Talk:LaRouche movement/Trials

See also http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_L.shtml

1970s

 * UAW v. National Caucus of Labor Committees
 * International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace Andagricultural Implement Workers of America (uaw),plaintiff-appellee, v. National Caucus of Labor Committees et al., Defendants-appellants
 * United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 525 F.2d 323
 * Argued Sept. 23, 1975. Decided Nov. 12, 1975
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/525/323/169855/
 * This suit involves a controversy between two labor organizations. Central to the action are publications of each union--plaintiff's 'Solidarity' and defendants' 'New Solidarity.' Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendants' publication infringed their trademark and name and charges defendants with fraudulent conduct in order to discredit plaintiff. Defendants deny plaintiff's charges and plead various counterclaims, including libel and assault upon those who distribute 'New Solidarity.'


 * Jones v. Unknown Agents of Federal Election Commission
 * Le Roy B. JONES et al., Appellants, v. UNKNOWN AGENTS OF the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al., Appellees.
 * 613 F.2d 864
 * 198 U.S.App.D.C. 131
 * No. 77-2093.
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
 * Argued Sept. 27, 1978. Decided Aug. 23, 1979.
 * http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/864
 * The suit was filed after the FEC concluded, on the basis of field interviews with CTEL contributors ... that Lyndon La Rouche, a candidate for the 1976 Presidential nomination of the USLP, had not raised the requisite amount of contributions to qualify for matching funds...appellants asserted numerous constitutional, statutory, and common law claims arising out of both (1) the fact that the Commission conducted field interviews at all, and (2) the manner in which the interviews were conducted and the scope of the questions asked.


 * Committee to Elect Lyndon La Rouche v. Federal Election Commission
 * COMMITTEE TO ELECT LYNDON LA ROUCHE, Lyndon La Rouche and Leroy B. Jones, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Respondent.
 * 613 F.2d 834
 * 198 U.S.App.D.C. 101
 * No. 77-1184.
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
 * Argued Sept. 27, 1978. Decided Aug. 23, 1979. Certiorari Denied Feb. 19, 1980. See 100 S.Ct. 1019.
 * http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/834
 * Petitioners ... raise ... objections to the legal standards and certification procedures invoked by the [FEC] in [denying matching funds]


 * Federal Election Commission v. Committee to Elect Lyndon La Rouche
 * FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellee, v. COMMITTEE TO ELECT LYNDON LA ROUCHE et al., Appellants.
 * 613 F.2d 849
 * 198 U.S.App.D.C. 116
 * No. 77-1987.
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
 * Argued Sept. 27, 1978. Decided Aug. 23, 1979. Certiorari Denied Feb. 19, 1980.
 * See 100 S.Ct. 1019
 * http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/849
 * ... an appeal from an order of the District Court enforcing subpoenas issued by the [FEC] during an investigation into possible violations of the federal election laws in connection with the campaign of Lyndon La Rouche for the 1976 Presidential nomination...


 * International Union v. National Caucus of Labor Committees
 * United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit - 607 F.2d 996
 * 5/15/79
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/607/996/118703/
 * AFFIRMED

1980

 * GELMAN v. FEC
 * Felice M. GELMAN, Treasurer, Citizens for LaRouche, Citizens for LaRouche, Inc., the Principal Campaign Committee of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Respondent.
 * 631 F.2d 939
 * 203 U.S.App.D.C. 357
 * No. 80-1646
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
 * Argued July 14, 1980. Decided July 18, 1980.
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/631/631.F2d.939.80-1646.html
 * http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_G.shtml#gelman_80_1
 * http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_G.shtml#gelman_80_2
 * Petitioners contend that Mr. LaRouche satisfied the prerequisites of the statute by garnering at least 20 percent of the vote on the Democratic side in the Michigan primary in May of this year. They contest the Federal Election Commission's (FEC or the Commission) denial of their request to resume payment of matching funds.

1981

 * Dolbeare v. FEC
 * No. 81 Civ. 4468-CLB
 * http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_D.shtml#dolbeare

1982

 *  Lyndon Larouche, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-appellees,maxine Lowell, Proposed Intervenor appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant-appellee 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 677 F.2d 256
 * Argued Oct. 2, 1981.Decided April 28, 1982
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/800/1135/270929/

1984

 * CITIZENS FOR LaROUCHE v. FEC; FEC v. LaROUCHE
 * Citizens for LaRouche v. FEC, 725 F.2d 125 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
 * FEC v. Citizens for LaRouche, 2 Fed. Elec. Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH) ¶9214 (D.D.C. 1984)
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/725/725.F2d.125.83-1050.html.
 * Affirmed


 * ''Khushro Ghandi, Andrew Rotstein, Richard Magraw, Jacquelinecotton, Matthew Moriarty, Elizabeth Moriarty,stuart Bernsen, Randolph Wedler Andbarbara Gettel, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Police Department of the City of Detroit, Philip Tannian,dale Tiderington, Garries Terrell, Melvin Gamblin, Robertpersyn, Donald Mckinnon, Leland Blaim, Vernon Higgins,philip Mercado, Edward Ball, John Minogue, Gerald Fayed,clarence Kelley, William Saxbe and Federal Bureau Ofinvestigation, Defendants-appellees
 * United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 747 F.2d 338
 * Argued April 17, 1984.Decided Oct. 18, 1984.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 8, 1985
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/747/338/344685/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/747/747.F2d.338.83-1069.html


 * NATIONAL ANTI-DRUG COALITION, INC., a not-for-profit corporation, and Peter Bowen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William BOLGER, in his capacity as Postmaster General of the United States, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 * June 26, 1984
 * 737 F.2d 717
 * http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/480311
 * "constitutionality of regulations restricting solicitation on postal premises; "

1985

 * Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr., Thomas Allred, Barbara Schlageter,marsha Allred, Ruby Gardiner, and Nancy T.landsperger, Appellees, v. State Board of Elections; Robert W. Spearman, Chairman;alex K. Brock, Executive Secretary; Elloree M.erwin, Ruth T. Semashko, William A.marsh, Jr., and Robert R.browning, Appellants
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 758 F.2d 998
 * Submitted Nov. 29, 1984.Decided April 4, 1985
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/758/998/63844/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/758/758.F2d.998.84-1324.html
 * This appeal concerns a preliminary injunction requiring the state of North Carolina to place the name of Lyndon H. LaRouche on the presidential primary ballot for the state's 1984 primary election

1986

 * LAROUCHE v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC.
 * United States Court of Appeals,fourth Circuit
 * 780 F.2d 1134
 * Argued Oct. 8, 1985. Decided Jan. 9, 1986
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/780/1134/148120/
 * LaRouche alleged that [NBC and the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith ] conspired to, and did, defame him in two NBC television broadcasts. NBC filed a four count counterclaim alleging, inter alia, that LaRouche had interfered with its business relations. NBC prevailed on the defamation claim and on its counterclaim for interference with business relations.


 * In Re Grand Jury Proceedings.appeal of Campaigner Publications, Inc., et al., Appellants.in Re Grand Jury Proceedings.appeal of Caucus Distributors, Inc., Appellant 
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 795 F.2d 226
 * Argued April 8, 1986.Decided July 3, 1986
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/795/226/376679/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/795/795.F2d.226.85-1762.86-1170.86-1047.html
 * These three consolidated appeals have been taken from judgments of civil contempt against appellants Campaigner Publications, Inc., Fusion Energy Foundation, National Democratic Policy Committee, and Caucus Distributors, Inc., ...


 * Mary Jane Freeman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States Department of Justice, Defendant-appellee 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 808 F.2d 834 Unpublished Disposition
 * Argued Nov. 13, 1986.Decided Dec. 29, 1986
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/808/834/173926/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/808/808.F2d.834.86-1073.html

1987

 * KHUSHRO GHANDHI, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. GERALD FAYED, ET AL.
 * No. 87-901, In the Supreme Court of the United States
 * October Term, 1987
 * http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1987/sg870289.txt


 * United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lewis D. Smith, Defendant-appellant
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 812 F.2d 161
 * Argued Nov. 14, 1986.Decided Feb. 20, 1987
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/812/161/100058/
 * Smith appealed to this court from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, affirming appellant's conviction by a United States Magistrate on two charges of simple assault...arguing that he was a victim of selective prosecution by the government because of his political beliefs'


 * Edward Spannaus, Plaintiff-appellant, v. U.S. Department of Justice, Defendant-appellee 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 813 F.2d 1285
 * Argued Dec. 10, 1986.Decided March 17, 1987
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/813/1285/240403/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/813/813.F2d.1285.86-1557.html


 * Federal Election Comm'n v. Larouche Campaign
 * 817 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 1987)
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 * Decided April 27, 1987
 * http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/550865
 * he Larouche Campaign, Inc. challenges the breadth of a subpoena issued by the FEC as part of an FEC investigation of the campaign's 1984 conduct in support of the bid of Lyndon Larouche for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Because we conclude that the subpoena, even as modified by the district court, is overly broad in an area raising significant first amendment concerns, we affirm enforcement of the subpoena only as further modified herein.


 * ''Khushro Ghandi; et al., Plaintiffs,khushro Ghandi; Andrew Rotstein; Richard Magraw; Randolphwedler; Barbara Gettel; Elizabeth Moriarty;matthew Moriarty; Jacqueline Cotton;stuart Bernsen, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Police Department of the City of Detroit, et al., Defendants,gerald Fayed; Philip Mercado and Vernon Higgins,defendants-appellees
 * United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 823 F.2d 959
 * Argued April 16, 1987. Decided July 13, 1987.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 31, 1987
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/823/959/221867/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/823/823.F2d.959.86-1201.html


 * Edward Spannaus, Appellant, v. U.S. Department of Justice
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 824 F.2d 52
 * Argued April 27, 1987. Decided July 21, 1987
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/824/52/122099/
 * Spannaus filed this FOIA suit to compel the Federal Bureau of Investigation to disclose certain material he requested in two separate letters nearly eight years earlier.


 * United States, Appellee, v. the Larouche Campaign, et al., Defendants, Appellants 
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 829 F.2d 250
 * Submitted Sept. 11, 1987. Decided Sept. 17, 1987
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/829/250/226152/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/829/829.F2d.250.87-1731.html
 * Defendants have been charged in an over one hundred count indictment with credit card fraud, conspiracy to obstruct the grand jury investigation of the credit card fraud, and criminal contempt. They seek to bring an interlocutory appeal from the district court's ... orders denying their motion to dismiss the indictment because of various alleged abuses of the grand jury process.

1988

 * Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc., a New York Corporation,schiller Institute, Inc., a District of Columbiacorporation, National Democratic Policy Committee,independent Democrats for Larouche, the Larouche Campaign,leesburg Security Fund, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of the Commonwealth Ofvirginia, R.l. Southard, Director, Virginia State Police,michael A. Spivey, Individually and As a Member of Thevirginia State Police, R.h. Perry, Iii, Individually and Asa Member of the Virginia State Police, Defendants-appellees 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 836 F.2d 1342 Unpublished Disposition
 * Argued Nov. 3, 1987.Decided Jan. 7, 1988
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/836/1342/420011/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/836/836.F2d.1342.87-1549.html
 * Six organizations affiliated with Lyndon B. LaRouche and his supporters instituted this action ... against four officers of the Commonwealth of Virginia who played different roles in connection with a joint federal-state search of two Leesburg, Virginia buildings which housed offices and records of LaRouche organizations other than plaintiffs... Plaintiffs assert that they were not targets of the search and any documents belonging to them and seized by two of the defendants, ..., were taken in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.


 * Liberty Lobby, Inc., Appellant, v. John Rees, et al
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 852 F.2d 595
 * Argued March 8, 1988.Decided July 29, 1988
 * http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/417848#
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/852/595/450998/
 * Liberty Lobby charged that the appellees John Rees, Sheila Louise Rees, and Information Digest libeled it by publishing two articles in Information Digest which contained false and defamatory statements...Liberty Lobby alleged that the article defamed it by asserting falsely that Liberty Lobby was closely linked with LaRouche and his organization, and that "some of LaRouche's more unsavory alleged activities were set in motion as a result of an arrangement with Liberty Lobby."


 * In Re Jeffrey Steinberg, Petitioner, Appellant
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 837 F.2d 527
 * Heard Dec. 11, 1987.Decided Jan. 22, 1988
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/837/527/157356/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/837/837.F2d.527.87-2031.87-1954.html
 * This is an appeal of an order holding Jeffrey Steinberg in contempt of court for failing to produce certain notebooks for use by the government at a trial in which he and his wife are codefendants.


 * United States of America, Appellee, v. the Larouche Campaign, et al., Defendants, Appellees.appeal of National Broadcasting Company, Inc 
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 841 F.2d 1176
 * Heard Jan. 5, 1988.Decided March 9, 1988
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/841/1176/420764/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/841/841.F2d.1176.87-2054.html
 * Related to Boston trials: Counsel for defendant Jeffrey Steinberg served a subpoena duces tecum on NBC in October, 1987, seeking "[v]ideo tapes of interviews of Forrest Lee Fick ..." NBC moved to quash the subpoena. 


 * Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc., a New York Corporation;schiller Institute, Inc., a District of Columbiacorporation; National Democratic Policy Committee;independent Democrats for Larouche; the Larouche Campaign;leesburg Security Fund, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of the Commonwealth Ofvirginia; R.l. Southard, Director, Virginia State Police;michael A. Spivey, Individually and As a Member of Thevirginia State Police; R.h. Perry, Iii, Individually and Asa Member of the Virginia State Police, Defendants-appellees 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 848 F.2d 184 Unpublished Disposition
 * Argued: Nov. 3, 1987.Decided: May 20, 1988
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/848/184/291767/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/848/848.F2d.184.87-1549.html
 * Plaintiffs assert that they were not targets of the search and any documents belonging to them and seized by two of the defendants... were taken in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

1989

 * United States of America, Appellee, v. the Larouche Campaign, et al., Defendants, Appellants 
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 866 F.2d 512
 * Heard Oct. 5, 1988.Decided Jan. 31, 1989
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/866/512/205126/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/866/866.F2d.512.88-1863.html
 * Related to mistrial in Boston case : The defendants, pointing to the Double Jeopardy Clause, then claimed that the Constitution forbids the government from retrying them.


 * United States of America v. Marsha B. KOKINDA and Kevin E. Pearl,
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit - 866 F.2d 699
 * Argued March 7, 1988. Decided Jan. 31, 1989.
 * http://openjurist.org/866/f2d/699
 * Because we believe that the post office sidewalk constitutes a public forum and that the postal regulation is neither a reasonable manner restriction nor narrowly tailored to protect First Amendment values, we hold ... an unconstitutional infringement upon defendants' rights.


 * In Re Grand Jury Proceedings.appeal of Caucus Distributors, Inc., et al 
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 871 F.2d 156
 * Jan. 9, 1989.Decided March 29, 1989.Rehearing Denied May 30, 1989
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/871/156/44248/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/871/871.F2d.156.87-1270.87-1026.html
 * These are consolidated appeals by four organizations associated with Lyndon LaRouche-Caucus Distributors, Inc. (Caucus), Campaigner Publications, Inc. (Campaigner), Fusion Energy Foundation, Inc. (Fusion), and National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC)-- from partial civil contempt judgments assessed against Caucus in the amount of $6,055,000 and against each of the other three contemnors in the amount of $5,110,000.


 * United States of America, Appellee, v. Roy Frankhauser, Defendant, Appellant 
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 878 F.2d 1571
 * Heard April 3, 1989.Decided July 14, 1989
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/878/1571/167328/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/878/878.F2d.1571.88-1415.88-1323.html
 * Frankhauser ... argues that the court should not have severed his case from the others; that, if it did so, it should have continued his case giving his counsel more time to prepare; and that the government unlawfully failed to provide him with certain material he believes was "exculpatory."

1990s

 * United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr.; William Wertz; Edward Spannaus;michael Billington; Dennis Small; Paulgreenberg; Joyce Rubinstein,defendants-appellants,william P. Robinson, Jr. et al., Amici Curiae 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 896 F.2d 815
 * Argued Oct. 6, 1989.Decided Jan. 22, 1990.Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Feb. 16, 1990
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/896/815/166254/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/896/896.F2d.815.89-5518.html
 * The defendants claim that the district court did not afford them a fair trial. Specifically, they contend that: (1) the district court erred in denying their motion for a continuance of the trial date; (2) the district court erroneously denied their discovery request for exculpatory material; (3) the district court made numerous evidentiary rulings, in limine and at trial, that unconstitutionally restricted their ability to defend against the charges; (4) the trial judge failed to conduct a voir dire sufficient to impanel an unbiased jury and improperly failed to excuse several jurors for cause; (5) the mail fraud counts were improperly joined with the tax conspiracy count; (6) the sentence imposed on LaRouche was excessive; (7) the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the tax count; and (8) the district court erred in allowing the introduction of illegally seized evidence.


 * United States v. Kokinda
 * U.S. Supreme Court - 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
 * Argued Feb. 26, 1990. Decided June 27, 1990.
 * http://supreme.justia.com/us/497/720/case.html
 * http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2031 Analysis
 * "In a divided opinion, the Court ruled that the prohibition was not unconstitutional. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for a four-member plurality, wrote that the sidewalk was not a public forum."


 * In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, National Democratic Policy Committee 
 * United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 907 F.2d 142
 * APR 26, 1990
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/907/142/269202/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/907/907.F2d.142.90-1072.html


 * LaROUCHE v. FEC (92-1100)
 * LaRouche & Democrats for Economic Recovery '92 v. FEC, 996 F.2d 1263 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 550 (1993).


 * Edward W. Spannaus, Treasurer of the Larouche Democraticcampaign, Appellant, v. Federal Election Commission
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 990 F.2d 643
 * April 20, 1993
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/990/643/434385/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/990/990.F2d.643.92-5191.html
 * Spannaus appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for review as untimely. Spannaus sought review in district court of the Federal Election Commission's decision to dismiss an administrative complaint he filed...


 *  Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr., Eugene Mccarthy, Kevin Irwin,virginia Irwin, Anthony Longo, Jabir Jawwaad,timothy B. Brown, Laurence P. Nadel, Andhope Crescione,plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees, v. Pauline R. Kezer, Secretary of the State of Connecticut,defendant-appellee-cross-appellant
 * United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 990 F.2d 36
 * Argued June 9, 1992.Decided March 31, 1993
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/990/36/434090/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/990/990.F2d.36.92-7309.92-7263.1577.1578.html
 * This appeal questions the constitutionality of Connecticut's two ballot-access laws.


 * LaROUCHE v. FEC (92-1555)
 * LaRouche Democratic Campaign '88 v. FEC, 990 F.2d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (denying motion to dismiss); 28 F. 3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 1994)


 * Lyndon H. Larouche and Democrats for Economicrecovery-larouche in 92, Petitioners, v. Federal Election Commission, Respondent
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 996 F.2d 1263
 * Argued April 14, 1993.Decided July 2, 1993
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/996/1263/181243/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1263.92-1100.html
 * Commission did not contest the truth of LaRouche's representations as to contributions received, it nonetheless denied him certification for matching funds for the 1992 election cycle. In essence, the Commission inferred from various factors in LaRouche's background--including his prior dealings with the Commission and his conviction for fraud partially involving election-related activities--that LaRouche's agreements and commitments were not made "in good faith". Because we agree with LaRouche that the statute gives the Commission no authority to engage in such an assessment of candidates, we reverse.


 * United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr.; William F. Wertz, Jr.; Edward W.spannaus, Defendants-appellants 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 4 F.3d 987
 * Submitted: July 14, 1993. Sept. 13, 1993
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/4/987/525762/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4/4.F3d.987.92-6701.html
 * ...appeal from the district court's orders refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988) or Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, [evidentiary issues] and denying their recusal motion.


 * Michele Steinberg, Appellant, v. United States Department of Justice
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 23 F.3d 548
 * Argued March 22, 1994.Decided May 27, 1994
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/23/548/482742/
 * ...adequacy of the responses of three subdivisions of the United States Department of Justice... to appellant Michele Steinberg's request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. In granting summary judgment to the Department, the district court upheld the adequacy of the searches and the FBI's redaction of a number of documents pursuant to several of FOIA's exemptions. However, the court did not address specifically the adequacy of search of the Boston USA's Office.


 * Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Richard E. Welsh, Petitioner-appellant, v. Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff, Roanoke County, Commonwealth Ofvirginia, Respondent-appellee 
 * United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 78 F.3d 580
 * Argued Dec. 8, 1995.Decided Feb. 28, 1996
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/78/580/504518/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/78/78.F3d.580.94-7351.html
 * ''On appeal, Welsh presents three issues for review: (1) whether the Commonwealth of Virginia proved that it would have prosecuted Welsh using evidence from sources independent of Welsh's immunized testimony...; (2) whether the trial court's denial of Welsh's motions to recuse denied him due process of law; and (3) whether Welsh demonstrated sufficient cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of certain claims. We affirm the denial of habeas relief.


 * Lyndon H. LaROUCHE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Donald L. FOWLER, Individually and as Chairman Democratic National Committee, et al., Appellees
 * 152 F.3d 974 332 U.S.App.D.C. 25 District of Columbia Circuit.
 * Argued Oct. 14, 1997. Decided Aug. 28, 1998.
 * http://openjurist.org/152/f3d/974/lyndon-h-larouche-jr-v-donald-l-fowler
 * The Party's application of certain of its internal rules deprived LaRouche of two delegates to the 1996 Democratic National Convention. LaRouche contends that application of those rules violated the Voting Rights Act... The Party's application of certain of its internal rules deprived LaRouche of two delegates to the 1996 Democratic National Convention. LaRouche contends that application of those rules violated the Voting Rights Act

2000s

 * Gail G. Billington, Appellant v. U.S. Department of Justice, Appellee 
 * United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT - 233 F.3d 581 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
 * Submitted October 16, 2000 Decided December 1, 2000
 * No. 99-5402
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/233/581/636697/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/233/233.F3d.581.99-5402.html
 * http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5402a.pdf
 * http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=995402A
 * In 1991 and 1992, Gail Billington filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking information relating to the federal and state investigations of the NCLC. She believes this information will exculpate her husband and other convicted NCLC members.


 * Larouche's Committee for a New Bretton Woods, Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission, Respondent
 * United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 439 F.3d 733
 * Argued September 27, 2005 Decided March 3, 2006
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/439/733/549753/
 * http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/439/439.F3d.733.04-1311.html
 * After an audit and hearing, the FEC determined that the LaRouche Committee failed to carry its burden to prove that the mark-up charges were reasonable and ordered the Committee to repay the $222,034. The Committee offered no evidence before the FEC that established either the basis or the reasonableness of the mark-up charges. We conclude, therefore, that the FEC's order to the Committee to repay the matching funds used for the mark-up charges was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,"