Jump to content

Talk:LaRouche criminal trials/Archive 3

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

Under the subheadings Investigations > Early 1980s Ths link '(see appeals)' is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.186.10 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with title

A problem I have in reviewing the article is its title which sounds like a specific U.S. Supreme Court court case. Instead it is about a series of cases, none of them apparently called United States v. LaRouche. Could someone address this and clear this up for me? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:This question was raised once before back in January, and not resolved. A good suggestion for a new title would be welcome. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC);
The 2nd federal trial, the one which resulted in the conviction of LaRouche, had the formal name of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-vs-LYNDON LaROUCHE, et al.,, according to a scan of a sentencing document.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the previosu discussion thread is at #Question, above. At the time the best alternative I could think of was "LaRouche-movement fraud trials of the 1980s". Perhaps "Prosecutions of Lyndon LaRouche and associates" would also serve. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem, from my point of view, is that there is a format for Supreme Court cases, e.g.United States v. Booker and when I clicked on the article, that is what I expected to see. It took me a while to figure out that it was a long saga and not a particular case. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. All the Supreme Court cases are listed in Wikipedia e.g. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 543, of which there are almost one thousand volumes. This case is not listed as I searched for it after I saw the title did not represent the case. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That same format is used in all cases brought by the Feds, even at the district court level. Some of those case reach the Supreme Court, but it's usually with their original name. I don't think the SCOTUS renames cases. As for this matter, here are more sources for U.S. v. Lyndon LaRouche, Jr. et al. or variations.[2][3][4][5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My point is that if the article is named after a case, the expectation is that it is about that case: United States v. Binion, United States v. Thomas. I say this because I write a lot of court case articles. I am expressing to you my confusion that is behind my reservations in reviewing the article. You are certainly free to disagree with me. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The heart of this article is about the "Alexandria" case named, more or less, United States v. LaRouche. I don't know the formal name of the "Boston" federal case. LaRouche was not named in the original indictment and was added later, well before the start of the trial. However I suspect it had the same name. The state prosecutions were on related crimes (or even the same ones), and obviously had different names. Can you suggest a better way to name the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
To be truthful, I have not read the article, and, horrible as it sounds, do not know anything about Lyndon LaRouche. So I cannot suggest a name. The article seemed to me (perhaps wrongly) to be political in nature, and I am allergic to politics. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
After reading, briefly, the article Lyndon LaRouche, it must seem like I live under a rock, as it seems he is quite well-known (when actually I consider myself well informed). Can't explain my absence of knowledge on this matter. Guess it doesn't reflect well on me. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
He's not as well-known now as he was at the time of the trials. Folks in some cities may know him best from sidewalk solications by followers. Anyway, do you still think the article name is a problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It says he was a member of SDS, for god's sake! I lived in Berkeley and San Francisco during the 1960s. Oh, well. Certainly if I am the only one who sees a problem in the name, I don't want to make your life miserable over it. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
He used a pseudonym, "Lynn Marcus", during his SDS period and I don't think he was active in Berkeley at all. As for the article name, I don't think anyone is tied to this one. If anything comes to you please propose it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What about Prosecution and conviction of Lyndon LaRouche? I'm not particularly good coming up with article names. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Lyndon LaRouch prosectution and conviction? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a possibility. Let's keep thinking on it. Can you do a GA on the rest of the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The article also spends a lot of space on LaRouche's associates, which should be reflected in the title. Plus, not all the prosecutions resulted in convictions. How about "The LaRouche movement legal cases"? --Terrawatt (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC);
"LaRouche movement legal cases" wouldn't be right either, because there are several other, unrelated cases that are also used as precedents and are significnt case law. This article just covers the fraud-related cases in the 1980s. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::There's another problem -- the cases in the 80s were not primarily "fraud-related," they were "conspiracy-related." Conspiracy laws are used when the actual targets of the prosecution cannot be directly implicated in the purported wrong-doing. I just took a look at the article Chicago Seven to see how it was handled, but there is no legal-type article on that trial. How about calling this article "The LaRouche trials"? --Terrawatt (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC);
"Conspiracy to commit fraud". As for the article title, "LaRouche conspiracy trials" might work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
With a new title you could clean up the first sentence, which is rather weak, to something like "LaRouche conspiracy trials are the outcome to charges of mail fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion leveled against American political activist Lyndon LaRouche and his associates in the mid-1980s." (marginally better than the sentence you have -- at least it doesn't have "refers to" in it).
After skimming the article, I am still unclear who was prosecuting him other than the "government" and for what motivation other than "political". —Mattisse (Talk) 11:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, are you doing the GA review on this? If you don't feel like it, since I've just given the article a pretty close reading I'll take a stab at it... BTW, I agree about the title, the scope of the article is more than the federal government's prosecution, "LaRouche conspiracy trials" definitely is better IMHO. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead then. That is fine with me. I was more worried that no one was doing it. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree re the title. I rewrote the first sentence, but then realized it is totally wrong.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
If there's no objection I'll move the article to "LaRouche conspiracy trials". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No objection from me. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A new objection to the title has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LaRouche conspiracy trials. One of the reviewers there was concerned that "conspiracy" is too ambiguous. I suggested "LaRouche fraud trials" as an alternative. I think the title is accurate because all of the trials, both federal and state, concerned fraud either directly or indirectly (such as obstruction of justice in the vestigation of fraud). Any better ideas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest criminal trials. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That'd probably work, too. While there were many other lawsuits, I believe these were the only significant criminal trials. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
How about " Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement". Since so many people and entities were involved it may make more sense to include them all in the title, rather than the more restrictive "LaRouche criminal trials" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The present title seems best to me, because the trials were related by conspiracy charges, and that implies the "movement" without making the title unwieldy. --ClarkLewis (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC);
As other editors have pointed out, "conspiracy" is an ambiguous term. "Conspiring" is not against the law, but conspiring to violate the law is. The alleged conspiracies all involved fraud. "Criminal" is another option because, while charges of fraud were at the heart of the trials, they also invovled obstruction of justice and tax evasion, so "criminal" is broad enough to cover all of that. I agree that "Criminal [or Fraud] trials of the LaRouche movement" is a bit unwieldy, so "LaRouche movement criminal [or fraud] trials" may be better, but we could leave "movement" out if folks think it's obviously implicit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, I guess I would point out here that "criminal" is also implicit, because without it, there would be no trials. "Conspiracy trials" is in fact pretty specific when you think about it, plus it also obviously means a group of people. Also, in fairness to the defendants, you don't have to personally commit a specific crime to be convicted of criminal conspiracy -- you just have to discuss it with others before it happens. Thus, conspiracy laws are designed to convict the big cheese, even if it is his subordinates that do the deed. --ClarkLewis (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC);
"Criminal" is not implicit because the movement was involved in many civil trials. Also, only a portion of those charged were convicted of conspiracy. Let's go with "LaRouche criminal trials". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Lyndon Larouche, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-appellees,maxine Lowell, Proposed Intervenor appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant-appellee
  • Khushro Ghandi, Andrew Rotstein, Richard Magraw, Jacquelinecotton, Matthew Moriarty, Elizabeth Moriarty,stuart Bernsen, Randolph Wedler Andbarbara Gettel, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Police Department of the City of Detroit, Philip Tannian,dale Tiderington, Garries Terrell, Melvin Gamblin, Robertpersyn, Donald Mckinnon, Leland Blaim, Vernon Higgins,philip Mercado, Edward Ball, John Minogue, Gerald Fayed,clarence Kelley, William Saxbe and Federal Bureau Ofinvestigation, Defendants-appellees
  • United States, Appellee, v. the Larouche Campaign, et al., Defendants, Appellants
  • Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc., a New York Corporation,schiller Institute, Inc., a District of Columbiacorporation, National Democratic Policy Committee,independent Democrats for Larouche, the Larouche Campaign,leesburg Security Fund, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of the Commonwealth Ofvirginia, R.l. Southard, Director, Virginia State Police,michael A. Spivey, Individually and As a Member of Thevirginia State Police, R.h. Perry, Iii, Individually and Asa Member of the Virginia State Police, Defendants-appellees
    • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 836 F.2d 1342 Unpublished Disposition
    • Argued Nov. 3, 1987.Decided Jan. 7, 1988
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/836/1342/420011/
    • http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/836/836.F2d.1342.87-1549.html
      • Six organizations affiliated with Lyndon B. LaRouche and his supporters instituted this action ... against four officers of the Commonwealth of Virginia who played different roles in connection with a joint federal-state search of two Leesburg, Virginia buildings which housed offices and records of LaRouche organizations other than plaintiffs... Plaintiffs assert that they were not targets of the search and any documents belonging to them and seized by two of the defendants, ..., were taken in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
  • Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc., a New York Corporation;schiller Institute, Inc., a District of Columbiacorporation; National Democratic Policy Committee;independent Democrats for Larouche; the Larouche Campaign;leesburg Security Fund, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of the Commonwealth Ofvirginia; R.l. Southard, Director, Virginia State Police;michael A. Spivey, Individually and As a Member of Thevirginia State Police; R.h. Perry, Iii, Individually and Asa Member of the Virginia State Police, Defendants-appellees
  • United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr.; William Wertz; Edward Spannaus;michael Billington; Dennis Small; Paulgreenberg; Joyce Rubinstein,defendants-appellants,william P. Robinson, Jr. et al., Amici Curiae
    • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 896 F.2d 815
    • Argued Oct. 6, 1989.Decided Jan. 22, 1990.Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Feb. 16, 1990
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/896/815/166254/
    • http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/896/896.F2d.815.89-5518.html
      • The defendants claim that the district court did not afford them a fair trial. Specifically, they contend that: (1) the district court erred in denying their motion for a continuance of the trial date; (2) the district court erroneously denied their discovery request for exculpatory material; (3) the district court made numerous evidentiary rulings, in limine and at trial, that unconstitutionally restricted their ability to defend against the charges; (4) the trial judge failed to conduct a voir dire sufficient to impanel an unbiased jury and improperly failed to excuse several jurors for cause; (5) the mail fraud counts were improperly joined with the tax conspiracy count; (6) the sentence imposed on LaRouche was excessive; (7) the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the tax count; and (8) the district court erred in allowing the introduction of illegally seized evidence.
  • Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Richard E. Welsh, Petitioner-appellant, v. Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff, Roanoke County, Commonwealth Ofvirginia, Respondent-appellee
    • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 78 F.3d 580
    • Argued Dec. 8, 1995.Decided Feb. 28, 1996
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/78/580/504518/
    • http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/78/78.F3d.580.94-7351.html
      • On appeal, Welsh presents three issues for review: (1) whether the Commonwealth of Virginia proved that it would have prosecuted Welsh using evidence from sources independent of Welsh's immunized testimony...; (2) whether the trial court's denial of Welsh's motions to recuse denied him due process of law; and (3) whether Welsh demonstrated sufficient cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of certain claims. We affirm the denial of habeas relief.
  • Gail G. Billington, Appellant v. U.S. Department of Justice, Appellee

Many old appellate decisions have been posted online recently. I'm collecting a listing of related ones, both for eventual inclusion in the article and as an aid to editing. These cases are hard to keep straight. Please feel free to improve the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Even compressed this seems like a big chunk of information for this article. Per a suggestion above, perhaps there should be a separate article on LaRouche movement-related appeals cases. There are 19 in this list, and about the same number again of other related cases, perhaps 35-40 altogether. That's a significant number and worth treating separately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse that view. No way to give this many appeals - some of which seem to have fairly interesting procedural history - reasonable treatment in the main article without bogged it down. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Calliopejen1 expressed a concern that these appeals are tangled. That's an understatement, though I hope this article can keep them straight. I've amended the list of appeals by adding quasi-abstracts to the cases most closely related to this article topic. Some of the earlier (and later) cases are FOIA matters regarding earlier investigations. We can sort appeals by the circuit - the First Circuit covers Boston, and the Forth Circuit covers Alexandria. The appeals to other circuits are for less-related cases. The main appeals to the 1st Circuit concerned the grand jury, the search warrants, and the retrial/dismissal following the mistrial. The most important appeals are in the 4th Circuit, and of those there are two key appeals: 896 F.2d 815 and 4 F.3d 987. In both of those appeals Ramsey Clark and Odin Anderson were the chief attorneys for the defendants-appellants, and Kent S. Robinson was among the chief attorneys for the government. 896 F.2d 815 is the one that had a large number of amici briefs, it looks like about 18. It'd be helpful to determine which went to the Supreme Court (even though it never did more than affirm the lower court decisions). I believe that the bulk of the 3rd-party media attention went to these two appeals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Because of concerns here, and on the FAC page, about the confused text in the "Appeals" section, I have made a fresh draft. It's bases mostly on the appeals opinions themselves, and simply lists the dates, main issues, and disposition. It is a little longer. Most of the space is devoted to the principle appeal. I think this version is clearer, though it may be have a bit too much detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous FBI investigations

The FBI investigations in the 1970s and early 1980s were explicitly closed previous to the investigations into the fraud. The only folks who assert any connection are LaRouche supporters. It's a significant viewpoint, but a minority one. Right now, it forms the first section, 220 words of two paragraphs, of the article. That's too much prominence for a fringe viewpoint. Rather than putting it in the chronological sequence of when the investigations happened, it would seem more appropriate to move it to the part that deals with the defense's arguments, and trim it down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Book citations

This edit just unfixed book citations that I just fixed.[6] Cite news doesn't require a p.; cite book does if you want the citations to be consistent. If you're changing them to the shortened form, it won't matter anyway, but I'm hoping you read edit summaries, as I left these as as a sample with an edit summary of work needed. If you look now, you'll see your news cite have p. x, while those book citations have just x. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it Spannous or Spannaus ? Mixed in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good now; I hope you find the manual method of just typing out short citations for books to be much easier in the long run, rather than repeating the awful cite templates for each book source.

It was great of Calliopejen1 to add URLs on the NYT and do some helpful cleanup: it's a lot of work to look all of those up. But there are a few changes since I last checked:

  • I would never remove accessdates when there is a URL; on the FAC, I was referring only to cases where there is NO URL at all. It's done, so not worth worrying about, but someone may complain.
  • Overlinking of every news source isn't needed for commonly known sources, but probably not worth worrying about. It will fill your sources up with a Sea of Blue that some editors find irritating, and someone may comment on it. I have seen editors object to this WP:OVERLINKing of common terms (like NYT, BBC, etc.) in citations. More Sea of Blue: most people know what The New York Times and The Boston Globe are, and few editors request you to link every occurrence of such common publications.
  • "Publisher = self published" needs repair; we need to know the publisher (website, etc.).
  • This resulted in red-linked accessdates because cite web handles dates differently than other templates. Before, I mentioned that delinking dates in citations wasn't worth worrying about, since most of the article was consistently linking dates in citations, and delinking them is a new MoS change and many are getting by. But since I last looked, your citation dates have been partially delinked, some were redlinked, and the inconsistency is now noticeable, so you'll probably want to finish the job. Looking more closely, the top of the article was delinked, but the bottom wasn't, so now there is an inconsistency that wasn't there before. Each citation template handles dates differently, so it's not fun (that's why some of us prefer manual citation :-) This is a sample of how to repair red-linked accessdates on some templates, and this is a sample of how to finish the work that was done to part of the article, but not all of it. Because each citation template handles dates differently, you'll need to scan your citations for the inconsistencies and redlinks (I got the redlinks for now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"A defining moment"

  • The convictions of LaRouche and his associates were a defining moment in the history of the LaRouche network.

An editor added a citation request to this statement, which is the topic sentence of the section now called "LaRouche supporters' reactions". Far from requiring a source, this seems almost too obvious. It's a bit like saying that the Big Bang was a defining moment in the history of the universe, or that the antitrust decision was a defining moment in the history of AT&T. "Moment" may not be quite correct, since the convictions weren't instantaneous, but otherwise the statement seems an obvious summary of events. Their leader and thirteen of his top associates were imprisoned as part of a wide-ranging prosecution that also shut down several of the main organizations (at least on paper). The movement spent millions in legal fees, made more than 10 appeals, convened two investigative panels, gather signatures on several petitions, and bought full page newspaper ads. The efforts at exoneration (their word) have continued for more than ten years since the convictions. Does anyone really dispute that the convictions were a defining moment in the history of the movement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's any objection, I'll remove the fact tag as unnecessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no objection. The entirety of the article up to that point explains the enormous impact of the trials, and the extraordinary efforts put forth by the organization. The article also mentions that several other states took action in the wake of the trials. I don't see it as necessary. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone really dispute that the convictions were a defining moment in the history of the movement? That may be an widely held opinion, but see WP:OR: we cannot and should not extrapolate. I have removed the statement until a source is found. Surely there will be a source that can support that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It's called a topic sentence. It isn't original research, it is a simple summary of the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A topic sentence in this case would be something along the lines of "A number of reactions, complaints and calls from exoneration by LaRouche supporters followed these trials." 15:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dreyfus, LaRouche and Green Cheese

The absurd comparison of LaRouche to Dreyfus is repeated twice in one small section, the first time from LaRouche himself (in which case I suppose it legitimately shows his state of mind; i.e., his propensity to use any opportunity to stick it to the Jews) and the second time from Nazi "war hero" and sinister postwar ultra-nationalist intriguer Von der Heydte. Why is this statement repeated twice? And why is Von der Heydt's opinion on the LaRouche trial quoted as noteworthy or reliable? The remarks of Von der Heydte (now deceased) are so totally off the scale from the known, documented, verified facts of the LaRouche trial--facts which have been fully upheld by appeals courts--that I cannot imagine that he knew (or cared) much about U.S. law. This is like quoting some wacko retired scientist in an article on the Moon. He says it's made out of green cheese, so he has to be quoted simply because he has a science degree of some kind? All it shows is his demented state of mind--but the article is about the Moon, not his state of mind. If LaRouche believes the Supreme Court is made out of green cheese, that's notable to an article on LaRouche. If Von der Heydte believed it, that's notable perhaps to the Von der Heydte article (along with the story of why the Brits kept VDH locked up for an extended period after the war) but not to the LaRouche article.-- Dking (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this many times. No article on Wikipedia is ever perfect. We all have to live with with imperfections. A few imperfections are preferable to constant turmoil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankel citation

The "Background" section has 

The Survey of Jewish Affairs, 1987 called the LaRouche movement one of the two most prominent "extremist political groups" of 1986.
<ref>Frankel (1987), p. 202</ref>

The year of publication in the citation does not match that in the Refs section, ie, 

Frankel, William (1988). Survey of Jewish Affairs, 1987. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. ISBN 9780838633229.

Can someone determine which year of publication is correct? Nurg (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The book was published in 1988, written in 1987, chronicling Jewish affairs in 1986. The short ref lists an incorrect publication date. The reference section citation is accurate. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
corrected. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I added several new-found photos, including one of William Weld (a key figure) and of Ibykus Farm (an important factor in the events). The German government released hundreds of thousands of photos from their archives, in including a new von Heydte photo. I've now cropped it to remove the swastika, which some people may not understand was worn by all officers. To keep things balanced I also added a photo of Rosa Parks, though she may have only signed a petition. Unfortunately, we still don't have photos of many people, like the judges, most of the prosecutors, or the defendants. The article could use a better picture of LaRouche himself, especially one from the period. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

W.B.- I think including a picture of either von Heydte or Rosa Parks was not quite appropriate. von Heydte would not have used his war photo that late in life or even immediately after the war. As a Wehrmacht-officer, but one who opposition to Nazism was clear from both his prewar and post-war records. Surely there is a picture of v.h. during either his prewar service in the Heer or his post-war service as part of the Bundeswher. Personally, I doubt he'd have used a photo in uniform in the early nineties or late eighties. It just would be rather inappropriate... and including the photo of someone because they filed an amicus curae brief strikes me as oddly inappropriate. (Please don't put any pictures of Capitaine Dreyfus in the article either) Cheers V. Joe (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right, in that these are among the least involved people, though we do have a long quote from Heydte. Now that we have more photos these are less important. Too bad we don't have good photos of Robinson of Bevel. (A photo of Bevel in his prison clothes might not be quite appropriate.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is vandalism on this page

I deleted what I think is obvious vandalism. Someone may want to check my work. 194.237.142.20 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like J.delanoy got to it already. Thanks. 194.237.142.20 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Title again

I would like to reopen the discussion about the proper title of this article. I am not entirely sure, unless I missed something in the previous sections, why this can't be titled "LaRouche Movement Criminal Trials". I think this title is simply misleading and/or confusing as it strongly implies that LaRouche himself was always the one on trial. I do not think it's generally accepted that "LaRouche" is a metonym for his entire movement. Given that a link to this article appears all over the place, predominantly via the infobox that is attached to all movement-related articles, there is a "vehicle" across wikipedia that propagates this misimpression. I don't know if anybody has changed their minds since the last time the discussion happened, but I wonder if we could get more opinions beyond the ones stated above? Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this comment before. Those are some good points. I wouldn't object to the change, though the capitalization should be "LaRouche movement criminal trials." Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kronberg material

The libel suit by Molly Kronberg is in and of itself not especially relevant to this article. It has nothing at all to do with exoneration, so I am at a loss to explain how someone moved it to that section. The significance of this material is in its relationship to the transition from the Boston trial to the Alexandria trial. For those who are unfamiliar with the details, this was very much disputed by the defense, because they had a good thing going in Boston, and if the case was re-tried there, they felt confident that they would win. If the case was retried on the same charges, it would have taken place in Boston, so the feds were desperate to make it appear to be an entirely different case so that they could move it to a location that they felt was more favorable for obtaining a conviction. The new allegations about Molly Kronberg, which are evidently part of her lawsuit, would demonstrate, if proven to be true, that the prosecution found a witness that they could intimidate or otherwise "turn" to get the necessary pretext for moving the trial, because they were introducing a new charge of conspiracy to fail to report income. The basis for this charge depended entirely upon Kronberg's testimony. This is why I put this material in the chronological position at the transition between Boston and Alexandria. It is also, of course, highly interesting that one of the Boston prosecutors turns up as Molly's counsel in the civil suit. --Steve Grayce (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I can find no source from the 1980s or 1990s which mentions this theory of the defense. It appears that it was developed well after the trial. So it amounts to a 2009 press release from the LaRouche movement. The LaRouche movement has proposed a wide array of theories for the prosecution, blaming numerous individuals from Richard Mellon Scaife to Raisa Gorbachev. As yet another theory, this merits only a little space. Since it came well after the trial, it does not belong there but rather among the other after-the-fact attempts at exoneration. The reason that the Kronberg suit is to this case is that the suit alleges she is being harassed as a result of her testimony, which is against the law. However the suit has only been filed and may not be heard for for a year or more, if not dismissed or settled first. Since the article covers numerous appeals with little detail, I don't see why this suit deserves more space. So, to recap, there are three issues: 1) how much weight to give the matter, 2) which sources to rely on, and 3) where to discuss it. 1) it is a minor matter so deserfves only a couple of sentences. 2) This article, like all article, should be based mainly on 3rd-party sources. Since we have at least three such sources, we should use those rather than the anonynous LaRouche PAC press releases. 3) All of this came up long after the trial was over and so should be mentioned at the end of the article as a postscript. For those reasons, I beleive the material I wrote is more in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that this is a Featured Article, meaning it has passed the most stringent reviews for quality. Adding poorly-source material with undue weight is contrary to the spirit of improvements.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the connection between this new defense theory and exoneration, I just came across an EIR article from April 2009, Time To Reopen LaRouche Exoneration. So the LaRouche movement clearly sees this as part of their exoneration efforts.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've added a little more about LaRouche's allegation.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

::The EIR article you mention should be mentioned in the exoneration section. The Kronberg lawsuit itself has nothing to do with exoneration and should be put under a separate heading. There is still a big hole in the story at the point of transition from the Boston trial to the Alexandria trial. As I remember, the defendants made a big fuss about the move to Alexandria, calling it venue shopping, "rocket docket" and so on. This is not mentioned anywhere in the article. And now you have deleted all references to the tax charge, which was the crucial change that made the move possible. This should be corrected. --Steve Grayce (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If it makes a difference we can create a heading with a name like "later events". There's a specific text about it:
  • Defense attorneys said they would appeal if the government sought a new trial.[66] A retrial in Boston was scheduled for January 3, 1989,[68] but the charges were dismissed after the Alexandria convictions; this was over the objections of the LaRouche lawyers who said they were seeking vindication.
  • Following the mistrial in Boston, the prosecution moved to schedule a new trial. LaRouche and the other defendants appealed that effort on October 5, 1988, saying that a new trial would create double jeopardy. The appeal was denied four months later.[78] The contempt of court fines were appealed again on January 9, 1989, and affirmed again on March 29.[79] Following the convictions in the Alexandria court, prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges from the Boston court, canceling the retrial.[69] The LaRouche lawyers appealed that decision on March 13, 1989, arguing that they needed the trial to exonerate LaRouche.[80]
(Now that I look at it those paragraphs, from different sections, may be a bit redundant.) I'll check and see if I can find a source for the defense complaining about venue shopping. There's a whole section devoted to the tax charge.   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I think that some of these pictures need to go. Some of the pics are completely unnecessary. Do we really need a picture of the US Supreme Court building to go with the bit about the appeal? In addition, I think some of the pictures of people give the mistaken impression. The part about Gorbachev is small and probably doesn't warrant a pic. The pic with Gorbachev is the worst. The fact that the article describes the 1986 raid, and Gorbachev is shown sitting at a desk with a translator earpiece, almost gives the impression that Gorbachev was actually involved with the trial, which he wasn't (except maybe in LaRouche's mind). The pics of Oliver North bring up something that definitely needs to be changed. The article says "The search produced a May 1986 telex from Iran-Contra defendant General Richard Secord to North, discussing the gathering of information to be used against LaRouche." Is there a real source for this? The cite links to one of LaRouche's publications, so this seems very suspect to me. If there is no 3rd party RS for this, this and the pics of Bush/North need to go, as they imply that these two were involved in the trial. Johnnyt471 (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The photos were vetted during the WP:FA process, so they likely comply with WP policies and guidelines. They were added to help illustrate the article, and to break up the long blocks of text. The presence of the photos has more to do with what is available then what is ideal. Ideally, the article would have photos of the accused, and perhaps even the victims. I don't mind deleting the Gorbachev, North, and Bush photos if they are genuinely misleading. I think the Supreme Court photo is appropriate because of the various appeals that were made. I don't think it's misleading.
The relationship of North to the cases is a bit complicated, and not explained as well as it should be in the article. Basically (and I may have some details wrong), the LaRouche movement raised funds in part by targetting rich old folks with pitches that involved fighting drugs, AIDS, and satanic child abuse while supporting SDI, nuclear energy, and finance reform. Once they found a compliant senior they would make increasingly assertive calls and visits asking for loans or gifts. Meanwhile, in order to fund the Contras, Olvier North's group was reaching out to the same pool of contributors. So there was a memo discussing the "competition". I don't know if there was any significant basis for searching Bush's files, but the judge thought so and it was ordered. These factors were important to the trial for two reasons: first, the defense was contending that they were the victims of a government conspiracy, and this evidence confirmed that theory (at least in their view); second, the hearings and searches took months and directly led to the mistrial.
::There was a dispute about this recently at Lyndon LaRouche. As I recall, the theory that "LaRouche and North were in competition over raising funds from little old ladies" originates with you, not the cited sources. The sources say that LaRouche was actively campaigning against funding for the Nicaraguan Contras, and that he put out the word that the Contras were running drugs, including to some of North's fundraising contacts. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC);
It's not worth arguing about. There are plenty of sources that describe the matter, and the text in the article is accurate.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, if there were a section that's unnecesary I'd say it is the one titled "Early 1980s" toward the beginning. That contains a theory only held by the LaRouche movement, namely that their prosecution was the related to a memo written by Kissinger in 1983. (Yes, they have many theories about this.) The investigation was closed the same year and there's no evidence that it was at all connected to the criminal investigation in the mid-1980s.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The SCOTUS pic just seems really silly to me. Obviously there were several appeals, but the pic almost makes it look like a crime scene. The location of the SC and the building they occupy really has no relevance to the article. But I suppose it really doesn't matter. My main problem is with that section on Oliver North. It may be as you say, but a better cite is needed. Did this memo really discuss "the gathering of information to be used against LaRouche"? From what it looks like in the article, this is a claim made by LaRouche that doesn't seem to have any other support. The next sentence states that this was the reason that Bush's office was searched, which is given a cite in the Seattle Times (an article which is not online). I'm just not sure that the Seattle Times article says what the article claims it says, and LaRouche's publications are obviously not reliable. Johnnyt471 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As for the "Early 1980's" section, I actually think that should stay. It does show an instance in which the LaRouche movement nearly got in legal trouble because of apparent harassment to Kissinger, and it seems properly sourced. The only thing is that it isn't technically relevant to the article, which is about LaRouche's criminal trials, and this incident was not a trial. But the plural "trials" does indicate that this isn't supposed to be about one particular incident, but all incidents that involved LaRouche. Johnnyt471 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The SC picture is frankly decorative, but do you really think anyone reading the article would be misled? I suppose if folks just looked at the photos, and didn't even read the captions, then they would get an incorrect view of the topic.
I'll post some excerpts from reliable sources later and we can check to make sure the text we have is accurate. We can improve the sourcing at the same time.
The Kissinger "Early 1980's" material might be better in the LaRouche biography, or the LaRouche movement article. At the moment, it's a bit unbalanced because it doesn't include any details of the harassment of Kissinger by the LaRouche movement. But adding that here would get the article further off-topic.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"The SC picture is frankly decorative, but do you really think anyone reading the article would be misled?"
No, I suppose not. The point I was making was that the first impression I got from reading this article about an hour ago was that there seemed to be way too many pictures that didn't really add to the content at all, and I suggested getting rid of some of them. But if you want it to stay, I won't argue. Johnnyt471 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll miss the Gorbachev photo. He has such a sly look on his face. Should we delete the Kissinger photo too?
I've posted excerpts from some reports that mention the memo. Talk:United States v. LaRouche/Sources Perhaps the best to read is the last one, since it summarizes the matter.   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, it appears that the part about North and Bush did happen. Shouldn't the cite then be changed from a LaRouche publication to the article from the Boston Globe?
The Kissinger photo is ok, since he actually did something that started the early 80's investigation. The Gorbachev photo does, I think, need to be removed. The man wasn't involved in any way to any of the events in the article other than being one of the many top government officials that LaRouche claimed was trying to kill him. As far as I can tell, there are no reliable sources that indicate that Gorbachev had anything to do with it other than LaRouche himself. Johnnyt471 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Kissinger wrote a memo, but it wasn't related to these crimianal trials anymore than North is. I'll remove them all and fix the ref.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for your help. Johnnyt471 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:15B Catoctin Circle Leesburg VA.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:15B Catoctin Circle Leesburg VA.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LaRouche criminal trials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LaRouche criminal trials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaRouche_criminal_trials/Archive_3&oldid=1136888880"