|
Money /
KRONBERG vs. LAROUCHE< Exposing Larouche on the Web | CAMPAIGN | SPEAKING WITH FORKED TONGUES >  Molly and Ken Kronberg Jan. 06, 2012 - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1015
(PDF here Dec. 07, 2010 - JUDGE TRENGA'S ORDER. (PDF here LaRouche's commented that "Judge Tosses Kronberg Case; Cites Abuse of Federal Court". Here Reply from Dennis King: Dec. 08: Molly Kronberg's lawsuit against LaRouche dismissed WITHOUT prejudice.
Here we have the ruling by Federal District Judge Anthony J. Trenga on the motion by LaRouche and his co-defendants to dismiss Mrs. Kronberg' complaint WITH prejudice (meaning, she would be unable to refile without appealing to a higher court) and to make her pay their court courts.
The judge's decision--dismissal WITHOUT prejudice--is basically good news for Mrs. Kronberg. The judge had disqualified her original attorney, former AUSA John Markham of Boston, while her Virginia co-counsel John Bond had a health condition that made it impossible for him to carry on (while ill, he failed to answer interrogatories and document requests from plaintiffs' attorneys in spite of urgent requests by Mrs. Kronberg that he do so).
The judge ruled that Mr. Bond could withdraw as counsel of record for Mrs. Kronberg, and she has obtained a new attorney, James DelSordo of Manassas, Va., who will refile the case shortly. The LaRouche team, having failed to obtain a dismissal with prejudice on procedural grounds, may attempt another motion to dismiss on the merits of the case, but the judge denied such a motion last April and it is unlikely he will reverse himself since the facts of the original complaint remain unchanged.
Judge Trenga also denied the request by LaRouche and his co-defendants for monetary sanctions against Mrs. Kronberg and/or Mr. Bond. The penurious LaRouche will regard this as an important setback, since according to a source close to the case "the defendants have humongous lawyers' fees because they have motions to file like dogs have fleas."
In summarizing the issues on which he was ruling, Judge Trenga quoted the core position of the defendants: "Kronberg's lawsuit is totally without foundation and was filed not for any legitimate reason, but rather for publicity and harassment as part of Kronberg's long-standing personal vendetta against Lyndon LaRouche and the other Defendants in this matter."
Judge Trenga's decision, however, appears to embody an implicit recognition that if there's any "harassment" and "vendetta" in this case, its source is the LaRouche organization, not the Widow Kronberg. (Source: here and at Factnet.org) 
Dec. 03, 2009 - DECLARATION OF BARBARA M. BOYD IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISQUALIFY FORMER AUSA MARKHAM. PDF here Nov. 09, 2009 - http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-motion-to-dismiss2.pdf Aug. 27 2009- Falls Church News-Press : LaRouche Sued For Libel, Harassment By Nicholas F. Benton Aug. 26, 2009- Court House News: Widow Blames LaRouche for Husband's Suicide
By DAN MCCUE Aug. 25, 2009- Loudoun Times-Mirror By Jana Wagoner: After suicide, Leesburg widow sues LaRouche Aug. 25, 2009- LaRouche's response to the case: British Stooge Complains When LaRouche Tells the Truth; (LPAC) Aug. 24, 2009- The BLT: Blog of Legal Times (Washington): Former Supporter Sues Lyndon LaRouche for Libel Aug. 21, 2009- Lawsuit filed against LaRouche More:
More on Ken Kronberg's suicide at lyndonlarouchewatch.org (D. King):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
).