Trials of Judicial Shame  - The Who's Who Tragedy

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

7753
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 16, 1998
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:35 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)


HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7754

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, CSR
United States District Court
21 Two Uniondale Avenue
Uniondale, New York 11553
22 (516) 485-6558

23
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
24 produced by Computer-Assisted Transcription
25

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7755

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. Trabulus.

6 MR. TRABULUS: There is an evidentiary question

7 concerning the admissibility of former testimony given by

8 Elizabeth Sautter.

9 Let me lay out what I believe is agreed by the

10 government and Mr. Gordon on this, and then your Honor can

11 rule on the admissibility of this.

12 Your Honor, I think the government is prepared to

13 agree that Elizabeth Sautter is unavailable. I have

14 spoken to her attorney, Mr. White has spoken to her

15 attorney. I am told if she were called to testify she

16 would assert her Fifth Amendment right on any substantive

17 question relating to Who's Who Worldwide.

18 I understand she is the subject of a grand jury

19 investigation.

20 Mr. White agreed that we don't have to go through

21 the formality of serving her with a subpoena and having

22 her assert her Fifth Amendment rights.

23 April 15th, 1995, Ms. Sautter testified at the
24 probable cause hearing held before Judge Seybert in the
25 civil forfeiture case. She was called by the claimants.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7756

1 She was examined by the attorney for Who's Who Worldwide,

2 Vivian Shevitz. And she was cross-examined by Assistant

3 United States Attorney Gary Brown.

4 There are certain portions of her testimony which

5 are contained -- which is contained in the entirety in

6 Defendant's Exhibit GE for Identification.

7 I have taken those portions of her testimony

8 which I seek to introduce and outlined them with yellow

9 highlighter. And I have also curled the corners of the

10 page so your Honor in reviewing it can turn to those pages

11 readily.

12 THE COURT: What is the objection to the prior

13 testimony? That it was not taken under the same facts and

14 conditions that would be at the trial, or that the

15 government didn't have a full and fair opportunity to

16 examine the witness or what?

17 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government's

18 objection is under the rules the gove rnment did not

19 have -- because of the specific posture of this hearing,

20 it didn't have the opportunity -- it had the opportunity,

21 but not the similar motive to develop the testimony during

22 the cross-examination and for this reason:

23 Mr. Trabulus is not 100 percent right that it was
24 part of the probable cause hearing. What this was is
25 after the government had made their seizure, was

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7757

1 challenged by Mr. Gordon, it ended up in front of Judge

2 Seybert on this day.

3 On this day, April 19th, Judge Seybert said there

4 is no need for a probable cause hearing.

5 Ms. Shevitz, Mr. Gordon's then attorney indicated

6 to Judge Seybert that she wanted to make a record that the

7 business was in fact shut down. Because as she explains

8 in here that would have triggered in h er view a specific

9 doctrine in forfeiture law if the government shuts someone

10 down, I think it is called the Statewide Auto Parts case.

11 She said to Judge Seybert I need this testimony to take

12 the appeal.

13 The testimony is with respect to what the current

14 state of the business is on April 19th, 1995.

15 The indictment in this case ends on March 30th,

16 1995. So the government has two -- your Honor, the

17 testimony that Ms. Sautter gives with respect to what she

18 is doing in April of 1995 is not relevant. There is a

19 small part of it where she indicates prior to the

20 government's seizure it was their policy to give refunds.

21 That's the part that the government didn't have a similar

22 motive to cross-examine her about. Because Judge Seybert

23 said this has to do with what the current state of the
24 business is and not what they used to do bef ore. So we
25 have a dual objective parts of it are irrelevant. Other

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7758

1 parts while relevant, the government didn't have a similar

2 motive to cross-examine.

3 THE COURT: I wish someone told me about this. I

4 know there is one case a key case, the Napoli case, which

5 was known for another fact. The fact that the trial judge

6 allegedly went into the jury room and told the trial

7 jurors to speed up their deliberations. Instead of

8 reversing on that ground, and I don't want to say why,

9 they picture on this former testimony that I believe that

10 became an issue and they went to the Supreme Court on

11 similar motive. And I would have liked to have taken a

12 look at that case.

13 MR. WHITE: I would like to take a look at it,

14 too.

15 MR. TRABULUS: I mentioned to Mr. White I would

16 be seeking to do this, although I didn't say I would try

17 to do it this morning.

18 Your Honor, I believe the government did have an

19 attack on what Ms. Sautter was saying at the time, the

20 effect of the search and seizure ton if business. In the

21 course of doing that she said the lack of funds prevented

22 her or prevented the business from making refunds.

23 THE COURT: I have to take a look at the
24 transcript and take a look at the law. I certainly can't
25 make a decision on it now.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7759

1 MR. TRABULUS: Certainly.

2 Also the issue to the shutting down of the

3 business is relevant. It bears on the fact that

4 Mr. Gordon was unable to repay the loans.

5 THE COURT: You are bringing this in to show that

6 they made refunds?

7 MR. TRABULUS: Yes, and the business was

8 effectively shut down, and members were turned off to the

9 business by the publicity that they indicated they

10 demanded refunds about hearing about the raid, yes.

11 THE COURT: As far as the business being shut

12 down, that would be cumulative. It wouldn't be

13 necessary. There is evidence that the business was shut

14 down. A number of witnesses, as far as I recall,

15 testified to that. Has been repetitive and not relevant

16 really, as to whether the business was shut down or not.

17 This is a criminal case involving mail fraud and other

18 matters. It is not a lawsuit for damages. So whether the

19 business was shut down or not wouldn't be relevant. Even

20 if it were there is enough evidence as to that already.

21 You want to bring in about the refunds. Anything

22 else you want to bring in?

23 MR. TRABULUS: The refund policy and al so members
24 were disaffected as a result of the raid and as a result
25 of that started demanding refunds.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7760

1 THE COURT: That's not relevant to this case.

2 How is that relevant to a criminal prosecution for mail

3 fraud, which is really that part of the case you are

4 talking about now?

5 MR. TRABULUS: It is relevant in several

6 different respects, your Honor. It is relevant in

7 showing -- I mean, the government has claimed that one of

8 the reasons that the loans were not loans is that there

9 was very limited repayment. And had the business been

10 successful or had the business been allowed to continue

11 the evidence will come out, there is some testimony going

12 to be adduced in the next couple of days that it was

13 anticipated at a certain point in time the company woul d

14 generate enough income to pay Mr. Gordon a sufficient

15 amount to enable him to both repay the loans and meet his

16 tax liabilities.

17 THE COURT: That's a point. The business being

18 shut down and losing customers as a result of the raid,

19 which you say is relevant on the issue of the loans, which

20 is some of the tax charges.

21 Can I see that?

22 MR. SCHOER: Judge, I think it is also relevant

23 with respect to testing the credibility of the member
24 witnesses.
25 MR. TRABULUS: Right.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7761

1 MR. SCHOER: Because an argument could be made by

2 the defense that the reason that people were dissatisfied

3 was because the business was closed down; the benefits

4 were no longer available; the government notified them

5 that there was this criminal proceeding pending. And I

6 think all those items could be argued and this is relevant

7 with respect to that.

8 MR. TRABULUS: May I hand your Honor Exhibit GE

9 which contains the testimony --

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 (Handed to the Court.)

12 THE COURT: What is the rule involved,

13 Mr. White?

14 MR. WHITE: 804(b)(1).

15 THE COURT: It is a question of whether you had a

16 similar motive to develop the testimony by direct or

17 cross-examination. I would have to take a look at this.

18 And I believe the case is called Napoli, which I believe

19 went to the United States Supreme Court on this very

20 point, similar motive. I will have to take a look at it.

21 Ready to proceed?

It just goes on, endlessly pursuing the lowest common denominator of anti-justice.

With more than 12,000 pages of transcript, many pieces are split into smaller pages,
You can find a full version of Feb 12th transcript here


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