issued to the <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> campaign organization and <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated companies, and against 10 <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> collaborators. (On
Dec. 16, 1987 three more <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associates are indicted, and
then <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> himself on July 2, 1987.) The accusations are
"conspiracy to obstruct justice" and "credit card fraud."
<enttype='ORG'>Truckloads</ent> of documents are seized, supposedly to provide
additional documentation of the accusations. A second search
warrent mentions "[illegal] sale of stocks and bonds". For this
latter accusation, a Grand Jury in <enttype='GPE'>Loudon County</ent><enttype='GPE'>Virginia</ent>
indicts, on Feb. 18, 1987, another 16 <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associated
individuals and 5 companies.</p>
<p>Nov. 24, 1986: First press stories appear, in the <enttype='GPE'>Washington</ent>
largely identical to that of the <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent> trial, and therefore
violated the fundamental legal principle excluding "double
jeopardy" -- no one can be tried for the same accusation twice.
Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Stanley Sporkin</ent> dismisses the challenge following a brief
oral hearing without having read the written motions.</p>
<p>October 17, 1988: Arraignment before Chief Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Albert</ent> V.
<enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent>. All defendants plead not guilty and move to shift the
proceedings to <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent>, on the grounds of similar content of the
two cases. <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent>t fixes a Nov. 10 deadline for submission of all
defense pre-trial motions and Nov. 21 for the trial. When even
the state prosecutor <enttype='PERSON'>Robinson</ent> objects, Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> remarks that
90 percent of the defense motions would just come of a computer
and only three or four would be worth considering.</p>
<p>Oct. 21, 1988: Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> dismisses the motion to move the
trial to <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent>, despite the fact that the circumstance of
"double jeopardy" is underlined by the presence of the <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent>
prosecutors <enttype='PERSON'>John Markham</ent> and <enttype='PERSON'>Mark Rasch</ent>, who assist the deputy
prosecutor of <enttype='GPE'>Alexandria</ent> in the trial.</p>
<p>Oct. 28, 1988: Hearing of defense motion that the prosecution
must indicate all documents to be used as evidence for the
accusations. At this point, Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent>t admits that "we are
pushing the defendants a bit hard in this case in terms of time".</p>
<p>Nov. 4, 1988: The defense protests the hurried tempo of the trial
and the trial date, only five weeks after the indictment.
<enttype='ORG'>Defense</ent> Attorney <enttype='PERSON'>Kenley Webster</ent> points out that he had only two
weeks to work on the case, while the prosecution had been working
on it for four years. Furthermore, since October 1986 defendants
had been deprived access to the more than two million documents
seized and available to the prosecution. Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> supports
the argument of prosecutor Kent <enttype='PERSON'>Robinson</ent>, that most of the
defense attorneys had become familiar with the case already in
<enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent>. <enttype='ORG'>Motion</ent>s to shift the trial and to delay trial date are
denied. The Judge also denies defense motion to separate
proceedings on the tax evasion count from the other, completely
different, counts.</p>
<p>Nov. 7, 1988: The <enttype='GPE'>Alexandria</ent> prosecution, represented by <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent>
state attorney <enttype='PERSON'>Markham</ent> as signer (!), moves that defendants
and their attorneys should not be allowed to mention harrassment
and financial warfare by government institutions as a reason for
non-payment of loans. The prosecution demands that no mention be
made of illegal investigations by the <enttype='ORG'>FBI</ent>, of documented
infiltration of the <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> organization by informants, or of
the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings brought against <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated companies by the government in April 1987. This demand
is particularly bizarre: the alleged conspiracy according to the
prosecution was supposed to have terminated on April 19, 1987,
one day before the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding.</p>
<p>The attorneys for Ed <enttype='NORP'>Spannaus</ent> and the other defendants submit an
Emergency Petition for Mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals in
<enttype='GPE'>Richmond</ent>, arguing that Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> be ordered to move the trial
to a later date.</p>
<p>In addition, the defense submits a <enttype='ORG'>Motion</ent> to release exculpatory
evidence. This includes information concerning agents and
informants infiltrated into <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated organizations by
government agencies and government pressure applied to financial
supporters and banks carrying accounts of <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> organizations
and supporters.</p>
<p>Nov. 9, 1988: <enttype='ORG'>Defense</ent> submits a motion to suspend the trial on
grounds it is politically motivated and selectively directed
against <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, while other politicians, for example <enttype='PERSON'>Gary Hart</ent>,
would never consider repaying campaign debts of millions of
dollars.</p>
<p>Nov. 10, 1988: Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> dismisses the above and 26 of the 28
motions, and supports the prosecution's demands to limit scope of
the defense. <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent>t claims that harrassment by government
agencies was irrelevant to the case in point. He denies the
defense the right to individually question the prospective jurors
or to submit a list of questions for jury selection.</p>
<p>By these actions Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> preprogrammed a guilty verdict
against the defendants. Limiting the defense meant that the true
political nature of the case, which had begun to emerge during
the <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent> trial, would be excluded. Instead, attention was to be
given to the obscure conspiracy theory of the prosecution.</p>
<p>November 14: Refering to their Petition to the <enttype='GPE'>Richmond</ent> court,
the attorneys for the defense submit sworn personal oaths to the
effect that an adequate defense would be impossible under the
conditions set by Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent>, a situation which would violate
the constitutional right to a fair trial.</p>
<p>At the same time, the defense submits a new motion against the
ruling of Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> requiring the defense to reveal its
strategy prior to the opening of the trial.</p>
<p>November 17: The <enttype='GPE'>Richmond</ent> Court of Appeals rejects the defense's
petition for a setting a later trial date.</p>
<p>November 18: Final deliberation before opening of the trial.
Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> rejects the defense motion asking that the
prosecution be ordered to submit a list of prosecutions
witnesses. The prosecution is only required to name a witness 24
hours before the witness is to appear in court. Judge <enttype='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> also
dismisses the motion of November 14.</p>
<p> Jury "Selection"</p>
<p>On Nov. 21, after denial of further motions to suspend or delay
the trial, jury selection begins. This process, which took three
weeks in <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent>, was now completed in less than three hours. Out
of the pool of 175 prospective jurors 46 were employees of the
<enttype='NORP'>Democrat</ent>ic Policy Committee, which promoted the electoral
campaigns of <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated candidates) testified that he
had known defendant <enttype='PERSON'>Joyce Rubenstein</ent> since 1979 and regarded her
as an honest, committed woman. In cross examination <enttype='ORG'>Perricone</ent>
confirmed that he had loaned a total of more than $30000, but
had not insisted on repayment. Testimony by <enttype='ORG'>Perricone</ent> concerning
<enttype='ORG'>FBI</ent> harassment against him was suppressed at the demand of
prosecutor <enttype='PERSON'>John Markham</ent>. However, statements by creditor
<enttype='PERSON'>Elizabeth Sexton</ent>, who had allegedly been cheated by the
defendants, revealed all the more clearly the methods by which
government agencies pressured contributors and creditors and even
incited them to lay traps for the defendants.</p>
<p>All of this demonstrated, as attorney Ed <enttype='PERSON'>Williams</ent> for Joyce
Rubenstein and attorney <enttype='PERSON'>James Clark</ent> for <enttype='PERSON'>Michael Billington</ent>
emphasized in their final summaries, that the testimony of even
the most hostile witnesses had only proved that loans were taken
which had not been paid back. The defendants' motives were to
defend political ideas, and not to pursue criminal aims.</p>
<p> Vindictive Witnesses</p>
<p>A crucial element of the prosecution's case, and especially for
the prosecution's characterization of <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> as the
authoritarian dictator of the alleged conspiracy, was the
testimony of former members of the <enttype='ORG'>NCLC</ent>: <enttype='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent>, Chris
<enttype='PERSON'>Curtis</ent>, <enttype='PERSON'>Vera Cronk</ent>, <enttype='PERSON'>Steve Bardwell</ent> and <enttype='PERSON'>Pam Goldman</ent>. Their
malicious, lying testimony demonstrated that a conspiracy did
indeed exist -- namely on the part of those who had orchestrated
the indictments and legal harassment of the defendants! It was
quite clear that these witnesses were motivated by personal
animosity toward <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, and had possibly been pressured to
testify by <enttype='PERSON'>promiss</ent> of avoiding prosecution themselves. It became
clear that the witnesses had been coached by representatives of
the prosecution in repeated intensive sessions in order to fit
their testimony to the prosecution's case.</p>
<p>An unbiased court could only dismiss these witnesses' testimony
as worthless. The final blow to their credibility was delivered
when witnesses <enttype='PERSON'>Steve Bardwell</ent> and <enttype='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent> were forced to
confirm descriptions of a Halloween Party held on October 31,
1986, in which former <enttype='ORG'>NCLC</ent> members celebrated the huge <enttype='ORG'>FBI</ent> raid,
earlier that month, on the offices of <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated
organizations. <enttype='ORG'>Bardwell</ent> had himself written a five-page
invitation to that party, announcing the performance of a play
entitled "Pin the Rap on <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>." The guests at the party came
in costume; <enttype='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent>, who had dressed himself up as a credit
card, acted out an imaginary testimony against <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. Kostas
Kalimtgis, a former leading associate of <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> presently
suspected of having been a long-time <enttype='ORG'>KGB</ent> plant, gave a major
speach at the Halloween party calling upon those present to do
everything possible "to put <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> behind bars."</p>
<p>While most statements by the ex-members were discredited by their
obvious vindictive intent, <enttype='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent> and <enttype='PERSON'>Chris Curtis</ent>
entangled themselves in serious contradictions. <enttype='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> had
earlier testified, in the <enttype='GPE'>Boston</ent> case, that <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associates
had acted in good faith and he had no knowledge of an intention
not to repay debts. Now, in <enttype='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, he claimed that non-repayment had been the general policy. Especially under cross
examination, <enttype='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> revealed himself to be an obedient
instrument of the prosecution. His coaching for testimony had
clearly been much more than the originally acknowledged 15 hours
of consultation with U.S. government officials. <enttype='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> admitted
that since leaving the <enttype='ORG'>NCLC</ent> he had applied for employment to 12
different government agencies, including the <enttype='ORG'>CIA</ent>. It emerged that
in the course of his attempts to secure employment, <enttype='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> had
successively changed his line on <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and his associates, in
the direction of increasingly damaging statements. <enttype='PERSON'>Tate</ent> revealed
himself as a notorious liar, admitting that he had lied to
<enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> in a number of written reports. He had spent the
equivalent of two weeks preparing his testimony under the
supervision of various government agents, including
representatives of the prosecution.</p>
<p> Claim of "Conspiracy" Key to Prosecution's Case</p>
<p>The case of defendant <enttype='PERSON'>Edward Spannaus</ent> demonstrated most clearly
how the claim of "conspiracy" was the prosecution's only way to
implicate him in criminal actions. <enttype='NORP'>Spannaus</ent> was charged with
Count 1 (conspiracy to defraud) as well as Counts 3-11, where he
was accused of participation in 9 individual cases of
sollicitation of loans. However, in none of those 9 specific
cases was any criminal action on his part demonstrated. There was
only a remark in one of <enttype='NORP'>Spannaus</ent>' notebooks concerning an
unverified statement by <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> on loan policy. <enttype='NORP'>Spannaus</ent>' only
involvement in the cited loan cases was in discussing with a
lawyer changes in loan contracts.</p>
<p>On December 2 <enttype='PERSON'>Richard Vepez</ent>, a former <enttype='ORG'>NCLC</ent> member confirmed in
testimony that <enttype='NORP'>Spannaus</ent> had in one case objected to a change in a
loan contract which might have caused misunderstandings
concerning the political nature of activities for which the money
was to be used.</p>
<p><enttype='NORP'>Spannaus</ent>' defense attorney <enttype='PERSON'>Kenley Webster</ent> cited the flimsy nature
of the charges against <enttype='NORP'>Spannaus</ent> as exemplary of the shakey
foundation of the prosecution's entire case.</p>
<p> The Case of <enttype='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent></p>
<p>Defendant <enttype='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent> was indicted on only one count, for
allegedly having sollicited a large loan from Mrs. <enttype='ORG'>Goodwill</ent> for
the declared purpose of supporting a campaign against drugs. It
emerged, however, that <enttype='PERSON'>Chris Curtis</ent> was the one who made the loan
agreement with Mrs. <enttype='ORG'>Goodwill</ent> -- according to <enttype='PERSON'>Curtis</ent>' own
testimony! <enttype='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent> had never had anything to do with this
loan. <enttype='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> left the distinct impression that his false
testimony in court had been elicited under threat of indictment.</p>
<p>"Tax Fraud"</p>
<p>Count 13 embodies the political nature of the trial better than
any other. Government witnesses ended up establishing that</p>
<p>1) <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> has had no taxable income since 1979.</p>
<p>2) <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had been completely open about his financial
situation, and tax officials had never attempted to collect taxes
from him.</p>
<p>3) Tax experts, lawyers and accountants consulted by <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had
advised him that he had no taxable income and was not obliged to
file a tax return; indeed, he had been advised not to file.</p>
<p> 4) <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had thus acted in good faith that his actions were
in accordance with U.S. tax law.</p>
<p>5) the government's contention that <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had a "lavish
lifestyle" was a fabricated falsehood.</p>
<p>Experienced lawyer <enttype='PERSON'>Mayer Morgenroth</ent> confirmed in testimony that
<enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had decided not to file a tax return on the basis of
sound professional advice, and that material goods provided him
(housing, clothing, security) did not constitute taxable income.
<enttype='PERSON'>Morgenroth</ent> reported that he had participated in 1979 and 1984 in
consultations concerning the tax status of <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and his
associates. These consultations established that <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> wrote
as a politician and publicist for various publishing concerns
sympathetic with his views. These companies had a legitimate
interest in providing meals, housing, a minimum of clothing and
necessary security arrangements for <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. A tax consultant
from <enttype='GPE'>Michigan</ent>, <enttype='PERSON'>Gerry Doherty</ent>, had explained to <enttype='PERSON'>Morgenroth</ent> that
these provisions to Mr. <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> could not be counted as income.
Furthermore <enttype='PERSON'>Harold Dubrowsky</ent> of the tax consulting firm Grant
Thorton, had advised that <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> was not required to file a tax
return.</p>
<p><enttype='PERSON'>Thomas Seay</ent>, a certified public accountant (CPA) testified that
according to <enttype='ORG'>Internal Revenue Service</ent> (<enttype='ORG'>IRS</ent>) regulations, <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>
could be classified as an employee of various publishing houses,
however this determination was somewhat ambiguous. The same
regulations prescribe that meals, housing and even medical and
clothing expenses, insofar as they are provided as gifts, do not
constitute taxable income. <enttype='ORG'>Seay</ent> had advised <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> that he need
not file a tax return.</p>
<p><enttype='GPE'>New York</ent> accountant <enttype='PERSON'>Murray Altman</ent> testified that during the four
years he had completed tax returns for <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated
publishing companies and firms, <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> himself had been free of
tax obligations.</p>
<p>Finally, <enttype='ORG'>IRS</ent> tax official <enttype='PERSON'>Elizabeth Jeu</ent>, who had been involved
for the last 12-14 in a tax investigation of <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, testified
to the effect that since 1979, the <enttype='ORG'>IRS</ent> had never seriously tried
to collect taxes from <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>.</p>
major threat to the <enttype='NORP'>Soviets</ent> especially for his role in the
development of the SDI policy. Gen. Scherer testified that
<enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> was man of integrity and modest way of living, who is
working for his ideals without interest in personal gain.</p>
<p>Internationally-known AIDS expert Dr. <enttype='PERSON'>John Seale</ent>, member of the
Royal Society of Medicine in <enttype='GPE'>London</ent>, documented the crucial
importance of the fight against AIDS and testified on how his
cooperation with <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> in that fight had led to slanders and
harassment against him directed by agencies of the U.S.
government.</p>
<p>The 78 year-old Amelia <enttype='PERSON'>Robinson</ent>, a long-time
close associate of Dr, <enttype='PERSON'>Martin Luther King</ent>, active since the 1930s
in the <enttype='NORP'>American</ent> civil rights movement, emphasized in her
testimony the role of the <enttype='ORG'>Schiller Institute</ent> and the <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated Club of Life in the worldwide battle against hunger
and the drug plague. She portrayed <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> as an absolutely
honest man, who had "devoted his life to the wellbeing of his
nation and the world."</p>
<p>General <enttype='PERSON'>Lucio Anez</ent>, former Chief of Staff of the <enttype='NORP'>Bolivian</ent> Armed
Forces, head of <enttype='ORG'>the Bolivian Military Academy</ent> and <enttype='NORP'>Bolivian</ent>
representative to the Inter <enttype='NORP'>American</ent><enttype='ORG'>Defense</ent> Board, testified on
his meetings with <enttype='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent> and Lyndon <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. He had
discussed with <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> the latter's 15-point program for a war
against drugs. He had also invited <enttype='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent>, whom he
described as a "an honest, truth-loving man", to give "lectures
on economics and the drug problem before the highest-level
military institution in my country."</p>
<p>In addition to this testimony, many written attestations were
submitted by personalities familiar with <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> from <enttype='GPE'>France</ent>,
<enttype='GPE'>Spain</ent>, <enttype='GPE'>Italy</ent>, <enttype='GPE'>England</ent>, <enttype='GPE'>Germany</ent> and other countries. These all
scientists, politicians and religious figures.</p>
<p> Government Dirty Tricks</p>
<p>Despite the efforts of the prosecution to exclude from the court
proceedings all evidence of government involvement in efforts to
harass, entrap and frame up <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and his associates,
testimony did provide a tiny glimpse of the powerful political
motives behind bringing <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> to trial.</p>
<p><enttype='PERSON'>Richard Morris</ent>, a <enttype='GPE'>California</ent> lawyer who worked for several years
as Chief Assistant to "Judge" <enttype='PERSON'>William Clark</ent> in the U.S. State
Department and <enttype='ORG'>National Security Council</ent>, testified on his
numerous meetings with <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associates in the
period 1982-83. In these meetings, according to <enttype='PERSON'>Morris</ent>, <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>
had often provided useful information relevant to various aspects
of national security. Many attempts had been made from various
sides to stop these contacts. <enttype='PERSON'>Morris</ent> testified that he was
approached in the middle of 1982 by three persons, from the <enttype='ORG'>CIA</ent>,
the <enttype='ORG'>Defense</ent> Intelligence Agency and the National Security
Council, who told him that <enttype='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> was "pro-<enttype='NORP'>communist</ent>, pro-socialist, a fascist, <enttype='ORG'>KGB</ent>, and even a <enttype='NORP'>Democrat</ent>"!</p>
<p>Dr. <enttype='PERSON'>John Seale</ent> was prevented by the court from testifying on the
