Judge Tosses Kronberg Case;
Cites Abuse of Federal Court
(December 8, 2010 EIRNS)—On December 7, 2010, U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court dismissed Marielle Kronberg's lawsuit against Lyndon LaRouche, LaRouche PAC, and others, citing the "bad faith" of Kronberg and/or her attorney and their abuse of the federal legal system. In doing so, Judge Trenga endorsed the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin Anderson.
Kronberg brought her lawsuit in August of 2009 in coordination with the British intelligence assets responsible for the ongoing legal hoax known as the case of Jeremiah Duggan. The Duggan case is presently the subject of a Coroner's inquest in London concerning the suicide of a British student at a conference in Wiesbaden, West Germany in 2003. The Duggan hoax has been continuously resuscitated by British intelligence, despite the fact that a February 4, 2010 declaration of the highest court of Germany held that its central allegations are fraudulent, and that the initial 2003 determination of suicide was correct.
The British-Empire views LaRouche personally and his proposal for a global Glass-Steagall as an existential threat to the Empire, and proposes instead, to drive the world into a new Dark Age through endless bailouts of their worthless financial paper.
Unable to find any attorney willing to prosecute, what the court record now shows to be a completely frivolous and baseless lawsuit, Kronberg hired John Markham, the lead prosecutor of LaRouche and others during the infamous U.S. LaRouche prosecutions of 1984-1988, and a former member of the avowedly satanic Process Church of the Final Judgement. Markham has otherwise represented British asset Ahmad Chalabi who provided much of the fake intelligence for the Iraq war as a private attorney. Judge Trenga disqualified Markham from further participation in the case on April 9, 2010, stating that confidential information he had access to while a prosecutor gave him an unfair advantage in the case, and that his appearance on behalf of Kronberg would offend the public's sense of propriety.
Discovery in the case has revealed that its primary motivation was to shutdown the LaRouche political movement. Kronberg's fundraising efforts led with the fact that LaRouche's former prosecutor, Markham, would be handling her case, and that it would be tried in the Eastern District of Virginia which had previously convicted LaRouche in an infamous prosecution. In a four-hundred page submission accompanying their Motion to Dismiss, defendants demonstrated, "that Kronberg's lawsuit is totally without foundation and was filed not for any legitimate reason, but rather for publicity and harassment as part of Kronberg's long-standing personal vendetta against Lyndon LaRouche and other Defendants in this matter"—an issue which will be revisited immediately if she chooses to refile the case.
In his decision, Magistrate Anderson pointed out that as soon as Markham was disqualified, Kronberg and/or her attorney, John Bond, began a course of "non-compliance and complete disregard of the Federal Rules and court Orders which was 'flagrant'." "Prospective plaintiffs should not be given the impression that defendants' or the court's time is at their disposal and a litigant should not be able to pick up where he or she left off after disappearing from a case for weeks or months and failing to prosecute discovery diligently."
Kronberg attempted to blame her failures to comply with multiple federal court orders on the negligence on John Bond, who became lead counsel after Markham was disqualified. The Magistrate noted, however, that "there is evidence before the court . . . that indicates that plaintiff herself selectively participated in discovery and thus bears some personal responsibility for the failure to prosecute the case."
Magistrate Anderson took particular note of the fact that Kronberg and/or Bond, having identified some 9,000 emails responsive to defendants' discovery requests, failed to turn them over, and failed to provide complete answers to defendants' interrogatories, despite court orders to do so. That failure continues to this date. Instead of complying with the court's orders, Kronberg served defendants with her own discovery requests.
Defendants contend that Kronberg's emails and complete and truthful interrogatory answers, would subject her and her attorneys to sanctions for filing the frivolous case for harassment purposes, and reveal the complete interrelationship of the case to the British intelligence-led Duggan hoax.
Magistrate Anderson noted that, "serving discovery requests on defendants while refusing or neglecting to comply with the court's discovery Orders is indicative of bad faith, however, it it is not clear what role plaintiff herself played in drafting these interrogatories. Because of unclarity concerning the full culpability of Kronberg, Magistrate Anderson recommended to Judge Trenga that the case be dismissed without prejudice, or, if not, that Kronberg and/or Bond pay defendants' legal fees for the discovery period.
Since Judge Anderson stated that the only thing preventing the dismissal of the case with prejudice was a firm determination of Kronberg's full role in the flagrant stonewalling, the LaRouche defendants sought discovery of Kronberg's post-disqualification communications with both John Markham and John Bond. In documents produced after Judge Anderson ruled, it became clear that John Markham had continued to participate in the case after he was disqualified, including helping Kronberg draft the statement that she made in her appearance before Judge Anderson, which asked that Markham be allowed to continue to represent her. Kronberg's current lawyer, James Delsordo, even suggested that Markham could be a paralegal in the case for him, despite Judge Trenga's order.
By dismissing the case, Judge Trenga avoided these issues because they were now "moot."