LaRouche Continued 5

[eaglebeak]

I noticed that revenire over on Skull/Bones was insisting that LaRouche was never arrested for, charge with, or convicted of fraud, and was badgering Rachel Holmes about being a liar and a moron for saying otherwise, and for posting excerpts from the org's "Railroad" book which showed that LaRouche was in fact charged with 13 counts of fraud in the Alexandria trial.

Revenire demanded that Holmes or someone post the court documents, to "prove" that they were all lying and LaRouche was never tainted by fraud.

So okay, revenire--here's a little something for you.

Opening remarks by lead prosecutor Kent Robinson in LaRouche's 1988 Alexandria Federal trial.

I have boldfaced a few of the times "fraud" occurs, for easier reading.

Sorry about all the weird numbers popping up in the middle of sentences--a function of the technology, and my laziness.

Also of interest--Robinson's calculation of what percentage of the total overall org income--not really income, since it was all loans, but intake--was going to LaRouche personally.

Well, as more than one person has said, the International Caucus of Labor Committees, LPAC, and LYM are Lyndon LaRouche's personal IRA.

IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF.
VI Alexandria Divisio

X¬
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-vs-LYNDON

LaROUCHE, et al,,
Defendants.
X-■X
Monday, November 21, 1988
Alexandria, Virginia
Transcript of Opening Statements and testimony of
ELISABETH SEXTON on the first day of trial in the above-
captioned matter.
BEFORE:
The Honorable ALBERT V. BRYAN, JR., Judge United States District Court
APPEARANCES:
O.JO
FOR THE UNITED STATES fm
■Q
%
nor*
KENT ROBINSON, ESQUIRE Assistant u. S. Attorney-and-MARK D. RASCH, ESQUJRESpecial Assistant U. S. Attorney1101 King Street, Suite 502Alexandria, Virginia 22314
JOHN J. E. MARKHAM, ESQUIRE JOHN
P. FITZGERALD, III, ESQUIRE U. S. Department of Justice P. O. Box 972, Ben Franklin Station Washington,
D. C. 20044 * * *
DON McCOY, RPR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 683-3668
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
FOR THE DEFENDANT LaROUCHE:
ODIN P. ANDERSON, ESQUIREROBERT L. ROSSI, ESQUIRE OF: ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES One Longfellow Place Boston, Massachusetts 02114
FOR THE DEFENDANT WERTZ:
BRIAN P. GETTINGS, ESQUIREOF: COHEN, GETTINGS, ALPER & DUNHAM1400 N. Uhle Street Arlington, Virginia 22216
FOR THE DEFENDANT SMALL:
WILLIAM B. MOFFITT,
ESQUIRE LISA KEMLER,
ESQUIRE 655 S. Washington
Street Alexandria,
Virginia 22314

FOR THE DEFENDANT BILLINGTON:
JAMES C. CLARK, ESQUIREOF: LAND, CLARK, CARROLL & MENDELSON600 Cameron Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314
FOR THE DEFENDANT ;
DANIEL S. ALCORN, ESQUIREOF: FENSTERWALD & ALCORN 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 900
U. S. A. Today Building
Arlington, Virginia 22209

-and-
MICHAEL W. REILLY, ESQUIREOF: HAUSSERMANN, DAVISON & SHATTUCK176 Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 APPEARANCES: (Cont inued)
FOR THE DEFENDANT SPANNAUS:
R, KENLY WEBSTER, ESQUIRE
THOMAS HILL, ESQUIREOF: SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE2300 N Street, N.W.Washington, D. C. 20036
FOR THE DEFENDANT :
EDWIN A. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
246 Maple Avenue, East
Vienna, Virginia 22180

* * *
INDEX GOVERNMENT EXAMINATION WITNESS
ELIZABETH SEXTON
GOVERNMENT
EXHIBITS

10
Exhibit No. 1-A
11
Exhibit No. 1-B
12
Exhibit No. 1-C
13
Exhibit No. 1-D DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 107 168
RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE paqe number 110 112 120 123
14 Exhibit No. 1-E, page 1 124 15 Exhibit No. 1-F 126 16 Exhibit No. 1-G 127 17 Exhibit No. 1-H 130 18 Exhibit No. 1-1 131 19 Exhibit No. 1-J 132 20 Exhibit No. 1-K, page 1 145 21 Exhibit No. 1-K, page 2 145 22 Exhibit No. 1-K, page 3 and 4 146 23 Exhibit No. 1-M, 1-N, 1-P, 1-Q,157 1-S and 1-T
24
Exhibit No. 1-u 161
25
Exhibit No. 1-V, 1-W 164
4'
•--!!2CEED U G S
2
MR. ROBINSON: Thank you.
3
Members of the jury, this case is about money. It's
4 5 about how the defendant got money, and to a lesser 6 extent, what they did with that money when they got it. 7 First, I would like to tell you what we are going 8 to prove about how the defendants got money. Here are a few 9 examples of what you will be hearing from witnesses in this 10 case: first, you will hear about a woman by the name of 11 Elizabeth Sexton. Mrs. Sexton over the cours e of a period of 12 months in 1985 loaned in excess of $100,000 as a result of 13 certain solicitations and promises made to her by the 14 defendant, . IS Mrs. Sexton got back about $750 from that 16 over-$100,000 loan. The rest of it was lost. 17 This case is also about a witness you will hear by 18 the name of Martha Van Sickle. Mrs. Van Sickle loaned 19 $250,000 as a result of promises made to her by the 20 defendant, Dennis Small. She got back some interest payments 21 on that amount, but she never recovered any of the principal. 22 This case is also about a woman by the name of 23 Dorothy Powers, who loaned in excess of $30,000 as a result 24 of promises made to her by the defendant, Michael 25 Billington. She, too, got back a few interest payments, but
that's all. This case is also about a gentleman by the name
5
of Jerry Corbin, who you will hear loaned $10,000 as a result of promises made to him by the defendant, . He, too, did not get back any of that money.
This case is about how those people came to loan
money to the defendants. It's about in particular the actions of the four defendants I just mentioned,
, , Mike Billington, and Dennis Small, and about how those four people solicited loans from people over the course of the years 1984 through to the beginning of 1987.
It's also about how the other three defendants, Lyndon LaRouche, William Wertz, and Edward Spannaus, directed and controlled the fundraising efforts of the other four defendants.
Now, we are not here simply to determine who owes who money or how much is owed. We are not here to try to get that money paid back. That's not the purpose of this trial. This is a criminal case. The defendants, all seven of them, are charged in engaging in a scheme to defraud. That is, to obtain those loans by making false promises, false pretences, saying things to the potential lenders which they knew weren't true.
Count I of the indictment is a conspiracy charge, and it charges that all seven of them agreed together to carry out' that scheme to defraud. Counts II through XII charge each of the defendants in various combinations with defrauding
specific individuals out of specific money at specific times. Here is how we are going to prove those charges: firsta little bit of background. The defendant, Lyndon
r LaRouche, ran for the presidency of the United States in
1980 and 1984. He is the leader of an organization we will prove, which first came into existence back in the 1970's. That's an organization which has-gone by a variety of names. Primarily it has gone by the name of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, also known as the NCLC. It's gone by a couple of other names as well, one of which is simply the LaRouche organization. That is an organization which has devoted itself to promoting the views of Mr¬
9
LaRouche, the political views, the economic views, the 10
sociological views, and also promoting his personal welfare. 11 Now, let me hasten to add that we are not here to 12
question those political views. We will not ask you, the 13
members of the jury, to pass judgment on Mr. LaRouche's 14
political views or the views of any of his followers. This 15
case is about money. It's about their fundraising practices. 16
Now, this organization that Mr. LaRouche headed over 17
the course of the years between — in the 7 0's and the early IS
198 0*s — gradually became more and more highly structured 19
and came to operate just as if it was a corporation, with 20
Mr," LaRouche as the person in charge, the man running the 21
entire organization. 22 23 24 25
7
1 You will hear that directly below Mr. LaRouche in charge 2 of this organization is a group of people called the national
3 executive committee, also known as the NEC, You will 4 hear that Mr. LaRouche appointed the members of the NEC, that they 5 served just like the board of directors of a major corporation. 6 They were the people who operated this organization on a day-to-day 7 basis. And two of the members of the NEC are defendants here. One 8 is William Wertz. You will hear that he became the NEC member in 9 charge of all fund-raising for the entire LaRouche organization
20 during the calendar year 1983. 11 A second member of the NEC is also a defendant. That 12 is Mr. Edward Spannaus, and you will hear that he was in charge 13 of the legal operations of the entire LaRouche organization. 14 In addition to the NEC, there was another level in the 15 command structure, people called the National Committee members, 16 and below them are the fundraisers, such as the other four 17 defendants. IS You will hear that that chain of command worked in all 19 circumstances with the orders coming from Mr. LaRouche passed down 20 the command structure directly to the fundraisers 21 Now, this organization, the LaRouche organization, has 22 operated under the names of a couple of corporations. I just want 23 to mention them briefly to you, because you will be 24 25
1 hearing about them. They are Campaigner Publications, Incorporated, 2 Caucus Distributors, Incorporated, the Fusion Energy Foundation. 3 These are a series of corporations which operated to do various 4 things in furtherance of the LaRouche organization's goals, such as 5 publishing literature and so on. But it is also those three 6 corporations in which most of the borrowing took place, most of the 7 lending that I mentioned at the beginning.
8 In addition, there were several campaign committees
9 established to push forward Mr. LaRouche's candidacies for the 10 presidency. And you will hear some about those campaign 11 committees, and also about their fundraising practices, but for 12 reasons that will become obvious when you hear the evidence, they 13 didn't borrow anywhere near as much money as the commercial 14 corporations did. 15 Now, this organization underwent a transformation in 16 1983, and that's where the charges in this case really begin. You 17 will hear that in a nationwide meeting of the entire LaRouche 13 organization in the summer of 1983, Mr. LaRouche, as he had done 19 before and did continuously throughout the period of this 20 conspiracy, told his fundraisers told his entire organization, that 21 they had to raise more money. He spoke to them then and at many 22 other times in the following terms:, he told his people that the 23 population at large, the people who didn't give money to the 24 LaRouche
25
9'
1 organization, were not morally fit to survive. He said those 2 people don't deserve their money. We deserve their money. And 3 he told his fundraisers to get that money¬4 He told them to use anything short of thievery and 5 thuggery to get money from the public at large. We will show 6 you that that is exactly what they did.
7 At about that same time, Mr. LaRouche appointed the 8 defendant, William Wertz, to head his fundraising operation,
9
and this organization was transformed under the direction of
10
Mr. LaRouche and Mr. Wertz. You will hear that many people
11
who previously had been engaged in writing books, doing
12
research, other activities, were suddenly reassigned to fund¬
13
raising and were required to devote their full efforts to
14
that fundraising. That proposal for transforming the organi-
IS
zation was one that was made by Mr. Wertz, and it was
16
approved by Mr. LaRouche. It. was carried out by the command
17 structure I discussed earlier.
18 19 What Mr. Wertz did, in addition to assigning people 20 to fundraising, was to dramatically increase the requirements 21 on the members of the LaRouche organization to raise money. 22 He did that by setting quotas. Each person in the organiza¬23 tion who was assigned to fundraising was required to raise a 24 certain amount of money every week. The organization as a 25 whole was required to raise a certain amount of money every week. And you will hear that those quotas were enforced
11
money to the LaRouche organization, it would get repaid, and we will prove to you that that wasn't true, that they knew that money would not be repaid. That is, the defendants knew that.
Here is how we will prove that: first, we will prove that it was the articulated policy of this organization not to repay loans. It was just.that simple. You will hear that Mr. Wertz actually said that to a group of fundraisers back in 1984. He stood up and said, "It is the policy of this organization not to repay loans. We will only pay money back to people under the following circumstances: first, if by paying them back some money, we can get more money out of
them? second, if they can provide us with some sort of political benefit; or third, if they are suffering such extreme hardship such as medical emergencies, that we have to give them a little bit." That was what Mr. Wertz articulated as the loan policy of the organization.
And needless to say, that's not what was told over the phone by the fundraisers to people they were trying to borrow money from.
We will show you that that policy came from the defendant, Lyndon LaRouche and was passed from Mr. Lailouche to Mr. Wertz by the defendant, Ed Spannaus, by the NEC members of this organization.
We will show you that aside from the fact that that
12
was the articulated policy of the organization, that is in fact the way the organization operated, from 19 84 right through to 1986-At no time did this organization make routine loan repayments- At no time did they simply repay people who were owed money. They only repaid people if it would get more money out of those people or if those people complained or hired a lawyer or managed to fall into one of the few categories where a little bit of money would be made available.
It's important to note that throughout this period of time when people weren't getting repaid, the defendants kept right on borrowing money.
We will show you in particular that the fundraisers, defendants and Small and Billington

and , knew very well that loans weren't being repaid. We will show you that, because they were in a position of having to go to the organizational people in charge of the finances and try to get money for the people who had loaned money in the past. So even though they knew that, they were continuing to borrow money throughout the period of time of this conspiracy.
We will also show you that through the testimony of a person who was in fact a fundraiser during this very period of time. You will hear the testimony of a gentleman by the name of Chris Curtis, who was himself on the telephones, who was himself borrowing money, who was up to his neck in
13
1 precisely the same conduct that these defendants were engaging in.
2 He is different than those defendants in only one respect and that
3
is that he left the organization in the early summer of 1986,
4
because he could no longer be a part of what he was involved in.
S Another way we will prove to you that these promises
6
were false is that we will show you that the NEC members, Mr.
7
Wertz, Mr. Spannaus, and also Mr. LaRouche, were put on notice no
8
later than March of 198 5, that the entire loan situation had
9 gotten out of control. By that point in time, the organization had
10 raised $10 million by borrowing it, and were averaging only $30,000
11 or $40,000 a week in repayment. We will show you that the
12
organization became aware that that wasn't even enough to pay off
13 the interest on the loans that was accruing on a day-to-day basis.
14 And what did the defendants do once they were put on
IS notice? We will show you that they kept right on 16 borrowing money. 17 There were several other occasions in xrfiich'"the 18 executive members of the organization became aware of the loan 19 problem. In fact, you will hear that in the fall of 1985, Mr. 20 LaRouche put a ceiling on how much additional loans could be raised 21 on a weekly basis. He put a ceiling of about $150,000 per week in additional loans that the organization was allowed to raise. 23 24 25
14
During that same period of time, however, we will show you that the organization was only repaying loans at the same rate, about $30,000 or $40,000 a week. So they were continuing to go deeper in debt by a rate of more than $100,000 a week.
Once again, in December of 1985, we will show you that the executive was advised that by then, the debt of this organization had reached the point of almost $30 million, and that the organization had only been managing to pay off that debt, actually had only been managing to pay some of the interest due at again a rate of $30,000 to $40,000 a week.
We will show you that by that point in time, everyone had to know there was no way that that $30 million in loans could be repaid. But the defendants kept right on borrowing more money.
The other way we will show you that the defendants knew that these loans were not going to be repaid is by showing you how the organization spent its money. And that's what I meant when I told you at the beginning this case was about both how they got money and what they did with it when they got it.
This organization, aside from borrowing money, also had perfectly legitimate activities, publication of books, publication of magazines, It had revenue other than the loans not enough to pay off $30 million, we'll show you, but enough
15
1 2 that they could have devoted more money than they did to the 3 4 repayment of loans. We will show you weeks in which this S 6 organization had $600,000 to spend but spent no more than 7 8 $30,000 on repaying loans. This organization consciously 9 decided how it was going to spend its money and consciously 10 decided not to spend it on repaying the money to people they 11 had promised to repay. 12 We will show you that Mr. LaRouche is the person 13 who set the organisational priorities about who was going 14 to be repaid and who wasn't. 15 That brings us to Count XIII of the case, which is 16 the tax charge. In Count XIII, Mr. LaRouche himself is 17 charged with a conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue IS Service, to impair and impede the Internal Revenue Service. 19 And that charge is based on this: among that $600,000 a week 20 or so that this organization had to spend, an enoruous ¬21 percentage of it went directly to the support of Mr.
22 LaRouche. During this period of time when the
23 organization was only spending $3 0,000 or so a week on
24 repayment of loans, we will show you that for example, the
25 organization purchased a property out in Leesburg, Virginia, for more than a million dollars. They came up with $400,000 in cash to put down on that property and spent another $600,000 improving it by putting in a swimming pool and a satellite dish antenna for the television and so on.
16
1 We will show you that one of the first things that
2 got paid out of the budget every week was a $2,500 amount
3 that went to one of the security personnel who accompanies
4 Mr. LaEouche, and that that person out of that checking
5 account paid for Mr, LaRouche's clothing, paid for his hair¬
6 cuts, paid for his books when he wanted to buy a book, paid
7 for his every need.
8 We will show you that another one of the first
9 things that came out of that budget was an additional 10 amount of about $3,000 just to run the household that Mr,
il LaRouche was living in, to buy groceries, to buy wine, to 12 pay the cleaners, and so on. 13 Now, Mr. LaRouche obviously was controlling and
14 working for this organization just like those of us who 15 earn salaries work for our employers. But rather than take 16 a salary out of the organization that he controlled, 17 instead Mr. LaRouche set up this other scheme that I have 18 just outlined for you, 19 All of the money that he needed to survive, instead 20 of coming to him as salary, instead of being
21 reported to the IKS, instead of having taxes withheld from
22 it, went through a middleman and got commingled with all
23 kinds of other corporate expenses. As a result of that, even
24 to this day, it's impossible to figure out just how much
25 money was spent by these corporations on Mr- LaRouche personally, and that's
17
because of the whole way the system of paying him was set up. That's what the evidence will show about the tax charge against Mr. LaRouche.
Now, one thing I forgot to mention is that these loans that were made to this organization, when people made loans, what they got back from the organization were documents through the mail. They got promissory notes, or they got something called a letter of indebtedness. We will show you that all of those documents went through the mail, and that's why these are mail fraud charges, because this is a scheme which was executed through those uses of the mail.
It's interesting to look at those promissory notes, because they repeat the false representations that were made over the telephone to people. Specifically, they state that the loans will be repaid within a certain period of time and at a certain interest rate and even that there will be quarterly interest payments in many cases.
And we will show you that the person who designed those promissory notes and those letters of indebtedness and approved their use was the defendant, Edward Spannaus.
Now, we'll also show you what happened to people after they loaned money to the organization. First, as I have already mentioned, there were some token repayments made, particularly, we will show you, in an effort to get further loans from people. But once the payments stopped and people
18
started to complain about the money, further false statements were made to them by the defendants. First, the defendants said, "We are planning to pay you. It was just an oversight, just a mistake." Well, we'll show you that those statements were false, also. We'll show you statements just like that made by the defendant, LaRouche and the defendant, Spannaus, who wrote letters to lenders of this organization, saying that there was a loan repayment program in place, saying that they were scrambling to repay loans, when in fact that wasn't the case. They were not repaying loans.
Second, we'll show you that the defendants said, "We just don't have any money that we can repay loans with. All of our funds have been taken up." And as I have already mentioned, we'11 show you that that1s not true. In fact, the organization was spending millions on Mr. LaRouche, as well as its commercial publishing activities.
Finally, we wil show you that when people complained the defendants tried to shift the blame for the failure to repay to other people, to try to do anything they could to avoid confronting their failures to repay.
Let me give you just an example of that: one of the Government witnesses, as I mentioned, will be Elizabeth
Sexton. She loaned more than $100,000 to these organizations After she loaned that money, after she asked for repayment, after she was told she would get repaid, after all of that,
19
then suddenly she was told, "The organization can't repay you because one of our bank accounts was seized in the course of an action brought by a bank up in New Jersey."
Well, we will show you that that did not result in the failure to repay Mrs. Sexton, because first of all, the bank account that was seized was held by one of the campaign organizations, and as a matter of Federal law, that money could not have been used to repay Elizabeth Sexton, who had loaned money to one of the corporations, but more importantly, we'll show you that
20 that action I just referred to, the seizure of the bank account,
11 occurred before Mrs. Sexton ever loaned one dollar. She didn't hear
12 about that seizure of the bank account before she loaned the money.
13 She didn't hear about it when was promising her
14 repayment. She only heard about it after she wanted her money back.
IS You will hear in this case a number of excuses brought
16 by the defendants throughout the course of the period of time that
17 this conspiracy, but the important thing to remember is that we
18 will show you that they continued to borrow money even after these
19 things which they now try to treat as excuses occurred.
20 This scheme ground to a halt in early 198 7, when as a
21 result of some Court actions, these corporations stopped borrowing
22
money. 23 As I mentioned to you, by that point in time, the 24 25
20
1 organizations had borrowed more than $30 million, and only 2 some token payments, perhaps $3 million, had been repaid on 3 all of that debt. 4 At the time that the organizations were shut down, 5 we'll show you that their total assets, the total amount of 6 money involved in Caucus Distributors, Campaigner Publications
7
8 and Fusion Energy Foundation was less than $300,000, or only
9

one percent of the total debt that these organizations had
10 acquired.
11
We will show you from the testimony of other
12
witnesses that as a result of that, Alan Rither lost more
13
than $100,000 that he loaned out of a trust fund set up by
14 his father that he controlled.
15 We will show you that Lita Witt lost $10,000 in part 16
because of the promises made to her by Mike Billington. We'll
17
show you that Cecillia Landeggar lost $25,000 in part because
18
of the promises made to her by We will show
19
you that Max Harrell lost more than $10,000 in part because of
20 the promises made to her. Excuse me. Made to him by 21
G . And Alan Rither, who I mentioned first, in part he
22
was solicited for loans by the defendant, Dennis Small.
23 For their role in obtaining this money by false 24 pretences, by making false statements in their 25
solicitations, at the end of this case we will be asking you to return a 21
verdict of guilty against the defendants
, Dennis Small, Mike Billington and
.
And for their role in supervising and directing that activity, we will ask you to be returning verdicts of guilty against defendants La Rouche, Wertz and Spannaus, and also for his role in setting up a system of being paid for his services which prevented any accounting of it being made to the Internal Revenue Service, we will ask you to teturn a verdict of guilty as to the defendant LaRouche on Count XIII for defrauding the Internal Revenue Service-

[eaglebeak]

Addendum:

The names of defendants who subsequently quit the organization have been removed from the above otherwise unedited opening arguments from Alexandria.

[xlcr4life]

After everyone reads that opening statement, mosey on down to the King site to see why this really is a Mafia/Cult with Lyn as the Boss of Bosses.

This is the first time I ever read his letter.

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-hudson.pdf

We took him for at least a Hundred Thousand back in the 1980's. I think Jeff's wife said "F him" on paying him back.

Enjoy yutes, I heard that there are a few thousand more pages to go.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

[scrimscraw]

Originally Posted by larouchetruth

I refer to the piece headlined "LaRouche's Ninth Forecast; an Inevitable Truth." (See http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008...ble-truth.html )

larouchetruth, I quite agree. In fact, I made nearly the same points back in posting #211!! Great minds think alike.

[realme]

Yeah, Hitchens does a good job dealing with the LYMer but I really felt bad watching the clip. I felt so sorry for the young guy. That could have been any of us once a long time ago. It was painful to hear everyone laughing at the guy. He deserves it for sure, but the saddest part is that he's the only one who can't hear them laughing.

And what's with the shaggy hair and beard? No more tirades about mother's public hair on the face?

[realme]

Uh-oh. LaRouchian typo. I meant "pubic hair" of course.

[eaglebeak]

This one's for you, revenire.

Here are excerpts from Federal prosecutor John Markham's closing arguments in the 1988 Alexandria Federal trial.

Oopsy-daisy. No fraud here. Guffaw.

Please forgive all the weird presentation, typos, ellipses, etc. Also--names of defendants who have since quit have been deleted. Also, I have boldfaced some of Markham's remarks for interest's sake.

Now, with this posted, Barbara M. Boyd will shortly be telling you that Markham was in a cult. You can riposte, "Hey, aren't we all?"

Say--I don't even see any mention of Molly Kronberg's testimony setting up the whole thing and sending Lyn straight to jail as part of her British-driven creation of the 1988 trial. Hey, Lyn, what's up with that? Are you SURE Molly Kronberg was the architect? Hmm?


MR. MARKHAM: In this country, we don't try people in criminal Courts for their ideas. We don't bring them to the bar of justice to determine the sincerity with which they talk about AIDS, SDI, world recovery, world famine, or anything else. You are sitting in what we lawyers refer to as the jury box. The three of you in the front are for the purposes of this in the jury box. You are not in a ballot box. This case, and you sitting in the jury box, is for the purpose of looking at the issue which Mr. Robinson raised in his opening statement, the way in which the LaRouche organization raised its money.
The ends, however noble they may be, and whatever you believe of the sincerity of the defendants, whatever credit you wish to give them for the ideas that they were talking about, is not the point. It does not however noble, justify lying to people to get the money to do what you want
43
to do. Elizabeth Sexton's money belongs to Elizabeth Sexton Lita Witt's money belongs to Lita Witt. And so on. If those people want to give money for the most noble cause in the world, fine. If they want to give money for the stupidest cause in the world, fine. That's another American principle. It's ours to give if we have earned it. But if on the other hand Elizabeth Sexton and all the rest of them say they can't give it, they need it, it's theirs, but they are willing to lend it, then you cannot under our law lie, make misstatements, tell half truths, fabricate, in order to induce them to loan by not telling them the whole truth. Your Honor, may either I or the Marshal put up the first of the charts that was referred to yesterday- Thank you. (Whereupon, the Marshal set up the referenced chart.) ….

MR. MARKHAM: You have heard from some of the victims of the borrowing, but this case involves a scheme to borrow large sums of money. In fact, the charts prepared by the defendants show the extent of the borrowings.
If you look where the orange is, you are looking at the scheme. In 1983 there was a modest increase in borrowing over 1982. That is the orange figure. In 1984 the borrowing skyrocketed. 1984 was when Mr. LaRouche brought Mr. Wertz into the head office to orchestrate a national fundraising effort. The loans skyrocketed.
You will have the exhibits to look at when you go back into the jury room, and you will see that by March of 1985 the man who was then responsible for trying to manage whatever loan repayments could be managed, Wayne Hintz, who testified, wrote, he wrote a memo in March of '85 to Mr. LaRouche and Mr. Wertz and Mr. Rose. Mr. LaRouche, the evidence is, is in charge of this organization. Mr. Wertz was in charge of fundraising. And Mr. Rose was in charge of loan repays, to the extent that there were any.
Those are the three people, by the way, who lived on Ibykus farm. That memo in March of 1985 by Wayne Hintz says,
51
1 1984, that big orange column there, was the year of the loan.
2 We borrowed $10 million, approximately, in 1984. Now, their
3 expert's chart says $12 million, but the Wayne Hintz■ memo
4 warned of $10 million in early 1985. And he warned that
5 90 percent "of that $10 million was coming due within a year,
6 and that something had to be done.
Attached to that, memorandum of his were memoranda from two of the fundraisers, or at least which had been seen by two of the fundraisers: P G and J R Those two memos which were attached to the primary memo, set forth their concerns about people who had not been repaid.
So that as of 1985, with the first skyrocketing — I'm sorry, as of 1985 that's the second skyrocketing, they knew they had problems with the 1984 skyrocketing. They kept on borrowing. After that memorandum they borrowed a lot of money from Elizabeth Sexton, a lot of money from Mrs. Landegger, a lot of money from Dorothy Powers, a lot of money from Goodwill Post, and on and on.
And Goodwill Post, and Elizabeth Sexton, and Dorothy Powers, and everybody that you heard from is but a very small portion of the unrepaid loans that you are looking at up there.
This is a case about the total borrowing. The
callousness used when people wanted their money back.

52
The failure to call them up with the common decency to
say, "Yes, we have your $112,000. Yes, we assured you that
it was safer than in a bank. Yes, we assured you you would
get it back on time* But there has been a problem."
Elizabeth Sexton didn't even get that kind of
a phone call. Instead, they kept on borrowing. And
those orange figures kept on getting taller, and
taller, and taller.

Just to make it clear that they were not
simultaneously paying back everything that they owed, I would ask if the Marshal could put up the second chart that they prepared.
(Whereupon, the Marshal put up the referenced chart.)
MR. MARKHAM: On this second chart that they prepared, orange is again the rate of borrowings. You can see that from the time Will Wertz was placed in charge of fundraising by Mr. LaRouche that the orange line looks more like a cliff than anything else. You will also see that they have on that same graph put in their loan repayments, and that is the green line. It is self-evident that it is nothing like the orange line.
They weren't giving back what they were bringing in. They weren't keeping their promises. Most of these loans, according to the Hintz memo, are one-year loans. And '85 was
53
as bad from the standpoint of loans as '84. The '84 loans became due. They weren't being paid back.
Incidentally, that green line, however lower it is than the orange line, is inflated, because in it is included not only money actually given back but the amount of money that they could get people to forgive under their loan forgiveness policy. .
You will remember the testimony that it was decided that the policy would be that once the loans were received
the people would be called back when they became due and asked to forgive. Not one of the victims that you heard from, not one, said that when they were initially called and asked for loans that they were told about this forgiveness policy. Not one of them said that they were told that, "We have financial problems that might make it impossible to pay you back or to pay you back on time.11
Not one of them was told that these people were so dedicated to Mr. LaRouche and to their perception of his security needs that if it was decided that some costly outlay had to be made —
MR. MOFFITT: I object. Your Honor, may we approach the Bench?
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. MARKHAM: That if some costly outlay had to be made, that that would take precedence over paying them back.
54
They weren't told about any bank seizures, or that people were asking for the loans. They were just given a false, rosy picture, with assurances that the money was safe.
There comes time for the money to be repaid. The picture has changed. Oh, well, now, let me tell you a few things. And the stories begin. If in fact they bothered to call back-J R called Elizabeth Sexton virtually every day in early 1985, asking for money. She got over $100,000. When it was gone, when there was nothing left, she asked her to go and borrow from the bank. When the bank

called Caucus, because the bank knew, the testimony is that the bank knew that if it was loaning money it was loaning it to her to give as an investment to Caucus, and that Caucus was going to be responsible, according to J 's plan, for the repayments.
The bank called J . J. called back Mrs. Sexton and said, "Forget the bank loan. They are becoming too inquisitive." Banks do that. Banks ask things like, "Tell me of your financial situation. Prove it to me. Send me documents. What is your repayment rate?" All those things that maybe Mrs. Sexton should have asked, and certainly in hindsight she should have asked, but the law of mail fraud, the law of scheming to defraud, protects everyone, not just sophisticated banks.
55
It protects Elizabeth Sexton from falsehoods and half-truths. It protects Goodwill Post. It protects Audry Carter.
The defendants are charged with three, with two separate crimes. And Mr. LaRouche, as you know, was charged with the third crime. The third crime is the charge that he conspired to cover up his tax liability. And Mr. Robinson will be addressing that when I close.
The charges relating to the loans break down into two: the first is that all of the defendants are charged with conspiring to commit loan fraud. In the second, the defendants are charged with scheming to use the mails to commit the loan fraud. A scheme is a pattern of conduct, a
course of conduct, or a plan, and I submit to you the evidence is that there was a pattern of conduct.
It started every day at 9 o'clock. They came in, They got their briefing. If they weren't in the head office, they got a briefing through the mail and they picked up those phones and they started with the rosy promises that if you give us your money, you will be repaid. And it went on, and it went on past the point when they all knew that there were problems of repayments.
Richard Yepez told them early in the game before he left in the summer of 1984 that the repayments weren't being made. They kept on borrowing. Wayne Hintz alerted them in
56
writing in March of '85, and they kept on borrowing. And . they kept on borrowing pursuant to a plan or a pattern of conduct.
Obviously, a scheme to be illegal" under the mail fraud statute has to be fraudulent. Fraud is simply dishonesty. It is the intentional misstatement of fact known to you to be false, or it is facts stated by you with reckless disregard of the truth. The facts, of course, have to be material. No one here is charging any wrongdoing because they may have said something about a political belief that may or may not be true or may or may not be viable. Those are not material to why people lend money. Materiality is something that a reasonable person

would rely upon, and reasonable people rely upon statements 15 like, our money is safer than the bank. We always repay 16 people. You heard a tape recorded conversation of Mike 17 Billington saying to Audry Carter, in February of 1986, two IS years after this mess, "Audry, don't worry about it. I know 19 your interest means a lot to you, but not even our enemies 20 have ever said we don't repay people on time." 21 That is a material statement. The evidence is that 22 that statement is false, it is knowingly false, it is a lie, 23 by their own documents* He said it to induce a loan. 24 But in addition to out and out knowing falsehoods,
2
you are not allowed, you are simply not allowed under this
57
law to make baseless, false, misleading statements that
have no basis in fact.
We are as safe as a bank. We are safe. You will
get repaid on time. People are lining up. Why the book
alone will make enough to pay you back, no problem.
Those are baseless, and given the financial circumstances with which all of. the defendants are aware, were aware, those were reckless, and they shouldn't have been made
An example, I am trying to insure my barn, and I tell the insurance company I want it insured for fire. If at the time I am on the phone talking to him from my kitchen, my barn is on fire, and I don't tell him, and I know it, I have
committed an intentional misstatement. If the barn has been on fire five times in the last year, and I am sitting in my kitchen and I ask for some barn insurance and I say my barn is the safest fire-free barn in the world, and I don't even look out the window to see whether it's burning, that is reckless, and that is precisely what these defendants did and precisely why you have two orange towers on the chart behind that chart, two tall orange towers. It is not reasonable to conclude that those orange towers would be constructed unless people believed that they would get their money back,
And if you don't think that these people who testified and the others didn't want their money back, read
58
the letters that they wrote. I will not read all of them, but I will read some of them.
After Elizabeth Sexton had given J or at J 's request given Caucus everything she had, $5,000 first, then another $5,000, then 525,000, then another $25,000, then another $25,000, then $14,300, then $5,000, then $4,000, then-$2,000, then going to*, one.-bank-..and that didn't work and then going to another bank and borrowing $4,000, After it was gone, and it became due, and Elisabeth Sexton wanted the promise fulfilled, she didn't even get a phone call. Jo was out in Chicago helping some woman get elected from Indiana, working on the phone team. If there is one thing the evidence will show,
they had access to phones. And they could have
called, and they didn't.
Then Elizabeth Sexton wrote, "Dear J , since you were the only one that I have had financial dealings with, 1 am directing this letter to you. I am a confused patriot. I tried to help, and it appears was destroyed in my effort." This is in evidence. It is one of the Sexton exhibits, and you will have it.
"You cajoled me steadily and relentlessly by phoning nearly every day. You told me my money would be safer and worth more with CDI than in a bank or in my investment house. You said the more money I would lend CDI, the more money I
59
would make."
I am skipping parts of it. "When you were sure I had reached the bottom of my money last summer, you asked me to borrow $50,000 from the bank and laughed at me when I said I didn't approve of borrowing, because I was afraid of being in debt. You replied, there was nothing to fear, that CDI would faithfully meet each monthly obligation. I tried borrowing the money and as you know, when the bank became too inquisitive, you called it off."
"When April 13 arrived, the day my $100,000 note was due, no one was honest or courteous enough to get in touch with me."
According to Mrs. Sexton's testimony, shortly after this letter was sent, P G called her and
said, "J is out now. She got your letter, and she cried.11
P G assured Mrs. Sexton that somebody would take care of the problem. No one did. While it may have been fine for J to have cried, Elizabeth Sexton wished she had cried before she took every dime that Elizabeth Sexton had.
Getting no money as a result of this letter and only yet one more fake promise over a phone to P G , she wrote Mr. LaRouche and said, "Are you aware that CDI holds my money, and that I gave it to them, and that they
loaned it, but it's money that I had been living on. I need
60
it back. Can you do something?"
Mr. LaRouche writes back -- these are ail in
evidence -- "Dear Elizabeth Sexton" — I am quoting — "Be assured there has been no reneging on promises by J or anyone else linked to me."
I respectfully submit that is a false statement. There had been reneging, there is a whole orange tower of reneging by the time this letter was written. By the way, this letter is written in May of 1986, and the letter to J was written in April of 1986 after the money became due.
Mr. LaRouche goes on to say something else, after he explains that it's his enemies that got him down and they couldn't pay and since 1984 we have been under attack and they have taken all of our money. Of course, none of that
was told by J to Elizabeth Sexton when they were milking her. Now, of course, it's very convenient to blame everyone else in the world,
He says, quote, "Constant audit and other monitoring shows that there is no voluntary avoidance of loan repayments by CDT."
You have heard of nothing but voluntary avoidance
of loan repayments. They have money. They have money for
the purposes that they want to spend it on. One of the
exhibits in evidence is Richard Welsh's documents, their
61
auditor, the one who worked with their expert, the one that marshals all the financial records on the computer. Exhibit 15-0, which you will have, is, it's got both a yellow and a red sticker on it. It talks about Ibykus improvements, money spent, on Ibykus at a time when Mr. LaRouche is telling some nice woman in Connecticut that they can't even pay her back a dime of her money, not all of it, not a dime, not so much as a postage stamp will they give her, at a time, ladies and gentlemen, when they are listing the same period of August of 198 6 the following improvements: cattle facilities for Ibykus, $3,900; fencing for Ibykus, $11,000; high-tensile fence gates, $4,000; land preparation, $6,000f pond construction, and I repeat, pond, p-o—n-d, little water in the ground construction, $97,000.
And he says constant audit and other monitoring shows that there is no voluntary avoidance of loan repayments
Who made them put that pond in? No one. They chose to put it in. They chose to spend almost the entire amount of money that they borrowed from Elisabeth Sexton to put in a pond instead of paying her back.
It goes on. The horse barn cost $82,000. The cattle cost $20,000, the fencing cost $30,000.
By now, ladies and gentlemen, if this money had been spent, we would have repaid Elizabeth Sexton, Lita Witt and Dorothy Powers.
62
Fish stock, that's only $700; rock wall is $15,000;
landscaping, $33,000. By now we have paid off yet more of
these people who were told, gee, we can't because the
enemies are all over us. Landscaping?
Now, we have taken the position in this case that we
do not dispute their perception of the risk to Mr. LaRouche's
security. Some of these are security expenses, but wouldn't
it have been nice if these individuals going into this scheme
had been told, look, our perception is this guy is in a lot
of trouble, and if we think there is somebody coming to get
him, then all bets are off. If people make a loan under those
circumstances, then they deserve the risk because they have
been informed of it. But none of these people were told about
it. And even if they were, what bogeyman coming to get Mr.
LaRouche is scared away by a well-landscaped property? By a
pond? By a swimming pool? By a riding track? Those are costly
items. That money wasn't theirs. That money was the people
that you heard from, and the many, many, many other people up
on that big orange column. I keep referring to it as the one behind.
[b]The painting of the house was $38,000; a new furnace is $10,000; driveway is $33,000; garden installation is $13,000; swimming pool construction is $19,000; the deck next to the swimming pool is $6,500; the riding ring was $4,600. The recreation barn cost $88,600; $4,100 and $400 for the
63
different things. The guest house cost $15,000, $9,000 and $8,000.
The road cost $67,000. The farmland improvements totalled $309,000. There is no any evidence that they ever earned a dime from that farming or from the landscape or the road or anything else.
Now, in addition- of course was the hundreds of thousands of dollars put into the Ibykus property. You heard that they used Terry Anderson to borrow the mortgage money until they could pay it off. But they paid off $900,000 to him, and in addition they had to put up some $400,000 apart from all these expenses that I have read, just to get it* It's acres and acres and acres. in fact, only one of which acres was made secure, according to their expert. The rest of it you could walk across. Anybody could walk across. It wasn't needed for security. And 199 acres of prime Leesburg farmland would have gone a long way towards paying back some of the principal that was owed or certainly could have set up a fund to start paying back the principal. But they didn't do
that. And they didn't do it for the reason that you heard from the witnesses who were former members.
Mr. LaRouche has instilled in his followers an arrogance about how right they are and about how wrong everybody else is, and people don't deserve their money, and it's ours, not theirs, because we are saving the world; and
6'4
Mr. Wertz would say how/dare they demand their money back.
And Mr. Spannaus would say how dare they demand
their money back, given all the wonderful things we are
doing.[/b[]
Again, I do not want to debate with anyone whether
what they were doing was wonderful. In this country, they
have the right to do it* But they do not have a right to do
it while they are lying to people to finance their
operations, their trips overseas, their trips to go to India,
their trips to Europe, their trips to South America, their
accompanying foreign governments to help with the eradication
of drugs is all fine and even laudable if you are doing it
with your own money. But if you are doing it at a time that
these nice people who trusted you are waiting by a phone that
no longer rings, then it's a crime. And it is a crime to
write somebody and say, "Constant audit and other monitoring
shows that there is no voluntary avoidance."
She writes Mr. LaRouche back, and she says,
"It's gratifying to know that there has been no reneging.
Where is my money?"
And Mr. LaRouche writes back to her and says — this
is his second letter -- "I should inform you that I have had no financial interest or executive authority over the affairs of Caucus Distributors."
You heard their expert yesterday. Mr. LaRouche is switching of course. In his first letter he is telling her,
65
gee, our enemies are all over us and we couldn't pay.
…MR. MARKHAM: He tells her that he has no executive authority over or financial interest in the affairs of Caucus Distributors. Yet you have heard from witnesses testifying before yesterday; you have heard from Charlie Tate. You have heard from Mr. Bardwell. You have heard from Mr. Yepez. You have heard from Mr. Curtis that Mr. LaRouche dictates the finances of this organization through Will Wertz. As Pan Cowdery, and I am not even going to try her Italian name, Francesca-sontething or other said from the stand, when a couple of people from New York were at Mr. LaRouche's home performing one of the many serenades for him, they had flown down to do that. They had flown down with money I suppose that Mrs. Sexton would have wanted to have back rather than to have Mr. LaRouche have a concern, but that aside for the moment, Pam Cowdery and some others said, look, do you know what Wertz is doing in New York? Everybody is spending every
67
hour on the phone. They are working themselves to death.
It's not good* And Mr. LaRouche said, Will is doing what he
is doing based on my authority. He has my authority to do
this. You people are stupid and Will is acting with my
authority in doing what he is doing.
Yet, when it comes time to talk to somebody about the little matter of the -$112,000 that was promised, he has no executive authority over anything.
Mr* Anderson referred to him as a square peg in a round hole. I respectfully submit he makes himself a square peg when he sees trouble coming in the form of a round hole, and when the trouble coming is in the form of a square hole, he makes himself into a round peg. He makes himself whatever is convenient to duck the moral obligation on his organization, and the legal obligation of his organization.
He goes on to tell her, "Any nonperformance in loan repayment has been solely the result of wicked operations by adversaries of CDI."
What about the pond? What about the pool? What about the property in Southern Virginia that they purchased with hundreds of thousands of dollars? What about the purchase of Ibykus for $100,000? What about the garden? What about the guest house? Those are funds that would have been available, and those are not the result of wicked moves. Those are the result of something that they wanted to do.
68
Fine with their money, but not with his, with hers.
He says there has been no discretionary nonperformance. I respectfully submit that the evidence is that there has been nonperformance. He ends this letter with the following -- this is now three full months since her principal was due, the principal that she said she needed to live on. This is now long since she has ever had an interest payment from these people, and he says: "I will pass" — I am quoting — "I will pass the letter along to GDI for their information. That is my only authority in the matter. Otherwise, all I have to recommend is that you let your conscience guide you."
The way J treated Elisabeth Sexton shows that she had no conscience* The way Mr, LaRouche responded with his assurances that there was no money around shows he has no conscience with respect to this matter. It shows the very arrogance that the former members talked about when they said that Mr. LaRouche would exhort them to use any means short of thievery and thuggery, that Mr. LaRouche Would tell them people don't deserve their money. We do.
When people would come to Mr. Wertz and say, "What are we going to do about loan repays? People are calling in?" Wertz would say, "This is war. In war there are casualties."
Well, they treated Elizabeth Sexton and the others as their casualties, only they didn't tell them going in that 69
that was going to happen. Going in, they simply said, "You will get repaid."
Because of that, and because of all the evidence in this record that shows that they knew when they were calling these people about the bad financial situation and the loans piling up, we ask you to find beyond a reasonable doubt that when they made the representations that they made, over the telephone, the assurances that they made, that they were acting with intent to deceive in order to get the money in the first instance.
Alternatively, we are asking you to find that in making the representations that they made, they acted with reckless disregard of the truth, with a conscious avoidance of finding out what the real situation was, with a failure to. look out the window to see if the barn is back on fire for the fifth time this year, because had they looked, they would have seen massive debt, massive failure to repay, and as of the time that the bankruptcy froze everything, they had $25 million of unrepaid loans, and they had assets of $300,000 tops, plus some subscriber lists.
And for people to be on the phone taking the money of other people in that circumstance is baseless and reckless And given what they had put in their own memoranda, it's also intentional.
Now, before I go into some other specifics, talking
70
about the fundraisers, I want to step back for a moment
and talk about the indictment.
Count I, as I said, charges the conspiracy count. Count II through Count XII charge mail fraud counts, and each of the mail fraud counts articulates a separate mailing that was placed in the United States mails, in order to further the scheme. You have heard that there were many, many mailings in this case to the victims. The Grand Jury in returning the indictment selected one mailing that related to each of the loans about which you have specifically heard testimony-1 and the exhibits that show those mailings are in evidence.
The United States Government through the Congress has outlawed the use of the United States mails to further a scheme to defraud, and one of the things we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is in fact that the mails were used to further the scheme. In each of the cases, in each of the counts that we charge the mail fraud count, the substantive mail fraud counts, we charge that a particular letter was deposited in the mail and sent to one of these victims with a particular promise to that victim, therefore furthering the scheme.
In most instances, the mailing involved is the letter of indebtedness or the promissory note, which clearly furthers the scheme. One exception to that, and that is
71
Count XII, the last of the substantive mail fraud counts,
specifically charges Lyndon LaRouche with furthering the
scheme to defraud, the entire scheme including both of the
orange towers, by a specific mailing to Elizabeth Sexton,
the last letter I read to you, where he tells her that there was no discretionary nonpayment/ that there was no money available, that he had no executive authority over CDI, and that she should let her conscience be her guide.
That letter with those falsehoods sent to her in order to induce her to try to forgive that debt at a time when there were swimming pools being built and all the rest of it, we have charged as a separate substantive mail fraud count. That is Count XII.
Count I, as I said, is the conspiracy count. We will be addressing that in a little while. Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI are substantive counts charging the individual fundraisers who had responsibility for making the false statements to the lenders that you heard from. For example, there is a count charging J with sending or causing to be sent through the United States mails a letter of indebtedness or a loan form to Elizabeth Sexton.
The Judge will tell you in his instructions that in order to be responsible for the mailing you have to be a participant in the scheme but you don't have to be the one
72
who actually goes over and drops the letter in the mailbox. If it is reasonable for you to assume based upon the practice
that a mailing would be sent out to further the scheme and
you do something to cause that to happen, you are guilty if
we prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and the other
elements. And in connection with each of these defendants,
the solicitors, it is clear from the evidence that the
practice was that if a loan was received, the machinery would
crank up, a loan request form would be filled out, the
initials of the exhibitor would be placed on it, and that
paperwork would result in a loan form going to that person.
And so we have charged the individuals for these mailings. And you will see when you go through the counts which individual was charged with which mailing in connection with which lender, because it's all listed there on one page. I believe it's page 33. Of course, there is evidence that there were more loans taken in that just those specific notes referred to in the indictment. There were more loans taken in with each of the victims referred to. For example, I think the one on Goodwill Post talks about $15,000. She loaned $45,000. Elizabeth Sexton I think talks about one of the, one promissory note, but she had many promissory notes.
In addition of course, this scheme is broader. It's alleged to be broader than the victims that you heard from. It is alleged to include the orange post. It is alleged to
73
include the massive year of the loan, $10 million that Wayne Hintz tried to warn them about. The similar figure for 1985, and the somewhat reduced figure for 1986.
Now, in addition to charging the individual
solicitors on the mail fraud count, Lyndon LaRouche and Will Wertz are charged in every mail fraud count because the evidence in this case is -that they set this in motion.
They ran the organization. They determined the fundraising quota. They insisted the quota be met. They insisted these fundraisers get on the phones and make their quotas at a time when they had been told the loans were not being repaid, and they knew the fundraisers were getting loans because they monitored the loan situation. The fact that at sometime in 1985 they put a ceiling on loans doesn't matter, because they never started to reduce the loans at the rate that they were bringing them in. The first priority was, quote, "Get the money."
That's what they told the fundraisers to do. When the fundraisers didn't do it, they were humiliated. Their sexuality was attacked. They were held up to ridicule. Get the money. Your job is to make the money.
And because of that, because they were pressing and pressing and pressing for the very acts that occurred at a time when they knew that there was a loan problem, they are charged as aiders and abetters. Aiding and abetting is -
74
the Judge will give you a longer definition of it and obviously what he says on that controls, but I am giving you an encapsulation of it -- aiding and abetting constitutes willful association with the crime and doing some act to help carry out the crime, to help the crime occur.
Mr. Wertz everyday got everybody together in a
meeting, read them Paton,. told them this was a war footing,
told them that Lyn's life depended on it, told them that they
had to raise this money because Lyn said the money had to be
raised. He raised the quota from $300,000 to about $600,000
over the course of two years. He demanded that it be met.
They kept on borrowing. And he kept on making them borrow.
And he kept on telling them to make their quota. And they
kept on doing it. And when J n was on the phone
to Elizabeth Sexton and and thereafter Dennis
Small were talking to Goodwill Post about Dope, Inc., they
were doing it because Will Wertz had said that was a fine
idea, and Will Wertz was their manager and he controlled them
and they responded to him and this is a hierarchy.
If nothing else has been shown beyond any doubt, it
is that these people adore Lyndon LaRouche, and they do what
he wants. When Will Wertz comes to New York on Mr. LaRouche's
authority and Will Wertz sets up a program because Lyn says
it has to be set up, and you don't have to take just Mr.

Bardwell's word for that or just Mr. Curtis' word for
75
that. The Spannaus notebooks that you have heard a little talk about, the testimony is that he writes down what Lyn says and what
other people say and that when he is talking to others, he refers to what Lyn has said. He refers to Lyn as Lyn. You have heard these identified as Mr. Spannaus1 notebooks. They have Ed written
on the front of them.
In the notebook covering the period of December '83 to March of '84, on a January 14, 1984 meeting, Mr. Spannaus writes in his notebook, "Lyn, parenthesis at Sunday meeting, $200,000 to $210,000 operating budget, 40 a week TLC. Set priorities to repair infrastructure. Consolidate NCR fund-raising. Don't let sectors slip back into old ways. Will plan good."
Your Honor, may I have Exhibit 7, I believe it is, P, the Robert notebook? THE COURT! It's apparently in evidence, but you all retrieved them, we are told.
MR. MARKHAM: Well, we'll have that for you when you go into the jury room. That is a notebook in which Robert wrote down the following: "Will Wertz:, Will W.:" underlined in the upper left-hand corner and the testimony was that that is where Mr. G attributed his source, "Will Wertz: question for LHL." And this is in June after the plan had been in effect according to the testimony of the
76
witnesses in this, first notebook.
Six months later, the question from Will, "Questions for LHL," and of course the question would go to LHL, because he dictates the finances- "Question for LHL from. Will. Need strict guidelines on repayments. Proposal forget or forget indefinitely."
You can read it.. You will read it. It's been clipped. Incidentally the portions of these voluminous notebooks that we wish to give you to refer to, we have
clipped, and we have tried to make the little arrow part go to the part we want, but look at both sides of the page.
That conversation occurred in June of 19 84. I
believe it was June 14th. It was the first entry in Robert 's notebook of that day. In Mr. Spannaus' notebook, an entry later on in
the day, at least it's not the first entry, Mr. Spannaus
writes, "Lyn, loans. Forgive or forget."
Mr* Wertz and Mr. LaRouche controlled the operation, what was written in the notebooks says what they wanted to do about the loans, what each of the witnesses who took the stand says happened to them. We were asked to forgive, and if we didn't forgive, we might as well forget.
And so, they are charged with aiding and abetting. Mr." Spannaus is charged with aiding and abetting, not on every count, because he did not have the daily operation with
11
1 fundraising like Mr. Wertz did or the ultimate authority and
2 ultimate dictation that Mr. LaRouche had and exercised by
3 saying forgive or forget; but he is charged with those counts in which the form that he devised was used to make the false promises to the lenders. You remember that Mr. Yepez went to Mr. Spannaus and talked about a new loan form, and Mr. Spannaus said no, we don't want something too formal. We don't want these people to think that we are in the business of making loans, which they were in the business of borrowing 10 money. That's what they were doing.
11 We want to do a letter of indebtedness. You will 12 hear that Mr. Spannaus, or you heard that Mr. Spannaus went 13 to a lawyer about the wording of the letter of indebtedness. 14 Didn't tell that person anything about the underlying loan
15 problem, devised a form which was used, and every single time
16 a letter of indebtedness that Mr. Spannaus devised was used,
17 he is charged, because his handiwork containing his
18 phraseology of the promise to be repaid went through the mail. At the time he made those promises, he had already
20 written in his notebook, "Loans, forgive or forget."
23 And that's not all he had written. He wrote, "Loans
22 are our curse."
23 He wrote, "None of the companies have ever made a
24 profit except" — "None of the publishing companies have ever
25
made a profit except EIR. " He wrote that, and so he knew
78
that.
He had written about a conversation with Shelly Asher in which someone is quoted as saying, "We don't pay back loans."
He had written many different things in his notebooks that show his knowledge, in his own handwriting, that they weren't paying back loans, and they are marked, and you can read them.
Not only that, he was a legal adviser for this organization, and people would come to him with
complaints of lenders to be repaid. You heard of one example where somebody came to him in 1984 and said there is a lender complaining about their money, and Mr. Spannaus toeing Mr. LaRouche's line about how people don't deserve their money back said quote, "Who does he think he is?"
And that's the arrogance with which these people treated other people.
You heard a tape of Mike Billington. In the short remaining time, I am going to replay that tape and make some comments about it again. Before I do, I wish to point out to you that the evidence of the solicitors that we offer against each of the solicitors in not only the extraordinary promises that they were making, given the financial situation, but the fact that J had written a memorandum, which indicated that she knew about the loan problems, or at

79
least if she didn't write the memorandum, it's copied to her, and it involves her lenders. She had been told by Mr. Yepez that there was a loan problem. She kept on borrowing. The same with Mike Billington. He kept on borrowing. P G had been told; he kept on borrowing. P G wrote a memo about his problems. He kept on borrowing. Dennis Small .— take a look at the Dennis Small contact card, which is in evidence. It's about eight or nine pages of millions of dollars of loans that he raised, and they are all listed in whole numbers.
For Van Sickle, he lists 200* She got $200,000. For Post, he lists 15, She lent $15,000- The numbers
are in thousands, and therefore the totals are millions. And
you heard his assurances to people that they would be repaid
at a time when there was no business to make those
assurances.
You heard all of the witnesses testify about the
assurances. And I submit that there is no evidence in the
record to contradict that testimony, but there is evidence
that corroborates it. And that is because Mr. Billington
taped some of his phone calls, and here is one of them
which shows you a little freeze frame picture of exactly
the kind of assurances that each of these citizens took the
stand and said they received from these solicitors who were
making the calls at the request of Mr. LaRouche and Mr.
Wertz.
{Whereupon, counsel played an excerpt from the tape.)
80
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) If they are due, they will be coming out. They didn't. And he said it as casually as if oh, yes, that's absolutely no problem.
(Whereupon, the tape excerpt was resumed to be played.)
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) The letter of indebtedness he referred to is the form crafted by Mr. Spannaus. Now, Mr. Spannaus went to a lawyer for the phraseology of that form, but Mr. Spannaus, the evidence is, didn't tell that lawyer anything about the rotten state of their loan repayment plan. But instead he kept that to himself, got the legal phraseology of the form, which included a promise to
repay and then sent, had the organization use that form in
connection with Counts III through Count XII and a lot of
other counts and a lot of other mailings that are in
evidence.
(Whereupon, the tape excerpt was continued to
be played to the jury.)
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) Oh, yes, absolutely.
That1s not a problem. I hear you saying that you really need
the interest payments. Absolutely. That was false. Listen to
what he says next.
(Whereupon, the tape excerpt continued to be played.)
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) Nobody has ever tried
to imply that our loans are not good. Wayne Hintz had
already tried to say that directly. Richard Yepez had said
81
it. The complaints were coming in. Will Wertz was screening the phone calls so these people wouldn't have to be bothered by the little matter of people saying they needed their interest back.
Everybody was saying that the loans were a problem. They were obviously a problem. That was obviously a lie.
So you have heard one little freeze frame of what each of these victims told you were the assurances made to them and by which, in which they placed their trust and by which they got burned, and burned badly, and burned by a group of people who just think thatthey are better and can
use the money better than anyone else.
One moment.
Since we are splitting up the argument, I needed

to consult.
I want to very briefly touch on Count I, which is the conspiracy, which charges all of the defendants with conspiring together to commit the loan fraud, which is shown on the two orange towers over there, and which is referred to apart of it referred to specifically in Counts II through XII.
A conspiracy is an agreement of two or more people to do an illegal act. The illegal act in this case is the fraudulent solicitations and the mailings.
The agreement involved does not have to be written
82
1 down, although loans, forgive or forget, comes pretty close 2 to written down. The agreement doesn't even have to be 3 expressed. It can be tacit. It's just a common understand4 ing among individuals that they are engaged in a course of 5 conduct to defraud. If you find that there was a common
understanding, and we submit that the evidence is overwhelmingly that there was, loans forgive or forget, and that's what happened and that's what they did, and that is what they didn't tell people.
If you find that, that there was a common agreement, that alone does not equal a conspiracy, because there has to be, and the Judge will tell you more about
this, one overt act to further the conspiracy. If two people agree to rob a bank, that alone is not a conspiracy, but if one of them in furtherance of that agreement, goes to a hardware story to buy a hammer to break into the bank that night, the act of buying a hammer, if it's done in furtherance of the conspiracy, makes it a crime because it's being done in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy, even though the act itself, going to the hardware store to buy a hammer is in other circumstances legal.
The evidence about a conspiracy, I have addressed in the context of the other evidence, the common understanding about who needed the money, the common understanding
83
about how the money was to be raised, the common understand
ing about what was to be said to lenders when they called
back in, that they were to be screened and all the rest of
it
The overt actions in furtherance of the conspiracy
are listed in the indictment. The Court will tell you we
only have to prove one. We have proved scores. Each of the
mailings is an overt act.* The statements made over the
phone are overt acts. The letters that went to and from are
overt acts, and they are all listed.
I respectfully submit to you, ladies and gentlemen,
that the totality of the record, the evidence in this case
shows that these defendants got together to advance their
goals, and they did it with the common understanding that they were going to do it with other people1s money, and that they were not going to be honest when they tried to get that money. And that as a result of their misstatements, their overstatements and their omissions of material facts, a lot of people lost a lot of money, and as a result, we ask you to find beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the charges. Thank you.

[dking]

xlcr4life kindly posted a link to the Hudson documents (http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-hudson.pdf), which explain LaRouche's scams step by step and in clear layman's language. The following is the introduction to these docs at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larou...t-postings.htm:

March 19: Economist Michael Hudson clearly explains LaRouche's fraudulent schemes (1986). Apart from the light shed on LaRouche's career as a white-collar criminal, these unpublished documents stand as a reproof of former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark and his hypocrisy on the LaRouche issue. Hudson and I had been contacted by Clark, who claimed he wanted to raise funds for investigating and exposing LaRouche. Clark's main interest was LaRouche's alleged involvement in nefarious U.S. government schemes, but Hudson wanted to concentrate instead on LaRouche's financial crimes. To this end Hudson presented Clark with the three documents included in this pdf file. Clark lost interest not only because Hudson and I were not down for a narrow CIA-bashing campaign but also because the U.S. government proved its seriousness later that year about prosecuting LaRouche (by, among other things, conducting a massive raid on his headquarters pursuant to federal search warrants). Still, we were not suspicious of Clark's initial expressions of concern, since Clark had represented German Green Party leader Petra Kelly in a bitter legal dispute with the LaRouchians, and had himself been the target of smears by LaRouche's publications. Hudson even retained Clark to represent him in an unrelated civil matter. Both Hudson and I were surprised when we heard that Clark had visited LaRouche in jail after the latter's 1988 conviction and had signed on as his appeals attorney. Clark began asserting that LaRouche had been the victim of a giant government conspiracy, but it was clear to Hudson and myself--based on our knowledge that Clark had read Hudson's 1986 reports and discussed them with him at length, and on Clark's own filings and public comments re the Petra Kelly case--that Clark knew perfectly well (a) that the LaRouche movement was fascistic in character and (b) that LaRouche was guilty as hell of the frauds for which he was convicted. In retrospect, I think that Clark--who had become closely associated with the Workers World Party, a cult-like Stalinist group--took the case because, among other things, he saw it as an opportunity to demonize the U.S. government.

The complaint in First Fidelity Bank's civil RICO suit against LaRouche (the subject of one of Hudson's docs) was posted on March 17 (see my "newest postings" link above).

[eaglebeak]

Based on the review above of the millions lavished on Lyn's personal living expenses, I'd say that Lyn could tell the NEC today, when they try to sneak out to get jobs, "You cowardly traitors! Who needs a job?! I never did! You should be more like me."

But, as we shall see (an upcoming post), Lyn claimed total ignorance of who was paying for him.... The greatest economic genius of the millennium couldn't figure out who was paying his way, and couldn't infer that those lavish payments had something to do with all the loans apparently going unpaid, to judge from Elizabeth Sexton's letter and whatnot.

Yet he is the greatest mind on the planet, whose economic and financial nostrums are the only possible solution.

Strange, isn't it?

[boomer70]

Thanks, Eaglebreak, for the material from the Virginia trial. The means are the end, and history loves irony. If the Hubrisness actually came to power, he would be I suspect one of the horrors of the New Dark Ages.

[eaglebeak]

What follows is a recent press release (yes, a PRESS RELEASE) uttered (or was it emitted?) by LaRouche and posted on the LPAC website.

I have boldfaced a few especially demented passages.


Why Jeremiah Wright Is Not A Christian!:
The Presidential Touch
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 25, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of the selection of a U.S. President.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I pledged my support to U.S. Senator John Kerry's Democratic nomination for election, in July-August 2004, I had also resolved to remove myself from the roster of U.S. Presidential candidates, but to retreat to the higher-ranking, more cumbersome, but more appropriate position of a defender of the constitutional institution of the U.S. Presidency for the sake of heroes past, and generations yet to come. This was no mere sentiment, no mere posture. It was a role I had adopted in full awareness of the immediately growing danger to not only our republic, but the world at large for generations yet to come.
I know what it means to be President of our U.S.A. I know that our republic is encumbered with a unique mission for all humanity, by virtue of the very special qualities of that heritage of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who first committed those who heeded his counsel to reach out from a Europe unable to fulfill its mission, to go across the oceans to build bastions to correct the failure of a sick European political system.
I thus serve this republic whose establishment Benjamin Franklin led in defending, that for the sake of generations of mankind to come. The enemy remains, chiefly, despite the corruption of our institutions, that British Empire against whose global corruption our patriots have fought since the February 1763 Peace of Paris which established the Anglo-Dutch financier oligarchy as an empire in fact. Since that time, still today, our mission as a republic which gained its freedom in combat against that same old empire, still is a sacred mission for all mankind. That is the mission of being its true self as the conspiracy once led by Franklin, and which Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt after him, had defended. Our function was, and continues to be, to be the sovereign nation-state republic which is committed to transform this planet as a whole into a community of respectively sovereign republics, free of the evil which the British Empire still represents today, nations united into a single fraternity of respectively sovereign powers by the single banner of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
We who are wise enough, and also good enough to lead, know that our nation's foe is not a nation, not a people, not color of skin, but the same old "principalities and powers." That enemy, today, is chiefly today's Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier tyranny, which has ruled so long, and so often, by putting one part of humanity into campaigns of hate against others, as the British Empire-in-fact is acting at this moment: a British Empire which plays our nation's foolish press and popular opinion like a fiddle, that they might need no greater ally than the folly of our own public opinion and corrupted institutions of government and finance to cause our people to destroy their own nation for the advantage of our tormentors.
Christianity thus comes, unlike the message from Jeremiah Wright's congregation, with a message of love of mankind, not venom.(sic) We fight, when it is required; but our object in any war we are obliged to fight, is an object modeled upon our President Abraham Lincoln's final great public address on the repairing of the damage which had been done to our nation by the actions of those within our nation who had been manipulated by the British Empire into imposing both the system of slavery and the civil war upon us.
Cheap-shot politicians are those who dole out bribes to the electorate, as the three notable present candidates for the Presidential nominations now have done, perhaps because it seemed that that was the way to become elected. The competent statesman thinks differently, as I do, as I emphasized, at some length, to an assembly of my associates this past Saturday morning. I spoke as follows:
- On The Subject of Immortality -
The essence of true statecraft is recognition that the human individual, unlike the beasts, is essentially immortal. As it was written of the Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt, he did not live to experience the result of the mission to which his life had become dedicated. The mission of Jesus Christ, that he would die for the future of mankind, is the same.(sic) It has been so for nearly all significant leaders of society, as it was for the Jeanne d'Arc who was cooked to death(sic) by the evil Norman Inquisition.
The creative powers of the human individual mind are a quality of existence which is utterly lacking in all forms of animal life. We have, indeed, an animal body, which we shall each lose, soon enough. It is that part of us which is not the animal, which should be the expressed chief motive of our passions, and the purpose for which we may hope to serve by the manner of our living.
Of all those immortal treasures we may enjoy on this account, the most precious is that we find in our attachment to missions whose outcomes we shall, chiefly, not live to see within the span of our mortal lives. We use our own personal bodies with this goal in view, as should any official who has reason to think about sending men and women to suffer and die in war: for what is their life being expended so? So, we are not winning a war in Iraq, but, rather, we are actually losing our republic and probably much more besides, by the folly of continuing that war like an ego-trip. A military commander who does not agree on that point, is not morally fit to be a military commander.
True virtue lies chiefly in devotion to goals which we, as actors, shall not experience in our lifetimes.
For example. I am presently eighty-five years of age, and would be eighty-six in about another half-year to come. At this time, my passion for the future experience of our nation and of the world at large, is more intense, more impassioned than it has ever been before. The thing I hate the most among my associates, is either evidence of cheap ambition for personal gratification in the short term, or shirking needed commitments to more long-ranging goals, where their passion should be a gloating satisfaction in the benefits which none of us may live to experience, but which we are working to bring about. All really good individual persons, or groups of persons think like that; they think like persons who really know that they are immortal, and know that their future lies in the outcome of their devotion to the future of mankind.
Most important of all, is devotion in impelling people with bad morals and perhaps worse behavior, to become better people. Our duty is not the gospel of hate, which Jeremiah Wright expresses, but to improve the sinners as a mission for improving ourselves, and ourselves even more, and more necessarily, than others.
That is the way a real statesman thinks. Never support a Presidential candidate who thinks about such matters differently than I do.
Meanwhile choose your candidate carefully. Don't you wish that that terrible thing had never happened?


Comments:

1. Of course, anyone who thinks our bodies are “animal” thinks Joan of Arc was “cooked.” One reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims emphasize the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, is to defend against maniacs like LaRouche who objectify human beings and hold the body in contempt. But Lyn's grasp of those religious concepts is lacking, to say the least. Jesus didn't die for the "future" of mankind....

2. “The thing I hate most among my associates”—that says it all. In fact, that’s the reason I’m posting this. The thing is, he just plain hates them. Isn’t that obvious from the way he treated Ken Kronberg?

Isn’t that obvious from the way he treats the Spannauses?

What cheap ambition do the poor slobs still with him have? To get out from under his boot? (Cf. his memorable comment, when Ken was being “reined in” by Barbara and Bruce in 2006: “Now we have our foot on Ken’s throat”? Molly has been telling people about that one ever since it happened….)

Lyn, who is in the grip of a malignant and overpowering, devouring ambition, hates his poor associates for some pathetic attempt to retain their selfhood (“ambition”)

Oh, and he hates their “shirking”: Don’t get a job, you traitors. I didn’t! Be like me!

3. Gloating satisfaction? Lyn still doesn’t know what words mean.

Diagnosis: Something’s SERIOUSLY messed up in LaRoLand.

[candor]

Two things about that piece suggest that the end is near for LaRo:

(1) Its brevity. LaRouche pronouncements have overall been getting shorter and shorter over the past year.

(2) While it is not unusual for LaRo to falsify or otherwise misrepresent people (he does it regularly with his heroes), here he shows no direct familiarity at all with Wright's statements, which were more those of righteous anger than "venom."

Of course the purpose of this piece is to curry favor with the Monster and her grifter husband, both of whom have shown their true, primary colors as racist, win-at-all-costs carpetbaggers. An antisemite who sides with racist connivers should not be accusing others of hate - but then neither LaRouche nor the Clintons have any shame.

[borismaglev]

Originally Posted by candor

Two things about that piece suggest that the end is near for LaRo:

(1) Its brevity. LaRouche pronouncements have overall been getting shorter and shorter over the past year.

(2) While it is not unusual for LaRo to falsify or otherwise misrepresent people (he does it regularly with his heroes), here he shows no direct familiarity at all with Wright's statements, which were more those of righteous anger than "venom."

Of course the purpose of this piece is to curry favor with the Monster and her grifter husband, both of whom have shown their true, primary colors as racist, win-at-all-costs carpetbaggers. An antisemite who sides with racist connivers should not be accusing others of hate - but then neither LaRouche nor the Clintons have any shame.

Candor is missing an important point here. LaRouche's purpose in writing this was not to support Clinton against Obama but to spur his victims on to greater personal sacrifices on his behalf. His obvious hostility to Obama stems from the fact that Obama is a competing cult figure with obvious potential for cutting into LaRouche's tiny base. I would not be surprised if those of his members that LaRouche is accusing of shirking are the ones who may be considering joining the Obama crusade to save the human race.

[scrimscraw]

Originally Posted by eaglebeak

2. “The thing I hate most among my associates”—that says it all. In fact, that’s the reason I’m posting this. The thing is, he just plain hates them. Isn’t that obvious from the way he treated Ken Kronberg?

Isn’t that obvious from the way he treats the Spannauses?

What cheap ambition do the poor slobs still with him have? To get out from under his boot? (...)

Lyn, who is in the grip of a malignant and overpowering, devouring ambition, hates his poor associates for some pathetic attempt to retain their selfhood (“ambition”)

It seems clear that what gets Lyn's goat is that his long-time "associates" no longer have their youth (or even prime middle age) to throw away in the service of his paranoid hysteria. It sounds like it is beginning to dawn on "the boomers" that they need to scramble to survive into their old age, and that the more time spent on trumpeting the virtues of an 85-year old crazy man (technical term) is less time spent on paying the rent and putting a little away for the future (if that's even possible at this late date).

Bottom line: yes, rough times ahead, though not the "New Dark Ages." No matter what the LC or LYM do, what will happen will happen. Any further effort on Lyn's behalf is good energy wasted. Run for cover!

[eaglebeak]

Okey doke, this morning we're going to read excerpts from Federal prosecutor Ken Robinson's closing statements at the 1988 Alexandria Federal trial.

Again: 1. I apologize for the messy presentation. Couldn't be helped. 2. Names of certain people have been redacted. 3. I have boldfaced significant things again, especially the marvelous excerpt from LaRouche's deposition in the NBC case (remember that dog?), in which NBC lawyer Kavaler took Lyn to the woodshed.

Note that the most brilliant man in the world didn't know where his food came from, and didn't know how his expenses were paid, as I suggested in an earlier post. Strains credulity, it does. And THIS guy talks about integrity? And slams the NEC for wanting to make a few bucks for FOOD?


MR. ROBINSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am going to talk to you just a couple of minutes about the tax charge….

Turning to the tax case, Mr. LaRouche is not charged with tax evasion. He is not charged with failing to file a tax return. And there is a simple reason for that. We don't know how much money he made. We don't know what his income was. Instead, he is charged with conspiring to hide his money from the Internal Revenue Service. He is charged with conspiring with other people to pretend that he had no income Now, basically he is charged with trying to fool the Internal Revenue Service. Now there are a couple of things that have gone into evidence that you haven't heard yet. Let me just read two of them to you. These are transcripts of some sworn testimony that Mr. LaRouche gave back in 1984, when he was asked about his circumstances. It will just take me a few minutes to read it.
"Question: Do you pay the rent at Woodburn Farm?"
"Answer" — and this is Mr. LaRouche talking — "I personally? I personally do not pay the rent at Woodburn Farm."
"Q Does Helga LaRouche pay the rent at Woodburn Farm?
A I do not believe so.
Q Do you know if anyone pays the rent?
A I assume someone does.
Q Who do you assume pays it?
A I don't know.
Q Where does the money come from?


A What do you mean?
Q Where does the money come from which pays for your stay at Woodburn Farm?
A Obviously, I don't know, do I.
Q Did you eat dinner last night?
A Yes.
Q Where did you ea-t?
A At the house.
Q Was there food in the house?
A Yes.
Q Did you buy it?
A No.
Q Did Helga LaRouche buy it?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Who bought it?
A I don't know.
Q With what money?
A I don't know.
Q How do you take care of daily living

expenses, Mr. LaRouche?
A I don't know.
Q Do you live free?
A I don't know."
Here's another excerpt from his testimony.
"Q Who paid for the suit you are wearing, Mr. LaRouche?

89
A I don't know, Mr. Cavalier (phonetic)" — the name of the lawyer. "Question: You just found it in your closet, did you?
A No. It was a gift by persons associated with me some years ago.
Q Are the other suits in your closet ones that you went out to a store and bought?
A I have on no occasion gone out to a store and bought any articles of more than a haircut, a $5 price in the past ten years.
Q Do you know who pays for all the suits in your closet?
A I do not, Mr. Cavalier. I do not know in detail. I have some general idea that they are gifts from people associated with me or other."
The point is, he is denying any knowledge of his financial circumstances. He is trying to pretend that this money just kind of filters into his life without him having any idea where it comes from, and that's obviously absurd. And you saw the absurdity of that in this trial.
Rick Magraw bought his suits. Rick Magraw testified that he did. Rick Magraw bought his suits with money from
the LaRouche organization. And Mr. LaRouche knew that. But when he gave that sworn testimony, he had to try to hide all
90
of that, because he was trying to hide the fact that he had income. And he did a good job. That is exactly why we can't figure out today exactly how much income he had.
Let's take a little bit of a look for just a few minutes at what the income did show -- excuse me — what the evidence did show about his income.
This Rick Magraw checking account, the budget for that was $2,500 a week or thereabouts. The accounting records that resulted from that that the expert witness was looking at yesterday showed that more than $200,000 were billed to something called advisory expenses between July and December of 1985. That is just part of the year. More than $200,000. We don't know how much of that went to Mr. LaRouche. We tried to piece it together the best we could with the minimal incomplete records that Mr. Magraw and his wife kept, but we don't know how much of it went to Mr. LaRouche.
And remember this, he only had to get $1,081 in 1985 to be required to file a tax return. Maybe that's why when they asked him where his clothing came from and who paid for his housing, he said I don't know, because he had to try to distance himself from it. That was all part of the scheme to hide his income from the Internal Revenue Service.
Ladies and gentlemen, the practice of paying all
of Mr. LaRouche's personal expenses standing alone is enough to
91
show that he had income during the years in question. We don't even have to get into Ibykus Farm and the housing and everything else. That is enough to show that he was getting income, and he was doing it in a way that was trying to
hide it.
But let's talk about the housing and the meals for just a second. Mr. Markham went into great detail about how much was spent on Ibykus, I don't need to do the same. There is a question about whether or not that's taxable income to him. The Judge is going to instruct you on what the law says about that. And what the law says is that under certain circumstances, and employee of a business doesn't have to report income for housing provided to him. Well, the first problem with that with Mr. LaRouche is that every chance he has gotten in the past, he has distanced himself from this organization. He specifically said he wasn't an employee. He has specifically said that he wasn't affiliated or associated with Caucus Distributors or Campaigner Publications.
Now, all of a sudden, we are in Court on trial on a criminal tax case, and the defense says he is an employee.
It's a little bit too late to make that change of course for Mr. LaRouche. He is not an employee. If he is not an employee, then housing and the lodging is taxable to him.
9-2
Second, the housing and lodging has to be provided for a noncompensatory purpose. All I mean by that is, you can't just decide not to pay somebody's salary and give him a house instead. There has to be a business purpose for it. Well, we submit that on the evidence in this case, it's clear that what this organization did, what Mr. LaRouche and his associates did was enter into a scheme to avoid paying him a salary, to avoid paying him normal wages like your normal person gets, for doing things like writing books. And instead, gave him a house.
In effect, what they did was just try to circumvent the normal procedures so that there would be no way of figuring out how much he had really gotten in the way of income.
Now, as I said it's not just a question of whether or not he had income but it's also conspiracy to conceal that income. First of course he didn■t file tax returns. Second, when he was asked about it, you have heard the testimony he gave what can best be described as misleading answers to the questions asked of him. You have seen the records, what little of them there are. They don't show how much money went to Mr. LaRouche, and there were a lot of different people involved in that record keeping process….
93
When Richard Magraw takes the witness stand, all of a sudden he is describing things that have been given to Mr. LaRouche, like clothing as gifts. Isn't it curious that that is exactly what Mr. LaRouche said when he gave the sworn testimony that I read to you a moment ago. Obviously, these people were working in concert, obviously, they were working together to try to create this false impression that Mr. LaRouche doesn't have any income.
A few other specific instances: ____________ goes to talk to Murray Altman in the early 1980's, to prepare tax returns. He tells him that Mr. LaRouche is living with friends. That wasn't true. New Benjamin Franklin House Printing Company was paying $5,000 a month rent for an apartment for Mr. LaRouche. He wasn't staying with friends….
Two other things I want to mention to you: there are two specific exhibits in evidence.
Could 1 have 20-R and 20-S?
These are two exhibits I ask you to take a close look at when you get back in the jury room. These are some vouchers that were submitted for the purchase of things at Ibykus Farm. You will see right up here it says, "Title," and it's whited out there, and after that it says, "Entertaining," and over the white-out somebody has written in "VIP," Well, if you hold it up to the light just right, and those of you who have ever tried to read what was under white-out before will know what 1 mean. If you hold it up to the light just right, you can see what it says underneath that white-out. It used to say, "LaRouche." When it was originally typed up somebody typed up, "LaRouche entertaining. This is for formal china and silverware for Ibykus. Somebody whited that out and put VIP over that.
That is the kind of records they kept. They did everything they could to conceal when expenses were being paid for LaRouche. They whited out what little records there were. 20-S the same way. Exactly the same thing happened.
95
Lastly, you will recall there was testimony that a whole series of letters was sent to Mr.
LaRouche by the IRS asking him where his tax return was, and asking him to explain why he hadn't filed a tax return.
You will remember ______________ testified that he received a letter back from IRS at the post office box that he had given them, but that's not the only evidence that Mr. LaRouche received those letters back.
Exhibit 7-D, Ed Spannaus' notebook, page 217 — sorry -- page 204 — here's what it says; "IRS, three letters, standard form letter, LHL, care of CFL, Citizens for LaRouche, request of info about tax form. We have not received 1040 for period ending '81, '82, '83."
Ed Spannaus saw the letters that the IRS wrote to Lyndon LaRouche asking him about his tax returns. You can infer from that that Lyndon LaRouche knew that the IRS had written to him asking him about his tax returns. You heard from the IRS witness that they never got a response back to that.
Now, if Mr. LaRouche's status is so aboveboard/ if Mr. LaRouche has been open and up front about his status, why didn't he just write back to them? He didn't write back to them because he couldn't, because he was involved in trying to conceal his income. It would have been simple to write a letter back, but he didn't, and that, I submit, is the final piece of evidence showing that there was a conspiracy to defeat the Internal Revenue Service, to try to fool the Internal Revenue Service, and Mr. LaRouche's involvement in it with several other people.

[boomer70]

Eaglebreak,

thanks again for your work in presenting the stuff on the Virginia trial, but why are there names omitted from the documents?

[shadok]

Originally Posted by shadok

http://www.petitionthem.com/default....etail&pet=4181

this will be presented to British PM Gordon Brown. You don't have to live in the UK to sign it (and you can hide your name and contact details from the web if you wish so)

It's been five years today Jeremiah Duggan died because of Larouche and his Yutes Bewegung.
The ongoing petition that will be presented next week to Gordon Brown has already gathered more than 500 signatures in just a few days.
Thanks to everyone.

[eaglebeak]

Boomer70--

The names omitted are of people who have left the organization long since, who were more victims than perpetrators, and who were forced to be defendants.

They're deleted because I thought it was fairer to them.

Anyone who knows them and reads this closely can figure out very fast who they are. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't know them doesn't need to know.

I am a great believer in protecting the identity of people victimized by LaRouche, including victimized by having been--or in some cases still being--a member of his cult.

Thus I have tried not to reveal names of current members in my posts, unless they were people I believed to be seriously morally culpable or so obvious I couldn't help it. I have slipped up several times and identified someone I didn't want to, but do try to avoid it.

[Michael J. Rowland]

I was only part of lym for barely a week but I am still curious about the organization. I've heard of interventions being done on members and those thinking of joining. What does this entail? Can I get some info about that? Thanks in advance.

[candor]

All the people I know who quit did so out of overwhelming disgust. No intervention was necessary. The organization once touted the case of a Central American member from a wealthy family who had been subject to a forced intervention and who made it back to the cult only to quit on his own years later.

If you are concerned about someone you care about, just stay in regular touch, do not give them money, and don't hector them. Just provide them a loving connection to reality so that when it dawns on him or her just how dire their situation is, they'll be able to leave. The LaRouche cult always tries to cut recruits off from family and friends by demonizing the latter.