mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-12-12 09:14:30 -05:00
808 lines
49 KiB
XML
808 lines
49 KiB
XML
<xml><p>Path: uuwest!spies!<ent type='ORG'>mips</ent>!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.<ent type='ORG'>cwru</ent>.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817
|
|
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (<ent type='PERSON'>Steve Crocker</ent>)
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.activism
|
|
Subject: <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> Trial Fact Sheet (40K)
|
|
<info type="Message-ID"> 1992Mar28.053617.16367@usenet.ins.<ent type='ORG'>cwru</ent>.edu</info>
|
|
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 05:36:17 GMT
|
|
Sender: news@usenet.ins.<ent type='ORG'>cwru</ent>.edu
|
|
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, <ent type='GPE'>Cleveland</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Ohio</ent>, (USA)
|
|
Lines: 809
|
|
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns2.ins.<ent type='ORG'>cwru</ent>.edu</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The file below is from the <ent type='ORG'>Lincoln</ent> Legacy BBS (703)777-5987.
|
|
It is run by <ent type='PERSON'>John Covici</ent> and has many <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> related text
|
|
files. The file below is found there compressed as TRIAL_FC.ZIP.
|
|
This has been previously posted to alt.conspiracy - apologies to
|
|
anyone seeing it twice.
|
|
-Steve</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> TEXT</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the
|
|
trial of Lyndon <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> at <ent type='ORG'>the Federal Court</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>,
|
|
<ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> USA.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Prehistory</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Oct. 6, 1986: Massive search and seizure operation by 400 <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>
|
|
agents and police of the <ent type='GPE'>Leesburg</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> offices of the
|
|
Executive Intelligence Review and the newspaper <ent type='ORG'>New Solidarity</ent>.
|
|
Indictments, based on findings of a <ent type='ORG'>Boston Grand Jury</ent>, are
|
|
issued to the <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> campaign organization and <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated companies, and against 10 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> collaborators. (On
|
|
Dec. 16, 1987 three more <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associates are indicted, and
|
|
then <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> himself on July 2, 1987.) The accusations are
|
|
"conspiracy to obstruct justice" and "credit card fraud."
|
|
<ent type='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 <ent type='GPE'>Loudon County</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent>
|
|
indicts, on Feb. 18, 1987, another 16 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associated
|
|
individuals and 5 companies.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Nov. 24, 1986: First press stories appear, in the <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>
|
|
Post and <ent type='ORG'>Loudon</ent> Times Mirror, referencing an <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, Virgina
|
|
Grand Jury investigation (again using material seized in raid) of
|
|
alleged tax evasion by <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and associated companies. These
|
|
investigations, like the ones in <ent type='GPE'>Loudon County</ent>, make use of the
|
|
huge mass of documents seized in the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> raid.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Apr. 20, 1987: <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> bankrupcy judge <ent type='ORG'>Bostetter</ent>
|
|
orders three companies (one is a scientific organization) to be
|
|
placed under involuntary supervision and forced to suspend their
|
|
activities.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>May 1988: After a 6-month <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> trial, judge <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Keeton</ent>
|
|
declares a mistrial, following serious errors by the prosecution.
|
|
The prosecution refused to disclose crucial evidence to the
|
|
defense. After the mistrial, a <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> newspaper published an
|
|
interview with one of the jurors, who stated that the jury, in
|
|
an informal vote, was unanimously in favor of acquitting the
|
|
defendants, because the prosecution could not prove its case and
|
|
had destroyed its credibility through its legal misconduct.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Oct. 14, 1988: Federal attorney <ent type='PERSON'>Henry Hudson</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>,
|
|
<ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent>, announces that he is indicting <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and six
|
|
associates for "conspiracy to commit mail fraud" and "conspiracy
|
|
to defraud <ent type='ORG'>the Internal Revenue Service</ent>."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The accused <ent type='PERSON'>William Wertz</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Edward Spannaus</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Michael Billington</ent>,
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Paul Greenberg</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Joyce Rubinstein</ent> are each
|
|
indicted on between 3 and 11 counts. <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> on the other hand
|
|
is indicted on a total of 13 counts. Count 13 charges him with
|
|
having conspired "with persons known and unknown to the Grand
|
|
Jury" in order to prevent the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> from assessing and collecting
|
|
his taxes.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The other 12 counts charge the defendants with having devised "a
|
|
scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money by false and
|
|
fraudulant pretenses, representations and promises... The policy
|
|
of the <ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent> (a <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated organisation) was not to repay
|
|
loans in accordance with the promises made to lenders; ...
|
|
between January 1984 and September 1986 the organisation never
|
|
established a system for making, and never made, routine payments
|
|
of promised principal and interest on loans in general." The
|
|
prosecution cited 11 individual cases in which creditors were
|
|
mailed written agreements. (For technical legal reasons, the main
|
|
accusations -- fraud and violation of loan contracts -- were
|
|
subsumed under the designation "mail fraud")</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The accusations stand or fall with the basic claim, that the
|
|
National Caucus of Labor Committees (<ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent>), a philosophical
|
|
association founded nearly 20 years ago, is in fact a criminal
|
|
conspiracy whose essential purpose is to enrich Lyndon <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>.
|
|
The political goals of this organisation--fighting drugs and
|
|
hunger, for a new just world economic order, for a strong western
|
|
defense, against the decay of <ent type='ORG'>westerm</ent> culture and for a cultural
|
|
and scientific renaissance--were considered side aspects of the
|
|
"conspiracy". <special>h</special></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Pretrial events<special>t</special></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>By setting a very short period between the indictment and trial
|
|
opening, <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent> Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> created the preconditions for a
|
|
summary trial, in which the defendants were deprived of the
|
|
possibility of comprehensive defense.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Oct. 14, 1988: LaRouche's lawyers submit a legal challenge
|
|
against the indictment, on grounds that the indictment would
|
|
damage LaRouche's ongoing electoral campaign, and that it was
|
|
largely identical to that of the <ent type='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 <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Albert</ent> V.
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent>. All defendants plead not guilty and move to shift the
|
|
proceedings to <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent>, on the grounds of similar content of the
|
|
two cases. <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Robinson</ent> objects, Judge <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> dismisses the motion to move the
|
|
trial to <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent>, despite the fact that the circumstance of
|
|
"double jeopardy" is underlined by the presence of the <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent>
|
|
prosecutors <ent type='PERSON'>John Markham</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Rasch</ent>, who assist the deputy
|
|
prosecutor of <ent type='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 <ent type='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.
|
|
<ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> Attorney <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> supports
|
|
the argument of prosecutor Kent <ent type='PERSON'>Robinson</ent>, that most of the
|
|
defense attorneys had become familiar with the case already in
|
|
<ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent>. <ent type='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 <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent> prosecution, represented by <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent>
|
|
state attorney <ent type='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 <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>, of documented
|
|
infiltration of the <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> organization by informants, or of
|
|
the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings brought against <ent type='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 <ent type='NORP'>Spannaus</ent> and the other defendants submit an
|
|
Emergency Petition for Mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals in
|
|
<ent type='GPE'>Richmond</ent>, arguing that Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> be ordered to move the trial
|
|
to a later date.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In addition, the defense submits a <ent type='ORG'>Motion</ent> to release exculpatory
|
|
evidence. This includes information concerning agents and
|
|
informants infiltrated into <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated organizations by
|
|
government agencies and government pressure applied to financial
|
|
supporters and banks carrying accounts of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> organizations
|
|
and supporters.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Nov. 9, 1988: <ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> submits a motion to suspend the trial on
|
|
grounds it is politically motivated and selectively directed
|
|
against <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, while other politicians, for example <ent type='PERSON'>Gary Hart</ent>,
|
|
would never consider repaying campaign debts of millions of
|
|
dollars.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Nov. 10, 1988: Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> dismisses the above and 26 of the 28
|
|
motions, and supports the prosecution's demands to limit scope of
|
|
the defense. <ent type='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 <ent type='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 <ent type='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 <ent type='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 <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> requiring the defense to reveal its
|
|
strategy prior to the opening of the trial.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>November 17: The <ent type='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 <ent type='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 <ent type='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 <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent>, was now completed in less than three hours. Out
|
|
of the pool of 175 prospective jurors 46 were employees of the
|
|
U.S. government, including <ent type='ORG'>the Department</ent> of Justice (<ent type='ORG'>DOJ</ent>), the
|
|
<ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>, the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, the <ent type='ORG'>Secret Service</ent>, and government
|
|
departments. Even employees of law enforcement agencies, were only
|
|
excluded when they themselves admitted to being "biased." One of
|
|
them, a <ent type='ORG'>Secret Service</ent> Agent, was disqualified after he flashed
|
|
his badge and revealed that he himself had been involved in
|
|
investigations against <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>! After 145 candidates had been
|
|
excluded for cause the remaining 30 still included an employee of
|
|
the <ent type='ORG'>DOJ</ent>, an <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> employee, the wife of a former <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> consultant, a
|
|
government official working with the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, a <ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> Intelligence
|
|
Agency employee with contacts to the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, a secretary of the Drug
|
|
Enforcement Agency, an employee of <ent type='ORG'>the Department</ent> of Labor, a
|
|
worker for the television company <ent type='ORG'>NBC</ent> which is known for its
|
|
hatred of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. Since the defense had only 9 veto rights,
|
|
there was no way to exclude all biased witnesses.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> The Trial Arguments</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> "Loan Fraud"</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On the first day of the trial, government witnesses testified
|
|
as summarized below. Objectively speaking, none of the charges --
|
|
fraud, violation of loan conditions, tax evasion and conspiracy
|
|
to commit the same -- were substantiated by the prosecutions. On
|
|
the contrary, most of the creditors who testified made statements
|
|
in direct contradiction to the allegations, as for example:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>1) Efforts were made to repay loans and considerable amounts were
|
|
actually paid.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>2) <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> collaborators acted in good faith when soliciting
|
|
loans, having reason to believe that the conditions arranged
|
|
would actually be met.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>3) Creditors understood that the loans were a form of political
|
|
support and were accurately informed concerning the political
|
|
purpose to which the funds loaned were to be used.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>4) Persons giving loans were informed concerning the risk
|
|
involved.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>5) Press attacks such as the ones which followed <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>
|
|
candidates' victories in <ent type='GPE'>Illinois</ent>, negatively affected creditors
|
|
and new contributions.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>6) Creditors were encouraged and pressured by government
|
|
agents to press charges against <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>7) Loans would most likely have been paid if massive government
|
|
interference had not made this impossible.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> showed that the firms involved enjoyed massive expansion
|
|
in income over 1984-85, thereby justifying major loans. Certified
|
|
Public Accountant <ent type='PERSON'>Thomas Seavy</ent> showed with charts, how the wave
|
|
of violent press slanders and attacks by <ent type='ORG'>Democratic Party</ent>
|
|
figures, following the March 1986 victory of two <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>
|
|
candidates in the <ent type='GPE'>Illinois</ent> primaries, had interrupted the
|
|
increase in sales. Even more dramatic was the effect of the
|
|
October 1986 <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> raid on the offices of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated
|
|
organizations. In all, the campaign of financial warfare against
|
|
these organizations following March 1986 caused an estimated
|
|
income loss of $45 mio. Seay's charts showed that during the
|
|
preceeding growth period, the ratio of loans continually
|
|
decreased as a percentage of income.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Thus, according to <ent type='ORG'>Seay</ent>s, the accused had been justified in
|
|
assuming that continuing sales would cover loan repayment costs.
|
|
The decisive criterion for fraud -- bad faith or the intent to
|
|
defraud -- could not be claimed in this case.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> There was a plan to repay debts</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Two active <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> collaborators <ent type='PERSON'>Frank Bell</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Richard Welsh</ent>
|
|
testified on November 23 and 29, to the heroic efforts made to
|
|
repay loans. These efforts covered the 4-year period cited by the
|
|
prosecution and continued up to the present.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><ent type='ORG'>Bell</ent> presented his repayment plan, which involved for example
|
|
$15000 in weekly repayments throughout 1985. <ent type='PERSON'>Welsh</ent> described his
|
|
plan to contact 3000 creditors in order to verify the amount of
|
|
the loans and discuss a repayment schedule or forgiveness of the
|
|
loans. These plans, whose existence completely contradict the
|
|
claim by the prosecution that the <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated
|
|
organizations pursued a general policy of non-repayment, were
|
|
seriously hampered by the seizure of the necessary documents in
|
|
October 1986. Nevertheless, debts were reduced by payment of a
|
|
total of $4.5 mio in principal and interest prior to the
|
|
involuntary bankrupcy proceedings of April, 1987, which ended all
|
|
possibility of further repayment.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The defense cited as evidence more than six memoranda written by
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> making proposals for means of repaying the debt. <ent type='PERSON'>Welsh</ent>
|
|
described his efforts over nearly seven years to realize these
|
|
proposals.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Even government witness <ent type='PERSON'>Wayne Hintz</ent>, who had formerly worked in
|
|
the bookkeeping department of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated organizations,
|
|
confirmed this existence of a repayment program. <ent type='PERSON'>Hintz</ent> himself
|
|
had written memos on repayment plans which the <ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent> leadership
|
|
and <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> endorsed. According to <ent type='PERSON'>Hintz</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> personally
|
|
had always pushed for cutting back and even eliminating the
|
|
soliciting of loans, and for increasing sales instead. <ent type='PERSON'>Hintz</ent>
|
|
stated in court on December 6: "There was no policy I was aware
|
|
of not to repay loans." [check English quote]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>These statements confirmed not only that no criminal intention
|
|
existed to defraud creditors, but moreover that all humanly
|
|
possible efforts had been undertaken to save the creditors from
|
|
financial losses. This contradicted the second major criterion
|
|
for the charge of fraud.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In addition, it emerged that the government's figures regarding
|
|
outstanding debt were wrong. Government witness, <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> employee
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Harry Chusid</ent> presented a 900-page report which he claimed showed
|
|
that from 1984 to 1986 more than $33 mio. had been taken out in
|
|
loans, while only $3.7 mio. were repayed. This "analysis" fell
|
|
apart during cross-examination, however, when a random check
|
|
demonstrated, as Chusid was then forced to admit, that loans had
|
|
been calculated in full each time reference to partial payment
|
|
was made. On only 10 randomly-chosen pages of the report, it was
|
|
shown that the government had calculated $301000 in non-existent
|
|
loan sums due to this multiple counting proceedure.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Most creditors testifying as government witnesses confirmed what
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> stated in a press conference following the verdict: 95%
|
|
of those who gave financial support during the period in
|
|
question continue to support LaRouche's policies and programs; most
|
|
of them know that it is the government which is guilty for the
|
|
financial difficulties of organizations associated with <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>.
|
|
Of the remaining 5%, only a tiny number could be brought to work
|
|
actively with <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Secret Service</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> agents and issue false
|
|
statements.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Creditor <ent type='PERSON'>Dorothy Powers</ent>, for example, testified on November 30
|
|
that defendant <ent type='PERSON'>Michael Billington</ent> had explained to her very
|
|
clearly that her loan constituted a kind of "war bond" and
|
|
carried a corresponding element of risk. Creditor Martha Van
|
|
Sickie testified to similar effect, and during examination of
|
|
witness <ent type='PERSON'>Max Harrell</ent> the defense presented a transcript of a
|
|
telephone conversation in which <ent type='ORG'>Harrell</ent> was literally told
|
|
concerning his loan, "of course it's a risk". This was again
|
|
confirmed on December 7 by witness <ent type='PERSON'>Alan Rither</ent>, a <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>
|
|
lawyer who also loaned money to the organizations of the
|
|
defendants.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Mrs. <ent type='PERSON'>Audrey Carter</ent> testified that her 1985 loan to Caucus
|
|
Distributors, Inc. (<ent type='ORG'>CDI</ent>) was due for repayment in November 1986,
|
|
the month after the dramatic <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> raid. In April 1987 <ent type='ORG'>CDI</ent> was shut
|
|
down on orders of the government. <ent type='PERSON'>Alan Rither</ent>, who had also made
|
|
a loan to <ent type='ORG'>CDI</ent>, testified that even after the involuntary
|
|
bankrupcy he had recieved assurances that the remainder of
|
|
repayments due would be paid back to him.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><ent type='PERSON'>John Perricone</ent>, an active supporter of the <ent type='ORG'>NDPC</ent> (the National
|
|
<ent type='NORP'>Democrat</ent>ic Policy Committee, which promoted the electoral
|
|
campaigns of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated candidates) testified that he
|
|
had known defendant <ent type='PERSON'>Joyce Rubenstein</ent> since 1979 and regarded her
|
|
as an honest, committed woman. In cross examination <ent type='ORG'>Perricone</ent>
|
|
confirmed that he had loaned a total of more than $30000, but
|
|
had not insisted on repayment. Testimony by <ent type='ORG'>Perricone</ent> concerning
|
|
<ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> harassment against him was suppressed at the demand of
|
|
prosecutor <ent type='PERSON'>John Markham</ent>. However, statements by creditor
|
|
<ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Williams</ent> for Joyce
|
|
Rubenstein and attorney <ent type='PERSON'>James Clark</ent> for <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> as the
|
|
authoritarian dictator of the alleged conspiracy, was the
|
|
testimony of former members of the <ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent>: <ent type='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent>, Chris
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Curtis</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Vera Cronk</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Steve Bardwell</ent> and <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, and had possibly been pressured to
|
|
testify by <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Steve Bardwell</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent> were forced to
|
|
confirm descriptions of a Halloween Party held on October 31,
|
|
1986, in which former <ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent> members celebrated the huge <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> raid,
|
|
earlier that month, on the offices of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated
|
|
organizations. <ent type='ORG'>Bardwell</ent> had himself written a five-page
|
|
invitation to that party, announcing the performance of a play
|
|
entitled "Pin the Rap on <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>." The guests at the party came
|
|
in costume; <ent type='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent>, who had dressed himself up as a credit
|
|
card, acted out an imaginary testimony against <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. Kostas
|
|
Kalimtgis, a former leading associate of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> presently
|
|
suspected of having been a long-time <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent> plant, gave a major
|
|
speach at the Halloween party calling upon those present to do
|
|
everything possible "to put <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> behind bars."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>While most statements by the ex-members were discredited by their
|
|
obvious vindictive intent, <ent type='PERSON'>Charles Tate</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Chris Curtis</ent>
|
|
entangled themselves in serious contradictions. <ent type='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> had
|
|
earlier testified, in the <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> case, that <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associates
|
|
had acted in good faith and he had no knowledge of an intention
|
|
not to repay debts. Now, in <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, he claimed that non-repayment had been the general policy. Especially under cross
|
|
examination, <ent type='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. <ent type='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> admitted
|
|
that since leaving the <ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent> he had applied for employment to 12
|
|
different government agencies, including the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>. It emerged that
|
|
in the course of his attempts to secure employment, <ent type='PERSON'>Curtis</ent> had
|
|
successively changed his line on <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and his associates, in
|
|
the direction of increasingly damaging statements. <ent type='PERSON'>Tate</ent> revealed
|
|
himself as a notorious liar, admitting that he had lied to
|
|
<ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Edward Spannaus</ent> demonstrated most clearly
|
|
how the claim of "conspiracy" was the prosecution's only way to
|
|
implicate him in criminal actions. <ent type='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 <ent type='NORP'>Spannaus</ent>' notebooks concerning an
|
|
unverified statement by <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> on loan policy. <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Richard Vepez</ent>, a former <ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent> member confirmed in
|
|
testimony that <ent type='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><ent type='NORP'>Spannaus</ent>' defense attorney <ent type='PERSON'>Kenley Webster</ent> cited the flimsy nature
|
|
of the charges against <ent type='NORP'>Spannaus</ent> as exemplary of the shakey
|
|
foundation of the prosecution's entire case.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> The Case of <ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Defendant <ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent> was indicted on only one count, for
|
|
allegedly having sollicited a large loan from Mrs. <ent type='ORG'>Goodwill</ent> for
|
|
the declared purpose of supporting a campaign against drugs. It
|
|
emerged, however, that <ent type='PERSON'>Chris Curtis</ent> was the one who made the loan
|
|
agreement with Mrs. <ent type='ORG'>Goodwill</ent> -- according to <ent type='PERSON'>Curtis</ent>' own
|
|
testimony! <ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent> had never had anything to do with this
|
|
loan. <ent type='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) <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> has had no taxable income since 1979.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>2) <ent type='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 <ent type='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) <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had a "lavish
|
|
lifestyle" was a fabricated falsehood.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Experienced lawyer <ent type='PERSON'>Mayer Morgenroth</ent> confirmed in testimony that
|
|
<ent type='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.
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Morgenroth</ent> reported that he had participated in 1979 and 1984 in
|
|
consultations concerning the tax status of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and his
|
|
associates. These consultations established that <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. A tax consultant
|
|
from <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Gerry Doherty</ent>, had explained to <ent type='PERSON'>Morgenroth</ent> that
|
|
these provisions to Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> could not be counted as income.
|
|
Furthermore <ent type='PERSON'>Harold Dubrowsky</ent> of the tax consulting firm Grant
|
|
Thorton, had advised that <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> was not required to file a tax
|
|
return.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><ent type='PERSON'>Thomas Seay</ent>, a certified public accountant (CPA) testified that
|
|
according to <ent type='ORG'>Internal Revenue Service</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>) regulations, <ent type='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. <ent type='ORG'>Seay</ent> had advised <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> that he need
|
|
not file a tax return.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> accountant <ent type='PERSON'>Murray Altman</ent> testified that during the four
|
|
years he had completed tax returns for <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated
|
|
publishing companies and firms, <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> himself had been free of
|
|
tax obligations.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Finally, <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> tax official <ent type='PERSON'>Elizabeth Jeu</ent>, who had been involved
|
|
for the last 12-14 in a tax investigation of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, testified
|
|
to the effect that since 1979, the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> had never seriously tried
|
|
to collect taxes from <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>LaRouche's lawyer Odin <ent type='PERSON'>Anderson</ent> stressed in his closing
|
|
statement, that the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> could have demanded at any time since
|
|
1979 that <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> file a tax return. This had not happened, but
|
|
instead a bizarre tax evasion conspiracy theory had been
|
|
constructed.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The prosecution alleged that loans and contributions were used to
|
|
maintain LaRouche's alleged "lavish life-style," and that security
|
|
measures constituted a prestige symbol rather than necessary
|
|
defense against real threats. Contradicting these claims, Richard
|
|
McGraw, a <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associate responsible for LaRouche's personal
|
|
security, testified as to the actually quite austere living
|
|
situation of Mr. and Mrs. <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, and described how urgently
|
|
necessary security arrangements had deprived <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> of privacy
|
|
and freedom of movement, and made him a virtual prisoner in his
|
|
working room.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>General <ent type='PERSON'>Luis Giuffreda</ent>, who headed under President Reagan the
|
|
Federal Emergency Management Agency (<ent type='ORG'>FEMA</ent>) between 1981 and 1985,
|
|
testified to the considerable danger LaRouche's life, referenced
|
|
numerous reports of threats to <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>, from terrorist groupings
|
|
including the Baader-Meinhof band, Weather-Underground, <ent type='NORP'>Yippies</ent>
|
|
and Jewish <ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> League, as well as threats from the Communist
|
|
Party U.S.A. and <ent type='GPE'>the Soviet Union</ent> directly. In view of these
|
|
threats, LaRouche's security arrangements were much too little.
|
|
LaRouche's security was not in the "Cadillac category" but rather
|
|
in the "VW bug" category, and that LaRouche's living quarters
|
|
reminded Gen. Giuffreda of his son's student housing.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Following this testimony the prosecution modified its approach,
|
|
asserting explicitly that neither the threat to <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> nor the
|
|
legitimacy of his security costs had been denied by the
|
|
prosecution or the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> government.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Throughout the testimony no significant substantiation at all was
|
|
presented for Count 13, "Conspiracy to defraud <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States
|
|
by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful
|
|
function of the U.S. Treasury Department and <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> in the
|
|
ascertainment, computation, assessment and collection of the
|
|
revenue, to witt: the individual income taxes of Lyndon <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>
|
|
jr. Indicative was the manner in which Prosecutor <ent type='PERSON'>Robinson</ent> cited
|
|
Kavaler, the attorney for the television company <ent type='ORG'>NBC</ent>, as supposed
|
|
evidence in his closing summary. In 1984 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had sued <ent type='ORG'>NBC</ent>
|
|
for a vicious slander program, broadcast nationwide by <ent type='ORG'>NBC</ent> and
|
|
coinciding with the initiation of the investigation of <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>
|
|
by the <ent type='ORG'>Boston Grand Jury</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Robinson</ent> quoted from the transcript of
|
|
the <ent type='ORG'>NBC</ent> trial, in which <ent type='ORG'>Kaveler</ent> questions <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> on his income.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The judge's detailed instructions to the jury concerning Count
|
|
13, including his emphasis that demonstration of "good faith" on
|
|
the part of the defendants would be conclusive proof of
|
|
innocence, should have led unambiguously to a verdict of
|
|
"innocent" on this count. The verdict of guilty is clear proof
|
|
that the jury's decision was a total miscarriage of justice.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> The True Lyndon <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On Dec. 8, a number of prominent personalities from several
|
|
countries took the stand to testify to LaRouche's personal
|
|
integrity, his standing as an influential political figure whose
|
|
initiatives and policies are respected throughout the world, and
|
|
to the reasons why <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> had become a target of harassment,
|
|
slander and assassination threats. This testimony succeeded in at
|
|
least partially casting light upon the political motives behind
|
|
the trial.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><ent type='PERSON'>Juan Rebaza</ent>, President of the <ent type='NORP'>Peruvian</ent> national fishing company
|
|
Pesca <ent type='GPE'>Peru</ent>, testified on the political activities of <ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent>
|
|
in <ent type='PERSON'>Iberoamerica</ent>, including Small's meetings with Peru's President
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Alan Garcia</ent>, with the labor movement in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> and with the
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated <ent type='ORG'>Schiller Institute</ent>'s initiative for formation
|
|
of a Latin <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> common market.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Retired Brigadier General Paul-<ent type='PERSON'>Albert</ent> Scherer, former head of
|
|
<ent type='NORP'>West German</ent> military counterintelligence, testified to LaRouche's
|
|
contributions to <ent type='ORG'>the Western Alliance</ent> and to the campaign of
|
|
attacks against <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> by <ent type='GPE'>the Soviet Union</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> became a
|
|
major threat to the <ent type='NORP'>Soviets</ent> especially for his role in the
|
|
development of the SDI policy. Gen. Scherer testified that
|
|
<ent type='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. <ent type='PERSON'>John Seale</ent>, member of the
|
|
Royal Society of Medicine in <ent type='GPE'>London</ent>, documented the crucial
|
|
importance of the fight against AIDS and testified on how his
|
|
cooperation with <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Robinson</ent>, a long-time
|
|
close associate of Dr, <ent type='PERSON'>Martin Luther King</ent>, active since the 1930s
|
|
in the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> civil rights movement, emphasized in her
|
|
testimony the role of the <ent type='ORG'>Schiller Institute</ent> and the <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>-associated Club of Life in the worldwide battle against hunger
|
|
and the drug plague. She portrayed <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>Lucio Anez</ent>, former Chief of Staff of the <ent type='NORP'>Bolivian</ent> Armed
|
|
Forces, head of <ent type='ORG'>the Bolivian Military Academy</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>Bolivian</ent>
|
|
representative to the Inter <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> Board, testified on
|
|
his meetings with <ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Small</ent> and Lyndon <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. He had
|
|
discussed with <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> the latter's 15-point program for a war
|
|
against drugs. He had also invited <ent type='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 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> from <ent type='GPE'>France</ent>,
|
|
<ent type='GPE'>Spain</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Italy</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>England</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Germany</ent> and other countries. These all
|
|
attested to LaRouche's personal integrity and to the respect
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> enjoys among former leaders of the Resistance in Europe,
|
|
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 <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and his associates,
|
|
testimony did provide a tiny glimpse of the powerful political
|
|
motives behind bringing <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> to trial.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><ent type='PERSON'>Richard Morris</ent>, a <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> lawyer who worked for several years
|
|
as Chief Assistant to "Judge" <ent type='PERSON'>William Clark</ent> in the U.S. State
|
|
Department and <ent type='ORG'>National Security Council</ent>, testified on his
|
|
numerous meetings with <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associates in the
|
|
period 1982-83. In these meetings, according to <ent type='PERSON'>Morris</ent>, <ent type='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. <ent type='PERSON'>Morris</ent> testified that he was
|
|
approached in the middle of 1982 by three persons, from the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>,
|
|
the <ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> Intelligence Agency and the National Security
|
|
Council, who told him that <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> was "pro-<ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>, pro-socialist, a fascist, <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent>, and even a <ent type='NORP'>Democrat</ent>"!</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>John Seale</ent> was prevented by the court from testifying on the
|
|
fact, that following Seale's endorsement of Proposition 64 -- an
|
|
anti-AIDS measure originally proposed by <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> associates and
|
|
placed on the <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> referendum ballot in November 1986 --,
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Seale</ent> was slandered by official U.S. State Department spokesman
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Charles Redman</ent>, and accused of spreading "<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> disinformation".</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Herbert Quinde, a member of the <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent> security staff,
|
|
testified on a telephone conversation he had conducted with
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Edward Bennett Williams</ent>, member of <ent type='ORG'>the President</ent>'s Foreign
|
|
Intelligence Advisory Board PFIAB during the first Reagan
|
|
Administration. During that conversation, <ent type='PERSON'>Williams</ent> reported that
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Henry Kissinger</ent> had personally requested that he, <ent type='PERSON'>Williams</ent>, take
|
|
part in Justice Department operations against <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>. At that
|
|
time he had refused, on the grounds that the Justice Department
|
|
"should not intervene into politics." In addition, <ent type='PERSON'>Williams</ent> spoke
|
|
of a faction of the <ent type='ORG'>National Security Council</ent> which was opposed
|
|
to LaRouche's policies and wanted to eliminate him.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Impressive further proof of government dirty tricks was provided
|
|
even during the court proceedings, when the U.S. Embassy in <ent type='GPE'>Peru</ent>
|
|
refused to grant an entry visa to the well-known <ent type='NORP'>Peruvian</ent> lawyer
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Maritza Hidalga Garcia</ent>, who had been called as a witness for the
|
|
defense. Although Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> had told the prosecution to
|
|
insure the granting of the visa, the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Embassy in <ent type='GPE'>Peru</ent>
|
|
continued to refuse the visa, upon the proposterous grounds that
|
|
Mrs. <ent type='ORG'>Hidalga</ent> lacked an assured income!</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> The Jury Disregards Judge Bryan's Instructions</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Following testimony by prosecution and defense witnesses, Judge
|
|
<ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> spent one hour instructing the jury on the criteria the 12
|
|
jurors should follow in deciding on a verdict of innocent or
|
|
guilty for each of the defendants upon each of the counts with
|
|
which they were charged -- a total of 48 decisions requiring
|
|
unanimous agreement by the jurors. The jury took only 11 hours to
|
|
reach its decision: a verdict of guilty against all defendants on
|
|
all counts. If the jury had followed the instructions of the
|
|
judge, the verdict would have been the opposite.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The following are key points of Judge Bryan's instructions to the
|
|
jury:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * The overall definition of a "conspiracy," is defined
|
|
as two or more persons combined wilfully and knowingly for a
|
|
criminal purpose, with the addition of only one overt act--which
|
|
needn't have been an illegal act in itself, but done in
|
|
furtherance of the conspiracy. A conspiracy does not have to be
|
|
written down, or even expressed explicitly orally, but is defined
|
|
as a "shared agreement." Once an individual is found to be a
|
|
participant in the conspiracy, he can be found responsible for
|
|
the acts of all other persons in the conspiracy.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * The judge cautioned the jury that "membership in a
|
|
political organization like the <ent type='ORG'>NCLC</ent> or in a political committee
|
|
like the <ent type='ORG'>NEC</ent> is not criminal; nor is it evidence of criminal
|
|
activity or participation in a criminal conspiracy. Active
|
|
membership in a political organization which espouses honest,
|
|
albeit controversial, views is not only lawful under our
|
|
constitutional system, but is in fact protected activity."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * The defendants have a legal right to free political
|
|
expression under our system, but if those expressions, otherwise
|
|
legal, are judged to be made "in furtherance of the conspiracy,"
|
|
then it can be an overt act.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * The tax law instruction outlined the same exemption code
|
|
which the expert witness had cited, adding that "employee" status
|
|
is an objective aspect of the tax code, not based on subjective
|
|
belief. It stressed that negligence or trying to reduce taxes is
|
|
not evidence of criminality. It emphasized that the intent of the
|
|
defendant is critical, and that "good faith is a complete defense
|
|
against Count 13 (the tax count)."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> In summarizing what the government charged in the tax
|
|
count, the Judge said this amounted to counting as income
|
|
LaRouche's housing, food and wine, clothing, entertainment and
|
|
services, but not costs of physical security, security
|
|
facilities, or improvement of security facilities.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * The judge noted that if the defendant sought the advice of
|
|
an attorney or an accountant, and made full disclosure to his
|
|
ability, and acted on that expert's advice, then he is not
|
|
wilfully acting to defraud or deceive the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> said that the key point of proof of
|
|
the 11 individual mail fraud counts is deception by the
|
|
defendants, which can be defined as half-truths, omissions, or
|
|
otherwise concealing material effects in relationship to the
|
|
solicitation. It also noted that "willfull blindless" is no
|
|
defense.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * He again stressed the intent of the defendants as being
|
|
the critical feature, and that good faith on the part of the
|
|
defendant is a complete defense:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> "You are further instructed that good faith and an honest
|
|
purpose on the part of any defendant is an absolute defense as to
|
|
the charges set forth in Counts 1 through 12. It matters not how
|
|
visionary you may find the defendants' political goals to be, or
|
|
how unreasonable the prospects of success of any of the
|
|
defendants' political undertakings--e.g. the war on drugs--may
|
|
seem to you, if the defendants honestly and genuinely believed
|
|
that their political movement would gather increasing popular
|
|
support and that they would have the resources to repay their
|
|
loans...."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * He noted that being late on loan payments is not evidence
|
|
of an intent to defraud.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> * Finally, he stressed that the burden of proof was
|
|
completely on the government, that the defendants not taking the
|
|
witness stand could not be used as prejudice against them, and that
|
|
while the jury should aim to come to its unanimous verdict,
|
|
jurors should not surrender their opinions for mere interest in
|
|
getting a verdict.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Following the verdict it became evident that the foreman of the
|
|
jury, one <ent type='PERSON'>Buster Horton</ent>, had played the decisive role in
|
|
manipulating the jury into its unanimous decision of "guilty on
|
|
all counts". <ent type='PERSON'>Horton</ent>, it turns out, is a career civil service
|
|
employee working as a middle-level official of the U.S. Dept. of
|
|
Agriculture, one of the hotbeds of LaRouche's political enemies
|
|
within the government. The very weekend before the judgement in
|
|
<ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>the Department</ent> of Agriculture had used front
|
|
organizations to circulate slanderous leaflets attacking <ent type='PERSON'>LaRouche</ent>
|
|
at a conference on agriculture policy, organized by the Schiller
|
|
Institute in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>As the clerk read the verdict, no juror, except <ent type='PERSON'>Horton</ent>, looked
|
|
the defendents in the eye. At least one juror was seen crying as
|
|
she left the courtroom, a sign of the evil process which had
|
|
taken place behind closed doors.
|
|
|
|
--30--
|
|
-30-
|
|
</p></xml> |