Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst   - Crushing The Largest Excecutive Club In History

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


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

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


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


3 (The following takes place in the absence of the

4 jury.)

5 THE COURT: Do you want to see me, Mr. White?

6 MR. WHITE: I have an evidentiary issue, but if

7 the jury is waiting, we can take it later.

8 THE COURT: All right.

9 (Whereupon an unrelated matter is taken up by the

10 Court.)

11 THE COURT: Is the jury here?

12 THE CLERK: The jury is here, but we are missing

13 a defendant, your Honor.

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 We have some time now, Mr. White. What is your

16 problem?

17 MR. WHITE: It is not a problem, I don't think.

18 Can we proceed in the absence of one of the

19 defendants?

20 MR. SCHOER: I will waive her appearance, your

21 Honor.

22 THE COURT: It is a question of law, right?

23 MR. WHITE: Yes.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, it has to do with


1 something we touched upon last week, and at the time I

2 didn't have full research to present to the Court. It has

3 to do with the admissibility of complaint letters sent by

4 customers to the company. This is going to arise in a

5 couple of instances, I think, and perha ps with one of the

6 customers today, your Honor, who sent a letter of

7 complaint to the company, complaining basically that she

8 was told that she was selected by this exclusive process,

9 and in fact now she realizes that anyone who has

10 incorporated a company or has any sort of a degree has

11 received the same sort of nomination letter that she got.

12 At the time it was raised the last time, the

13 government's argument was that the defendants were on

14 notice that customers were being misled by the

15 solicitation letter, and that customers were dissatisfied.

16 At the time I didn't have any law to cite to your

17 Honor, but I did the research last night.

18 First, from Judge Weinstein's evidence treatise,

19 he says that a writing may be admitted to show the effect

20 on the hearer or reader when this effect is relevant. The

21 policies underline the hears ay rule do not apply because

22 the utterance is not being offered to prove the truth or

23 falsity of the matter asserted.
24 For example, statements of complaint may be
25 admitted to show that the recipient knew that customers


1 were generally dissatisfied.

2 Your Honor, there is a whole series cases from

3 different circuits, including the Second Circuit, that

4 hold that.

5 The main one I found in the Second Circuit was

6 United States v. Press, P R E S S, 336 F.2d 1003, Second

7 Circuit, 1964.

8 The case is similar to this, your Honor. It is a

9 conspiracy and mail fraud prosecution. There the

10 defendants are charged with fraud in connection with mail

11 order marketing sales. And there the Court let in

12 complaints that were received from customers by the local

13 chamber of commerce and then forwarded on to the defendant

14 and the defendant corporation in that case. The

15 defendants were convicted and appealed.

16 The Second Circuit said, your Honor, of course --

17 reading from page 1011, of course, evidence that

18 complaints had been received would not have been

19 admissible to show that members had in fact not received

20 catalogues, merchandise, or refund, which is what the

21 alleged fraud was.

22 THE COURT: What exactly were you referring to

23 that you attempted to admit, Mr. White?
24 MR. WHITE: The last time it came up, your Honor,
25 was the woman who had from the law firm library, who


1 received a letter addressed to dear Mr. Library, and wrote

2 a letter back saying I think this is misleading that you

3 are tellin g someone they are nominated based on individual

4 experience and there is no such person.

5 THE COURT: Letters by customers to the

6 defendant?

7 MR. WHITE: Correct.

8 THE COURT: I will have to take a look at it.

9 MR. WHITE: If I can make one other distinction?

10 This case and the others are complaint letters

11 which are just forwarded to the company or received by the

12 company, and are not necessarily ones where that customer

13 actually comes and testifies at the trial. I am not

14 asking to even go that far. I only want to put in the

15 complaint letter when this customer who wrote it comes in,

16 identifies the letter and says I sent it to Who's Who. So

17 if there is any question about the truth of it, they can

18 cross-examine him or her.

19 I have other cites, if you wish them.

20 THE COURT: If you have them you will submit it

21 to me a nd I will take a look at it.

22 Right now the jury is here. And the defendant

23 who was not here on time is here.
24 MR. GEDULDIG: We are still missing my client,
25 your Honor.


1 THE COURT: Please advise all the defendants that

2 I expect them to be on time and not late.

3 MR. GEDULDIG: I understand from Ms. Garboski who

4 came in that the Meadowbrook is jammed up.

5 THE COURT: The Meadowbrook can be jammed up

6 every day of the week and they are to be here on time. If

7 you leave early enough you don't have to worry about

8 jammed up. Every road is jammed up from time to time.

9 You all got here on time. I expect everybody to be here

10 on time.

11 Now, as far as this is concerned, I am still wary

12 about this. I don't know what the relevancy of those

13 lette rs are even if they are admissible not for the truth,

14 what is the relevancy?

15 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I believe the relevancy

16 is this: As I understand the defense proffered here by at

17 least Mr. Gordon, and perhaps the corporations, that we

18 don't think there is anything misleading by telling people

19 they were nominated even telling them it came from a

20 mailing list. Therefore we lack the intent to defraud.

21 The government has to prove that he had an intent

22 to defraud, and as a subsidiary, that they knew that this

23 HAS misrepresentations about the mailing list. If they
24 are getting letters in saying that I was nominated and I
25 wasn't, that is notice, your Honor, to them by saying at


1 least some people were misled with respect to what we are

2 putting out there.

3 THE COURT: I feel the prejudice is minimum,

4 the -- evidence is minimum and the prejudice is maximum.

5 And 403 is also in effect. How can any reasonably

6 prudent, intelligent person not believe, by telling people

7 you are nominated, and only seven percent or ten percent

8 are accepted and you are the honored few, how could they

9 not believe that that was material?

10 MR. WHITE: You mean the people making it or the

11 customer?

12 THE COURT: The people making it.

13 MR. WHITE: I am glad you feel that way. I don't

14 know how the jury will -- how to prove it to the jury.

15 THE COURT: Common sense will let people believe

16 that it is material. You don't have to prove the obvious,

17 Mr. White.

18 MR. WHITE: I wanted to be safe, your Honor.

19 THE COURT: I will take a look at it. If anybody

20 wants to show me cases to the contrary.

21 Br ing in the jury.

22 THE CLERK: We are missing Ms. Haley.

23 THE COURT: I am going to tell the jurors that it
24 was because of my other case -- forgive me, lord -- it is
25 because of my business that we are waiting. I don't want


1 to have to do that again.

2 (The following takes place in the jury room.)

3 THE COURT: Every once in a while I have to come

4 in to see that you are all alert and not sleeping or

5 anything like that, not playing cards, not eating oranges

6 and pears, or working crossword puzzles.

7 I have some other matters that were on and it is

8 taking me a little longer than I thought. I am sorry

9 about that. So it will be a little while longer. I must

10 apologize for keeping you waiting. I don't like to keep

11 you waiting, just as I don't like to be kept waiting

12 myself. I like to make that very clear. I don't wait on

13 movie lines or restaurant lines or anything like that. I

14 just walk away. That's how I deal with that. But you

15 can't walk away.

16 We will see you in a very short time. Thank you

17 very much for your punctuality.


19 (Whereupon, a recess is taken.)


21 (Whereupon, at this time the following takes

22 place in open court.)

23 THE COURT: When I discussed Mr. White's latest
24 evidentiary venture, I didn't know that Ms. Haley was
25 missing as well as Ms. Garboski. I didn't get a waiver


1 from her lawyer not to be present for those discussions.

2 Therefore, in the absence of a waiver which I hope to get

3 now nunc pro tunc, I will have to do it all over again.

4 MR. GEDULDIG: Ms. Haley a sked me to give the

5 waiver you just asked about. She apologizes for being

6 late today in addition. There was a bad accident on the

7 Meadowbrook, backing up the southern state. Ordinarily

8 she is here 15 minutes early.

9 She also said if something like that happens in

10 the future, she is willing to waive her appearance so the

11 trial doesn't start on time and inconvenience anybody.

12 THE COURT: We don't want to do that. We want

13 her during the trial.

14 It is understandable that accidents occur and the

15 Meadowbrook Parkway, like any other parkway in New York,

16 and other major cities, and highways get crowded from time

17 to time. But lawyers and the defendants have to get early

18 in case of that contingency. A lot of people are

19 waiting. We don't want to keep them waiting. And I

20 accept the apology.

21 Bring in the jury.

22 MR. WHI TE: I have a list of the cases here.

23 THE COURT: Did you make copies to counsel?
24 MR. WHITE: I have the copies and I will hand it
25 out right now.


1 THE CLERK: Jury entering.

2 (Whereupon, the jury at this time entered the

3 courtroom.)

4 THE COURT: Good morning again, members of the

5 jury.

6 Please be seated.

7 I am very sorry that I had to keep you waiting.

8 But when I went into the jury room and saw all

9 the methods of entertainment and diverse actions that are

10 going on there -- all perfectly proper -- I am somewhat --

11 well, it is easier for me to come in and see that you have

12 been kept waiting when you have some things to do.

13 You may proceed.

14 MS. SCOTT: The government calls Reid Rotatori,

15 R O T A T O R I.

16 THE CLER K: Please raise your right hand.


18 R E I D R O T A T O R I,

19 called as a witness, having been first

20 duly sworn, was examined and testified

21 as follows:


23 THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell your
24 last name for the record.
25 THE WITNESS: Reid Rotatori, R O T A T O R I.


1 THE COURT: Have a seat, Mr. Rotatori.

2 You may proceed.

3 MS. SCOTT: Thank you, your Honor.




7 Q Good morning, Mr. Rotatori.

8 Can you tell us where you live?

9 A 12th South Bury Road, Cumberland, Rhode Island.

10 Q What do you do for a living?

11 A Construction manager. I am a project executive for a

12 construction manager that builds high tech projects for

13 the computer and pharmaceutical industries.

14 Q What is the name of the company you work for?

15 A It has since changed. It used to be Marshal

16 Contractors. It is now ADT Marshal, Subsidiary Fluor,

17 F L U O R, Daniel.

18 Q How long have you held that position?

19 A Approximately fourteen years.

20 Q And what are your responsibilities?

21 A I oversee the construction project from a technical

22 and administrative point of view; help with procurement,

23 scheduling, and managing the day to day project and
24 technical staff on the construction site.
25 MR. LEE: I have an application, a limiting


1 instruction. I apologize for the interruption.

2 THE COURT: Limits instruction?

3 MR. LEE: I am willing to approach, your Honor,

4 if you require that, to make myself clear.

5 THE COURT: All right. Come up.


7 (Whereupon, at this time the following took place

8 at the sidebar.)

9 MR. LEE: I apologize. I only knew now who the

10 witness was, and who the salesperson is, and it is not one

11 of the defendants here on trial for this case. I know you

12 gave the instruction yesterday. Each witness is

13 different. They have an instruction perhaps that this is

14 only admissible to the corporation. It may not be clear

15 because each person is different.

16 THE COURT: Is this a customer?

17 MS. SCOTT: A customer of Who's Who Worldwide.

18 The salesperson is not one of the defendants.

19 THE COURT: All right. I will give a limiting

20 instruction.

21 It is against Who's Who Worldwide Registry,

22 Inc.?

23 MS. SCOTT: Yes.
24 THE COURT: That's the proper name? I have to
25 make sure it is the proper name. Or else Mr. White will


1 give me a memorandum in the morning.

2 MR. WHITE: I am just trying to be helpful, your

3 Honor.


5 (Whereupon, at this time the following takes

6 place in open court.)

7 THE COURT: Members of the jury, this testimony

8 is being offered against the defendant Who's Who Worldwide

9 Registry, Inc. only.

10 You say you manage the day to day construction of

11 a project?

12 THE WITNESS: Correct.

13 THE COURT: Is that like what they are doing at

14 Central Islip in building a federal court there?

15 THE WITNESS: I am sure I am doing a much better

16 job.

17 THE COURT: Did you ever hear of Turner

18 Construction Company?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, they are a competitor.

20 THE COURT: They do the same kinds of thing that

21 you do?

22 THE WITNESS: To some extent. My division we

23 specialize in high tech work. Turner is not considered a
24 competitor and in cases, but in some cases they are.
25 THE COURT: The person of your equivalent with


1 Turner is doing the same thing you are doing in managing

2 the building.

3 THE WITNESS: Don't confuse it with the

4 superintendent managing the building. I am in the

5 administrative role.

6 THE COURT: We are just trying to see to it to

7 slow it down because I don't want to leave here.

8 THE WITNESS: Make changes. That will do it.

9 Q Mr. Rotatori, does your job involve supervising other

10 people?

11 A Yes, mostly people with engineering and

12 administrative backgrounds.

With more than 12,000 pages of transcript, many pieces are split into smaller pages,
You can find a full version of Feb 10th transcript here

Corporate sponsors buy over a cup of food for your clicks.                                 Nice... saving a life with clicks!         Shortcuts Way of Living 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 Crushing The Largest Excecutive Club In History, and the double scandal of government and judicial corruption in one of the Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst and 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 genuinely dirty trial; in fact, one of the dirtiest federal trials of the 20th 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.

Crushing The Largest Excecutive Club In History
Thomas FX Dunn has got to count high on the list of "Most Useless American Lawyer"

Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst   - Crushing The Largest Excecutive Club In History

This site is concerned with Crushing The Largest Excecutive Club In History, and the double scandal of government and judical corruption in one of the Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst and 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 genuinely dirty trial; in fact, one of the dirtiest trials of the most recent 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.

Crushing The Largest Excecutive Club In History
How Thomas FX Dunn demonstrated himself to be the Dumbest Lawyer In The Nation
Dirtiest Trials Of The Most Recent Century

Dirtiest Trials of the Most Recent Century - Perversions of Justice

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.

Dirtiest Trials Of The Most Recent Century
Dumbest Lawyers In The Nation Thomas FX Dunn