Trials of Judicial Shame  - The Who's Who Tragedy

See and Believe     Trial Transcript     Poof - Gone!     Managing Directors!     Best & Brightest   
    Politics     WHAT??!!!       Dirty Jury?  Masters and Millionaires

7040
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CR 96 1016(S-1)
4 v. : U.S. Courthouse
5 Uniondale, New York BRUCE W. GORDON, WHO'S WHO
6 WORLD WIDE REGISTRY, INC., :
STERLING WHO'S WHO, INC.,
7 TARA GARBOSKI, ORAL FRANK OSMAN, LAURA WEITZ, ANNETTE
8 HALEY, SCOTT MIChaveLSON, : and MARTIN
9 REFFSIN, :
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
10 Defendants. :March 9, 1998
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:45 o'clock a.m.

12 BEFORE:

13 HONORABLE ARTHUR D. SPATT, U.S.D.J. and a jury
14 APPEARANCES:
15 For the Government: ZACHARY W. CARTER
16 United States Attorney One Pierrepont Plaza
17 Brooklyn, New York 11201
By: RONALD G. WHITE, ESQ.
18 CECIL SCOTT, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
19 For the Defendants: NORMAN T RABULUS, ESQ.
20 For Bruce W. Gordon
170 Old Country Road, Suite 600
21 Mineola, New York 11501

22 EDWARD P. JENKS, ESQ.
For Who's Who Worldwide
23 Registry, Inc. and
Sterling Who's, Who, Inc.
24 332 Willis Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501
25
(cont'd)


7041

1 APPEARANCES (cont'd):

2 GARY SCHOER, ESQ. For Tara Garboski
3 6800 Jericho Turnpike
Syosset, New York 11791
4
ALAN M. NELSON, ESQ.
5 For Oral Frank Osman
3000 Marcus Avenue
6 Lake Success, New York 11042

7 WINSTON LEE, ESQ.
For Laura Weitz
8 319 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
9
MARTIN GEDULDIG, ESQ.
10 For Annette Haley
400 South Oyster Bay Road
11 Hicksville, New York 11801

12 JAMES C. NEVILLE, ESQ.
For Scott Michavelson
13 225 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
14
THOMAS F.X. DUNN, ESQ.
15 For Mr Shortcuts ,
150 Nassau Street
16 New York, New York 10038

17 JOHN S. WALLENSTEIN, ESQ.
For Martin Reffsin 18 215 Hilton Avenue
Hempstead, New York 11551
19

20 Court Reporters: HARRY RAPAPORT
OWEN M. WICKER
21 United States District Court
Two Uniondale Avenue
22 Uniondale, New York 11553
(516) 485-6558
23
24 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
produced by Computer-Assisted Transcription
25

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7042

1 M O R N I N G S E S S I O N

2

3 (Whereupon, the following takes place in the

4 absence of the jury.)

5 THE COURT: Good morning.

6 MR. SCHOER: Good morning. Mr. Lee just came in

7 from the rain.

8 THE COURT: Is it raining outside?

9 Why were we supposed to be here early? Anybody

10 know?

11 MR. TRABULUS: I recall on Thursday Mr. White

12 indicated there might be some matters he wanted to take

13 up. But ultimately I think your Honor said we should be

14 here at 9:30.

15 THE COURT: All right.

16 MR. NEVILLE: I placed before the Court my

17 proposed instruction to the jury about Scott Michavelson

18 not being here today.

19 THE COURT: You wanted me to say something about

20 it?

21 MR. NEVILLE: Yes. My client will not be here

22 today.

23 THE COURT: All right.
24 MS. SCOTT: We have a couple of matters to raise,
25 your Honor.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7043

1 First, going back to Thursday when your Honor

2 admitted that large grouping of exhibits --

3 THE COURT: I can't hear you.

4 MS. SCOTT: Okay.

5 Going back to Thursday morning when your Honor

6 admitted the large group of exhibits, the one that is too

7 lengthy to read into the record right now. What I did is

8 wrote a summary list of those exhibits and marked it

9 Government's Exhibit 1613. On that exhibit I crossed off

10 the exhibits that were excluded by your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Okay.

12 MS. SCOTT: I was going to give that to

13 Mr. Rapaport so he can include it into the trial record.

14 THE COURT: You are offering

15 Government's Exhibit 1613, which is a list of the

16 exhibits?

17 MS. SCOTT: That's right.

18 THE COURT: Introduced?

19 MR. WHITE: Yes, which are all the exhibits your

20 Honor admitted on Thursday.

21 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1613 in

22 evidence.

23 (Government's Exhibit 1613 received in evidence.)
24 MS. SCOTT: I am handing it to Mr. Rapaport.
25 THE COURT: Fine.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7044

1 MS. SCOTT: I did research on the issue of

2 commercial paper. There is another issue I want to raise

3 about playing some tapes which brings up a whole host of

4 other issues, and I wonder if you wish to have us argue it

5 later when the jury is not waiting.

6 THE COURT: What is this now?

7 MS. SCOTT: I am hoping to admit a group of

8 exhibits as commercial paper, checks your Honor excluded

9 from the list of exhibits which I handed to Mr. Rapaport.

10 THE COURT: Checks from third parties?

11 MS. SCOTT: Yes.

12 THE COURT: You have law on that?

13 MS. SCOTT: Yes. Commercial paper is self

14 authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence 902(9).

15 In addition to that I have a case here, your

16 Honor --

17 THE COURT: Just one minute now.

18 MS. SCOTT: Yes.

19 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the

20 proceedings.)

21 THE COURT: Okay.

22 MR. WHITE: In addition to that I have a case

23 called United States against Dawson, 400 F.2d 194, in
24 which it was held by the Second Circuit that cancelled
25 checks were admissible to prove that certain payments had

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7045

1 been made.

2 Now, overlooking all of that, the reason we

3 offered the checks in the first place, the basis for

4 offering them in the first place were as business records,

5 because they were copies which were kept by the company in

6 addition to all the other documents they had to

7 commemorate each sale. So they attached the copies of the

8 checks to the invoice, the leads card and the credit card

9 slip. Like the credit card slip these copies of the

10 checks show that the payment was made. The argument we

11 make is to show that the payment was made in exactly the

12 same w ay that the credit card slips did, and we offered

13 them as business records.

14 However, what I am offering to your Honor in

15 addition to that is this independent basis for admitting

16 the copies as commercial paper, which is

17 self-authenticating and independently admissible.

18 THE COURT: Were these checks attached to the

19 records of Who's Who Worldwide?

20 MS. SCOTT: They were. They were attached to

21 each sale. I had to go over the numbers to show you.

22 There are about three of them.

23 THE COURT: You have given me how many reasons to
24 admit it?
25 MS. SCOTT: Business records --

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7046

1 THE COURT: How many reasons do I have to knock

2 out now, business records and self-authenticating?

3 MS. SCOTT: Self-authenticating is part of the

4 analysis to admit it as independent commercial paper.

5 Self-authenticating takes part --

6 THE COURT: I thought that you said it was a

7 separate and independent reason?

8 MS. SCOTT: If I said that I am mistaken.

9 THE COURT: I didn't say you said it. I thought

10 you said it.

11 Those are the reasons?

12 MS. SCOTT: Yes.

13 THE COURT: Anybody objecting?

14 MR. SCHOER: Yes.

15 THE COURT: Didn't you hear the very convincing

16 argument by Ms. Scott?

17 MR. SCHOER: I heard the argument by Ms. Scott.

18 My position is, Judge, that -- that these

19 documents shouldn't be admitted primarily for relevance

20 purposes, because while they may prove that a payment was

21 made, that is not the issue in this case.

22 The issue in this case is proving that those

23 checks were in the mails somehow, because that's what the
24 charge is. And they can't prove that the checks were sent
25 in the mail without someone here to say that they were

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7047

1 sent.

2 THE COURT: That's one argument. But of course,

3 aren't they relevant insofar as they get down to the

4 basics of what mail fraud is, a scheme or device or, or

5 artifice to obtain money by false representations; isn't

6 that what mail fraud is about? Isn't this the money that

7 the government says was obtained? You say that is not

8 relevant?

9 MR. SCHOER: They can't prove that with respect

10 to those customers there were any misrepresentations.

11 THE COURT: That's another matter. But they have

12 the burden of proof. And they have the burden of proof

13 that there was, as a result of fraudulent representations,

14 money or property -- that's what the statute says, doesn't

15 it?

16 MR. SCHOER: Yes.

17 THE COURT: Money or property was obtained. This

18 is the money they say was obtained. It is a basic

19 elemental reason to be relevant.

20 I don't see that at all.

21 Insofar as whether it was mailed is another

22 matter. It is certainly relevant, Mr. Schoer. Your

23 objection on the ground of relevancy is overruled.
24 MR. SCHOER: At least with respect to one of
25 them, your Honor, I have not looked again, one of them

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7048

1 only has the front of the check and it doesn't show that

2 it was in fact negotiated. I am not sure about that.

3 That's from my perusal of the exhibits last week.

4 THE COURT: What do you say about that one check,

5 that only the front of the check is there?

6 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I would submit this

7 document was part of the c ollection of documents held in

8 the records of Who's Who Worldwide. And it was part of

9 one of the documents they used to commemorate the sale.

10 Instead of having a credit card slip, they had a copy of

11 the check. They had to send the original check back to

12 the bank.

13 THE COURT: Good old Saks/Jakobetz. What a good

14 case that is. When I read that I recoiled, Mr. Schoer.

15 That's what the rule says, make it, right?

16 MR. SCHOER: Yes.

17 THE COURT: Here you have a third-party making

18 it, yet it is part of the business record. Judge Pratt,

19 he was something, I tell you. WHAT a loss to the federal

20 judiciary he was, although he wrote the Jakobetz case.

21 What else did you want to tell me, Mr. Schoer?

22 MR. SCHOER: Nothing?

23 THE COURT: Mr. Nelson?
24 MR. NELSON: Nothing.
25 THE COURT: I think you are right. The

H ARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7049

1 objections are overruled. I think that the authenticity

2 is established if it need be, by 902(9). It is a record

3 attached on a regular basis, like the toll receipts on the

4 Triboro Bridge, a regular basis. It becomes parts of the

5 record of Who's Who Worldwide.

6 What exhibits are they?

7 MS. SCOTT: I will have to pull them together and

8 set forth the numbers clearly this afternoon.

9 THE COURT: I have no doubt that you will do

10 that, Ms. Scott.

11 What else? We have a jury that were here

12 amazingly close to the time, although one juror is from

13 Staten Island. Can you imagine that?

14 MS. SCOTT: We can make the argument later in the

15 day not to keep the jury waiting.

16 THE COURT: Good.

17 Let me look at the cautionary instruction that

18 Mr. Neville gave me.

19 That's very good, Mr. Neville. I accept it in

20 its entirety. I couldn't put a finger on it.

21 MR. NEVILLE: Thank you.

22 THE COURT: We have two requests by the jurors.

23 One juror requested for a meeting she cannot
24 miss. She wanted to leave at 4:00 o'clock on Wednesday,
25 and I will grant that.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7050

1 Another juror has some kind of medical

2 appointment at 5:00 o'clock, and wants to leave at 4:30 on

3 Thursday.




Corporate sponsors buy over a cup of food for your clicks.         Nice... saving a life with clicks!   Path of Better Shortcuts Help TheHungerSite Button
  Remember 911day.     Keep our heroes alive by  LIVING,   DOING  more!   
  Keep our heroes alive by  LIVING,   DOING  more!    Remember 911day.  

The Who's Who Worldwide Registry websites are focused on the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy, and the double scandal of government and judicial corruption in one of the Trials of Judicial Shameand the concomitant news media blackout regarding this astonishing story.

Sixteen weeks of oft-explosive testimony, yet not a word in any of 1200 news archives. This alone supports the claim that this was a shamefully corrupt federal trial; in fact, one of the worst trials of the century.

Show your support for justice, for exoneration of the innocent, and for that all-important government accountability, by urgently contacting your Senator, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Let YOU be the one to provide the straw



The Who's Who Tragedy
Thomas FX Dunn proving again that he may well be the Coprophile of the Year

Trials of Judicial Shame  - The Who's Who Tragedy

This site is concerned with the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy, and the undeniable odor of corruption in high placesin one of the Trials of Judicial Shameand the concomitant news media blackout regarding this incredible story.

Sixteen weeks of oft-explosive testimony, yet not a word in any of 1200 news archives. This alone supports the claim that this was a shamefully corrupt federal trial; in fact, one of the worst trials of the century.

Show your support for justice, for exoneration of the innocent, and perhaps most importantly, government accountability, by urgently contacting your Senator, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Let YOU be the one to provide the straw



The Who's Who Tragedy
How Thomas FX Dunn demonstrated himself to be the worst attorney of all time
Worst Trials of the Century


Biggest Miscarriages of Justice - Justice Has Left The Building

How rare it is to find a case that can offer not merely two or three, instead, more than a dozen major reasons for overturning that conviction.
Here is a case studied by a respected federal judge for many months, who found that no crime had been committed, and dismissed the case.

Reed Elsevier, Ltd, as the single richest and most powerful publisher in more than one hundred countries around the world,
easily. empirically and truthfully described as one of the most corrupt corporations in all of human history,
perverted the foundations of American justice in the Who's Who Worldwide case with cash, power, and perqs.

Imagine a trial where not ten percent of the proceedings have ANY connection with most of the defendants.
That alone should require a separation of trial. In this case, NOT EVEN ONE PERCENT of the proceedings,
accusations, presented evidence, or accepted facts, had anything to do with the "sales" defendants.

The Who's Who Worldwide case was all about Bruce Gordon, his machinations and his accountant,
and the many companies operated in secrecy by Gordon and Liz Sauter, his true "henchman."

For days and days and weeks and weeks, all the discussion was about Gordon and his actions.
Prosecution witness after prosecution witness exculpated the sales defendants, yet,
this same judge who had previously dismissed the case after months of study,
was under one of the worst pressures any judge can be subjected to:
pressure from the federal court of appeals above him, who, in
New York's bailiwick, remains under the control of....
Reed Elsevier, the most powerful force today
in the American arena of jurisprudence.

This can be fixed by Presidential Pardon.
Call 202-456-1414 to lift your voice.




Worst Trials of the Century
Worst attorneys in America Thomas FX Dunn