Jump to content

LaRouche criminal trials: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Niels Gade (talk | contribs)
387 edits
this is just trolling. Revert
Dking (talk | contribs)
1,659 edits
Trolling is done anonymously. I am not anonymous; you are. Quote from Nazi deleted again for multiple reasons already cited.
Line 128: Line 128:


In testimony to submitted to the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] on July 13, [[1998]], the LaRouche-affiliated [[Schiller Institute]] claimed that "[t]he inability to repay lenders and other crediters was the consequence of an unprecedented involuntary bankruptcy proceeding initiated by the Justice Department against those companies in 1987, initiated in an [[ex parte]], [[in camera]] proceeding.<ref>[http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dojtest.htm TESTIMONY OF THE SCHILLER INSTITUTE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE], published in ''Executive Intelligence Review'', July 31, 1998</ref>
In testimony to submitted to the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] on July 13, [[1998]], the LaRouche-affiliated [[Schiller Institute]] claimed that "[t]he inability to repay lenders and other crediters was the consequence of an unprecedented involuntary bankruptcy proceeding initiated by the Justice Department against those companies in 1987, initiated in an [[ex parte]], [[in camera]] proceeding.<ref>[http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dojtest.htm TESTIMONY OF THE SCHILLER INSTITUTE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE], published in ''Executive Intelligence Review'', July 31, 1998</ref>

[[Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte]] was a professor of [[constitutional law|constitutional]] and [[international law]] at the [[University of Mainz]] in Germany. He was also a military officer who served in the [[Reichswehr]] as a young man, the [[Luftwaffe]] in WWII, and became a Brigadier General in the Reserves for the [[West Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]] during the post-war years. Von der Heydte, a supporter of the LaRouche movement, wrote the following:
{{Quotation|On closer examination of the behavior of the U.S. authorities toward LaRouche, there emerge strong parallels to the infamous [[Dreyfus affair|Dreyfus Affair]] in France, which has gone down in history as a classical example of a political trial....Just as LaRouche was, the French Capt. Alfred Dreyfus was deprived by the structure of the trial procedures, of any opportunity to prove his innocence, and facts critical for his defense were excluded from the trial.<ref>This paragraph is excerpted from a longer essay by von der Heydte, which appeared as a full page ad, sponsored by the LaRouche-affiliated Commission to investigate Human Rights Violations, in the ''[[Washington Times]]'' on March 1, 1990, in the ''Loudon Times-Mirror'' of Loudon County, Virginia on March 2, and as a half-page ad in the ''[[Washington Post]]'' on March 3. It was subsequently re-printed in ''Railroad!'', Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, Leesburg, VA 1989</ref>}}




Revision as of 22:49, 17 December 2007

United States v. LaRouche refers to the prosecution and conviction of American political activist Lyndon LaRouche and his associates on charges of mail fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion. There were two federal trials, one in Boston and one in Alexandria, and several state trials; although there were some differences in the specific charges, the trials centered upon the charge that LaRouche and his associates conspired to solicit loans from their supporters, on behalf of organizations they controlled, without intending to repay those loans. LaRouche was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and sentenced to a prison term of fifteen years which began in 1989. He was paroled in 1994 after serving five years. Twelve of his associates served total prison ranging from one month to 13 years.

According to LaRouche and his supporters, the trials were politically motivated.

Investigations

According to press accounts, a federal grand jury began investigating "an extensive nationwide pattern of credit card fraud" by LaRouche organizations in November 1984.[1] That same year a New Jersey bank froze the accounts of LaRouche's 1984 presidential campaign due to allegedly fraudulent credit-card charges. [2]

In January 1985 a grand jury subpoenaed documents from the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), and three other LaRouche organizations: Caucus Distributors Inc., Fusion Energy Foundation, and Campaigner Publications Inc. Seven weeks later, on March 29, 1985, a court held them to be in contempt and fined them $45,000 per day. The fines for all the organizations eventually totalled over $20 million.[3]

Investigations by a separate federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia along with state agencies in New York, California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Washington were also underway.[4] The FBI, IRS, and other federal agents and personnel were conducting their own investigations. The Internal Revenue Service revoked the tax exempt status of the Fusion Energy Foundation in September 1985, and a year later the State of New York sought to dissolve the corporation, alleging that it used "persistently fraudulent and illegal" means to solicit donations. [5] Three states, Alaska, Indiana, and Maryland, banned fundraising by Caucus Distributors Inc. in May 1986, due to the sale of unregistered promissory notes.[6] The Illinois Secretary of State began civil proceedings against Caucus Distributors Inc. in June 1986, seeking an injunction to bar deceptive business practices.[7] A fundraising ban was instituted on the "Independent Democrats for LaRouche" in Minnesota, and confirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court.[8]

LaRouche lawyers filed a series of related civil suits against individuals, agencies, and businesses. They sued U.S. Attorney William Weld and former Attorney General William French Smith to try to stop the FBI investigation of the credit card case. They sued the New Jersey bank that had frozen their credit card merchant accounts. They sued Chemical Bank in a similar suit. Edward Spannaus, a treasurer for LaRouche campaigns, filed complaints with the state bar and the U.S. Justice Department against one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the case.[9]

The time frame for the investigations is disputed by LaRouche's attorneys, who filed an appeal in which they claim an ongoing government investigation began in the 1960s under the FBI's COINTELPRO program (see appeals.)

Raid and indictments

Beginning October 6 1986, the Leesburg, Virginia headquarters of the LaRouche organization were searched in a coordinated, two day raid by hundreds of officers of the FBI, IRS, other federal agencies, and Virginia state authorities, supported by armored cars and a helicopter. The agents also surrounded the heavily-guarded[10] estate, where LaRouche was living, for the duration of the search, but did not enter it.[11][12] While surrounded, LaRouche sent a telegram to President Ronald Reagan saying that an attempt to arrest him "would be an attempt to kill me. I will not submit passively to such an arrest, but . . . I will defend myself."[13] LaRouche offices in Quincy, Massachusetts were searched as well.

Warren J. Hamerman, Chair of the NDPC, said the searches "conducted by Donald Regan's associate William Weld's forces against presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche's headquarters coincides with Don Regan's desperate attempts to maintain the cover-up on AIDS."[14] LaRouche later said that the raid was ordered by the Soviet premiere as part of an assassination attempt. "The man with the mark of the beast on his head, Mikhail Gorbachov (sic), has demanded my elimination," said LaRouche.[15]

On the same day as the Leesburg search, the Boston grand jury handed down a 117-count indictment that named ten LaRouche associates, two corporations, and three campaign committees. They were charged with making unauthorized credit charges that defrauded $1 million from over 1,000 people. The charges also included a scheme to raise funds by soliciting loans with no intention of repaying them. The National Caucus of Labor Committees was charged, along with others, of conspiring to obstruct justice. Prosecutors charged that defendants had burned records, sent potential grand jury witnesses out of the country, and failed to provide subpoenaed evidence. LaRouche was quoted in the indictment telling an associate that, in reaction to legal problems, "we are going to stall, tie them up in the courts...just keep stalling, stall and appeal, stall and appeal."[16] Three of the indicted associates remained at large for over a year,[17] and investigators were allegedly given false information.

On February 16, 1987, the Commonwealth of Virginia indicted 16 LaRouche associates on securities fraud and other felonies.[18] On March 3, 1987, the State of New York indicted 15 LaRouche associates on grand larceny and securities fraud.[19]

On June 30, 1987 LaRouche was added to the Boston federal indictment with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Boston trial

The opening of the Boston trial, before Federal Judge Robert Keeton, was delayed when one of the defendants, Roy Frankhouser, was granted a severance of his case.[20] Frankhouser was a neo-Nazi, a former Pennsylvania Ku Klux Klan grand dragon, and an informant for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies. Frankhouser had been a security consultant for LaRouche.[21]

Frankhouser asserted that, in order to justify his $700 a week salary, he and fellow Klansman Forrest Lee Fick had invented a connection to the CIA.[22] He said that he had persuaded a friend to play a former top CIA official (named "Ed" by Frankhouser, after "Mister Ed") in meetings with LaRouche.[23] When LaRouche found out about the grand jury investigation he reportedly told Frankhouser to get the CIA to quash it. Frankhouser told LaRouche that the CIA wanted him to destroy evidence and hide witnesses.[24] Frankhouser claimed that on another occasion LaRouche sent him to Boston to check on the grand jury investigation, but that he went to a Star Trek convention in Scranton, Pennsylvania instead, from where he called to warn LaRouche that the FBI had wiretapped his phones. LaRouche was called as a defense witness in Frankhouser's trial but he refused to testify, exercising his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.[25] Roy Frankhouser was found guilty of obstruction of the federal investigation into credit-card fraud.[26] He was sentenced to three years and a $50,000 fine.[27] After his conviction he was granted immunity against further prosecution and compelled to testify against LaRouche in the Boston trial.

Though the jury had been chosen in September, due to the Frankhouser trial the trial of LaRouche and the remaining defendants started on December 17 1987.

The prosecution claimed that pressure to fill fundraising quotas had led to 2,000 instances of credit card fraud, and that organization members had sought to obstruct the investigation. The defense sought to show that the prosecution was the culmination of a 20 year campaign of harassment by the FBI and CIA, and that they were acting on orders from the CIA when they destroyed evidence and hid witnesses.[28] During the trial a search of the personal files of Oliver North was ordered by Judge Keeton in order to look for evidence that North had led an effort to harass and infiltrate the LaRouche Movement, causing an additional delay in the trial.[29] The search produced a May 1986 telex from Iran-Contra defendant General Richard Secord to North, discussing the gathering of information to be used against LaRouche.[30] After this memo surfaced, Judge Keeton ordered a search of Vice President George Bush's office, for documents relating to LaRouche.

Expected to last from three to six months, delays stretched the trial out much longer. Among the delays were 400 pretrial motions made by the defense.[31] Another delay came when the trial was halted to give time for the FBI to search their files for exculpatory documents.[32] The trial was delayed again when federal agents seized LaRouche properties as part of the involuntary bankruptcy procedure in 1988.[33] After several jurors asked to be excused due to the length of the trial the defense refused to proceed with fewer than 12 jurors, forcing the judge to declare a mistrial on May 4, 1988.[34] Before disbanding, the jurors polled themselves and found all defendants, including LaRouche, "not guilty." According to the Boston Herald of May 5, 1988, one of the jurors described the poll: "It seemed some of the government's people caused the problem, adding that the evidence showed that people working on behalf of the government 'may have been involved in some of this fraud to discredit the campaign.'" The National Law Journal called the Boston mistrial a "stinging defeat" for the government; LaRouche commented, "I was cheated out of an acquittal." At the time of the mistrial a LaRouche spokesperson said that the Constitutional Defense Fund, a LaRouche organization, had spent over $2 million on legal and administrative expenses. [35] Defense attorneys said they would appeal if the government sought a new trial.[36]

A retrial in Boston was scheduled, but a new case in Virginia came first. The Boston charges were later dismissed over the objection of the LaRouche lawyers who said they were seeking vindication.[37] The Assistant U.S. Attorney who handled both cases said after the dismissal, "It was the Boston prosecuting effort which led to the evidence which allowed the indictment and convictions in Alexandria, and I think justice was served by the substantial sentences received."[38]

Involuntary bankruptcy

In early April 1987 the government charged in court that LaRouche organizations may have been trying to sell properties for cash, in order to more easily conceal their assets and avoid paying $21.4 million in contempt of court fines.[39] The U.S. Department of Justice filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition on April 20 1987 for the purpose of collecting the debt from Caucus distributors Inc., Fusion Energy Foundation, and Campaigner Publications Inc. In an unusual procedure, the companies were seized before the bankruptcy came to trial. Assistant U.S. Attorney S. David Schiller wrote in a brief that the debtors had a "pattern of transferring or commingling substantial corporate assets to their members and other insiders for little or no consideration and for non-business purposes". The trustees reported they were only able to locate about $86,000 in assets.[40]

The bankruptcy halted the publication of a weekly newspaper, New Solidarity, and a bi-monthly science magazine, Fusion. At least one publication, Fusion, was reborn with a new name but the same editor and material.[41] Civil libertarians outside the LaRouche group objected to the government seizure of LaRouche publications as abusive.[citation needed]

The attorneys who represented the LaRouche entities in the bankruptcy trial filed a brief stating that the action was unprecedented and improper, alleging that it deviated from the standard rules of involuntary bankruptcy, and that members of the Alexandria prosecution team from the second criminal trial were involved in the planning and execution of the bankruptcy. [42]

During the bankruptcy trial in September 1989, an FBI agent destroyed evidence (credit card receipts, cancelled checks, and FEC filings) immediately after he had promised the court he would preserve them.[43] On October 25, 1989, Judge Martin V.B. Bostetter dismissed the government's involuntary bankruptcy petition, finding that two of entities involved were nonprofit fund-raisers and therefore not subject to involuntary bankruptcy actions.[44] Bostetter said the government acted in "objective bad faith" and the bankruptcy was obtained by a "constructive fraud on the court.",[45] Appeals that went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court found that the matter of the involuntary bankruptcy would not change the outcome of LaRouche's convictions in a second trial held in Virginia.

The LaRouche organization asserts that it has proof, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that the purpose of the bankruptcy was not to collect fines, but rather to simply shut down the affected entities. [46]

The U.S Attorney said, "Essentially the court holds that we did not abuse the bankruptcy filing, just that we should have filed differently". He also noted that only a minimal amount of money had been collected.[47]

Alexandria trial

On October 14, 1988, LaRouche and six associates were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia before Judge Albert V. Bryan, in whose district LaRouche resides. The court is known as a "Rocket Docket" because it speeds even complicated cases without delay.[48] The indictments included various conspiracy charges, including conspiracy to commit mail fraud. LaRouche was also charged with conspiring to hide his personal income since 1979, the last year he had filed a federal tax return.

Motion in limine

Judge Albert V. Bryan granted a prosecution motion in limine, ruling that the defense would not be permitted to discuss, or even allude to, the fact that the indebted entities had been placed in involuntary bankruptcy. It also excluded certain other avenues which the prosecution had reason to expect that the defense would pursue, such as claims of vindictive prosecution and a history of political harassment by the government.[49]

LaRouche's attorneys claimed on appeal that this prevented them from presenting their defense, that being that the LaRouche organization no longer controlled the indebted entities, and that the decision not to repay debts was made by government trustees. This appeal was rejected.

Voir dire

The defense made a motion for voir dire in the second trial; voir dire is not mandatory in federal court. The request was denied.[50] One of the numerous Amicus curiae briefs that were filed on appeal charges that unlike Judge Keeton, who devoted three weeks to jury selection, Alexandria Judge Albert V. Bryan spent two hours, and did not permit individual questioning of prospective jurors. The brief asserts that this contributed to the result that most jurors in the Alexandria trial were present or former government employees. Jury Foreman Buster Horton was the U.S. Department of Agriculture liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).[51] This appeal was rejected.

Prosecution

The prosecution presented evidence that LaRouche and his staff solicited loans with false assurances to potential lenders and showed "reckless disregard" of the facts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson presented evidence that LaRouche's organisation had solicited US$34 million in loans since 1983. In his opening statement to the trial, Robinson said,

Members of the jury, this case is about money. It's about how the defendants got money, and to a lesser extent, what they did with that money when they got it... The defendants, all seven of them, are charged in engaging in a scheme to defraud. That is, to obtain those loans by making false promises, false pretences, saying things to potential lenders which they knew weren't true. [52]

LaRouche supporters claim the amount that was not repaid was $294,000, but according to testimony reported by the Washington Post (17 December 1988), the amount of funds not repaid by 1987 topped $25 million. The most important evidence was the testimony of lenders, many of them elderly retirees, who had lost thousands of dollars in loans to LaRouche that were never repaid. Several witnesses were LaRouche followers who testified under immunity from prosecution. LaRouche did not testify.

According to an article in the Washington Post:

  • Nine lenders, who said they were attracted by what was described as LaRouche's "war on drugs," testified that they gave a total of $661,300 to the organization and were repaid only about $10,000. Those loans are "just a very small portion of unrepaid borrowing" by the group, prosecutor Markham told the jury in his closing argument.
  • Of the $4 million collected for LaRouche's 1984 presidential campaign, only half was repaid, and by early 1987, $25 million of the $30 million collected for noncampaign purposes had not been repaid, according to testimony.[53]

LaRouche denied all the charges, calling them "an all-out frame-up by a state and federal task force," and said that the federal government was trying to kill him. "The purpose of this frame-up is not to send me to prison. It's to kill me." LaRouche said. "In prison it's fairly easy to kill me... If this sentence goes through, I'm dead."[54]

One of the charges against LaRouche was that he had conspired to avoid paying income tax, not having filed a return in ten years. LaRouche claimed to have had no income. LaRouche lived in on a 172 acre (700,000 m²) estate in Round Hill, Loudoun County, Virginia, with a pond and horse ring. It was purchased for his use by Oklahoma oilman David Nick Anderson for $1.3 million, with LaRouche organizations paying rent to cover the $9,605 mortgage.[55] LaRouche had named the property "Ibykus Farm" after a work by Friedrich Schiller.[56] His wife, Helga LaRouche, is reported to have overseen hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations to the property.[57] In 1985, a judge in a separate case had described LaRouche's testimony about being almost penniless as "completely lacking in credibility".[58] In 1986, in the same case, LaRouche said that he did not know who had paid the rent on the estate, or for his food, lodging, clothing, transportation, bodyguards, or lawyers since 1973. The judge fined him for failing to answer.[59] In all the LaRouche group spent over US$4 million on Virginia real estate during this period, according to trial testimony reported in the Washington Post (17 December 1988).

On December 16 1988,[60] LaRouche was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud involving more than $30 million in defaulted loans; 11 counts of actual mail fraud involving $294,000 in defaulted loans; and one count of conspiring to defraud the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The judge said that the claim of a vendetta was "arrant nonsense", and that, "the idea that this organization is a sufficient threat to anything that would warrant the government bringing a prosecution to silence them just defies human experience."[61] Jury foreman Buster Horton told the Washington Post (17 December 1988) that it was the failure of LaRouche aides to repay loans that swayed the jury in the Virginia case, and that the jury "all agreed [LaRouche] was not on trial for his political beliefs. We did not convict him for that. He was convicted for those 13 counts he was on trial for."

Imprisonment

While in prison LaRouche released claims that he was tortured as part of an assassination attempt.[62] LaRouche ran two political campaigns from prison: for Virginia's 10th Congressional District in 1990 and for U.S. President in 1992.[63] One of his cellmates during his incarceration was televangelist Jim Bakker. Bakker later devoted a chapter of his book, I Was Wrong, to his experience with LaRouche.[64] LaRouche was paroled in 1994 after serving five years of the 15-year sentence. LaRouche commented later that "...in effect, George H.W. Bush put me in the jug, and Bill Clinton got me out." [65]

Prosecution of LaRouche associates

Federal trials

As part of the trial in Alexandria, five of LaRouche's associates were also found guilty. His chief fund-raiser, William Wertz, was convicted on ten mail fraud counts. LaRouche's legal adviser and treasurer, Edward Spannaus, along with fundraising operatives Dennis Small, Paul Greenberg, Michael Billington, and Joyce Rubinstein, were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Wertz and Spannaus were sentenced to five years each (Spannaus served two and a half years[66]) and $10,000 fines.[67] The others received three-year terms and various fines.

State trials

The Attorney General of Virginia, Mary Sue Terry, prosecuted eight LaRouche associates on securities fraud charges relating to $30 million in loans. The prosecutions required a decision by the State Corporation Commission ((SCC) that the loans solicited by LaRouche organizations were securities. Attorneys for the companies argued that a prohibition on raising funds through loans would violate their First Amendment rights. The SCC rejected that argument and decided, on March 4, 1987, that the promissory notes were securities. It ordered six LaRouche organizations-Fusion Energy Foundation Inc., Caucus Distributors Inc., Publication and General Management Inc., Campaigner Publications Inc., EIR News Service Inc. and Publication Equities Inc.-to stop their sale. Injunctions had already been issued in five other states,[68] and 14 states eventually instituted similar injunctions. At least one injunction, by the State of Minnesota against Independent Democrats for LaRouche, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which confirmed the lower court.[69]

According to the Barbara Boyd, a LaRouche associate, "At the center of the Virginia prosecutions was the novel allegation by prosecutors, that political loans advanced for political programs and campaigns, were investment securities, subject to the securities registration and securities fraud provisions of state law. No court had ever declared this prior to the Virginia prosecutions." Boyd asserts that the Virginia State Corporation Commission initially refused to issue a ruling that political loans were investment securities, and only later cooperated. The commissioner who gave the ruling, Elizabeth Lacy, was shortly thereafter nomimated as Virginia's first woman Supreme Court Justice, and then refused to recuse herself from the case that had resulted from her decision.[70]

Six of LaRouche associates were convicted and two pleaded guilty.[71] Rochelle Ascher, a fundraiser, was sentenced in Leesberg to 86 years (reduced to 10 years) for six charges of fraudulently selling securities and one count each of selling an unregistered security with intent to defraud, selling a security by an unregistered agent with intent to defraud, and conspiracy to commit security fraud.[72][73]

In two Roanoke trials, four other associates were found guilty of securities fraud charges: Donald Phau,[74] Lawrence Hecht, Paul Gallagher, and Anita Gallagher.[75] Richard Welsh and Martha M. Quinde pleaded guilty and received 12 month and one month terms, respectively.[76][77]

Michael Billington was charged in a Roanoke court with having solicited 131 loans totaling $1.24 million from 85 people even when he knew that the loans would not be repaid.[78] Represented by a court-appointed lawyer, he rejected a plea bargain that would have limited his prison sentence to the three years he served in the federal case. According to Barbara Boyd, Billington's attorney had not prepared a defense, assuming that Billington would "cop a plea," and the judge refused to permit Billington to substitute a different attorney, despite the fact that one stood ready.[79] His attorney, Brian Gettings, told the court that he believed LaRouche was making the decisions in the case rather than his client.[80] Billington was convicted on nine counts of "conspiracy to fail to register as a securities broker." Virginia's court system has the juries determine prison terms though judges may override them. The jury in his case recommended 77 years (out of a possible 90), and the judge refused to lower it because Billington continued to insist upon his innocence (which the judge deemed lack of remorse,) and because he had warned that he would accept the recommendation if Billington requested a jury trial. Billington served a total of ten years in prison before being released on parole. The lead prosecutor said the case involved, "willful and massive fraud that has caused a lot of people to suffer".[81]

A trial in New York state courts on charges of scheming to defaud resulted in the conviction of Robert Primack, Marielle Kronberg, and Lynne Speed.[82]

Appeals

Beginning as early as 1986, LaRouche-related lawyers made numerous appeals of court decisions. The contempt of court fines from the Boston grand jury were appealed. On July 3, 1986 the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the fines. [83] It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who let the decision stand.[84]

When the Boston case ended in mistrial, LaRouche lawyers appealed the decision to retry the case. In their appeal, heard October 5, 1988, they argued that a retrial would violate double jeopardy. [85] Following the convictions in the Alexandria court, prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges from the Boston court, cancelling the retrial. The LaRouche lawyers appealed that decision on March 13, 1989, arguing that they needed the trial to exonerate LaRouche. "My imprisonment is the American Dreyfus case", LaRouche said in a January 1989 interview from prison. The prosecutor denied claims of a conspiracy, describing the theory as an "Orwellian fantasy . . . that we are hiding some supersecret spy plot which, if exposed, would exonerate them."[86]

A 1989 appeal filed by the LaRouche defendants maintains that, due to the motion in limine that was granted by Judge Bryan in the Virginia case, the jury never heard the two central features of LaRouche's actual defense: first, the long history of "adversive government actions" against the LaRouche organization, and second, that the government, through the involuntary bankruptcy and related actions, had "intentionally... subverted their ability to raise funds and pay their debts."[87] In the book Railroad! the authors write that "...the judge invaded the province of the jury, preventing the jurors from hearing the facts which would enable them to competently determine the question of criminal intention."[88]

LaRouche's attorneys claimed the investigations of LaRouche and his organization began in the 1960s as part of COINTELPRO, and "culminated in an intense 5-year program by what may be characterized as a national multi-agency 'Get LaRouche' task force."[89] According to the appeal, the task force included both Criminal and Tax divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, The U.S. Attorney's Office in Alexandria, the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service, IRS, U.S. Postal Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Virginia Attorney General's office, Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the Loudon County Sheriff's office. LaRouche's attorneys claimed on appeal that the lower court's decision on their in limine prevented them from presenting their defense, that being that the LaRouche organization no longer controlled the indebted entities, and that the decision not to repay debts was made by government trustees. This appeal was rejected.

There were numerous Amicus curiae briefs that were filed on appeal. One by Dr. Albert Bleckmann, director of the Institute for Public Law and Political Sciences at the University of Muenster, raised further objections to the lack of voir dire, the exclusion of evidence under the motion in limine, the fact that the government did not approach LaRouche about his tax situation before indicting him for tax violations, and concerns about double jeopardy because of the nearly identical charges in the Boston and Alexandria trials.[90] A similar brief was filed by over 100 American attorneys, and raised the additional issue of possible violation of Sixth Amendment rights due to a rush to trial.[91] Others raised the issue that non-payment of loans is not a criminal offense, but had been made one through politically motivated misuse of conspiracy laws,[92] and that more generally, a "crime of thought seems to have been camouflaged as a common law crime."[93]

On July 3, 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal by LaRouche and his six co-defendants that claimed the Alexandria court had tried to silence them. [94]

A three-judge panel of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously confirmed the Alexandria convictions on January 23 1990,[95] They found that the defense had not asked for a continuance in a timely manner, had not indicated that significant flaws in the case were due to lack of time, and had not pressed jurors about their knowledge of LaRouche.[96] Five months later the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. [97]

Claims of LaRouche supporters

The convictions of LaRouche and his associates were a defining moment in the history of the LaRouche network. LaRouche supporters and others, including hundreds of elected officials from the US and other countries, insisted that LaRouche was jailed, not for any violation of the law, but for his beliefs (see attempts at exoneration.) LaRouche also alleged systematic government misconduct:

  • "The record shows, that for nearly thirty years, elements of the U.S. Department of Justice have been engaged in world-wide political targeting of me and my associates. This includes early 1970s operations run in conjunction with Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's U.S. State Department. During the last ten years or so of that period, some U.S. officials, and others, have challenged the relevant agencies with some of the evidence which shows, that those prosecutions and correlated harassment of me and my associates, had been clearly fraudulent, politically motivated targeting."[98]

LaRouche and his lawyers also asserted that the Anti-Defamation League sought to destroy his organization, and that the prosecution was the result of a conspiracy between the ADL, the government, and the media.[99][100] This claim stems from a series of meetings which LaRouche publications refer to as the "John Train Salon." [101]

In testimony to submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 13, 1998, the LaRouche-affiliated Schiller Institute claimed that "[t]he inability to repay lenders and other crediters was the consequence of an unprecedented involuntary bankruptcy proceeding initiated by the Justice Department against those companies in 1987, initiated in an ex parte, in camera proceeding.[102]


Attempts at exoneration

On November 8, 1991, Angelo Vidal d'Almeida Ribeiro, the Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, filed a request to the US Government based on a complaint that had been filed concerning the LaRouche case. The US government responded by saying that LaRouche had been given due process under the laws of the United States. The UN took no further action.[103]

One of LaRouche's appeals attorneys was former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. In a 1995 letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno he said that the case involved "a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge." He asserted that, "The government, ex parte, sought and received an order effectively closing the doors of these publishing businesses, all of which were involved in First Amendment activities, effectively preventing the further repayment of their debts." [104]

The LaRouche organization organized several panels of sympathetic legal experts, elected officials and journalists from other countries, to have them review the case and issue their findings. These included the Curtis Clark Commission,[105] and the Mann-Chestnut hearings. [106]

On September 18, 1996, a full page advertisement appeared in the New Federalist, a LaRouche publication, as well as the Washington Post and Roll Call. Entitled "Officials Call for LaRouche's Exoneration," (see text), It featured signators including Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina; figures from the 1960s American Civil Rights Movement such as Amelia Boynton Robinson, James Bevel, and Rosa Parks; former Minnesota Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy; Mervyn M. Dymally, who chaired the Congressional Black Caucus; and artists such as classical vocalist William Warfield, and violinist Norbert Brainin, former 1st Violin of the Amadeus Quartet. LaRouche's Schiller Institute paid for the advertisement. Amelia Boynton Robinson was at that time a board member of the Institute; James Bevel and William Warfield had been active in various LaRouche organizations.

Notes

  1. ^ "LaRouche Groups' Debt to U.S. Grows Daily", by Joel Brinkley, New York Times, May 19, 1986
  2. ^ "Abrams Files Larouche Lawsuit" October 29, 1986, New York Times
  3. ^ LaRouche Groups to Appeal AP, March 5, 1987
  4. ^ "16 LaRouhe Aides Indicted for Fraud" February 18, 1987, New York Times
  5. ^ "Abrams Files Larouche Lawsuit" October 29, 1986, New York Times
  6. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7D91738F933A15756C0A960948260
  7. ^ "LaRouchies back - new name, home", Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun - Times, October 25, 1987
  8. ^ "Loss for LaRouche Group", Washington Post, January 10, 1989
  9. ^ "Larouche Groups' Debt To U.S. Mounts Daily", Joel Brinkley, New York Times, May 19, 1986
  10. ^ "Jury finds LaRouche guilty in conspiracy and mail fraud plot", Houston Chronicle, December 17, 1988
  11. ^ http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1989/sg890463.txt
  12. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Night They Came To Kill Me," Executive Intelligence Review, March 12, 2004
  13. ^ "Prosecutor Moves to Disarm LaRouche Guards; Lawyer for Security Men Tells Judge They Would Not Resist Law Enforcement Officers", John Mintz, Washington Post, January 31, 1987
  14. ^ "10 Larouche Associates Face Fraud Counts; Offices Raided", Christine Reid,Richmond Times - Dispatch, October 7, 1986
  15. ^ "Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces", Kevin Roderick. Los Angeles Times, October 14, 1986
  16. ^ "U.S. Charges Aides to Larouche With Credit-Card Fraud Scheme", October 7, 1986, New York Times
  17. ^ "Prosecutor Links Fraud To Larouche", New York Times, December 18, 1987
  18. ^ "16 LaRouche Aides Indicted for Fraud" February 18, 1987, New York Times
  19. ^ "12 Lyndon LaRouche Supporters Are Arrested on Fraud Charges", March 19, 1987, New York Times
  20. ^ http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40717F83D5C0C728EDDA90994DF484D81
  21. ^ Mintz, John, "Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right," Washington Post, January 14, 1985; Mintz, "Defense Calls LaRouche, Followers 'Most Annoying,' Washington Post, December 18, 1987, p. A18.
  22. ^ "Frankhouser 'Broken' By Arrest In Larouche Probe", John Clark and Mike Weibel, Morning Call, January 18, 1987
  23. ^ "Defense Calls LaRouche, Followers `Most Annoying'; Trial Begins for Leesburg Group Accused of Obstructing Probe Into Its Fund-Raising", John Mintz, Washington Post, December 18, 1987
  24. ^ "Judge Delays Trials of LaRouche, Six Associates; Case of Former Ku Klux Klan Leader Frankhouser Is Severed and Will Be Tried First", John Mintz, Washington Post, October 21, 1987
  25. ^ "Larouche Takes Fifth At Former Aide's Trial Probe Of Credit Scheme Prompted Charges", William F. Doherty, Boston Globe, November 17, 1987
  26. ^ http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40715FD355C0C728DDDAB0994DF484D81
  27. ^ "Frankhouser Seized By Fbi In Reading On Firearms Charges Police", Morning Call, October 6, 1988
  28. ^ "Larouche Called Donors 'Slime,' Prosecution Says;", William F. Doherty, Boston Globe, December 18, 1987
  29. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1D8103AF934A35757C0A96E948260
  30. ^ "It's Time for Truth-In-Justice in Virginia," undated, posted on Executive Intelligence Review website
  31. ^ "LaRouche's Va. Trial Expected to Be Speedy; Alexandria's `Rocket Docket' Federal Court Contrasts With Site of Boston Proceeding", Caryle Murphy, Washington Post, November 20, 1988
  32. ^ http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0717F9385C0C718DDDAA0894D0484D81
  33. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DF1439F936A35756C0A961948260
  34. ^ "Jurors Excused, Cause LaRouche Mistrial", Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1988
  35. ^ "Jurors Excused, Cause LaRouche Mistrial", Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1988
  36. ^ "Jurors Excused, Cause LaRouche Mistrial", Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1988
  37. ^ "No Larouche Trial, Rules Federal Judge", Boston Globe, March 3, 1989
  38. ^ "Further LaRouche Charges Are Dropped", Los Angeles Times, January 29, 1989
  39. ^ "3 Firms Linked to LaRouche Seized for Fines", Robert L. Jackson, Los Angeles Times, April 22, 1987
  40. ^ "Legality Of Move By U.S. Is Argued", Bill McKelway, Richmond Times - Dispatch, May 5, 1988
  41. ^ The Scientist 1988, 2(2):1
  42. ^ "Fact #9: On or about June 22, 1987, the Alleged Debtors filed their answers to the involuntary petitions. In their answers: a) Caucus and Fusion denied that they were eligible to be debtors because of their eleemosynary status; b) all denied that they were not paying their debts as they became due; c) all asserted affirmatively that the petitions were defective because there were an insufficient number of petitioning creditors; d) all asserted affirmatively that the petitions arose out of a motive to assist the U.S. Government in its related criminal proceedings and thus were tainted with bad faith; and e) all asserted affirmatively that the petitions constituted prior restraints on the exercise of their right to freedom of speech in violation of the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution." -- Proposed Findings of Fact in cases 87-0795-A,87-0796-A,87-0797-A
  43. ^ "LaRouche Documents Destroyed", Associated Press, September 9, 1989
  44. ^ Howe, Robert, "Ruling May Help Appeal, LaRouche Backers Say," Washington Post, October 28, 1989[1]
  45. ^ http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/z_other_files/larouche_case/0103-misconduct.htm
  46. ^ The FOIA search turned up a memo by James Reynolds of General Litigation and Legal Advice Section of the Department of Justice, in which he writes, "Benefit is that a trustee is immediately appointed. They are ordered to shut down the business immediately." "He's a Bad Guy, But We Can't Say Why!" Schiller Institute website
  47. ^ "Ruling May Help Appeal, LaRouche Backers Say", Washington Post, October 28, 1989
  48. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p03s01-usju.html
  49. ^ "The defendants have indicated that they intend to defend this case by claiming vindictive prosecution, harassment by the government, and that their inability to repay loans was due to "financial warfare" brought against them by the government. ...There are several incidents into which it appears the defense intends to delve: prior FBI investigations; asserted infiltrations of the LaRouche organization by informants; other criminal and civil proceedings; and the institution of involuntary bankruptcy proceedings in this District. It is the position of the government that these incidents essentially are irrelevant." -- Government's Motion In Limine, United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al, Criminal No. 88-00243-A
  50. ^ "1. This is a case which has resulted in considerable publicity at both the local and national level... 2. The case involves defendants who have very strenuously expressed minority political opinion and the chance of prejudicial jurors as a result of these political briefs is substantial... According, the defendants move this court to allow them to file specific questions for the jury venire by Friday, November 18, 1988." -- Motion of the defendants for submission of questions to the jury venire, Criminal No. 88-00243-A
  51. ^ "And finally, permeating the proceedings was the District Court's own peculiar reluctance to credit appellants' concerns that their prosecution was politically motivated -- and, therefore, to take the necessary prophylactic steps at the stage of jury-selection to exclude improper political intervention or influence. All of these circumstances made it impossible for appellants' trial defense-team to discover enough about Horton to protest his seating on the jury." -- Brief Amici Curiae of Burton D. Linne, Jack O. Slater, and John C. Imlay IV
  52. ^ From court transcript, United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al
  53. ^ LaRouche Convicted Of Mail Fraud, By Caryle Murphy, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, December 17, 1988; Page A01 [2]
  54. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou6.htm
  55. ^ "Conservative Oilman Pays Rent For Larouche Estate", Associated Press. May 3, 1986
  56. ^ "LAROUCHE SAID TO DRAIN FUNDS FROM 3 FIRMS", William H. Welch, Richmond Times - Dispatch, April 22, 1987
  57. ^ "EX-AIDE: LAROUCHE EXTRAVAGANT", Chicago Tribune December 2, 1988
  58. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E7DF1339F937A15751C0A963948260
  59. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEFDB1E39F933A2575BC0A960948260
  60. ^ http://www.loudountimes.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=5798463&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=576934&rfi=8
  61. ^ "LaRouche Appeal Is Rebuffed by Supreme Court", Washington Post, July 4, 1989
  62. ^ http://www.subgenius.com/subg-digest/v0/0088.html
  63. ^ "Larouche Campaign Goes On Effort In Va. Raises More Than $200,000", Daily Press (Newport News, Va), June 3, 1990
  64. ^ Bakker, Jim, I Was Wrong, Thomas Nelson, 1996
  65. ^ "LaRouche Addresses His Youth Movement on the Subject of His Imprisonment," LaRouche PAC website
  66. ^ http://www.loudountimes.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=5798463&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=576934&rfi=8
  67. ^ "Court upholds convictions of LaRouche, 6 associates", Austin American Statesman, January 23, 1990
  68. ^ "Briefs Filed In Larouche Probe", Bill McKelway, "Richmond Times - Dispatch, February 28, 1987
  69. ^ "U.S. Supreme Court; All-white jury acceptable in murder suit, court says", USA TODAY, January 10, 1989
  70. ^ Boyd, Barbara, "The Human Rights Issues in the Virginia LaRouche Cases," American Almanac, August 10, 1998
  71. ^ Attorney General Responds to Editorial", Mary Sue Terry, Richmond Times Dispatch, December 21, 1991.
  72. ^ "Convicted LaRouche aide won't renounce his leader", Thomas J. Brazaitis, The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, Ohio, July 5, 1991.
  73. ^ Jury Convicts Fund-Raiser For Larouche", United Press International, April 6, 1989
  74. ^ "LaRouche Aide Is Convicted", The Washington Post, February 2, 1990
  75. ^ "3 More LaRouche Supporters Guilty of Fraud; Convictions in Securities Case Now Total 8; 8 Others Await Trial" Steve Bates, The Washington Post, January 8, 1991
  76. ^ Judge Rejects LaRouche Allegation", Washington Post, May 30, 1990
  77. ^ "LaRouche Supporter Goes to Jail", Washington Post, January 13, 1990
  78. ^ "Jury Convicts Top Larouche Fund-Raiser Of Securities Fraud", Associated Press, October 25, 1989
  79. ^ Boyd, Barbara, "The Human Rights Issues in the Virginia LaRouche Cases," American Almanac website
  80. ^ "Larouche Associate Dismisses Attorney" Richmond Times - Dispatch, September 26, 1989
  81. ^ "LaRouche Fund-Raiser Convicted", Richmond Times - Dispatch, October 25, 1989
  82. ^ "3 Larouche Workers Are Convicted Of Fraud", United Press International, September 1, 1989
  83. ^ "Fines For Larouche Groups Upheld", William F. Doherty, Boston Globe, July 3, 1986
  84. ^ "Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Agree To Hear Plea On Miranda", Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, October 17, 1989
  85. ^ "New LaRouche trial would violate defendants' rights, lawyer argues", Providence Journal, October 06, 1988
  86. ^ "Larouche Mounts Last-Ditch Bid For Hub Retrial", Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, March 22, 1989
  87. ^ Brief for the appellants, No. 89-5518, May 25, 1989
  88. ^ Edward Spannaus, Railroad!, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, Washington, D.C., 1989, OCLC 23870104, p. 9
  89. ^ Appeal, United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al No. 89-5518
  90. ^ United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of Prof. Dr. Albert Bleckmann, Amicus Curiea, No. 89-5518
  91. ^ United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of R. David Pembroke et al., Amici Curiea, No. 89-5518
  92. ^ United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of Lennart Hane, Amicus Curiea, No. 89-5518. Lennart Hane is a Swedish attorney and author of Smygande Diktatur (Creeping Dictatorship).
  93. ^ United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of Maitre Jacques Stul, Amicus Curiea, No. 89-5518. Stul is a French attorney who specializes in political causes.
  94. ^ "Supreme Court to Weigh First `Right-to-Die' Case", Newsday, July 4, 1989
  95. ^ "Appeals Court Upholds Convictions of LaRouche and Four Others", January 23, 1990, New York Times
  96. ^ "Appeals Court Upholds LaRouche Conviction on Mail Fraud, Conspiracy", Robert F. Howe, Washington Post, January 23, 1990
  97. ^ "Supreme Court Upholds LaRouche Convictions", June 12, 1990, Washington Post
  98. ^ U.S.A. VS. LYNDON LAROUCHE, 'He's a Bad Guy, But We Can't Say Why' by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., February 15, 2000 [3]
  99. ^ "Lyndon LaRouche Leaves Prison to Testify for Fund-Raiser", Washington Post, Alison Howard, May 24, 1990
  100. ^ "Judge Rejects LaRouche Allegation", Washington Post, May 30, 1990
  101. ^ The John Train 'Salon' - The Evidence of Criminal Fraud Filed with the Fourth Circuit Court, LaRouche in 2004 website
  102. ^ TESTIMONY OF THE SCHILLER INSTITUTE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE, published in Executive Intelligence Review, July 31, 1998
  103. ^ "IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF", United Nations Commission on Human Rights website, January 6, 1993
  104. ^ Clark, Ramsey. [4] "Open Letter to Janet Reno," posted on LaRouche presidential campaign website, 2004.
  105. ^ "SELECTED KEY FINDINGS OF EVIDENCE REVIEWED," LaRouche in 2004 website
  106. ^ Statement of Mann-Chestnut Commission, Schiller Institute press release, May 21, 1997

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_criminal_trials&oldid=178596335"