eaglebeak New member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.86.52.59	Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 10:35 pm:        Is Lyn on Drugs? Yes, But Not Enough…. TO ALL POINTS: BY: LAR/HZL/WFW/ssu MORNING BRIEFING Tuesday, December 18, 2007 SUBJECT: A CASE IN POINT OF LAW HOW THE FRAME-UP WAS RIGGED December 17, 2007 (12:33pm) As the importance of my role in today’s history now soars toward the highest importance it has ever experienced thus far over the years since August 31, 1971, it is necessary that a certain public clarity be established respecting the alleged taint of the fraudulent Federal conviction of me in December 1988. I was never found guilty by any honest proceeding, of any Federal offense. The evidence of that fact is clearly on the record, and would have prevailed with an exoneration but for a continuing corruption by relevant official and other influential institutions. The delay in making this point of fact, until now, was caused by concern to avoid bringing forth facts for which honorable persons associated with the relevant Molly Kronberg, rather than Molly herself, were likely to suffer great pain. [Lyn here refers to Ken Kronberg. The claim that Lyn wished to avoid causing Ken Kronberg great pain is utterly contemptible. He caused him great pain when he said in an NC conference call of Nov. 21, 2005—reprinted in full in the briefing—“And so, we had a scam at PMR, and they almost bankrupted us, and nearly bankrupted themselves with this crazy scam.” He caused him intensifying pain throughout the next year and a half (declaring, for example, “Now we have our foot on Ken’s throat” as he deployed Barbara Boyd and Bruce Director against Ken in the spring of 2006), and culminating with the April 11, 2007 Morning Briefing, declaring “The print shop was the worst,” and advising “The Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you’re in the real world, and they’re not. Unless they want to commit suicide.”] Recent developments [presumably Molly’s blaming LaRouche and his coterie for Ken’s death] show that Molly, as it is said, “has nothing coming to her” now. Her ironical part in contributing to the fraudulent conviction must now be told.
eaglebeak New member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 23 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.86.52.59	Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 10:40 pm:        1. THE CURIOUS FACT By Spring 1983, following President Ronald Reagan’s public presentation of the U.S. Strategic Defense Policy (SDI) which I had initiated and led in crafting (sic), right-wing intelligence circles associated with, and otherwise typified by former Paris Review figure John Train and Richard Mellon-Scaife, launched an effort to eliminate my personality by legal and other means. Shortly prior to the general election of November 1984, the effort associated with Train, Mellon Scaife, et al., led to an extraordinary and largely fraudulent prosecutorial action by the Boston office of the U.S. Department of Justice. [This was neither extraordinary nor fraudulent, but an investigation of credit-card clipping by LaRouche supporters in the Boston local—three of whom were subsequently sent out of the U.S. to avoid a Boston grand jury as fugitives from justice.] This massive operation, using pretexts of investigation and other means to attempt to bankrupt and destroy every organization and leading person associated with me [No, it was investigating credit card fraud], continued through various phases up to a mistrial declared in Boston Massachusetts in the Spring of 1988. [Lyn forgets to mention that because of the disappearance of three fugitives, there occurred the October 1986 Federal/State raid on the org’s Leesburg headquarters, after which numbers of other members were indicted; Lyn finally got himself indicted after a bravura performance before the Boston grand jury, and it was that case that ended in mistrial.] At that time, the Boston Jury had polled itself declaring its faith in both the innocence of the defendants [not exactly…] and denouncing the Federal prosecution’s conduct in the proceedings witnessed thus far. Clearly, at that point, any retrial in Boston would have led to probable exoneration. So, the U.S. Department of Justice switched, inserting a reframed indictment in the Alexandria, Virginia Federal jurisdiction under Federal Judge Albert V. Bryan. I was indicted with co-defendants, on October 14, 1988, and soon brought to trial, tried, and pronounced guilty on December 16, 1988. The first of the two most remarkable features of this action had been the demand that the Alexandria trial must precede a scheduled date of January for a Boston trial of the original Federal case. [Apparently there was to be a Boston retrial after all….] From a standpoint of essentials, there was only one, very curious aspect of the Alexandria indictment which differed from the original case awaiting retrial in Boston. This was located in Count 13 of the Alexandria indictment. That Count 13 was used to color the case made on the other 12 counts affecting other named defendants. This 13th count was a tax-related count targeting me alone; the count itself was based on a fraud by the Alexandria court itself [gibberish], a charge whose crucial relevance for purposes of indictment and trial was a matter of an improper action, done in January 1980, by Molly Kronberg, an action of which I had had no knowledge from anyone, until the case actually went to trial. [But see below…] It was a fraudulently crafted action by the Alexandria prosecution itself, in the matter of its fraudulent construction of an action by Molly Kronberg, which proved to be the crucial element of strategy in the entirety of the prosecution of all among the defendants. [Lyn’s bottomless ignorance of the law makes his representations unintelligible. However, a reading of the Alexandria indictment and the relevant portions of the case clarifies those matters about which Lyn is absolutely clue-free.]
eaglebeak New member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 24 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.86.52.59	Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 10:50 pm:        2. THE MOLLY KRONBERG ANGLE In November 1979, a person representing himself to me as my relevant attorney of record, appeared unexpectedly in Manchester, New Hampshire, to declare that the New Benjamin Franklin House publishers had decided to settle its attributable royalties accounts with me by a lump-sum payment of $10,000 for which I would be taxable for the year 1979. [This mysterious person was either the NC who then headed Legal, but was to quit in 1980 along with Gus Axios, or an emissary of hers, possibly a then-member who was also a lawyer. Because these people left the org years ago, I will not name them.] A tax-filing form and the relevant FEC Ethics forms for Presidential candidates and pre-candidates was (sic) presented. I signed the prepared documents. Later, I discovered that I had been misinformed; that no such funds would be forthcoming, and there was no possibility, within reason, that such funds would ever be available for disbursement. [This is false, pure and simple. He was never so informed, for the simple reason that it wasn’t the case.] So, at the beginning of 1981, I instructed relevant persons [also almost certainly not true, but since “relevant persons” is an elastic category, not provably false] handling my accounts to remove the filing for the $10,000 which I had not received in1979, nor 1980, nor were ever likely to receive, and to correct the FEC filing accordingly. Actually, none of the corrections I demanded were ever made. [Actually, the check in question was found in the Finance Office by the Feds during the October 1986 raid.] It was only in the process of the 1988 Alexandria trial I encountered what was to be the crucial fact at trial: that Molly Kronberg had uttered assigned check, pre-dated to 1979, but actually entered in the checkbook in January 1980, this for an amount in the order of $7,000. [In other words, Lyn is saying he signed an FEC filing saying he had received this check when he had not, and when he did not even know that this check existed. That would be making false statements under the equivalent of an oath on a government filing.] The prosecution’s argument at trial, was that I had refused to accept the check, in order to take the cash amount without paying the taxes which would have been due upon it. When the Boston and Alexandria indictments are compared, the qualitative difference between the two is the way in which the stain of the fraudulent tax-related charge against me was used in aid of the conviction of all. [The core of the tax case did not rest on this check, which was one of a large number of predicates in a case designed to show, and succeeding in showing, that LaRouche defrauded the IRS.] The crucial fact was the way in which Molly’s name did not appear in the 1988 Alexandria trial proceedings. [This crucial fact is no fact at all. First, Molly was named in the Alexandria indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. Second, Molly actually appeared at the trial as a witness, called by the prosecution to testify about the check, about Franklin House payments for LaRouche’s New York apartment, and about other matters having to do with LaRouche’s income.]
eaglebeak Junior Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.86.52.59	Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 10:56 pm:        2. THE MOLLY KRONBERG ANGLE In November 1979, a person representing himself to me as my relevant attorney of record, appeared unexpectedly in Manchester, New Hampshire, to declare that the New Benjamin Franklin House publishers had decided to settle its attributable royalties accounts with me by a lump-sum payment of $10,000 for which I would be taxable for the year 1979. [This mysterious person was either the NC who then headed Legal, but was to quit in 1980 along with Gus Axios, or an emissary of hers, possibly a then-member who was also a lawyer. Because these people left the org years ago, I will not name them.] A tax-filing form and the relevant FEC Ethics forms for Presidential candidates and pre-candidates was (sic) presented. I signed the prepared documents. Later, I discovered that I had been misinformed; that no such funds would be forthcoming, and there was no possibility, within reason, that such funds would ever be available for disbursement. [This is false, pure and simple. He was never so informed, for the simple reason that it wasn’t the case.] So, at the beginning of 1981, I instructed relevant persons [also almost certainly not true, but since “relevant persons” is an elastic category, not provably false] handling my accounts to remove the filing for the $10,000 which I had not received in1979, nor 1980, nor were ever likely to receive, and to correct the FEC filing accordingly. Actually, none of the corrections I demanded were ever made. [Actually, the check in question was found in the Finance Office by the Feds during the October 1986 raid.] It was only in the process of the 1988 Alexandria trial I encountered what was to be the crucial fact at trial: that Molly Kronberg had uttered assigned check, pre-dated to 1979, but actually entered in the checkbook in January 1980, this for an amount in the order of $7,000. [In other words, Lyn is saying he signed an FEC filing saying he had received this check when he had not, and when he did not even know that this check existed. That would be making false statements under the equivalent of an oath on a government filing.] The prosecution’s argument at trial, was that I had refused to accept the check, in order to take the cash amount without paying the taxes which would have been due upon it. When the Boston and Alexandria indictments are compared, the qualitative difference between the two is the way in which the stain of the fraudulent tax-related charge against me was used in aid of the conviction of all. [The core of the tax case did not rest on this check, which was one of a large number of predicates in a case designed to show, and succeeding in showing, that LaRouche defrauded the IRS.] The crucial fact was the way in which Molly’s name did not appear in the 1988 Alexandria trial proceedings. [This crucial fact is no fact at all. First, Molly was named in the Alexandria indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. Second, Molly actually appeared at the trial as a witness, called by the prosecution to testify about the check, about Franklin House payments for LaRouche’s New York apartment, and about other matters having to do with LaRouche’s income.]
eaglebeak Junior Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 27 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.86.52.59	Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 11:12 pm:        3. HOW MY CO-DEFENDANTS WERE MISLED During the interval between the Alexandria indictment and my return from Europe, where I had traveled to clear my personal affairs in relevant ways, the entire policy of the defense had been switched with no notification to me. [This whole section is a non sequitur, airing another huge LaRouche grievance about Alexandria, for which he has never forgiven Ed Spannaus. However, it is factually incorrect: It is neither legally nor practically possible to change defense strategy in this particular way and force the change on a defendant.] The majority among the attorneys had agreed, with induced consent of my co-defendants, that I not testify in my own defense at trial. [Absolute twaddle. The majority of attorneys and defendants were strongly opposed to Lyn’s testifying, realizing what a deadly witness he would be. However, they had absolutely no legal standing to prevent him from testifying. A defendant can make two decisions that neither his lawyer nor anyone else can gainsay: 1. to testify in his own defense; 2. to demand a jury trial.] By the time I was able to demand that this decision be reversed, I found myself in a position in which the other defendants’ attorneys insisted I not be called to testify. [They had no standing to insist.] None of the work needed to prepare for my testimony had been done. [No work to prepare for his testimony could have been done without him; since he chose to go to Europe, no work could be done in his absence. This was not the fault of his co-defendants, nor of their lawyers. Quite apart from the fact that, as his own lawyer once observed, LaRouche could never be prepared to testify.] Had I testified, as I had fully intended to do from the outset, the conviction at Alexandria could not have occurred as it did. Molly’s signature on the uttered check, would have come to light, with the consequences that entailed. [This is nonsense, because of course, during Molly’s own testimony, her signature on the check came to the fore. It was part of the prosecution’s examination of her.] The truth about the crafting of the Alexandria case as a whole, would have come to the fore. [Lyn actually, clinically, has no idea what he’s talking about. See previous comment. The whole courtroom knew about Molly’s signing of the check. She testified to it.]
eaglebeak Junior Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 28 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.86.52.59	Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 7:52 am:        4. THE FEAR FACTOR The general opinion in and around the case was, that were I not convicted in Alexandria, I would have been soon assassinated by an arrangement with the interests behind the Federal prosecution. [So he should be grateful for his conviction, right?] “Take the fall” was the recommendation from numerous fearful souls [this may refer to Paul Goldstein’s repeated assertion that Lyn was being stuck in Federal prison by the Powers That Be to “protect” him—an assertion also made by Farzad “Carpet” Darui, I believe] who had gone through more than six years of hideous, grinding persecution by a corrupt mass-media, et al., and massive demands, during 1986, for virtually my assassination by the U.S. government, from the Soviet government of Gorbachev. All of this came about chiefly as the outcome of my initiating role. [Presumably referring to the SDI.] Even many among my associates, some present, some former, in the U.S.A. and abroad, breathed a sigh of relief when I went to prison. [I’m biting my tongue here.] I do not think anyone worth mentioning is still much concerned with legal action against Molly for her corrupt action in her implicating me by her uttering a fraudulent check. [Lyn evidently is unaware that she was immunized for her testimony before the Federal grand jury and again for her testimony in Federal court. Unless he means he wants to sue her himself... As for myself, after what Molly, who associated her cause with that of John Train, has contributed to bringing about of late, I no longer care. As for Judge Albert V. Bryan, there is no doubt in my mind that he knew exactly what he was doing, all along, as also the U.S. Department of Justice has known, all along, up to the present day.
eaglebeak Junior Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 29 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.86.52.59	Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 8:01 am:        There is much to be said about the preceding posts of the document by Lyn which formed the briefing lead for Dec. 18, but for now: 1. Molly Kronberg and a large number of other Labor Committee members were called to the Alexandria grand jury beginning in 1987, before the Boston mistrial. They were immunized for their grand jury testimony, and a number of them were subpoenaed back as prosecution witnesses for LaRouche's trial, among them Molly Kronberg, Rick Magraw, and Kathy Magraw. 2. LaRouche's testimony in the 1989 New York trial of Robert Primack, Molly Kronberg, Lynne Speed, and George Canning, in its monumental evasiveness, unresponsiveness, near-psychotic grandiosity, and falsity, prompted one of the defense lawyers (I have been told by someone who was present) to comment after LaRouche was escorted off the stand and back to Federal prison, "If I were the prosecution, I'd go out right now and get an indictment against him for perjury." One of the topics on which LaRouche "testified" in New York was The Check.
eaglebeak Junior Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2	Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 4:21 pm:        He Fought the Law and the Law Won A few more thoughts-- Doesn't it seem strange (to say the least) that it took Lyn 19 years to reveal the truth about the Alexandria trial? Imagine! Before that, we were told it was Kenneth de Courcy. We were told it was George H.W. Bush. We were told Henry Kissinger was the reason we couldn't repay those loans. And now, after all that ink expended on attacking George H.W. Bush--the Bush book, no less!--we find that it was really Molly Kronberg all along. After we spent big bucks putting out the book Railroad too! It's strange, in retrospect, that Molly and paralegal extraordinaire Barbara Boyd shared an apartment for the six months of the New York trial in 1989, when Barbara must have known that Molly was the reason Lyn was languishing in Rochester Federal Prison. Strange that the Spannauses didn't shun Molly completely, being as how she was responsible for Ed's being in prison too. Speaking of oddities, isn't it strange that Lyn blames Ed Spannaus for all the outrages of the Alexandria defense--and yet Ed was the only co-defendant who argued for Lyn to take the stand in Alexandria? When it comes to Lyn and the Law, it's all Nothing But Strange.