HiddenMysteries: British Stooge Complains When LaRouche Tells the Truth

According to various British-steered internet blogs, Molly Kronberg, a collaborator of circles associated with Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister and controller of U.S. President Obama, wants to sue Lyndon LaRouche and his political action committee, LaRouche PAC.

She has teamed up with former LaRouche prosecutor John Markham. This frantic propaganda and publicity stunt is a direct British reaction to LaRouche's largely successful campaign to defeat the Nazi-like British-designed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration.

Kronberg has publicly bragged over the past two years in hundreds of blog entries, that she was a decades-long covert enemy of LaRouche from within his political movement, which included her role as prosecution witness in the frame-up trial of LaRouche in 1988. After her husband Ken committed suicide in April 2007, she engaged in an international publicity campaign with long-time assets of British-linked U.S. financier John Train, to fraudulently blame LaRouche for her husband's death. Kronberg also publicly associated herself with Blair's cronies in London, who had concocted, what Kronberg knew to be, a false propaganda campaign that tried to blame LaRouche for the suicide of British student Jeremiah Duggan, despite the fact that all responsible investigating authorities ruled that Duggan killed himself.

The Duggan hoax was pushed by Blair's circles in the wake of LaRouche's prominent role in the British media in exposing Blair's lying to launch the Iraq war. Shortly after LaRouche's appearances on the BBC, British intelligence specialist David Kelly accused Blair of “sexing up” the intelligence to launch the Iraq war. Kelly died in mysterious circumstances that were ruled by officials of Blair's government, to be a suicide. However, new evidence has emerged which has prompted the Attorney General for England and Wales to reopen the investigation as a possible murder.

For his part, Markham has remained obsessed with LaRouche since leaving government service after LaRouche's trial, representing and advising the cabal of LaRouche-haters with whom Kronberg now publicly associates. His latest high-profile client was the notorious Ahmed Chalabi, who by all accounts provided the fraudulent “evidence” to get the U.S. into the Blair's war in Iraq.

Kronberg, who played an essential role for Markham in the frame-up of LaRouche, is apparently upset with LaRouche's exposure of her dirty role in that case, according to her blog entries.

Markham's first effort to convict LaRouche, a financial fraud and obstruction of justice case in Boston, Massachusetts, ended in a mistrial because the prosecution engaged in “systemic government misconduct," according to U.S. District Judge Robert Keeton. According to the Boston Herald, the Boston jury would have voted LaRouche and his co-defendants “not guilty” at the point of mistrial, because they believed that the government had fomented the financial misconduct. The government then rushed to indict LaRouche and six co-defendants in Alexandria Virginia's "rocket docket" on the same financial charges. They added, however, a count unique to Lyndon LaRouche which was essential for conviction of all defendants – that LaRouche conspired with others to hide his income from the IRS.

In the Alexandria LaRouche frame-up, Molly Kronberg was a critical witness on Count 13, the LaRouche tax conspiracy charge. Kronberg's testimony created a false impression for the jury concerning certain events in 1979, the year the government alleged that LaRouche began to conceal his income from the IRS.

In 1979, Lyndon LaRouche was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. During November of 1979, LaRouche was told by an attorney that New Benjamin Franklin House, LaRouche's publisher, would be issuing $10,000 in royalties which it owed to him as a result of books he had published. The attorney subsequently presented LaRouche with a draft Ethics in Government Act filing and a draft tax return reflecting $6,000 in royalties from New Benjamin Franklin House. That attorney later informed LaRouche that he was representing Computron, a company run by defectors from LaRouche's movement, and not LaRouche, or New Benjamin Franklin House.

From the check ledger of New Benjamin Franklin House, it appears that in 1980, Marielle Kronberg, who was the general operating officer of New Benjamin, issued $6,000 in royalty checks to LaRouche dated in 1979. LaRouche never negotiated the checks or filed a 1979 tax return based on the checks, because he learned that New Benjamin never had the funds to cover the checks issued to him, and believed that the entire royalty proposal was arbitrary and contrived. Further, Molly Kronberg, who wrote the checks, knew there were not sufficient funds in the account to cover them, exposing herself to criminal charges for writing bad checks. LaRouche sought competent legal and accounting advice concerning his actual tax liabilities, if any, and was told he did not have any tax liability.

Kronberg knew that there were no funds to cover the checks when they were issued, and also knew that LaRouche had repudiated the entire royalty proposal. Yet she testified in Alexandria that she only learned the checks were not cashed when the federal indictment was issued in 1988, supporting the government's argument that LaRouche engaged in a conscious scheme to hide income by not cashing the royalty payments.

Without this phony proof of LaRouche's "intent" on the tax count, the Alexandria case would not have been tried, since the government itself created the basis for failures to repay loans from political supporters which constituted the other Alexandria financial fraud charges. The U.S. government, in an action subsequently declared fraudulent by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, bankrupted the political entities receiving the loans, which prevented loan repayments.

Without the Alexandria case, the "LaRouche" case would have then gone back to Boston, which LaRouche and his co-defendants would have won.

http://www.larouchepac.com

British Stooge Complains When LaRouche Tells the Truth

Sunday, August 30 2009 @ 10:32 PM CDT