Biggest Miscarriages of Justice
The Who's Who Tragedy
Thomas FX Dunn again proves he is among the most incompetent lawyers in America

A Sampling of Members - WoW!!     America's corporate and institutional leadership Strictly Politics

Honest Federal Judge?     Yeah.      Incredible list of alleged victims

Tiny sampling of Managing Directors     Cross Benjamin    Cross Springer     Direct Quote         Con THESE People?!!

Million-dollar con man testifying to stay out of prison        America's Best & Brightest     Main Page     Masters and Millionaires
It's worth noting that, beginning right here on page 7312, you see one of the most mindless exchanges between a prosecutor and a federal judge. You can't be sure they're not joking, except for the fact that Michavel Maxes is indeed dead, said death expedited by the horrors of calumny surrounding the foundation of this miscarriage of justice, and that another hare-brained idea is extended licit currency.

Even when the judge lets the prosecutor know that NEITHER the judge nor prosecutor know what Mr. Maxes died from, the prosecutor continues with the indefatigable, "Yes, but....".

Let's continue with one of the Biggest Miscarriages of Justice, not a whisper of which appeared in any of 1200 news outlets throughout the YEARS that this case dragged on.


7310

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 10, 1998
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:30 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 TRABULUS, 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)


7311

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 Reporter: 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





7312

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: Mr. White, you wanted to see me?

6 MR. WHITE: Yes, your Honor, at the risk of

7 incurring your wrath again, I would like to revisit the

8 allocution we discussed last night?

9 THE COURT: Go ahead.

10 MR. WHITE: Your Honor gave us your thoughts

11 yesterday and that was clear. And I wanted to address

12 what you said. And I think the two main points you made,

13 which perhaps I didn't do as clearly as I did yesterday.

14 One of what I understood your Honor's concerns

15 about the statement was that basically Maxes -- there was

16 a possibility that Mr. Maxes thought he was going to die.

17 Therefore, it wouldn't really be against his interest to

18 plead guilty.

19 It seems to me though from the case there was,

20 whether or not that is true is not relevant. Because

21 unless I am wrong in Scopo, the case we discussed a couple

22 of times, says precisely that you are not supposed to do

23 that. It says, quote, we stress -- not just we state, but
24 we stress, that a defendant's unilateral belief would not
25 suffice to neutralize the exposure ordinarily inherent in

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7313

1 a self-incriminating plea or a llocution.

2 It doesn't say it wouldn't ordinarily do that, or

3 typically. It says flatly, we stress it does not.

4 It seems to me, your Honor, that that is an

5 improper analysis whether or not that is what he thought.

6 It did expose him to possible punishment.

7 And I would also suggest that the evidence about

8 what he was thinking at the time is somewhat equivocal.

9 Your Honor cited the fact that he died six months

10 later. But, yes, he died of something else. He didn't

11 die of the illness at the time he had the plea.

12 THE COURT: I don't know what he died of.

13 MR. WHITE: Okay.

14 THE COURT: Neither do you.

15 MR. WHITE: That's true. But it seems to me that

16 Scopo says that it is not an inquiry we are supposed to

17 make. It says his private belief would not suffice to

18 neutralize the exposure inherent in a plea of guilty.

19 Now, wi th respect to the second point that your

20 Honor made about whether or not this allocution makes out

21 the existence of a conspiracy, I went back and looked at

22 the standard jury instruction from Sand regarding an

23 unlawful agreement, what your Honor would -- something
24 along the lines of what your Honor would tell the jury
25 what to determine -- how to determine if there is a

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7314

1 conspiracy.

2 The standard instruction says: The proof must

3 convince you that at least two persons joined together in

4 a common criminal scheme. Then it contains the language

5 that the agreement need not be expressed.

6 It says that it is sufficient for the government

7 to show that there was a mutual understanding, either

8 spoken or unspoken, between the defendants to cooperate

9 with each ot her to accomplish the unlawful acts by means

10 of a joint plan or common design.

11 Mr. Maxes's allocution at a minimum says, I

12 worked as a member of the sales staff and as such I

13 followed the pitch sheets given me by Mr. Gordon and they

14 contained misrepresentations. And it makes reference on

15 the page 33, the misrepresentations that I and company

16 salespeople made.

17 It seems to me, your Honor, it is clearly

18 suggesting there is at least, between Mr. Maxes and

19 Mr. Gordon at the minimum, a mutual understanding to

20 cooperate with each other to accomplish the unlawful acts.

21 So, while it could be clearer, it doesn't seem to

22 me that it fails to make out the existence of the

23 conspiracy.
24 I want to add that I believe I didn't make that
25 argument as clearly as I should have yesterday.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7315

1 THE COURT: I heard your arguments. They are

2 very well put. The Scopo case does say what you say it

3 says.

4 I don't know if a defendant's unilateral belief

5 would not suffice to neutralize the exposure.

6 The Court went further on to say if Agro,

7 A G R O, privately believed that because of his illness

8 the Court would not require him to suffer incarceration,

9 there would be little reason for him to suppose that the

10 Court would also therefore excuse him from paying a fine.

11 The combination of the factors is what persuades

12 me not to allow this in. Not only is there -- I don't

13 think it is his personal belief alone. I think the man

14 was seriously ill, was obviously seriously ill in front of

15 me. In fact, I believe I put on the record, if you would

16 like to sit down during the allocution, that would be all

17 right.

18 He was just operated on for cancer. He was

19 taking chemotherapy. In addition to the fact that he --

20 whether he privately believed -- I don't think it is only

21 that he privately believed. I think it is the fact.

22 Secondly, he had a cooperation agreement with the

23 government, I believe, did he not?
24 MR. WHITE: He did.
25 THE COURT: And the Scopo case further says,

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7316

1 quote, if, however, a pleading defendant had an agreement

2 with the government, or with the Court, that he would not

3 be punished for the crimes to which he allocuted, than

4 that allocution would not subject him to criminal

5 liability and would not constitute a statement against his

6 penal interest within the meaning of Rule 804(b)(3).

7 There was no agreement he would not go to ja il.

8 There was just a cooperation agreement.

9 So, we have the following factors here: One, a

10 man seriously ill, visibly seriously ill before me, of

11 cancer; having been operated on and taking chemotherapy;

12 two, a cooperation agreement with the government; three,

13 having been fired by Bruce Gordon; four, an allocution

14 which did not expressly ask whether there was a

15 conspiracy. It is very unusual. Five, the only basis for

16 this to go in would be to show that there was a

17 conspiracy. It could not go in to show guilt on the part

18 of any defendant. The cases are clear about that.

19 That combination of factors in my view, if you

20 add 403 to the till, and that he allegedly perjured

21 himself in a Reed case, we don't want to have a mini-trial

22 on Mr. Maxes.

23 On the combination of the factors and in the
24 exercise of my discretion, I d ecline to allow that plea in
25 evidence.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7317

1 Anything else?

2 MR. WHITE: Your Honor was going to consider

3 putting in the paragraph in that information.

4 THE COURT: Can I see the information?

5 MR. NELSON: If I may approach the bench for a

6 moment, your Honor, I have the information?

7 THE COURT: Is it in the same thing?

8 MR. NELSON: Yes.

9 THE COURT: I can't even open that book, it is so

10 full.

11 MR. NELSON: 3500-18-H, and I referred to

12 paragraph five, which is on page 2 of the information.

13 Your Honor, I had the opportunity this morning to

14 re-read United States against Muyet, M U Y E T,

15 958 F. Supp. 136. And as I noted yesterday on the record,

16 the case before Judge Keenan, United States v. Lopez, the

17 procedural history of that cas e was such that a motion in

18 limine was made to limit the scope of what could be

19 brought out in co-defendant's allocutions. At that time

20 Judge Keenan referred to Muyet. I re-read Muyet this

21 morning. And interestingly, and I can add to the Court

22 the significant pages found on pages 138 through 140.

23 What Judge Leisure did in the case was to redact
24 the allocution and limit it to those portions which were
25 specific statements against that individual's penal

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7318

1 interest and that's why they would be admissible.

2 I submit it premised upon the allocution that

3 took place with respect to Mr. Maxes, that in fact such a

4 redaction would not be possible. And there is nothing

5 that goes to the proof of the conspiracy and the

6 allocutions, therefore no portion should be admissib le at

7 all.

8 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, I would like to add to

9 that that yesterday the United States Supreme Court

10 decided a case called Gray against Maryland. I know it

11 only from having read the syllabus by the reporter.

12 THE COURT: That's a Bruton case?

13 MR. TRABULUS: Yes. It was a five to four

14 decision.

15 THE COURT: I am familiar with it.

16 MR. TRABULUS: They held that the redaction there

17 was improper. They ruled for the defendant. I have not

18 read the opinion. I just read the syllabus.

19 THE COURT: What I got from the summary that I

20 received is that up to that point, where there has been a

21 Bruton problem, namely a statement by a co-defendant who

22 doesn't testify inculpating another defendant, the Court

23 could redact or revise the statement to change the
24 pronouns, change the nouns. Instead of saying Joe Doe

25 committed the crime, another person committed the crime.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7319

1 Of course, there are only two people there.

2 MR. TRABULUS: Right.

3 THE COURT: So that has been done with varying

4 effect, rather than severing the trial. Of course, the

5 better practice would be to sever the trial. But the

6 United States Supreme Court yesterday five to four said

7 substituting the pronoun or some other fictitious name or

8 noun for the co-defendant -- instead of saying Joe did it,

9 a person did it, or another human being did it, you can't

10 do that. You have to redact everything and not mention

11 anything about the other person even being there.

12 So, you will leave it, I did it, not the

13 co-defendant.

14 MR. TRABULUS: That's the whole point here.

15 Because in this paragraph that is being discussed, it says

16 together with others.

17 When you look at the nature of the evidence in

18 this case, the others would clearly be understood to refer

19 to the other defendants here, or certainly Mr. Gordon.

20 On the basis of what the Supreme Court decided

21 yesterday, that would not be proper. Although it is not a

22 classic Bruton situation with respect to the co-defendant,

23 analytically it is the same.
24 You have an unavailable witness introducing a
25 statement, and the statement inferentially refers to

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7320

1 Mr. Gordon, and under this case it was decided yesterday

2 that it should not come in.

3 THE COURT: Do we have anything more to say other

4 than this? I don't want to keep the jury waiting. I will

5 talk to them and let them know we are delayed.

6 MS. SCOTT: I have the tapes to discuss.

7 THE COURT: I will then go in and tell the jury.

8 By the way, I like that point bringing very

9 current, something that happened yesterday in the Supreme

10 Court. Very good, Mr. Trabulus.

11 MR. TRABULUS: Thank you, your Honor.

12 THE COURT: A good thing I am aware of the case.

13 MR. JENKS: Judge, Mr. Trabulus stays out all

14 night on the Internet.

15 THE COURT: We are supposed to get advance

16 information. I don't know how you got it.

17 MR. TRABULUS: I stay on my computer to keep my

18 son off of it.

19 MR. WALLENSTEIN: He hasn't slept in eight weeks.

20 THE COURT: Sorry to put you at a disadvantage,

21 Mr. White. You will come back tomorrow with another case

22 to nullify that case.

23 MR. WHITE: I am working on it.
24 (The following takes place in the jury room.)
25 THE COURT: Good morning, members of this

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7321

1 wonderful jury, which has almost -- almost all of you have

2 very nice smiles on your face. If you go before I get in,

3 as soon as I walk in you have a smile. I don't know what

4 that means. I am not sure about that.



To continue,
here is a full version of the March 10th transcript of Watstein's smug pursuit of self-interest




Biggest Miscarriages of Justice   - The Who's Who Tragedy

The Who's Who Worldwide Tragedy has to count as being among the Biggest Miscarriages of Justice.
For Reid Elsevier to have climbed so high up into bed with such 'vaunted' federal judges,
dispensing cash and favors with such profundity, tells sadly on all of us,
for tolerance of such high crimes is tantamount to participation.
Biggest Miscarriages of Justice   - 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.