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

8834


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
8836

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: Everybody here?
6 MR. DUNN: My client had a problem with a tooth.
7 He was at a dentist at 7:30 this morning. He should be
here shortly. But he explained to me and he wanted me to
9 tell you that it is okay to proceed.
10 THE COURT: He waives his presence and 11 understands he has a right to be here? 12 MR. DUNN: Yes, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Going over the open matters now. 14 I revised the multiple conspiracy charge to 15 reflect the language that we discussed. Namely, if the 16 government establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the 17 conspiracy, a conspiracy existed, the government must 18 prove that it is the single conspiracy alleged in the 19 indictment, etcetera. 20 Now, with respect to the Pinkerton charge, I have 21 somewhat revised the government's submission, which is the 22 Sand instruction, 19-13, as follows: There is another 23 method by which you may evaluate the possible guilt of all 24 the defendants other than the defendant Martin Reffsin -- 25 this having to do only with the mail fraud -- for the
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8837
1 substantive mail fraud charges in the indictment, even if 2 you do not find that the government satisfied its burden 3 of proof with respect to each element of the substantive 4 crime. If in light of my instructions you find beyond a 5 reasonable doubt that the defendant you are considering 6 was a member of the conspiracy charged in Count 1 of the 7 indictment and thus, guilty of the criminal charge, then you may also, and you are not required to -- and I 9 underlined this in the charge, then you may also, but are 10 not required to find him or her guilty of the substantive 11 mail fraud crime charged against him or her, provided you 12 find beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following five 13 elements. 14 First, that the mail fraud crime charged in the 15 substantive count was committed. 16 Second, that the person you find, person or 17 persons you find actually committed the charge were 18 members of the conspiracy you found existed. 19 Third, that the substantive crime was committed 20 pursuant to the common plan and understanding you found to 21 exist among the conspirators. 22 Fourth, that the defendant you are considering 23 was a member of that conspiracy at the time the 24 substantive crime was committed. And I am underlining 25 that also.
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8838

1 Fifth, that the defendant you are considering 2 could have reasonably foreseen that the substantive crime 3 might be committed by his co-conspirators. 4 If you find all five of these elements to exist 5 beyond a reasonable doubt, then you may find the defendant 6 you are considering guilty of the substantive mail fraud 7 crime charged against him or her, although he or she did not personally participate in the acts constituting 9 the crime, or did not have actual knowledge of it. 10 The reason for this rule is simply that a 11 co-conspirator who commits a substantive crime pursuant to 12 a conspiracy is deemed to be the agent of the other 13 conspirators. Therefore, all of the conspirators who were 14 members of the conspiracy at the time the substantive 15 crime was committed must bear criminal responsibility for 16 the commission of the substantive crimes. 17 If, however, you are not satisfied as to the 18 existence of any of these five elements, then you may not 19 find the defendant guilty of the substantive crime, unless 20 the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the 21 defendant personally committed, or aided and abetted the 22 commission of the substantive crime charged. 23 I will leave the lesser included for the time 24 being and get back to it. 25 The reliance charges. I am going to charge the

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8839

1 reliance charges by both the defendant Gordon and the 2 defendant Reffsin on the Tevya theory. 3 Is that similar to the res ips loquitur? No, it 4 is not. 5 MR. TRABULUS: Are you going to strike the other 6 charge, your Honor, the one we talked about. 7 THE COURT: I am going to charge exactly as you set it forth in your request, your second request to the 9 charge. 10 MR. TRABULUS: My concern with respect to the
11 Reffsin charge, the second paragraph, on the other hand -- 12 I think we talked about crossing out, on the other hand, 13 you are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that because 14 that can shift the burden. 15 THE COURT: Right. Correct, that comes out.
16 That portion comes out. 17 Now, as to the three defendants not in the 18 conspiracy during the periods of time, I have accepted -- 19 let's take Osman first, I have added to it. For example, 20 it says, if you find that the government proved beyond a 21 reasonable doubt the existence of the single conspiracy 22 alleged in count one of the indictment, I instruct you as 23 a matter of law the defendant Oral Frank Osman cannot 24 found to be a member of the conspiracy. And I added, or 25 guilty of the subsequent mail fraud counts.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8840

1 MR. NELSON: Thank you, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: For the period of time. Correct? 3 MR. NELSON: Yes. 4 THE COURT: And then I add at the end, the 5 verdict sheet will set forth the names of each defendant 6 you will consider with regard to the mail fraud counts, 7 two through 52. MR. NELSON: That's acceptable, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Then for I also added 10 the same thing I instruct you as a matter of law the 11 defendant Steve Rubin, cannot be found to be a matter -- 12 guilty of the conspiracy or any of is substantive counts 13 before March of 1994 since he was not employed before that 14 date. And also, he cannot be found to be a member of the 15 conspiracy, or guilty of the mail fraud counts for the 16 period of time after March 17th, 1995. 17 Mr. Jenks, as far as the defendant Sterling Who's 18 Who. 19 MR. JENKS: Yes, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: The same thing with Sterling, 21 Mr. Jenks. Can't be guilty of the substantive mail fraud 22 count. 23 MR. JENKS: The verdict sheet seems to sort of 24 explain that. 25 THE COURT: I wanted to explain it anyway.
H ARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8841
1 MR. JENKS: Yes. 2 THE COURT: That leaves the interesting subject 3 of the lesser included counts. 4 I have checked the law to the extent I could -- 5 of course, I can't keep up with Ms. Scott, but I try 6 because I have more help than she has. And as to the 7 Starnas, S T A R N A S, there is an interesting case that came back after -- came down after Starnas, and the point 9 is, should the jury be instructed that they must find the 10 defendant not guilty before they go to the lesser 11 included? Or should the jury be instructed that either 12 they find the defendant not guilty, or they are unable to 13 agree on a verdict. 14 Now, I happen to have written an opinion in the 15 Appellate Division -- I don't remember what it was or 16 when -- in which I soundly criticized the Starnas case. 17 And we were affirm by the New York Court of Appeals, but 18 we say in the state court it has nothing to do with this. 19 And I want to put on the record I am not a state court 20 judge. I don't have any state court leanings. I forgot 21 everything I learned in the state court. Please put that 22 on the record. But in the opinion I wrote I said that the 23 People have a right to get a decision on the main count 24 which they put in the indictment, which they tried to 25 prove, to put all their resources behind to prove that

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8842

1 count, not anything else, just that. And I said they have 2 a right to get an up or down decision on that. 3 Now, Judge Friendly did not agree with that. And 4 that was way before my time. But in a case called United 5 States against Torres, T O R R E S, decided many years 6 after Starnas, and the citation is 901 F.2d 205, Second 7 Circuit, 1990, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906, and the Second Circuit again took up the interesting question. 9 The defendant contended in Torres, that in 10 accordance with Tsanas, he sought an instruction that -- 11 the judge in this I believe was Judge Mahoney who wrote 12 this, said in reviewing Starnas it calls for the Court to 13 instruct the jury to consider the greater offense first, 14 and then charge either, one, that it should consider the 15 lesser offense only, if it unanimously acquitted on the 16 greater; or, two, it should consider the lesser offense if 17 it could not agree on the greater. We added that neither 18 charge was wrong as a matter of law, but that the 19 defendant's preference should be honored upon request. 20 In this case the defendant made a request that 21 there be a unanimous decision on the main count, that 22 there be an acquittal before you go down to the lesser. 23 Then there was some talk about a special 24 interrogatory, which the Second Circuit said, don't use. 25 This is the interesting part of this decision,
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8843
1 and it is a field of law that is up in the air in the 2 federal court. It is about time that they took another 3 look at it. I am not suggesting that this case be the 4 vehicle for it, but listen to what the Second Circuit said 5 in 1990. 6 Quote, in any event, we do not believe that any 7 error which may have occurred in the District Court's instruction calls for reversal. As the foregoing recital 9 should make clear, this is a difficult and unsettled area 10 of the law, end quote. 11 I am going to charge the jury that they have to 12 acquit on the tax evasion before they may consider the 13 lesser included. I think that that is the proper rule of 14 law. It prevents compromises which we should not 15 tolerate. And that's what I am going to charge.


The more we read, the sadder it gets: a judge long known for his careful scrutiny of both issues AND precedent,
clearly needs some basic constitutional training...
unless of course he demonstrated such poor jurisprudence intentionally.
  NOTE: MARCH 24 TRANSCRIPT IS HUGE, SO It's BROKEN INTO PARTS:  
  here is your link for the PM session of March 24th:   (If you're an attorney, not to worry; even you can click on a link)
March 24th PM session


OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
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 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 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 working hard to prove himself 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