Talk:LaRouche criminal trials/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Old talk

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

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

What is disputed?

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

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

Unproven assertion about Boston mistrial

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

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

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

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

Added information about the Virginia case

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

Herschelkrustofsky again adds incorrect information from LaRouche sources
Herschelkrustofsky has rewritten a sentence to state the following:
"LaRouche claimed he had no income, but during the period following the involuntary bankruptcy, when the bankrupted entities, now controlled by government trustees, were not repaying many loans, and LaRouche was not paying taxes, LaRouche lived at a 200 acre Virginia estate with a pond and horse ring, owned by a supporter of the LaRouche organization."
This is factually misleading and false. LaRouche lived in the mansion before the Virginia raid happened and before the case was filed, and during a period before the raid in which many loans were not being repaid. This is a matter of fact reported in several newspaper. The crux of the tax fraud conviction was that LaRouche had created a sham financial picture in which he received shelter, food, clothing, and transportation and yet maintained they were all gifts. Even if true, these would have been counted as taxable income which he failed to report.
My goal here, as on other LaRouche oriented pages, is to restore some balance. I am starting by ensuring a 50/50 ratio of factual/critical material to claims by LaRouche supporters for which they are the sole source. --Cberlet 12:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Train meetings

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

This is where the material belongs. It is directly related to the claim of LaRouche and his supporters that a conspiracy hatched at the Train meetings led to his conviction. It has nothing to do with the political views of LaRouche. And it has very little to do with the page on me, since I argue that the entire LaRouche claim of conspiracy stemming from the Train meeting I attended is not true, undocumented, and pure supposition.--Cberlet 01:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, as I understand it, what LaRouche and his supporters claim is that what led to LaRouche's conviction was the misconduct of Judge Bryan, who prevented LaRouche's attorneys from presenting the evidence of the involuntary bankruptcy and other essential facts of the case. The Train salon meetings were a parallel track of organized character assassination, to make the judicial railroad credible to public opinion. After a suggested compromise measure at Talk:Chip Berlet, I am creating an article called John Train Salon. If Chip still wants the Train info here at this article, he is welcome to it, although a link to the new article will be fine with me. --HK 16:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The material only should be mentioned in detail in one place. The last thing Wikipedia needs is another page devoted to LaRouche. This is another example of how HK and other LaRouche supporters spark a controversy, and then seek a "compromise" whereby another LaRouche page gets spawned so that more LaRouche propoganda is placed on Wikipedia, turning it into a major source of promotion for the views of LaRouche. The process of creating a serious and thoughtful public encyclopedia is thus hijacked. A whole page on the Train meetings? It is absurd! Using Wikipedia to explore alternative views and non-mainstream currents is a great idea. Allowing fanatics to distort the process needs to be confronted.--Cberlet 17:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There really needs to be some systematic way to discuss this problem. I understand other tiny zealous groups and their supporters are engaged in similar projects both at Wikipedia and at Disinfopedia. Is there a place to discuss these larger issues?--Cberlet 17:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Associates?

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

I found the reference to three of the associates (buried in the article). Does anyone know about the others? Also, I cut out two quotations which don't have any available references, I can't find them with Google either. I also edited the 2nd trial to bring it more in line with the section at Lyndon LaRouche. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What appears to be an article written by "LaRouche supporters" is posted around the internet. It is titled: "The Trial of Lyndon LaRouche" and starts: "The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the trial of Lyndon LaRouche..." [2] [3] Does it accurately represent the thinking of the LaRouche organizations? Is it spurious? Can anyone comment on the validity of this material? -Willmcw

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

Thanks. Totse is so dubious that I had to ask. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In an statement issued in 1995, LaRouche says, "Four other railroaded LaRouche associates are serving sentences of 39 years (Anita Gallagher), 34 years (Paul Gallagher), 33 years (Laurence Hecht), and 25 years (Donald Phau)." Were they convicted in a separate trial? How do they fit in? Also, User:C Colden tells me they were all paroled in the 1990s. Any info on that? -Willmcw 22:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
also this: "[Robert] Primack joined the political party of Lyndon LaRouche in the 1970s. As part of a federal investigation into the fundraising practices of that organization, he was jailed for about a year. After being released from prison, he left the party. http://www.leesburgtoday.com/current.cfm?catid=11&newsid=7474
Probably all these other cases should go into a short section, "other prosecutions". -Willmcw 07:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Exoneration cites

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

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

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

Thanks for responding. The quotations that I cannot find on the web are the Heydte quote and the Brainin quote. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It has been over ten days since I raised the question. I'm deleting the Brainin and Heydt quotes until a verfiable source with context can be provided. They can easily be restored once we have proof that they are correct. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported Claim

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

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

I agree that this claim should go. It was orginally inserted (referring to the LaRouche "empire", not "movement") by anti-LaRouche editor AndyL. However, CBerlet's above account of the story is equally spurious.
From "Memorandum of Defendants Lyndon LaRouche et at. in support of their motion for disclosure of exculpatory material" cr. 88-00243-A:
"In the Boston investigation... prosecutor John Markham voluntarily disclosed to the defense all FBI 302's [interview reports] generated in the course of the "Boston investigation." These 302's revealed that the Government launched a nationwide dragnet for alleged "victims" of fraud on the eve of the November 1984 elections, based upon one complaint to the FBI and a news broadcast on the local NBC affiliate, WBZ-TV."
--HK 01:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then the Boston grand jury called scores of witnesses and found numerous instances of potentially illegal activity, as detailed in the Boston indictment, and reported in the mainstream press. Then, in the Virginia case, even more witnesses were located, and LaRouche was convicted.--Cberlet 03:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox version

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

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

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

Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche
Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche
Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

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

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)

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)

"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 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.[4]. 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)

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)

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 ([5].) --Polly Hedra (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Unsourced

  • The National Law Journal called the Boston mistrial a "stinging defeat" for the government; LaRouche commented, "I was cheated out of an acquittal."

I've moved this sentence here from the article due to a lack of sources. We can restore it once it's cited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article review. Promoted to Good Article status.

1. The article is well written. I have copyedited to remove some inelegant bracketing of information. Clear prose. Spelling and grammar correct. Four paragraph lead. Legal jargon is hyperlinked to aid understanding. Lists are incorporated into text.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable. 133 citations are provided. 7 relevant external links are provided. I make several requests for additional citations:

  • After "On June 30, 1987, the U.S. grand jury in Boston indicted LaRouche on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice", cite and/or link to that judgment.
  • After "Appeals that went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court found that the matter of the involuntary bankruptcy would not change the outcome of LaRouche's convictions in a second trial held in Virginia", cite and/or link to that judgment.
  • At 'preliminary motions' under 'Alexandria Trial', it says in "the court rejected the appeal". Provide a cite and/or link to that appeal judgment.
  • In the following paragraph it says "this appeal was later rejected". Provide a cite and/or link to that separate appeal ruling.
  • At the end or the fourth para under 'Appeals' it says "the appeal was rejected". Provide a cite and/or link to that appeal ruling/judgment.

Are there any names for the "LaRouche followers who testified under immunity from prosecution" at the Alexandria trial? Supply if known.

Where did LaRouche serve his prison term?

All direct quotations have an in-line citations from reliable sources. Living persons are not defamed. It addresses the main aspects of the topic ie. who LaRouche and his criminal associates were, what they did, what they were charged with, what the findings were, the sentences delivered and executed, what trials and appeals happened, what the defence(s) were, why and by whom the whole extravaganza was kicked off in the first place, and attempts to rewrite history by the cult leader himself as well as by his dupes and followers. I would also say that it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (ie. summary style, as desired).

3. Neutral. The case of the prosecution and defence are both represented fairly and without bias.

4. Stable. Sedate recent editing history.

5. Images. No copyright violation detected. Images are relevant to the topic. There are suitable captions.I note the Ramsey Clark photo is about 27 years out of date to his relevance to the article. LaRouche's mug is shown at top. Pictures of Oliver North and Henry Kissinger, both mentioned in the article, exist on Wikipedia. You may find cause to insert them at appropriate places.

I promote this to Good Article status, urging citation and information requests that are outlined above as essential to further enhansing overall quality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkaraCity (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Responses:
    • Each of the requested citations have been added.
    • There is no list of immunized witnesses from either trial. I added the name of one immunized grand jury witness. During the Boston trial there was a dispute over whether an acting U.S. Attorney had the authority to immunize witnesses, but no names are given and the dispute appears too minor to mention.
    • Added name of prison.
    • Added photos of Kissinger and North. Unfortunately, most photos of involved parties were taken either well before or well after the events in question.
  • Any other suggestions for improvements would be welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are a large number of cases, more that can be realistically dealt with in the article, you could consider a separate list for all related cases. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the list of related appeals cases? If it were a separate article then it might be better to broaden the scope as the LaRouche movement has pursued about as many appeals cases in other matters, particularly related to elections and to some libel cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Suspect GA Review

I think this article should be put back into the GA process because the recent promotion was effected by AnkaraCity very shortly before being permanently banned for being a sockpuppet. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Er. Hold that. I misread the current status. It looks like User:AnkaraCity is a sockpuppet of User:AccountabilityAssurer who has been banned. AnkaraCity has not been banned but is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation and (in my opinion) looks almost certain to be banned. So the above is likely to pertain shortly. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, AC's edits to the article seem constructive. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the problem with AnkaraCity's status, though Marvin Diode is correct that the comments are helpful. Just to make sure I've asked Xymmax, who said above that he might do a review and had already given the article a close read, if he'd please add his comments as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that there's a cloud over this article. AnkaraCity is at this moment still an editor in good standing. I read the article most before and after the user's edits, and agree they were constructive. Other than 3 or 4 edits I made yesterday, I have had no previous involvement with this article, in fact I first came across it at WP:GAN. I have no problem stating that I concur in its promotion. I think that no matter what the outcome of the investigation, the promotion should stand. If anyone disagrees, they could always nominate it to be de-listed, I rather suspect that this article would comfortably survive that scrutiny. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AnkaraCity (talk · contribs) is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of the banned user DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). As such, regardless of the merits of the promotion of the article, it really should, at the least, go to WP:GA/R or more likely be de-listed as a Good Article. It is a shame, and it is unfair for the editors of this article, but DY71's promotion of this article was a blatant evasion of his block and it should not be allowed to stand. I won't be bold and de-list it myself, but I would recommend that the editors of this article consider de-listing it themselves for the sake of propriety. Sorry, Mattinbgn\talk 08:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the mess created by the sockpuppets of DavidYork, I also ask the editors to remove the GA status and resubmit, after a quick check there are issue that need addressing before it should be promoted. Fair use image of Book cover no rationale on image page, section called background totally unsourced. Gnangarra 12:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note on Will Beback's talk page. As the primary editor, I'd really rather defer to him. In the meantime I'll try to source the background section. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've added sources to the background section. I'll leave the fair use rationale to others, because frankly, it looks as if it may be decorative in this article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this article was never reviewed when it was on the GA list as far as I know. No reviewer signed up for it. I was watching as I had though Xymmax was going to sign up. Therefore, the article should be resubmitted to GAN so it can be properly reviewed through the GA process. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'll go relist the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see it's already listed for "re-assessment". I'm not familiar with GA review procedures, so whichever route seems most appropriate is fine with me. PS: Does anyone have a thought on adding the formidable list of related appeals (see below)? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not familiar with how a situation like this is handled, so I rely on the judgment of the editor that listed it for "re-assessment". As far as I know, it was never assessed for GA in the first place. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the best thing is simply to re-nominate it. I'll close the assessment, and renominate it under Will Beback's name. I'm not going to do the review now because I've been involved in editing the article :( I wish I'd gotten to it on Friday like I planned at first, it would have saved us a lot of trouble. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a fresh request for GA review, and deleted the old GA review template from this page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this was your original plan, relisting it seems a good way of dealing with a situation where it was removed from the list of nominations illegally. User_talk:Xymmax can help with any fixing that is required by the reviewer. You might put a note under the listing explaining that it was removed without review the first time. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaRouche_criminal_trials/Archive_1&oldid=1084072613"