LaRouche criminal trials and Zunyi Conference: Difference between pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Mid-1980s: many citation errors. First, the page is singular, not plural in this case. Second, failure to use named refs, see WP:FN, samples only, attn needed throughout THE New York Times
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''Zunyi Conference''' was a meeting of the [[Communist Party of China]] (CPC) in January of [[1935]] during the [[Long March]]. This meeting involved a power struggle between the leadership of Bo Gu and [[Otto Braun]] and the opposition led by [[Mao Zedong]]. The result was that Mao left the meeting in position to take over military command and become the leader of the Communist Party. The conference was completely unacknowledged until the 1950's and still no detailed descriptions were available until the fiftieth anniversary in [[1985]].
{{LaRouche movement}}

In the mid-1980s, as the culmination of a series of federal and state investigations into the activities of American political activist [[Lyndon LaRouche]] and his associates, a number of criminal trials were held. There was a federal trial in [[Boston, Massachusetts]], another in [[Alexandria, Virginia]], and several state trials. While there were differences in the specific charges, the trials focused upon the allegation 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 and his supporters disputed the charges. They asserted that the federal government deliberately imposed an involuntary bankruptcy on the debtor entities. They indicated that the bankruptcy caused them to be unable to repay the loans, which then paved the way for them to be prosecuted. They claimed that the trials were politically motivated.

The first federal trial, held in Boston, involved twelve defendants. A variety of delays, including searches of the files of then-Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]] and [[Oliver North]] caused the trial to last for six months. The jurors hearing the case had been impaneled for eight months, and indicated to the judge that they were unwilling to continue for the three to six months of additional time that the judge estimated would be needed to complete the trial. The case ended in a mistrial.

A second federal trial on separate charges took place in Alexandria later the same year. Unlike the Boston case, the judge tried the case quickly. LaRouche himself was convicted of [[mail fraud]] in the case ''United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al'', while others associated with the movement received convictions for mail fraud, [[Conspiracy (crime)|conspiracy]], and [[tax evasion]]. LaRouche received a prison term of fifteen years, which began in 1989. He was paroled in 1994 after serving five years. Five of his associates were found guilty in the Virginia federal court trial, and sentenced from three to five years. Thirteen associates were found guilty in separate state trials in Virginia and New York, resulting in terms from one month to thirteen years. The Virginia state trials later were described as the highest-profile cases that the Attorney General's office ever had handled.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 08896127|pages = A.1|last = Edds|first = Margaret |title = James S. Gilmore Iii: Intense, All-Business Attorney General Already Has Stepped From Allen's Shadow|work = Virginian - Pilot|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1995-04-02}}</ref> Fourteen states ultimately placed injunctions on LaRouche-related organizations. Following LaRouche's conviction, the movement mounted unsuccessful efforts to exonerate him.


==Background==
==Background==
In August 1934, with the [[Red Army]] depleted by the prolonged [[Chinese Civil War]], a [[Mo Xiong|spy]] placed by Zhou Enlai in the [[Kuomintang|KMT]] army headquarters in Nanchang brought news that Chiang Kai-shek was preparing a major offensive against the Communist capital, Ruijin. The Communist leadership decided on a strategic retreat to regroup with other Communist units, and to avoid annihilation. The original plan was for the First Red Army to link up with the Second Red Army commanded by [[He Long]], thought to be in [[Hubei]] to the west and north. Communications between divided groups of the Red Army had been disrupted by the Kuomintang campaign, and during the planning to evacuate Jiangxi, the First Red Army was unaware that these other Communist forces were also retreating westward.
Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Lyndon LaRouche formed a variety of political organizations, including the [[U.S. Labor Party]] and the National Democratic Policy Committee.<ref>{{citeweb|accessdate=2008-08-27|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou6.htm|title=LaRouche Convicted Of Mail Fraud|publisher=The Washington Post Online|date=December 17, 1988|author=Caryle Murphy}}</ref> These organizations served as the platforms for [[Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns|presidential campaigns by LaRouche]] starting in 1976,<ref>{{citeweb|accessdate=2008-08-27|title=Group Makes Political Inroads|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou5.htm|publisher=The Washington Post Online|date=January 13, 1985|author=John Mintz}}</ref> and by his followers in scores of local races. Their greatest electoral success came in 1986 when two supporters, [[Janice Hart]] and Mark J. Fairchild, won the Democratic Party nominations for [[Illinois]] [[Secretary of State]] and [[Lieutenant Governor]].<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.8|first = AP|title = Around The Nation; LaRouche Backers Lose Illinois Court Round|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-07-29}}</ref> Both lost in the general election later the same year. Also in 1986, the "Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee" (PANIC) got an [[initiative]] on the California ballot, [[California Proposition 64 (1986)|Prop. 64]] also known as the "LaRouche Initiative", that attracted widespread opposition and was defeated in November. The ''Survey of Jewish Affairs, 1987'' called the LaRouche movement one of the two most prominent "extremist political groups" of 1986.<ref>{{cite book |title=Survey of Jewish Affairs, 1987 |last=Frankel |first=William |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1988 |publisher= Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press|location= |isbn=9780838633229|url= http://books.google.com/books?id=9IMiLBWqCsAC&pg=PA202 |pages= p.202}}</ref>

==Investigations==
===Early 1980s===
[[Image:Henry Kissinger.jpg|thumb|Henry Kissinger, in 1976]]
According to arguments made by LaRouche's attorneys in later appeals, the government investigations were started in the 1960s under the FBI's [[COINTELPRO]] program (''see [[LaRouche conspiracy trials#Appeals|appeals]]''). Edward Spannaus, a defendant in the trials, further notes that there was a memorandum written on January 12, 1983, by former [[FBI]] chief [[William Hedgcock Webster|William Webster]] to Oliver "Buck" Revell, head of the Bureau's General Investigative Division. It requested information on the funding of LaRouche and the [[U.S. Labor Party]], including whether the U.S. Labor Party might be funded by hostile intelligence agencies. The LaRouche organization asserts that this formulation was specifically tailored to enable FBI "active measures" against LaRouche under [[Executive Order 12333]], which permits such measures if a political movement receives foreign funding.<ref>{{Cite web| title = Schiller Institute--Introduction: Has your neighbor been brainwashed about Lyndon LaRouche?| accessdate = 2008-10-11| url = http://www.schillerinstitute.org/exon/exon_add2_train.html}}</ref> The memo was eventually obtained by LaRouche's attorneys and submitted as an exhibit in the Boston trial.

In August 1982, former [[Secretary of State]] [[Henry Kissinger]] sent a memo to Webster requesting an investigation of the LaRouche movement due to their "increasingly obnoxious" harassment of him,<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = B.5|first = AP|title = LaRouche Lawyers Introduce Three Kissinger-F.B.I. Letters|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-03-18}}</ref> which was raised at a meeting that day of the [[President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board]] by senior member [[David Abshire]].<ref>{{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=306}}</ref><ref>"Richard Mellon Scaife: Who Is He Really?",Edward Spannaus, ''The Executive Intelligence Review'' a series printed beginning March 21, 1997.[http://american_almanac.tripod.com/scaife.htm]</ref> Revell replied to Kissinger that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = B.5|first = AP|title = LaRouche Lawyers Introduce Three Kissinger-F.B.I. Letters|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-03-18}}</ref> The FBI conducted an investigation that ultimately could not find any evidence of a violation of Kissinger's civil rights. The investigation was closed in late 1983.<ref>"Kissinger asked FBI to look at LaRouche", [[Jack Anderson]], published in ''The Frederick Post'', March 29, 1985</ref>

===Mid-1980s===
In the mid-1980s, the U.S. government and eleven states began investigations into alleged financial improprieties by LaRouche groups. A federal [[grand jury]] reportedly began investigating "an extensive nationwide pattern of credit card fraud" by LaRouche organizations in November 1984.<ref name=BrinkleyB7/> That same year a New Jersey bank froze the accounts of LaRouche's 1984 presidential campaign due to allegedly fraudulent credit-card charges.<ref name=autogenerated2>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|page = A.28|title = Abrams Files LaRouche Lawsuit|work = The New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-10-29}}</ref>

[[Image:Portrait webster HSAC.jpg|thumb|left|William Webster, FBI Director]]
In January 1985 the 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 totaled over $20&nbsp;million.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|page = A.15|first = AP|title = LaRouche Groups to Appeal|work = The New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-03-05|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DD133FF936A35750C0A961948260}}</ref> The same grand jury questioned Elliot I. Greenspan, an official of Caucus Distributors Inc,<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|page = 30|last = Doherty|first = William F.|title = Four LaRouche Organizations Appeal Contempt Findings, Fines|work = The Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-04-09}}</ref> who pleaded the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. He was granted immunity and compelled to testify but only did so after being jailed for contempt for two days.<ref name=JailedMan72>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|page = 72|title = Jailed Man Decides To Testify, Is Freed|work = The Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1985-10-25}}</ref> A spokesman for LaRouche called in the investigation "a political terror operation."<ref name=JailedMan72/>

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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.21|first = AP|title = 16 LaRouche Aides Indicted For Fraud|work = The New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-02-18}}</ref> The FBI, IRS, FEC<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A.2|last = Osborne|first = William|title = Gifts to LaRouche are probed: San Diego widow loaned $34,300 to L.A. group|work = The San Diego Union|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-04-08}}</ref> and personnel of other federal agencies were conducting separate 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.<ref name=autogenerated2 /> [[William Weld]], the future Massachusetts governor who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, announced in January of 1986 that he would convene a national conference "to coordinate a prosecutive and investigative effort" against LaRouche. The conference was held the following month in Boston.<ref>{{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=236}}</ref> Three states, Alaska, Indiana, and Maryland, banned fundraising by Caucus Distributors Inc. in May 1986, due to the sale of unregistered promissory notes.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|page = A.24|first = AP|title = 3 States Bar Activities By LaRouche Concern|work = The New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-05-20}}</ref> The Illinois Secretary of State began civil proceedings against Caucus Distributors Inc. in June 1986, seeking an injunction to bar deceptive business practices.<ref>{{Cite news|page = 18|last = Sweet|first = Lynn|title = LaRouchies back - new name, home|work = Chicago Sun - Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-10-25}}</ref> Minnesota officials banned "Independent Democrats for LaRouche" from fundraising, an order that was confirmed on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|page = d.04|title = Loss for LaRouche Group|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-01-10}}</ref>

LaRouche lawyers filed a series of related civil suits against individuals, agencies, and businesses. They sued Weld and former Attorney General [[William French Smith]] to try to stop the FBI investigation of the credit card case.<ref name=BrinkleyB7/> 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.<ref name=BrinkleyB7>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|page = B.7|first = Joel|last = Brinkley|title = LaRouche Groups' Debt To U.S. Mounts Daily|work = The New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-05-19}}</ref>

==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, [[Internal Revenue Service|IRS]], other federal agencies, and Virginia state authorities, supported by armored cars and a helicopter. The agents also surrounded the heavily guarded estate,<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 10747109|pages = 1|title = Jury finds LaRouche guilty in conspiracy and mail fraud plot|work = Houston Chronicle|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-12-17}}</ref> where LaRouche was living, for the duration of the search, but did not enter it.<ref>{{cite web|title=''National Democratic Policy Committee, Petitioner V. United States Of America''|accessdate=2008-08-09|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1989/sg890463.txt}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news| last = LaRouche, Jr.| first = Lyndon H.| title = The Night They Came To Kill Me| work = Executive Intelligence Review| accessdate = 2008-10-12| date = 2004-03-12| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20040314173000/http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2004/3110nite_they_came.html}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = c.03|last = Mintz|first = John|title = Prosecutor Moves to Disarm LaRouche Guards; Lawyer for Security Men Tells Judge They Would Not Resist Law Enforcement Officers|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-01-31}}</ref> However, he later assured that he would comply peaceably with any warrant.<ref>"Prosecutor Moves to Disarm LaRouche Guards; Lawyer for Security Men Tells Judge They Would Not Resist Law Enforcement Officers;" John Mintz. ''The Washington Post'' Washington, D.C.: Jan 31, 1987. pg. c.03</ref> LaRouche offices in [[Quincy, Massachusetts]] were searched as well.
[[Image:Gorbachev (cropped) 186420.jpg|thumb|Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990]]
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]]."<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A-1|last = Reid|first = Christine|title = 10 LAROUCHE ASSOCIATES FACE FRAUD COUNTS; OFFICES RAIDED|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-10-07}}</ref> LaRouche later said that the Soviet premiere had ordered the raid as part of an assassination attempt. "The man with the [[mark of the beast]] on his head, [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Mikhail Gorbachov]] (sic), has demanded my elimination," said LaRouche.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 04583035|pages = 1|last = Roderick|first = Kevin|title = Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces|work = Los Angeles Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-10-14}}</ref> In his 1987 autobiography, he wrote that the raid was ordered by [[Raisa Gorbachev]], whom he described as outranking her husband in the [[nomenklatura]] due to her leadership of the Soviet Cultural Fund.<ref>''The Power of Reason: 1988'', an autobiography by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., 1987, Executive Intelligence Review, Designed by World Composition Services, ISBN 0-943235-00-6, p. 309</ref>

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. Authorities charged them with making unauthorized credit charges that defrauded $1&nbsp;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. The indictment quoted LaRouche 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."<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.1|last = Shenon|first = Philip|title = U.S. Charges Aides To LaRouche With Credit-Card Fraud Scheme|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-10-07}}</ref> Three of the indicted associates remained at large for over a year,<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.25|first = AP|title = Prosecutor Links Fraud To LaRouche|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-12-18}}</ref> and investigators were allegedly given false information. On June 30, 1987, the U.S. grand jury in Boston indicted LaRouche on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.8|last = Wald|first = Matthew L.|title = LaRouche Indicted In Plot To Block Inquiry On Fraud|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-07-03}}</ref>

Meanwhile the state cases were progressing. On February 16, 1987, the Commonwealth of Virginia indicted 16 LaRouche associates on securities fraud and other felonies.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.21|first = AP|title = 16 LaRouche Aides Indicted For Fraud|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-02-18}}</ref> On March 3, 1987, the State of New York indicted 15 LaRouche associates on charges of grand larceny and securities fraud.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Blair|first=Wiliam G. |title = 12 Lyndon Larouche Supporters Are Arrested On Fraud Charges|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-03-19}}</ref>

==Boston trials==
===Frankhouser trial===
[[Image:Boston Post Office and Courthouse.jpg|thumb|The John W. McCormack Post Office & Courthouse in downtown Boston.]]
The opening of the Boston trial, before United States District Judge [[Robert Keeton]], was planned for September 1985 but was delayed to December when one of the defendants, Roy Frankhouser, was granted a severance of his case which was tried first.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.18|title = Judge Postpones Trial Of Lyndon LaRouche|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-10-21|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6D91638F932A15753C1A961948260}}</ref>
Frankhouser had been an informant for the [[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives|ATF]] and other law enforcement agencies, in addition to being a [[neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]] and a former Pennsylvania [[Ku Klux Klan]] grand dragon.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = B.17|last = Wald|first = Matthew |title = LaRouche Taken In By Aide, Trial Told|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-12-10}}</ref> Frankhouser became a security consultant for LaRouche after convincing him that he was actively connected to U.S. intelligence agencies.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.18|last = Mintz|first = John|title = Defense Calls LaRouche, Followers `Most Annoying'; Trial Begins for Leesburg Group Accused of Obstructing Probe Into Its Fund-Raising|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-12-18}}</ref>

Frankhouser revealed that, in order to justify his $700 a week salary, he and LaRouche security employee Forrest Lee Fick had invented a connection to the CIA.<ref>"Frankhouser 'Broken' By Arrest In Larouche Probe", John Clark and Mike Weibel, ''Morning Call'', January 18, 1987</ref> 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.<ref>"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</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.10|last = Mintz|first = John|title = Judge Delays Trials of LaRouche, Six Associates; Case of Former Ku Klux Klan Leader Frankhouser Is Severed and Will Be Tried First|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-10-21}}</ref> 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.<ref>"Larouche Taken In By Aide, Trial Told", Matthew L. Wald, ''New York Times''. New York, N.Y.: Dec 10, 1987. pg. B.17</ref> LaRouche was called as a defense witness in Frankhouser's trial but he refused to testify, exercising his [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] right to avoid self-incrimination.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|pages = 67|last = Doherty|first = William F. |title = LaRouche Takes Fifth At Former Aide's Trial Probe Of Credit Scheme Prompted Charges|work = Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-11-17}}</ref> Roy Frankhouser was found guilty of obstruction of the federal investigation into credit-card fraud.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.30|first = AP|title = Aide To LaRouche Guilty In A Plot|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-12-11}}</ref> He was sentenced to three years and a $50,000 fine.<ref>"Frankhouser Seized By FBI In Reading On Firearms Charges Police", ''Morning Call'', October 6, 1988</ref> After his conviction he was granted immunity against further prosecution and compelled to testify against LaRouche in the Boston trial.<ref>"Defense Calls LaRouche, Followers `Most Annoying'; Trial Begins for
Leesburg Group Accused of Obstructing Probe Into Its Fund-Raising" John Mintz. The ''Washington Post'' Washington, D.C.: Dec 18, 1987. pg. a.18</ref>

===Main trial===
[[Image:Oliver North 2 cropped.jpg|thumb|Oliver North in 2005]]
The trial of LaRouche and his six co-defendants began on December 17, 1987, although the jury had been picked in September. The 12 defense lawyers made 400 pretrial motions.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.14|last = Murphy|first = Caryle|title = LaRouche's Va. Trial Expected to Be Speedy; Alexandria's `Rocket Docket' Federal Court Contrasts With Site of Boston Proceeding|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-11-20}}</ref> 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 case was 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|pages = 74|last = Doherty|first =William F. |title = LaRouche Called Donors 'Slime,' Prosecution Says|work = Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-12-18}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.06|last = Mintz|first = John|title = Trial of LaRouche and 7 Aides May Be Delayed; Case of One Defendant May Be Severed, Heard First in Boston Federal Court|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-10-20}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.14|last = Mintz|first = John|title = Jury Selection Begins in LaRouche Fraud Case; Lawyers Say Trial, Which Could Last 3 Months, Promises to Be One of the Strangest|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-09-22}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.17|first = AP|title = LaRouche Lawyers Seek North's Notebooks|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-04-07|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1D8103AF934A35757C0A96E948260}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web | title = It's Time for Truth-In-Justice in Virginia: The LaRouche Cases in Virginia| accessdate = 2008-10-12| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20071114022738/http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add4_virginia.html }}</ref> After this memo surfaced, Judge Keeton ordered a search of Vice President [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush]]'s office for documents relating to LaRouche.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07459696|pages = A.17|last = King|first = John|title = LaRouche Trial Slows Over Claims Of Infiltration|work = Seattle Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-03-13}}</ref>
[[Image:VP Bush 1981.jpg|thumb|left|Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]] in 1981]]

Originally expected to last from three to six months, delays stretched the trial out much longer. Another delay came when the trial was halted to give time for the FBI to search their files for exculpatory documents.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = 1.9|first = AP|title = LaRouche Trial Delayed As Judge Orders Search Of Federal Records|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-03-12|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6D81338F931A25750C0A96E948260}}</ref> The trial was delayed again when federal agents seized LaRouche properties as part of the involuntary bankruptcy procedure in 1988.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = D.28|first = AP|title = LaRouche Aides Given Delay|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-05-05 |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DF1439F936A35756C0A961948260}}</ref>

One local reporter called the Boston trial a "long, complex and costly multidefendant extravaganza".<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|pages = 34|last =Doherty|first = William F.|title = LaRouche Trial Is Latest In String Of Costly Courtroom Extravaganzas|work = Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-12-27}}</ref> 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.<ref name=autogenerated4>{{Cite news|issn = 04583035|pages = 27|title = Jurors Excused, Cause LaRouche Mistrial|work = Los Angeles Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-05-05}}</ref> 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.'" At the time of the mistrial, a LaRouche spokesperson said that the Constitutional Defense Fund, a LaRouche organization, had spent over $2&nbsp;million on legal and administrative expenses.<ref name=autogenerated4 /> Defense attorneys said they would appeal if the government sought a new trial.<ref name=autogenerated4 />

A retrial in Boston was scheduled for January 3, 1989,<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, Jr.; William Wertz; Edward Spannaus; Michael Billington; Dennis Small; Paul Greenberg; Joyce Rubinstein, Defendants-Appellants, |vol = 896 F.2d 815 |reporter = |opinion = |pinpoint = |court = United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |date = 1990-01-22 |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/896/896.F2d.815.89-5518.html}}</ref> but the charges were dismissed after the Alexandria convictions, over the objection of the LaRouche lawyers who said they were seeking vindication.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|pages = 58|first = AP|title = No LaRouche Trial, Rules Federal Judge|work = Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-03-03}}</ref> The Assistant U.S. Attorney who handled both the Boston and Alexandria 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."<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 04583035|pages = 4|title = Further LaRouche Charges Are Dropped|work = Los Angeles Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-01-29}}</ref>

==Involuntary bankruptcy==
In early April 1987, the government charged in court that LaRouche organizations may have been trying to sell properties for cash to more easily conceal their assets and avoid paying $21.4&nbsp;million in contempt of court fines.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 04583035|pages = 1|last = l.jackson|first = Robert|title = 3 Firms Linked to LaRouche Seized for Fines|work = Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext)|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-04-22}}</ref> 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 a rare procedure, the companies were seized before the bankruptcy came to trial.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 04583035|pages = 1|title = U.S. Agents Take Over 3 LaRouche Companies|work = Los Angeles Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-04-21}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A-12|last = McKelway|first = Bill|title = Legality Of Move By U.S. Is Argued|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-05-05}}</ref> The trustees later reported they were only able to locate about $86,000 in assets.<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A-12|last = McKelway|first = Bill|title = Legality Of Move By U.S. Is Argued|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-05-05}}</ref>

The bankruptcy halted the publication of a weekly newspaper, ''New Solidarity'', and a bi-monthly science magazine, ''Fusion''. At least one publication, ''[[21st Century Science and Technology|Fusion]]'', was reborn with a new name but the same editor and material.<ref>{{citation | last = McDonald | first = Amy | year = 1988 | title = AIDS Seen As Job Hazard in Some Labs | journal = Science | volume = 2 | issue = 1 | url = http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/8192/}}</ref>

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.<ref>"Proposed Findings of Fact in cases 87-0795-A,87-0796-A,87-0797-A", published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref></ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite news|last=AP |title = Larouche Documents Destroyed|work = Daily Press|location=Newport News, Va.|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-09-09|page=B4}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.08|last = Howe|first = Robert|title = Ruling May Help Appeal, LaRouche Backers Say|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-10-28|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1219810.html}}</ref> Bostetter said the government's actions amounted to bad faith regardless of whether government agents and attorneys had intended this outcome. He found that the government's actions and representations in obtaining the bankruptcy had the effect of misleading the court as to the status of the organization, leading to a "constructive fraud on the court."<ref>{{cite web|title=The Summary of Relevant Evidence on The Record Demonstrating Innocence of LaRouche, et al.|accessdate=2008-08-09|url=http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon2.html
}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, Jr.; William F. Wertz, Jr.; Edward W. Spannaus, Defendants-Appellants |vol = 4 F.3d 987 |reporter = |opinion = |pinpoint = |court = United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |date = 1993-09-13 |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4/4.F3d.987.92-6701.html }}</ref>

The LaRouche organization asserts that it has proof, obtained under the [[Freedom of Information Act]], which shows that the purpose of the bankruptcy was simply to shut down the affected entities rather than to collect fines.<ref>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." {{Cite web| title = Schiller Institute--LaRouche—Bad Guy, But We Can't Say Why| accessdate = 2008-10-12| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20020615190445/http://schillerinstitute.org/exon/lar_bad_guy.html}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.08|last = Howe|first = Robert|title = Ruling May Help Appeal, LaRouche Backers Say|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-10-28}}</ref>

==Alexandria trial==
[[Image:Old Alexandria District Federal Courthouse.jpg|thumb|U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. It is now the Martin VB Bostetter Courthouse, handling bankruptcy cases.]]
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.<ref>{{Cite news|pages = B-7|last = Green|first = Frank|title = Clark Joins Motion Seeking Bond For LaRouche Appeal|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-04-07}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|issn = 08827729|pages = 03|last = Stern|first = Seth|title = Terror trials head for Virginia 'rocket docket'|work = Christian Science Monitor|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 2002-02-06|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p03s01-usju.html}}</ref> The indictments included various [[Conspiracy (crime)|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.

===Preliminary motions===

Judge 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 that 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.<ref>Government's Motion In Limine, United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al, Criminal No. 88-00243-A, published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref>

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. The court rejected the appeal.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, Jr.; William F. Wertz, Jr.; Edward W. Spannaus, Defendants-Appellants |vol = 4 F.3d 987 |reporter = |opinion = |pinpoint = |court = United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |date = 1993-09-13 |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4/4.F3d.987.92-6701.html }}</ref>

A defense motion to conduct ''[[Venire#United_States|voir dire in jury selection]]'' in the second trial was denied.<ref>Motion of the defendants for submission of questions to the jury venire, Criminal No. 88-00243-A, published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref> An ''[[amicus curiae]]'' brief, one of many filed on appeal, charged that, unlike Judge Keeton who devoted three weeks to jury selection, Alexandria Judge 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).<ref>''Brief Amici Curiae of Burton D. Linne, Jack O. Slater, and John C. Imlay IV'', published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref> This appeal was later rejected.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, Jr.; William F. Wertz, Jr.; Edward W. Spannaus, Defendants-Appellants |vol = 4 F.3d 987 |reporter = |opinion = |pinpoint = |court = United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |date = 1993-09-13 |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4/4.F3d.987.92-6701.html }}</ref>

===Trial===
The prosecution presented evidence that LaRouche and his staff solicited loans with false assurances to potential lenders and showed "reckless disregard for the truth".<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.46|last = Murphy|first = Caryle|title = LaRouche Trial Hears Closing Arguments|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-12-15}}</ref> Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson presented evidence that LaRouche's organization had solicited US$34&nbsp;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."<ref>From court transcript, ''United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al'', published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref>

The most important evidence was the testimony of lenders,<ref name=autogenerated1 /> many of them elderly retirees, who had loaned a total of $661,300 to help LaRouche fight the "war on drugs" but only received $10,000 in repayment.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> One of the prosecutors, John Markham, said those loans represented "just a very small portion of unrepaid borrowing". Other testimony asserted that, as of 1987, half of the $4&nbsp;million borrowed by the 1984 presidential campaign was unpaid, and that only $5&nbsp;million had been repaid out of $30&nbsp;million in non-campaign loans.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> LaRouche supporters claim the unrepaid amount was $294,000, but according to testimony at trial the amount owed by 1987 topped $25&nbsp;million.<ref name=autogenerated1>LaRouche Convicted Of Mail Fraud, By Caryle Murphy, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, December 17, 1988; Page A01 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou6.htm]</ref>

Several witnesses were LaRouche followers who testified under immunity from prosecution.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.01|last = Murphy|first = Caryle|title = LaRouche Convicted of Mail Fraud; 6 Associates of Extremist Also Found Guilty in Loan Solicitations|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-12-17}}</ref> A former fundraiser testified that he was told, "No matter what the person you are talking to says, get the money. [...] If you are talking to an unemployed worker who says he has got to feed ... a dozen children, forget it. Get the money. Most of these people are immoral anyway. This is the most moral thing they have ever done is to give you money."<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, Jr.; William Wertz; Edward Spannaus; Michael Billington; Dennis Small; Paul Greenberg; Joyce Rubinstein, Defendants-Appellants, |vol = 896 F.2d 815 |reporter = |opinion = |pinpoint = |court = United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |date = 1990-01-22 |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/896/896.F2d.815.89-5518.html}}</ref>

None of the defendants testified.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, Jr.; William Wertz; Edward Spannaus; Michael Billington; Dennis Small; Paul Greenberg; Joyce Rubinstein, Defendants-Appellants, |vol = 896 F.2d 815 |reporter = |opinion = |pinpoint = |court = United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |date = 1990-01-22 |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/896/896.F2d.815.89-5518.html}}</ref> Outside of court, 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."<ref>{{cite web
|last=Murphy
|first=Caryle
|title=LaRouche Convicted Of Mail Fraud
|accessdate=2008-08-09
|date=1988-12-17
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou6.htm
}}
</ref>

===Income tax===
[[Image:Helga Zepp-LaRouche.jpg|thumb|[[Helga Zepp-LaRouche]] in 2006]]
One of the charges against LaRouche was that he had conspired to avoid paying income tax, not having filed a return in ten years.<ref>{{Cite news|last=AP |title =Conservative Oilman Pays Rent For Larouche Estate|work = Sun Sentinel|location=Fort Lauderdale.|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = May 3, 1986|page=6.A}}</ref> LaRouche claimed to have had no income. LaRouche lived on a 172-acre (700,000&nbsp;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&nbsp;million, with LaRouche organizations paying rent to cover the $9,605 mortgage.<ref>{{Cite news|last=AP |title =Conservative Oilman Pays Rent For Larouche Estate|work = Sun Sentinel|location=Fort Lauderdale.|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = May 3, 1986|page=6.A}}</ref> LaRouche had named the property "Ibykus Farm" after a work by [[Friedrich Schiller]].<ref>{{Cite news|pages = 1|last = H.Welch|first = William|title = LaRouche Said To Drain Funds From 3 Firms|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-04-22}}</ref> His wife, [[Helga LaRouche]], is reported to have overseen hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations to the property.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 10856706|pages = 13|last = Associated Press |title = Ex-Aide: LaRouche Extravagant|work = Chicago Tribune|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-12-02}}</ref> In all, the LaRouche group spent over US$4&nbsp;million on Virginia real estate during this period, according to trial testimony.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> The LaRouche defense argued that Ibykus Farm was a "[[safehouse]]" needed for the security of LaRouche and others.<ref>{{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=47}}</ref> The government argued that security expenditures were "misplaced priorities."<ref>{{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=51}}</ref>

In 1985, a judge in a separate case had described LaRouche's testimony about being almost penniless as "completely lacking in credibility".<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.20|first = AP|title = Around The Nation; Judgment Is Reduced In LaRouche-NBC Case|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1985-02-24}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.24|first = AP|title = Court Fines LaRouche $2,000 For Not Answering Questions|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-08-10}}</ref>

===Conviction and imprisonment===
On December 16, 1988,<ref name=autogenerated3>{{cite web|last=Casey|first=Martin|title=Campaign draws attention to LaRouche Nancy Spannaus uses his sound bites|work=Loudoun Times|accessdate=2008-08-09
|date=2002-10-30|url=http://www.loudountimes.com/news/2002/oct/30/campaign-draws-attention-to-larouchebr-smallnancy-/}}</ref> LaRouche was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud involving more than $30&nbsp;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."<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = b.05|title = LaRouche Appeal Is Rebuffed by Supreme Court|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-07-04}}</ref>
Jury foreman Buster Horton told the ''Washington Post'' that it was the failure of LaRouche aides to repay loans which swayed the jury in the Virginia case. He said 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."<ref name=autogenerated1 />

While in prison LaRouche released claims that he was tortured as part of an assassination attempt.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Volume0: SubGenius Digest #268
|accessdate=2008-08-09
|url=http://www.subgenius.com/subg-digest/v0/0088.html
}}
</ref> LaRouche ran two political campaigns from prison: for Virginia's 10th Congressional District in 1990 and for U.S. President in 1992.<ref>"Larouche Campaign Goes On Effort In Va. Raises More Than $200,000", ''Daily Press'' (Newport News, Va), June 3, 1990</ref> One of his cellmates during his incarceration at the [[Federal Medical Center, Rochester]] in Minnesota was televangelist [[Jim Bakker]]. Bakker later devoted a chapter of his book, ''I Was Wrong'', to his experience with LaRouche.<ref>{{Citation | last = Bakker| first = Jim |first2=Ken|last2=Abraham | year = 1996 | title = I was wrong | isbn = 0785274251 | publisher = T. Nelson | location = Nashville | oclc = 35675533}}</ref></ref><ref>{{Cite news|title =Larouche Set To Run Again After Walking Out Of Prison|work =Orlando Sentinel||accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = January 27, 1994|page=A.12}}</ref> LaRouche also befriended [[Richard Miller (agent)|Richard Miller]], a former FBI agent and fellow inmate who was imprisoned on espionage charges.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 04583035|pages = 1|last = Weinstein|first = Henry|title = Gave Soviets Nothing, Miller Says Espionage: The former FBI agent says his relationship with a Russian woman spy was `the dumbest thing I did in my whole life.'|work = Los Angeles Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-12-08}}</ref> LaRouche was paroled in 1994 after serving five years of the 15-year sentence, the normal schedule for parole at that time. LaRouche commented later that "...in effect, George H.W. Bush put me in the jug, and Bill Clinton got me out."<ref>{{Cite web| title = LaRouche Addresses His Youth Movement on the Subject of His Imprisonment | LaRouche Political Action Committee| work = LaRouche Political Action Committee| accessdate = 2008-10-12| date = 2005-07-23| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20070927011642/http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/speeches_file/2005/050723_wc_cadre.htm}}</ref>

==Prosecution of LaRouche associates==
===Alexandria federal trial===
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 (activist)|Michael Billington]], and Joyce Rubinstein, were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Wertz and Spannaus were sentenced to five years imprisonment each, with Spannaus serving a total of two and a half years until his release from custody.<ref name=autogenerated3 /> Both were fined $10,000.<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A.4|title = Court upholds convictions of LaRouche, 6 associates|work = Austin American Statesman|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1990-01-23}}</ref> The others received three-year terms and various fines.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 04583035|pages = 1|title = LaRouche Gets 15 Years for Cheating His Backers, IRS 6 Aides Also Get Prison Terms, Fines|work = Los Angeles Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-01-27}}</ref>

===State trials===
The Attorney General of Virginia, [[Mary Sue Terry]], prosecuted eight LaRouche associates on securities fraud charges relating to $30&nbsp;million in loans. The first trials were in Leesburg, but later trials were held in the larger city of [[Roanoke, Virginia|Roanoke]]. In order for the prosecutions to proceed, it was necessary to get 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 to the United States Constitution|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.<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A-1|last = McKelway|first = Bill|title = SCC Enjoins LaRouche Groups|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-03-05}}</ref> Five other states had already issued injunctions,<ref>{{Cite news|pages = B-8|last = McKelway|first = Bill|title = Briefs Filed In LaRouche Probe|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1987-02-28}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07347456|pages = 06.a|title = U.S. Supreme Court;All-white jury acceptable in murder suit, court says|work = USA TODAY|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-01-10}}</ref>

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."<ref>{{Cite news| last = Boyd| first = Barbara| title = The Human Rights Issues in the Virginia LaRouche Cases| work = American Almanac| accessdate = 2008-10-12| date = 1998-08-10| url = http://american_almanac.tripod.com/boyd.htm}}</ref> Boyd asserts that the SCC 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 nominated as Virginia's first woman Supreme Court Justice, and then refused to recuse herself from the case that had resulted from her decision.<ref>{{Cite news| last = Boyd| first = Barbara| title = The Human Rights Issues in the Virginia LaRouche Cases| work = American Almanac| accessdate = 2008-10-12| date = 1998-08-10| url = http://american_almanac.tripod.com/boyd.htm}}</ref>

Six of LaRouche associates were convicted and two pleaded guilty.<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A-12|last = Terry|first = Mary Sue|title = Attorney General Responds To Editorial|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1991-12-21}}</ref> Rochelle Ascher, a fundraiser, was sentenced in Leesburg 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.<ref>{{Cite news|last = J. Brazaitis|first = Thomas|title = Convicted LaRouche aide won't renounce his leader|work = The Plain Dealer|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1991-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|pages = 27|last = United Press International |title = Jury Convicts Fund-Raiser For LaRouche|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-04-06}}</ref>

[[Image:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg|thumb|left|Michael Billington considered himself a political prisoner.]]
In two Roanoke trials, four other associates were found guilty of securities fraud charges: Donald Phau,<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = b.04|title = LaRouche Aide Is Convicted|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1990-02-02}}</ref> Lawrence Hecht, Paul Gallagher, and Anita Gallagher.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = d.02|last = Bates|first = Steve|title = 3 More LaRouche Supporters Guilty of Fraud; Convictions in Securities Case Now Total 8; 8 Others Await Trial|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1991-01-08}}</ref> Richard Welsh and Martha M. Quinde pleaded guilty and received 12 month and one month terms, respectively.<ref>
{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = d.04|title = Judge Rejects LaRouche Allegation|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1990-05-30}}</ref>

Michael Billington was charged in a Roanoke court with having solicited 131 loans totaling $1.24&nbsp;million from 85 people even when he knew that the loans would not be repaid.<ref>{{Cite news|last=AP|title =Jury Convicts Top Larouche Fund-Raiser Of Securities Fraud|work =Daily Press|location=Newport News, Va.|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = Oct 25, 1989|page=B.5}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news|last = J. Brazaitis|first = Thomas|coauthors = Plain Dealer Reporter|title = Convicted LaRouche aide won't renounce his leader|work = The Plain Dealer|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1991-07-05}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news| last = Boyd| first = Barbara| title = The Human Rights Issues in the Virginia LaRouche Cases| work = American Almanac| accessdate = 2008-10-12| date = 1998-08-10| url = http://american_almanac.tripod.com/boyd.htm}}</ref> His attorney, Brian Gettings, told the court that he believed LaRouche was making the decisions in the case rather than his client.<ref>{{Cite news|pages = C-5|last = United Press International|title = LaRouche Associate Dismisses Attorney|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-09-26}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{Cite news|pages = B-3|last = wiredispatches|first = From|title = LaRouche Fund-Raiser Convicted|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-10-25}}</ref>

A trial in New York state courts on charges of scheming to defraud resulted in the conviction of Robert Primack, Marielle Kronberg, and Lynne Speed.<ref>{{Cite news|pages = A-2|last = Press United International|title = 3 LaRouche Workers Are Convicted Of Fraud|work = Richmond Times - Dispatch|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-09-01}}</ref>

==Appeals==
[[Image:Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|Several decisions were appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]].]]
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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|pages = 46|last = Doherty|first = William F.|title = Fines For LaRouche Groups Upheld|work = Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1986-07-04}}</ref> It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who let the decision stand.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.21|last = Greenhouse|first = Linda |title = Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Agree To Hear Plea On Miranda|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-10-17}}</ref>

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]].<ref>
{{Cite news|pages = C-06|title = New LaRouche trial would violate defendants' rights, lawyer argues|work = Providence Journal|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1988-10-06}}</ref> Following the convictions in the Alexandria court, prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges from the Boston court, cancelling the retrial.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|pages = 58|first = AP|title = No LaRouche Trial, Rules Federal Judge|work = Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-03-03}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 07431791|pages = 22|last = Neuffer|first = Elizabeth |title = LaRouche Mounts Last-Ditch Bid For Hub Retrial|work = Boston Globe|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1989-03-22}}</ref>

A 1989 appeal filed by the LaRouche defendants argued that, due to the motion ''in limine'' 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."<ref>Brief for the appellants, No. 89-5518, May 25, 1989, published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref> In the pro-defense book ''Railroad!'' the authors write "...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."<ref>{{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=9}}</ref>

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."<ref>Appeal, ''United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al No. 89-5518'', published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyndon H. LAROUCHE, Jr.; William F. Wertz, Jr.; Edward W. Spannaus, Defendants-Appellants |vol = 4 F.3d 987 |reporter = |opinion = |pinpoint = |court = United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |date = 1993-09-13 |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4/4.F3d.987.92-6701.html }}</ref>

Numerous ''[[amicus curiae]]'' ("friend of the court") briefs were filed on appeal. One by 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.<ref>''United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of Prof. Dr. Albert Bleckmann, Amicus Curiea, No. 89-5518'', published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref> A similar brief was filed by over 100 American attorneys, and raised the additional issue of possible violation of [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] rights due to a rush to trial.<ref>''United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of R. David Pembroke et al., Amici Curiea, No. 89-5518'', published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref></ref> 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,<ref>''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).'', published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref> and that more generally, a "crime of thought seems to have been camouflaged as a common law crime."<ref>''United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of Maitre Jacques Stul, Amicus Curiea, No. 89-5518'', published in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}} Stul is a French attorney who specializes in political causes.</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite news|last=|title =Supreme Court to Weigh First 'Right-to-Die' Case|work =Newsday|location=|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = July 4, 1989|page=}}</ref>


Initially the First Red Army, with its baggage of top communist officials, records, currency reserves and other trapping of the exiled Chinese Soviet Republic, fought through several lightly defended Kuomintang checkpoints, crossing the Xinfeng river and through the province of [[Guangdong]], south of [[Hunan]] and into [[Guangxi]]. At the [[Xiang]] river, Chiang Kai-shek had reinforced the KMT defenses. In two days of bloody fighting, [[30 November]] to [[1 December]] [[1934]], the Red Army lost more than 40,000 troops and all of the civilian porters, and there were strongly-defended Nationalist defensive lines ahead. Personnel and material losses after the battle of the Xiang river affected the morale of the troops and desertions began. By a [[12 December]] [[1934]] meeting of Party leaders in Tongdao, discontent with [[Bo Gu]] and Otto Braun appeared. Under these conditions, the Communists met in [[Zunyi]] to reshuffle the Party politburo.
A three-judge panel of [[Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals]] unanimously confirmed the Alexandria convictions on January 23, 1990,<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 03624331|pages = A.21|first = AP|title = Appeals Court Upholds Convictions of LaRouche and Four Others|work = New York Times|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1990-01-23}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news| issn = 01908286| pages = a.08| last = Howe| first = Robert F.| title = Appeals Court Upholds LaRouche Conviction on Mail Fraud, Conspiracy| work = The Washington Post| accessdate = 2008-10-11| date = 1990-01-23}}</ref> Five months later the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = b.04|title = Supreme Court Upholds LaRouche Convictions|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1990-06-12|=url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/72595646.html?dids=72595646:72595646&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=&date=Jun+12%2C+1990&author=&desc=Supreme+Court+Upholds+LaRouche+Convictions}}</ref>


==Meeting==
==Claims of LaRouche supporters==
In January 1935, after the Red Army took over the city of Zunyi, a town of military importance in [[Guizhou]], [[Southwest China]], an enlarged meeting of the [[politburo]] of the CPC was held. It was once commonly thought to have be held from January 6-8, but now it is accepted to have taken place between January 15-17.
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 U.S. and other countries, insisted that LaRouche was jailed, not for any violation of the law, but for his beliefs (see [[#Attempts at exoneration|attempts at exoneration]].)
LaRouche also alleged systematic government misconduct:
<blockquote>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.<ref>{{Cite web| title = Schiller Institute--LaRouche—Bad Guy, But We Can't Say Why| accessdate = 2008-10-12| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20020615190445/http://schillerinstitute.org/exon/lar_bad_guy.html}}</ref></blockquote>
LaRouche and his lawyers 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.<ref>{{Cite news|issn = 01908286|pages = a.42|last = Howard|first = Alison|title = Lyndon LaRouche Leaves Prison to Testify for Fund-Raiser|work = The Washington Post|accessdate = 2008-10-04|date = 1990-05-24}}</ref> This claim stems from a series of meetings that LaRouche publications refer to as the [[John Train]] "Salon".<ref>{{Cite web| title = Schiller Institute--Introduction: Has your neighbor been brainwashed about Lyndon LaRouche?| accessdate = 2008-10-11| url = http://www.schillerinstitute.org/exon/exon_add2_train.html}}</ref>


The names and numbers of participants in the conference have always been disputed. These details are of importance to the largely Soviet view that elected members of the party were outvoted by non-members. Those who are most strongly agreed to have attended by all are Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, [[Chen Yun]], [[Liu Shaoqi]], Zhang Wentian, Bo Gu, [[Liu Bocheng]], [[Li Fuchun]], [[Lin Biao]], and [[Peng Dehuai]]. Chinese sources which show that non-members could not have outvoted members have the following participatipants:
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 [sic] 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>{{Cite web| title = Testimony Of The Schiller Institute Submitted To The Committee On The Judiciary, UnitedStates Senate| work = American Almanac| accessdate = 2008-10-12| date = 1998-07-13| url = http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dojtest.htm}}</ref>


* Politburo members: Mao Zadong, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chen Yun, Zhang Wentian, Bo Gu.
[[Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte]], a professor of [[constitutional law|constitutional]] and [[international law]] at the [[University of Mainz]] in Germany, compared the LaRouche trial to the [[Dreyfus affair]], which he called "a classical example of a political trial". He wrote, "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 ''Loudoun Times-Mirror'' of Loudon County, Virginia on March 2, and as a half-page ad in the ''[[Washington Post]]'' on March 3. Re-printed in {{Citation|editor-last = Spannous | editor-first = Edward| publisher = Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations| year = 1989 | title = Railroad!|oclc=23870104|p=}}</ref>
* Alternate politburo members: Wang Jiaxiang, Liu Shaoqi, Deng Fa, the notorious boss of the [[secret police]] for the CPC; Kai Feng (He Kequan), leader of CY.
* Generals: Liu Bocheng, Chief of Staff of Red Army; Li Fuchun, acting director of political department of Red Army (acting General Commissar); Lin Biao, and commander of 1st Field Army ; Peng Dehuai, commander of 3rd Field Army; [[Nie Rongzhen]], Lin's commissar [[Yang Shangkun]], Peng's commissar and another member of 28 Bolsheviks; and Li Zhouran.
* Secretariat and chief editor of the CPC newspaper, the Red Star [[Deng Xiaoping]].
* [[Otto Braun (Li De)]] and his [[Interpreting|interpreter]] Wu Xiuquan.


Various scholars dispute the attendance of Chen Yun, Liu Shaoqi, Wang Jiaxiang, He Kequan, Deng Fa, Nie Rongzhen, and Deng Xiaoping. On the other hand, Liang Botai, Wu Liangping, Teng Daiyuan, Li Weihan, Wang Shoudao, and Yang Shangkun are also held to have attended by some sources.
===Attempts at exoneration===
[[Image:Ramsey Clark in Nandigram cropped.jpg|thumb|[[Ramsey Clark]] in 2007]]
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 U.S. Government based on a complaint that had been filed concerning the LaRouche case. The U.S. government responded by saying that LaRouche had been given due process under the laws of the United States. The U.N. Commission took no further action.<ref>{{Cite web | last = Angelo Vidal d'Almeida Ribeiro | title = Report by the Special Rapporteur| work = United Nations| accessdate = 2008-10-11| date = 1986-03-10| url = http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/Symbol/E.CN.4.1993.62.En?Opendocument}}</ref>


==Conference agenda and speeches==
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."<ref>{{Cite web| last = Clark| first = Ramsey | title = Letter from former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarkto Attorney General Janet Reno | work = LaRouche in 2004| accessdate = 2008-10-11| date = 1995-04-26| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20061221170153/http://larouchein2004.net/exoneration/clarkletter.htm}}</ref>


The main agenda of this conference was to examine the Party's failure in the Jiangxi region and to look at the options now available to them. Bo Gu was the first to speak with a general report. He acknowledged that the strategy used in Jiangxi had failed, without taking any blame. He claimed the lack of success was not due to poor planning. Next Zhou gave a report on the military situation in an apologietic style. In contrast to Bo, he admitted mistakes had been made. Then Zhang Wentian in a long critical oration, condemned the leaders for the debacle in Jiangxi. This was supported by Mao and Wang. Mao's comparative distance from power over the past two years had left him blameless of the recent failures and in a strong position to attack the leadership.
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,<ref>{{Cite web| title = The Curtis Clark Commission Findings:Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche | accessdate = 2008-10-11| date = 1994-09-03| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20031219040856/http://larouchein2004.net/exoneration/exonappendix1.htm}}</ref> and the [[Schiller Institute#Mann-Chestnut hearings|Mann-Chestnut hearings]].<ref>{{Cite web| title = STATEMENT OF MANN-CHESTNUT COMMISSION: Schiller Institute Press Release| accessdate = 2008-10-11| url = http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/1997/schiller_pr_04-21-97.html}}</ref>


Mao insisted that Bo Gu and Otto Braun had made fundamental military mistakes by using tactics of pure defense rather than initiating a more mobile war. Mao's supporters gained momentum during the meeting and Zhou Enlai eventually moved to back Mao. Under the principle of democracy for majority, the secretariat of the Central Committee and Central Revolution & Military Committee of CPC were reelected. Bo and Braun were demoted while Zhou maintained his position now sharing military command with Zhu De. Zhang Wentian took Bo's previous position while Mao once again joined the Central Committee.
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" its signatories included [[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]] [[United States Senate|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]].<ref>{{Cite web| title = Exonerate LaRouche| accessdate = 2008-10-11| url = http://web.archive.org/web/20040228111029/http://larouchein2004.net/exoneration/exonstatement.htm}}</ref><!--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.-->


The Zunyi Conference confirmed that the CPC should turn away from the 28 Bolsheviks and towards Mao. The Red Army regained its military power, survived in [[Yan'an]] and ultimately defeated the KMT with using a [[guerrilla]] strategy, and later through conventional warfare as it gained mass peasant support. It could be seen as a victory for those old CPC members who had their roots in China and, on the contrary, it was a great loss for those CPC members such as the 28 Bolsheviks who had studied in Moscow and had been trained by the Comintern and the [[Soviet Union]] and could be regarded as proteges or agents of Comintern accordingly. After the Zunyi Conference, the influence and involvement of the Comintern in CPC affairs was greatly reduced.
==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}


==External links==
==References==
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=meBsMli4JN4C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22zunyi+conference%22&source=web&ots=2WDec7sTR-&sig=5Uz8zR--gfFGl8m7vCeCbr5Q06U Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and the Evolution of the Chinese Communist Leadership]
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou3.htm ''Washington Post'' January 13, 1985 article on LaRouche mansion and unusual lifestyle]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=Z8v-v4IzBY0C&pg=RA1-PA407&lpg=RA1-PA407&dq=%22zunyi+conference%22&source=web&ots=tXNVH8RPiJ&sig=kIBwMS3RP3VOGkJJ1IP2h8lxZZ4 The Search for Modern China]
*[http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.Alexandria1 Transcript of sentencing proceedings - Alexandria, Va., January 27, 1989]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=fzVSkyaBIGEC&pg=PA91&dq=%22Zunyi+Conference%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=8bsVOMbODQJprkSlNQaG6kFbRco Mao]
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou7.htm ''Washington Post'' 12/23/90 article on elderly seeking repayment of loans]
*[http://www.etext.org/Politics/LaRouche/053092.tv "Why Lyndon LaRouche is in Jail"] ''transcript of a national broadcast paid for by LaRouche's presidential campaign in 1992''
*[http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/fascism33.htm "The World's Most Expensive Glass of Sherry,"] Chap. 33 from Dennis King's ''Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism''
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20040624014624/http://larouchein2004.net/exoneration/exonerate.htm Summary of the LaRouche cases] on a LaRouche-affiliated site
*[http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add2_train.html "The John Train Salon Delivered Perjured Testimony in the 'Get LaRouche' Trials,"] ''Executive Intelligence Review'' website
*[http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add1_train.html "The John Train Salon and the Evidence of Criminal Fraud Filed With the Fourth Circuit Court,"] ''Executive Intelligence Review'' website


[[Category:History of the People's Republic of China]]
[[Category:1935 in China]]
[[Category:History of Guizhou]]


[[de:Konferenz von Zunyi]]
[[Category:LaRouche movement]]
[[es:Reunión de Zunyi]]
[[Category:United States case law]]
[[ko:쭌이 회의]]
[[ja:遵義会議]]
[[zh:遵义会议]]

Revision as of 18:14, 12 October 2008

The Zunyi Conference was a meeting of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in January of 1935 during the Long March. This meeting involved a power struggle between the leadership of Bo Gu and Otto Braun and the opposition led by Mao Zedong. The result was that Mao left the meeting in position to take over military command and become the leader of the Communist Party. The conference was completely unacknowledged until the 1950's and still no detailed descriptions were available until the fiftieth anniversary in 1985.

Background

In August 1934, with the Red Army depleted by the prolonged Chinese Civil War, a spy placed by Zhou Enlai in the KMT army headquarters in Nanchang brought news that Chiang Kai-shek was preparing a major offensive against the Communist capital, Ruijin. The Communist leadership decided on a strategic retreat to regroup with other Communist units, and to avoid annihilation. The original plan was for the First Red Army to link up with the Second Red Army commanded by He Long, thought to be in Hubei to the west and north. Communications between divided groups of the Red Army had been disrupted by the Kuomintang campaign, and during the planning to evacuate Jiangxi, the First Red Army was unaware that these other Communist forces were also retreating westward.

Initially the First Red Army, with its baggage of top communist officials, records, currency reserves and other trapping of the exiled Chinese Soviet Republic, fought through several lightly defended Kuomintang checkpoints, crossing the Xinfeng river and through the province of Guangdong, south of Hunan and into Guangxi. At the Xiang river, Chiang Kai-shek had reinforced the KMT defenses. In two days of bloody fighting, 30 November to 1 December 1934, the Red Army lost more than 40,000 troops and all of the civilian porters, and there were strongly-defended Nationalist defensive lines ahead. Personnel and material losses after the battle of the Xiang river affected the morale of the troops and desertions began. By a 12 December 1934 meeting of Party leaders in Tongdao, discontent with Bo Gu and Otto Braun appeared. Under these conditions, the Communists met in Zunyi to reshuffle the Party politburo.

Meeting

In January 1935, after the Red Army took over the city of Zunyi, a town of military importance in Guizhou, Southwest China, an enlarged meeting of the politburo of the CPC was held. It was once commonly thought to have be held from January 6-8, but now it is accepted to have taken place between January 15-17.

The names and numbers of participants in the conference have always been disputed. These details are of importance to the largely Soviet view that elected members of the party were outvoted by non-members. Those who are most strongly agreed to have attended by all are Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chen Yun, Liu Shaoqi, Zhang Wentian, Bo Gu, Liu Bocheng, Li Fuchun, Lin Biao, and Peng Dehuai. Chinese sources which show that non-members could not have outvoted members have the following participatipants:

  • Politburo members: Mao Zadong, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chen Yun, Zhang Wentian, Bo Gu.
  • Alternate politburo members: Wang Jiaxiang, Liu Shaoqi, Deng Fa, the notorious boss of the secret police for the CPC; Kai Feng (He Kequan), leader of CY.
  • Generals: Liu Bocheng, Chief of Staff of Red Army; Li Fuchun, acting director of political department of Red Army (acting General Commissar); Lin Biao, and commander of 1st Field Army ; Peng Dehuai, commander of 3rd Field Army; Nie Rongzhen, Lin's commissar Yang Shangkun, Peng's commissar and another member of 28 Bolsheviks; and Li Zhouran.
  • Secretariat and chief editor of the CPC newspaper, the Red Star Deng Xiaoping.
  • Otto Braun (Li De) and his interpreter Wu Xiuquan.

Various scholars dispute the attendance of Chen Yun, Liu Shaoqi, Wang Jiaxiang, He Kequan, Deng Fa, Nie Rongzhen, and Deng Xiaoping. On the other hand, Liang Botai, Wu Liangping, Teng Daiyuan, Li Weihan, Wang Shoudao, and Yang Shangkun are also held to have attended by some sources.

Conference agenda and speeches

The main agenda of this conference was to examine the Party's failure in the Jiangxi region and to look at the options now available to them. Bo Gu was the first to speak with a general report. He acknowledged that the strategy used in Jiangxi had failed, without taking any blame. He claimed the lack of success was not due to poor planning. Next Zhou gave a report on the military situation in an apologietic style. In contrast to Bo, he admitted mistakes had been made. Then Zhang Wentian in a long critical oration, condemned the leaders for the debacle in Jiangxi. This was supported by Mao and Wang. Mao's comparative distance from power over the past two years had left him blameless of the recent failures and in a strong position to attack the leadership.

Mao insisted that Bo Gu and Otto Braun had made fundamental military mistakes by using tactics of pure defense rather than initiating a more mobile war. Mao's supporters gained momentum during the meeting and Zhou Enlai eventually moved to back Mao. Under the principle of democracy for majority, the secretariat of the Central Committee and Central Revolution & Military Committee of CPC were reelected. Bo and Braun were demoted while Zhou maintained his position now sharing military command with Zhu De. Zhang Wentian took Bo's previous position while Mao once again joined the Central Committee.

The Zunyi Conference confirmed that the CPC should turn away from the 28 Bolsheviks and towards Mao. The Red Army regained its military power, survived in Yan'an and ultimately defeated the KMT with using a guerrilla strategy, and later through conventional warfare as it gained mass peasant support. It could be seen as a victory for those old CPC members who had their roots in China and, on the contrary, it was a great loss for those CPC members such as the 28 Bolsheviks who had studied in Moscow and had been trained by the Comintern and the Soviet Union and could be regarded as proteges or agents of Comintern accordingly. After the Zunyi Conference, the influence and involvement of the Comintern in CPC affairs was greatly reduced.

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_criminal_trials&oldid=244815232"