LaRouche: Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest lawyer?

Complete record of federal court filings in Kronberg v. LaRouche et al. re defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel

Introduction: Cult leader Lyndon LaRouche and three co-defendants filed a motion in federal court in Alexandria, Va. on Dec. 3, 2009 to disqualify John Markham--a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who successfully prosecuted LaRouche for mail fraud 21 years ago--from serving as counsel for plaintiff Molly Kronberg, who is suing LaRouche for libel.

Mrs. Kronberg, the widow of a LaRouche follower who committed suicide in April 2007, publicly broke with the LaRouche cult several weeks after her husband Ken jumped to his death from a highway bridge a few miles from LaRouche's Leesburg, Va. headquarters. She charged that LaRouche had driven her husband to utter despair through years of emotional abuse culminating in a cruel memo to the cult's membership--issued only hours before Mr. Kronberg's suicide--which suggested that Mr. Kronberg was a worthless disciple who might as well do away with himself.

LaRouche lashed back against Mrs. Kronberg with a series of allegations that she describes as libelous; for instance, the claim that she had perjured herself at LaRouche's 1988 trial and thus was responsible for the conviction that resulted in his spending five years in a federal prison. The claim that she had committed perjury--a felony crime--was a key factor in her decision to file a libel suit.


LaRouche departs from federal court house in Alexandria, Virginia after pleading not guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges, October 1988.

The links below provide access to all pleadings and declarations filed in Kronberg v. LaRouche et al. regarding the motion to disqualify Markham, beginning with LaRouche's memorandum in defense of the motion and a bizarrely error-ridden declaration by co-defendant Barbara Boyd (a top LaRouche aide), both filed on Dec. 3.

The menu also includes plaintiff's memorandum in opposition, filed on Dec. 21 along with declarations by Markham, Mrs. Kronberg, Criton Zoakos (a former aide to LaRouche) and Michael Minnicino (a former LaRouche follower who was a business partner of Ken Kronberg) disputing various of Boyd's allegations.

Mrs. Kronberg appended to her declaration a transcript of her 1988 testimony showing that it focussed on relatively unimportant points, was mostly innocuous in content, and could not have influenced the jury (who heard testimony from over 50 witnesses) to any significant extent. The trial record thus contradicts LaRouche's claim that Mrs. Kronberg's testimony was the cause of the criminal convictions of himself and six associates--an allegation he has repeated over and over since Mrs. Kronberg denounced him in 2007, but never mentioned during prior years.

Defendants' memorandum and the Boyd declaration absurdly attempt to depict Mrs. Kronberg's libel case as basically an extension of the government prosecution of LaRouche for loan fraud and income tax evasion, with Markham somehow serving as a member of a long-standing plot to destroy the LaRouche movement.

The two documents also attempt to draw, indirectly, on the conspiracy laced "CIA-is-hanging-me-out-to-dry" defense that LaRouche unsuccessfully used as a legal tactic in 1988 (this time around, the LaRouchians are suggesting that Markham is in possession of deep dark government secrets about the LaRouche movement that would give his client an "unfair advantage" over the defendants).

But the reply by Mrs. Kronberg's legal team quotes the judge in Tessler v. Plastic Surgery Specialists, Inc., 731 F.Supp. 724, 729 (E.D. Va. 1990): "The Court is not unmindful of the recent practice indulged in by some to use disqualification motions for purely strategic purposes...and that courts should not be oblivious to this fact." The reply then goes on to directly address the defense's central argument:

"The cases defendants rely on to support their motion to disqualify are 'side-switching' cases, particularly where the former prosecutor leaves government employment and retains a client in a matter against the government, often in the same ongoing case pending while the attorney had been a prosecutor....

"The present case is clearly distinguishable from each of the [cited] cases. Markham has not switched sides and entered into litigation against the United States in which he could (as in those cases cited by defendants) use what he has learned from the United States specifically against the United States in discernable ways.

"Nor can it be shown that his now-two-decade-old involvement in the Boston and Alexandria [LaRouche prosecutions] give him any unfair advantage over the defendants in this case. To begin with, and not that any of it is relevant to this case, the defendants have access to substantial amounts of the once-confidential information to which Markham had access, including witness statements and agent reports of interviews. Indeed, they have access to documents and information that neither Markham nor Kronberg [possess]...."

Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 8.

-------------------------

Filings re defendants' motion to disqualify

1. Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Joint Motion to Disqualify Former AUSA Markham (filed Dec. 3, 2009).

2. Declaration of Barbara M. Boyd in Support of Defendants' Joint Motion to Disqualify Former AUSA Markham (filed Dec. 3, 2009).

3. Plaintiff Molly Kronberg's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Disqualify Attorney John Markham (filed Dec. 21, 2009).

4. Declaration of John Markham Addressing Certain Matters Raised in the Motion to Disqualify Him (filed Dec. 21, 2009).

5. Declaration of Molly Kronberg in Opposition to the Motion to Disqualify John Markham (filed Dec. 21, 2009).

6. Transcript of Molly Kronberg's testimony at LaRouche's Alexandria, Va. federal court trial, December 1988 (filed with Kronberg deposition, Dec. 21, 2009).

7. Declaration of Criton Zoakos Addressing Certain Matters Asserted in LaRouche's Motion to Disqualify John Markham (filed Dec. 21, 2009).

8. Declaration of Michael J. Minnicino Concerning Certain Matters Raised in the Motion to Disqualify Attorney Markham (filed Dec. 21, 2009).

9. Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Joint Motion to Disqualify Former AUSA Markham (filed Dec. 31, 2009). Lyndon LaRouche Watch's commentary on this filing is here (see Jan. 7, 2010 posting).

10. Letter to John Markham from the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia re the propriety of Markham representing Molly Kronberg (Jan. 7, 2010).

11. Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Joint Motion to Disqualify Former AUSA Markham (filed Jan. 11, 2010).

12. Plaintiff Molly Kronberg's Response to Defendants' Supplemental Brief Re the Disqualification Motion (filed Jan. 13, 2010).

Pretrial orders and memorandum opinions

13. Order by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga denying LaRouche et al.'s motion to dismiss (issued April 9, 2010).

14. Memorandum Opinion by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga on defendants' motion to dismiss (issued April 9, 2010).

15. Order by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga granting defendants' motion to disqualify former AUSA John Markham (issued April 9, 2010).

16. Memorandum Opinion by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga on defendants' motion to disqualify former AUSA John Markham (issued April 9, 2010)."

Filings re plaintiff's motion for reconsideration or interlocutory appeal

17. Plaintiff Kronberg's motion for reconsideration of, or for a certification allowing interlocutory appeal of, the order disqualifying attorney Markham, and for an interim stay (filed April 19, 2010).

18. Plaintiff Kronberg's brief in support of her motion to reconsider or to certify for interlocutory appeal (filed April 19, 2010).

19. Declaration of Molly Kronberg in support of her motion to reconsider or to certify for interlocutory appeal (filed April 19, 2010).

20. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal (filed April 30, 2010).

21. Order by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga DENYING plaintiff's April 19, 2010 motion with respect to reconsideration of the judge's order disqualifying Markham, but GRANTING plaintiff's motion with respect to an interlocutory appeal and interim stay (filed May 3, 2010).

Plaintiff's petition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

22. Plaintiff Kronberg's Petition to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (filed May 13, 2010 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit).





















RETURN TO MAIN PAGE