that are personal to you, like your personal bank account and your other papers and documents called for by the subpena. Have you delivered any of those here with these papers that you presented today? Mr. LARNER. The answer to that is "No." The CHAIRMAN. All right. Proceed. Mr. KENNEDY. I just made a quick check of some of these papers, but I do not find any sums of money being paid to Mr. Ross or Mr. Rini. Can you explain that? Or to Mr. Masteri. How were you paying them? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. (At this point Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) Mr. KENNEDY. In April 1957, Ross, Rini, a man by the name of Frank Eldorado, and Masteri, were arrested in Maywood, Ill., while driving a truck containing three pinball machines which had been hijacked from Des Plaines. When Ross was arrested he requested the police to call you, Red, and gave him the number of the Crossroads Tavern. Do you know about that? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. KENNEDY. The Crossroads Tavern is owned by you, is it not? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. KENNEDY. Can you explain why Mr. Ross wanted to call you at your tavern after he had been arrested in connection with hijacking these pinball machines? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. gave Mr. KENNEDY. Then in the fall of 1957, Ross entered a tavern of Mr. and Mrs. Holup. He identified himself as a union man and Holup your card with the legend "Affiliate of IBEW Local 134," on the card. Can you explain that to us? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. KENNEDY. And the checks that we do have, or we have had before these records have been made available, show money coming from this association to Ross. Can you explain that to us? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Larner, a study of your finances during this period of time is of some interest. We find, for instance, that over the past few years you have had a Chevrolet convertible, a Cadillac 4-door sedan, a Mercury 4-door sedan, a Mercury convertible coupe, and a Cadillac Coupe de Ville, and you rented a 1958 4-door Chevrolet twotone aqua and white sedan in Miami, Fla.; that you had an apartment in Chicago and a home in Miami; and that you have done this over the period from 1949 to 1957, on an average income of approximately $8,700, according to your returns. Could you explain how you have been able to do that? (The witness conferred with his counsel.) Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. KENNEDY. In 1952, according to an application that you made to a bank, you stated that you owned a restaurant in Chicago since 1945; that you had an interest in four oil wells and various investments; you listed your assets as $15,000; net worth of your business, $20,000; other investments, $40,000; real estate, $71,000; and your total assets, $46,000, with no liabilities; and an annual income you said was $23,000. Yet in 1952 you only declared $11,000. Can you explain that to us? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. KENNEDY. In October 1952 you claimed a net worth in a mortgage application to be $103,000, and in a lease application in 1956 you listed your assets at $100,000. Can you explain how you could be doing all of these things on $8,000 a year? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer that question because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Senator MUNDT. Don't you think. Mr. Larner, you should find a little better answer than that, because if the Internal Revenue Service of the United States is alert and awake, and I believe it is, the answers you are making now are very incriminating. Obviously they are going to be curious, as this committee is curious. There may be some perfectly legitimate answer to the question. But if you leave it dangling there, certainly it becomes incumbent upon the Internal Revenue Service to make a very exhaustive study of your financial transactions to see whether you have been defrauding the Government as far as income tax. Your answers indicate that you have been. That may be giving them an improper idea, but that is up to you. If it is the best you can give the fact that you have an $8,700 income and a fleet of Cadillac cars, with homes scattered between Florida and Illinois, you certainly are asking for trouble. You are smart enough to know that when you get in trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, you are in serious trouble. I think we should give you a chance, if you want to, to make an explanation, which possibly can be made. I do not know. But certainly when you duck behind the fifth amendment, you are virtually confessing to defrauding the Government on internal revenue taxes. I think you better talk to your attorney and think that over. If you want trouble, you are certainly sending an engraved invitation card, "R.S.V.P., Please call on Hymen Larner down in Florida." They will be there, probably, before you arrive home. The CHAIRMAN. Very well; proceed. Mr. KENNEDY. Then he owned a 27-foot Chris Craft cruiser, which evidently he has disposed of, but he now has a 22-foot Chris Craft Sea Skiff, and the hull itself is insured for $4,700. It was purchased in September of 1957 at the Challenger Marina in Miami. Is that right? (The witness conferred with his counsel.) Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, Mr. Counsel, if that $8,700, or whatever the amount was, reported as income, was it reported as salary? Mr. KENNEDY. This was his total income. The CHAIRMAN. I know that is the total, but was any part of the salary for working for this association? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, he received some of it for salary, some of it from Eddie Vogel, some of it from his investments. The CHAIRMAN. What salary did you get from this association, Mr. Larner? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. Did you get a salary or did you work on a commission basis? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. Was there some kind of an arrangement, and was it the practice actually to get all you could into the association on the basis of so much per machine that you stamped and permitted to operate, and then divide that money in some fashion with the local union, Local 134, or this man Jukebox Smith? Was there some division between you and him or between the association and his union with respect to the stamp money you received from selling stamps on these machines and any other money you received in the association? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. You see, what we are interested in is whether a union or a union representative goes out and enters into collusion with some thug, gangster, or racketeer. That is what we are interested in. If you did not have that kind of an operation, it would be very helpful, you know, if you would just give us what the facts are so there would not be grounds for any suspicion or unjustified belief that some such arrangements did exist. Can you help us a little on that? (The witness conferred with his counsel.) Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. (At this point Senator Curtis left the hearing room.) The CHAIRMAN. You see, we have some proof here in the record that there was an arrangement whereby you delivered the stamps and collected $1 per machine per month, but we don't find out how that money ever got into the union treasury. Do you know whether any of it ever got in there or not? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer that question because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether any of it ever got to this man Smith, to Jukebox Smith? Did any of it ever reach him? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. What part of it did you turn in to the treasury of the association? What percentage or what arrangement did you have about turning it in to the treasury of the association? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer that question because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean that you did not turn it all in to the association? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. Do these records that you delivered here today of the association reflect the truth with respect to the amount of money you turned in to the association and the amounts you collected for the association? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. Are you intimating that you may have kept false records? Mr. LARNER. I honestly believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me, so I must decline to answer. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Senator MUNDT. Are you prepared to testify that a fair portion of this money that you collected from the jukebox operators went to Uncle Sam's tax collector? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Senator MUNDT. Are you now implying that you made out fraudulent income tax returns? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Senator MUNDT. I think it has. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, in 1957, Mr. Larner declared his highest income, and included there was $8,750 from the amusement association, and $5,000 from Eddie Vogel's company, Guild Rental Games. It is also of some interest, and it should be to you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Larner has only been convicted once, and that was in Little Rock, Ark., for possessing a gaming device. He was fined $316.90 back in 1941 and sentenced to serve 30 days in jail. The CHAIRMAN. Do you like the climate down there? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer that question because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. I expect the community was glad you left. All right. We have to have a sense of humor as we go along. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. KENNEDY. Well, can you explain about the operation of the game association and how you got these union labels and never had a union contract? There is no union contract in these records, is there, Mr. Larner? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. KENNEDY. It would be helpful if he could explain anything about how he was able to operate. Mr. Chairman, it would appear from that that it was just an organized shakedown operated by Vogel with him as the front, and with the use of the union, and the union being the enforcement arm together with such people as Ross and Rini who have some 26 convictions between them. Could you give us any explanation of these activities? Would you tell us anything about it? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. I hand you here a sheet of paper with four pictures on it, or attached to it. They appear to be pictures of a residence. I wish you would examine those pictures and state if you recognize the place and identify the location where the pictures were made and what the picture is. (A document was handed to the witness.) The witness conferred with his counsel.) Mr. ALLDER. Would you ask him first if he has examined it? Mr.LARNER. Yes, sir, I have. The CHAIRMAN. Do you recognize the photographs of what the picture is in the photographs? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. That is your home in Florida, is it not? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. If that is your home, what is there about that house that is incriminating? Can you tell us? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Senator MUNDT. I don't see how an answer like that could incriminate him. I think he is taking the fifth amendment frivolously. The CHAIRMAN. I may have incriminated the house by the questions I asked, but I don't see how it would incriminate the witness. Senator MUNDT. That is a frivolous use of the fifth amendment, unless per chance there are some illegal activities being conducted at the house and I might ask him that. Are there any illegal activities being conducted in that house? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. The CHAIRMAN. Let that document with the pictures be made exhibit No. 61. (Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 61" for reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) Senator MUNDT. Is there an operation operating in the basement of the house, a dope ring or a counterfeiting bloc or a kidnapping bloc, do you know? Mr. LARNER. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. Senator MUNDT. This wasn't where they were shipping out arms, sending them to either side of the Cuban revolution, is it? There must be something suspicious about it, and you just can't be incriminated by looking at a house. The fifth amendment is available to a witness as a legitimate protection against self-incrimination, and if there is something illegal in this house you can take the fifth amendment. I don't see how the courts can justify a man taking the fifth amendment on a house which is just somebody's home. Do you know of anything illegal being done in that house? |