This article appears in the May 24, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
February 15, 2000
U.S.A. vs. Lyndon LaRouche
‘He’s a Bad Guy
But We Can’t Say Why’
For a later (2004) evaluation by Mr. LaRouche, see “The Night They Came to Kill Me.”
The record shows, that for nearly thirty years, elements of the U.S. Department of Justice have been engaged in world-wide political targetting of me and my associates. This includes early 1970s operations run in conjunction with Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s U.S. State Department. During the last ten years or so of that period, some U.S. officials, and others, have challenged the relevant agencies with some of the evidence which shows, that those prosecutions and correlated harassment of me and my associates, had been clearly fraudulent, politically motivated targetting.
The Justice Department has responded to that evidence, repeatedly, in judicial proceedings and elsewhere, with statements to the effect: “You have to understand why we had to do it that way. We couldn’t use our secret files in court; so, we had to get him in other ways. Believe us; we can’t tell you why, but, he is a very bad guy.” What is the evidence that I am that alleged “bad guy”? The answer has been, repeatedly, to the effect: “We can’t tell you. The evidence is secret.” The Department refuses to submit the putative evidence to scrutiny. It is usually withheld, either on the pretext of national security, or simply that of protecting the authorship of what both known circumstances and other evidence have often shown to have been false reports.
In brief, these attacks on me and my associates, which have been virtually continuous over nearly thirty years, have been modelled on the government’s, and a corrupt mass news media’s resort to those fraudulent, Star-Chamber methods, which are notorious from the history of the practice of Seventeenth-Century English law. These are the methods of ruling by aid of the enforcement of official lies. Today, in that practice of tendentious sophistry common to today’s U.S. government and its legal practice, lies are not called “lies”; instead, they are called, “matters of policy.”
Crucial has been a barrage of ex parte, in camera, and similar sessions, in which arguments based upon such fraudulently alleged evidence have been used, to induce some Federal judges to ignore the law selectively in cases involving me and my associates as “a matter of policy.” Prosecutions and libels based upon the alleged authority of so-called secret evidence are intrinsically fraudulent uses of the word “secrecy”; but, these continue to be the principal tactics still used by corrupt U.S. Justice Department officials, and their accomplices, to cover up a massive, decades-long “get LaRouche” hoax, run jointly through the U.S. Department of Justice and the mass media.
Despite that reliance upon so-called secret evidence, out of an approximately thirty-year record of the Justice Department’s wrong-doing against me and my associates, some crucial kinds of public evidence of the nature of those so-called secret files has leaked out through the cracks in process and procedure. What is known from the public record, is more than sufficient to expose those elements of government, and their accomplices, as engaged in the most massive, most long-running, shocking story of known politically motivated corruption, by and in those and other niches of the Justice Department and other agencies.
Perhaps the most common question posed by those who have walked through some of the crucial features of this decades-long government operation, is, “What do you suggest as a plausible motive for the operation which you describe?” The question has been posed repeatedly to me personally, as it has also been reported to me by others, “What explanation do you have for why anyone would have the motive for doing what you report they are continuing to do?”
The best short reply to the latter question is: “Do you remember Edgar Allan Poe’s ‘The Purloined Letter’?” As I shall show here, the answer to such questions lies, so to speak, right under your noses; the evidence is already in plain sight, and it is simple, clear, and conclusive.
First, review the highlights of the case itself, and then turn your attention to the evidence of the nature of those high-ranking, government perpetrators’ motives, the crucial political evidence which is sitting there in plain sight.
1. A Case of Prosecutorial and Judicial Fraud
Some who remember the richly documented account of the case published under the title of Railroad!, in 1989, will recall a significant number of the relevant facts reported there. Indeed, more than ten years later, Railroad! remains a rich lode of relevant documentation, mandatory study for anyone seriously studying the thirty-odd-year history of “the LaRouche case.” This present report, apart from being much more compact than that earlier one, has two notable distinctions in respect to the nature of its content. First, during the recent ten years, much new, crucially relevant information has come to light, dispelling some of those distracting, secondary topics, which had been viewed previously as unresolved, murky, debatable issues of prosecutorial and related conduct, arising around the edges of what had been an otherwise clear array of the preponderance of the evidence in these cases.
The second, and much more important reason for preparing and issuing this new report on the matter, is the need to restate the matter in ways which make clear to the reader why this continuing, fraudulent targetting of me and my associates still continues, after more than thirty years to date. At bottom, as I shall show here, there is but one underlying motive behind it all. As one of the observers of this case closest to it all along, I understand that no one could really understand the motives for the extremely convoluted deviousness of the Justice Department and its accomplices, unless and until the legal side of the case is situated where the truth in all matters lies, within its real-life setting, within the relevant, clear historical and political perspective. The setting of the case within that historical perspective, is the special task of this present report.
For example: among those crucially relevant matters, no one could understand why the son of the Justice Department’s John Keeney would have been involved, since the Summer of 1996, in a desperate effort to use the Democratic Party’s National Committee (DNC) as a tool for bringing about a nullification of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That action, unless turned back soon, presently threatens to bring about, chain-reaction fashion, the already visible signs of a threatened, early virtual extinction of the Democratic Party, during and following the coming general election.
As DNC attorney Keeney argued, in August 1999, in moving for the nullification of the 1965 act before Judge Sentelle, the nullification of that act by the Federal Court was already in progress. However, that acknowledged, the truth of that particular case, is the way in which former National Chairman Fowler and the DNC’s Keeney acted to move for accelerating such a nullification, in the past August 1999 proceedings.
Looking at that matter in that way, shows the political character of those forces in both the Justice Department and Federal Court who have been behind the targetting of me and my associates during a period of approximately thirty years to date.
This is the kind of connection you must examine, if you are to understand the crucial factors shaping U.S. politics and government as a whole during the recent thirty years, especially the most recent quarter-century, since the 1976 national election-campaign. Indeed, to find the root of the thirty-year-long “LaRouche case,” the case itself must be situated within the setting of the profound political changes in the direction of national policy-shaping since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, especially since those changes which began to erupt during the 1968-1972 interval.
It is fully consistent with the observation I have just made, that the principal features of a largely secret, and still presently ongoing government targetting of me by the U.S. Department of Justice, date from an operation set into motion on January 12, 1983, at the urging of former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and his cronies. Indeed, the fact that this has been, and still is an operation involving institutions of secret governmental agencies, is unarguable; every attempt to bring the evidence into court is resisted by the government’s own, usually successful pleading, that that evidence can not be revealed, because it is officially secret. This is a still-continuing operation, which ultimately sent me, and others, to prison in January 1989, an operation which continues, under cover provided by the permanent bureaucracy of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, to the present day.
This presently continuing operation was set into motion under Executive Order 12333’s provisions pertaining to secret foreign intelligence operations of the U.S. government, run in concert with private, non-governmental agencies. That fact notwithstanding, to understand competently this 1983-2000 aspect of the ongoing “Get LaRouche” operation, one must go to the root of those operations; one must take into account the political setting of four earlier, pre-1983 phases of the same operation, a series of Justice Department, and related operations, beginning no later than 1973.
The Four Earlier Phases
Typical of the evidence on the public record, is an official Nov. 23, 1973 document, an official record of both the New York City office of the FBI and also the higher authorities in the FBI’s Washington, D.C. headquarters, stating, that the FBI was orchestrating its assets in the leadership of the Communist Party U.S.A., to bring about my personal “elimination.” That FBI document, first released in full in January 1992, coincides with evidence of an ongoing operation which my associates and I had published in March 1973, and of an “elimination” operation, targetting me personally, which we exposed publicly during January 1974. Although those government-related secret operations of 1973 against me are officially dated by that evidence to November 1973, the admissions contained within the document referencing my prospective “elimination,” show the true flavor of the operations conducted by the FBI and others, internationally, during the earlier months that same year, and for several more years thereafter.
There is another political feature of that same, 1973 FBI targetting of me for “elimination,” which is also a very significant part of nearly thirty-year record of corrupt complicity by government and mass-media. The evidence against the mass media includes the role of the New York Times, in January and February of 1974, in producing a massive, fraudulent campaign of public defamation of me, in the Times’ effort to provide a diversionary cover-up for that FBI “elimination” operation. During the entirety of the nearly three decades since that lying concoction by the Times, virtually the entirety of the U.S. major news media has become a wittingly complicit part of that same, continuing dirty political operations centered in the U.S. Department of Justice. Typical of this, are a celebrated policy-statement which appeared on the editorial page of the Washington Post, on Sept. 24, 1976, and the fact of later expressions of precisely that policy, in operations by both the Post, Times, and others, up to the present time.
Then, beginning no later than that documented, abortive “elimination” attempt of November-December 1973, the FBI unleashed a second phase of the 1973 COINTELPRO operations against me and my associates. Despite the exposure of the FBI’s role behind its Communist Party assets, the FBI not only continued, but intensified and broadened the same general operation which had been conducted through at least most of 1973. This continued into no later than September 1977.
The third of the four, pre-1983 phases of the presently documented operations came to the surface in May 1978.
In later, related developments of 1978-1983, the evidence showed, that behind the Justice Department’s dirty glove in these matters, in addition to complicit actions by a corrupt mass news media, there was another, private hand, the hand of very powerful, but so-called unofficial private intelligence organizations, organizations which have become an integral part of corrupt operations conducted by official agencies.
The array of these private intelligence organizations, is typified by the cases of the American Family Foundation (AFF) and Anti-Defamation League. Such private intelligence capabilities, well connected in official Washington, D.C., and also in Europe, are only typified by the late John J. McCloy’s circles, and similar, government-like capabilities, whose home-base inside the U.S.A. is certain powerful circles of “Wall Street” financial houses and the law firms with which those financial houses are associated, as typified by study of the biography of the late McCloy.
Following the Congress’s mid-1970s exposure of some shocking examples of the Justice Department’s other operations operating under “internal security” covers, there was a greater emphasis on running these same kinds of operations under nominally private covers. So, during the period of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s official reign inside the Carter Administration, 1978-1980, two private international organizations were key in launching the continuation of former Justice Department operations. These were a private branch of British intelligence, known as Friedrich von Hayek’s and Professor Milton Friedman’s Mont Pelerin Society, and such operations of the London-created New York Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), as the Zbigniew Brzezinski-led Trilateral Commission.
The Mont Pelerin Society was deployed for this purpose under the cover of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, which Mont Pelerin had recently taken over. It deployed in this action in tandem with a private auxiliary of the Justice Department’s permanent bureaucracy, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In May 1978, both the Heritage Foundation and ADL issued defamatory, widely circulated, lying reports. This defamatory campaign laid the political groundwork for a later, new wave of corrupt Justice Department operations launched at, once again, the instigation of Henry Kissinger, beginning no later than the second half of 1982.
The ground for a new wave of post-1982 prosecutorial operations as such was prepared during the second half of 1979, by the same New York Times which had run the 1974 cover-up for the FBI’s aborted “elimination” operation. This Times operation represents the fourth in the series of four well-documented phases leading up to the January 1983 launching of operations under title of Executive Orders 12331, 12333, and 12334. The Times’ operation was an escalation of the world-wide defamation operations launched under joint sponsorship of the Mont Pelerin Society/Heritage Foundation and Anti-Defamation League during May 1978. That 1979 case is a crucial link in pinning down the nature of the 1973-2000 “Get LaRouche” operation as a whole.
That operation of 1979-1980, centered around the Times and the ADL, is hereinafter to be viewed, thus, as the fourth and final of the known series of trials and related operations which preceded the presently ongoing, 1983-2000 phase of the Justice Department’s role. That 1979-1980 role of the Times and ADL, which I have just identified as the fourth phase of pre-1983 operations, is summarized as follows.
On the basis of information received from multiple sources, several of my associates, under my direction, went up the back-trail of evidence leading to discovery of hard proof, that the Times was organizing a public defamation, a defamation intended, according to the voluntary statement of the Times’ agents themselves, to set me, personally, up for imprisonment, through widespread and persisting waves of defamation with charges which the Times then knew to be false.
In the course of this investigation, we were able to document the existence of precisely such an operation and intent. This included our investigators’ secretly tape-recorded restaurant interview with the relevant two Times reporters, Paul Montgomery and Howard Blum. That tape-recording was then promptly presented, at press conferences called for this purpose, in New York City and in Washington, D.C.
That public exposure of that operation resulted in the Times’ resort to a detour. New York’s most notorious attorney, Roy Marcus Cohn, former crony of both J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy, was used to plant a prior published version of the defamation which the Times itself had intended to publish, and did publish, in a featured series dated Oct. 7 and 8, 1979.
Among Cohn’s stable of assets used for this operation, was a former convict and client, Ed Kayatt, who published an advertiser throwaway, Our Town, on New York City’s East Side. Using a local gutter type, Dennis King, as a diversionary putative author, Kayatt’s Cohn-controlled Our Town published a series of wild-eyed defamations, which then supplied the Times’ Montgomery and Blum the “prior publication” cover for their previously planned libel. This operation was coordinated, massively, with the ADL. That same King was to appear later, during 1983-1984, together with NBC-TV’s Pat Lynch, as an asset of the U.S. government’s secret, Executive Order 12333 operations, most notably in a 1989 book which he and his publisher, a Kissinger crony, acknowledged then to have been the funded activities of well-known quasi-non-governmental organizations (“quangos”) and other private fronts, such as Walter Raymond’s Project Democracy operations, for the U.S. official intelligence community.
This series of four successive operations prepared the ground for the 1982-1983 launching of the presently continuing, 1983-2000, 12333 operation.
Kissinger and the 12333 File
The 1983-2000 12333 operation against me and my associates, was set into motion on the initiative of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Kissinger’s Washington, D.C. law firm, Arnold and Porter.
Formally, Kissinger’s and Arnold and Porter’s operation went into effect beginning Kissinger’s August 19, 1982 “Dear Bill” letter to then FBI Director William Webster. Through repeated efforts in this same campaign by Kissinger and his attorneys, and with support from Edward Bennett Williams, an attorney for the Katharine Meyer Graham of the LaRouche-hating Washington Post, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), on January 12, 1983, adopted the proposal of Kissinger and of Kissinger’s attorneys, Arnold and Porter. On that same day, FBI Director Webster ordered the FBI’s Oliver “Buck” Revell to carry out the FBI’s own implementation of the PFIAB order of David Abshire, Edward Bennett Williams, et al. On December 13, 1982, the head of the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney, assigned his old Internal Security office, now veiled under the name of General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS), to handle the matter. GLLAS remained on that assignment, through the 1988 Alexandria Federal indictment and trial.
As of August 19, 1982, the date of Kissinger’s letter to FBI Director Webster, there were five publicly well known issues behind Kissinger’s personal motives for targetting of me for Justice Department dirty operations. All five were both political in nature, and involved my associates’ ongoing journalistic investigations into matters of notable public interest, respecting corrupt activities in which Kissinger was personally involved.
First, was the continuing political controversy between Kissinger and me over the issue of urgent reforms in the post-1971 international monetary system. This personal controversy dated from the 1974-1976 interval, involving Kissinger’s actions in his various capacities as U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Merely typical of Kissinger’s relevant state of mind during that period, is his 1974 crafting, in his capacity as National Security Advisor, of the subsequently declassified, pro-genocidal National Security [Council] Study Memorandum 200.
Second, was my launching of a public campaign, in February 1982, to overturn Kissinger’s arms-control policies. This attack on existing, Kissingerian arms-control policies, reflected my ongoing back-channel discussions with the Soviet Government, discussions which led to the March 23, 1983 announcement of a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) proposal to the Soviet government, by President Ronald Reagan. This ongoing work was well known to Kissinger’s circles at that time.
Third, was our published attention to the contents of a public address which Kissinger himself had delivered to a London Chatham House audience on May 10, 1982, in which Kissinger bragged that he had worked behind the back of his President, under British direction, during the period he served as U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. In that address, Kissinger described himself as a follower of Winston Churchill and opponent of the “American intellectual tradition” represented by Churchill’s political opponent and war-time ally President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The report we published was based on the transcript of that address issued by Kissinger’s representatives themselves, including persons associated with the same PFIAB organization which, in January 1983, set into motion the secret-intelligence operations conducted under provisions of Executive Order 12333.
The fourth issue was our news organization’s investigation of information indicating Kissinger’s personal involvement, with Israel’s Ariel Sharon and others, in a disgusting “West Bank land-scam” operation, which was one of the world’s most notable, scurrilous, and profitable real estate swindles occurring at that time. The fifth issue was my authorship of a special report, Operation Juárez, published just a short time before Kissinger’s now-notorious “Dear Bill” letter to FBI Director Webster. Operation Juárez set forth a proposed U.S. policy for dealing with what I had foreseen, since Spring 1982, as an impending Mexico debt-crisis, to be expected no later than September 1982. The crisis exploded mere days following the initial publication of that report. During the period immediately following, Kissinger was heavily deployed into Mexico, with U.S. government backing, in the effort to prevent Mexico’s government of President López Portillo from continuing to respond to the crisis in the manner outlined in Operation Juárez.
On each and all of these particular five issues, the underlying philosophical differences between Kissinger and me, were, and remain exactly the same. In all five cases, our journalistic investigations of Kissinger and his activities were no more abrasive, indeed less personally intrusive, than what subjects of investigation customarily enjoy at the hands of any endeavor in contemporary investigative journalism by major-media agencies. Kissinger’s repeated, typically cowardly demand of both the Justice Department and PFIAB, was that the ability of my associates to continue to engage in these journalistic activities must be shut down by any and all means available. Kissinger’s political cronies in PFIAB, and the Justice Department, complied.
In direct response to that PFIAB action, FBI Director William Webster set an anti-LaRouche operation into motion within the FBI, while John Keeney of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division assigned the old Internal Security Division of the Justice Department, the General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS) of that Division, to conduct an Executive Order 12333 operation, under “national security,” foreign intelligence, cover, against me, and also my associates. The circles of Vice-President Bush, including Col. Oliver North, and National Security Council advisors such as Roy Godson, came to play a leading party in the dirty operations targetting me and my associates. This has continued since January 1983 to the present day.
The known figure of the Justice Department central to this continuing operation, since January 1983 to the present day, has been the same Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney who made the GLLAS assignment on Kissinger’s behalf, possibly the dirtiest man in the Justice Department from then to the present day. Such is the morality of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the other mass media which have cooperated in this dirty Justice Department, political operation, through either all or a great part of the 1973-2000 interval to date.
The outcome of that secret-intelligence-directed operation launched on Kissinger’s behalf, is best summarized by focussing attention on the crucially relevant features of three trials, and a most extraordinary additional action of October 1986. Those elements and their interconnections are chiefly as follows.
A. A prolonged (1984-1988) set of grand-jury proceedings, and subsequent mass-trial, held in Federal Court in Boston, Massachusetts, a trial which the prosecution implicitly lost, in a Spring 1988 mistrial.
In that case, which ended as a result of a drawing-down of an exhausted jury, the jurors’ expressed their unanimous opinion, that they would exonerate the defendants on all charges, and qualified that by observing that the issue of the case was government wrong-doing. A more elegant, judicial opinion to similar effect was later supplied by the trial judge in that case.
At that point, the prosecution had the option of retrying that case, one they were virtually assured of losing. So, although a retrial date of January 1989 was tentatively set, the Federal prosecutors conspired to avoid defeat in Boston, by trying the defendants, first, on different, specially pre-concocted charges, in a less scrupulous jurisdiction, in Alexandria, Virginia. Thus, they rushed to bring a new case to trial in Virginia, before the January date tentatively arranged for retrial in Boston. By early 1987, the Justice Department’s multi-jurisdictional, State-Federal prosecutorial task-force had crafted the option used in the later, railroad-style trial in Federal Court in Alexandria. As was to be expected all along, after the Alexandria conviction, the prosecution abandoned the Boston retrial.
This introduction of a new trial, while a retrial of another Federal case was pending, was worse than merely highly irregular. However, at the urging of GLLAS, and the pleasure of a former CIA official, Judge Sporkin, the Alexandria travesty of justice was ordered to proceed forthwith.
B. Meanwhile, on October 6-7, 1986, an armed force of more than four hundred, including the equivalent of several military companies of heavily armed members of a combined Federal, State, and local task-force, invaded and occupied the town of Leesburg, Virginia. The included intention of at least some elements of this task-force, was to use the cover of that operation as the occasion for what would be later described as a “Waco-style” operation, designed for assassinating me, my wife, and others, at my place of residence, a few miles distant from Leesburg. This intention was subsequently admitted by agents of the Justice Department Criminal Division’s task-force itself, and was otherwise confirmed, objectively, by the way in which military teams were deployed at the place of residence, from dawn of October 6th through early morning of October 7th. Higher authorities in Washington prevented this shoot-out, by going over the head of strike-force director, and Criminal Division head William Weld, to order that the waiting Special Forces-style attack on my location be disbanded.
This October 6-7, 1986 armed occupation of Leesburg, occurred on the eve of President Ronald Reagan’s meeting with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland. The issue of that latter meeting was the same SDI, of which the Gorbachev government and press described me, in most violent language, as its hated original author and spokesman. Since I was well known as the initiator of the SDI, as that had been introduced officially by President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983, the assassination of me at that juncture would have appeared to the world as a Justice Department killing on Soviet orders, and thus an implied personal threat, with William Weld’s complicity, against the President of the U.S. himself!
This brings us to the matter of a second trial, a Federal bankruptcy in Virginia.
C. A 1987 Federal seizure and shut-down, later ruled to have been unlawful, under pretext of Federal bankruptcy law, of several organizations in Virginia. This was later decided, in successive Federal bankruptcy proceedings, to have been a case of constructive fraud upon the court by the relevant U.S. Attorney, Henry Hudson. All income-generating and loan-repayment operations of these entities, were permanently shut down at that point, by the court. The relevant Federal judge, Albert V. Bryan, Jr., refused to allow the seized organizations opportunity to conduct a timely challenge to this unlawful, indeed fraudulent government action bankrupting and seizing those firms. It is to be stressed, that, in proceedings which occurred following the Alexandria trial and conviction of me and my fellow-defendants, the Federal courts ruled that the bringing of the bankruptcy itself had been an act of fraud upon the court by the U.S. Department of Justice. Nonetheless, despite those rulings, I remained in Federal prison for more than four more years; so, the “Get LaRouche” task-force was permitted to continue to enjoy the ill-gotten ends, which had been secured by aid of Justice Department fraud on the Federal bankruptcy court.
As an accompanying, and preceding element of this same operation, corrupt, February 1987 actions by authorities within the Commonwealth of Virginia, induced a relevant official to reverse herself, by fraudulently redefining the loans later jeopardized by the impending bankruptcy action to have been regular business loans, when most of them were in fact of the “soft,” political loans classification, like the election-campaign loans of leading Commonwealth figures at that time. These loans were often zero-interest rate, and were customarily rolled over until finally retired. Shortly after her shocking turnabout, that Virginia official was rewarded for her good behavior, by her appointment as a judge of the state’s Supreme Court.
This combination of actions, the Federal government’s fraudulent actions in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the preparatory actions of February, taken by corrupt Commonwealth officials, were among the most crucial preparatory steps for crafting the prosecutor’s orchestration of the perjury-ridden Federal mail-fraud and “Klein conspiracy” indictments of October 14, 1988.
D. A railroad-style prosecution, by the U.S. Department of Justice, was launched out of the Eastern District of Virginia, during October 1988, using the Federal Bankruptcy case, together with the fraudulent charges placed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the sole pretext for twelve counts of alleged mail-fraud and one count, also based on the loan issue, charging me personally with a “Klein conspiracy.” The latter, arcane charge, otherwise stated, was intent “to obstruct and impede the functions of the Internal Revenue Service.”
The mail fraud charges were predicated upon the outstanding loans of the entities which had been unlawfully bankrupted by the prosecutorial task-force itself. The indictment was launched by the same U.S. Attorney Henry Hudson who had launched the fraud on the court which shut down continued payments, including payments on some of the same instances for which the charges at trial were heard before the same, fully-witting Federal Judge Bryan, who had previously stopped any action to allow those entities to continue repayment of those loans. However, the issue of the bankruptcy, and of the actual character of those loans themselves, was kept out of court by pre-trial and in-trial rulings by savagely enforced, repeated order of the same Judge Bryan who had acted to prevent the subject entities from continuing their ongoing programs of loan retirement.
Most crucial was that judge’s Rule 403 in limine ruling, pre-trial, disallowing the introduction of what the court admitted to be relevant evidence bearing upon the bankruptcy and other relevant matters. That and related pretrial exclusions of relevant evidence by Bryan, were designed to ensure that the Alexandria indictment was not rejected by the jury as the Boston indictment had been. Although the mail fraud charges featured in the Alexandria indictment were new, and involved legally complex new issues not considered in Boston, the included umbrella charge of conspiracy in the Alexandria case was a virtual copy, axiomatically, of that in the Boston case; the prosecution’s wild-eyed theory of an alleged conspiracy by me, was the same in both cases. The multi-jurisdictional prosecutorial team was determined to exclude any hearing of those facts, common to both cases, which had been decisive in the jury’s reactions in Boston. Judge Bryan also excluded from the trial any hearing on evidence on the complex new legal questions posed by the mail fraud charges. That and related pretrial rulings by that Judge Bryan, ensured that the subsequent trial was assuredly a fraud by the court, in and of itself.
Crucial Issues of the Trial
It has been established, on the record, that the unlawful Federal bankrupting of those entities had been undertaken for the aforethought purpose, of crafting otherwise untenable Federal indictments on loan-fraud charges. That had been the opinion shared among the members of the multi-jurisdictional prosecutorial team, that loan-fraud charges could not be brought against target LaRouche, unless the relevant entities were not only put into bankruptcy, but forced to cease ongoing repayments of loans, by the task-force’s shutting down the fraudulently bankrupted entities. That evidence demonstrates that the bankruptcy-action was taken as an intended, as well as merely objective fraud upon the bankruptcy court. Moreover, the systematic recruitment of prospective trial witnesses for a loan-fraud case, was not begun until after the bankruptcy proceeding launched fraudulently by the Department of Justice. The pretext for the charge of loan-fraud, was the use of the mails, by these firms, to send letters of confirmation of loan-status to the lenders, both as a matter of good accounting practice, and to reduce likelihood of misunderstanding in these matters. Hence, the prosecution’s irrational logic argued, this was “mail fraud.” The indictment, trial, and convictions in this case, hung entirely on the convoluted sophistry used to craft a mail-fraud charge in that fashion.
The indictment in the latter case was handed down on October 14, 1988, two days after I had delivered an historic, and also prophetic Presidential candidate’s address in Berlin, Germany. The trial began on November 21, 1988; conviction was handed down on December 16, 1988.
In fact, as distinct from sophistries of mere legal fiction, the only reason such a short trial on such complex issues could be arranged, was that none among the defendants was able, in fact, to testify in his own defense, although I, from the time of the indictment, had repeatedly instructed all relevant parties, including all of the defense attorneys, of my intention to do so. One of the co-defendants was also personally committed to testify, but was effectively prevented from doing so by his attorney’s failure to prepare him for trial. Since I was the person most frequently mentioned by the prosecution, the one principally accused by the indictment and in other ways, in a trial in which I was in fact innocent, but not permitted to respond to the mass of charges presented in the indictment and prosecution’s proceeding, that trial was, necessarily a farce in fact in its entirety. Indeed, it would be fairly estimated that my testimony alone, taking into account direct, cross, and redirect, would have required about two to three additional weeks in itself.
The problems were, first of all, the fact that many of the defendants were not given sufficient time, at arraignment, to obtain attorneys to represent them at trial before the trial date was set. Second, more significant, was the fact that those attorneys, many hastily secured, were not in collective agreement on having me testify in my own defense, lest, in their opinion, that might pose an element of risk for some among the other defendants. Since most among those attorneys refused to agree on preparing themselves effectively for my testimony, I was, in point of fact, effectively denied the right to testify. Motions for severance, although made, were summarily denied. Otherwise, the trial would have had a different ultimate outcome. Later, it turned out, this denial of the effective possibility of testifying there, was largely the work of a relevant snake working from inside the defense’s preparation of the case, who exposed his true role most blatantly, on this and other counts, both during trial, and in post-trial developments.
Legal sophistries put aside, in reality, the importance of my testimony in that case, is that there were numerous instances of crucial, blatantly false statements made, under oath, by certain key witnesses for the prosecution. These included many matters of which I had not only first-hand, but fully corroboratable knowledge. These were of crucial relevance for the jury’s hearing in that trial.
Admittedly, as a practical matter, some of these issues, even the most important ones, were willfully, and wrongly precluded from trial by the judge’s pre-trial in limine rulings. Nonetheless, there were many matters which had been raised by the prosecution’s case, on which the facts, if presented, would expose the massive degree of lying by many prosecution witnesses, and willful fraud, in fact, in argument of the prosecutors. Unless those issues were forced into consideration by my personal direct and cross examination in court, those crucial issues would not be, in fact, considered by the jury panel, even though a significant number of them were either addressed or alluded to in the closing summaries of defense attorneys.
The importance of this is underlined if one considers the sheer mass of false testimony, delivered under oath, by what existing evidence proves to have been corrupted witnesses, and if one takes into account, from the verbatim record, the additional mass of what was in fact false testimony, which was introduced as argument from the mouths of the, factually, culpably witting prosecuting attorneys.
The most crucial fact, which attorneys secured on such short notice, were often poorly qualified to address, is that any politically motivated prosecution is, first and foremost, a political trial by definition, whatever the proper or fraudulent pretexts for the indictment which have been crafted by the prosecution.
Such trials are designed, either by prosecutor’s intentions, or by unavoidable implications of bringing a prominent political figure to trial, to bring about what are inevitably political ends by means of the criminal charges. In all cases, when the political implications of such a case are kept out of trial, the trial itself is a fraud, by virtue of fallacy of composition of the facts addressed. A person on trial is who they are; a notable political figure on trial is, by definition, a figure of political controversy. In this case, even the charges themselves alleged political motivation as the characteristic feature of the alleged mail fraud. I was a figure whose character had been subjected to a massive political attack, over a preceding period of years, by all of the leading mass media in that area affecting the selection of the jury pool. The mind of the population represented by the jury pool had been polluted over at least twelve preceding years, and most intensively during the preceding four years, by this politically motivated mass-media campaign. Judge Bryan’s pre-trial rulings, and his survey of the prospective jurors was not only wrongful, but clearly fraudulent, in light of these facts well known to him.
Apart from that pollution of the jury selection-process, neither the jury, nor the court in general could cut through the chaff clouding any such case, unless the implicit issue of the political motivation behind the prosecution were brought clearly into view, thus to be judged, on related evidence, as relevant to the charges, or not. Sometimes, the indictment and trial of a political figure is justified in fact. Sometimes the charges against such a figure might involve a pure and simple offense under the criminal code; even in such cases, the issue of the possibility of reasonable separation of the charges from the political associations, must be fairly presented to the court and its jurors.
In any variant, as in the Boston trial, or what would have been an honest trial in the Alexandria case, sorting out a case in which the criminal charges are fabricated for political purposes, from one in which the honestly charged defendant is a prominent political figure, is precisely the most important problem which the jury, and the jury alone, must be equipped to decide in any trial by jury of a political figure. In this case, the prosecution and also the trial judge applied their greatest efforts, including the judge’s in-fact fraudulent use of a Rule 403 exclusion of admittedly relevant evidence, to prevent the jury from hearing the actual case which was, in fact, being set before them. Thus, Judge Bryan perpetrated willful fraud on the court by virtue of fallacy of composition.
This rule is most emphatically applied in the instance of a well-known political figure, especially one as violently and fraudulently vilified as the Washington Post and other scalawag mass-press had deliberately saturated the area of the jury-pool for that trial. The jury could not help but reach a trial decision highly colored by political considerations brought into the jury-room by a corrupt mass-media, over many years, prior to and during the time of trial. If the relevant political figure, as defendant, is fraudulently charged, as I was in that case, and if the court is rigged, as Judge Bryan rigged this trial, and if the mass-media has attempted to whip the jury-pool into a lynch-spirit, as in this case, and if that political figure does not take the stand in his own defense, under direct and cross-examination, he is fairly certain of conviction, no matter how innocent he may be in fact, or how much the other evidence presented should have persuaded an honest jury of the defendant’s innocence of the charges.
On consideration of this trial and conviction, a leading international legal authority, Professor Friedrich-August von der Heydte, made two sets of observations. First, he compared the Alexandria LaRouche case to that of the celebrated Captain Alfred Dreyfus. It took five days longer to obtain a fraudulent conviction of Dreyfus, than in a far more complex case of trial of both me and my six co-defendants.
The Issue of Law
Professor von der Heydte made a second, separate point, which I endorsed publicly at that time. The conduct of the trial judge in that case, reflected, and that most plainly, a specific, and rapidly worsening corruption of U.S. law, today, which is more ominous than even the horrid Nazi law associated with the legacy of Germany’s Carl Schmitt and Roland Freisler. This corruption, typified by the tendency of Federal courts to adopt the Lockean principle of shareholder value, is to be recognized as a combination of radical positivism and the specific, interchangeable conceptions of slaveholder or shareholder value, associated with both the doctrine of the Confederate States of America, and the current doctrine among a leading element of the U.S. Supreme Court, as typified by the frequent resort to sophistry by Justice Scalia, today. The result of such a union of Locke and radical positivist law, is to be compared with the standpoint in law represented by the most notorious fictionalized figure of Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus, or with the perverted notions of law of real-life Roman Emperors such as Tiberius, Nero, Caligula, and Diocletian.
In summary, under such positivist mode of sophistry in law, the table of justice is rigged, like a crooked gambling table, before the victim is seated. Then, the rules by which the trial is rigged, are invoked apologetically by such corrupt legal authorities, to purport to show that the trial was according to “the rule of law”: according to the “rules”; in this case, as corrupt Judge Bryan’s corrupt in limine rulings attest, the rules were the special, Kafkaesque rules which those sophists and their fellow-travellers had made up for that occasion. The apologists, affecting a pose of self-righteousness, and lacking any other kind of righteousness, insist that since the trial followed their rules, the proceedings were, in the mouth of one later-exposed mole inside the defense team, therefore “fair.”
Under the conditions defined by those two observations of Professor von der Heydte, as in the conditions of the infamous trial of Socrates, the very name of justice is a contradiction in terms. Only fools will say, under such circumstances, “But didn’t he get a fair trial according to the rules?” Who sets the rules, and how are they set? How are the rules, and the rule-makers to be judged? Can judges be considered persons privileged to be acting as the members of an autonomous private club; or, must they be accountable to some higher, less capricious standard of rule-making? If the rules exclude relevant truth, then, as in the lynch-trial of Socrates, it is the members of the court, not the accused, who should be condemned, like England’s Chief Justice Lord George Jeffreys before them, and, perhaps, like him, imprisoned for what are in fact crimes representing the greatest danger to both the republic and the general welfare of its people.
In fairness, on this point, the following qualifying observation should be included here.
Admittedly, the U.S. Congress has enacted many bad statutes. Presidents have promoted legislation, or condoned it, which, by every moral standard conceivable, they should have opposed. Under our Constitutional form of self-government, the immediate functional remedy for such errors, is to be sought in the Federal Court, which must rule on such matters out of an informed and cultivated conscience, even in defiance of the contrary prevailing opinion of the other Federal branches. However, when the Federal Courts go sour, as their decadence has unfolded during the recent quarter-century to date, only the combined forces of the other two branches have the immediate authority to correct this.
What if all three branches fail to resolve an error? Then, there are only two higher authorities to which to appeal. One is the carefully deliberated expression of the people’s own interest in promoting the national defense and general welfare, the expression of the general welfare from whose moral and other political authority of our Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution were derived. If that fails, there is but one higher authority to which to appeal for justice. That latter is sometimes referred to as the judgment of history, according to which history punishes, or even weeds out nations and cultures which suffer a manifestly incurable want of the moral fitness to survive. The ultimate authority of the principle of the general welfare of the people on this account, is revolutionary, as the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence affirm this. The power of the still higher authority, history itself, is of a more awesome quality.
In the final analysis, the only true authority for man-made law is reason. The authority of government, even its right to exist, lies solely in the duty of government to effect the efficient promotion of the general welfare of all its population and their posterity, as this is echoed in the first four paragraphs of our Declaration of Independence, and also the Preamble of our Federal Constitution.
The judgment to be passed upon either a system of law, or the willfully persisting maladministration of that system, must be considered on two successively higher levels.
In its simpler aspect, is it to be compared, in first approximation, to the deductive model of a Euclidean classroom geometry, as the derivation of proofs according to a cultivated knowledge of an underlying set of both stated and implied definitions, axioms, and postulates.
However, on a higher level, the process of lawmaking and judicial procedure must recognize that, in statecraft, as in physical science, all previously existing sets of definitions, axioms, and postulates are subject to change, that in the same manner that validated new universal physical principles are discovered in science. If what was rightly validated as true beforehand remains true, not only must false assumptions be purged, but previously omitted, newly validated principles incorporated within a multiply-connected manifold of verifiable universal principles.
The most important consideration to bear in mind, is to distinguish what is subject to such change, from that which is not. What can never change, under a sane rule of law, is the definition of the human being as being of a different nature than all the lower species. The adherence to that enduring principle, defines absolutely the distinction between civilized forms of society and the bestiality of slavery, cannibalism, serfdom, and other forms of inhuman barbarism.
We human beings are each unique, relative to all other species, in our power, not merely to learn, but to discover new validated universal physical and other principles, by means of which our species is enabled to increase its per-capita power in and over the universe. In this respect, we are all made equally distinct from the beasts, and, in this respect and degree, made equally in the image of the Creator of this universe. It is upon the recognition of, and service to this principle, that all decent law-making proceeds. This principle, as the Declaration of Independence and Preamble of our Constitution variously acknowledge, and otherwise reflect it, this principle of the promotion of the general welfare represents the only legitimate basis in law for the existence of government, and is the underlying, unchanging cornerstone of all good law and justice.
Thus, in honest law, the issues posed by the existence of this, and also certain additional underlying axiomatic assumptions, are always lurking. Conclusions must not only be proven, but we must always keep those underlying axiomatic considerations in mind. In each matter before us, the always lurking issue is: what is the axiomatic standpoint of the respective parties, and of the court itself?
Are any among these axiomatic assumptions false, relative to the matters at issue? In a positivist doctrine of law, these crucial considerations are excluded axiomatically; rather, the case is tried as Rabelais’ famous justices Kissbreech and Suckfist would prefer, or in some equally scurrilous, irrational mode. In an honest trial, the underlying axiomatic assumptions of contending parties, and of the court itself, are always issues implicitly to be considered, and to be treated actively as axiomatic issues whenever the evidence relevant to that point of axiomatic controversy, might be a manifest issue of the matters actively at trial.
Therefore, according to that single, supreme principle of natural law, the cognitive power of reason, through which mankind discovers those true universal principles, by means of which mankind increases our species’ power within and over the universe, is in itself the highest authority in making and application of law of, and among nations. Thus, in those means by which we discover how to cooperate in increasing mankind’s power in and over nature, we find the proof of what we rightly call reason. It is from those powers of reason, so cultivated, that we may adduce those rules of law by which we ought to be governed, and also govern ourselves.
If our notion of “rule of law” becomes as perverted in practice as it has tended to become, especially in the degree we have experienced during the recent thirty years or so, and if the people do not change this, then the higher power of reason will act in response to the fact, that we have shown ourselves a people which has mislain, or perhaps even lost the moral fitness of a nation efficiently to survive.
I mention that very important, and relevant point here. I shall return to it at an appropriate point, in the concluding section of this report. At this point, the immediately following point, bearing upon that, is to be considered.
In contrast, the fact that much of the legislation, judicial practice, and public opinion encountered today, is essentially irrational, represents a special quality of lunacy from which our nation must free itself, if this nation itself is to survive. Among such lunacies, the worst is the violation, or neglect of our government’s duty to promote the general welfare efficiently; on that, the very legitimacy of government and courts depends absolutely. The submission of President Clinton to the pressure of Vice-President Al Gore, in adapting to the bestial so-called “welfare reform” proposed by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, or the actions of the Democratic National Committee, in supporting the racist motion which attorney John Keeney continues to argue on its behalf, typify those kinds of actions, by which a government, a political party, or even an entire nation, undermines its moral authority to continue to rule and exist.
The “LaRouche case,” thus, has the associated special importance, of showing what sorts of disoriented persons, even often lunatics, or worse, rule so many of the institutions of power and great influence in our nation today. The naked and persisting travesty of justice in this case, should be taken as an ominous warning to us, of what we must change, if this nation itself is even merely to survive.
2. The Historical Setting of the Case
Since the final, 1848 stage of the fall from power of the decaying Habsburg Empire’s Clement Prince Metternich, the conflict between two mutually exclusive principles of government, has dominated the entirety of the principal affairs of each and all nations of globally extended European civilization. The LaRouche case, as summarized above, is no exception to that rule. The presently leading conflict within the morally crisis-stricken U.S. Democratic Party, is also no exception to that rule.
The early Nineteenth-Century decline and fall of the power of the old, princely, feudal landed aristocracy, left European civilization under the domination of a conflict between two contending social forces. On the one side, there was the triumphant modern form of ruling financial oligarchy, a form of society and state brought forth in the Netherlands and England under the direct influence of those ruling sets of Venice’s financial-oligarchical families which had been led, successively by figures such as Paolo Sarpi and Abbot Antonio Conti. This was the financier oligarchy against which our patriots opposed both the bloody tyranny of William of Orange and the new British monarchy established with the accession of George I.
Our republic, created in such circumstances, was of a new form. It had its ancient roots in such precedents as Solon’s reforms at Athens, in the Classical Greek struggle for the establishment of republics, and in the ecumenical conception of man brought to Classical Greek culture by such Apostles of Jesus Christ as Peter, John, and Paul. The founders of our constitutional republic followed the Fifteenth-Century precedents of statecraft of France’s King Louis XI and England’s Henry VII.
When, during the course of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, the conditions in Europe, became an insuitable political climate for establishing true republics consistent with the commonwealth principles of Louis XI and Henry VII, Europeans committed to that cause, established colonies in the Americas. These colonies, at least the best among them, such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the Winthrops and Mathers, sought to build up true commonwealths, otherwise to be known as republics, in the Americas. It was their desire, that not only should these nascent republics prosper, but that they become, in the later words of our friend the Marquis de Lafayette, temples of liberty and beacons of hope, in the eyes of our strife-ridden friends and political allies among the peoples of Europe and elsewhere. That role and mission, the fostering of a community of principle among perfectly sovereign such republics, has been crucial to the very continued existence of our republic, a fact which has been recognized by all great patriots of our republic as our nation’s true manifest destiny.
Unfortunately, even up to the present date, Europe has not yet succeeded in establishing durable forms of true constitutional republics. Great reforms, especially reforms inspired by our successful struggle for liberty against our own British oligarchical oppressor, have occurred. For a time, some among us had good reason to be hopeful that President Charles de Gaulle would lead his nation into becoming a true republic. Unfortunately, despite the great democratizing reforms which have occurred in the old world, the constitutions of Europe are still but the reformed relics of feudal institutions of government, under an arrangement in which parliaments are as often the victims of a reigning financier oligarchy, operating like a puppet-master from behind the scenes, as master of the nation’s affairs. Such was the nature of the way in which Anglo-American oligarchical interest destroyed the sovereign political system of Italy, beginning 1992, and the way in which Anglo-American oligarchical agencies have prompted the eruption of a similar destabilization of the representative political institutions of Germany, and potentially also France, most recently.
Unfortunately, since the establishment of our own constitutional republic, we as a people have often been betrayed by ourselves. Today, as often during the past, our nation has been more often the victim of inherently wicked, powerful forces living among us, than of any foreign power. Among us, there are chiefly two powerful enemies, and yet a third powerful cause for our recurring, self-inflicted sorrows.
Our republic’s two explicit internal enemies of note, are, first, a financier oligarchy, which came to be centered in New York City’s Wall Street, around the circles of British Foreign Office agent Aaron Burr; and, second, the tradition of the slaveholding planter oligarchy, the tradition we associate with the Confederacy. The third enemy, is the persisting folly among the ordinary people of our nation, those whom President Abraham Lincoln described by observing that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and most of the people, as today, all of the time. The persisting propensity of the majority among our people to be fooled, is the third, and most important source of all those afflictions we have suffered since our republic was established. The wicked minority, the concerts of Wall Street financial-oligarchical interest which follow in the footsteps of Aaron Burr’s Bank of Manhattan, and of the slaveholder tradition, are the minority which has been able to rule during so many intervals of our history, solely through the recurring disposition of the majority of our people to behave as political fools.
Thus, it came to be the case, that the financier-oligarchical legacy, jointly represented by the Wall Street financier interest and its law firms, and the Lockean legacy of the slaveowners’ tradition, have been my only significant political enemies here, within the United States. The others among my opponents, are simply people, of sundry stations, behaving, not uncommonly, as fools. To understand that conflict between me and those significant political enemies, and such among their lackeys as the Justice Department’s John Keeney, is to understand each and all of the leading issues expressed in thirty-odd years of the “Get LaRouche” operation.
The political issue which underlies the continuing de facto criminality of the Justice Department’s permanent bureaucracy, is exactly the same as what Henry Kissinger identified, in his Chatham House address, as the conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. That, for example, has been the only essential conflict between me and Kissinger, throughout the recent approximately thirty years to date.
However, like the infinitely corrupt Fouché and Talleyrand of their own time, today’s creatures such as John Keeney and Kissinger, or the Trilateral Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, are but liveried lackeys disguised in mufti. To locate the political issues of our time, one must first address them according to the famous prescription of England’s Alexander Pope: “Pray, Sir, and whose dog are you?” One must identify the mere lackeys by their masters.
The proximate origin of that political conflict today, can be efficiently traced from the successful assassination of President William McKinley, in 1901. That assassination, arranged through the Henry Street Settlement House of Emma Goldman, made a scion of the Confederacy, Theodore Roosevelt, President. It was that Roosevelt, and the man he made President, Woodrow Wilson, who introduced those sweeping disastrous changes in our institutions, which have brought us repeatedly to the verge of ruin during today’s preceding hundred years. The Criminal Division of the Justice Department, as typified by John Keeney and J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, is an exemplary, Wall Street-controlled, creation of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidency, and one of the key puppets of Wall Street inside the permanent bureaucracy of our government, to the present date. The satanic figure of bureaucrat Keeney, typifies such mere puppets of the bidding of Wall Street financier interest and its attached law firms.
Typical: specifically, the FBI was first established, as the National Bureau of Investigation, by Theodore Roosevelt’s Attorney General, Charles Bonaparte, a Fouché of his time, and an authentic member of the Bonaparte family, who plainly stated his intent to create a Bonapartist style of political police agency in the United States. He proposed a secret political police, like that under the Emperor Napoleon, and under the latter’s nephew and Lord Palmerston appointee as ruler of France, Napoleon III. This secret political police became known, chiefly, as the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover notoriety.
Typically, Theodore Roosevelt’s mentor was a famous traitor to the United States, his uncle, the rabid Anglophile Captain James Bulloch, a notorious filibusterer and head of the foreign intelligence service for the Confederate States of America. “Teddy” represented, as his adopted patron, the notoriously tainted, rabidly Anglophile, Wall Street faction of the national Republican Party, the bitter enemies of such Lincoln Republicans as Garfield, Blaine, and McKinley.
Typically, the man whom Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose theatrics made President, Woodrow Wilson, was a fanatical admirer of the Ku Klux Klan, who launched the mass-organizing for a revived Klan, openly, from that Executive Mansion which “Teddy” had renamed “The White House.”
In that time, New York Republicans and New York Democrats were interchangeable parts. Tilden’s campaign had ended Reconstruction, and Cleveland’s Presidency had installed both the establishment of a Wall Street-controlled permanent Federal bureaucracy, in the abused name of “reform,” and also the Jim Crow doctrine enshrined by “separate but equal.” The Sons of the Confederacy and Wall Street were as one in their determination to uproot and eradicate the legacy of Presidents such as Washington, Monroe, Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley.
Typical of wretches of his pedigree, Theodore Roosevelt rewarded those who had brought him into the Presidency by unleashing, in the name of “trust-busting,” an onrushing takeover of American productive entrepreneurship’s interests, by the interlinked Wall Street and London financier oligarchies. The design of the Federal Reserve System, on the initiative of King Edward VII’s chief financial agent inside the U.S., Jacob Schiff, and the establishment of that Federal Reserve System by a Roosevelt-backed racist, President Woodrow Wilson, typify the counterrevolutionary character of the changes introduced to the U.S. and its economy, under the successive Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge. Except for the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, the United States as a republic could not have survived what the Presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge wrought.
In the setting of the years following the assassination of the President John F. Kennedy who had made a knowledgeable commitment to revive the Franklin Roosevelt legacy, I found myself moving into a new way of personal life. My principles were not altered; they remained, axiomatically, those which defined my entire development over the first thirty years of my life. What changed, during the middle of the 1960s, was an emerging new sense of personal responsibility, and mission, in defense of this nation from the greatest dangers which I recognized as emergent at that time. There were either very few individuals who accepted that responsibility at that time, or, if they existed, they have vanished, unheralded, from the scene. Thus, my own emerging role in our national political life has been a unique one, both within our nation, and, increasingly, in the world at large. As a correlative, this relative uniqueness of my qualifications on this account has produced, as reaction, the relative uniqueness of the campaigns of assassination, defamation, and prosecution, which the Justice Department and its Wall Street masters have conducted against me, around the world, during these recent thirty years.
Thus, in that time, especially after the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, I found myself amid a growing political vacuum of national leadership, a general lack of those specific qualities of leadership needed to pull the nation back to at least the level of quality of outlook characteristic of the best features of the Lincoln tradition and the Franklin Roosevelt legacy.
At first, my role in our political life was that of a gadfly, a critic of the prevailing absurdities of that time. After the follies of President Richard Nixon’s decisions of mid-August 1971, my situation changed rapidly. Because of my exceptional combination of qualifications as a cultivated original thinker and economist, and also my temperament, I began to emerge rather rapidly as a significant new political figure in our nation, and among nations abroad. It was to this that the herders of the political sheep pens and slaughterhouses reacted early on; by late 1973, they had decided to orchestrate my assassination by the FBI’s puppets within the National Committee of the Communist Party U.S.A. As the behavior of the leading mass-media since 1973 attests, and as the three decades of the still-ongoing Justice Department operations against me attest, the oligarchical managers of our nation’s political sheep-pens are still at their bloody work.
Think of the way in which cattle-breeders manage their herds. The fat, milky, and manageable critters, they breed; those difficult to control, or ill-suited to menial labor, or those which are simply deemed too numerous to suit their master’s pleasure, they cull. That is the way the slave-catchers culled their captives. That is the way in which oligarchies, throughout the ages of known history, have managed the political herds over which they ruled. Traditionally, as the case of the assassination of a J. Edgar Hoover-targetted Martin Luther King attests, oligarchies and their menial lackeys do not wait until an insolent specimen becomes a serious threat to the oligarchy’s arrangements, as Presidential pre-candidate Robert Kennedy did; the oligarchs tend to order them killed before they might have the chance to develop, to become a serious threat. With the oligarchs and their lackeys, that is partly a matter of instinct: the instinct to kill what they dislike. Among cleverer managers of the political herd, there is a more cultivated motive for such killings and kindred enterprises in culling the popular herd.
It is in the nature of any sort of oligarchical society to descend into self-inflicted crises of existential implications. In such crises, there tends to be a quickly spreading, popular receptivity, born in desperation, to consider new ideas. I have referred to this as a “Pearl Harbor Effect”: the often sudden changes in the temper and outlook of even the majority of the population in the moment “the bomb drops.” If there are voices which might qualify as new leaders, under such circumstances, important changes may be introduced to society. If such leaders are wanting, or have been culled beforehand, the old oligarchy will either retain power, or soon regain it, and “the same old crap goes on all over again.”
Since human nature itself is alien to the state of being human cattle, the impulse within the population, especially among the young, to establish new institutions consistent with actual human nature, is relatively strong, especially during shocking crises, then at least for a relatively short time. Great changes for the better may occur under such circumstances. The adopted self-interest of the oligarchy is either to prevent such changes, or to adapt to them with the intent to recapture their old, customary power, if perhaps in a slightly modified form, once the population has settled into preoccupation with the banality of narrowly defined personal and local self-interests.
If one views the case of President Franklin Roosevelt, and of President John Kennedy, from this historical vantage-point, the oligarchy’s continuing hatred of Roosevelt, and of Kennedy, to the present day, is easily recognized. Then, and now, the oligarchy and its lackeys think: Prevent that from ever happening again! That reaction is virtually a matter of instinct.
This reaction operates not only against mavericks who might become President. The oligarch’s rule is to weed out potentially troublesome persons of republican impulse at all levels. Either to kill them, imprison them, defame them, or neutralize them in other ways, including such tactics as the pure and simple personal, financial, or other corruption used to manufacture the prosecution witnesses for the Boston and Alexandria trials.
Essentially, the culpable characters in the Justice Department, the FBI, the Democratic National Committee’s bureaucracy, and the mass media, are simply lackeys; but, as one might recall from the study of feudal and other history, it is the lackeys who usually do their masters’ dirty work, and who seem, like Nazi SS men, to enjoy it the most.
So, in 1973, Wall Street’s Justice Department lackeys said: “Kill him!” When I began to play a marginal role internationally, and then run for President, the oligarchy reacted, by judging me to be potentially even much more dangerous than in 1973. By 1982, my influence internationally had reached the level at which the oligarchs decided to eradicate me and everything associated with me. They did so because they were frightened, because they fear that someone might do as I was committed to doing: utilize the impending global crisis to bring back the American system and its legacy. That, indeed, I will do, if I am allowed.
That, in short, is the one and only true reason for the prosecutorial and other dirty operations against me and my friends, to which I have referred here. The concern of the oligarchy and its lackeys is to be rid of me in any way possible. Only countervailing considerations of factitious advantage and related notions of political expediency deter them from simply killing me at any early moment. I fear what will become of all of you who survive me, if I am taken from you in that or similar ways.
The Historical Issue of Those Trials
The leading issue, which set Wall Street and the Supreme Court into bitter opposition to President Franklin Roosevelt then, was Roosevelt’s advocacy of the cause for which our nation’s founders had established our independence and our Federal Constitutional republic. That advocacy is stated, as I have already emphasized here, in the first three paragraphs of the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Federal Constitution. In that Preamble, the most distinguishing, fundamental principle of law, upon which the distinguishing features of the remainder of that Constitution are premised axiomatically, is the principle of the general welfare. That was always the issue between President Franklin Roosevelt on the one side, and oligarchical forces of Wall Street and the Supreme Court on the opposite side.
That bitter, axiomatic issue, is the pivotal motive for our oligarchs’ hatred of Franklin Roosevelt then, and of me today. It is also the key to understanding the moral issue which rots out the political and other character of even most professing Christians, and similar hypocrites, in the U.S.A. today.
Thus, the political history of the Twentieth-Century U.S.A. became the tale of the two President Roosevelts: Teddy the louse, versus Franklin the patriot. Thus, the root of the same issue, is the issue of two mutually exclusive conceptions of individual human nature: the one the notion of man as endowed with that power of cognition, which defines all persons as made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, and the opposite, oligarchical assumption, an assumption expressed in the axiomatically bestial, empiricist notions of human nature, the conception of man expressed by both Bernard de Mandeville’s satanic fable, The Fable of the Bees, and the related, oligarchical notions of slaveholder or shareholder “values,” the latter considered as axiomatically supreme in law-making.
The willingness of the Federal Court to condone the mass-murder of citizens through application of shareholder value to HMO practices, welfare reform, Social Security, and other domains, puts these issues of contending legal principle into sharper focus. Implicitly, whenever the courts, for one, uphold the premise of shareholder value, or kindred premises, for decisions disfavorable to the principle of the general welfare, that court’s majority is urinating upon the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution, acts which are rightly considered as impeachable. Consider, as a most relevant example of this point, the landmark decisions associated with the regimes of the currently reigning, and ruining Governors of the Federal states of Texas, Florida, and Virginia. Consider the recent history of relevant majority decisions by the Supreme Court in that light. Keep in mind, as you consider this matter, the phrase “culling the popular herd.”
Consider the case in which a convict, sitting on death row, has the prospective benefit of evidence showing either that he, or she is probably innocent, or simply that the relevant trial was so polluted in character, that the case must be returned to fresh trial. Consider the number of such extreme cases of death-row inmates which have been rushed to execution in defiance of reasonable evidence of such flaws in the judgment at trial. Consider, then, the instances in which the relevant state and Federal judicial and other authorities have argued that the desire to establish the perfect “finality” of death-sentences overrides the considerations of truth and justice. Consider the number of such cases in which decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have either ordered executions to proceed, in effect, or in which model such decisions by that Court have cleared the way for termination at the lower levels of decision-making. Consider the relevant, perverted state of mind expressed by both of the relevant sons of former President George Bush in such and related matters.
What does the mere existence of such a condition say of the entire system of Federal justice today? It says that the Federal system of justice has become a prosecutorial crap-game, and a rigged one at that. It says, that truth is no longer axiomatically a consideration in our Federal system of justice. It says that the Federal courts have tended to become the mere rubber stamps for such Fouchés of the Federal prosecutorial bureaucracy as John Keeney.
Ah! But there is something else of great importance to be considered. The role of mass-media-orchestrated “popular opinion,” that popular opinion which is the last resort of appeal by the common scoundrel of today.
This modern cult of media-orchestrated popular opinion, so defined by Woodrow Wilson’s Walter Lippmann, is to be recognized as nothing other than an echo of the same cult of vox populi, under whose reign ancient Rome guided itself into that moral degeneracy which brought about the great Dark Age of the First Millennium A.D. Thus, through the cult of popular opinion, Rome acquired its fatal loss of the moral fitness of its culture to survive. We as a nation, have been following that same road to Hell, during no less than the recent three decades.
The leading, characteristic pathology of that self-doomed Roman culture was the corruption of the mass of the population by the methods of “bread and circuses.” There is virtually no moral difference between the form of entertainment which the Romans enjoyed in the Coliseum under the worst of the Caesars, and popular mass-entertainment today, both TV entertainment, and such forms as mass-spectator stadium and related sports events. If one compares the pornography and blood-and-gore in mass entertainment, with what usually passes for mass-media news broadcasts, one should recognize, with a sense of horror, the systemic likeness of the moral depravity of ancient Roman culture and our own. Worst of all, perhaps, is that such orchestrated depravity has been the principal influence shaping the conduct and outcome of our recent national and other election-campaigns.
The only remedy for such an imminently fatal moral sickness as that disease of popular opinion, is a combined sense of reality and truthfulness, as Plato, for example, supplied modern civilization its method for defining truthfulness and justice. We can only hope, that the impending, massive shock, of the now-looming, chain-reaction collapse of the world’s present financial system, will drive the population out of the delusions of current, presently doomed financial markets, into a sense of a real world, in which what we will be able to consume, will be simply what our nation is able to produce: a sudden return to reality, prompted by a shock akin in its effects to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
When reality-shock brings your neighbor to his senses, at last, remember what I have told you about the great questions of history, justice, and the battle between oligarchs and real human beings.
Now, spectators, I have given you the score-card. Choose your sides accordingly. Now, recognize that it is increasingly often the case, that only those who speak honestly of their convictions, these days, are telling the truth. Thus, I have told the truth you urgently need to know.
[fn_1]. During 1974-76, the State Department circulated internationally, the January 1974 New York Times attack on LaRouche, and other vilifications drawn from both the FBI and private sources. For example, on March 18, 1976, a cable was sent “To All American Diplomatic and Consular Posts,” describing the National Caucus of Labor Committees (the philosophical association founded by Lyndon LaRouche) as “a small, fanatical . . . violence-oriented” organization, and repeating other derogatory characterizations taken from the FBI. After a Bangladesh government newspaper published an article by an EIR correspondent, a March 24, 1976 cable was sent to the U.S. Embassy in Dacca, over Kissinger’s signature, also quoting from the New York Times. Declassified State Department documents also point to the involvement of Kissinger’s State Department in the expulsion of EIR correspondents from the Foreign Press Association in Germany in 1975, and in the arrest and detention of an EIR correspondent in Lima, Peru in 1976. [back to text for fn_1]
[fn_2]. Boston’s Federal Judge Keeton is among the notable exceptions. See his review of the abortive trial over which he had presided: See Memorandum and Order, August 10, 1988, U.S.A. v. The LaRouche Campaign, et al., United States District Court District of Massachusetts CR. No. 86-323-K. [back to text for fn_2]
[fn_3]. A fair, if incomplete view of the reasons why this characterization is required, is to be obtained through study of the documentation supplied in the 1989 publication, Railroad! See below. [back to text for fn_3]
[fn_5]. The belated release, in January 1992, of the official FBI document exposing the FBI’s 1973 intent to bring about what the FBI described as the “elimination” of Lyndon LaRouche, is typical of the way in which crucially clarifying elements of evidence have turned up, sometimes decades after the fact of the matter. See references to that “elimination” document, below. [back to text for fn_5]
[fn_6]. In the August 16, 1999 oral argument before a three-judge panel in D.C.’s Federal District Court, Keeney stated, “. . . The Dissent is going to put into question the Constitutionality of the Act [the 1965 Voting Rights Act]. And that’s a different question than the statutory interpretation of the act itself.” The Dissent to which Keeney referred was authored by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia and endorsed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas in the 1996 case Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 116 S. CT.1186 (1996). [back to text for fn_6]
[fn_7]. The principal relevant U.S. Justice Department official, back in 1983, and still today, is a top official of the permanent bureaucracy of the Department, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney, the father of the same John Keeney, Jr., who, as attorney for the Democratic National Committee, moved in Federal Court for the nullification of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See “John Keeney, John Richard, and the DOJ Permanent Bureaucracy,” EIR, June 30, 1995; “Justice Department: The Corruption Is in the Permanent Bureaucracy,” EIR, April 25, 1997; and, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Lying and Racism inside the Democratic Party,” EIR, Dec. 17, 1999. [back to text for fn_7]
[fn_8]. E.O. 12333 Section 2.7 reads, “Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. . . .” [back to text for fn_8]
[fn_9]. On March 27, 1973, various Philadelphia media, including Channel 3 TV’s 6 p.m. news and the Philadelphia Tribune, gave wide coverage to an announcement by the FBI’s surrogate Communist Party U.S.A.-linked Ed Schwartz, head of the Philadelphia Campaign for Adequate Welfare Reform (CAWRN), which demanded a halt to the holding of the founding conference of the National Unemployed and Welfare Rights Organization (NUWRO), an organization catalyzed by Lyndon LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). Schwartz’s statement also called for the Left to stop the NUWRO conference, and following its airing by the media, Communist Party hooligans deployed to mobilize riotous assembly to prevent the conference from occurring. [back to text for fn_9]
[fn_10]. The release of this document essentially did no more than confirm what we knew and stated at various points during the course of December 1973 and early January 1974. We had conclusive evidence of collaboration between certain U.S. and foreign official agencies, including the United Kingdom and the State Security agencies of East Germany, during the second half of 1973. We also had repeated evidence of activity by known hit-squad capabilities imported into New York City, and directly targetting me during December 1973. The FBI document confirms the facts we reported to the press during early January 1974. The fact that the FBI was orchestrating the affairs within the Communist Party’s National Committee in this way, has global strategic implications for the U.S. government at that time. Two facts from the middle 1970s illustrate the point in a crucial way. First, in early 1974, a top official of the Soviet diplomatic service emphasized that CPUSA National Chairman Gus Hall was “a personal friend of Leonid Brezhnev,” then Soviet General Secretary. This discussion, in New York City, was initiated by a Soviet diplomat, in the immediate aftermath of the abortive elimination operation conducted with FBI coordination, during December 1973. Second, as corroborated by crucial documentary evidence secured during that same period, the East Germany Ministry of State Security was conducting an operation against me, run, in part, through West Germany, from about February 1974 through no later than June 1974, during part of the same period of operations referenced by the FBI “elimination” document dating from November 1973. [back to text for fn_10]
[fn_12]. September 24, 1976, Stephen Rosenfeld writes an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace,” in which he sets out a media policy for dealing with LaRouche: “We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms. . . . The government should be encouraged to take all legal steps to keep the NCLC from violating the political rights of other Americans.” [back to text for fn_12]
[fn_13]. Letter from FBI Director Clarence Kelly to Warren Hamerman dated September 13, 1977. This letter ostensibly closed the case then being used as a pretext for continuing the ongoing FBI COINTELPRO and related operations. However, the operations actually continued internationally until about the same time that the Mont Pelerin Society and Anti-Defamation League were launching their 1978 “COINTELPRO”-style operations under nominally private covers. [back to text for fn_13]
[fn_14]. The American Family Foundation (AFF) created the fable that LaRouche was the mastermind of a destructive and dangerous cult. This became attached to most media portrayals of LaRouche, and laid the groundwork for the infamous 1986 raid by a joint Federal-state task-force of 400 armed agents led by the FBI on offices related to LaRouche’s activities in Leesburg, Virginia. An armed task-force also surrounded LaRouche’s Leesburg residence, and according to statements by law enforcement operatives involved, plans also called for an attack which would have murdered LaRouche.
The wanton killing of innocent children and others at Waco by a similar task-force, had the crucial involvement of AFF-linked “experts” such as Rick Ross of the Cult Awareness Network.
The AFF was established in the early 1980s as a private counterintelligence and special operations group modelled on the “Watson Plan” of IBM’s Thomas Watson, Jr. At the close of World War II, Watson drew up operational plans to “privatize” the function of the Office of Strategic Services on behalf of some of Wall Street’s most powerful families, who normally avoid the spotlight, using a network of private corporations and law firms for operational and financial support.
An operational war chest of more than a million dollars was amassed for AFF’s early projects, and its largest donors included the Bodman Foundation and various foundations of Richard Mellon Scaife. Watson’s nephew, John N. Irwin III, was a member of Bodman’s board of directors. Scaife funded John Train’s “Get LaRouche” Salon. Bodman was housed in the law offices of Morris and McVeigh, who provided support to the intelligence operation known as the Process Church, a satanic cult, whose active supporters included John Markham, the lead Federal prosecutor in the Boston trial of LaRouche.
The AFF launched the early-1980s operations in Europe against LaRouche’s associates there. Father Haack, AFF’s International Education director, coordinated operations in Germany and France, exporting the cult slander with a 1980 article in the German publication PDI. PDI was later documented to have been funded by the East German intelligence service, the STASI. [back to text for fn_14]
[fn_15]. The ADL has always maintained a close relationship with the DOJ’s permanent bureaucracy. For example, a February 4, 1985 FBI memo to all field offices in the United States, contains a list of ADL regional telephone numbers and the FBI’s speed dial codes for these numbers. [back to text for fn_15]
[fn_16]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “How Our World Was Nearly Destroyed,” and Stuart Rosenblatt, “How Mr. Fixit Nearly Wrecked the World,” a book review of Kai Bird’s biography of John J. McCloy, The Chairman, in EIR, Oct. 23, 1998. [back to text for fn_16]
[fn_17]. United States Senate, Hearings before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities; Vol. 6, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 94th Congress, Second Session, 1975. [back to text for fn_17]
[fn_18]. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was adopted by Congress in November 21, 1974 as a by-product of the Church Committee and related proceedings. This is a crucial development, as bearing upon the post-September 1977 shift to the attack launched jointly by Heritage, ADL, et al. [back to text for fn_18]
[fn_20]. The June 1978 Heritage Foundation “Institution Analysis” Report authored by Francis Watson entitled “U.S. Labor Party,” utilizing a bizarre set of formulations gathered from such “sources” as the hard-line Maoist October League newspaper, and the Socialist Workers Party newspaper, The Militant. Branding LaRouche a violent extremist, it was distributed to hundreds of U.S. corporate heads and institutional leaders. In March 1978, the ADL began a systematic harassment and defamation campaign, working through the Jewish Community Relations Council to demand that LaRouche’s views be banned from public locations, and publishing the lie in various press outlets that LaRouche was the most dangerous and violent right-wing extremist around. See, e.g., the Berkeley Barb, August 1978, “Who Are the Terrorists,” where ADL Western Coordinator David Lehrer spread this defamation against LaRouche. Finally, in 1979, the ADL put these defamations out in its own name in an ADL Fact-Finding report. [back to text for fn_20]
[fn_22]. On October 7 and 8, 1979, the New York Times published the Blum and Montgomery slander piece under the titles, “U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy,” and “One Man Leads U.S. Labor Party on Its Erratic Path.” Then, an editorial titled “The Cult of LaRouche,” was published on October 10, 1979. [back to text for fn_22]
[fn_23]. The three relevant Executive Orders are:
E.O. 12331, Oct. 20, 1981, which reestablished the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). PFIAB was originally established in 1956 under Eisenhower; it was dissolved by Carter, and reestablished in the Reagan-Bush Administration. Members of PFIAB in 1982-1983 included: Anne Armstrong (chairman), Leo Cherne (vice-chairman), David Abshire, Edward Bennett Williams, Adm. Thomas Moorer, Bobby Ray Inman, H. Ross Perot, and Claire Booth Luce.
E.O. 12333, Dec. 4, 1981, “United States Intelligence Activities,” a revision of E.O. 12036 (1978); it established the National Security Council as the “highest Executive Branch entity” for review, guidance, and direction of all foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and covert operations, and it permitted U.S. intelligence agencies to enter into secret contracts for services with “private companies or institutions.”
E.O. 12334, also Dec. 4, 1981, reestablished the Intelligence Oversight Board, a three-member board which provided legal “cover” to covert operations. [back to text for fn_23]
[fn_25]. In the July 23, 1979 meeting, reporter Blum stated that the proposed New York Times article was intended to start a government investigation of LaRouche and his associates and he needed an “eye catcher.” Blum stated that, “The article does not have to be especially true.” Blum went on to say, “A government investigation is what you and I want, isn’t it?” and, “. . . while it might sound cynical, it is more important for the government that something appears in the New York Times than whether or not it is true.” [back to text for fn_25]
[fn_27]. During a period including May 1983, NBC-TV reporter Pat Lynch participated in planning sessions hosted by New York private banker John Train. These meetings featured Train’s coordinating role, using agents of NBC-TV, the Wall Street Journal, Readers’ Digest, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and members of the intelligence community then linked to Vice President George Bush and Lt. Col. Oliver North, to orchestrate a coordinated campaign of mass-media defamation against the 12333-targetted LaRouche. Pittsburgh multi-millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, of Ted Olson Salon notoriety, was a key backer of the operation which brought King and drug-use promoter John Foster “Chip” Berlet into the Train cabal’s operations. As ADL operative Myra Boland’s later testimony showed, NBC-TV’s Lynch had lied under oath in deposition hearings, respecting Train’s role in shaping her libelous frauds of March 1984. Train and members of his circle such as Pat Lynch, served as a cover for conducting controlled witnesses, called “defectors,” into the witness pool of perjured witnesses for Federal prosecutors’ use in both the Boston and Alexandria trials. The methods of brainwashing used to create such witnesses have been documented in legal discovery of government and related evidence. All of the witnesses among so-called former associates of the defendants, were part of that witness pool maintained under private cover, thus providing prosecutors the pretext for evading their accountability for use of what they knew or suspected to be perjured witnesses. The core of this prepared pack of perjurers was the group identified at both the Boston and Alexandria trials as the “Hallowe’en Party” group, the group which NBC-TV’s Pat Lynch conduited to the Federal prosecutors. [back to text for fn_27]
[fn_28]. On August 19, 1982, Henry Kissinger wrote a “Dear Bill” letter to FBI Director William Webster thanking him for an earlier note, and to put him on notice that Kissinger’s attorney, Bill Rogers of Arnold and Porter law firm, would be contacting him “about LaRouche.” Four days later, Rogers sent a letter to Webster asking for the FBI to look into the LaRouche “group,” thanking the Director for his “interest in the matter,” and relating that Kissinger hopes “the Bureau takes appropriate action.” On September 16, Webster replied that the FBI is “limited” in what it can do “since the data we have [don’t] justify an inquiry,” at this time. Eight days later, the FBI’s Security Chief of Intelligence Division, James Nolan, issued a report on “LaRouche and the EIR,” concocting a pretext for launching a foreign counterintelligence investigation of LaRouche and EIR by claiming that their activities and publications are “propitious to Soviet disinformation and propaganda interests” even though “there is no firm evidence that Soviets are directing or funding LaRouche or his organization.”
Then on November 25, Kissinger again writes to Webster demanding an investigation of LaRouche and his associates, but this time he uses the buzzwords “disinformation campaign supported by foreign intelligence services,” and insists that the FBI must find out “who finances this network.” This November 25 letter is hand-delivered to Webster by PFIAB member Edward Bennett Williams. In December, various divisions of the FBI look into it, but conclude there are no violations of law. But then, on January 12, 1983, Webster reports that at a PFIAB meeting the subject of whether the FBI had a basis for investigating “under the guidelines or otherwise,” the “U.S. Labor Party and . . . LaRouche,” is discussed. Edward Bennett Williams raised the question of “sources of funding,” and “whether hostile foreign intelligence agencies” were involved. The tripwire had been crossed, and on the same day the General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS) of the DOJ filed a formal request for the FBI to open an investigation. [back to text for fn_28]
[fn_29]. John C. Keeney, Sr. joined the Justice Department in 1951, during the heyday of J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthyism, and was assigned to the Internal Security Division; Keeney was put in charge of anti-communist Smith Act cases until 1960, when he transferred to the Criminal Division. Since 1973, he has been the senior career prosecutor in the Criminal Division—where he has far more power than the temporary political appointees who nominally head the Criminal Division.
Senator Edward Kennedy in 1973 said that “the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department represents the Second Coming of Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee.” The Internal Security Division was disbanded after the Congressional investigations of the 1970s, and its functions and personnel were divided up between the new Internal Security Section of the Criminal Division (espionage cases and the Foreign Agents Registration Act), and the newly created General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS) of the Criminal Division.
The most notorious figure from the old Internal Security Division was Guy Goodwin, who ran over 100 grand juries in the early 1970s targetting radicals, anti-war activists, unions, and others. Goodwin went into GLLAS as a special advisor in 1979.
Much of the “LaRouche” portfolio also went into GLLAS, under the direction of Benjamin Flannagan, who had been in the old Internal Security Division with Keeney starting in 1955. Flannagan headed the unit in GLLAS called “special civil matters,” which included the defense of civil actions which could “interfere with . . . national security operations.”
It was the GLLAS section, which ordered the FBI to investigate Henry Kissinger’s complaints against LaRouche. Five days after the January 12, 1983 meeting of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a Justice Department memorandum from D. Lowell Jensen, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, instructed the FBI to report the results of its investigation directly in writing to Lawrence Lippe, the chief of the GLLAS section. Kissinger’s law firm, Arnold and Porter, in Washington, communicated directly with Lippe and the GLLAS section, according to FBI documents. [back to text for fn_29]
[fn_30]. Beyond the Kissinger matter, GLLAS was involved in virtually every aspect of the LaRouche case in the 1980s. In 1984, GLLAS defended the Secret Service’s denial of security protection to Presidential candidate LaRouche. The litigation was handled by GLLAS senior legal advisors Benjamin Flannagan and Victor Stone.
In 1986, GLLAS was assigned by then-Criminal Division head William Weld to coordinate collection of the Boston contempt fines against organizations identified with Lyndon LaRouche—which led to the illegal bankruptcy seizure of three publishing and distributing companies. In March 1987, Weld contacted James Reynolds of GLLAS, to ask if there would be any problem for prosecutors in the LaRouche criminal case, if the government were to initiate an involuntary bankruptcy action. Shortly after this, four senior GLLAS attorneys, including Flannagan and Stone, held a conference call with DOJ bankruptcy specialist David Schiller. Documents later released under the FOIA contain handwritten notes made by Reynolds during the call, in which Reynolds wrote: “Benefit is that a trustee is immediately appointed. They are ordered to shut down the business immediately.” A marginal note next to this reads: “Trustee’s role is to shut down the entities.” (This totally contradicted the prosecutors’ official denials, that they did not intend to shut down the publishing companies.)
When the judge in the 1988 Boston trial of LaRouche ordered an “all-agency search” of Federal agencies, including the office of Vice President George Bush, for any exculpatory documents concerning LaRouche, it was Benjamin Flannagan of GLLAS who coordinated the search—and, of course, found nothing.
After the collapse of the Boston case, the Justice Department prepared to move the case to the Eastern District of Virginia, where they could be certain of having a rigged judge and jury. However, to bring a second indictment while the first was still pending was highly questionable, even by Justice Department standards. Prosecutors went to Mark Richard for formal approval to bring the second prosecution against Lyndon LaRouche, and then Keeney signed the official authorization.
On October 14, LaRouche and the other targets of the Alexandria prosecution went into Federal court in Washington, D.C., to attempt to enjoin the pending indictment. Because the action involved a pending grand jury indictment, the courtroom, presided over by Judge Stanley Sporkin (the former CIA general counsel), was closed. Just as the proceeding got under way, two attorneys from GLLAS, Flannagan and Stone, came running breathlessly up to the courtroom and demanded entrance. In an affidavit submitted in a later case, Flannagan stated that he had been “personally directed by . . . John Keeney to go to Judge Sporkin’s courtroom” to assist Alexandria prosecutor Henry Hudson in opposing LaRouche’s request for an injunction. Sporkin quickly denied the injunction, and within a few hours, LaRouche and six co-defendants were indicted. [back to text for fn_30]
[fn_31]. This included an official, fraudulent, and defamatory letter, dated March 18, 1976, issued against me internationally over Kissinger’s personal signature. The issue was my ongoing campaigning for monetary reforms consistent with the proposal for a just new world economic order adopted at the August 1976 Colombo, Sri Lanka conference of the Non-Aligned Nations organization. [back to text for fn_31]
[fn_32]. Excerpts from Kissinger’s 1974 “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” Dec. 10, 1974, were published in EIR, June 9, 1995. [back to text for fn_32]
[fn_33]. This was a two-day EIR seminar in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 18-19, 1982, on ballistic missile defense based on new physical principles. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Only Beam-Weapons Could Bring to an End the Kissingerian Age of Mutual Thermonuclear Terror: A Proposed Modern Military Policy of the United States,” a National Democratic Policy Committee pamphlet (New York City: 1982). [back to text for fn_33]
[fn_34]. In all its principal features, the relevant, concluding five-minute segment of the President’s March 23, 1983 address, followed the outline I had presented as a tentative option, to the Soviet Government, at a Washington hotel back-channel meeting of 1982. This coincidence was not accidental. Notably, however, Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Daniel Graham’s Heritage Foundation, which had been a savage opponent of SDI during the latter part of 1982 and early 1983, intervened quickly, through certain Republican Party channels, to force a radical modification of the policy, modifications which led into the intrinsically incompetent notion of ballistic missile defense being popularized in some circles today. [back to text for fn_34]
[fn_35]. The transcript of Kissinger’s Chatham House address was obtained by EIR from Kissinger’s office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The chairman of CSIS was David Abshire, who was one of those who pressed Kissinger’s demand for an FBI investigation of LaRouche upon the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in January 1983. [back to text for fn_35]
[fn_38]. During this period, Kissinger received a series of appointments to official posts within the Reagan Administration, including to PFIAB itself. These appointments of Kissinger correlate precisely, in form and intent, with the establishment of both Project Democracy and its twin, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to the board of which latter Kissinger was appointed. The latter two Orwellian concoctions in the art of Doublespeak and Newspeak, Project Democracy and NED, played a pivotal role in aspects of the “Get LaRouche” task-force’s operations then, and that role continues to the present day. [back to text for fn_38]
[fn_39]. After the mistrial in Boston, several jurors were interviewed by the Boston Herald. The May 5, 1988 issue carried a headline, “LaRouche Jury Would Have Voted ‘Not Guilty.’ ” The article reported that jurors would have “unanimously decided they would find LaRouche, six aides and five organizations innocent of all charges based on evidence presented since the trial began on Dec. 7.” One of the jurors interviewed cited government misconduct as a compelling factor in his vote: “It seemed some of the government’s people caused the problem [for LaRouche] . . . adding that evidence showed people working on behalf of the government may have been involved in some of this fraud to discredit the campaign.” See Railroad! [back to text for fn_39]
[fn_41]. See footnote 30. It is instructive to note how many of the same Justice Department and GLLAS personnel, who were involved in the targetting and frame-up of LaRouche, are also implicated in the filing of false testimony in the case of renegade CIA officer Edwin Wilson in the early 1980s, and then covering up this prosecutorial misconduct. [back to text for fn_41]
[fn_42]. As post-trial evidence showed beyond doubt, in that trial, not only most of the key prosecution witnesses, but even members of the jury gave false testimony under oath! The prosecution was fully witting that those witnesses’ testimony was false. [back to text for fn_42]
[fn_43]. The FBI waited until the very day that the illegal bankruptcy was filed, April 20, 1987, to begin interviewing lenders. On that date, an FBI telex was sent to every FBI office in the United States and internationally, with instructions to begin interviewing LaRouche’s political supporters who had made loans to the publishing companies that the Government had just bankrupted. The telex included instructions that agents should persist in their efforts to interview lenders, to the point of undermining those individuals political support for LaRouche. [back to text for fn_43]
[fn_44]. The record shows, that the entirety of the charge of loan fraud was a concoction of a joint prosecutorial task-force of Boston and Alexandria Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia prosecutors. The record shows, that it was the intent of Federal prosecutors to fabricate a loan-fraud case by these combined operations of February and April 1987. It was decided to hold these charges back, held in reserve for the contingency that the Federal prosecution might fail in Boston. As related trial proceedings in other locations proved, the characterization of the loans in these cases, by both Virginia and Federal prosecutors, was a willfully fraudulent one. [back to text for fn_44]
[fn_45]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Oct. 12, 1988 Berlin address forecasting the imminent collapse of the Comecon system, and the early emergence of Berlin as the capital of a reunified Germany. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Presidential candidate’s nationwide TV broadcast, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Oct. 31, 1988. The full transcript appeared in EIR, Nov. 4, 1994. [back to text for fn_45]
[fn_46]. This was indeed pointed out to Judge Bryan, who would not permit fact or considerations of truthfulness to interfere with his determination to keep his railroad running on his arbitrary schedule. [back to text for fn_46]
[fn_47]. Take into account the months of saturation of the Virginia population from which the jury pool was drawn, with the heavy propaganda of defamation against me from the Washington Post, and virtually all of the mass print and electronic media of the area. Then, consider the trial judge’s pre-trial and in-trial rulings on relevant matters, and the perfunctory and, in fact, corrupted voir dire of the jury selection itself. Judge Bryan was fully witting in his fanatical rigging of this, as in other features of pre-trial and in-trial rulings. [back to text for fn_47]
[fn_48]. Which, as post-trial investigations showed, this jury was not. See Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, U.S.A. v. LaRouche, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, (4th Cir.) Docket No. 92-6701. [back to text for fn_48]
[fn_49]. “LaRouche Was Innocent, as Dreyfus Was,” Washington Post, March 1, 1989. “LaRouche Case Like Dreyfus Affair,” International Commission for Human Rights, Washington Post, March 3, 1989. [back to text for fn_49]
[fn_52]. “Why the British Kill American Presidents,” New Federalist pamphlet, December 1994, pp. 24-31; and Anton Chaitkin, “Why the British Kill American Presidents,” unpublished book manuscript, 1995. [back to text for fn_52]
[fn_54]. In 1976, I was already the best qualified among the visible candidates to become President. For the sake of our nation, I should have become President in 1980 and 1988. I am the only candidate actually qualified to be President at the present crisis-juncture. Think of the flip side of that point; why have no other qualified candidates appeared at this juncture? There should be dozens of qualified candidates contending at open party nominating conventions. The culling-process has reduced our citizens’ actual choices to but the one candidate the oligarchical interest is most fanatically determine to crush and eradicate. [back to text for fn_54]
[fn_55]. If you think seriously about the matter, Martin Luther King was the person best qualified, personally, to become President in 1968, and should have become President, had he lived, in 1972 or 1976. He had proven his capability of pulling most of the nation together for the purpose of justice for all of the people, a rare quality among candidates of the recent three decades. [back to text for fn_55]
[fn_56]. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits (London: 1714). Mandeville argued for legalization of all vices, with the argument that the mysterious processes of percussive interaction among individuals’ impulses, must automatically produce a result consistent with public interest. This same satanic doctrine of Mandeville’s was explicitly adopted by the late Friedrich von Hayek as the religious premise of his and Professor Milton Friedman’s Mont Pelerin Society, the hand behind the Washington, D.C. Heritage Foundation and numerous other rabidly “free trade” cult-organizations polluting the political scene today. Lord Shelburne’s puppet, Adam Smith, adopted the satanic doctrine of Mandeville as the central feature of his 1759 Theory of the Moral Sentiments, and adopted the implicitly Frondist dogma of pro-feudalist Dr. François Quesnay’s laissez-faire as one of the many features of the Physiocratic dogma plagiarized for Smith’s own Wealth of Nations. One might often wonder, whether the sly Justice Scalia recognizes the satanic origins of his own response to the dogma of shareholder value. [back to text for fn_56]
Visit the Fidelio archive