Wednesday, February 4, 2009


The following two memoranda, issued on Monday and Tuesday, were the topics of extensive discussion at the start of the NEC/LYM meeting with Lyn on Tuesday night.


Re: Reiteration of Policy Concerning Bad Checks

Recent disclosures require a restatement of policy regarding checks written without funds to back them, whether they are issued to the recipient or left sitting in a drawer.
Molly Kronberg played a key role in sending LaRouche, and with LaRouche, his Alexandria co-defendants to prison because she engaged in this practice.
In 1979 and 1980, Kronberg participated in a concocted scheme to arbitrarily impute income to LaRouche for the purpose of “appearances” during LaRouche’s 1980 presidential campaign. Kronberg uttered royalty checks to LaRouche dated in 1979 and 1980 based upon LaRouche’s authorship of books for New Benjamin Franklin House. There were no funds in NBFH’s account at the time to back these checks. A tax return was drafted showing this imputed income to LaRouche but not filed since LaROuche, once informed, rejected the entire concocted scheme as fraudulent. Kronberg’s check-kiting practices put her in jeopardy of a hefty prison sentence and resulted in her total cooperation with federal prosecutors.
The Kronberg/Kalimtgis scheme concerning “royalty” payments to LaRouche was central to the government’s purported proof that LaRouche knew he had income but schemed to hide it in order to avoid paying taxes. LaRouche was the central target of federal prosecution efforts and without this “proof” of LaRouche’s intent, the Alexandria federal case could not be sustained.
It should, therefore, be clear that leading individuals of this organization have already gone to jail because of a practice of writing bad checks to save appearances. This insane practice will not be tolerated whatever the alleged exigency.


February 3, 2009 (8:14am) EST

On the matter of fact bearing on the case of the error on a matter of law which became the subject of the memo by Barbara Boyd of this Monday, a memo which I prompted for reason of cause noted, on the preceding evening.
As Barbara Boyd’s succinct memo amply defines the issue of law, members of the NCLC executive body had committed an utterly unjustifiable error in practice against which I, for one, had, subsequently, repeatedly warned, concerning the notable, subsequently confessed fraud against me, which had been perpetrated with the assistance of Molly Kronberg during the interval of November 1979-January 1980. She (in the presence of her husband) had confessed that fraud and her motive for it to me personally, while I was sitting in the jail to which I had been brought for no reason but her intentionally fraudulent testimony. The point is that, had that relevant issue of fact in law been presented by the defense in the Alexandria trial, as it was not brought during the pre-trail (sic) or related proceedings, the case would have gone back to Boston, where a likely victory was clearly to have been feared by the prosecution.
Now, the error which had just been made now, could not have been made without complicity of several relevant persons of the NCLC leadership. This error by them required both my summary action in the immediate matter of law, and also a strong “letter” of rebuke by me, for the record, against those who had acted with such recklessness. They had acted not as leaders, but in the manner of mere bureaucrats, where petty personal considerations had superseded their implicitly sown commitment to a mission.
There is a related point to be emphasized.
The generation of income by this association depends upon a potential centered in the activities and support of LPAC. The error which had been committed by a section of the NCLC leadership this past week, represented an element of stupidity on that account. The pressure of the NCLC leaders who were involved in that error, came from the effects of the cliquish resistance to a moral obligation to full support of our association’s efforts, a resistance which is partially locate (sic) in those who foolishly defend Molly Kronberg’s increasingly, morally despicable actions.
Look back to the Alexandria trial-setting.

1. The entirety of the case crafted for the purpose of bringing the trial, under one set of charges in Boston, to different charges, and an altered set of defendants, in Alexandria, was done by the prosecution, itself acting fraudulently against the U.S. Government itself, on the basis of pressure by the prosecution, to prompt Molly Kronberg to lie under threat by the prosecution to charge her for a crime she had actually committed back in 1979-1980. If the truth of that matter had been presented at trial, the case would have returned to Boston, instead of Alexandria.

2. It was to cover for Molly’s violation of Federal Law in her continued sheltering of her role in a 1979-1980 check-uttering swindle under the auspices of a 1979-1980 Computron hoax, that relevant members of the association were complicit in organizing a false defense for the Alexandria trial.

3. Although I have not been exactly quiet on this matter among us, I had refrained from presenting the crucial facts about Molly’s role in orchestrating the Alexandria conviction and the January 1989 sentencing. (Every other case against members of our association during that interval, was a fruit of this same set of actions related to covering for Molly Kronberg’s role.)

4. Since these facts were well known to all relevant members of the NCLC leadership, the relevant action of last week required summary action by me, rather than an unnecessary discussion of the already clearly defined issues at hand.

5. It is that fact, that of (sic) a number of more less (sic) disaffected members of our association, have refused to assimilate the realities of Molly Kronberg’s various fraudulent and vicious actions, which had contributed to the poor performance among a certain relevant portion of the older members of the NCLC.

It is time for leaders of the NCLC to behave as political leaders, rather than bureaucrats. It should be clear any (sic) among them not turned dim-witted, that the well-being of this nation, and others, depends upon the part which we must play, and be enabled to play.

The disgusting spectacle of a moral breakdown of “ex’s” of a number not limited to the same disgusting, opportunism-inspired liar and renegade Webster Tarpley who kissed “F.Q.’s” ass publicly, in a fraud against historian H. Graham Lowry, should arouse our contempt and justified disgust for such degenerates, which prompts us to live up to what we are, that no one might confuse us with them. Lately the same Tarpley has lost connection with not only past and present, but is willfully lying about the future, even before it has occurred.