966.1/
In defendant's Motion to Amend Answer, he attempts to justify
a delay of more than one year in pleading the affirmative and
annihilating defense of absolute privilege on the "reasons clearly
beyond the control of the defendant, as detailed in the testimony
2/
of E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Esquire," when in fact said
1/ Transcript of Proceedings, April 14, 1966, p7 5.
2/ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to
Amend Answer.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910-17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296.4272
Approve
r Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-0.0R000100110001-1
witness was was unable to state why the Central Intelligence Agency
reversed its position and permitted the tardy assertion of the
defense other than for reasons of expediency' and further, said
witness could neither explicitly state that because of the secrecy
law was the defendant forbidden to assert the defense of absolute
4.
immunity,-" nor would the witness disclose who directed or forbid
him to assert the defense of absolute privilege.V The Court is
furnished no information as to the capacity, authority, or rank
of the person purportedly forbidding the defense of absolute
privilege except that in a question propounded by Mr. Connolly to
Mr. Prettyman an inference can be drawn that at least a discussion
was had with an attorney concerning the question of raising the
defense of absolute privilege./ In contradistinction to the
vague, ambiguous and pretended reasons for the allowance of an
amended answer, plaintiff has asserted and meticulously detailed
in his opposition to said Motion, specifically and conclusively
the grounds for the denial of such a motion under existing Federal
Case Law, of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part
of the movant, and undue prejudice to the plaintiff by virtue of
the allowance of the amendment, which plaintiff hereby urges upon
the Court without restatement, and states that defendant has
asserted no impressive reasons upon the Court on which it may
exercise its discretion, and plaintiff requests that the Court
3/
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 73, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.,
Esquire, "I do not know the policy reason or other reason
that the Agency decided ?to change its stand."
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 73, Testimony of E. Barrett
Prettyman, Jr., Esquire, "Well, I presume so, yes. The law
was pointed out."
Transcript of
Jr., Esquire,
not."
Transcript of
Proceedings, Testimony of E. Barrett Prettyman,
pp. 70-71, "Frankly, Mr. Connolly, I would think
Proceedings, March 11, 1966, p. 69.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS &
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910-17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
266.4272
Approver Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-.TOR000100110001-1
-3-
make a ruling in its consideration of the testimony of E. Barrett
Prettyman, Jr., as it suggested it would at the conclusion of
the hearing of March 11, 1966.2/
II. There Exist Numerous Genuine Issues of Material Fact.
A. In his first opposition to the defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment, the plaintiff set forth in columnar fashion
the numerous controversies, contradictions and conflicts as set
forth in the complaint, the answer, and all of the affidavits
filed herein on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant in
various stages of the litigation as well as those filed with the
motion of the defendant and the opposition of the plaintiff.
These contradictions are still present and are so mate-
rial that they alone prevent consideration of the issue of govern-
mental immunity which constitutes the totality of the defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment. There is a mutual exclusion palpably
evident in the juxtaposition of the material averments. Most
pointed is the comparison of the Second and Ninth Defenses in the
Amended Answer.
In the Second Defense, the last sentence of the final
paragraph, section 1, the defendant denies making statements attri
buted to him as specified in those paragraphs (i.e., paragraphs 6
and 7).
\J
In his Ninth Defense he states that on those occasions
specified in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, of the complaint, when he
spoke concerning the plaintiff, he was acting within the scope of
his employment. Thus to deny having made the allegations but to
arrogate course-of-employment privilege is a metaphysical impos-
sibility.
2/ Transcript of Proceedings, March 11, 1966, pp. 74-75.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
? FORD. SKEENS ec
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910-17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296-4272
II
Approver Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-400R000100110001-1
-4-
B. Assuming as true all other averments of the defend-
ant, there exists a factual issue with regard to the scope of the
Agency's functions. The defendant contends that Title 50, ? 403
(d)(3), permitted Rausl action under the power of the final clause
"And provided further, That the Director of Central Intelligence
shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and
'methods from unauthorized disclosure."
However, the plaintiff contends that the same statute
and paragraph ? 403(d)(3) contains a stricture and specific, pro-
hibition against the Agency: "Provided, That the Agency shall have
no police, subpoena, law-enforcement powers, or internal-security
functions." The necessity for the resolution of this issue will
defeat the Motion for Summary Judgment.
III. Affidavits And Testimony Do Not Present Admissible
Evidence.
There is a gross insufficiency in the affidavits supporting
the defendant's motion and in the testimony elicited in the depos,
tion of Juri Raus. In Spraaue v. Yoat, (CCA 8th, 1945) 150 F.2d
795, 800, the Court said:
"When affidavits are offered in support of a
motion for summary judgment, they must present
admissible evidence."
The primary rule for admission of evidence in any Court in
this land is the requirement that it be subject to cross-
examination. However, all of the affidavits, reiterations and
restatements, are replete with multiple assertions of full dis-
closure and a declaration of an inability to disclose more. This
was sealed with finality by the claim of Governmental privilege
entered by Admiral William Raborn, then Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. Under footnote 2 of the original memorandu
in support of the defendant's motion, there was quoted from
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
010.17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON, O. G. 20006
296-4272
Approver Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-.70R000100110001-1
-5-
50 USCA ? 403(g) that the Agency is exempted from the provisions
of any law "which require the publication or the disclosure of
the organization's function, aims, official titles, salaries or
numbers of personnel employed by the agency."
In adherence to this policy, and in accordance with the oft-
repeated and oft-modified position of' the defendant, we must pre-
sume that full disclosure has been made. As held in Sexton v.
American News Company, DCC, 1955, 133, F. Supp. 591 "where evi-
dence is taken in support of motion for summary judgment, it is
the duty of counsel for both parties to fully disclose all evi-
dence bearing on the issues raised by the motion..." If the
affidavits and Raus' deposition are the full and complete dis-
closure, it is readily apparent that the evidence which the
defendant asks the Court to accept cannot stand.
If, in attempting to prove at trial that he was in fact an
employee, Jun i Raus, under direction, confines his statements to
the fact that he received money directly or indirectly from the
Central Intelligence Agency and refuses any other inquiry on cros
examination which would bring a clarification of a vague general-
ity which sheds no light upon the issue of employment, that
testimony would be summarily stricken. We must conclude that the
refusal to submit to cross-examination on deposition exemplifies
the course at trial. Since it is the intent of Rule 56 that the
result of a Summary Judgment hearing be the same as would be
achieved at trial, it follows that the defendant's motion must
fail.
IV. Insufficiency of Facts Presented.
There exists a gross insufficiency in the affidavits of
Richard Helms and the testimony of'Juri Raus insofar as they
purport to set forth incontrovertible'facts showing that the
Ajaproved For Release 2005/02/1.0: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100-110001-1,:7
FORD. SKEENS 8:
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910-17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296.4272
Approver Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-
-6-
OR000100110001-1
defendant was an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency,
that he had a scope of employment, and that in the course and
scope of that employment he launched his slanderous attack upon
the plaintiff.
Nothing sets forth with decisiveness and clarity the elements
of fact upon which the Court can make a determination of the vital
central issue upon which the motion depends. The record on the.
issue of employment is still such that reasonable men may widely
differ since the evidence is conflicting, of uncertain weight, in
part incompetent and susceptible of various interpretations.
Therefore only by a trial can the Court ascertain truth of the
pertinent facts and move to decide such questions of substantive
law as those facts present. In such a situation the entry of
summary judgment is not the proper method, American Security
Company v. Hamilton Glass Company, 254 F.2d 889, 892.
The affidavits of Richard Helms contain declarations that no
further information can be given concerning the employment of Juni
Raus and were accompanied by memoranda of Counsel declaring that
each affidavit was the final word possible on the subject under
the demands of national security. However nothing in the affidavits
or the interrogation of Jun i Raus at the time of*his deposition in
open court is sufficient to show that the defendant was in fact an
employee with the Central Intelligence Agency, that as a regular
employee with known and prescribed duties he had a scope of employ
ment. No evidence is presented to show that he was more than an
independent contractor not dissimilar to the private detectives
who undertook the assignment to travel throughout the United
States and Canada in order to gather information about the plain,-
tiff. The absolute privilege of Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 571
which sets forth the philosophy of Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d
5791 581 (2d Cir. 1949), applies only to actual government officers
FORD. SKEENS &
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I 0- 7TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296.4272
Ii
Approve
r Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-.70R000100110001-1
-7--
not to co-operators, volunteers, informers or other links with a
particular community or culture who are used or "employed" (as
defendant semantically urges) for a particular purpose but who
possess no scope of duties which demands freedom of action, dis-
cretion or ohoice. If the defendant as a volunteer or an inde-
pendent contractor agreed to utter slanderous comments about the
plaintiff, to the use of the CIA, he did so at his own risk, but
the privilege does not exist for someone who is doing his work
outside of a scope or course of employment.
V. Absolute Immunity Does Not Attach To All Government
Employees.
If it could be clearly shown that the defendant Raus was a
subordinate employee and that his sole duty was the issuance of
a totally untrue vilification (and it is staunchly averred by the
plaintiff that such has not been shown by the defendant) he would
still not enjoy the governmental imffiunity as contemplated by Barr
v. Matteo and Howard v. Lyons. If a person is not exercising a
discretion he has no freedoM. If he has no freedom or scope of
faction, then there is no necessity for the immunity as contem-
plated by the Supreme Court decisions, or the decision of Learned
Hand as set forth in Greaoire v. Biddle. Absolute immunity is no
enjoyed by all government employees but only officers or officia
with discretional choice.
In quoting the Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. at 572, 573, the
courts said:
"The privilege is not a badge or a monument of
exalted office, but an expression of a policy
designed to aid in the effective functioning
of government * * * it is not the title of his
office but the duties with which the particular
officer sought to be made to respond in damages
is entrusted. The relation of the act complained
Of to "matters commited by law to his control or
supervision," * * * must provide the guide in
delineating the scope of the rule which cloaks
the official acts of the executive officers with
immunity from civil defamation suits."
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS
RASKAUSKA,S
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t 10-17TH STRCET. N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 200013
298.4272
II
Approver Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-GOTOR000100110001-1
-8-
This clearly shows that the doctrine of absolute brivileae
to speak or write in a defamatory manner of any person which was
recognized to reside in federal officers of Cabinet rank was not
by either the Barr or Howard cases extended to government employees
of ,anv rank or of any connection but to "officers of lower rank
in the executive hierarchy." The defendant by his own claim,
was ,a government employee of subordinate rank and not an officer
in the executive hierarchy. The affidavits and the statements in
deposition and the claims by Counsel all place defendant Raus out-
side the contemplation of the oft-quoted Supreme Court decisions
which form the basis of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
VI. The Statements by Jun i Raus Were Actions Beyond the
Statutory Power of the Central Intelligence Agency
and Beyond the Claimed Instructions to the Defendant.
Throughout the pleading, defendant has repeatedly quoted
with self interest that the Director of Central Intelligencc is
directed to protect intelligence sources and methods. However,
this is a conveniently truncated repeatedly by the provisions of
the quoted statute 50 USCA g 403(d)(3) and 50 USCA g 403(g) state
that the Director is directed to protect "intelligence sources
and methods from unauthorized disclosure." The clear intent of tlie
word "disclose" is to protect information for known sources of
information within the knowledge of the Central Intelligence
Agency from revelation to others outside of the Central Intelli-
gency Agency as the intelligence gathering organization for the
United States Government. A claim of protection of sources does
not extend to a speculative area when the slanderous utterances
are made to potential possessors of information and not intelli-
gence.sources who could be notified directly by their contact and
no doubt have been in accordance with accepted intelligence pro-
cedures. To disclose the information received from behind the
Iron Curtain to none other than Central Intelligence Agency or
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS &
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910-17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296.4272
Approver Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-.0R000100110001-1
known and and approved persons. The slanders of the defendant did
not therefore attempt or accomplish the protection of foreign
intelligence sources from disclosure, but served merely to poison
the reputation of the plaintiff, a heretofore widely recognf.
anti-communist hero.
Further Central Intelligence Agency Regulation HR 10-20,
effective 29 August 1952, submitted by the defendant states in
paragraph .20 Protection and Disclosure of Information, in para-
graph b, indicates that the information to be protected is that
information within the Aaencv or other intelligence components.
Nothing in the supplementary memorandum on the authority of
the Central Intelligence Agency gives any further authority than
has been quoted to date. The defendant has the affirmative burder
to establish statutory authority before he can claim official
immunity and in Maryland this must be done by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Therefore until the defendant makes such a showing, the
defense of absolute privilege and summary judgment are not avail-
able to him.
There exists a factual issue concerning the statutory
authority as detailed under Section II.
In the affidavit of August Kuklane heretofore filed by plain-
tiff, said deponent states that the defendant claimed the FBI as
the source of his slanderous statements. Defendant, by inference
from the testimony in his deposition of April. 28, 1966, p. 66,
admitted the attribution and further directly admitted that the
FBI in fact did not furnish him any information that plaintiff
was a KGB agent, p. 67. Accordingly, such a deliberate, malicious
admitted slanderous untruth cannbt.be statutorily justified as
the protection as an intelligence source. The tortuous action of
the defendant was not in protection of any "intelligence source
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD, SKEENS
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910-17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
? 296-4272
I/
Approver Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-.0R000100110001-1
from unauthorized unauthorized disclosure" but rather was a direct, overt,
wrongful act against an individual without reference or relation
to any intelligence source in need of protection. .
Furthermote, such remarks according to the affidavit of
August Kuklane were in marked contrast to the instructions sup-
posedly given to a subordinate employee who had, according to the
defendant, no discretion.
VII. Premature Presumption of The Existence of A Federal
Question.
It is premature to determine whether a privilege exists for
statements communicated in the course of employment under State
court rulings or whether this is a Federal question, until there
is a showing of facts beyond dispute that the defendant was acting
within the scope of his emplOyrent for the Central Intelligence
Agency. This once again illustrates that the defendant is prema-
ture in his motion and presumptuous in his claim.
VIII. The Refusal To Permit Discovery By The Defendant
Exempts The Plaintiff From Responding to Motion.
Rule 56(f) provides that when a party opposing the motion
cannot for teasons stated present by affidavit facts essential
to justify his opposition, the Court may refuse the application
for judgment. This is most pointly true in the instance where the
movement for summary judgment is in possession of the very facts
necessary to permit the opponent to properly oppose the motion.
Defendant Jun i Raus is in possession of all of the facts relating
to his connection, compensation, duties, assignment, scope of
employment and responsibility. He 'refuses to disclose any of therr
in response to the interrogatories propounded to him in written
pj The Supplemental Memorandum of the Defendant states "that
Raus was employed on those occasions specified in paragraphs
5, 6 and 7 of the complaint to carry out a specific assian-
ment." Further, "Raus was acting as a subordinate government
employee in the discharge of orders."
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS &
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910-17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296-4272
Approve
r Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-.0R000100110001-1
-11-
form or by examination by deposition held in open court.
The interposition of the governmental privilege not to dis-
close information of a security nature is an independent, non-
partisan rule of law which favors neither side. Since secrecy
prevents full disclosure and prevents subjection of defendant
Raus to cross-examination, the said defendant cannot prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that he is within the scope of
employment of the Central Intelligence Agency. The failure to
disclose therefore must inure to the detriment of the defendant
and not to the plaintiff who seeks information from the defendant.
As stated in Moore's Federal Practice, section 56.24 with regard
to Rule
56(f), FRCP,
"If however, the Court is of the opinion that
since the knowledge is in the possession or
control of the moving party, who is, of course,
an interested party, and that the opposing
party may be able to establish his claim or
defense if afforded the opportunity to cross-
examine the moving party in Court, or for some
other reason the case needs the full develop-
ment of a trial, the Court may deny the motion
for summary judgment."
IX. The Formal Claim of Privilege Lodged By The CIA
Estops It And The Defendant From Any Subsequent
Proffer Of Privileged Facts.
On April 28, 1966, the CIA, in writing, over the signature
of its then Director, Admiral W. F. Reborn, filed a formal Claim
of Privilege. This action was accepted by the Court to the extent
that the plaintiff was precluded from even ascertaining the gross
income of defendant as reported on defendant's federal income tax
return for 1964, and whether he was contacted or he contacted the
FBI concerning Eerik Heine, Deposition of Jun i Raus, p. 59, p. 75.
Therefore, the in camera affidavit of Lawrence R. Houston,.
and the annexed and admittedly secret papers, amount to a repudia
tion by the General Counsel of the Agency of previous Claim of
Privilege by the Director of the Agency. This is a classic
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEENS
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
910.17TH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
296.4272
-
Approver Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-1.0R000100110001-1
example of of judicial estoppel, and under Maryland law, defendant
is estopped to proffer inconsistently the evidentiary materials
submitted by Mr. Houston in an attempt to shore up and salvage,
the arguments Of defendant in his Memorandum Concerning the
Authority of the Central Intelligence Agency. M.L.E. Estoppel
? 43.
Accordingly, it is not necessary for counsel for plaintiff
to review or study the affidavit and exhibit filed in support of
defendant's Memorandum Concerning the Authority of the Central
?
Intelligence Agency, since the same cannot be considered by the
Court.
X.
Plaintiff's Counsel Cannot Review the Secret Filings
Proffered by Defendant Concomitant With the Discharge
of Their Ethical Obliaations-To Their Client
Assuming without admitting, that the secret papers filed by
Mr. Houston were not susceptible of estoppel, nevertheless, plain
tiff's counsel could not in good conscience and in accordance
with the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Associ
ation review said secret papers. Section 15 of said Canons, amon_
other matters, directs that "In the judicial forum the client is
entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
that
is authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense." In a courtroom climate
where the supposedly impartial representatives of the government,
purportedly there only to protect state secrets interpose objec-
tions as to materiality, Transcript of Proceedings, April 28, 1966,
p. 68, second objection of Mr. Moroney,-/Counsel will not and cannot
circumscribe the prosecution of his prospective arguments and
remedies on behalf of his client, under the Damoclean sword that
some argument or some tactic is proscribed or prohibited because
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
FORD. SKEEN'S &
RASKAUSKAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
210-17TH.STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
203.4272
Approver Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-110R000100110001-1
it would would disclose some "method or technique" of intelligence or
perhaps reveal some secret in the "nether world" of international
conspiracy, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 5.
In addition, the condition of secrecy imposed upon counsel,
precluding consultation and conference with their client concern-
ing said proffered materials, is patently divisive and violative
of the undivided fidelity which must exist between counsel and
client, and is contrary to the adverse and conflicting interest
rule contained in Section Six of the Canons.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully moves the
Court to deny defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
7
Ernest C. Raskausk?as.
1418 Ray Road
Hyattsville, Maryland
Area Code 202 296-4272
cT
RoVert J./S4nford /7
10401 Grds-i7enor Place
Rockville, Maryland
Area Code 202 296-8870
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM BRIEF OF
PLAINTIFF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
was mailed, postage prepaid,to Paul R. Connolly, Esquire, and
E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Esquire, Attorneys for Defendant, to
their office address at 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C., 20006, this 7th day of July, 1966.
Ernest C. Raskauskas\
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
25X1 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DIS ICTCOURT
OR THE DISTRICT OP MARYLAND
EERIK WEINE
VS.
JURI RAU30
P1 ff.,
Defendant,
: Civil Action No. 15952
Soopoomgoa?ww"...*+wlowiew**0?00X
Washington, D. C.
Saturday, February 27, 1965
Deposition of:
EERIK HEINZ,
the plaintiff, called for examination by counsel for the
defendant, pursuant to notice, a copy of which is attached
to the court copy of this deposition, and agreement of counsel
as to change in time, in the offices of Hogan & Hartson,
Esquires, 803 Colorado Buildings Northwest, Washington, D. 0.0
20005, beginning at one o'clock, p. in., before George M. Poe
aottioart & Poe, inc.
BOND BUILDING, 1404 NEW YORK AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20005
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : 01A3RDPW6700H0R000100110001-1
DI 7-7185
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Jr.,
2
a Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, when
were present on behalf of the respective parties:
For the Plaintiff:
ERNEST C. RASKAUBKAS, ESQUIRE
and
ROBERT 3. STANFORD, ESQUIRE
Por the Defendant:
WITNESS
EERIK HEINE
HOGAN & HARTSON, ESQUIRES
BY: PAUL R. CONNOLLY, ESQUIRE
and
E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN, JR., ESQUIRE
-o -
INDEX
EXAMINATION BY:
MR. CONNOLLY
am .00,
MR. RASKAUSKAS
400 moo
XHIBITS
FOR IDENTIFICATION
Defendant's Exhibit Number 1 83
Do.
2
89
Do.
3
89
Do.
4
89
Do.
5
90
Do.
6
93
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3
THEREUPON,
EERIK HEINE,
the plaintiff, was called for examination by counsel for the
defendant, and after having been duly sworn by the Notary
Public, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Mr. Heine what is your full name?
A Xerik, with two "Els."
Q What is your residence address?
A Canada; 121 Mount Olive,Drive, Rexdale, Ontario.
Q Is Rexdale a suburb of Toronto?
A Yes.
Q What is your employment?
A I am in a fac:Ory; a factory foreman.
Q What is the name of the factory?
A Artistic Woodwork.
Q Where is it located?
A 23 Tinsley Avenue, Toronto.
Q And your Job is precisely what?
A I have under me four men who are some kind of
foremen. I am foreman there.
Q What sort of work do the men under you perform?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
4
A Picture frames we are making.
? How long have you been engaged in this work?
A I went to work there a year -- one and a half years
ago.
Q In the last five years have you had any other
residence other than the one that you heretofore have given
us on Mount Olive Road?
A Yes. When I came to Canada as a visttor, in the
beginning I lived with my mother, Maragarete Heine, 2980
Spark Road.
Q How long did you maintain that residence?
A About six months.
Q And did you take another residence beforelou
assumed your present one?
A Oh, yes. I am married, and I went to live with
my wife. I do not remember the address now, where we did live,
at this time.
Q Let me come back to that in a moment.
You have had this present job for a year and a
half?
A Yes.
Q When did you first come to Canada?
A '57
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
5
Q So, what part of the year in '57?
A In April.
Q Almost eight years you have been in Canada?
A Yes.
Q Now, what Job did you have immediately prior to the
one that you now hold with the picture frame factory/
A I went to work in 157, in December for the Piettie
Manufacturing Company in Toronto.
Q Letter ST"?
A P-I-E-T-T-I-E (spelling).
Q Manufacturing Company?
A Yes.
Q And what did Piettie Manufacturing Company make?
A We made out of masonite, it was bottoms for chairs,
and so on.
Q BY, cutting masonite you made chair seats for
bottoms of chairs?
A Yes; radio and TV backs.
Q What specifically was your job?
A Laborer.
Q You commenced that employment in December of 1957.
How long did you retain it?
A From then until May f63 when I quit the Job.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
6
Q Had you progressed at the Job in the intervening
roughly five and a half years, had you gone to foreman? Had
you gotten above the status of laborer, or what was the progress
that you made in your work?
A The last Job, what I have now, I am a foreman
there.
And from there you went to your present employment,
did you?
A No. In my present job I am a foreman; earlier
I was a laborer.
I understood you to say that when you finished in
May of 163 at the Mettle Manufacturing Company, you were a
foreman?
A No; I was a laborer.
Q You stayed a laborer during the entire time you
worked at Piettie?
A Yes.
Q In May of '63 you quit Piettie Manufacturing
Company, did you?
A Yes.
Q Or were you laid off? Which was it?
A I quit.
Q Did you then take your present Job?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A No.
? What job did you take?
A I went on a lecture and movie tour here in the
United States from May '63 until
Q Until what time?
A Until September 163
Q Following September f63, what employment did you
have?
AMON.
A Artistic Woodword.
Q Your present employment?
A Yes; my present employment.
Q What is your birthdate?
A llth of September 1919.
Q Your place of birth?
A Tartu in Estonia.
Q Estonia?
A Estonia.
Q You have glen me the name of your mother hereto-
fore. What was the name of your father/
A Oscar Heine.
Q You are married?
A Yes, I am married.
Q Do you have any children that have been born of your
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
8
marriage?
A No.
Q What is your wife's maiden name?
A Elsa Varres.
Q Would you like to spell that?
A V-A-11-R-E-8 (spelling).
Q Where and when did the marriage take place?
A The 28th of December 1957.
Where?
A In Toronto.
Q Had you previously been married?
A No.
Q What date was it that you arrived in Canada?
A It was '57, in April I believe.
Q What was your point of arrival?
A Halifax, Canada.
Q How did you arrive?
A By ship.
Q What ship?
14 7/.
A.444$1,- lye
A I don't remember that. -"Le'
Q You don't remember the ship?
A The name, no.
Q Do you remember whether it was British, Canadian
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
9
flagship?
A From Bremen, from Germany, by ship.
Q Bremen to Halifax?
A Yes.
Q Had it made any stops between Bremen and Halifax?
A Oh, yes; in England, I think.
Q Whereabouts?
A I don't remember.
Q You don't remember where it stopped?
A No.
Q Did anybody accompany you, any friend or
410 acquaintance or relative?
A No; I was alone.
ct Did you have a visa?
A Yes; visitor's visa.
Fom whom did you procure that visa?
A The Canadian Consulate in Hamburg or Bremen; I
don't exactly know; Hamburg or Bremen, but from the Canadian
Consulate.
? Did you have any passport?
A I am a Canadian citizen now.
? At the time you came to Canada, did you have any
passport?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
10
A Yes, I had.
? A passport of what nation?
A Germany.
Q West Germany?
A West Germany.
Q At the time you sought a visitor's visa to Canada,
were you claiming at least West German citizenship?
A They gave me that citizenship after I was exchanged
from Russia as a prisoner of war.
Q Where did you get your German passport?
A In Oldenburg, Germany.
? Were you required there to make some establishment
of your identify?
A Oh, yes.
Q And what was required of you?
A Birth certificate. And I had a document for when
I was released from Russia.
Q I am sorry; I didn't understand the first part of
it.
A I had a document with me, given to me when I was
411 released from Russia as a prisoner of war.
Q You had a document or that document? Which did
you say?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
11
A A document.
Q What was that document?
A That consisted of my name, first name; birth date;
birth place; and how long I have been in prison, labor camps;
my woundings and my illnesses.
Q Is that it?
A Yes,
Q How did this establish your German citizenship?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Object. Go ahead and answer
it.
BY MR. CONNOLLY;
Q My poit is at Oldenburg when you sought a German
passport I asked you if you had to establish your citizen-
ship, and you said yes; and I asked you what did you have to
do, and you said you had to show them a birth certificate, and
then you said you had this document, whIch you got when you were
released from Russia.
Now, I want to come back to that:
What else did you offer them in Oldenburg to
establish your German citizenship?
A They needed documents, all by themselves, the
German Government, all the records in the German Army and
everywhere where / have been under German occupation.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
12
Q You said they had that in Oldenburg?
A Yes.
Q You didn't have to provide that?
A No.
Q All you had to do was show them your birth certi-
ficate and this Russian document?
A Not Russian; that was a German document, what they
gave me when I was in camp near the East Germany border where
we were screened and then released.
Q It was written in Germany, but it was given to
you by the East German authorities or Russian authorities?
A West German authorities.
Q Given to you
A Yes.
while you were in East Germany?
A No. When I was in West Germany.
Q There came a time when you came into West Germany,
I take it?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A It was in November '56.
Q At what point did you enter West Germany?
A Berlin.
marals
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
13
Q Berlin?
A Yes; through the Russian Consulate in East Berlin
The West German authorities came to East Germany, in East
Berlin, and we were there about 20 prisoners of war and by a
list the Russians gave us over to the West German authorities,
and we went from East Berlin to West Berlin by bus, and --
Then were you taken to some place of security or
confinement while the West German authorities interrogated
you?
A Not confinement; rest house.
Q Where was that located?
A First we were about a couple-of'hours out of West
Berlin, and then we were flown out by plane to Friedland, West
Germany.
Q You were put through some sort of processing center,
were you?
A Yes.
Q At Friedland?
A At Friedland, yes, sir.
Q And at this point you were provided with this
document?
A Yes.
? By the West German authorities?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 :,CIA-:RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
14
A Yes.
Q And it was that document you used at Oldenburg to
obtain a passport?
A One of them, yes.
Q The other was your birth certificate?
A Yes.
Q Did you have a birth certificate with you?
A No. My mother had it with her in Canada.
Q She had sent you a copy?
A She sent it to me.
Q Well, the birth certificate showed you were born
in Estonia?
A Yes.
Q Were you born of German parentage?
A No.
Q Estonian parentage?
A Estonian.
Q Were any of your grandparents German?
A One of my grandparents was a German.
? Which one?
A Grandmother.
Q On which side?
A Mother's side.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
15
Q Father's side?
A Mother's side.
Q What was her name?
A Her married name was 'Wasik.
Q What was her maiden name?
A I don't remember that.
Q Do you remember where she came from in Germany?
A She was -- her ancestors lived already several
generationsin, Estonia.
Q But you don't know what her family name was?
A No. I was not interested in that.
Q Nbw, perhaps you can enlighten me.
Was this sufficient, namely, that you had one
grandparent who several generations back had been born in
Germany, was this sufficient to establish German citizenship?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Object. You may answer it.
THE WITNESS: Can I answer it?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: It began in 1940. I was a young
schoolboy at this time when the Russians forcefully occupied
Estonia, and in 1940 I formed an underground movement amongst
the schoolboys and was involved in other anti-Soviet activities.
I was arrested for anti-Soviet activities by the Russians, and
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
16
to save me from the prison and possible death sentence, my
parents decided to settle in Germarybecause at this time there
was an agreement between Russia and Nazi Germany that people
who have German blood in them may apply for immigration to
Germany. And only because my life was in very grave danger
in Russian prison, my parents decided to try that as the only
possible way to save my life, and they immigrated to Germany
about two months before I was exchanged as a political prisoner
from Estonia from the Russian prison to Germany. That was in
1941, in Marchlthat I was exchanged as a political prisoner.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q So you established your German citizenship back
in March of 1941, didn't you?
A I was not given a German citizenship this time
because when I was released there in Nazi Germany, the Nazi
authorities said that I have too little German blood in my
veins and I am not fit to have German citizenstip, so we got --
how it's called -- foreigner's pass, non-citizenship pass.
How it's called in translation, in German it's freiden
pass, this type.
Q This is some sort of document that permitted you,
a foreigner, to remain in Germany?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CJAADP75-00770R000100110001-1
17
Q Well, did there come a time when you did obtain
German citizenship?
A Real German citizenship I obtained in 1957, prior
to moving to Canada.
Q How did you go about obtaining it?
A I went to the German Ministry, I think it was the
Ministry of the Interior, and applied for German citizenship,
for a German passport.
Q That's in Oldenburg?
A Yes; in Oldenburg.
Q That is my point:
When you went there to Oldenburg to apply for a
German passport didn't they want to know or didn't they inquire
as to whether you were a German citizen?
A I said, "I have a document in my possession where
when I came over, when I was brought over as a prisoner of war."
I stated flatly that, "I am not a German,citizen, but I have
bluffed the Russians to believe that I am a German citizen,"
because in this way I was able to get over to the West. That's
a long story.
Q We will get to*.that later, but all I am trying to
find out now is, how you got or estab1i6hed German citizenship?
A I applied for German citizenship.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
18
Q By asking for a passport?
A Yes.
Q And all you had to supply the German authorities
in order to get a German passport was this document that was
given to you in a processing center.--
A Yes.
-- and a birth certificate showing your birth in
Estonia?
A Yes.
Q When you got to Canada on a visitorls visa, did
you apply for Canadian citizenship?
A No. I was first in as a visitor, and then I had
to apply for the status of landed immigrant, and that I got
two years later.
Q 1959?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Where?
A In Toronto; and then I had to wait four to five
years to have the right to apply for Canadian citizenship.
Q When did you obtain Canadian citizenship?
A Last year, in August.
Q AuguOtof 1964?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
19
Q Where?
A In Toronto;
Q Was there any ceremony that you went through?
A Yes; swearing in.
Q Where was that held?
A In Toronto, too.
Q But where?
A Lord Street; I don't know.
Q Was it some sort of governmental office or court?
A Yes.
Q What is the governmental office?
A Ministry of Citizenship, I think.
Q Were you taken before a court and sworn in?
A Yes.
Q Do you know which court it was?
A It was a special court forswearing in.
Q You don't remomber the name of it?
A No.
Q How long did your visitor's visa last?
A I believe it was half a year.
Q And it was renewed?
A Yes.
Q Where did you have it renewed?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
20
A I think six months later then.
Q But where?
A In Toronto, too.
61 And you kept having it renewed until 1959 when
you changed your status?
A Yes. I would have got it earlier but I had lung
defects, spots on my X-ray picture, and it was delayed until
they were sure that it isn't nothing serious.
CI Contagious?
A Yes.
Q How was your statuschanged in 1959, from a visitor
to what?
A To landed immigrant.
Q And that required a different type of visa, I take
it?
A That only.
Q Required a permit?
A A little piece of paper, immigrant for an indefi-
nite time, allowing me to stay in Canada.
Q Had your mother and father in the meantime come
to Canada?
A Yes. They came to Canada, I believe, in 1952.
Q From where?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
21
A From England.
Q How had they gotten from Germany to England?
A When the Russians occupied Estonia for the second
time, they fled again to Germany, and from Germany to England,
and from England to Canada.
cl When did they go from Germany to England?
A I believe it was 1949 or '50.
Q Is your father still living?
A No.
41 When did he die?
A He died exactly five months before I got out from
Russia.
Q And so your mother was living in Canada from 1952,
and you joined her there; is that right?
A Yes.
Q She was in Toronto?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any brothers or sisters?
A I had a brother in my young years, but he died
when he was six years old.
Q Did your mother have any sisters?
A Yes, she had.
Q Were any of them living with her in Canada?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
22
A No.
Q Any brothers?
A No.
Q Did she have any relatives in Canada?
A No.
Q Did you have or do you have any relatives in Canada
other than your mother?
A Oh, yes. I have an uncle and an aunt fronimy
father's side.
Q What are their names and where do they live?
A They live in Port Arthur. My aunt's name is Ella
Peremees; and my uncle's name is Alexander Heine.
Q And does he live in Port Arthur also?
A Yee,
Q Do you have the address of either of them in Port
Arthur
A Yes, I have.
Q What is it?
A My aunt's address -- the postal address -- is
simple: Murillo; Miss Ella Peremees, Murillo, Ontario. They
get it in the post that way.
Q Is there a street number or a street name?
A No. They live near Port Arthur on a farm.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
23
Q What is the uncle's address?
A That's another; he lives on the other side of the
town, Port Arthur, and I don't recollect that address. I have
it some place, but I don't recalect it very easy.
Q At any time since you landed in Canada, have you
sought to come to the United States?
A I was invited several times to the United States.
Q Now, have you sought to come on any basis other
than as a!visitor?
A What do you mean?
Q Have you sought to immigrate to the United States?
A No.
Q You have come as a visitor, have you not?
A As a visitor every time.
Q When was the first time you came?
A AS I rightly recollect it was after I obtained my
status of landed immigrant. I came to a lecture tour to New
York, I think.
Q New York City?
A Yes.
Q This would be sometime in 1959?
A Yes; it would be this time about.
Q How did you get to New York; drive, take a train or
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
24
fly?
A No; by plane.
Q And you had to go through immigration, did you,
in New York?
A Yes.
What sort of documentation did you require?
A I had my landed immigrant, that slip, my German
passport and they checked that, and I went through.
Q How long did you say?
A Every time about a couple of days only.
Q This particular time, the time you came in 1959?
A Two days, I think.
Q Do you remember what pari of the_year it was in
'59?
A I don't anymore.
Q You don't remember whether it was wain or nice, or
whether it was cold?
A I don't recollect this.
Q Would it help you if you recall when it was in
1959 that you got your landed immigrant status?
A It was in the autumn; somewhere in October or
November.
Q So if you came in 1.959 --
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
25
A I think it was wintertime, yes.
Q And you came for a lecture or to give a lecture?
A TO give a lecture, yes.
? Where?
A I think it was where was ? I don't remember
that but we can establish that easily.
Q How?
A By asking the New York Estonians, they should remem-
ber.
Q What New York Estonians?
A The New York Estonian-- how is that in English --
Estonian gatherings or clubs.
Q Who invited you?
A I believe it was the Estonian Veterans' Associa-
tion.
hdd
Q You must have/some correspondence with somebody,
didrO, you?
A That was several years ago; I don't recollect that,
who it was.
Q Do you remember anybody who heard your lecture
that you presently know their identity?
A Oh, yes, I can. I believe Mr. Keerg.
Q What is his full name? ?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
26
A E-L41-A-R (spelling).
Q Where does he live?
A In_New York City. Long Island City; excuse me.
Q That is a pretty big place. Can you give me any
better place than that?
A Can I look in my notebook?
Q Certainly, anything you need to refresh your recol-
lection.
A Here it is: 30-70 - 34th Street, Long Island
City,
Q And he was at this lecture that you gave in New
York in 1959?
A I believe that, Yee.
Q Anyone else?
A There were very many people.
Q Anyone that you know, I mean?
A By names, I don't believe that I know everybody
there.
Q I am not asking you whether you know everybody; I am
asking you if you know the names of anybody else who you
recall being at that lecture?
A / don't recall that.
Q Only Elmar Keerg?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
27
A Nes.
Q What was the subject of the lecture?
A My experiences in Soviet Russia as a prisoner and
my experience in Estonia as a guerrilla fighter.
Q Were you paid for this lecture?
A Only roundtrip.
Q Only your expenses?
A Nes.
Q Where did you stay in New York?
A This time I believe it was by Mr. and Mrs.
Juhkam.
them?
Q What are their first names?
A The first name of Mrs. Juhkam was Roori.
Q And Mr. Juhkam, what was his first name?
A I don't know that. I don't recollect it.
Q Did you know them before you got to New York?
A No,
Q How was it that you happened to be put up with
A That was arranged by these groups, I think.
By the groups you think; you don't know?
A I don't remember who and how.
Q Had you ever been to New York before?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
28
A No.
? This was your first time?
A Yes.
? In what part of the city did they live?
A Who, please?
Q These people with whom you stayed?
A I have their address here some place.
I am sorry; I don't have the address here now.
Do you have some source from which you can get it?
A Oh, yes, I have it.
Q Where, at home?
410 THE WITNESS: Can I answer it (indicating Mr.
Raskauskas)?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes, answer it.
THE WITNESS: At home, yes.
MR. CONNOLLY: When this deposition is over, you
will have to read it and make any corrections in it, so I
will ask you at that time to insert the address at this point.
57e Gibr7lie 4 2---2 ce-
A? ; re c fe( J4,134:1
States?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
When was the next time you came to the United
A There were several times, but specifically I don't
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R00010011.0001-1
29
remember the exact dates and it was about, I think, three or
four times I came to New York to lecture. Once was in Lakewood
Rau
near New York, and -Yuvironki me the invitation to
come and lecture there.
Q Where?
A In the Estonian Clubhouse in Lakewood.
Q When was that?
A I don't recollect that.
Q You don't remember the year?
A No.
? You say you don't remember the year?
A No.
Any other recollection you may have of visits to the
United States?
A A long trip, about three months, all over America,
beginning in 1963 in May? until 1963 -- July, I think.
Q You previously said September. Were you in error?
A Pardon?
Q You previously said September. Were you in error
when you said that?
A In September when?
Q '63?
A 163?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
30
Q Yes.
A That was when I finished my trip. I went all over
the United States over to Seattle, to Canada, and from the
West Coat to Canada, back to Toronto.
Q Row long did the trip last, from May until
September?
A Yes.
Q What reference did you make to July a few minutes
ago?
A I went out of the United States to Canada again
by Seattle.
Q Is this the first time that you have been back
in the United States since September of 1963, today or last
night?
A No. I was sometimes more after I made that movie-
showing trip.
(4 After September of 163, when was the next time
you came to the United States?
A After these slanderous remarks begun, I sought
(Aue
legal advice here and went to Mr.-Keehlander. in Baltimore,
andwe discussed these slanderous remarks Mr. Raus made against
me, and we sought a lawyer who would protect me against these
things.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
The first couple of times we didn't find a
suitable lawyer. The last time -- I don't exactly recollect
when it was when Mr. Raskauskas agreed to defend me.
Q All right. Now, after September 163, when was the
first time you came to the United States?
A After September I went again, the first time as
I recollect it was, I believe, in January 164 to Buffalo with
my movie.
Q January of 164?
A Yes.
Q Then you immediately returned to Canada, I take it?
A Yes; after a couple of hours I went again to
Canada.
Q What was the next oaeasion?
It was 154; September, I think.
Q September of 164?
A Yes.
Q And you came where?
A To New York.
Q And for what purpose?
A To find what I could do against this slanderous
campaign of Mr. Raus against myself.
? And who did you see in New York?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
32
A I was by Mr. Keerg.
Q Anyone else?
A was overnight that I was there.
Q At his home?
A Yes.
Q Did you see anyone else in New York?
A Mr. Allakas visited us there.
Q What is his first name?
A Alexander.
Q Where does he live?
A In Long Island City, too.
? Dokyou have his address in your hook?
A I am looking. Just a moment please.
No, I am sorry, I haven't that here,
ct I take it you have it at home?
A Yes.
Q Would you supply the address at some future point?
#v) )4. ,//k44 4
A Yes. 3$-(r idreeff'
JtAld 644
Q Did you see anyone else in New York?
A I went to the Estonian House there;there were
many people.
Q Any people that you recall meeting and talking with?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
33
A I recollect with great difficulty the names of
people, but the faces, very many of them are familiar; they are
friends.
Q You were treated cordially them were you?
A Oh, yes.
Q And after your New York City visit, did you return
to Canada?
A Yes.
Q Did you come again to the United States?
A Yes I came again to the United States.
May I ask Mr. Raskauskas a question?
Certainly.
THE WITNESS: Do you recollect when the first time
was that saw you?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: No. I don't have that. I suggest
you give the answers as best you remember personally, Mr. Heine.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
The best I remember it was '64 in November.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Where did you come?
A From New York.
To where?
A To Baltimore.
'Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
311.
? Whom did you see in New York on this occasion?
s
A I was overnight by Mr. Tusk; Hein? is the first
To OK
name. The family name is Tusk.
? Where does he live?
A If you excuse me, please.
Route Ten, Pasadena, Maryland, Box 18-T.
Q Thank you. I thought you were going to tell me
who it was that you saw in New Yozik:
A I came over to New York and to Washington;And here
Mr. Tusk drove me to his home.
Q When you came into this country, did you come to
New York?
A Yes.
Q Did you see anyone in New York?
A No. I waited there a couple of hours, and
then went --
Took a plane then to Washington?
A Yes.
Q And you were met by Mr. Tusk here?
A. Yes.
Q Who drove you to his house in Pasadena in Maryland?
A Yes.
? Did you meet Mr. Raskauskas on that occasion?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
35
A Yes.
Q Did you see anyone else?
A There was Mr. Kuklane.
Q What is his first name?
A I don't recollect that; August.
Q Could you give us his address?
A 4714 St. Thomas Street Baltimore.
Q Had you ever met Mr. Kukane before?
A Yes; when I was on my tour with my movie and my
lecture tour.
Q You lectured in Baltimore at that time?
A Yed..
Q And you had met him on that occasion?
A Yes.
q Had you ever met Mr. Tusk before?
A There must be one case more when I came to
Baltimore to seek legal advice, and then I met Mr. Tusk.
came for that purpose. That was a couple of months before we
started already, when I came, the first case.
MR. CONNOLLY: Have you made notes, Mr. Prettyman?
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q November 6th was the time you came to Baltimore, and
have you coming in January of 164, and I don't have you in
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
between.
of
164
36
MR. PRETTYMAN: September of 164 to New York,
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Was it between September and November?
A Yes. It must have been at this time.
Q You went to Boston, you say?
A To Boston?
Q I thought you said you went to Boston?
A No.
Q Between the time you came to New York in September
and the time you came to Washington and Baltimore in
November, you had made another trip to the United States, at
which time you had met Mr. Tusk?
A Yes; here in Baltimore.
? In Baltimore?
A Yes.
Do you remember what month that was?
A It must have been in October or November.
I came by bus from New York.
? So you had stopped in New York on that occasion?
then.
A I flew to New York, and came by bus to Baltimore
? Who tad you seen in New York before coming to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
37
.Baltimore?
A I saw Mr. Allakas and Mr. Keerg at this time.
Q Did they recommend you to Mr. Tusk or introduce
you to Mt. Tusk?
A They came with me with the purpose to meet Mr.
Kuklane this time.
Q, They came down with you?
A Yes.
Q When was it that you first began searching for
a U. S. lawyer to represent you?
A After these slanderous remarks went out of hand.
When was that, in point of time?
A It was about 1963 in June or July. I thought it
would be good to seek legal advice against these slanderous
remarks.
q How did you hear that any remarks were being passed
about you? Who told you?
A When I made my tour over the United States, people
who visited the movie or heard my lecture told me afterwards
that there are rumors and accusations that I am a Communist
agent and Soviet spy.
Q Where was it that you first heard that you were
being accused of being a Communist spy?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R00010011
001-1
38
A It must have been In Detroit whe4 one of my friends
sent a letter and told me that there are som rumors that I
am a Soviet spy and Communist agent.
He sent you a letter?
A Yes.
? Do you have a copy of that lette Do you still
have it?
A I believe I have it.
? Who was the author of it?
A Mr. Olaf Tammark.
? Do you have his address?
A Pardon?
Do you have his address?
A Yes. Just a moment, please.
Route Tug Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
? And he told you in this letter, n substance, that
he had heard rumors that you were a Soviet a ent and Communibt
spy?
A I am scrry; I didn't let you fin eh your sentence?
? Oh, I see.
Is it accurate that the substanc of what he said
In his letter to you was that he had heard r ors that you
were a Soviet agent and a Communist spy?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R00010011 001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
39
A Yes.
Q Did he tell you in this letter where he.ilad heard
these rumors, under what circumstances he had heard them?
A Yes. He told me in this letter that the United
States Government agents, probably FBI agents, had visited one
of their people out in Geneva City and asked questions about
me in this sense, and he wrote me, "What is going on?"
Q He didn't attribute it to Jur i Raus, did he?
A Not at this time.
Q He told you that in the city in which he lived or
the town in which he had lived, an FBI agent had come about
asking questions concerning you?
A Yes.
Q And the agent had given the impression in the city
that you were a Soviet agent?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you reply to this letter?
A No. I went on with my trip.
Q Did you hear the rumor or report again that a
charge was being made against you?
A As time went by the more I heard these rumors.
Q Were they just occasional or were they almost a
daily occurrence?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A A daily occurrence.
Q Every city you visited?
A Yes.
Q What did you hear/
A That the rumors that Mr. Jun i Raus, allegations
are that I am a very suspicious person, and then who wants to
listen to my lectures and visit my movie; they have to do that
on their own risk, and so nn.
Would you listen as the Reporter reads thattack to
you? I think for your own benefit and mine as well, I would
like you to understand fully what you have justsaid.
A Yes.
(Whereupon, the pending response was read by the
Reporter
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
You are now going to give me the substance of the
rumors which you heard as you continued on your trip? Is that
what you understood the question to be?
A Yes.
Q The first time you heard a charge against you, you
indicated a few moments ago that it was not Jun i Raus who was
said to be the author of it, and when was it that you first
heard that Jun. Raus was the author of a rumor against you?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A It was in anoofficial meeting in New York when
he made an official statement before 35 people.
MR. STANFORD: I don't want to interject.
didn't understand whether or not you are asking what Is the
first time that he hearC or what was the date of when Juni
Raus first made this accusation.
MR. CONNOLW: I am going to try to get to that.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q After you received this letter from Lake Geneva,
Wisconsin, you said that you went on about your lecture tour?
A Yes.
Q And as your lecture tour proceeded, you heard
repeated on almost a daily basis this rumor about your being
a Communist spy?
A Yes.
Q And then I understood you to say that people were
attributing this rumor to Jun i Raus?
A Yes.
Q When was the first time that you heard this rumor
attributed to Jun i Raus?
A It was -- I believe it was in Los Angeles.
Did somebody else tell you it was Jun i Raus who
was circulating these rumors?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
42,,1
A Yes, I believe that. When I can recollect it was
the chairman of the Los Angeles Association of Estonian
Veterans.
? What is his name?
A Just a minute. Excuse me.
Q When you get it, you might provide the address
also.
A I am sorry, I have not got the address with me at
the moment.
? Do you have it at home?
A Yes.
Q Would you provide the name and address at this
3riAh
ityff //2,_ kidek be -
A Yes. Ara. /04141?, Col ?
? Is it accurate to say that from the time you left
Detroit till you got to Los Angeles you had notheard the
rumor repeated?
A Yes.
Q I take it you made many stops between Detroit and
Los Angeles?
A No; only Chicago and Minneapolis after that.
Q In both cities did you hear the rumor?
A I began to hear some rumors about that I am a
point?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
suspicious person.
Q But in neither city was the rumor attributed by
anyone to you as coming from Jun i Raus?
A Not this time.
Q How did it come up in Los Angeles?
A Pardon?
Q How did the natter come up in Los Angeles?
A As I recollect Mr. Arthur -- how is his name? --
had received a letter of that kind or something. I don't
remember now.
? Did he show you a copy of any document?
A He told me.
Q what did he tell you as best you can recall?
A That Jun i Raus has told him that I am a suspicious
person and a Communist agent.
Q Where did you go from Los Angeles?
A To San Francisco.
Q Did you hear the rumor in San Francisco?
A Yes.
Q Was it attributed to Jun i Raus there?
A Yes,
Q Where from San Francisco did you go?
A To Montana, I believe, and then to Seattle.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
44
Q Who told you about the rumor in San Francisco?
A That was the chairman of that group. No, it was
my old school friend -- how is it said?-- fellow from school
years. A good friend of mine, Mr. Veske.
Q How does he spell his name, and give his full
name, please?
A (spellkg).
Q What is his first name?
A Alexander,
Q Where does he live?
A In San Francisco; 535 Arkansas Street, San
Francisco, California.
Q He told you in San Francisco?
A Yes.
Q Did you spend any time with him there?
A I was there about three days.
Q At his home?
A Yes.
Q And you said he had been an old school chum of
yours?
A Yes.
From where?
A From Estonia.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q You were boys together?
A Yes.
Q In what town?
A In Tartu.
Q What was the name of the school?
A College of Tartu.
Q This was not a primary or elementary school?
A High school.
41 Does he still live in San Francisco?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell you?
A He told me that the San Francisco Estonians were
interrogated by some Government agencies about me, and that
definitely these rumors or these things came from Jun i Raus.
Q What things?
A These suspicions and these allegations.
? Did he tell you what Jun. Raus had said about
you?
A Communist agent and then Soviet spy.
Q I take it your school friend didn't believe this
about you?
A No.
Q Do you know of anyone who believed it about you?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
a pity.
46
A Oh, yes. I think I know lots of people. That's
Q Itis?
A Yes.
Q Can you name some who believe it of you?
A There is Mr. -- I think I have that name here
Mr. Kari.
Q Whatls his first name?
A I don't know.
Q Where does he live?
A Here in Washington, I believe.
Q. Anyone else that you know of?
A There are several, but I don't recollect the
names.
Q Would you have any way of refreshing your
recollection?
A Oh, yes, I have.
Q And how would that be?
A I have to ask my fkiends who knew more Estonian
people in the United States than I and who can tell who
believes and who does not believe.
? Would you provide a list of those names?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I object to that.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
MR. CONNOLLY: Is it your position that you will
not furnish us with a list of the names?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Not through a deposition.
don't think it's appropriate, Mr. Connolly.
MR. CONNOLLY; Why?
MR. RASKAUSKASI Because the purpose of this
deposition is to interrogate this witness as to his present
knowledge.
MR. CONNOLLY: Would you prefer an interrogatory
which says, "List the names of those people who believe the
charges against you"?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I would prefer an interrogatory or
an informal request for him to furnish the names and addresses
of the people that he knows.
MR. CONNOLLY: It's going to be under discovery
rules either by interrogatory or this way. I don't think it
makes any difference.
MR RASKAUSKAS: I don't think that my client or
I can undertake a national investigation.
MR. CONNOLLY: I don't want a national investiga-
tion; I want the names of some people that he knows that believe
this of him.
He has made a charge that his reputation has been
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
48
damaged. Now, presumably he knows that some people think
poorly of him on account of this charge, and I don't think
he ought to give me everybody in the country that bel/wes it,
but I think he ought to give me a list of some people that he
thinks have formed an adverse opinion about him on account
of these charges.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I will reaffirm mvobjection. I
don't think it's appropriate for him to make a commitment
at a deposition to submit a list of people who believe these
charges against him.
MR. CONNOLLY: It wouldn't do me any good to have
a list that didn't believe them.
MR. RASKAURKAS: I think the only way you can
ascertain this fact from an evidentiary point of view is to
subpoena these people and examine them under oath.
MR. CONNOLLY: How can I subpoena anybody if I
don't know who they are?
MR. HASKAUSKAS: I.don't think --
MR. CONNOLLY: I am not asking you for a complete
list; I am asking you for a representative list of some of
the people that he thinks believe these charges against him.
MR. BASK/1=AS: I don't think my client can
inquire into anyone's conscience and find out what they do
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
believe. He might be able to recall some names at the present
time who he has heard, and I have no objection to your inquir-
ing of him as to all the names he knows of now that he has
heard.
MR. CONNOLLY: That's what the question started
out to be.
Where are we now? Do you want to add anything?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I think your question is pending.
Can he recall the names of any people?
(Whereupon, counsel for the plaintiff had a brief
conference between themselves).
MR. CONNOLLY: Are you finished now with your
conference?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Yes.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
? Would you tell us the names of the persons that you
have heard of or that you believe have formed ail adverse or
a hostile opinion of you on account of these rumors circulated
by Mr. Jun i Raus?
A One name; there is a Mr. Kork.
? What is his first name?
A I don't recollect that.
? Where does he live?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
50
A In Washington, D. C.
? So we have two people, both in Washington. Anyone
else?
A I don't recollect the names, no. There are many.
Q How could you find out the names? You say you
don't recall the names now?
A There are many.
How do you know there are many?
A Because at the time when I was told that these
people have said that I am a Soviet spy, I was told the names,
but I don't now recollect.
Who told you the names?
A Here in Washington, I think it was Mr. Tusk
and Mr. Kuklane.
? Mr. Tusk doesn't believe these rumors of you, does
he?
A No.
? Does Mr. Kuklane?
A No.
? But they told you the names of the people who do?
A Yes.
? Anyone else?
A I can't recollect.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
you?
51
? Anyone in New York that believes these rumors of
A There are for sure.
? Do you know their names?
A Not momentarily.
Does Mr. Keerg believe it of you?
A No. He believes in me, yes.
MR. STANFORD: I don't think that was clear.
MR. CONNOLLY: It wasn't clear to me either.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
? Does Mr. Keerg believe the rumor that you are a
Soviet agent?
A No.
agent?
? Does Mr. Karner believe that you are a Soviet
A Pardon, who?
Isn't there a Mr. Karner in New York? Didn't you
mention that name?
A No, I haven't mentioned that name.
Q Mr. Allakas?
A Yes.
Q Does he believe it?
A No.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
52
Q Did you ask either Mr. Tusk or Mr. Kuklane for
the names or did they volunteer the names?
A They voluntipered them.
Q Has Mr. Keerg given you any names?
A Yes.
Q Did you make notes of these names?
A No, I didn't make notes.
Q Did you ask him for the names or did he volunteer
them?
A He volunteered.
? Now, when you came to the United States on this
lecture tour, did you have to get any specific type of visa?
A No.
Q Who paid your expenses?
A Myself.
Q And how did you travel from city to city and
place to place?
A By ear.
Q By automobile?
A Yes.
Q Did you charge admission to your lecture and to
your film?
A For my film, yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
53
Q What was your charge?
A The local authorities. of the Estonian, these clubs
made the decision themselves, how much they will charge.
Q Did it vary from city to city?
A Yes.
Q Through what range? What was the low price, and
what was the high price?
A The low price was seventy-five cents, and the
high price two dollars or $2.50.
Q How many people do you estimate saw this movie
while you were in this country?
A In the United States?
Q Yes.
A I can only give you approximately.
Q That's good enough.
A The exact figures I have at home.
Q What are the approximate figures?
A Acouple of thousand.
Q Did you make money onthe tour?
A No.
Q Did each group keep the proceeds of what they took
in for the movie, or did they remit it all to you, or did you
split whatever was taken in?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
54
A From that money, for rent of facilities, for rooms
or these halls, and for Janitors, they took from that amount
and what came in for selling leaflets that went directly to
the Estonian Wounded Veterans in Germany; and what as over,
what was left, they gave it to me.
How much did you take in on that six-monthsf tour?
A About -- you want to know in Canada, too, or only
in the United States?
If you can break it up, do so?
A Approximately all together, about $7,000, but when
we split, from here in the States about 00500 or $3,000.
Q Did you pay any Federal amusement tax?
A No.
Q Did you pay any United States Federal income tax?
A No,
Q What movie were you showing?
A That was a movie called "Creators of Legend,"
that dealt with fights against Communitspand these were the
experiences of myself and my group and other members of my
guerrilla group there in Estonia.
Q Where did you get the movie?
A I made it myself.
Q You made it just for yourself?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Yes. I financed it.
Q Did you act all the parts?
A No; there were actors.
Q Professional actors?
A No; amateur actors, Estonians.
Q Did you play in the film itself?
A Only as a dead Russian.
Q Did you write the script?
A Yes.
Q And did you direct the film?
A Yes.
Q Did you do the photography?
A No.
Q Who did the photography?
A Mt. Magi, halfway.
Q What do you mean "halfway"?
A He left before the movie was completed.
Q Why?
A He immigrated to the United States=
Q Anyone else?
Let me have Magits full name?
A Evald Magi.
Q Where does he live?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
55
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
yours?
56
A He lives in Connecticut some place.
? Do you have his address?
A No.
? Are the people that made the movie friends of
A No, not particularly.
Q Where was it filmed?
A Mostly in Toronto and in the vicinity.
Q Were there any outdoor shots included?
A Yes, mostly.
Q Where were they filmed?
A About 70 or 100niles from Toronto, farms belonging
to Estonians.
Q Where was the indoor part of it shot?
A By Mr. Magi.
Q Where?
A In alpasement in Toronto.
Q In the what?
A In Toronto in a basement.
Q Whose basement?
A Mr. Magi's.
Q You say you financed this movie?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
How much did it cost?
A It cost about nine to ten thousand dollars:
? Where did you get the money?
A I saved and borrowed.
? You saved and borrowed?
A Yes.
? How much did you borrow?
A From the bank over $2,000, and from my mother
over $1,000.
Q And so the rest of the six or seven thousand
dollars you took out of savings?
A Yes.
Savings which you had acquired since arriving in
Canada in 1957?
A Yes.
Q Did you bring any money from Germany with you?
A I was paid over $1,000, I believe it was $1,500,
as damage money or -- I don't know how it's called.
Q By whom?
A By the German Government.
Q And you came to Canada with that $1,500?
A Yes.
Q Incidentally, had you ever been to North America
57
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
before
58
A No.
? Was this your first ocean trip?
A Yes.
And you don't remember the name of the ship you
were on?
A No.
Q And you don't remember the ports that the ship
stopped at?
A No.
Q Did anybody in this picture, did Mr. Magi, for
example, put up any money?
A Some, yes; but when he 'eft we gave him some
instruments, what was there for making movies, and he said,
"That's it; we are even now." It was a couple of hundred
dollarswhat he put in.
Mr. Magi put a couple of hundred dollars in it?
A Yes.
? And you gave him some instruments?
A Yes.
? What do you mean by "instruments"?
A Some -- how is it called?
? You mean a camera?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
59
A No. A generator. I can't translate it rightly.
What general electricty from a battery to -- not pulsating,that
is electricity, you know.
Q A transformer?
A About likethat thing, !yes.
Q What were you using a transformer for in making
a movie?
A For example, when we went to outdoors, there weren't
everywhere electricity by hand we had to use.
This is a hand generator?
A No; it's generated over from a battery sothat the
movie camera would run. It was electrically run.
Q How long did this movie last, if you were showing
it?
A Originally it Was two and a half hours, but before
I sent it to Germany and Europe, I cut it down to two hours.
Q When you showed it on your lecture tour, how long
was it?
A Two and a half hours.
Q Was this filmed on 16 or 18 millimeter film?
A 16.
Q And you wrote the script, did you?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
60
Q Do you still have a copy of the movie?
A From the script?
Q Do you still have a copy of the film?
A Only the negative.
Q That's all anyone ever has of a movie, isn't it?
A Pardon?
Q That's all anyone ever has of a motion picture,
isn't it, the negative?
Do you have the reels that make up the movie?
A I have in my possession only the negative of this
film,
Q That's all anybody has when they have a motion
picture, isn't it? Have you ever seen a positive of a motion
picture?
A Oh, yes.
? You have?
A 0ertahly.
Q Where?
A It's in Sweden now.
Q A positive of a motion picture?
A Yes, a copy, first copy.
Q A print?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
61
I have never heard of one.
But, if I had a 16-millimeter projector and a
screen here and you had the film with you, we could see it,
could we not?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Because I have only the negative.
Q I am not sure I understand what a negative is
then as you are using It.
A That's the first thing when you put film in and
run it, and first you develop it into a negative; and with
that negative you make the positive film, the real plain film.
Q Look, Mr. Heine, if I had a 16-millimeter projec-
tor and put a film on it that was developed --
A That's reverserfilm. You have the reverserfilm
in your camera.
Q I have the what?
A Reverser film it's called.
MR. PRETTYMAN: Reversal?
THE WITNESS: Yes; reversal. When you have made
these shots, you go to a movie laboratory and they develop it
instantly into a positive, but by.making --
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
62
Q Are you talking about-dills or are you talking
about motion ,pictures/
A Motion pictures.
Q I am talking about motion pictures, too.
If I were to go across the street to a camera
store and rented a 16-mi11emetercamera and put a magazine,
a 16-millimeter film in there and had sufficient light and
ran it had it developed
A Yes.
Q -- then I could put it on a projector, could I
not?
*Weis
A Yes.
Q And if you had a screen you could see the motion
pictures that were taken?
A Yes, you can.
Q Do you have that kind of film?
A No.
Q What kind of film do you have?
A I have in my possession only negatives.
Q What is negative?
A When you make a movie, a sound movie, first what
you have to do is run that film and make these shots, and then
you go to a laboratory and there they make from that negative
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
63
they make two copies, two positive strips, and you out that --
that is called a work print -- you cut this into "A" and "B"
rolls, and after that you have when you make a sound movie,
you have several rolls of sound track, strips;these you have
to develop and cut, and put into synchronization, and then you
take all these six strips again to a laboratory, and then they
develop it into plain film.
Q Now, when you used the term "negative," you mean
thatyou have the motion pictures that were first shot without
having the sound track on them?
A I have, yes.
Q The first raw film?
A I have the end product of what it is. These six
strips are sent to the laboratory, and from there is made all
sounds the sound effects, music and the dialogue, and these
two negative strips are developed into one negative, and from
that it's all in one now, all the sound and the original movie,
and from that negative you develop first copy and from that
negative you can make as many copies as you want, depending on
how much money you have.
Q? How many did you make?
A Of what?
Q How many prints of the film did you make?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A One.
Q You only had ona film?
A Yes.
Q And you sent that to Germany?
A Yes; to Germany.
Q When?
A It was last year in May.
Q May of 1904?
A Yes.
Q To whom did you send it?
A To Estonian Wounded War Veterans' Association in
Germany.
Q Where, in Germany?
A Correction. I sent it directly to Sweden with
the consent of these German Estonian War Veterans' Association.
Q To whom did you send it in Sweden?
A Evsti Invalidide Capital, also an organization to
help Estonian War Wounded.
Q What is the name of it?
A Evsti Invalidide Capital.
Q Spell it, please.
MR. RASKAUSICAS: He can write it out easier.
THE WITNESS: (Complies).
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
BY MR. CONNOLLYz
Q What is the translation of this?
,
A Capital or Funds for Estonian War Injured or sou
thing like that.
%
Q Invalidides?
A Yes.
Q And this is located in Sweden?
A Stockholm.
Q What is the address?
A I haven't that here.
Q Where is it?
A At home.
Q Would you supply that address?
p, D f3 z , S74. idele% z
A Yes.
? And you sent your film to this fund in Stockholm
last May?
A Yes.
? May of 1964?
A Yes,
May I ask a question, please?
Yes.
A We can make that date very certain if some of you
gentlemen remember when Krushchev visited Sweden. For that
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
66
occasion I sent it directly to Sweden.
Q At whose request?
A That was my own idea.
Q They didn't request it?
A No.
Q Have you received an acknowledgment from them?
A Yea.
Q Have they shown the film, do you know?
A Yes.
Q Have you given the film to the fund?
A I have given that film to the central organization
of Estonian War Damage, War Invalids in Germany that has all
these war wounded, has one central organization, anel, that lies
in Germany.
Q What is the address in Germany?
A I haven't it here I am afraid: sir.
Q Can you supply it? ye r64hol Z-74 ;JoitY Alj r`rel rtir
A Yes. 6 y'D o fA, 444(11 /
P0.1 e lo
q And the central organization in Germany asked you
to send it to Sweden?
A No. I made a proposal to send it to Sweden to
counteract the visit of Mr. Krushchev and the results what it
may have on Estonian people there, to counteract on them.
Q Have you ever been to Sweden?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A No.
? Do you know anybody in Sweden?
A No.
(4, Have you ever known any friends in SweOen?
A There are some friends of mine.
Who?
A One is Mr. Pae; Ahti Pae.
? Anyone else?
67
A I don t recollect. There are, but the names I
don't presently recollect.
Q Mr. Ahti Pae is in Stockholm, is he?
A Yes.
Have you had any correspondence with him concerning
your film?
A Not yet.
Have you asked or received any letters from Sweden
saying that anyone ever saw the film?
A I have read the Estonian papers about that movie
in Sweden.
? There is an Estonian newspaper published in Sweden?
A Yes.
? And you get copies of it?
A I haven't got them, but some of my acquaintance have,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
68
and I read the articles.
They let you see it?
A Oh, yes.
Do you have correspondence from the central office
in Germany for the Fund for Estonian Invalids, acknowledging the
receipt of your film?
A Not that receipt, but when I made that proposal
to give that movie to that fund, central fund they then
agreed and they accepted that, and I made the proposition first
to directly send it to Sweden to counteract Mr. Krushchevis
visit there. And they agreed, and I sent it by air post
directly to Stockholm.
Q You sent it by air mail?
A Yes.
Q Did you insure it?
A Yes.
Q Do you have the receipts for it?
A I think so, yes.
Q My point is, what documentation do you have to
show that the Germans or the Swedes acknowledged the gift or
the receipt of the film?
A I have only a letter from Germany.
Q Accepting your offer?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
69
A Yes.
? Do you expect to get the film back?
A When it's through Europe, Sweden, Germany, France,
England, Holland, Belgium, then I expect to get it back, and
then I will send it to Australia and to South Americs4
? Now, do you expect to make anymney from the use
of the film in Europe?
A No.
You have given the film for their use?
A All profits are going to these war invalids.
Q You are receiving nothing whatsoever?
A No.
Q You are out of debt and you have paid for the film,
haven't you?
A I am in debt.
Q On account of the production of the film?
A Yes.
? How much?
A You mean damages?
Q No. You say it cost you nine or ten thousand
dollars to make this film?
A Yes.
Q You said that you have used about $7,000 of your own
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
70
money and the rest, the $2,000, you got from a bank,? and
$1,000 from your mother?
A Yes.
Q Now, what bank, incidentally, did you make this
loan from?
A The Estonian Credit Union.
Q Where?
A In Toronto.
Q Has that loan been repaid?
A Not fully.
Q How much is still owing on it?
A $1,200.
Q So, only Woo has been paid?
A Yes; about.
Q Evald Magi, is he liable on that loan?
A No. I am sorry, I don't understand you.
Q Is he responsible for any part of that loan?
A I don't recollect that.
Q Suppose you don't pay the loan off, what happens
to Magi? Did he sign the note?'
A I don't recollect that. I have to look after
that.
What documents do you have?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
'N 71
A Only my bankbook is what I have.
Q How aboutp,ur mother? Have you paid her the $1,0001
A Not entirely. 1
Q How much do you still owe her?
A About $700.
Q Have yougptten back the $7,000 you put into the
film out of your own pocket?
A Not yet.
? How much are you short?
A That we have to figure out. I am about $1,000
in debt myself on my personal account after these bank loans
and so on.
Q You keep your savings in what bank?
A The Estonian Credit Union. After that is not
included, that loan for bank and my mother.
Q Butof Wier! $7,000 savings you started out with,
you have only gotten six back, in other words?
A Yes.
Q Now, coming back to the film, suppose we wanted to
see this film, we couldn't see it you say?
A I have to request them to send it back.
MR. STANFORD: You can pay for a copy to be made.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
72
Q Can you duplicate the film by the materials which
you have in your possession?
A If I have money, yes.
Q How much does it cost;?
A To duplicate, about $10000.
q You cut the film before you sent it abroad
A Yes.
Q -- from two and a half to two hours?
A Yes.
Q Why?
A Because it was too long.
Q What did you out out?
A These scenes that were too bothersompotoolong, that
the action was too slow, to make that film more active and
more lively.
Q Did you keep the film that was cut?
A Oh, yes.
Q You still have that in your possession?
A Yes.
Q And if we wanted to see the complete movie as it
was shown in the United States, all we would have to do is to
pay you $1,000 and you could get the duplicate of the original?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
73
Q Now, you say this film was about your exploits?
A My men mostly, my men's and mine, yes.
Q Was some of it about your men and some of it
that was about you?
A Yes.
Q Who played you in the movie?
A Part of the time Mr. Arbo Vabmae.
Q Who played you the other time?
A For my life it was only a few scenes there; most of
the part what I wrote in that movie script, that was from my
first superior in the guerrilla group.
Q I am not sure I understood you, sir.
A I made that script and put in one piece all the
experiences of mine, of my friend, my first superior.
Q Who was that?
That was a Captain Endel Parts.
Q The film is about your exploits and those of your
first superior?
A And my men, my comrades.
Q Is the film broken up so that part is about your
exploits and those of your men, and part is about those of the
exploits of Endel Parts?
A No; it's all one continuous story.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
711-
And by exploits, in what fashion are these,
guerrilla activities?
A Guerrilla activities against the Communibtb.
? Purportedly set in what period of time?
A In about a one-year or two-year period.
Q What year or two?
A '46-'48.
Q Its purportedly set in what part of Estonia?
A County of Jarrvanaa; it's in the middle of
Estonia.
Q I have a National Geographic Societymap of
Scandanavia showing Estonia.
Could you point it out to Mr. Prettyman, please?
A Yes. You want the vicinity where I was a guerril-
la?
Q No; the name of the city that you just mehtioned.
Not city, county. It's here, about here (indi-
cating), about in the middle of Estonia.
Q
A
How accurate did this movie purport to be?
In what way?
Q You wrote the script, I take it?
A Yes.
? What kind of literary license, if I may use that
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
75
term, did you take with the actual truth and fa
A One-hundred per cent.
Q You mean everything that is shown in the movie --
A Has happened.
-- has happened and it's portrayed as best as
you could portray it on film as it actually happened?
A Yes.
q Now I have heard that a book has been written
about your exploits; is that so?
A Yes.
Q Who is the author of the book?
A Mr. Vlirlaid.
Q Could I have his last name and address?
A V-I-I-R-L,A-I-D (spelling).
MR. CONNOLLY: If counsel is agreeable, I suggest
we take a short recess.
MR.RASKAUSKA2: All right.
(Whereupon, by agreement of counsel a short recess
of the deposition was taken).
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
74
MR. CONNOLLY: Back on the record.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Mr. Heine, you just gave me the name of Mr.
Viirlaid who authored a book about your experiences?
A Yes.
Q Was he a companion of yours in those days?
A No.
Q How did he find the material to write the book?
A When I came to the Free World, the news got all
over the world, there was a story in the newspaper, and
when he learned that I was going to Canada, he arranged a
meeting with us and then I gave him the right about my story.
? He must have spent a great deal of time learning
about it?
A Yes.
Q Did he come to Canada?
A He lived here before I was here.
Q In Canada?
A Yes.
Q Is he still in Canada?
A Yes.
Q In Toronto?
A Yes, in Toronto.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
77
Q You must have visited with him frequently?
A Yes.
Q And you told him your story?
A Yes.
Q Is the story in his book an accurate account of
your experiences?
A In the first book, yes, about ninety-five percent
of all actual happenings.
Q You say "in the first book"?
A Yes.
Q Was there more than one?
A Two are coming.
Q Two are coming?
A Yes.
Q What period of time does the first book devote
itself to?
A Forty until forty-six.
Q This is your life?
A Yes.
Q Between forty and forty-six?
A Yes.
Q When will the second volume be finished?
A Next month.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
76
Q And it will take up that period of time?
A These two last volumes take about mill I was sent
again to -- I was again arrested and sent to Russian slave
camps.
Q Well, the first book stops in forty-six?
A I am sorry?
Q The first book stops in forty-six?
A Forty-six to fifty, fifty-one.
Q The third one will be from fifty-one to fifty-six?
A No, it ends there. Forty-six to fifty-one.
Because after that I was six years in prison camp and it
was only repeating what was in the first one.
Q. I see. Are both the second and the third volumes
coming out next month?
A The second volume in March, I think, and the third
volume some time in the autumn.
Q This book is written in Estonian, is it?
A Yes.
? Is there an English translation?
A Yes.
Q Where can I get an English translation?
A You have to apply to buy a book in English when
they send it here.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
79
Q You mean, it is not available?
A Not yet.
Q In Canada?
A Not yet.
Q Nor in the United States?
A No.
Q Is it available in Europe in English?
A I think it is now, yes.
Q And where?
A In Europe I believe in Germany.
Q Has it been printed in more languages than Esto-
nian and English?
A No.
Q It has not been printed in German?
A No.
Q You obviously speak Estonian, do you not?
A Yes.
Q You speak English?
A As you see.
Q I think you do it splendidly.
A Thank you.
Q Do you speak German?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
60
? French?
A No.
? Russian?
A Yes.
Q Do you speak them all as fluently as you speak
English?
A Maybe Russian and German better than I speak Eng-
lish.
Q Any other languages?
A A little bit Finnish.
Q Any Swedish?
A No.
Q But you don't know of any place whereIcan buy a
copy of this book in English?
A No.
Q Or where I can send for it?
A No.
Q Do you get any royalties from the sale of this
book?
A No.
Q It is all Mr. Viirlaid's?
A He gets very little himself, too.
Q Where does the profit from the sale of the book go?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
81
A You know, a small nation,when the writer of a
small nation -- once his book is published in another lan-
guage, he has to retire all his rights or almost all his
rights to the publisher to have that book published in Eng-
lish or German, and that is a sorry thing about that.
Q You say ninety-five percent of this book is accu-
rate and I take it then Mr. Vlirlaid took a little bit of
license with some facts?
A Artistic, you know, to bring it to an artistic
level, maybe some dialogues or so.
MR. STANFORD: I don't think he fully under-
stands the word "license". I think he understands the
thought, but you used the word "license" before and his
answer was diametrically opposite to what you had asked, so
I think he might not fully understand that.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q He has dressed up a few facts, has he, in order
to make them artistically more
A No, not dressed up. For example, you can't pub-
lish three letter words and they had to be a little more
literary words.
Q So everything that is in there is true, except
that all isn't in there, is that right?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
82
A Oh, yes, that is what I am saying, but hard
facts of life, homosexuality, you can't put that in, what
we met there, you can't publish that kind of book here.
Q Now Mr. Heine, did you hire a lawyer in Ontario
by the name Harry Landra?
A Yes.
Q Did you also ask Harry Landra to write a letter
to Jun i Raus last January?
A Yes.
? / am going to show you a letter, a copy of a let-
ter
NMI VS
Ijust made a Xerox copy of it -- and ask you if that
is the idler that you authorized Mr. Landra to send (indi-
cating)?
(rhe letter above referred to was thereupon exa-
mined by both counsel for the plaintiff.)
(The letter above referred to was thereupon exa-
mined by the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the same letter.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q You have seen that before?
A Yes.
Q You authorized Mr. Landra to send that?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
b3
MR. CONNOLLY: I am going to mark this D.X. 1,
Defendant's Exhibit One (indicating).
(The letter above referred to
was thereupon by counsel marked
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 for
Identification and was retained
by counsel for the defendant.)
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Would you mind at this point taking the language
of the apology that is demanded here and give us the English
version of it for the record?
A I will try.
"Public apology. I, Jun i Raus, make public apo-
logy before Mr. Heine, I am saying that it is a fact
that this announcement made by me as if Mr. Eerik Heine
is a communist agent and as if the same Zerik Heine
is a very suspicious person doesn't comply to the true
facts. I assure that I have no accusations against
Mr. Heine. Signed Jun i Raus."
That is roughly,? it Is roughly.
Q Thank you.
MR, STANFORD: Do you have a copy of it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BYM R. CONNOLLY:
Q Did you have or do you have a lettr from J. Edgar
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
84
Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
dated December 18, 1963?
A Yes.
Q Concerning you?
A Yes, I have it.
Q Do you have it with you?
A May I look here?
(Whereupon the witness examined his briefcase.)
THE WITNESS: Yes (indicating).
(Whereupon a document was handed counsel for the
plaintiff who examined it and thereupon handed counsel for
the defendant.)
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Who is the Podraing who is referred to in this
letter?
A He is a member of New York Estonian Veterans,
Association. Was a member.
Q Did he make any accusations against you that you
were a communist agent?
A Yes.
Q Who told you about that?
A I believe it was Mr. Allikas.
Q Have you seen Mr. Podraing?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A my lawyer from Toronto sent that same kind of
letter to Mr. Podraing.
Q He didn't publish the apology, did he?
A He didn't accept the letter at all.
Q I beg your pardon?
A He refused to accept that letter. He didn't let
the postman in.
Q. But you haven't sued him, have you?
A No.
Q Mr. Raus has never published his apology either?
No.
This'doduMent which has been handed me bears the
notary seal of Harry Landra. It appears to be clipped at
the bottom and there is an onion skin stapled to it which
is entitled "Certificate of true copy", wherein Harry
Landra says that the document attached is a true copy of
a letter from the United States Department of Justice, to
him dated December 18, 1963.
The letter attached appears to be a Xerox repro-
duction of a letter on the letterhead of the United States
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington 25, D. C. dated December 18, 1963.
The letter reads;
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
86
"Mt. Harry Landra
"2 Dalena Drive
Don Mills, Ontario
"Dear Mr. Landra:
"I have received your letter of December 9th,
with enclosure, concerning Mr. Eerik Heine.
"In response to your request this Bureau does
not issue clearances or non-clearances of any twe..
Therefore, I trust you understand why I am not in a
position to be of assistance to Mr. Heine, and you
may be assured that this Bureau has not released
any information which could be the basis for the
alleged charges aginst him.
"Sincerely,
(Signature) "3. Edgar Hoover
"Director."
Now, what is Mr. Landrals letter of December 9th,
do you have a copy of that?
A I will look.
(Whereupon, the witness examined his briefcase).
THE WITNESS: I am sorry.
MR. STANFORD: This is it (indicating).
(Whereupon., a document was handed counsel for the
defendant who examined it).
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
87
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q This letter is written on the letterhead of Harry
Landra, Barrister and solicitor and Notary Public, 2 Dalena
Drive, Don Mills, Ontario, Telephone [phone] and dated
December 9, 1963 addressed to Headquarters of Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue,
Northwest, Washington, D. C., U. S. A.
"Gentlemen:
"Re: Eerik Heine
"We enclose herewith the affidavit of Eerik Heine
in duplicate.
"Mt. Heine has been accused many times by one Juni
Raus and other members of the Estonian War Veterans
organization of being a communist agent.
"According to the allegations of the members of
aforesaid these accusations arefUmmtd on investigations
made by you. As you can see, Mr. Heine denies all
these accusations in his affidavit and providelin his
affidavit the data of his anti-commOnist activities.
"Mt. Heine is willing to answer any questions under
oath connected with the matter of aforesaid and submit
himself to a lie detector test if you so desire.
"Mt. Heine's only request is that you assist him
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
bt
in clearing his name before the Estonian communities in
U. S. A. and Canada.
"Kindly contact us in the matter aforesaid in order
to enable us to take the proper necessary steps to pro-
tect Mr. Heine's reputation.
Yours very truly
(Signature) Harry Landra."
Do you have the affidavit this letter speaks of?
A Yes.
(Whereupon a document was handed counsel for the
defendant.)
MR. CONNOLLY: Thank you.
/ have been handed what purports to be an affida-
vit marked "Dominion of Canada, Protnce of Ontario, County
of York, Re: Eerik Heine"
I would like to take these three documents (in-
dicating) and make copies of them.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I would like for you to have
full and complete discovery. I have a brief leaflet here
(indicating) on the "legend" movie and I also offer to supply'
you with the name of the publisher in South Africa that has
published the English version of the novel about Mr. Heine.
MR. CONNOLLY: Fine. Do you have his name?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
89
MR. RASKAUSXAS: I have that part of my file in
the office.
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken during which
counsel for the defendant left the hearing room.)
#2 MR. CONNOLLY: For the purpose of identifica-
tion / think at this point the record ought to show that
the affidavit of Harry Landra and Its attachment with the
letter purportedly from J. Edgar Hoover as one document
should be marked D. X. 2, Defendant's Exhibit Number 2.
(The documents above referred
to were thereupon by counsel marked
Defendantls Exhibit Number 2 for
Identification.)
MR. STANFORD: O. K.
MR. CONNOLLY: The letter from Harry Landra
dated December 9 1963 will be marked D. X. 3, Defendant's
Exhibit Number 3.
(The document above referred
to was thereupon by counsel marked
Defendant's Exhibit Number 3 for
Identification.)
MR. CONNOLLY: The affidavit of Eerik Heine
which was an enclosure to that letter will be marked D. X. 4,
Defendant's Exhibit Number 4.
(The document above referred
to was thereupon by counsel marked
Deftndant's Exhibit Number 4 for
Identification.)
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
90
MR. CONNOLLY: And the leaflet that Mr.
Raskaiskas has provided me before we went into the room
to copy these (indicating), which is an English and presum-
ably Estonian flyer and has to do with the movie "Creators
of Legend" will be marked D. X. 5, Defendant's number 5.
(The document above referred
to was thereupon by counsel marked
Defendant's Exhibit Number 5 for
Identification.)
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
? You say the movie, "Creators of Legend" had to do
with activities of guerilla units under your command and
the command of a man by the name of Parts?
A Yes.
? When you were in Central Estonia?
A Yes.
? What time?
A Forty-six until fifty.
? Forty-six until fifty?
A Yes.
Q During all of those four years, you acted as a
guerilla inside Soviet-occupied Estonia?
A Yes.
Q Did you spend all of that time, those four years,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
91
in the central part of Estonia as you marked on the chart
here?
A Yes.
? Was there any occasion when you went elsewhere?
A Yes,
? When?
A To visit secretly my home town, Tartu, a couple
of times In the night and then to Russia in 1947 to bring
back some deported persons and a collie of trips to the old
capital city, Tallinn.
? Are any of those ventures shown in this movie?
A No, mostly only the vicinity of that county where
I was acting guerilla.
Q The trips to Russia and to Tallinn and Tartu are
not there?
A No.
Q With reference to the letter to Mr.Landra that
was purportedly sent by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, do you know
what he means when he is speaking about "clearances and
non-clearances"?
A Mr.Landra asked about the accusations that Mr.
Raus has made, that according to F. B. I. I am a communist
agent and a communist Soviet spy and communist agent.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
92
Q Mr. Landra's second last paragraph says:
"Mr. Heinels only request is that you assist him
in clearing his name before the Estonian communities in
U. S. A. and Canada."
A Yes.
? . Mr. Hoover says that the Bureau does not issue
clearances or non-clearances of any type.
A Because Raus made the statement before a meeting,
an official statement which was protocolled, that I am,
according to F. B. I., I am a Soviet spy and an M. B. G.
agent.
Q A what?
A That is Soviet Secret Police agent, N. G. B.
Q M. G. B.?
A Yes, M. G. B.
Q Did you ever hear him make this accusation?
A I didn't hear that.
Q It has been told you?
A I was sent a copy of that protocol and was told.
Q A copy of what protocol?
A Of that meeting where was made that official
accusation against me.
Q Where?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
93
A In New York.
Q Do you have a copy of it?
A It is in Estonian. It has to be translated.
Q Al]. right, let us hear what it says.
A Just a moment, please.
May I translate (indicating)?
Q Just a minute, let me look at the document first.
(Whereupon a document was handed counsel for the
defendant.)
THE W S: That is a photocopy of the ori-
ginal.
MR. CONNOLLY: I will mark this D. X. 6,
Defendant's Number 6.
(The document above referred
to was thereupon by counsel marked
Defendant's Exhibit Number 6 for
Identification.)
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q This document that has been marked Defendant's
Exhibit Number 6 or D. X. 6, is this the one you received
or have you made a copy of it?
A That is the copy.
Q The copy that you have made?
A Mr. Keerd made a copy.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
94.
? Is this (indicating) in the same condition in
which you received it?
A How can I say that? That is a copy from the
original.
MR. STANFORD: Is this what you received?
THE WITNESS: No, I received the original and
the copy that was sent to me.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q There was an original --
A Yes.
and a copy sent to you?
A Yes.
Q And this which is now marked D. x. 6 is the copy?
A The copy.
Q It is identical with the original?
A Yes.
Q Now, would you like to translate it?
A If you allow me, I will try.
Q Thank you.
A "The Ninth of November 1963 in New York, there
was held a special meeting of New York Branch of
Veterans of Estonian Liberation. In accordance of
the United States Estonian Veterans of Estonian
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
95
Liberation to discuss the question and make a statement.
Present were the Chairman, Mr. Keerd, Vice Chairman
Mr. Allikas, Secretary Kruus, Treasurer Mr. Derrick
and members of the Committee Mr. Kynapas and Mr.
Parming, and a representative of a village of Esto-
nians on Long Island. The meeting began nine of
clock in the evening.
At the meeting of New York
Branch of Veterans of Ettonlan Liberation, the
Chairman, Mr. Raus made an official announcement that
United States Federal Bureau of investigation, Lieute-
nant Eerike Heine is a K. G. B. agent. On the ques-
tion of Chairman of New York Branch, which concrete accu-
sations has Mr. Raus to put forward, Mr. Raus answered
that United States agencies donft give out no concrete
data and the facts offered or stated by Mr. Raus, it
is a fact that Mr. Heine is a Solet spy. The Committee
of New York Branch of Veterans of Estonian Liberation
declared -- acknowledged the statement of the 'United
States Committee -- the statement of the Chairman of
the United States Committee of Veterans of Estonian
Liberation, that Lieutenant Heine is according to
United States security agents, Mr. Raus liad said
that Mr. Heine according to United States security
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
96
agents' statements is a K. G. B. agent, what New York
Branch Committee hears the first time and announces
that it stops the discussion of that topic until the
case of Lieutenant Heine is cleared, that that accu-
sation is cleared off."
I am sorry, I did as best I could.
What is the date of that Mr. Heine?
A November 9th, 1963
Q And you received it when?
A Maybe about a couple of weeks after it happened.
Q Is that the only place that you know of, where
Mr. Raus alleges that the F. B. I. told him that you were
a K. G. B. agent?
A No, I hear in Baltimore and in Washington
he has made the same accusations against me.
Q How do you know that?
A Mr. Kukland told me about that.
Q Do you have anything from. Mr. Kukland in writing
to that effect?
A No, I don't think so.
Q Other than this document which is marked Defend-
ant's Exhibit Number 60 do you have anything else in writ-
ing from any third person saying that Jun i Raus has accused
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
97
you of being a K. G. B. agent or a Soviet or a communist
spy?
A I think I have a letter from Mr. Keerd a
couple of letters from Mr. Keerd. I believe I have.
Q Have you talked to Mr. Raus about this?
A Not directly, but through middlemens middlemen.
Q Did you ever write to him?
A Yes.
Q You personally?
A Yes.
Q Do you have a copy of the letter?
A No.
Q Did he ever respond?
A No.
Q Did you write him and ask him what basis he had
for making these accusations?
A I wrote a letter to Mr. Raust best friend here
in Washington.
Q Who is that?
A Mr. Krabbe.
? Krabbe?
A Yes.
Q How do you know he is his best friend?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
98
A They were both at the same school in Ge many when
the war ended and they are very often together as I have
heard.
Q That is hearsay, is that right?
A Mr. Krabbe told me too "Mr. Raus is my best
friend
(4 I see. You have tried to talk to or communicate
with Rau s through Krabbe?
A Yes, I told Mt. Krabbe that -- to put some sense
in his mind.
CI When did you do this?
A I believe it vas last year, beginning of last
year. Specific date I donit remember now.
Q What reply did Mt. Krabbe make?
A NO reply at all.
Q. Have you been active at all in various committees
of Estonian emigres in either the United States or Canada?
A In Canada, yes.
Q What commdtteee or what organizations have you
been active in?
A In Estonian. War Veterans Association in Toronto.
? Is that the correct name of it, Estonian War
Veterans Association?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Yes.
? And then?
A Estonian Council of Canada.
Q Estonian Council of Canada?
A Yes.
? Is that the correct name of it?
A Yes.
Q Those two?
A Yes.
Q Anything else?
A Boy Scouts.
Q Boy Scouts? Not stonian Boy Scouts?
A Oh, yes.
? In Canada?
A Yes.
Q What is the name of it?
A Boy Scouts.
Q Well, does it have any Estonian identification?
A Scouted, Scouts -- is it in Estonian the same,
about.
Q I want only your identification with Estonian
organizations?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
100
Q The Boy Scouts in Canada are not exclusively an
Estonian organization, I am sure?
A Oh, yes, there are only Estonians there.
Q Oh, really?
A Yes. That is a branch of the all world Boy
Scout movement.
Q All right let us talk about the Estoxdan Boy
Scout troop that you are identified with. What is your
identification? Are you a scout master?
A Junior scout master.
Q How long have you been engaged in this activity?
A About six or five years.
Q You have no children of your own?
A No.
Q What do you do with the youngsters?
A We have our own club caled "Veterans" older boys
like myself, a special category, group. We have camps,
camp sites, large camp sites. We build camp sites for
younger ones.
Q I am confused. This is a little different than
my knowledge
A Yes that is different yes.
? You are a junior scout master?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
101
A Yes.
? Now, do you have command or authority in that
position over any boy scouts?
A I belong to a committee of scoutmasters.
Q How large is the committee?
A About thirty or thirty-five persons.
Q. All with Estonian background?
A Yes.
Q And you go into the woods and you build campsites?
A "Yes.
Q How many camp sites?
A We have a very big one in Northern Ontario.
Q What is the name of it?
A Muskoka.
? Can you spell it?
A I will write it.
Q But you don't have anything directly to do with
the young boys?
A No.
Q Do you have anything to do with suggesting, plan-
ning or running any programs for the scouts when they go
to these camps?
A No.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
102
Q You don't teach them anything about outdoor life
or woodcraft or woodmanship or anything of that sort?
A No.
Q All right now, the Estonian Council of Canada,
what is that organization, what is it purpose and where is
it located?
A That is located in Toronto and its purpose is to
liberate Estonia once again.
Q And are peOple of Estonian ancestry or background
invited to be members of this organization?
A Yes
Q Does it have a headquarters?
A Yes.
Q Where is the headquarters?
A in Toronto. EA-41'4h Oh Y4/ elote. /
?Si Sri4ie4/
Q What is the address??
71.7C e, 61,7
A / don't have that address here.
Q Do you go to it frequently?
A Yes, I was until recently a Vice Chairman of that
committee.
Q When you attend the meetings you take a taxicab
or a streetcar. Now, where do you go to?
A I take my car, my own car.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
to?
103
Where do you go? You have to know where to go
A Yes I know exactly where it is but I don't re-
member the number of that house.
What is the name of the street?
A Bay View,
Q Bay View?
A Bay View, es.
Q Near what?
A Near Ploor,
Q And until recently you were Vice Chairman?
A Yes.
Q How recently?
A I believe until last year in November.
? You have been out of office now just three months?
A Yes.
Q Were you ineligible to succeed yourself?
A I beg your pardon?
Q Were pu able to run again?
A When that thing is cleared off, then I can.
Q What thing?
A That libel and accusation.
Q Why did the accusation have anything to do with
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
104
your not continuing in office?
A Oh, yes.
Q Will you explain that, please?
A Because some of the members of that committee
were doubtful too, about these accusations of Mr. Raua
and they are doubtful and nobody has said so, open, to me,
but rumors and so on, they come from overall, that there
is something. They are very suspicious about me and I
decided to keep that peace and cooperation inside that
organization and I resigned until that is cleared off.
Q How many members are there of the Council?
A In the Council are fifty-two members. There
is the Committee, the Central Committee, but the Committee
is elected this way: All over Canada, Ettonians all over
Canada every three years there is election, and you put
your candidates on a list and then a couple of thousand
or ten thousand people or whatever, they cast their ballots
and they elect then a committee of fifty-two men.
Originally elected are thirty-two. Others are
in officio so that former Estonian parliament members and
former Estonian ministers are automatically, they belong
to that Central Committee.
Q I see. So thirty-two have positions by virtue
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
105
of their former positions in Estonia and thirty-two are
elected?
A About so.
? On a triannual basis, every three 'years?
A Yes.
Q Have you been a member of the Council since you
arrived in Canada?
A Yessir.
Q What was the first year in which you were elected
to the Council?
A I think it was '59 or so.
Q So your term would have expired
00 Ora
A Excuse me. Every three years they are elected
and last year, '63 -- I believe in April or May, there were
elections and I won that election. I had the most votes
of all. I was on top of the list.
Q More votes than any candidate?
A More votes than any candidate.
? /n the elction of when? Of May, 1963?
A Yes.
Q You were elected to a three year term on the Coun-
cil?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
106
Q. Now, who elects Chairman, Vice Chairman, et cetera?
A The Central Committee.
Q Now, when were you elected Vice Cha
A November '63, I believe.
Q Who was elected Chairman?
A One Er. Parkma.
Q What is his first name?
A Harry.
Q Are you still a member of the Council of the Central
Committee?
A Yes.
Q You did not resign that position?
A No.
Q But you did resign the position of Vice Chairman?
A Oh, yes.
Q Did the controversy and disagreement arising in
the proceedings of the Council Central Committee have to do
with charges that had been levelled against you?
A Yes.
Q Tell us how that came up and how this controversy
began?
A In one regular meeting of that Council, there are
seven members, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
107
and one or two members without portefolio, as you call it
One day I saw or felt that something was not very
honest about that thing and on one occasion one member of
that Central Committee -- I was not present -- but he made
there accusations that I an, a very suspicious person and I
would do better when I go away from Toronto somewhere, to
Sudbury.
Q Where?
A Sudbury. That is a town in Northern Ontario and
known as a center of communist movement in Canada. That was
quite enough for me then.
Q You weren't present?
A No.
Q But somebody told you about this?
A Yes. The next meeting I was present and before
that I was told and then -- I was told about that and that
person was there, too, and he apologized that he hadn't
meant that but then I heard another rumor, what came from
here. One member I remember was Mr. Ilmar Raamot.
Q Where does he live?
A In New York.
? I would like for you to write down the name of the
person who levelled the charge against you in the council?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
108
A The person who launched that accusation against me
in that Council was W. Joe, Mr. Heino Joe, and after that
heard from other persons that Mr. Ilmar Raamot has spread
the rumor that Mr. Heine is for sure a communist agent and
that he knows that to be true, because government agents
have given these facts to Estonian people in America.
Q This is W. Heino Joe?
A Heino Joe, yes.
? Did he tell you that he got this information from
Jur Raus?
A He didn't tell me, but the people in the Council
told me that Mr. Raamot is spreading around that -- the same
accusation as Mr. Raus.
Q Did you have supporters in the Council?
A I had, yes.
Q Do you still?
A I have, yes.
Q But you resigned?
A Yes.
Q And said that you would remain resigned until after
110 this lawsuit was over?
A Yes.
? But you still are a member of the Council?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
109
A Yes.
Q Now, what does the Council do in terms of day to
day or meeting to meeting performance?
A Publishing booklets about the perils of communism.
Q About what?
A About the perils and dangers of communism. Then
raise money for example for Radio Free Europe to send pro-
ams over the Iron Curtain to Estonia, then raise money for
Estonian invalids, the war wounded in Germany, then, statements
for government agencies about decisions they make, memoran-
dums are sent when some decision is made that can, maybe,
damage the possibility of freeing our native homeland, and
so on.
We don't demand nothing, but we make suggestions
that may be tried.
Q Has the Council raised money for Radio Free Europe?
A Yes.
Q Has it been given?
A Yes.
Q Annually?
A It began last year and I contributed that movie
was still here and before I sent it to Sweden, I made in
Toronto the performance of that movie, all that income went
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
110
to that.
Q Prior to last year, did the Council give any money
to Radio Free Europe?
A No.
#3 Q Did the Council last year give money to any s o-
nian Veterans organization?
A Yes, every year.
Q Where is that sent?
A In Germany,
Q Where In Germany?
A Just a moment. I have it at home, I think, what
411 town it is there. I can't recollect, sorry.
?
Q Will you supply that later?
A Yes.
Q When you have occasion to do so?
A Yea.
Q Did you personally send the money?
A No.
? Now., has this Estonian Council raised any money
for any other project?
A Oh, yes, for anti-communist leaflets.
Q Anti-communist leaflets?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
111
Q For distribution where?
A All over the world, free world.
Q All over the free world?
A Yes.
Q Has money been raised for that purpose?
A It is completed already, a couple of years ago.
Q All right, I was going to ask you, when was that
done?
A /t was 1961 I believe. I am not sure of the date.
Q Were the leaflets distributed?
A Oh, yes.
Q And you say all over the free world?
A Yes, in Europe.
Q To whom were they distributed?
A Local Estonian organizations. We sent it there.
Q Where were these leaflets printed?
A In Toronto,
Q Do you have or does the Estonian Committee there
maintain a press?
A No.
Q Does it maintain a newspaper?
A There are two newspapers in Toronto.
Q Estonian newspapers?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
112
A Yes.
Q What are their names?
A That is "Our Life" and "Free Estonia". That is
translation from Estonian.
Q Are these daily papers?
A No, one is twice a week and one is weekly.
Q Are you contributing to these papers?
A In what sense, please?
Q Do you write articles?
A Sometimes, yes.
Q Do you have any type of ownership in these papers?
A No.
Q Do you receive any income from them?
A No.
Q Do you have any stock interest in them?
A No.
Q Are you an officer or director of either one?
A The Canadian newspapers?
Q
A No.
Q Are you an officer or director of any newspaper?
A No.
Q Do you have any official connection with any
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
113
Estonian newspaper anywhere?
A A new paper is coming out in a couple of months.
It I don't know how to translate "Kurierw.
MR. PRETTYMAN: Courier?
THE WITNESS: That is a translation. I am a
member of the panel of -- How can I tell that?
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Advisers?
A No.
Q Writers?
A Yes. We can describe it so.
Q Where is that paper to be published?
A In New York.
Q It has been published?
A Yes.
Q Is it a daily?
A No.
Q Weekly?
A No, they try to make it weekly, but now it is maybe
every two or three weeks it is coming out.
Q Who is the owner of the paper?
A There are naktionarits or stockholders.
Q Who are the principal officers of the paper?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
114
A I hink Mr. arsna is the principal.
Q Who?
A Mr. arsna.
Q Do you own any stock in it?
A No.
Q Did you put up any money?
A No, I have no money.
MR. STANFORD: Off the record.
(Whereupon a brief off the record discussion fol-
lowed.)
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Does this Council for Estonian Liberation engage
in any other type of work, attempting to liberate Estonia?
A The Council?
Q Yes. You told me they had taken the position
or positions with respect to official government actions?
? A Memorandums, yes.
Q They have provided for the publications of leaf-
lets?
A Yes.
? They have contributed to Radio Free Europe?
A Yes.
? They have made contributions to Estonian war
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
3.15
veterans in Germany?
A Yes.
Q. Anything else?
A Charitable bazaars or whateverpou call it, for
raising money to contribute to more for these purposes and
so on.
Q In connection with the leaflet campaign of a few
years ago, did you come to the United States intending to
induce people to join with you in sending money to Sweden
for the purpose of launching balloons carrying propaganda
material?
A Oh, yes, I did.
Q When did you come to the United States for that
purpose?
A That was not especially for that purpose, but I
laid down my activities, what I intended to do in the future
when I get enough funds to be more active in anti-communist
activities as I have been able to do until recently.
Q Well, who did you see in this country? With whom
did you discuss in this country the idea of sending propa-
ganda balloons into Estonia from Sweden?
A I don't remember the names, indeed, I am sorry.
Q Well, did you talk about it among a wide circle
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
116
Offriends?
A No, no.
Q With just a couple of people?
A Yes, I think so.
Q But you don't remember anybody's name?
A No.
Q Where? Was it in New York?
A Maybe in New York.
Q Did you have a couple of sample balloons with
you that you were going to use?
A Here? With me?
Q Not now but when you were here before?
A I ordered from the United States a couple of bal-
loons to try them out and to test them, yes.
Q Did you?
A Maybe some was with me, but I don't remember now.
? I see. Did you raise any money for this purpose?
A No.
Q Did you tell anyone that you had some friends in
Sweden that could launch these balloons?
A Oh, yes, I believe I did so.
Q Who were those friends in Sweden?
A I believe it was one Mr. Ahto Pae, as I mentioned
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
117
earlier, who could supply me with honest people who can carry
It out, my plan.
Q Who was this man that you just mentioned?
A You asked earlier, do I have friends in Sweden
and I answered, yes, I have Mr. Ahto Pae.
Q Is he the person that you are referring to that
would help you launch these balloons?
A I am sure he would help.
Q Did you have any arrangements with him?
A Because I couldn't raise money here to launch that.
Q Mr. Heine, let me backtrack a minute
A Yes.
Q You testified a few minutes ago that you represen-
ted to people in this country that you had friends in Sweden
who would assist you in launching these propaganda balloons
from Sweden into Estonia?
A I am sure they would help there, yes.
Q That is not what you testified to. You testified
a few minutes ago that you did represent that you in fact
did have friends that would help you?
A I have them, yes.
Q Who are they?
A Mr. Pae.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
n8
Q Anybody else?
A No. I don't know. Mr. Pae knows them.
Q What arrangement did you have with Mr. Pae?
A As I recollect, I discussed 11th him that matter,
when I can launch that acticia, then it is possible to launch
from Sweden to Soviet-occupied Estonia these balloons.
Q You mean, he told you it was possible to do it?
A Yes.
Q What arrangement did you have with him to do it?
Only when I had the money could / launch that pro-
ject.
? How did you discuss this matter with Mr. Pae?
A I wrote him, yes.
Q Did you keep a copy of the correspondence?
A I don't think so, that I have. Maybe he has.
? How about Mr. Pae, has he responded?
A Pardon?
Q Did Mr. Pae respond?
A I think he thought it is a very good idea.
? Did he say that he would help you?
A When I am ready, yes.
? Do you have a copy of his letter?
A No, I don't think so.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
119
Q When was this?
A I think -- The exact date I don't remember.
do remember the exact date.
Q We haven't insisted on the exact dates up until
now. Give us the best you can?
A In the sixties, in the beginning of the sixties,
for sure, I think.
? The beginning of the sixties that is a four year
period. Can't you --
A I can't recollect indeed.
? Where were you when you had this idea?
A Where were I?
? Yea.
A When I got that idea?
? Yes.
A In Russia.
? Was it your idea or some one else's?
A my idea, but it is practised here in the free
world very often.
Q What is practised?
A Sending balloons with bibles and nationalistic
and anti-communistic books and leaflets over the Iron Cur
tam n via balloons, so that is not orUinally mine.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
120
Q Now, had you proposed this idea to the Central
Committee of the Estonian Council?
A Not officially, I don't think so. Only discus-
sions.
Q Were you trying to raise money in your name or in
their name or in whose name were you trying to raise it?
A I didn't try to raise money. If I had money I
would try to make that kind of thing.
? Did you ever seek the help of anyone to start such
a project?
A No, I don't think so, only discussed it. It had
very good possibilities and was very effective.
Q Did you ever seek money from anyone for such a
project?
A No.
? Did you ever write a letter to anyone other than
Mr. Pae about this project?
A I don't recollect, indeed.
? Now, have you ever as an individual engaged in
any other type of anti-Soviet activity since you have been
in the West other than a movie, your lectures, sitting down
with Mr. Vlirlaid writing this book and serve as a member
of the Central Committee of the Estonian National Committee?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
121
A I have held speeches on national holidays as guest
speaker in many places. I made a movie the book and
tried to realize my pet idea of balloons and I wrote some
articles in newspapers, anti-communist articles and so on.
? In Estonian newspapers?
A Yes.
? Tell me about your service with the Estonian War
Veterans?
A I was their 1960 Chairman and belonged several
years in that Committee, that organization. One year I was
chairman.
? National Chirman for Canada?
A No, Toronto Branch.
? Have you held any national office in the organiza-
tion?
A We have, yes.
? You have?
A I pronounced myself wrongly. We have in Canada
Council of Estonian War Veterans, yes.
? The organization is nationwide, or dominionwide, is
that right?
A Yes.
? Have you held any office in the national organization?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
122
A No.
Q. Just in the Toronto Branch?
A Branch, yes.
? And you have been Chairman of that branch?
A Yes.
? For how many years?
A One year.
? In 1960?
A Yes.
? Are you still active?
A Yes.
? By "active", what do you mean?
A I am a member of that council -- no, that organiza-
tion, and when there are, maybe, money raising funds or fes-
tivals for war invalids, we make contributions or lotteries,
you know. That is about all. Not much activity there.
Q Do you have a uniform?
A No.
Q Do you have any meetings?
A Oh, yes, we have.
Q. Are the meetings devoted to drills or military
exercises of any sort?
A Not especially, not in Canada. Here I know in the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
123
States there are, they have.
Q But not in Canada?
A No.
Q Does the Estonian War Veterans organization engage
in any anti-Soviet activity?
A Oh, yes.
Q For example?
A When there is to be picketing of the Soviet Embassy
or some dignitaries --
Q What?
A Dignitaries, Soviet dignitaries. We have been
picketing them. What is anti-Soviet is our job.
Q You have given me two examples: You picket their
dignitaries and you picket their embassies?
A Yes.
Q What else?
A We have lectures about communist activities and
methods sometimes.
Q Is there any partisan or guerilla activity in
Estonia to your knowledge now?
A Oh, yes, there is.
Q Do you attempt to support that guerilla or partisan
activity?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
124
A If I could with all my heart.
Q Do the Estonian War Veterans seek to support that
partisan activity in Estonia?
A We have no possibility. We are cut off from our
homeland.
? Is there any kind of communication that exists
between any member of the Estonian War Veterans and any par-
tisans or guerillas inside of Estonia?
A No, not that I know.
Q How about the Central Committee, any representati-
ves of the Central Committee of the Estonian National Council
and any partisan or guerilla band?
A I don't know about that.
Q You don't know anything about it?
A No.
Q Is there any talk about it at all?
A Pardon?
Q Is there any talk in the Councils of either the
War Veterans or the National Council concerning helping
partisan or guerilla bands inside Soviet-Estonia?
A Maybe there is, but it is impossible. We have no
means for that.
Q Do you know of anyone who is able to cross into
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
125
Estonia say from Finland or Sweden?
A No, I don't know.
Q. Have you told anyone you have any contact in
Estonia?
A Contact?
? Yes.
A No.
? With whom you can get messages in and out?
A No, I haven't told nothing about that.
? You haven't any such means?
A No.
? Did you speak English when you came to Canada?
A Very little.
? Where did you learn English?
A I might say, you have made a compliment. I don't
speak English now as good as I wish, but here in Canada I
have tried to learn as much as I can.
? My question was, did you have any English when you
came to Canada and you said "A little*?
A Yes.
? My question was: Where did you learn that little
English?
A my wife speaks very good English.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
126
Q Where is she from?
A She is Estonian, too.
Q Where did she learn English?
A In England.
Q But you married her in Canada.
A She emigrated from England to Canada about the same
year as I came here.
Q But when you got to Canada, you already spoke some
English. Where did you learn that English?
A In the school in Estonia.
Q I see. Did you know your wife before you got to
Canada?
A Oh, yes.
Q Where had you known her?
A In Estonia.
Q Really?
A Yes.
Q What year was this?
A Thirty-nine or so or forty.
Q She had gone to school with you?
A She was in that same school in that same town.
Q Tartu?
A Tartu.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
127
Q Was she approximately your age?
A Younger, a little bit.
Q How much?
A Three years.
Q What is the level of schooling, formal schooling
that you have?
A High school level.
Q Did you finish high school?
A No,
Q How far did you go?
A Last grade. Then I was arrested.
Q How old were you at the time?
A Nineteen, I think, nineteen, twenty.
Q This was where? In Tartu?
A In Tartu.
Q Was this in 1940?
A Forty, yes.
Q You lived there with yournother and your father?
A Yes.
Q What employment did your father have?
A He was a factory owner.
Q What did the factory make?
A Pianos.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
128
Q Which grade school did you go to?
A That is very difficult, a very difficult name.
Q What was the name of the school?
A Hugo Treffner Onmnasium it is in Estonian.
Q And from there you went to college?
A College, yes.
Q College in the same town?
A Tartu College, yes.
Q Row big a town is Tartu?
A Sixty thousand.
Q I take it a piano factory would be one of the big
things in the town, would it not?
A It was the biggest in North Europe.
Q Is there anybody other than your wife in North
America that is from your town that you know about?
A Oh, yes, there are.
Q Are there very many?
A Oh, yes, there are.
Q About how many?
A I know about maybe half a hundred, fifty or more.
Q Really? From Tartu?
A Yes.
Q Where are they located mostly?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
129
A Most in New York, some are here in Baltimore,
New York, Canada, Toronto.
? Can you give me the names of a couple of people in
Baltimore?
A In Baltimore is Mr. Volli Ktnnapuu. I think I
have his address here (indicating). He knew me as a school-
boy and through the year of forty when I was arrested.
I don't have his address here.
Q Will you protde the address?
7eilv 54,
-4/7L-;,,, a re 74,
A Yes, sir.
Q Any other names?
A Mr. Keerd in New York.
Q He knew you when you were a child?
A Yes, he knew me. I have much difficulty with
names. I have met so many thousand of people that they all
are blurred in one image, but if you want, I can give you
some names.
Q Did you ever see your wife from 1940 until you saw
her in Canada?
A No, she waited for me twenty years or more.
Q Did you have a childhood romance?
A Almost, yes.
Q. You have referred several times to an arrest that
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
you had in 1940.
130
Recalling my history, the Soviets took
over Estonia in the summer of 19)!0?
A Yes.
Q How was it thAt you were arrested, how did this
come about?
A I began to organize youth movement against -- anti-
communist youth movement, and it was maybe my hot-headedness.
When they raised the red flag on the city hall, I went with
a couple of my young friends to try to pull that down, the
red flag and put our Estonian tricolor.
Q What was the Estonian flag?
A Blue, black, white, three colors.
Q Tricolor like the French tricolor?
A No (indicating)
? Horizontal?
A Horizontal (indicating).
Q Did you succeed in raising the Estonian flag?
A No.
? You did not?
A No.
? You were caught first?
A No, we struggled there in these corridors and in
the tower there. We were pulled down by these communists
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
131
and on that day when we struggled there, the three, four
youths that we were, thousands of people gathered around
when news got out that we were there, thousands of people
gathered around that city hall, and they began to sing our
national anthem and these communists were struck with terror
and we used that moment and slipped out of there, the crypt,
and we were free, but not for long.
They recognized me and hunted me over all. I was
hiding already, but then they arrested my parents as -- How
is it called? -- hostages, and said that when I don't come
out and give myself up, then my parents would die, and then
I gave myself up voluntarily and they arrested me then.
Q Had you started to organize this anti-Soviet youth
movement because the Soviets took over Estonia?
A No, I can tell you, that was in June of forty.
? That you started?
A Yes.
? The Russians had established bases in Eetbnia?
A That was earlier, Yes.
? But that didn't give rise to any anti-Soviet feel-
ing?
Oh, feelings were high, but we were -- This time
we believed that our leaders would give us the order to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
132
throw them out of the places, and then the simple people
knew that when the Soviets take hold of any land, that land
perishes, but our leaders, our President and ministers,
they asked all over the world for help, from Finland, from
Lithuania, from Latvia, from Sweden England, America, but
nobody helped and then they thought it as wiser to give in.
Until 1940, when the old government was overthrown
with the help of Soviet tanks, and bajonets, a pro-communist
government was installed.
I was in the National Guard as a platoon leader,
thirty, forty men. That is called a platoon? Or a squad?
MR. RASKAUSKAS: Platoon.
THE WITNESS: Platoon leader.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q This was the Estonian National Guard?
A Yes, as a schoolboy with a special schoolboy de-
tachment of the National Guard, and we waited many, many
weeks for readiness. In the beginning maybe they intended
to resist but when we were left alone, then --
Q Well, when the Soviet took over, did they install
Estonian communists as the government or did they install
Russians?
A Half and half.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
133
Q I see. Did they replace the Estonian flag?
A Oh, yes.
Q With what flag?
A Red.
Q The flag of the Soviet-Union?
A yes,
Q There was a city hall in Tartu?
Yes.
Q And you had formed these boys into an anti-Soviet
resistance group?
A Yes, that was all nationwide, the movement was
nationwide, all over, I was the leader of the youth branch.
Q Just in Tartu or the entire country?
A First in Tartu but then I got command or orders
to try to spread that youth movement all over Estonia and
I went then all over Estonia and tried to --
Q When was this now? Was this in June of forty?
A June forty, yes.
Q When did the flag incident take place?
A That was July or so.
Q You went into the city hall?
.A Yes.
Q But you never got up to the tower or where the flag
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
134
was? Was the flag on a pole on the top of the building?
A There is a tower and it is hanging out of the
tower (indicating) this way.
? I see.
We tried to break the door to the tower down, but --
Q You were stopped?
A Yes.
? And the populace knew that this was taking place
and they gathered around?
A Yes. News got around very fast.
Q And the Soviets were thinking that there was going
to be an attack on the city hall?
A Yes.
? And they became concerned?
A Yes.
? And you got away?
A Yes.
? Where did you go?
A I went into hiding right away.-
? Where?
A It is a little town called Elva.
Q. And you went to Elva?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
135
Q Did you run or did you ride or walk or what?
A I got there by walking and by train. It is not
far away. It is about thirty kilometers, maybe twenty miles
or 80.
I stayed there only a couple of days and then
went on with my own organization, organizing.
Q When did you take this trip around Estonia trying
to organize? Was this before that?
A Before and after.
? But you had been recognized in the tower, had you?
A Yes.
? Was there any circular out that you Were wanted?
A I don't think so, but they got wind that I was the
main person there, and they searched where I lived and waited
until I came home and within a week or so I didn't come and
then they arrested my parents.
Q. How did you know your parents were arrested?
A I got word about that.
Q What did you do?
A / thought it over. I can state here that that was
my most difficult thing in my life and then I decided to
give myself up to save my parents. They were old already.
? Then you went back to Tartu?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
136
A I went back to Tartu.
Q. Where had you been In the meantime?
A In several towns, Valga and Tallinn and Haapsalu,
Viljandi and several towns and
Q Was there much of a resistance movement?
A Oh, yes.
Q Going at the time?
A Yes.
Q Was there any actual outbreak of hostilities be-
tween the Estonians and Russians?
A Yes, there were many events right away and it was
a great pity, when the war broke out, the Soviets had depor-
ted more than sixty thousand of our most active, our most
pattiotic people before the war. Then when the war
started, that would have been much easier, much more blood-
less if these organizations that were formed, and I was
part of them, could have acted as were intended, but they
deported more than sixty thousand to Siberia.
Q When?
A 1941 in June, before the outbreak of war.
Q How did they make this selection? What criteria
did they use?
A Former professional activities, policemen, teachers,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
137
shopowners, factory owners or somebody who had spoken too
freely or to openly against. They had a spy network
made for that purpose especially so they made a selection
and sixty thousand people went.
? When did you turn yourself in and to whom did you
turn yourself in?
A They waited. I went only through the door and I
was arrested right away.
? In your home?
A Yes. My parents were hostages.
? In their own house?
A Yes.
? Do you remember what date this was?
A August, 1940.
? What day?
A That is one of the few things I remember exactly.
The 28th of August.
? Where were you taken to?
A To N. K. V. D. That is the Russian Secret Police.
Q. N. K. V. D.?
A Yes.
? Where?
A It was -- How can I say? First I was in the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/ . IA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
138
city prison and from there I was transported to that secret
prison. That is on Kuperjanavi Street.
Q. This is in Tartu, right?
A In Tartu.
MR. CONNOLLY: I will pick up there.
(Whereupon at five ten O'clock, p. m., the hearing.
was suspended till Monday, March the First, 1965 at ten
o'clock, a. m.).
!PP
VI&
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
rtr
T-971 D4"31r4ICT OE; MARYLAND
t,5''T 44
3
Ac:440%
2
3
8
"iJanNEtona 7). C.
,.:twoN la 2.M.
th?3 Crar.37,17.,21),7 ZcZ, tv"
psx T403 zn oZ:vgxnz of! 7.41/c."214,:=
nuZ4:ttl, Uw1114gt4fraa
bnt=lne, at toa o*Omoka broro Jr0 a
obiiz
az, Inc
MOND BUILDING, 1404 NEW YORK AVENUE. N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : ClifeRDPrZ5AGIWOR000100110001-1
DI 7-78
?V'
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
No
present on
Port
NITA
FaRnt
riot of Col ia? when were
ctive parties:
tiff:
ERNEST C. RASKAUKA, ESQUIIW
and
ROBERT S. TANKED, E.SQUIRE
he Defendants
ROGAN.: & flARTSON? ESQUIRES
BY: PAUL R. CONNOLLY, ESQUIRE
and
E? BARRETir PRETTYMAN, JR., ESQUIRE
0
IBEX
EXAMINATION BY:
ItIR CONN? Y MR. PRETTYMAN Pt RASKAUS
141
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
TIRb.iJ?ON,
the
141
ERIK wan,
aintif, havingbeen previously sworn by the Notary
Public, further testified as fellows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL POR THE DEP (Resumed)
BY MR. PRETTYMAN:
ca Would you give us all of the names that you have
zone under at any time during yourcereer, if you have used
na other Heine?
A When I was in Estonia as an underground fighter
and guerrilla then for my people I wan known only as Eerik.
No family name. But when we got and made ourselves false
passports, then I had a couple of different names. Ito first
po *la a
'passport I had had the name or Prilt Poltsana. And when I MBA
arrested in 1943 -- for a short time I escaped from the head
quarters -- and then I lost that false passport and attained
a new one, and the new name was -- excuse me, I haves look.
The Russinas? in the Russian propaganda newspaper, mentioned
here that name
(Witness to newspaper
That column here and here (indicating)s about
me in this newspaper published in Russian in the Estonian
anguage.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Re en
Here it is (indicating) That
other
A Then when
when was arrested and
142
1 u
as after' 1950--
recaptured, then
the name Eerik Heins without the ?E? on the end.
Q Did you say in Britain?
A No
Q In what?
A Prison camp
And that is aboutall the names that I have used,
is the newspaper that you are looking at?
A That is published in the Soviet Union and distri-
butedhere amongst Estonian refugees. That Issapropaganda
newspapers and the title reads in translation ?Fatherland.
And here appears -- I have several articles that appeared in
this newspaper about me, which used bad language against me
and threatened me and so on. Hare is an article, that column
up in here (indicating), is all about me what I have dons
and what a murderous fellow I ass and so on.
Q.
What is the date of that newspepe
A The 27th or May, 1964.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1113
Q Is that published in Russ or is it published in
this country?
A No; in fluia.
Q And le it then mailed to this country?
A Yes; mailed.
Q Do you receive the newspaper
A No, I don't receive that.
Q Where did you receive this cow?
A From where did I et it; I don't know, but many
of our people get, receive that, and then they show it to me.
They say, "I have an article about you; read what
tellsit about youeand here it is.
Here is another one, too (indicating).
Q When you say what they tell about you, who do you
rob
A The Communists what they tell
And here is one more, an earl iez
8 (indicating)
? 7ebruary-what?
A Only February; no date.
Q What is the name or that newspaper?
A That's called For Return to Fatherland."
Q By whom is that published?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
from
A By the Russians
q. And is that also mailed from Russia?
A Yes
Do your friends receive this newspaper directly
r do they buy it at a newsatand in Canada
d the United States?
A It's not on sale here. They are addressed to
persons evex9wtie21e, where EstOnians are in the Free World.
? And which or your friends received this newspaper/
A Oh, ZMost of the Estonians receive that and
who ye that to u, Ion It remember now.
Q But you have no subscription to any Russian
papor yourself?
A No.
cl Do moat of your friends receive only one newspaper
or do they receive several from Russia?
A First of all, earlier it was t
US4
comes.
icating)? but
ace ed, I think, and now it fa the "rat and" that
So that the recordwl be clear when you say
Per?
A "For Return to Roseland." Yes, that is closed;
closed,you are referring to which
8
Appear any more
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q That newspaper Is no longer published?
A
Q Is that the successor newspaper?
A Yes, I think so.
Q The one published after the other one?
A Just a moment. It comes from the same source, yes.
Q Which is What?
A That is some society for furt
145
No. The one that comes now is the "Fatherland.
endship and
cultural ties with Estonians in the Free Wo ld. It's not
said in the "Free World) you know why they don't say it, but
with Estonians outside of Soviet Russia
Q And what is the address?
A That is Tallin0 Valli Taney 40 Postkast 411
Q This Is published in Estonian?
A I think so / don't exactly know where it is
published.
A I mean the language
A Oh, yes; in Estonian.
(I Not in Russian?
A No; Estonian.
Q Do you know whether this newspaper is sent all
over the world, Ir is it directed only to Estonians in America
and Canada'?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
you?
A No; all over the world.
146
? What is the general purport of this article &bou
MR. STANFORD: Do you understand hat?
THE WITNESS: Yes, X understand that.
They call me there a Fascist murderer and so on.
BY MH. PRETTYMAN
ct Do they tell the etor7 of your life in this
article?
A
copy
In general terms.
which of your frinds gave you this particular
A / don't
OrrY.
fa Do you remember any friend that you know of who
receives or has received a copy of either or these newspape
A Oh, yea. There ls one Mr. Hande.
Q Do you have his address?
A I have to look here in this book.
(Witness refers to address book).
I am sorry, I have not that here. I will have
irg4ar R41.4
to supply it for you. /o i/14-tk, towel"
-r-erp, ?h/
Do you know if he lives In Canada or the United
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
147
A Canada.
Q Does he live in Toronto?
A Yes; Toronto.
la Is he a good friend of yours,
A We know each other pretty )ll*
Q He takes this newspaper regularly?
A He doesnit take it; it's sent to him
Q Explain that
You do not subscribe to this newspaper in order to
receive Xt, they send it to you unsolicited
A Yes; whether we want it or not.
Q And most of your friends receive this newspaper, most
of your Estonian friends in Canada?
A Not only my friends, but all Estonian.
Q All Estonians receive it?
A Yes; mostly.
Q You do not receive it?
A No.
Q Why is that? Do you know?
A My phone number is not in the phone book, and mostly
they take the addresses and names from the telephone directory.
Q Do you assume from this that the Russians in
Es =la do not know where you are?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A 4o. I am sure they know where I am.
q Have any threats ever been made on your life
Mr. Heine ince you have come to Canada?
A Yes.
What toVn did those threats take?
A They tried to blow up my car.
q When did that happen?
A I believe it was back in 1959.
Q When in. 1959?
A After I finished my lecture tc
think t wa 1959. No it was 1958. Sorry
yes
? I don't believe you mentioned that lecture tour
Will you tell us a little b
Oh yes; gladly.
When / came here to Canada then I was asked to
tell about my experiences in Sbviet Russia and in Zstonia as
a gueil1a fighter, and they seemed to be so good, my speeches,
that I think it was the Zstonian CouncRof Canada who asked
me to go on a tour of Canada.
Q Go where?
A All over Canada and hold these speeches and lectureE
where there are Estonians and I went.
that?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
149
? What part of the year was that?
A It was in the autumn. I believe it was in
now / have to correct something Now, I remember it wa
before I married my wife, and I married my wife in ,571 so
it must have been 157, September and October; yes.
Q At that time you were not employed?
A No.
q And how long did thi8 tour last?
A Two months
q How was that financed?
A I was taken from one city to another where I had
MIN .1.d.
ch. The people there - I knew very little English
and so they put me personally on the train, and all the Estoni
ans, you know, received me. And so I went from town to town.
Q
Now, at this time, you did not have a film?
A No.
Q You made a lecture?
A Yes.
Q And you recounted your exploits --
A Yes.
? -- prior to coming to Canada?
A Yes; In Russia, yes.
Q Was there a charge for the lecture?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
-
A All I got there I gavever to the Central
ee of Canada.
Pirst was there a charge for the lecture? Did
have to pay something to get into thelecture?
A Yes., they had.
Q And how much did they have to
A That was up to the local groups Nor much their
had to pays a dollar or two dollars; that was up to
Q What was the range?
A One dollar. X ala sorry.
Q The average uld you says
A Yes.
tt What was the
had to par
A Pifty
? Pifty cents?
A Yes.
? And what was the mot charted, that was ever made?
A TWo do/
Q What mere the gross receipts from that tour?
A I remember that brought back to the National
council of Canada about 000 from that.
t was the 1
t that they
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
151
Q
The 200 was the amount that you received after
all the expenses had been paid?
A Yes.
Q Were you paid for our expenses, train fare and
bus fare?
A They took the money out of what they received by
these things, and paid the trdh fare and then what I had to
maybe eat on the train pocket money, and then some dollars,
and t was all
Q And what did you do with the *
A I gave it to the Central Corrri'i.ttee of Canada, the
Central Council of Canada.
Q And that is an &tonan Council?
A Yes.
41 You gave the entire 4200?
A Yes
Q How many cities did that o c
A Just a moment.
(Witness counts cities to himself
Q As long as we are naming these why don't we
name them on the record 2 didn't realize you remembered the
names of those.
A First Toronto; chener; StCatherine; Hamilton
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
152
Niagara all Ottawa; Sudbury Sault Ste. Max
Port Arthur- nnipeg; Edmonton) Calgary) and Vancouver.
? All of these were Canadian cities?
A Yes.
t/ You did not peas into the United States at any
time during that tour?
A Not this t2.ine no.
CI As I understand ityou arrived in Canada
in April of '57, and you did not receive your first Job
until December of 19571
A Yes.
Q During
believe you said was $1
theGermans?
A Yes.
the only money that you had
which you had received from
Q Was this all of the money that you had in your
sion from April until December of 1957?
A Yes.
q You did not borrow during
A No.
Q And you were living with your mother at that time?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
MIL
Approved For Release 2005/02/401A-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
153
Q Did you pay her for living in her place or for
euppltee or anything of that kindi
A She paid me.
? How do you mean nehe;aid you?
A She gave ma food and shelter.
Q She did not actually give you monel other than
A No.
Q You mentioned Niagara Falls. That would be on the
an side?
A Yes.
q
Incidentally, have you recalled the name of the
overnight that you came over on,
A No. I didn't think about that after ally I am
sorry.
Q If that ccmes to you before the ed of the deposi-
tion, would you volunteer that information?
A For sure.
Q You mentioned that there was an incident where they,
believe you said tried to blow up your ear in Canada'?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell us about that, when that occurred
and thappened?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
because what
o a
the Co
lSk
had warned me
this was so over-
whelming that I began to receive at this time already threaten
ins phone calls, and people warned me that, "You better lock
your car and your hood.
? Who warned you?
A People.
q Who?
A I don't
Q These were Estonian
A Oh, yes; Estonians
ta, Your neighborS7
A Acquaintances, I think so.
ga Bow many of these phone calls did you get at that
Iced to.
A
the phone?
A h your tour and don't speak anymore about
k? some.
uld the
on the other end of
Q And you had already finished your tour at that
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
155
All right. Proceed with this blowing-UP incident
A And then I followed that advice and locked my
hood and ear every night. It was outdoors, not in a garage.
And / found one morning that they had tried to pry up that
hood.
(At his point in he taking of the deposition
Ernest C. Raskauskass Esquire co-counsel for the piaintiff
entered the deposition room)
MR PRETTYMAN: Off the record, please
(Whereupon a brief off the record discussion
between counsel for the plaintiff took place).
MR. PRETTYMAN Read the last question and
respons,..
(Thereupon, the pending quest
road by the Reporter)
EY MR. PRETTYMAN:
q You don't know who they were?
A No.
on and answer were
q Someone had tried to pry up the hood of your car?
A Yes. They had tried to put something under my
oar's hood and then I thought that they had attempted to put
a bomb in my car and blow me up.
q That was a surmise on your part?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
15 6
Yes. They had worked very heavily on that hood.
Q But they couldn't get the hood up?
A No.
Q What kind of car was
A It was a Pronto ; a
See if you can get his date Just as closely as
you can.
I take it, it was after your tour n October.
Was it before December 19572
A No. No it was before November '59 or so.
thought you said that this occurred right
your Canadian tour in September and October of 1957
A NO; it occurred, the car incident.
Q The car incident occurred in '59?
A Yes.
MR STANFORD:I think it was the differentiation
of the
threats and bombs
BY MR. PRETTIMAN
(a The threats occurred
A All the time until when I got my own telephone,
which I refused to list that, and then they stopped.
Q When was the first time you put in an unlisted
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
157
A or S, I think.
cl Did you receive anonymous threats over the tele-
phone about once a week from September and October 1957 until
1963 when you put in an unlisted number?
A Sometimes, yea, every week; and sometimes a month
or e was a time lapse; and then again; and then sometimes
there were two people with English accents who threatened me;
sometimes Estonians; and sometimes the phone would ring in the
dale of the night that said nothing only could hear
somebody's breath on the other end.
Q This was a different person each time?
A
Sometimes the same, yes; but it was very difficult
say but I don't think it was all the time the same person.
q Sometimes it WAB in English?
A Yes
Q Some
A Yes.
q Was it ever in
A No
Q Was it ever in eh?
A No
Q Was it alumys
A Yes.
or
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/0/10 CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
159
Q Each time the message was approximately the sane?
A When they spoke, yea; op your activities, and
;
We blow ;you up or destroy you, and so on.
Ck Did they threaten your family?.
A al, yes.
Q And you reported
A Yes; the Mounted Pc
Q You reported It each time you received a
A NO.
Q How max did you port
A One tine only then the Mounted Pbiiee s
do nothing.
q Did they tell you at that time to get an unlisted
incide
5
o t
3.?
phone?
A Yes; it would be better
could suggeat
? And that was when you got an unlisted phone?
A After that, a half a year about, Yee.
Q Where was your wife when you went =your American
tour?
the best they
A American tour?
Q The tour that you took t
with your film?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
es
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
boo
A At harm.
Q She was at your hc in Canada?
A Yes.
Q She remained there alone,.
A Kith my mother.
Q Did she live with
and live with her?
A She went to
la And the two of them were Xn the house at home?
A Yes.
Q Is your mother's phone listed in the telephone
th
ther
our
3.59
A Not uAder her name.
Q Whose name is it listed under?
A She la a teni.ixa; she has a rented room,
Q Re nte rooms?
A No, she has.
Q She rents from scm
A Yes. She has a ro
d for herself,,.
? She lives in a room which she rents from someone
A Yes.
ca Now maw tenants are there in that b
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Qnlyahejst
Q And what ist
rents the room/
A Mr. Furl
Q Her name does not appear in the t
A No
la Only this gent'
A Yes.
Q Your house was left
tour, your own house?
A
Of the person from
" e-74
(11 Jurona
0
160
she
book?
I didn't have, at this time,own house; I was
living as a tenant in a rented room.
The address that you gave us the other day,
Saturday, was a rented room?
A Yes
Q From whom did you rent that room?
A That was Mr.
12 And is that your present address?
A No. I have my own house.
Q I thinks to make this clear we better go back
. Heine.
A3 I understood u first arrived in April
f 19570 you lived with your mother?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A. Yes.
Q Did you 1 v
from this gentlemen?
A In this room
Well, I think perhaps the eae
to have you recount for 1.18 whe
with her lathe room which she
0
161
0
ou have lived
from he time you arrived in 1957 --
A I was with Mr.Urm.
Q Just a minute. When you first arrived on the ship
you went to live with your mother?
A Yes.
Q Where?
A I don't remember that address already.
CI Was that her home or was it a rented room?
A Rented room.
q Was that the same room at which she livestoday/
A No
Q It was a different room?
A Yee.
Q Was it in Toronto?
A Yes. in Toronto.
q You don't remember the address?
A No
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 :CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
q And you don't
she
162
A No; indeed, I don't.
? And did you stay with your mother in that room
your marriage in, December of 1957?
A Yes.
(4 When, you got married in December of 3.957, whex
you then move-with your wife?
A By Mr. Urm.
Ct And that was a rented
A Yes,
(a An apartment or a
A A room.
cl And have you given us that address?
A Yes; that Is 29 Easley Park Road.
q, Now, how long did you live in that room?
A Almost five years, I think
CI And when did you then move to another address?
A November of #64
q And at that time, where tild you move?
A 121 Mount Olive Drive, Reale.
q That is a home?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
q You bought thathome?
A Yes
q You have a mortgage on that h
A Yes,
Q So those
lived since you came to a?
A Yes.
q Mow, going back, your wife, during your American
tour, went to live where with your mother?
A Ao I mentioned, to Mr. :urima;that was 484
ieathers Avenue.
163
only addresses at which you have
Q When had your mother' moved to that address?
A I don 1t remember the eot date or year. I believe
it was time in 162 or so.
Q That was also a rented room?
A Yes.
Q The room which you were then renting for you and
your wife was left vacant while you went on your American
tour?
A Yes.
Q Did any harm come to that room while you were gone?
A No.
? Has your wife ever been
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
164
A No.
Q Have you ever been harmed personally Linee coming
to Canada in 1957?
A No.
Q No one has ever attacked YOU?
A No.
Q Has any attempt been
your coming to Canada in 1957?
A I only presume that when somebody tried to pry ,
open My hood
41 You didn't see a b?
0
A No.
cl But other t
A made on your lire?
A
0C
U believe these threats, Mr. Ho ?
ctual-
A I believe the threats are there; I believe the
threats; but are they carried out, that is another question.
Q Do you believe that these were Conisuniata who
were calling you?
A For sure.
Q You are certain of that?
A I am certain of that.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
165
Q But you believeshat these were idle threats?
A NO; I didn't believethat. I was all the time on
You werefrightened?
A Yes. Not frightened; I am not a person who
'rightens too easily.
(a Well am Just trying to get straight whether
you thought that these were idle threats or whether you took
them seriously?
A Oh ye
I took them seriously.
Q You thought they really would make an attempt
410 on your life?
A For sure they would try-
Q And do you still believe that they will
A Oh, yes; more than ever, now.
Q Where is your wife staying now?
A 121 .-
Q I mean during your trip right now to Washington,
is she in your home?
A Yes.
Ca And is she there alone?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall thenmea of the two schoolboys? I
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
believe you ai there were two --
A Yes
Q, who were involved with you in the attempt to
tear down the Russian fiag back in 1940?
A One is here in New York and I know him. ffi
Jonas.
? give ushi Al1 name and address if you
A I am looking; just armament.
(Witness refers to his address k).
Karl Jonas; 14-28 Hoyt Avenue South, Long Island
City
Q And who is the other one?
A I don't remember.
Q Have you ever seen him since that incident?
A No.
Q What happened to Mr. Jonas? Was he also captured
by the Russians subsequent to the Incident?
A Yes.
Q And did he spnid time in Russian prison campsc
A No He escaped after'incident like I did.
Q And was he subsequently captured by the Russians?
A No. Be went free; they didn't catch him.
Q. How did he get to this country?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
167
A Here.
Q Yes.
A He was in the German AMY r he capitula
tion I think in '49 or '50 he immigrat
States, I think.
Q He has never been a Russian prisoner?
A No, never
Q And you have seen him since you have come to this
country?
A A couple of t4mes,yes.
Q In New York
A Yes
q Let's go back to the flag incident and to your
subsequent surrender to the Russians.
When you went home, I believe you said your parents
were under house arrest1 so to speak?
A Hostages yes.
q And they captured you when you Walked into your
home; is that correct?
A Yes.
the United
q And your intent at that time was not to see ye
s but to give yourself up?
A Yes
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
I remember the
169
of that interrogator; I will
never forget that man.
q What was his name?
A M.A-R-R-A-Z-I-H-I4.N (s Jan.
And after a while they began, you know, began
to beat me and about nine months I spent as prisoner in that
headquarters. About 20 or 25 times I was interrogated;
sometimes day and night through.
Q When they were interrogating you during that
period, what information were they trying to receive from
you7
A It ewe out at last that ther wanted to know
about
how is this called -- counterrevolutionary
activities and when they didn't get that from me then.... I
was determined rather to die than to tell about my friends and
this organization to which I beldynged and for which I was the
organizer for Estonian youths
? Did they seem to know about your activities where
you had gone around Estonia recruiting Estonian youths?
A No; not that part, but they had captured one youth
in Tartu.
Q What was his nwne?
sax.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Was thattt
A Yes. I don't VOUIOinbeZ hi3 first na
And when they saw that I don't give in and don't
say nothing, at last they put me face to face with that
fellow. He had told tWmn -- he presumably was broken
and he told about my activities in Tartu, what I have done.
cl In recruiting youths?
A No, not so far. He told that I had uade a
proposi-
tion that we have to keep together and so on, and about my
activities in that place called Barlat Plats, where I had
distributed Estonian flags, little ribbonsiwithmany, many
other schoolboys. He didn't know about my organization,
about my travels around Estonia.
Q Had you distributed these flags after the flu.ans
had taken over Estonia?
A les.
Q Where
A There were shopi still that were,in the veglbegin-
there were still private shops; and then the owners
were there; and then when, you know, first we buy it. But
afterwards, these shop owners gave them free.
Q You mean shop owners were allowed to sell these
flaga after the Russian Occupation?
gotten those fiai
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
you to tell us in detail
what happened to you thenj the camps that you were taken to;
and tell us that in a much detail as you can
A Very good.
These Russians Secret Police agents waited in
my house, and I was arrested, handcuffed and I was led
away to the address or the secret service headquarters in
Tartu; that was I mentioned that earlier in Capriano
Street. And I was booked and searched very thoroughly, and
after that -- that was an apartment houses but the Russians
used it for their headquarters at this time -- after a couple
of hours they began to interrogate me.
Q At the time that they booked you, was a charge
laid against you?
A No; nothing.
Q And did they tell you what you weie arrested for?
A No; nothing. And then after a couple of hours,
they began interrogating me.
Q What were they interrogating you about?
A The first couple of ones, they were pretty harmless;
they were who I am and where my home is, and some routine
questions; and who my parents are, and where I go to school,
and so on; and my life story, and so on.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
to u
rao
171
A They took them from under he counter.
Under the counter?
A Yes. Under the counter; serotly they gave them
story in front of you, face to
A Yes.
Q Re had been broken through torture?
A Yes.
Q Presumably the same
you were v-
? Presumablyaes.
Q. But you had refused to talk entirely?
A Yes.
Q You had given only the details of your personal
such as your name and your name?
A Yes. And where / went to school and where I have
identification card, and so on.
Ea Did you ever admit during those nine months that
you had taken part in the flag incident?
A Yes id
? You,ad admit that?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Mid you admit
nade a tour of Estonia?
A No.
Q Did you admit that you had
teflow udents?
A Yes id.
q What else did you admit?
A Only those things, what they could reaff
Q What they could find out on their own?
A Yes; on their own
LI But they did not know that
the flag incident?
A Flag incident?
fa Yes.
A Sarv told them.
fa And so it was subsequent t
that you did that?
A *Yee.
Q Did you ever give the
you had worked In doing anti-Russ
arrest?
A
172
you had
yen these Mige to
you admitted
s of anyone with whom
Have you told us all or the
tvities prior to your
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
0
that you
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
173
gave the Russians durlrgjour captivity?
A Yes.
Q Let no make sure I have that now?
You gave thedetails of your own life in terms of
your nane and where you lived and your family?
A Yes.
? You told thea that you
attempt to lower the flag?
A Yes.
Q And you told them that you had sold flags?
in
he
A Not sold; given free, distributed.
Q Distributed flags?
A Yes.
Q But you told them nothing else?
A Nothing else
You did not tell them where you had been subsequent
flag incident and before your arrest?
A NO.
Q But they wanted more information from you?
A Yes.
Q And they eontinuedto torture you?
A Yes,
Q Tell Us about tha ? during the nine-month period
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
174
how often did that take place and what form1d it take?
A They interrogated me about 25 t
and they sus..
that I was mixed up in the undergrouma activities, but
d earlier I was ready to die before I said anything
And these torture methods
Q What?
A Methods of torture the beatings,that was the
simplest d easiest but the most ageesing was that they
usedgiec ricity, especially on the sexual organs.
And two times I was taken out from my prison
and led to a nearby forest where they had a secret execution
place, and two times they, you know, made a mock killing or
neck ng They put me on the edge of that grave, and
you know, first time only they had rifles on their
sho dere, and I waited for when it comes and nothing comes;
the second time they even fired, but not at mos but to subdue
me so that I tell about these activities they suspected
I was a part of.
How many people took part in these tortures?
A These beatings, about three or four e
Q Three or four men?
A Yes.
Were they the same mon eachtime?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Not all the tine,
That is one name that I am ca
was a3,l the time present.
Q What was his rank?
Major.
q And he was in that, NICVD?
n of And Marra
A Yes. He titled himself *Inte
Important Things.* Major Marrazihian.
qI take it by that that you were consideredvery
important captured person?
A Yes, I think so.
Q They thought thitt you had taken part in important
guerrilla activities?
A Not guerrilla. At this time there were only a few.
ut he underground which was made up of university students
high school students, and civilians, that was very, very wide-
spread all over Estonia at this time and they thought maybe
they have caught a link so that they can go on with it.
Q As a matter of fact they had caught a link, hadntt
they?
A Yes.
Q You were
A Yes.
they thought you were?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
cl Or what they su
A Yes.
You had in fac
they suspected you of?
A Yes.
Q Did you stay
4?
A I was about three mont
? And wher
W, Mr. Heine?
A Yes.
u were?
yoursel
0
176
activities
ck You were captured on what day of August?
A I remember it wan the 28th of August.
1940?
A Yes.
cl Now, during the
through as best we can the
A Yes.
14 Go ahead, sir.
A I stayed fora couple of d
and hen they took me to a prison, the Tartu prison.
cz The town prison?
the begin-
nth period, 1et's follow
places that you stayed.
there in headq
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Yea.
Q Were you in a cell by yourselt
A Yes.
Q Were there other eaptured Eatonian in other cells
u?
A
there
they -
Q Were they accused of the eame thing that you
wore accused of?
A I don't know for what they were there because
these cells were soundproof.
Q You couldn't see them?
A No. When I was taken again before my torturers -.
they brought me in the beginning every time to that head-
quarters and back again by ear; and then after two or three
months, they began sometimes to interrogate me In that same
prison that I went to.
Q The town prison
A Yes; the town prison.
ca They did not take you back to headquarters; they
did it on the spot?
A Yes* sometimes there, And it lasted about until
February or larch 141, that interrogation.
Q How many times a week didyou say this would take.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A It was about 25 times all together.
Q During the nine months?
A Yes. And then these SCtivitie5 ceased; I was
not troubled, and -.
Q Beginning
A I think it was the end o e then I
WaS taken to TR11141 the capital or
? With other prisoners?
A No alone
Q By yourself
A Yes; handcabd. And in Ta3iin I was about a month
you?
again.
? In what place?
A At the city priion hail in Tallin
Q Were you in a cell by yourself?
A Yes.
ci And were there other prisoners in the cells around
A No. I can me
hat after t
the alone
in that cell, I was put in a cell in u where there were
other prisoners, too.
Q Letts go back then. I take it that we are back in
Tartu now?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Yes,
Q After being alone for how many months?
A Three months.
Q You were then put in a cell with other prisoners.
A Yes.
Q flow maw other
A About 14 or 18.
ct What were they accused of?
A Capitalists, spies, underground ftgbterr
oft.tcers, former policemen, ku/aks
Q Would you say that these people basically were
accused of the same thing that you were, or were they potential
troublemakers?
A You can't tell they weretroublemaker's; they
were very fine people. Only the Soviet 4/..
Q I mean in the Soviet eyes course
A Oh1 yes; very., very serious troublemakers.
Q What I am trying to get at did you know from talk-
ing to them whether they were charged principally with speci-
fic acts as you were in terms of underground activities,
r were they locked up because they were potential trouble-
makers to the Russians?
A They were charged with being for example, kulake,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
MR. STANP d object to this insofar as
it would be speculation on his part in many of these cases
but go ahead and anewer as best as you can.
BY MR. PRZTTYMAN:
Q You did talk to these people e in the
same eel
A Yes.
Q And you discussed your common everiences and
why you were there?
A I didn't tell them that I am in the uerground;
that is moat foolish thin to do among prisoners,
rib
and
reme
was caught distributing leaflets anti Communist leaflets and
Q Did they tell you anything about themselves?
A Not much; but only that they are anti-Communists
ey
? They did tell you hat?
A Oh yes. We told that to every.
Q And you told them you were an anti-Communist?
A Yes I told them, "I have distributed these
I was the boy who wanted to tear down the flag,
There was a younger fellow than X -- I don't
his name already -- who was a schoolboy as / am
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1.
181.
8 of any of the pe ple
ith you?
A very old man was
r now was Pant.
book some names are
Prouli;and that
the reel names
Pant was there; and then there vas
Tsarist Rut an Belouissov
Q These are real names that you are givtng us now?
A Yes.
q Did you use any real naznea in the book?
A When I knew that they dead then I used the
Q That was mynezt questions
Do you know what happened aubequent].y to these
pxiBo1ez'e?
A Mos ly were shot.
Q, And were they shot just atter they were in the
1 with you, or was this many years later?
A Sometimes they ere called out withthez' thins
and hen we knew that this was the last trip and most of
them were shot when the Russians fled the country that
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
hey were shot, and some
they shot, they were t
is called?
Pit?
0
182
Live in - hese
mpty -- how it
In the prison courtyard there was
BY 4R. PRETTYMAN:
Well?
Well, yes. Some were alive.
Q This would have been in June 1941 when the
tans rt?
A Yes.
A
A.
Row do you know that?
I read about that and I remembered these names.
Where did you read that?
It was a publication in E tonieno Estonien at
ion
and State in the Second World War."
And you recognized these names as being the names
or the people withthom you had been in prison?
A Some, yes.
Some of these persons were taken out and shot right
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
YOU were there?
A Yes. We thought so.
Q And others were taken
A Yes.
kill later?
Are azy of those 4 in this country or in Canada
that you know of?
A No
Q Have you ever seen any of those 14 since you came
to Canada in 1957?
A No
Q Do you know of allYwho are alive?
A No.
Q Do you know that they are all dead?
A I don't know for sure.
Q Would you say that most of them are now dead?
A Yes suppose so.
Q You don't know of any that were repatriated to
Germany or who escaped?
A No.
ct All right. I believe we are now in Z.:ann.
A Yes.
tz Tell us about your imprisonment there.
A I was there about one month in, a single ch
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1sk
and one dar,I believe it was in April when
rat iget
Q 1941?
A I believe that, yes.
I don't really exactly know. I was broughtin a
where there were very many prisoners,
about 20 or
so, and there I felt a little bit funny because some of them
spoke German although they all undOratood Estonian.
Q Did you speak German at that time?
A Oh, yes; I spoke German.
q You had learned that in school?
A Yes.
Q Did you know Russian by that time?
A A little bit, yes.
q And English?
A No, English not much; Russian more.
And there I was told that these prisoners were
awaiting extradition from the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany.
I wouldn't believe or didn't understand why I was there because
/ am Estonian, and I have said that to these interrogators
all the time, "I am Estonian and why am I here,
? You had not made application or anything prtr to
A No. I did noth
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
la This
ete surprise to you?
185
A Yes; a oornplete surprise. And I was even stubborn
in this case.
A week,
sion of Russian officers, and everyonewas asked his name
led before a commis-
ionality and date of birth and so on, and all of them,
I believe now, asked for our natinality, and they answered
that we were Germans but I refused to say that I am a German,
though others suggested to me that I have to do that because
that's the only way to get out from there. I told them,
am Estonianiff but that didn'tpuke any difference to them.
They sent me out anyway,
Q How long were you in the cell with the 14 people
It
14 people in rtu. Three months I was alone;
fourmnthe, I think
14 Four months with those 1k
A Yes.
ct And then you transterred to
A Yes
Q And from then on you were alone until the time you
in?
brought in the
A Yes.
with the 20 le?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
186
Q You were in a cell by yourselfd t perio
A Yes.
Q Were you interrogated at all betWeOfl the end of
February when I believe yommaid the torture stopped,
and in April when you mere brought into this room?
A No.
Q You were left completely alone?
A Completely alone.
Q No one asked any questions?
A No one asked any questions. No one even Spoke to
and
Q Did you receive permanent injuries during this
A I was -- teeth, f
eve
can s
h, were beaten out,
that I hope that it stays here in the
record, was severely damaged on the reproduction organs;
the xual organ, is there, but the reproduction is gone due to
these beatings.
Q You mean that you cannot havechil
A Yes
Q Any other permanent injuries?
A Not this time.
Q Were you given false teeth at that time?
X
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/1 0A-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
187
A No.
Q From the and of February until you were released
in Aprils you had no teeth?
A No. Four front teeth were beaten out this time.
Just the four front teeth?
A Yes.
Q The other teeth weze there?
A The other teeth were there
Q When were the four front teeth replaced for the
first time?
A They were never replaced.
Q I mean replaced in the aense of false teeth?
A No; never replaced.
Q You look as if you have some teeth there no.
A No; only here (indicating lower teeth).
cz Well when you say ufront teeth, 4 you don't mean
the ones right here in front?
A No; upper front (indicating no upper teeth),
Q I am sorry., but you do look as if you have upper
front teeth. I see; I am sorry.
Was any explanation made to you at any time as to
hy the beatings stopped, why the torture stopped?
A No; nothing.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
188
to you as to why you
d to Germany
From the end of February un
repatriated, did you see amy of the h
you again
A
Q What part of April were you actually released?
What date were you actually released?
A I believe the end of Apr/1 sometime.don't
remember the exact time
Q Tell us precisely what
this court?
A Commission, tribunal,
ct And you refused to say that you were German?
A Yee.
Q But they told you that you were going to be sent
when you were
who had tortured
. You went before
A They don't tell me nothing, only they wrote
rhat I said, and that was all.
? Then, what happened?
A Then we were brought back to that cell again.
? All 20 of you?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
189
A We were sent three or four to the tribunal, and
than brought to the call and others went till all were
through.
Q And WeXO YOU thenu in a cell you 1 ?
A The same cel
41 Then what happened?
A Then
next !morning we
taken out, given back
our longings --what were left -- and I. believe it was when
WO
put on a bus and
Q How many of you were put on the bus?
A 20 people, what were there, all these pEople.
And we rode to the railway station, and there was
it ting
A special train?
A Yes; a special train for repatriates d there
was e it was a Soviet official there, and he gave us
over to the leader of that train, the leader of the repatri-
ates.
Q Wan
A Bias8
being repatriated to Germany
Qt All of these what?
A These passengers in that train.
train or flunsi
but all thesepassenge
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
190
understand that
How many cars were on that train?
A About 20 or more.
Q For only 20 people?
A No. These were all full. That train ias waiting
UntilfOI us we arrived, and after we arrived about one hour
then it began to go.
Q Were the people in the bus with you all Estonians?
A You have to understand that by that time true
Estonians could repatriate to Germany. For exanple? somebody
with a German,. wife, or had attended German school --
? His parents re German?
A or his parents were Geximeni, or one grandparent
was German, one of the great-grandparents was German; only
if he could show that he had something to do with Germany
school or.00nfirmation r mother or grandfather, or great-
grandfather.
Q They had to prove there was some German link?
A Yes
Ca You got on this train with hese 20 others?
A Yes.
Q Were you all in one car?
A Yes. In that train?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
ompletely
A No. That train was international;
191
disiibuted ai over. We were free then,
There were no guards?
ears.
JO of that moment you were a tree man?
A Yes.
Q, Was the train run by Russians or by 00 s?
A By Russians
? The conductor --
A Yes.
Q The for tickets?
A No
q And you stayed here how long before the train
A About one hour.
fa I suppose you were very
A Oh, my; you can say that.
IQ, Were any of your friends on this train?
A No Which friends do you mean?
cz Did you know anybody on the train?
A No Only these 20 fellow prisoners.
And you had not known them before you were left in
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
192
the room h them?
A No.
? Did you see anyone that you knew pera11y between
the time that you left the 14 people in the cell In Tartu and
the time that you got on the train in Tallin?
A No didn't see no one.
Q No one that you knew
A No
Q No acquaintances?
A No
Q No friends?
A No
la
?L'1l ua about the traintrip.
A We went then through Estonia Latvia and
Lithuania and
? Did you atop anywhere in t
A No I believe we went right through. The train
was full; that was the beginning point or the starting point
then to
he first stop?
A I believe they changed thesG locomotives and no on.
Q. Anywhere in Estonia
A I don't remember that. I wan too happy to be gett
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
off?
A
r leaders
you prevented
193
etti
re forbidden to go out. These
dials., or whoever they were, they
with the Germans, they directed that when we go out we
be captured right sway Again-
Q There were German leaders on the train?
A Officials, yes.
Q Were they in uniform?
A No.
rt When the train stopped there guards outside
rain?
A Yes
Q With rifles?
A Oh yea.
Q What happenedthen?
A Than --
Q Let me interrupt you.
Did you disc, n the train with your fellow
re
being re
their various experiences
riated?
A Then I got the f
0
they were
on that my paren
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
194
me out of my prison
Where did you learn that?
A On that train:
Q Prom whom?
A One of the officials told me about that.
Q, A German official?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell, you?
A That my parents had tried t me out of prison,
and than they had made application to repatriate to Germany
because one of my grandparents had been a German on my mother
side.
fa
alive at that time?
A
q She had died sometimefore?
A Yes.
Q When you left Tallin and the Russians put you on
rain, re any threats node against you at that time?
A No.
? You didn't have to sign anything
A No.
q You made no s?
A No
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
195
(I They said nothing to u?
A Nothing.
CI You arrived where in Germany on the train?
A It was in Lithuania. The town I don't remember
an*ore The Russians had occupied Lithuania as well
E8tQfl1, and there --
Q Let me show you this nap and it
recollection.
MR
brief recess.
MR. RAZAAUSKASI All r
(Whereupon, by agreement among counael,brief
3ec of he deposition was taken).
At this
sh your
ke a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
196
MR. PRETTYMAN: Beck on the record.
BY MR. PRETTYMAN:
CI Mr. Heine, tell us now about the arrivalof the
train in Lithuania, where it arrived and what happened then.
A I believe it was a town named Tilzit.
cz Continue*
A And there awaited us uniformed German officials,
and we were given over to the German authorities by the
Russians
Q Naos I thought you said there were no Russians on
the rain.
A There n Tilzit. Before we crossed the border,
we stopped there, and all people had to go out of the train
and there was a station, probably Tilzit Station, and we were
checked once more by the Russians, and I believe we were
given food. We crossed the state line into Germany where
German authorities awaited us.
Q Where did you stop in Germany?
A First, right away, in Tilzit.
cl I thought you said that was Lithuania.
A Half and Half. Russian and German. And there we
stayed a couple of hours*
GI You were now under German control?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
197
A Oh, yes under German control. We were told that
the prisoners,these 20 men, that we were exchanged against
some German Communietsand Jews out of Russia.
Q. You were exchanged for some men who Were being
sent from Germany to Russia?
A Yes; German Communists and Jews.
Q You didn't see those people?
A No. We were told only that
Q Were you told it was a man-to exchange?
A That we don't know.
? You were told that by the Germans?
A Yes.
Q Then, what happened?
A After some time, maybe a half a day or so, we
separated.
Q Were you still on the train?
A No; we were in a great big hall where we ate,
and we were given refreshments and so on.
ct This was what town?
A In Tilzit; and then we were separated. In effect,
410 everyone was given an address or a camp where we had to go,
and were furnished with tickets, and
Q Were you under guard?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
198
A No.
Q You were
A Yes.
ci
to go --
as you pleased?
A No; only we had to go to that camp*
Q Where you were told to go?
A Yes. In that camp where I was taken about ten
other people, too, from the train
? Were you put on a bus or a car an talcen there?
A No; by train we went there.
Q You were put on a new train?
A Yes.
Q Were you guarded?
A No.
Q You were with how many people?
A About ten from that train, yes.
Q You were given instructions to go to a certain
A A gdIde was with us.
Q A, guide?
A A girl, I think, as I remember.
Q Aa you remember/
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
q A German girl?
A Yes.
q In uniform?
A Yes.
Q A guide's uniform?
A No; a German Nazi organization.
Q She was the only German with you?
A Yes.
Q. Where did you go?
A It's very, very hard to remember that first camp.
I don't remember the name of that camp, but I stayed in that
camp about two weeks, and there I began to search for my
parents.
Q Tell me about that camp.
A It was an old castle, old German castle.
Q What town was this?
A There was no town; it was in the countryside.
Q How far from Tilsit?
A We rode by train about over one day, I think.
Q You don't know where it was in Germany?
A in Southern Germanys that I know for sure.
Q Did you have to stay inside the Camp?
A No. we were free.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q You
A Yes
ere
o go?
200
Q What papers did you have with you at this time?
A I think none.
la No papers at l?
A No.
la No identification?
A No.
. Were you allovd to take anything With you from
A No.
Q No
A No What we had on, that was and half of
that was stolen by the Russians when I was arrested.
Q How much? Did you have a suitcase?
A No.
Q You tad your suit?
A Yes. In sunner,I was arrested, and then it was
very cold. I was without an overcoat.
Q No overcoat?
A And bareheaded and nothing for my head.
q No overcoat?
A No.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
201
Q Now, tell us about this camp. How many people
were in the camp?
A There were about 100 or so.
Q Were they people like yourself who had come from
Estonia, or had they come from many places?
A From manY places.
Q Had they all been exchanged by the Russians?
A No. They came by legal Ws.
Q Who were they? What kind of camp was this?
A. They kepbus there to fix us up. There were health
examinations and they fed us very good there.
Q What was the purpose of this? What did you think
you were doing there at that time?
A I think others awaited for time to get placed in
work places somewhere Places for work.
g, Were there guards at this camp?
A No
Q You could leave at will?
A We had or at least I had, no identification card.
couldwalk around all dgys but I was, I think I was told not
to get lost.
Q And how well could you speak German at this time?
A A little better than I speak English now.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
202
Q What did they tell you you were doing there, you
yourself?
A They told me that they are searching for my
parents, and when they found them in another camp, then I was
brought out from that camp with a guide again that was a
woman -- that was not far from there.
Now, we can identify that place. mr parents
were n a camp, Schwabish Hall that was called.
They were in a camp similar to the one you were
A Yes; similar.
Q What had they been doing since they had left
Russia and moved to Germany?
A They lived there all the time.
q
In this camp?
A Yes.,
Q Did they have any identification?
A Not at this time.
Q When you say "not at this time," you mean they
had no identification since leaving Russia until the time that
you met them?
A Yes.
MR. STANFORD: You mean br that1identification
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
papers?
No.
203
Q They had no identificationsapers?
A They had their old Estonian passports hat they
had in:Estonia. I believe they were given, by the organization
who brought them over some cards for identification; yes, I
think, but not passports, no.
Q Not passports?
A No,
? These were simply cards giving their names?
A Their names, first names and then surnames.
cz And that was all?
A Yes.
Q, And they had no other identification or papers?
A Only old ones from Estonia.
Q What did they show?
A The old Etonian passports.
Q I thought you said they had no passports?
A Not German ones, no.
? They had Estonian passports?
A Yes.
Q Those were the only papers they d?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
2ok
A Yes.
Q How had they lived since going from Russia to
Germany? They had been fed and eared for in this osMA?
A Yes.
Q By the Qermans?
A Yes.
Q They did not have aJob?
A No.
?Q And your father was still living at this time?
A Yea
Q The Germans found sur parents?
A Yes.
? They had to investigate to find where they were?
A Yes.
Q And how long did that take before they finally
located them?
A About two weeks.
Q And they finally located your parents?
A Yes,
Q And so they then reunited you with your parents?
A Yes.
? And how did they take you to them?
? A By train again
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
205
Q With others?
A No; by myself, alone.
Q Were you guarded?
A No.
Q You were free?
A Yes.
Q And you arrived at the camp and were reunited with
your parents?
A Yes.
Q Did they tell you about what they had been doing
while they were in Germany/
A While they were in Germany?
Q Yes.
A They were waiting for me to get out.
Q How had they heard that you were going to get out?
A The German officials had told them, worry,
get your boy out.
Q They had been trying to get you out?
A Because they tried to get me out. They repatriated
ma for that reason.
Q The Germans tried to get you out?
A When I was arrested this time my parents were
set e by the Russians.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
206
fa Because you were arrested?
A Yes
Q You were exchanged for them, more or less?
A Yes* and by this time that was, to make it
Clear, the real Germans had been repatriated already in 1939,
arid that was the so-called after repatriation where very many
Estonians could flee the country* too. And that organization
who arranged these things was still there and then my
mother that was her idea -- went to that organization and
told about my arrest* and asked for advice by these Germans
there how could they get me out. And it was possible when
they repatriate to Germany that they can get no exchanged or
out of prison. And these officials were very* very -- as my
mother told me, that net my own words -- that they were very,
very impressed about the flag incident arid the distribution
of these small flags and they told me parents that*"We have
to get that boy out at all potable costs.
41 Why did you think they wanted to get you out?
Did they think you would beseeful to them?
A No. As I told you, my mother said that they were
very impressed with my spirit* what I showed during these
days.
They thought that you were very anti-Communist?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Yes,
Q Proceed.
Now, you have met with your
and talked
with them?
A Yes.
Q What happened then?
A Then we lived there some time.
Q Now, let's get that date straight.
What was the date, as close as you can remember,
that you were actually reunited with your parents?
A In May, I think. My mother knows that date.
Q 1941?
A Yes, I think so. Then we lived there a couple of
month
In the camp where they had been?
A Yes; and who wanted to go to work could go,
and those that didn't want to go, they could stay in that coral!**
I worked a couple of days,but most of the time I relaxed, and
then / went sightseeing around that Schwabish Hall and the won.
Q Were you well-cared for?
A Oh, very well.
Q Well-fed?
A Oh, yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q.
208
Well-housed?
A Yee. And then one time they began to give pass
portso these people who were in the camp; some got German
passports; some didn't get German passports. And that is
probablyhe cause was, why there isaLdifference, that the
Nazis had some department who decided who is enough German
and who is not In order to get the passport. It was that like
one was too little, only one grandparent on my mother's side,
so we were given alien passports, In translation German alien
passports.
Q You were given that?
A Yes
q Were you one of those whose German linkage was
somewhat suspect?
A No. I told them I am an Estonian
qI believe you were splitting your group into two
parts Those who were tr4V German, and therefore who got
regular passports
A Yes.
-- and those whose links with Germany were much
moresuspect?
A And who didn't want thexnt and they were given
alien passports.
110
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
? And you were one of those who said you were really
you were Estonian?
A Y
Q And, therefore, they gave you only an
paaport?
A Yes.
Q What did that show?
A First names date of birth, birthplace
that t home. I don't really remember what is in there.
Q Where did you go from there?
A Then, I believe it was -- when did Vac Second
World War break out with Russia?
ye
KR. STANFORD
recollection.
THE WITNES
Mr. Prettyman wants sour bee
It was in autumn.
BY MR. PRE MAN:
Q June 22nd?
A Yes.
CI 1941?
A Yes d, maybe a couple of weeks after that
Estonians who lived in Germany had earlier formed an organiza-
tion for the liberation of Estonia; they had their old consul
general there in Berlin, and then these representatives
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
210
Q Representativies?
A Representatives of that organization began to travel
around these camps where Estonians
some Estonians and
some Germans -- and we were, you know, called to Join the
Estonian units, army units were formed there in Germany, and I
volunteered right away and others there, too* all Estoniansj
100 per cent, men* even boys,15-year_ old boys and 60-year-old
Men.
Q How old were you?
A I was 21* I know.
Q You were in good physical
h, would you say?
A I recuperated there very well, yes. I was a little
? bit thin after that ordeal* but overall not bad.
Q You were not crippled so that you couldn't fight?
A No
la Do you recall the weight that you got back after
thisrecuperation?
A No; that I don't remember. I only remember that
weight when I was second or third time in Russian prison
camps, that weight I remember.
Q At this point you were fit o military service
is t I am trying to say.
A Oh, yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
211
Q You could run and jump and carry arms?
A Yes,
Q And your s ght was good?
A Yes.
Q Did you know this representative who came to see
you in the camp
A It was eve, Mt or Scala) he was an Estonian
majors and one Estonian Lieutenant Partel.
Q And had you knowathem before?
A Only one of them.
Q Which one?
A Lielltenant Partel.
Q You:had known him in Tartu?
A Yes.
Q Had he been a boyhood friend?
A No. He was one of my commanders in the National
let's say.
How had he gotten out?
A With a fictitious marriage with a German wife.
? Had he been a prisoner of the Russians?
A No.
Q Now, you inunediately joined up with this anti
Russian Estonian outfit?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
212
A Yes.
cz What happened hen? That was eevera3 weeks after
June 22nd?
A Yes
? All right.What happened then?
A Then we were sent to Frankfurt/in/Oder to a train-
ing -. it was not the army, it was for the arMy units
hough.
Q How many went with you?
A We were there from that cawabout 30 or 40 men.
Q They were all Estonians?
A Yes.
Q Did you know any of them?
A I think so, yes; there was a whole family; eon,
three sons, and a son-in-law of that family were there.
Ramo was the name; and their first name, Tamm.
Was there anyone there whom you have seen since?
Yes.
Q In this country?
A Yee.
Q Who?
A Mr. Rammo lives in Ontario, Canada.
Q Do you have his address?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
213
A No; this is in Hamilton, but I don't know the
exact address.
Oh, yes; I think one lives here, too, in the
United States. I will look if I have that name here BMWs
Eunne; 2120 North Clivedon, Chicago, 14, Illinois.
Q Tell us what happened after you got into the camp
with these men? How long did you train?
A About three months, I believe.
Q Was the training conducted by Germans?
A Yes.
Q Was there a name for this outfit?
A Afterwards,when the training was ended or stopped,
then we were named.
What was the name?
art1/4,,c/
A AusIand Battalion.
Q This was made up entirely of Estonians?
A Entirely. There was a very interesting incident,
by the way. One day we had to stand in military order there,
and then there was a major who suggested, "Who wants to be
a German, take three steps forward," and about half of these,
not so much, but one-third of these who were on that formation
there, stepped three steps forward.
Q What did they mean by the question?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
214
A Who Wants to be a German.
Q What did he mean by that?
A They were given German passports, and then
handled as real Germans. We were Estonians.
QI am still not clear. The people who stepped
forward were actually Estonians, but were then given a chance
to become German citizens?
A Yes.
Q Merely by stepping forward, they were given German
passports?
A Yes,
Q And thereafter treated as Germans?
A Yes.
(I Did you step forward?
A No.
Q You wanted to remain Estonian?
A Yes,
Q What happened to those who stepped forward?
A From there a new formation was made, second batta-
lion; first and second.
Q They were put in another group?
A Yes.
Q And you remained with the Estonian group?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
215
A Yes.
q You remained with the Ausland group?
A Yes.
Q What happened to that group?
A We were sent there is something more I have to
sea. The Germans told us that we who were engaged in war
activities in Estonia, they wished to send us to Estonia to
free our country, but instead they lied tota; they sent us
to the Ukraine.
Q Were you interrogated by the Germans at any time
afteryour arrival in Germany and before the formation of this
group?
A / don't recollect th*t.
Q You were asked no questions?
A No.
(4, Where were you sent in the Ukraine?
A First to the town of Kiev; and there our battalion
had toiard the electricity factory.
q What month was this, Mr. Heine?
A I believe it was in November. And after that --
Q November of 1941?
A Yes. -- that group was split, and some were sent to
the swamps Prippet near Kiev to fight the partisans there.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
216
Q What partisans?
A The Russian Communist partisans.
Q Were you sent with that group?
Yes. I was sent with that group.
Q What was thename of that group?
A Ausland Battalion.
q What was the name of the group that was split off
from it?
A Ausland Battalion.
Q The Ausland Battalion was split into two mil's?
A They weren't split but one group was taken out
and sent to the Prippet swamps.
Q And you were in that group?
A Yes.
Q Where did the other group go?
A In Kiev; they stayed in Kiev.
Q Toll us what happened after you were moved?
A We went there and went on patrols and guard duty.
Q What were you guarding? What was the situation
there at the time that you were sent there?
A' That region was infested with these Communist
guerrillas, and we had to guard a little town the believe
it was Cherkassy.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
217
Q This was an area that was under German control,
but was infiltrated by Russians?
A Yes,
Q What did you do there?
A We stayed there about -- I stayed there about
until February '42.
? Duttng that time, did you actually engage in
fighting?
A Very little.
Q How much?
A A couple of times only.
Q And did you see Russians during that period?
A Only very far away.
Q Did you do anT,ehooting?
A Wedid,
Q Did you kill any Russians?
A Not when I was there.
Q There were no personal engagements, so to speak?
A No.
Q It was a long-range affair?
A Yes.
Q What happened in February 1942?
A In February I was sent back to Kiev.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
218
Q With the rest of the Ausland Battalion?
A No; only myself.
Q Why?
A Because the Government of Germany occupied
Estonia, the Edonian Government; how can I say it? They,
the Free German Collaborators' Government, because they have
demanded me back from the Ausland Battalion.
Q The Germans were now in control of Este a?
A Yes.
Q And who was it that asked for you back?
A The Government of Estonia
Q The German Government of Estonia?
A The Estonian Government. Estonia was occupied,
but the Germans had formed a puppet government of Estonians.
Q It was the puppet government of Estonians under
German control that asked for you back?
A Yes,
q
Why did they ask for you back?
A Because I had been in Communist prisons; I had
suffered a lot by beatings and tortures; and probably they
knew that I am very, very fierce anti-Communist, and they
wanted to use my hate and knowledge of the Communists.
Q How did you get back?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
219
A By train.
Q And you were the only one brought back in that
manner?
A No. There were 12 other people.
Q Who were similarly asked for?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember their names?
A I am sorry, but I don't remember.
Q Have you ever seen any of them since?
A No; I think not.
Q Were they all Estonians?
A Yes.
Q And had any of them been in Russian camps?
A No.
Q You were the only one who had been a Russian
captive?
A Yes.
Q But they were asked for because presumably they
were anti-Russian?
A Yes.
Q In February of 1942, then you arrived back in
A Tallinn.
Q I thought you said you were sent back to Kiev.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
220
A Yes; from the Prippet5wamap and from Kiev I got
orders to go there.
Q You had no money during this time, or did you?
A Regular soldier's pay, which is not much.
Q And you were sent back to Tallinn?
A Yes.
Q What happened when you arrived?
A I worked then in the Estonian Political Police.
Q Were you in uniform at this time?
A No
Q Did the Ausland Battalion have a uniform?
A Yes;they had one and I did, too. But in the new
Job I didn't have a uniform.
CI Did the Ausland Battalion have a German uniform?
A Yes.
Q With the Nazi insignia?
A Oh, yes.
Q Were you an officer in that hattalionti
A No.
Q Did you have to undergo any particular German
training to take part in, the Ausland unit?
A We were three months in that camp in, Frankfurt/an/
Oder.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
221
Q Was there ?
MR. STANFORD: I think there was a misunderstanding
of your question. He interpreted that as training by Germans,
did you mean something else?
You mean German indoctrination?
BY MR. PRETTYMAN:
Q As part of your training, was there any kind of
Nazi indoctrination?
A As usual, yes.
Q And what type of . indoctrination was that?
A Nazi doctrine such as one leader, one nation, and
so on. Maybe you have heard of that.
Q Yes, I have.
Did you have to swear allegiance to the uhrer?
A Oh, yes. I think so.
Q And you did that?
A Yes.
Q When you left for Kiev, were you still in your
Austland Battalion uniform?
A Yes.
Q When you were sent from Kiev back to Tallinn,
were you still in your uniform?
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Police?
222
Q So, you arrived in Tallin in this Nazi uniform?
A Yes.
? Then you joined what you called the Political
A Yes.
Q Tell us what that was?
A There were two police forces; one German, and
one tonian; and I worked for the TallinnEstonian Political
Police Forces, First I was there
? Which group were you?
A The Estonian Political Police. First I was there
as Assistant Second Class,
Q And did you continue to wear your uniform during
that :period?
A No.
Q You were now in civilian s?
A Yes.
Q Were you reunited with old frienAs in Tallinn?
A Almost all were gone, I think.
Q Almost all were what?
A The Russians had deported them or arrested them;
very few old chums I met in Estonia after that.
Q Who were the ones that you did meet?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
223
A / was in Tallinn about two weeks, and then I went
to visit my hometown, Tartu, and there I met my old chums, some
of them.
Q Name some of them that you met.
A I believe one was a girl named Paltzev.
Q Had you known her before?
A Oh, yes j we were in the same class.
Q What was her first name
A I don't remember now.
Q What did she do for a liv ngs do you ber?
A Ohoyes. That I have to explain;
She was still In school, finishing high school.
I was arrestedj I couldn't finish. I believe she was dill
in school, yeas but that diploma for finishing high school,
I was given anyway.
Q When you arrived back?
A Yes, anyway, although I had not been able to finish
because I was arrested. And then, there was another girl,
Nita Krim, and I am trying to remember the name of the boy
who was there, too.
AlkiPre
Oh, yes Heim Amkra. There were some more, but
I don't remember any more of these names,
Q You went to Tartu just for a visit?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
224
A Yes,
Q And then how long did you stay in Tartu?
A A couple of days only.
ra These were the only friends you recall offhand that
you met there?
A Yes,
Q Did you then go back to Tallinn?
A Yes.
Q And how long did you stay there?
A I stayed in Tallinaabout -- that was February --
August, I believe, about that time.
Q What were your duties?
A Interrogation. '
Q Of whom?
A Communists,
Q Communist soldiers who had been captured?
A Communist agents; not soldiers; Communist, the
real meaning of Communist is party members, infiltrators
agents.
? Were these Russians or Estonians?
A Russians and Estonians.
Had the Russians been captured by the Germans?
A By the Germans; by the Estonians.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
225
Q And who were the Estonians that you interrogated?
A One of them is why I was sentenced to death.
Q You say you were sentenced to death?
A I was sentenced to death because of him. He
was a minister. What was his name? That was a man named
ce Ale ce,o0.5
Minister of Welfare, I think he was.
Q Tell us about him.
A Be was left behind to organize an underground
movement against Nazis, and Estonian Nationalists.
Q He was an Estonian by birth?
A Yes.
Q But he had defected to the Communist side?
A Yes.
Q There was no question about that?
A No; there was no question about that. And there
were oihers, many others.
Q Tell us about your interrogaationsr him?
A He broke down completely and told all what he knew
and we used him as a source of Information for other Communits,
and so on,
Q Were you the chief interrogator?
A No.
? You were one of several?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
226
A Yes.
Q How did you break him down?
A I didn't break him down; he was broken down already
by the Germans.
Q How did they break him down
A Exactly like the Communists tried to do to me.
? Torture?
A Oh, yes.
Q But you didn't take part in that?
A No.
Q Did you ever take part in any torture?
A No,
Q You just asked questions?
A Yes. I was learning the job. They didn'tallow
me.
Q What other collaborators did you interrogate?
A There were very many. I don't remember. There
were so many, about 50 or 6o. I don't remember in that time in
Tallinn; I don't remember.
Q Between February and August of 1942, you personally
interrogated at least, what would you say, 50?
A Yes.
Q Russian collaborators?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
SS
collaborators, yes.
? During none of that time did you engage in to
did you say?
A No.
Q You interrogated people who had already been
broken down by others?
A Not all, but most of the top people they were
already broken down, yes.
Q In other words the process was to break them down
urs,
through torture, and then give them to you for interrogation?
A For information so that they tell about all things
they know, and other Communists?and so forth.
Q. How long wale you interrogate them at a e?
A Six hours or all night, like me.
Q And was it like your interrogation?
A Like they did to me, all night or all day, or so.
Q Did you do this alone?
A Mostly, yes,
Q What did you do with the information you received?
A There is a great difference between German and
Russina interrotion systems. The Russians write down the
question, what have you done this time and you have to answer,
and they write it down, I was there and there. By the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
228
Germans -- it was in Estonian, too -- that you had to be
talking answering by leading questions, and so to catch overall
picture by croes-examination, and so on; and that question
and that question, and when you have done that, when you
thought that you have got what you wanted from them, you wrote
it down in a paper form.
fa A summary?
A Yes; summary.
Q, It was not transcribed at the time? Was it
taken down as you interrogated as it's being taken down
here by a reporter?
A We were not so modern at this time.
MR. STANFORD: You indicated that you have an
appointment at 12:30, and we want to speak with you privately
for a few minutes prior tothat time.
MR. PRETTYMAN: Why don't we resume at two o'clock?
MR, STANFORD: All right.
(Whereupon, by agreement among counsel, the taking
of the deposition was recessed at approximately 12:30 o'clock,
p.m., to be resumed at two o'clock, p. m.).
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10k: CIA-RDP,75-00770R000100110001-1
AFTERNOON SESSXON
MR PRETTYMAN: laek on the record.
BY MR, PRETTYMAN
Q Mr. Relne) amont the twenty person who went with
you to be repatx'iated to Germany, weren't there any that
YOU got to know then or whom you had previously known and
who you have seen since?
I got acquainted with all of them but but only one
person is w here in the free world.
Q What is his name?
Mr. Kattemaa, Eric Kat
Q Rad u Rnown him before that trip?
A
? You met him for the first time on that trip?
In the chamber) yes
Q Where have you seen him since
In Portland. Oregon.
Q What is his address do you know
A Yes I think I have it.
(Whereupon the witness exazined his briefcase.)
20 WITNESS: 1731 Northeast 37th Avenue Portland,
Oregon.
BY MB. PRETTYMAN;
Under what circumstances have you seen him since?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDF'75-00770R000100110001-1
A Vhen I vent through the States
to Portland I met him.
Q Did you look him up on that occasion?
A He looked me up.
Q He remembered you?
A Yes
Q In that connecti
A Yes.
Q Had te been a Russian prisoner?
Only that time when we met in that ch r
A
k' 30
movie and
How long had he been a prisoner?
e
Several months think before that ? He was
for anti-coimnunjst activities.
Were his parents German?
A No X think not.
Q What was his German 1
1 think through his wife he got out.
His wife was German?
think so. I don't know exactly,
Q Have you corresponded with him since you saw him
in Portland?
A I have written once, I have written him on
Q Has he replied?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
231
A Oh
41, Do you a ? ters?
Oh yes
Q What have you written him out?
A I asked him to verify that I had been there with
him ip the prison, because of Rause slander.
Q You wrote him for the purpose of this uit?
A Yes
Q And he has replied, giving you this information?
A Yes.
Q Verify that?
A Yes.
Q What was the
repatriation from Russia?
As well as / remember, he was Chairman of the }Tum
ane Society in Estonia prior to his arrest and probably bad
made anti-communi t remarks and as a result he was arrested.
Q Was he German or Estonian?
A Estonian
Q With a German dfe?
A I think so.
Q Did he tell you his story of by
he Russians?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
2327
Ulit X don't exactly how It WaB,
You don't remember the details of it?
No.
Q Do tou know whether he was tortured?
A Oh, yes that X know.
NR, STANFORD: Thisbaued upon heam, of
course ? That is the understandi
MR PRETTYMAN Yes
BY MR. PRETTYMA
Q Have you ever been arreeted since comIn8 to Canada
or the United States?
A No, never.
? Zn either country?
A No.
Q. You have never been convicted of a a1ze in either
co ry
A
you been involved in any
one in Canada or the united States?
A Ni.
Q You never have been
A No.
? Since coming: to Can
than
1951 here you been to any
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
country other than United States?
A No.
Q Before lunch Mr. Beine, you had taken us up,
o August of 1942?
A Yes
CZ At which ime you were in the police force.
What name did you give that police force?
Estonian Polltical Police.
? Now con tint with your story past August,1924
A in August I was transferred to another town in
Estonia as assistant first class.
q What town?
A Bhapsalu
q Where is that?
A On the vest coast of Eetonia,
(a Why were you transferred
A Because that toun was short of staff for the
tical co and I was transferred there.
4). It was what?
Short of staff,
Ct Were you given a promotion?
A Yes.
? To that g e?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
434
A First grade.
Q You were a Lieutenant tirt trade?
11 Assistant first grade.
Q Row many superiors did you have In that town in
the political pollee?
A Superiors?
Q People In rank over you?
A Ohl the lowest is assistant third grades then
comes second and then first and then there are about half
a dozen an dicating) going higher.
? Was the work you performed there the same as you
had performed in Tallinn?
A Yes the same
Q Did you continue to interrogate Russian collabora
tors?
Yes.
Q During this period was the work any different from
what you had done before? Other than the fact, of course,
that you were interrogatink; other people?
A No, not different
Q. Did the change in grade make any difference in
your work?
A
Approved For For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
rks did you psalu?
A One month. End of August 1 believe.
many people would you approximate you interro
gated during thatperiod?
A Ma be ten1 no more.
Q.
od?
A No.
You simply asked questions?
A Yes
Q, Were you able to get information from these pe?p
was anti-Russian and that could be used againet ther
Was torture involved :tu your oxkduririg that
Oh
Did
lore?
A Yes.
q Was that
Were other people
tion?
A L believe so, yes.
? What ned to the people you
Were any of them shot?
ion over to yoursuper-
tion acted upon to
up as a t of your interroga
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
gated after-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A I dor't know about tLat
Q. You don't
A NO
A Ruus Minister or
A
A
what happened tc n of them?
Only Z know about one man.
Who was that?
V
Republic.
What happened to him?
He waa shot.
Immediately after your intet'rogation?
No, he was there already over a year or more and
t. I was already in the army, lone atterwarde.
MR STANFORD This is based upon umiderstanding
his own personal knowledge I presume
BY PRETTYMAN
Row did you hear he was shot?
A Afterwards I met some people from that police torce
and they told me that he has been shot.
Q Where did you meet them?
A In Poland, I think.
Q When was that2
A Nay I proceed? Prom August
uld like for ou to recall as best you
date at thistime?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Wow"?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
About
When tn '44?
A X coil d tell right away. Yes
Q Where in Poland?
It In training camp ror German Axii
Is that the name C the town o
A The name j& the canp
Q Where was it near?
A In and eccieWbere
(Whereupon a map was
mined
mark it with a pencil
BY MR, PRETTYMAN
Q Who told you that?
(indicati
a
A Some former comrades from that politica
Q Do you recall their names
A 1lb X don't recall theLP names.
Q. Were they Estonians
A 011, yes,
Q What happenedst* 1942?
A I volunteered to go t the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
2 37
blea,
the
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
23b
Q. What army?
A There was wed an Estonian unit in the Oexan
called Estonian Lesion and / volunteered t o there.
Mow did you volunteer?
Because
did you volunteer?
A There were the There were in Tallinn those
points where you could apply tor admission.
? Were they seekinF, volunteere or was this your idea?
A. At this time the E nian Legion was formed, they
peeked for volunteers
Q. Tell us what
aPPe
A I was admitted and sent in a week, maybe
camp, Mobica.
Your tour as a
0
hat
of the Dolitical DOliee had
Yes.
g And you then became part
Yes.
Q What rank?
was a co 1.
How long was the trainin
That was in August tuCu
of an army unite
at this c
September we went
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
414
A
Q What unii
A Gorman
Q Tell us
I think I =rich.
or Warren S $. p one WW1
*43 n March
six montha?
say that the
arly and simp
and another S. waa poll cal, political
Q Which was fen"?
A Waffen was Army
What does S.
A Schutz Staffel flow
tive unit or somethinG like that.
Q
when you say thls was an army unit, you nan by
two
ate? Protect,
that that this was or that Watfen S ? S ? was for fighting
purposes?
A Ch yes.
? Pihting on fwein territory?
I1hting on the front in the 1ix of fire on
?ront? ye
s.
It waa n no way conne
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
2140
No.
Q It waa in no way connected wlth any Internal puz-
Q,
A We
the difference between the Wren
lire unit7
tter arme4, better ted and we g
positions every time
Q Is it Vair to say that the Waffen S. iau the
select few, so to epeak in the sense of the be
the potentiailj best German ighters?
The elite.
(4, Elitel
A les.
Q The elite?
A Yes.
What Icind or a qualifieatbn test d you have to
take to cet in?
A In the beginning it
yes arz blond hair and one sever
pretty good and so on that was the first
lbu dont mean that anybody could
outsit?
Germans
you
and
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
blue
ically
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
241
A At the gimmin6
Q Your answer? than is that anybody could get Into
unit in the beginning?
A Not tet into it In the
Well? I want you to
:jQfl you had to have to get
A Blue eyes, blond hair
callr strong.
Those were the only q
A
Q o get into
A Yes.
What f
They lowerei
Explain to
01
quA1iicatIona came laterl
hese ualifications.
Mr Halm, 104 Warren 5
coniidered the elite if anyone could get into It?
Because they were put in these places where every
be a good soldier to withstand these difficulties
s of the war
How did they
don't know,
STANFORD I object to that.
to
a good s
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
within his
t.
10
e.
upon a
ve an
OTX
off the reeorc 1cuiOfl fol-
BY KR PUTTYNAN
Q Would you translate en*?
Warren rseanS arise
Did you have to be a Member of the Nazi party to
a msuber of the Waffen S. S.?
No.
Q. Once you got into
ten S. S. unit, Could you
regardless of your qua.L. fieations oz dS.d u then
have to take further tests to stay in?
No no further tests.
Am I fair in summarizing what you
y by volunteering could get into Waffen S. S. and
stay there for the dure.tion or the war?
es.
i te name oL the p1it
War ten?
bat ?2 called S. D.. I think
Menet
security ?
Sieherheits
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
243
THE 8ecurity Service.
BY
Did that ecn1i an qua1iticatont into?
th.,414 e yes.
Q at were they?
don't know.
Do you know thethe u qualified
1 don't know that
Were there any waysir which the me
S. were identified? Were any physical rka put
oexample?
A In tbe beginning
ater 3 yes.
nen did that begin?
A
A
think before I went
Do you have that identi
Yes
Where la that r1;7
Here indicating) under my left arm
What 1o it?
mood type.
Lmt wa it put on?
Tattooed
bee.ming but in
be Waffen S. S.
s ?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
when?A Until I wars
A in Aug t I
Did you
S. S. till you
A Yes.
Q Tell us when yo
In the year '3
'43,
after eomplet
Debica were sent to
iz
captured.
the
cei
ctal,
What tii ot the year vas
Xt was in North.
Sent where?
VUraine
Were in the
don't really cn1etei
led Debica No, no fl
Did you stay in the Poiiah
of '42 until March of '43?
A Y00.
Were you t
A Yes.
a
9
SI S.?
sorry,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
"43, I am
e p
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
was
Who
that you we
A yea
During that t
lely training
A Zn that c ?
245
&trim; that period.
icu
re wasone battaiton
red men.
up entirely or Estonians?
on
ur
the Polish
Qt
en we left
you engage in eamP4
us the names or an
w?
AnFORD:
t do you man who
e entire
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
On
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
now prese
recalls then at that t
BY
How
r the names an
iany names would ou km would you be able to list
that entire battalion?
A Very few,I think
Q Very few?
A Yes.
CI How many?
A Two three n, iur
Q Why don't you give u those rtn?
A I don t recollect
Q Give me the name ot anybody that you zerxer
that battalion?
A Were 15 OM Mr ?Nemo.
? What is his tir t name?
A X don't remember that.
Q Where does he live no do you know?
A In New Ybrk.
Q Have you ever corres nded with him?
Ao.
Q Have jou ever seen him?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
'47
Yes.
Q. When?
When / vas in Lakewood.
Q Lakewood Nev Jersey?
/be
Q What year w
A What year *a
hat?
t?I beU..eve9 o '60
Q What vas his rank in that battalion?
A So1Lte, Soldler, I think, plain soidter1
CI Rad you kwo
A No
? Give us the other fl13 that you remembe ?
A There le much d2fcuity because X knew them
the t3.rst names and family naze I have very, very great
to remember. I met several people tram that
battalion here in the State and I don't really remember
these names I am gory- don't remember.
Q You dont eez any other names?
Yea.
Q. Who wa your closest frie
ha
battalion?
They were all pretty fine bo a. The cLsest?
Q You didn't have any close friends?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
thi
A
Q,
A
1,1
-What van
I don't know. Ona,
Whatever happened to him.0
He was killed.
When?
By lsjum
By 'what?
By that p ace, at that p1ae, Isjum.
By uLom?
By the Russians.
In a battle?
lea.
And ithen e134 that ocux'?
I wasn't there this tisae and I don't
hat date when that battle took place.
June Qt which year?
A June at '43
Q T no ionker
O we
1e
time?
ect
une, I
of that bett Lthn at
but X sian on another place4
then
back to March of
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
2149
ve u Bald you were s
A Yea.
Q First of all, d
ay our rank had mot changed orhad it chanted?
A At Zehica?
Q, Yee
No n change
Q And your rank was what at that t
Corporal.
42 A corporal?
A /WI.
Q When you teeve aentthe Ukraine, did you get a
A
A
of lajum a couple of n a
y, 143 when X was sent
? Where?
A A town caId d Toltz.
3)
Q This was in itay of
A les think it was.
Q Are you pretty sure or that?
mentioned, near
nd then X believe It was
back to Germany
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
k50
that battl 9
The battle le of Isjum.
Q During the period arch to s what did you 40
We stood in readiness.
Q You just stayed in a mow
Not in a camp but we stayed a a reserve in 2'Cd
for very occasion.
14 Do you remember what company you were in or what
Machine
e Fo b ComPany. That waa beavy
What is *Granat Werfern?
Ri Grenade thrower.
TO WITNESS renade throwers.
BY
Q How many men
A From that bttaLtOi X think seven
14 You were one of thenZ
A Yes.
Q Why were ou p1cketLto go to Bad Toltz,
A, Because X think I aa the most dedicated soldier
sent to Bad Tate
there.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10A-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
You were the
Pits
And wMt happefle t1
There was German oi
nnapolis In the Unti
Vest Point?
A West Point
Didier?
1
ate u or --
Q Who were the seven that uwent with,. do
Member thefr names?
A X don't remembero by tanttly an0.
Q
Have you ever seen any of them since then?
A Not fro that unit, no.
Q Viet were their rirst names?
Jan and Karl and &Wel.
Q Do you know any other first
A No. X knew the other names
gotten nee believe.
Q Nay you ever seen any o
A No.
Q Do
A No, / dcn't know.
? Now o at Bad Tolt how long did you stay in Bad
V
251
but X have for
To z?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
us ab u
hfull
hen after
training there?
t to the training of
ee Atha we were promoted to no
coiamtaaioned officers and then we began another course tor
ottLee3 and when we finished that then we were given the
don't know how to translate it "Ober-Junke
What it corre ponds with I don't know. Before lieutenant.
? Wan. battalion had gone on to various battles?
A Yes.
q After y h left it?
A Yes.
Q How many nen were in y
There were people rr
This was not just Esto
No. no, therewere French and egiana Swedes,
t Bad z?
nations of irope.
webs, Zatoniana, Latvians, all over
Q How many Estonians
At the beginniw
Then at theend?
d and eighty.
At the end there we left only about tfl'ty'.tive.
What had happened to the rest of then?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
253
A They had dropped t.
? You mean* flunk d out?
A No* dropped out because they didn't
? They didn't make the grade?
A They didn t make all these physical and. taotical
and these tries and exams.
? It as a very strencourse?
Very strenuous* ye.
A very difficult
Ver3, difficult.
What was the percenta8e of dropouts -1?
five left.
that Vas the Eo nians? but in the -whole camp?
A About the same es.
Who was your closest friend
A We were very busy and we co
About a hundred and eighty and onl
C/,
xed, not only Estonians in one
Of cour
but I remember there oreOlaf Tanmark.
what?
01af Tantaark.
Tell me everything you know about
A He was at that academy,
? Tell me everything; you know about him?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
All
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
A
A
Qt
;64
Mt was in the same school as I did In Estonia,
kiva I mentioned earlier HtoTreffner aimnasiam
he repatriated to Germany, too, but legally.
-1e captured by the Russian first?
Was he ever a prisoner of the Russians?
Yes.
Men?
Arter the War e
Re was never a pri&onez of the Russians before
US
Did you see thu between the
t Tartu and Bad TOltz.
NO
Have ru seen him since?
Yes
When Is the next time you saw him after you finis
S. ithooi at Bad TO z?
It was in Germany.
Where/
I don't know the name of the to*,but when I earn
v45
out rrom Russia* when I visited him where he liv
Q Where wan that? Do rct rember the city.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
255
Smst so place
1 what ear was that?
That wae 5 when I came out.
Do you remember what part or the year that was
In winter it was yes.
When was the next time you saw him?
He visited his rriends here in Canada some time
61 or 162 and then I met him here in, Canada.
? Toronto?
Yes.
? He waa vi iting
A Yes.
? What happened to him arter that?
A He is resident of the United States.
? Where?
A Lake Geneva.
? H43 he lived In Lake Geneva since he viaited Toron
think
have you coz'resprnded with
visited him when I was on my nvie ;our
Once?
Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
He has yea written ma
Have you ttei biml
Yes.
ZrAi often do you correspondwithhim?
S.
25b
Two, three times a year, maybe.
Did you ever te,*phone him?
What?
Did you ever tele h ?
No
Or e you?
don't remember that.
Q You don't remember that be has ever tele d you?
No, I don't remember.
Q All right going back to Dad Toltz, did the ott?cer
that were instructing you remain from year to year?
A NO
You had a uew et of instrtctora every year?
They changed them more often, maybe six months.
T1en the new came in.
Youmean, you hd a new se
About BQ
3
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
every
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : C1A-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q Yu ba% coiete turver or ln8tzwuetoxs?
A Not com
ones came in.
? Give us
A I don't a ly recollect
Soc chaflged out alld
*tor y
nane 5 flO
Z57
Q Give me the name oi anyone other than Mr anmark
at Bad tz?
A There waa a tellow called Rarr7 Em
Q Have rou ocen in since then?
A Na.
ta What happened to
A Re is in Australia
Q Have you correspond h him?
A No.
Baii do you know he is in Aust a?
I have Tanmarki,
Q. All ri.ht anyone else?
there one one Fred Prent
A
Albany
rk.
CI
Uwe you seen
When made my movie trip, yes.
Q Didru look him -up?
Yea,I overn.thtct by him
Bad Tol
6 Dar Avenue,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Have you a
A couple
Now. listen to this
Is there anyone that
ied
?
256
at Bad
Tolt at or about the time that you were there, but whom
you don't remember as having been there that you nee hay
discovered waa there.
I think Mr. Prent in of that
Q. I thought you aaid you remealberedha
A I remembered him but he didn't remember
we talked about that, then he remembered it.
He did not remember you?
A Ws.
t/ Did Mr. Tenmark erber you?
Oh, yes.
Is he the only
Cl
Id
have seen since
that; Ta
remember these names.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
here?
but
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
259
people .C'ett have coae up to you au' told
you that they remembered you
Wheie has that happened?
in New York all over -- maybe ke
Chioago was one guy, yes That is abo
Row many would you say
Bad Tol
and remembered you at
About half a dozen.
And you don't remember any o
Nt. names
Q Or any other detat1 41)Out them?
No
What did
i nal
Dic you we
What uitorm did you wear?
Wafter L8
And tbat was nt a Nazi un
your eor3e at Bad Tol z isa there In
training any trinatio course?
ai uniform at this time?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
260
Q Did it have w?n it?
A. They ye, ye
ct Did you. aarA have to swear a11eiance t The
Pthrer as part of t
A I believe
? And give the Nazi salute?
A 0h, yea that was the regular greeting in the
Wrien S S.
Q Did y have any 1 duriug this pet
did you do any ng?
No.
Q Did you know
No.
? What r
I d vitt know lhat you call it. Not a non-co
OUPO
?
at all there at this time?
ou gradua
as
leer and not yet al officer it between.
A sergeant?
More
MR ST A arrant officer?
BY MR. PRETTYMAN
A econd lieutenant?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
That abe z.
Q 'kb t would be the first commissioned rank?
Yes, we had the rt of an officer btt we didn't
They didn't call 48 like the officers, lietenant
But you tad zUl the prerequisites, the rights?
Yea.
Did you get a pin or some ing to
Not at
US), whatever 1
Q Did you wear siamta at this time.
Oh, yes.
Q Wet happereL to you ti n, after yo grad
Vhat i4 the graduation eonziat or?
A 'vie all E3toMa who tiniaIed that ch
cap -was
didn't wait for official czAthlation.
rily to front
Vas there any o ficial ua on?
ent all momenta
len, after that after we iett a CoUple
eftd lie left eallier.
Q You ean before that?
Yes.
Now
c1aL graduatnwas some 'Itind or a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 :-CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
dctient vn to show that yo:I hadgraduated?
No, that was ceremonial.
? Only ceremonial?
Yes. When we y cave us doc
the "Soldbuchn o paybook
? Were 1QU with a group of Estonians who left
t is called
gradaationl
A Yes
q How many left w
time only two.
were they?
A I and a very good fel
KuryNlidre4
you two?
Yes.
Q 1 thouiht rou
ether?
A A 00 n'
Q. You two were
A /Os.
Where did yo.t
Might to the
cz Where?
a
2b2
0
of mines s his
al
the others
eave?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
rva.
Q. What data NMI this?
We arrived there about
oct March*
Q Of at year?
It 144.
Q, You were at MO4 Telt
gary of c$4?
A Yes.
And you ar
About February o 144.
Q You don't remember n?
A Not exactly.
fa Where was the frt at that point?
A By the river of Narva.
? Tell us what happened? That happened
We made reports in regimen al office by tlarva
my companion, Aildre were installed in that First
iion or the Portrlittil Begiment of the Estonian Legion
X as first as an ordnance officer I don't
hoi that translation --
Q 1t was mr, Niidress xixst name.
when?
263
8b1ua2, begin-
0
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
2 4
Q. Have you CVer seen him
He waa kil
Vhen?
it I
think itwasin tIieyear 1946 or 14Y.
ct Where did you hear that?
A Rumers spread aruundo by Estonian guszil1a and
ther had heard about one guy named Nlidre a very powerful
very big boy, who waskilled, trying to et?te his group from
Russian troupe and they succeeded breaking throcaeb but some
*own who were in there;, too, accidentally otayed behind
and he vent through the .ines to bring them out and waa then
known
d the same zchoo1 that X did
You a
Ves?
14114t did he
waG a verr eix foot ae yen
tuily built and very strong andery intel iont.
He vwyour g.voc: friend.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Vc vere eoa7:.ades'in a
? he uas with 71:1A Uuxtn the entire p
?
A Yea.
Q From the beginning?
Yes.
Had he been wtth. before thtt?
A No.
Q But ou were rem1 during the who
Bad Tolt7?
A We knew each others yes
? All right now you arrived at Narva
265
iod at Bad
I.* at
A With Harry Nildre, yes and 1 was Installed as
ordnance officer. How would that translate? X don't know.
Q installed in what?
yi As ordnance officer of a batt al ed
tos the tatT at the bttuiior convmdez.
What was the name pr that battalion?
4% First Battalion of the regiment, or t.he ort
irt1i iimmt, First Battalion.
? Waa that also the Waren S. S.?
That ua0 the Estonian Divisions the Tt';entiet
Estonian DIvivion belonsed to Waffen S. S., yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
roo
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
cU4 you do?
111. STAMM ic 1j "cfldrance Off
UM PUTMAN
Q. As ordnance ofticer
d to care fQ1. ammunition and
the uff that thetAnction needed and telephone
tht wouid be needed f-r the efficient running
lion,
C you?
ouple of h
Q,Rc,many meu did
az' 1T12 did you have under
loneed to tbe etaff*
directly had
266
pe arid
Q assume that since y u iere now back in, narvat
le acquaintance with old friends in Estonia?
Ldn't net old friends
t come across anybody at this time thea
tonia?
YL 1 dont collect that noi, indeed.%aybe the
tad known
Q nt.. Nil a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Russ
tit
it was
he time of the battle ot Au
ppened re?
Q What hap
th
Nere la the river Narva ting)
e 80(?nd1ca ins)
Ue here indicating) and a waB known, they
breakthrough here (indicating), because here was
road through swamp paved road, and they would use
cars, tanks and to break through and encircle.
All these divisions mere fightine by Narva, by
a fm to We were taken out here by Narva and
tad achieved a breal
Yu
A Oar
UI' bat
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
During t
not et * d in any fighting?
Ohs ye ss all the time
? !?u were.
All the tiae. Uquidate t1eZM by Narva
breakirt2 and attacka over tha river times it was
very heavy battles sometimes t was quiet. Artlilery and
fire vas very heavy eometimes.
Q Did you as an ordnance officer participate in
actual firing?
A Oh, yes.
Q Did you kill
A Sure.
Q Mow many voud you say?
SAW': X t;bjeets because tUs ii pecu1a-
itgive you his opinion --
during this pe
Do you have U.
You mum sir, we ee not that kind ox
records like the Bu3.t.nB about their killings.
maybe a hundred, maybe two hundreds S1W knows.
This was during the period from Mz'eh to 3ur3e you
'undred or tw, hundred?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
269
, Yes,
wcze
Q All Dit: that ou dal.thg this time
Ordnance

A
Sidearms.
No rifle?
No
Did you
when Xw
on
fl
d Ru
ok over with a ki,thine- gun or anti-aire
the trigger.
Was there hand to hand fighting?
very seldom .
vas there band to hand fighting
was in the beginning when he had to iiq
catln?3, these break-throughs.
ten d d you participate in hand to band
a
ck
A couple.
What happened ?gthose times?
We ve the R4 118 out.
I anat hppeued to you pez'nonaily in these
rid ?Inters?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q.
Q
hat an
out very very readily.
Ybu ,-.111ed /our opponentsch tine
Yes.
With a knife or --
With ttfe with ma
zrenades.
Where was N.tldx'e du
He fought
di
Hat happ
We were t
chanced out one Orandivisin there*
Yu *id at to a German division?
Ve thtred. They cane out and we got In.
270
or with tommyt?,;41 or
thiz 1'
-n each time.,
period?
ridiea
I see. You exchanged?
Yt4.1.
I uee.
'ter a couple of days, we made us ad ze
cominc 1.43ed1ately and hen it came and
fought the. Russians off
about three
Where was tat?
By Auvere.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
".1
not within hi a
is made In aoiacb
xenjn the same dur
nted to a lieutenant in April.
u promc.ted?
1 object to that because this is
knowledge since the promotion
d eip1y spent enough
Yes.
Q You were promo
I think ftrt 1
Tell us about this ti
day battle'?
sualt:i rate during this period?
Afterwards., then I took command of a company, we
about --
don't want to knowabout arterwa I want
duzinc this particular period?
About half.
During the three day battle?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Yes.
? You lost half of
lit
Q Did you win
Yes.
Q Az a z'eui
They were
272
e day
battle be Narva 4.r.ont wan abandoned.
La Were you wounded?
Yes.
? When was
I Lpt a sl
Pri.ppet
crateh.
Q From what?
bullet.
ise was that?
indicating n my leg
Auvere I got wounded the second time.
tz that in June at 44?
I re
4,1
t time you were wtmd i bttie?
ratth in Ukraine as I wa In the
but that wax only a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
hu
MR. ST
THE VITNESS: Yes.
BY PRETTYMAN:
What kind or p1inte
T1r4t as anti -tea, 6renades which
the splinters.
? Were you rewoved from action because of that?
Yes.
Where did you Go?
Th Ipita1 In Tartu
badly uere you w d?
seriously.
Were you admitted to the hospital at that point?
xd then through -- !Dumb
catine).
high?
A
A Yes.
Q Hew long d
stayed only a week.
Q De you still have a star rota the head wound,
les,I think 30 (Indicating) uri&ler the hair
the most visible is here LndicatinE)
Q Did this sliver actually pass through the bac
of your head?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
274
Ji It eimet in mi aku
Q It Just ts. e a aurrace woLnd?
Yes.
Q. Ana throuzh your foot?
Yes (indicatinG).
MR. STAMM;
THE VITNES:
BY ma.
I can't see thrc lt.zo
4 aic point/
W right 1e here (lndi ating)
2h ,cugh the middle part of your thigh?
Yea.
Did the zU.ver
It stuck
Q It stLiek again
Yes.
Q. How icrng cli you at you were in the hospital?
One week.
Then what happened.
I escaped
Were you a lieutenantby the time you were d?
Yes.
You we e a licut
lcht on t1e fr'ont?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
hospital?
you knou, an o
nt?
t, or
Vas N1.td
d.
a
275
az u got out of the
out escaped from that hospital.
us ab:)ut tha
ard tiuo ugh another
that afterwavds my company awt1er officer
ook overt
it
it had got a very inefficient commander and they were almost
all slaughtered in followinG battles and I cot so such poet
twitI. eagle secretl out of the hospital and went back to my
boys.
Q.
city was that
-f the hospital?
vakliinik.
this
hospital,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
That vas the battle of Auvere the thi
The third day of the battle?
Yes.
You vent directly to the hospital?
Yes.
Q Were you carried on a s
Yess
u stayed a week?
s.
Q And you heard
battle?
who aame afterwards in
r
er patient about this
batt
battles vent all the time on.
Q He told you that your battalion had been slaughte-
A
v.
Yes'
And th
Yes.
u decided to et out?
Although you were still wounded?
Yee.
Where did you go?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
And where were
They we1e in reserve.
Q Where?
By tlKLoaterI
TM REPO
TIM WI
MEW:
113na
then?
Monastery I don't recollectthat
BY . PROLTEMA
Q NearTartu?
Oh no, near that
I don recoil
Would it help you
A Yea.
(Whereupon the to
nt line where It as at is
look at the ap (indleat )?
by
victn.tti They L&ad retreat
BY *L ffi1'MAR
Q. Near Jarve?
About there
Q (spelling) IC-o-h-t-l-a h
Yes.
d.
n (spell a- -e
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q Did you find
company ad In tact been badly slauch d?
A Yes.
Q How
A One
Q Of y
A
ba
From my Company andtram the battalion tO ye
About a third lett?
Yes
Q Was Mr. Mlidre etill alive
Wo he was still aiive.
? 110 was 8th! at that point?
Yes.
Q This would have been the first part
Ye out that.
1 us that happened during the remainder of
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
By Estonians.
What unit was
Ito* took CQ0kS
and mew freak, mobilized sold
rt wo weeks or so retraining or tr
men and then we were ready.
Tell us about your front line eacper
d ing this period?
We re in readiness this time.
rds, yo
279
on and
etnrrele
s that
re not in battle durlr July
No, no.
You were back in a place off the front?
/tn.
Q Di readi
A Tee.
? For the entir
2b a.
When you eay
replaced?
Yes.
Q And some one else
Yes.
a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q Yt.)u went back to a back area?
Yea.
And just waited?
Tea.
Then, what happ id in the beg nningot August?
Me were thrown -- The Russians broke through
south or Tartut my home town. All these towns mouth they
broke through The front in the north of Estonia that held,
the south of Estonia and aa we
were in readinesso we were thrown against these advancing
Russians there and we threw the Mariana a couple or ten
!Oleo back and then entrenched ourselves!' by a little village
named Xambija. Then we were encircled and all destroyed
there.
but they broxe
A
ver one was de otreyect .
or us.
tie About that battle.
v that the Russians alre
the
tack but we didn't know when they would
begin attask and it was very, very bad luck that we had.
The Germans that were on our left front left without they
ran one night without tellinc us that they had gone. Our
left flank was open and early in the morning the next day
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
the 12nann be
att-0:
all. The tanks ran o
the battalion headquarters where I was
and I helped to get our commander -
? You helped him to tet away?
Away yes.
Vas he wounded at the time?
wounded afterwards1 and then
guard t gt the undcd out and then it was
to escape
left.
d us and that was
ne and they reached
rnd at the mont,
a rear
? late for me
were snaircled. About five memwere
and then we made
Q Out of the hale battalion?
A The thole battalion was destroyed already
front line, but the boys who fled back to the headquarters
were there. Only five were left at last and then we made
a desperate attempt to break through and 1 got through with
two men.
Q You what?
A I got through with two men only.
Q Uho were the
I don't remember their family
Q Did you break hm4th the Russian lines?
Tee.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
about
A
e way
a
then
that take u?
ii $. We lost these two
iere in a f rest and ran for our
ercentage of our bat al 0t was dest yed?
evez'bad, except these five?
a dozen or ao stayed a live but I don't know
liuppened to those v you.
Q Vire of ou Lot through
A Yes.
Q d
through
ou et ugh you jtt
xied to be nobody there?
ne and they fired at us.
You saw them?
Oh, yes
Q You aa the Rianz?u
Yes, we saw their eyes.
You saw their eyes?
A Thevhite of their eyes
Q.How many were tilers?
Hundreds.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
'US*
close you saw
Ohl yes.
And they were all t?ri at you?
They were all over. h made a hell of a noise
Did you ran ziht at thorn or au
Away from theti.
thoaght the
As it came
rield, a potato field,
into the woods then in ore mome t we saw the Russians in
rront ot us already
Che n, how did u get through?
t was a push
end I had a mach1nesun and
urrounded?
outs hen we ran over that
ried trorn behind: but we t'ot
They were surprised the Russians
tried I was the first who
reached that firing positi4n and my gun was empty. In the
do but
again zun for your lite, as you can, and they tfted after us
but the an t hit anybody.
you see theire,es at that point?
Oh a.
heat I had forgotten to load and there was nothing
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q You could still as their eyes?
Yes
Q Were therehundred there?
tv,
No, three only.
Three Russians?
And they fired at
A Yee, three or two. I don't know.
q Is that when ycvai two ethnnions u
A No/ they ran with with me
'a But you mentioned two companions out of the five
411, that were killed?
ed
A When we ran over the potato(Is two 'ere killed
there in that potato field.
(1. I see. And the three of you then simply kept
running. Ind you run right through these three Russians
that were staring at you o:1:4 did you run around or what?
A To the left/ to to.: left.
Pardon me?
A To the left. We were about from here (ibdicating)
and my hineguil didn't fire and they were very surprised
and they were frozen for tl moraent, and then we recovered
quiekiy and ve ran to the left and they fired after ua but
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
didn't hit am
Q,
Did they
chase
Oh 27J,
Row longdi 'ou have to run?
As len6 as our breath allowed. I don't knew how
i Dan how much.
Q. Did your breath hoid
out?
A Aint the satie Um.
Q And they stopped too?
A Tes.
And you enid see the
the fear
running?
of their eyes at this
You know, en ret
they d1u't chase you t a1J. and you juct kept
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Waybe they chased, but they
uP. I think
286
Q So now, what happened to the three of you So
far? as you knew yo; were still surrounded by the Russians?
A Yes we knew that for sure.
Q What happened to you?
A We marched for a place to hide and
41, Where was this now?
In the forest in the heavy underbrush, and we
-waited and then we tried to reaeh our units.
What happened?
It lasted about two days, two night
Were you seeinxRussians during this
Oh, yes, many times.
But they didn't see
NO.
And then
A And then wa got to the river die, it is
called JLae8e. It was a shallow place and I decided to
try to cross the river. We assumed that our units or German
units were over there and when we reached that bridge, as
It came out afterwards, It was about 19500 I knew that these
were the German planes, aeroplanes. The bridge was only
half way destroyed and the planes had gotten order to destroy
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
0
287
near that brIdge andthey bean to
it ia our own bomb that droned
it called? Contusion?
Concussion.
Con ion.
NM' MR. MITTMAN:
Q A bo dropped?
A Yes.
q, You were by?
les / was nearby.
these two men and X
Q. You mean, they threw the
No I don't know what ha
hi terwards.
ere thev
think so.
you had r* throu
two people?
enee 4th
A
Q. Tell us About the
A We a couple
freedom. The first time ias wh
about fifty yarda in
:don.
ned with them, I di
a v
or loin our
dden in the
uncerbrwh and there was an impicasant ever/talc vhen a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
coup
re cued u.
la
ttcn
was --
A
288
back cane touch that forest 141
st that horse almost stepped on
t1s at night we accdentaUy
armed the guard pcn3t and our reet
you had this ezpeenco wit
Ober their names
A No.
Q Were
A No from some place el?e, from ore
ty here.
Q
Wore the, your age2
One was older and one wao about the ?ame age or
ttIe bit older. One uas thick and one waa tW.u,
ek arid thin
Q
Thici: and thin?
Q. Do
One vas Joseph. The other I dort rerneer at all
rom Tartu?
but q
us about tbee two men
X take it you can't
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Yes
Q How long
289
d to i'ind out what happened to
X don't
heir nae8.
re kneeked unconc1ot here?
Unt
A I don't know eet1,
arc ed by Russians.
Were you actually
an
bleeding an
us?
woke up. X was en-
hat period and
A Yes, my old wounds broke open aesin.
Q. The ones in your head and leg?
A Yee and they were searching me. At the moment
when X
hat I
Lined consciousness the
What rLu
A 'think I
RASKA
UE
BY MR
les d
took all
you have?
ney and NY
let
Wa11t1 es and in watch ad co on.
the valuables
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q You were in uniform?
A Oh yes.
Q. The Warren S S. uniform?
Estonlan War en J. S. with Estonian (indica
tonian Waren S. 3. 'had the Estonian naVonal
(indicating)on the left arm.
? Whez as the swastika2
liere indicat re) over that
Q On the left arm?
Yes,. I think so.
Q Was there a swastika on your Cap, too?
A Nof there was a sku.a.
Q 'What?
A A skull
Q That was the Waffen S. S. trademark?
Yes.
Q The sk0.17
A Yes.
Q Viao another shall on the uniform soe place?
A No.
Q. What were you we ing
my 1tg trousers a bo
Q,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
boots?
Black?
Yes,
Any in
German Army boots.
QAn.y Inaignia on thc pan
A Oh, yes.
44 Wha ?
The German Warren S. S.
What was that? The skull?
A no nc Waffen S S., I think.
Wr
Yes
Where was t
Inside not
n on the pant
e back.
And in the wallet you had what type
had destroyed ldbuch and too
hese things wthen ie were
What medals did you have?
A The Iron Cross Second and a medal for
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
the e Hear
ighting murk.
Mx. Beim, you act ual ly had what you iou1d caU a
Pu2ie fleart medal,, a medal signiiying you had been wounded
in bat ?
did I haste
Q
A
A
say?
A
did you receive that?
back from hospital,
o your troop?
Yes.
Who a
Every
One was black.
Silver waa Dive V'
ver that.
Which ia yours?
Black.
When did you get your iron
After the battle of Auvere.
When you were awarded that,
ed
got it. lbere were thre
t was two to three times
unded and golden was
'before the eneray
you done?
d the award
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
cern a h
k over the company when it had 1ort it offi
percent and Was on the verge of escaping
1 went to that
and throwing away their aroa in panic.
Q. Row did you stop the panic?
ran to that compamor on that trout line and
slapped them to their senses.
That was about the best
thing to do.
Q How did you do It?
A Pardon me?
How did you slap thea to t
You know, when. some person
senses?
is hysterical and
ow what he does, the best way is to slap (irdicat'-
give
him a couple of slaps on his face and he wakes up.
Q Did you run up and down the line and slap them?
A Not all a couple who were hysterical. The most
ui ingI did there was I took fun commazd right
and that was -- the posi ion was saved.
Q As soon ae you arrived and slapped their fat a;
o
Ma, STANFORD that as tryingto
haracterize It with too great cimplicity. I think h
as broucht out that he took command of these forces. TO
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
simPl to inaccurately
his de'' tion.
think 1
in accurate.
BY MR. PRETTYMAN:
Q You stop me any time
a tot
a I* a
erize
or his language difficulty I
*lords in his mouth 'which be
1.1
ng that you a.
ik when ie have ?cj 1avuae difficulty
sentence that ma tppear to be correct but is
ae due to the tact that he does not have
erst
OYMIR PRETTYMAN
q After you slapped t e of these
or what you are saying
A Yos.
d the eit
the r'e waa no more pan
A The situation wa
olidify itself no
aved mainly b
Your presence?
My presence.
Saved the aitua ion?
Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
ing back to the tirne you tound y
rounded siane, I wazi to get what identifica
had on you. You mentioned medals?
A Yes
Q You had a w 7
1 Yes.
Q. Tell ua what was in the *ai1et that ittentit1ed you?
MR. MNOLLY: He said he got rid of the wallet
ax the dals.
295
you
the
A
A Ye
THE VITNESS
a
took
f but vou still had
dent yed oldbuch paybook.
Your paybook7
Vfl4at was in your
Zn my wallet there was some money and some
rny her Not much.
Q Hou much?
A A couple of hundred marks, maybe
CI This was German oarks?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A e ,
letters were aidx
ort 1ixe, "Yeldpost
field post number
was your mother at this time?
thieg:
Log you
u ?
Every
Yes.
YO4 had no other identif eat o on y
No
Q You had thrown away all your ide atio ?
Yes.
Q Other
Other than the5e lottery, Yen-
ta PRETTYMAN: Oft the record
(Whereupcmk a bx'iet recess vas taken during
th ss and his two counsel left the hearingroom,)
BY MB, CONNOLLY:
Q Mr. Heine Is it a
capture by the Russians, imi
establiahment was tez'tninated
A Yes,
Q %Al you were ezch
letters?
te
ice
din
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
never again
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A No.
Q You never
up to that time?
A
to ak rou.
Q As / understand from Mr. Prett
'who gave me
a very brief till in, your first experience in German ser-
vice was a politica ecurity officer in Estonia.
A Not first
Q What was the first?
When 1 volunteered to the German Ariny the Est
in the German, Army.
A
CI, Bt thortly thereafter you were then sent to
a that right when the Germans had tale It?
Yes.
And the invaiionof Russia started?
Ye3 Pebruar 1424 yes, I was nt to tonia.
Q What was the precise name or the political police
eh you were associated with?
A Rate-nlan Political Pollee.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
In
-e lurity unit?
tters they handled
ou the meaning of the wo internal
Yes;,
Q Your
0
0.
hought to be enemies or the state,
Yes.
Amone the people that rn
A No.
Q Do you have any Jews in Estonia?
We had, yen.
? Did the Basis round them up?
A at of them yes.
? W12re were they taken?
don't know.
Q Did you participate in that?
00.
YOU
a
CO
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
a
n camps
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
299
al I think
? Whorewas it
A Near Tallinn think.
Q Have you ever visited it?
A No
? You never id?
No.
Q In what cities did rou work?
A In Tallinn axi iL4pa1.u
Q In Tallinn and Tartu?
A Haapealu.
0. Haapaalu?
A Yee.
? You ciidnt have Any eery ce in Tartu?
A no
? Wasn't that odd?
MR STAMFORD Z object to the queSt
for speculation.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q, Wes there any reaan iven to you as to
not sie,ned to the city of your birth?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
w
0
to
Q Did you ever ? et your German su
thatou knew r u and its eurroundinga and Ito people
eztremely iel hav4,4; been born there
A Maybe you don't know but a simple man couldn 't
ugeat nothing ror hither authorities.
On yur' return to Estonia under German auopiees
did you atain see your boyhood friend Ilmar Kberd?
A No.
Q You did not?
A No.
Q Did you hear of Ilmar Keerd when you had returned
to Estonia?
'A No
Did you know what he had been doing?
No
Have you beard
? met. him here in New York.
? understand that he did tell you ithat he did
brier RusslanoectIpation or Estonia between 1940

A
Q Did he tell you when be came to the weo
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A I don't re *1
Q Did you vi it birth city ot
there on pollee duty?
Yes.
In Tallinn?
Its.
Did you aee your wife?
A I wasn't iaaz'ried then.
Q I know, but did you see the l?
A
A
Q,
A
A
bccatme yo
301
you
didhen your mother arid father re Oer-
onia?
st have been '42 or so.
n'tyou remember?
exactly.
benyou first urned to Estonia as a p
eme returned t artu, did you in you'
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
her
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
i Ii
Did there come a time when they returned?
A Yes, in 2 I think
A
Did they take up occu
I believe so, ye
What was the a4dxeaa of the family house?
69 Kalevi.
Will you spall it, Please?
A (opening)
NO I don't think so.
Q How did they supportthemselves?
A They had lots ot mone
Q Bed they taken it with
A When they lett Germany they realized this money
Id and jewels and so on what they could take.
Q When they left Germany?
No when they lett Estonia, then they bought for
they could recover betore they
Q They t00% vAd and jewelry pith
Ube 11e0! returned was the p
302
factoryreopened?
hem to Oe
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q.
Yes.
And the
evelry?
Yea.
They never made any attempt
A No
Your mother must have had a very
o did she not?
Q What orm iaa the gold in?
A
ocks or bars?
A No1 ro, I didn't ndertard it Zn &od Calais
coins?
y a.
bullions, yes.
303
grrive them
Gold bullion?
Q brbez did the gold coins come
A Oh, thei were circulating there. Old It' Elan
a in
A
340 didn't have gold coins
? Did 7our rather have n collection or these
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 :C-1A-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Yes.
Conri a t?
Berore that what
circu.tated underhand In
ver the piano rectory,
could collect., at they
could save from that Thrtune they had
Q But what they saved was In the form or jewelry
and gold coins?
A Yea.
Q I take it,
accounts in the local
A
ether had aubtantial banc
did he not?
yea,be had, yea.
onie had its own currency,
A Yes.
What as the b
A Krone
? This was not t
A Its own krone,
Q When the Russians took ovex', they
they not?
A Yes.
Swedish Krone > this was its own?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q And dd they x'ecothe the krone?
irst ye e but they devaluated It
So in effect your father's fortunewes dped out
e of weeks?
Almogt, yes
Now,. uhen they ca back from Germany to Estonia
did they brThi back jewelry and gold coins with
A
selves?
A To buy roodand buy c
I be your pardon?
A Buy additional rood
Q Did your mother and eather work
A
yea
ad the
0 SU
hing and so on.
No
5C ti could spport
till 1942?
A
y cme bacI
bring back with them?
A Soi euelry and S
of Etox2ia in 1940
ves without working in Germany
,h&t did they
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q.
a?
Did your mother and then
mr rather went to work,
Ilk was installed a3 director or
tactory in Tartu.
Q When you were on this
In EBtonia, mho did you bee, wh
political
re did you take yo
ereation? Did you go home for y ur leaven to Tartu?
A Nc, e didn't have leave
you have a day or two a week off?
A No, no.
Q You worked seven
A Around the clock.
Q You don't really mean the literally, do Yo
A Oh? yen*
Q YOu didn't work twenty four hours?
A Twenty-four bourn.
Q You didn't have any leep?
Not twenty-four Lours, but every day ot the
a
eek?
whenever we were needed we were called when we were
duty
Q. Maybe nobut u didn't day in and day
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
work.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
sevenje a week, did 1,1
Oh, yes, I did.
Hor many hours a day?
As It wall needed
Q. One two houre
Eight tan twelve,
ta There must have been some t
ent to your home in Tartu?
A Yes here two
QOnly twi
A Yes only twee.
47t Do you remember any old tviend you saw?
YO13.
"? Who did you see.
A A named Krim
namqd Grim?
A
A I don1t knot, it ier'
(Spelling) C-r-ik44?
(Spelling) Kr-t-n.
X don't recall t
s waa the first t
OU
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
k off
named
back --
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
of 1
you?
Yes.
to
Yes.
308
you were captured in August
/ You nnist have been a hero in the town, wessent
A I as.
Q Did they have a ceiebvtIoior u?
No
Q Did the or co
you?
No.
Q Were there any parties orreceptions?
No.
Who knew of your loit ?
4 My fDiend.
Who were they?
Almost all people from Tartu knew froa that.
Q That Is 'why Isa.:n when you got back to Tartu
on leave when you came back to Estonia, did they not
try to show some recognition of your --
A Can I say omethine?
Certainly.'
1 did what I td not for honor but becaLe,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
tors
country.
Q X an sure jcu did, but you came back to asmall
has
us
bjec
nover that there no
telebr tions receptions or anything whatsoever
that
think the qaestionlhaa been propounded now is arguman
tive.
MR CO Y: Your position is veil taken.
BY
Wez you ct back, did you see any of your old
A You mut knov that Tartu vas a1ost e1jity percent
destroy
Q By wh ?
By the Russians
Q On uhat occasion?
A In Tartu -- I was this t in Oeruiany the
ii1a the underground arid guerilla forces staged an
ain in Tartu and in the course of this figh 1nE Tartu
Uzot all destroyed
Q There were t111 orn pe3ple living there?
Yes ome people, but --
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
310
you see any of your old trieudsl
told you I saw my old school fellows who wer
there at this tinbe.
Q Who were they?
A A girl named Krim and Miss Baltzer and others.
Krim?
A Yes.
? And who is the second one?
Seltzer.
Q Male or female?
A ftmale.
Q What is her firs
A I don't ec?llec
Q Anyone else?
A There were some
recollect their names now.
Q Did you see any people forlhom you worked or who
worked under you in the undersround?
don't think so.
Can I make a correction?
se do
V*
but I don't
oy from that und
iu Tartu at this time, I thin%
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q What is hi name?
A Ahto Pae.
Q In. September of 19i2you vointeered to go into
Army, right?
September?
2?
A 1942? Yee.
? they wez'e forming an Estonian Leg on?
A Yes.
Q And

A
0
colic
eourx of people and to know eve
by ftimiiy name and first 44M0 that is impossible.
Q All right Where d you go to training
A Debica,
Q And you we
A Yes, about so
Q And said that you were no
buddy or best friend vas at Mebica
A There were man/ good buddies but I don't recol
lect their
Q
Q No one?
town join?
e, but I don't re-
met thousands and
one I met exactly
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
you a question' Do you recollect
buddies in the army now?
? I certainly do.
A I don't That la verj, vex
don't t that,
Q I don't
I can t do that
X recollect
nunbera are ry bad with
? Thiswae a school o
USW I object to these cjucstiona
ever o e
Some
good fa
ood for you.
but names and
be
Cu
covering the same ground
that ham alread been covered. You have stated that you
intended to depose this man and bring him up to 1957. We
are now about in NI*4 and we are now moving backwards and
on this basis rm Connolly this w 11 be interminable.
BY MB CONNOLLY*
? TTI.Ls battalion in iith you found
a
Watien S. S. unit?
A Yea.
Q, And you said that this was an Army unit, this WaS
az mown as "Stormtroopere?
A Stormtrooperay 7ea Stormtroopers were Army units
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
No.
Q Or the organlz4
A No
Q There uas t
that?
uhateoever to do with poll-
A Yes.
Q What was their vame?
A S. D.
MR? RAMOS X object
TUE WITNESS S. D.
BY 'S. CONNOLLY:
How do y u spell Lt
A icherheits Diens
de
e of
? RASKAUSRAS X object to thie entire line
of queat1onin. X think It is vexatious haravAng and
oppveve on tha witness The last four questions that
have been propounded ure identical to questions that have
been heretofore propounded and X don't propose to have him
answer the same questions t tanab1v nd I requeet that
you dlecon inue this line of questionine
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
You told Nr. Prett
before the b
you were attempting to escape from the Russian
WOU
ere knocked unconscious by a bomb blast?
Yes.
Q When rourcc
4unaed by :Russians?
Yes.
Q Who taken Vram you you' wal
COMO,
UeneSe
314
that
A I didn't have any dentification
Q You didn't have any identification pa ?
A NO.
Q that was in your wallet?
A Some money and a me letters from, my mother.
Q Well the letters would have your name on them
d they t.
A
The
addressed to somebody, were they
A Yes, *Dear Sons.
Q The enveiope ia an address on them?
X said *letters* envelopes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q Did you tive the g
A No.
Q What name did you give them?
Rerik Hein.
Q That sounds like what ou.
New, what t a the difference?
A Without " at the end
? I see.
A It is easier to remember.
? In the American Army we had someth1i se called
"dog metal discs that we wore around the neck?
A Yea.
? Did you have u
A I had, yea.
Q Bold you discard them?
A X hid that
? When?
A When I was in the torost. o d-
bucpersonal paperz.
? What was the ref= attemptir tc denude you
self of ll foz'ms or ident n?
A Because I didn't want them to kn that / w a
Dfcted already in 1940 because when tIey chew that the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
they would have
? How di
to them?
A Thatw
Ii
The what?
on the 390t. I
1ain the absence of your
101,411.
bad b
Many Germansdidn't have
Ge
141.11.1,
Y
than to da
-
cause the
have teeth theydidn't replace them like here.
Q, What did the Russians do with you?
They searched me and then they probably, as
thought, they ted to shoot me down, but then some Russian
q Alter they tearcbed you?
A Yes.
Q Did they make any comeut upon the abaence of
papers oidentification?
? No I don't think so They uaed bad 1ayuage
as they us ual ly do.
Q You re in S.
A stQnian 3. S. ctficer yes.
Q,
A
y look to see If you had yo
s time, they didn't look
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Ct Did the
A Oh, yes
CI With fists or
you?
tb gun bu
With everything they had in their possess
Q Did they knock you unconseious?
A Bali' way, yes.
Q You said that a Russian-Z
ftuasion intervened?
A I believe so yes.
So you beeame a pner of war?
Yes.
Q And his
did thcr take you?
A. It wasn't the trop that surrounded us. /t
or stce
d ou a where
another
I was
the bridge ot anese and I was put on a truck
I isn 't in the spot where we were
ty miles or more away and / was
Q, Were u tkez to a prisoner of mar processint;
Yes, you
WO'
r headquarters.
ere other prisone or war
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
some yea.
you cent back to some prisoner of war en
Now long did you stay in Tartu?
JIarbe a couple of hours.
Then u were dipped out?
A Nt shipped We were ecoxted -- we were
walked to prison camp,
Q Where/
A Near Tartu.
Q What vas the mt of it?
A It hadn't any name. It was in a ieid
with. barbed wire.
Didn't it v
Q 6 A?
4 Maybe it did, but I don't know.
ae, like Prisoner of War
Q You don't know what the name vas?
A X was too dazed
Q You, were out of your head?
A Yes c ncassion a nd the old iounds broke open
going to ask you about that Did the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
coneue OA Cau
Not old wounds
wounded by Auvere.
Q When?
A When that battle took place In June.
That was three months earlier?
Do y u think that It heals so quick?
Q It was In your 1e. was It not?
A Yes In my leg.
? Di d it reopen?
A Yes it reopened.
Q It was bleedinK
A It was bleeding and
A
is it ed?
Xx?eted?
It was infected.
When you got to this enclosure were you i;
A
A
t ra
at all, I think
u not tZLpped of your clothe?
modi al examination?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A No.
You ere rt
I waa uke
q Where
By Petserl
to disrobe?
o disrobe later on.
After the Jo
q You were transported to ano
to Petsor
oner of war
A re walked downs yes.
Q. How Zak' was that?
A couple :),i) hundred ki1onteri.
Q When you got down there .- You walked with an
n wounds an infected wound?
Most of the day -- moot of the way
re about twenty Estonianprisoners of war and I was
save my life they carried me most or the way
Q. Did you tell them that you were Estonian or
A
A
d they know you
because I had t
d you drop the
or.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
then?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q By droppin the
rytng
A I don't understand the question, please,.
(1 By dropping the e from your name, you were
ting to convert it to a Oermannic form were you not?
Peru
MR ST Did you change our name from
Heine to Hein in order to Rake it appear an if it were
German and not Estonian?
THE 'WITNESS: No, Bein is a sore Estonian
a
ady in 140 then I would
re
convert it to a Germannic nan1 1110T4M ;put
op onite?
eine Is a German name Hein is =Estonian
In othe words. very
Tee.
BY MR HHOLLY:
Q Now, when you got to the prison c did you ge
al are .
las, he flrst ti
Q I take it
made to disrobe.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A Us.
Q What comments weze made by the p
zaw the sears on your testicles?
A The sears?
MR. STANFORD. I don't know w
were eesnor examination 'wct made of them.
BY MR CONNOLLY:
Q What di sfi do your testieleshave after
this electrical etimul ion?
MR. STANFORD Are there any outward viLb1e
On your sexual organs
THE WITNESS think n
BY MR CONNOLLY:
Q None whatsoeve ?
Yes.
0
there at that time?
burzaarke
No visib/e scarring?
No
So anyone lo king at you two years later wou1d
notice anything?
A I nit think o.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
But less you now are sterile?
I think to,yes, because we have tried to have
et ncthin omen out of that
That doe prove anything
BASICA KU: / object.
CONVOLUs Off the record
(Whereupozi a brief off the record discussion fol
BY MR, t! Is
Q Did you stay in this camp
A Maybe a couple of weeks.
Q Were you then sent to a permanent prisoner of
ar were taken out
one day and put on a train and we were shipped toward
Leningrad then.
Q. No' before
of your apture?
A It was the
CI You
you iVC us the date
ugust
ent toward Le ad.
permanent P. O. W. camp?
lir
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
then
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A No.
you taken to? Where was
German ricers, four or fives
saner of war officers th officers rank were
from tt oidire near Leningrad and we were
a prison camp near Movcow.
Q. What was the name of it?
X don't know
Q How long did you stay
A X believe I 3tayed t1exe until December the
Q And you got to a carp there but you did not
A
Q I see.
A
Q, And you don't know the name of it?
No. There were about four thousand GezaEu1
our ive
Pzm that t
who were not taken
re put on another
a camp near Moscow?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
? At this
325
treated as a German
officer who was being captured on the Eastern front ?
A les.
Q And in t
from all over he front?
Oh, ye*, from all over the front
? From the southern central and northern front?
Yea.
? Thla wan in December?
A Until December yes.
(4 You were kept in Moscow or ne
Yea.
Q Now when did you get to the c Moscow?
A Xt could be the end f Septer4bez' or so.
? Wae there a barracks or building where you
stayed?
A Yes
Q. Bow aany QJT1eer8 perk b
There was a big?id monasteryand. that wuid
hold sixoseven stages of these bunks and then these
arracks would hold a couple ot hundred per barrack and
that big ones there were over a thousand in there.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
Ye
sand didn't sleep under one
h.
Vcen't ou in
Xwaeinabar
that was built
01,
.11141.
but there was 4,in old
was used for Oerman offi-
and these bunks. or eight or more (indi-
Q Were you in the monaeter or the barracks
A The barracks*
Q
All right and the barracks were built on one
A Yes.
Q How
A About two hundred.
Q What designation did it w a
A I don't remember that.
Q They didn't have any name on thsa?
A They had numbers*
Q But you don't remember Mem?
Oh. no.
Q Wer there
A No
barracks?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
You were the only
Yet.
Q Vert ny attempts
Not this time
Q Did you form any friendships there?
Oh, yes
Q With Germans?
A Mb.
Q With
A With one Lithuazdan.
Q What was11E iai
A Mapoleonus Cernius but he had an assumed name
a I had, Cernus.
Q What was hia real
A Napoleonus Cerntas.
Q Is he in the West to our knowledge?
A 1 don't know.
Q Did you ever see tam atter you left the prlaon
camp nearMQ stow?
A We went together t, h prison camp.
Q
But he is the onlywith whom you formed
an iden trying rriendship in this prison camp near Moscow?
Re vas the best friefld in my life.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
328
11)to an' qtiestion, he wu the on
u formed any tuit friendship at the prla
A Ye
Q How long d d you. t
A Until December
Q AM then where did
A ThenI was declared an enemy of the
go?
czwp near le?
? other
you were st5.11 in the camp near
Yes.
At the prison camp near !4oacow, eri there
Wafren S. S. orileere there?
A I think there wae one.
at all separated Waffen S, S. off ie
from other type* of officers?
I believe, so, yes.
Q When did t e Separation take place?
A Not uthen I was tbere.
sa Were there any other Waffen S ? 3. troops the
had encountered foMbwing your capture until ou got to
Moscow?
A N.
Q en you were being transported tuazd Lex.:
camp
you
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
and then ?afl to Moscow,
only one irm the 3. S..
A No,, we;vere twen Estc
? Twenty Estoniansfra
Yes
Q But you were the only officer among them?
A Yes.
? They were the one who went dire 1:
A Yes.
Q Did jou ever hear
^ No.
were the
d to them?
Have you, ever een any or them
No.
Napo onus Ce
No.
Q What was his rtwk or rat i?
Lieutenant.
? Wehrmaeht?
A No; he had the old Lithuanian army
Q Be wore Lithuanian army uniform.
Yea.
Q Now,, when you got to the camp near'
have gotten there some time Ix late Septe
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
ow, you
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
330
u get Lcal care and
A
Q. Did you also undergo a period of interrogation?
No
Did you
Yen, the
$1, forme by Rutigliano
Titr)
Q
There was a
he Ruian Ar
That I did
0
wau there not?
know.
izing?
les
ison
re
Q Weren't they trying to convince Oeriaan oftcez's
of the political error of National Socialism/
A Oh, yes
Q And tryi
become mmuniets?
A Yes.
Was
A No
at
to you?
Q Was any type or political educatiattemptedon
u at all?
A No
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q X
did you tell them about who you were
A There was no interrogation.
Q 2 thought you aaid there was?
camp in Moscow you went through processing and interroga
the process of in
gation4 what
you were from?
we
spend yGW time?
drilt
there to
hree months. Iow did you
A Sleeptn and lookin&r for food and
Q What do you means looking for food? Didn't
they give you any?
A Yes theygave, but the food was very meager.
Q Mow did you go about getting food.
A Mere were kitchen leftovers.
Q Was any attempt made to engage in 9hysical labor?
A No.
Q At this time the fluasiai winter offensive was in
full swing, was it not?
Oh, yes.
Q It must have been atreat source for optimism
on part of your Russian captors, that they were going to
overc e German resistance?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
332
A There was no communication between these guards
Q None whatsoever?
A No.
Q You were not told by your guards that the front
was crwxibiing and that the Germans were being beaten?
A There were in the barracks the loudspeakers on
the wall. They blared there all day and all night about
the last news and so on.
Q I take it that from the German standpoint it
was all bad news?
A No can't say that. Many hoped that the war
would end very quickly and they all get home.
Q What was their idea? That there would be a
negotiated peace?
A 3 don't know.
MR. STANFORD I think he has misinterpreted this,
the difference between what the individual soldier consi-
dered good and what was good for the German cause.
MR. CONNOLLY: I think he understood me.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Did you feel despondent? Did you feel that the
an:
War had come ti/ursucceasful end for you?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Oh yes
Q Did the German officers have the
A Maybe okay a few,
Q Now: you said that in Decemb you we
of being an enema, of the state?
A Yes.
Q How did it come
A I was called to the tower of the camp.
Q To the what?
A The tower, g
called guard house ? I was ctL
must have been at least halt a
? Wnat kind or soldiers?
used
It is a 1itt1e house
and the here
D. V. eoldiera.
A L K. If. D. , the Ru,ciiAn Se
larded that eamp and they overran me and hit
half dead and tore of fficer's (indicating
Q Epaulettes?
A, Epaulettes. And I wac orficiai1y deo
he state.
A 13c case I wa Estnan and in the Germ
and I an traitor.
cute
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
again
the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
Q. They d.dxt trsat all
th the Germans ae tr
.k Oh yes, all.
Q At any time bare ta, h
Yes,
Q Was there any attempt
ung boy who sever eara betore had been captured for
ing to tear down the flag?
A Not this time
Q. HOW about your T4tbuanian friend?
A The same t1ettmQut
cz Were there any other Iatvian or Lithuanian or
onlan fficers?
A There were sour Latviani, yes.
wit
as did they?
334
had fought
o relate u to the
And they were treated the same way?
Yes.
Afte beix beat uphappened to u?
A
We were let out of that guard house and walked
away from that camps put on a train and we -- several days
we rode on the train towaref, north
ing north?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
335
A North e?.
Q The train eventually came to a stop?
A Yes.
41 in what area2
A A special_ is= camp
Q Where?
ela.
Q.
Kisela?
Yes.
Q Where 1 hat?
In the north Urals. In the Ural mountains.
Q In the northern Urals?
A Yes.
Q Were you treated any di t
you had been In the camp near Xoaco
A oh yes, much much differently than
? What kind of a camp was this?
A Political prisoners camp.
c4 Not a prisoner of war camp?
A No
? Wzs it an open camp? That is, wa
barbed wire.
A Yes
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
from how
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q.
rici didn't you?
You had to do forced labor?
A Yes,
How many hours a day?
Twelve hours a d
Now had you been declared
because they bad identified ou from your prior at
Soviet activity?
No.
O J*t beeau8e you were an
Yes.
Q. And was this a change of
A No that had been the policy all the tiu.
When they first captured you, you had an Zatonlan
ur sleeve, didn t you?
Yes.
Y?
A
q Why di they dcciare you an enemy ot the state
then?
probabiy tIut waa at a gathering point
thcr made the decisions,
? Dut you had been In this camp near Moscow from
embe to December?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
BN' MR
Q, Did they exp1atn t> ?U
and Lithuanians and Este
rx becaie tate enemies?
A We earned that that was the reason.
Q. Dtd you make any protest?
I. What protest?
Q Did you?
What protest c
is t like the
Q ut did you
3,37
ulation
edge,
all oi a sudd n
who were in German
the wo
o your captore tha
V
U.
were a German officer and vas exitit1ed to be treated as
German prisoner of var?
A I didn't say 1 was
that Iva* an Estonian officer.
Q But you had served in the Gexar. A
That doesn't count.
Q Did you tell them tmt you had been zepatz'iated
t, Oerrnrny because of your Oe
1 N, not this time, They didn't qv
of er. I said
ancestry?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q.
A
CZ
338
Yria never volunteered that?
once
No.
Not/When yu iex,e declared a state enemy did
for protest that you were notatonian but were
A Thex
glen one
How in the world did he get to nort
In German Army there were many Sced
Q, Had he been in the German Army?
les.
Q Was this sour i'ieid?
A No
Q. Do know
A No, I don't recollect.
It must have been odd to tee a Swed
r officers in this camp in the
officers.
er
hern Urals in a political prison camp/ it?
it was indeed.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
?
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q Do Ou how he t there?
A He was -- be became a priso
In Czechoslovakia and then mae first, as he
prisoner of war camp and then he was brought
camp
Q. Ha e you eker seen tI.a an since?
A No
A Until March,
Q It czuat flave taken couple of weeks to get there?
No a couple of day
Q A couple of days?
lbs.
Q Did Napo1eQrua Ceritu go to the same cam?
Yes.
Q Did the Latvn alao go to the ea me camp?
Yes.
(4 Do you remember the1t names?
One uas a co/onel X don't remember his name.
I came er then X told the Latvians about it then
that name; but nw X don't recollect it.
? EAMAUSICAS: its?
POU X
no
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
TUE W/T
Bl" MR
Q. During the three nonth5 ou were there4. what
pened to you?
A I got weaker
dont rec.
le et
340
ker every day ause we
worked twelve bOUXe a day without
Q
Do ine what?
A That was a coal
Q Gold?
A Coal mine.
Q (Spelling) 4-0 1-d7
A Yee.
MR RAS =US
WITNESS;
WL COHNOLY:
and he
Ye
.04111
black coa1?
said d* an X spelled it
RASKAUSKAS: An old coal mine?
/THEM Black pearls.
*CONNOLLY;
0 an old coal
A Yes.
Q Is wasn't stip mining?
No
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
L
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Q You went Into the earth itself?
A Yes
Q What kind of oal wan it?
Blaolt coal.
Q Was it hard or soft coal?
A Bard.
Q Bart coal?
A Yes,
Q Did the Rueci
don't know.
MR STANFORD: Do ou know the meaning of the
ViOrd2
plea
'Ts
Q Did they hveal
coaea out of the Alines?
We did it by hand
Q They dld it by hand?
A yes
Q Did you size the coal by hand?
A Pardon
Q Do you know what I mean by
A Yen, by hand.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/40_: CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
342
? They did it b and?
A Yes.
Q Did you work underground or Above
A few veek s only underground and after that above
Q Did you work on the mine Lace?
A When?
Well, you.tell me fl?
Nine race, what do you mean?
Q The coal face.
A Oh, yes.
Q What did you use?
A A pick.
Q Was there any blasting, powder, dynamite
Oh, yea sometimes.
Q Did you use that?
No.
Q Were there any attempts to propagandize you in
anti state camp
A Only these ludpeakere on
ick ad -- even one of these buildi these.
, Every
That was the only propaganda.
Q. I vas going to as you aboutbuildings. What
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
of housincli.dyou have.
A
of the roc
called it
A Abouttw i
f way underground. Only a roof and
as underground, due down, "semljanka
ramound.
pep ne of them?
A
A
All underground
Yes.
All men?
Yes.
You stayed here three months?
Yes.
Was any other punithment aeted out other than
or?
Cold iunka, and bcating
What was the beating given to x?
When you e?uidnot work fast enough as
wanted and when we didn't please them
Did yoa have many beatings?
Oh yea
What? With straps.
Mostly wood sticks or with rifle butts
Did they leave any scarring?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
on.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
While you were i this
ion?
A No.
No inter Ali n?
No. May I eay some ? When we came to
the commander o
tha
camp told us that You
are here because we build on your bones -- we build up
on your bones the Communist order"
At the end of the three mon hal where did you go?
ped from that camp.
L. MOLLY: I will pick tp there
(Greupon at five ten o'c1ock, g the
B Stia
k4 U.
ed tI.11 114
ay, March the econ6 at
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
oft
STATES DICT c
%%TOT OP 14ARYLVD
--X
OQIorado
of
beginningat tea o'clock
on,
ouneel?
or the
Eacruirea,SOG
Cik 2000%
00 riSe
Oteloart 8c Pot, 3rit.
BOND BUILDING, 1404 NEW YORK AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20005
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CVNISMOM0R000100110001-1
Poe, Jr., a
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, when were
present on behalf of the respective parties:
For the Plaintiff:
ERNEST C,RASKAUKAS? ESQUIRE
and
ROBERT J. STANFORD, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant;
WITNJS
1z,,,IERIX HEINE
HOGAN & HARTS ON, ESQUIRES
BY: PAUL R. CONNOLLY, ESQUIRE
and
E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN, JR., EQUIRE
0
0
EXAMINATION BY:
MB. CONNOLLY
347
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
347
PRoCzKDIqj
MR. RASKA would like to start by putting
a correction on the record in Mr. Hares testimonyyesterday.
The witness would like to correct statement
that was e on the record yesterday when Mr. Connolly
propounded a question concerning Mr. Elmar Lem, and alluded
to him as "your old school friend."
THE WITNESS: my good friend.
R. CONNOLLY: Would you like to correct your
answer?
THE WITNES I did never know Mr. Ke.rg at that
time when was a boys but began to know him when I came to
New York the first time.
THEREUPON,
ERIK HEINE,
the plaintiff, having been previously sworn by the Notary
public, further testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNdEL FOR THE DEPENDANT (Resumed)
BY MR. CONNOLLY;
Q Mr. Heine is your testimony the first time you
knew Mr. Elmar Keerg was when you came to New York?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
348
A Yes.
? You did not know dm as a boy in Tartu?
A No.
Q Did you not so testify last aturdayi
A No, I don't think so.
Q Did you know of him when you were in Tartu?
A No, I don't think so.
? Have you found out he live
there?
u when you lived
A Yes, When I was in New York the first time, then
he looked me up and told me that he had heard about me and
known ma through his best friend, Mr. &t:tv, who was my
direct superior in that underground movement in Tartu.
Q Since you have first met Mr. eerg he has become
one of your closest associates
A YeS.
cl -4n North America, has he not?
A Yes.
Have you since learned about what he did during
the Soviet Occupation of Estonia in 1940 and '41?
A In that period I don't know much, but he told me
that in 1940 he was some Judicial aide-de-camp for our late
president, Mt. Pats, Mr. Constantin Pats.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
349
Has he told you that he was a lawyer in Estonia?
A He was a Judges I thinks a young lawyer preparing
to become a Judges or something like that.
Q Has he told you that he was a People's Magistrate
appointed by the Soviets?
A I think he mentioned that, yes.
Q Does this disturb you at all about your relation-
ship ith him?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Because many people who fell under the Soviet
Occupation had to' try to stay alive, and many -- they were
there a couple of months or so -. had to work and be there
with the Soviets at this time, but
Q When the Soviet Occupation ended and the Germans
occupied E4 onias weren't such people known as collaborators?
A No; not all. When they had really collaborated
with the Soviets, then they were named collaborators.
Q What Is the difference between a person who
accepted the position as People's Magistrate under the Soviets,
under Soviet appointments and a real collaborator?
A When somebody works really for the Soviets
Soviet authorities.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
350
4 Wasn't a opie's Magistrate working for the
soviet authorities?
A No. When he c find ways and means to get
away, to avoid serious con
he?
ntations and then trouble.
Q He was enforcing Soviet law in Estonia, wasn't
A I don't know that. 1 about that.
Was he meting outrpuninhnents for anti-Soviet
activity
A I don't k
t he did this time.
q Maybe it's because my Irish grandparents have
a hardy memory of these events, but I am still intrigued
have you been able to think of the name of the boat that you
came over to Canada in?
A No; really not. I have tried very hard.
Q And you don't know whether it was under British
or American registry, or what registry it was under?
A There was a Greek crew, most of the crew was
Greek but --
Q. Greeks are on every ship flying any registry anY
place in the world; Greeks and Hindus.
A That is easy to trace down) that Is very easy
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
351
Q Itis?
A There are records that I was there as a passeflger.
cl There are what?
A That I was on that ship as a pssenger.
A You ask from all the European ship lines, and
then they search for my name. You have the money and means.
Q I have the money and means?
A Oh, yes.
Q How de you know hat?
A Because of these four days that I am here already;
that costs a lot of money, I think. You have to have money.
ta, You have been here for three days?
A Yes. And maybe two more; and then maybe day
after tomorrow.
Q Does this mean I have money?
A I don't have not a penny.
MR. RASKAUSKAS: I object.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q Where are you staying while you are here in
Washington?
A I was yesterday in the
MR. RASKAUSKAS: YMCA.
How do we find that out?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
352
TW Ndaz A; that is the most I can
while I am here.
BY MR.COMNOLLY:
Q Where were you the day beforewsterday?
A By Mr. Tusk.
Q In Pasadena
A Yes.
Q Did you see Kuhlane
A Yes saw him.
? Sun
A Yes.
ia Where did you stay Saturday night?
A By Mr. Tusk.
? Where are you staying tonight?
A When I have to be here tomorrow. I am staying
at the YMCA.
Q At the conclusion of yesterday asession I believe
that you were telling me that you had been in a camp nor
political prisoners in the northern Urals mining coal,
and the name of the town was Kiser?
A Yes.
Q And this morning you now have found this on the
map which we have here, which is a map of the Western Soviet
0
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R00 01 110001-1
353
R ;
Union complied and drawn in the Cardiographic Division of the
National Geographic Society, and I will see if it has a number
on it.
(Counsel oonsults map
It bears no serial number that / can find, but
it bears a copyright of Washington, 1959.
Do you know what I mean by the term coordinates?
A Yes I do.
Q I am going to circle it in red and ask you, and
see if it does not have D-13? and Mr. Prettyman will show it
topu.
be
This would/Latitude, approximately, 64 degrees north
and east Longitude, approximately, 58 degrees
A Yes.
Q You were taken to this camp in late December 1944?
A Yes.
Q How long did you stay there?
A Until March; the beginning of March.
Q Three months?
A Yes.
II And during that time you were put to work mining
A Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
? And you lived in a hut with about 2000 men
A Yes
cl Your close friend at the t
354
Apimoh,./3 C.-4177;_f
Naboleanuc
Cerrius?
(2rnas
A Yes. He called himself' that, Calnas because
as L have done, he had done that, too, because he was a son
of a LithuanianL general, and then he didn't want to --
Q - Have that known?
A Yes; his real name.
? And.,,you woro still going under the naie of H-E-I-N
ng)
A Yes. That means in atonian, grass.
41 Grass?
A Grass; yes, green grass.
Q And I understood you to say also that you were
not given any Soviet indoctrination there; the only
thing that existed was a loudspeaker system that was installed
In the huts that constantly Llared out news and propaganda
material?
A Yes.
Q But you were not given any active propaganda
course?
A No. What they wanted from us was only work and
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
355
ci And you were not subjected to any interrogation,
igence interrogation at all?
A No.
Q Now, what happed at the end or March? Whore
did u go then?
A During that three months in that camp we both
Cerrius and I, we both began to realize when w stay
here onger, then we die anyway because, for example when I
got in that camp there were 800 prisoners and during these
three and a half months, about 270 or 300 stayed alive; other
prisoners all died, who have been there longer than we were.
Q Were their numbers replaced?
A Yes replaced all the time came new contingents in.
Q new do you know that these people died?
A / saw them die and / have carried them myself
ntel
out.
So, you and Cerrius did what?
A We decided to try to escape.
Q How much security was there in this camp?
A You maybe don't know how that camp is guarded,
(Witness draws rough sketch of prison area).
It's barbed wire three or four barbed-wire fences.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
356
cl In depth?
A In depth. In every corner there were watchtowers;
and then there are in watchtowers, there are posts with tomMY
guns and searchlights; and outside of that a fence.
Q Outside the fende perimeter?
A Yes; there are sometimes dogs tied down, and they
can watch here, too. That's about all in that camp.
Q Did any guards live in the huts with you?
A No. They have outside they have their own
barracks or these buildings.
? Were there any pro-Soviet people living in the hub?
A I think so Yes, for sure, then they used that
system very, very frequently; that is a rule.
? What is a rule?
A That they infiltrate the masses of prisoners with
and we called them cows.
MR. PRETTYMAN: C-O-W-S (spelling)?
THE WITNESS: Yes; who give milk you know.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q So you and Calnas decided to plan an escape?
A Yes.
Q Did you escape?
A I did escape.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
357
Q
Did Calnas?
A No.
? What happened Calnas?
A He was too we ac. You know, the first months
Q You mean he was weak -- was he captured?
A No.
Q He just never tiled?
A No. He never tried because he was too weak.
Q So you tried alone?
A He helped me through that fence, yes.
Q Then he stayed behind?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever hear what happened to him?
A No.
Q Hew did you escape?
A In the March or so, in the monthof March there
are in Russia and even there in Estonia he last big snow
storms and we figured that that would be the best time to
escape.
A Because the snow storm is so mighty and so heavy
that blowing snow covers all, you know; they, the searchlights,
can't reach too far, and all is covered with snow; and you leave
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
358
no marks on the grouM when you covers
your steps.
Q It covers your tracks?
A Yes; It covers your tucks.
q But this makes it difficult to get foo
ks doesn't it?
A Oh, yes.
q TaU us now how you escaped
you said you waited until the latter part of
in this part --
A No; not latter part
when they began,
When the most heavy snow storms occurred in this
sectionthe Wale?
A Yes. A couple days it lasted, and then at
night when it was at that heights I think it was at the
height of that storm, we approached with Calnas these fences,
and I crawled through these barbed-wire fences, and said
?Calnas help me to go through the first one," and then we
passed it and he went back.
How many fences were there in depth?
A Four.
Q Were any of them wired with electric energy
pted you;
h because
t of March
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
A
Q.
A
A
359
NO.
Just barbed wire?
Yes.
Were the wires cut, or did you go under them?
No. We didn't have cutters.
You went under the fences or over them?
Under the fences e lifted them up, and hen
ugh.
So you went under the bottom-moat wire; is th
A. No. The snow was so high that
was maybe --
it was in so that half of that fence was under snow,
half'and was over snow, o in the middle, maybe.
Q What kind or clothing did you have?
A When I went there into that camp I had German
overcoat and German uniform. but I traded these for Russian
clothes, called puschlach (sic); that is not heavy, but it's
linen covering inside with cotton, you know
down.
ith the stripes
? Where did you get the German overcoat?
A I was in the German Army
ta And you were wearing a German overcoat
ptured?
A No. They gave me that in Pitseri
prisoner
Approved For
of war camp.
Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
ft
011
central
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
360
q Is that the one near Moscow.
A Yes. When we were shipped out
then I was taken out from the train and shipped to Mb
q What is the name of that camp that you wound up
in near Moscow?
A I don't really remember.
ago?
What is the name you just used a few nu
A Pet
Q How do you spell it?
A P-E-T-S-R-R-I (spelling)
Q Where is Petmeri?
A Oh, I hope that it's here on that
That is in Russia now.
When were you there?
A I believe in the beginning of september when we
were released from that concentration camp there
Q You were captured at the end of 4ugust, I think you
said, August 29th; and I think you said there were a couple of
days that you were there?
A Yes
CI You were given an overcoat there?
A Yes; there in Petseri, and a Finnish Army cap.
map (
and
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
361.
q By whom?
A By the Russians.
Q What happened to the cap you were wearingwhen
you were captured?
A I had no cap; I had a helmet n.
Q A steel helmet?
A lies.
Q And you did not have a soft caps
A I had; but when that battle began, I left that
by my -- how can I describe that? -- cars with ammunition
and then food.
Q What kind of markings dId your helmet have on it?
A M.
Q Anything else?
A No.
Q, Is it cold in Estonia?
A Oh, yes.
in the beginning of September?
A Yes, It's quite chilly.
Q Chilly enough to wear a heavy overcoat?
A I didn't wear it I was given the heavy overcoat.
q german?
A I was given a German overcoat,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
It wa a oldier's overcoat; not a
a
362
oat.
Q That is what you had through the winter in !4c? cow?
A Yes
? And that is what you had when you were in Kisel?
A Yes.
Mr. Prettyman suggests that I ask you whether it
was an officer's overcoat. I understood you to say it Was
just an ordinary soldier's overcoat.
A Yes.
? You traded this overcoat, you say, for some
Russian clothing?
A Yes.
14, Hew about boots?
A *Boots, too.
Q You traded your German officer's boots?
A I didn't have German officer"* boots, but ordinary
sol 1.3 boots.
Q You traded those for what kind of boots
A That is now very difficult to spell it The
Russians used some special boots for winter. Those are made
out or --
Q What are they called in Russian?
A In Estonian they are called "vildids. I don't
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Pe
363
ppll that please?
A Yes; (spelling).
? Is there a Russian term for it?
A Ohs yes.
Q. What is it?
A I don't ber now. Ohs yes; A
Q Did you hav, j other item of clothing on your
that would identify you as a German soldier?
A I didn't trade that sweaters German Army sweater
what I had.
A
A These at that officers' place by Moscow there I
wa in light winter -- summer underwear -- and there they
gave us long underwear In that officers place.
(a You were captured and you had a summer field uni-
form on, did you not?
A Yes.
Q. Did you still have the eurmr Meld uniform with
n t tshowever?
How about your s
irt and trousers.
you?
A How could I have that?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A
I am asking you; did you?
No.
Now, understand ye
sorry.
363
? Let ma put the question to you again:
When, you were captured, you were wearing a summer
field uniform, were you not?
A Yes.
q. Did you still have the eununer field uniform when
you went to the camp near Moscow?
A Yes I had
cz You had a summer field uniform?
A And that overcoat.
Q And a eoldier's overcoat?
A Yes.
? You were not issued
A No.
Q When did you get winter clothing, or did you ever
get ?
A No.
Q So, when you came to escape from the camp in the
you had when you began to plan your escape, you had
German soldier's overcoat?
A Yes.
clothing?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
364
14 Andyou had a. German sun*ner field UfllO!'fl1?
A Yes.
Q And you were able to trade these for Russian
clothing?
A Yes.
q Now, where did ou et the sweater?
A I had that when I was in thatbattle; I had that
sweater on, That is a Very thin thing
Q Now, when yet- escaped you had Russian boots on;
you had a Russian -- wasit like a cape?
A No.
Q What kind f overcoat did you have?
A Like a jacket.
Q What kind of pante did you have? Did you still
have your German officer's pants on?
A No. I traded all my uniform.
Q For what?
A For Russian winter clothing.
Q Who did you trade it with?
A In that mine there worked civilians,too, and
German material was very high price there.
Q It was in demand was it?
A Demand, yes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
365
Soyou had no problem trading this for, I guess
it Was ants' clothing, was it not
A Yes; peasants. There are millionsmillions
of characters who wear that kind of clothing.
ck Now, you had four fences to go through before you
got clear of the camp?
A Yes.
Q Was the barbed wire on the fences st
levels in a horizontal sitinn?
A No; it was this way (indicating).
Q So there would be several levels, horizontals and
then a couple or diagonals?
A Yes.
? This was o d fence?
A No.
Q While Calnas would hold the wire apart, you went
through?
A Yes; the first two
And then you would help him t
two?
0
h the first
A No; he stayed only at the first one, and then he
went back.
ct He didn'thelp you through the second one?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
A To he second too, yes;
alone
366
her on I vent
Q So he vent as far as the second fence with you?
A Yes.
Q And then went back?
A Yes.
Q And you vent on?
A Yes.
Q Was it snowing at the time?
A Blowing
Q Did you have am gloves?
A Yes I had.
fa Where did you get se?
A That camps that politcal prisoners' camp gave
for working gloves.
Q You mean this one in the Urals?
A Yes
Q Were the guards alerted by this escape?
A No.
? Did the dogs put up an outcry?
A No.
Q How cold was it?
A It was about maybe -- not verY cold.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
We had no
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
367
thermometer y how cold it 0 but not
very cold.
Q It win cold enough to be snowing?
A Oh yes.
Q And it was cold enough that the temperature
robably dropped because of the blowing wind, did it not?
A I did not understand you.
Q The wind was blowing, was it not?
A Yes; very strong
Q What time of night was this?
A It could be about 11 or 12 o'clock.
R, That is your best estimate or the time?
A Yes. We had no clocks, no calendars, nothing
the
Q There waSn't any moon?
A It was blowing
Q And snowing?
A Very heavily.
ca Now, when you got clear of the fences, where did
you go?
A As far as I could until ur strength held out.
There was a nearby forest, and I went maybe a couple of m.tiee
through snow to that forest, and then I couldn't go any more.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
368
k myself a snowhouse, and then began to wait until that
Snow torm ended.
Q What do you mean "you took yourselfa snow house"?
A I have to explain:
To survive in winter in extreme conditions, you
have to protect ymurself against the cold wind,that is the
main thing and to build a snow house you shovel with your
handr? -- I had no shovel -- with your hands you shovel a
big heap of snow together, and then, you take the ground a hole
in that, and make it so that you can get in and be protected
from the wind.
Q You build this without r?
A Sure.
Q What do you do to keep he snow from blowing
A
A Pardon?
? No leaves on the trees, are there?
A Mostly evergreens.
tz And that breaks up the wind
A Oh yes.
? So you can take the snow and make a pile, and you
the forest; he wind
no leaves on the tree
not so heavy.
were there?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/101A-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
dig a hole in the pile?
A No; from under, so that you have protection from the
The wind doesn't blow directly on you.
ri You get your whole self inside this snow heap?
A Yes; almost.
q What sticks out?
A Oh maybe the feet.
Q Now do you breathe?
A There is air inside.
Q How does the air get in there?
A If I may say* so, that is a very funny question,
but I will gladly answer you:
You have no doors or covers to shut that thing
and make it airtight; it's only cold in a snow heap, and there
comes plenty of air in. You are only protected against the
wind.
q This isn't a powdery snow, I take It
A (No response).
MR. RASKAUSNAS: a powdery snow 1-
)?
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. CONNOLEN:
It's a damp, wet snow?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP75-00770R000100110001-1
370
A ct e damp because -- why these big
storms, the tart the weather is chalgng itts not
freezing; it's not thawing; and then you can really make some
port or cover for youraoif
Q So, in the middle of
:ht you built this snow
COVOZ for yourself in the forest a couple of miles from the