LaRouche criminal trials: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Will Beback (talk | contribs)
112,162 edits
cites
remove typo
Line 1: Line 1:
{{LaRouche movement}}
{{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.nou
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.
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.

Revision as of 00:12, 13 October 2008

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 tax evasion and conspiracy to commit 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 and conspiracy. 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.[1] Fourteen states ultimately placed injunctions on LaRouche-related organizations. Following LaRouche's conviction, the movement mounted unsuccessful efforts to exonerate him.

Background

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.[2] These organizations served as the platforms for presidential campaigns by LaRouche starting in 1976,[3] 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.[4] 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, 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.[5]

Investigations

Early 1980s

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 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 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.[6] 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,[7] which was raised at a meeting that day of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by senior member David Abshire.[8][9] Revell replied to Kissinger that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation.[7] 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.[10]

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.[11] That same year a New Jersey bank froze the accounts of LaRouche's 1984 presidential campaign due to allegedly fraudulent credit-card charges.[12]

File:Portrait webster HSAC.jpg
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 million.[13] The same grand jury questioned Elliot I. Greenspan, an official of Caucus Distributors Inc,[14] 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.[15] A spokesman for LaRouche called in the investigation "a political terror operation."[15]

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.[16] The FBI, IRS, FEC[17] 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.[12] 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.[18] Three states, Alaska, Indiana, and Maryland, banned fundraising by Caucus Distributors Inc. in May 1986, due to the sale of unregistered promissory notes.[19] The Illinois Secretary of State began civil proceedings against Caucus Distributors Inc. in June 1986, seeking an injunction to bar deceptive business practices.[20] Minnesota officials banned "Independent Democrats for LaRouche" from fundraising, an order that was confirmed on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[21]

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.[11] 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.[11]

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 estate,[22] where LaRouche was living, for the duration of the search, but did not enter it.[23][24] 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."[25] However, he later assured that he would comply peaceably with any warrant.[25] LaRouche offices in Quincy, Massachusetts were searched as well.

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."[26] 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 Gorbachov (sic), has demanded my elimination," said LaRouche.[27] 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.[28]

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 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."[29] Three of the indicted associates remained at large for over a year,[30] 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.[31]

Meanwhile the state cases were progressing. On February 16, 1987, the Commonwealth of Virginia indicted 16 LaRouche associates on securities fraud and other felonies.[16] On March 3, 1987, the State of New York indicted 15 LaRouche associates on charges of grand larceny and securities fraud.[32]

Boston trials

Frankhouser trial

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.[33] Frankhouser had been an informant for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies, in addition to being a neo-Nazi and a former Pennsylvania Ku Klux Klan grand dragon.[34] Frankhouser became a security consultant for LaRouche after convincing him that he was actively connected to U.S. intelligence agencies.[35]

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.[36] 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.[35] 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.[37] 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.[34] 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.[38] Roy Frankhouser was found guilty of obstruction of the federal investigation into credit-card fraud.[39] He was sentenced to three years and a $50,000 fine.[40] After his conviction he was granted immunity against further prosecution and compelled to testify against LaRouche in the Boston trial.[35]

Main trial

File:Oliver North 2 cropped.jpg
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.[41] 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.[42][43][44] 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.[45] 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.[46] After this memo surfaced, Judge Keeton ordered a search of Vice President George Bush's office for documents relating to LaRouche.[47]

File:VP Bush 1981.jpg
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.[48] The trial was delayed again when federal agents seized LaRouche properties as part of the involuntary bankruptcy procedure in 1988.[49]

One local reporter called the Boston trial a "long, complex and costly multidefendant extravaganza".[50] 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.[51] 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 million on legal and administrative expenses.[51] Defense attorneys said they would appeal if the government sought a new trial.[51]

A retrial in Boston was scheduled for January 3, 1989,[52] but the charges were dismissed after the Alexandria convictions, over the objection of the LaRouche lawyers who said they were seeking vindication.[53] 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."[54]

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 million in contempt of court fines.[55] 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.[56] 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".[57] The trustees later reported they were only able to locate about $86,000 in assets.[57]

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.[58]

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.[59]</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.[60] 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.[61] 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."[62] 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.[63]

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.[64] 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.[61]

Alexandria trial

File:Old Alexandria District Federal Courthouse.jpg
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.[65][66] 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.

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.[67]

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.[63]

A defense motion to conduct voir dire in jury selection in the second trial was denied.[68] 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).[69] This appeal was later rejected.[63]

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".[70] Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson presented evidence that LaRouche's organization 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."[71]

The most important evidence was the testimony of lenders,[2] 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.[2] 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 million borrowed by the 1984 presidential campaign was unpaid, and that only $5 million had been repaid out of $30 million in non-campaign loans.[2] LaRouche supporters claim the unrepaid amount was $294,000, but according to testimony at trial the amount owed by 1987 topped $25 million.[2]

Several witnesses were LaRouche followers who testified under immunity from prosecution.[2] 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."[52]

None of the defendants testified.[52] 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."[2]

Income tax

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.[72] LaRouche claimed to have had no income. LaRouche lived 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.[72] LaRouche had named the property "Ibykus Farm" after a work by Friedrich Schiller.[73] His wife, Helga LaRouche, is reported to have overseen hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations to the property.[74] In all, the LaRouche group spent over US$4 million on Virginia real estate during this period, according to trial testimony.[2] The LaRouche defense argued that Ibykus Farm was a "safehouse" needed for the security of LaRouche and others.[75] The government argued that security expenditures were "misplaced priorities."[76]

In 1985, a judge in a separate case had described LaRouche's testimony about being almost penniless as "completely lacking in credibility".[77] 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.[78]

Conviction and imprisonment

On December 16, 1988,[79] 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."[80] 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."[2]

While in prison LaRouche released claims that he was tortured as part of an assassination attempt.[81] LaRouche ran two political campaigns from prison: for Virginia's 10th Congressional District in 1990 and for U.S. President in 1992.[82] 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.[83]</ref>[84] LaRouche also befriended Richard Miller, a former FBI agent and fellow inmate who was imprisoned on espionage charges.[85] 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."[86]

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, 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.[79] Both were fined $10,000.[87] The others received three-year terms and various fines.[88]

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 first trials were in Leesburg, but later trials were held in the larger city of 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 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.[89] Five other states had already issued injunctions,[90] 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.[91]

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."[92] 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.[92]

Six of LaRouche associates were convicted and two pleaded guilty.[93] 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.[94][95]

File:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg
Michael Billington considered himself a political prisoner.

In two Roanoke trials, four other associates were found guilty of securities fraud charges: Donald Phau,[96] Lawrence Hecht, Paul Gallagher, and Anita Gallagher.[97] Richard Welsh and Martha M. Quinde pleaded guilty and received 12 month and one month terms, respectively.[98]

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.[99] 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.[94] 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.[92] His attorney, Brian Gettings, told the court that he believed LaRouche was making the decisions in the case rather than his client.[100] 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".[101]

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.[102]

Appeals

Several decisions were appealed to the 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.[103] It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who let the decision stand.[104]

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.[105] Following the convictions in the Alexandria court, prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges from the Boston court, cancelling the retrial.[53] 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."[106]

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."[107] 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."[108]

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."[109] 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.[63]

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.[110] 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.[111]</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,[112] and that more generally, a "crime of thought seems to have been camouflaged as a common law crime."[113]

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.[114]

A three-judge panel of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously confirmed the Alexandria convictions on January 23, 1990,[115] 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.[116] Five months later the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.[117]

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 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.) 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.[118]

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.[119] This claim stems from a series of meetings that LaRouche publications refer to as the John Train "Salon".[120]

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."[121]

Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, a professor of 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."[122]

Attempts at exoneration

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.[123]

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."[124]

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,[125] and the Mann-Chestnut hearings.[126]

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 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.[127]

Notes

  1. ^ Edds, Margaret (1995-04-02). "James S. Gilmore Iii: Intense, All-Business Attorney General Already Has Stepped From Allen's Shadow". Virginian - Pilot. p. A.1. ISSN 0889-6127. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i Murphy, Carlyle (December 17, 1988). "LaRouche Convicted Of Mail Fraud". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
  3. ^ Mintz, John (January 13, 1985). "Group Makes Political Inroads". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
  4. ^ "Around The Nation; LaRouche Backers Lose Illinois Court Round". The New York Times. 1986-07-29. p. A.8. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  5. ^ Frankel (1987), p. 202
  6. ^ "Has your neighbor been brainwashed about Lyndon LaRouche?". Schiller Institute. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
  7. ^ a b "LaRouche Lawyers Introduce Three Kissinger-F.B.I. Letters". The New York Times. 1988-03-18. p. B.5. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  8. ^ Spannaus (1989), p. 306
  9. ^ Spannaos, Edward (March 21, 1997). "Richard Mellon Scaife: Who Is He Really?". Executive Intelligence Review.
  10. ^ Anderson (March 29, 1985). "Kissinger asked FBI to look at LaRouche". The Frederick Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |fist= ignored (help)
  11. ^ a b c Brinkley, Joel (1986-05-19). "LaRouche Groups' Debt To U.S. Mounts Daily". The New York Times. p. B.7. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  12. ^ a b "Abrams Files LaRouche Lawsuit". The New York Times. 1986-10-29. p. A.28. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  13. ^ "LaRouche Groups to Appeal". The New York Times. 1987-03-05. p. A.15. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2008-10-04. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  14. ^ Doherty, William F. (1986-04-09). "Four LaRouche Organizations Appeal Contempt Findings, Fines". The Boston Globe. p. 30. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  15. ^ a b "Jailed Man Decides To Testify, Is Freed". The Boston Globe. 1985-10-25. p. 72. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  16. ^ a b "16 LaRouche Aides Indicted For Fraud". The New York Times. 1987-02-18. p. A.21. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  17. ^ Osborne, William (1986-04-08). "Gifts to LaRouche are probed: San Diego widow loaned $34,300 to L.A. group". The San Diego Union. p. A.2. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  18. ^ Spannaus (1989), p. 236}}
  19. ^ "3 States Bar Activities By LaRouche Concern". The New York Times. 1986-05-20. p. A.24. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  20. ^ Sweet, Lynn (1987-10-25). "LaRouchies back - new name, home". Chicago Sun-Times. p. 18. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  21. ^ "Loss for LaRouche Group". The Washington Post. 1989-01-10. p. d.04. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  22. ^ "Jury finds LaRouche guilty in conspiracy and mail fraud plot". Houston Chronicle. 1988-12-17. p. 1. ISSN 1074-7109. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  23. ^ "National Democratic Policy Committee, Petitioner V. United States Of America". Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  24. ^ LaRouche, Jr., Lyndon H. (2004-03-12). "The Night They Came To Kill Me". Executive Intelligence Review. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  25. ^ a b Mintz, John (1987-01-31). "Prosecutor Moves to Disarm LaRouche Guards; Lawyer for Security Men Tells Judge They Would Not Resist Law Enforcement Officers". The Washington Post. p. c.03. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  26. ^ Reid, Christine (1986-10-07). "10 LaRouche Associates Face Fraud Counts; Offices Raided". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. A-1. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  27. ^ Roderick, Kevin (1986-10-14). "Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces". Los Angeles Times. p. 1. ISSN 0458-3035. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  28. ^ LaRouche (1987), p. 309
  29. ^ Shenon, Philip (1986-10-07). "U.S. Charges Aides To LaRouche With Credit-Card Fraud Scheme". The New York Times. p. A.1. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  30. ^ "Prosecutor Links Fraud To LaRouche". The New York Times. 1987-12-18. p. A.25. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  31. ^ Wald, Matthew L. (1987-07-03). "LaRouche Indicted In Plot To Block Inquiry On Fraud". The New York Times. p. A.8. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  32. ^ Blair, Wiliam G. (1989-03-19). "12 Lyndon Larouche Supporters Are Arrested On Fraud Charges". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  33. ^ "Judge Postpones Trial Of Lyndon LaRouche". New York Times. 1987-10-21. p. A.18. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2008-10-04.
  34. ^ a b Wald, Matthew (1987-12-10). "LaRouche Taken In By Aide, Trial Told". The New York Times. p. B.17. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  35. ^ a b c Mintz, John (1987-12-18). "Defense Calls LaRouche, Followers 'Most Annoying'; Trial Begins for Leesburg Group Accused of Obstructing Probe Into Its Fund-Raising". The Washington Post. p. a.18. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); More than one of |p= and |page= specified (help); More than one of |p= and |page= specified (help)
  36. ^ Clark, John (January 18, 1987). "Frankhouser 'Broken' By Arrest In LaRouche Probe". Morning Call. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  37. ^ Mintz, John (1987-10-21). "Judge Delays Trials of LaRouche, Six Associates; Case of Former Ku Klux Klan Leader Frankhouser Is Severed and Will Be Tried First". The Washington Post. p. a.10. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  38. ^ Doherty, William F. (1987-11-17). "LaRouche Takes Fifth At Former Aide's Trial Probe Of Credit Scheme Prompted Charges". The Boston Globe. p. 67. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  39. ^ "Aide To LaRouche Guilty In A Plot". The New York Times. 1987-12-11. p. A.30. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  40. ^ "Frankhouser Seized By FBI In Reading On Firearms Charges Police". Morning Call. October 6, 1988.
  41. ^ Murphy, Caryle (1988-11-20). "LaRouche's Va. Trial Expected to Be Speedy; Alexandria's `Rocket Docket' Federal Court Contrasts With Site of Boston Proceeding". The Washington Post. p. a.14. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  42. ^ Doherty, William F. (1987-12-18). "LaRouche Called Donors 'Slime,' Prosecution Says". The Boston Globe. p. 74. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  43. ^ Mintz, John (1987-10-20). "Trial of LaRouche and 7 Aides May Be Delayed; Case of One Defendant May Be Severed, Heard First in Boston Federal Court". The Washington Post. p. a.06. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  44. ^ Mintz, John (1987-09-22). "Jury Selection Begins in LaRouche Fraud Case; Lawyers Say Trial, Which Could Last 3 Months, Promises to Be One of the Strangest". The Washington Post. p. a.14. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  45. ^ "LaRouche Lawyers Seek North's Notebooks". The New York Times. 1988-04-07. p. A.17. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2008-10-04. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  46. ^ "It's Time for Truth-In-Justice in Virginia: The LaRouche Cases in Virginia". EIRNS website. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  47. ^ King, John (1988-03-13). "LaRouche Trial Slows Over Claims Of Infiltration". The Seattle Times. p. A.17. ISSN 0745-9696. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  48. ^ "LaRouche Trial Delayed As Judge Orders Search Of Federal Records". The New York Times. 1988-03-12. p. 1.9. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2008-10-04. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  49. ^ "LaRouche Aides Given Delay". The New York Times. 1987-05-05. p. D.28. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2008-10-04. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  50. ^ Doherty, William F. (1987-12-27). "LaRouche Trial Is Latest In String Of Costly Courtroom Extravaganzas". The Boston Globe. p. 34. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  51. ^ a b c "Jurors Excused, Cause LaRouche Mistrial". Los Angeles Times. 1988-05-05. p. 27. ISSN 0458-3035. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  52. ^ a b c United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; William Wertz; Edward Spannaus; Michael Billington; Dennis Small; Paul Greenberg; Joyce Rubinstein, Defendants-Appellants, 896 F.2d 815 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 1990-01-22).
  53. ^ a b "No LaRouche Trial, Rules Federal Judge". The Boston Globe. 1989-03-03. p. 58. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  54. ^ "Further LaRouche Charges Are Dropped". Los Angeles Times. 1989-01-29. p. 4. ISSN 0458-3035. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  55. ^ Jackson, Robert L. (1987-04-22). "3 Firms Linked to LaRouche Seized for Fines". Los Angeles Times. p. 1. ISSN 0458-3035. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  56. ^ "U.S. Agents Take Over 3 LaRouche Companies". Los Angeles Times. 1987-04-21. p. 1. ISSN 0458-3035. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  57. ^ a b McKelway, Bill (1988-05-05). "Legality Of Move By U.S. Is Argued". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. A-12. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  58. ^ McDonald, Amy (1988). "AIDS Seen As Job Hazard in Some Labs". Science. 2 (1).
  59. ^ "Proposed Findings of Fact in cases 87-0795-A,87-0796-A,87-0797-A", published in Spannaus (1989)
  60. ^ AP (1989-09-09). "Larouche Documents Destroyed". Daily Press. Newport News, Va. p. B4. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  61. ^ a b Howe, Robert (1989-10-28). "Ruling May Help Appeal, LaRouche Backers Say". The Washington Post. p. a.08. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2008-10-04.
  62. ^ "The Summary of Relevant Evidence on The Record Demonstrating Innocence of LaRouche, et al". EIRNS website. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  63. ^ a b c d United states of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; William F. Wertz, Jr.; Edward W. Spannaus, Defendants-Appellants, 4 F.3d 987 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 1993-09-13).
  64. ^ 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." "LaRouche—Bad Guy, But We Can't Say Why". Schiller Insitute. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  65. ^ Green, Frank (1989-04-07). "Clark Joins Motion Seeking Bond For LaRouche Appeal". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. B-7. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  66. ^ Stern, Seth (2002-02-06). "Terror trials head for Virginia 'rocket docket'". Christian Science Monitor. p. 03. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2008-10-04.
  67. ^ Government's Motion In Limine, United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al, Criminal No. 88-00243-A, published in Spannaus (1989)
  68. ^ Motion of the defendants for submission of questions to the jury venire, Criminal No. 88-00243-A, published in Spannaus (1989)
  69. ^ Brief Amici Curiae of Burton D. Linne, Jack O. Slater, and John C. Imlay IV, published in Spannaus (1989)
  70. ^ Murphy, Caryle (1988-12-15). "LaRouche Trial Hears Closing Arguments". The Washington Post. p. a.46. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  71. ^ From court transcript, United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al, published in Spannaus (1989)
  72. ^ a b AP (May 3, 1986). "Conservative Oilman Pays Rent For LaRouche Estate". Sun Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale. p. 6.A. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  73. ^ Welch, William H. (1987-04-22). "LaRouche Said To Drain Funds From 3 Firms". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. 1. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  74. ^ Associated Press (1988-12-02). "Ex-Aide: LaRouche Extravagant". Chicago Tribune. p. 13. ISSN 1085-6706. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  75. ^ Spannaus (1989), p. 47
  76. ^ Spannaus (1989), p. 51
  77. ^ "Around The Nation; Judgment Is Reduced In LaRouche-NBC Case". The New York Times. 1985-02-24. p. A.20. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  78. ^ "Court Fines LaRouche $2,000 For Not Answering Questions". The New York Times. 1986-08-10. p. A.24. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  79. ^ a b Casey, Martin (2002-10-30). "Campaign draws attention to LaRouche Nancy Spannaus uses his sound bites". Loudoun Times. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  80. ^ "LaRouche Appeal Is Rebuffed by Supreme Court". The Washington Post. 1989-07-04. p. b.05. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  81. ^ "Report on the Mistreatment of Political Prisoner Lyndon LaRouche". Schiller Institute. September 16, 1989. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  82. ^ "Larouche Campaign Goes On Effort In Va. Raises More Than $200,000". Daily Press. Newport News, Va. June 3, 1990.
  83. ^ Bakker & Abraham (1996)
  84. ^ "Larouche Set To Run Again After Walking Out Of Prison". Orlando Sentinel. January 27, 1994. p. A.12. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  85. ^ Weinstein, Henry (1989-12-08). "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.'". Los Angeles Times. p. 1. ISSN 0458-3035. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  86. ^ "LaRouche Addresses His Youth Movement on the Subject of His Imprisonment". LaRouche Political Action Committee. 2005-07-23. Retrieved 2008-10-12. {{cite web}}: Text "LaRouche Political Action Committee" ignored (help)
  87. ^ "Court upholds convictions of LaRouche, 6 associates". Austin American Statesman. 1990-01-23. p. A.4. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  88. ^ "LaRouche Gets 15 Years for Cheating His Backers, IRS 6 Aides Also Get Prison Terms, Fines". Los Angeles Times. 1989-01-27. p. 1. ISSN 0458-3035. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  89. ^ McKelway, Bill (1987-03-05). "SCC Enjoins LaRouche Groups". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. A-1. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  90. ^ McKelway, Bill (1987-02-28). "Briefs Filed In LaRouche Probe". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. B-8. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  91. ^ "U.S. Supreme Court;All-white jury acceptable in murder suit, court says". USA TODAY. 1989-01-10. p. 06.a. ISSN 0734-7456. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  92. ^ a b c Boyd, Barbara (1998-08-10). "The Human Rights Issues in the Virginia LaRouche Cases". American Almanac. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  93. ^ Terry, Mary Sue (1991-12-21). "Attorney General Responds To Editorial". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. A-12. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  94. ^ a b Brazaitis, Thomas J. (1991-07-05). "Convicted LaRouche aide won't renounce his leader". Plain Dealer. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  95. ^ United Press International (1989-04-06). "Jury Convicts Fund-Raiser For LaRouche". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. 27. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  96. ^ "LaRouche Aide Is Convicted". The Washington Post. 1990-02-02. p. b.04. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  97. ^ Bates, Steve (1991-01-08). "3 More LaRouche Supporters Guilty of Fraud; Convictions in Securities Case Now Total 8; 8 Others Await Trial". The Washington Post. p. d.02. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  98. ^ "Judge Rejects LaRouche Allegation". The Washington Post. 1990-05-30. p. d.04. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  99. ^ AP (Oct 25, 1989). "Jury Convicts Top Larouche Fund-Raiser Of Securities Fraud". Daily Press. Newport News, Va. p. B.5. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  100. ^ United Press International (1989-09-26). "LaRouche Associate Dismisses Attorney". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. C-5. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  101. ^ "LaRouche Fund-Raiser Convicted". Richmond Times - Dispatch. 1989-10-25. p. B-3. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  102. ^ United Press International (1989-09-01). "3 LaRouche Workers Are Convicted Of Fraud". Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. A-2. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  103. ^ Doherty, William F. (1986-07-04). "Fines For LaRouche Groups Upheld". The Boston Globe. p. 46. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  104. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (1989-10-17). "Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Agree To Hear Plea On Miranda". The New York Times. p. A.21. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  105. ^ "New LaRouche trial would violate defendants' rights, lawyer argues". Providence Journal. 1988-10-06. p. C-06. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  106. ^ Neuffer, Elizabeth (1989-03-22). "LaRouche Mounts Last-Ditch Bid For Hub Retrial". The Boston Globe. p. 22. ISSN 0743-1791. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  107. ^ Brief for the appellants, No. 89-5518, May 25, 1989, published in Spannaus (1989)
  108. ^ Spannaus (1989), p. 9
  109. ^ Appeal, United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989)
  110. ^ United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of Prof. Dr. Albert Bleckmann, Amicus Curiea, No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989)
  111. ^ 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 Spannaus (1989)
  112. ^ 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 Spannaus (1989)
  113. ^ United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of Maitre Jacques Stul, Amicus Curiea, No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989). Stul is a French attorney who specializes in political causes.
  114. ^ "Supreme Court to Weigh First 'Right-to-Die' Case". Newsday. July 4, 1989. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  115. ^ "Appeals Court Upholds Convictions of LaRouche and Four Others". The New York Times. 1990-01-23. p. A.21. ISSN 0362-4331. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  116. ^ Howe, Robert F. (1990-01-23). "Appeals Court Upholds LaRouche Conviction on Mail Fraud, Conspiracy". The Washington Post. p. a.08. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  117. ^ "Supreme Court Upholds LaRouche Convictions". The Washington Post. 1990-06-12. p. b.04. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |= ignored (help)
  118. ^ "LaRouche—Bad Guy, But We Can't Say Why". Schiller Institute. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  119. ^ Howard, Alison (1990-05-24). "Lyndon LaRouche Leaves Prison to Testify for Fund-Raiser". The Washington Post. p. a.42. ISSN 0190-8286. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  120. ^ "Has your neighbor been brainwashed about Lyndon LaRouche?". Schiller Institute. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
  121. ^ "Testimony Of The Schiller Institute Submitted To The Committee On The Judiciary, UnitedStates Senate". American Almanac. 1998-07-13. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  122. ^ 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 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 Spannaus (1989)
  123. ^ Ribeiro, Angelo Vidal d'Almeida (1986-03-10). "Report by the Special Rapporteur". United Nations High Commission on Human Rights. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
  124. ^ Clark, Ramsey (1995-04-26). "Letter from former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarkto Attorney General Janet Reno". LaRouche in 2004. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
  125. ^ "The Curtis Clark Commission Findings: Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche". LaRouche in 2004. 1994-09-03. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
  126. ^ "Statement of Mann-Chestnut Commission". Schiller Institute. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
  127. ^ "Exonerate LaRouche". LaRouche in 2004. Retrieved 2008-10-11. 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.

References

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_criminal_trials&oldid=244879188"