BIZARRE RULING IN SLANDER CASES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00001R000400190035-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 28, 2000
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: May 4, 1966
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release 2000/0 ,( g RJRJM,r-00001 ROOd400190035-6
i
MAY 4 1966' 'E.
izarre Ruling
In Slander Cases
ernment have
that staggering
powver, thanks
to a 1959 U.S.
Supremo Court
decision.'
cials at all `!",?;'.i"
So the writings or
utter- ances of such officials must be
immune to attack from libel
or slander suits, the court
. ruled, regardless of whether j
`-any charges made by the offi-
cials were malicious or not.
And that lets Raus off the'
hook, his attorneys argued.
Under prodding by Heine's
attorneys and the judge,
Roszel C. Thomsen, the CIA
m an unprecedented move-
came into court and admitted
that Raus was indeed perform-
ing in some paid capacity or
? another (the CIA won't say
1
just what) when, he made his
statements.about Heine.
BUT beyond that the
spokesman, De ire
for
retuscd go~-j
leaving unanswered behjnd., a
veil"df?secrecy such ue3 ions
..?-iliat proof of the charges, ,
C` does the CIA possess?
WASHINGTON-Should government officials he free to,
impugn the reputation of any American they chose, with the
. absolute guarantee that they can't be held accountable, whether
the attack is truthful or not? r\
Doubtless, most Americans . another prominent former Es-
aren't aware that public offi- tonian, Juri Raus, now an en-
BY CHARLES NICODEMUS
Of Our Washington Bureau
T'ju?s. a bi-
gineer here for
noted slander NICODEMUS
lease seems likely to focus a
'badly-needed spotlight on this
privilege.
The case, building toward a
climax later this month in Fed-
eral ; District Court in Balti-
more, s has an intriguing-and
perhaps confusing - element
that promises to skyrocket it
to ?national attention.
E Uncle Sam's spy,- arni, the
super - secret Central Intelli-
gence Agency, is a central
zarre.. little-
Heine,' i e y publicized as
an anti-Communist and a free-
dom fighter, said that Raus
was spreading tales that Heine }
was actually a Soviet agent
planted in the closely-knit Es-
tonian community on this con-
tinent.
Raut answered, in court
papers, that he had indeed 4
made the statenlents, and had
done so because an agency of
the U.S. government had given
him information' on Heine's
background.
THE CASE bounded.routine- '`.
,jy through legal preliminaries
until ranuary of this year,
when Raus' attorneys dropped
a bombshell. They filed a mo-
tion to dismiss Heine's suit on
rounds th
t:
a
figure in the drama. g
The case opened in Novem- ? Raus' information on Heine's
ber, 1964, when a well-known a 1 I e g e d spy activities had
Estonian emigree, Erik Heine, come from the CIA.
now 'living in Toronto,' filed 0 Raus had spread the infor-
suit for s 1 a n d e r ! apainst1l mation at the specific request
" j`of the CIA, as an "employe"
of that agency.
What business
have -meddling n wdh.,taht cCIA
spme
observers constt~e"s
mestic" situation?
.1'tu gc~ e Tlionisen has ached-
'Wed final arguments May 13 1
:.,.on Raus's Motion to dismiss-I
Heine's suit. A ruling is likely
soon afterward.
i It is unfortunate that the
f G is mvo v cash.
F ~Fer-it-f5""aT~eady',`ecoming
clear that. any public attention
or outcry that this ca, vokes '
will lie-~'uected, ptlmarifiy
tfiei;: which everyone`
V~sebems fo enjoy licking--end-
n at sha.f959 9ttm
-t
Approved For Release O 1JM .;Clfi ClP75-06001 8000400190035-6
~,. ? He was, therefore, entitled to
the "absolute immunity" which
a little-noted 1959 Supremo
Court decision, Barr vs. Mateo,
conferred on government em-
ploycs performing their dutes.
In this ruling, reached by
only a 5-4 margin, the court
said that government officials
-great and small, local, state
and national---could not oper-,I
ate properly if they had to,'
always worry that they might 1
be, sued for something'they did,