edit SideBar


Pdf file downloadable here (546 Kb)



-vs —LYNDON LaROUCHE, et al



Thursday, December 1, 1988
and RICHARD MAGRAW on the seventh day of trial in the above-captioned matter

The Honorable ALBERT V. BRYAN, JR.,

(As heretofore noted:)

ELIZABETH JEU 11 18 27 29
RICHARD MAGRAW 96 128 180 195



Your Honor, may we approach the Bench?
(Thereupon, a conference was held at the Bench with Court and counsel, out of hearing of the jury, and reported as follows:)
MR. MOFFITT: After a conversation, Mr. Reilly and I last night, the following is our motion. We want to — I moved in Exhibit 20.-AA. The time I moved in Exhibit 20-AA because I raised an objection early in the examination of that witness about whether or not that testimony was being elicited with respect to the tax case, Count XIII, or our case. At that point Mr. Robinson said that anything after 1983 was coming in in the case involving the mail fraud, so under that theory, I mo-ved that document in.
It later appears now that the document only came in in the tax case and was only being utilized in the tax case, so I have ended up now -moving in a document I can't even argue —
THE COURT: You want to back out?
MR. MOFFITT: Yes, sir.
MR, REILLY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The Government never offered it anyway?
MR. MARKHAM: We would have offered it anyway. And now to take it out, Your Honor, would leave an inference
with the jury that is unwarranted. It has been talked about. Several people —
THE COURT: If you think the jury is going to remember whether 2&-AA went in or went out — I will let them withdraw it.
MR. MOFFITT: Thank you.
HR. ANDERSON: We have another matter, Your Honor.
MR. ROSSI: I have a matter involving the first witness this morning. It involves one particular Exhibit 32-J, which is a certified lack of record of tax files for Helga LaRouche for the years 1979 and '87, I would object on the grounds of relevancy. It opens up a whole area the Government doesn't necessarily want to get into, and we don't particularly want to get into such as
Helga s function, what she did and where. She is a German citizen. There are questions of German tax laws, treaties that might exist between the United States and Germany as to why she doesn't have to file. It is not relevant in talking about Lyndon LaRouche's taxes. They are separate individual people. They can file separately. I believe they would file a separate return and —
THE COURT: All right. You have made your point.
MR. ROBINSON: Could I have just a second?
MR. SETTINGS: That -might be good rebuttal evidence, Judge, if a certain position were taken.
THE COURT: Don't suggest rebuttal evidence to the Government*
What is the Government's position?
MR. ROBINSON: We don't have any trouble keeping that exhibit out, as long as I correctly understand the defense is prepared to stipulate that LaRouche didn't file tax returns and that his income was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service.
THE COURT: If he didn't file tax returns, and I take it he didn1t, if that is --
MR. ROBINSON: The point is, Judge, that in order to complete a record search, the IRS always checks spouses because it is conceivable that a return could have been filed by her.
THE COURT: The defendants are not going to argue that his return was filed by her?
THE COURT: I think that ought to stay out. It opens up something I don1t think is necessary.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Your Honor.
MR. WEBSTER: One other item, Your Honor.
The Government is calling, perhaps today, a witness named Mr. Yepez, Y-e-p-e-z, and I would make a request for the- Government investigatory forms of interviews that they have on this witness. Your Honor, the Government
has taken the position the forms 302 are not Jencks -material
THE COURT: That is correct.
MR. WEBSTEH: I think it has been demonstrated in the course of trial a number of the 302 's are very-important for refreshing recollections of witnesses and for sometimes impeachment, and sometimes based on a subject that are contemporaneous recordization of what the witness said.
I would move for production of any such 302's of this witness or other-witnesses, but I think it particular!A important with, respect to him. This will be another Individual who has left who was a LaRouche supporter, and who will be testifying in the nature of Mr. Tate or Mr, Curtis where those particular forms are most important to help defense counsel in seeing the truth here.
I move for the production of any such forms the Government has-.
MR. ROBINSON: Your Honor, they are just not Jencks
material. He has never even been shown those documents He has never adopted them, never viewed them or anything else.
THE COURT: I will not require them.
MR. REILLY: Your Honor, there is another issue with regard to Goldman's testimony, the witness after this. Do you want to deal with it now, or deal with it after she gets called?
THE COURT. If it will avoid another Bench conference we will deal with it now.
MR. REILLY: There is an allegation that came up in Boston that Mr. LaRouche told Mrs. Goldman's husband to go to Europe. This would be part of the obstruction of justice case, Mr. Markham tells me it is his intention to go into that here if we intend to- go in with Dave Goldman when he testifies into the allegations that have been made that he was involved in improper transactions. THE COURT: I am not sure I follow you.
MR. REILLY; It is a mess of a story. Dave Goldman is alleged to have been involved in improper financial transactions, The Government says whether that is true or not, Mr. LaRouche asked him to leave to go to Europe-and that is somehow relevant. The Government's taking the position if we want to get into Mr. Goldman's dishonesty they want to get into this allegation Mr. LaRouche asked Mr. Goldman to go to Europe, and this cones- up in the context of Para Goldman because evidently the Government says she somehow has evidence on that subject.
My suggestion, Your Honor, would be that we do not
intend with Pam Goldinan on the stand to get into the issue of
her husband at all. What we are going to do with her husband
don't know, because I don't know what her husband is going
to testify about in this case. I never heard any evidence I
could understand could be relevant to this case.
THE COURT: I think we had better wait and see what Mr. Goldman says.
MR. MARKHAM: If it please the Court, Your Honor, Mr. Reilly had told me beforehand''he had indicated to you that he proposes to elicit from Mr. Goldman testimony about Mr. Goldman's supposed wrongdoings during the 1984 campaign.
MR. REILLY: Depending on what he says. I don't know what he is going to say in this case.
MR. MARKHAM: If I may finish, he is going to try to elicit that. I told him I was not inclined to go into with Paiu Goldman who had a direct conversation with Mr. LaRouche about David Goldman1s wrongdoings, anything, if he was to keep it out of the case altogether.
What he wants is he does not want me to get Pam to quote Mr. LaRouche on David Goldman, but he wants to talk to David Goldman about what David Goldman did.
Here is what happened. David Goldman was suspected by the LaRouche organization of engaging in financial irregularities. Mr. LaRouche sent him over to Europe and told Pam Goldman, "Don1t worry. Your husband is over in Europe. We have sent him there to make sure that he is unavailable for questioning about his wrongdoing. Don't worry about it. We have done that with other people." That is relevant on two issues. First, it is
relevant certainly if they raise the issue with Goldman to show Mr. LaRouche's complicity in it by sending him overseas Second, they have tried to make the point Mr. LaRouche does not control this organization. Mr. LaRouche dictated that David Goldman go to Europe and, boom, he went the next day.
For those reasons it is relevant. But it is particularly relevant if they want to get into it with David Goldman at all. The fact that we are calling her first means X would have it now. It would take about five questions. I have done it in Boston. It is not part of the obstruction case up there. It was a 404(b) action up in Boston. That is not charged in the indictment.
MR. REILLY: The problem is, Your Honor, I have no idea why1: they are calling Dave Goldman. I have read his file. I don1t understand what it has to do with this case so I have no idea what they will go into with Dave Goldman because I don1t understand what Dave Goldman is doing in this case .
At this point I think it raises a whole pile of issues because the story at least from the defense point of view was not as clear as Mr. Markham would have on what Mr. LaRouche said to Pam Goldman, and what Dave Goldman did. Whether we have to get into that story at all, I don't know until I know what Dave Goldman is doing in this case.

I understand why Pam Goldman is testifying. I am perfectly happy to stay out of Dave Goldman. I don't think it has anything to do with what her testimony is. I don't intend to get into it.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, I am like Mr. Reilly. I don't understand why either one of them is being called from the extent of my knowledge in discovery. Pam Goldman has no knowledge that bears on Mr. LaRouche*s tax situation. She has no knowledge that bears on the allegations of fraud. What the Government is doing now, this is another one of their muck witnesses that is somehow going to muck up the thing by testifying about the sin of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, or feelings about the same kind of stuff we heard from Tate and Curtis, but not with a view towards fundraising.
I would ask Your Honor to actually ask for a proffer of relevance from the Government in terms of --
THE COURT: I think I heard from Mr. Markham as to what he feels- the relevance is. I will let him go into it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, can I just say in the presence of Mr. Markham that I haven't seen the originals of thosetwo checks yet.
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, while we are here,
yesterday I was not at the Bench. But I understand you directed Mr. Anderson not to go in the business of who is

calling that tax witness. He twice tried to leave that inference. Your Honor.
Also yesterday Mr. Moffitt tried to get into that kidnapping which was the subject of a motion in limine and the Government does not want to look to this jury like we are trying to hide the bal_l.:_ I would ask that Your Honor consider admonishing the defense counsel specifically not --
THE COURT: Oh, I don't want to get into that. Let's get on with the case.
(Thereupon, the conference at the Bench was concluded, and the following proceedings were held:^ Whereupon;
ELIZABETH JEU was called as a witness in behalf of the United States, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Q Good morning.
A Good morning.
Q Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record, please.
A My name is Elizabeth. Jew, spelled J-e-u.
Q And Miss Jeu, by whom are you employed?
A I aim employed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Q And what is your title?
A My title is tax examiner.
Q Where are you employed out of?
A I am employed out of Memphis, Tennessee, the Service Center.
Q And what jurisdictions are required to file tax returns at your service -- or is Virginia one of those?
A Yes, Virginia is one of the States which we service
Q In your position do you have access to information about returns filed by and records filed with the Internal Revenue Service?
A Yes, sir.
Q And would that be just for your area or for the entire United States?
A The entire United States. Is at my —
Q And could you explain — well, have you made a
search of your service center records and the national records as to whether for filings under the name Lyndon H. LaRouche?
A Yes, sir. I searched the entire records of the United States .
MR. FITZGERALD: I would like for the witness to be passed Government 32-C, F, H —
THE COURT: Is this an issue in dispute?
MR. ANDERSON: There is only a portion, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right...
MR. ROSSI: Just certain portions. We have stipulated as to certain documents here.
("The law clerk handed exhibits to the witness.' BY MR. FITZGEKALD:
Q Let me direct your attention to Government's Exhibit 32-F.
THE COURT: Do we have to go through these one by one?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, Your Honor. This is the one that we —
Q Could you explain briefly, without going into it, what 32-F is, please?
A Government Exhibit 32-F is a true copy of our permanent record. It is known as the National Computer Center transcript.
Q And who is it for?
A This is for Lyndon H. LaRouche.
Q Does that check also involve using a Social Security number?
A Yes. Social Security Number and name.
Q And who ran this transcript, or who did this search?

A I did.
MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, Government would offer 32-F.
THE COURT: It will be received.
MR, ROSSI: I would like for hira to lay a little bit more of a foundation.
THE COURT: Do you object to it or not? What you would like is not an obj ection.
MR. ROSSI: No. I don't object. Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received in evidence.
(Government's Exhibit No. 32-F was received
in evidence.)
Q From this- transcript were, you able to ascertain whether Mr. LaRouche has filed income tax returns for the years 1978 through 1987?
A From this transcript, I can tell that Mr. LaRouche has not filed a return for the tax years '79 through '87.
Q And directing your attention to Government's
Exhibit 32-C, what is that?
A This is a document which.' I prepared, known as a 350. It is a certification of lack of record for tax years 1978 and '79 for Mr. Lyndon H. LaRouche.
Q Is there a second page to that?

A Yes, sir, there is. It is also a certification of lack of a record for tax years 1980 through 1987 for Mr. LaRouche.
Q Okay. I direct your attention to Government's Exhibit 32-H and 32-1 at the sane time, please. Based on your review of the transcript, did you have certificates of assessment and payments completed for the years 1980 and — 1979 and 1980?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what is shown on those documents?
A Government's Exhibit 32-H is certification of assessments and payments for tax year 1980, of which the information I took from the permanent record and prepared this document,
Q Basically this spells out in English what the computer transcript in 3 2-F, the same information?
A Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: Government would move 32-1 and H into evidence, Your Honor.
MR. ROSSI: No objection. Stipulated. THE COURT: Be received in evidence.
(Government Exhibit Nos. 32-H and I were received in evidence.)
Q Directing your attention back to Government
Exhibit 3 2-F, from this computer or from this transcript, are you able to tell whether the Internal Revenue Service atterapted to contact Mr. LaRouche during any of the years in question?
A Yes, sir. From the NCC transcript, I can tell in the tax year 19J9_, we mailed to Mr. LaRouche our notices requesting his return. Tax year 198 0, we also mailed him notices requesting a return; tax year '81, ta-x year '82, and tax year '83, he received letters from us requesting his return.
Q And for the tax years '81, '82, and '83, were those notices all sent out at the same time? Are they dated the same?
A Yes,
Q And when was that first notice sent out?
A The first notice for those three tax years was mailed in November of '84.
Q Can you tell from transcript whether there was any response by Mr. LaRouche as to any of the notices that were sent out?
A Yes , I can.
Q And what is that?
A There was no reply. We indicate that there was no reply.
Q You have copies of the notices that were sent to

Mr. LaRouche as indicated on the transcript?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q And why is that?
A I was not requested to tiring those with me — the notice sent to him is not kept on file. So I could not bring them.
Q Are they computer-generated notices? A Yes, they are.
Q What would be contained in this notice?
A The very first notice, we let them know that we have not received a return. If you have wages, interest — hVR.
ROSSI: Objection. I am objecting because the question is what would be contained. There is no
testimony that she ever saw these notices. She has already testified that they are not kept.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Q Are these form notices?
A Yes, they are.
Q What is contained in the form notice itself on the computer ?
A The information in the form notice is sent by the computer states the first one requesting the return, if you have income from any source, then file the return or give us an explanation as to why you are not liable to file.

The second notice says that we have not received a reply from our first notice. Please reply as soon as possible and indicate, have you received any income? If not, give us an explanation as to why not, if you are not liable to file a return.
MR. FITZGERALD: No further questions, Your Honor.
Q Good morning, my name is Bob Rossi. I represent Mr. LaRouche in this case,
A Good morning, sir.
Q Turning you attention to Exhibit 32-C, you testified that a record check was made under the name Lyndon H. LaRouche, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was a check made under the name Lyndon J. LaRouche, Jr.?
A Yes, sir,
Q Is that reflected on this document?
A No, it doesn1t. This document indicates exactly as the permanent record shows filed.
Q Excuse me. I didn1t quite understand that.
A The document is prepared exactly as the master file has his name.
Q What is the master file?

A That is his permanent record with the Internal Revenue Service.
Q So there was no check at least according to what you can tell from this document, there was no check for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. done, j ust for Lyndon H. LaRouche?
A I checked both, sir. When I found the Social Security number for Mr. LaRouche, this particular tax years, the Jr. was not by his name.
Q Turning your attention to Government Exhibit 32-F, which, is the transcript. You testified as to notices which were sent and referenced on the transcript, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q We are talking about the third page of the transcript?
A The third page indicates tax year 19 81, yes, sir, and notices were sent out.
Q And the fourth page is for what tax year?
A The fourth page is the notice information for tax year 1982 and 1983.
Q Can you tell -- strike that. Do you know what address these notices were sent to?
A No, sir.
Q Is it correct that — let ' s turn to page three, since the notices appear to be identical as far as dates go — on page three, which is the 1981 tax year, is that

A Yes, sir.
Q What was the date of the first notice?
A November 16, 1984.
Q Do you know why the notice was sent on that particular date?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know why the notice was sent — strike that When would the tax return be due for tax year 19-81?
A The tax year — I mean the tax return for tax year 1981 would be due April 5th, 1982.
Q Do you know why it was approximately 2-1/2 years before the first notice was sent?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know what TBS policy is with regard to sending this initial notice?
A Not all of the policies, no.
Q Is there a policy?
A Yea. There are rules of which the notices are automatically generated.
Q Is that in writing, the policy?
A I am not sure, sir.
Q Can you explain what policies regarding the computer-generated notices you are aware of,?
A The two of which. I have worked with, are if an

extension is filed and your return is not on your account by that time, you will receive a notice.
Q Any others?
A That is the one I have worked personally with.
Q And does the policy specify the time when the not ice wil1 go out?
A I am not sure, sir.
Q Is it unusual for the IRS to wait 2-1/2 years to send out a notice?
A No, sir*
Q Turning your attention to the — excuse me — anywhere on the 32-F does it reflect that the notice was received by Mr. LaRouche?
A No, sir.
Q Looking at the first page of Exhibit 3 2-F, there is Mr. LaRouche's name towards the top, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And an address underneath it?
A Yes.
Q Can you read what that address is?
A The address on page one of Exhibit 32-F is in care of Citizens for LaRouche, Box 976, Radio City Station, New York, 10019.
Q Do you know what Citizens for LaRouche is or was?
A No, sir, I do not.

Q You are not aware that Citizens for LaRouche was
the 1980 campaign for Mr. LaRouche?
A No, sir.
Q Anywhere on that — strike that.
You testified before that the first notice states that we have — strike that.
You testified that the first notice request that the taxpayer, the party, either send a return, file a return, or give an explanation as to why it is not filed, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And subsequent notices are merely additional reminders, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q is there any IRS policy as to further action besides sending notices that action is to be taken if a notice or notices are not responded to?
A Yes, sir. Under our normal process of duty, the notices — there are four to go to the taxpayer -- each one has stronger language, There could be four.
Q And how many were sent?
A Two, because we interrupted it with a no-reply there.
Q Excuse -me. What is the no-reply?
A Yes, sir. There was a no-reply to this notice.

Q What do you mean by there was a no-reply? You
mean the record reflects no reply?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what effect does that have?
A It stops any issuance of the other notices,
Q Look at page three, doesn't that reflect five notices?
A Yes, it does, for tax year 1981.
Q How about page four for tax year 1982, does that reflect five notices?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the same foar tax year '83?
A Yes, it does.
Q Is there an IRS policy as to what would be done after these many notices are sent and there is no reply?
A Yes, sir. The fifth notice goes to our district office for personal contact.
Q Was. any personal contact made in this case?
A Not -- I don't know, sir.
Q Does the record reflect it?
A No, it isn't reflected on this document.
Q Does that mean there was no personal contact?
A I have no knowledge of that, sir.
Q So if there was personal contact, it would not necessarily be reflected on the record, is that what you are
A That is correct.
Q When did you first become involved in this case?
A About approximately 12 to 14 months ago.
Q Before that, had you ever heard of Mr. LaRouche?
A No, sir.
Q Since that time > have you -- strike that.
What is the policy with regard to personal

contact, the IRS policy with regard to personal contact that we j ust 4iscussed?
A I don't know, sir, because I have never worked that area,
Q Did you do a record check to determine whether or not there was any personal contact?
A I do a record check to see what is there.
Q So, in other words, there was no check done to see whether or not there in fact had been personal contact?
A That is not my responsibility, sir.
Q Whose responsibility is that? A I have no knowledge of that.
MR. ROSSI : One second. (Pause in the proceedings)
Q Can you tell by looking at 32-F why the notices were sent -- strike that. On page one, it states

"Lyndon H. LaRouche, Citizens for LaRouche", and there is an address which you gave before, is that correct?
A Yes, there is an address.
0 Would that be the address the notices were sent to?
A No, sir.
Q It would not?
A Just a minute.
(Witness checking document.) I am not sure what address it was sent to, sir.
Q So, merely by the fact that that address is on the first page it does not necessarily indicate that the notices were sent to that address, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Why wouldn't this reflect what address the notices were sent to?
A Any information that is sent to the Internal Revenue Service, the very latest information received would reflect the address.
Q Do you have any information as to any other address outside of the one on page one for Mr. LaRouche that notices or other IRS correspondence was sent to?
A Would you repeat the question, please?
Q Sure. I will rephrase it.
Is there any other evidence that you have, anything in this document or any other documents before you

which reflect another address beside the Radio City Station address to which notices were sent by the IRS?
A No, not before rae.
Q Why does this record not reflect what address the notices were sent to?
A I have no idea from this document how long this address has been there.
Q Where would it be reflected — where would that address that each notice was sent to be reflected?
A At the time the notice was issued, the address that was on the transcript or the master file at this time is where it would have gone to.
Q Does that record still exist?
A Sir, it is updated each time when an address change
comes in to us.
Q So was there any — go ahead.
A I was going to say the computer, which is what is the master file, is updated with the most current address.
Q Where would that appear? On what document would that appear?
A What? The current address?
Q Yes.
A Right here, on this particular one, page one.
Q So that indicates that the most current address for Mr. LaRouche that the IRS has is that Radio City Station

address; is that right? A That is correct.
MR. ROSSI: No further questions. Excuse me. One more. No further questions. THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. FITZGERALD:- Just one question, Your Honor, couple questions, Your Honor.
Could the witness be shown Government Exhibit 32-B (Law clerk handing exhibit to witness.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION. BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q Just briefly, Ms. Jeu, from the document 32-B, are you able to tell when the address was changed to the address that currently appears on the master record?
A Yes. From Government's Exhibit 32-D, which is a true and exact copy of Form 486 8, which is an automatic extension of time
to file your U.S. individual income tax return. At this time, the address showing for Mr. LaRouche is in care of Citizens for LaRouche, Box 976, Radio City Station, New York, New York. That is where the address was picked up and entered on our computer, which is on his permanent record.
MR. FITZGERALD: Government would offer the extension. Your Honor, Government Exhibit 32 --
MR. ROSSI: No objection. We have already stipulated to that.
THE COURT: That is D you are offering?
THE COURT: That will be received in evidence. (Government Exhibit No. 32-D was received in evidence.)
MR. FITZGERALD: And Government's Exhibit 3 2-B, what is that?
THE WITNESS: Government's Exhibit 3 2-D is a copy of a history sheet of which one of tax examiners at the Memphis Service Center prepared, indicated that she had sent Mr. LaRouche a letter asking him for disposition of a payment that was mailed in to us with the extension. We received no reply to the document, and she indicates so.
Q Does she also indicate an address change on that document?
A Yes, she did. She indicated that she had changed our master file, our permanent record to indicate the address that was on the extension document.
Q Does that indicate a date that the change was made?
A The
change was made September 2nd, 1983.
MR. FITZGERALD: No further questions, Your Honor. MR. ROSSI: One question, Your Honor.

Q That same Exhibit 32-B that was just referred to, I would like you to look at the second page, Miscellaneous Adjustment Voucher.
A Yes, sir.
Q There is an explanation towards the bottom. Do yo see that?
A Yes.
Q What does that say in the explanation?
A The explanation, taxpayer unlocateable. It gives a DLN --Document Locator Number for the payment, which was received.
Q And does that mean that the IRS was unable to locate the person whose name is at the top of that document?
A Yes. There was no reply to the letter of which this tax examiner sent to him.
Q What is the date of this document?
A The date of this document is 9-20-83.
Q So this document reflects the fact that the IRS couldn't locate Mr. LaRouche, is that correct?
MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, I object. I think she already answered that question.
MR. ROSSI: I withdraw the question.
THE COURT: You may step down.

(Witness excused.) THE COURT:
Call your next witness.
MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, I think we have stipulated. I would like to move in 32-C. MR. ROSSI: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received in evidence.
(Government Exhibit 3 2-C was received in evidence.)
THE COURT: You may step down. (The testimony of the next witness DAVID NICHOLAS ANDERSON has been previously typed and filed under separate cover.)

THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, the United States calls Pam Cowdery as its next witness. Whereupon
a witness in behalf of the United States, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Q Would you state your full name for the record and spell your last name for the Court Reporter.
A Pamela Cowdery Franceschetto, F-r-a-n-c-e-s-c-h-e-t-t-o.
Q Would it trouble you if I referred to you as Ms. Cowdery?
A That's fine.
Q Were you ever a member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes, I was.
Q From when to when?
A From the spring of 1973 until September 1986.
Q From about 1930 on, what was your function for the organization?
A I worked for a company called World Composition

Services, which is a type-setting and pre-press company.
Q And was that company operated by members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes, it was.
Q In addition to working for this type-setting company did you have another function for the organization?
A I had several things; one of the things is I worked very much with a music group, teaching, whatever, and like most people I also did some fundraising and other things, but most of it was with World Comp.
Q Now you said you did music work.
A That's right.
Q Did you ever perform music concerts?
A Yes, I did.
Q Who did you perform them for?
A For the public and also for the LaRouches themselves
Q By the LaRouches, who do you mean?
A Lyn and Helga.
Q How many times did you give a musical performance for Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche?
A Just themselves?
Q Yes.
A I would .'say at least two dozen times.
Q And when you performed music for the LaRouches just themselves, did you do it, where you were the only

musician or were you with other people who were also doing music?
A There were other people —
THE COURT: Wait just a minute.
MR. REILLY: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance. MR. MARKHAM: I can connect this up very quickly, Your Honor, if you will give me a couple more questions.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q When you performed musical concerts, you and others for Mr. LaRouche, were they also National Caucus of Labor Committee members?
A Yes. Most of them. Sometimes there were other.
Q When you did this, were you always residing in the same city as Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche?
A No.
Q How was it that you got from the city in which you lived to the city in which Mr. LaRouche lived in order to render these musical performances?
A Either by public transportation, such as you know air or rail or you know with a rented car or something like that.
Q Who paid for these?
A The organization.
0 How many times did you travel from one city to

another to perform for Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche when the organization paid for you and the other musicians to travel?
A I would say at least 10 times, probably between 10 and 12 times.
Q Now when you had these performances for Mr. LaRouche where you traveled in from another city, where was it that you traveled to? What locations? And from what locations?
A Well, from wherever it was that we were living, which at that point was usually in New York to Leesburg.
Q And where did you perform in Leesburg?
A At the LaRouches' house.
Q Where was that?
A When we were traveling it was Woodburn.
Q Now, did you ever do musical performances for Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche at Ibykus?
A Yes.
Q While you were — were you in New York in 1984, for part of 1984?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever while you were in New York attend any daily briefings?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you ever attend any daily briefings where the subj ect of loan repayments was discussed?
A Yes, I did.

Q And do you recall whether or not Mr. Wertz was at this meeting?
A Yes, he was.
Q And when was the meeting? Do you remember?
A I believe it was the late summer of '84. It was during like the height of all the fundraising for the TV shows.
Q When was the briefing? Do you remember?
A It was a morning briefing, so it would have been at 9:00 a.m.
Q Do you remember something being said about loan repayments to Mr. Wertz?
A Yes, I do.
Q And what was it that was said?
A One of the people form the phone team said that they had heard that some of the fundraisers were nervous about whether or not the loans would be able to be repaid.
Q Do you remember Mr. Wertz making a response?
A Yes, I do.
Q And what was it Mr. Wertz said in response to that concern?
A What he said was that that was the kind of thinking that was going to lose the election, and that people had to realize that it was not their j ob to worry about how the money was going to be repaid. Their responsibility was to make the

Q Now, after this conversation or around the time of this conversation, did you ever have, were you ever present when there was a conversation with Mr. LaRouche about what
Mr. Wertz was doing in New York about fundraising?
A Yes, I was.
Q And do you remember when that was?
Alt would have been, I believe it was slightly later than this briefing. It probably would have been like in September of '34.
Q And in September of '84, where were you residing?
A I was residing in New York.
Q And where was this conversation?
A It was at Woodburn, which was the LaRouches' residence at that point.
0 What city?
A Leesburg.
Q Why were you in Leesburg on that occasion when you lived in New York at the time?
A Because a number of us went down to their house for a concert.
Q By "their house," whose house are you talking about?
A The LaRouches' house.
Q Is this for one of these concerts that you were talking about?

A Yes.
Q For them?
A That's right.
Q Did you perform a concert for them?
A Y*es , we did.
Q How many people came down for that concert for the
A I believe it was about half a dozen.
Q All paid for by the organization?
A That1s right.
Q And was this discussion about Mr. Wertz before or after the concert?
A It was after.
Q And where was the discussion?
A It was in the living room at Woodburn.
Q And what was it that was said first when this subject of Mr. Wertz came up?
A The general discussion was the guality of performance --the guality of preparation that you need in order to do an adeguate musical performance, and one of the people at the meeting said that, but do you realize with the amount of work that we have to do, we can't prepare music this way, that Will Wertz has banned all musical activity. We can't have chorus rehearsals. The hours that people are working, they are being driven into the ground. They don't

have time to practice.
Q Working at what?
A At fundraising.
Q And did Mr. LaRouche make a response?
A Yes, he did.
Q Incidentally, do you remember who it was who said
this to Mr. LaRouche?
A I believe it was Kathy Wolf (phonetic).
Q Do you know what she was doing at Woodburn at that time?
A She was there also as one of the performers.
Q And after Ms. Wolf said this to Mr. LaRouche, did he make a response?
A Yes, he did.
Q And what was it he said?
A He said, "You have to understand that everything that Will does is under my directions. I make the policy, and Will just carries it out."
Q Now, did Mr. LaRouche during this conversation say anything else about fundraising or money?
A Yes, he did.
Q What else do you remember Mr. LaRouche saying?
A What he said was that people in the organization had to realize that the reason that the organization was working these long hours was because the organization needed money,

and the reason it needed money is because he, Mr. LaRouche, had a lot of policies which he wanted to carry out and that people who were in the organization had become more stupid since they joined the organization and that their job now was to raise money so that he, LaRouche, could implement the
policies that lie wanted to implement and that sometimes the members and even members of the NEC would not know exactly what those plans were but that he needed the money to do it.
Q Was this at the same conversation when the concerns about what Will Wertz was doing were expressed?
A Yes, it was.
Q Now, did you ever perform any other services for Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche apart from rendering concerts?
A Yes, I did.
Q What?
A I cooked in their house from time to time.
Q When you cooked in their house, who did you cook for?
A I cooked for the LaRouches themselves, any resident guests that they had in the house as well as people who were invited to the house.
Q Who else did you cook for?
A I cooked for the dogs.
Q How frequently were their dogs cooked for?
A They were fed every day.

Q How frequently were they cooked for? A Every day.
Q What kind of meals did you prepare for their dogs?
A Well, we could only — we had to cook very special meals. I mean the time I was there we used like boned chicken breast and things like that that had to be cooked in a special gravy to mix with the dry food because the food couldn't be too dry for the dogs .
Q Do you know whether the dogs were cooked for, how frequently they were cooked for?
A Everyday.
Q Now, how many times have you been at Ibykus Farm?
A I would say I was there at least a dozen times.
Q Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. LaRouche about Ibykus Farm?
A Yes, I did.
Q When was that?
A Well, the first one was the first time I got there, I walked in the door and he said, you know, "Welcome. How are you? How do you like our house? Isn't it beautiful?"
Q Now
MR. MARKHAM: May the witness be shown Exhibit 100, Your Honor, Government's 100.
(Law clerk handing exhibit to witness)

Q Have you ever seen the house depicted in that
picture before?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A It's Ibykus Farm.
Q Could you hold that picture up to your side so that the jury can see because I am going to ask you some questions about portions of it.
If you can sort of put it down held up.
There is a pool depicted in that picture, correct?
A That's right.
Q Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. LaRouche about the pool?
A Yes, I did.
Q When was that? Do you remember?
A One of the days I was cooking at the house.
Q And how was it that Mr. LaRouche and you happened to be talking while you were cooking at the house?
A He came in the kitchen to get something to drink or say hello or something, and I said, you know, the house is really, it's lovely, and the pool, it's wonderful.
Q And what did he say about the pool?
A He said, "Yes, you know we have a pool, and also we have the horses, because Helga needs to get exercise. She

needs to keep busy, you know. She can't leave the grounds."
Q You can put the photograph down. How many horses were there?
A I believe there were two.
Q Whose were they?
A They were always referred to as Helga's horses.
Q Now, did you ever have any conversations with Helga LaRouche about whose house it was?
MR. MOFFITT: Objection.
MR. MARKHAM: I will rephrase that slightly differently, Your Honor.
Q Did you ever have any discussion — did you ever receive any instructions from Helga LaRouche?
A Yes, I did.
Q How frequently?
A Every time I went there to cook.
Q Did you ever receive any instructions from her about whose house it was?
A Yes.
MR. MOFFITT: Objection.
MR. REILLY: Objection.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Q What did she say?

A There were a couple of times when I was cooking in the kitchen when she wanted to be alone in the kitchen and she said, "This is my kitchen. Please get out." To me, she also complained that people, members of the organization, would come —
MR. REILLY: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay grounds.
MR. GETTINGS: Also unresponsive, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: She also complained to me that when members of the organization came to the house, they thought it was their house, but in fact it was her house; and she objected to the way in which they behaved while they were in her house.
Q How many times did you see her giving instructions to maids about where to clean up? A I --
MR. MOFFITT: Objection. There has been no foundation.
MR. MARKHAM: I will lay a foundation.
BY MR. MARKHAM: Q Did the house have maids?
A It had a house cleaner that came, yes.
Q How frequently did the house cleaner come?
A I believe she came once a week.
Q In addition to that house cleaner, were there other people that you observed cleaning the house?
A Yes. Those of us who cooked in the kitchen also had to do cleaning up after the meals and in preparation for the meals and so forth.
Q Did you ever see Mrs. LaRouche giving instructions to anybody who was ever working to clean up the house?
A Yes. Absolutely.
Q How frequently?
A Every time I was there.
Q Who purchased the food?
A The people who were doing the cooking purchased the food.
Q Did you ever observe Mrs. LaRouche giving instructions to those people?
A Yes. She would ask for specific kinds of food.
Q Now, you say you went to Ibykus 12 times?
A Approximately, yes.
Q Did you ever go to Ibykus when you were not invited?
A Never.
Q Who was it who issued the invitations to come to Ibykus?
A They were issued by Lyn and Helga through a member of the security staff.

Q Did you ever observe anyone going to Ibykus without an invitation from Lyn and Helga?
A No.
MR. ANDERSON: Objection, Your Honor. It's impossible for anyone to testify to that.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Did you ever observe anyone coming there without an invitation?
MR. ANDERSON: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's the same question. Objection sustained. BY MR. MARKHAM:
Q Now, —
MR. MARKHAM: One moment, Your Honor. Nothing further, Your Honor.
Q Good morning. How are you?
A Fine.
Q My name is Michael Reilly. I represent
A Yes.
Q We have had a chance to meet before, haven't we?
A That's correct.

Q We met in my office in approximately February of
1987. Is that fair?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q You had very little involvement in fundraising during the time that you were a member of the NCLC; isn't that right?
A I fundraised every night and on the weekends, but I was not a full-time fundraiser.
Q Do you remember talking to Mr. Markham in February of 1987 at your parents' home in New Hampshire?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you remember telling him at that time that you had very little involvement in fundraising?
A I was not a full-time fundraiser, that's correct.
Q When you said to Mr. Markham very little involvement with fundraising, what you actually meant was you did it every night?
A From the standpoint of the organization's policies, someone who had a lot of involvement in fundraising was a fulltime fundraiser. What I would do is just call subscribers in the evening. It was not a heavy-duty fundraising deployment.
Q Wouldn't it be fair to say that the focus of your life as an NCLC member was involved in the musical activities of the organization?

A No. The focus was really working at World Comp.
Q But in terms of your activities as an NCLC member, didn't you spend most of your time involved in musical activities of the organization?
A No.
Q Other than your day-to-day work.
A Other than my day-to-day work, that's true.
Q At World Comp, you worked as a — I'm sorry, what were your duties at World Comp?
A When I was first there I was production manager and from 1980 on I was in sales.
Q And you sold advertising for —
A No. I sold the actual product of type-setting and
Q But other than that, what you did during the day, your activities beyond your day-to-day work were involved with music, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You played violin?
A That's right.
Q And you were a lead female singer?
A That's correct.
Q And isn't it true that in the period prior to your leaving you got involved in a dispute with Mr. LaRouche and with other members of the organization about your priority a

a female singer, whether you would be a lead female singer versus Jeannie Bell (phonetic) or Kathy Wolf? Do you remember that dispute?
A That's the way it was interpreted. The disagreement was about other things but I was involved in a disagreement, yes.
Q And that was a disagreement where fir. LaRouche disagreed with you about the musical —
A I don't know. I never had a discussion with him about the disagreement.
Q Wouldn't it be fair to say that Mr. LaRouche frequently used hyperbole when he was talking to people?
A I can't judge that. He said what he said. If it was hyperbole, he would be the one to know.
Q Didn't you hear him on many occasions exaggerate to make a point?
A You would have to give me some specific examples. He said many things that seem outrageous to many people, but as far as I know, he believed them. I don't think that he thought they were
Q Did you ever have any occasion of hearing him say something that you understood to be him exaggerating to make a point? Did that ever happen?
A Yes. That's probably the reason I left the organization.

Q In fact, it happened fairly frequently, didn't it?
A In the later period, yes.
Q That he would say something and he would exaggerate it to make a point to the people he was talking to; isn't thatcorrect?
A He said things very forcefully, yes.
Q In fact, you do-the same thing, don't you, at times?
A I try not to.
Q Well, do you remember you went to Italy after you left the organization; isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you had a woman that you wrote back to named Patty Myers (phonetic), is that right?
A That's correct.
Q You remember telling her that she should scheme, plot, steal, cheat, lie, or whatever you have to do to get to Italy. Do you remember teling her that?
A Um hum.
Q You didn't really mean that she should cheat or lie or steal, did you?
A I just meant that whatever she needed to do, she should do.
Q But you didn't really mean cheat or lie or steal when you said that, did you?
A If it worked, I don't know.

Q She should have?
A No.
Q You didn't even draw the line at thievery or
thuggery, did you?
A Well — (pause)
Q Now, after you left the organization in September of 1986, it is the case that you still supported the basic policies of the organization; isn't that correct?
A Yes. And I still do, many of the things.
Q And what you thought was untenable was to have a situation in which most of the members barely had time to sleep because of all of the work that they were doing.
A That's correct.
Q And you were unhappy with the cultural work, because you thought the cultural work had become
mediocre; isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q It was not part of the reason that you left the organization that you were displeased with the fundraising activity, was it?
A I tried to stay away from the fundraising activities as much as possible. I would not say that that was one of the reasons why I personally left, no.
Q In fact, you told Ms. Myers that your only criticism of the organization is that over the last ten years it has

stifled individual thought and contributions?
A That's fair, yes.
Q Isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And that was with you having in your mind the
comments you have testified about hearing Mr. LaRouche
make in regards to fundraising?
A That's true.
Q In fact, your basic problem with the organization
was that you felt that it had become too bureaucratic?
A Yes.
Q Wouldn't that be right?
A Yes.
Q Did you get paid for the musical performances that
you did at Woodburn?
A What do you mean by aid?
Q Paid. I'm sorry.
A Oh, paid. No.
Q It's my Boston accent.
When you came to Woodburn, where did you stay?
A We stayed at Woodburn itself.
Q You would sleep there overnight if you had to stay
A That's correct.
Q Where did you eat when you came?

A Sometimes there would be a dinner at the house, in
which case we would eat at the house. Otherwise we ate at
restaurants in Leesburg.
Q When there was a dinner at the house, you had dinner
with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche?
A That's right.
MR. REILLY: I have no further questions.
Q Hello, ma'am.
A Hello.
Q My name is Moffitt. I represent Dennis Small. Do you
remember when right after you left the organization writing
letters to various people saying you had good strong positive
feelings about Lyndon and Helga LaRouche?
A I believe the only letter I wrote that to was
Pat Myer.
Q You said that, didn't you?
A Absolutely, yes.
Q I want to go over with you several things. I want to
draw your attention to several of the conversations you
talked about. Let's talk about the one where you said Kathy
Wolf made a response. Who else was present?
A Her husband, Lonnie Wolf (phonetic), was present. John
Siegerson (phonetic) was present and David Culp (phonetic was
present. Those people I can remember for sure. There may

have been one or two others.
Q Were they in hearing range of this particular
comment that you said?
A Yes, they were.
0 Did you have discussions with them regarding this
A No.
Q So this comment was made and you didn't discuss the
comment with anyone?
A No.
Q And —
A Well, I discussed it with my ex-husband, but I can'
remember if he was at this particular meeting or not.
Q Let me ask you this: you didn't discuss it with
anyone who heard the comment?
A Who I remember hearing the comment, that's correct.
0 Now, with respect to some of the comments regarding
Mrs. LaRouche, who else was present when those comments were
A Other people who were doing cooking.
Q Can you name some of them?
A I am trying to remember her name. She was a German
member. I can't remember her name at this moment.
Q Did you discuss her comments?
A No.

Q You didn't discuss it with her either when Mrs.
LaRouche said that other people think that this is their
house, it's really my house, you didn't discuss that with
A That one, yes. I remember her name now. It was
Ulricka (phonetic).
Q Ulricka what?
A I cna't remember at the moment. But she and T were
both in the kitchen during that comment, and I remember she
said to me, "Yes, it's very difficult for Helga because you
know she does have all these people going through her
house all the time. It's not -- it doesn't feel like her
Q In other words, various members from time to time
were coming to the house?
A There were always a good number of members there,
with security or people who were doing other jobs like we
were doing.
Q There were also various guests from time to time in
the house, isn't that right?
A That's correct.
Q Various dignitaries from virtually all over the
world came to the house?
A Yes.
Q And they lived at the house and stayed at the house?
A The members did. I don't know if any of the

dignitaries did.
Q Well, from time to time dignitaries did stay at the
A I don't know that.
Q Did you ever stay overnight at the house?
A Not at Ibykus. At Woodburn, I did, yes.
Q How often did you stay overnight at the house?
A Like ten times.
Q And from time to time other members of the NCLC
stayed overnight at the house?
A That's true, yes.
Q And it v/ould be very difficult to feel like it was
your house if you had people staying in there and had no
control over that, isn't that correct?
A Well, except if I had invited them, I would, you
know --
Q Do you know whether Mrs. LaRouche invited all of
A Either she or Lyndon invited everybody.
How do you know that, ma'am? Did you discuss it
with each person that you saw at the house as to whether or
not they were invited by either Lyn or her?
A Because I know the times that I was invited and the
times when I was cooking at the house, I saw guest lists that
were written up usually by Helga, that were her individual,

I mean they were her guests. People didn't just come. You
only came to the house if you were invited.
Q Do you know when the guest list was written?
A Sometimes it was just you know six hours before the
party was to happen.
Q Do you know how it got written?
A By hand, generally.
Q You weren't privy as to how that guest list got
established, were you?
A No, I wasn't.
Q You said that you were there approximately a dozen
times when there were concerts with Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche; is that right?
A No. I was at Ibykus a dozen times, but in total,
there were more occasions than that.
Q And you were there when there were concerts not
just for Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you were there on more than one occasion when
there were not concerts just for Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche?
A That's correct.
Q Each time you were there, weren't there guests of
the LaRouches there present also?
A That's correct, yes.
Q So the concerts were not just for Mr. and

Mrs. LaRouche, were they?
A Not all of them, no.
Q How many times were there no guests there?
A T would say about two dozen times at least.
Q Two dozen?
A At least, yes.
Q And you and several other people came in; and was
this at Woodburn or Ibykus or together?
A Woodburn, Ibykus and also their house in New York
before they moved to Leesburg.
Q These two dozen times over the course of how many
years was this?
A The two dozen times would have been starting from
about '84-'85.
Q To when, ma'am?
A To '36.
Q To '86?
A No. It would have been '83, starting '83.
Q '83 to '86. So over the course of three years, there
were approximately two dozen concerts when there was no one
there other than the LaRouches?
A That's correct -- no guests. There were other
members there.
Q Other members.
A Who were involved in playing the music.

Q I see. Were there any other members who were not involved
in playing the music?
A There would be spouses of the people who were there
Q And who else? Any other members?
A The security people if they were around, people who might
be cooking in the kitchen or something like that.
Q No one else?
A No.
MR. MOFFITT: I have no further questions. MR. CLARK:
Very briefly. Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, sir. BY MR.
Q Hello, Ms. Cowdery. My name is Jim Clark. I
represent Mike Billington.
I just want to clarify one thing if I might. You have
referred to perhaps a dozen concerts. I think that was your word.
A Urn hum.
Q That were conducted at Ibykus or Woodburn?
A Urn hum.
Q When I think of a concert, I think of you walk in, you
watch the show, you get up and you leave.
A Urn hum.
Q There are performers and there are spectators. That wasn't
what these, what you call concerts were all about, were

A No. What we called them was musique aben (phonetic)J
music evenings, and they were very informal.
Q Isn't it true that it was your understanding at the
time these concerts — now I've used the word — these evenings
that were being held, that classical music was or the
relationship of classical music to science and culture and so
forth were the central theme of what the philosophy of these
organizations was all about?
A Most times, yes. Sometimes no, they were just times
when Mr. LaRouche wanted to hear some music.
Q Isn't it true that these music sessions were
accompanied by long discussions with Mr. LaRouche,
musicians and spectators about the relationship between
music and science and day-to-day life?
A Yes, that's true.
Q So it was really a working session in addition to
entertainment for everybody who was there?
A Yes.
MR. CLARK: Thank you. That's all the questions I
Q You weren't a traveling minstrel show, were you?
Is that how you are trying to present this?
A Sometimes it felt like it, yes.

Q In fact, you mentioned you have some very precise
memories. You have a clear, indelible memory of the first
time you went to Ibykus precisely what words were exchanged
between you and Mr. LaRouche, absolutely precise? Isn't that
A That's what I remember him saying.
0 And what was of- such significance in that — how
many times have you had a conversation with Mr. LaRouche?
A A good number of times.
Q How many years ago was this one you are talking
A It would have been about two-and-a-half years ago, I
Q But you remember the details of a conversation that
involved look at the nice house, look at the nice pool? You
remember that?
A You have to remember that people in the organization
had heard that there was a new house and we were all really
excited to go see it. So yes, that particular evening does
stick in my mind because we all wanted to see the new house.
Q But what sticks in your mind with this exquisite
precision is the precise, look at my nice house, look at my
nice pool, what you told this jury.
A He didn't say anything about the pool the first
time I went there. It was look at my house. Isn't it

Q Tell me what it is about look at my pool that
caused that to stick so indelibly in your memory?
A Because I was a lifeguard and taught swimming and I
like pools.
Q Oh, that clears it all up. Thank you.
Now that makes it understandable why you
remembered that.
THE COURT: Just questions, Mr. Anderson. You can
save the argument for the jury. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q You testified that you sent one letter to someone
named Patty. Is that what you said?
A That's correct, yes.
Q When was that?
A I wrote it in Italy, so it would have been either
late December of early January of '86-'87.
Q Who was the person you wrote it to?
A Patty Myers.
Q Who was she?
A She was someone I worked very closely with at
World Comp. She was another saleswoman.
Q Mr. Reilly asked you if you had said certain things
in that letter, and you said yes to essentially all of
them, is that right?

Alt would have been when I wrote it.
Q When was that?
Alt was December '86 or January '87.
Q And you remember what you wrote in a letter that you wrote a couple of years ago?
A Yes. It was the only one I wrote to Patty.
Q Are you certain it's the only one you wrote to Patty?
A I have sent her cards since then but I believe that was the only letter.
Q No. I said are you certain? You said it's the only| one you wrote. My question is are you certain it's the only one you wrote?
A I believe it was the only letter I wrote to her. I have written her postcards and cards since then.
Q You can remember specifically what Mr. LaRouche said look at my nice swimming pool, but you can't remember how many letters you wrote to Patty, your close friend?
A I have answered what I remember. I remember I wrote her one letter and I have written her several cards and postcards since then. How many I can't remember.

A It's possible, but I don't think so.
Q Did you write letters to anyone else?
A In the organization, no.
Q Are you certain of that?
A Yes.
Q Absolutely certain?
A Yes.
Q Do you know a fellow named Dave, who you used to be
married to?
A Dave Goldman?
Q Um hum.
A I don't believe I wrote him a letter. I may have
written him a postcard.
Q You don't believe. You have no memory?
A While he was in the organization, I don't believe I
wrote him a letter, unless it was about the specifics of our
Q How about — well, no. Are you having a refreshed
memory of writing him a letter or did you write him a letter
or didn't you?
A I may have written him a letter about the specifics of
our divorce. I know I sent him at least two postcards.
Q You remember Mr. LaRouche's specific words about look
at my nice swimming pool but you don't know whether you wrote
your husband a letter while he was, after you left, and

he was still in the organization?
MR. MARKHAM: Objection. Argument.
THE COURT: It's becoming that.
MR. ANDERSON: Could I ask that this document be
shown to the witness, please.
(Law clerk handing exhibit to witness)
MR. ANDERSON: I am refreshing her recollection.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. This was a letter I
wrote before I left the organization.
THE COURT: Wait just a minute.
MR. MARKHAM: I didn't mean to interrupt. May the
witness' answer be heard again? I withdraw whatever objection
I have if the witness can answer. I think I got in the way.
Q Does that refresh your memory as to whether or not
you —
A Yes. This letter was written the night before I
left the organization, on the Friday, September 26th, I left.
This was the letter I left to him saying I was leaving.
Q That was your — you left the organization and
that says, by the time you get this I will be gone.
A By the time you get this I will be on my way out of
town which means I wrote it before I had physically left
Leesburg, so I did not write it after I left the
if you want to be technical.

Q Okay, We'll let the jury decide that.
Now, did you write to anybody else?
A I did send postcards to other people,
Q A letter?
A I do not believe I sent a letter to anyone else.
Q Now,, what about did you sent any other -- let's clear
up this detail about letters that — I am talking about
letters by the nature of farewell letters such as that one.
A Yes, I did write others.
Q Who did you write those to?
A I wrote them to people at World Comp, to Ken Kronberg
and Mike Minnicino. I also wrote letters to all of my clients
explaining that I was leaving the company but that I hoped
they would continue working with World Comp because it was a
good company. I had to leave for personal reasons. I wrote
about a dozen of those. I can't tell you exactly who it was
that I wrote to all of those.
Q What was the date of your departure?
A It was Friday morning. I guess it must have been the
26th. This is dated the 25th. 1 wrote that on Thursday.
Q Do you remember what you said to Mike?
A Mike Minnicino?
Q Yes.
A I believe the gist of what I said was that I was
going through a very difficult time. I had to sort things

Q No, my question was whether you remembered what you
A I am trying to —
Q Don't refresh your memory verbally. ,
MR. MARKHAM: May he not interrupt the witness.
MR. ANDERSON: This is not an answer. I object.
THE COURT: I think she is trying to Objection sustained.
MR. ANDERSON: I didn't ask her what her memory was,
Your Honor. I asked her if she did, if sh& remembered what she
wrote. Now the next question I will put to her will be what
is it, but I haven't put it yet.
THE COURT: If you are making that distinction, then
all right.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Your Honor.
Q Do you remember what you said?
A Yes.
Q Didn't you say among other things that you have no
intention of becoming part of a nag operation, "Especially
since I hold Lyn and Helga and many of their ideas in the
highest regard."
A Yes, I did write that.
Q What's a nag operation?

A It was what we referred to in the organization of
people who to ray understanding try to pull other members
out of the organization.
Q Had that happened in the past?
A There were people who continued to get calls from
people who had left the organization,
Q Who were some of those people who tried, who were in
these nag operations that tried to pull people out of the
organization that you were aware of?
A Well, at World Comp the one that we talked about most
was a woman named Libby Moriarity (phonetic) who used to be
the art director.
Q What about Gus Axios?
MR. MARKHAM: Objection, Your Honor, Relevance to
what Gus Axios did. He is not a witness for the Government.
He left in 1980, I believe.
THE COURT: I think the word nag operator or
operations is sufficient. Who they were really isn't relevant
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Your Honor.
Q Now, you considered the cultural work that you were
involved in while you were a member of the National Caucus of
Labor Committees as very significant to yourself, did you
A That's correct, yes.
Q And very significant to the fabric and life of the

National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes,
Q in fact, it was recognised by essentially each and
every member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees
that there was an integral relationship, philosophical,
political, and otherwise between the classical arts and the
other ideas for which the organization stood?
A That's correct.
Q So when you were engaged in music or when someone
else might have been engaged in drama, this wasn't play,
was it?
A No. We considered it to be a very important part of
our total being.
Q In fact, it was virtually every member of the Labor
Committees sought out and was encouraged to find some
expression for themselves within one of the dramatic or
musical arts, isn't that true?
A That's correct.
Q And there were occasionally expenditures of money to
provide the facilities wherein these activities could be
developed by these individuals?
A Yes.
Q A piano was bought, for example?
A Um hum.
Q For the use of those who happened to be pursuing the

piano as their means of expression?
A Um hum.
Q And in fact your husband played the — prior husban --
played the harpsichord, did he not?
A That's true-
Q And was extremely talented or a quite talented, as I
understand it, on that instrument?
A Yes.
Q In fact, a harpsichord was purchased for purposes of the
use of whatever members might choose to follow that path?
A That's correct.
Q And such other instrumentalities or locations as were
needed for the development of these things were provided as best
could be, isn't that true?
A Yes, that's true.
Q In fact, one of the reasons for the purchase Ibykus Farm
was to give, among others, was to have a location which was within
a secure environment in which these various dramatic and other
activities could take place along with
2' other things , isn' t that true?
A I never heard that.
Q Well, isn't there in fact a music room in the main
A I would call it a living room with a piano in it.

I wouldn't call it a music room.
Q A living room? When was the last time you were
A It was September '86.
Q The piano is at one end of the room, is it not?
A That's right.
Q And there is a little row of chairs ringing the rest
of the room, basically fold-up chairs, isn't that
A Mot when I was there. There were folding chairs in
other parts of the house which if you needed to see people
for these various performances, you would put out, but other
than that, the rooia normally was a piano with two couches
and a couple of chairs and a — several coffee table-like
Q And there were chairs that were brought in there for
purposes of people sitting down to attend a, if someone was
playing the piano or doing whatever they were doing.
A That's correct.
Q That was not — that as part of the vibrant, ongoing
life of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, isn't that
true? Those'performances were not traveling minstrel shows.
They were a part of the development and encouragement of the
A Well, except it was for a very small group of
Q How many people could you fit in that room?

A I think on occasion we got up to about 110.
Q So there were in fact many people fit in that room
on occasion?
A Yes, on occasion, yes.
Q And on other occasions, there were smaller groups
of people?
A That's right.
Q And in fact there were performances, plays were
performed for any and all members of the Labor Committees
who might wish to attend them?
A But not at the house.
Q I didn't ask at the house. I said plays were
A Yes.
Q And in fact, members of the Labor Committees were
encouraged to — to participate in those dramatic events?
A That's correct.
Q And they held rehearsals?
A That's correct. Up until a certain point. They were
stopped at a certain point.
Q The cultural, the cultural aspects of the organiza
tion were stopped, is that what you are saying?
A That's correct, for the membership as a whole.
Q This was by order?
A That's correct-

Q You know that's not true, don't you?
A I'm not saying anything that's not true. It is
Q When did you say this happened?
A It happened in the beginning of 1984 when the fundraising
push started going --
Q And everybody who played the —
A -- when Will Wertz came into the office — MR.
MARKHAM: May she finish her answer. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q I didn't mean to interrupt.
A I said the musical and dramatic activities stopped
when Will Werts took over the fundraising in the national
office in early '84, for the membership as a whole.
Q Did you stop singing?
A Did I stop singing? No, I never stopped singing.
Q Did Dave Goldman stop playing harpsichord?
A No.
Q Did whoever might have been using the piano stop
using the piano?
A People who had pianos in their homes, I hope they
continued to play them.
Q People stopped reading books?
A Well, people never read a lot of books.
Q People never read a lot of books?

A I mean, they read books that were connected to the,
you know, political stuff, but for relaxation, I don't think
it was —
Q Well, you mean they didn't read whodunits?
Well, isn't it in fact encouraged, isn't reading of
the works of classical literature encouraged within the
National Caucus of Labor Committees?
MR. MARKHAM: Can we have a time frame?
Q Weren't they at all times that you are familiar with
the National Caucus of Labor Committees was it in fact
encouraged to whatever, in whatever time was available, the
people should take at such times an appreciate as best
they could a read-through of classical Western literature?
A To that question I would have to answer no, because I
mean I happen to be a fan of English literature and I was
strongly discouraged from reading Jane Austen and other
people like that as being secondary writers.
Q This was a dispute over which — you had a dispute,
you were referred to yourself at times as an Anglophile and
you —
A Absolutely.
Q Right, and you resisted, which is fine, the tendency
within the Labor Committees to look to the more classical
works of writers from a different ares, Greek, for example,

and you resented the fact that there was .some downplaying of
certain authors that you thought were important?
A That's correct.
Q But it was a debate.
A Yes- I mean, no one came into my house and sold my
books. You know, I could read them.
Q You apparently were the only one who wanted those
books, from what you are telling us, is that right?
A It's possible.
Q You never saw, no one read Plato?
A No. They did.
Q No one read the trial of Socrates?
A No. They did.
Q No one read Dante?
A People said they did. I guess most people probably
Q They said they did. Do you think they were fooling
A Some people I think yes.
Q You laugh a lot. Did you think that was funny, or ■
A I am a happy person.
Q You are a happy person.
A Yes, I am a happy person.
Q Are you particularly happy today?
A Given my druthers, I'd rather be back in Italy, but

I am here.
Q You have been waiting a long time to get a chance
to testify?
A No, I haven't.
MR. ANDERSON: May I have a moment, if Your Honor
please. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q You are familiar with the fact that there were
regional offices or whatever you, however you want to
refer to them, of the National Caucus of Labor Committees,
isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q The persons who were in those regions lived in
those regions?
A Um hum.
Q And isn't it true that each and every region around
the country had their own cultural events, their own poetry
readings, if you will, or literary discussions or
A Yes.
Q And — (pause) -- you mentioned that you had — one of
the reasons that support the uniqueness and indelibility
ofyour memory with regard to certain remarks by Helga
LaRouche was that she referred to it as her house. You
thought that odd, because the members of the Labor Committee
considered it to be their house?

A No, I never said that.
Q You didn't say that?
A (Shaking head no)
Q Isn't it a fact that that facility was purchase for
purposes of being a multi-purpose facility, and it was so
looked on by members of the National Caucus of Labor
A I don't know why it was bought, but I know that
certainly no member thought of it as someplace that they
could go to freely and easily and be used as a resource
of theirs.
Q There were areas that were within a secure environment,
isn't that true?
A There was a camera at the outside gate. The gate
could not be gotten into, into the grounds unless someone
let you in. There was not free access to it.
Q Do you know where the barn is?
A Yes.
Q Wasn't that barn in fact cleaned up so that it
could be used for dramatic workships and other cultural
A That's true,
Q And you could get to that because that wasn't
within the security perimeter, isn't that true?
A But you always had to get permission from security

to go there first. You couldn't just arrive there with a
group of people to start playing and having a rehearsal.
Q You know where the house that Will Wertz lived in at
one point in time was, don't you?
A Yes. It was right next to it.
Q Next to the barn?
A That's right.
Q Did you have to get permission to go to his house
from security?
A I don't know. I am not Will Wertz. I don't know what
arrangements he had.
Q You understood that there was restricted entry into
the premises that was enclosed?
A That's correct,
Q By virtue of the security screen that was set up-
A Um hum.
Q And that you couldn't, you wouldn't walk through
the gate without having someone open it for you?
A That's correct.
Q But in fact it was opened for you on a number of
occasions that you have discussed.
A That's right. You had to stop, identify yourself
and like an intercom and stand in front of the camera so
they could identify you before the gate was opened.
Q You understood the reason for that?

A Yes.
Q So you didn't say — you didn't tell this jury on
direct examination or it might have been on cross
examination by one of the other counsel, that when members
came to the house they thought it was their house?
A It that point I was paraphrasing Helga saying that
Helga had said to me that-she was very upset when members
came to the house and acted like it was their own house
when it was actually her house. That is what I said,
Q So the members came there — you are quoting Helga as
saying or suggesting in some fashion that the members came
there and treated that as their house? A That's correct.
MR. ANDERSON: May I have just a moment, Your Honor
(Pause in the proceedings)
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, could I ask if we could
take a recess at this point in time?
THE COURT: Yes. We'll take a short recess. MR. MARKHAM:
Is Mr. Anderson through with his questioning?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I'm not.
THE COURT: I didn't gather he was.
MR. ANDERSON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Take a short recess.
(Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., a short recess was taken.

Q Mr. LaRouche played an integral part in the cultural
affairs of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, did he
A Yes, he did.
Q In fact, and particularly or not necessarily
particularly but in addition to other things within the
so-called music program?
A Yes.
Q And in fact he functioned in some capacity in the
context of a coordinator?
A Yes.
Q And when — and those involved in these various
activities including yourself, would frequently come to
Mr. LaRouche for guidance, approval, or advice?
A Yes, that's true.
Q And that these performances that were, that Mr.
LaRouche had the pleasure of witnessing were in fact in the
context of a continuing development of those programs?
A Yes.
Q In fact, Mr. LaRouche encouraged and specifically
individually engaged in a broad range of musical interests
beyond simply encouraging performances; isn't that true?
A Specifically, what do you mean?
Q Well, hasn't there been an ongoing debate within

musical circles internationally which haj Given rise to a
specific law that's proposed in the Italian senate in terms
of tuning?
A Yes.
Q And isn't it fair to say that many of the most
significant voices in the world have spoken out in
support of that proposal?
A What I have seen is the stuff that the organisation
has put out, you know, signed by the various singers.
Q You recognize those names?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Renata Tobaldi, for example?
A Yes .
Q Who is she?
A She is probably like the leading soprano emeritus
of Italy,
Q I think it's Piero Capasili. Who is he?
A He is a very famous Italian singer.
Q And in fact a lot of energy and time, Mr. LaRouche's
energy and time and those of many other people in the
National Caucus of Labor Committees have been spent on
assisting and sponsoring that retuning issue, is that
A I believe so, yes* That really sort of happened
since I left the organization, but I believe that's true.
Q In fact, in many ways, this might be looked on as

being the development of a thesis, a musical thesis, if you
will? Isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q In fact, Mr. LaRouche did everything he could do in that
context to develop not only his thesis but the general thesis
for the rest of the community?
A That's true, yes.
Q Now, you mentioned that all cultural activities ceased.
Isn't it a fact that when you left, in fact the night you left,
that you were right in the middle of a major cultural activity?
MR. MARKHAM: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates her
testimony. She didn't say all cultural events ceased. She said
they ceased for certain members.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Q Isn't it a fact that you left in the middle of a major
cultural presentation?
A It was right after the conference where we had
performed a major piece. Is that what you mean?
Q It wasn't over, was it? You left essentially in the
middle, not that that's good or bad or otherwise.
A No, the conference was over.
Q And as part of that conference, there was a major musical

A Yes.
Q And that just didn't happen spontaneously, I take
A No. That's true.
Q Many, many hours of practice and rehearsal et
cetera went into the preparation for that performance?
A Well, the reason so many hours had to go, we met for
like a week of intensive rehearsal before the performance,
and the reason was because there had been no orchestra or
choral rehearsals in at least the six months previous to that
so the only way to do the music work with everyone involved,
the whole chorus and the whole orchestra was to have those
intensive rehearsals for a week.
Q Where did these people live who participated?
A They lived all over the country and all over the
Q It's rather difficult to have regular rehearsals
when people live all over the world, isn't it?
A Except for the way we worked, up until --
Q Is it or not difficult to have regular rehearsals
when people live all over the world is my question?
MR. MARKHAM: Your Honor, may she be allowed to
explain her answer?
THE WITNESS: The way that the orchestra and chorus

worked in the organization is that we had a core of amateur
musicians, most of whom who performed lived in the national
center, whether it was New York or Leesburg. Then at the
time of the conferences, professional or semiprofessional
people would be brought from other places to augment those
forces, but the actual rehearsals on a week-to-week basis
and the amateurs was critical for the performance. That is
the activity that stopped. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Where were you coming from?
A At the time I left the organization?
Q When you, during this period before this performance,
where did you live?
A Leesburg.
Q You don't know what was going on in the New York
region, do you?
A Yes and no.
Q You don't know what the members who were in the
New York region were doing by way of cultural activities
during that period of time, do you?
A I know in terms of the orchestral members, there
were no people who played a string orchestral instrument in
New York who would have needed a rehearsal.
Q The point is you don't know what was going on from
your own personal knowledge in any of the other regions of

country, do you?
A No, sir, that's not true. I do know, or I did know
Q Is it prescience?
A No, it wasn't prescience.
Q How do you know?
A Because I worked very closely with the people who
coordinated the music work on a national level, and in order
to decide who was going to play in the orchestra, we needed
to know who was good enough in order to be able to play and
that information I did know.
Q Who made those decisions who was good enough?
A It was made by a group of people who were
professional or semiprofessional musicians.
Q You had received some let's call it criticism,
hopefully constructive criticism from Mr. LaRouche in terms
of the context and direction of your particular music?
A He never said anything to me directly, but I did
get word from other people that was attributed to Lyn,
Q And you didn't like that very much, did you?
A No.
Q As a matter of fact, that struck at the very heart of
one of the most important aspects of your life?
A Yes.
Q You also were having some marital difficulties
during the time prior to your departure, is that correct?

1 A That's xjrect, yes.
Q And you were unhappy with some of your husband's
A That's correct.
Q And isn't it a fact that for one reason or another
you held Mr. LaRouche responsible for being unable to
influence your husband to'behave himself better?
A Absolutely not.
Q You never discussed that with him?
A Yes, we did. In fact, after my husband and I split up
Q Did you discuss with Mr. -- all right. I withdraw the
question. I was talking about a different discussion. You
talked to your husband about it?
A No. I talked to Mr. LaRouche. He invited me to his
house to dinner just the two of us and we talked about it
Q Now, you had dinner recently with Criton Zoakos and
his wife, have you not?
A I was in May, yes.
Q How did that come about?
A I heard from various people that Criton and Vivian
had left the organization and I called them up to say hello
and see how they were. They said since you are leaving the
country, come down and see us.
Q Had you been in contact with Criton Zoakos at any

time from your departure until the time you heard he left the
A No.
Q Were you breaking your pledge that you were not
going to become part of any nag operation?
A Absolutely I was not breaking my promise.
Q It was just a coincidence, you just decided now you
had something in common so you would get together and talk
about it?
A The thing that was in common was that he left the
organization and he was free to talk to me. Before that, he
didn't have the time.
Q But he wasn't barred from talking to you, he just
didn't have the time?
A I don't know. I mean, we weren't in touch during
that period.
Q Well, in fact a number of people tried to maintain
contact with you, did they not?
A Up until I left for Italy, yes.
Q And then it became more difficult by virtue of the
fact that you were gone?
A No. I was back in the United States for long stretches
of time and I continued to send postcards to people and never
heard anything back from them.
Q Your best memory is that you wrote one letter to

your friend, dear friend, Patty —
THE COURT: I think we have explored the letters
and number of letters and members' letters enough.
THE COURT: I won't ask any more, but I would like
to have her shown these two documents, Your Honor. (Law
clerk handing documents to witness) BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Do you recognize the handwriting on those two pages?1 A
Yes, it's my handwriting.
Q You recognize those as the first pages of two
separate letters, one dated December and one dated January
that you wrote to Patty? A Yes.
Q You wrote two letters, not one? A
Q Your memory wasn't too precise on that point? A It was
during that period. I remember I had written to her in
December-January. Apparently I wrote to her once each
time, each month.
MR. ANDERSON: May I have those documents back,
MR. MARKHAM: May I see those --
MR. MARKHAM: I was asking Your Honor.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, I don't intend to give

them to him, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Unless they are offered in evidence, I
see no reason to pursue them.
MR. MARKHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. If you
change your mind --
THE COURT: Any further questions?
MR. ANDERSON: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
Q Ma'am, I am Brian Gettings, and I represent Will
As I understand your testimony both on direct and
on some of the cross examination by my colleagues, you were
with the organization with the LaRouche movement for about 13
A That's correct, yes.
Q And it's fair to say, isn't it, that there was
always during this entire period of time two sides to the
organization, the political side and the cultural side? Is
that fair?
A Well, the attempt was to always try to make them
united, but there was often a dichotomy, yes.
Q That was just kind of a natural division that there
were some people that were heavier into the cultural side of
it than perhaps they were in the political side and vice

versa? Is that fair?
A With certain individuals it probably happened just
like some people were more into FEF, the Fusion Energy
Foundation than they were other things.
Q Right, and would it be fair to say that you were
most concerned with and heaviest into the cultural side of
A That's the way it evolved, yes.
Q That was really what interested you about the
organization to begin with, was the —
A No. To begin with it was the economic policies.
The cultural and musical stuff developed later.
Q Then as time went on you became more and more
interested in and —
A That's correct.
Q And it got to the point, didn't it, that in about
1984, the overall work of the movement was becoming very,
very heavily politicized, the political end of it had kind of
taken over and was subsuming and impinging on the cultural
end of it?
A I wouldnt describe it that way.
Q Why don't you describe it then.
A The way I would describe it is within the period
starting in late '82-'83, there was a big emphasis, I
understood to be from the LaRouches themselves, for music

drama work, in the organization, encouragement for people to
play instruments. There was a decision to bring up this voice
teacher from Mexico to teach people around the country, and
this continued through the conference of the end of 1983. In
the beginning of 1984 was when there were big changes when
Will Wertz came into the national center. At that point when
the big fundraising started, all of the chorus rehearsals,
the drama rehearsals, orchestral rehearals were stopped.
Q Okay.
A I mean it wasn't an evolution. It was a cut.
Q All right, well, then is it fair to say that this
was certainly an impingement on the cultural side of it that
was of the deepest concern to you?
A Yes.
Q And I gather you associated this with Will Wertz?
A Yes.
Q And you kind of think in your own mind that he was
responsible for this?
A At the time it was happening, yes, but then after
the discussion which I testified about in the beginning, I
realized it was not only Mr. Wertz' policy.
Q But in any event, you certainly associated Will
Wertz with this to a large extent?
A Yes.
Q Throughout this period of time.

A Yes.
Q So much so that any time the impingement, an actual
event impinged on the cultural side of it, and you saw Will
Wertz* hand in it, you resented it, isn't that right?
A Yes, that's fair to say.
Q Let me give you an illustration and ask you if you
remember an episode when you and your then husband, Dave,
were going to a concert and you were doing some fundraising
at the time, and some other fundraisers were also going but
some others weren't going, and Will stepped in and said that
wasn't fair, and as a result, nobody went. You didn't get to
go and you resented that? Isn't that right?
A That is not what happened, no.
Q That isn't what happened?
A No.
Q You don't remember it that way?
A What happened was that first of all it was a concert
that was established by the organization. It was an
orchestral concert.
Q Yes.
A It was an organizational concert. It wasn't like
going to the Metropolitan Opera or something. And since the
money had not been raised, Will said nobody could go to the
concert. I in fact was not fundraising. I was working at
World Comp and I could have gone, but did not go because my

husband was not allowed to go.
Q But you resented Will's stepping in and saying
nobody can go to this concert?
A I wouldn't call it resentment. I thought it was the
wrong policy since the organization had paid to rent Town
Hall, which is one of the most expensive halls in New York
City, to have this concert to bring somebody from Italy and
to not even allow our own members to go listen to it. I
thought that was a wrong policy.
Q All right, then let me ask it this way: this was
something that Will did that you strongly disagree with at
the time?
A Yes.
Q And still do?
A It's not one of the things I worry about, but --
Q But you have talked to other people about it, and
you have used it as an illustration?
A No.
Q You have never told anyone about it?
A No. In fact until you mentioned it, I had for-
gotten about it.
Q How did I learn of it?
A I don't know, because I didn't talk to anybody
about it.
Q Nobody? This has been a completely held-closely to

yourself secret all this time and didn't tell anybody?
A It's not a secret. I mean, there were things that
happened every day that I didn't agree with.
Q And Will, of course, had his cultural side, did he
not, and he had interest in poetry?
A Yes, he was interested in poetry.
Q He wrote poems, didn't he?
A He said they were poems, yes.
Q You, as a literary critic, you didn't like his
A No, I never cared for Will's poetry.
Q Right, and as a matter of fact, you communicated
this to other people, didn't you?
A Yes, I was pretty vocal about it.
Q In fact, when you were writing some of your letters,
you called his poems rubbish?
A Yes.
Q And Will was also engaged in translating Schiller,
was he not?
A Yes, he was.
Q And your husband was also engaged in doing some of
the translating?
A There was a general project started by Helga for
people to read Schiller and translate it., and among the
people who were translating, Will and Dave were two of the

people doing it.
Q They were kind of rivals in this regard, weren't
A They had different philosophies of how to translate,
Q And ultimately, when the products were presented to
Mrs. LaRouche, she favored Will's?
A That's correct.
Q And of course you resented that, didn't you?
A I didn't think it was the right thing, no.
Q Right. Okay. Now, how did it come about in 1984, you
were working for World Comp, weren't you?
A That's right, yes.
Q Where — what were you doing with World Comp?
A In 1984, I was in the sales department. I would
sell type setting.
Q Where was World Comp headquartered?
A In 1984, we were at 432 Park Avenue South in New
York City.
Q And where was that to the national headquarters?
A The national office was at Columbus Circle, so it
was a couple of miles away.
Q Give me those addresses again.
A 432 Park Avenue South. It was 3 0th and Park Avenue
Q Right.

A And Columbus Circle as 59th and 8th Avenue.
Q It was more than walking distance?
A I used to walk it but it took about 3 5 minutes.
Q Your duties every morning took you down, did they not,
to World Comp, which was at a distance from the national
A With the exception of Saturday and Sunday mornings,
when I deployed out of the national center fundraising.
Q When you say deployed, you mean instead of going to
work at World Comp on either a Saturday or a Sunday morning,
you would go to the national headquarters?
A That's correct.
Q And that's where you did your fundraising and that's
what had you there at the time that you went to one of these
meetings where you heard Will responding to a question, the
people in the room, fundraisers shouldn't worry about how the
money was being paid back?
A That's right.
Q They should concentrate on what they were doing;
that was fundraising.
A That's correct.
Q And that took place when?
A I believe it was late summer of '84.
MR. GETTINGS: May I have a moment, Your Honor.
(Pause in the proceedings)

MR. GETTINGS: I have nothing else.
THE COURT: Any redirect? MR.
MARKHAM: No, Your Honor. THE
COURT: You may step down. (Witness
excused) THE COURT: Call your next
witness. MR. ROBINSON: -Richard
THE COURT: Let's try not to duplicate Mrs. Magraw'sj
MR. ROBINSON: I am aware of that, Your Honor.
RICHARD MAGRAW was called as a
witness in behalf of the United States, and having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Q Good afternoon. Would you state your name, please,
and spell your name for the Court Reporter.
A My name is Richard Magraw, M-a-g-r-a-w.
Q Mr. Magraw, are you a member of the National Caucus of
Labor Committees?
A Yes, I am.
Q How long have you been a member?
A I would guess since approximately 1971, 1972.

Q Your testimony here today is pursuant to an order
compelling your testimony; is that right?
A That's correct. Court order.
Q What's your understanding about that order?
A My understanding is that I am compelled to testify
and that I must tell the truth.
Q What is your understanding about your immunity
based on your testimony here?
A My understanding is that I am immunized against any
prosecution based on my testimony, and I also have spousal
privilege with my wife.
Q And you understand that that immunity does not
protect you from a prosecution for perjury, correct?
A Yes, I do.
Q What are your duties within the National Caucus of
Labor Committee?
A At this point my duty is that I am in charge of
physical security for the National Caucus of Labor
Q How long have you been involved in physical
A Approximately since 1979.
Q And what do you mean when you say physical security?|
A Well, I have a number of areas of responsibility,
but I am referring to security for the members of the
organization of the National Caucus of Labor Committees.

Q Well, when you say physical security, I take it you
mean to distinguish that from the intelligence gathering
aspects of security, is that right?
A More or less, that's correct.
Q As part of your responsibilities in physical
security, have you maintained a checking account at the
Sovran Bank here in Northern Virginia?
A Yes, I have.
Q When did you first open that account?
A I believe the account was opened in the fall of
Q This is an account that was in your name; is that
A That's correct.
Q And just in general, what was that account used
A The account was primarily used for the taking care
of expenses of running a safe house in the Leesburg, Virginia
Q You say a safe house, but there were actually two,
weren't there?
A Yes.
Q At separate points in time?
A At separate points in time. They were sequential.
Q And those are Woodburn Farm and then later Ibykus

Farm; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q What sort of expenses did you take care of out of this
account? First of all, let me ask another question. Do you
know where the money comes from that goes into that account?
A I believe the money would come from various entitle
that were interested in maintaining a safe house.
Q But you basically got the money from Kathy Magraw,
who is now your wife, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Do you know which entities?
A I believe prior to the enforced bankruptcy in '87, it
was Campaigner Publications was involved. Subsequent to that,
it involved Publications and General Management. At various
points in time, it involved political campaign entities for
the various presidential elections that Mr. LaRouche was
involved in, various presidential campaigns.
Q Let me just ask you a question along these lines.
As you made expenditures out of this account, did you keep
track of which corporation you were spending that money on
behalf of?
A I did not, but I assumed that would be handled by my
Q Now, prior to the opening of this Sovran account

here in Virginia, which we will get back to, did you have an
account at the Chemical Bank in New York which you used at
times for security purposes?
A Yes, I did.
Q And was that also an account that you used for
personal purposes?
A Yes, it was also my personal account.
Q What sort of security expenditures would you make
that were then reimbursed into that account?
A I believe it would generally be the same type of
expenditures although on a smaller scale.
Q They were related to the operation of a safe house,
as you put it?
A More or less. It also involved things like training,
involving maintenance of vehicles, that kind of thing.
Q Well, let's talk for a moment about the expenses
incident to the operation of a safe house. What were
involved in paying those kinds of expenses?
A It was a very broad range of expenses that would
be involved in maintaining a safe facility. It involved a
range of everything from maintenance for vehicles, payment
of gasoline and oil for these vehicles. There was a vast
amount of money that was used for training purposes for this
security team. it involved maintaining the security team
itself in terms of food and so on while they were

which we were generally working 12-hour shifts sometimes seven
days a week. It involved taking care of expenditures for
guests who were on the premises of the safe house, this sort
of thing.
Q Who were you referring to when you referred to
guests who were on the premises at the safe house?
A Well, at different points in time there were a
series of different guests. This involved Mr- and Mrs.
LaRouche at various times. It involved a series of guests
who had come over from Europe or from Latin America. There
were numerous people at both of the safe houses that you
indicated. There were two if not three guest houses
associated with the main house.
Q Where are you now talking about?
A I said at both of the two --
Q Farms?
A -- safe houses that we are referring to. These
were complexes. They were not just simply a safe house.
Q I thought we were directing your testimony at least
for the moment up to the period of time when you were in New
York and using your Chemical Bank account. Are you saying —
A I misunderstood you.
Q Are you saying that the Chemical Bank account was
used for all these same purposes?
A The Chemical Bank account would be slightly more

limited in scope simply because I wasn't maintaining a
safe house at that time- But there were other things
involved which would be relevant.
Q What do you mean by that?
A The other things that I indicated would be relevant,
like maintenance of cars, training, et cetera, et cetera.
Q You also paid personal expenses on behalf of some
people out of that Chemical Bank account, didn't you?
A I'm not sure what point in time — at a certain point
in time, that would involve say if we were on the road, if
we were traveling or if we were — there was a transition
period in which we were down basically in effect on the road
down in the Washington, D. C, metropolitan area but we
hadn't set up a safe house et cetera.
Q My question was, did you use the Chemical Bank
account to pay personal expenses for people?
A I would use the Chemical Bank account for expenses
of people if we were on the road, for example. It may be in
the form of whatever, if we were traveling, yes, that would
be possible.
Q Did you use it to pay personal expenses in New York? MR.
ANDERSON: I object to the characterization personal expenses.
It doesn't have any meaning. THE COURT: Objection overruled.

THE WITNESS: While I was in New Yorkr in general I don't
believe I paid for any personal expenses unless this involved
reimbursement for stuff that was on the road, but while we were
stationary in New York, I don't believe so. That is my
recollection. BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q Do you remember- writing a check to the Manhattan Pet
A It's possible.
Q What would that have been for? H A It
would have been for a pet.
Q whose pet?
A It could have been — it could have either been for,
I believe Mr. Quihano's cat or it could have been for
Mrs. LaRouche's dog,
Q When you wrote such checks, did you keep track of,
to use that example again, whose pet was being taken care of?
A I believe I told my wife at the time what the check would
be used for.
Q Did you write things on the notation portion of the
A I would have to look at the check and see if there was
something written on it.
Q Sometimes you wrote on the check, but sometimes you
didn't, right?

A The procedure generally would be that I would tell
Kathy what the check was for.
Q Okay, now, during the period of approximately
August of '82 through July of '84, isn't it true that you
withdrew about $27,000 in cash from that bank account?
MR. MOFPITT: Your Honor, because of where that
started, 1 need to know which — is. this a Count XIII
situation or whether or not this is involving other
MR, ROBINSOK; Well, I think it overlaps. Your
Honor. I think that the expenditures after June of
1983 are certainly relevant to both the counts, but I think
that what I am really pursuing with this witness is really
more related to Count XIII, because I am more interested in
the bookkeeping aspects of what was going on.
THE COURT; It makes no difference to these other
MR. ROBINSON: Well, I'm not sure I can be any more
definitive than that, Your Honor. We are talking about
organizational expenses and that's relevant to the entire
THE COURT: All right.
MR. REILLY: I would object, Your Honor. I would
ask to be heard on this question.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. MOFPITT: Your Honor, I make my usual motion at

this particular time.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
THE WITNESS: It's possible. I am not familiar
with the exact amounts. BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q What did you do with the cash that you took out of
this bank account?
A Well, generally the cash expenditures at that time
would be for expenses of the security crew. We would take
care of the meals for various people who were involved in
security. The period that you are talking about is quite an
extensive period. There was a lot of travel involved in that
period, oftentimes, travel abroad as well as travel inside
the United States for political purposes. Mr. LaRouche
was I believe in '82 and '83 had been invited by Indian Prime
Minister Ghandi and had traveled there.
Q Did you use cash for that trip?
h Oftentimes we would have to on international travel,
we would have to take cash with us.
Q How much cash did you use?
A Cash expenditures, I don't know exactly how much
would have been — it would have been done — the records for
this would have been kept contemporaneous in the form of
receipts and so on and so forth.
Q Are you saying that the cash that you took on this

trip for Prime Minister Ghandi was part of the $27,000?
A I am saying that the cash that would be taken out
would be used for various different purposes.
Q Do you remember what it was used for?
A At this point, I don't remember what it was, each — at
this point I don't recall what the money was used for
specifically, but there were records kept by my wife and by
other people in the finance office what the money was spent
Q Did you spend any of that on Lyndon or Helga
A I am sure that money was —
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, to the extent that we are
talking about 1982, I have a continuing objection at this
particular point. I would like to assert that
objection to this testimony because it all deals with 1982 at
this particular point.
THE COURT: All right. What went on in * 82 cannot
of course be used in counts other than Count XIII, can they,
Mr. Robinson?
MR. ROBINSON: No, Your Honor, but I am dealing
with a two-year period of time, August of '82 to July of
'84. It's just difficult to be more precise than that.
THE COURT: Just so the jury understands that
evidence as to activities prior to July of '83 cannot be

considered in any count except Count XIII, the taxes. The
jury is so instructed.
MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q What records did you keep of these cash expenditures?
A The cash expenditures, the records of cash expenditures
would have been sent back to the finance office to
Q You didn't just throw them away?
A Not cash receipts, no.
Q How many credit cards did you use in the course of
these security duties?
A I don't know. I think I probably over the years had
something on the order of maybe 20-some odd credit cards,
which were used at various points for primarily for handling
travel and security-related expenditures or expenditures for
maintaining a safe house.
Q Did you use only credit cards in your own name?
A Yes — primarily. T think there was one credit card
that I was a co-signer on.
Q Whose account was that?
A I think that was Christina Nelton, who I believe —
this was back early in the early BO's.
Q 2 0 different credit cards. Did you use them solely

for these security-related activities, or did you also use
them for personal purposes?
A Some of them I used for personal purposes also for
Q What sort of records did you keep to distinguish the
difference between the personal purposes and the business
A Well, I believe most of the — the personal expenditures
for myself that I would pay for personally would be
relatively small, and they just simply be handled at that
time. Most of it was, to me was fairly self-evident.
Q So most of that was for reimbursable expenses,
is that right?
A Reimbursable or expenses that money had been — in
effect, yes, reimbursable expenses.
Q Did you pay medical expenses of the LaRouches?
A In my job as running a safe house and in running a
security detail, I would take care of the medical expenses of
anybody who was within my care at that time if it were needed
Q And that would include Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, is
that right?
A If such occasion arose, I would have taken care of
Q Did you?
A I believe in the case of Mr. LaRouche, I don't

believe that I ever paid for any medical expenses to the best
of ray recollection.
Q Did you pay for Mrs. LaRouche?
A in the case of Mrs. LaRouche, I may have paid for
medical expenses that were related to two accidents. One
involved a knee accident, a knee injury that she had to
treated for when she was at Woodburn.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, I raise the objection I
raised previously with regard to this morning at the Bench
with regard to testimony regarding something that might have
been expended for Mrs. LaRouche.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Q You may finish your answer.
A That's my recollection, that I took care of a knee
MR. ROBINSON: Would the Court bear with me for just IS a moment.
{Pause in the proceedings)
Q How did you go about getting reimbursement?
A Well, in general the method would be if it were
campaign-related expenses, I would submit bills to the
campaign and get reimbursed from the campaign.
if it were other expenses other than campaign-

related activities, oftentimes I would get a cash advance in
the form of either cash or a wire transfer into ray account
if it were down in Virginia, something of that nature.
Q You had to deliver receipts; is that correct?
A Generally, cash receipts, yes.
Q When you delivered cash receipts, would you tell
your wife in every instance on whose behalf purchases had
been made?
A No,
Q You didn't put that on the receipts in every
instance f did you?
A No, I don1t believe so.
Q Would that be a fair summary of your expenditures
other than cash expenditures as well?
A Well, credit card expenditures were generally larger
amounts, and I would normally tell Kathy what those
expenditures were for in general terms, whether they were for
security-related purposes, whether they were for the guests
at the house, whether they were for car maintenance. And I
had records of that in the form of my credit card bills.
Q Right. Those you submitted to Kathy, is that right?
A The credit card bills generally I kept the file of. I
may have only, at different points in time,.it was
different. Early on I made a report of these things to her
verbally. Later on, she had access to my credit card

accounts and had access to my checkbook and so on*
Q The credit card accounts that you retained you
turned over in response to a Grand Jury subpoena, is that
A That's correct.
Q You also turned over the records to the Sovran Bank
account we talked about, .right?
A That's correct.
Q And also the Chemical Bank account, right?
A Yes.
Q So to the extent that you kept any records of these
expenditures, you turned them over to the Government in
response to a Grand Jury subpoena, is that right?
A Of ray records, yes.
Q And the only other records that you are aware of
would be the records that resulted from your wife's work; is
that right?
A Yes. I believe as I explained in the Grand Jury, my
job was primarily security. I relied on her to maintain the
relevant records.
Q Did you buy gifts for Mr. LaRouche to give to
A I may have. I bought gifts for many people at that
time. I generally bought gifts for people.
Q Did you buy gifts for Mr. LaRouche to give to

other people?
A I may have.
Q Are you saying you don't recall?
A I don't recall a specific incident. But that would be
— go ahead.
Q You don't recall Mr. LaRouche ever coming to you and
saying his wife's birthday was coming up or anything like
A It may have — yes, it may have happened. That may have
happened that way or I may have anticipated that.
Q What do you mean you may have anticipated that?
A Well, I know what days are various people's birthdays,
and I may have purchased something sort of in reserve
in case something else didn't come about.
Q I see. So part of your responsibility in physical
security is to make sure that Mr. LaRouche has presents to
give to people when occasions are coming up?
A My responsibility involved running a safe house.
It was not just physical security.
Q So part of your responsibility in running a safe
house with security funds was to make sure that Mr. LaRouche
had presents to give to people and so you would anticipate
that kind of thing?
A I don't believe it came with the job description,
but from time to time I would take care of certain problems

like that.
Q Let me see if I understand. How would you know what to
buy as a gift for Mr. LaRouche to give to someone like his
A I wouldn't. I would just use my own judgment.
Q You wouldn't talk that over with him?
A No.
Q Who bought Mr. LaRouche's clothing?
A From time to time in the United States particularly
during the period of the campaign, various campaigns and
public appearances, I would purchase on several different
occasions purchased one or two suits for Mr. LaRouche.
Q Did you buy any other clothing for him?
A I may have bought some shirts.
Q Is that all?
A I think I bought him a pair of boots one time.
Q Is that all?
A And maybe some underwear or something like that.
Q Did you discuss these purchases with him?
A No.
Q You would just go out and do it on your own?
A Yes.
Q How would you know that he needed underwear?
A I think in the case of underwear, there were a couple
of times when we were on tour, and I can think of one

case in particular where he said we were on the road and it
was during a campaign swing in New Hampshire, and he said he
was rather ragged.
Q What about the other clothing, you wouldn't discuss
that with him?
A No.
Q How would you know when he needed clothes?
A I could tell by — I could tell by two things: one is
I would get complaints from various people that he was
going on —
Q Who?
A For example, Alan Salisbury.
Q How about his wife, did you get complaints from her?|
A Not particularly.
Q Go ahead.
A This would generally be in relation to public
Q Before we go on -- what do you mean when you say— MR.
ANDERSON: Can we get full answers out? BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q What do you mean when you say --
MR. ANDERSON: He was directly in the middle of the
answer. A direct interruption.
THE COURT: If you hadn't finished your answer,
you may.

MR. ROBINSON: I was trying to back up but that's
fine. Go ahead and answer.
THE WITNESS: Could somebody read back what it was?
Or can you reask the question?
MR. ROBINSON: I have lost track of it,
Q The question I was trying to back up to was when you
said you got complaints from some people, I asked if you got
complaints from his wife, and you said not particularly.
What is not particularly?
A No, I didn't get any complaints from his wife.
Q You never got complaints frora her on your choice
of clothing for him?
A Maybe after the fact.
Q So you did get complaints from her?
A When I was referring to complaints, what I meant to
say was it was brought to my attention by people who were
involved say on the campaign staff that he was looking sort
of like a poor professor and he needed — he wasn't looking
very good on campaign appearances. He was doing a lot of
television interviews, so --
Q How would you know —
A — and it was self-evidence that things were not
exactly, he wasn't looking like he was wearing Brooks
Brothers clothing.

Q So you would just go out and buy clothing for him
without discussing it with him?
A That's correct.
Q How would you know what size to buy?
A I knew what size to buy by looking in his closet.
Q Well, what do you mean?
A I looked at a few coats that he had and I knew what
size it was. I know what size it is today.
Q How about the length of his trousers, how did you
know how long —
A I believe I testified to you before that what I did
MR, ROBINSON: Your Honor, could you instruct the
witness not to make reference to his Grand Jury testimony
unless he is asked about that.
THE COURT: Just answer the question without regard
to, unless you need it to refresh your recollection.
What I did on several different occasions was I
took an old pair of trousers that were hanging in the
closet and I took them with the new pair of trousers to the
tailor and I told them to make them the same length. BY MR.
Q When you bought the clothing, did you ever tell
Mr, LaRouche that you had gotten something for him?


A Um hum. (Witness reading document to himself) MR.
ANDERSON; What lines were those, please? MR. ROBINSON:
Beginning on line 20. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR.
Q Does that refresh your recollection about whether or
not Mr. LaRouche ever discussed gifts with you?
A I think you are mixing apples and oranges on this
thing. What I was saying was that as far as any particular
gifts, the content, the type of gift was not a subject of
discussion. It wasn't something that he might say we have got)
a birthday coming or something like that.
Q So he might tell you to buy a gift but you would
decide on your own what it was going to be?
A I don't recall any particular time when Mr. LaRouche^
asked me to buy a particular item, a specific item, is what I
am trying to explain.
Q So he would tell you to buy a gift?
A He may mention that it was her birthday, and that he
needed a gift, yes.
MR. ROBINSON: Could I have those two pages of the
transcript back, please.
(Law clerk handing documents to
counsel) BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q What did you do when you bought these gifts?

I shouldn't use the plural. If you ever bought a
gift for Mr. LaRouche to give to his wife, what would you do
with the gift?
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, I don't understand. I
think we are hypothetical here. His testimony as I understood
it was he has no memory of a gift. Now we are back
talking about if you had,-what would have done.
THE COURT: He said he may have on one occasion or
some occasions.
MR. ANDERSON: The point is how can he remember the
specific details if he doesn't remember the general detail?
THE COURT: If that's the circumstance I'm sure he
will answer it that way. BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q Do you have an answer to my last question? A If I bought a
gift, if there was a — if I bought a gift for say her
birthday, I would probably give it to him to give to her
later on.
Q Were you asked this question and did you give this
answer in the Grand Jury, and. I am starting on line 16:
"How about other personal purchases of his say a gift to his
wife or something like that, is that something that you
would handle also?"
Answer: "Probably. I have on occasion. Yes."
You gave that answer.

A I have on occasion.
Q So you did buy gifts?
A On occasion, I probably did. I just don't recall a
specific incident.
Q You probably did or you did?
A I don't really recall the particular items in
question on this thing. I bought many things.
Q I haven't asked you about the items, Mr. Magraw. I
just asked you if you did it.
A I'm sorry, but you are talking a span of you know
nine, ten years. Over that period of time I'm sure I
bought a gift for his wife.
Q Were you asked this question and did you give this
answer: "And how would that come about? I mean I presume you
didn't go up and look in his wife's jewelry box and see if
she needed more jewelry, right?"
Answer: "Giving away trade secrets. He might
mention you know that her birthday is coming up, Christmas,
things that would — it really depends on what the location
is. Or I might preempt something by knowing that certain
times are coming around." Did you say that?
A That's what I said and that's what I believe what I
was trying to explain to you earlier.
Q And were you asked -- I have to paraphrase to get
the context right --

MR- ANDERSON: Could I have the lines?
MR. ROBINSON: Next page, page 40. Line 9.
0 Were you asked: "Did you give the gifts to him to
give to her?" And answered, "Yes, definitely." Did you
give that answer?
A Yes.
Q Now, you said here today that you don't remember
ever paying any medical bills for Mr. LaRouche; is that right?)
A That's my recollection, yes.
Q Were you asked in the Grand Jury, the same day,
page 43, line 8: "You also paid doctors' bills?" Answer:
Question: "Of LaRouches?"
Answer: "The LaRouches and also for guests. We
had one girl who had a car accident. We had to take care of
that." Et cetera.
You used plural at that time, didn't you?
A I did. I was explaining in general that was my
responsibility to take care of medical expenses of people who
were either traveling with me or in the safe house compound.
Q What other kind of things did you buy for
Mr. LaRouche?
A I believe on occasion I may have bought him some t
pipe tobacco.

Q Anything else?
A I believe early on when we first moved down to
Virginia, I purchased as I did for a number of people a handgun.
It was for his personal protection.
Q Anything else?
A I believe I had a — there was also purchased a
rifle as I did for a number of people, also.
Q Let me ask you this.
A Yes.
Q What period of time are we talking about here during
which you were purchasing things for Mr. LaRouche? Do you
recall when you first would buy something like clothing or
tobacco or anything like that for Mr. LaRouche?
A Well, it would be generally any time that we were
traveling, number one, as I would take care of anybody
who --
Q How about when you were not in a travel mode, when he
is in a safe house that you are in charge of?
A Well, the safe houses that I was in charge of really
didn't begin until we were in Virginia on a permanent basis.
Q So that's —
A 1983. From then to let's just say October 1st of this
year, so we have got a span of about five years, okay? Now
during that five-year period of time you are in pretty much
constant contact with Mr. LaRouche, at least when he is

in the United States, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And is there anybody other than you who has the
responsibility or not even the responsibility, is there anybody
other than you that you know of that buys personal items
like clothing and tobacco et cetera for Mr. LaRouche?
A There's other people that have given him gifts, I'm
sure. I just don't -- for birthdays, Christmas and so on.
Q Okay, but there's nobody else who has a checking
account like you have got that is used for purchasing things
for Mr. LaRouche, is there?
A The checking account that I have was used for
running the safe house.
Q And it's used for purchasing things for Mr. LaRouche!
isn't it?
A On occasion, yes.
Q Is there anybody else who has a checking account
that's used in the same way that you know of?
A Not that I know of.
Q So during that five-year period of time, you only
bought Mr. LaRouche two suits?
A No. I said on several different occasions I bought him
one or two suits.
Q How many different occasions?
A I really don't recall. It was not with any great

Q And how many times did you buy him tobacco?
A I really don't recall.
Q Mr. LaRouche doesn't have any money of his own, is
that correct? He doesn't carry around cash in his pocket?
A Not that I know of.
Q In fact, when he goes to get a haircut, you have
got to give him money for the haircut, right?
A I generally have given him money for haircuts, yes.
But again, that's — it's quite infrequent, as you might well
imagine. It's generally prompted by campaign appearances or
television show or something like that.
Q During that five-years?
A It's not a weekly haircut where he goes out to get
trimmed up.
Q During this five-year period of time, how much of
that time has Mr. LaRouche been in the United States?
A A rough guesstimate is maybe 50 percent of the time
Q So over that period of time you remember buying him
a couple of suits on a few occasions, some tobacco, and
occasionally haircuts, and that's about it?
A That's my, in terms of the things I would have
purchased, yes.
Q Was there anybody else buying anything like that
for him?

A Other people may have bought him tobacco. Q But there
are no other personal expenses made on behalf of Mr.
LaRouche that you know of?
A To the best of my recollection, yes.
MR. ROBINSON: I don't have any further questions. THE COURT:
Suppose we 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.)

Thursday, December 1,
1988 2:30 o'clock p.m.
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, may we approach the Bench?
(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, I am concerned, I preface
this remark by saying I am concerned. There was a statement
made by Mr. Robinson in response to a motion I made at the
beginning of this witness' testimony about timing and its
relevance to all the charges in this case. Mr. Robinson said
in front of the jury that he is having difficulty separating
matters. The concern that I have is if he as prosecutor is
having that kind of a difficulty and said it in front of the
jury, that this jury is going to have the same kind of a
problem. The clear problem is with these questions that are
asked from 1982 to 1987, what did you do? Create that kind of
a problem, because there is just simply no way that they can
be separated.
The Government's position when we filed a motion
for severence with respect to this about the potential
prejudice was that it was so irrelevant, in fact the words
that they used, "Introduction of LaRouche's failure to file
tax returns and related matters is of such small importance

and so clearly irrelevant to the other defendants that any
chance of prejudice is slight."
Now if he is saying in front of the jury that he is
having trouble in his own mind separating what is going on,
formulating questions that separate what's going on that
can' possible be true, under those circumstances this jury
now knows that the prosecutor is having that kind of a
problem. How is a lay jury supposed to separate these
charges at this point?
THE COURT: And your motion?
MR. MOFFITT: Is to sever.
THE COURT: That motion will be denied.
MR. WEBSTER: If Your Honor please, I want to make
sure that when Mr. Moffitt makes that motion it's also
incorporated for us.
THE COURT: I stated at the beginning that every
motion made by every defendant is deemed to be made by all
the others unless you specifically disassociate yourself with
MR. WEBSTER: May I make one further request,
though: One of the problems with the last three witnesses
has been that the prosecutor sandwiched the testimony of
taxes and the testimony of fraud or vice versa, sandwiched
fraud in around the tax. It makes it triply difficult for
us to understand what is related to taxes and what is not as

well as the jury. I think we ought to have some sort of
order and concept here which we are informed as to what is
applicable to each case.
THE COURT: I have ruled on the only motion I have.
I am unwilling to go further than that.
(Whereupon, the conference at the Bench
was concluded, and the following proceedings were
THE COURT: Members of the jury, I run the case a
little longer in the morning than probably you like, but it
makes the afternoon awfully long if you go to lunch at 12:00
or 12:30. You may be going to lunch a little later than you
like, but it's a right long afternoon from 1:00 to 6:00. All
MR. MOFFITT: May it please the Court, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Magraw, Mr. Robinson asked you what your
responsibilities were between the years '82 and '87 with
respect to the NCLC. Do you remember that question? A
Yes, I do.
Q Do you remember answering that you would provide
security for members of the NCLC? A Yes. Q Sir, why do
members of the NCLC need security?

MR. ROBINSON: Objection.
To relevancy. My inquiry was related to expenditures
for Mr. LaRouche's personal benefit.
THE COURT: I'm perfectly willing to let this come in
through this witness, but warn defense counsel that I am only going
to hear this sort of testimony to a limited extent,
MR. MOFFITT: I. appreciate that.
THE COURT: But if you want to bring it in through this
witness, that's fine with me even though I think technically it
may exceed the scope of direct examination. BY MR. MOFFITT: Q Sir?
A There are a number because the NCLC is a political, private
political organization, there were a number of political areas
that, a number of areas in terras of politics that members of the
NCLC were engaged in which were, which caused, were controversial
or were things that generated animosity from certain layers; for
example, a very strong opposition to legalization of narcotics or
legalization of various kinds of drugs elicited a very virulent
response from certain political leaders in the United States that
were much in favor of that.
More recently, some of the proposals that some of the
associates of Mr. LaRouche put on the ballot for example in
California, several times in terms of increasing research

and development for AIDS, generated a tremendous amount of bad
press if you might call it that from some of the radical
layers out in California.
As a result of this kind of situation, what you had
was people who are out promoting their ideas on the street
would sometimes come in, get in a situation where they might
have been assaulted, they.may have been harassed, this sort of
Q You used the term safe house.
A Yes.
Q And that your job was to provide a safe house.
A That's correct.
Q Were there members of the NCLC other than Mr.
LaRouche that used the facility as a safe house?
A There were people, I would say several categories of
people. There were people who used the facility specifically
as a safe house themselves. There were several different
people that were involved in this generally from Latin
America particularly because of their fight around opposition
to legalization of drugs and fight against some of the prodrug
elements in Latin America. There was Patricia and Max
Londonio (phonetic), for example —
MR. ROBINSON: Your Honor, I object to going further
into the Londonios. We objected a couple of times yesterday. I
think you have sustained the objection to that point.

THE COURT: I think we have heard enough about the
kidnapping. BY MR. MOFFITT:
Q All right. Let me change the focus for a second.
You said that you traveled, and part of the security was
provided for Mr. LaRouche when you travel, is that fair to
A That's correct.
Q And those were security expenses?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember traveling June or July of 1984 to
A Yes, I do.
Q And was money expended for that travel, sir?
A Yes.
Q What was the purpose of that travel?
A Mr. LaRouche had been invited by the president of
Argentina, President Alfoncin (phonetic) for private discussions
at their what is called the pink house as opposed to
the White House in Buenos Aires. He met there with President
Alfoncin and also met with a series of labor leaders from the
Peronist movement.
Q Let me ask you again, let me take you to the month of
April 1987. Do you recall that? Do you recall some travel in
that month?

A '87 we did a lot of traveling.
Q How about to Peru?
A Yes, we traveled to Lima, Peru.
Q What was the purpose of that travel?
A The purpose of that travel was for a meeting with
President Alan Garcia of Peru, and a series of political
layers that were associated with Mr. Garcia.
0 Were those the typical type of expenses that were
charged to security, sir?
A That is the kind of expenses that I was referring
to, yes.
MR. MOFFITT: I have no further questions of this
witness, Your Honor. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Mr. Welsh -- excuse me. You are not Mr. Welsh.
You are Mr. Magraw.
Mr. Magraw, during your testimony there were times
when you paused for an extended period of time to think. Was
there a reason for that?
A The reason was that the question for example in terms
of dealing with certain sums of cash, extended over a very
long period of time in this example, and there were numerous
different areas that you would, as part of my duties that I
would be expending cash for, so when I was -- I felt that the
questions were so broad that it was very difficult to

answer them in any kind of specific fashion, particularly
without any documents.
Q It that the only reason?
A Well/ in that context, I felt that in a certain sense
that I felt like I was being tricked into saying something
that wouldn't accurately reflect a series of things that
were going on, because their questions were so general
and hypothetical as well.
Q 19 79, where were you living?
A 19 79, I was living, I had moved to New York at that
time, I believe.
Q And you functioned as a member of security at that
point in time?
A That's correct.
Q And where was security located?
A Security was located at that point, the office was at
304 West 58th Street, I believe in New York City in
Q Where was Mr. LaRouche living when he was in the
United States back in 1979?
A I am actually -- I don't really recall, '79 — in
1979, when I came on the security staff was at the
beginning of the 1980 presidential campaign, and at the
beginning of the campaign in 1979, I believe we had
established a safe house in Manchester, New Hampshire,
which we used for an

extensive period of time.
Q That was during the New Hampshire primary?
A That's correct.
Q And were your functions at that time in security
basically the same as they were during the later period once
you moved down to Virginia that you have described this
morning before lunch?
A In the early period I handled a lot of the logistics
and I functioned as a driver, yes.
Q Were you at that time maintaining or covering certain
types of expenses whether by as you indicated you later were
by way of checks, cash or credit cards?
A Yes, I believe we covered — I was involved in
covering expenses for a fairly broad number of people in
New Hampshire.
Q Now, directing your attention specifically to the
point in time when Mr. LaRouche was living in New York City
in the area called Sutton Place?
A Yes.
Q What were the security arrangements at Sutton Place?
A The security arrangements were that we had a group
of our own security people that were from the security staff
that I was part of. We had a group of retired New York City
police officers that were working with us. We had several
other people who worked on an on-and-off basis, but basically

we kept a crew, a watch if you will, of about half a dozen
people on day shift and maybe a few less on night shift, give
or take a few.
Q Was there outside security as well as inside
A To a limited degree, yes. It's New York City, so it was
very difficult to maintain that, but to a limited degree, we
had people outside, yes. We did have people all the time, but
it was a relatively small contingent.
0 And at that time did you have liaison with the
New York Police Department?
A Yes, we had liaison with the New York Police
Q And how was the physical security perimeter of the
building itself secured? This was a brownstone?
A This was a brownstone, and on the East side of
New York, yes.
Q It was an apartment — I mean one half was connected is
that right?
A They were directly adjacent, shared walls with other
apartment buildings or other townhouses, I guess in that
Q And describe the entrance.
A It was a walkup entrance about half a dozen steps. I
believe we had a reinforced door or series of doors.
Q Well, where did most people who went to that

facility enter, in that walkup or did they —
A There was a basement entrance just below the walkup
Q And was security located at that -- is that where
security was located?
A Yes.
Q And persons who entered were screened?
A That's correct. There was a metal door there. There was a
wrought iron chain door — wrought iron fence-type door that you
could visibly see plus we had some camera equipment and so on.
Q How many security personnel were on duty if you will in
the course of a day?
A 1 believe you would have somewhere in the order of ten
people on a 24-hour basis.
Q Does thatmean ten over a 24-hour basis?
A Ten inclusive day and night shift, maybe 11. It would
just depend on the situation.
Q Now, at such time — where did the security eat when they
were there?
A We would generally eat at the house.
Q Who did the cooking?
A Well, we usually did the cooking. These were 12-hour
Q Was this true for both shifts?

A Both shifts, they were two 12-hour shifts, yes.
Q If there was no particular function going on or no
meeting or nothing out of the ordinary, isn't it the case that
if Mr. LaRouche was there, he would probably sit down or be
offered to sit down and eat with security?
A That would be very often the case, yes.
Q Wasn't that in fact the routine unless there was
some broader function?
A That's the case, yes.
Q Now, what other activities — what activities
transpired on a regular basis at Sutton Place?
A Well, there would be regular meetings, I believe
virtually every evening in the living room of the house
that would be made up of the executive of the NCLC. At various
points, there would be cultural events that involved people on
the Labor Committee, music events, things of these natures,
and there would also be private — there would also be private
political meetings of various international and you national
figures who would be interested or would want to meet with Mr.
LaRouche or Mrs. LaRouche.
Q And would security have advance notice of who the
people were that were coming at various times for pruposes of
a security function?
A Most of the time we would have a fairly good idea of
who was coming, yes or we i^ould know who was bringing

someone so there would be no one who would be totally un — there
would be no one who I v/ould not know or whoever was on shift at
that time would not know who they were.
Q Were there occasions when members of the National Caucus
of Labor Committees dropped, came over, dropped something off or
pick something up or have a discussion with Mr. LaRouche?
A Yes.
Q How often did that kind of thing happen?
A In New York that happened with, happened almost — it
happens on a daily basis.
Q Isn't it fair to say because of the security
circumstances, it was a major proposition whenever Mr.
LaRouche had to go out of the house and go someplace?
A Yes.
Q And an expensive proposition?
A It would require more hiring of outside help, yes.
Q And coordination with local law enforcement?
A That's correct.
Q As a result of that, isn't it the case that most
frequently business was done where Mr. LaRouche was because it
was much simpler than having him have to go somewhere?
A That was what I, to the extent that I had any say in this,
I would push for that, because it just made it much simpler for

Q Isn't it a fact that while the New York headquarters of
the National Caucus of Labor Committes was located just a few
miles away, that during the entire period of time when Mr.
LaRouche lived there, he probably only went to that headquarters
on one or two occasions?
A That's correct. It was about, it was walking
Q What was the reason that he didn't go there?
A We didn't want to bring him out on the streets of
New York particularly. It's a — (pause)
Q So, can you estimate based on your experience in
security and your memory of these distant time periods what
portion of the average day would have been devoted to these
various type — Mr. LaRouche's average day at that time,
would have been devoted to these various meetings that you,
or activities that you have just described?
A Well, Mr. LaRouche would either be meeting with
25 people or writing in his study.
Q Let's separate the two. I am talking about meetings now
of any and all kinds.
A As I recall, there was generally an executive meeting
virtually every night, so there would be a meeting that would
last several hours of that sort. Then there would be probably
a couple of private meetings either of people requesting a
private meeting or something like that.

Q Is it difficult to quantify because of time or
because there was no absolute fixed routine?
A Yes, there was no absolute fixed schedule.
Q So at such times as Mr. LaRouche was not involved in
meetings or activities of that nature, what was he doing?
A Most of the time Mr. LaRouche was writing.
Q You say writing. Where did he do his writing?
A He did his writing in his home, in the safe house
where we set up. This was probably 80 percent of his time
was spent producing various writings that he was engaged in
for political purposes that we were involved in.
Q I take it he wasn't writing whodunits?
A No. He was generally writing articles for publications
that were put out like the Executive Intelligence Review, the
newspaper. He would write policy documents that would be
forwarded to various agencies and individuals in the U. S.
Government and other governments where we thought we may or he
thought he might have some important or valuable insight that
he would share with someone else.
Q If you can, did Mr. LaRouche have a routine schedule if
you will in terms of his daily activities?
A Well, the routine as I described it. A majority of the
time I would say 80 percent of the time was spent working at
either a typewriter or a keyboard.
Q Did he have a regular waking time in the morning?

A No.
Q Did he have a regular time that he went to bed every night?
A No. In fact, he would, once he got working on a project
on a particular program or something that he was writing,
sometimes he would work for 24 hours straight.
Q I take it — strike that — how often did Mr. LaRouche
have an opportunity to go out and take a walk?
A In New York City, as a separate activity, I can't think
of one time.
Q How often at that time did he have an opportunity to go out
to some public event that was not an event of the National Caucus
of Labor Committees in a secure situation, to go to the opera, for
A Never.
Q To go to the symphony?
A He never went.
Q To go to the ballet?
A Never.
Q To go to a movie?
A Never went out.
Q To go down to MacDonald's for a hamburger?
A Never,
Q During the entire time you have known Mr. LaRouche, how
often has he gone on a vacation?

A I don't believe I have ever — I don't believe Mr.
LaRouche has ever been on a vacation as a vacation.
Q Ever taken a day off that you have known of when he
hasn't worked ever in the entire time that you have known him?
A Not that I know of.
Q Never see him sitting and watching sitcoms or movies on
A No. Mostly the news.
Q How often did he get out of the house in New York?
A The only time we would go out of the house in New
York is if we were to go to an airport to get on a place to
go some other place for some meeting, or if we were driving
somewhere, but that was relatively infrequent.
Q Would it be fair to say that he was literally a
captive in that house?
A That was the safest place for him to be, we felt.
Q Did Mr. LaRouche own that house?
A No, he did not.
Q It was rented, was it not?
A I believe so.
Q And is that where all activities that Mr. LaRouche
undertook on behalf of any of the entities of the National
Caucus of Labor Committees took place?
A Except for any external traveling.
Q So everything he wrote, everything he produced,

everyone he talked ot, every activity that he contributed to
or assisted on were done by him in that house?
A As far as I know, yes.
Q Was there — Let's move on. At some point in time
LaRouche -- Mr. LaRouche -- moved to Virginia; is that
A That's correct.
0 And why did that move take place, do you know?
A As far as 1 know — I wasn't part of the discussion on
it — but as far as I know basically, the idea was to move
closer to the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area for closer
access to the Administration, for closer access to Congress,
so we could focus more political effort in the Washington, D.
C. metropolitan area.
Q Was there another reason?
A The other reason was the living conditions in New
York were absolutely miserable and dangerous.
Q Was there a security reason?
A That's what i meant by living conditions. It was
difficult to, when people were having to take subways home
and so on and lived in relatively you know bad neighborhoods,
as most of New York is, it was considered a much more safe
area to live in, in the suburban Washington area.
Q Isn't it a fact that you or others associated with you
within security were in fact advised by persons associated

with the United States Government to move down to this area
because it was a safer location for LaRouche to live in?
A Yes.
MR. ROBINSON: Objection on hearsay grounds to begin
with and secondly a foundational objection. THE COURT:
Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: That's my understanding,
Q Do you know who those persons were that made that
recommendation of your own knowledge?
A My knowledge is that it was Dan Murdock.
Q Anyone else?
A I remember Colonel Warbell (phonetic) early on had
said that we should get out of New York.
Q In any event, you moved?
A Yes.
Q The first location where you set up a safe house down
here was what the jury has heard referred to as Woodburn
Farm, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Did you have anything to do with the choosing of
that location?
A I don't believe so.
Q Do you know who did?
A I believe it was, I was told it was Dan Murdock had

suggested it in conjunction with Mr. Steinberg and
Mr. Goldstein.
Q Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Goldstein are colleagues of
A At that time they were my boss, my superiors.
Q Your bosses?
A Bosses.
Q That was at a time was it not when there was no
distinction between physical security and so-called intelligence-
gathering aspect of security?
A That's correct.
Q That has since changed?
A Yes.
0 And is it fair to say that the object in terms of
choosing the location was at least partially to find a place
which could be adequately secured?
A That's correct.,
Q And that was a rented premise, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And is it fair to say that during the period of time
that Mr. LaRouche lived there when he was in the United
States, that he engaged in the same type of activities in the
same basic manner thathe did when he was in Sutton Place?
A That's correct.
Q Now, was there another, isn't it also fair to say

that the reason that a larger rather than just an apartment
building or something but a larger area was chosen so there
would be the availability for other activities to take place
within a secure environment?
A Yes.
Q What other activities was it that were desirable to
take place within environment?
A Well, we had several other, at the Woodburn estate, we
had several other houses that were used for guests. I
referenced a couple of them earlier, but this was some so
that we could have guests come and either because they needed
security or because they wanted to visit with either Mr. or
Mrs. LaRouche, they would have facilities for them that
wouldn't cost them something extra.
Q Actually Sutton Place was really rather small in
interior space, was it not?
A Very small.
Q It wouldn't accommodate any substantial sized
groups whatsoever?
A Any time they would have a meeting, they would
basically have to push the furniture back to the walls.
Q Wasn't that desirable from a security point of view or
were you otherwise aware that a facility that could
accommodate larger meetings and function as more of a multipurpose
facility was what was in mind?

A The idea was that that would help, would enable us to
have meetings and activities without having to curb Mr.
LaRouche's activities in terms of travel. This could
basically be used in lieu of travel for local meetings.
Q And there was a room in that house that was called a
music room, wasn't there?
A That's correct.
Q Why was it called the music room?
A Because that's where some cultural events took
place that were involving the playing of music.
Q Isn't it the fact that members of the National Caucus
of Labor Committees came there either for recitals or for
practices or just to play the piano or use that music room
for such other purposes as just practicing?
A That's true.
Q And that was on a regular basis?
A On a regular basis, once peopler were down, yes.
Q Isn't it also true that there was a room in that house
that was, that contained such books as were collectively
placed in that space, a library?
A Yes, there was a library -
Q Who used the library?
A Well, the library was basically a lending library,
which we could you know, people could borrow books as long as
they would return them. A lot of the books I had -- at one

point in time I bought a number of books that were used source
books that were basically like works of Lincoln, works of
Franklin, works of Washington, that I had gotten from a used
book store up in Boston.
Q And they were there?
A They were there, yes.
Q WEre those LaRouche's books in there?
A No. Those were books that I had purchased basically for
the security staff but they were available to everybody.
Q And the sofas, I take it there were some sofas at
various places in the house, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Were those LaRouche's sofas?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Did other people sit on those sofas?
A Yes.
Q Did other people use — is there a single room within
that house that was reserved say exclusively for the use of
Lyndon LaRouche? Let me rephrase that. Isn't it fair to say
that only his bedroom in that house was a room reserved
exclusively for the use of Mr. LaRouche?
A There was a bodroom and there was a study.
Q The study is where he did his work?
A That's correct.
Q Now, moving on, you moved from Woodburn to what's

been called Ibykus Farm; is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Why was that move made, if you know?
A Well, we had not been — the people on the security
staff were not particularly happy with the setup at
Woodburn Farm, because it was too close to the road. We had
had repeated problems with the news media. It was basically a
bad situation in that it attracted attention because you were
so close that anybody who wanted to come by and gawk and look
at the security arrangements either innocently because they
were interested or if people were you know wanting to do you
harm potentially or wanted to do Mr. and Mr. LaRouche harm, it
made it very difficult to determine what was just a casual
passerby and what was a potentially more serious threat.
Q Were there other reasons? Isn't it a fact that another
reason was that there was, at Ibykus Farm, there were other
buildings which could have been converted and were in fact
converted for use for such purposes as large meetings, play
rehearsals, cultural events of various kinds?
A Yes. We took the dairy barn, which had been a dairy
barn and put a concrete floor in it and turned it into
something which was used for concerts, for larger meetings. It
could basically accommodate the entire membership of the NCLC
that was at that time housed in the Leesburg area. There were
also more houses available for guests or for other

Q And was the area — I take it that it was more suitable
for creating a secure environment?
A Well, the point is that once it was a purchased
property as opposed to a rental property, the rental property
posed a big problem in the sense that you couldn't alter
things very much. Or if you did try to alter them, you
would get in trouble with the landlord. If you needed to set
up a particular type of fence-type situation, not only would
it be a fairly substantial investment which you couldn't be
guaranteed you would have later on if you had to move, but you
might not even be able to get the permission to do it in the
first place. So our fencing operation for example at Woodburn
was sort of haphazard, catch-as-catch-can kind of thing.
Q I take it, is it fair to say that once again that
Ibykus Farm, the only room in the house or in any of the
houses or in any of the buildings that were exclusively used
by Mr. LaRouche for purposes not associated with the work he
was doing was his bedroom?
A That's correct. The house itself was set up basically
in such a way that it is conducive to having whoever built the
house obviously used it for entertaining. In this case it was
used for meetings, and various kinds of events that involved
the NCLC.
Q And is it fair to say that all of the uses and all

of the types of meetings that you have previously described
as having taken place at Sutton Place and in Woodburn continued
on an even expanded basis once you were located at
A Yes. Once we were at Ibykus it was much easier to hold
meetings, botli of a small and large area, because we could
control the entire environment that we were operating in
Q Now, did Mr. LaRouche — strike that.
I take it that to some degree once you got to
Ibykus, Mr. LaRouche, or even at Woodburn, was free to walk
outside the house, something he had not had the opportunity to
do in New York?
A Yes, he was free to walk about the property there.
Q Were there on the properties any other facilities which
were available for common use among members of the National
Caucus of Labor Committees other than those we have already
discussed? Were there some horses that were available for
people to ride?
A There were a couple of horses that some people who
had an interest in could ride if they wished. I rode, for
Q And do you know how many horses was there at the
most at any one time?
A I think three or four.
Q How often does Mr. LaRouche get to leave the secure

environment of Ibykus Farm now that he lives down there? Have
the circumstances changed? Is it fair to say that the only
time he leaves the area is when he is going someplace specific
for a specific meeting or to travel?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Now, have you ever — strike that. You mentioned, Mr.
Magraw, that you would in the context of the time that you
were down setting up Ibykus as a safe house, that your
financial responsibilities expanded; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Why was that?
A Well, in the early period, the finance office, Kathy
was in New York, so it was the — I was basically the person
who took care of all kinds of different things as a result of
just the absolute necessity of it. People couldn't go
forward, in the area couldn't go to the finance office and
deal with them independently.
Q And the method, there were three as 1 understand it,
three methods whereby you handled expenses consistent with
your — do you refer to yourself or consider yourself in the
context of being like a quartermaster for the safe house?
A I think it would be fair to call me that, yes.
Q There were three methods, cash, checks and credit
cards, you agreed to that?
A Yes.

Q The procedures as you understood them at the time
were that you would have to account to finance for the
expenses thatyou made? Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And isn't it a fact that you became — and that your
contact was Kathy Stevens during the principal period of
A Yes.
Q And that you and she spent quite a bit of time
together on the telephone and in person reconciling if you
will your expenses?
A She would be on — I would definitely be on the
telephone with her at least two, sometimes three times
a day.
Q Was she down there at that time or was she in
New York?
A No, she was in New York.
Q Once she moved down to Virginia, I take it you
continued to communicate with her when necessary by
telephone, is that right?
A Yes. When she moved to Virginia, yes.
Q You also met in person?
A Yes.
Q And is it fair to say that she was constantly
reminding you of the necessity for keeping adequate records
which identified the expenses so that they could be properly

processed and entered on the books?
A Particularly in terms of the cash expenditures because the
credit card expenditures were much easier to deal with, much more
Q But isn't it true that even on your credit card expenses,
that you or she sitting with you would go through them and in
fact frequently identify by virtue of a brief written
explanation what the nature of it was?
A I would generally tell her what things were for, yes,
in terms of the credit cards.
Q And in fact -- well —
MR. ANDERSON: Could I ask that Mr. Magraw be shown
Government's Exhibit 20-F.
(Law clerk handing exhibit to witness)
Q For example, Mr. Magraw, take a look at what's
attached to the second page.
A Yes.
Q Now, what's the top? Have you seen it? Do you recognize
A Yes. It's a Citibank Visa statement.
Q Whose Citibank Visa statement? A Mine.
Q And on that, there are some handwritten notations, are
there not?

A Yes, that's my handwriting.
Q Which identify the expense with precision. And in
that case —
A Yes.
Q one of those happened to have been an expense
which you associated with Mr. LaRouche?
A Yes.
Q And you put an L beside it?
A That's correct.
Q And take a look at the top page. What was that,
by the way? What was the expense and what was the amount?
A It was a credit charge, credit card charge of
$39 to Reynolds Willhoyt for cufflinks.
Q Did Mr. LaRouche ask you to buy him cufflinks?
A No. This was a birthday present that I purchased
for Mr. LaRouche.
Q So you intended it as a birthday present. How do
you know — it there something that helps you know that that
was a birthday present?
A No. I just simply recall it because of the date
and —
Q When is his birthday?
A It's in September.
Q When was that charge made?
A End of August.
Q And you intended it to be a present from whom to
Mr. LaRouche?
A I intended it to be a present from the security
staff to Mr. LaRouche?
Q In any event, you did obviously receive reimbursement
for it?
A Yes.
Q You identified it either -- is that your handwriting or
is that your wife's?
A On which page?
Q On the second page, where the expense is identified.
A On the second page, this happens to be my handwriting.
Q So in fact, you did, you were encouraged to do, in
fact you were instructed to keep such records as to enable
your wife either independently as you did there or with her
assistance to complete her functions and adequately identify
the expense?
A That's correct.
Q That's not a cash transaction, is it?
A No. It's credit card.
Q When you did a cash transaction, you would submit a
receipt for the expense?
A Yes. We basically, we saved the receipts and turned
them into the finance office.

Q In one method or another you go over those receipts
with Kathy?
A With Kathy, yes.
Q And either you or she would make the appropriate
entry on the receipt, to indicate the nature of the expense?
A She would be the one who would generally handle
that. As I said, I was trying to handle security matters
primarily. And this was -- (pause)
Q Is it fair to say that despite her constant nagging at
you that it was a difficult task for her to get you to be
completely and totally responsible to the requirements that
she said were necessary?
A In terms of the cash receipts, it was extremely
difficult, particularly when we were on travel. It was
extremely difficult because of the numbers of people involved
and the different places they were in and so on and so forth.
Q Did you do your best?
A We tried, and we — the kind of thing we did would be
to for example give out a certain amount to individuals like
say $20 per person for meals for that day.
Q Did you ever try to cover up the nature of an
A No.
Q Did you ever try to intentionally not keep records
for purposes of confusing anyone?

A No.
Q Did at all time you try your best to keep such
records as you could given your responsibilities?
A I tried to keep the records that I thought were
required for the finance office based on what I was told.
Q Isn't it true that you spent lots of hours with your
wife going over those records after the fact in order to let
her have the ability to do her job?
A That's true, particularly in terms of travel. It was
almost essential on it.
Q Now, you were asked, among other things — you
testified with regard to medical expenses that if you were
either traveling or for those persons who were at the safe
house, if a medical situation developed which required a
doctor or treatment of some kind, that you would have
considered it to be within your responsibility to pay that
expenses, is that right?
A I basically took care of on an emergency basis, I
took care of anybody that was within the safe house area,
whether it was somebody working there from the outside,
whether it was one of my staff, whether it was one of the
outside hired police, whether it was guests.
Q Your memory is also that on one occasion you took or
either paid for a doctor or in some way took Helga for some
type of medical treatment, is that correct?

A Yes, it is. I believe she had had an accident in the
snow and badly wrenched her knee, and we had to take her to
get some treatment for it.
Q Did you keep a record of that?
A I believe it was indicated, yes.
Q And that indicated —
A It certainly would have indicated --
Q -- and that would have been indicated as a medical
expenses for Helga LaRouche?
A Yes.
Q No attempt to cover anything up?
A No.
Q No attempt to slide one by anybody? Hum?
A That's correct.
Q No attempt to not keep records for purposes of
preventing anyone from doing the appropriate
A I didn't see any necessity for anything like that.
Q You mentioned that you might have bought a gift or
more than one gift for Mr. LaRouche to give to his wife, but
you over the course of the years that you were in this
capacity that you are in, but you don't remember anything
specific? Is that right?
A I don't remember any specific items. I certainly
would have done that kind of thing, but I don't have anyparticular
recollection. It wasn't a big deal.

Q Did you ever buy any fur coats for her?
Q Did you ever buy any expensive leather goods?
A No.
Q Never bought her any fancy sports cars?
A We wouldn't aether drive.
Q Did you buy her. any expensive sports cars?
Q Did you ever buy her any diamonds, rubies?
A No.
Q Sapphires?
A No.
Q Did you ever buy her any airplanes or raotorboats?
A No.
Q What was the, in terms .of what — if you would have
done, which was the method, if you might have done this, what
might have been the price category that you would have
expended on such a gift in this hypothetical situation?
A Generally ~ these were not major events, so this was
not something that was a big deal. So generally you are
talking about the order of $50 to $100 at the maximum, more
likely at the lower end of the scale.
Q You were asked by Mr. Robinson in the Grand Jury
about a specific expense for an item of jewelry, which
was indicated on the records to have been an L gift to H.

that right?
MR- ROBINSON: Objection,> Youri Honor. Is he impeach ing
him now or what? I don't know what the reference to the Grand Jury
transcript is for at this point.
THE COURT: I think it's with reference to a question
you asked. I think he is entitled to explore it.
MR. ROBINSON: It was a question in the Grand Jury, Your
Honor, not a question I asked here about a specific entry THE COURT:
I assume it to be one you asked here. MR. ANDERSON: Well, he asked
for it. He never got to the specific example, which I am going to
ask him about, but he did ask the question and received the
information in the Grand Jury.
THE COURT: Well, that's not a proper question of this
MR. ANDERSON: I'll rephrase it. Your Honor. BY
Q Have you seen records which the Government showed you
which indicate that you bought a piece of jewelry which by
nature of the accounting notations on it appeared to be
something L gift to H? A Yes.
Q That was some horseshoe ring or something, is that right?
A It was a horse brooch, I believe.

Q A horse brooch. And you purchased that at Lee
Cross Jewelers?
A That's correct.
Q In fact was that gift ever given to LaRouche, or to
Helga to give to -- I mean, given to Helga or to Mr.
LaRouche to give to her?
A It was not — it was returned, number one, and
secondly, it was never even shown to Mr. LaRouche is my
Q So it was returned. What happened when it was
THE COURT: I thought we went through this with
Mrs. Magraw yesterday.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, she said if you will recall,
Your Honor, my memory is that she only had secondhand knowledge
of it, that it was Mr. Magraw who handled it, that she
could only judge from the record that she was shown. So I
would like to have the jury hear it from the person who was
involved in the transaction.
THE COURT: Well, it's been heard, but whether you
want to have it heard twice is up to you. BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q In fact that item never transpired, did it?
A No. I returned it on the 19th of December, I recall
MR. ANDERSON: Could I ask that Mr. Magraw be shown

Exhibit 20^E, please-
(Law clerk handing exhibit to
witness) BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Do you recognize that?
A Yes.
Q What do you recognize that as?
A It's the purchase of a ring that was credited
against, from the same jewelers, Lee Cross Jewelers, date of
the purchase is 12-19-85; and underneath the credit of the
return of the horsehead brooch.
Q And —
A And then a credit of $140.40.
Q Now, that shows — where was the object — who
received the object that was purchased when that brooch
was brought back?
A I believe the person who I gave the ring to was a
girl by the name of Angelica (phonetic), who was a guest at
the —
Q Why did you give it to her?
A I gave it Angelica, because Angelica had been working
with me on security matters. She was extremely helpful. She
was from Europe, had been there for some period of time. She
was away from home for Christmas. Her husband wasn't there.
And it was just a way of expressing a certain amount of
thanks and friendship for the assistance she had given us

over a period of time in a very difficult period.
Q Who was it a gift from?
A It was from the security staff.
Q Not from Mr, LaRouche?
A No.
Q Mr. LaRouche tell you to do it?
A No.
Q Did he ask you to do it?
Q Did he have any knowledge of it?
A No knowledge of it.
Q During all of the years where you had the responsibilities
that you have described, what is your best — is
your best memory of everything you ever purchased which Mr.
LaRouche used, clothes, in the nature of clothing, what you
told the jury this morning?
A I figure my best recollection is maybe from the
period of the early 80's to now, maybe I bought one suit a
Q I take it these were not custom made?
A No. They were generally suits —
Q I mean, not tailored suits? They were off the
rack, is that right?
A These were suits that I bought them at sort of odd
times when things were on sale frankly. It was sort of a

point of jokes at me, but that's the way I handled it.
Q Did I understand your testimony or is it fair to
say that the reason you bought those suits was because to
some degreer you and others who worked with Mr. LaRouche
were if not embarrassed at least more concerned about his
apprearances than he was?
A Certainly more than he was. He would be -- I would get
comments from various people saying, "Can't you do something
about the way he dresses, if he is going to be on national
television or he is going to meet such and so, can't you do
something about this?"
Q Did Mr. LaRouche ever ask you to buy him a suit?
A No.
Q Other than the underwear that you have explained,
did he ever ask you to buy him any article of clothing?
A Not that I can recall.
Q Does he have — you said you have been in his closet.
A Yes, I have,
Q How would you categorize the extent of the clothes
that Mr. LaRouche has hanging in his closet?
A There's about half a dozen suits there.
Q Is it fair to say that Mr. LaRouche is not a person
who is particularly concerned with what he wears on his back?
A If he is not at a public meeting, he will generally
wear dungarees and a flannel shirt.

Q Now, have you bought Mr, LaRouche any islands in the
A No.
Q Have you bought him any chalets in Switzerland?
A No.
Q Have you bought him any of those category of gifts that we
were discussing with regards to Helga? At any time?
A Gould you repeat the question?
Q You haven't bought him any fancy sports cars, you
haven't bought him any speed-boats or anything like that?
A No.
Q No diamonds, no jewels, no pearls?
A No. We don't let him drive either.
Q In the magnitude of the amount of money that you would have
spent in total, your best estimate over this period of years on
articles of clothing, tobacco and haircuts — don't forget the
haircusts — would you give the jury your best estimate over the
total number of years?
A A few thousand dollars maybe.
Q How much?
A A few thousand dollars maybe.
Q Have you had the ability to refresh your memory with
regard to the totality of those expenses over the years with any
A I think I reviewed my records back at the time that

they were subpoenaed by the Grand Jury.
Q Well, is it fair to say that the only records you
have or that you maintained are in the custody of the
A That's definitely the case.
Q And that your only opportunity to —• strike that.
One moment, Your Honor. (Pause in the
There was a residence you indicated early on
in your testimony that was maintained — residence in New
Hampshire in the context of the —
A In Manchester, yes.
Q In the context of the 198 0 primary?
A Yes.
Q And was that the location from which all campaign
activities generated during that period of the New
Hampshire campaign?
A Well, that was — I would say that was the campaign
headquarters for Mr. LaRouche1s personal activity. There may
have been some other campaign offices.
Q Is it fair to say that during such times as he was
there he engaged in the same type of activities and under
the same circumstances as he has in all the other locations
where he is residing?
A Yes, except of course it was a campaign period, so

he would be traveling in New Hampshire a lot,
Q So in addition to the usual activities, there were
also extensive campaign activities, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And there was also a predecessor apartment in New York
City to the Sutton. Place, which was located on West 57th
Street or 58th Street or something?
A It was basically, that's true; it was about two doors
down from the office that I referenced earlier, 304 West
58th Street that ran entrances both on 57th and on 58th,
Q Same situation again?
A Same situation, yes.
Q Now, when you -- you testified that during approximately
half the average year, Mr. LaRouche was out of the
United States; is that right?
A That's approximately correct, yes.
Q is it fair to say that during a substantial portion of
that time he is in Germany with his wife?
A Yes.
Q Now, how much time on the average year does
Mrs. LaRouche spend in the United States?
A Well, it would vary, but I would guess maybe 20
percent of the time, 25 percent of the time, something
that over, if you take the entire stretch, maybe half as much

again as Mr. LaRouche does, half as much.
Q During the rest of the time, she is either again
traveling or in Germany?
A Yes, that1s true.
Q Now, in that, I will have to back up because I forgot
one thing, in that Sutton Place, who else lived there
besides Mr. LaRouche? Wasn't there in fact another couple
that lived in that location?
A Yes. That was Fernando and Robin Quihano. Then we also
had our security staff sometimes slept there, also.
Q The lived there — that's where they lived?
A Yes.
Q In the same sense that that's where Mr. LaRouche
A That's correct.
Q Spent every night there?
A Yes.
Q Ate their meals there?
A Yes.
Q In Germany during such times as Mr. LaRouche is in
Germany, where does he stay ?
A Well, we had a safe house that was located in
Staadiken (phonetic).
Q And who lives there when Mr. LaRouche is not there?
A That would be the residence of Ana and Elizabeth

Hellenbroish (phonetic).
Q And if you know, do they own it?
A I don't believe so.
Q Is it owned by a person, an individual?
A I am not certain but it may have been owned by a
Dr. Booke (phonetic).
Q Is he someone associated with the European Labor
A Yes. He is a dentist. He is a dentist associated with
the Labor Committee in Germany.
Q Is that a full-time — is that a full-time European
safe house if you will?
A Yes.
Q So it's not only a safe house when Mr. LaRouche is
A That's correct.
Q Is it fair to say that during such times as Mr.
LaRouche is in Germany, that he engages in basically the
same kinds of activities and under the same restrictions as
those you have identified in substantial detail to the jury
as he has here?
A Same activity.
Q Does he own that house?
Q Does he own any of the vehicles that are used to —

by the way, how many limousines do you have?
A We have no limousines. Limousines are absolutely
antithetical; to.-the notion ■ of. security.
Q The kind of vehicles that are used in security, what
are they here?
A Well, we had for a long time we had either Catalinas or
Bonnevilles, Chevy, various different types and Fords.
Q How old are the vehicles that are currently used.
One is an '30. One is an '84 and then the two escort
vehicles are I think ' 85.
Q You mean you don't get new cars every year?
Q You don't have any black Lincolns?
A Wo Lincolns.
Q As part of your immediate or general function of the
security staff, do you maintain a log or a record of threats
that have been directed towards Mr. LaRouche or other members
of the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A Yes, we maintain a log at the house; and we also
usually try to report anything that's of a substantive nature
to contemporaneously to the local law enforcement or Federal
law enforcement.
Q Do you maintain copies in that of articles which
appear which have a security aspect to it or documents
obtained through POIA, which have a security aspect to

A Yes.
Q Correspondence from or with law enforcement
A Yes.
Q What other kinds of information do you maintain
within that log?
A Well, we maintain — basically the safe house
functions as the central clearinghouse for any preliminary
material that comes in in the form of problems that
individual members have or any problems that are campaign related
or threats of that nature or actual instance, for
individuals in the Labor Committee or against rir. and
Mrs. LaRouche.
MR. ANDERSON: Would you give this to the witness.
THE WITNESS: The safe house is basically our
(Counsel for Government examining document)
MR. ROBINSON: May we 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. ROBINSON: Judgef I am going to object to the
introduction of this document if that's where he is headed.
It goes into on its surface and I have only had a few

to look at it, it joes into many of the things covered in the
motion in limine and all sorts of what purport to be U. S
Department of Justice and FBI documents in it. There was a
threatening letter sent to the U. S- Labor Party from Charlie
Manson in 19 76- This obviously goes far beyond any relevant
issues in this trial, Your Honor.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, Your Honor, number one I
certainly can qualify it as or attempt to qualify it as a
business record. I think it would prove out to be such in
fact. And I want to initially lead him through it to
demonstrate his recollection of it and if you think I need
more details in terms of how it was compiled and kept, I will
get those.
THE COURT: Even if it's a business record you have
got to show its relevance. He has said, and I don't
understand the Government to take the position that much of
the security in the traditional sense of security for the
safety of Mr. LaRouche is bonafied.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, they certainly have suggested,
Your Honor, sub silencio (phonetic) that it's a bogus
expense, and overtly in fact —
MR. ROBINSON: That's not true.
THE COURT: I think the position is that some of
the expenses that are run through the security account, the
Government says, are personal expenses, but I don't

understand the Government to take the position that the
security staff has to insure the safety of Mr. LaRouche in the
organization is other than bonafide.
MR. ROBINSON: Well, we don't take the position that it
results in taxable income to them. Your Honor. That is the only
issue here. The taxable income we have been talk ing about is the
personal- items and perhaps a portion of the use of the property*
But you are right, we haven't been asserting that. The security
guards for example is not. I made that clear to Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: It's far broader than that because Mr.
LaRouche is also charged with a fraud count. The problem with this
whole thing is that these priorities that the Government has
stressed over and over again through their witnesses is that if
the jury doesn't understand that these priorities were reasonably
based and necessary for the continued operation and function of
the organization and in fact to maintain La Rouche's life or at
least to prevent against early termination or the
prospect therefor, that they have to understand the basis for it
and not that this was some frivolous exercise of a bunch of nuts
running around putting on a big show over something that was
unnecessary, because if they get that feeling, they are going to
draw the conclusion that no, that it was not a reasonable course
of action to be followed and that --

THE COURT: I am not going to get in all this stuff
I will let him testify as he already has that the safety of
Mr, LaRouche and an ongoing organisation was a legitimate
concern of the security. But to open up the matters that you
have got in this book, on 403 grounds if no other grounds —
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, with respect to this, if
what he says is the Government case, I don't think it's at
all relevant to the case in any way. If they are putting
this in to show private expenses of Mr. LaRouche how could
this possibly be relevant to their own case unless they are
arguing that there was a priority situation here and I keep
asking that question because I keep having the problem of
determining how this becomes relevant to the loan case when
the Government takes the position he is taking. It's not at
all relevant under the position that he is taking at the
MR. ROBINSON: I think it's perfectly relevant to
show that the organization bought Mr. LaRouche's clothing
before it would repay loans.
MR. MOFFITT: There is the issue of priorities-
MR. REILLY: We have got Mr. Robinson arguing that
apparently spending his money on security they should have
been repaying --
THE COURT: Wot on security as think of security
but he was paying money for these personal things instead

paying loans.
MR. REILLY: With Kathy Magraw he brought out the
total of security that was spent on priorities and he walked
through that total number and several times we got the total
number on security and then inference there was --
THE COURT: I sustain the objection to this exhibit,
MR. WEBSTER: May I make one other point so I am
not precluded in the future but we do intend to call an
expert witness in this case who will testify about security
measures and appropriateness and so forth of them. These
documents here I think would be appropriate for entry into
the case as a prerequisite to that expert's testimony in our
THE COURT: No, it is not necessary that what an
expert relied upon would be itself admissible.
MR. WEBSTER: We would like it in for the jury to
consider in that regard.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection to this exhibit,
(Whereupon, the conference at the Bench
was concluded, and the following proceedings were
THE COURT: You might want that marked and identified
for the record, Mr. Anderson, if it's not otherwise.
THE COURT: So the record will show what exhibit
number we have been talking about.

MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, it is marked as RRRR-1
through 3 2.
I just have one final thing, Your
Q Just finally, on these expenses, such times as Mr.
LaRouche was traveling what were the purposes of those
trips? Is it fair to say that security always accompanies
Mr. LaRouche when he travels?
A That's correct.
Q And that's whether it's by car, train, plane or
A (Nodding head affirmatively)
Q What are the purposes, what have been the purposes
of these -- I don't want you to go through every one, but
give the jury a sampling if you will of the purposes for
those trips, where you went and what the purpose was.
A Well, outside the obvious campaign activities of Mr.
LaRouche, and his political organization's particular
campaign organization, to campaign in various States where
he was running for elective office and on the ballot in
that particular place, give press conferences; the other
kinds of
meetings would involve requests for policy discussion
around certain particular issues like the problem of the
Third World debt, for example, was one of the --
Q Where did you go and who did you meet? Where did

Mr. LaRouche go, and who did he meet with?
A Well, I mentioned the trip to Buenos Aires to meet
with President Alfancin.
Q And the issue was to discuss Third World debt?
A Third World debt and economic development and
economic integration of the industrialized North and the
underdeveloped South.
Q Give the jury, please, briefly, Mr. Magraw, several
other examples of that kind.
A Discussing the general topic would be a trip to
visit with President Jose Lopez Portillo (phonetic) in
Mexico, in 1982, I believe it was. 1983 involved — there
were two trips, one was in 1983 to visit with Indira
Ghandi. There was a trip if you work backwards from my most
recent travels, we were meeting with the forum — in Taiwan,
in Taipei, we were meeting with Chiang Kai-Shek's military
advisor around economic questions.
Q How about Indira Ghandi?
A Indira Ghandi, we traveled and visited with her
Q And were these vacations?
A No, these were working — these were basically
political meetings that had been arranged by our
political allies in these particular countries, who wanted
Mr- LaRouche to present his political views and economic
views to these

elected officials or to representatives of particular political
movements inside these other countries. It involved
places like Malaysia, Thailand extensively, Japan
extensively, Germany, Italy, and in Italy —
Q Now, is it fair to say that all of these trips insofar
as you were present in the security staff were not only
predominantly but entirely for the purposes of business?
A Yes.
Q And while you were traveling" or while Mr. LaRouche
was in a foreign country such as Ini-Lia, Taiwan, Peru, et
cetera, who assisted in providing the security to Mr.
LaRouche dur ing tho se trip s ?
A Well, it would vary on country by country, but many
times we would have one level or another of official security
cooperation with their law enforcement, with their people who
were involved in executive protection. This was the case in
Argentina. It was the case in France. It was the case in
India. Itwasthe case in Peru recently. It was the case in
Thailand and so on.
Q Have you or anyone else you are associated with within
security or otherwise within or without the National Caucus
of Labor Committees ever knowingly and willfully combined,
conspired, agreed with others to defraud the United States by
impeding, impairing, obstructing, or defeating the
lawful function of the Internal Revenue Service in the

ascertainment and computation and assessment and collection
of the revenue with the individual income taxes of Lyndon
H. LaRoucher Jr.?
A No. Mr. Mr. LaRouche, no.
MR. ANDERSON: I have no further questions. THE
COURT: Any redirect? MR. ROBINSON: -Yes, Your Honor.
Q Mr. Magraw, you have testified that every night there
are meetings or actually you were talking about Sutton Place
at that time and you said there were meetings every night at
that house, is that right?
A Every night, yes.
Q Does that continue to be the case since that time at
the other residences?
A There is usually some kind of briefing session
every night, yes.
Q And you call these business meetings; is that right?
A They are meetings which have to do with the business
of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, the political
activities. It's basically a report of what goes on during
the day, what the political influence is, what — not
influence -- what the political developments are, if you

Q So it's a political briefing first of all?
A Yes.
Q And this is a meeting attended by the national
executive committee, is that right?
A At what point in time? At this point you are
Q Well, let's start with Sutton Place. That's what you
said, about the meetings there.
A Sutton Place I believe was generally a meeting of
the national executive committee.
Q So everyday, Mr. LaRouche got together with the
national executive committee of the National Caucus of Labor
Committees, right?
A Most of the time was my recollection.
Q And that was for the purpose of running the operations
of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, right?
A For the purpose of political discussion over what
kind of initiatives should be taken, what, you know, what
had been the events of the day internationally and so on.
Q All right, would it be fair to say that Mr.
LaRouche was involved in a day-to-day basis in the
business operations of the corporate entities that make up
the National Caucus of Labor Committees?
A I would say that from my knowledge of this, what he
was, what was invovled in these discussions was the political

questions, i.e., these were political briefings over what had
occurred during the day and what the effect was.
Q So when you called them business meetings, you were
using that term rather generally, right?
A I was using it in terms of the business of the
National Caucus of Labor Committees as politics.
Q Okay, so they w-ere political discussions. They
didn't talk about for example what the employees of
Campaigner Publications were supposed to do on the following
A I mean I wasn't at these meetings as a participant. I
would sometimes go through the meetings, and so on, but that
is my understanding, yes.
Q You talked about Mr. LaRouche's travel and you
called that business travel as well, is that right?
A That's true.
Q What do you mean when you say business there?
A Well, by business is what I described in the content,
the content would be political discussions with leaders of
the Third World like Indira Ghandi, Alfancin, you know.
Portofillo and so on. They would be discussions over policy
questions that Mr. LaRouche was proposing to the Third World
and saying this is the kind of political ideas that we
represent in the United States.
Q Okay, what corporation was he traveling on behalf

of in the instance you have just talked about?
A I don't know what the. actual corporate entity would
be. I don't know who sponsored it in that kind of direct
sense. Maybe the Executive Intelligence Review, a publication,
I don't know.
Q So he went to discuss political ideas, is that
A That is correct.
Q In each of these instances that you have discussed?
A Yes.
Q He didn't go to try to sell magazines or sell books
or anything like that?
A No. This was not a commercial enterprise in that
Q All right. Now you said that the Sutton Place
house, you said you believed that was rented; is that
A That's my understanding.
Q In the Grand Jury, the second appearance, beginning on
page 76, you were asked — were you asked the following
questions and did you give the following answers - Line 14.
"Well, there was a period of time when Mr. !LaRouche resided
at a townhouse on Sutton Place, is that correct?
Answer: "I believe he lived with Fernando and
Robin Quihano at that time.

Question; "Do you know what the financial arrange-
ments were for that house?"
Answer: "I have no idea."
Did you say that?
A I did say that,
Q But you don't mind testifying here that you believe
the house was rented?
A Again, I think you are mixing apples and oranges, Mr.
Robinson. I said I don't know what the financial arrange
nients were, but I am quite certain the place wasn't owned by
anyone who was associated with the National Caucus of Labor
Committees so I assumed the place was rented.
Q I see. That's what you meant when you said on
direct examination that you believed it was rented?
A Yes.
Q When I asked you, "Did you know anything about the
financial arrangements," and you said, "I have no idea," you
said that even though you know it wasn't owned by any of the
members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, is that
MR. ANDERSON: Objection, Your Honor. Financial
arrangements, that could mean anything.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Q Strike that last question. You now say that you

know that house wasn't owned by any of the members of the National
Caucus of Labor committees?
A That's my recollection. I don't see any contradiction.
I wasn't, you know — (pause)
Q Now, you said that the move to Woodburn was in part
because of security concerns; isn't that right?
A Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, I object. I think it's
unfair to leave the suggestion that it might have been owned
by someone when the Government knows by virtue of records
that it was in fact rented.
MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think I am allowed to
examine this witness about his prior testimony. Your
Honor, and the inconsistencies therein.
And as far as Mr. Anderson testifying about what
records I have in my possession, I think that's
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Q Now, the question I had just asked you was part of
the reason you moved to Woodburn was becasue of security
concerns; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And you were involved in security at that point in
time? Isn't that right?
A Yes.

Q And isn't it true that you voiced your opposition to
moving to Woodburn because you didn't think it was a secure
A Yes, but the idea of moving to the Virginia area was
what I was referring to in terms of the security concerns. I
didn't feel that Woodburn was adequate.
Q And that's why you moved to Ibykus then; is that
A That's one of the reasons, yes.
Q Isn't it true that the organization attempted to
buy Woodburn Farm before it moved to Ibykus?
A If it had, it would have been over my objections.
Q You don't know whether they did or not?
A I don't recall that, no -
Q Now —
A I wasn't involved in any kind of negotiations on
Q I guess your testimony here is that the Ibykus Farm is
used for much more than security purposes; is that right?
A That's correct.
Q There are many other activities that go on there?
A Yes.
Q Like the swimming pool that was installed after the
house was bought, I presume that's not for security purposes,
isn't that right?

A It's not particularly for security purposes, no. MR.
ROBINSON: Could the witness be shown Exhibit 100, please?
it's the large photograph.
(Law clerk handing exhibit to
witness) BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q That's a photograph of Ibykus Farm; is that correct? A
That's correct.' That's a photograph of the main house area.
Q The main house, that's right. Now, when Mr. and
Mrs. LaRouche are in town, isn't it true that they are the
only people who stay in the large house?
A In the large house, there is only one bedroom. Q Why don't
you hold up the picture there so the jury can see it, and —
MR. ANDERSON: Your Honor, this is the third time we
have shown this. It's not going to look any different than
the last time it was held up. I will stipulate it's the same
picture that was shown twice before-
MR. ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Anderson drew out of this
witness that Mr. LaRouche only used one room in this house,
Your Honor, exclusively for himself, I just would like to
get some sort of visual understanding of where that —
THE COURT: But I don't think we need the picture
any more.
MR. ROBINSON: All right. Your Honor.

THE COURT: The jury will have it when they get the
Q Is it fair to say that the entire second floor of
the center portion of the main house is what you were
referring to when you were discussing Mr. LaRouche's bedroom
and his study?
A It's one bedroom complex that couldn't be divided
to house anybody, more than one couple,
Q But that's the entire second floor of the main
A It's the second floor of the central portion, and
there are two wings on either side.
MR. ROBINSON: Could I see Exhibit 15-0, please.
(Law clerk handing exhibit to counsel)
Q The swimming pool that you discussed, I presume you
didn't see that used for any business purposes, did you?
A No.
Q A riding ring was constructed at the farm after it
was purchased; is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And that wasn't used for business purposes, was it?
A No.
25 Q it was used for recreation, right?

A It was used for whoever wished to ride the horses,
yes .
MR. ROBINSON: Could the witness be shown Exhibits
20-G and E, please.
"(Law clerk handing exhibits to
witness) BY MR. ROBINSON:
Q By the way, these improvements to Ibykus that we
mentioned briefly, do you know how much money was put into
all of those improvements?
A Not as a total figure, no.
Q Were you involved in supervising that work at all?
A Yes.
Q But you don't know what the total was?
A I don't know what the total figure was, no.
Q Could you look at Exhibit 20-G, please.
A Yes.
Q The first page of Exhibit 20-G is another credit
card purchase detail in your wife's handwriting, isn't that
A Um hum, yes.
Q And attached to it is a credit card statement on an
account of yours; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And the first two entries on both documents show
clothing purchased for L, which would be Lyndon LaRouche,

that right?
A That's correct.
Q The fourth entry down refers to luggage? is that
A Yes.
Q And there is no indication on either of these
documents who that luggage was purchased for, is there?
A No.
Q It wasn't purchased as an expense for any of the
members of the security staff, though, was it?
A I believe what that luggage was was at a time when
there was a lot of travel back and forth to Europe. We had
guests who were staying with us, and some of these people had
brought virtually you know boxes of their own stuff so
there was extra things that they needed to take back, so at a
time when there was a particular travel, I bought a couple of
pieces of American Tourister. I think I gave two of them to
Helga and I think I gave two of them to I believe it was Dino
(phonetic) and Renata at the time.
Q That document doens't have an H next to the luggage
that you gave to Helga —
A No, I am just telling you of my own recollection.
Q If we went through your credit card records and your
checks in detail, thtere would be many expenditures ! which,
on which the records did not reflect for whom an item

was purchased; isn't that correct?
A I believe the procedure at that time would be that I
would tell Kathy what basically the thing was for.
Q My question was about the records.
A On these records in general?
Q My question was about your checks and your credit
cards, your credit cards?
A No. On the checks, it would depend, if I wrote
something or not, but I would report to Kathy what it
Q All right, well—
A And the same thing would be true on the credit
cards. Sometimes if I weren't to see her for a while or if
I were traveling or you know I might note down on the bill
itself on the credit card statement.
Q Well, this credit card record that you have right in
front of you there?
A Um hum.
Q Whose handwriting is on the credit card statement
A On the statement is my handwriting.
Q So you didn't report to her that that luggage was
purchased in part for Helga LaRouche, did you?
A Wo. I am sure I told her exactly who it was for. I
told her it would be for guests who were staying at the

Q On the cover sheet which is in her handwriting —
A It was not a security expense, in other words.
Q I understand that. The cover sheet that is in her
handwriting even though the clothing is indicated as being
for Lyndon'LaRouche, the luggage is not indicated as being in
part for Helga LaRouche, is it?
A That's correct.,
Q My question is, would it be fair to say that if we
went through all these records, there would be other
instances where things like luggage or clothing or drug store
supplies or other expenses of that sort where the records
would not show who the item was purchased for?
A I believe the distinction I made at that time that I
was told by Kathy was between security and guests.
Q Okay, fine. As long as the records showed that it was
guests, that's all you thought you had to do, is that what
you are saying?
A I basically told her what it was for at the time
that it took place. If I didn't, I would write it down so
that it would be, I could report it to her some other
Q But all you cared about was -- strike that.
As long as it showed whether it was for guests
versus security, that1s all you and your wife tried to do in
keeping the records, correct?
A The bookkeeping was up to Kathy.

Q All right.
A I would tell her in conversation what things were for,
and when she would, I had — prior to the Grand Jury testimony
in August of '87 and July of '88, I had — these are not the
kind of things that I would -- I certainly didn't fill these
out. She did.
Q And included under expenses for guests would be
expenses for many people other than the LaRouches; is that
A That's correct.
Q The automobiles that you described, what is the
most expensive automobile that's been purchased by the
organization for use?
A I think the retail price is around $15,00 0.
Q $15,000.
A That's my recollection.
Q This checking account that you maintained and the
some 2 0 credit cards?
A Yes.
Q Why did you use a checking account in your own name
and this legion of credit cards instead of just having
signature control over an account in the name of PGM or
Campaigner and having a credit card for on& of those corporations?
A Basically, the problem is, I -- the basic problem

is you can't travel unless you use a lot of credit cards, not
with a large number of people. Not with the security crew,
not having to rent cars, pay hotel bills, et .cetera. You
can't go to Thailand and pay by a corporate check. That's one
very simple thing. The reason I started getting into getting
credit cards was basically after the '80 campaign, we had
very little logistical capability in terms of you know
renting cars because of the credit card problem. So I applied
for a number of credit cards and this stuff is --multiplies
itself, so I used that, the credit cards as a way of being
able to travel and it also was a way of being able to
maintain — I could charge things and have the records
maintained on it without having to retain all the individual
separate receipts because I would get the whole thing back to
me once a month and be able to handle it that way.
It would also for example on gasoline payments,
rather than having to keep each individual credit card
receipt, you could just get the bill at the end of the month
and we knew basically what it was for.
Q You said you can't use a corporate check in Thailand.
Can you write a check on your own bank account in Thailand?
A No. But you were asking both questions of
credit cards and checks.
Q I understand. And the credit cards are for the

travel and for record, keeping purposes?
A They are for all the purposes that I outlined.
They are not simply limited to travel, but they give you a
logistical capability that travel is certainly one aspect
of Q You have a credit card for Lord and Taylor's, a
department store?
A That's my credit card, yes.
Q You used it only for your own personal purposes?
MR. MOFFITT: Your Honor, this is not redirect at
this point.
THE COURT: X don't think it is either.
MR. ROBINSON: May he answer that last question,
Your Honor?
MR. MOFFITT: Objection.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. ROBINSON: That's all of the questions I have.
MR. ANDERSON: Recross, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Recross is not a matter of right.
MR. ANDERSON; I only have a few questions.
THE COURT: I will hold you to that.
MR. ANDERSON: That's all I asked,
Q You had a colleague by the name of Bob Kay who
worked with you in security?

A He is no longer there. For years, yes.
Q He is no longer in security —
MR. ROBINSON: Objection, Your Honor. This is not
MR. ANDERSON: This is swimming pool, Your Honor, as
Mr. Robinson knows from the Grand Jury.
THE COURT: All- right. I will let you go into it
if it's the swimming pool. It hadn't started out like the
swimming pool.
MR. ANDERSON: This is the swimming pool.
Q Isn't it a fact that Bob Kay recommended the
installation of the security pool -- security pool — a
swimming pool, a secure swimming pool?
A I did swim in it, yes.
Q Because among other things, it was a capital
improvement which enhanced the value of the property and two
and most significantly that Helga LaRouche, when she was
here, was an avid swimmer, and it was a security nightmare to
attempt to take her into a public facility where she could
A That's true. It had been a matter of discussion
because we had all kinds of problems with the swimming.
Q And in fact, a number of other people use that
swimming pool, don't they?

A That's correct.
Q The Vasquezes when they were living there and their
children used it on a daily basis?
A Yes.
Q There are several people that have health problems
and use it for therapeutic as well as just recreational
purposes, is that right? .
A That's definitely true,
Q Have you ever once seen Lyndon LaRouche in that
swimming pool?
A No.
Q Never once?
A Not once.
Q Have you ever once seen him riding on the horses?
A I have never seen Mr. LaRouche ride a horse. I
would recommend against it.
Q If you wanted to hide from the Internal Revenue
Service or the prosecution expenses which were made that Mr.
LaRouche received the benefit of as the clothes and in the
circumstances that the jury understands, do you think it
would have been a very clever way to hide them to put an L
beside the expenses on the records?
MR. ROBINSON: Objection. Argumentative. I think we
have gone even further now beyond the scope.
THE COURT: I think this has been covered,

MR. ANDERSON: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
(Witness excused)
THE COURT: We'll take a short recess.
(Whereupon, the taking of testimony of Witnesses
was concluded.)

(COURT REPORTER'S NOTE; The remaining portion of
the proceedings or: this date are found in VOLUME VII

) ss, CITY OF
Registered Professional Reporter and Official Court
Reporter for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, appointed pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28, United states Code, Section
753, do hereby ceritfy that I was authorized to report,
and did so report in Stenotype, the foregoing
THEREAFTER, my Stenotype notes were reduced
to typewriting under my supervision; and I further
certify that the pages herein numbered contain a true
and correct transcription of my Stenotype notes taken
DONE and signed, this MX^-^t^'_____ day of
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Official Court Reporter

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on September 01, 2009, at 03:19 PM