Thursday, April 9, 2009

From the Virginia trial: Lyndon LaRouche tries to cover up his financial scams

Please look at the following dialogue from the Virginia trial against Lyndon LaRouche!

The person that calls himself the worlds leadning economist, does not even know who buys the clothes that he wears or the food that he eats!


  #1709   Report Post  
Old 04-04-2009, 05:01 AM
Paid Member
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 352

For the future psychiatry students who will be doing their PHD studies on cults and their leaders, please feel welcome to study the LC/LYM and Larouche to fully understand just how a Bizarro World is created and run in a seperate time space continuum What is very important for people to examine is just how utterly ludicrous the latest legal brilliance by Lyn is against Molly Kronberg and that uttered check.

Always keep in mind this idea. When Lyn writes this crap, it is for the internal consumption of the current members, not the real world. We are in a closed loop of the Bizarro World with the last gasping deadenders who surrendered their entire adult lives to a madman and current LYM and LYMettes who were born when the trials were underway as they surrender their adult lives

After surrendering your brain cells to Lyn over and over for decades, you will want and need to believe Lyn that the entire legal cases of the cult are based on a 5K check , located in Molly's drawers, a place which terrifies Lyn. The deadenders are asked once again to believe that Lyn knew all about this, just like he knew all about Detroit before they left , how Gus was a KGB agent, Chris White was brainwashed and Tony P had a "problem" in the DC area during a conference.

Wait, Lyn did know about Tony P's problem I reckon

Wait another dog gone minute here. According to EagleBeak, the infamous 5K check was not in her drawer, but in Richard W's desk drawer

Lyn also knew for decades that Molly was a committed Anglophile and spent all of those years baking cookies and pies for Church of England bake sales instead of editing and rewriting his screeds for all of those years. Oh, Lyn also knew that Molly was a FBI agent of sorts for all of those decades as well. Just shows you that Lyn finds it much easier to locate a G-Man or G-Woman instead of a G-Spot I guess.

How about we take a look at the closing arguments of the prosecuter in the Va trial and search for that infamous uttered 5K check Molly had hidden in her drawers?


Now, turning to the tax case for j ust a couple of minutes. Mr. Billington I think I needn't cover further. The tape speaks for itself about the false statements he made .Turning to the tax case, Mr. LaRouche is not charged with tax evasion. 
He is not charged with failing to file a tax return. And there is a simple reason for that. We don't know how much money he made. We don't know what his income was. Instead, he is charged with conspiring to hide his money from the Internal Revenue Service. He is charged with conspiring with other people to pretend that he had no income Now, basically he is charged with trying to fool the Internal Revenue Service, Now there are a couple of things that have gone into evidence that you haven't heard yet. Let me just read two of them to you. These are transcripts of some sworn testimony that Mr. LaRouche gave back in 1984, when he was asked about his circumstances. It will just take me a few minutes to read it. 

"Question: Do you pay the rent at Woodburn Farm?" 

"Answer" — and this is Mr.
LaRouche talking — "I personally? I personally do not pay the rent at Woodburn Farm." 

"Q Does Helga LaRouche pay the rent at Woodburn Farm?

A (
LaRouche continues to answer.) I do not believe so. 

Q Do you know if anyone pays the rent? 

A I assume someone does. 

Q Who do you assume pays it? - 

A I don't know. 

Q Where does the money come from? 

A What do you mean? 

Q Where does the money come from which pays for your stay at Woodburn Farm? 

A Obviously, I don't know, do I. 

Q Did you eat dinner last night? 

A Yes. 

Q Where did you eat? 

A At the house. 

Q Was there food in the house? 

Q Did you buy it? 

A No. 

Q Did Helga LaRouche buy it? 

A Not to my knowledge. 

Q Who bought it? 

A I don't know. 

Q With what money? 

A I don't know. 

Q How do you take care of daily living expenses, Mr. LaRouche? 

A I don't know. 

Q Do you live free?

A I don1 t know." 

Here's another excerpt from his testimony. 

"Q Who paid for the suit you are wearing, Mr. LaRouche? 

A I don't know, Mr. Cavalier (phonetic)" — the name of the lawyer. 

"Question: You just found it in your closet, did you? 

A No. It was a gift by persons associated with me some years ago. 

Q Are the other suits in your closet ones that you went out to a store and bought?

A I have on no occasion gone out to a store and bought any articles of more than a haircut, a $5 price in the past ten years. 

Q Do you know who pays for all the suits in your closet? 

A I do not, Mr. Cavalier. I do not know in detail. I have some general idea that they are gifts from people associated with me or other." 

The point is, he is denying any knowledge of his financial circumstances. He is trying to pretend that this money just kind of filters into his life without him having any idea where it comes from, and that's obviously absurd. And you saw the absurdity of that in this trial. 

Rick Magraw bought his suits. Rick Magraw testified that he did. Rick Magraw bought his suits with money from the LaRouche organization. And Mr. LaRouche knew that. But when he gave that sworn testimony, he had to try to hide all of that, because he was trying to hide the fact that he had income. 

And he did a good job. That is exactly why we can't figure out today exactly how much income he had. Let's take a little bit of a look for just a few minutes at what the income did show -- excuse me — what the evidence did show about his income. 

This Rick Magraw checking account, the budget for that was $2,500 a week or thereabouts. The accounting records that resulted from that that the expert witness was looking at yesterday showed that more than $200,000 were billed to something called advisory expenses between July and December of 1985. That is just part of the year. More than $200,000. We don't know how much of that went to Mr. LaRouche. We tried to piece it together the best we could with the minimal incomplete records that Mr. Magraw and his wife kept, but we don't know how much of it went to Mr. LaRouche. 
And remember this, he only had to get $1,081 in 1985 to be reguired to file a tax return. Maybe that's why when they asked him where his clothing came from and who paid for his housing, he said I don't know, because he had to try to distance himself from it. That was all part of the scheme to hide his income from the Internal Revenue Service. 
Ladies and gentlemen, the practice of paying all of Mr. LaRouche's personal expenses standing alone is enough to show that he had income during the years in question. We don't even have to get into Ibykus Farm and the housing and everything else. That is enough to show that he was getting income, and he was doing it in a way that was trying to hide it. 

But let's talk about the housing and the meals for just a second. Mr. Markham went into great detail about how much was spent on Ibykus, I don't need to do the same. There is a question about whether or not that's taxable income to him. The Judge is going to instruct you on what the law says about that. And what the law says is that under certain circumstances, and employee of a business doesn't have to report income for housing provided to him. Well, the first problem with that with Mr. LaRouche is that every . chance he has gotten in the past, he has distanced himself from this organization. He specifically said he wasn't an employee. He has specifically said that he wasn't affiliated or associated with Caucus Distributors or Campaigner Publications. 

Now, all of a sudden, we are in Court on trial on a criminal tax case, and the defense says he is an employee. It's a little bit too late to make that change of course for Mr. LaRouche. He is not an employee. If he is not an employee, then housing and the lodging is taxable to him. 

Second, the housing and lodging has to be provided for a noncompensatory purpose. All I mean by that is, you can't just decide not to pay somebody's salary and give him a house instead. There has to be a business purpose for it. Well, we submit that on the evidence in this case, it's clear that what this organization did, what Mr. LaRouche and his associates did was enter into a scheme to avoid paying him a salary, to avoid paying him normal wages like your normal person gets, for doing things like writing books. And instead, gave him a house. 

In effect, what they did was just try to circumvent the normal procedures so that there would be no way of figuring out how much he had really gotten in the way of inc ome. 
Now, as I said it's not just a guestion of whether or not he had income but it's also conspiracy to conceal that income. First of course he didnBt file tax returns. Second, when he Was asked about it, you have heard the testimony, he gave what can best be described as misleading answers to the guestions asked of him. You have seen the records, what little of them there are. They don't show how much money went to Mr. LaRouche, and there were a lot of different people involved in that record keeping process. The Magraws, Richard Welsh, many people were involved in this scheme to conceal his money. 

When Richard Magraw takes the witness stand, all of a sudden he is describing things that have been given to Mr. LaRouche, like clothing as gifts. Isn't it curious that that is exactly what Mr. LaRouche said when he gave the sworn testimony that I read to you a moment ago. Obviously, these people were working in concert, Obviously, they were working together to try to create this false impression that Mr. LaRouche doesn't have any income. 

A few other specific instances: Richard Welsh goes to talk to Murray Altman in the early 1980's, to prepare tax returns. 
He tells him that Mr. LaRouche is living with friends. That wasn't true. New Benjamin Franklin House Printing Company was paying $5,000 a month rent for an apartment for Mr. LaRouche. He wasn't staying with friends. 
In December of 1984, Richard Welsh, after Mr. Morganroth's conversation that he testified to yesterday, after that, Richard Welsh sits down and starts to come up with some schedules to see how it would affect the corporate tax liability if they backed out everything paid to Mr. LaRouche, if they treated it all as gifts. There is only one reason he could have been doing that, and that was because in December of '84, they were thinking about trying to reclassify all of the money spent on LaRouche as gifts. Why gifts? Because gifts aren't taxable. 

Obviously even then they were worried about money paid to him three years earlier, worried about trying to cover it up, trying to change what it was called so Mr. LaRouche wouldn't have a tax liability. Or that they could claim that he didn't have a tax liability. 
Two other things I want to mention to you: there are two specific exhibits in evidence. 

Could 1 have 20-R and 20-S? 

These are two exhibits I ask you to take a close look at when you get back in the jury room. These are some vouchers that were submitted for the purchase of things at Ibykus Farm. You will see right up here it says, "Title," and it's whited out there, and after that it says, "Entertaining," and over the white-out somebody has written in "VIP," Well, if you hold it up to the light just right, and those of you who have ever tried to read what was under white-out before will know what 1 mean. If you hold it up to the light just right, you can see what it says underneath that white-out. It used to say, "LaRouche." When it was originally typed up somebody typed up, "LaRouche entertaining. This is for formal china and silverware for Ibykus. Somebody whited that out and put VIP over that. 

That is the kind of records they kept. They did everything they could to conceal when expenses were being paid for LaRouche. They whited out what little records there were. 20-S the same way. Exactly the same thing happened. 

Lastly, you will recall there was testimony that a whole series of letters was sent to Mr. LaRouche by the IRS asking him where his tax return was, and asking him to explain why he hadn't filed a tax return. You will remember Richard Welsh testified that he received a letter back from IRS at the post office box that he had given them, but that's not the only evidence that Mr. LaRouche received those letters back. 

Exhibit 7-D, Ed Spannaus' notebook, page 217 — sorry -- page 204 — here's what it says; "IRS, three letters, standard form letter, LHL, care of GEL, Citizens for LaRouche, reguest of info about tax form. We have not received 1040 for period ending '81, '82, '83." 
Ed Spannaus saw the letters that the IRS wrote to Lyndon LaRouche asking him about his tax returns. You can infer from that that Lyndon LaRouche knew that the IRS had written to him asking him about his tax returns. You heard from the IRS witness that they never got a response back to that. 

Now, if Mr. LaRouche's status is so aboveboard, if Mr. LaRouche has been open and up front about his status, why didn't he just write back to them? He didn't write back to them because he couldn't, because he was involved in trying to conceal his income. It would have been simple to write a letter back, but he didn't, and that, I submit, is the final piece of evidence showing that there was a conspiracy to defeat the Internal Revenue Service, to try to fool the Internal Revenue Service, and Mr. LaRouche's involvement in it with several other people. 

Thank you, Your Honor* 

THE COURT: Suppose we take a short recess before defense counsel begin.

Agreed, let us take a short recess to reread that a few times

I would suggest that anyone with the IRS reread that and ask if anything has changed since we still Rick M handling money, no Ibykus, but accomodations, food, expenses, trips and other standards of living which are pretty hard to buy when your reported income is about 26K to 29K as Lyn was reporting

LaRouche Personal Financial Disclosure

LaRouche is living like a millionaire yet pretends living with a minimum wage! 

From "LL and New American Fascism" - Chapter Thirty-two - The Shell Game 

The NCLC's policy of keeping no assets in its own name dates back to 1978, when a $90,000 judgment against the NCLC was obtained by the Bank of Nova Scotia, The NCLC simply shut down its accounts and transferred its assets to controlled entities. An NCLC internal memo boasted that these assets had gone ''underground." 
LaRouche handles his personal finances in the same way. He holds no property in his own name, maintains no personal bank accounts within the United States, and receives no salary, ostensibly living off the charity of his followers. His residences are always owned or rented by associates, so that he appears to be a guest in his own house. In 1984 he testified in a lawsuit that he hadn't paid a penny in income tax for twelve years, and had no idea who paid for his food, clothing, attorneys, and other necessities. "I have not made a purchase of anything greater than a five-dollar haircut in the last ten years," he said. 

1979 Official income: $6,000 (1) 

2000 Official income: $29,041.52. (pdf file - 549 Kb.) . (2)

2001 Official income: $25,866.65. (pdf file - 524 Kb.) . (2)

2002 Official income: $26,451. (pdf file - 577 Kb.) . (2)

Last edited by xlcr4life; 04-04-2009 at 05:19 AM.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

No comments:

Post a Comment