Talk:LaRouche criminal trials/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is disputed? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Unproven assertion about Boston mistrial 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  John Train meetings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exoneration cites 

message: ::"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsupported Claim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sandbox version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As your own edits clearly show, Frankhouser was a paid consultant, an outsider. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A few items 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "financial improprieties" 

message: 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)
replies: text: It wasn't due to the edit wars, just sloppy editing.. We all make mistakes.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The present title gets the point across clearly enough. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

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

message: In the "Alexandria trial" section, subsection "Trial," "received" is misspelled as "recieved." BecauseWhy? (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that. I've made that non-controversial minor correction.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good Article review. Promoted to Good Article status. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: For what it's worth, AC's edits to the article seem constructive. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No problem. I'll go relist the article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That sounds like a good plan.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suspect GA Review