The Criminal Trials

In 1986, hundreds of state and federal officers raided LaRouche offices in Virginia and Massachusetts. A federal grand jury in Boston indicted LaRouche and 12 associates on credit card fraud and obstruction of justice.

Transcripts EXCLUSIVE: The Trial Transcripts

More Trial Transcripts HERE.

  • Boston trials.
    • In U.S. v. Frankhauser, Frankhouser testified that he and LaRouche security employee Forrest Lee Fick had invented a connection to the CIA in order to justify his $700 a week salary. They persuaded a friend to play a former top CIA official (“Mr. Ed”) in meetings with LaRouche associates who, according to LaRouche group lawyers, came to believe that they had a direct line of communication to the White House and Kremlin through Mr. Ed.
    • The trial of LaRouche and his six co-defendants, U.S. v. LaRouche Campaign, began on December 17, 1987. Throughout the trial, three of the indicted individuals were fugitives: Michael Gelber, Charles Park, and Richard Sanders. According to Roy Frankhouser, they had been sent to Europe.
  • Alexandria trial LaRouche and six associates were indicted on October 14, 1988, on charges of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. After a short trial in 1988, LaRouche was convicted of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and tax evasion, and was sentenced to prison for fifteen years. He entered prison in 1989 and was paroled five years later in 1994. In separate state trials in Virginia and New York, 13 associates received terms ranging from one month to 77 years. Three LaRouche-related organizations were forced into bankruptcy. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark joined the defense team for two appeals.

MR. ROBINSON (The “United States”): Yes, Your Honor.
Your Honor, this is not, contrary to Mr. LaRouche’s assertions, this is not a political case. On the contrary, I think what the evidence clearly showed at the trial was that this was a case of theft. It was a case in which Mr. LaRouche certainly principally as the head of an organization and the rest of the defendants as his colleagues and subordinates, set about to do nothing short of stealing money.
it was a crime of theft which was cynical really. I think Mr. LaRouche probably more than anyone else is responsible for the cynical tone of it. It was Mr. LaRouche after all who said that the persons outside the organization were not morally fit to survive unless they contributed their money or loaned their money to the organization.
In this case as I think in any case it’s important for the Court to look at the defendant’s remorse and the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. I think what we have seen here this morning as we saw throughout the case, was in particular Mr. LaRouche’s absolute inability to accept his responsibility for what took place here, his absolute inability to show anything like remorse.
I think that what we can see from what Mr. LaRouche has said this morning, and his comments that he has made publicly about the jury’s deliberations in this case, is quite simply this; that if he had this all to do over again, if these defendants had it all to do over again, they would do the same thing. We haven’t seen any indication that they regret their action or feel remorse for them. They might have learned their lesson a little bit. There might be some mutation on their fundraising scheme which might make it a little bit more difficult to prosecute, but I think it is clear that they would do it again.

THE COURT: I am unwilling to accept in Mr. LaRouche’s case or any of these others, that the end, lofty as it may be, justifies the means that were resorted to in this case. It’s a serious case. It warrants incarceration for a substantial period of time.

Source: Alexandria sentencing proceedings.

LaRouche et al. can be expected to try to undermine, sabotage, and exploit any legal hearing, based on a track record going back over 30 years. Explained in this document: “PITTED AGAINST THE LAW”, June 14, 2010. Pdf file downloadable here (161 Kb):