Jump to content

Talk:LaRouche movement/Trials

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_L.shtml


1970s

[edit]
  • UAW v. National Caucus of Labor Committees
    • International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace Andagricultural Implement Workers of America (uaw),plaintiff-appellee, v. National Caucus of Labor Committees et al., Defendants-appellants
    • United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 525 F.2d 323
    • Argued Sept. 23, 1975. Decided Nov. 12, 1975
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/525/323/169855/
      • This suit involves a controversy between two labor organizations. Central to the action are publications of each union--plaintiff's 'Solidarity' and defendants' 'New Solidarity.' Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendants' publication infringed their trademark and name and charges defendants with fraudulent conduct in order to discredit plaintiff. Defendants deny plaintiff's charges and plead various counterclaims, including libel and assault upon those who distribute 'New Solidarity.'
  • Jones v. Unknown Agents of Federal Election Commission
    • Le Roy B. JONES et al., Appellants, v. UNKNOWN AGENTS OF the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al., Appellees.
    • 613 F.2d 864
    • 198 U.S.App.D.C. 131
    • No. 77-2093.
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    • Argued Sept. 27, 1978. Decided Aug. 23, 1979.
    • http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/864
      • The suit was filed after the FEC concluded, on the basis of field interviews with CTEL contributors ... that Lyndon La Rouche, a candidate for the 1976 Presidential nomination of the USLP, had not raised the requisite amount of contributions to qualify for matching funds...appellants asserted numerous constitutional, statutory, and common law claims arising out of both (1) the fact that the Commission conducted field interviews at all, and (2) the manner in which the interviews were conducted and the scope of the questions asked.
  • Committee to Elect Lyndon La Rouche v. Federal Election Commission
    • COMMITTEE TO ELECT LYNDON LA ROUCHE, Lyndon La Rouche and Leroy B. Jones, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Respondent.
    • 613 F.2d 834
    • 198 U.S.App.D.C. 101
    • No. 77-1184.
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    • Argued Sept. 27, 1978. Decided Aug. 23, 1979. Certiorari Denied Feb. 19, 1980. See 100 S.Ct. 1019.
    • http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/834
      • Petitioners ... raise ... objections to the legal standards and certification procedures invoked by the [FEC] in [denying matching funds]
  • Federal Election Commission v. Committee to Elect Lyndon La Rouche
    • FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellee, v. COMMITTEE TO ELECT LYNDON LA ROUCHE et al., Appellants.
    • 613 F.2d 849
    • 198 U.S.App.D.C. 116
    • No. 77-1987.
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    • Argued Sept. 27, 1978. Decided Aug. 23, 1979. Certiorari Denied Feb. 19, 1980.
    • See 100 S.Ct. 1019
    • http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/849
      • ... an appeal from an order of the District Court enforcing subpoenas issued by the [FEC] during an investigation into possible violations of the federal election laws in connection with the campaign of Lyndon La Rouche for the 1976 Presidential nomination...


1980s

[edit]

1980

[edit]

1981

[edit]

1982

[edit]
  • Lyndon Larouche, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-appellees,maxine Lowell, Proposed Intervenor appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant-appellee

1984

[edit]


  • 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
  • NATIONAL ANTI-DRUG COALITION, INC., a not-for-profit corporation, and Peter Bowen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William BOLGER, in his capacity as Postmaster General of the United States, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • June 26, 1984
    • 737 F.2d 717
    • http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/480311
    • "constitutionality of regulations restricting solicitation on postal premises; "


1985

[edit]
  • Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr., Thomas Allred, Barbara Schlageter,marsha Allred, Ruby Gardiner, and Nancy T.landsperger, Appellees, v. State Board of Elections; Robert W. Spearman, Chairman;alex K. Brock, Executive Secretary; Elloree M.erwin, Ruth T. Semashko, William A.marsh, Jr., and Robert R.browning, Appellants

1986

[edit]
  • LAROUCHE v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC.
    • United States Court of Appeals,fourth Circuit
    • 780 F.2d 1134
    • Argued Oct. 8, 1985. Decided Jan. 9, 1986
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/780/1134/148120/
      • LaRouche alleged that [NBC and the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith ] conspired to, and did, defame him in two NBC television broadcasts. NBC filed a four count counterclaim alleging, inter alia, that LaRouche had interfered with its business relations. NBC prevailed on the defamation claim and on its counterclaim for interference with business relations.

1987

[edit]
  • United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lewis D. Smith, Defendant-appellant
    • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 812 F.2d 161
    • Argued Nov. 14, 1986.Decided Feb. 20, 1987
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/812/161/100058/
      • Smith appealed to this court from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, affirming appellant's conviction by a United States Magistrate on two charges of simple assault...arguing that he was a victim of selective prosecution by the government because of his political beliefs'


  • Federal Election Comm'n v. Larouche Campaign
    • 817 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 1987)
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • Decided April 27, 1987
    • http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/550865
      • he Larouche Campaign, Inc. challenges the breadth of a subpoena issued by the FEC as part of an FEC investigation of the campaign's 1984 conduct in support of the bid of Lyndon Larouche for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Because we conclude that the subpoena, even as modified by the district court, is overly broad in an area raising significant first amendment concerns, we affirm enforcement of the subpoena only as further modified herein.


  • Edward Spannaus, Appellant, v. U.S. Department of Justice
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 824 F.2d 52
    • Argued April 27, 1987. Decided July 21, 1987
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/824/52/122099/
      • Spannaus filed this FOIA suit to compel the Federal Bureau of Investigation to disclose certain material he requested in two separate letters nearly eight years earlier.
  • United States, Appellee, v. the Larouche Campaign, et al., Defendants, Appellants

1988

[edit]
  • 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.
  • Liberty Lobby, Inc., Appellant, v. John Rees, et al
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 852 F.2d 595
    • Argued March 8, 1988.Decided July 29, 1988
    • http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/417848#
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/852/595/450998/
      • Liberty Lobby charged that the appellees John Rees, Sheila Louise Rees, and Information Digest libeled it by publishing two articles in Information Digest which contained false and defamatory statements...Liberty Lobby alleged that the article defamed it by asserting falsely that Liberty Lobby was closely linked with LaRouche and his organization, and that "some of LaRouche's more unsavory alleged activities were set in motion as a result of an arrangement with Liberty Lobby."
  • 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

1989

[edit]
  • United States of America v. Marsha B. KOKINDA and Kevin E. Pearl,
    • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit - 866 F.2d 699
    • Argued March 7, 1988. Decided Jan. 31, 1989.
    • http://openjurist.org/866/f2d/699
      • Because we believe that the post office sidewalk constitutes a public forum and that the postal regulation is neither a reasonable manner restriction nor narrowly tailored to protect First Amendment values, we hold ... an unconstitutional infringement upon defendants' rights.
  • In Re Grand Jury Proceedings.appeal of Caucus Distributors, Inc., et al

1990s

[edit]
  • 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.
  • LaROUCHE v. FEC (92-1100)
    • LaRouche & Democrats for Economic Recovery '92 v. FEC, 996 F.2d 1263 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 550 (1993).


  • LaROUCHE v. FEC (92-1555)
    • LaRouche Democratic Campaign '88 v. FEC, 990 F.2d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (denying motion to dismiss); 28 F. 3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
  • Lyndon H. Larouche and Democrats for Economicrecovery-larouche in 92, Petitioners, v. Federal Election Commission, Respondent
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 996 F.2d 1263
    • Argued April 14, 1993.Decided July 2, 1993
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/996/1263/181243/
    • http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1263.92-1100.html
      • Commission did not contest the truth of LaRouche's representations as to contributions received, it nonetheless denied him certification for matching funds for the 1992 election cycle. In essence, the Commission inferred from various factors in LaRouche's background--including his prior dealings with the Commission and his conviction for fraud partially involving election-related activities--that LaRouche's agreements and commitments were not made "in good faith". Because we agree with LaRouche that the statute gives the Commission no authority to engage in such an assessment of candidates, we reverse.


  • Michele Steinberg, Appellant, v. United States Department of Justice
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 23 F.3d 548
    • Argued March 22, 1994.Decided May 27, 1994
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/23/548/482742/
      • ...adequacy of the responses of three subdivisions of the United States Department of Justice... to appellant Michele Steinberg's request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. In granting summary judgment to the Department, the district court upheld the adequacy of the searches and the FBI's redaction of a number of documents pursuant to several of FOIA's exemptions. However, the court did not address specifically the adequacy of search of the Boston USA's Office.


  • 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.
  • Lyndon H. LaROUCHE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Donald L. FOWLER, Individually and as Chairman Democratic National Committee, et al., Appellees
    • 152 F.3d 974 332 U.S.App.D.C. 25 District of Columbia Circuit.
    • Argued Oct. 14, 1997. Decided Aug. 28, 1998.
    • http://openjurist.org/152/f3d/974/lyndon-h-larouche-jr-v-donald-l-fowler
      • The Party's application of certain of its internal rules deprived LaRouche of two delegates to the 1996 Democratic National Convention. LaRouche contends that application of those rules violated the Voting Rights Act... The Party's application of certain of its internal rules deprived LaRouche of two delegates to the 1996 Democratic National Convention. LaRouche contends that application of those rules violated the Voting Rights Act

2000s

[edit]
  • Larouche's Committee for a New Bretton Woods, Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission, Respondent
    • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 439 F.3d 733
    • Argued September 27, 2005 Decided March 3, 2006
    • http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/439/733/549753/
    • http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/439/439.F3d.733.04-1311.html
      • After an audit and hearing, the FEC determined that the LaRouche Committee failed to carry its burden to prove that the mark-up charges were reasonable and ordered the Committee to repay the $222,034. The Committee offered no evidence before the FEC that established either the basis or the reasonableness of the mark-up charges. We conclude, therefore, that the FEC's order to the Committee to repay the matching funds used for the mark-up charges was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaRouche_movement/Trials&oldid=321546741"