Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 25 June 2007

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Has anyone got links to transcripts of the cases? Rich Farmbrough 11:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there are any. A large portion of the transcripts was published by the LaRouche group back in the 90s, in a book called Railroad!. Weed Harper 20:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is disputed?

I got to this article by clicking on a random page on the disputed listed, and thought I'd tackle this one before the LaRouche article. What is disputed, fact wise? Or should this actually be an POV tag? -Vina 19:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was part of a larger article that got overly large and was split in three. The other two parts are heavily disputed and both currently protected. This part doesn't seem so bad, so I'm going to stick my neck out and remove the tag. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unproven assertion about Boston mistrial

"After this memo surfaced, Judge Robert Keeton ordered a search of Vice President George Bush's office, for documents relating to LaRouche. Shortly after this order, the government took measures to shut down the trial. The trial ended in mistrial on May 4, 1988."

This claim involves the logical fallacy that sequence implies causation. There is no evidence that "the government took measures to shut down the trial." In fact, as was reported in the Boston newspapers, the Judge declared a mistrial stating that the trial was dragging on so long with defense motions on side issues and government slowness in responding that it was unlikely that there would be enough jurors left to render a decision when the trial ended. Several jurors had already dropped off. None of the jurors expectred the trial to last as long as it did. Cynics would argue that this was the defense strategy.

Rewritten for accuracy. --Cberlet 03:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is quite reasonable to suspect that the government moved for a mistrial to avoid the embarassment of a search of the Vice President's files (which was in fact avoided). I think it is also interesting to note that the prosecutor in the Boston case, John Markham, showed up this year as defense attorney for Ahmed Chalabi. I think that maybe the article should include these points. Weed Harper 14:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added information about the Virginia case

Added more balance to this article with material sourced to the Washington Post 12/17/1988. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou6.htm --Cberlet 04:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky again adds incorrect information from LaRouche sources

Herschelkrustofsky has rewritten a sentence to state the following:

"LaRouche claimed he had no income, but during the period following the involuntary bankruptcy, when the bankrupted entities, now controlled by government trustees, were not repaying many loans, and LaRouche was not paying taxes, LaRouche lived at a 200 acre Virginia estate with a pond and horse ring, owned by a supporter of the LaRouche organization."

This is factually misleading and false. LaRouche lived in the mansion before the Virginia raid happened and before the case was filed, and during a period before the raid in which many loans were not being repaid. This is a matter of fact reported in several newspaper. The crux of the tax fraud conviction was that LaRouche had created a sham financial picture in which he received shelter, food, clothing, and transportation and yet maintained they were all gifts. Even if true, these would have been counted as taxable income which he failed to report.

My goal here, as on other LaRouche oriented pages, is to restore some balance. I am starting by ensuring a 50/50 ratio of factual/critical material to claims by LaRouche supporters for which they are the sole source. --Cberlet 12:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Train meetings

I don't think that it is necessary to include the John Train material in this article; I think the article is balanced and complete without it. I think it is far more necessary in the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche article, because it helps to explain the discrepancy between LaRouche's stated views, and those views imputed to him by his critics and disseminated in the media. I am open to other opinions, however, on how it might be germane to this article. --HK 21:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is where the material belongs. It is directly related to the claim of LaRouche and his supporters that a conspiracy hatched at the Train meetings led to his conviction. It has nothing to do with the political views of LaRouche. And it has very little to do with the page on me, since I argue that the entire LaRouche claim of conspiracy stemming from the Train meeting I attended is not true, undocumented, and pure supposition.--Cberlet 01:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, what LaRouche and his supporters claim is that what led to LaRouche's conviction was the misconduct of Judge Bryan, who prevented LaRouche's attorneys from presenting the evidence of the involuntary bankruptcy and other essential facts of the case. The Train salon meetings were a parallel track of organized character assassination, to make the judicial railroad credible to public opinion. After a suggested compromise measure at Talk:Chip Berlet, I am creating an article called John Train Salon. If Chip still wants the Train info here at this article, he is welcome to it, although a link to the new article will be fine with me. --HK 16:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The material only should be mentioned in detail in one place. The last thing Misplaced Pages needs is another page devoted to LaRouche. This is another example of how HK and other LaRouche supporters spark a controversy, and then seek a "compromise" whereby another LaRouche page gets spawned so that more LaRouche propoganda is placed on Misplaced Pages, turning it into a major source of promotion for the views of LaRouche. The process of creating a serious and thoughtful public encyclopedia is thus hijacked. A whole page on the Train meetings? It is absurd! Using Misplaced Pages to explore alternative views and non-mainstream currents is a great idea. Allowing fanatics to distort the process needs to be confronted.--Cberlet 17:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There really needs to be some systematic way to discuss this problem. I understand other tiny zealous groups and their supporters are engaged in similar projects both at Misplaced Pages and at Disinfopedia. Is there a place to discuss these larger issues?--Cberlet 17:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is wikien-l@Misplaced Pages.org which is the wikipedia discussion list. You can join it at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l There has been an ArbComm ruling on activity by LaRouche activists and there has been some interest in revisiting the issue to make the guidelines more restrictive. AndyL 17:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is also Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation -- AndyL 17:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

test ] 17:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More unfair conduct by HK. If we are going to be forced to debate the Train meeting material, it should only be on one page. HK keeps placing it on several pages. This is not fair. It is just another place where HK wants to engage in a personal attack on me. The material does not belong in Misplaced Pages in the first place. I have deleted it from this page. --Cberlet 14:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, I have no objection to removing it from this article. However, the idea that "it does not belong in Misplaced Pages in the first place" suggests that Chip, who is a professional anti-LaRouche activist, wishes to make Misplaced Pages into a vehicle for his propaganda, in defiance of the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. --HK 16:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Associates?

The trial included LaRouche and six associates. Can we find the names of the other persons prosecuted? They are referred to repeatedly, but their identities (and fates) are left out. -Willmcw 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found the reference to three of the associates (buried in the article). Does anyone know about the others? Also, I cut out two quotations which don't have any available references, I can't find them with Google either. I also edited the 2nd trial to bring it more in line with the section at Lyndon LaRouche. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What appears to be an article written by "LaRouche supporters" is posted around the internet. It is titled: "The Trial of Lyndon LaRouche" and starts: "The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the trial of Lyndon LaRouche..." Does it accurately represent the thinking of the LaRouche organizations? Is it spurious? Can anyone comment on the validity of this material? -Willmcw

The six associates were Edward Spannaus, William Wertz, Michael Billington, Dennis Small, Paul Greenberg, and Joyce Rubenstein (their names appear on the various court documents which are reproduced in the Railroad! book.) The two links you are asking about appear to be legit -- the first one is posted anonymously on the rather dubious TOTSE site, but the second is credited to John Covici, whom I believe to be a legitimate representative of the LaRouche movement. --HK 16:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Totse is so dubious that I had to ask. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In an statement issued in 1995, LaRouche says, "Four other railroaded LaRouche associates are serving sentences of 39 years (Anita Gallagher), 34 years (Paul Gallagher), 33 years (Laurence Hecht), and 25 years (Donald Phau)." Were they convicted in a separate trial? How do they fit in? Also, User:C Colden tells me they were all paroled in the 1990s. Any info on that? -Willmcw 22:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

also this: " Primack joined the political party of Lyndon LaRouche in the 1970s. As part of a federal investigation into the fundraising practices of that organization, he was jailed for about a year. After being released from prison, he left the party. http://www.leesburgtoday.com/current.cfm?catid=11&newsid=7474

Probably all these other cases should go into a short section, "other prosecutions". -Willmcw 07:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've created a template containing most of the LaRouche-related Talk pages, and I'm putting it on the Talk pages of Lyndon LaRouche, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche so that editors involved in discussing edits with Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can more easily refer to previous discussions these editors have had about the same issues. Once the disputes are over, we can take the template down. Best, SlimVirgin 07:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Exoneration cites

HK, thanks for providing those cites. What kind of access do you have to the material? Would it be possible to scan or at least photograph them them so that we can see the context? As you know, there have been context malfunctions recently and it would be helpful to see the whole. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK- on reflection I agree that the Bakker quote belongs more in the main bio of LaRouche. I found a citation for allegations of torture and attempted assassination. Cheers,-Willmcw 22:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking about the ad? The text of the ad is exactly as linked (where it says "see text.") However, there were numerous other ads, including the ad on the similarities to the Dreyfus case. I have the Railroad! book, which reproduces a lot of court documents and most of the ads -- there was one from a group of Senators from South American countries, for example. I would prefer to discuss this stuff after a modicum of stability has been restored to Lyndon LaRouche and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, however. --HK 02:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The quotations that I cannot find on the web are the Heydte quote and the Brainin quote. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has been over ten days since I raised the question. I'm deleting the Brainin and Heydt quotes until a verfiable source with context can be provided. They can easily be restored once we have proof that they are correct. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported Claim

"The size of the LaRouche movement led to investigations of the source of its apparently extensive financial resources."

There is no evidence to support this claim. There is ample evidence that the investigations leading to the First Trial were launched after a large number of complaints were received by law enforcement agencies across the country that there were questionable fundraising activities taking place, especially credit card charges that were 4 to 10 times higher than the person receiving them had agreed to.

I agree that this claim should go. It was orginally inserted (referring to the LaRouche "empire", not "movement") by anti-LaRouche editor AndyL. However, CBerlet's above account of the story is equally spurious.

From "Memorandum of Defendants Lyndon LaRouche et at. in support of their motion for disclosure of exculpatory material" cr. 88-00243-A:

"In the Boston investigation... prosecutor John Markham voluntarily disclosed to the defense all FBI 302's generated in the course of the "Boston investigation." These 302's revealed that the Government launched a nationwide dragnet for alleged "victims" of fraud on the eve of the November 1984 elections, based upon one complaint to the FBI and a news broadcast on the local NBC affiliate, WBZ-TV."

--HK 01:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then the Boston grand jury called scores of witnesses and found numerous instances of potentially illegal activity, as detailed in the Boston indictment, and reported in the mainstream press. Then, in the Virginia case, even more witnesses were located, and LaRouche was convicted.--Cberlet 03:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox version

CB, thanks for setting up the sandbox version of the article Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. I'm not sure why we'd need it if the main article is unprotected. Are you planning a major re-write? The two things that I believe are mising are a full treatment of the associates, who are barely mentioned, and the various alternate theories that have been floated by LaRouce supporters to explain the prosecution (Soviet revenge for SDI, John Train Salon , Virginia Hunt club barons, etc.).

Yes. Slim and I are trying a rewrite that preserves most of the pro-LaRouche material, but eliminates much duplication, and moves stuff around into a more coherent collection. After we have done this, we can see if some of the material can be condensed, and links added to provide more detial for those that want it.

Here are the first "sandbox" drafts of three pages, and their associated links:

Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox

United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche

Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox

Your suggestions are good, but finding sources for the associates on this page will be a chore.--Cberlet 21:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heydte quote

I've deleted the Heydte quote which Weed added again, because I couldn't find a reference to him being at the University of Mainz. A Google search returned United States v. LaRouche (i.e. this very article) as the sole source, and it's not a good thing to be entirely self-referential. If this is the German war hero, he died in 1994, but I'd still expect to find a reference to him having taught there. Could the editor who added this find a way to confirm his identity, and if possible more information about or a link to his article? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 19:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

A while back I searched at length and finally found a legitimate reference to Heydte having been at Mainz. The source, context, and verifiability of the quote used are my main concerns. -Willmcw 21:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte quote again. To compare the anti-Semite and loan scam artist LaRouche to Alfred Dreyfus, an honorable man and a victim of horrific anti-Semitism--and to have this comparison performed by a former Nazi German officer who received the Iron Cross from Hitler for fighting to bring about a world in which all Jews would be killed--is obscene, offensive and represents the same type of sly Jew baiting that one finds in Holocaust denial tracts. If Misplaced Pages editors have any sensitivity at all, they will uphold this deletion.--Dking 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I followed the link to the Misplaced Pages article on Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, where it says he opposed the Nazis (as did many traditional German military leaders,) so I find your opinion of him unjustified. I also see no reason to remove the quote simply because you so strongly disagree with it. --Marvin Diode 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on VDH provides no reference for the statement that he was involved in brawls against Nazis in the early 1930s; indeed it is a totally unfootnoted article. VDH served Hitler loyally, and the LaRouche distinction of "good" traditional German military leaders versus "bad" Nazis (bad because they were in LaRouche's view agents of the British and the Rothschilds) has no basis in fact. In the twilight of his life, VDH became involved with anti-Semite LaRouche, who published a translation of a military theory book by VDH that sets forth a scheme strongly reminiscent of the SS's Operation Werewolf plan in 1945. LaRouche utilized this book in constructing his own anti-Bolshevik resistance movement fantasy in 1988 that includes really vile statements about Jews as well as support for Nazi war criminals. But even if VDH were the "liberal" the LaRouchians say he was, his comparison of LaRouche to Alfred Dreyfus is an insult directed against the memory of Dreyfus and all other victims of anti-Semitic persecution, and has no place in Misplaced Pages. The POV here is that of the LaRouche movment which persists in trying to use Misplaced Pages to spread their ideology. I am removing the section in question once again, with the further reason that VDH was not an expert either on U.S. law or on the LaRouche movement and therefore his opinion is not of sufficient weight to be included herein. Also it comes after a quote from the book Railroad, a propaganda screed published by the LaRouche organization that had already expressed the pro-LaRouche viewpoint, thus providing two pro-innocence quotes to one guilty quote. This is a totally improper imbalance given that LaRouche's conviction was upheld on appeal and all subsequent attempts to win him exoneration have fallen flat. Finally, the VDH statement is taken from a paid advertisement placed by the LaRouchians in a Washington newspaper. Paid advertisements are not acceptable as Misplaced Pages sources.--Dking 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dking raises some good points. If we were to include a mention of this assertion it should be amopng the other paid adevertisements listed in "Attempts at exoneration". At most it's worth a sentence, something like "Person X compared the trial to that of Alfred Dreyfus". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to pick out good points among all the violent POV. Remember that the BLP policy applies to talk pages. Von der Heydte is a published author on international law which would be the appropriate field to make comparisons between the LaRouche and Dreyfus cases. Like the Ramsey Clark debate on the other article, this seems to be an effort to dismiss a credentialed expert because he is taking LaRouche's side of the debate. --Marvin Diode 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a 3rdparty source for the quotation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"International law" is the law regulating relations between nations. It is not the same thing as the comparative study of the legal systems and principles of individual nations.--Dking 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any serious argument being made for the deletion of the Heyde quote. What I see here, and in edit summaries, is Misplaced Pages:Trolling. --NathanDW 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First, a newspaper advertisment is not a proper source. Second, the quote gives an overbalance to LaRouche's complaints about the trial when in fact he lost all appeals and subsequent attempts to win exoneration. Third, the content of the quote, by comparing LaRouche to Dreyfus, amounts to an anti-Semitic slur. Fourth, the author of the quote, now deceased, has no expertise that would make him a credible source for judging LaRouche's guilt or innocence of complicated white collar crimes under U.S. law, and his only relevant notability is as a Nazi war hero who fought to provide the conditions for the Final Solution. Deleted again.--Dking 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Balance and POV

There is a serious issue of this page being unbalanced by pro-LaRouche text. Some of the text from the Lyndon LaRouche page on the trial belongs on this page, conneted with a link from the Lyndon LaRouche page. We need more details about the first and second trials to balance the pro-LaRouche claims of a government conspiracy. This page should be expanded and balanced between the facts of the trials, and the claim of the LaRouche supporters.

Suggestions for avoiding unproductive brawling

1. Don't make massive changes in controversial articles. Proceed gradually, that's just common sense.

2. Don't delete sourced material simply because you don't like it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.)

3. Don't delete material that you think is poorly sourced without first posting a cite request ({{fact}},) giving other editors the opportunity to provide a source. That's common courtesy. (The exception is where the material violates WP:BLP or other core policies.)

4. If you think a section is unbalanced, the best response is to provide well-sourced balancing material.

Of course, if your purpose in being here is to deliberately annoy other editors, kindly ignore these suggestions. --MaplePorter 20:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am editing text to make it clear that this page is unbalanced. Please do not simply revert to the prior version. I called for more text above, so to suggest I am doing otherwise is uncivil. Too much LaRouchite propaganda, not enough facts from the court cases. This is not a LaRouchite blog, it is an encyclopedia entry. The "Rocket Docket" term is LaRouchite propaganda. I am not trying to annoy the pro-LaRouche editors, I am trying to create really balanced NPOV entries instead of allowing LaRouchite propaganda to dominate page after page on Misplaced Pages.--Cberlet 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Rocket docket" is widely used. However it's use here appears to be as part of an attempt to portray a nefarious purpose in the choice of venues. Since LaRouche lived in Eastern Virginia, there's nothing untoward about filing a case against him in the Eastern Virgina district court. So while "rocket docket" is a nickname of the court, it doesn't belong here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that the trial was moved from one jurisdiction to another is an indication of "venue shopping," which is clearly why Clark uses the term. --MaplePorter 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does Clark assert "venue shopping"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In the open letter to Janet Reno, he writes: "Despite the fact that a retrial in Boston was scheduled for January 3, 1989, the Department of Justice decided to seek a more favorable forum and legal theory and rushed through an indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia on O ctober 14, 1988." --Marvin Diode 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

More unverified pro-LaRouche public relations. We need less of this type of material, not more. The "Open Letter" is publicity scrap paper--it has no merit. Please remember that these protests by the LaRouchites went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and were rejected. Totally rejected.--Cberlet 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely providing an answer to Will's earlier question. No need for an additional rant. --Marvin Diode 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can help with documentation

I just excavated my closet and found my old copy of Railroad! which has documentation that won't quit. For example, the Washington Post had a headline on November 20, 1988: "LaRouche's Va Trial Expected to be Speedy, Alexandria's 'Rocket Docket' Federal Court Contrasts with Site of Boston Proceeding." There is a lot material in the book that is missing from this article, such as an Amicus Curae filing which says that the presence of FEMA official Buster Horton on the jury is in and of itself enough to discredit the outcome of the trial. --Don't lose that number 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly persuasive. --Cberlet 02:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are now numerous requests for cites. I believe I can answer many of them. It may take a week or so to get all the work done. --Don't lose that number 06:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alexandria Judge Albert V. Bryan spent two hours, and did not permit individual questioning of prospective jurors. This contributed to the result that most jurors in the Alexandria trial were present or former government employees. Jury Foreman Buster Horton was the U.S. Department of Agriculture liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Who are the writers of this brief and why would we consider it reliable information? The only Ghit I get for Linne is a brief filed in his own, previous tax case,, if that's even the same guy. There's no standard for evidence in a brief. People can say anything without any substantiation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and have modified it to say "an amicus curaie brief was filed on appeal claiming that..." I'll use a similar formulation for other claims. --Don't lose that number 15:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's only half of the problem. Again I ask, who are these guys? We should only quote people who are somehow notable or experts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this info because random briefs aren't appropriate. We need to do a better job of sourcing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The book Railroad is a work of propaganda published by the LaRouche organization and should not be regarded as a legitimate source for anything except the state of mind of LaRouche and his followers.--Dking 02:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead author of that book was apparently Edward Spannaus, one of the defendants. Even if it is only used as a source for briefs, filings, etc, it is still a highly partisan source. I'd assume that it includes only those materials which support his case rather than all filings and briefs from the case. Excessive reliance on it would tend to give undue weight to the losing side of the case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear at this point that the vast majority of this page is unverified propaganda from pro-LaRouche publications and defenders, rather than reputable published material from reliable sources. The unverified propaganda from pro-LaRouche publications and defenders should be moved to a seperate section identified as claims of LaRouche supporters, rather than being dubiously portrayed as factual material. The facts should then be expanded so there is balance between the unverified propaganda from pro-LaRouche publications and defenders and reputable published material from reliable sources. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, not a blog for a convicted crimninal with cult followers.--Cberlet 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the lack of civility and constant soapboxing from Dking and Cberlet does not contribute to conflict resolution on these articles. We get it, you don't like LaRouche. Now, can we get on with the editing? --Marvin Diode 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What facts in the above post do you challenge? Please be specific. Are you claiming that a majority of the page is not based on unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda? On what basis? It is clear from the cites that have been provided.--Cberlet 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can see from glancing at the foonotes that this articles is chiefly referenced from the LaRouche sources. However we do have other sources available, especially the WaPo links. It would be helpful to devote some portion of the article describing the crimes and the victims. Right now the victims appear to have been LaRouche, et al., instead of those who lost their money. And the actual criminal activities are hardly mentioned either. So let's re-balance the article to include more of the overall picture. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the small section on the involuntary bankruptcy. There is no mystery here, the brief was submitted by LaRouche's attorneys. It appears to me that the main issue of fairness in the trial, and I think the basis of the von der Heydte statement, is that the defense was not permitted to introduce into the trial the fact that they had no control over whether loans were repaid, because the government had seized control of the debtor entities. This is the crux of the matter. --MaplePorter 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The government was wrong to shut down the publications, and was slapped for it; but there was ample evidence that the LaRouchite publishing entities were part of a huge financial fraud in which the assets and potential future earnings were clearly structured in a way to defraud the mostly elderly investors. That's why LaRouche was convicted. That's what the testimony shows. The LaRouchite claims and the claims of their defenders are hogwash. We should report them as unverified claims, and place them in a balance with the published facts with WP:UNDUE in mind.--Cberlet 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If the brief was submitted by LaRouche's attorneys then it wasn't an Amicus brief, as it was described earlier by Don't lose that number. Soince those who have acces to this reference material can't agree on it, I think we all need to see the verbatim material. Please quote the brief on the talk page so we can all agree on who wrote it and what it says. Until we can agree on those basic items I'm removing the contested material from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this question below in a new section. --Don't lose that number 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes these trials notable?

The reason the LaRouche case merits an article on Misplaced Pages is that it was very controversial, and the reason it was controversial is because of the numerous allegations that the trial was politically motivated. The allegations did not all come from LaRouche, but for citations of the allegations, you are going to have to go to LaRouche publications. The trial was covered by essentially two entities: the Washington Post, which was highly sympathetic to the prosecution, editorially and otherwise, and the LaRouche camp. The Misplaced Pages article will of necessity be a combination of those two sources. The POV pushers will suggest that only one side should be included in the article. So what else is new? --Don't lose that number 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have never suggested that only one side be represented in the entry. Not once. Not over several years. I have always suggested that there be a balance between unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda and reputable published material from reliable sources. To suggest that the Washington Post is marginal while unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda is mainstream is, to be blunt, ludicrous.--Cberlet 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant by incivility and soapboxing. Don't Lose That Number did not suggest that the Washington Post was marginal, so it is insulting to say that he did. And is it necessary to use the term "unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda" in every sentence? Believe me, we can remember that you don't like LaRouche without the constant reminders. The sources that you object are defense briefs, and as such are a good source for the arguments of the defense. If you refer to them as "unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda," it suggests that you are trying to exclude the arguments of the defense. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we exclude the coverage of the Washington Post. --Marvin Diode 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you suggesting that this was civil?

• (Don't lose that number): "The POV pushers will suggest that only one side should be included in the article. So what else is new?"

The discussion on several LaRouche-related pages is replete with personal attacks on Dennis King and me. When material cited here is "unverified pro-LaRouche propaganda" I think it is appropriate to point that out. In the real world, LaRouche material is generally considered lunatic conspiracy theories, and is called such by reputable published sources.--Cberlet 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The cases were not especially controversial. They are notable chiefly because they involved a frequent candidate for U.S. President, and because they resulted in his imprisonment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a source that suggests that the case was controversial, and it may be a generally useful source to cite in the article. --Marvin Diode 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That source is certainly not usable as a general reference. It apparently simply includes the claims of the LaRouche supporters and the U.S. Government without any review. It makes some assertions that are not otherwise verifiable. For example, who claims that "50 persons have so far been indicted because of their links with Mr. LaRouche's association and it has been reported that they, too, have had unfair trials"? Who are these fifty? Or this description of the LaRouche movement: "a metaphysical association whose beliefs are reportedly centered on the right of all peoples to development and economic justice"? Lastly, the Special Rapporteur indicates that it isn't clear there was any problem with the case. So this document merely indicates that LaRouche complained to the Commission on Human Rights. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It also indicates that the Special Rapporteur acted on LaRouche's complaints. Do you think that he acts on all complaints he receives? It would be useful to know the answer to that. --Marvin Diode 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. See the following:

• "The Government of the United States categorically denies the allegations that have been made to the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance and notes that the prosecution of those who engage in criminal fraud is a fully legitimate exercise of a Government's authority to enforce its own laws"

  "The Special Rapporteur was not able to establish beyond doubt whether Mr. LaRouche's association can be considered as falling under the terms of the Declaration on the Eliminaton of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief."

Total misrepresentation of the document. Outlandish.--Cberlet 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we were to report on this aspect of the case we would say that "LaRouche complained to the agency, which investigated the complaint but didn't find a violation." I'm concerned that two LaRouche sources, the "Railroad!" book and the unsigned webpages, are used excessively in this article. Let's avoid the temptation to increase the size of this article beyond our ability to keep it balanced with the full range of sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The document doesn't say they didn't find a violation. It says they were unable to determine whether Mr. LaRouche's association can be considered as falling under the Declaration. The one thing that we can and should say is that a request for clarification was filed with the US Govt. By the way, Will, it might surprise you to learn that in the rest of the world, LaRouche is seen differently than by the WaPo or by King and Berlet. The coverage of the LaRouche movement in Russia, China, and the Third World is consistent with "a metaphysical association whose beliefs are reportedly centered on the right of all peoples to development and economic justice." --MaplePorter 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Compare the mentions of other minor political figures from the USA to the mentions of LaRouche in Russia, China, and the Third World and it will be obvious that LaRouche is marginal, and reports based on LaRouche claims are anecdotal instances of gullibility by reporters. See the LaRouchite Jeff Steinberg interview in the documentary "Control Room" where after the interview Steinberg is dismissed as a crank.--Cberlet 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The international reputation of Lyndon LaRouche is not the topic of this article. Let's try to stay focused. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Apologies. The text-related point here is that that the UN analyst was sent some materials (almost undoubtedly from the LaRouchites, but it is not clear); reviewed them; reported the content of the unverified assertions; reported that the U.S. government denied the allegations; and reported that they did not seem to be "falling under the terms of the Declaration on the Eliminaton of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief." Thus, this document has no merit whatsoever. It is without verifiable substance and without conclusions. It is a note that information was received, but not verified, was discounted by the U.S. government, was not acted upon by any UN agency; and ultimately could not be determined to have been sent to the proper deparment of the UN. Zip. --Cberlet 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on the various legal briefs

There seems to be some confusion about the various legal briefs I am citing. There are in fact many, many briefs reproduced in the Railroad! book. I have cited one Amicus curaie brief on the question of jury selection -- there are a total of 7 different Amicus curaie briefs reproduced in the book, from all corners of the globe. One of these Amicus curaie briefs bears the signatures of 144 U.S. lawyers, which I think was the second largest Amicus curaie brief in US history, after the Chicago 7 Conspiracy trial. There are also rulings by Judge Bryan, and a wide variety of defense briefs, from more than one trial. Bear in mind that the involuntary bankruptcy was a separate, civil proceeding that preceded the (second) criminal trial. This may seem a bit confusing, but I will try to be as specific as possible about who wrote what briefs. Maple Porter simply put "LaRouche's attorneys," which is technically correct, but he had different attorneys in the bankruptcy: it was a firm called David & Hagner, which doesn't seem to me to be worth mentioning in the article. --Don't lose that number 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please transcribe quotations that include relevant information so that other editors can judge the accuracy of the information. For example, what does the brief on involuntary bankruptcy say? How are the authors described? I am still concerned that this book probably only contains the briefs, etc, that support the LaRouche position, so that excessive reliance on those documents, however verifiable, will unbalance the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The brief is quite long, and the authors are listed at the top (remember, this is a legal brief) simely as "David & Hagner, P.C. - Counsel for alleged debtor." The brief is notable simply as part of the court proceedings, because it presents the arguments of the defense. It is not being used as a source for anything beyond that. The authors need no special qualifications beyond being members of the bar. If you like, I'll replace the summaries in the article with actual quotes, but it will probably wind up being longer that way. --Don't lose that number 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want you to replace the summaries with the quotes, I want to see the original source material on this talk page to make sure that the summaries are correct. Who is the "alleged debtor", specifically? Does the debtor have a name? Certainly we require more relevance to a court case then the fact that a lawyer has been admitted to the bar. If these guys are not LaRouche's lawyers then why are they presenting the defense? Unless we cite the U.S. lawyers I'm not sure we should cite the LaRouceh lawyers, because doing so unbalances the article. Does the "Railroad" book contain any briefs from the goverment side? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The "alleged debtor" is actually three: Caucus Distributors, Inc., Campaigner Publications, Inc., and the Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc. I don't know why the brief uses a singular term, and I presume it is some legal convention being followed. These cases are complicated, but I think that if you re-read what has been posted on this page you will find the answers to most of your questions. The lawyers are indeed LaRouche's lawyers, or to be more precise, lawyers for LaRouche-affiliated organizations. Bear in mind that we are discussing multiple, interlocking cases here, both civil and criminal. There is overlap on the personnel of both the prosecution and defense. --Don't lose that number 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

More and more of the page is being revealed as pro-LaRouche claims so that the entire page is more clearly revealed as totally unbalanced. Either less LaRouche claims or more factual material from reputable published sources about the legal battles.--Cberlet 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Our duty here is provide a clear, complete and intelligle account of the issues in the trial. If you feel that the prosecution side is incompletely presented, find some reliable sources and add some material. I have my hands full right now answering all the requests for documentation -- remember that I didn't write the article. --Don't lose that number 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article must be balanced in order to be NPOV. If prosecution materials aren't available then we can't use that as an excuse to overload the article with material from the defense. It's the duty of every editor to keep the article NPOV - it's isn't appropriate for anyone to put that burden on others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but it may not be the case that everyone thinks the article is unbalanced. When someone puts a {{NPOV}} tag on the article, that person is expected to make an argument as to what is un-neutral about the article. I don't see a problem with using court documents as sources, as long as it is kept within reason. Meanwhile, I found a source that covers mainly the prosecution side, an online excerpt from a book called Political Trials in History: From Antiquity to the Present. --Marvin Diode 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. Given the unbalanced preponderence of LaRouche sources, and the long history of false and distorted information published by the LaRouchites (based on numerous articles in reputable publications); I have tagged this article as having problems with facts and POV.--Cberlet 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are claiming problems with facts, however, you should present some evidence that contradicts what the article says. --Marvin Diode 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

MD, thanks for providing that link. I'm not sure that it covers mostly the prosecution side. Id say it provides a account of the crimes. It also shows how skewed this article is currently, in that it doesn't adequately desrcribe the crimes or the victims. Until we can find a source for prosecution briefs I don't think we should be usig defense briefs as sources. Doing so is like using briefs from a divorce case as sources for a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We have entire sections devoted to single motions, or to briefs that propose concepts that were either ignored or dismissed by the court. For example, the section on the involuntary bankruptcy ha been entirely devoted to viewpoints that it was invalid. Yet it was never overturned so it apparently was valid. The fact that the debtor disputed the validity should be mentioned, but not given excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The shutting down of the LaRouche publications by the feds, however, did, however, stir an outcry from a number of civil libertarians over First Amendment grounds (even I protested the government action against the LaRouche publications at the time), so I will go digging around for some published cites to that fact.--Cberlet 12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Involuntary bankruptcy

Will, you say above of the involuntary bankruptcy that "it was never overturned so apparently it was valid." The article says "On October 25, 1989, Judge Martin V.B. Bostetter ruled that the government's bankruptcy action was illegal. Bostetter said the government acted in "objective bad faith" and the bankruptcy was obtained by a "constructive fraud on the court." <ref>"Ruling May Help Appeal, LaRouche Backers Say," ''Washington Post'', October 28, 1989</ref> So, it appears that it was overturned. I also think that it is significant that the members of the criminal prosecution team were involved in "planning and executing" the civil bankruptcy -- that seems like an important reason that it was ruled illegal, and I don't think it should be omitted.

I think that the use of briefs is fine as long as:

• it is specified that these are the arguments of the defense, amici, or whomever filed them
• the article should say what the disposition was, whether the motions were granted, etc. --Marvin Diode 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing is required: we need to give equal weight to the government's justification for the action as to the defendant's response. At the moment we don't give any explanation for their action, so it would be imbalanced for us to give explanations for why the defendant's (or the unidentified debtor's) lawyers think it was unjust. For clarification, are you saying that the bankruptucy was overturned and the companies were not bankrupted? Someone calling something "illegal" isn't the same as saying it was overturned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on this. The Railroad! book includes Judge Bryan's ruling in which he denies an appeal of the bankruptcy. I can quote from that to illustrate his reasoning. Also, it turns out that Bostetter was the judge who presided over the initial ex parte hearing and ordered the publications companies padlocked (incidentally, this is the very shutdown of LaRouche publications that Cberlet refers to above as being protested by civil libertarians.) Then later, after it was too late to affect the criminal trial, Bostetter reversed his own ruling, complaining that he had been misled by the DOJ team. I am working through the twists and turns of all this, so be patient. --Don't lose that number 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This was a very complicated matter, and I think giving Don't lose that number some time to sort it out is only fair. In the meantime, can we find some vague language to make it clear that the involuntary bankruptucy was later found to be questionable, and was protested at the time by a range of civil libertarians. I think there is enough evidence on the record to support that.--Cberlet 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted a rewrite that actually preserves most of the text, but re-arranges and rephrases it to be more balanced. Everyone please take a deep breath and read it carefully before just reverting.--Cberlet 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your re-write moves the involuntary bankruptcy out of chronological order, and hides its relationship to the second trial. I would advise that you refrain from large-scale modifications of the article until some of the other matters have been worked out. I also question the desirability of "some vague language" when this is a legal matter where precise language is important and probably available. --Marvin Diode 14:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing that you could be doing in the meantime that would be quite useful would be to provide some evidence for your claim of factual inaccuracy. --Marvin Diode 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply reverting a carefully rewritten page was hardly cooperative and collegial.--Cberlet 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Words to avoid

I think that the term "claim" is probably excessively used in this article (see WP:WTA#Claim and other synonyms for say. --Marvin Diode 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Objection to reversion without proper discussion

I object to the reversion of my attempt to rewrite the page in an NPOV way. No text was deleted. Why is this reversion acceptable? See: this diff How long will this tendentious editing by pro-LaRouche editors be tolerated?--Cberlet 00:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode provided a perfectly reasonable explanation: "Your re-write moves the involuntary bankruptcy out of chronological order, and hides its relationship to the second trial." Before making any similar changes, you should explain why you think that it is helpful to move the involuntary bankruptcy out of chronological order and hide its relationship to the second trial. --MaplePorter 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that the courts found that there was no relationship to the second trial -- all of the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Judge was mad at the feds and chastised them. What independent source claims there was any relationship to the outcome of the second trial?--Cberlet 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some observations of the use of sources

"All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The statement by Heydte is a published primary source. There is a warning at WP:NOR that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage agrees with the primary source." Since it is a direct quote in this article, there should be no problem here. Dking should cease deleting it, and cease making scurrilous and offensive statements about it.

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). We are not relying entirely on primary sources here, but it is certainly legitimate to have them in the mix. --MaplePorter 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the source exists, there is a dispute as to the value of including more pro-LaRouche material on a page already unbalanced and POV with too much pro-LaRouche material.--Cberlet 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Voir Dire

I've removed the "voir dire" section because it has no 3rd party sources, because it does not appear to be important, and because we are giving excess weight to minor issues. If anyone can find a 3rd-party source on the importance of this then let's see it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise for the "in limine" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable for several reasons:

• The idea that it "does not appear to be important" is ridiculous and biased. In the trial of a politically controversial individual, it is customary to extensively and individually screen jurors for bias. In the trial of Oliver North, for example, 156 of the 235 prospective jurors who acknowledged seeing or reading about North's testimony to Congress were eliminated without being questioned as to the level of exposure or their reaction.
• Likewise, the motion in limine was considered outrageous by legal experts. I have been reading further in the Railroad! book and I am just beginning to appreciate the significance of this ruling. The charges against the defendants were all conspiracy charges. A conspiracy charge specifies a beginning and ending date of the conspiracy. The charge was framed so that the conspiracy ended one day before the involuntary bankruptcy (which terminated the ability of the defendants to repay loans,) and the judge excluded mention of the bankruptcy because it fell outside the date of the supposed conspiracy to not repay loans. I hope that it is obvious how corrupt this ruling was, but if you need further explanation, I'll provide it.
• According to the Misplaced Pages policy quoted by MaplePorter above, primary sources are most appropriate for articles on legal cases. --Don't lose that number 23:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Who says it's important? The North case is quite different.

2) What legal experts? I dont' see any source for that, or any source for anything that was in the "in limine" section.

3) Don't confuse 3rd-party sources with tertiary sources. They are separate matters.

4) Unsourced material may be removed from Misplaced Pages. Please don't restore the material uintil we have a reliable source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about primary sources, and Misplaced Pages policy says that they can and should be included in articles on legal cases. --Don't lose that number 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a 2nd party source? "Railroad" was written by a defendant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say primary sources, by which I mean the legal briefs. I edited my comments above to change "second party" to "primary." --Don't lose that number 00:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the source is not a legal brief, it's a book by a defendant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The briefs are reproduced in the book. If you prefer, I'll change the cites to make them directly to the briefs. --Don't lose that number 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is the book that you read them in. You've never given us the quotations that were requested previously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! look at this

I just made an interesting discovery, which also bears on the debate over at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche about whether Ramsey Clark was "hired" and whether his public utterances were merely those of a "mouthpiece." As it turns out, Chip Berlet posted an article on the PRA website entitled "How the LaRouchites Exploit Ramsey Clark" in which he complains that "Ramsey Clark has steadfastly refused to disassociate his legal work for the LaRouchians from the political work of the LaRouchians, despite the fact that the LaRouchians imply Clark's support in numerous newspaper and magazine articles." He also quotes an AP story, which reports that that "former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, chief attorney for LaRouche's appeal, argued that U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. of Alexandria allowed only thirty-four days from arraignment to trial and failed to adequately question jurors on how much they knew about the defendant." This has an obvious bearing on the Voir Dire debate above. So does this: "Clark was quoted as saying that even though he had once been a political opponent of LaRouche, he had now come to his defense because of constitutional abuses such as a fast jury selection process, massive prejudicial pretrial publicity, and a jury pool which contained numerous government employees, including law enforcement agents from agencies that had allegedly targeted LaRouche."

I am very surprised that Cberlet has apparently forgotten all this material during the debates on these talk pages. Check this out: "Sometimes it appears that Clark's support of the LaRouche cause has moved beyond mere legal representation. According to the July 6, 1990 New Federalist, on June 19, 1990, Clark spoke at a private meeting coordinated with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), a multi-governmental association and human rights forum that solicits input from non-governmental groups. The New Federalist reported that 'Clark's trip was sponsored by the Schiller Institute's Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, a non-governmental organization which is urging the CSCE to take up the case of Lyndon LaRouche, the U.S. economist and statesman who is now America's most prominent political prisoner.'" If it weren't for a few obligatory slanders and ad hominem nonsense about LaRouche, it would actually be a rather good article. --Don't lose that number 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we use the "PublicEye" as a source for this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Look at the blatant misrepresentation of the actual text:

• An Associated Press (AP) account of Clark's Fourth Circuit oral arguments noted that "former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, chief attorney for LaRouche's appeal, argued that U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. of Alexandria allowed only thirty-four days from arraignment to trial and failed to adequately question jurors on how much they knew about the defendant."

• The Fourth Circuit ruled against LaRouche, saying LaRouche's original attorneys had waited eighteen days before asking for a continuance. An AP story about the decision reported that the appeals panel "also said LaRouche's attorneys made no attempt to press potential jurors to determine `individually anyone who had ever heard of LaRouche,' although certain jurors who said they were familiar with the case or who had worked in law enforcement or had accounting or tax backgrounds were questioned individually."

• On further appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand without a hearing or comment.

By all means, lets allow all the material on the Public Eye website! Thanks! I agree!--Cberlet 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Cberlet, do you have the cites for the Associated Press material? I think that would be useful. Regarding the above section, could you point out the "blatant misrepresentation of the actual text?" The section quoted by both you and Don't Lose That Number appears identical to me in both quoted versions.

We should include the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand without a hearing or comment. However, I already tried unsuccessfully to find a source for that.

Will Beback, I think you are making way too much of a fuss over the use of legal briefs as a source. First you complain that it is cited to a book, then when the cites are made directly to the briefs, you call it "obfuscation," which seems a bit of a Catch-22. However, I think that supplying quotes from the briefs is a good idea, and I would propose simply including them in the article, because it will be more precise than a paraphrase. I also think the second version, with citations to the briefs rather than the book, is preferable. --Marvin Diode 02:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't legitimate scholarship to read a sourced book, to write a summary of the material in that book, and then to claim that the book's sources are ones own sources. The source is the book, and that isn't a reliable source except for the opinions of its author(s) because it's written by a defendant in the case and because LaRouche sources aren't reliable. Furthermore, we're only getting partial information about these materials. Without seeing the verbatim text being sumamrized, we can't judge whether the materials are being summarized properly. Lastly, because the source is partisan it doen's provide a balanced view of the trials. If we rely on it for our sources then we will have an unbalanced article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If the briefs are reproduced in the book, it's OK to cite the briefs -- but as I said, better to quote them than to paraphrase. Again, I think you are being way too fussy. In a very similar case over at Talk:Schiller Institute, SlimVirgin was asked whether using a YouTube cite as a source for a BBC broadcast was a problem, and she said no, the BBC should be considered the actual source. This is an analogous case. --Marvin Diode 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between Youtube/BBC and Edward Spannaus/EIR. Edward Spannaus is a convicted felon. The publisher is not regarded as reliable either. We can't rely on them to correctly reproduce 3rd-party sources, or to choose them in a neutral manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are being tendentious. Why should they misrepresent their own defense briefs? I am working hard to comply with your demands, but more and more it just seems like harassment. --Don't lose that number 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's no big work. Don't you have access to a scanner? Just scan the pages with the briefs and upload them. Court documents aren't copyrighted, IIRC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a personal attack on Don't lose that number. First Will Beback insinuates that the summaries of the briefs are inaccurate, and wants quotes. Then he insinuates that the quotes may be improperly transcribed, and wants scans. This is either a violation of WP:NPA, or WP:POINT, or both. --MaplePorter 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a standard request. Asking for verification of sources isn't a personal attack. Please re-read WP:NPA before making charges based on that policy. As for transcriptions, I haven't seen any. Don't lose that number was implying that they were so much work he hasn't been ble to fulfill that request, so I told him there's an easier way. Don't any of you have access to scanners? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like Don't lose that number has added a number of transcriptions as footnotes to the article. --Marvin Diode 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. Apologies for missing it and pressing that point. I appreciate DLTN for transcibing that material, but I still have several reservations about the material, as mentioned above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Those briefs are being used here simply to demonstrate what the LaRouche defense team said. The fact that they were rejected by the courts is duly noted. The briefs, as I pointed out earlier, are a primary source, and therefore the best source for an article on a legal case under WP:NOR. On the other hand, if you want to claim that they are actually OR because they were published in a book by a LaRouche-related organization, they are admissable under the ArbCom decision where it says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Misplaced Pages article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Either way the briefs are in, end of story. --MaplePorter 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't just what the defense team said. Some of the briefs are described as Amicus briefs, which basically can be written by anyone, and the actual identity and associations haven't been revealed by those wishing to use them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Placement of "Involuntary Bankruptcy"

Cberlet, both Don't Lose That Number and MaplePorter have objected to moving this section down, because they say it takes it out of chronological order. I am willing to consider your arguments for moving it, but as far as I can tell you have not yet presented them on this page.

Also, as I have said before, I think that by far the best way to deal with Undue Weight problems is to add balancing material, not delete existing material that is well sourced. I can see that the Eugene McCarthy material is not relevant, and no one objected when Cberlet deleted it. The Von Heyde quote, on the other hand, is obviously relevant, and should not be deleted because you or Dking disagree with Heydte -- that is what would be called a "POV deletion." --Marvin Diode 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"We" do not all think of it as a POV deletion. The irony of Oberstleutnant von der Heydte comparing the neofascist and antisemite Larouche to Dreyfus is at best surreal and at worst disgusting. It also is just more unverified LaRouchite propoganda in the form of a paid ad. Not a proper source of information.

Regardless of your opinion about the statement, deletions must be actionable under Misplaced Pages policy. --Marvin Diode 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding balance, until "balancing material" can be found the unbalanced material should be removed where it causes undue weight to keep the article from bing NPOV. Misplaced Pages articles are always "live", and should always be NPOV. Also, it's the job of every editor to make NPOV edits - we can't the job off onto other editors. We can easily re-add text when and where appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a dispute about whether the article is NPOV. My thinking is that those who believe there is an NPOV problem should take the initiative to correct it, and it is better to add than to subtract -- I can't imagine that we serve the readers of an encyclopedia by denying them information. --Marvin Diode 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I neglected to answer a question about this earlier, but I can provide material from the the opening statements and motions of the prosecutors, such as the motion in limine, as well as rulings from the judge. --Don't lose that number 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche Sources

A paid advertisement from a LaRouche group is a proper source to establish facts for this entry - Poll:

Agree

Disagree

Disagree --Cberlet 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A book, periodical, pamphlet, or website of the LaRouche group is a proper source to establish facts for this entry - Poll:

Agree

Agree --User:Don't lose that number

Comment: The statement by Von der Heydte is a primary source. It was published in several locations, including the Railroad! book. --Don't lose that number 13:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

Disagree --Cberlet 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles