SEARCH

edit SideBar

LANDEGGER, BARDWELL ET AL. TESTIMONIES

Pdf file downloadable here (421Kb)


INDEX

WITNESS FOR THE UNITED STATES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

CECELIA ELIZALDE LANDEGGER 3 17 51 ----

STEVEN BARDWELL 57 83 152 153

JOHN J. O,CONNOR 154 176 185 --

WAYNE HINTZ 186 -- -- --

                         EXHIBITS

                                                RECEIVED

GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBIT 16-A through J 1 156
GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBIT NO. 105

                         PROCEEDINGS

MR. MARKHAM: The United States calls Cecelia
Landegger.
Whereupon

CECELIA ELIZALDE LANDEGGER was called as a witness in behalf of the United States, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q What is your full name?
A My name is Cecelia Elizalde Landegger.
Q Could you spell those two last names for the Court Reporter's benefit.
A E-1-i-z-a-l-d-e, Landeggar is L-a-n-d-e-g-g-e-r.
Q Where do you reside?
A I live at 28 Grove Lane, Bronxville, New York.
Q Did you live at that address in 1984, '85, '86 and '87?
A Yes, I did. Yes.
Q Have you ever lent money to Fusion Energy Foundation?
A Yes, I did.
0 How much?
A In total $45,000.
Q How much of that $45,000 have you been repaid?
A I got two interest payments of around $650 each.
Q Apart from those two interest payments, have you received any further payments from Fusion of your $45,000?
A No.
Q Have you received any additional interest payment?
A No.
Q Do you remember when -- how many loans did you make?
Was it all in one or was it in a series of loans?
A No, it was a series.
Q Do you remember when you made your first loan?
A It was in 1984.
Q DO you remember the tame of year7
A I believe it was January.
MR. MARKKAM: Your Honor, I would offer into evidence Exhibits 16-A through J which are checks of
Ms. Landegger, promissory notes and correspondence from the
organization to her.
MR. GETTINGS: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received in evidence.
(Government's Exhibit Nos. 16-A through
J were received in evidence.)
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q May I ask you to open up Exhibit 16-A, please,
That's a check of yours, isn't it?
A Yes, it is
Q HOW much is it for?
A $5,000.
Q What is the date on the check?
A November 2 7th, 1904.
Q Do you remember-whether that is the first loan check
by which you lent money to Fusion Energy?
A Yes, it was.
Q So your first loan was the end of November 1984?
A That's it.
Q Now, before you lent that $5,000 to Fusion, did you speak to anybody about that loan?
A Well, I spoke to about the loan.
Q And what did she say, and what did you say?
A Well, she called me for a contribution, and I wasn'tl willing to contribute the amount of money she had in mind.
Q Did she ask you for a specific sum?
A Well, I said I would give them $100 bucks, you know. She said that isn't exactly what we had in mind.
Q Did she tell you what she had in mind?
A Well, several thousand, you know.
I said I couldn't give that kind of money.
Q After you told her you couldn't give them several thousand dollars, what did she say?
A She said, well, would I be interested on a loan basis?
Q What did you say?
A I said yes.
Q Did she describe the terms of the loan?
A Yes, she did.
Q What did she say
A Well, the first one was ten percent, and it was a year's loan. I was to get quarterly interest payments.
Q Of ten percent?
A I'm not sure, but I think so.
Q And when were you supposed to get the $10,000 itself back?
A Within the year.
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor. It's only for $5,000, I think.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q I 'm sorry. I apologize. When were you supposed to get the $5,000 back?
A Within a year.
Q After you lent them the $5,000, you lent them more money?
A Yes, I did.
Q At whose request?
A

Q Would you just very quickly go through those checks and tell us the dates and the amounts?
A The second one was January 9th, in '85.
Q How much is that for?
A For $5,000.
Q What was the third one?
A It was a year's loan at ten percent.
The third one was February 12th, '85, for $10,000. That was 13-1/2 percent, also a year loan. The fourth is July 31st, *85, for $5,000, also 13-1/2, also a year. And August 31st, '85, for $10,000, 13-1/2 percent, one year loan also. Do you want the ones that are CDI?
Q Did you lend money to CDI as well?
A Yes, I did.
Q When did you lend money to CDI?
A November 30th, '85.
Q How much money did you lend to CDI?
A $10,000.
Q Who requested that you make the $10,000 loan to CDI?
A
Q How much of that money did you get back?
A Nothing.
MR. WILLIAMS: Asked and answered, Your Honor. She
said she never got anything back on the whole $45,000.
THE COURT: I'm not sure whether this was included in the $45,000 she lent to Fusion Energy, which she said she did not receive any back.
MR. MARKHAM: May I clarify that?
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q How much was the total amount that you loaned to both Fusion and to Caucus?
A $45,000.
Q All right. So when you were answering the questions before about whether you got any of the $45,000 back, you included in your answer that you didn't get any of the $10,000 back that you lent to Caucus ?
A That's right.
Q So $35,000 was to Fusion and $10,000 was to Caucus?
A Yes.
Q You didn't get it back?
A No.
Q Now, can I ask you to turn to Exhibit 16-J, please. I'm sorry. I believe it is 16-G. What is that?

A It's a letter from CDI.
Q All right. May I ask you to take a look at the second paragraph of that letter where it makes reference to a seizure of funds in November of 1984? Can you find that sentence, and once you have found it, let me know.
A I don't find November in here.
Q Is there a date? Is there a reference in that document to a seisure of funds and a date when the seisure is to have occurred? Or a freezing of the accounts?
A It says '77-'78 - at the end of October '84.
Q Could you read that sentence, please.
A Yes. "But starting at the end of October 1984, First Fidelity Bank of New Jersey, now shown to be a mob-linked bank, seized $200,000 of LaRouche campaign funds in conjunction with the U. S. Attorney in Boston and the Boston FBI office."
Q Now, did you lend your first $5,000 before or after the October 31, 1984 seizure date referred to in that document?
A It was before.
Q Wasn't the first loan in November?
A Sorry. If I can look back. Yes, after, I'm sorry.
Q Now, when that letter that makes reference to the seizure, when did you get that letter?
A It's dated May 20th, 1986.
Q How much money had you lent by May 20th, 1986 when they told you about that seizure?
A The whole thing.
Q At any time before you made your first loan in November of 1984, did indicate to you that
there had been a bank seizure that might impair your
ability to be repaid? 3
A Never.
Q Did she at any time tell you before you made any of
your loans that there had been a bank seizure that might
impair your ability to be repaid? 8
A No.
Q Did she tell you about any broadcasts by any of the 10
networks that had had an adverse effect on the n
organization1s reputation which might affect your ability
to be repaid?
A No.
Q Did she tell you of any circumstances that might affect your ability to be repaid when she was asking for
the money?
A No.
Q What did she tell you about whether you would be
repaid?
A She told me I would be repaid.
Q Now, can I ask you to take a look finally at
Exhibit 16-D.
A Yes .
MR. WILLIAMS: 16-?
MR. MARKHAM: D as in dog. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Are there two pages to that exhibit?
A Yes.
Q The second page is a promissory note, is it not?
A Yes, it is .
Q How much is that — what is the date of that promissory note?
A July 31st, 1985.
Q And how much is1 being promised to you in that note?
A $25,000.
Q As of that date, what is it, July of "85?
A Um hum.
Q As of that date, how much had you lent them?
A Can I check back?
Q Yes.
A (Witness looking through
exhibit) I had lent them the whole thing.
Q You had lent them the whole $25,000?
A Yes, but I had lent them up until then — no, sorry - yes, I had lent them the $25,000.
Q And so that promissory note reflected their promise to repay you the sums that they had already gotten you to lend?
A Right.
MR. MOFFITT: Objection, Your Honor, leading
question.
MR. MARKHAM:
Q Was your answer yes?
A Yes .
Q Now, that promissory note indicates a date that you were to be repaid, does it not?
A Yes, it does.
Q What date is it?
A January 1987.
Q All right, and since the date on the note is July of * 85, that's a year-and-a-half?
A Yes, it is.
Q And as of this time, you had already been making loans a half year earlier, correct?
A Yes .
Q Did you have any discussion with anyone about why it was that the promissory note was indicating that you would be repaid a year-and-a-half from its date and two years from the first full loan, since they had told you you would be paid in a year for each loan?
A Yes. I had discussions with
Q And what did you say to her, and what did she say to you about this subject?
A Well, I was anxious to be repaid, of course, and she said that — well, I mean, there is a note on the bottom

13
of this that says if I need the money —
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor. That's not responsive to the question. She hasn't indicated that she has exhausted her recollection about what was said, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Obj action sustained. Listen to the question. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Do you remember what it was she said to you in the conversation after you had expressed that you were anxious to get repaid?
A Well, she extended the length of the loan.
Q From when to when?
A From whenever it was due until January of '87.
Q And did you talk to her about that extension?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you say about that extension?
A Well, I wasn't happy with it, you know. I was anxious to get my money back.
Q All right. As a result of that conversation, was anything added to the promissory note?
A Yes, there was.
Q And do you see that part of the promissory note that| was added because you had expressed that concern to her?
A Yes.

14
Q Would you read that to the jury.
A It says, "If after six months, which is January '86, any
emergency should arise, Mrs. Landegger may contact
for repayment within four weeks."
Q Now, after January of 19 36, did you in fact attempt to contact
for the purposes of discussing your loan?
A Yes, I did.
Q How many times?
A Once or twice,,
Q Did you make contact with her?
A No, I didn't.
Q Did you speak to her after January 1986?
A No, I did not.
Q Do you remember, Mrs. Landegger, when it was you got
the interest payments that you remember receiving?
A I got the interest payments — there was one in about
March or April and another one in the end of August or something
like that.
Q Of what year?
A 1985.
MR. MARKI1AM: May I hand these to the witness,
please. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q I am showing you two checks, Mrs. Landegger.

15
(Law clerk handing documents to witness)
MR. WILLIAMS: Could we have the exhibit numbers on those, please?
MR. MARKHAM: The are unmarked. I am going to ask her if she recognizes them. If she does, I am going to offer them as Government's Exhibit K and L. THE COURT: 16-K and L?
MR. MARKHAM: In evidence.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q What is K?
A Excuse me?
Q What are those two pieces of paper?
A Well, they are two checks that were sent to me.
Q Are those the interest checks?
A Yes, they are.
Q And what are the dates on them?
A March 20th, 1985, and August 9th, 1985.
Q And what is the amount of each one?
A $675.
Q When you got that first interest check — who is it made payable from? Who is the check written on?
A Caucus Distributors.
Q All right, and when you got the first check from
Caucus Distributors in March of 1985, Mrs. -- was
still soliciting money from you, wasn't she?

16
A Yes, she was.
MR. REILLY: Objection, Your Honor. Leading. THE COURT: Objection overruled. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q And when you got the second check in August of 1985, were they still soliciting money from you? A Yes, they were.. Q When was the last time they got you to give a loan?
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, I object, the characterization of got you to give a loan.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q When was the last time that they successfully requested that you give a loan?
MR. MOFFITT: Objection.
MR. REILLY: Obj ection. We have been over this twice also.
MR. MOFFITT: I also object to the use of the word, "They."
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q She, when was the last time that
anybody from these organizations --
THE COURT: Objection sustained. You have asked her when she last did it. And she has answered that. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q After you stopped making loans to them, did you get

17
any more interest
payments? A No, I did not.
MR. MARKHAM: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, before we begin, could I ask that Exhibit 16-K and L be renumbered M and N, because the Government already has I think some exhibits marked K and L, unless they want to —•
MR. MARKHAM: I have no objection to the renumbering I wasn't going to offer K and L. But they are there, and they have them, if they wish to —
THE COURT: We will call them M and N. MR. ANDERSON: M and N.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q Mrs. Landegger, my name is Edwin Williams. I represent
I believe you testified that you were first contacted or first came in touch with somebody from the
LaRouche organization in September of 1984. Is that right?
MR. MARKHAM: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates her testimony. I didn1t go into that.
THE COURT: I don't think it's a question. Just ask when she - BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q You testified, I believe, that you first made a
loan to the organization in November 27th, 1984, for $5,000. Is that right?
A That's true.
Q But that was not the first time that you had any contact with the organization, was it?
A No, it was not.
Q When was it that you first had your contact with the organization?
A The very first time I was going to the post office in Bronxville, and there was a little table set up outside with two kids there. I didn't know who they represented or anything, but it was right before — around the time of preelection time in '84.
Q So it was during the presidential campaign in 1984?
A Yes.
Q And at that time you made a contribution, did you not, of $25 to the National Democratic Policy Committee? Is that true?
A I don't recall it being $25. I thought it was $5, but I -
Q You made a contribution, did you not at that time?
A I did make a contribution.
Q As a result of that contribution, you began to receive a newspaper called New Solidarity, didn't you?
A I did receive New Solidarity. When it began coming,

19
I couldn't honestly say.
Q And you also during that presidential campaign saw a television show with Mr. LaRouche on it, did you not?
A I don't — I — I don't know. I have seen Mr. LaRouche on television, but I don't know when it was.
Q And you knew that the organization as a result of — well, you also in November of 19 — on November 6th of 1984, prior to your giving the first loan, gave a contribution of $100 to the Fusion Energy Foundation, didn't you?
A I will say yes, if you say so.
Q Well, I don't want to say anything just because i" want you to say something, Mrs. Landegger. Did you give a contribution to Fusion Energy in November of '84, early November?
A I could have.
Q Did you bring any of these subscription documents to Court with you as a result of a subpoena that was served on you for documents?
A What do you mean by subscription documents?
Q Well, any record that you have of when you first started receiving either Fusion Magazine or EIR or New Solidarity or any of those records?
A I don't have a record of that really.
Q Well, you got Fusion Magazine, and you also say you might
have seen Mr. LaRouche on television. You were also

20
receiving New Solidarity — did you pass those exhibits up Mrs. Landegger?
A I have it here.
Q Now, that first copy of New Solidarity is dated 11 -November 8th, 1984, is it not?
A Yes, it is.
Q That was before1 you first made a loan for $5,000?
A If you look at the first page of that, it says, there is an article entitled to the left-hand side of the first page, entitled —
MR. MARKHAM: Objection, Your Honor, to publicizing something that's not in evidence. I don't know that she testified that she received this.
THE COURT: What is the relevance of it anyway?
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the relevance is — may we approach the Bench?
THE COURT: No, you don't need to approach the Bench.
MR. WILLIAMS: The relevance is her statement that she didn't know anything about seizure of bank accounts.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. I will let you explore that.
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, she didn't say she didn't know. She said there was nothing discussed in terms of her loans not being repaid because of that.

21
THE COURT: I will let you explore it.
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q Would you look at the left-hand page of that --
THE COURT: See if this refreshes her recollection. It's not in evidence.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, yes. BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q You see the article entitled, Mrs. Landegger, the article entitled, "GOP's Harvard punk scams LaRouche campaign money"?
A Yes, I do.
Q And in the first paragraph of that article --MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, I believe this is improper.
THE COURT: Yes. I think you should ask her if this article, after she reads it to herself, refreshes her recollection as to what if anything was said about the seizure of the New Jersey bank accounts.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q Would you look at just the first paragraph of that article. Have you seen that?
A Yes.
Q Now, you testified, did you not, on direct examination that you didn't know anything about the seizure of bank

22
accounts until long after you had made all your loans. Wasn't that your
testimony?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, Mr. Markham refreshes your recollection as to
whether you knew about bank accounts by referring to a letter that you
received marked as Government's Exhibit 16-D. Do you have 16-D there? MR.
MOFFITT: 16-G.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. 16-G. BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q Do you see Government's Exhibit 16-G?
IA Yes, I do.
Q And that letter is dated May 20th, 1986, isn't it?
A Yes, it is.
Q And this article is dated November 8th, 1984, isn't it?
A Yes, it is.
Q That's the letter, 16-G, that Mr. Markham used to show you
about money being seized from the First Fidelity Bank of New Jersey;
isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q This article is about that, isn't it?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now then, would you look at the next copy of --
A May I say something, that I don't believe --
Q Don't — just wait until -- you can answer questions but please don't volunteer.
Would you look at the next newspaper that is before you? That is a New Solidarity dated November 12th, 1984, is it not?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, would you look at just the first few paragraphs of the article entitled, "FBI throws dirty tricks at LaRouche campaign." Do you see that? I think it's on the first page, lower left-hand corner. A I see it.
Q There you will see in that first few paragraphs of that article —
THE COURT: What are you trying to refresh her -MR. WILLIAMS: I want to refresh her recollection about it.
THE COURT: Let's see if it does. I am not sure what it is you want her recollection refreshed about. Is it when she
MR. WILLIAMS: It's about the same -
THE COURT: When she first found out about the bank seizures ?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask her if either of these articles refreshes her recollection about when she first

24
learned about the bank seizure.
MR. WILLIAMS: Very well.
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q Would you look at the first few paragraphs of this
article, dated November 12th, 1984. You will see some black
dots down the side of the page in this article?
A Yes, I see them.
Q Look at that third black dot and read that to
yourself, please. Now does that refresh your recollection as
to when you heard about bank accounts being frozen, LaRouche
campaign bank accounts being frozen?
A Well, it doesn't, because I don't believe I ever
got these issues, to be honest.
Q When did you first start getting New Solidarity?
A After I contributed.
Q It's your testimony that you did not get New
Solidarity until after you had made all your loans?
A No, not all of them, the first — I believe, yes,
the first -
Q Loan on November 24th?
A 24, yes.
Q November 27th was the first loan, is that right?
It's Exhibit 16-A, Mrs. Landegger.
A Yes, I have it.
Q is it your testimony that you didn't start getting

25
New Solidarity until after you first made a loan or first contributed to the organization?
A No, first made a loan.
Q And that was on November 27th, '84?
A Yes.
Q And you said it was not until in your testimony then it was not until after that that you learned that bank accounts of the LaRouche organization were being seized; is that your testimony?
A I'm sorry. Could you say that again?
Q Let me withdraw that and ask it a different way. Would you look at Exhibit, at New Solidarity, B-590? It's up in
the upper right-hand corner, those blue — 590.
A Yes.
Q Now, that issue of New Solidarity is dated November 30th, 1984?
A Yes.
Q And that is after you made the first loan, is it not?
A Three days after.
Q You testified that you thought you might be receiving it afterwards. Now, would you look at — open that paper up and look towards the back of the paper on the editorial page. There is an editorial called, "Bigger than

26
Watergate." Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Down about four paragraphs on the left-hand column, would you look at that — the fourth full paragraph beginning, "The modus operand!." Would you read that?
A Yes.
Q Does that refresh your recollection as to when you knew that there were contributions to the LaRouche organization being threatened or money tied up?
A I don1t think I got this one either, frankly.
Q Would you put that one up, and let's look at Defense Exhibit 593, please. Do you have that?
A Yes, I do.
Q It's actually B-593. On the first page of that newspaper — now that newspaper is dated December 1Oth, 1984, isn't it?
A Yes, it is.
Q This is more than a month after you made your first loan?
A Yes — well, not a month, no. The loan was November 27th.
Q I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's about two weeks after you made your first loan.
A Yes.

27
Q Would you look at the article entitled "LaRouche campaign will depose New Jersey bank chief."
A Yes, I see it.
Q The first few paragraphs of that, do they not, I think it's the third full paragraph, indicates that the First Fidelity Bank was still holding a large number, amount of money, about $170,000, doesn't it? A
Yes, it does.
Q Does that refresh your recollection as to when you first realized that moneys of the LaRouche organizations were being seized or withheld?
A I can only say that if I was getting this issue, or as I did get Solidarity issues, I cannot guarantee that I read them all the way through.
Q We are just asking you when you first realized that money was being seized or withheld from the LaRouche organizations, what I want to try to establish, not whether you read any of these articles in particular.
A I can't pin it down. I can't pin it down to a date. I really can't.
Q But it was long before, was it not, the time that you received this letter, Government's Exhibit 16-G, of May 20th, 1986; isn't that right? I mean, that's -
MR. MARKHAM: Can she answer the question?
THE COURT: My interruption is I was afraid you were

28
going on to something else before you —
MR. WILLIAMS: No.
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q May 20th, 1986 was 18 months, almost 18 months after you made your first loan?
A That's true.
Q Is it your testimony that you didn't know even though you were getting New Solidarity as early as November, December,
1984, that you did not know until May of 1986 that moneys were
being held or withheld from the organization by various banks?
Is that your testimony?
A I don't know officially that they were being 14 withheld.
is
Q You read the articles in the newspaper, didn't you?
A I did not read all the articles in the newspaper.
Q You got the newspaper, didn't you?
A I got the newspaper.
Q And you read some of the articles in the newspaper,
whether they pertained to this or not, didn't you?
A Occasionally.
Q Now, you say that you talked to Mrs.--- on the telephone before you made the first loan, is
that your testimony?
A Yes, I did.
Q How many times did you talk with her before you
made the first loan?
A A couple of times.
Q These conversations lasted for some time, didn't they?
A Yes, they did.

29
Q And she was in those conversations giving you information about what the organizations were doing, wasn't she?
A Yes, she did.
Q And she talked to you about Dope, Inc., and the war on drugs?
A Well, I believe that came later.
Q But did she talk about the financial warfare against the organizations?
A No, she did not.
Q Did she talk about this SDI?
A Yes, she did.
Q And you were very much interested in SDI, weren't you?
A Yes, I was.
Q And you were also interested in Fusion Energy; isn't that right?
A Not really, only — well, because of what I thought they were doing.
Q And you were interested in SDI and its relationship

30
to the Soviet or anti-Soviet or Soviet threat; were you not?
A Yes.
Q And you had a number of discussions with her about that, didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
Q And as a result of these discussions you had with her, you contributed to, or you subscribed to a magazine called EIR, didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
Q The Executive Intelligence Review?
A Yes, I did.
Q Which publishes in-depth articles about various subject matter that you were interested in like SDI, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q And you began receiving EIR, did you not, in October of 1985?
A I don't know the exact date.
Q You don't know when you subscribed? It could have been before or after that?
A Yes.
Q EIR would occasionally have articles about SDI and the Soviet threat and things like that, didn't they?
A Yes.
Q Now then, you testified, Mrs. Landegger, that, with

31
regard — if you will look at 16-D, Government's 16-D, which I believe is the note, promissory note.— it's one of the pages of 16-D. Do you have that before you?
A Yes, I do.
Q And the promissory note, I believe, is the second page of 16-D, and that was a promissory note in the amount of $25,000, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And that note, you testified, at the time you entered into that note, you were anxious to get your money? Was that your testimony?
A Yes, I was.
Q And yet, you extended the time for payment of the $25,000 until January of 1987, is that right?
A Yes.
Q With the caveat, of course, that after January of 1986, you could ask that it be returned to you.
A Yes.
Q In four weeks? Was that your testimony?
A Yes.
Q But you said that at that time, you were anxious to be repaid?
A I was certainly anxious to get some interest, at least.
Q No, the testimony was I believe you were anxious to

32
be repaid, wasn't that your testimony?
A Yes.
Q Now, in May — this note was in July 1985, was it not, July 31st?
A Yes.
Q In May, precisely on May 31st, 1906, a young man by the name of Alan Ogden called you, didn't he?
A I don't remember that name.
Q Well, a young man from the LaRouche organization called you and discussed your outstanding loans with you?
A I don't believe he called me.
Q And during that conversation, during the conversation, do you recall telling him on May 31st, 1986, that you would wait for your money until it becomes possible for the organization to pay you and stick with us if we stay in touch and you were very
relieved at that time that they had not just forgotten about you? Do you recall a conversation like that?
A I don't recall talking to this gentleman at all.
Q Do you recall telling him that you didn't, that you thought Mr. LaRouche was, that their organization had all sorts of unbusinesslike practices and that you disliked Mr. LaRouche and his -- and you said to Mr. Ogden that Mr. LaRouche was his own worst enemy, who was vague and evasive and has no income and lives in a strange house with

33
strange people and has a strange lifestyle? Do you remember that conversation?
A I remember saying it, but I didn't remember the man's name. I don't remember Mr. Ogden at all.
Q But in that same conversation didn't you tell Mr. Ogden that you would agree to wait for your money until it became possible to repay it?
A I don't remember talking to a Mr. Ogden.
Q Do you remember a conversation with somebody from the LaRouche organization, a man from the LaRouche organization in which you described Mr. LaRouche as I have just indicated; and at the same time, you agreed to wait for your money? Do you remember that conversation?
A Quite honestly, I thought I had told that about Mr. LaRouche.
Q Do you recall that conversation, is my guestion, Mrs. Landegger.
A Parts of it.
Q Now then, on January 20th, 1987 -- this is another six or seven months from the time that you had this conversation and well after the time of the note, your notes coming due. On January 20th, 1987, do you recall being called by a woman by the name of Christine Douglas?
A No, I don't.
Q Well, do you recall a conversation in which you

34
resubscribed to EIR in January of 1987?
A No, I do not.
MR. WILLIAMS: Could I have that exhibit -- I believe I passed it up to the clerk -- the last exhibit I think that I had.
Would you show that to Mrs. Landegger, please. (Law clerk handing exhibit to witness)
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q Mrs. Landegger, I just want you to review that and see if that refreshes your recollection as to whether you in January, on January 20th, to be precise, of 1987, subscribed to EIR and paid about $396 or $4 00 for that subscription?
A I did not remember this, but it's here.
Q Did you do that? Does that refresh your recollection?
A I don't remember getting the EIR that recently, but I must have.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
Oh, Your Honor, one other question, just one other question.
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q With regard to the SDI, Mrs. Landegger, do you remember

35
with regard to the SDI?
A I believe I did.
Q You got a copy of that?
A Urn hum.
MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Good morning, Mrs. Landegger.
A Good morning.
Q You received a subpoena which required you to bring certain records with you to Court when you came?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you bring the records requested in that subpoena?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you have them?
A They are over there.
Q On that subpoena, did it indicate to whom you should indicate or respond with a name at the bottom of an attorney?
A There was a clerk1s name.
Q No, on the bottom of the subpoena.
A Yes.
Q And a telephone number and an address?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Did you ever contact that attorney and tell him

36
that you had those records and what they were and that you were going to be bringing them with you?
A I was served the subpoena the day before yesterday at night.
Q I know that's not a lot of time, but my question was did you ever contact whoever that was to indicate that you would have certain documents?
A No, I did not.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, we have not as yet had an opportunity to look at these. I am going to hand them one of the other counsel in hopes they can make a quick review, but we might ask for a few moments to do that.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Mrs. Landegger, you mentioned that you had a conversation with some gentlemen whose name you could not recall, and under questioning by prior counsel, Mr. Williams, you recalled having said that LaRouche was a strange man living in a strange house with strange people and was his own worst enemy. I take it you have never met Mr. LaRouche, have you?
A No.
Q Have you ever had a conversation with him? A No.
Q Never been to his house?
A No.

37
Q Never met anybody else at his house?
A At his house? I have never been to his house.
Q Since you have never been there, you have never met anyone else who might have been living there.
A That's guite right.
Q I take it that these conclusions that you related to whoever this gentleman was, whether it was Mr. Ogden or whoever, were not yours based on any direct or personal knowledge; is that right?
A That's right.
Q In fact, you got those from the newspaper and television accounts, hostile to Mr. LaRouche, didn't you?
A No. I had seen Mr. LaRouche on television.
Q But you didn't know from seeing -- seeing Mr. LaRouche on television, are you talking about one of his campaign addresses ?
A I guess.
Q Well, are you telling me that on the basis of one of his campaign addresses, you drew some conclusions about him living in a strange house with strange people?
A He said that — yes, I did.
Q From one of his TV --
A Not necessarily campaign. He was interviewed on a talk show thing.
Q Such as, which talk shows did you see?

38
A I saw one, Larry King.
Q Did you see one done by Donahue by any chance?
A No.
Q Did you see Morton Downey?
A No, I didn't see that.
Q Did you see others
besides King?
A If I did, I don't remember right now what they were
Q Did
you read articles in the — where do you live, ma'am? I'm sorry.
A I live in Bronxville, New York.
Q Have you had occasion to read the New York Times over the years?
A Yes, I have.
Q Have you read some of their coverage relating to Mr. LaRouche and his colleagues and the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Not lately, certainly.
Q But have you had occasion over the years?
A There may have been a time, yes.
Q Isn't it fair to say that those characterizations were consistent -- those characterizations made by you and relayed to Mr. Ogden or whomever were consistent with the position, the editorial position or story line, if you will, of a series of New York Times articles?
A Not really. I have not been a fan of the

39
New York Times.
Q No, not whether you happen to like the New York Times,
but that there was a thread of hostile attack, if you will, on
Mr. LaRouche and those associated with him that ran or played on
a period basis in the New York Times?
A I have read minimal in the New York Times about Mr.
LaRouche, frankly.
Q Well, have you seen coverage on television? A Just the Larry King and one of his campaign things. Q How about news reports, just general news reports in conjunction to for example the presidential primaries in Illinois? Do you remember the presidential primaries in
Illinois when two persons who were associated politically with
Mr. LaRouche won the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor and secretary of state of the State of Illinois ? Do you remember that?
A I was told that by . I never read that.
Q You never saw that?
A No, I didn't.
Q In any newspaper?
A No.
Q What newspaper do you read on a regular basis?
A The New York Times.
Q You never saw that in the New York Times?

40
A No, I did not.
Q And you never heard that on — do you listen to radio and watch television news coverage?
A Yes, I do.
Q And you never heard anything about the Illinois primary on radio or television?
A No. As far as .Mr. LaRouche is concerned? Or just the Illinois primary?
Q Yes.
A I don't recall anything specifically, no .
MR. ANDERSON: Could we have just a moment. Your Honor.
(Counsel conferring off the record)
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, could we ask to take a short break at this point to review these documents or reserve this witness —
THE COURT: Yes. MR.
ANDERSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: We'll take a short recess. You may step down during the recess.
(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., a short recess was taken.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir?
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

41
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Mrs. Landegger, you testified that you were uncertain as to when you began receiving New Solidarity, is that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q You testified that while you read it, you could not be sure that you had in fact read it in its totality as you received it, is that correct? In other words --
A I didn't — yes, I didn't read the whole thing ever
Q And is it fair to say that New Solidarity, you understood New Solidarity to be basically a — strike that.
How often did you receive it? Do you recall? Was it a weekly or more than weekly?
A I think it was every week.
Q And you understood it to be basically a newspaper that had a particular political point of view, did you not?
A Well, it became obvious.
Q And you would, I take it, read those things that were of interest to you and not read those things which you felt, which you either disagreed with or felt that they were not of interest to you; is that correct?
A I disagreed with most of it.
Q But I take it in order to disagree with it, you would have had to have read it.
A The headlines at least.

42
Q When you read a headline that you thought indicated something with which you were not in agreement, would it be your practice to go to the text to determine whether or not it appeared to be saying what the headline said?
A No. It would be my practice to throw it in the trash.
Q I ask you, might it be the case that you were receiving New Solidarity as early as September of 1984?
A I would doubt that.
Q I am going to hand a document up to you, Mrs. Landegegger and ask you, would you look at the portion directly across from your name on the first page.
A I'm sorry. Which part do you want me to read?
Q Do you see your name ?
A Yes.
Q Do you see the first column directly, the first line directly across from your name.
A Yes, I do.
Q Take a look at that. Do you -- see if you understand the context of what it says.
A Well, I guess that --
Q Just -
A Yes, I would say so.
Q Based on what you have seen there, is it possible that you were receiving New Solidarity as early as September

43
of 1984?
A It's possible. What is RSW?
Q Well, I am not sure that I know. I can't help you with that.
A Sorry.
Q Is what you see there, is it possible, do you acknowledge it is possible?
A It is possible.
Q Now, you at some point on or about April of 1985 made a $1,000 contribution for a lifetime membership in the Fusion Energy Foundation, did you not?
A That's true.
MR. ANDERSON: May I ask the witness be shown this document, please.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Have you seen that document before?
A Yes, I have.
Q Is it fair to say that that is a credit card receipt, referencing your contribution of $1,000 —
THE COURT: If she concedes she made the contribution at the time you included it in your question, why do you need to pursue it further?
MR. ANDERSON: I move it into evidence, Your Honor.
MR. MARKHAM: We have no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Be received in evidence.

44
(Document referred to was received in evidence.)
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q There is some writing on the left-hand side of that Do you know whose writing that is?
A No.
Q Was that on there when you received it?
A Yes, it was.
Q It says, "Thank you. Fusion Energy Foundation," and gives a tax deductible number?
A Yes.
Q Mrs. Landegger, who was the gentleman who handed me the documents you brought to Court with you?
A That's my attorney.
Q Has he been an attorney that's been associated with you for some period of years?
A Yes, he is.
Q Was he an attorney that was associated with you prior to the issues which bring you to Court today?
A Yes.
Q And has he been in contact with the Government?
A I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.
Q To your knowledge, has he spoken with any of the investigators or attorneys representing the United States Government in this matter?

45
A Only when he has been with me.
Q You have no knowledge that he might have had
contact with them when you were not physically present?
A No.
Q During the break —
A Yes.
Q -- I noticed your attorney and you in
discussions.
Were you discussing your testimony?
A Not — no.
Q You weren't discussing anything to do with what you had already testified to or what you were going to testify to?
A No. He was telling me that I was doing all right.
Q I assure you — I agree with him. All right. That was a fairly long discussion you had with him.
A Well, he was saying that his wife would love to be in this position, and I said she could be here for, you know, chit chat.
Q I also noticed you had a brief discussion with Mr. Markham.
A Yes, I did.
Q And was he also reassuring you that you were doing all right?
A No.
Q Was he discussing the testimony or facts about

46
which you have testified with him?
A He asked me when — oh, sorry.
Q You have to try to.understand, that really -- he either was or he was not. And then we will get on to the next question. But it was either yes, he was or no, he was not or maybe.
A Could you repeat the question? I'm sorry.
Q Was Mr. Markham discussing with you during the break either what you have testified to or the facts which underlie your testimony?
A Yes .
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, may we - MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, may we come to the Bench?
THE COURT: Let's find out what she talked to him about.
MR. ANDERSON: All right, Your Honor.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q What did Mr. Markham say to you?
A He asked me when I first found out about — when I first became aware of the fact that there were problems with the funds of the — you know, this — when I first found out that there was a problem with the funds of this outfit.
Q Did he call a document or something to your
attention in the context of that discussion?
A No, he didn't.
Q As a result of that discussion, did you go to your
records or go to some document and look at it?
A No, I didn't.
Q When you were talking with your attorney, did you review with him some press clippings or some file?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you look at any documents?
A None.
Q Or any of those documents that are in front of you on the witness stand?
A No. They were up here, and I was down there.
Q Do you read any of the other New York newspapers, the New York Post?
A No, I don't.
Q So it's only the Times?
A Yes.
Q Have you -- do you subscribe to or receive any publications by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith?
A No, I don't.
Q Are you aware of any statements made by the so-called Anti-Defamation League with regard to Mr. LaRouche?
A No, I don't, I am not.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mrs. Landegger. I have
no further questions.
Just one moment. I may have to retract that.
(Counsel conferring off the record)
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, I have no more questions but I would like to approach the Bench.
THE COURT: All right. (Whereupon, a conference was held at the Bench
with Court and counsel, out of hearing of the jury, and reported as follows:)
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, with respect to that last piece of testimony about whether or not any documents were reviewed, I think the Court ought to know Mr. Webster, myself, Ms. Kemler, were all sitting in the courtroom when the lawyer approached the witness. They went through the newspapers, and they sat on the stand and went through the newspaper at that particular point. Under these circumstances, I would like the Court to recognize the lawyer and ask that -- I don't have a subpoena on this particular point, but I want him recognized and ask that he be called to testify to impeach this witness, because I saw it myself. Mr. Webster saw it.
THE COURT: I think you are blowing what this witness has testified all out of proportion for Heaven's sake. The only issue is when she first became aware of this. If you want to pursue it, I am perfectly willing to recognize
that guy and make him stick around here if you all plan on calling him but it seems a little inconsiderate given frankly the fairly innocuous bit that they are attacking here.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I -
THE COURT: I will keep him here -
MR. WILLIAMS: I have a different objection. I would object to Mr. Markham's redirecting this witness on the time that she first found out about or found out about moneys being sent.
THE COURT: That's all anybody has ever really asked her about it, when she first became aware of it.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think the purpose of his question, and she said it, is to try to get him a question so he can ask on redirect to somehow qet to the impeachment of it —
THE COURT: I don't think it's appropriate, Mr. Markham, for you to be talking to the witness at all during a break. If she asked to consult with her attorney while she is testifying, that's one thing, but she has not --you are not her attorney. I don't think it's appropriate for you to talk to witnesses at a break like that.
MR. MARKHAM: Yes, Your Honor. I was under the impression it was all right to ask questions.
THE COURT: It lends - it brings up this sort of brou-ha-ha, which is exactly what I think it is, but if you want that witness retained, I will keep him here.

50
MR. ANDERSON: If we can only just keep him here until lunch break, I think we can probably resolve this in discussion. We just haven't had a chance to talk about it.
THE COURT: I will recognize him to remain. But I really think to keep him here until you all put your case on is
MR. ANDERSON: -No, I am sure we won't do that. I think we'll be able to resolve that at lunch break. We'll discuss it.
THE COURT: Do you know his name?
MR. GETTINGS: No, sir.
MR. MARKHAM: His name is Mr. Brownswaig. (phonetic) I cannot begin to spell that.
THE COURT: That's close enough. There won't be
anybody else who will answer to that name.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, would you rule on my motion to preclude Mr. Markham --
THE COURT: Yes. Motion denied.
(Whereupon, the conference at the Bench was concluded, and the following proceedings were held:)
THE COURT: Mr. Brownswaig, I will ask you to remain until after the lunch break in case counsel have any questions they want to ask of you.
MR. BROWNSWAIG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Until after the lunch break.
MR. ANDERSON: Could he be excluded, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. I will ask you to remain outside
of the courtroom.
(Whereupon, Mr. Brownswaig left the courtroom)
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MR. MARKHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Did you comply with the subpoena that the
defendants served on you?
A Well, I brought what they requested.
Q What did they request?
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, objection. Improper
redirect.
THE COURT: I don't think there has been any
suggestion that she didn't comply with it or that she didn't
bring whatever she had.
A Yes.
Q There is one for November 8th.
A Yes.
Q What is the exhibit number on that?

52
A B-584.
Q That's one of the ones Mr. Williams asked you about?
A Yes, it was.
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, I would move that into evidence at this time since he published part of it. MR. REILLY: No objection.
MR. MOFFITT: No objection on behalf of Mr. Small, Your Honor.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, it contains other
information which is not relevant to this, but that portion that relates to Mrs. Landegger --
THE COURT: I gather the whole document is being introduced?
MR. MARKHAM: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I only examined her on the front page article entitled, "GPO's Harvard punk scams LaRouche campaign money." That's the only article, and I only asked her to refresh her recollection —
MR. ANDERSON: I think we are talking about a
different document.
MR. WILLIAMS: No. This is 11-8 -
THE COURT: I really think to get all of this document into the case at this stage inj ects issues way beyond what the limited cross examination use of them is.

53
MR. MARKHAM: Very well, Your Honor. I will proceed a different way if I may.
MR. WEBSTER: Excuse me, Your Honor. I am confused about which document, because I think we were talking here about two different ones.
THE COURT: My ruling would be the same. It doesn't make any difference which one of the documents it is.
MR. ANDERSON: I thought we were talking about something different. If it's the article I don't have any problem with the whole universe coming in.
MR. MOFFITT: I have no objection, either, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will receive it in evidence then, but I am not going to, by doing that, open the door for the entire dialogue about what these issues contain, because I think they have limited relevance to the case.
MR. MARKHAM: Yes, sir.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q That article does not say, does it, anywhere in it that funds of Fusion Energy Foundation were seized or that people lending to Fusion ought to beware about the risks of repayment. It doesn't say anything about that, does it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection.
THE COURT: Mr. Markham, this witness' recollection was
not refreshed by anything in these newspapers. Now, why

54
are you picking up the banner and running with it?
MR. MARKHAM: If I may, Your Honor, because Mr. Anderson elicited testimony from her that it was quote, "Possible," unquote, that she received issues as of September of '84.
THE COURT: Anything is possible.
MR. MARKHAM: Well, all right. But one thing that isn't possible is for her to have read something that's not in there. The inference he wished to draw was that she was warned somehow. I just wish to draw the counter inferences, if I may.
THE COURT: I think we have pursued this issue and probably the other issues of this newspaper far enough.
MR. MARKHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Now, you indicated that, in answer to questions of Mr. Williams, I believe it was, that you recalled parts of a conversation that they were asking you about, and that you didn't recall parts of the conversation; correct? A That's correct. Q Would you tell the jury what part you recall?
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor. That's been asked and answered. On cross examination, she clearly
stated what her answer was.
THE COURT: Well, I don't think you would be

55
willing to be bound by the answers on direct without further pursuit, and I don't think the Government is obligated to. Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: What conversation are you referring to?
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q The one where Mr. Williams was asking you about discussions about your loans and renewals and the part about Mr. LaRouche and the way he lives?
Which part of that discussion do you recall having?
A I recall making the comments about Mr. LaRouche. I
thought I said them to and I have no
recollection of this Ogden at all. It was not in the same conversation, all of this. I can't believe that it was.
Q Do you remember ever telling anybody from the LaRouche organization that they could keep your money until they were able to pay it back?
A Never.
Q Take a look at Exhibit 16-J, which is the last Government Exhibit. In the manila folders, it's the last one
Is that a letter requesting you to roll over your loans or extend the due dates?
A The letter is explaining --
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor. The question was very simple. Does that ask for a rollover of her loans

56
or due dates. I don't think there is an explanation needed for
what the letter is.
MR. MARKHAM: Let me withdraw that question.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q One of the letters in front of you is a letter by which you were specifically requested to sign it and return it. A That1s true.
Q All right. And do you remember receiving that letter?
A Yes, I do.
Q And do you remember that letter askinqq you whether you would extend? A Yes.
Q And did you sign it and return it? A No, I did not.
MR. MARKHAM: Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down.
(Witness excused) THE COURT: Call your
next witness.
MR. MARKHAM: The United States calls Steven Bardwell, Your Honor. Whereupon
STEVEN BARDWELL was called as a witness in behalf of the United States and

57
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Would you state your full name for the record,
please.
A Steven Bardwell.
Q Where do you live?
A In Hastings-on-Hudson, New York.
Q Have you ever been a member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes.
Q When did you join?
A In the summer of 1972.
Q And for how long were you a member?
A A little less than 12 years.
Q When did you leave?
A February of 1984.
Q During the 1983 period, and 1984 while you still remained a member, did you have a title?
A Yes.
Q What was your title?
A Well, I had several. I was on the national -- I was a national committee member. I was the editor of Fusion Magazine. Those are the two I remember.

58
Q In your capacity as either an NC member or editor of Fusion Magazine, did you ever attend any national executive committee meetings?
A Yes.
Q How was it — were you on the national executive committee?
A No.
Q That was the next level of the hierarchy up from
the national committee?
A Yes.
Q Could I ask you to pull that microphone a little toward you or lean into it a little bit.
How was it that you happened to be attending NEC meetings since you were not a member of the national executive committee?
A There were two circumstances that happened. One was as a national committee member in the national office, one of my duties was to periodically write a morning briefing, and that necessitated attendance at a national executive committee meeting.
Q Why did the fact that you had to write the morning briefing require you to attend the NEC meeting from the night before?
A To write the briefing -- the briefing was supposed to reflect the political analysis of current events. Those

59
were discussed and analyzed at the national executive committee meeting, and the general outlines of that briefing were prepared at the NEC meeting, conveyed to an NC member usually, who would then write the briefing for the next day. The other circumstances was there were some NEC meetings devoted to discussions of science and education policy, and I was sometimes invited to those meetings.
Q Now, how many national executive committee meetings did you attend?
THE COURT: Are we still talking about the '83-'84
period?
MR. MARKKHAM: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. MARKKHAM:
Q '83-'84 period.
A I would say in that period, 20 or 25.
0 And was Mr. LaRouche ever present?
A Yes.
Q Was he always present?
A No.
Q On the occasion — approximately how many times was Mr. LaRouche present?
A I would say of those maybe 10.
Q When Mr. LaRouche was present, who presided at the meetings?

60
A Mr. LaRouche.
Q When Mr. LaRouche was not present, did you ever
observe occasions when communications were made to him or
from him while the meeting was going on?
A Yes.
Q How frequently did that occur?
A Almost every time.
Q Now, at any of these meetings that you attended, did
you observe discussions of quotas?
A Yes.
Q How frequently were quotas discussed at these
meetings?
A At every meeting which a briefing was being prepared, in
the course of which I was supposed to write the briefing, quotas
were discussed and in many of the others, on science or
education policies.
Q Did you ever see people reporting to Mr. LaRouche about
is whether the quota for the day had been met?
A Yes.
MR. MOFFITT: I object, Your Honor. I don't know what
the term people means at meetings, and I don't know whether
that is admissible under those circumstances.
MR. MARKHAM:
People. I'll ask who later. THE COURT: Objection overruled.

61
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q People, anyone, did you ever hear anyone report to Mr. LaRouche on whether or not the quota had been met?
A Yes.
Q How frequently did you observe that?
A Any time there was a discussion of quotas, there was a discussion, report on whether those quotas had been met
Q Who did you see reporting to Mr. LaRouche and the quota during the 1983 period?
A It was usually the NEC member in charge of the operations section of the national office, which sometimes was Carol White, sometimes was Tony Papert. There may have been others.
THE MARSHAL: Sit forward in the seat, sir, and lean into the microphone. Thank you.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Did there come a time when the national operations supervision changed from one person to another?
A I couldn't recall the date or personnel changes
specifically.
Q All right, at these meetings, did you ever observe Ed Spannaus to attend?
A Yes .
Q And how freguently was Mr. Spannaus at the NEC meetings which you attended?

62
A Frequently. I couldn't give you an exact number, maybe half the time.
Q And did you ever see him when he was at these meetings carrying anything with him?
A Yes .
Q What?
A He always had a«notebook with him.
Q And did you ever see him writing in his notebook?
A Yes.
Q On what occasions did you see Mr. Spannaus, did you observe Mr. Spannaus writing in his notebook at these NEC meetings?
A He took detailed notes on discussions that he had with Mr. LaRouche at those meetings or phone calls that he was engaged in with Mr. LaRouche at those meetings. I don't recall his using it for generally note-taking but those specifically I remember,
Q How many times when you observed Mr. LaRouche saying something to Mr. Spannaus did you also observe Mr. Spannaus to be writing that down in his notebook?
MR. WEBSTER: Objection, Your Honor. I don't know if he has any basis to know what it was being written down.

63
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q I am asking only how many occasions did you observe Mr. LaRouche to be saying something to Mr. Spannaus, did you also Mr. Spannaus to be writing in his notebook?
THE COURT: Objection overruled. THE WITNESS: I would say every time.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q And did you observe Mr. LaRouche talking to
Mr. Spannaus only in the context of NEC meetings, or did you observe them to be talking at other times?
MR. WEBSTER: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: The question is observed. Objection overruled.
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, can we have a time frame? Other occasions doesn't give us a time frame.
MR. MARKHAM: I will withdraw the question.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Did you ever — were you ever present on any occasion in 1983 or 1984 when Mr. Spannaus was talking to other people about something that lie had heard from Mr. LaRouche? A Yes.
Q How frequently did you observe Mr. Spannaus talking to anyone, yourself or anyone else, about something that he heard from Mr. LaRouche?

64
A A handful of times.
Q On the occasions when you observed Mr. Spannaus reciting something that he heard from Mr. LaRouche, describe what he was doing.
A He was referring to his notes.
MR. WEBSTER: Excuse me, Your Honor. I am confused here with the observation-and hearing. He keeps saying did you observe, lie can't tell you whether he is saying did you hear it or not hear it? Could he lay a proper foundation whether he heard it.
THE COURT: I think we are getting bogged down into semantics, Mr. Webster. Objection overruled. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Let me repeat the question: how many times did you see Mr. Spannaus, and hear, both, see and hear, with your eyes and your ears, Mr. Spannaus telling anybody else what something that he had heard from Mr. LaRouche? A A handful of times.
Q And on the occasions when you saw and heard him doing that, what did you observe him to be doing as he was saying what he was —
A Referring to his notes.
Q How was it — how many times did you hear Mr. Spannaus refer to Mr. LaRouche by name?
A Many times.

65
Q How did he call it? What did he say? What did he call him?
A He referred to him as Lyn.
Q How many times did you hear Mr. Spannaus refer to Mr. LaRouche as Lyn?
A I don1t think I ever heard him refer -- Spannaus refer to LaRouche as Mr. LaRouche or Lyndon or anything but Lyn.
Q Do you see these notebooks that I have here in my hand?
A Yes.
Q That I am holding up?
A Yes.
Q Would you compare these notebooks to the type of notebook that you observed Mr. Spannaus writing in when Mr. LaRouche was talking and reading from when he was communicating something he heard from Mr. LaRouche?
A They are similar.
Q Did you attend a meeting in Leesburg in the summer of 1983?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember when?
A It was over the 4th of July weekend, I believe.
Q And what was the — why were you there? What kind of meeting was it?

66
A This was a national committee meeting in — that is a
meeting of the national executive committee, LaRouche and the
national committee.
Q Do you remember where the meeting took place?
A Yes. At LaRouche's house,
Q Where was that?
A Just outside of Leesburg. I think it's called Woodburn or something.
Q At that meeting, was there — was Mr. LaRouche there?
A Yes .
Q And the NEC was there?
A Yes.
Q And the RC was there?
A Yes.
Q Did Mr. LaRouche discuss fundraising in any way?
A Yes, he did.
Q When he discussed it, who was present?
A This group of national executive committee members
and national committee members .
Q And do you recall what it was that you heard
Mr. LaRouche saying?
A Yes. He was discussing the book — he said that
the fundraising efforts of the organization had been
inconsistent,.some regions doing very well, some doing poorly

[...]

70
have an additional objection unless the Government intends or is able to link this type of thing up to something that took place during the period of the conspiracy, X think it's totally irrelevant.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Did you ever hear anyone use the term "boiler room" while you were in the organisation? A That was their name. Yes.
MR. MOFFITT: I object.
BY MR. MARKHAM: Q Did you ever hear Mr. LaRouche —
THE COURT: Wait just a minute.
MR. MOFFIT: I object.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Did you ever hear Mr, LaRouche use the term?
A Yes,
Q When did you remember hearing him use the term "boiler room" when he was — and what was he referring to?
Alt was the name used by the organization, including Mr. LaRouche, to describe a room with a bank of telephones and people who used those telephones to raise money by telephone solicitation on an intense basis. I mean, 10 hours at a time or 12 hours at a time.

71
Q How many times did you hear Mr. LaRouche referring to the term "boiler room" in that way?
A I couldn't say.
Q Now, back to Los Angeles. What was it that you observed when you were in the Los Angeles office of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A I observed the boiler room. I also observed the fact that it was very closely monitored by Will Wertz, who had a
board up on the wall on which he had a line for each fundraising team, some of whom were in the boiler room, some of whom were at the Los . Angeles Airport, shopping centers, places like that, and each of those groups would report to him frequently about the progress that they were making towards their quota that day. Each line had a quota assigned to it. That is each team had a quota assigned to it, and there were a number of vertical columns for their progress during the day, and the achievement of that quota. I remarked on the fact that the —
MR. REILLY: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Find out who he remarked to.
THE WITNESS: I didn't mean I said it. I noticed that the quotas were very high. I mean $600 or $700 per team
MR. REILLY: Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the scope of the question,
THE COURT: I think so, too.

72
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Well, did you observe what the quotas were as they were reflected on that quota board?
A They were very high.
Q Compare them to the quotas that existed in other areas of the country that you were familiar with.
A They seemed to be about 50 percent higher.
Q Did you ever see Mr. Wertz do anything when any of the teams reported to him that there had been an increase in the funds that they had raised?
A I saw him on the telephone and hear him talking with
these teams and heard the reports that were made by the leaders of the teams of the boiler room inside the office, always to the effect that if they were below their quota -
MR. MOPFITT: Objection. THE COURT: Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: - he berated them and if they were achieving their quota or ahead of their quota, he was complimentary.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Did there come a time after Spring of 1983 when Mr. Wertz moved from the California region?
A I believe so.
Q Where did he move to?
A New York City.

73
Q And what job did he assume?
MR. GETTINGS: Your Honor, I object to this. His question was, I believe so. And he attempted to elicit the same answer earlier in the testimony unsuccessfully. It's the third time. And he is trying to lead him into something he just doesn't have a recollection of.
MR. MARKHAM: I-will ask it differently if I may.
BY MR. MARK HAM:
Q Do you remember anything else that Mr. LaRouche said when he was talking to the TVC members and the NEC members about the national fundraising other than what you have already testified to, which was — what did he say?
A Yes, I do ,remember. He was very complimentary about the success of the West Coast fundraising, and was especially
anxious that the national office be reorganized, its fund-raising be reorganized to reflect that success.
Q Now, you left the organization when?
A At the end of February 19 84.
Q Where were you in December 1983?
A Part of it, I was in India and part of it I was in New York and part of it I was in Virginia.
Q How frequently were you in the New York headquarters during the period of December, January, February, 19 84?
A With the exception of December, several times a week.

74
Q Did you ever go to the morning briefings?
A Not that I can remember.
Q Now, have you ever heard Mr. LaRouche make any references to fundraising?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever heard him use — have you ever heard anyone use the term "thievery and thuggery"?
A Yes.
Q Who?
A Mr. LaRouche was the first one I heard it from.
Q Do you remember when it was or how often did you hear him use that term?
A There was a period where every fundraising speech he gave included that formulation.
Q Do you remember when the last — do you remember hearing it any time in 1983?
A Yes.
Q When?
A There was a conference at the beginning of 19 83, beginning of January where I distinctly remember — I remember very clearly his using that phrase in reference to fundraising
Q Do you remember where that conference was?
A Yes. I believe it was at the Horace Mann School in the Bronx, New York.
Q Tell us what you can recall Mr, LaRouche saying

75
about fundraising at that time.
A He said that the human race was on the verge of destruction or self-destruction as a result of its imbecility, its sheeplike quality, and that it lacked itself the moral fitness to survive, that it would only be -- that is humanity would only be save if Mr. LaRouche and his people were able to raise the funds necessary to put him on television to publish newspapers, to send him on special tours and most especially to protect him from assassinations and if that money weren't raised, that humanity would be destroyed. He said that this justified any means short of thievery and thuggery to raise that money.
Q Who was he saying this to?
A The assembled membership of the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
Q Was there a reaction after he said it, a reaction?
A There was applause after his speech. There was enthusiastic applause after his speech.
Q Now, do you remember any time after that occasion
where Mr.. LaRouche made general remarks about fundraising to the membership of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes.
Q When?
A There were two national conferences which I attended, one in the summer of 1983 and one in December or

76
January of '83 to '84. I went to both — in both of those conferences, Mr. LaRouche gave extensive speeches about fundraising.
A The speeches he gave on fundraising were very similar. I remember in the January 1984 speech, there were many very specific references to the extinction of the human race would be caused by a nuclear war and that this could only be stopped by the ability of himself and the National Caucus of Labor Committees to stop that war. To do that meant raising tremendous amounts of money* The organization was not doing that. Because of that, they were/ he characterized them as swine, that they had to raise that money and if they didn't, the consequence would be their own as well as humanity1s destruction. He compared the human race to lemmings rushing to their own destruction.
Q Do you remember anything else that Mr. LaRouche — what was the response of the audience after that speech?
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, I object to the
relevant.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Do you remember anything else that he said on any other occasion in late '83-'84 that you remember about

77
fundraising and the general population?
A Those are the specific things that I can quote
from him, or nearly quote.
Q Did you ever hear him making
reference to any of

 the members who were having problems raising their quotas 6 or raising funds? A Yes.

Q And when do you remember him making references to individual fundraisers who were having problems making money?
A In every speech that he gave about fundraising,
there was the speech about the necessity of it and the threat
of extinction if it wasn't accomplished successfully. And on
the other side, there was his discussion of the reasons that
people were unable to raise funds.
Q Do you recall any of the reasons which
Mr. LaRouche stated ?
A The primary — yes, I do. His primary statement in each of
those occasions was that it was sexual impotence
or sexual problems that caused people to be unable to raise
sufficient amounts of money.
Q And how frequently did you
hear him make those
kinds of references when he was talking about fundraisers
having problems?
A At each of those national conferences. In the
other NEC meetings, I would be hard put to put a percentage

78
on it, but much of the time.
Q Do you recall anything that you heard Mr. Wertz say
when you were out in California about people who came to
him and said or indicated that they were not making their
quotas?
A Yes. If I remember clearly his berating a group of
organisers for not raising sufficient funds and by doing so
contributing to the likelihood that LaRouche and his wife
would be assassinated, that this was a question of their
personal security, that these organizers were compromising
by not raising sufficient amounts of money.
Q Do you remember anything else that he said?
MR GETTINGS:
Your Honor, I have the same objection, Your
Honor, again outside the scope,and absolute failure
through this witness or other witnesses to tie it up.
THE COURT; Activities and statements which
preceded the date of the indictment it seems to me may be
relevant to determine what the intent of the defendant
was during the period of the indictment. For that reason,
which is the same reason I gave a little while ago, your
objection is overruled.
BY MR„ MARKHAM:
Q Do you remember any other specific things he said
to fundraisers?

79
A No.
Q Now, you worked on the Fusion Energy Foundation?
A Yes.
Q They had a magazine that they
published?
A Yes.
Q And did you have any responsibilities in connection
with that magazine?
A I was the editor-in-chief.
Q Did that magazine actually get published and come
out?
MR. REILLY: Could we have a time period on this
question. Your Honor?
MR. MARKHAM: During 1980 -
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Well, from 1980 onward, did the magazine come out
from time to time?
MR. REILLY: Objection. The period before the
beginning of the alleged conspiracy.
MR. MARKHAM: I will bring it forward, Your Honor.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Did the magazine come out from time to time in
1983?
A Yes. But irregularly. Less than it was supposed
to".
Q All right. How often was it supposed to come out?

80
A I can't tell you specifically in 1983. It was either
six or 10 times a year that it was supposed to come out.
Q Did you ever have any discussions with anybody about
why the magazine was not coming out as frequently as it should
be?
A From the beginning of 19 81 onward when I became editor-in-
chief, I was continually complaining about the fact that the
magazine wasn't published as it was supposed to be.
Q How long did you continue making those complaints?
A Until my resignation.
Q In '84?
A In February of '84.
Q Did you ever speak to — well, how often was the
magazine actually coming out in 1983?
A I couldn't give you a number, a handful of times. The
schedule of the magazine was supposed to be ten times a year. It
was scaled down to six, and it didn't even accomplish six times
a year.
Q Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. LaRouche on
that subject?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever hear anybody else have any discussions with

81
Mr. LaRouche on that subject?
Q All right. And tell us as best you can recall
when you can remember those conversations occurring, the ones
where you said something to Mr. LaRouche on the subject, tell
us what you remember saying to him and what he said to
you about why these magazines were not being delivered as
subscribed?
A What I said was that the money that had been raised by selling subscriptions to the Fusion Energy Foundation* s magazine was money that should be used for the educational and scientific work that the Fusion Energy Foundation represented, and that to not spend that money that way was a bad investment because it wouldn't raise more money on that line, and furthermore it didn't accomplish what I regarded as the most important work that the National Caucus o£ Labor Committees was doing, scientific and technical education.
It was also my belief — I believed it but I also said -- that the best resource that the National Caucus of Labor Committees had was the group of Fusion subscribers and that those people had to be serviced with this magazine to stay that valuable resource.
Q And these were the subscribers that had paid money on a promise that they would get a certain number of subscriptions, certain number of editions?

82
A Yes.
Q Now, do you remember what Mr. LaRouche said in response?
A Yes. He said two or three distinct things. First, that
the money that was raised for those subscriptions did not belong to the Fusion Energy Foundation. It belonged to the organization as a whole, that the organization as a whole had raised that money and was in fact subsidizing the Fusion Energy Foundation so that there was no organizational distinction between that money and any money that the organization had. Secondly, he said that the obligation that anybody might feel to those subscribers was misplaced if it was put in terms of providing those people with a magazine, because those people had spent their money -- whether they knew it or not, they had contributed their money to the furtherance of Mr. LaRouche's ideas and his method, and that money was then to be spent by Mr. LaRouche and the organization in a way that the organization and Mr. LaRouche
though an individual might have thought that is what they paid for. What they actually were doing was supporting that organization.
The third thing that he said was that the key to achieving those goals was his own personal security and that that expense took priority over anything else. That if

83
he wasn't alive, then not only the survival of the
organization but humanity as a whole was, you know, was, was
in question. So that those people's money was best spent
paying his security costs first and then other priorities
lower. Last on that list being the obligation to fulfill
those subscriptions.
MR. MARKHAM: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. REILLY:
Q Good morning, Mr. Bardwell. How are you? My
name is Michael Reilly. I represent -- over
there. Do you know -- ?
A I have met him.
Q You didn't really deal with him when you were on
Halloween party, aren1t you?
A I have had Halloween parties at my house.
Q You know which Halloween party I am referring to,
don't you, sir?
A it would be great if you were more specific.
Q Do you remember having a Halloween party, in
October 1984, shortly after the raid in Leesburg?

84
A Yes.
MR. REILLY: If I could show you Exhibit UUUU-1,
1 86, thank you.
{Law clerk handing document to witness.) {Witness reading the document.)
BY MR. REILLY:
Q You recognize that document, don't you?
A Yes.
Q That is an invitation you sent out to your Halloween party; isn't that fair?
A No. That is not correct.
Q Is some portion of UUUU-1 an invitation which you sent to people for your Halloween party?
A Yes.
Q Which portion would that be, sir?
A The first page.
Q How about the second page?
A No.
Q Have you ever seen the second page of UUUU-1 prior to my showing it to you just now?
A Yes.
Q When did you first see it?
A Probably the beginning of October that year.
Q Did you prepare it?
A Yes.

85
Q You wrote it?
A Yes.
Q What did you do with it after you wrote it?
A I printed it.
Q Did you give it to anybody?
A Some guests at the party received that, yes.
Q And the second-page, sir, right below game one, you
Q have the language, the description of game one was —,
MR. MARKHAM: Objection. Is he moving this
document into evidence?
MR. REILLY: Yes, I am. THE COURT: Any
objection?
MR. MARKHAM: No. No, Your Honor. BY
MR. REILLY:
Q Sir, the second page of UUUU-1, game one, pin the rap on
LaRouche. Is that what you wrote, sir?
A Yes .
Q And you gave that out to people at the party?
A to sortie of them, yes.
Q Did you laugh about the idea of pin the rap on
A Well, not many people thought it was funny, so I would
say no.
Q Sir, at that party was Charles Tate, is that
correct?

86
A Yes.
Q And a fellow named Gene Inch (phonetic); is that correct?
A I believe he was there.
Q Gene Inch was disguised, he was supposed to be Warren Hammerman, who is somebody on the national committee? Do you remember that, his costume he had on?
A I don't remember his costume.
Q Do you remember the pig nose that he had, plastic pig nose that was supposed to represent Mr. Warren Hammerman?
A I don't remember that.
Q Was there a fellow named Dreyfus there?
A Yes.
Q And he was disguised or made up as Khomeni, do you remember that?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q There was a fellow Chris Strunk (phonetic) there? Do you remember him?
A He wasn't a guest, but I remember him.
Q He was made up as an AIDS virus; do you remember that?
A That is correct.
Q There was a woman by the name of Libby Moriarity there, wasn't there?

87
A I don't remember. She may have been.
Q Libby Moriarity is somebody who used to work at World Comp and then started calling people at World Comp and asking them to leave the organization? Do you remember that?
A I have no knowledge of that.
Q Do you know that she used to work at World Comp?
A Yes.
Q Are you familiar with the term, "nag operation"?
A Yes.
Q Have you heard that term used in reference to Ms, Moriarity?
A No.
Q Have you heard it used in reference to yourself?
A Yes.
Q It would be accurate, wouldn't it, your understanding
of nag operation applied to yourself?
A No.
Q Okay. Wouldn't it be fair to say, sir, that at that party, one of the activities was to put on skits? A Not to my knowledge.
Q Well, do you remember a skit by Charles Tate?
A There was — he didn't give a skit.
Q Do you remember him doing an imitation?
A Yes.
Q And that was an imitation of Mr. LaRouche drunk,

88
wasn't that right?
A I think that's right. It was an imitation of Mr. LaRouche. I don't remember that it involved his being drunk.
Q Do you remember him saying, Mr. Tate saying, that he was rehearsing his testimony when he introduced what he was going to do?
A ISIo, I don't remember that.
Q There was a fellow there by the name of Gus Axios, wasn't there, sir?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Axios is somebody who had been in the National Caucus of Labor Committees and had left? Isn't that correct?
A He was no longer in it at that point.
Q Do you remember Mr. Axios giving a speech urging people at the party to organize, to put Lyndon LaRouche
A No, I do not.
Q Do you remember anybody giving a speech with that language, organize to put LaRouche in jail?
A Definitely not.
Q There was a fellow Mark Stallman (phonetic) there
also, isn1t that correct?
A Yes.

89
Q And Mr. Stallman was videotaping the proceeding, wasn't he?
A No. It turned out that he wasn't.
Q He tried and was unsuccessful? Isn't that what you are telling us?
Q So you don't know of any videotape that might exist?
A As far as I know, there was not.
Q About the party.
How long did the party last, sir?
A Six hours maybe.
Q Was there anybody else at the party who I haven't named who you remember who is a former member or was a former member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes.
Q Who would that be, sir?
A Well, my wife and I were there. Bob Dreifus' wife was there.
There were other people there. Their names, though I couldn't swear to the other people being there. There were
more people there.
Q Now, this Gus Axios fellow that I asked you about, was he the person who talked to you about leaving the organization prior to your leaving the organization?

90
A Who talked to me about it?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And you had conversations with him throughout December and January, December of '85 and January of '86 about leaving the organization?
A I had already left by that point. That is a year after I had left. I don1t think I talked to him in December or January of '85.
Q I am mixing up '84 and '86 again. Excuse me, sir. You left in January or February of what year?
A 1984.
Q And you had conversations with Mr. Axios in December of '83 and January of '84. Is that correct?
A I believe I talked to him once. I don't recall more conversations than that.
Q Now, sir, when you were a member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, you were not involved in overseeing, raising or spending money; isn't that accurate?
A No, that's not accurate.
Q You were involved in that?
A Yes.
Q And would you tell us your educational background,

91
Q Where was that from?
A The University of Colorado.
Q And you were not involved in the day-to-day control of money or the business end of Fusion Foundation, were you?
A The spending end, not the raising end — not the fundraising part, but the spending end, yes.
Q You were involved in the day-to-day control of the money or the business end of the Foundation?
A I was involved to — I believe there are two parts of the finances. One is raising it, which I was not intimately involved with, or the day-to-day part, the spending. However, I was as editor and responsible person for whether or not that magazine was published.
Q In fact, you had, as you testified on direct, a whole series of discussions with Mr. LaRouche when you would complain to him or bring to his attention the fact that you felt not enough funds were being spent on fusion; isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q One of the things Mr. LaRouche would say to you is, "My personal security is crucial to the success of Fusion Foundation. So that if I am killed or injured, it would be the end of Fusion Magazine." Isn't that what he told you, sir?
Q I don't ever remember him saying the end of Fusion

92
Magazine. I think he said the end of humanity1s chance for survival.
Q Included amongst that you knew was Fusion Magazine, is that fair?
A Presumably*
Q Sir, it was accurate, wasn't it in 1983 and 1984, that Mr LaRouche was crucial to the continuation of Fusion Magazine?
A He was an important part of it, sure.
Q Steve Bardwell couldn't have put out Fusion Magazine himself? Wouldn't that be fair?
A Definitely true.
Q And one of the things that Fus ion Energy Foundation money was spent for was to put on seminars and presentations. Wouldn't that be accurate?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact you personally traveled all over the world giving presentations? Isn1t that correct, sir?
A That is correct.
Q Sir, if I could show you Exhibit AAAAA-10 and ask you to look at that.
(Law clerk handing exhibit to witness) BY MR. REILLY:
Q I ask you to look through that, sir, and see if that is an accurate listing of the activities of Fusion

93
Energy Foundation?
MR. MARKHAM: Time frame?
BY MR. REILLY:
Q From Fall of 1980 until the time you left.
MR. MARKHAM: Objection, Your Honor, Relevance to
the activities of Fusion between '80 and '84.
MR. REILLY: Mr. Markham went into it in his
MR. MARKHAM: I did not go into what he did or
H didn't do. I didn't think it was any relevance.
MR. REILLY: He did not go into the guestion of
where the money went.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
BY MR. REILLY: Fusion Energy? m
A I couldn't verify everyone of these but the ones
I knew of — the ones I recognize I do know happened.
Q Was there anything on there that you don't, that you
not recognize as happening?
A There are many of them that I couldn't say yes or no,
having no personal knowledge, either knowledge or memory of.
Q it would be fair to say, sir, wouldn't it,

94
throughout the period from '80 to '85, January of '85,
Fusion Energy put on a very substantila schedule of conferences and seminars throughout the world?
A I can't speak to 1984, but in the previous period, yes .
Q And you personally traveled to give those seminars all over the place, all over the world, isn1t that correct?
A That's correct.
Q You went to India, you testified?
A That is true*
Q You went to Argentina, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q You went there with Dennis Small, didn't you?
A That is correct.
Q And you went to other countries. Did you ever go to Mr. LaRouche and say, "Mr. LaRouche, rather than send me all over the world, you ought to spend this money on Fusion Magazine?"
A Yes.
Q Do you remember making that point to him?
A I do.
Q Your testimony is that he sent you against your urgings all over the world? You didn't want to go and he said, "No, Steve, rather than spend it on the magazine, we will spend it on sending you all over the world?" Would that

95
be your claim here?
A I don't think you can make that general statement. There
were specific trips and specific conferences that I thought the money was ill-spent on and should be better or would be better spent on publishing the magazine.
Q But you went anyways?
A I don't remember a case where I didn't for that reason, that is true.
Q Now, you were constantly lobbying for more money for Fusion Magazine; correct?
A I am not sure what you mean by constant, but yes, I did do it.
Q One of the things you testified to on direct, one of the other things that Mr. LaRouche said to you was Fusion Energy --what was the subscription list of Fusion Energy? How many people subscribed?
A It was on the order of 100,000 - between 100,000 and 150,000.
Q Subscriptions were $20 each, correct?
A $15, $17, $20.
Q And Mr. LaRouche said to you frequently that, well, what you are not accountinq for, Steve Bardwell, is the cost that Caucus Distributors, Inc. has to qet that $ 15 subscription.
A Correct.

96
Q And he would say to you, wouldn't he. Caucus Distributors is paying for the phones, the stipends, the organization that is involved in getting a $15 subscription or a $17 subscription, isn1t that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you never did the accounting to know whether or not it cost Caucus Distributors $30 to get a $20 subscription isn't that correct?
A The calculation I did involved the renewals, which would have no cost of sale --
Q We'11 get to renewals.
A —and, would have been easily paid for.
Q We'll get to renewals . Right now I want to ask you about the initial cost.
A No, I didn't -
Q You never did that calculation?
A Correct.
Q So you don't know whether or not the cost of the original enrollment exceeded the money received?
A Correct.
Q Now, what was the renewal rate for Fusion Magazine in 1983?
A I can't give you a percentage term, but I know that there were 20,000 to 30,000 renewals.
Q In 1984, do you know?

97
A No, 1 don't.
Q And is it your testimony, sir, that there was no cost to those renewals?
A Yes.
Q Those were automatic renewals without any, even without any letters being sent out saying the subscription is up?
A To the extent that previous magazines were sent out,
they had a notice on the front, "Your last
subscription," or "Your last issue." To my knowledge, that was not the total extent but a very large part of the effort that was made for renewals.
Q And you are not aware of anything else that was done to get those renewals?
A Yes, I am aware of others.
Q What else are you aware of that was done to get those renewals?
A There was talk, and I believe a partial mailing of a set of letters to subscribers whose subscription had or was on the verge of expiring. It was also the subject of telephone solicitation.
Q So there would be again people working for Caucus Distributors calling up and soliciting for renewals, also; isn't that correct, sir?
A Yes, I believe so.

98
Q And you don't know the cost of that either, do you?
A Correct.
Q So you don11 know in terms of dollars and cents whether even the cost of renewals exceeded the money received
A Correct.
Q You don' t know, sir, of any specific check that came in for Fusion Energy Foundation and was diverted for some other purpose, do you?
A No, I wouldn't have seen the check like that anyway,
Q And you don't know of Fusion money being put into an
account and then taken out or diverted for an account that was completely separate, do you?
A I had no control over it or access to the checkbook,
Q In fact, you didn't even know, and you don't even know today what bank Fusion Energy had used; isn1t that correct?
A That's correct.
Q But it is true, isn't it, sir, that you viewed Fusion Magazine in a personal way as in some sense a magazine that you were responsible for?
A Absolutely.
Q And you were very proud, weren't you, sir, of Fusion Magazine?
A When it was published, yes,
Q You resented the fact, didn't you, that it could

99
not be published at the rate you wanted it to be published and you thought it should be published?
A I think resentment is the wrong word. I was failing in my responsibilities, yes.
Q You were angry that it wasn't published as much as you felt it should be published, isn't that fair?
A I thought I was failing in my responsibility to have it published, yes.
Q And any time you wanted to complain about this problem, you could call Mr. LaRouche and complain to him? Isn't that true?
A That's correct.
Q In October of 198 2, you sent a memorandum to Mr.
LaRouche complaining about this fact, isn't that correct?
A I sent several. I couldn1t swear to that date.
Q Do you remember the one you sent in October of '82, Mr. LaRouche suggested that you circulate it to other members of the national executive committee?
A Entirely possible. I don't remember.
Q Now, you testified that you were at a meeting in January of 1984, a national meeting? Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q You testified about what Mr. LaRouche said warning
about the possibility of nuclear war, correct?
A Correct.

100
Q Now, you had a disagreement with Mr. LaRouche at that meeting in January of '84, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And in fact it was that disagreement that was the
iramediate cause of your deciding to leave the National
Caucus of Labor Committees? Is that fair?
A I think it's fair to say the immediate cause, yes
Q And the disagreement, was it about fundraising,
Alt was about the general direction of the organization.
Q In fact, wasn't it about international politics?
A The policy of the organization generally but involving some things about international politics,
yes.
Q It's fair to say, isn't it, that you thought Lyndon LaRouche was viewing the united Russia as a problem rather than a tool and that he took too hard a line towards the Russians in regards to the SDI program?
A I don1t think I characterized it as too hard. It was just wrong.
Q Okay. And Mr. LaRouche — this was the presentation that you made at a full meeting of the national membership?
A Correct?
Q You stood up at the meeting with everybody present

101
and told Mr. LaRouche you disagreed with what his view of what the Russians were up to?
A Correct.
Q And then Mr. LaRouche said to you in front of all the members at the national meeting, "What you ignore, Steve, is the fact is that the Soviet leadership is evil." Do you remember him saying that -to you?
A I don't remember those words specifically.
Q Do you remember the words to that effect?
A The words that I remember was that I was complicit in an assassination attempt against him by virtue of my disagreement.
Q You don1t remember him saying to you that you are wrong about what the Soviet leadership is up to, Steve?
A You said evil. I don't remember that. That he said I was wrong, yes, he did.
Q He argued with you, didn't he, about what your view
of what the Soviet leadership was up to, correct?
A That's correct.
Q One of the other things that you said at that meeting was that you thought it was wrong that there wasn't enough of an effort made in the New Hampshire primary, which was coming up at that point? Isn't that correct?
A That part, I don't remember specifically, but that doesn't — it's not impossible.

102
Q That in fact was your position, wasn1tit, at that time, that not enough attention was being paid to the political organizing?
A Yes.
Q You stayed in the National Caucus of Labor Committees for about a month-and-a-half after that national meeting where you had the disagreement with Mr. LaRouche, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
World hypothesis?
A I think it's called Third Rome hypothesis.
Q You're right, and I am wrong. Third Rome hypothesis, correct. And you again disagreed with Mr. LaRouche's analysis about why the Russians rejected or whether the Russians rejected the Star Wars proposal?
A Correct,
Q And you argued that the KAL-007 was probably a spy plane and therefore Mr. LaRouche*s analysis of that was incorrect?
A No, I didn't argue that.
Q Do you remember, sir — I could show you —
THE COURT: Are the details of his disagreement important? To the extent that he disagreed, it may show bias as one thing, but —

103
MR. REILLY: Fine, Your Honor.
BY MR. REILLY:
Q Your memorandum was published in the morning briefing, wasn1t it?
A I believe so.
Q That was a memorandum you very strongly and vehemently disagreed with what Mr. LaRouche had to say?
A Correct.
Q Now, sir, throughout this entire period from 1983 to 1984 when you left the organization, did you ever in any of these writings that we have talked about specifically attack the fundraising policies of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A In my written things?
Q Yes.
A I don1t believe so,
Q And at the national meetings that we have testified about, you testified about, in the summer of '83 and in January of '84, did you publicly attack the fundraising policies of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Not to my memory.
MR. REILLY: Thanks. I have no further questions of this witness.

104
BY MR. REILLY:
Q Did Mr. Tate -- did you give Mr. Tate a copy of that invitation, the whole invitation for use one?
A I don1t know.
MR. REILLY: All right.
MR. GETTINGS: If I might, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
BY MR. GETTINGS:
Q Mr. Bardwell, I am Brian Gettings. I represent Will Wertz.
As I understood your direct testimony, you
said that you made three trips to Los Angeles?
A Yes.
Q And these were all business trips in conjunction with your work with the Fusion Energy Foundation; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Okay. And can you tell us again when they were, each of them?
A Well, I didn't tell you before, but one of them was in the spring of 1983. The other two were at some point during 19—1 am sorry, the spring of 1983. The other two were during 19 82, but I couldn't give you the dates.
Q During 1982 in connection with anything that you

105
can recall specifically?
A There were a series of conferences, speaking engagements, that were arranged on the west coast for Fusion Energy Foundation. I did some of those speaking engagements.
Q Was that the purpose of both of your visits in 1982?
A That is my memory.
Q Isn't it a fact that in the fall of 1982, the general issue of the nuclear freeze was on the ballot in California and the Fusion Energy Foundation was opposed to that? Isn't that part of what was involved in your trips out there?
A The Fusion Energy Foundation was opposed to it. T couldn't tell you that it was the fall of 1982 that it happened however. I am not quibbling with you. I just don't remember that date specifically.
Q Well, the two trips took place at approximately around the same period of time.
A If you know that for a fact. I am not aware of that.
Q In fact you went around conducting seminars in various locations throughout the state of California?
A Yes.
Q And that the purpose of this was to speak out

106
against the nuclear freeze and in favor of SDI?
A Yes. That is correct.
Q That was to have a voice in the election, was it not, in California?
A Correct.
Q And if that election was in the fall of 1982 it would accord with your recollection that it was sometime around then?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And how long were you out there on these two occasions, number of days — again, just your best estimate?
A Twelve, 14.
Q All right. It was a concerted effort that had you out there for more than just stopping by and so forth?
A Correct.
Q Okay. And did you spend a good deal of time at the regional office?
A I spent a good portion of that time in the evening, I should say late evenings at the office in Los Angeles, and several days.
Q All right. In other words, that was kind of your headquarters, is that right?
A Definitely.
Q And you would go out again during the day and you

107
would do these seminars or whatever, lectures, but then you would always come back to the headquarters? A Not always, but —
Q As a general rule?
A Frequently, yes.
Q This was the same place you later visited in the spring of '83, is that right?
A If you mean it was the same building, I couldn't say. It was definitely the same office.
Q The same office. You are not sure whether it was at the same place or it happened to be some other place, is that it?
A Yes.
Q And what was the occasion of your trip in the spring of '83 ?
A I don't remember specifically the occasion.
Q How long were you out there on that occasion?
A If my memory is correct, two or three days.
Q For again a purpose?
A Yes.
0 But not the same purpose that you had previously been out there?
A It wasn't to speak about a referendum that had already happened, no.
Q How frequently were you at the regional office in
the spring of 1983?
A I remember being there two evenings and one long afternoon from noon to almost through the whole evening.
Q Well, let me see if I can refresh your memory. Was there a conference on beam weapons and ABM systems, and so forth, that was held in Los Angeles in March of 1983 that

108

you attended?
A I did attend a conference like that. I couldn't swear to it that it was in March of '83.
Q In LA?
A Yes.
Q You had been there three times, right, and the other two you do relate to the lectures and so forth on the -
A I am not quibbling with you. You asked me the date and I am telling you —
Q Again, I am just trying to refresh your memory.
A Mr. Rather (phonetic) was there.
You addressed it?
A Yes.
Q And -- a lot of people, some 8 0-odd people attended this conference. Does that refresh your memory as to why you were there in the spring of '83?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, this room that you had described, you used the phrase boiler room. You wouldn1t mind if I use

109
use the phrase phone room? Sai.Ae thing.
A You can call it whatever you will.
Q Okay. Wasn't it in fact not a single room, but wasn't it three rooms?
A I would be hard put to -- the office had more than one room. I would be hard put to count how many that were there. All those rooms had telephones in them.
Q They were all offices, right?
A The one that I remember specifically was — not what
I would call an office. It had three phones on a wooden table, wooden plank on the side, and there were people sitting in front. It was closed off at the door, and there were three people in there on the telephone.
Q All right. Three people, that is correct?
A Yes, more or less.
Q And do you recall who any of those three people were?
A I don't believe I knew their names.
Q You don't know any of them, is that right?
A I don't think I could tell you that.
Q Is that the number of persons that you observed using the phones, three?
A No.
Q There were more?
A Yes. There were more people using the phones.

110
Q Where were they using the phones?
A Other rooms.
Q Other rooms. So it was more than one room?
A The boiler room that I was talking about was that specific room.
Q With three people in it?
A Yes.
Q And then there were other people in other rooms using the telephones?
A Correct.
Q And were you able to tell whether these were people using their office phones for office purposes?
A I am not clear on the distinction you are making. Their purpose was to raise money. They were doing that.
Q You heard the people who were not using the three phones, the other people using the phones to raise money, is that right?
A Yes.
Q How many in all were raising money?
A I would say less than 15, but —
Q In fact, it was about five people in all?
A 1 couldn't say that. It seemed like more than that, but 1 don't know.

111
five people in the office.
Q All right.
A And the number of them continuously on the phone would be hard for me to estimate. I know there were three in that one room. The number of people continuously on the other phones it would be hard for me to tell you. They were in and out.
Q All right. Now then, however many people there were, isn1t it a fact that your observation of the people using the phones took place on your prior visit to California in the fall of 1982 and not on your visit in the spring of '83?
A I don't know that that is a fact.
Q You don't know one way or the other?
A That is correct.
Q Okay. And isn1t it a fact that what was going on to your knowledge and to your participation in the fall of 1982 was a full court press on the nuclear freeze issue in the California election?
A On the contrary, I was disturbed by the fact the campaigning about the nuclear freeze issue seemed to be only a campus educational question, but that the fundraising literature didn't reflect that emphasis, partly because there were no magazines, or were few magazines for distribution.
Q Well, you are now talking about the magazines.

112
That was always a bone of contention of yours, was it not? That the literature end of it was never adequate in your judgment to meet the requirements?
A That is correct.
Q And that simply was a problem you had with what was going on with the campus effort in the fall of '82?
A I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking me about the emphasis that was going on in the office, was it related to the nuclear freeze. I am saying no, it was not. It was primarily a fundraising effort around, for example, an assassination threat to Mr. LaRouche, It had very little to do with the nuclear freeze election campaign. That seemed to be restricted only to campus speeches and campus organizing.
Q I see, but you would concede that the fundraising effort that you observed could have taken place and you could have observed it in the fall of '82 as opposed to in
the spring of '83?
A I observed it both times, to my memory.
Q Pardon me?
A I said I observed it both times, to my memory.
Q Well, now, didn1t you testify on direct that when you saw this, you hadn't seen it before?
A What that was supposed to be was outside of California. The reason I remarked was that it was unique to

113
California.
Q You hadn't seen it in other places before?
A Not with the intensity and the organization I saw
there.
MR. GETTINGS: That is all.
THE COURT: When Mr. Anderson hitches up those pants, we have to look out, when he charges that podium.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Mr. Bardwell, you understand plagiarism to be essentially academic dishonesty, do you not?
A I think that is a form of academic dishonesty, yes.
Q In fact, it is in the sense of academic honesty and dishonesty, it is a form of tangible misrepresentation as to the basis of the thought that went into a certain piece of academic work; isn't that true?
A I think it is — I would say no. I think specifically the claiming of an idea as your own that was not your own or a quote that you said that was said by someone else, not attributing correctly the source of a specific piece of material.
Q Or presenting as your own the idea of someone else?
A Yes.
Q Or lifting from someone else's work product without

114
attribution that that is in fact attributing it to someone else?
A Correct.
Q In other words, taking credit for it as your own product?
A Correct.
Q You, in fact, were accused on at least one occasion, were you not, Mr. Bardwell, of engaging in precisely that type of academic dishonesty?
A Not to my knowledge, or not to my face.
Q You didn't write a letter in response to a suggestion that you had engaged in academic dishonesty, essentially apologizing for your conduct?
A You could refresh me about it. It is something that doesn't stick in my mind.
Q If you had been accused of academic dishonesty or plagiarism, are you suggesting that you wouldn't remember that?
A If it was a, you know, an offhand comment that someone misunderstood what I said, they said, hey, that was my idea, and I said, oh, you're right. I don't think — I am sure that has happened many times. I have made the same comments to other people, and subsides without a ripple. I am not familiar with any incident that would fit what you are describing.

115
Q Then you have no memory of ever having written a letter in which you apologized for a form of plagiarism?
A I think I would remember, especially if I used the word plagiarism, I think I would remember it, maybe not, but it certainly doesn't stick in my mind.
Q Haven't you in fact also been accused of other forms of lying or misrepresentation over the last several years, or period of years?
A My daughter accuses me of lying all the time.
Q I suppose she knows you well, doesn't she?
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, I object to that comment as inappropriate and unfair and unlawyerlike.
MR. ANDERSON: It is his daughter. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. ANDERSON: As to that, Mr. Markharn, you ought to know.
THE COURT: Mr. Anderson, really, that doesn't do either one of you much credit. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Do you recall a discussion prior to your departure from the National Caucus of Labor Committees in which you had a discussion with Michelle Steinberg (phonetic) about some correspondence you had had, some discussions you had had with Gus Axios, also known as Costas Caliptious?
A Yes.

116
Q And she had asked you whether or not it was true that you had been in correspondence with him, or in contact with him, and you denied it, didn't you?
A I don't remember the — I remember part of the conversation relating to the subject of a phone call, and the subject of the phone call was discussed, which must have meant that I said yes, I had talked to him.
Q Didn't you in the first instance deny it and then when confronted with the knowledge of the existence of the phone call say, yes, all right? How did you know about it? Weren't you in fact offended that they knew about the call?
A I don't remember the incident. It doesn't — it is not something that I remember.
Q You do know that Gus Axios, also known as Costas Caliptious (Konstandinos (Gus) Kalimtgis or "Gus Axios" or "Costas Axios", note), was a member of or a participant in certain of these nag operations against the National Caucus of Labor Committees after he left, are you not?
A My understanding of the word nag was related to the New Alternatives Group, a left-wing spinoff group in New York City. To my knowledge, he had no connection with them.
Q Didn't nag operations stand more generally for another proposition, that being the actions of certain individuals or groups of individuals after they left the National Caucus of Labor Committees with a view towards

117
either having a negative impact on the continuing operations or
removing individuals who remained in there who might have been
friends or associates of theirs during that period of time from
the organization?
A I understood that term always within the specific context of a particular group in New York City.
Q Well, you knew that —
A But if you want to give it a new meaning, all right
Q No, I don't. I don't want to give it any meaning. I want to understand your sense of what it meant. Did you know that there were groups or individuals who after their departure from the National Caucus of Labor Committees made an active effort to
Q Wasn't it in fact a matter of regular conversation
during the years when you were still associated with the Labor
Committees that these, that they were under, or were guarding against a perception at least of operations being run against them by individuals or groups of individuals who had previously been associated?
A Definitely the perception, yes.
Q And in fact, that is what your little Halloween party was all about, wasn't it?

118
A The perception of attacking the organization?
Q The fact, the reason - strike that. This
Halloween party took place just after the announcement —
THE COURT: (Interposing) I wonder whether we
haven't covered the Halloween party fairly well with this
witness.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor
for a bit more indulgence, because in my view, the
incredible focus of bias this represents has not been
developed.
THE COURT: No, really, you are entitled to more
leeway than the others for obvious reasons, and I have
attempted to do that, but I really think this subject has
been covered.
MR. ANDERSON: All right, Your Honor.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Did you post a copy of that plan for the
evening or invitation together with announcements of events
such as pin the rap on LaRouche on the wall of your office,
at Lewis Business Machines?
A Definitely not.
Q So if Mr. Tate testified that he saw it on the
wall of your office, he would be in error. Is that
correct? Well, did you post it anywhere?

119
last question?
MR. ANDERSON: I am going to get back to it. I want
to make sure I am not in error in terms of my memory.
THE COURT: I am not going to start having one 6
fine.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Do you remember ever having a discussion with Mr. Tate
about the contents of this multiple-page document? A I don't
remember anything special. Q But isn't it fair to say that
essentially every person who was invited to or in fact attended
-- no -- the vast majority of persons who attended that
Halloween party and received invitations were ex-members of the
National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes.
Q As I understand your testimony on direct examination, Mr. Bardwell, you testified that you recall specifically a conference which you attended in January of 1983 that was held someplace in the Bronx, maybe the Horace Mann School, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q The reason you remember that is it followed

120
precisely on the wake of a trip you lad taken in January which included India, and New York, and Virginia; is that right? In December of 19 83? Excuse me. Maybe I have got the date wrong. Was that December of '83 or December of '82 that you took that other trip?
Forget the whole thing. Let's j ust focus on the conference.
A Okay.
Q Why is it that you specifically recall the date and
location of this conference?
A I have a very clear visual memory of the inside, of the auditorium and of Mr. LaRouche making that statement. I am not sure why it sticks in my memory, but I was very --I was astounded by it, surprised by it. It was particularly reiterated over and over again. It stuck in my memory.
Q Do you recall that statement that Mr. LaRouche made at that time as you testified to included the fact that the human race, certainly the American population and such others had circumstances which he announced which he felt were critical for the survival of the species, if you will, and that there was concern raised as to whether or not their survival in fact wouldn't exist unless certain things took place, is that right?
A That is correct.
Q And among those you specifically said that unless

121
funds could be raised for Mr. LaRouche to appear on television, that was one of the critical things that had to happen before these other things would be prevented; is that correct?
A I don't want to mis characterize it as that was a highlight, but that was a list of things that had to be done, yes .
Q And you are certain that that was one of the — it is one of the things that stuck in your memory, it is obviously one of the significant things that was said, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Well, there was no -- can you think of a single time, Mr. Bardwell, in your knowledge where Mr. LaRouche ever appeared on television except in paid -- working on a paid
television program where someone was paying for it — except in conjunction with a presidential campaign?
A I don't know one way or the other.
Q You know those times when television time was bought was bought by the various campaign entities, do you not?
A I don't know that, no.
Q Well, have you watched them? Have you at that time watched them?
A Some of them, yes.

122
Q In fact, can you think of one out of memory which took place in anything except for the context of a political campaign for the presidency?
A I don't believe so, but I wouldn't swear to it.
Q Would you mind explaining to us what campaign it was that was going on in January of 1983 that would have reguired the raising of funds to put Mr. LaRouche on television?
A Mr. LaRouche thought the American people would always benefit by his being on TV, and he tried to raise money around that idea many, many times.
0 Was there any time — I ask you once again -- was there ever a time when Mr. LaRouche was on television that to your knowledge from what you saw in a paid capacity except in the context of one of the presidential campaigns either 1976, '78, '84?
A I can't swear one way or the other. There were a lot of TV programs. I couldn't tell you the date of them and their
coincidence with the election. Many of them were in the
course of an election.
Q But you can swear to this jury you have a specific
recollection of Mr. LaRouche saying in January, 1983 that the
funds had to be raised specifically for purposes of putting him
on television?
A Yes.

123
Q Now, you also recalled him saying at that time that the fundraising efforts were -- should include such activities as were possible but with a certain caveat, right? Is that correct? In other words, there were forms of conduct which were not appropriately used in order to raise money?
A That is not how I interpreted his statement.
Q Well, you understood him to say, did you not, and these are your words, that means short of thievery or thuggery were appropriate?
A Only short of thievery or thuggery, yes.
Q Did you assume that since thievery and thuggery were mentioned that that included, for example, armed robbery? Armed robbery would be okay?
A That seems thievery to me. I am not a lawyer, but I would call that thievery.
Q What about murder? Would murder have been okay?
A I call that thuggery.
Q So in other words, those words were used to represent forms of misconduct. Thievery, you don't steal money from people? Is that correct?
A That is what it means for sure.
Q And thuggery means you don't hurt people, physically hurt or threaten them? A thug.
A Physically threaten, yes.

124
Q So, in other words, isn't it fair to say that those were -- that conduct consistent with either one of those forms of behavior were specifically prohibited?
A The emphasis was not on the prohibition. It was on the anything except those.
0 But the point is — there are two sides to that specific coin, are there not, Mr. Bardwell?
A In the context that it was given, there was one side.
Q I know this is difficult for you to accept. All right. But isn't the fact contained within the statement itself, isn't it a fact that there are specific prohibitions of certain kinds of conduct? As far as Mr. LaRouche was concerned he didn't want anyone associated with him engaging in any conduct to raise funds or for any other purpose which involved anything that smacked of thievery or thuggery?
A That was not the content or intent of his statement.
MR. MOFFITT: Objection, Your Honor, as to intent of a statement coming from another witness.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Well, it is clear that even you don't have a memory, Mr. Bardwell, that Mr. LaRouche ever said at any

125
time that it is1 okay to go out and do anything you want to raise funds? Anything? A Correct.
Q Now, Mr. Bardwell, no one has bothered to, so I would like to impress this jury with a recitation of your academic background. Would you tell them where you went to college, sir?
A Swarthmore College.
Q And where did you go from there?
A The University of Colorado.
Q And what did you study?
A Physics.
Q Did you receive a doctorate in physics?
A Yes.
Q And was your specialty plasma physics?
A Yes.
Q What does that mean, for the members of the jury and for me?
A It is the study of extremely hot glowing gas, like stars
Q At what point did you become acquainted with or first aware of the existence of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A When I was at school at Swarthmore.
Q What was the form of that acquaintance? How did

126
you become acquainted?
A There was a newspaper that the, I think at that time the Philadelphia SDS Labor Committee published, which I read,and read subsequently the issues of a newspaper called Solidarity, which was published by the, some version of the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
Q On the basis of. reading New Solidarity, is it fair to say that you were interested in some of the ideas and concepts put forward therein?
A Yes.
Q And on the basis of having read that newspaper, did you make contact with certain individuals associated with the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes.
Q How did you do that?
A There were a lot of members of that organization at Swarthmore College. I talked to many of them there.
Q And did you become active beyond reading the newspaper?
A Not — you are talking about while I was at Swarthmore?
Q At Swarthmore.
A I went to some meetings, attended a class by — it was an academic class, but it was taught by a member of the Labor Committees.

127
Q Who was that?
A Ewe Hencke.
Q What was the subject of the class?
A I believe it was a Marxist philosophy.
Q And did you — you in fact gave courses or classes, taught
classes, over the period of times you were associated with the National Caucus of Labor Committees, did you not?
A Not until I joined, but yes.
Q On how many occasions did you have to go out, just give the jury an estimate if you will, of the span of years that you were associated with and teach?
A Two hundred.
Q What were you teaching?
A It ranged from classes in Mr. LaRouche's personal philosophy to plasma physics.
Q I take it when you gave those courses in Mr. LaRouche's philosophy you weren't being a total hypocrite and con man, were you?
A Correct.
Q So it is fair to say that you were teaching those courses on that subject matter in good faith?
A I mean, in retrospect, I wonder how much was self-delusion, but at the time I would say I was sincere, yes.

128
Q Did you understand that to be the answer to the question I asked, or was that just a little something you wanted to throw in on top of the answer to any question, Mr. Bardwell?
A Well, good faith is — I mean there is objective good faith and there is subjective good faith. I was sincere in hindsight. Whether that was good faith, good faith to the people who were there, I would be hard put to say.
Q You understand what the word responsive means. You
are an intelligent man, are you not?
A I understand what the word responsive means.
Q My question to you now, sir, is whether or not you thought that my answer to -- your answer to my question as to whether or not you were acting in good faith at the time you gave those courses was responsive to that question to say that you wondered in retrospect, which obviously means since that time, how much was self-delusion. You thought that was a fair and responsive answer to my question.
A Yes.
Q Now, you mentioned that you, under examination by Mr. Reilly, that you traveled extensively, nationally and internationally, attending conferences, giving seminars, and generally participating in the various activities which
surround the issues that you were interested in, plasma
physics, fusion energy, et cetera, is that true?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You didn't pay for those yourself?
A One of them, I did.
Q One out of how many hundred?
A I don't know how many trips. I couldn't tell you the
number. But it was a lot.
Q Which one was that? 11
A The last one that I took. It was about $2500.
Q Was that to Russia? 13
A No. That is to India and Indonesia and to South Asia.

129
Q Why did you pay for that yourself?
A Because the finance office in the organization wouldn't
reimburse me when I returned, and I left two months later.
Q When you say "wouldn't reimburse you," I take it you
mean that there was some deficiency in funds available for
reimbursement and you didn't get it at that time. Is that
right?
A I can't say there was a deficiency. I know I didn't get it.
Q Did someone tell you that they weren't going to pay
you, Mr. Bardwell?

130

A They said they wouldn't pay me at that time.
Q In other words, you expended the funds out of your
pocket, you traveled on your credit card, is that right?
A That is right.
Q And you sought reimbursement for that?
A Correct.
Q You were told or in some fashion learned that you
weren't going to be reimbursed at that time?
A Correct.
Q I take it after you left, you thought that it probably
would be unsuccessful if you probably attempted to recapture
the expenses?
A I suspected that.
Q So that is the one you paid for?
A Correct.
Q Now, at such other times — how many times have you
traveled outside of the United States by airplane to attend a
conference or give a seminar or meet with someone?
A I would have to say 10 or 15.
Q And what were the length of some of those trips? How
long would you be gone during those trips?
A Usually about two weeks.
Q Sometimes substantially longer than that, true?
A I don't remember ever longer than three weeks.

131
Q Well, in the context of these meetings, these
seminars you attended, there were
people,representatives of foreign governments attending
those. Isn't that true?
A To some of them, yes.
Q And representatives of some well-known and
respected members of the scientific community?
A Yes.
Q Persons involved in the European development of
the SDI?
A Yes.
Q Persons from the United States Government, various
agencies of the United States Government interested in the
policies with regard to the SDI?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, each time you would attend one of those
conferences, you would relay when you got back who was
there and essentially would keep a log or write it up;
isn't that right?
A I always gave a verbal report. I didn't always
write it down.
Q You would report the content of the meeting and
what the persons of significance who had attended,
and give a general overview of the activities? Is that
right?
A That is correct.
Q You knew that a record was kept of those incidents

132
for purposes of just for maintaining records?
A I presume so. I don't know.
Q Did you ever see them?
A I don't think I ever saw the archives those were kept
in. Frequently those were published in a magazine, and I saw
the magazine.
MR. ANDERSON: If I could have a moment, if Your
Honor please.
(Conference among counsel off the record.)
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q In fact you wrote extensively in Fusion about
various activities, did you not?
A I wrote many articles for Fusion Magazine.
Q Now Fusion Magazine was the proprietary publication of the
Fusion Foundation, was it not?
A It was their magazine, yes.
Q The Fusion Energy Foundation that was engaged in
activities far more extensive than publication of the
magazine, isn't that true?
A Yes, that is true.
Q And Fusion Magazine was an integral part of the
activity, the broader activity of the Fusion Energy
Foundation?
A I said yes.
Q Who was director of the Fusion Energy Foundation?

133
A The executive director was Paul Gallagher, and then
there was a board of directors, which would include, I think
-- I think had five members.
Q The activities beyond the publication of Fusion
involved, for example, the sponsorship of many of these
seminars that you attended, isn't that true?
A Correct.
Q And also paying the expenses for you and those others
who were involved in attendance at, participation in, or
whatever at those various conferences and seminars?
A Correct.
Q And you recognize, do you not, this as being a copy
of Fusion Energy Magazine?
A Yes.
0 Or Fusion Magazine?
A Yes.
Q During the period of time when you were the editor-in-chief,
there were other persons associated with the publication
of the materials that ultimately made their way into the
magazine?
A Other people associated with it, yes.
Q Collaborators?
A Yes.
Q You didn't write the whole thing yourself, in other
words?

134
A Definitely not.
Q How many of these other people who contributed were
in fact on the payroll of Fusion Magazine?
A The paid staff fluctuated, but I would say two or three
people were paid staff.
Q Now I take it that those two or three people didn't write
and edit all of the materials that were printed in that magazine?
A Not all of them. The vast majority, but not all.
Q Now, say someone who was associated with one of the other
publications, such as EIR, wrote an article or was requested —
strike that. Did you have occasion to ask for articles to be
authored by other individuals for possible use within Fusion?
A Yes.
Q How often did you in fact ask other people to write
something?
A It is hard to put an exact amount — once or twice per
issue.
Q In effect you frequently asked Mr. LaRouche to write
something for the magazine, did you not?
A I don't ever recall asking him for an article. He
produced enough that there was no problem finding one on any
subject.
Q Then is it fair to say that you frequently used

135

 articles written by Mr. LaRouche in Fusion?

A Yes, quite frequently.
Q Did you have occasion to ask anyone associated with
EIR, another publication, to produce something or send over
somethinq which could be used in Fusion?
A Yes.
Q How often did that
happen?
A Once or twice per issue.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, what it has to do with it is that Mr. Bardwell acknowledged a complaint about what moneys were spent and were not spent for the publication of Fusion Magazine, and indicating that Mr. LaRouche has said certain thinqs about why Fusion specifically was not entitled to recapture all of the moneys obtained by virtue of the sale of subscriptions. It is my intention to draw out from this gentleman the fact that they paid no editorial costs. They paid no costs to the reporters. They paid no cost to the distributors. They paid no cost to anybody.
THE COURT: If that is where you are going, that is fine, but I am not sure that I --
MR. ANDERSON: That is where I am going.
THE COURT: - couldn't devine that from the —
MR. ANDERSON: I was trying to lay a - I will be
more specific, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q So in fact, to summarize this, the discussion you had,

136

or the many discussions that you have indicated you had with Mr. LaRouche and others in terms of seeking funds for the publication of Fusion involved among other things a dialogue as to how much Fusion was entitled to within the whole mix of activities that were in progress, is that true?
A Yes.
Q You knew that in fact the editor of FIR was fighting similarly for funds for his publication?
A I didn't know that. Their magazine was published regularly. I didn't see the problem.
Q You had occasion -- strike that.
You didn't pay when someone from FIR wrote an article that you used or wrote an article for specifically Fusion? You didn't pay them for that effort, did you?
A I didn't personally, and I wouldn't. I wasn't in that position to do so.
Q When your, this publication -- in fact it utilized the services of a broad range of other individuals and various functions in order to get this written, proofed, and ultimately put together, and then ultimately published, did it not?

137
A Many people were involved in that, yes.
Q Many of whom were not paid specifically by Fusion or the Fusion Energy Foundation for the various services, at least paid directly?
A I know I can't say. I can't say how much the Fusion Energy Foundation paid to the printer or to the typesetters or to the, you know, the supplies company, the mailing company. I was not involved in that disbursement side of the operation.
Q In any event there is no question about the fact that you had a particularly proprietary and fatherly concern over Fusion Magazine, did you not?
A My responsibility as editor was to see that it was published and sent to subscribers. And that responsibility I took seriously, yes.
Q You also took -- it was a little bit more than just a professional responsibility to get it out as agreed, isn't that true?
A I took it very seriously. I do all my professional work seriously. I don't think it is -- if you are asking about my emotions regarding it, it is very similar to my feeling when I do consulting right now. I have to give these customers their money's worth. And I count my time carefully and give them their money's worth. These people
were not getting their money's worth, because they were not

138
getting their magazine.
Q Isn't it true that in fact every subscriber of Fusion ultimately got all of the issues that they were entitled, that they were promised?
A Not during the time I was there as editor-in-chief
Q Not necessarily at the time they were supposed to get it but in fact certain issues were ultimately published much later, but ultimately published nonetheless?
A Not by February of 1984.
Q So you in fact — all right.
This was your baby, wasn't it?
A I was editor-in-chief.
Q It was more than that, Mr. Bardwell. Didn't you in fact look at this as "Wow! I'm a scientist and this is --we have got a subscription of 120,000 people, and I can write articles on anything I want, and I have 12 0,000 people in the scientific community going to read my writings and, boy, this gives me enormous amount of personal gratification," if you will, "and personal investment in the publication of this book, this magazine"?
A I worked hard on it, and I devoted a lot of time to it, and I considered it extremely important. That it wasn't published I thought was a tragedy.
Q You didn't just consider it extremely important. You considered it to be the most important activity that the

139
National Caucus of Labor Committees was involved in at that 1
time?
A No.
Q You mentioned, Mr. Bardwell, that in, at conferences or
otherwise you heard Mr. LaRouche attribute reasons -- let's put
it this way, whether they were reasons or explanations or
theories or hypothesis or whatever they were, as to some of the
underpinnings which might have accounted for some failures of
fundraising?
A Yes .
Q Failures of the fundraising. You used the term
"sexual impotence" or "sexual problems" ?
A Yes .
Q Those are your words, is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Isn't it a fact that what was being discussed was psychosexual impotence? You heard that?
A Yes, I heard that.
Q Psychosexual impotence has a completely different meaning, does it not, in terms of the message conveyed than simply to say sexual problems?
A Psychosexual impotence is definitely a different word and different concept.
Q Isn't that in fact what Mr. LaRouche said on occasion, and in some significant detail, and in fact

140
elaborated on the meaning and psychological underpinnings of the concept psychosexual impotence?
A He elaborated on the concept, but that is not what he said. Many, many times he said sexual impotence, sexual problems. Those were his words specifically. Also the emotional content was there, not academic psychosexual.
Q What does psychosexual impotence mean?
A You would have to ask an expert on that. I don't have any idea.
Q You never studied psychology?
A No, not at all.
Q At some point subsequent to your departure from the National Caucus of Labor Committees you in fact authored an article entitled "Totalitarianism And Mr. LaRouche", did you not?
A Yes.
Q When did you write that?
A I believe it was in the summer of 1984, but I
couldn't give you an exact date.
Q Did you write it for publication in some journal or someplace?
A No, I did not.
Q Was it in fact published someplace?
A No, not to my knowledge.
Q You disseminated it, didn't you?

141
A To a handful of friends.
Q And in this document — by the way, have you
studied philosophy?
A I have never studied it academically. I have read
philosophers.
Q And sociology?
A Again, I have read sociologists, I have never
studied it in school.
Q Isn't in fact the underpinnings, the philosophical
underpinnings for your article were based on some rather
sophisticated work in those fields, was it not?
A By me?
Q No. By others that you quoted from.
A I presume so, yes.
Q You wrote it?
A I didn't look at their underpinnings.
Q You didn't look at their -- well —
A I read their books. A handful of books. And I wrote —
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, if Mr. Anderson is going to
make reference to the document, may it be received in evidence
before he does so?
MR. ANDERSON: That is not the use I am necessarily
going to make of it, Your Honor. If at the appropriate
time I will offer it —

142
THE COURT: The bias of the witness against Mr. LaRouche has it seems to me been explored through the Halloween party and the other things. One more article it doesn't seem to me adds a great deal to that.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, this is not just one more article, Your Honor. This is a particularly virulent one and one which has a specific focus, which I think is critical to the case.
MR. MARKHAM: Now that Mr. Anderson has characterized it, I think it should either come into evidence or not be talked bout. I don't obj ect to it coming into evidence.
MR. ANDERSON: The Government had their opportunity I don't like them making my decisions, Your Honor. They had more than adeguate opportunity to offer it themselves.
THE COURT: Well, if you are going to refer to it, apparently in some detail --
MR. ANDERSON: I wouldn't commend this to the reading attention of any living human being, but I do want to examine this witness on it since he is the author of it.
MR. MARKHAM: Once again, since he has
characterized it, I think we should put it into evidence rather than having Mr. Anderson's one-sided self-serving statement about it.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.

143
You may question him about it, but I think you are going to have to put it in evidence.
MR. ANDERSON: Well - that is fine, Your Honor. I will.
THE COURT: You may proceed to ask him about it.
MR. MOFFITT: Excuse me, Your Honor.
MR. ANDERSON: Could we take a break at this time? Some of my colleagues might want to debate me on this decision. It is 1:30.
THE COURT: All right. We will recess until 2:30 for lunch.
(Whereupon, at 1:30 o'clock p.m., Court was recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., the same day. )

144

AFTERNOON SESSION
Monday, December 5, 1988
2:30 o'clock p.m.

MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, may we approach the
Bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Whereupon, a conference was heard at the Bench
with Court and counsel, out of hearing of the jury, and
reported as follows:)
THE COURT: Did they
outvote you, Mr. Anderson?
article. However, I don't want to run afoul in that area.
There are two questions I would like to ask. One is he said
he read some of the materials before he wrote the article.
want to ask him what he read and two, I want to ask him who
if anyone commended his attention to articles and suggest he
read it and what the context of that was. I am not going to
do anything with the article itself.
THE COURT: They put you down, didn't they?
MR. ANDERSON: I understand why. I have read it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I have got it and I am
not going to give it to him.
MR. MARKHAM: For the record, I was hoping he would

145

THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon, the conference at the Bench was concluded, and the following proceedings were held:)
THE COURT: Yes, sir?
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Your Honor.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Mr. Bardwell, with reference to -- you mentioned that you had read certain writings in preparation for or prior to your writing that article; is that right?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q What did you read?
A There was a book by Hannah Arendt. Her name.is A-r-e-n-d-t, called On Totalitarianism.
I read a book by Solzhenitsyn called The Gulag, which is a long history of Stalinism, in Russia.
Q Is that it?
A A book by Arthur Koestler called Darkness at Noon, and two studies of Nazi Germany, although I can't tell you the authors. I don't remember.
Q No, who commended those to your attention?
A The only one I can say for sure is my wife's recommending Arthur Koestler's book, Darkness at Noon.
Q How about Dennis King?
A I have never spoken with him.
Q Never spoken with him in your life?

146
A Correct.
Q You had read some of Mr. King's attacks, published attacks on the National Caucus of Labor Committees and Mr.
LaRouche, had you not?
A Yes, I had.
Q During the course of your membership?
A Yes .
Q Now, directing your attention to January 23rd — was it the 23rd — the January conference of 1983, beginning of — end of December, beginning of January, 1983, conference you testified about.
A The '83-'84 or '82-'83?
Q '83 - it would be '82-'83, would it not?
A Yes.
Q The year-end conference?
A (Nodding head yes)
Q That's the one which you had some specific
recollection concerning certain statements you attributed to Mr. LaRouche?
A I think I had them from both conferences but yes, I know which conference you are talking about.
Q Isn't it true that in that conference that there were two aspects. In fact, a public aspect if you will, and a membership aspect?
A Yes.

147
Q And does the term "punctum saliens" mean anything to you, sir?
A Yes.
Q What does it mean?
A It was a term used by Mr. LaRouche to indicate, you might paraphrase it a critical point in history.
Q Isn't it in fact the case that the theme at its narrowest
construct of Mr. LaRouche's presentation to the conference was that the United States and President Reagan in particular at that point in time were in a punctum saliens with reference to the posture being taken by the Soviet Union and their -- with regards to — didn't he say in fact that the President had to by March of 1983 take a formal position with reference to the SDI?
A I don' t remember the date March, but I know that he made the point that the President should immediately do something with the beam weapon program, yes.
Q Because if the President didn't, that given at least Mr. LaRouche's estimate of the state of mind if you will or the state of mind of the Soviet Union that vis a vis the United States and the Western world, that in fact the Western world was at a punctum saliens at that point vis a vis the Soviet Union?
A I think that's a fair statement.
Q In fact around or about March of 1983,

148
President Reagan did in fact announce the SDI program, did he not?
A I think that's right.
Q In fact for many, many months if not years prior to that, Mr. LaRouche had been very involved, extensively involved in encouraging not only in Western Europe and among the allies but in fact within the National Security Council of the United States the proposal which ultimately became known as the SDI.
A There were many differences between the two proposals, but he was involved in promoting beam weapons.
Q In fact, you attended, did you not, or collaborated with
Williams Morris, Judge Clark's, the National Security Advisor's associate William Morris, on this issue?
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor. Objection. This is going a bit far afield, I think.
THE COURT: I can't see any relevance to this. Objection sustained.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q At the -- did you recall that there were in fact two separate segments to that conference, or had you lost memory of that?
A Every conference was organized that way.
Q So you weren't confusing in your testimony the one with the other?

149
A Not to my knowledge.
Q In fact, at that conference, you stood up at an open microphone, did you not?
A Yes.
Q And made a presentation if you will of some duration?
A I 'm -
Q Excuse me. I think I'm getting my '83 conferences and '84 conferences mixed up.
At the conference j ust prior to — I am focusing on the conference just prior to your departure.
A Yes.
Q And that's the '84 conference, the year-end conference?
A Yes.
Q And you in fact left within a matter of days after that conference, did you not?
A I think you could characterize it as a month-and-a-half.
Q Month-and-a-half afterwards?
A Yes.
Q Now, among the points you made were as follows, were they not: that you liked to point out a handful of areas of politics that the organization had adopted which you believed were founded on mistaken identification of the

150
Soviet Union as the problem rather than as a tool. Were those your words?
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, this guestion, exact guestion was asked and answered earlier today about the Soviet Union being a tool or a problem.
MR. ANDERSON: The guestion that was asked before Your Honor, with Mr. Reilly was whether or not a specific statement was made, which this witness didn't --
THE COURT: The subj ect of this witness' disagreement with Mr. LaRouche at this particular meeting has been discussed, and to the extent that it goes to his bias, I think it's been adeguately discussed. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q At or about the time of your departure from the National Caucus of Labor Committees, you were having some marital difficulties; is that not true, Mr. Bardwell?
A Yes. I was separated from my wife.
Q In fact, you didn't leave — when you left the National Caucus of Labor Committees, you didn't leave alone, did you? You
left with another individual?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Didn't your current wife, who you had known during your association in the National Caucus of Labor Committees,
in fact leave at the precise same time you left?
A She always describes to me her leaving at the
Q You two in fact left the conference together, did
you not?
A Yes, we did.
Q And you had had some association — this was Gail
Eades Bardwell (phonetic)-, who is now your wife?
A That's correct.
Q You had had some association that was more than a
professional association with Gail Eades over the period of
time prior to your departure, had you not?
THE COURT: I fail to see the relevance of this.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, Your Honor, the relevance and
I'll get to it immediately --
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Didn't you in fact, Mr. Bardwell, call Mr. LaRouche
in Europe and discuss with him in or around this same time

151
beginning of January, right after that conference,
immediately after that conference.
Q You two in fact left the conference together, did
you not?
A Yes, we did.
Q And you had had some association — this was Gail
Eades Bardwell (phonetic)-, who is now your wife?
A That's correct.
Q You had had some association that was more than a
professional association with Gail Eades over the period of
time prior to your departure, had you not?
THE COURT: I fail to see the relevance of this.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, Your Honor, the relevance and
I'll get to it immediately --
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Didn't you in fact, Mr. Bardwell, call Mr. LaRouche
in Europe and discuss with him in or around this same time
the fact that you were unhappy in your marriage and had other
— wanted to alter that circumstance and solicit his advice
and opinions on how he viewed your state of mind?
A In 1981, yes, two years before.
Q Isn't it a fact that Mr. LaRouche suggested to you that
he thought you were acting -- and this was in context -- that you
were acting precipitously and essentially suggested to you that
you should probably search your soul

152
and your own motivations because this was in fact a very
significant action you were contemplating.
A It's true, and it was two years before I separated from
my wife -- two years from that phone call.
Q Did you bear illwill at that time towards Mr. LaRouche's
suggestion that you were not behaving yourself properly?
A I disagreed with him, but I asked him for advice. So I
was willing to listen to his criticism.
MR. ANDERSON: I have no further questions. THE
COURT: Any redirect?
MR. MARKHAM: About three questions, Your Honor, for
me.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Mr. Bardwell, you indicated in answer to Mr. Reilly
that Chris Strunk came to your party but was not invited?
A That's correct.
Q And that's the fellow wiht the virus as the
costume?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether at the time he came to your party
he was still associated with the National Caucus of
Labor Committees?

153
A At the time that he came, I didn't know whether he was or not.
Q Did you learn subsequently?
A Yes .
Q Was he?
A Yes.
Q Do you know who it was who sent him to your party?
A I don't know who sent him. I know he gave a report on it back to the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
MR. MARKHAM: I have nothing else, Your Honor.
MR. REILLY: Just one, if Your Honor please.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. REILLY:
Q You wouldn't have done any of those things if you knew that Chris Strunk was going to report back to your former associates, would you have, sir?
A I haven't hidden anything I have done before or since. I thought it was very rude to come and drink my liguor and eat my food and then report on it. But besides being angry at his rudeness, it didn't change anything that went on at the party.
Q You would have done all that knowing it was going to be reported back to your associates?
A It would have made no difference.
MR. REILLY: Thank you, sir.

154
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
(Witness excused)
THE COURT: Call your next witness.
MR. MARKHAM: The United States calls John O'Connor 0-C-o-n-n-o-r. Whereupon
JOHN J. O'CONNOR was called as a witness
in behalf of the United States, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Would you state your full name, please. A John J. 0'Connor. Q What is your occupation?
A Special Agent with the United States Secret Service
THE COURT: Just a moment. The witness we asked to stay, did you gentlemen work that out?
MR. MOFFITT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Where are you stationed?
A In Boston.
Q And how long have you been stationed with the

155
Boston Secret Service office?
A Approximately eight years.
Q Were you on duty on October 6th and 7th of 1986 with the Secret Service?
A Yes, I was.
Q And where were you on duty those days?
A In Virginia.
Q Where, specifically?
A Leesburg.
Q And what was your purpose for being in Leesburg, Virginia on October 6th and 7th of 1986?
A Since I was a case agent in the Boston case, I was asked to come down to help with the search of two buildings in Leesburg.
Q And did you in fact assist with the search of any premises in Leesburg, Virginia?
A Yes, I did.
Q What premises did you assist with the search of?
A The Travelers Building.
Q And where in Leesburg is that?
A I think it's on North or South Market Street.
Q And did you search all of the building, the
Travelers Building, or just part of it? A Just part of it.
Q And do you recall which part of it you searched?

156
A I was in the area described to me as the security
offices on the first floor to the right as you enter the door
Q And —
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, may I have some exhibits
handed up to the witness.
(The law clerk handed exhibits to the witness.)
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Now there is a diagram in front of you, correct?
A Correct. Q Could you give us the exhibit number
of that diagram?
A 105.
Q Do you recognize that diagram?
A Yes, I do.
Q Does that diagram fairly and accurately in a
schematic way depict the portion of the Travelers Building, 17 the
floor of the Travelers Building that included the portion you
searched?
A Yes, it does.
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, I would offer that in 21
evidence.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. GETTINGS: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received in evidence.
(Government's Exhibit No. 105
was received in evidence.)

157
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q When you searched the portion, what portion, exact
portion of that floor did you search?
A We entered through the room marked A.
Q I tell you what, if you could since that is in evidence, if you could hold that up as close to the jury as you can get it, high enough up, and trace where you entered the building, how you walked to the part that you searched, and then indicate with your finger the part that you searched attempting to verbalize it as well as point it so that the record has some indication of what you have said other than just gesturing with your finger.
A We entered through these front doors, proceeded down this hallway to this door marked just past room A, which was a reception area. I walked down this corridor here and into room M. I searched room M.
Q In room M, did you find anything that was called for in the search warrant?
A Yes, I did.
Q What did you find?
A Notebooks.
Q All right. And after you — well, if you could keep that up — did you go to any other rooms?
A Well, I generally walk through the entire area first, just to see what was there. And then other agents had

158
taken other rooms. And I went into room M. Q To room M?
A Well, what was later marked as room M. Q How did the
letters that appear in that chart in the various rooms
get assigned to those rooms? Do you know?
A An agent was assigned to go around and mark the rooms alphabetically. When he got there, he put an M on the wall.
Q Did he do that sort of towards the beginning of the search? A Yes.
Q What was the purpose of assigning a different letter to each of the rooms?
MR. REILLY: Objection to the relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We are certainly not going to get in the legality of the search.
MR. MARKHAM: No. No. I just want to make —the indication says they specifically segregated what was found in each room by assigning a letter to it. That is all.
THE WITNESS: It was to be used to establish an inventory of items taken to determine where they were taken from in this entire building.
MR. MARKHAM: All right.

159
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q I will get back to room M in a minute. But did
you go into and look at items in any other rooms?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right. And what other rooms?
A I went into room L, and I went into room 0. I was
also throughout the entire other searched area of the
building also during the day.
Q You can put the chart down now, I think.
Now, when you went into room 0, did you observe any
notebooks while you were in the room?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you have a set of notebooks in front of you,
do you not?
A Yes, I do.
Q Could you compare the notebooks that you observed
while you were in room 0 to the notebooks that are in front
of you?
A They are the same type notebook.
Q And while you were in room 0, did you examine any
of the handwriting in the notebooks?
A Yes, I did.
Q And can I ask you to open up the notebooks in front
of you and compare the handwriting reflected in those

160
A it appears to be the same handwriting.
Q Now, sir, approximately — have you read through
those notebooks that are in front of you?
A Yes, I have.
Q And how much time have you spent reading through
the notebooks that are in front of you?
A Probably 40 or. 50 straight hours.
Q And what was the purpose for which you read through
those notebooks in such detail?
MR. REILLY: Objection, Your Honor, to the
relevancy.
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, I am going to ask him
to read one line out of one of those notebooks, and one line
out of another notebook that are specifically referred to in
THE COURT: He said he spent 4 0 hours reading them
MR. MARKHAM: I guess that will - very well.
THE COURT: It is certainly enough for foundation.
MR. MARKHAM: All right.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Now, did you observe anything while you were in
room 0 that indicated whose room it was?
A Yes, I did.

161
A A picture on a three-shelf desk of Nancy Spannaus.
Q What else did you see?
A Coffee cup on desk that said Ed.
Q Those notebooks in front of you, do those have any writing in handwriting in the upper right-hand corner o f any o f them?
A Yes, they do.
Q What?
A Most of them say Ed or Ed's.
MR. MARKHAM: Now, if I may, Your Honor, I will hand the witness one more document.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Specifically handing you Exhibit 7-L. (Law clerk handing exhibit to witness.) Take a look at 7-L and looking through the handwriting of Exhibit 7-L, do you recognize that handwriting?
A Yes, I do.
MR. WEBSTER: Objection, Your Honor. I don't think he is a handwriting expert. He hasn't laid the foundation for that.
MR. MARKHAM: Just yes or no.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. I don't think you have to be a handwriting expert.

162
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Now, did you find any notebooks while you were anywhere
in the Travelers Building that has the handwriting of the kind
shown in Exhibit 7-L?
MR. WEBSTER: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. BY MR.
MARKHAM:
Q Incidentally, is the handwriting of 7-L the same as
the handwriting of the other notebooks?
A No.
Q And do you remember which room you found the
notebook, that notebook that has the handwriting 7-1?
A Yes, I do.
Q Which room was that?
A Room M.
Q All right. And did you find one or more than one
notebooks in room, was it M?
A Room II.
Q That had the same handwriting as 7-L?
A I found a lot of notebooks on a two-tiered shelf by
the doorway.
Q How much time did you spend reading the notebooks that you found in 7-L?
A That day, or -

163
A Ever. Since that day.
THE COURT: That he found in 7-L --
MR. MARKHAM: I'm sorry. Your Honor.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Found in room 0 — M.
Let me start over again. I have got too many
letters in front of me.
The ones in front of you that are sitting right
up there you found in room 0, correct?
A Correct.
Q All right. And 7-L you have in your hand?
A Yes.
Q You found that in what room?
A This notebook was found in room M.
Q Along with a lot of other notebooks?
A Yes.
Q Did the other notebooks have the same type of
handwriting?
A Yes, they did.
Q How long — have you spent any time reading the
notebooks having the handwriting as was found in room M?
THE COURT: I don't know if the jury is following
this, but I am not.
MR. MARKHAM: Then I think, Your Honor, I will
go slower.

164
THE COURT: Well, you have handed him notebooks, and I don't know whether they have been marked or not, but some have been found in room 0 and some found in room M, and 7-L was found in room M. I am not sure which was found where.
MR. MARKHAM: Very well.
THE COURT: For- my sake, if not for the jury's, you better get this straight.
MR. MARKHAM: I apologize, Your Honor.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Would you tell me in what room you found the notebook which is marked 7-L?
A This was the room M of the Travelers Bulding 7-L was found. The other ones were found in room 0.
Q By other ones, would you read off the exhibit numbers of the other ones that were found in room 0? A 7-P, 7-H, 7-F, 7-D, 7-J, 7-N, 7-R, 7-T, 7-B. Q Now would you quickly look through all the numbers that you just read and tell the jury whether or not they are in the same handwriting as each other, not 7-L but all the other numbers.
MR. WEBSTER: Could we just have a continuing objection, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. And it is overruled.
THE WITNESS: 7-J was room 0. 7-N was room 0.

165

THE COURT: You have already said where you found them. I think your question now is whether the handwriting --
THE WITNESS: They are all the same. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q All the ones that you read off except 7-L are in the same handwriting as each other? A Correct.
Q And 7-L is in a different handwriting than the others?
A That is correct.
Q Now, may I ask you to turn to page 45 of Exhibit 7-L, the one which is not in the same handwriting as the ones found in room 0 that had the cup Ed.
MR. GETTINGS: Your Honor, I am going to object.
MR. WEBSTER: I object.
MR. GETTINGS: Your Honor, there is no identification here of anything as to authorship.
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, there is too. It is in
evidence. And Charlie Tate identified 7-L as being in the
handwriting of -- of the security staff, last
week.
THE COURT: Has that been introduced in evidence?
MR. MARKHAM: Yes. Charlie Tate -
THE COURT: 7-AL is in evidence?
MR. MARKHAM: Yes, Your Honor.

166[...]167

168
handwriting as in 7-L; which has previously been identified
with the same sort of objections as I recall as the
handwriting of Mr. --. So I think the question is
proper. Objection overruled.
MR. WEBSTER: I haven't made it, yet, Your Honor.
I have a different one. THE COURT: A different one? MR.
WEBSTER: If I might. If we are going to
start reading excerpts, I suggest, Your Honor, we would like to
have the full reach of having him read out of other excerpts. I
would suggest to the Court that the documents speak for
themselves and that we not get into the proposition of reading
excerpts from these notebooks, either that of Mr. or
anyone else. I would object to any reading unless there is an extensive permission for us to read also.
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, I believe this was the subject of a Bench conference and we talked about this issue. I don't want to -- I think we better come to the Bench.
THE COURT: Well, 7-L is in evidence. It seems to me Mr. Webster is correct though. I don't want to start reading these notebooks. If all you want is one excerpt, if it is in evidence, you can argue that excerpt to the j ury.
MR. WEBSTER: I also have a precedent, Your Honor,

169
for that request on my part. We have a precedent ruling from Your Honor as to the request I made.
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, may I be very briefly heard? The fact that I can read it in closing argument is not the same evidentiary value as the man who spent 2 0 hours with one set of notebooks, and 4 0 with another —
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, I am going to object to him making that characterization in front of the j ury, Your Honor.
MR. MARKHAM: Two sentences for one notebook, and one sentence from the other notebook, and they can read
anything on a similar subj ect. Because of the time he has spent with it, Your Honor, I respectfully submit that it would be over by now.
MR. MOFFITT: May we approach the Bench? THE COURT: Well, I don't see any point in spending a great deal more time on it. I will allow two or three sentences to be read, excerpts to be read, with the understanding that counsel for the defendants can bring out any more of the notebooks that they want to.
The objection is overruled, Mr. Webster.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Do you have page 45 of 7-L open?
A Yes, I do.
Q Is that a date on the top of the page?

170
A Yes, there is. Q What is the date? A June 7, 1984.
Q And what is the first thing that is written underneath that date?
A "Will W colon underlined. Questions for LHL'.
Q Now, can I ask 'you to go down to the second full paragraph, the one that has guidelines in the title.
A Yes,
Q Could you read the first two sentences — could you read that paragraph, the first sentence?
A "Need strict guidelines" underlined.
Q Keep on.
A "Proposals — spend on TLC debt, repayments, etcetera. Policy on repayments — to either forget it or forget it indefinitely."
Q All right. Now, can you turn to Exhibit 7-P, page 84. Do you have page 84 ?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, and that is again the notebook you found in the other room? A Yes, it is.
THE COURT: When you talk about the other room now, which room?
MR. MARKHAM: I am sorry. Your Honor. Room 0.

171
THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q The room that had a cup that said Ed?
A That is right.
Q Is there anything on the front of that notebook in the upper left-hand corner?
A Yes,
Q What does it say?
A Ed S.
Q Could you read — is on that page, page 84, an entry that starts "Lyn" with a colon, underlined?
A Yes. It is just "Lyn" underlined. There is no colon.
Q What follows "Lyn" underlined?
A "Guard TLC balance." Next line, "Loans - forgive or forget."
Q Now, do you know what date — does the notebook indicate what date that is written on?
A June 7, 1984.
Q Same date as the question from Will in the other notebook?
A Correct.
Q Now, you indicated that in the other notebook, which is 7-L, found in room 0, at page 45, the "Will W:

Question for LHL", was the first entry—
THE COURT: 7-L was found in room 0?
MR. MARKHAM: M, Your Honor, room M, I am sorry.
I am almost through with this, and I apologize. THE COURT:
There is a game that you play with
rooms, but go ahead.
BY MR. MARKHAM: Q Room M in which 7-L was found, on
page 45, the date is June 7 ? A Correct.
MR. REILLY: Objection, Your Honor. Could we have
the date?
THE COURT; Sustained.
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q That "Question for LHL" is the first entry on that
date -
MR. REILLY: Objection. We have been over that
already.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. We have.
BY MR. MARKHAM:

172
Q is the quote in the other notebook, the one found
in room 0, that is 7-P, is that entry the first of the day?
A No, it is not.
Q How many entries are there before that?
A Approximately four or five pages before that entry.
MR. MARKHAM.; Could I have one moment? THE COURT: Yes.
{Counsel conferring off the record.)
MR. MARKHAM: I have nothing further, Your Honor. MR. WEBSTER: Could we have Your Honor's indulgence for a minute, please? THE COURT: All-right.
While we are waiting, what room was 7-P in? THE WITNESS; 7-P was found in 0.
MR. MOFFITT; Your Honor, could we approach the
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(Thereupon, a conference was held at the Bench with Court and counsel, out of hearing of the jury, and reported as follows:)
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, I am feeling a need to call this witness in our case. I probably will reserve him because I have several notebooks I would like to put in myself. I haven1t been able to identify them, which ones they are. I might have to ask Mr. Markham or I might give them the quote that I want to put in and they can find the notebooks for me so I can put those notebooks in. But I would rather have the whole notebook go in the same way.

173
MR. MARKHAM.; Could I have one moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
{Counsel conferring off the record.)
MR. MARKHAM: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
MR. WEBSTER: Could we have Your Honor's
indulgence for a minute, please?
THE COURT: All-right.
While we are waiting, what room was 7-P in?
THE WITNESS; 7-P was found in 0.
MR. MOFFITT; Your Honor, could we approach the
Bench?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(Thereupon, a conference was held at the
Bench with Court and counsel, out of hearing of the
jury, and reported as follows:)
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, I am feeling a need to
call this witness in our case. I probably will reserve him
because I have several notebooks I would like to put in
myself. I haven't been able to identify them, which ones
they are. I might have to ask Mr. Markham or I might give
them the quote that I want to put in and they can find the
notebooks for me so I can put those notebooks in. But I
would rather have the whole notebook go in the same way.
THE COURT: You want this witness reserved?
MR. MOFFITT: For me, yes. I would like to

174
reserve him.
THE COURT: That is no problem.
MR. MOFFITT: I don't know what anyone else has.
MR. WEBSTER: He is asking to reserve cross examination at a later time?
THE COURT: That isn't what I understood.
MR. MOFFITT: Not for me.
THE COURT: I understood you want to use this
witness in your own case or Mr. Moffitt might. If so, then he will be required to stay until you put on your case.
MR. MOFFITT: Yes. Thank you*
THE COURT: That is true of any other witness for that matter.
MR. WEBSTER: For ray part. Your Honor, I would like to say that I am surprised by the permission of the Court to allow the witness to read this into evidence. We had a similar ruling on Mr. Tate where he was not permitted to. So we do have various areas of the notebooks that I would lik£ to have him read into evidence. I think I can make it more efficient for the Court if I could postpone cross examination of this witness and have him called first thing tomorrow morning and prepare that so it would be more efficient.
THE COURT: No. I am perfectly willing to let you do that as part of your case, but I am not going to interrupt the witness and have him brought back as part of the

175
Government's case. I don't know that it makes all that much difference how you do it, but I am not going to start taking witnesses on the stand and putting them off and taking other witnesses in between as part of the Government's case.
MR. WEBSTER: Then may I have a brief moment to confer with my client concerning the matter?
THE COURT: Yes1, sir.
MR. REILLY: Your Honor, one of the problems we have, and I don't know whether the Government is having the problem we have, but when we got the list of the witnesses for today, he was not on it. He has been one of those people we always knew he was coming but didn't know when.
MR. WEBSTER: We didn't know he was coming until I sat down in the chair this afternoon.
MR. MARKHAM; if Your Honor may wish, I would invite for Mr. Moffitt and the others if they want to give me the copies of the notebook pages, I believe Mr. 0'Connor can go back to Boston and find the page and notebook number to speed up and then he could be back available on their case whenever they want him.
MR. MOFFITT: I have done that already. Your Honor.
MR. WEBSTER: There is another problem. Your Honor. I asked that various notebooks be brought to the Court. I don't know if they have been.
MR. ROBINSONt They are here.

176
MR. WEBSTER: 15, 19, and 20. I asked for them this morning.
THE COURT: The Government says they are here.
MR. WEBSTER: I was just informed of that this morning, although I asked them before we started Court this morning.
THE COURT: Well, the only issue Mr. Moffitt
approached about was reserving the witness. You can reserve the witness. I am not going to postpone his cross examination- If that is the way you want to put it in —
MR. WEBSTER: If I could have Your Honor's indulgence for a moment. I will confer with my client. In the event — I would like the Court's permission to reserve also.
THE COURT: Sure. If he is reserved for one he is reserved for all.
MR. MOFFITT: Thank you. Your Honor. (Thereupon, the conference at the Bench was concluded, and the following proceedings were held:)
MR. GETTINGS: I have just a couple of questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Less.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GETTINGS:
Q Would you hand me 7-L, please, or have the Clerk

177[...]178

179
faced with that yet.
MR. WEBSTER: I hope we are not, Your Honor. Meanwhile, I will reserve along with Mr. Moffitt.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GETTINGS: Your Honor, it is understood that I am reserving? All I was really trying to do was to square up the numbers with each.
THE COURT: I understand. You were questioning the U.S. Attorneys.
MR. ANDERSON: 1 am not as patient. Your Honor, as some of the other attorneys. Although I would like, I have a few questions to ask now.
THE COURT: Just don't encroach on what your colleagues want to ask when they bring him back.
MR, ANDERSON: 1 just want to ask a few foundational questions, Mr. 0'Connor. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q You don't -- you, I take it, were not there when these notebook entries were made; is that correct? A That is correct.
Q You are reading somebody else ' s notebook, or attempting to?
A Attempting to, yes.
Q I take it that that was a fairly difficult task for

180
you to interpret somebody else's handwriting and their abbreviated notations and their format?
A That is correct.
Q So, in fact, when you read from, for example, the notebook you have identified as your belief that it is a
notebook of Mr. Spannaus, you don't know, nor do you have any basis of — strike that -- you don't know whether he was indicating something he had received firsthand, secondhand, and so on, do you?
A No, I don't.
Q In fact, there is no way from the four corners of the notebook to make that evaluation, is there?
A Not in my opinion.
Q Secondly, you don't know whether or not if there was a reference to Mr, LaRouche, Lyn, whether or not that was something that someone else told Mr. Spannaus, for example?
A No, I don't.
Q Or whether or not that was a question someone asked Mr. Spannaus?
A No, I don't.
Q Or whether or not that was a question Mr. Spannaus intended to ask Mr. LaRouche?
A No, I don't.
Q All you did in fairness is try as best you could

181
given the limitations you had to interpret the writing and the notations, et cetera, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And it is fair to say — I am sorry -- there are many, many pages?
A Yes.
Q I take it the same things you j ust acknowledged with regard to those notebooks of Mr. Spannaus, if that is what
they are, was true to any other notebooks you looked
at, such as Mr. s?
A Yes. That is correct.
Q Except maybe his were a little easier to read? His handwriting was a little better, maybe?
A A lot easier, yes.
Q I am not sure how this coding goes, but exhibit — do you have 7-1 in front of you?
A No. I don't think I have.
Q Exhibit 7-1.
A No. Do I have H and I as a photograph? I am not sure. I have H, R, F, D, V - T, J, and N.
MR. ANDERSON: Could I ask this one page be passed up, If Your Honor please.
(Law clerk handing exhibit to witness.) MR. MARKHAM: May I make an exhibit reference that might help Mr. Anderson, Your Honor? I believe 7-1 is a

182
a photographic reference of several pages of 7-H. The witness should have 7-H in front of him, so if Mr. Anderson just gets the page reference from 7-1, it should be the same as 7-H.
MR. ANDERSON: I am willing to do it in any way that will focus us on the same line.
THE WITNESS: I have the same page in the notebook.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q I just want to ask you, for example, does that purport to be something on or about 8-2 of some year? '85 ?
A The front of the book is 5-13 to 9-12-85.
Q And is there a page?
A On the previous page it is 8-2 — looks like Friday.
Q Why don't you just look at the page I passed up to you, all right? Because it is simpler for me.
A Okay.
Q Do you recognize that as being a photocopy of a page of one of these exhibits?
A Yes.
Q Is there at some point in this an 8-2 date -85 ?
A Yes. But you have to look to the notebook and look on page 384, which is the preceding page to the page that you gave me a copy of to find the date, but it is 8-2 .

183
Q 1985?
A Correct.
Q There is an entry there, is there not, that says Lyn, underlined, understruck?
A Correct.
Q "Crank up staffing on accounting. Keep current; must be done," I take it you don't know with reference to that whether or not that was something that was going to be a statement from Mr. LaRouche, or a statement, question
to Mr. LaRouche, or anything? Those are the words contained therein; is that right? A That is correct.
Q If you look at -- we have the same problem with 7-K?
MR. MARKHAM: 7-J.
Q 7-J, page 98.
A Yes.
Q There is a date of 3-26-86. Is that on some pages prior to that?
A Yes. That is on page 89.
Q 89, not 98?
A Well, the date of 3-26 is on page 89.
Q Take a look at page 98. Is there an entry there that begins again "Lyn" understruck?

184
A Correct.
Q That says, does it not, "Re income. Ignore media. Don1t go toe-to-toe. Sales must zoom 50 percent, increase".
A It looks to me like 80 percent, but it could be 50 percent.
Q "Sales must increase" —
A Sales must zoom 50 or 80 percent an hour.
Q "Improve on performance, problems not with population"—
A Correct.
Q "Media arguing among selves, what to lie on, drug
lobby attack on us. They are refusing to accept the Illinois
results." And it continues.
A It doesn't say Illinois results.
C Is there something — refuse to accept results.
A Results, correct.
Q Is there any Illinois in there in brackets?
A I don't see it.
Q You don't know once again, what that is except for what it appears to say? Is that right?
A That is correct.
Q I take it that is true of all notebooks that you have ever looked at in this, that you might have occasion to testify?
A Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't have any further guestions,
Your Honor.
MR. REILLY: Just one guestion.
BY MR. REILLY:
Q The -- that you have been asked
about, that is somebody who was in security in Leesburg,
is that correct? That is your understanding?
A That is my understanding.
Q That is not the -- who was in Chicago
doing fundraising?
A No.
MR. REILLY: Thanks.
THE COURT; Anything further of this witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q You have not been in the Courtroom when the
previous witnesses have testified in this case, have you?
A No, I haven't.
Q So you don't know what they've said about how
things were recorded in notebooks, do you?
A No.
MR. MARKHAM: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
(Witness excused.)
(Thereupon, the testimony of witness JOHN J.
Whereupon:
WAYNE HINTZ was called as a witness
in behalf of the United States, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q Would you state your name, please, and spell it.
A Wayne Hintz, H-i-n-t-z.
Q Mr. Hintz, were you ever a member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes.
Q During what period of time?
A From 1974 until 1986.
Q Did there come a time when you were assigned to the national finance office with the responsibility of handling the organization's debt to individuals?
A Yes. I was assigned to the national finance office in about the beginning of 1983, and assigned to handle debts in about August 1984.
Q Now, when we are talking about debts, does this include debts by the campaign entities?
A Not primarily.
0 Your primary responsibility was with what was called the infrastructure debt, is that right?

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on September 06, 2008, at 06:34 AM