Railroad!, Edward Spannaus, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, 1989., p. 306: "At the PFIAB meeting today, David Abshire raised the subject of the activities of the U.S. Labor Party and Lyndon LaRoche [sic]... A number of the members present, including Edward Bennett Williams, raised the question of the sources of funding for these U.S. Labor Party activities. In view of the large amounts obviously being expended worldwide, the question was raised whether the U.S. Labor Party might be funded by hostile intelligence agencies. Can you give me an update together with any comments or observations on this matter?
Larouche Called Donors 'Slime,' Prosecution Says;", William F. Doherty, Boston Globe, December 18, 1987. Defense lawyers, in their opening arguments, said their clients believed they were acting on orders from the US Central Intelligence Agency. ...The defense lawyers argued yesterday that their clients acted at the behest of Frankhauser, who they believed was receiving his directions directly from the CIA. According to testimony at his trial, Frankhauser fabricated stories about his ties to the CIA to keep his job with the LaRouche organization.
"Trial of LaRouche and 7 Aides May Be Delayed; Case of One Defendant May Be Severed, Heard First in Boston Federal Court" John Mintz. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 1987. pg. a.06 The prosecutors say that in 1984, when the FBI started investigating the group for millions of dollars worth of alleged fund-raising fraud, the two advised the group to send witnesses to Europe and to hide and burn subpoenaed documents-all alleged offenses for which LaRouche, his followers and Frankhouser have been indicted. LaRouche and his associates say they followed some of the advice because they believed that Frankhouser and Fick were transmitting orders from the CIA, despite their statements to authorities that they faked their CIA association.
"Jury Selection Begins in LaRouche Fraud Case; Lawyers Say Trial, Which Could Last 3 Months, Promises to Be One of the Strangest;" John Mintz. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 1987. pg. a.14. For starters, there is the LaRouche group's defense. Group members say what they did was legal because the CIA told them to do it-an ironic assertion because LaRouche for years said the CIA wanted to kill him. The CIA defense comes in response to charges of obstruction of justice-involving allegedly burning subpoenaed documents and hiding witnesses to keep them from investigators. LaRouche and his associates say they believed that they were acting on the instructions of top CIA officials who were passing their orders to LaRouche through intermediaries...The problem for the LaRouche defense is that Frankhouser and the other supposed intermediary to the CIA-Frankhouser's longtime friend, former Klan member Forrest Lee Fick-have told the FBI that they had made up tales to the LaRouche associates about their ties to the CIA. But the defense still insists that the LaRouche group's actions were legal because its members believed the two had those CIA ties and were acting on orders of the government.
Railroad!, Edward Spannaus, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, 1989., p. 236. From "Proposed Finding of Facts," motion to court by defense attorneys: 65. A conference of law enforcement officials was held in Boston on February 12-14, 1986, under the general guidance of Mr. Weld. The topics included both criminal and civil strategies for dealing with LaRouche. 69. During the course of the year (1986) Mr. Weld contacted approximately half a dozen U.S. Attorneys to encourage them to pursue potential criminal claims against LaRouche.(The intervening numbers simply list participants with some comments about what role they played at the conference.)
.[1]
Government's Motion In Limine, United States of America v. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. et al, Criminal No. 88-00243-A, published in Railroad!, Edward Spannaus, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, 1989.
The defendants have indicated that they intend to defend this case by claiming vindictive prosecution, harassment by the government, and that their inability to repay loans was due to "financial warfare" brought against them by the government. ...There are several incidents into which it appears the defense intends to delve: prior FBI investigations; asserted infiltrations of the LaRouche organization by informants; other criminal and civil proceedings; and the institution of involuntary bankruptcy proceedings in this District. It is the position of the government that these incidents essentially are irrelevant.
Motion of the defendants for submission of questions to the jury venire, Criminal No. 88-00243-A, published in Railroad!, Edward Spannaus, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, 1989.
1. This is a case which has resulted in considerable publicity at both the local and national level... 2. The case involves defendants who have very strenuously expressed minority political opinion and the chance of prejudicial jurors as a result of these political briefs is substantial... According, the defendants move this court to allow them to file specific questions for the jury venire by Friday, November 18, 1988.
Brief Amici Curiae of Burton D. Linne, Jack O. Slater, and John C. Imlay IV, published in Railroad!, Edward Spannaus, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, 1989.
And finally, permeating the proceedings was the District Court's own peculiar reluctance to credit appellants' concerns that their prosecution was politically motivated – and, therefore, to take the necessary prophylactic steps at the stage of jury-selection to exclude improper political intervention or influence. All of these circumstances made it impossible for appellants' trial defense-team to discover enough about Horton to protest his seating on the jury.
- ^ "Proposed Findings of Fact in cases 87-0795-A,87-0796-A,87-0797-A", published in Railroad!, Edward Spannaus, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, 1989.
Fact #9: On or about June 22, 1987, the Alleged Debtors filed their answers to the involuntary petitions. In their answers: a) Caucus and Fusion denied that they were eligible to be debtors because of their eleemosynary status; b) all denied that they were not paying their debts as they became due; c) all asserted affirmatively that the petitions were defective because there were an insufficient number of petitioning creditors; d) all asserted affirmatively that the petitions arose out of a motive to assist the U.S. Government in its related criminal proceedings and thus were tainted with bad faith; and e) all asserted affirmatively that the petitions constituted prior restraints on the exercise of their right to freedom of speech in violation of the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.