Dirty Trials In American History   - The Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club

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

Here's a true 'scene of the crime.'  Steven West, Steven Watstein, Steve West, and who knows how many others?

Multi-convicted government informer who shows up for trials in limosines, although he's supposed to be unable to pay taxes, and never enters or leaves his limosine within eyesight of external courthouse cameras.

Having generated many millions through scams and frauds, this professional liar wasn't too hard to trick. As expected, he walked, even after testifying how he ripped many thousands of people off, while WWW Registry gave what it promised and more.    Go figgurit.  


4594

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
4596

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

2 (Whereupon, the jury entered the courtroom.)

3

4 S T E V E N W A T S T E I N,

5 called as a witness, having been previously

6 duly sworn, was examined and testified as

7 follows:

8

9 THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury.

10 Please be seated.

11 When I heard at 10:00 a.m. not all of you were

12 there, I knew it was a mistake, that that was not so, that

13 those who travel from as far away as Brooklyn would

14 get there on time, and I was absolutely correct, for which

15 I appreciate.

16 You may proceed.

17 MR. NELSON: Thank you, your Honor.

18

19 CROSS-EXAMINATION (cont'd)

20 BY MR. NELSON:

21 Q Good morning, Mr. West.

22 A Good morning.

23 Q Mr. West, I believe we left off yesterday afternoon
24 discussing the refund policy that was implemented by your
25 company.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4597
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 Am I correct that your testimony yesterday was

2 that during a period of time you had instructed your sales

3 staff and other members of your staff to advise customers

4 who were seeking refunds that a refund could not be

5 provided as a result of the fact that their name had

6 already been engaged on their plaque when in fact such

7 plaque had not been prepared?

8 A That is correct, sir, during a brief period of time.

9 Q Am I also correct that during a period of time you

10 had instructed your staff to advise customers seeking

11 refunds that they would not be permitted to acquire their

12 refunds because their names had been included in the

13 registry which had already gone to print, when in point of

14 fact the registry had not yet been sent to the publisher?

15 A Yes, for a brief period of time, that's correct, yes,

16 sir.

17 Q Am I correct that there had been a period of time

18 when you actually had provided commissions to members of

19 your staff for preventing people from acquiring refunds?

20 A That is correct.

21 Q I believe yesterday Mr. Jenks showed you a number of

22 magazines, called Tribu te Magazines, defense Exhibits C

23 through G.
24 I would like to show you what is previously
25 introduced into evidence as Defendant's Exhibit D, which

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4598
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 is a Tribute magazine from the winter of 1995.

2 Other than yesterday, have you ever seen such a

3 magazine, sir?

4 (Handed to the witness.)

5 A Yes.

6 Q Was this shown to you by the government?

7 A I am not quite sure where I had seen it.

8 Q But you have had an opportunity to see this magazine,

9 correct?

10 A Not to study it, but to see it.

11 Q I would like to turn to an area of the magazine and

12 go through it one at a time.

13 Do you notice here that Who's Who Worldwide

14 Executive Club provided a Master Card to members.

15 Did any of your entities provide a cost-free

16 Master Card to any of the members of your entities?

17 A No, we did not.

18 Q I would like to show you on another page a reduced

19 cost for Advantage calling card with the Who's Who

20 Executive Club embossation from Transnational

21 Communications, Inc., was any such benefit provided to any

22 member of U.S. Executives?

23 MR. WHITE: Objection.
24 THE COURT: What ground?
25 MR. WHITE: I have an application with respect to

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4599
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 this whole line of questioning.

2 THE COURT: What is your application?

3 MR. WHITE: My application is to preclude it.

4 THE COURT: You want a sidebar conference?

5 MR. WHITE: Yes, your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Come up.

7

8 (Whereupon, at this time the following took place

9 at the sidebar.)

10 MR. WHIT E: I didn't mean to delay things. I

11 wanted to make sure the ground rules are straight here.

12 They can question Mr. West about whatever his

13 company did. I think, so, if they are questioning

14 specifically and that pointedly as to the comparisons of

15 his company and Mr. Gordon's company for purposes of

16 showing the different things that Mr. Gordon offered, it

17 would open the door for the government to point out the

18 similarities.

19 If they want to cross-examine about untrue things

20 they said, fine. But the sole purpose of everything

21 Mr. Jenks went through yesterday and what Mr. Nelson

22 appears to be going through is to draw a positive

23 comparison that Mr. Gordon is so much better than
24 Mr. West. If that's the case, the door can't swing one
25 way, the government should be able to bring out the

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4600
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 similarities.

2 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, the government brought

3 out all the similarities in the direct examination of

4 Mr. West.

5 THE COURT: Do you want to slow down,

6 Mr. Trabulus.

7 MR. SCHOER: It was over objection.

8 MR. TRABULUS: Over objection.

9 He brought it out and selectively identified a

10 variety of things that Mr. West did that paralleled some

11 of the evidence against Mr. Gordon.

12 Although this was ostensibly done in terms of

13 drawing the teeth on a witness who can be, by bad acts and

14 prior conviction discredited, but another purpose was to

15 impliedly show the jury these acts constituted bad acts

16 because this witness pled guilty to draw in the jurors'

17 minds that Mr. Gordon is guilty as well.

18 It is quite proper to show the jury how the

19 conduct between the two companies differed.

20 MR. NELSON: Indeed the Court might recall at the

21 request of defense it was necessary for the Court to

22 provide a limiting instruction to the jury yesterday that

23 the conduct of Mr. West is such that it cannot be drawn
24 against these defendants based on any similarity.
25 THE COURT: I did. And I fully intend you to

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4601
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 bring out all the differences.

2 MR. NELSON: Thank you, your Honor.

3 THE COURT: I don't know why this conference was

4 necessary, because I agree with defense counsel that the

5 government attempted to show a lot of similarities.

6 That's why I sua sponte told the jury that that plea of

7 guilty had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. And

8 that was a personal decision made by him. If you recall,

9 that is what I said.

10 MR. NELSON: Yes, your Honor.

11 MR. TRABULUS: Yes, your Honor.

12 MR. WHITE: To put one thing in context of what

13 happened yesterday.

14 Obviously I brought out what Mr. West pled guilty

15 to. It was not done for the purpose of drawing a

16 comparison. It was unavoidable. That's what Mr. West

17 pled guilty to.

18 THE COURT: It helped a little bit.

19 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, may I put one thing in

20 context?

21 THE COURT: Yes.

22 MR. WHITE: The government didn't want to call

23 Mr. West. The defense attorneys all stipulated to the
24 authenticity of the tapes. But they insisted, insisted
25 that Mr. West be brought in here.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4602
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 MR. TRABULUS: I didn't.

2 MR. WHITE: They wanted to go through all his bad

3 acts, so I don't want any imputation that I was doing this

4 so the jury can draw an improper conclusion.

5 THE COURT: I am not drawing any imputations.

6 MR. WHITE: Mr. Trabulus is.

7 THE COURT: I am saying what the average

8 reasonable juror could infer since he pled guilty to this,

9 and the defendants here doing the same thing are also

10 guilty. That's why I made the curative charge.

11 MR. WHITE: I thought it was appropriate and

12 didn't object.

13 THE COURT: I will not limit them or prohibit

14 them from showing differences.

15 MR. WHITE: On redirect can the government point

16 out the similarities?

17 THE COURT: You have pointed them out already.

18 If you have any other similarities, you will not go over

19 the same thing again. That would be prejudicial and

20 unnecessary. This jury heard the similarities.

21 MR. WHITE: Okay.

22 MR. TRABULUS: I would like to state that I did

23 not request that Mr. West testify. I did request other
24 confidential informants who recorded statements made by
25 Mr. Gordon, which Mr. West did not, be available to

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4603
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 testify.

2 MR. WHITE: That is not so. Mr. Trabulus said I

3 want the CI's there. He wanted West, Ihlenfeldt and

4 Zerring here. And they are here only because the defense

5 wanted them here.

6 MR. TRABULUS: I wanted Zerring and Ihlenfeldt.

7 MR. WHITE: You can't pick and choose.

8 THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Nelson.

9

10 (Whereupon, at this time the following takes

11 place in open court.)

12 Q Mr. West, I would like to show you a page in the

13 magazine which indicates that Airborne Express discounts

14 up to 40 percent are provided to members of Who's Who

15 Worldwide. Did your entity provide such a benefit for its

16 members?

17 A No.

18 Q I would like to show you a section of the magazine

19 where there is an advertisement through Telecom,

20 T E L E C O M, International, for a discount of up to 70

21 percent on international telephone calls.

22 Was such a benefit as that provided to members of

23 your membership organization?
24 A No.
25 Q And similarly, I would like to show you on the

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4604
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 adjoining page, that domestic discounts were provided the

2 members of Who's Who Worldwide.

3 Was such a membership benefit provided to members

4 of your organization?

5 A It was proposed, but no one maintained interest in

6 it.

7 Q Was there a membership, the next page, for Executive

8 Club members for auto insurance provided to members of

9 your organization?

10 A No, sir.

11 Q Okay.

12 Am I correct that there was an advertisement in

13 this Tribute magazine for such a discount to members of

14 Who's Who Worldwide?

15 A That's correct.

16 Q Finally, do you notice on another page of the

17 magazine, there is a medical emergency card for a discount

18 on Med Jet assistance for members of Who's Who Worldwide.

19 Was such a benefit provided for members of your

20 organization?

21 A I believe it was proposed, but no one maintained an

22 interest in it.

23 Q Now, I believe you testified yesterday that at some
24 point in time you had attempted to use a nomination
25 procedure, but you dropped that; is that correct?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4605
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 A That is correct.

2 Q Okay.

3 Did your company at any point in time provide to

4 existing members nomination ballots for them to nominate

5 other members for inclusion in your organization?

6 A I can't answer that question with a yes or no, sir.

7 Q Well, you were the owner of the company. Did you

8 ever have a printing company draw up and prepare a

9 nomination ballot that you would have had to expend money

10 to send to members, to then have given to other people for

11 membership benefits?

12 A It was not called a nomination ballot. It was called

13 something else, to achieve a similar result.

14 Q Did you ever expend funds for the preparation of a

15 document which would be sent to members of your

16 organization so, that if they so chose, they could prepare

17 that document and send it back to your company for the

18 purpose of nominating other people, yes or no?

19 A Yes. But to the best of my recollection we did for a

20 brief period of time. But there was no interest in the

21 members in utilizing such ballots.

22 Q How many hundreds of thousands of ballots did you

23 have sent out to your members?
24 A I don't know the number, sir.
25 Q Did you send a hundred?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4606
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 A I don't want to guess. I don't know the number.

2 Q Did you send five?

3 A You are asking me to guess, and I don't want to

4 guess.

5 Q You were the owner and principal of your company; is

6 that correct?

7 A Yes, that's correct.

8 Q Did you send any form of mailing to your members for

9 them to nominate other people? Yes or no?

10 A Sir, my recollection is yes, we did. I cannot give

11 you an exact count. It was done for a brief period of

12 time, and there was no interest or response from the

13 members to the best of my recollection.

14 Q Did you implement any type of a procedure or policy

15 at your company for the purpose of screening those

16 nomination ballots so you could act upon them?

17 A Yes, sir.

18 Q And what was that procedure?

19 A The procedure and policy that was established in May

20 of 1990 was that for someone to be qualified for our Who's

21 Who, they had to --

22 Q I am talking about nomination solely.

23 A It applied to both.
24 Q I am asking about nominations only.
25 A As to nominations, nominations would not be accepted

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4607
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 unless the individual had five years experience in his or

2 her field and had the title of manager or director or

3 higher.

4 Q And can you tell us how many nomination ballots were

5 received by your company?

6 A As I previously testified, sir, there was no strong

7 interest in that. It was not a substantial number.

8 Q Can you tell us how many were mailed by your number?

9 A I don't know the answer. I previously testified to

10 that, sir.

11 Q Can you tell us whether or not they were mailed in a

12 publication, along with a letter, or whether or not they

13 would just shift as an individual ballot?

14 A I don't have a clear recollection. It might have

15 been included with the plaques that were shipped, the

16 books that were shipped, but I am not sure.

17 Q You as principal of the company don't know how or in

18 what manner these nominations were sent out; is that

19 right?

20 A I don't recall that, sir. Yes, that's correct .

21 Q Now, I believe it is your testimony as relating to

22 the possibility of networking for members of your

23 organization, you intended to have some seminars at
24 various different locations, but none of them came
25 through?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4608
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 A At a singular location, sir.

2 Q You attempted to do it one time?

3 A That's right.

4 Q It didn't come through?

5 A No one maintained an interest in that consequence,

6 sir.

7 Q Did you at any point in time prepare or have

8 implemented an interactive CD-ROM or any other form of

9 software which could have been utilized by members for

10 interfacing with other members?

11 A As I previously testified, sir, in 1989, 1990,

12 CD-ROMs were not in use.

13 Q But there were computers in those days, right?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And in those days you were also able to have disks;

16 is that correct?

17 A The technology existed, yes, sir.

18 Q Did you do anything like that?

19 A No, sir.

20 Q And did your organization maintain any form of

21 conference facilities that facilitated members to have

22 conferences on your premises?

23 A As I previously testified, sir, the answer is no to
24 that question.
25 Q And -- withdrawn.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4609
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 As I previously stated with respect to networks,

2 as a contention, attempts to hold a seminar on one

3 occasion that did not occur, there was no reason or

4 facility for members to network with other members?

5 A You are not correct, sir.

6 Q They would be able to look inside the registry in

7 order to find that; is that correct?

8 A Yes. Because we had phone numbers in our directory,

9 yes, sir.

10 MR. NELSON: I ask that it be stricken as not

11 responsive.

12 THE COURT: That answer is stricken as not

13 responsive. The jury is instructed to disregard it.

14 Q Would I be correct in stating in summary you

15 eventually entered a guilty plea in March of 1993, where

16 you admitted you defrauded literally thousands of

17 customers out of close to 14 million dollars?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q You were arrested on that charge on May 20th, 1992;

20 is that right?

21 A As I previously testified, yes, sir.


To continue ingesting this paradigm of perjury and worse,,
here is a full version of the Feb 18th transcript
of Watstein's exhudations of excremental excesses wrapped in self-aggrandizement and pursuit of self-interest




Sampling of Members    Click it it to believe it!

Corporate sponsors buy over a cup of food for your clicks.                                 Nice... saving a life with clicks!         Shortcuts Way For Life 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 Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club, and the twin set of scandals of government and judicial corruption in one of the Dirty Trials In American History 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 federal trials of the 20th 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.



The Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club
Thomas FX Dunn appearing to win the contest of "Worst Counselor Of A Generation"

Dirty Trials In American History   - The Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club

This site is concerned with The Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club, and the twin set of scandals of government and judical corruption in one of the Dirty Trials In American History 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 In The United States.

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.



The Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club
How Thomas FX Dunn demonstrated himself to be the Worst Counselor Of A Generation
Dirtiest Trials In The United States


Dirtiest Trials In The United States - 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 In The United States
Worst Counselor Of A Generation Thomas FX Dunn