Talk:United States v. LaRouche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.


Contents

[edit] Heydte quote

I've deleted the Heydte quote which Weed added again, because I couldn't find a reference to him being at the University of Mainz. A Google search returned United States v. LaRouche (i.e. this very article) as the sole source, and it's not a good thing to be entirely self-referential. [1] If this is the German war hero, he died in 1994, but I'd still expect to find a reference to him having taught there. Could the editor who added this find a way to confirm his identity, and if possible more information about or a link to his article? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 19:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

A while back I searched at length and finally found a legitimate reference to Heydte having been at Mainz. The source, context, and verifiability of the quote used are my main concerns. -Willmcw 21:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed the Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte quote again. To compare the anti-Semite and loan scam artist LaRouche to Alfred Dreyfus, an honorable man and a victim of horrific anti-Semitism--and to have this comparison performed by a former Nazi German officer who received the Iron Cross from Hitler for fighting to bring about a world in which all Jews would be killed--is obscene, offensive and represents the same type of sly Jew baiting that one finds in Holocaust denial tracts. If Wikipedia editors have any sensitivity at all, they will uphold this deletion.--Dking 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I followed the link to the Wikipedia article on Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, where it says he opposed the Nazis (as did many traditional German military leaders,) so I find your opinion of him unjustified. I also see no reason to remove the quote simply because you so strongly disagree with it. --Marvin Diode 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on VDH provides no reference for the statement that he was involved in brawls against Nazis in the early 1930s; indeed it is a totally unfootnoted article. VDH served Hitler loyally, and the LaRouche distinction of "good" traditional German military leaders versus "bad" Nazis (bad because they were in LaRouche's view agents of the British and the Rothschilds) has no basis in fact. In the twilight of his life, VDH became involved with anti-Semite LaRouche, who published a translation of a military theory book by VDH that sets forth a scheme strongly reminiscent of the SS's Operation Werewolf plan in 1945. LaRouche utilized this book in constructing his own anti-Bolshevik resistance movement fantasy in 1988 that includes really vile statements about Jews as well as support for Nazi war criminals.[2] But even if VDH were the "liberal" the LaRouchians say he was, his comparison of LaRouche to Alfred Dreyfus is an insult directed against the memory of Dreyfus and all other victims of anti-Semitic persecution, and has no place in Wikipedia. The POV here is that of the LaRouche movment which persists in trying to use Wikipedia to spread their ideology. I am removing the section in question once again, with the further reason that VDH was not an expert either on U.S. law or on the LaRouche movement and therefore his opinion is not of sufficient weight to be included herein. Also it comes after a quote from the book Railroad, a propaganda screed published by the LaRouche organization that had already expressed the pro-LaRouche viewpoint, thus providing two pro-innocence quotes to one guilty quote. This is a totally improper imbalance given that LaRouche's conviction was upheld on appeal and all subsequent attempts to win him exoneration have fallen flat. Finally, the VDH statement is taken from a paid advertisement placed by the LaRouchians in a Washington newspaper. Paid advertisements are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources.--Dking 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dking raises some good points. If we were to include a mention of this assertion it should be amopng the other paid adevertisements listed in "Attempts at exoneration". At most it's worth a sentence, something like "Person X compared the trial to that of Alfred Dreyfus". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to pick out good points among all the violent POV. Remember that the BLP policy applies to talk pages. Von der Heydte is a published author on international law [3] which would be the appropriate field to make comparisons between the LaRouche and Dreyfus cases. Like the Ramsey Clark debate on the other article, this seems to be an effort to dismiss a credentialed expert because he is taking LaRouche's side of the debate. --Marvin Diode 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a 3rdparty source for the quotation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"International law" is the law regulating relations between nations. It is not the same thing as the comparative study of the legal systems and principles of individual nations.--Dking 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any serious argument being made for the deletion of the Heyde quote. What I see here, and in edit summaries, is Wikipedia:Trolling. --NathanDW 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First, a newspaper advertisment is not a proper source. Second, the quote gives an overbalance to LaRouche's complaints about the trial when in fact he lost all appeals and subsequent attempts to win exoneration. Third, the content of the quote, by comparing LaRouche to Dreyfus, amounts to an anti-Semitic slur. Fourth, the author of the quote, now deceased, has no expertise that would make him a credible source for judging LaRouche's guilt or innocence of complicated white collar crimes under U.S. law, and his only relevant notability is as a Nazi war hero who fought to provide the conditions for the Final Solution. Deleted again.--Dking 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance and POV

There is a serious issue of this page being unbalanced by pro-LaRouche text. Some of the text from the Lyndon LaRouche page on the trial belongs on this page, conneted with a link from the Lyndon LaRouche page. We need more details about the first and second trials to balance the pro-LaRouche claims of a government conspiracy. This page should be expanded and balanced between the facts of the trials, and the claim of the LaRouche supporters.

[edit] Suggestions for avoiding unproductive brawling

1. Don't make massive changes in controversial articles. Proceed gradually, that's just common sense.

2. Don't delete sourced material simply because you don't like it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.)

3. Don't delete material that you think is poorly sourced without first posting a cite request ({{fact}},) giving other editors the opportunity to provide a source. That's common courtesy. (The exception is where the material violates WP:BLP or other core policies.)

4. If you think a section is unbalanced, the best response is to provide well-sourced balancing material.

Of course, if your purpose in being here is to deliberately annoy other editors, kindly ignore these suggestions. --MaplePorter 20:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am editing text to make it clear that this page is unbalanced. Please do not simply revert to the prior version. I called for more text above, so to suggest I am doing otherwise is uncivil. Too much LaRouchite propaganda, not enough facts from the court cases. This is not a LaRouchite blog, it is an encyclopedia entry. The "Rocket Docket" term is LaRouchite propaganda. I am not trying to annoy the pro-LaRouche editors, I am trying to create really balanced NPOV entries instead of allowing LaRouchite propaganda to dominate page after page on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"Rocket docket" is widely used. However it's use here appears to be as part of an attempt to portray a nefarious purpose in the choice of venues. Since LaRouche lived in Eastern Virginia, there's nothing untoward about filing a case against him in the Eastern Virgina district court. So while "rocket docket" is a nickname of the court, it doesn't belong here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that the trial was moved from one jurisdiction to another is an indication of "venue shopping," which is clearly why Clark uses the term. --MaplePorter 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Where does Clark assert "venue shopping"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
In the open letter to Janet Reno, he writes: "Despite the fact that a retrial in Boston was scheduled for January 3, 1989, the Department of Justice decided to seek a more favorable forum and legal theory and rushed through an indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia on O ctober 14, 1988." --Marvin Diode 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
More unverified pro-LaRouche public relations. We need less of this type of material, not more. The "Open Letter" is publicity scrap paper--it has no merit. Please remember that these protests by the LaRouchites went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and were rejected. Totally rejected.--Cberlet 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I was merely providing an answer to Will's earlier question. No need for an additional rant. --Marvin Diode 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can help with documentation

I just excavated my closet and found my old copy of Railroad! which has documentation that won't quit. For example, the Washington Post had a headline on November 20, 1988: "LaRouche's Va Trial Expected to be Speedy, Alexandria's 'Rocket Docket' Federal Court Contrasts with Site of Boston Proceeding." There is a lot material in the book that is missing from this article, such as an Amicus Curae filing which says that the presence of FEMA official Buster Horton on the jury is in and of itself enough to discredit the outcome of the trial. --Don't lose that number 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly persuasive. --Cberlet 02:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are now numerous requests for cites. I believe I can answer many of them. It may take a week or so to get all the work done. --Don't lose that number 06:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Alexandria Judge Albert V. Bryan spent two hours, and did not permit individual questioning of prospective jurors. This contributed to the result that most jurors in the Alexandria trial were present or former government employees. Jury Foreman Buster Horton was the U.S. Department of Agriculture liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). [ref Brief Amici Curiae of Burton D. Linne, Jack O. Slater, and John C. Imlay IV, published in Railroad!, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, 1989 ref]
Who are the writers of this brief and why would we consider it reliable information? The only Ghit I get for Linne is a brief filed in his own, previous tax case,[4], if that's even the same guy. There's no standard for evidence in a brief. People can say anything without any substantiation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point and have modified it to say "an amicus curaie brief was filed on appeal claiming that..." I'll use a similar formulation for other claims. --Don't lose that number 15:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's only half of the problem. Again I ask, who are these guys? We should only quote people who are somehow notable or experts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this info because random briefs aren't appropriate. We need to do a better job of sourcing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The book Railroad is a work of propaganda published by the LaRouche organization and should not be regarded as a legitimate source for anything except the state of mind of LaRouche and his followers.--Dking 02:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The lead author of that book was apparently Edward Spannaus, one of the defendants. Even if it is only used as a source for briefs, filings, etc, it is still a highly partisan source. I'd assume that it includes only those materials which support his case rather than all filings and briefs from the case. Excessive reliance on it would tend to give undue weight to the losing side of the case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is clear at this point that the vast majority of this page is unverified propaganda from pro-LaRouche publications and defenders, rather than reputable published material from reliable sources. The unverified propaganda from pro-LaRouche publications and defenders should be moved to a seperate section identified as claims of LaRouche supporters, rather than being dubiously portrayed as factual material. The facts should then be expanded so there is balance between the unverified propaganda from pro-LaRouche publications and defenders and reputable published material from reliable sources. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, not a blog for a convicted crimninal with cult followers.--Cberlet 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the lack of civility and constant soapboxing from Dking and Cberlet does not contribute to conflict resolution on these articles. We get it, you don't like LaRouche. Now, can we get on with the editing? --Marvin Diode 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What facts in the above post do you challenge? Please be specific. Are you claiming that a majority of the page is not based on unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda? On what basis? It is clear from the cites that have been provided.--Cberlet 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can see from glancing at the foonotes that this articles is chiefly referenced from the LaRouche sources. However we do have other sources available, especially the WaPo links. It would be helpful to devote some portion of the article describing the crimes and the victims. Right now the victims appear to have been LaRouche, et al., instead of those who lost their money. And the actual criminal activities are hardly mentioned either. So let's re-balance the article to include more of the overall picture. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I restored the small section on the involuntary bankruptcy. There is no mystery here, the brief was submitted by LaRouche's attorneys. It appears to me that the main issue of fairness in the trial, and I think the basis of the von der Heydte statement, is that the defense was not permitted to introduce into the trial the fact that they had no control over whether loans were repaid, because the government had seized control of the debtor entities. This is the crux of the matter. --MaplePorter 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The government was wrong to shut down the publications, and was slapped for it; but there was ample evidence that the LaRouchite publishing entities were part of a huge financial fraud in which the assets and potential future earnings were clearly structured in a way to defraud the mostly elderly investors. That's why LaRouche was convicted. That's what the testimony shows. The LaRouchite claims and the claims of their defenders are hogwash. We should report them as unverified claims, and place them in a balance with the published facts with WP:UNDUE in mind.--Cberlet 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If the brief was submitted by LaRouche's attorneys then it wasn't an Amicus brief, as it was described earlier by Don't lose that number. Soince those who have acces to this reference material can't agree on it, I think we all need to see the verbatim material. Please quote the brief on the talk page so we can all agree on who wrote it and what it says. Until we can agree on those basic items I'm removing the contested material from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to answer this question below in a new section. --Don't lose that number 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What makes these trials notable?

The reason the LaRouche case merits an article on Wikipedia is that it was very controversial, and the reason it was controversial is because of the numerous allegations that the trial was politically motivated. The allegations did not all come from LaRouche, but for citations of the allegations, you are going to have to go to LaRouche publications. The trial was covered by essentially two entities: the Washington Post, which was highly sympathetic to the prosecution, editorially and otherwise, and the LaRouche camp. The Wikipedia article will of necessity be a combination of those two sources. The POV pushers will suggest that only one side should be included in the article. So what else is new? --Don't lose that number 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have never suggested that only one side be represented in the entry. Not once. Not over several years. I have always suggested that there be a balance between unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda and reputable published material from reliable sources. To suggest that the Washington Post is marginal while unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda is mainstream is, to be blunt, ludicrous.--Cberlet 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what I meant by incivility and soapboxing. Don't Lose That Number did not suggest that the Washington Post was marginal, so it is insulting to say that he did. And is it necessary to use the term "unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda" in every sentence? Believe me, we can remember that you don't like LaRouche without the constant reminders. The sources that you object are defense briefs, and as such are a good source for the arguments of the defense. If you refer to them as "unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda," it suggests that you are trying to exclude the arguments of the defense. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we exclude the coverage of the Washington Post. --Marvin Diode 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, are you suggesting that this was civil?
  • (Don't lose that number): "The POV pushers will suggest that only one side should be included in the article. So what else is new?"
The discussion on several LaRouche-related pages is replete with personal attacks on Dennis King and me. When material cited here is "unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda" I think it is appropriate to point that out. In the real world, LaRouche material is generally considered lunatic conspiracy theories, and is called such by reputable published sources.--Cberlet 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The cases were not especially controversial. They are notable chiefly because they involved a frequent candidate for U.S. President, and because they resulted in his imprisonment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I found a source [5] that suggests that the case was controversial, and it may be a generally useful source to cite in the article. --Marvin Diode 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That source is certainly not usable as a general reference. It apparently simply includes the claims of the LaRouche supporters and the U.S. Government without any review. It makes some assertions that are not otherwise verifiable. For example, who claims that "50 persons have so far been indicted because of their links with Mr. LaRouche's association and it has been reported that they, too, have had unfair trials"? Who are these fifty? Or this description of the LaRouche movement: "a metaphysical association whose beliefs are reportedly centered on the right of all peoples to development and economic justice"? Lastly, the Special Rapporteur indicates that it isn't clear there was any problem with the case. So this document merely indicates that LaRouche complained to the Commission on Human Rights. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It also indicates that the Special Rapporteur acted on LaRouche's complaints. Do you think that he acts on all complaints he receives? It would be useful to know the answer to that. --Marvin Diode 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. See the following:
  • "The Government of the United States categorically denies the allegations that have been made to the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance and notes that the prosecution of those who engage in criminal fraud is a fully legitimate exercise of a Government's authority to enforce its own laws"
    "The Special Rapporteur was not able to establish beyond doubt whether Mr. LaRouche's association can be considered as falling under the terms of the Declaration on the Eliminaton of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief."
Total misrepresentation of the document. Outlandish.--Cberlet 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that if we were to report on this aspect of the case we would say that "LaRouche complained to the agency, which investigated the complaint but didn't find a violation." I'm concerned that two LaRouche sources, the "Railroad!" book and the unsigned webpages, are used excessively in this article. Let's avoid the temptation to increase the size of this article beyond our ability to keep it balanced with the full range of sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The document doesn't say they didn't find a violation. It says they were unable to determine whether Mr. LaRouche's association can be considered as falling under the Declaration. The one thing that we can and should say is that a request for clarification was filed with the US Govt. By the way, Will, it might surprise you to learn that in the rest of the world, LaRouche is seen differently than by the WaPo or by King and Berlet. The coverage of the LaRouche movement in Russia, China, and the Third World is consistent with "a metaphysical association whose beliefs are reportedly centered on the right of all peoples to development and economic justice." --MaplePorter 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Compare the mentions of other minor political figures from the USA to the mentions of LaRouche in Russia, China, and the Third World and it will be obvious that LaRouche is marginal, and reports based on LaRouche claims are anecdotal instances of gullibility by reporters. See the LaRouchite Jeff Steinberg interview in the documentary "Control Room" where after the interview Steinberg is dismissed as a crank.--Cberlet 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The international reputation of Lyndon LaRouche is not the topic of this article. Let's try to stay focused. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Apologies. The text-related point here is that that the UN analyst was sent some materials (almost undoubtedly from the LaRouchites, but it is not clear); reviewed them; reported the content of the unverified assertions; reported that the U.S. government denied the allegations; and reported that they did not seem to be "falling under the terms of the Declaration on the Eliminaton of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief." Thus, this document has no merit whatsoever. It is without verifiable substance and without conclusions. It is a note that information was received, but not verified, was discounted by the U.S. government, was not acted upon by any UN agency; and ultimately could not be determined to have been sent to the proper deparment of the UN. Zip. --Cberlet 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on the various legal briefs

There seems to be some confusion about the various legal briefs I am citing. There are in fact many, many briefs reproduced in the Railroad! book. I have cited one Amicus curaie brief on the question of jury selection -- there are a total of 7 different Amicus curaie briefs reproduced in the book, from all corners of the globe. One of these Amicus curaie briefs bears the signatures of 144 U.S. lawyers, which I think was the second largest Amicus curaie brief in US history, after the Chicago 7 Conspiracy trial. There are also rulings by Judge Bryan, and a wide variety of defense briefs, from more than one trial. Bear in mind that the involuntary bankruptcy was a separate, civil proceeding that preceded the (second) criminal trial. This may seem a bit confusing, but I will try to be as specific as possible about who wrote what briefs. Maple Porter simply put "LaRouche's attorneys," which is technically correct, but he had different attorneys in the bankruptcy: it was a firm called David & Hagner, which doesn't seem to me to be worth mentioning in the article. --Don't lose that number 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please transcribe quotations that include relevant information so that other editors can judge the accuracy of the information. For example, what does the brief on involuntary bankruptcy say? How are the authors described? I am still concerned that this book probably only contains the briefs, etc, that support the LaRouche position, so that excessive reliance on those documents, however verifiable, will unbalance the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The brief is quite long, and the authors are listed at the top (remember, this is a legal brief) simely as "David & Hagner, P.C. - Counsel for alleged debtor." The brief is notable simply as part of the court proceedings, because it presents the arguments of the defense. It is not being used as a source for anything beyond that. The authors need no special qualifications beyond being members of the bar. If you like, I'll replace the summaries in the article with actual quotes, but it will probably wind up being longer that way. --Don't lose that number 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't want you to replace the summaries with the quotes, I want to see the original source material on this talk page to make sure that the summaries are correct. Who is the "alleged debtor", specifically? Does the debtor have a name? Certainly we require more relevance to a court case then the fact that a lawyer has been admitted to the bar. If these guys are not LaRouche's lawyers then why are they presenting the defense? Unless we cite the U.S. lawyers I'm not sure we should cite the LaRouceh lawyers, because doing so unbalances the article. Does the "Railroad" book contain any briefs from the goverment side? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The "alleged debtor" is actually three: Caucus Distributors, Inc., Campaigner Publications, Inc., and the Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc. I don't know why the brief uses a singular term, and I presume it is some legal convention being followed. These cases are complicated, but I think that if you re-read what has been posted on this page you will find the answers to most of your questions. The lawyers are indeed LaRouche's lawyers, or to be more precise, lawyers for LaRouche-affiliated organizations. Bear in mind that we are discussing multiple, interlocking cases here, both civil and criminal. There is overlap on the personnel of both the prosecution and defense. --Don't lose that number 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
More and more of the page is being revealed as pro-LaRouche claims so that the entire page is more clearly revealed as totally unbalanced. Either less LaRouche claims or more factual material from reputable published sources about the legal battles.--Cberlet 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Our duty here is provide a clear, complete and intelligle account of the issues in the trial. If you feel that the prosecution side is incompletely presented, find some reliable sources and add some material. I have my hands full right now answering all the requests for documentation -- remember that I didn't write the article. --Don't lose that number 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The article must be balanced in order to be NPOV. If prosecution materials aren't available then we can't use that as an excuse to overload the article with material from the defense. It's the duty of every editor to keep the article NPOV - it's isn't appropriate for anyone to put that burden on others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
True, but it may not be the case that everyone thinks the article is unbalanced. When someone puts a {{NPOV}} tag on the article, that person is expected to make an argument as to what is un-neutral about the article. I don't see a problem with using court documents as sources, as long as it is kept within reason. Meanwhile, I found a source that covers mainly the prosecution side, an online excerpt from a book called Political Trials in History: From Antiquity to the Present. --Marvin Diode 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. Given the unbalanced preponderence of LaRouche sources, and the long history of false and distorted information published by the LaRouchites (based on numerous articles in reputable publications); I have tagged this article as having problems with facts and POV.--Cberlet 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are claiming problems with facts, however, you should present some evidence that contradicts what the article says. --Marvin Diode 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
MD, thanks for providing that link. I'm not sure that it covers mostly the prosecution side. Id say it provides a account of the crimes. It also shows how skewed this article is currently, in that it doesn't adequately desrcribe the crimes or the victims. Until we can find a source for prosecution briefs I don't think we should be usig defense briefs as sources. Doing so is like using briefs from a divorce case as sources for a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
We have entire sections devoted to single motions, or to briefs that propose concepts that were either ignored or dismissed by the court. For example, the section on the involuntary bankruptcy ha been entirely devoted to viewpoints that it was invalid. Yet it was never overturned so it apparently was valid. The fact that the debtor disputed the validity should be mentioned, but not given excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The shutting down of the LaRouche publications by the feds, however, did, however, stir an outcry from a number of civil libertarians over First Amendment grounds (even I protested the government action against the LaRouche publications at the time), so I will go digging around for some published cites to that fact.--Cberlet 12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involuntary bankruptcy

Will, you say above of the involuntary bankruptcy that "it was never overturned so apparently it was valid." The article says "On October 25, 1989, Judge Martin V.B. Bostetter ruled that the government's bankruptcy action was illegal. Bostetter said the government acted in "objective bad faith" and the bankruptcy was obtained by a "constructive fraud on the court." <ref>"Ruling May Help Appeal, LaRouche Backers Say," ''Washington Post'', October 28, 1989</ref> So, it appears that it was overturned. I also think that it is significant that the members of the criminal prosecution team were involved in "planning and executing" the civil bankruptcy -- that seems like an important reason that it was ruled illegal, and I don't think it should be omitted.

I think that the use of briefs is fine as long as:

  • it is specified that these are the arguments of the defense, amici, or whomever filed them
  • the article should say what the disposition was, whether the motions were granted, etc. --Marvin Diode 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
One more thing is required: we need to give equal weight to the government's justification for the action as to the defendant's response. At the moment we don't give any explanation for their action, so it would be imbalanced for us to give explanations for why the defendant's (or the unidentified debtor's) lawyers think it was unjust. For clarification, are you saying that the bankruptucy was overturned and the companies were not bankrupted? Someone calling something "illegal" isn't the same as saying it was overturned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on this. The Railroad! book includes Judge Bryan's ruling in which he denies an appeal of the bankruptcy. I can quote from that to illustrate his reasoning. Also, it turns out that Bostetter was the judge who presided over the initial ex parte hearing and ordered the publications companies padlocked (incidentally, this is the very shutdown of LaRouche publications that Cberlet refers to above as being protested by civil libertarians.) Then later, after it was too late to affect the criminal trial, Bostetter reversed his own ruling, complaining that he had been misled by the DOJ team. I am working through the twists and turns of all this, so be patient. --Don't lose that number 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This was a very complicated matter, and I think giving Don't lose that number some time to sort it out is only fair. In the meantime, can we find some vague language to make it clear that the involuntary bankruptucy was later found to be questionable, and was protested at the time by a range of civil libertarians. I think there is enough evidence on the record to support that.--Cberlet 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted a rewrite that actually preserves most of the text, but re-arranges and rephrases it to be more balanced. Everyone please take a deep breath and read it carefully before just reverting.--Cberlet 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your re-write moves the involuntary bankruptcy out of chronological order, and hides its relationship to the second trial. I would advise that you refrain from large-scale modifications of the article until some of the other matters have been worked out. I also question the desirability of "some vague language" when this is a legal matter where precise language is important and probably available. --Marvin Diode 14:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing that you could be doing in the meantime that would be quite useful would be to provide some evidence for your claim of factual inaccuracy. --Marvin Diode 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply reverting a carefully rewritten page was hardly cooperative and collegial.--Cberlet 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Words to avoid

I think that the term "claim" is probably excessively used in this article (see WP:WTA#Claim and other synonyms for say. --Marvin Diode 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to reversion without proper discussion

I object to the reversion of my attempt to rewrite the page in an NPOV way. No text was deleted. Why is this reversion acceptable? See: this diff How long will this tendentious editing by pro-LaRouche editors be tolerated?--Cberlet 00:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode provided a perfectly reasonable explanation: "Your re-write moves the involuntary bankruptcy out of chronological order, and hides its relationship to the second trial." Before making any similar changes, you should explain why you think that it is helpful to move the involuntary bankruptcy out of chronological order and hide its relationship to the second trial. --MaplePorter 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Except that the courts found that there was no relationship to the second trial -- all of the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Judge was mad at the feds and chastised them. What independent source claims there was any relationship to the outcome of the second trial?--Cberlet 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some observations of the use of sources

"All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."[6] The statement by Heydte is a published primary source. There is a warning at WP:NOR that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." Since it is a direct quote in this article, there should be no problem here. Dking should cease deleting it, and cease making scurrilous and offensive statements about it.

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases).[7] We are not relying entirely on primary sources here, but it is certainly legitimate to have them in the mix. --MaplePorter 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the source exists, there is a dispute as to the value of including more pro-LaRouche material on a page already unbalanced and POV with too much pro-LaRouche material.--Cberlet 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voir Dire

I've removed the "voir dire" section because it has no 3rd party sources, because it does not appear to be important, and because we are giving excess weight to minor issues. If anyone can find a 3rd-party source on the importance of this then let's see it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise for the "in limine" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable for several reasons:
  • The idea that it "does not appear to be important" is ridiculous and biased. In the trial of a politically controversial individual, it is customary to extensively and individually screen jurors for bias. In the trial of Oliver North, for example, 156 of the 235 prospective jurors who acknowledged seeing or reading about North's testimony to Congress were eliminated without being questioned as to the level of exposure or their reaction.
  • Likewise, the motion in limine was considered outrageous by legal experts. I have been reading further in the Railroad! book and I am just beginning to appreciate the significance of this ruling. The charges against the defendants were all conspiracy charges. A conspiracy charge specifies a beginning and ending date of the conspiracy. The charge was framed so that the conspiracy ended one day before the involuntary bankruptcy (which terminated the ability of the defendants to repay loans,) and the judge excluded mention of the bankruptcy because it fell outside the date of the supposed conspiracy to not repay loans. I hope that it is obvious how corrupt this ruling was, but if you need further explanation, I'll provide it.
  • According to the Wikipedia policy quoted by MaplePorter above, primary sources are most appropriate for articles on legal cases. --Don't lose that number 23:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
1) Who says it's important? The North case is quite different.
2) What legal experts? I dont' see any source for that, or any source for anything that was in the "in limine" section.
3) Don't confuse 3rd-party sources with tertiary sources. They are separate matters.
4) Unsourced material may be removed from Wikipedia. Please don't restore the material uintil we have a reliable source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about primary sources, and Wikipedia policy says that they can and should be included in articles on legal cases. --Don't lose that number 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a 2nd party source? "Railroad" was written by a defendant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say primary sources, by which I mean the legal briefs. I edited my comments above to change "second party" to "primary." --Don't lose that number 00:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the source is not a legal brief, it's a book by a defendant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The briefs are reproduced in the book. If you prefer, I'll change the cites to make them directly to the briefs. --Don't lose that number 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The source is the book that you read them in. You've never given us the quotations that were requested previously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wow! look at this

I just made an interesting discovery, which also bears on the debate over at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche about whether Ramsey Clark was "hired" and whether his public utterances were merely those of a "mouthpiece." As it turns out, Chip Berlet posted an article on the PRA website entitled "How the LaRouchites Exploit Ramsey Clark"[8] in which he complains that "Ramsey Clark has steadfastly refused to disassociate his legal work for the LaRouchians from the political work of the LaRouchians, despite the fact that the LaRouchians imply Clark's support in numerous newspaper and magazine articles." He also quotes an AP story, which reports that that "former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, chief attorney for LaRouche's appeal, argued that U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. of Alexandria allowed only thirty-four days from arraignment to trial and failed to adequately question jurors on how much they knew about the defendant." This has an obvious bearing on the Voir Dire debate above. So does this: "Clark was quoted as saying that even though he had once been a political opponent of LaRouche, he had now come to his defense because of constitutional abuses such as a fast jury selection process, massive prejudicial pretrial publicity, and a jury pool which contained numerous government employees, including law enforcement agents from agencies that had allegedly targeted LaRouche."

I am very surprised that Cberlet has apparently forgotten all this material during the debates on these talk pages. Check this out: "Sometimes it appears that Clark's support of the LaRouche cause has moved beyond mere legal representation. According to the July 6, 1990 New Federalist, on June 19, 1990, Clark spoke at a private meeting coordinated with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), a multi-governmental association and human rights forum that solicits input from non-governmental groups. The New Federalist reported that 'Clark's trip was sponsored by the Schiller Institute's Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, a non-governmental organization which is urging the CSCE to take up the case of Lyndon LaRouche, the U.S. economist and statesman who is now America's most prominent political prisoner.'" If it weren't for a few obligatory slanders and ad hominem nonsense about LaRouche, it would actually be a rather good article. --Don't lose that number 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we use the "PublicEye" as a source for this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Look at the blatant misrepresentation of the actual text:
  • An Associated Press (AP) account of Clark's Fourth Circuit oral arguments noted that "former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, chief attorney for LaRouche's appeal, argued that U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. of Alexandria allowed only thirty-four days from arraignment to trial and failed to adequately question jurors on how much they knew about the defendant."
  • The Fourth Circuit ruled against LaRouche, saying LaRouche's original attorneys had waited eighteen days before asking for a continuance. An AP story about the decision reported that the appeals panel "also said LaRouche's attorneys made no attempt to press potential jurors to determine `individually anyone who had ever heard of LaRouche,' although certain jurors who said they were familiar with the case or who had worked in law enforcement or had accounting or tax backgrounds were questioned individually."
  • On further appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand without a hearing or comment.
By all means, lets allow all the material on the Public Eye website! Thanks! I agree!--Cberlet 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Cberlet, do you have the cites for the Associated Press material? I think that would be useful. Regarding the above section, could you point out the "blatant misrepresentation of the actual text?" The section quoted by both you and Don't Lose That Number appears identical to me in both quoted versions.

We should include the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand without a hearing or comment. However, I already tried unsuccessfully to find a source for that.

Will Beback, I think you are making way too much of a fuss over the use of legal briefs as a source. First you complain that it is cited to a book, then when the cites are made directly to the briefs, you call it "obfuscation," which seems a bit of a Catch-22. However, I think that supplying quotes from the briefs is a good idea, and I would propose simply including them in the article, because it will be more precise than a paraphrase. I also think the second version, with citations to the briefs rather than the book, is preferable. --Marvin Diode 02:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't legitimate scholarship to read a sourced book, to write a summary of the material in that book, and then to claim that the book's sources are ones own sources. The source is the book, and that isn't a reliable source except for the opinions of its author(s) because it's written by a defendant in the case and because LaRouche sources aren't reliable. Furthermore, we're only getting partial information about these materials. Without seeing the verbatim text being sumamrized, we can't judge whether the materials are being summarized properly. Lastly, because the source is partisan it doen's provide a balanced view of the trials. If we rely on it for our sources then we will have an unbalanced article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. If the briefs are reproduced in the book, it's OK to cite the briefs -- but as I said, better to quote them than to paraphrase. Again, I think you are being way too fussy. In a very similar case over at Talk:Schiller Institute, SlimVirgin was asked whether using a YouTube cite as a source for a BBC broadcast was a problem, and she said no, the BBC should be considered the actual source[9]. This is an analogous case. --Marvin Diode 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a big difference between Youtube/BBC and Edward Spannaus/EIR. Edward Spannaus is a convicted felon. The publisher is not regarded as reliable either. We can't rely on them to correctly reproduce 3rd-party sources, or to choose them in a neutral manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You are being tendentious. Why should they misrepresent their own defense briefs? I am working hard to comply with your demands, but more and more it just seems like harassment. --Don't lose that number 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's no big work. Don't you have access to a scanner? Just scan the pages with the briefs and upload them. Court documents aren't copyrighted, IIRC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a personal attack on Don't lose that number. First Will Beback insinuates that the summaries of the briefs are inaccurate, and wants quotes. Then he insinuates that the quotes may be improperly transcribed, and wants scans. This is either a violation of WP:NPA, or WP:POINT, or both. --MaplePorter 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it is a standard request. Asking for verification of sources isn't a personal attack. Please re-read WP:NPA before making charges based on that policy. As for transcriptions, I haven't seen any. Don't lose that number was implying that they were so much work he hasn't been ble to fulfill that request, so I told him there's an easier way. Don't any of you have access to scanners? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like Don't lose that number has added a number of transcriptions as footnotes to the article. --Marvin Diode 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't seen that. Apologies for missing it and pressing that point. I appreciate DLTN for transcibing that material, but I still have several reservations about the material, as mentioned above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Those briefs are being used here simply to demonstrate what the LaRouche defense team said. The fact that they were rejected by the courts is duly noted. The briefs, as I pointed out earlier, are a primary source, and therefore the best source for an article on a legal case under WP:NOR. On the other hand, if you want to claim that they are actually OR because they were published in a book by a LaRouche-related organization, they are admissable under the ArbCom decision where it says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Either way the briefs are in, end of story. --MaplePorter 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't just what the defense team said. Some of the briefs are described as Amicus briefs, which basically can be written by anyone, and the actual identity and associations haven't been revealed by those wishing to use them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of "Involuntary Bankruptcy"

Cberlet, both Don't Lose That Number and MaplePorter have objected to moving this section down, because they say it takes it out of chronological order. I am willing to consider your arguments for moving it, but as far as I can tell you have not yet presented them on this page.

Also, as I have said before, I think that by far the best way to deal with Undue Weight problems is to add balancing material, not delete existing material that is well sourced. I can see that the Eugene McCarthy material is not relevant, and no one objected when Cberlet deleted it. The Von Heyde quote, on the other hand, is obviously relevant, and should not be deleted because you or Dking disagree with Heydte -- that is what would be called a "POV deletion." --Marvin Diode 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"We" do not all think of it as a POV deletion. The irony of Oberstleutnant von der Heydte comparing the neofascist and antisemite Larouche to Dreyfus is at best surreal and at worst disgusting. It also is just more unverified LaRouchite propoganda in the form of a paid ad. Not a proper source of information.
Regardless of your opinion about the statement, deletions must be actionable under Wikipedia policy. --Marvin Diode 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding balance, until "balancing material" can be found the unbalanced material should be removed where it causes undue weight to keep the article from bing NPOV. Wikipedia articles are always "live", and should always be NPOV. Also, it's the job of every editor to make NPOV edits - we can't the job off onto other editors. We can easily re-add text when and where appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a dispute about whether the article is NPOV. My thinking is that those who believe there is an NPOV problem should take the initiative to correct it, and it is better to add than to subtract -- I can't imagine that we serve the readers of an encyclopedia by denying them information. --Marvin Diode 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I neglected to answer a question about this earlier, but I can provide material from the the opening statements and motions of the prosecutors, such as the motion in limine, as well as rulings from the judge. --Don't lose that number 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has yet provided an explanation for the attempts to move this section. --Don't lose that number 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please find out what companies were placed into bankruptcy and list their names? If we're going to have a section on this topic we shold include the basic facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche Sources

[edit] A paid advertisement from a LaRouche group is a proper source to establish facts for this entry - Poll:

[edit] Agree

[edit] Disagree

Disagree --Cberlet 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree --Dking 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement by Von der Heydte is a primary source. It was published in several locations, including the Railroad! book. --Don't lose that number 13:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A book, periodical, pamphlet, or website of the LaRouche group is a proper source to establish facts for this entry - Poll:

[edit] Agree

Agree

Comment: The book Railroad is LaRouche propaganda that does not meet even the minimal standards of reliability. This is apparently why LHL's supporters on this article attempted to smuggle the quote in under the guise of a paid ad in the Washington Post.--Dking 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, it appears that you have forged a post by Don't lose that number. This behavior crosses the line. --Marvin Diode 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I hardly forged a post, I asked Don't lose that numberif it was an acceptable summary. But since none of the pro-LaRouche editors participate in the polls on either page under dispute regarding acceptable sources, it would appear that this once again is a waste of time.
I have removed it and restored what I originally posted. --Don't lose that number 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

Disagree --Cberlet 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree --Dking 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please find some common ground

I think that the discussion is rapidly deteriorating into incivility here. I hope that the two of you, Dking and Cberlet, took note of Don't lose that number's offer, above, to transcribe material from the prosecution briefs and arguments and the judge's rulings. This offer appears to me to offer the potential of compromise. I should think that this would be an opportunity to resolve the dispute, instead of escalating it. --Marvin Diode 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The civility around here would be greatly aided if editors would stop referring to each other, and instead only discuss edits. Regarding needed material, per the note below I suggest that the material most needed in the article is more information about the crimes committed. Could DLTN please transcribe or scan the indictments? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made a number of reasonable edits. They are simply reverted. The pro-LaRouche editors refuse to take part in polls regarding acceptable sources on either page under dispute. There is no serious discussion on their part of critical edits. We are once again being walked in circles. We have seen this before. Over and over. At some point even you, Will Beback, have to admit that this is an outlandish waste of time. When is this going to be sent to Arbcom?--Cberlet 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I have indictments, but I have opening statements by prosecutors. In these legal documents, I have found it to be very difficult to find anything concise; they tend to be very long-winded, for legal reasons, mentioning every detail. But I will look for something appropriate that summarizes the matter. --Don't lose that number 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

The claims injected into most paragraphs of this article make it hard to read, at least for me, a newcomer. Really each trial should start with a simple statement: What was the charge, what exactly was alleged, and what was the verdict? The first trial was over 1 count of conspiracy, the article says. The article should state at that point exactly was the conspiracy supposed to be? Tempshill 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to set this straight. --Don't lose that number 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC) I added a sentence to the intro summarizing the charges. That seemed to be the best way to solve the problem, although I am open to suggestion. --Don't lose that number 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Von der Heydte quote

Will, your edit referring to Von der Heydte as a "former Luftwaffe officer" is biased, like Dking's repeated efforts to delete the quote simply because he disagrees with it. You might include all sorts of personal information about Von der Heydte, such as that he was an anti-Nazi activist, but that would be equally irrelevant. His reason for being in the article is his legal expertise. Adding additional, irrelevant facts is association fallacy, and blatantly so. --Don't lose that number 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read our article on that person. He is most famous for being a decorated Luftwaffe officer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but it's not the basis for his involvement in a legal case. --Don't lose that number 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
He had no involvement in the legal case. We don't know his reasons for writing that essay. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
He wrote it for the reason anyone writes an open letter -- to express a strongly felt minority opinion. Since he made an analogy to the Dreyfus case, he probably felt that he was playing a role analogous to that of Emile Zola. Do you have some sort of alternative theory in mind? He opens his essay by calling the LaRouche case "another painful reminder that the exploitation of the judicial system for the achievement of political ends, is unfortunately a method used repeatedly today in the West as well as in the East." --Don't lose that number 22:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any theories in mind. It's not our job to imagine possible reasons why people might do things. If von Heydte weren't a notable Air Force officer he'd be a non-notable professor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that an attempt at compromise was so quickly reverted. There's clearly no consensus for including a long quote from an unrelated German professor. Simply reverting every change is not productive editing. What compromise is offered instead? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this: include the text as I edited it and leave out the objectionable "former Luftewaffe officer". Is that compromise acceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we please discuss a compromise hereon the von Heydte quote? Or are folks unwilling to compromise? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is your objection? Too long? That it mentions Dreyfus? Your summary was odd. --NathanDW 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the title of the essay is "LaRouche Case Like Dreyfus Affair," and it consists of a methodical point-by-point comparison, including "Role of the Media." --Don't lose that number 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
DLTN objects to identifying the author as a former military officer. Cberlet objects to the Dreyfus comparison. I proposed a comprmise which omitted both objections. An alternate compromise would include both objectionable statements and make both sides equally miserable. I think the first proposal is better. I don't see anyone else making constructive suggestions and instead I see a lot of reverting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the Luftwaffe stuff is irrelevant to the substance of the article, whereas the Dreyfus comparison is not. I don't think that compromise should be about POV horsetrading. We should make decisions on the basis of what will create the most informative article, untainted by superfluous POV. --NathanDW 01:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

King and Berlet, who were both involved in the media buildup to the trial and who therefore have a big COI problem on this issue, have been fairly candid on this point: they simply disagree with the analogy to the Dreyfus case. They have presented no justification for deletion that is actionable under Wikipedia policy. It is classic POV pushing. --Don't lose that number 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't accept either of the compromises I suggested, what compromise do you propose? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are editors reverting back to the same edit [10] over and over again without any attempt to compromise? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am disturbed by the fact there is a dispute about a quote which is opposed by Dking simply on the grounds that he disagrees with the comparison with Dreyfus. That is not the basis for any complaint under Wikipedia policy. What was offered as a compromise was simply another way to delete the comparison to Dreyfus. I really don't understand why this is even being debated. I am against deleting anything simply on the basis of POV. --Marvin Diode 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you in favor of deleting mention of von der Heydte's main claim to notability? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is being used for guilt by association purposes, which it obviously is. Von der Heydte's relevance to this article is that he is a published expert on international law. --Marvin Diode 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's only your assertion that this material is used for "guilt by association" purposes. Who calls him an expert? Finally, why is this being reinserted over and over when their's no consensus for it? Should I start a poll over it's inclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, what other reason would there be for talking about his military record? Are we adding discussion of the military records of any of the other personalities mentioned in the article? As far as his expertise is concerned, I mentioned two days ago that I found that he has published in The American Journal of International Law [11]. He is not being presented as an impartial expert, but as part of the "claims of LaRouche supporters" section. Judging from the edit history, there is a clear consensus for keeping the quote, and one lone editor who keeps deleting it at least once a day, because he disagrees with the opinion, not because it is actionable under Wikipedia policy. --Marvin Diode 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It's true that there are more editors willing to edit war on one side of this dispute than the other. But I think there are many other editors who also don't support the von der Heydte quotation even though they aren't reverting it daily. That's why I think a poll may be necessary, to show that there's no consensus to keep the longer version of this material. If there were a consensus there wouldn't be so much dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I wish that the editing process on this article could become more about informing the reader, and less a of a struggle to make the article seem more unsympathetic or more sympathetic to LaRouche. I find this case to be more and more interesting as the story is fleshed out. I think that the new quote in the "in limine" section is very helpful in that it makes more clear the arguments on both sides. It looks to me like the essential prosecution argument is that the LaRouche movement had only a superficial interest in politics, and was more interested in making money. Don't lose that number, can you provide a quote from the prosecution that elaborates on that? Also, I can see how the defense could claim similarities to the Dreyfus case, in that they were not permitted to present the defense that they wanted to present. That is why I reverted the summary of the Heydte quote, which wasn't much of a summary -- it just deleted the reference to Dreyfus. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I added more from Robinson's opening, where he says, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case is about money." --Don't lose that number 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a controversial article. Please find consensus before adding new material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, although I thought that you and Cberlet were demanding more quotes from the prosecution. Do you have a specific objection to the quotes from Kent Robinson? --NathanDW 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't add anything more-- I thought I was making a compromise gesture. --Don't lose that number 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Good, we all agree. I'm going to remove the large bockquote until we can agree on its purpose in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, Nellie! What exactly is it that we agreed on here? Don't lose that number said he wouldn't add anything more, and somehow that turned into an agreement for deletion. Plus, I thought we were discussing the additional quotes from the Kent Robinson opening argument, not the quote box from "in limine." I had specifically said that I found that quote box useful, because it appears to me to be a concise summary of the issues of the entire trial. I won't revert it, because similar material appears elsewhere in the article, but as I said, I find it useful and I would like to know what is objectionable about it. (After all, Will, it's from a prosecution motion.) --Marvin Diode 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We agreed not to add substantial new material without consensus. See above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
So far, so good, but did we agree to delete material already added? I won't revert either, until I hear your rationale for why you think that section should be deleted. --Don't lose that number 22:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You're the one who added it. Please give your reasons for doing so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I added it in response to your request for cites from the prosecution. If you could be more specific about what you want, I'll try to oblige, but that quote which you deleted does provide, in my view, a complete and accurate summary of the prosecution's argument. --Don't lose that number 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my request. I'd requested a more balanced approach to the article. Yes, we should spend more time on the actual crime, and it's victims. Regarding this long block, 2/3 of it is concerned with the defense case, so if the intent was to help balance the article it did the opposite. Only the last two sentences lays out the charges, and they are more like jury instructions than a clear description. So I suggest that the material in the first two paragraphs is already covered inthe article, and that the last paragraph can be paraphrased or summarized in clearer language. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What if the first paragraphs were shortened? It seems very useful to have a prosecution response to some of the issues raised by the defense. (It's clearly not jury instructions -- it's a motion by the prosecution to exclude certain lines of argument by the defense (see in limine.) This is the issue in the Dreyfus analogy, where the defense is said to have been denied the opportunity to present its case. --Marvin Diode 20:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we not make it clear enough already that the defense viewpoint is that they were denied the opportunity to present its case? If so the way to remedy that is by adding a single, concise sentence to the article: "The defense position during and after the trial is that they were unable to present their case." However I think we already make it quike clear, and further quotations are not necessary on that point. What we do need is not the prosecution's view of the defense, but rather the prosecution's view of their own case. We need the victim's view of the case. We need a better description of the (alleged) crimes. We need the actual names of the companies put into bankruptcy and the names of those who called it a civil rights issue. Right now this article is severly unbalanced by a focus on LaRouche's assertions that he was unfairly convicted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Von der Heydte quote revisited

I have deleted the Van der Heydte quote once again. The reasons given, including the fact that there is no legitimate source for this opinion (only a paid newspaper ad and a propaganda book published by the LaRouche organization), have been explained over and over again. It is time for the Wiki admin to act and stop the actions of a tiny minority of LaRouche fanatics from turning this and other Wiki articles into mere propaganda vehicles for unsubstantiated, absurd and often scurrilous claims.--Dking 17:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dking, once again you are calling Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte a Nazi, after it has been pointed out to you several times that according to the Wikipedia article, he was an anti-Nazi. This seems like a scurrilous attack, and tendentious editing as well. It all seems to come down to a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Marvin Diode 21:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While Heydte may have initially opposed the Nazis, he eventually became a hero serving in their military and fighting their war. However I see that any mention of Heydte's illustrious war record is opposed, so the "Nazi" issue seems beside the point. Heydte is notable as a war hero, not as a professor. Why should we give so much space to the verbatim quote by a German professor, who certainly didn't attend the trial and whom no one claims is an expert on it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia statement cited by Marvin Diode (that Heydte had once been opposed to the Nazis he later enthusiastically joined) is completely unsourced. It could have been written by anyone: a Nazi, a Holocaust denier, a flat earther, a LaRouchian, a saucer abductee or a patient in Bellevue Hospital. It has zero evidentiary value.--Dking 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You might add a source request to that article. However, Dking, your contributions to this discussion, and your edit summaries, are so truculent as to make me wonder whether you are participating in a serious manner. --Marvin Diode 00:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop making personal comments about other editors. Please do comment on the article. Aside from having written the copy for this advertisement, how else is this German poli-sci professor relevant to this topic? Why does he deserve more attention in this article then the victims of the fraud? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have said, I oppose deletions of sourced material as a way achieving balance, when it should be possible to add balancing material from the opposing POV. DLTN has made numerous offers to you. I think it would be helpful if you were to work with him to obtain the material that you desire. Meanwhile, where did you get the idea that Von der Heydte is a "poli-sci professor"? He is described in the article as Professor of Constitutional and International law at the University of Mainz in Germany. I looked on the web for biographical information and came up short, but I did find that he has published in The American Journal of International Law [12]. His quote is listed under "claims of LaRouche supporters" and it seems to me to a notable example of those claims. The ArbCom decisions that are linked to this page are quite explicit that LaRouche publications may be used as sources for the views of LaRouche supporters. --Marvin Diode 06:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The ArbCom doesn't say that everything ever published in a LaRouche source may be added. I'm not opposed to adding that this professor (who's famous only for other activities) commented on the trial in an advertisement. I'm opposed to giving this minor character a lot of space when we give no space at all to quotations from victims of the crimes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the LaRouche publications that reopened: New Solidarity became The New Federalist, The Campaigner became Fidelio, and Fusion became 21st Century Science & Technology. I don't recall much if any break in publication. The new names were broader in appeal and thus the LHL movement came out ahead. The business of the government supposedly violating the LHL movement's freedom of the press has been vastly exaggerated. If the LaRouchians didn't want to get their publications in trouble why did they choose publishing firms to serve as the financial shells for their fundraising scams? This entire article is turning into a lie, because the victims of LaRouche are barely mentioned and it goes on and on about NONEXISTENT political persecution and martyrdom, with senile old Nazis being quoted as experts on the Dreyfuss trial which in turn has nothing to do with LaRouche's trial. To put it bluntly: a treason frameup court martial against a French Jew in the late 19th century, arranged by raving anti-Semites, has nothing in common with a straightforward white-collar criminal prosecution of a raving anti-Semitic WASP by WASP prosecutors before a mostly WASP jury in late 20th century America. And I urge the LaRouche editors to stop talking about old Baron Von der Heydt, who signed his name to this nonsense, in the present tense: he died in 1994.--Dking 20:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publications

Sorry to keep pestering about adding basic facts to this article, but is this the complete list of publications?
  • New Solidarity
  • The Campaigner
  • Fusion
Thanks, Dking, for that info. Also, do we have the names of the publication houses that were the creditors? Our article on 21st Century Science and Technology specifically says, with a 3rd-party cite, that it is a recreation of Fusion. The source, BMJ, says:
  • A monthly science magazine that was shut down by the federal government has been reborn under a new name. 21st Century Science and Technology is scheduled to appear on newsstands this month as the successor to Fusion magazine..."The contents will be exactly like Fusion,” said Merge Hecht, managing editor of both publications...The first issue, dated March/ April [1988]...
So in at least one case we have a good source quoting the editor as saying it is the same publication with a new name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Fusion was published by the Fusion Energy Foundation. Your quote giving the startup date of 21st Century Science and Technology as 1998 is wrong; I think you typed 1998 instead of 1988. I bought numerous issues of 21st Century throughout the 1990s. It was sold at Hudson County news outlets around Manhattan among other places. Curiously that's the magazine shop chain of the Cohen family (Robert and daughter Claudia the gossip columnist) that LaRouche security chief Jeff Steinberg used to tell me was part of "Dope, Inc." Ha!--Dking 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the date was a typo, which I've now corrected to "1988". Good catch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
One more entity: the New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company (aka New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, New Benjamin Franklin House). This was the chief but not the only vehicle for publishing LaRouche's books and for vanity publishing of books by senior citizens (like Baron von der Heydt) that LaRouche wanted support from. It was used as another shell for the scams and I believe also was forced out of business. But the LaRouchians merely started doing their book publishing (which indeed they had in part done all along) through the Schiller Institute, the EIR News Service and Executive Intelligence Review. They also published Railroad!, the book about LaRouche's trial, in the name of the Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations. LaRouche's volume of prison writings (1992) was published by the Schiller Institute. Since the typesetting and the printing were being done by the same inhouse firm at cut rates (paid for by donations from little old American ladies and little old former German military officers, etc. etc.) as had published New Benjamin Franklin's list, the closing of New Benjamin Franklin did not crimp the group's ability to publish books by one iota.--Dking 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many inaccuracies in Dking's account, as well as a lot of off-topic soapboxing, none of it sourced. I am going to add the tag that reminds editors that this page is for discussing the article. While I am certain that it is true that Twenty-First Century was a continuation of the same philosophy as Fusion, it was certainly not a continuation of the same magazine, for this simple reason: the government seized the entire list of subscribers to Fusion and terminated their subscriptions. Twenty-First Century had to start from square one and build an entirely new subscriber base. The same was true of the other publications. So the idea that, from the legal standpoint, the involuntary bankruptcy had no effect, or even (according to Dking's fanciful theory) a beneficial effect, has no basis in reality. Furthermore, the part of this that is specifically relevant to the Alexandria trial is that with the cessation of the publications, the bankrupted companies and science foundation had zero income, which had a predictable effect on their ability to repay loans. --Don't lose that number 03:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What's you source for all of this? "Railroad"? We have one reliable source quoting the editor of both publications saying that the material would be the same. So far, that's all we have a reliable source for. Also, are there any additions to corrections to the list of publications and companies involved in the bankruptcy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't follow the link to "The Scientist" without being a subscriber. Can you provide the text? --MaplePorter 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Gladly. Its at talk:21st Century Science and Technology. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't lose that number says that Fusion magazine was devastated by the government seizing its subscriber list. This doesn't wash. They could easily have reconstructed the list from EIR subscriber lists (which greatly overlapped with those for Fusion), the membership lists of the NCLC and ICLC, the memories and personal telephone black books of the telephone solicitors in Leesburg and the regional offices (who had sold so many of these subs to the senior citizens they were cultivating on an ongoing basis), the memories and personal telephone lists of regional organizers (you really think Annabelle Bourgeois in N. Dakota couldn't have supplied off the top of her head the name of every subscriber in the northern Plains states?) and from the membership lists of Fusion Power Associates--the fusion research community's lobbying group that supported Fusion magazine during this crisis.--Dking 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The Fusion subscriber list could also have been reconstructed in part from the Federal Election Commission's campaign donor records, since subscription purchases for various LaRouche publications were often falsely reported as campaign contributions to LaRouche's successive Presidential campaigns, thus allowing the LaRouche organization to obtain matching funds based on the magazine subscription payments.--Dking 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If that latter claim were actually true, the FEC would be on LaRouche like a chicken on a June bug. Please confine your comments to the task at hand, and don't make these sorts of allegations without providing a reliable source. --NathanDW 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
While in Illinois, I published several articles documenting how payments for LaRouchite publications and subscriptions were illegally converted to campaign contributions--using internal LaRouchite financial documents and interviews with the victims of the fraud. The money-laundering of the many LaRouche fronts was extensive. Please do not make assertions based on a complete lack of information and knowledge. The task at hand is balancing the LaRouchite propaganda with documented material on the many swindles and tax frauds conducted by the LaRouchites under the control of the convicted felon, Lyndon LaRouche.--Cberlet 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't say for sure about the material then, but in recent years the publications have all made it clear that payments for them are donations to the LaRouche polticial campaign or PAC. Getting back to the list of pubs and companies, I'll insert this list unless anyone has corrections or additions
Businesses that were bankrupted:
  • Caucus Distributors, Inc.
  • New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company
Publications affected:
  • New Solidarity
  • The Campaigner
  • Fusion
Is that complete? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's incorrect. The entities that were bankrupted were Caucus Distributors, Inc., Campaigner Publicatons, Inc., and the Fusion Energy Foundation. [13] I think the list of publications is correct. --MaplePorter 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So the New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company was not shut down? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That info led me to this NY Times article, which says that four organizations were found in contempt and fined:[14]
  • Caucus Distributors Inc.,
  • Fusion Energy Foundation,
  • National Democratic Policy Committee
  • Campaigner Publications Inc.
Since this is the only sourced, 3rd-party list I've seen, let's go with this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the NDPC no longer existed at the time the involuntary bankruptcy was imposed. --Don't lose that number 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What happened to them? Did they go into voluntary bankruptcy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication and campaign finances

Also, you are completely wrong on your assertion that payments for publications are donations to the LaRouche campaign or LaRouche PAC. --MaplePorter 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be right, I'll have to see if I can track down a copy of Beast man III, which I recall having such a statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, here's one:http://www.larouchepac.com/pdf_files/060109_children_satan.pdf
Inside the cover it says it was paid for by the LaRouche PAC, and on the cover it says, "Suggested donation $5". It's apparent that the donation would go to the LaRouche PAC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
LaRouche PAC publishes pamphlets and leaflets for mass distribution. It does not publish subscription magazines. --Don't lose that number 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Re the statement that, if my allegations about LaRouche's campaign finance practices were true, the "FEC would be on LaRouche like a chicken on a June bug": Anyone can check the online FEC files and NEXIS and see for themselves that LaRouche was in continual trouble with the FEC in every one of his Presidential campaigns from the 1970s down to the 2004 season for campaign finance violations, and was repeatedly fined. I recall that at least one of the FEC Matters Under Review in the 1980s dealt with precisely the issue of LaRouche's improper reporting of publication subscription sales as campaign donations. Furthermore, numerous businessmen were contacted by the press in the 1980s who had been listed in FEC records as campaign donors; it turned out that many of them had merely purchased EIR at an airport and had no idea the purchase had been reported for matching funds as a campaign donation.--Dking 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contempt fines

The claim that FOIA docs revealed the government intended to shut down the businesses via contempt fines is not strongly supported by the quote from Reynolds in the footnote. The quote does not appear to suggest prior DOJ intent but merely to comment on the judge's action. If indeed Reynold's statement was made after the judge levied the fines, and the fines accrued to huge amounts, then the words "benefit" and "shut down" may refer simply to the judge's ruling having the benefit of halting (shutting down) the predatory loan solicitation practices that were being continued by the LaRouchians even after they came under investigation (obviously a court appointed receiver would stop such illegal practices). However, if Reynolds made the statement before the judge levied the fines, and with the intent of influencing his decision, then it could be interpreted differently.--Dking 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore the claim about the FOIA docs obscures the real issue: that the businesses incurred huge fines, resulting in bankruptcy, because of their willful refusal to honor the grand jury's lawful subpoenas of their records. The fines were set to run on a daily basis, and the judge set the fines sufficiently low that it is doubful he had any intent of bankrupting the companies. How could he know that they would be so foolish as to let the fines accrue day after day for over a year, burgeoning into astronomical amounts. At any time this accrual of fines could have been halted by LaRouche simply deciding to honor the subpoenas. This is the crux of the matter; everything else is flimflam. I am deleting the new addition on the FOIA documents and the Reynolds quote.--Dking 02:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide sources for your accusations. This talk page is filling up with unsubstantiated speculation. --MaplePorter 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, since the contempt fines are so important to this case we should certainly have a neutral, verifiable account of them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I just finished reading the cited article about the FOIA document. It says that the document is the minutes of a conference call in 1987, so that much is clear. As I understand it, it was a discussion between the DOJ officials charged with collecting the fines, and the Alexandria prosecutors, about whether the involuntary bankruptcy would be legally permissable. Is that the same reading other editors have of this? Now, three other questions come to mind:
  • DLTN, do your sources agree with Dking on the reason for the contempt fines?
  • Do contempt fines normally reach such proportions as $20 million? Was there any chance that the LaRouche organization could ever pay that?
  • How did they expect to collect any money if they stopped the publication of the magazines? These are publishing companies, right? --Marvin Diode 06:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that the Ramsey Clark letter [15] comments extensively on these matters. Despite the fact that Clark was LaRouche's attorney yadda yadda yadda, I regard him as a man of integrity and the charges he is making appear to be very serious. --Marvin Diode 06:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Clark's assertion seemed to have been greeted with little, if any, judicial approval. It's undoubtedly true that the pro-LaRouche side had its own theory of the case, and I think we're covering that in great detail already. I'm thinking we should consolidate the Clark material to the appeal part, rather than saying, "Clark later said..." in various locations. Clark apparently made his comments on three (?) occasions: an appeals brief, the Reno letter, and the Schiller commission testimony. Let's keep all of that together in a "Clark" section. It'd be more cogent that way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The publishing companies never made much money on their own. The magazines were a come-on to get people to lend or donate large sums of money to LaRouche. The publishing companies were used as financial shells for this money solicitation from elderly people and others. The money would come in one side and out the other to be used as LaRouche dictated. This was not a normal business network with normal accounting standards that distinguished between the books of parent company and subsidiaries.--Dking 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)P.S. Marvin Diode says that the FOI document is from 1987. The judge, however, started levying the fines in 1986. Hence the FOI document is not proof of a government plot to shut down the businesses. It was LaRouche, not the government, who willfully refused to honor the Grand Jury subpoenas and allowed the fines to rise to such huge amounts. The DOJ could not possibly have predicted in 1986 that he would behave in such a wildly irrational manner.--Dking 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide sources for your accusations. This talk page is filling up with unsubstantiated speculation. --MaplePorter 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another obvious omission here is the cause of the contempt of court charges. What was the nature of the contempt? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the prosecutors' brief on the appeal of the contempt fines for the NDPC. Although the NDPC was not involved in the involuntary bankruptcy (I think that the contempt fines may have simply put it out of business,) it may be possible to infer that the contempt fines were levied for reasons similar to those of the other entities, which was failure to comply with subpoenas. --Don't lose that number 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI: regarding the other companies, the first footnote of the brief says:
  • The grand jury had also issued subpoenas to three other firms suspected of fraud in connection w:ith soliciting campaign contributions for Lyndon LaRouche and other candidates. Those firms, Campaigner Publications Inc., Fusion Energy Foundation, and Caucus Distributors, Inc., likewise refused to comply with the subpoenas and also were ultimately subjected to civil contempt sanctions. See generally In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 795 F.2d 226 (1st Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1064 (1987).
That confirms the common treatment of the organizations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very informative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This is another brief, and a primary source, so we should treat it carefully as well. The first large section, the "Statement", is a recounting of the history of the contempt charges they they relate to NDPC, but only up to September 1989. There's a lot of back and forth which is more detail then we need. Considering the length of this article, a proportionate discussion should be a sentence or two. I suggest we replace :
  • In 1985, prior to the Boston trial, Federal District Judge A. David Mazzone had levied contempt of court fines totalling over $20 million on four LaRouche organizations:
With:
  • In early 1985 a grand jury subpoenaed documents from the National Democratic Policy Committee, and three other LaRouche organizations: Caucus Distributors Inc., Fusion Energy Foundation, and Campaigner Publications Inc. Seven weeks later, on March 29, 1985, a court held the NDPC to be in contempt and fined it $10,000 per day. A search warrant to obtain the documents was executed October 6, 1986.[16] The fines for all the organizations totalled over $20 million.
That'd be followed with the material on involuntary bankruptcy petition. I don't see the point of including the name of the judge. How is his involvement noteworthy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Your original edit said "the judge," which made it appear that we were talking about one of the other judges already mentioned. There are numerous cases being discussed here, we have to differentiate between them. Also, I don't see the point of discussing the NDPC, because it was not involved in the bankruptcy. I think that the footnote mentioning Caucus Distributors etc. is an adequate reference for your first sentence, and I would suggest omitting the second sentence. --Marvin Diode 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
We have the source for the NDPC, that's why we go into such detail about it. The scope of this article includes the Grand Jury investigation. The exact amount of the daily fine is an interesting, informative fact that helps us understand how the total fine became so large. We don't know why the NDPC wasn't part of the subsequent bankruptcy case, but it was part of the search of the Leesburg property, which is an important event in the LaRouche movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added the proposed material, though we can continue to discuss it. I also moved it up to a chronological position. Since the subpoenas came before the first trial it made no sense to introduce them after it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other defendants

There are some names of people who were convicted as a result of LaRouche-related fundraising. However there are few reliable online sources that mention them. Does anyone have a good reference for the charges against them, etc? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is complicated, because there were numerous trials, and none of the people you name above were on trial in Alexandria with LaRouche. I don't know how many of the trials you want to incorporate into this article. --Don't lose that number 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be common elements between these people and the "Alexandria defendants". I believe they were all prosecuted for securities fraud or fund raising violations. I believe they were all prosecuted in the same time period as LaRouche. However, as I wrote there are few online sources about these folks that pop up. Ascher is the best sourced, and even that's a bit thin. I'd say we have enough to simply mention that these LaRouche associaes were also convicted and that the LaRouche movement believes that their convictions were unfair. We already have a section on associates, including Billington who is mentioned with them in some of these sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The Billington case is one of the most interesting, and it might make sense to cover it in depth in the bio on him, then link to it. In his case, he was charged with conspiracy to fail to register as a securities broker. However, no one had ever claimed that political loans were securities before. The controversy (and I'm doing this from memory here, I may get a few nuances wrong) was that the prosecution, after indicting him, asked the State of Virginia securities board for a finding that political loans were securities, and then there was a big cliff-hanger while they waited for a finding, and at the last minute they got a favorable one. Then, according to the LaRouche side of the story, the official who gave them the finding was rewarded by an appointment to the bench or something like that. Mike Billington got a 77 year sentence. --Don't lose that number 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be October 6, 1986 indictment:
  • The indictment said five organizations and 10 supporters of Mr. LaRouche raised more than $1 million by illegally using the credit card numbers of more than 1,000 people.. Entering the pleas before United States Magistrate Robert Collings were Jeffrey Steinberg, 39 years old, and his wife, Michelle, 36, of Leesburg, Va.; Richard Black, 37, of Quincy; Elliot Greenspan of New Jersey; Michael Billington, 31, and Roy Frankhauser, 47, of Reading, Pa. Four other supporters of Mr. LaRouche who were indicted remain at large. They were identified as Richard Sanders, 44; Michael Gelber, 35; Charles Park, 36, and Paul Goldstein, 37. [35]
LaRouche was later added to that one, right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, it appears that many people were indicted. While this is verifiable information, it's unnecessary to include them all. We should limit ourselves to those who pled guilty or were convicted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some miscellaneous observations

First of all, I am happy to see that there has been some constructive editing by Will Beback on this article. I discovered that I had introduced a few errors on the involuntary bankruptcy, which I have corrected -- it turns out that the companies were seized and padlocked before the actual case was heard. The same judge who issued the order to do this, Bostetter, was the one who dismissed the bankruptcy when it was finally heard in court. Of course, by this time, the companies were ancient history. There is a lot more to this story, and I realize that some of the fine (and fascinating) details must be excluded from the article for space reasons. When I was a kid, I read every one of Earle Stanley Gardiner's "Perry Mason" books, and I never saw anything so complex as this LaRouche case. --Don't lose that number 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Have we found a date for the execution of the bankruptcy proceedings? We have a date for the petition being submitted. Is that the same date as the approval and execution? The Perry Mason cases were like Father Brown stories - clever but brief. Bleak House is a better example of extended litigation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The ex parte order was issued on April 27, 1987, by Judge Bostetter, the same day the petition was filed. An appeal of the order was rejected on July 27th of that year by Judge Bryan, the same judge as for the Alexandria trial. My source for the preceding is Judge Bryan's ruling on the appeal. Judge Bostetter held the bankruptcy trial in May, 1988, and dismissed the case in October 1989. --Don't lose that number 13:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't clear, to me at least. What happened to the businesses on April 27, 1987? And what did the judge decide on October 29, 1989? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
On April 27, 1987, he businesses were seized, padlocked, and placed under the control of a government trustee, until such time as the trial could be held. In 1989 the same judge who authorized this dismissed the bankruptcy, complaining that he had been misled by the prosecutors ("constructive fraud on the court.") This was his decision after hearing the arguments at trial in 1988. --Don't lose that number 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So does that mean the government trustee removed the padlocks and returned the businesses to LaRouche control? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I think that the matter was probably moot -- the companies had been dead for 2 1/2 years. I'm not sure how to go about researching it, because you and I have probably already read most of the web citations on this subject. --Don't lose that number 21:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I should think that the judge's order in 1989 would direct the disposition of the property. Is that contained in "Railroad!"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Railroad was published before the verdict was delivered. However, I would imagine that there is a standard remedy -- except, now that I think of it, it is not standard to seize the companies before the verdict is rendered. I imagine that the government gained control of some rental properties and some office supplies, plus the mailing lists. Maybe they returned the mailing lists, I don't know. --Don't lose that number 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So these companies were publishers but not printers? No presses? If that's the case then they may not have had many tangible assets. Undoing the bankruptcy would not necessarily waive the $20 million fine, so I'd think their liquid assets would still have gone to the debtor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

<---------The companies had no assets, only debts to the typesetter and printer, which was controlled by LaRouche anyway. It all was a multi-million dollar a year fraud. The bankruptcy was used as an excuse to tell the fleeced debtors that there would be no loan repayments. It all was scam.--Cberlet 01:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading the archives of the NY Times. If I have the order of events correctly, the problem with loans not being repaind preceded the bankruptcy. I'll try to add some of the facts from the Times' articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some issues with this sentence:

  • In an unusual procedure, a secret ex parte hearing was held without notifying the three companies, and the companies were seized and padlocked before the bankruptcy came to trial.

It asserts that the procedure was unusual, that it was a secret, ex parte hearing, and that padlocks were applied to their doors. Do we have sources for all of these assertions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Von der Heydte quote re-re-revisited

Why is this an appropriate source given the Arbcom ruling? Why is Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte described only as a "Professor of Constitutional and International law at the University of Mainz in Germany." Given the mention of Dreyfus and that LaRouche is considered a "notorious antisemite," we should note that von der Heydte was an aging Nazi collaborator. The LaRouchites have a long history of adopting aging figures who previously were active in some field, and then recruiting them as supporters. In addition, there have been instances where people were unclear what they were endorsing, and later claimed they had been mislead by the LaRouchites. A Paid ad by LaRouchites featuring an aging Nazi collaborator should not be used as a cite. I tried to offer a text version that sumamrized the von der Heydte claim of political prosectuion, but this has repeatedly been reverted by the pro-LaRouche editors. If we keep any mention of von der Heydte that mentions the Drefus case, we should mention that von der Heydte was, at the time of the ad, an aging Nazi collaborator, not just a former professor of law.--Cberlet 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any source for the accusation that he was a Nazi collaborator? Was he charged in any post-war tribunal? To claim that he was a "collaborator" because he served in the German army is irresponsible and disgusting. --NathanDW 16:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Lucas, James. Hitler's Enforcers: Leaders of the German War Machine, 1939-1945. [Cassell Military Paperbacks Series] Cassell (UK) 2000/Sterling (US) 2001. --Cberlet 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the Wiki bio of Von der Heydt that NathanDW is so fond of quoting, the Baron fought loyally for Hitler throughout World War Two, until being captured by the Allies in 1944, and was a recipient of high medals from Hitler. In other words, his military actions helped to make possible the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities. I don't know if the Baron was a member of the Nazi party or of the SS, but he was without any doubt a Nazi combat officer (specifically a paratrooper) devoted to killing as many anti-Nazi soldiers as possible. When Chip Berlet tried to point this out, NathanDW called Berlet's statement "disgusting." And NathanDW then restored, for about the 20th time, the statement by the Baron (now deceased) calling the anti-Semite LaRouche the new Alfred Dreyfuss--a slur on the memory of a famous victim of anti-Semitism and a flagrant mocking of the Jews. The more NathanDW and other pro-LaRouche editors restore this paragraph the more they are exposing the true nature of LaRouche's ideology. And while they call Berlet's statement about Von der Heydt's war record as a Nazi solider disgusting, they remain silent about Lyndon LaRouche's denial of the Holocaust (see Wikipedia bio of LaRouche) and Helga LaRouche's terming of it a "swindle"[36] [37] (statements that are truly disgusting by any moral or rational standard).--Dking 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that over half this article is now devoted to LaRouchian spin to convince people that LaRouche was innocent and the victim of a plot. There is virtually nothing in this article about the victims of the crimes, nor is there any refutation of the often absurd distortions concocted by the LaRouche people. For instance, the material about the fines has been rewritten in a manner that obscures the real reason for the huge fines--that LaRouche continued to defy Grand Jury subpoenas for over a year after daily fines began to run. Instead we are left with the impression that the fines were a government plot to bankrupt the organizations and close down their publications so they couldn't pay back lenders that they had been obdurately refusing to pay back for years. In fact the fines would have ended early on if LaRouche had honored the subpoenas of his financial records. (And why was he afraid to turn over these records in the first place?)--Dking 19:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the logic of Dking and Cberlet, the leaders of the July 20 Plot were no better than Hitler, because they served in the German army. To call someone a Nazi without foundation is indeed heinous. --Don't lose that number 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but LaRouche calls folks "Nazis" or "Nazi appeasers" pretty regularly.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] It seems that if someone was associated with the Nazi regime LaRouche would be the first to approve mentioning that connection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm making an educated guess that LaRouche's criteria for calling someone a Nazi would be that person's alleged support for Nazi or Nazi-like policies, not an accident of birth. I would hate for anyone to consider me a "Dick Cheney" collaborator because I have not renounced my American citizenship. --Don't lose that number 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that a book by von der Heydte was published by a LaRouche company in 1986, four years before he wrote the essay?[45] If so it appears that he had a financial relationship with the LaRouche movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether there was a financial relationship is a matter of speculation. It's clear that VdH was a supporter of the LaRouche movement, which is why his quote is under "claims of LaRouche supporters." That book is available on-line; I just finished going over the biographical notes. According to those notes, VdH was promoted in 1962 to Brigadier General in the Reserves of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany,) one of only two to receive that rank. From 1966 to 1970, he served as a member of the Bavarian State Parliament as a member of the Christian Democratic Union. Maybe someone knows more about this subject than I, but I suspect that in West Germany, any proven ties to the Nazi apparatus would disqualify one from holding either position. --Don't lose that number 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Utter ahistorical nonsense.--Cberlet 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not really speculation to assume that an author will be paid by his publisher. So it appears that this essay was written by a supporter, not by an objective, independent observer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Many people donate their work, as well as financial contributions, to political movements. And as far as VdH being a supporter, no argument there. That's why the quote is included under "claims by supporters of LaRouche." --Don't lose that number 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
VdH's Nazi past is being covered up by presenting him as a career officer who served in World War One for the Kaiser, then in World War Two, and later in the Federal Republic's military during the Cold War. Just a good German following orders. In fact, VdH was never in World War One; he was ONLY ELEVEN YEARS OLD when it ended. In Germany's cold war army, he was a reserve officer. The only war in which he saw combat was World War Two, fighting for Hitler for five years and receiving medals from the Nazi leader as a "war hero." In later years he apparently transferred his need for a fuhrer to Lyndon LaRouche. It is clear from the edit war earlier this evening that the only "compromise" the LaRouchians are willing to make is one that enables them to put false statements and slurs in this article to their heart's content. I am deleting the entire Von der Heydt section once again.--Dking 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have reached my limit on the three revert rule for today. LaRouche's people in their coordinated operation (maybe they studied Von Der Heydt's assault on Crete in 1941 and applied it to sockpuppets rather than paratroopers) have clearly got me outgunned. I live to fight another day, but in the meantime I urge someone else to remove the repulsive Von der Heydt material again. And again.--Dking 23:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I just came across this passage:
  • [Roger] Pearson moved to Washington in 1975 and became editor of the American Security Council's (ASC) Journal of International Relations. The ASC was formed in 1955. Its principal founder was Robert Wood, head of Sears Roebuck, who during the World War II period, had chaired the pro-Nazi America First Committee. Other important leaders of the ASC included Martin Blank, a German industrialist whose Ruhrlade group was an early backer of Hitler during the Weimar period, and Baron von der Heydte, a Nazi army officer who in the 1980s formed a close association with the fascist Lyndon LaRouche cult (Bellant, 1991, pp. 30-36). "The Pioneer Fund" Rosenthal, Steven J. The American Behavioral Scientist. Thousand Oaks: Sep 1995. Vol.39, Iss. 1; pg. 44, 18 pgs
More grist for the mill. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Russ Bellant is a Berlet clone, who has co-authored numerous articles with him.[46]--Don't lose that number 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Good, another reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Frankhouser

Escaped from Crete and now have my antiaircraft gun trained on the skies over Malta. I clarified that Frankhouser was a Boston defendant (tried separately) and that the other convicted LaRouche associates named in the article were in Virginia. However, no distinction is made between those convicted in federal court along with LaRouche and those convicted in Virginia state court. Someone should sort that out. I also clarified Frankhouser's relationship to the LaRouche organization. His role in the white supremacist movement was previously sanitized in this paragraph by making him appear to be chiefly a law enforcement informant who was merely contracting with LaRouche. In fact, Roy was a real neo-Nazi although he did flirt with law enforcement in the early 1970s (his information did not prove reliable). There is no evidence that he was seriously working with law enforcement to counter neo-Nazi and Klan activity. Please don't dispute this. I had many phone conversations with Roy during the period of his involvement with LaRouche, I interviewed LaRouche bodyguards and former LaRouche security staffers who worked with him, and I had access to the files of groups that monitor the far right. LHL liked having guys like Roy around so he could talk to them about Atlantean civilizations under the ice. (Since he had forbidden his own followers to read science fiction, who else could he talk to about such intriguing topics?)--Dking 22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be many sources that mention Frankhouser's various interests. His involvement with the KKK is apparently well-known. Meanwhile, and editor removed some sourced information with this summary:
  • restore earlier version of Frankhouser story-- I don't accept King's book as a source under WP:BLP. No self-citing, please
What policy does King's book violate? On what basis is it unacceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Sources

The Washington Post is a far more reliable BLP source than Dennis King. --NathanDW 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What BLP assertions are in dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The cited claim by Dennis King that Roy Frankhouser was an "ally" of LaRouche. At this point I think that the use of Dennis King and Chip Berlet as BLP sources should be done with extreme caution. --Don't lose that number 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I challenge the assertions that the work of Dennis King and Chip Berlet (our alter egos) are not to be considered reputable and reliable published sources. On what basis? On one side we have a convicted felon and person whose organization frequently published conspiracist nonsense and falsehoods. On the other we have two authors with books published by respectable publishers and whose byline has appeared in the New York Times and other major publications. Anytime anyone writes critically of LaRouche, they are incorporated into the grandiose and lunatic conspiracy theories of the LaRouchites. It is time for a reality check. That's why I have asked Arbcom to enforce the decisions regarding pro-LaRouche editors. In the meantime, I challenge those that assertion that the work of Dennis King and Chip Berlet (our alter egos) are not to be considered reputable and reliable published sources. So far all I have seen are circular arguments. ...They criticize LaRouche therefore there work is questionable under BLP.... We are the primary biographers of LaRouche. Our work has been published, and over time shown to be reliable. The conviction of LaRouche and his minions demonstrates that what we wrote about his multi-million dollar fraudulent schemes was accurate. Please link to the specific Wiki policies that suggests our work should not be considered reliable.--Cberlet 15:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." (see www.publiceye.org.) "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets." (see www.dennisking.org.)

– WP:BLP#Sources

Italicized memoranda are mine. --Don't lose that number 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My book is a legitimate source of information on LaRouche for Wikipedia articles. See [47] Case closed.--Dking 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"African Americans at the Crossroads: The Restructuring of Black Leadership and the 1992 Elections" Clarence Lusane, 1994, South End Press, ISBN 089608468, said that Frankhouser "became a part of LaRouche's inner circle." Other sources say that Frankhouse was one of the few individuals, even within LaRouche's organization, who could call up LaRouche directly. So "ally" does not appear to be an unreasonable term. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If this guy was hired as some sort of bodyguard, that would explain it. No evidence is being presented here that he had anything politically in common with LaRouche, which is what I think that Dennis King is trying to insinuate in his book. --NathanDW 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If we have a source saying they had nothing in common politically then we can add that too. But there's nothing wrong with using King as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

<--- Here's another source showing that LaRouche viewed Frankhouser as more than a hired hand:

  • In these same years, La Rouche courted both leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and white fascism. In 1974 La Rouche's front organization, the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC) collaborated with racist groups in Boston to support an anti-busing candidate for Congress. The following year, the NDPC initiated a legal defense campaign on behalf of Roy Frankhouser, Grand Dragon of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. [48]

So it does not appear unreasonable to say that Frankhouser was an ally of LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "ally" to "member of inner circle" since we have multiple sources for that. Since that was the complaint, I've removed the BLP editing tag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At WP:BLP it says that "Material available solely on partisan websites or in s should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." The Washington Post article makes no claims about Frankhouser being either an "ally" or "member of inner circle." Frankly, I don't think anyone knows who the members of LaRouche's "inner circle" are, except LaRouche. I am absolutely convinced that Dennis King doesn't know. He doesn't seem like the sort that LaRouche would confide in. Since all of this is by nature speculative, I am removing it under BLP. I know that some editors are extremely eager to include any negative gossip about LaRouche that they can, but I would suggest that they chill on this one. The Post says Frankhouser was hired on security. That's not disputed. It is neither necessary nor plausible to speculate about "inner circles." --MaplePorter 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"African Americans at the Crossroads: The Restructuring of Black Leadership and the 1992 Elections" is neither a "partisan websites" nor an "obscure newspaper". So Lusane is a perfectly respectable source. Manning's column has been syndicated by a reported 300 newspapers. It's unlikely that all of those are obscure. I don't understand such strong objection to a well-sourced fact about an event over 20 years ago. The record is clear that Frankhouser was a trusted close aide to LaRouce. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:REDFLAG. --Don't lose that number 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah? So? We have several sources saying that there was a very close relation between Frankhouser and LaRouche. The fact that LaRouche created a legal defense fund for Frankhouse in the 1970s supports that contention. It's not an exceptional claim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Heavily guarded"

See "heavily guarded". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I followed the link, and the fourth item that comes up is a quote from LaRouche saying "I never had a heavily guarded mansion!" So there should be some attribution or acknowledgment that the statement is disputed. Plus, is there any source that says their offices were "heavily guarded"? My impression was that the main search was the offices. --Marvin Diode 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL! When Dennis and I showed up for depositions in the defamation lawsuit, LaRouche was surrounded by three armed guards. What silliness. That is why the judge tossed us out of the lawsuit. The judge orderesd only one armed guard. and LaRouche was too chicken to show up for his own deposiiton if there were not three armed guards. --Cberlet 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If you feel the need to include LaRouche's denial, go ahead. Sources have also called it "heavily fortified". Articles go into details of bands of men in camouflage carrying semi-automatic rifles and confronting anyone that approaches the property. We can also go into more detail about his bodyguards. But simply saying "heavily guarded" seems enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, we don't say he lived in a "mansion". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Or, we can quote a newspapr that wrote:
*He traveled country roads with guards, transformed a hillside estate into an armed fortress and accused civic leaders, including members of a women's garden club, of being linked to Soviet spies and drug dealers.
Another story that I saw mentions a sniper in the upper window of the LaRouche residence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no dispute over the presence of bodyguards at LaRouche's home. There were no bodyguards or other "heavily guarded" features at the offices of the organization. The offices were searched, the home was not. I have made this distinction in the article. --Don't lose that number 13:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You are apparently correct about there having been no search of the residence:
  • ...federal agents, who last October swooped down on LaRouche's suburban Virginia headquarters to seize evidentiary materials sought by prosecutors. Neither time, however, have agents entered LaRouche's personal 175-acre estate outside Leesburg.
I haven't seen any sources one way or another about the presence of guards at offices, but they are usually described as "bodyguards" so it'd be more likely that they'd stick with LaRouche. Regarding the size of the search party, only LaRouche sources say "over 400". Most sources put the figure at about 300, and the most precise number I've seen is 275. 300 is a compromise, or we can just say "hundreds". Lastly, according to whom is Clarence Lusane a "LaRouche critic"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
His own writings confirm it: [49] --MaplePorter 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
But who calls him a "LaRouche critic"? An editor on Wikipedia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read the excerpt by Mr. Lusane, and it brought back a memory from when I first came to the U.S. I met someone in Washington DC who invited me to a LaRouche conference on Martin Luther King weekend, which I attended, followed by the march that Lusane describes. There were a lot of people there, mainly African American and coming in buses from churches -- Lusane says 5,000 - 10,000, which seems about right. The theme was something that most Americans would consider an unusual combination of issues, stopping IMF genocide in Africa, plus support for SDI and related technology. There were reporters everywhere, and I could hear them approaching the church pastors and aggessively asking them if the LaRouche organization had tricked them into attending the rally. I didn't hear any one of them say yes. In one case I heard a reporter ask, "Do you really believe that the Star Wars technology will help the economy?" and the pastor replied, "I don't really know, but we sure need it to stop nuclear missiles." The next day I looked at the Washington Post and other papers to see how the march had been covered, and there was not one word. It struck me at the time that the press in the US play politics every bit as corruptly as in tiny countries. --Gelsomina 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, Clarence Lusane and Manning Marable are, by profession, college proressors, not LaRouche critics. The view of some here is that anyone who says something critical should be described simply as a "critic", while supporters are given fuller descriptions. Should Lusane get a different treatment from Heydte? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Von der Heydte is named, along with a rather extensive biographical sketch. If contentious material is simply reported as fact, it has a rather different effect. My sense is that if the allegations about Frankhouser were undisputed fact, they would have appeared in the Washington Post, which is not known for being sympathetic to LaRouche. I don't know much about Lusane, but Dennis King and Manning Marable are both fringe figures. I am going back to "critics," unless you want to use the formulation from WaPo, which I won't dispute. Alternatively, we could name and link King and Lusane as we have done with Von der Heydte. --Don't lose that number 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that there is presently no Wikipedia article on Lusane. --Don't lose that number 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If you insist on identifying the speakers then we should use their proper academic credentials, as we do with Heydte. Manning is a Professor of Public Affairs, Political Science, and History at Columbia University, and Lusane is an Associate Professor at the School of International Service, American University. Only Wikipedia editors refer to Lusane and Manning as "LaRouche critics", so that term is original research. Unless you can source it we should not use that identifier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I find this logic curious. Is there anyone who is identified as a "critic" in the way that you demand? It seems to me that a certain level of hostility towards the subject is sufficient to identify the writer as a "critic." --NathanDW 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We could decide that one person is a critic or that another person is anti-Semitic based on our interpretations of their writings. That would be original research though, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. So we need to attribute characterizations of people. As it happens there are plenty of people identified as "LaRouche critics" by reliable sources:

  • The conservative Heritage Foundation, a longtime LaRouche critic, expressed worry about possible security leaks in a report issued last July. Washington Post
  • Daniel Graham, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's intelligence arm, and a longtime LaRouche critic, said he believes LaRouche is an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist" who faked the move to the right "to suck conservatives into giving him money." Washington Post
  • LaRouche organization publications have charged that NBC backs the "drug lobby" and that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, another LaRouche critic, played a role in the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Washington Post
  • LaRouche said that "he is being unfairly excluded and that state party efforts to keep him off the stage in Columbia are being orchestrated by former national Democratic Chairman Don Fowler, a long-time LaRouche critic." ABC News

Unless we can find a reliable source characterizing Lusane as a "LaRouche critic", we shouldn't apply that term on our own authority. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point here, although perhaps not the one you intend. The fact that there is no press coverage calling Marable, Lusane, or Dennis King(!) "LaRouche critics" does not mean that they aren't critics. It simply means that they aren't notable enough to be used as sources under WP:BLP. --Don't lose that number 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just utter nonsense and qualifies as tendentious and disruptive. This matter has been settled. The published materials by King and Berlet (our non-Wiki alter egos) are proper sources for LaRouche pages. If you disagree, re-open the arbitration case and seek an opinion. Otherwise stop wasting bandwidth and our time as Wiki editors.--Cberlet 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the part of WP:BLP which requires sources to be notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:REDFLAG. There are some cases where these sources might be totally acceptable. There are also cases where "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Take King and Berlet, for example. Snippets of their theories have appeared in publications like the Wall Street Journal. I would have no problem with using those instances in the articles. However, there are also claims that they make that no reputable paper in its right mind would ever print, and it is at those sorts of claims I would draw the line. --Don't lose that number 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What does notability have to do with "WP:REDFLAG"? Berlet is certainly notable. He even has a Wikipedia article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "estate"

  • The searches occurred at 20 S. King St. and 722 E. Market St. in Leesburg, the county seat of Loudoun County. LaRouche lives nearby in a lavish estate in Loudoun. Richmond Times - Dispatch
  • One afternoon shortly after Mr. LaRouche moved here, Mayor Robert E. Sevila, who practices law here, took a ride with four other lawyers to see Mr. LaRouche's estate. Mr. Sevila said a guard stood in the guardhouse with a gun held across his chest. "In unison, it was almost like we all said, 'Holy cow,'" said Mr. Sevila. "That shook me up tremendously." New York Times.
  • Anderson, who goes by "Nick," is owner of the 171-acre estate in the affluent horse country of Loudon County, Virginia, where LaRouche lives in its heavily guarded manor house, reportedly with 14 rooms, eight fireplaces and five baths. Sun Sentinel
  • LaRouche, 71, flew back to this area yesterday morning and was whisked to a secluded mansion near the community of Round Hill, about 50 miles west of Washington. The estate is rented from a Leesburg couple by LaRouche supporters..."I'm glad he's out. He deserves it," said Gale Billington, who drove up the winding dirt road to the hilltop estate about 1:30 p.m. She said she was taking supplies to LaRouche at the estate, which is part of a 57-acre parcel in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Washington Post
  • Former member Tate and others who testified at the trial said Helga LaRouche took an active part in running the LaRouches' $1.3 million Leesburg estate, purchased at a time when lenders with mature loans were being told by LaRouche fund-raisers that there was no money to repay them. Washington Post
  • Even as the loans were going unpaid, much was being spent on LaRouche's heavily guarded estate near Leesburg, Va.: $97,000 for a pond, $19,000 for a swimming pool, $33,000 for landscaping, $67,000 for a road, $15,000 for a guest house, $4,600 for a riding track. Houston Chronicle

Because of the numerous descriptions of the LaRouche residence as an "estate", I feel it is the correct term to use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--Cberlet 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did investigations begin?

The article says the investigations began in 1984, but the LaRouche organization says they began in the 1960s. I don't know what the source is that says "1984," because it is probably referring to one of several investigations. Since the topic is plural, I think that it should take note of all the investigations that led to these trials. This difference of opinion should be acknowledged in some way in the "Investigations" section. --Gelsomina 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1984 is when the grand jury investigations began that led to these trials. Those investigations were known and reported contemporaneously. The claims of FBI, CIA, COINTELPRO, etc, surveillance were made as part of an appeal, so that seems like the right place to report them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, is there any relation of those purported investigations to these trials? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that it would be appropriate to note, perhaps in the intro, that the LaRouche movement had been under investigation for many years, and possibly also that LaRouche critics had begun to agitate for an investigation of LaRouche fundraising well before the grand jury convened[50]. --Don't lose that number 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the investigations are related to the cases we're discussing in this article, and if we have proper sources, then yes, we should disucss them. But investigations concerning other alleged crimes would be off-topic, I think. For example, investigations concerning the Duggan death are not relevant, nor are investigations about violence related to political activism in the 1970s. We already say that LaRouche and his followers believe they were under investigation by the FBI in the 1960s - what more is there to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeals

I'd moved the appeals info down to chronological order. It's confusing to deal with the appeals before we've even dealt with the case. Or, were these appeals that took place before the trial? There were so many appeals we need to keep straight which appeal we're talking about. I suggest we mention the motions, and even that they were the subject of later appeal, but cover the appeals themselves in the appeals section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There were many motions, but those two, the rejected request for voir dire from the defense, and the accepted request for the motion in limine from the prosecution, are the most notable and controversial. I think that the best way of illustrating their significance is by taking note of the consquences, which does mean jumping ahead a bit in the chronology. --Don't lose that number 13:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
According to what source are these the most notable and controversial motions? The press accounts of the appeal mention the jury selection, but they don't mention the in limine motion. Regardless, I don't see how discussing the appeals of these motions in two places helps our article. We can say briefly that these otions were part of the main appeal, but we should cover the details in the "appeals" section itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me.--Cberlet 00:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Those two elements of the trial attracted the most attention from the legal community, the result being the large number of Amicus Curiae briefs from attorneys that had no prior or subsequent contact with the LaRouche organization. --Don't lose that number 14:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing what attracted the most attention from the legal community. As I understand it, the judge in this case routinely dismissed voir dire motion. The appeals court found fault with the actions of the defendant's attorneys for making little effort to question the jurors to the extent the judge did allow. I can't find a source which mentions the in limine motion in terms of the appeal. Like the petitions and open letters, we need to treat these Amici carefully, as primary sources only availble from an unrelaible publisher. Considering that some of the Amici recently added to this article appear to have been written by foreign lawyers, it's unclear how they learned of the case (probably their input was solicited) and it's also unclear how much they actually know of the conduct of federal trials or the details of case they were writing on. Instead of narrow legal arguments, they appear to be general essays on justice. We can mention them, of course, but we should not give them too much space nor weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, we do know what attracted the attention of those lawyers who filed Amicus briefs. I have no doubt that their input was solicited, which in no way diminishes the significance of these briefs. There are eight different amicus filings; most are quite long and detailed. They often comment on peculiarities of US trial procedure, and the extent to which international law and human rights agreements bear on the situation. The Swedish lawyer reports that he attended the trial and makes numerous comments based on personal observation. Voir dire and the in limine motion figure prominently in most of the briefs; rush to trial and double jeopardy are discussed as well, but I think that the layman will grasp those issues easily, whereas the significance of the two motions in question requires more explanation, as in the present version of the article. I find it somewhat astonishing that the appeals court says the defense made little effort to question the jurors "to the extent the judge did allow," because the judge allowed no individual questioning. --Don't lose that number 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Correction: the motions figure prominently in the briefs reprinted in Railroad!, not necessarily in all the briefs filed in the appeal, unless you contend that the book contains every brief filed. Regarding the selection of the jury, this judge was known for his speedy trials including speedy jury selection. No one seems to assert that the judge was incompetent, or that every casehe tried was at fault due to his views on voir dire motions. As for specific, 3rd-party references on the appeal, let's see what I can find:
  • But U.S. Attorney Kent S. Robinson II argued that defense lawyers haven't proven that the speedy trial hindered them or that the jury had a clear bias. Before the trial, LaRouche's lawyers conceded that key elements would overlap those in the Boston cases, and "they were already familiar with the case," he continued. For example, defense lawyers asked a key witness detailed questions, including specifics about past political affiliations and a Halloween party 18 years ago. Defense lawyers agreed with Bryant that the case could "theoretically" be tried on a quick timetable, and Clark expressed his concerns only in a "fleeting reference," Robinson said. During jury selection, each juror who acknowledged having heard of LaRouche or the trial was questioned in detail by [Judge] Bryant, and most were dismissed from the panel, Robinson said. "There's no question that Bryant's questions were perfectly adequate," [prosecutor] Robinson said. "SPEED OF 'ROCKET DOCKET' CITED IN LAROUCHE APPEAL" Joseph Williams. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Oct 7, 1989. pg. B-2
  • Defense attorneys argued that Bryan rushed the jury selection process in a way that gave the defense inadequate time to reject prospective jurors who might be biased against LaRouche. "The entire jury selection process was completed in less than two hours, as opposed to 12 days" in a similar case against LaRouche in Boston, according to the motion for appeal. The Boston case was dismissed in May 1988, after four months of trial, because of hardship for the jurors. But the 4th Circuit opinion notes that "such quantitative comparisons are unhelpful," and that Bryan's actions were "sufficient to impanel an impartial jury." The defense team had also argued that it "struggled against enormous preparation requirements and shortness of time" because Bryan set the trial to begin 34 days after arraignment. The 4th Circuit upheld Bryan's denial of a continuance, saying that the defense waited until two weeks before the trial to request the extra time. The appellate panel-Judges Francis D. Murnaghan Jr., Kenneth K. Hall and John D. Butzner Jr.-also said the defense team failed to indicate significant flaws in its case that resulted from insufficient time. "Appeals Court Upholds LaRouche Conviction on Mail Fraud, Conspiracy"; Robert F. Howe. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Jan 23, 1990. pg. a.08
  • After his conviction, LaRouche said he was framed by Soviet sympathizers in the U.S. Justice and State departments. However, the appeals panel -- Judges Francis D. Murnaghan Jr. of Maryland, Kenneth K. Hall of West Virginia and John D. Butzner Jr. of Virginia -- said they reviewed the case closely and found no abuse of discretion by Bryan in refusing to delay the trial. The judges noted that defense lawyers waited 18 days before seeking a continuance of the trial. "Defense counsel's prolonged silence leads to the reasonable inference that 34 days was not a clearly insufficient period of time between arraignment and trial," the appeals court said in an opinion written by Murnaghan. The panel also noted that LaRouche's trial lawyers made no attempt to press potential jurors about their knowledge of the defendant. Jurors who had a background in law enforcement, accounting or taxes were individually questioned, the appeals panel said. "FEDERAL COURT REJECTS APPEAL BY LAROUCHE" Randolph Goode. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jan 23, 1990. pg. 11
  • Clark maintained that the "startling" speed that Bryan used to try the case robbed LaRouche of his right to a fair trial. LaRouche was on trial 35 days after he was indicted, and jury selection took just 20 minutes. The extensive national and local publicity the case generated should have caused Bryan to slow things down, Clark said. Consequently, "there were no real questions, no real probing for prejudice." But yesterday the 4th Circuit panel disagreed and said that Bryan did not abuse his discretion in refusing to delay the trial, and even if he had, LaRouche had not shown how Bryant's refusal hurt his case. The 4th Circuit also said that LaRouche's lawyers did not object to the extent of the questioning of the prospective jurors and, therefore, the objection could not be raised on appeal. In any case, the appeals court ruled, Bryan's questioning was more than adequate to ensure an impartial jury was empanelled. "CONVICTIONS OF LAROUCHE, AIDES ARE UPHELD BY THREE-JUDGE PANEL" Frank Green. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jan 23, 1990. pg. B-3
So the appeals court apparently decided that the trial lawyers did not object adequately at the time of the jury selection, that the lawyers did not seek more information from jurors, and that the matter didn't affect the outcome of the trial because the judge acted proprtly. The U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add that I provided long quotes to include the broad coverage in these stories of the legal issues. These are apparently the main issues discussed by the court in its opinion (which is apparently unavailable online or in print). Amicus briefs from obscure lawyers have little bearing on a case, and we don't even know if they were accepted. If the ACLU or similarly presitigious group or individual filed a brief then that'd be different. Why was a Swedish lawyer attending LaRouche's trial in Virginia anyway and for whom was he working? I think we should say that a number of briefs were filed supporting LaRouche and we can also summarize the points they make generally, but I don't think they are worth quoting or even summarizing individually. Let's not prejudge which issues are most important, and just cover each in its turn. That means appeals which occured after the trials should be covered in the later "Appeals" section. The appeals that were made earlier, while the trials were ongoing, should probably be handled in chronological order but I can see some posible exceptions. Keeping most items in chronological order makes the sequence of events much easier to follow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be fair to keep those sections on voir dire and in limine where they are, as part of the description of the trial (because after all, they were part of the trial, not part of the appeal) and note that the LaRouche organization and its supporters consider these actions to have been particularly significant. If sources are required for this assertion, the amicus briefs can then be used as sources. Frankly, the sections as they presently stand seem sufficient to me. --Marvin Diode 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Appeals follow the trial, chronologically. Only if you accept the LaRouchite conspiracy theory are these claims part of the trial section. The Apepals Court rejected the claims. That's the key point.--Cberlet 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on the press coverage of the appeal, it appears the main issues were the jury selection and the speed of the trial, not the in limine motion. Just because an unknown Swedish lawyer or the author of "Railroad!" says the main issue was "X" doesn't make it so. I don't think we should use the amicus briefs as sources for anything beyond their own existence. I'm fine with giving the appeals all the space they deserve, and mentioning which points the defense raised on appeal. We just need to do so in the same balanced, neutral manner we discuss everything else. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once again on Von der Heydt

The website LaRouche Planet, published by a critic of LaRouche, has put up the text of the late Nazi army officer Baron Von der Heydt's book on irregular warfare published in English by the LaRouche organization. The book includes a two page biography of Von der Heydt beginning at http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.ModernIrregularWarfare8 which shows that the LaRouche editors on this article have been providing less than accurate information on this Nazi soldier. Whereas in this article they present Von der Heydt as a professional military man who just happened to serve in World War Two as a small part of his total service, here we get the truth: He was a student who served briefly in the 1920s, then rejoined the military only a few months after Hitler took power and served until captured in the battle of the Bulge in 1944, receiving the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross from Hitler along the way. He was kept a prisoner of war in England until 1948 (wonder what that was about?). After that he was merely in the Reserves while primarily being a college professor. Note that the bio links his name in 1962 with that of Reinhard Gehlen--he must have been proud of that, all those former SS officers in Gehlen's shop. The LaRouchians have said on this discussion page (repeating material in the totally unsourced Wikipedia bio of Von der Heydt) that he joined the Wehrmacht in 1934 to prevent being punished by the Gestapo for fighting against Nazi students. Nonsense--he obtained Austrian citizenship in 1934 and Austria did not become part of Germany until 1938. Why would a graduate student rejoin the Army after seven years out of it? To serve Hitler, it would appear. And indeed the bio sketch--whether written by Von der Heydt himself or by his LaRouchian comrades--presents his service as a Nazi solider as being the most noteworthy single event in his life in comparison to which his life as a legal scholar over a much longer period of time receives short shrift. Under these circumstances to quote Von der Heydt as comparing LaRouche to Alfred Dreyfus, a victim of anti-Semitism, is actually a sly form of Jew-baiting and has no place in this article. I am removing the Von der Heydt quote again and I urge responsible editors to make it stick this time.--Dking 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If "LaRouche Planet" conforms to WP:RS, I suggest you make the appropriate edits to the article on von der Heydte (I think that the material you cite is already used as a source there.) Much of what you infer from it appears to be speculation and insinuation of the sort that, in my opinion, makes your website a highly unreliable source. Meanwhile, von der Heyde is still a published expert on legal matters, and your claim that his opinion is "actually a sly form of Jew-baiting" is a preposterous leap of illogic. --Marvin Diode 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the specifics of Dking's and MD's arguments, the history of this article shows that there is no consensus to include that material in its usual form. It should be left out until someone can re-write it in such a way that (almost) everyone can agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no consensus for its exclusion, and more to the point, neither you, nor Dking, nor Cberlet have ever presented a basis in policy for its exclusion. It is just pure POV prejudice, and it is annoying that it persists.--Marvin Diode (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This quote has been discussed at great length, and many reasons for its inclusion and exclusion have been given. At the end of the day there is no consensus for its inclusion.
A policy I'd like to see enforced on this is WP:V. If Marvin Diode has a copy of the ad I'd ask that he reproduce it in full. If no editor has access to the ad then the material should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, Will Beback, do you intend to apply this reasoning in a consistent manner? For example, will you now demand the deletion of references to the "Morning Briefing" in all references to Ken Kronberg, unless someone can reproduce it for your inspection? How about the cases where Chip Berlet and Dennis King claim to be interviewing anonymous sources, which are then used as cites for Wikipedia articles? I don't mind you taking an extreme interpretation of policy, as long as you can convince me that you are not doing it just for the sake of pushing POV. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, the excerpts from the "Morning Briefing" that we quote in other articles are verifiably published in reliable sources that can be checked by any editor. I am applying to the same standards to the Heydte quotation that have already been applied to the "Morning Briefing". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
One other thing. I don't see anyone claiming that this quote is not legitimate. King and Berlet simply make clear that it enrages them, and the reason why is obvious -- because the quote is a truthful and insightful observation. LaRouche was not allowed to present his defense, just like Dreyfus, and the trial was politically motivated, just like Dreyfus. So, King and Berlet take the tactic of slandering von der Heydte, and Will Beback appears to be looking for a clever technical gimmick. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy of this project, not a "clever technical gimmick". If the quote isn't verifiable it should be removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think he may be referring to your application of the policy, not the policy itself. And the editor who did the lion's share of work on this article, including providing that quote, was banned in what looks like a "sting." [51] Hopefully someone else has access to the source -- I don't. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have sent DLTN an email through his user page, asking if he can help. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The material is unverifiable until it's verifiable. Let's remove the contested material until verification can be obtained. Also, the quote was originally added by user:Weed Harper.[52] Since both that account and DLTN were determined to be socks of user:Herschelkrustofsky, I expect that he would have it, if it's available at all. Lastly, since DTLN, Weed Harper, Herschelkrustofsky, and MaplePorter were really just one editor, that person may indeed be described as having had the "lion's share" in writing this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the wake of the Durova affair, I am highly suspicious of these sorts of claims. Can you present proof? According to the block message on DLTN's talk page, he was not accused of being anyone's sock. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This page isn't devoted to discussing socks that were banned months ago. However if DLTN has possession of the same 17-year old newspaper clipping as HK then make of it what you will. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Will, if you are going to throw these accusations around, you can't be casual about it -- particularly in the wake of the Durova scandal, which is now all over the internet. Present some evidence. The banning message on DLTN's userpage contradicts your accusation. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you seeking to have DLTN's block overturned? Good luck to you on that. However this isn't the place to pursue it. Let's see if DLTN has HK's clipping. If he does and can make it available to editors for verification then the Heydte quote will be verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
All I am seeking is some indication that you are not making irresponsible claims about other editors as tactic in a content dispute. If you can present some evidence, I will be satisfied. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This page right here, in big bold letters, is the immediate reason for saying that DLTN was identified as an HK sock. If you want to dispute that identification then bring it up with the blocking admin. It has no bearing on this matter, since it was Weed Harper/Herschelkrutofsky who added the quotation and citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's hilarious! Because everybody knows who Sunsplash is. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

<---------The quote is in the book Railroad!. I have a copy, and I can upload digital photos of the text if necessary. --Niels Gade (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, could folks please refrain from bringing personal attacks and conspiracy theories about Will Beback onto this discussion page?--Cberlet (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
NG, could you please upload photos of the full text? That book is long out of print and no library within 500 miles of me has a copy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Rroad1.jpg

I think this should work. Click on the thumbs to make the text readable. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rroad2.jpg
Thanks for providing those. As I say, the book is very hard to find nowadays. Since it's an essay I think we'd do better by summarizing his points rather than giving a long quote. One point that seems odd is his claim that LaRouche's failure to "become a fugitive from justice" is proof of a clear conscience. While LaRouche didn't flee, three of his associates did. If we give quotes we should include that part. But I think it's better just to say that Heydte found parallels with the Dreyfus Affair. He's not a sufficiently-noteworthy person to give substantial space too. The only time he's ever been quoted about LaRouche is when LaRouche has paid for Heydte's words to be printed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is caving in. Would you quote flat-earthers in an article on geography? And since when is a Nazi to be accepted as an expert on Dreyfus? A paid advertisement is not a legitimate source, and the book from which the quote was taken, Railroad!, is unrecognized as a source of legitimate information by anyone outside the LaRouche organization.--Dking (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about "flat-earthers", so a certain amount of material from them is appropriate. However this particular material is problematic. It is written by a member of the movement and is self-published by the movement. But it is being presented as an objective statement by a noteworthy individual, and is the longest quotation in the article. I think that treatment is unwarranted. It should be summarized briefly as another part of the effort for exoneration, not given this much prominence. In place of what's there now I suggest we say somthing like:
  • Friedrich von der Heydte, a German military officer in WWII, and later a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Mainz in Germany, wrote an essay that compared LaRouche's trial to the Dreyfus Affair which the LaRouche organization paid to be printed in two major newspapers.
Since Heydte was not involved in the case I don't think he deserves any more space than that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose this: Friedrich von der Heydte, a Nazi military officer from 1934 until his capture by the Allies in 1944, and later a law professor in Germany, wrote an essay that characterized LaRouche's prosecution as a miscarriage of justice. The LaRouche organization paid for this essay to be printed in two major newspapers. Why concede any ground to LaRouche's anti-Semitic organization? Von der Heydte was a Nazi officer--he joined the army shortly after Hitler came to power, fought hard for him at Crete and elsewhere, received the Iron Cross from him, and apparently was regarded as sufficiently dangerous to be held in England until 1948. In common everyday English, a German officer who fought willingly and enthusiastically for Hitler was a Nazi officer and (in reference to his later career) a former Nazi officer. Once this phrasing is established I think it becomes easier to see just how inappropriate it is to quote Von der Heydte as comparing LaRouche to Dreyfus.--Dking (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)P.S. I am opposed to giving Von der Heydte's full professional title without explanation since it gives the false impression that his opinion on the LaRouche trial represents some kind of special expertise. International law is the law of nations, not comparative law of the U.S. and Germany (or for that matter, of the U.S. circa 1988 and the France of Emile Zola's time). Most lawyers in the United States hesitate to give legal opinions on matters outside the particular states in which they are licensed to practice, much less opinions on cases in foreign countries with vastly different legal traditions.--Dking (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This is all a big fraud. Dennis King has no credentials as an actual opponent of Nazism -- when has he ever spoken out against the Americans and Brits who actually supported Hitler, such as Prescott Bush, Averell Harriman, Montagu Norman, or Joseph Kennedy? When has he ever opposed the Germans who really were Nazis, and escaped, via the Ratlines (history)? Instead, he feigns indignation about army officers and scientists who in fact opposed Hitler, but were coerced in working for his government. This is all a red herring, because in fact it is tremendously appropriate to compare the LaRouche trial to the Dreyfus trial, and for frame-up fans, the truth hurts, and King has no answer to von der Heyte's message other than to smear the messager (I see a pattern here.) The quote should stay as is in the article, because it encapsulates the views of LaRouche supporters (and it is in the "claims of LaRouche supporters" section, after all) as well as other personalities who simply have a principled dislike of political trials. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't about King, Bush, Montagu, or Kennedy. Nor is it about Heydte. We have plenty to cover without bringing in extremely tangential characters. Heydte is a side-show. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
VdH is not being presented as an objective, third party opinion. The quote appears in "Claims of LaRouche supporters," and it is clear that the LaRouche organization considered his essay to be highly representative of its views, because they published the ad in 3 Washington-area papers on three consecutive days. I see no reason to water it down. Also, now that I have seen the full text, I consider Dking's claim that it is "actually a sly form of Jew-baiting" to be utterly baseless. I am somewhat at a loss as to why the King/Berlet/Beback team has chosen to make such a big deal out of this quote, other than the fact that it puts LaRouche in a positive light. I think that you should content yourself with the fact that you have placed a large number of quotes in the article that are supportive of the prosecution. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide image copyright tags for the two photos I uploaded. I don't think any of the available tags apply. I would like to request some help on this, or else I suppose we could just let the images be deleted if Will is finished looking at them. --Niels Gade (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After all this painstaking discussion, Dennis King has simply re-started his revert war. This is disruptive and irresponsible. Can we call in an adminstrator to ask him to stop? --Terrawatt (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
After all this discussion there's still no consensus to include the material. If you doubt that we could hold a straw poll to check to see if there is, in fact, a consensus to add the von Heydte quote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed the material. It spent to much time describing von Heydte, who has nothing to do with the case, and too much time quoting what can easily be summarized. I left one full sentence. I anyone feels that more is needed they should explain that need here and get a consensus for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that too much time was spent in describing von der Heydte, although that was mainly due to Dking's attempt to cast him as a Nazi. This seems to be a tactic borrowed from Daniel Goldhagen who claims that all Germans were automatically Nazis. I trimmed that part down to the relevant essentials. However, the quote belongs -- it is a good summary of the LaRouchian perspective on the trial. You had kept most of it anyway, but the idea that the Dreyfus case was a "classical political trial" is certainly relevant and should be included. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, so now I've trimmed the quote so as to include "political trial". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to more edit warring I've tried a different version - with the long description of Heydte, but with the trimmed quote. The additional verbiage and special formmating give this unrelated commentator excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that he is not an "unrelated commentator." If his views were presented in the body of the article, that would indeed be the case. However, his views are included in "claims of LaRouche supporters," and it is clear that the LaRouche organization considered his assessment of the case to be highly representative of its views, because they took out ads in 3 Washington-area papers on consecutive days. The box for his quote is appropriate because it sums up the LaRouche viewpoint. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What was his involvement in the case? He wasn't a defendant, he didn't serve as a lawyer in the case. Nobody reported on what he said, so he's not a noteworthy commentator. He's just a foreign lawyer who wrote an essay that LaRouche paid to have printed. We have the words of LaRouche in which he compares himself to Dreyfus, so the quote brings nothing new to the article. Let's also remember that neutrality doesn't mean giving equal weight to all sides. LaRouche and the other defendants were all convicted. The convictions were all appealed and confirmed. The dominant viewpoint, and the one that should be most prominenty presented, is that he was guilty as charged. While we can certainly devote some room to allow the defendants to deny their guilt, and we should report on the efforts of LaRouche to seek exoneration, the article itself shouldn't be used as a soapbox to assert his innocence. A lengthy quotation, in a special box, that adds nothing to the article is not a neutral addition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Two sentences is a "lengthy quotation"? Your so-called compromise devotes almost as much space to his irrelevant military record as to his quote. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting very confusing. How many disputes can we feature on this one page? It is getting very difficult to sort out who is responding to what and where.--Cberlet (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that folks are reverting without discussion, and especially without seeking consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to "LaRouche Planet"

Terrawatt keeps removing the link to a file on the LaRouche Planet site that includes the page images of the transcript of LaRouche's sentencing hearing in 1989, with the actual court stamp on them. This is not being cited in the text but is only being linked to at the bottom of the article as a reference for further research. There is absolutely no reason for removing this link, and I urge that Terrawatt and other pro-LaRouche editors be blocked from waging an edit war over this.--Dking (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who first removed it, and I cited the relevant policy pages in doing so. I don't object to the transcript, I object to the rest of the site that you are linking to. In Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources it says: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. At WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number two on the list is Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". The "LaRouche Planet" site is chock full of inflammatory, unsigned commentary, and the site is entirely anonymous, so there is no basis for veriability and no indication of fact-checking. So, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to link to it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So if we link directly to the transcript that won't be a problem. The transcript is factually accurate, evidenced by the scnas of the original pages. Is there anything there that is obviously inaccurate? WP:EL#What should be linked includes: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. This link appears to fulfill that need. The more trial-related transcripts we can make available to readers the better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the usefulness of the transcript, but I continue to have reservations about linking to the site -- I wonder whether the link to the transcript is intended to be a come-on to direct readers to "LaRouche Planet." Also, in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided it includes "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that it's an "open wiki". I tried to make an edit but it requires a password and there's no apparent way to obtain an account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we call in some sort of neutral authority on Wikipedia policy? This seems like a very sketchy situation. I object to linking to a website that is full of the most outrageous crap, and could never be considered a reliable source. It looks to me like the whole issue of a transcript is just a ploy to link to this slanderous site. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What "outrageious crap" are you referring to? It appears to mostly be source documents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Look again-- there is a heaping helping of unsigned, defamatory commentary. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Dking claims that he is not trolling, because he says that trolling is always done anonymously [53]. He is mistaken about this, as he is with so many other things (see Troll (internet) -- a troll is "someone who intentionally posts controversial messages...with the intention of baiting other users into an argumentative response.) There is no reason whatsoever to delete or reduce the Heydte quote. It is compatible with all the Wikipedia rules. And if Dking has any evidence that Heydte ever belonged to the Nazi party, he should present it, or else it should be clear to all that he is running a deliberate disinformation campaign. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to include it either. Let's not call each other "trolls". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Dking is provocatively using the edit summaries as a soapbox with this litany of "Von der Heydte is a Nazi." He has no intention of documenting his charge, or he would be editing Von der Heydte's bio article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Von der Heydte was at least a Nazi collaborator. Why rewrite history? It belongs in the Von der Heydte entry, and the documentation is actually there is you actually read the text.--Cberlet (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full protection

I have fully protected this page from editing for 2 weeks, or until current disputes are solved, in accordance with the page protection policy. Once it is clear that the dispute has been solved, please request that the protection be lifted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Any queries regarding the protection or the protection policy may be made at my talk page or via e-mail. Thanks, Spebi 08:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This protection policy is basically just protecting the LaRouche propaganda on this page for the next two weeks. I urge that the controversial Von Der Heydte material be removed during this period and the issues be addressed on the discussion page. In my most recent formulation I called the Baron a "Third Reich military officer." This is verified by the LaRouchians' own biography of him (see http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.ModernIrregularWarfare8 ), apparently furnished by the baron himself, which states he served the Third Reich loyally as a military officer from 1934 to the end of the war (the last half-year spent as an Allied POW) and that he received Hitler's Iron Cross for his valor in service to the Reich. The LaRouchians want to use Wikipedia to insult Jews by comparing LaRouche to Dreyfuss, but they also want to withhold from Wikipedia the fact that the person uttering the insult had a Nazi past. Why is this being tolerated?--Dking (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC). P.S. It was common practice among Allied forces and media during World War Two, and is still common practice today, to refer to Germans who fought for Hitler as "Nazi" soldiers. Von der Heydte was a Nazi soldier who fought for Hitler's goals. His actions on Crete alone led to massive war crimes against the Greek citizens of that island after it was conquered. His actions on the Western front in 1944 helped to delay an Allied victory, thus giving Hitler and Himmler time to complete the gassing of the Jews. Furthermore, the baron was no hapless draftee--he voluntarily joined the military shortly after Hitler took power even though, as an Austrian citizen, he was not obligated to do so.--Dking (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that all this belongs at Talk:Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, not here. Except I suspect that King really doesn't care much about this except where it might provide an oppportunity to smear LaRouche. I also doubt that in post-war West Germany anyone who had any taint of war crimes or Nazism could rise to being a Brigadier General in the Reserves or full professor at the University of Mainz. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks on editors. Do you have a cite for Germany not employing Nazis after WWII? Because I have lots of contrary cites. Even the U.S. hired Nazi collaborationist rocket scientists and spies. I am sure LaRouche could explain all this to you since he worked closely with a number of them.--Cberlet (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
See Denazification. I'm sure that the process was imperfect, however, because the ones who were buddies with John Foster Dulles got off scot free. Of course, what you say about the rocket scientists is crap, as can be easily verified, even by reading their bios on Wikipedia. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

[edit] Full version

Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte was a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Mainz in Germany. He was also a military officer who served in the Reichswehr as a young man, the Luftwaffe in WWII, and became a Brigadier General in the Reserves for the Federal Republic of Germany during the post-war years. Von der Heydte, a supporter of the LaRouche movement, wrote the following:

On closer examination of the behavior of the U.S. authorities toward LaRouche, there emerge strong parallels to the infamous Dreyfus Affair in France, which has gone down in history as a classical example of a political trial....Just as LaRouche was, the French Capt. Alfred Dreyfus was deprived by the structure of the trial procedures, of any opportunity to prove his innocence, and facts critical for his defense were excluded from the trial.

[edit] Least version

Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte , a supporter of the LaRouche movement, compared the LaRouche trial to the Dreyfus affair, which he called "a classical example of a political trial". He wrote, "Just as LaRouche was, the French Capt. Alfred Dreyfus was deprived by the structure of the trial procedures, of any opportunity to prove his innocence, and facts critical for his defense were excluded from the trial."

[edit] Citation

(ref)This paragraph is excerpted from a longer essay by von der Heydte, which appeared as a full page ad, sponsored by the LaRouche-affiliated Commission to investigate Human Rights Violations, in the Washington Times on March 1, 1990, in the Loudon Times-Mirror of Loudon County, Virginia on March 2, and as a half-page ad in the Washington Post on March 3. It was subsequently re-printed in Railroad!, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, Leesburg, VA 1989(/ref)

[edit] Discussion

Can we please find some consensus here? We'd previously agreed, or at least stopped disagreeing, to the "full version" above. I think some folks were unhappy with that and the compromise failed. I propose the "least version". Heydte is the second German law professor we're quoting, even though the cases had almost nothing to do with Germany. We're also already quoting LaRouche on the similarity to the Dreyfus case. This quote brings little to the article, so we should summarize it as much as possible, quoting the pithy parts and leaving out the verbiage. We have an article about Heydte so it's not necessary to go into his resume here. Since any description of him appears to be controviersial, I suggest we leave off all description, even the "...a supporter of the LaRouche movement..." in the "least" version. I'd rather see this mentioned briefly then lingered over or removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, while some editors are concerned that this quote gives undue weight to the opinion of a man with a dubious past, I think the man's name alone is sufficiently Teutonic-sounding to associate him with old Germany without any other prompting required. Frankly, I think that Heydte's financial connections to LaRouche are more relevant than his political connections to Hitler. Since those are mostly unknown it's best not to speculate. I think a minimal version avoids giving the quotation undue weight. Can we agree on that much? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy the "undue weight" argument. The "claims of LaRouche supporters" section is relatively short, and more than balanced by the extensive quotes from the prosecution and Washington Post, etc. I don't think that King and Berlet are making an undue weight complaint anyway. They seem to simply be saying that they disagree with Von der Heydte, that his opinion annoys them. I would also make these observations: that both "financial connections to LaRouche" and "political connections to Hitler" are pure fantasy; and that the relevant (and documented) description of the man is that he was a professor of law. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Heydte was an aging Nazi-collaborationist professor of law who got picked up by the LaRouchites, rehabilitated through misrepresentations of his history, and groomed like a silkworm to spin webs of glistening yet sinister propoganda on behalf of a cult leader described in major daily newspapers and national magazines as a neofascist, neonazi, and antisemite. He is also a convicted felon. I certainly call that Undue Weight, and Fringe Theories, and POV, and revisionist history, and apologia for Nazism, etc. I accept the proposed compromise suggested by Will Beback. --Cberlet (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is my proposed revision of the proposed "compromise":
Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, a political supporter of the LaRouche movement, called the LaRouche case "a classical example of a political trial." He also claimed that LaRouche had been deprived of "any opportunity to prove his innocence" and that "facts critical for [LaRouche's] defense were excluded from the trial."
This version has the virtue (a) of not allowing LaRouchian pressure to censor out the fact that the late Baron Von der Heydte was a LaRouche supporter, not just some disinterested party devoted to legal justice; and (b) of not allowing the LaRouchians to use Wikipedia for the purpose of insulting and baiting the Jews via the sick comparison of LaRouche to Dreyfuss. (And what's next? A comparison of Helga LaRouche to Anne Frank on grounds that they were both "misunderstood" by the political authorities?)
I wish one of the well-meaning editors on this article would explain to me why, exactly, we need to compromise on these points at all with supporters of an anti-Semitic movement?--Dking (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Niels, we don't have a "claims of non-supporters" section. Instead we have the claims of both sides spread throughout the article. I don't think we need to quote the Washington Post. HK or a like-minded editor added that quote, IIRC. If it's a matter of using the Heydte quotation to balance the WaPo quotation then that's easily fixed be getting rid of the WaPo quote. Regarding financial ties to the LaRouche movement, they published Heydte's book, an activity that typically involves a financial transaction. Why do we quote two German obscure professors in an article on a criminal trial of an American in the U.S.? Anyway, can you comment on Dking's compromise proposal, or can you make one of your own? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The LaRouche movement is anything but typical, so the supposition that publishing someone's book involves a financial transaction is unfounded. And it is worthy of note that the LaRouche trial generated an international hue and cry. I don't see two German professors, by the way. And why is it that they are only "obscure" when you disagree with them? --Terrawatt (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The LaRouche Movement doesn't pay its authors? Do you have a source for that astonishing assertion? The second professor is Albert Bleckmann. Niether German professor is famous in their field in the U.S. and neither is known to have attended the trials. There's no apparent relation between themn and the case, except that they have opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the weight issue has been mischaracterized - there are many more quotes from LaRouche and supporters in the current version, both by number and size.[54] I count eleven quotations from LaRouche himself, totalling 223 words. There are also seven quotations from supporters, totalling 284 words. Those add up to 18 quotations and over 500 words. On the other hand, I count five quotations from prosecutors, totalling just 169 words. So the defendants' side has six more quotations and at least 330 more words than the prosectuora' side. The shorter version proposed by Dking would leave the number of quotations the same, but reduce the 330 word surplus by 50 words. Eliminating the mention entirely, or simply summarizing it, would redce the over-representation of the defendants' quotes by 1, and the wordcount by 75 (plus the descripion of the writer). Either would be a step in the right direction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support Will Beback's 2nd compromise version, as amended by Marvin Diode with the legal credential mentioned. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you support the same text with the military career of Heydte added? That's his claim to notability, and Dking asserts that it's relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It may be his claim to notability for his own Wikipedia article (duly linked), but it is irrelevant to a discussion of LaRouche's trial, and King is simply trying to slander LaRouche by implying that LaRouche was associating with someone who was a Nazi. I don't think King would bother to slander Heydte if it didn't help him to get LaRouche on guilt by association. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is supposed to be an effort towards compromise. I think that "neither or both" are the two options. I favor "neither", since Heydte has an article and interested readers can learn about him there. "Both" ends up being rather long. Since pro-defense quotations already receive excess weight, I'm concerned about the overall length of the Heydte mention. Would you support including neither detail of Heydte's resume? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Does NPOV mean that "all biases should be given equal weight"? That's not my impression at all. There is clear basis for the inclusion of the legal credential in an article about court cases, whereas the military career has no relevancy and is being pushed for inclusion only for propaganda reasons. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV means that all significant points of view should be presented neutrally, in some proportion to their acceptance. The losing side in a criminal case probably shouldn't be given twice as much weight as the prevailing side. Heydte appears to be an obscure German professor who never attended the trial. We already make the points that the pro-defense side thinks the case was politially motivated, and that the trials were comparable to the Dreyfus affair. The Heydte quote doesn't make any fresh points. If we're going to include it at all, it should be kept to a minimum. As for Heydte's military career, his academic career, and the publication of his book by the LaRouche organization, one or another editor thinks each of those are relevant background. They may be right, but it burdens the article with too much informaiton about an uninvolved commentator. We have an article about the guy, so I think we can get away with just linking to that article and allowing interested readers the opportunity of learning more there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boston trial requested edits

{{editprotected}} Please add links to neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan per below.
==Boston trial==
The opening of the Boston trial, before Federal Judge [[Robert Keeton]], was delayed when one of the defendants, Roy Frankhouser, was granted a severance of his case.<ref>http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40717F83D5C0C728EDDA90994DF484D81</ref> Frankhouser was a [[neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]], a former Pennsylvania [[Ku Klux Klan]] grand dragon
Matchups (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently someone has done this edit already. Sandstein (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The changes have not been made. Note that the text is not changing, just adding links. Matchups (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I added these links. In general, simple changes like this can wait until the page is unprotected (in five days); please use additional editprotected requests only for errors that require immediate attention. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few items

The material cited to this cite is a bit confusing. It speaks of destroyed evidence, which made me initially think of the Richard Egan case, but now I think it refers to some other incident. Could you post the relevant text on this page?

Also, I agree with Terrawatt that a special sub-heading for Frankhouser is undue weight. He wasn't a member of the LaRouche organization, and it looks like the same tired old efforts at guilt by association. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Frankhouser was part of the organization, having been a security adviser for years. In any case, the heading doens't give it excess weight. Just the opposite: by separating it from the "main trial" it is clearer that it was a a separate event. Can you clarify which cite you're referring to? I'm having trouble finding which one, and which material, you're asking about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As your own edits clearly show, Frankhouser was a paid consultant, an outsider. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Some sources say that, other sources call him a member. I don't think it's a big deal - we don't say he was a member. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It also appears that his trial was separated because he was not a member. My sense is that Cberlet wishes to imply that he was a member, or otherwise wishes to taint LaRouche with guilt by association (see his edit summaries,) and that is why I have reverted the edit which draws attention to him unnecessarily by creating a special section header for his trial. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The trial was separated because of the intended defense strategy of one of the defendants (blaming his co-defendants), not due to membership. I added the heading in the first place because it was a separate trial, and because the section was long. I don't think that separating it makes it look like Frankhouser was closer to the organization than keeping them together. It does the opposite, in my opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Cberlet's edit summaries suggest that he has a different take on the matter. I think it best to omit the subheader. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleting the subheading gives the appearance of fawning synchopancy in service to hiding important information about a reported bigot, and I am sure that Marvin Diode does not want to give that impression, so I am restoring it as a personal favor.--Cberlet (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Marvin, how does separating the section on the Boston trials into two sections, each one covering a single trial, make it appear that Frankhouser is a member of the LaRouche organization? I don't see the logic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Von der Heydte again (Version 5.0)

In spite of the recent discussion of this quote, which made clear that it is not supported by non-LaRouchian editors, LaRouche's supporters are getting their way through sheer persistance and the generation of ever-new sock puppets all saying the same thing. Thus, the baron is now depicted as being qualified to analyse LaRouche's trial, and his Nazi past is excised. Furthermore the gratuitously anti-Semitic and ignorant comparison of LaRouche to Dreyfuss is still in place. I'm deleting all this once again.--Dking (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again the ramblings of an aging Nazi supporter of LaRouche were restored, but I'm deleting again. The late baron obviously knew nothing about the actual complaints in this trial or the suffering of the elderly victims who lost their life savings. This has nothing to do with the trial of Dreyfuss, a Jew falsely accused of treason in a case where there was no real evidence against him. LaRouche is not a Jew but is an individual accused of anti-Semitism by the ADL and other Jewish organizations; he was not accused of treason but of mail and wire fraud (scamming senior citizens) and income tax fraud; he was not accused on the basis of slanders by military higher-ups but by hundreds of ordinary people--victims who had copies of the false promissory notes LaRouche's followers had given them and correspondence in which the LaRouche network refused to pay them back; he was not convicted by a military court but by a jury of his peers; he was not sent to Devil's Island but to a country club prison where he sat around discussing the Bible and conspiracy theories with Jim Bakker (and continuing to run his enterprises from behind bars like a mafia don). Von der Heydte never attended the trial, never read the trial transcript, never interviewed any victims (or the prosecutors), probably had only an extremely limited understanding of the American judicial system, and just gave the statement of support to LaRouche because of their ideological affinities. Shame on Wikipedia for allowing this travesty to continue.--Dking (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The above paragraph was deleted by Terrawatt, who called it "trolling" (I have restored it). If you go to the Wiki definition of trolling you will see that it has nothing to do with this paragraph. The paragraph speaks directly to the issue of whether or not Von der Heydte's quote and opinion should be included in Wiki. As it notes, the late Nazi war hero Baron Von der Heydte's comparison of LaRouche and Dreyfuss is factually without foundation--indeed, is absurd--and does not belong in a serious Wikipedia article. LaRouche supporter Terrawatt cannot cite, in reply, any substantive parallel between LaRouche and Dreyfuss, and indeed has no rational answer whatsoever to my argument above. Thus he simply deletes it in typical totalitarian fashion.--Dking (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that two words in the above paragraph, which I have redacted, violate BLP with respect to LaRouche. The article Lyndon LaRouche does not state affirmatively that he holds these views, only that Chip Berlet accuses him of holding these views. I will be happy to discuss, privately if necessary, why referring to anyone as a raving anything is rarely if ever acceptable in either article or talk space. However, the rest of the paragraph seems to be a factual recitation of the comparison between two trials, and my concern for basic respect for the BLP principle in all cases should not be used by apparent single-purpose pro-LaRouche accounts to forestall factual discussion of important issues. Thatcher 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
On the face of it, it may appear to be a "factual recitation," but it is not. Dking's claims have been refuted repeatedly, but he periodically starts in again with renewed histrionics, so I think that it is in fact appropriate to call this behavior "trolling." For the benefit of newcomers, I will re-cap some of the answers to Dking's claims:
1. Neither Dking nor his collaborators have ever presented any evidence that Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte was a Nazi. The Wikipedia article in fact characterizes him as an anti-Nazi. It is this sort of irresponsible labeling, bombasticly presented, that make King's book on LaRouche an unreliable source.
2. The same goes for Dking's claim that von der Heydte "obviously knew nothing about the actual complaints in this trial." Von der Heydte's essay is extremely well-written, and at Will Beback's request I uploaded an image of the entire essay (see above), which Will or other admins can undelete if newcomers wish to inspect it. In fact, I would like to request that Will arrange for the image to be kept permanently, since Dking will probably start this argument another five times -- I don't understand the process well enough to fill out all the Fair Use descriptions.
3. LaRouche's trial was not initiated by "ordinary citizens" -- it was initiated by Leo Cherne acting on behalf of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
4. LaRouche was not convicted by a "jury of his peers" -- he was convicted by a jury that was comprised mainly of present and former government employees, some, such as foreman Buster Horton, who worked for FEMA, high-ranking. The judge ruled that normal Voir dire was unnecessary.
5. Dking's statement that the comparison of LaRouche to Dreyfus is "gratuitously anti-Semitic" is, frankly, demented. --Niels Gade (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1 We're all collaborators together on this article. Dennis King's 1989 book and Dking's 2008 Wikipedia talk page comments are unrelated and connecting them doesn't help us find consensus here.
2 There is no way to make a fair use claim for posting the entirety of an essay. We could claim fair use if we posted excerpts, but I don't see how those would establish the quality of the essay. "Extremely well-written" is a value judgment that I wouldn't make about it having read it in its entirety. The essay and its publication are non-notable in the sense that nobody has noted them beyond the same organization that paid the bills.
3 The article needs a better description of the crimes and the victims. The idea that LaRouche et al. were blameless and no crime occurred is not borne out by the trial, the jury, or by the numerous appeals.
4 The matter of the jury selection was specifically appealed, and the appellate court specifcally found no error. It can be expected that a trial held on the outskirts of Washington D.C. will include government employees on the jury. The head of a government department is as much a peer of LaRouche as is any other citizen.
5 Calling a statement by one of your collaborators "frankly demented" is unhelpful. Please be more respectful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's all try to focus on writing this article. Using labels, whether for each other or for the subjects, doesn't help the discussion achieve consensus.
Getting back to the topic, this single quote has been a bone of contention for too long. Dking has expressed his objection rather forcefully. Let me repeat my objections: A) We already have an earlier quote from LaRoouche comparing his trial to Dreyfus's. B) We already use another German law professor for an attributed opinion. C) We already devote twice as many words to verbatim quotes from pro-defense sources as from pro-prosecution sources. D) It has been too prominent in the article because of the box. E) The article still has other topics to cover, and we should keep it trim by removing unneeded material. The quotation doesn't add anything that we don't already have in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue of which sources and quotations to use is a matter of editorial judgement. As a content matter, I fail to see how a German Army General (regardless of his role in WWII) would be considered a reliably informed source on the matter of the mail fraud and tax evasion trial of a US politician, any more than I would expect to see David Petraeus quoted on Adscam. If indeed the general's opinion was published by the LaRouche organization, that further weakens its editorial suitability. I have seen this dispute being fought for several months now, isn't it time to move on? Thatcher 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
On further reading I see he was a university professor and LaRouche supporter after the war. However, the fact that his statement was paid for by LaRouche seems to significantly undermine it. Since LaRouche himself referred to his case with the Dreyfuss reference, having a paid ally say the same thing is at the very least redundant. This appears to be an example of the rhetorical fallacy Appeal to authority, as further shown by the repeated attempts to censor descriptions of von der Heydte as either a "supporter" of LaRouche or to indicate that he is a former Nazi general. As it is hardly surprising or revelatory that a supporter of LaRouche would say bad things about the government in a paid advertisement, the value of this item as a reliable source seems strongly compromised. Thatcher 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The section which is being debated here is entitled "claims of LaRouche supporters," so it seems unnecessary to point out that each individual claim was made by a LaRouche supporter. It also seems inappropriate to discredit the views of those making "claims of LaRouche supporters," on the grounds that they are LaRouche supporters. If von der Heydte's opinion were being presented as an expert view elsewhere in the article, I could see how such a challeng might be made, but not in this section. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I should also note that there is no evidence that vdH is a "paid ally" of LaRouche, nor that he is a former "Nazi general" -- it would be correct to call him a "German general. " Would one call Gen. William Eldridge Odom a "Republican General"? Also, there is no "appeal to authority" here, because his opinion is not being presented as that of an authority, but rather as characteristic of LaRouche supporters. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we have a "claims of LaRouche supporters" section. Their claims are already covered throughout the article. We don't a section titled "Claims of LaRouche opponents", but if we insist on keeping this section then maybe we should balance it out with one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Claims of LaRouche opponents" would be the prosecution, which is amply covered. I disagree with your calculations about number of words devoted to verbatim quotes, because you do not include press coverage, which as quoted in this article is uniformly anti-LaRouche. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
We cover both the defence and prosecution assertions thoughout the article. This "supporters" section is devoted to the comments of uninvoled supporters. I don't think we quote opinions from the press, just facts, and their POV is just your own opinion. Or are you saying that the Washington Post, New York Times, etc., are not reliable sources? Either they are or they aren't. I've presented evidence that the pro-defense side already has more than twice the space devoted to verbatim quots as does the pro-prosecution side. If you want to present your own evidence we can compare them, but just saying that you think it's wrong isn't helpful. Intead of adding a "Claims of pro-law enforcement" section or some such I thnk it'd be better if we trimmed this section. Since the Heydte quote adds nothing to the article it's a good place to start.
It should be noted that user:Thatcher, an uninvolved admin who was asked to come here by Marvin Diode, has given an opinion that the quote is problematic. Why is it so darned important to include this quote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the latest compromise, which is basically just a shorter version of the LaRouche version, including as it does the absurd comparison of LaRouche to Dreyfuss, and failing to point out Von der Heydte's Nazi-war-hero past. (The idea that a Nazi soldier is not a Nazi but an anti-Nazi is just another Orwellian trick of the kind LaRouche specializes in.) I spelled out point by point above how there is no meaningful similarity between the LaRouche case and the Dreyfuss case. Any "compromise" on this is merely surrending to the LaRouchians and allowing them to fill Wikipedia with absurdities. Again, I ask, what's next? A comparison between Helga LaRouche and Ann Frank?--Dking (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to Will Beback: Dking has made it clear that he has no intention of compromise. He also has never presented a real reason to remove the quote -- it is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I believe that his edits should be considered vandalism, and unless he and cberlet agree to refrain from this behavior, the page should simply remain protected like Views of Lyndon LaRouche. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a helpful attitiude. Why don't you ask him what compomise he'd accept. Would you accept a compromise that didn't include the Heydte quote at all? Would you accept a compromise that included a section for "Claims of LaRouche opponents"? So far you haven't appeared to be any more willing to compromise than Dking has been. Indefinite page protection due to a dispute over a single quotation isn't appropriate. If you guys can't agree on this page then you should use mediation. And do not call good faith edits "vandalism" - that's sloppy thinking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dking writes above, Any "compromise" on this is merely surrending to the LaRouchians and allowing them to fill Wikipedia with absurdities. That's pretty unambiguous. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Another possible compromise would be for a LaRouche-related website to host the entire Heydte essay and then to include a link to it from this article. That way readers can see the whole thing, but the actual text won't be here. Why would that be unacceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If we could do the same with all the quotes from Dennis King and Chip Berlet, that would be great. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to remove the Heydte quote if we remove all the quotes by Berlet and King from this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that NPOV is often a basis for including material, but seldom for excluding it. I don't see that King and Berlet have offered a legitimate reason for excluding this quote. They appear to simply be attempting to censor a viewpoint with which they disagree. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Undue weight" is an often-ctied reason for removing information. As detailed above this article gives more space to quotes from pro-defense sources than from pro-prosecution sources. The viewpoint of Heydte is already included - we already quote LaRouche comparing his trial to that of Dreyfus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about a few sentences here, so "Undue weight" is a stretch. However, I would favor removing the comment by LaRouche about the Dreyfus case, because unlike the VdH quote it provides no rationale, and also it is not so noteworthy that LaRouche thinks he was framed, whereas it is of some interest that a European observer thinks he was framed. It is also clear that of the three editors who object to the quote, only Will Beback is attempting to find a basis in policy. In the case of Cberlet and Dking, it is just unabashed censorship of an opposing viewpoint. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Do think that your compromise proposal will be helpful? To be honest I don't think it will resolve the dispute. As for your complaints about other users, those aren't helpful. There's no policy reason being given by those who want the quote (besides "weight", which has been proven wrong). Unless folks are actively seeking a compromise or mediating I'm going to ask to have the page unprotected. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "financial improprieties"

  • Investigations into financial improprieties by LaRouche groups were started un the mid-1980s by the U.S government and by eleven states. The LaRouche defense submitted, as an exhibit to the trial, a memorandum written on January 12, 1983, by former FBI chief William Webster to Oliver "Buck" Revell, head of the Bureau's General Investigative Division, requesting information on the funding of LaRouche and the U.S. Labor Party. A complaint by Henry Kissinger had been raised at a meeting that day of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by senior member David Abshire, asking for an FBI investigation.
    • Railroad!, p. 306: "At the PFIAB meeting today, David Abshire raised the subject of the activities of the U.S. Labor Party and Lyndon LaRoche [sic]... A number of the members present, including Edward Bennett Williams, raised the question of the sources of funding for these U.S. Labor Party activities. IN view of the large amounts obviously being expended worldwide, the question was raised whether the U.S. Labor Party might be funded by hostile intelligence agencies. Can you give me an update together with any comments or observations on this matter?
    • "Who Is Richard Mellon Scaife?" by Edward Spannaus, The Executive Intelligence Review -- a Series, Beginning March 21, 1997.

The section on investigations had been limited to financial improprieties until an editor added this material about an investigation into the harassment of Henry Kissinger. That investigation doesn't appear to be related to the trials. There were a number of investigations into non-financial improprieties allegedly committed by LaRouche entities. However to keep this article focsed on its topic we haven't included those. I propose we omit the Kissinger matter, which to fully explain would require at least a long paragraph, and that we limit ourselves to matters that are directly relevant to the charges of financial improprieties. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Kissinger request was for investigation into the sources of fundraising, so it is not a deviation from the theme you prefer. It was probably an effort to invoke Executive Order 12333, but I don't think it's necessary to go into that. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that both sources are written by Edward Spannaus, a defendant. In the first source he appears to be quoting some other or person. Can you give the context of the quote? I think if we use this we should limit it to the financial aspect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No, only the American Almanac/EIR article was written by Spannaus. The Railroad! quote comes from an exhibit, which in turn is quoted in a court document, "Motion to dismiss on grounds of selective prosecution." Railroad! is actually "compiled and edited" by Spannaus, although he did write an introduction. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

Somehow a large chunk of the article gets repeated, probably an artifact of edit wars. Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 should be removed, as they appear twice. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't due to the edit wars, just sloppy editing.[55]. We all make mistakes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Should this article be re-titled? Because it actually covers numerous court cases, not just the one referred to in the title. --Marvin Diode (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The main topic is the federal prosecution, but the state prosecutions of subordinates are also important. What do you suggest? "LaRouche-movement fraud trials of the 1980s"? I can't think of a shorter name that encompasses the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The present title gets the point across clearly enough. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended reading

I suggest that any editor that really wants to understand these legal cases ought to read a remarkable document called the Quinde Affidavit ([56].) --Polly Hedra (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor error

In the "Alexandria trial" section, subsection "Trial," "received" is misspelled as "recieved." BecauseWhy? (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've made that non-controversial minor correction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)