Path: uuwest!spies!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aq817 From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) Newsgroups: alt.activism Subject: LaRouche Trial Fact Sheet (40K) 1992Mar28.053617.16367@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 05:36:17 GMT Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Lines: 809 Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns2.ins.cwru.edu
The file below is from the Lincoln Legacy BBS (703)777-5987. It is run by John Covici and has many LaRouche 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
TEXT
The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the trial of Lyndon LaRouche at the Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia USA.
Prehistory
Oct. 6, 1986: Massive search and seizure operation by 400 FBI agents and police of the Leesburg, Virginia offices of the Executive Intelligence Review and the newspaper New Solidarity. Indictments, based on findings of a Boston Grand Jury, are issued to the LaRouche campaign organization and LaRouche-associated companies, and against 10 LaRouche collaborators. (On Dec. 16, 1987 three more LaRouche associates are indicted, and then LaRouche himself on July 2, 1987.) The accusations are "conspiracy to obstruct justice" and "credit card fraud." Truckloads 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 Loudon County Virginia indicts, on Feb. 18, 1987, another 16 LaRouche associated individuals and 5 companies.
Nov. 24, 1986: First press stories appear, in the Washington Post and Loudon Times Mirror, referencing an Alexandria, Virgina Grand Jury investigation (again using material seized in raid) of alleged tax evasion by LaRouche and associated companies. These investigations, like the ones in Loudon County, make use of the huge mass of documents seized in the FBI raid.
Apr. 20, 1987: Alexandria, Virginia bankrupcy judge Bostetter orders three companies (one is a scientific organization) to be placed under involuntary supervision and forced to suspend their activities.
May 1988: After a 6-month Boston trial, judge Robert Keeton declares a mistrial, following serious errors by the prosecution. The prosecution refused to disclose crucial evidence to the defense. After the mistrial, a Boston 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.
Oct. 14, 1988: Federal attorney Henry Hudson of Alexandria, Virginia, announces that he is indicting LaRouche and six associates for "conspiracy to commit mail fraud" and "conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service."
The accused William Wertz, Edward Spannaus, Michael Billington, Dennis Small, Paul Greenberg and Joyce Rubinstein are each indicted on between 3 and 11 counts. LaRouche 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 IRS from assessing and collecting his taxes.
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 NCLC (a LaRouche-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")
The accusations stand or fall with the basic claim, that the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), a philosophical association founded nearly 20 years ago, is in fact a criminal conspiracy whose essential purpose is to enrich Lyndon LaRouche. 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 westerm culture and for a cultural and scientific renaissance--were considered side aspects of the "conspiracy". h
Pretrial eventst
By setting a very short period between the indictment and trial opening, Alexandria Judge Bryan created the preconditions for a summary trial, in which the defendants were deprived of the possibility of comprehensive defense.
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 Boston trial, and therefore violated the fundamental legal principle excluding "double jeopardy" -- no one can be tried for the same accusation twice. Judge Stanley Sporkin dismisses the challenge following a brief oral hearing without having read the written motions.
October 17, 1988: Arraignment before Chief Judge Albert V. Bryan. All defendants plead not guilty and move to shift the proceedings to Boston, on the grounds of similar content of the two cases. Bryant fixes a Nov. 10 deadline for submission of all defense pre-trial motions and Nov. 21 for the trial. When even the state prosecutor Robinson objects, Judge Bryan remarks that 90 percent of the defense motions would just come of a computer and only three or four would be worth considering.
Oct. 21, 1988: Judge Bryan dismisses the motion to move the trial to Boston, despite the fact that the circumstance of "double jeopardy" is underlined by the presence of the Boston prosecutors John Markham and Mark Rasch, who assist the deputy prosecutor of Alexandria in the trial.
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 Bryant admits that "we are pushing the defendants a bit hard in this case in terms of time".
Nov. 4, 1988: The defense protests the hurried tempo of the trial and the trial date, only five weeks after the indictment. Defense Attorney Kenley Webster 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 Bryan supports the argument of prosecutor Kent Robinson, that most of the defense attorneys had become familiar with the case already in Boston. Motions 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.
Nov. 7, 1988: The Alexandria prosecution, represented by Boston state attorney Markham 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 FBI, of documented infiltration of the LaRouche organization by informants, or of the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings brought against LaRouche-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.
The attorneys for Ed Spannaus and the other defendants submit an Emergency Petition for Mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, arguing that Judge Bryan be ordered to move the trial to a later date.
In addition, the defense submits a Motion to release exculpatory evidence. This includes information concerning agents and informants infiltrated into LaRouche-associated organizations by government agencies and government pressure applied to financial supporters and banks carrying accounts of LaRouche organizations and supporters.
Nov. 9, 1988: Defense submits a motion to suspend the trial on grounds it is politically motivated and selectively directed against LaRouche, while other politicians, for example Gary Hart, would never consider repaying campaign debts of millions of dollars.
Nov. 10, 1988: Judge Bryan dismisses the above and 26 of the 28 motions, and supports the prosecution's demands to limit scope of the defense. Bryant 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.
By these actions Judge Bryan 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 Boston trial, would be excluded. Instead, attention was to be given to the obscure conspiracy theory of the prosecution.
November 14: Refering to their Petition to the Richmond 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 Bryan, a situation which would violate the constitutional right to a fair trial.
At the same time, the defense submits a new motion against the ruling of Judge Bryan requiring the defense to reveal its strategy prior to the opening of the trial.
November 17: The Richmond Court of Appeals rejects the defense's petition for a setting a later trial date.
November 18: Final deliberation before opening of the trial. Judge Bryan 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 Bryan also dismisses the motion of November 14.
Jury "Selection"
On Nov. 21, after denial of further motions to suspend or delay the trial, jury selection begins. This process, which took three weeks in Boston, 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 the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the Secret Service, and government departments. Even employees of law enforcement agencies, were only excluded when they themselves admitted to being "biased." One of them, a Secret Service Agent, was disqualified after he flashed his badge and revealed that he himself had been involved in investigations against LaRouche! After 145 candidates had been excluded for cause the remaining 30 still included an employee of the DOJ, an FBI employee, the wife of a former FBI consultant, a government official working with the IRS, a Defense Intelligence Agency employee with contacts to the CIA, a secretary of the Drug Enforcement Agency, an employee of the Department of Labor, a worker for the television company NBC which is known for its hatred of LaRouche. Since the defense had only 9 veto rights, there was no way to exclude all biased witnesses.
The Trial Arguments
"Loan Fraud"
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:
1) Efforts were made to repay loans and considerable amounts were actually paid.
2) LaRouche collaborators acted in good faith when soliciting loans, having reason to believe that the conditions arranged would actually be met.
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.
4) Persons giving loans were informed concerning the risk involved.
5) Press attacks such as the ones which followed LaRouche candidates' victories in Illinois, negatively affected creditors and new contributions.
6) Creditors were encouraged and pressured by government agents to press charges against LaRouche.
7) Loans would most likely have been paid if massive government interference had not made this impossible.
Defense showed that the firms involved enjoyed massive expansion in income over 1984-85, thereby justifying major loans. Certified Public Accountant Thomas Seavy showed with charts, how the wave of violent press slanders and attacks by Democratic Party figures, following the March 1986 victory of two LaRouche candidates in the Illinois primaries, had interrupted the increase in sales. Even more dramatic was the effect of the October 1986 FBI raid on the offices of LaRouche-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.
Thus, according to Seays, 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.
There was a plan to repay debts
Two active LaRouche collaborators Frank Bell and Richard Welsh 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.
Bell presented his repayment plan, which involved for example $15000 in weekly repayments throughout 1985. Welsh 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 LaRouche-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.
The defense cited as evidence more than six memoranda written by LaRouche making proposals for means of repaying the debt. Welsh described his efforts over nearly seven years to realize these proposals.
Even government witness Wayne Hintz, who had formerly worked in the bookkeeping department of LaRouche-associated organizations, confirmed this existence of a repayment program. Hintz himself had written memos on repayment plans which the NCLC leadership and LaRouche endorsed. According to Hintz, LaRouche personally had always pushed for cutting back and even eliminating the soliciting of loans, and for increasing sales instead. Hintz stated in court on December 6: "There was no policy I was aware of not to repay loans." [check English quote]
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.
In addition, it emerged that the government's figures regarding outstanding debt were wrong. Government witness, IRS employee Harry Chusid 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.
Most creditors testifying as government witnesses confirmed what LaRouche 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 LaRouche. Of the remaining 5%, only a tiny number could be brought to work actively with FBI, Secret Service or IRS agents and issue false statements.
Creditor Dorothy Powers, for example, testified on November 30 that defendant Michael Billington 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 Max Harrell the defense presented a transcript of a telephone conversation in which Harrell was literally told concerning his loan, "of course it's a risk". This was again confirmed on December 7 by witness Alan Rither, a Washington lawyer who also loaned money to the organizations of the defendants.
Mrs. Audrey Carter testified that her 1985 loan to Caucus Distributors, Inc. (CDI) was due for repayment in November 1986, the month after the dramatic FBI raid. In April 1987 CDI was shut down on orders of the government. Alan Rither, who had also made a loan to CDI, testified that even after the involuntary bankrupcy he had recieved assurances that the remainder of repayments due would be paid back to him.
John Perricone, an active supporter of the NDPC (the National Democratic Policy Committee, which promoted the electoral campaigns of LaRouche-associated candidates) testified that he had known defendant Joyce Rubenstein since 1979 and regarded her as an honest, committed woman. In cross examination Perricone confirmed that he had loaned a total of more than $30000, but had not insisted on repayment. Testimony by Perricone concerning FBI harassment against him was suppressed at the demand of prosecutor John Markham. However, statements by creditor Elizabeth Sexton, 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.
All of this demonstrated, as attorney Ed Williams for Joyce Rubenstein and attorney James Clark for Michael Billington 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.
Vindictive Witnesses
A crucial element of the prosecution's case, and especially for the prosecution's characterization of LaRouche as the authoritarian dictator of the alleged conspiracy, was the testimony of former members of the NCLC: Charles Tate, Chris Curtis, Vera Cronk, Steve Bardwell and Pam Goldman. 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 LaRouche, and had possibly been pressured to testify by promiss 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.
An unbiased court could only dismiss these witnesses' testimony as worthless. The final blow to their credibility was delivered when witnesses Steve Bardwell and Charles Tate were forced to confirm descriptions of a Halloween Party held on October 31, 1986, in which former NCLC members celebrated the huge FBI raid, earlier that month, on the offices of LaRouche-associated organizations. Bardwell had himself written a five-page invitation to that party, announcing the performance of a play entitled "Pin the Rap on LaRouche." The guests at the party came in costume; Charles Tate, who had dressed himself up as a credit card, acted out an imaginary testimony against LaRouche. Kostas Kalimtgis, a former leading associate of LaRouche presently suspected of having been a long-time KGB plant, gave a major speach at the Halloween party calling upon those present to do everything possible "to put LaRouche behind bars."
While most statements by the ex-members were discredited by their obvious vindictive intent, Charles Tate and Chris Curtis entangled themselves in serious contradictions. Curtis had earlier testified, in the Boston case, that LaRouche associates had acted in good faith and he had no knowledge of an intention not to repay debts. Now, in Alexandria, he claimed that non-repayment had been the general policy. Especially under cross examination, Curtis 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. Curtis admitted that since leaving the NCLC he had applied for employment to 12 different government agencies, including the CIA. It emerged that in the course of his attempts to secure employment, Curtis had successively changed his line on LaRouche and his associates, in the direction of increasingly damaging statements. Tate revealed himself as a notorious liar, admitting that he had lied to LaRouche 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.
Claim of "Conspiracy" Key to Prosecution's Case
The case of defendant Edward Spannaus demonstrated most clearly how the claim of "conspiracy" was the prosecution's only way to implicate him in criminal actions. Spannaus 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 Spannaus' notebooks concerning an unverified statement by LaRouche on loan policy. Spannaus' only involvement in the cited loan cases was in discussing with a lawyer changes in loan contracts.
On December 2 Richard Vepez, a former NCLC member confirmed in testimony that Spannaus 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.
Spannaus' defense attorney Kenley Webster cited the flimsy nature of the charges against Spannaus as exemplary of the shakey foundation of the prosecution's entire case.
The Case of Dennis Small
Defendant Dennis Small was indicted on only one count, for allegedly having sollicited a large loan from Mrs. Goodwill for the declared purpose of supporting a campaign against drugs. It emerged, however, that Chris Curtis was the one who made the loan agreement with Mrs. Goodwill -- according to Curtis' own testimony! Dennis Small had never had anything to do with this loan. Curtis left the distinct impression that his false testimony in court had been elicited under threat of indictment.
"Tax Fraud"
Count 13 embodies the political nature of the trial better than any other. Government witnesses ended up establishing that
1) LaRouche has had no taxable income since 1979.
2) LaRouche had been completely open about his financial situation, and tax officials had never attempted to collect taxes from him.
3) Tax experts, lawyers and accountants consulted by LaRouche 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.
4) LaRouche had thus acted in good faith that his actions were in accordance with U.S. tax law.
5) the government's contention that LaRouche had a "lavish lifestyle" was a fabricated falsehood.
Experienced lawyer Mayer Morgenroth confirmed in testimony that LaRouche 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. Morgenroth reported that he had participated in 1979 and 1984 in consultations concerning the tax status of LaRouche and his associates. These consultations established that LaRouche 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 LaRouche. A tax consultant from Michigan, Gerry Doherty, had explained to Morgenroth that these provisions to Mr. LaRouche could not be counted as income. Furthermore Harold Dubrowsky of the tax consulting firm Grant Thorton, had advised that LaRouche was not required to file a tax return.
Thomas Seay, a certified public accountant (CPA) testified that according to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, LaRouche 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. Seay had advised LaRouche that he need not file a tax return.
New York accountant Murray Altman testified that during the four years he had completed tax returns for LaRouche-associated publishing companies and firms, LaRouche himself had been free of tax obligations.
Finally, IRS tax official Elizabeth Jeu, who had been involved for the last 12-14 in a tax investigation of LaRouche, testified to the effect that since 1979, the IRS had never seriously tried to collect taxes from LaRouche.
LaRouche's lawyer Odin Anderson stressed in his closing statement, that the IRS could have demanded at any time since 1979 that LaRouche file a tax return. This had not happened, but instead a bizarre tax evasion conspiracy theory had been constructed.
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 LaRouche associate responsible for LaRouche's personal security, testified as to the actually quite austere living situation of Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, and described how urgently necessary security arrangements had deprived LaRouche of privacy and freedom of movement, and made him a virtual prisoner in his working room.
General Luis Giuffreda, who headed under President Reagan the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) between 1981 and 1985, testified to the considerable danger LaRouche's life, referenced numerous reports of threats to LaRouche, from terrorist groupings including the Baader-Meinhof band, Weather-Underground, Yippies and Jewish Defense League, as well as threats from the Communist Party U.S.A. and the Soviet Union 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.
Following this testimony the prosecution modified its approach, asserting explicitly that neither the threat to LaRouche nor the legitimacy of his security costs had been denied by the prosecution or the American government.
Throughout the testimony no significant substantiation at all was presented for Count 13, "Conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful function of the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS in the ascertainment, computation, assessment and collection of the revenue, to witt: the individual income taxes of Lyndon LaRouche jr. Indicative was the manner in which Prosecutor Robinson cited Kavaler, the attorney for the television company NBC, as supposed evidence in his closing summary. In 1984 LaRouche had sued NBC for a vicious slander program, broadcast nationwide by NBC and coinciding with the initiation of the investigation of LaRouche by the Boston Grand Jury. Robinson quoted from the transcript of the NBC trial, in which Kaveler questions LaRouche on his income.
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.
The True Lyndon LaRouche
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 LaRouche 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.
Juan Rebaza, President of the Peruvian national fishing company Pesca Peru, testified on the political activities of Dennis Small in Iberoamerica, including Small's meetings with Peru's President Alan Garcia, with the labor movement in Mexico and with the LaRouche-associated Schiller Institute's initiative for formation of a Latin American common market.
Retired Brigadier General Paul-Albert Scherer, former head of West German military counterintelligence, testified to LaRouche's contributions to the Western Alliance and to the campaign of attacks against LaRouche by the Soviet Union. LaRouche became a major threat to the Soviets especially for his role in the development of the SDI policy. Gen. Scherer testified that LaRouche was man of integrity and modest way of living, who is working for his ideals without interest in personal gain.
Internationally-known AIDS expert Dr. John Seale, member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, documented the crucial importance of the fight against AIDS and testified on how his cooperation with LaRouche in that fight had led to slanders and harassment against him directed by agencies of the U.S. government.
The 78 year-old Amelia Robinson, a long-time close associate of Dr, Martin Luther King, active since the 1930s in the American civil rights movement, emphasized in her testimony the role of the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche-associated Club of Life in the worldwide battle against hunger and the drug plague. She portrayed LaRouche as an absolutely honest man, who had "devoted his life to the wellbeing of his nation and the world."
General Lucio Anez, former Chief of Staff of the Bolivian Armed Forces, head of the Bolivian Military Academy and Bolivian representative to the Inter American Defense Board, testified on his meetings with Dennis Small and Lyndon LaRouche. He had discussed with LaRouche the latter's 15-point program for a war against drugs. He had also invited Dennis Small, 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."
In addition to this testimony, many written attestations were submitted by personalities familiar with LaRouche from France, Spain, Italy, England, Germany and other countries. These all attested to LaRouche's personal integrity and to the respect LaRouche enjoys among former leaders of the Resistance in Europe, scientists, politicians and religious figures.
Government Dirty Tricks
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 LaRouche and his associates, testimony did provide a tiny glimpse of the powerful political motives behind bringing LaRouche to trial.
Richard Morris, a California lawyer who worked for several years as Chief Assistant to "Judge" William Clark in the U.S. State Department and National Security Council, testified on his numerous meetings with LaRouche and LaRouche associates in the period 1982-83. In these meetings, according to Morris, LaRouche had often provided useful information relevant to various aspects of national security. Many attempts had been made from various sides to stop these contacts. Morris testified that he was approached in the middle of 1982 by three persons, from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, who told him that LaRouche was "pro-communist, pro-socialist, a fascist, KGB, and even a Democrat"!
Dr. John Seale 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 LaRouche associates and placed on the California referendum ballot in November 1986 --, Seale was slandered by official U.S. State Department spokesman Charles Redman, and accused of spreading "Soviet disinformation".
Herbert Quinde, a member of the LaRouche security staff, testified on a telephone conversation he had conducted with Edward Bennett Williams, member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board PFIAB during the first Reagan Administration. During that conversation, Williams reported that Henry Kissinger had personally requested that he, Williams, take part in Justice Department operations against LaRouche. At that time he had refused, on the grounds that the Justice Department "should not intervene into politics." In addition, Williams spoke of a faction of the National Security Council which was opposed to LaRouche's policies and wanted to eliminate him.
Impressive further proof of government dirty tricks was provided even during the court proceedings, when the U.S. Embassy in Peru refused to grant an entry visa to the well-known Peruvian lawyer Maritza Hidalga Garcia, who had been called as a witness for the defense. Although Judge Bryan had told the prosecution to insure the granting of the visa, the American Embassy in Peru continued to refuse the visa, upon the proposterous grounds that Mrs. Hidalga lacked an assured income!
The Jury Disregards Judge Bryan's Instructions
Following testimony by prosecution and defense witnesses, Judge Bryan 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.
The following are key points of Judge Bryan's instructions to the jury:
* 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.
* The judge cautioned the jury that "membership in a political organization like the NCLC or in a political committee like the NEC 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."
* 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.
* 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)."
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.
* 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 IRS.
* Judge Bryan 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.
* 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:
"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...."
* He noted that being late on loan payments is not evidence of an intent to defraud.
* 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.
Following the verdict it became evident that the foreman of the jury, one Buster Horton, had played the decisive role in manipulating the jury into its unanimous decision of "guilty on all counts". Horton, 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 Alexandria, the Department of Agriculture had used front organizations to circulate slanderous leaflets attacking LaRouche at a conference on agriculture policy, organized by the Schiller Institute in Chicago.
As the clerk read the verdict, no juror, except Horton, 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-