February 20, 2009 (LPAC)–On February 18th, South Dakota Democratic State Rep. Richard Engels cited Lyndon LaRouche’s fraudulent criminal conviction in 1988 as the reason South Dakota legislators should send House Concurrent Resolution 1009 endorsing LaRouche’s Homeowner’s and Bank Protection Act (HBPA) to defeat. Engels, a Democratic lawyer from Sioux Falls, did not even discuss the content of the bill, which is the only approach that could save the U.S. from the devastation of the ongoing global breakdown crisis, which LaRouche alone had correctly forecast.
Given the fact that civilization depends upon the rapid implementation of LaRouche’s HBPA when all other measures have failed and will fail, the following statement exposing the responsibility of Molly Kronberg for the frame-up of Lyndon LaRouche is being issued publicly now for international circulation.
While the fact that LaRouche’s criminal conviction was fraudulent is well-known to those who have done their homework, it is necessary to restate the crucial facts here:
- Circles in the U.S. government associated with George H.W. Bush mounted an all-out legal and covert propaganda assault in 1983-1988 aimed at eradicating the political, scientific, and economic influence of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
- The first trial of LaRouche and co-defendants on phony financial fraud charges was brought in 1987-1988 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. That case ended in a mistrial because of what Federal Judge Robert Keeton termed “systemic government misconduct.” Jurors interviewed after hearing the government’s financial fraud testimony declared to reporters for the Boston Herald that they would have found LaRouche and his co-defendants not guilty had the case not mistried because of the government role in any financial misconduct charged. The Boston case was scheduled for retrial after it mistried.
- Following the Boston events, federal prosecutors rushed to indict and try LaRouche and six co-defendants in the Eastern District of Virginia, deliberately seeking to avoid a Boston retrial and a certain acquittal. The only new charge singled out LaRouche specifically — claiming that he engaged in a conspiracy to hide his tax obligations from the Internal Revenue Service.
- The critical evidence leading to the conviction of LaRouche on this count was provided by one Marielle Kronberg. In 1979 and 1980, Kronberg participated in a concocted scheme to arbitrarily impute income to LaRouche for purposes of appearances during LaRouche’s 1980 presidential campaign. Kronberg made out royalty checks from the publisher of LaRouche’s books to LaRouche. A tax return was drafted showing this imputed income to LaRouche but not filed because LaRouche, once informed, rejected the entire scheme as fraudulent. There were no funds in the publisher’s bank account to back the putative royalty checks when they were written, subjecting Kronberg to criminal jeopardy for uttering these and similar checks. The fact that LaRouche had denounced and repudiated the entire scheme and the fact of her own cooperation with the government based on fears of prosecution were left completely out of Kronberg’s trial testimony.
- Without this phony proof of Larouche’s “intent” on the tax count, the Alexandria case would not have been tried, since the government itself created the basis for failures to repay loans from political supporters which constituted the other Alexandria financial fraud charges. The U.S. government, in an action subsequently declared fraudulent by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, bankrupted the political entities receiving the loans, preventing loan repayments.
The “LaRouche” case would have then gone back to Boston, which LaRouche and his co-defendants would have won.
LaRouche was guilty of no crime. Neither he nor any of his co-defendants would have gone to prison if it had not been for the fact that the FBI used the crime committed by Molly Kronberg to blackmail her into giving false testimony.