Presser Rejects FBI’s Offer to Protect Him

WASHINGTON — The FBI, fearing for Teamsters Union President Jackie Presser’s safety, has offered him protection under the federal witness program, but Presser has refused, The Times learned Friday.

Government sources said the offer, which would have required Presser to drop from public sight and assume a new identity, was extended earlier this month after a Justice Department attorney and an FBI polygraph operator testified in open court about Presser’s role as an FBI informant.

John R. Climaco, Presser’s attorney and general counsel of the Teamsters, declined comment on the matter Friday.

The FBI also declined comment, refusing even to acknowledge Presser’s longtime service to the bureau.

Presser’s informant status was acknowledged at a Dec. 2 pretrial hearing for fired FBI agent Robert S. Friedrick, who faces charges of lying to federal investigators.

Friedrick, a former Cleveland agent who had received information from Presser in organized crime investigations, allegedly tried to protect Presser from indictment in a Labor Department inquiry by telling officials he had authorized Presser to put “ghost employees” on his Cleveland local’s payroll to help him solidify his position with organized crime figures.

Paul Minor, an FBI polygraph expert, testified that Friedrick “told me he simply got too close to the informant, and that Jackie Presser had been a very valuable FBI informant (and now) was being treated badly.”

Justice Department attorney Richard M. Rogers testified that “Presser was an informant for the FBI.”

Prosecution Derailed

Friedrick’s statement derailed the planned prosecution of Presser, but Presser was subsequently indicted last May after officials concluded that there had been no authorization to hire the “ghost employees.” His trial on charges of labor fraud in connection with payments to the ghost employees is expected to be held next year in Cleveland.

Sources familiar with the matter said the FBI has no information that Presser is in any immediate jeopardy as the result of being named as an informant, but their concern was apparently heightened after the slaying in the last year of two organized crime figures while they were on trial.

Last Dec. 16, Paul Castellano, a leader of the Gambino Mafia family, was gunned down in New York City, along with his bodyguard, Thomas Bilotti. Castellano had been on trial with nine other reputed members of the Gambino organization in connection with a massive auto theft ring. Earlier this month, Gaetano Mazzaro, on trial with 19 co-defendants in connection with a billion-dollar Mafia heroin operation, was found shot to death, his body stuffed in a plastic garbage bag and dumped on a Brooklyn street.

Protecting Defendants

Extending protection to Presser before his trial would be in line with Justice Department policy, an official said, noting that protection has been given to certain other defendants in similar circumstances. In the protection program, defendants who are convicted serve prison sentences under assumed names and in specially segregated units. Defendants who are acquitted or who complete their sentences may be set up in jobs under false identities in cities around the country.

There was no thought given to assigning federal agents to protect Presser while he continues as a public figure because it would be “too manpower-intensive,” a source said.

Although there is no indication Presser is in danger now, there were indications of a threat in early 1985. At that time, FBI electronic surveillance picked up an argument between members of Chicago and New York Mafia organizations about whether to move against Presser due to indications he might be an informant.

Law enforcement sources said the New York family sided with the Cleveland Mafia organization in opposing taking action against Presser, according to law enforcement sources.

The status of the case against Friedrick is unsettled. Earlier this month a federal judge threw out most of the evidence against Friedrick on grounds that the Justice Department had not properly advised him of his constitutional right to remain silent.