Talk:United States v. LaRouche/archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Old talk 2 What is disputed? 3 Unproven assertion about Boston mistrial 4 Added information about the Virginia case 5 John Train meetings 6 Associates? 7 Exoneration cites 8 Unsupported Claim 9 Sandbox version

[edit] Old talk

Has anyone got links to transcripts of the cases? Rich Farmbrough 11:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there are any. A large portion of the transcripts was published by the LaRouche group back in the 90s, in a book called Railroad!. Weed Harper 20:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What is disputed?

I got to this article by clicking on a random page on the disputed listed, and thought I'd tackle this one before the LaRouche article. What is disputed, fact wise? Or should this actually be an POV tag? -Vina 19:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was part of a larger article that got overly large and was split in three. The other two parts are heavily disputed and both currently protected. This part doesn't seem so bad, so I'm going to stick my neck out and remove the tag. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unproven assertion about Boston mistrial

"After this memo surfaced, Judge Robert Keeton ordered a search of Vice President George Bush's office, for documents relating to LaRouche. Shortly after this order, the government took measures to shut down the trial. The trial ended in mistrial on May 4, 1988."

This claim involves the logical fallacy that sequence implies causation. There is no evidence that "the government took measures to shut down the trial." In fact, as was reported in the Boston newspapers, the Judge declared a mistrial stating that the trial was dragging on so long with defense motions on side issues and government slowness in responding that it was unlikely that there would be enough jurors left to render a decision when the trial ended. Several jurors had already dropped off. None of the jurors expectred the trial to last as long as it did. Cynics would argue that this was the defense strategy.

Rewritten for accuracy. --Cberlet 03:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is quite reasonable to suspect that the government moved for a mistrial to avoid the embarassment of a search of the Vice President's files (which was in fact avoided). I think it is also interesting to note that the prosecutor in the Boston case, John Markham, showed up this year as defense attorney for Ahmed Chalabi. I think that maybe the article should include these points. Weed Harper 14:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Added information about the Virginia case

Added more balance to this article with material sourced to the Washington Post 12/17/1988. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou6.htm --Cberlet 04:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky again adds incorrect information from LaRouche sources

Herschelkrustofsky has rewritten a sentence to state the following:

"LaRouche claimed he had no income, but during the period following the involuntary bankruptcy, when the bankrupted entities, now controlled by government trustees, were not repaying many loans, and LaRouche was not paying taxes, LaRouche lived at a 200 acre Virginia estate with a pond and horse ring, owned by a supporter of the LaRouche organization."

This is factually misleading and false. LaRouche lived in the mansion before the Virginia raid happened and before the case was filed, and during a period before the raid in which many loans were not being repaid. This is a matter of fact reported in several newspaper. The crux of the tax fraud conviction was that LaRouche had created a sham financial picture in which he received shelter, food, clothing, and transportation and yet maintained they were all gifts. Even if true, these would have been counted as taxable income which he failed to report.

My goal here, as on other LaRouche oriented pages, is to restore some balance. I am starting by ensuring a 50/50 ratio of factual/critical material to claims by LaRouche supporters for which they are the sole source. --Cberlet 12:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Train meetings

I don't think that it is necessary to include the John Train material in this article; I think the article is balanced and complete without it. I think it is far more necessary in the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche article, because it helps to explain the discrepancy between LaRouche's stated views, and those views imputed to him by his critics and disseminated in the media. I am open to other opinions, however, on how it might be germane to this article. --HK 21:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is where the material belongs. It is directly related to the claim of LaRouche and his supporters that a conspiracy hatched at the Train meetings led to his conviction. It has nothing to do with the political views of LaRouche. And it has very little to do with the page on me, since I argue that the entire LaRouche claim of conspiracy stemming from the Train meeting I attended is not true, undocumented, and pure supposition.--Cberlet 01:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, what LaRouche and his supporters claim is that what led to LaRouche's conviction was the misconduct of Judge Bryan, who prevented LaRouche's attorneys from presenting the evidence of the involuntary bankruptcy and other essential facts of the case. The Train salon meetings were a parallel track of organized character assassination, to make the judicial railroad credible to public opinion. After a suggested compromise measure at Talk:Chip Berlet, I am creating an article called John Train Salon. If Chip still wants the Train info here at this article, he is welcome to it, although a link to the new article will be fine with me. --HK 16:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The material only should be mentioned in detail in one place. The last thing Wikipedia needs is another page devoted to LaRouche. This is another example of how HK and other LaRouche supporters spark a controversy, and then seek a "compromise" whereby another LaRouche page gets spawned so that more LaRouche propoganda is placed on Wikipedia, turning it into a major source of promotion for the views of LaRouche. The process of creating a serious and thoughtful public encyclopedia is thus hijacked. A whole page on the Train meetings? It is absurd! Using Wikipedia to explore alternative views and non-mainstream currents is a great idea. Allowing fanatics to distort the process needs to be confronted.--Cberlet 17:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There really needs to be some systematic way to discuss this problem. I understand other tiny zealous groups and their supporters are engaged in similar projects both at Wikipedia and at Disinfopedia. Is there a place to discuss these larger issues?--Cberlet 17:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is wikien-l@Wikipedia.org which is the wikipedia discussion list. You can join it at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l There has been an ArbComm ruling on activity by LaRouche activists and there has been some interest in revisiting the issue to make the guidelines more restrictive. AndyL 17:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation -- AndyL 17:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

test [[User:AndyL|AndyL (talk)]] 17:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More unfair conduct by HK. If we are going to be forced to debate the Train meeting material, it should only be on one page. HK keeps placing it on several pages. This is not fair. It is just another place where HK wants to engage in a personal attack on me. The material does not belong in Wikipedia in the first place. I have deleted it from this page. --Cberlet 14:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, I have no objection to removing it from this article. However, the idea that "it does not belong in Wikipedia in the first place" suggests that Chip, who is a professional anti-LaRouche activist[1], wishes to make Wikipedia into a vehicle for his propaganda, in defiance of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. --HK 16:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Associates?

The trial included LaRouche and six associates. Can we find the names of the other persons prosecuted? They are referred to repeatedly, but their identities (and fates) are left out. -Willmcw 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found the reference to three of the associates (buried in the article). Does anyone know about the others? Also, I cut out two quotations which don't have any available references, I can't find them with Google either. I also edited the 2nd trial to bring it more in line with the section at Lyndon LaRouche. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What appears to be an article written by "LaRouche supporters" is posted around the internet. It is titled: "The Trial of Lyndon LaRouche" and starts: "The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the trial of Lyndon LaRouche..." [2] [3] Does it accurately represent the thinking of the LaRouche organizations? Is it spurious? Can anyone comment on the validity of this material? -Willmcw

The six associates were Edward Spannaus, William Wertz, Michael Billington, Dennis Small, Paul Greenberg, and Joyce Rubenstein (their names appear on the various court documents which are reproduced in the Railroad! book.) The two links you are asking about appear to be legit -- the first one is posted anonymously on the rather dubious TOTSE site, but the second is credited to John Covici, whom I believe to be a legitimate representative of the LaRouche movement. --HK 16:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Totse is so dubious that I had to ask. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In an statement issued in 1995, LaRouche says, "Four other railroaded LaRouche associates are serving sentences of 39 years (Anita Gallagher), 34 years (Paul Gallagher), 33 years (Laurence Hecht), and 25 years (Donald Phau)." Were they convicted in a separate trial? How do they fit in? Also, User:C Colden tells me they were all paroled in the 1990s. Any info on that? -Willmcw 22:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

also this: "[Robert] Primack joined the political party of Lyndon LaRouche in the 1970s. As part of a federal investigation into the fundraising practices of that organization, he was jailed for about a year. After being released from prison, he left the party. http://www.leesburgtoday.com/current.cfm?catid=11&newsid=7474

Probably all these other cases should go into a short section, "other prosecutions". -Willmcw 07:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I've created a template containing most of the LaRouche-related Talk pages, and I'm putting it on the Talk pages of Lyndon LaRouche, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche so that editors involved in discussing edits with Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can more easily refer to previous discussions these editors have had about the same issues. Once the disputes are over, we can take the template down. Best, SlimVirgin 07:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exoneration cites

HK, thanks for providing those cites. What kind of access do you have to the material? Would it be possible to scan or at least photograph them them so that we can see the context? As you know, there have been context malfunctions recently and it would be helpful to see the whole. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK- on reflection I agree that the Bakker quote belongs more in the main bio of LaRouche. I found a citation for allegations of torture and attempted assassination. Cheers,-Willmcw 22:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking about the ad? The text of the ad is exactly as linked (where it says "see text.") However, there were numerous other ads, including the ad on the similarities to the Dreyfus case. I have the Railroad! book, which reproduces a lot of court documents and most of the ads -- there was one from a group of Senators from South American countries, for example. I would prefer to discuss this stuff after a modicum of stability has been restored to Lyndon LaRouche and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, however. --HK 02:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The quotations that I cannot find on the web are the Heydte quote and the Brainin quote. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has been over ten days since I raised the question. I'm deleting the Brainin and Heydt quotes until a verfiable source with context can be provided. They can easily be restored once we have proof that they are correct. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported Claim

"The size of the LaRouche movement led to investigations of the source of its apparently extensive financial resources."

There is no evidence to support this claim. There is ample evidence that the investigations leading to the First Trial were launched after a large number of complaints were received by law enforcement agencies across the country that there were questionable fundraising activities taking place, especially credit card charges that were 4 to 10 times higher than the person receiving them had agreed to.

I agree that this claim should go. It was orginally inserted (referring to the LaRouche "empire", not "movement") by anti-LaRouche editor AndyL. However, CBerlet's above account of the story is equally spurious.

From "Memorandum of Defendants Lyndon LaRouche et at. in support of their motion for disclosure of exculpatory material" cr. 88-00243-A:

"In the Boston investigation... prosecutor John Markham voluntarily disclosed to the defense all FBI 302's [interview reports] generated in the course of the "Boston investigation." These 302's revealed that the Government launched a nationwide dragnet for alleged "victims" of fraud on the eve of the November 1984 elections, based upon one complaint to the FBI and a news broadcast on the local NBC affiliate, WBZ-TV."

--HK 01:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then the Boston grand jury called scores of witnesses and found numerous instances of potentially illegal activity, as detailed in the Boston indictment, and reported in the mainstream press. Then, in the Virginia case, even more witnesses were located, and LaRouche was convicted.--Cberlet 03:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox version

CB, thanks for setting up the sandbox version of the article Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. I'm not sure why we'd need it if the main article is unprotected. Are you planning a major re-write? The two things that I believe are mising are a full treatment of the associates, who are barely mentioned, and the various alternate theories that have been floated by LaRouce supporters to explain the prosecution (Soviet revenge for SDI, John Train Salon [OK, that one's already there], Virginia Hunt club barons, etc.).

Yes. Slim and I are trying a rewrite that preserves most of the pro-LaRouche material, but eliminates much duplication, and moves stuff around into a more coherent collection. After we have done this, we can see if some of the material can be condensed, and links added to provide more detial for those that want it.

Here are the first "sandbox" drafts of three pages, and their associated links:

Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

Your suggestions are good, but finding sources for the associates on this page will be a chore.--Cberlet 21:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)