San Francisco Skyline
BILL OF RIGHTS-- First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-- Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed-- Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law-- Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.-- Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.-- Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law-- Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted-- Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people--Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people--.
Taking the Fifth-A Criminal Law Blog
RSS icon Email icon Bullet (black)

  • JOHN MARKHAM II DISQUALIFIED IN LYNDON LAROUCHE LITIGATION

    Posted on April 13th, 2010 zshapiro 3 comments

    A former assistant United States attorney who prosecuted fraud cases against Lyndon LaRouche in the 1980′s has been disqualified to represent a woman suing LaRouche. After prosecuting LaRouche, John Markham II left the United States Attorneys office in 1989 and formed a private practice. Now he has been retained by Marielle “Molly” Kronberg, a former government witness against LaRouche to sue LaRouche and others for harassment.

    But according to The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia disqualified Markham from representing Kronberg due to confidential Federal files that he viewed while prosecuting LaRouche. Judge Trenga found that Kronberg had a unnecessary advantage as a result of Markham’s knowledge obtained from viewing the confidential files.

    Disqualifying Markham is unusual. Most cases involving the disqualification of a lawyer occur where she/he has represented both sides. For example, if Markham was representing LaRouche and as part of his Federal duties he had interviewed Kronberg or had read confidential reports of her interviews he should be disqualified because he could use confidential information obtained from Kronberg against her. But that is not the case. He has consistently represented parties opposing LaRouche and information obtained from Kronberg while he worked for the government will only be used to help her now. She could tell him the same information now that she did twenty years ago. There is no conflict of interest.

    Fraud, Harrassment , , , 3 Comments »
     

    3 Responses to “JOHN MARKHAM II DISQUALIFIED IN LYNDON LAROUCHE LITIGATION”

    1. Howard Gibson April 13th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

      There is actually an extremely large conflict of interest. The prosecution of LaRouche involved extensive files that go far beyong Marielle Kronberg. In fact, files against LaRouche involved national security cases. Ollie North was mentioned in files about LaRouche that were publicly revealed. In this case Ollie North (of the Iran-Contra case) had declared that he had information to use against LaRouche. The whole thing smacks of a witchhunt against LaRouche in which John Markham participated. That is why John Markham was disqualified from representing Marielle Kronberg.

    2. Lyn Marcus April 14th, 2010 at 8:51 am

      There really is no big Secret. Ollie North was fundraising from conservatives and there was at least one wealthy donor who was also being called by convicted Larouche felon and cultist Mike Billington at the same time.

      Howie, can you tell us about your fellow members in the Boston office who were sent out of the country to hide in Larouche’s Eurpopean officec to evade the Grand Jury and were convicted, returned to the USA and sent to prison?

      Can you also give us a rough estimate of how much of the 34 million taken from the elderly with promissory notes has been paid back by the cult?

    3. Marielle Kronberg April 14th, 2010 at 10:52 am

      National security has nothing to do with my lawsuit–I am suing LaRouche et al. for libel per se and for conspiracy to harass me–a Federal witness.

      Furthermore, the 1988 Alexandria case in which LaRouche and six others were convicted–all of them of mail fraud, and LaRouche also of conspiracy to defraud the IRS–didn’t have anything to do with national security either.

      The LaRouche people have always invoked the national security argument, and screamed “witchhunt,” whenever anyone sued them, or whenever they were prosecuted.

      Their view is that LaRouche’s policies and politics are so marvelous and life-giving that he should never be challenged on anything.

      Leaving aside the question of the actual nature of his policies, this is a ridiculous and unlawful standard. If you borrow money from little old ladies under false pretenses and don’t pay it back–and if you do that for years–no amount of references to national security or higher morality can or should protect you from the law–either lawsuits or prosecution.

    Leave a Reply

 

April 2010
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Categories

lawyer blogs
Designed by My Mobiles